HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPA 05-01 General Plan Land Use ElementCITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Consideration of an amendment to the City's General Plan Land Use
Element, removing Office Professional (C-OP) from thirteen (13) lots on
west side of Portola Avenue between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza
Way.
SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
CASE NO: GPA 05-01
DATE: November 10, 2005
CONTENTS: Staff Recommendation
Executive Summary
Background
Discussion
Conclusion
Environmental Reviev65_10
Draft Resolutions No.approving GPA 05-01
Legal Notice
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2355 of September 21, 2005
Planning Commission Minutes of September 6, 2005
Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 6, 2005
Letters from residents for September 6, 2005 Planning Commission
Exhibits
Recommendation:
1. That Office Professional, pursuant to our single -story residential ordinance is the
most compatible long-term land use on Portola between Fred Waring Drive and De
Anza Way.
2. That these properties should also remain single-family so that the existing homes
remain legal conforming and also provides property owners with the option to sell
their property as compatible office use.
3. That the City Council approve GPA 05-01, amending the General Plan Land Use
Element designating 13 lots on the west side of Portola Avenue, south of Fred
Waring Drive, as delineated on Exhibit "A" attached, Office Professional (C-OP)/Low
Density (R-L) 0-4 units per acre and removing Medium Density (R-M) 4-10 units per
acre.
Staff Report
G PA 05-01
Page 2
October 27, 2005
4. That the City Council direct staff to initiate a change of zone from R-1 to a Mixed
O.P. / R-1 zone (which allows these lots to remain legal conforming single-family
homes).
Executive Summary:
Portola Avenue is part of the area defined by the Palma Village Specific Plan, which
was one of the first major residential subdivisions in the Palm Desert area. The tract
was laid out in 1935 as a low -density single-family neighborhood surrounded by
desert, sand dunes and date palms. Over the past 70 years, Portola Avenue has
changed from a small, quiet country road to a busy and noisy major thoroughfare.
Over the past 9 years, traffic volume has increased from 13,134 trips per day to
26,474 trips per day exceeding the General Plan 2020 projection of 24,275 trips per
day. With the development of the north area, a new Portola bridge and 1-10
Interchange, traffic will continue to increase.
The high traffic volume has resulted in unsafe driveways, increased road noise and
the need for potential road widening. A land use designation is needed to address
the long-term issues of both property owners on Portola Avenue, adjacent residential
properties, and the City's future right of way needs.
On September 6, 2005, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission
to discuss possible land uses on Portola. Many of the adjacent neighbors attended
the meeting and expressed similar concerns about allowing Office Professional and
two-story development as they did at the previous public hearings. A few neighbors
stated that they are in favor of single -story office projects but were opposed to any
two-story development.
Commissioner Jonathan stated that low -density residential use does not work on
Portola because these homes have driveways that back out onto a very busy street,
which is dangerous and unacceptable. Commissioner Lopez stated that road is
currently dangerous for kids and the best thing that could happen in this location
would be to widen the road and move the sidewalks away from the street and create
a much safer condition than what currently exists which can be accomplished by
converting the Portola properties to Office Professional and/or Open Space.
Chairperson Tschopp stated that doing nothing, or leaving Portola the way it is
bothers him. He said that office professional could be a very good buffer and a shield
to traffic, noise that occurs on a major thoroughfare. Commissioner Campbell stated
that she was in favor of single -story office use and/or Open Space. Commissioner
Finerty stated that she would be inclined to change the land use only to Open
Space.
After analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of three (3) possible land uses, the
Planning Commission determined, on a 4-1 vote Finerty opposed, that office
professional development pursuant to our single -story residentially scaled ordinance
Staff Report
G PA 05-01
Page 3
October 27, 2005
and open space are the most compatible long-term uses with Portola Avenue and
the adjacent residential neighborhood.
Office Professional development can reduce curb cuts with shared driveways and
the City can require dedication of the necessary right-of-way and installation of the
street improvements for the potential widening. Given the nature of these smaller
lots, office use would add approximately 319 to 430 more trips per day resulting in a
1.49% increase to the current traffic levels on Portola. Impacts to the interior
residential streets would be negligible. To implement Office Professional as a long-
term solution, these properties could be dual designated for office use and low
density single-family to allow the people to live on Portola with legal conforming
homes and also provide them with the option to sell their property as compatible
office use.
Open Space would eliminate all driveways on Portola between Fred Waring and De
Anza Way, The City can widen the street and construct a passive park similar to
Baja Park on Fred Waring Drive. To implement Open Space, the City would have to
develop a policy and program to purchase these properties. The Redevelopment
Agency currently owns two (2) parcels on Portola. The remaining 11 lots would cost
approximately $3,300,000. The total cost of acquisition, demolition, design, and
construction would be approximately $4 to $6 million with an annual maintenance
cost of $50,000. In addition, the City would also bear all the costs associated with
the street improvements for the widening. Development of a passive park can be
compatible with both the street and the adjacent neighbors, but at significant
expense. For example, the development cost of the area as a passive park would
equal the cost of four (4) or five (5) neighborhood parks.
I. BACKGROUND:
Portola Avenue, between Highway 111 and Santa Rosa Way has been zoned R-1
since the City incorporated, which allows a density of less than 4 dwelling units per
acre. These properties have been designated Medium Density 4-10 units per acre in
the General Plan since 1980. A change of zone to bring the area into conformance
with the General Plan has never been initiated.
During the preparation, review and approval of the General Plan, there was
considerable debate concerning traffic circulation requirements and appropriate land
uses along Portola Avenue between Highway 111 and Rutledge. Increased traffic
was impacting the singe -family properties. The City engineer anticipated future road
widening to address projected traffic levels and improve safety on the street. The
City Council and Planning Commission determined that an alternative land use was
needed which would be consistent with the increased traffic volume, provide for
future road widening and improvements, and be compatible with the surrounding
residential neighborhood. To address these issues, Office Professional (C-OP) and
Open Space (OS) were added to the Medium Density designation on the west side
of Portola between De Anza Way and Fred Waring Drive. To ensure that office
ILI
Staff Report
GPA 05-01
Page 4
October 27, 2005
buildings were compatible with Portola and the single-family neighborhood, language
was added in the General Plan requiring residentially scaled office buildings.
Program 10.B of the Community Design Element states:
"The City shall amend the Zoning Ordinance implementing the C-OP
designation to assure that appropriate, more restrictive architectural
standards affecting building heights and setbacks, and other
development standards are applied to office development along non -
arterial street corridors to ensure compatibility with surrounding
residential areas." (Community Design Element, pg III-154, attached).
After the general plan was approved, the McFadden project proposed a change of
zone from R-1 to Office Professional (C/Z 04-02) and a precise plan (PP 04-22) to
construct a two-story office complex on the west side of Portola, north of Catalina
Way. On September 23, 2004, the project was denied by the City Council because it
was not residentially scaled. At that same meeting a Zoning Ordinance amendment
(ZOA 04-01) was approved requiring office buildings to meet all the standards of a
one-story single-family home implementing Program 10.B.
In October 2004, the Ford project proposed a change of zone from R-1 to Office
Professional (C/Z 04-05) and a precise plan of design (PP 04-31) for a one-story
residentially scaled office building that met all the standards of a single-family home.
On January 13, 2005, the project was denied based on the neighborhood opposition.
The neighbors expressed concerns that office use would increase traffic on Portola
and would not be compatible with the residential neighborhood. Many were opposed
to any land uses other than single -story residential or open space. It was believed
that the Ford project was as close to residential as the City would ever get with an
office building. The City Council directed staff to initiate a general plan amendment
removing Office Professional (C-OP) from Portola.
II. DISCUSSION:
In 1996, the traffic volume on Portola Avenue averaged 13,134 trips per day. Today,
it averages 26,474 trips per day exceeding the General Plan 2020 projection of
24,275 trips per day. Traffic levels will continue to increase as the north area of the
City develops. If it is believed that small office buildings will adversely impact
adjacent single-family residential properties, then exposure to a four -lane road with
26,474 trips per day is even more detrimental to the single-family residential
properties directly on Portola.
A land use(s) designation is needed to address the long-term issues of both property
owners on Portola, adjacent residential properties, and the City's future right of way
needs. The ultimate land use solution needs to be a compromise that provides for
land uses that are compatible with a high traffic road on one side of the property and
a low intensity residential use on the other.
Staff Report
GPA 05-01
Page 5
October 27, 2005
In 1985, the City adopted the Palma Village Specific Plan, which successfully
addressed this issue on Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive. The single-family
neighborhood extended to the street, traffic and noise were increasing, driveways
were unsafe, properties were deteriorating, and the roads needed to widen.
Conversion to office professional was used as the land use solution. Over the past
20 years, office projects have been developed which have enhanced the
appearance of the street, protected the values of the adjacent homes and provided
the necessary right-of-way for Fred Waring and Monterey widening. The Specific
Plan Policy Criteria (page1) states that land use regulations shall encourage
development which:
o Are compatible with existing and future land uses.
o Address the needs of the Palm Desert community.
o Are economically feasible in the foreseeable future.
The same factors that impacted residential uses on Monterey Avenue and Fred
Waring Drive are impacting homes on Portola. The high traffic volume has resulted
in unsafe driveways, increased noise, and the need for potential road widening.
Unsafe driveways:
Between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza way there are three (3) residential
properties that have driveways that require vehicles to back out onto the street.
There is no curbside parking to provide a space for vehicles to back out safely. Two
(2) properties have modified their driveways to provide a turn around area in the rear
yard. Three (3) other properties have removed front yard landscaping and replaced it
with concrete or gravel to use the front yard as a parking lot and turnaround. These
modifications have been done to allow vehicles to drive out safely.
Increased road noise:
As traffic has increased so has the road noise. Two (2) properties have front yard
block walls to mitigate the noise. Road noise is a negative impact that reduces the
quality of life.
Potential road widening:
Portola Avenue is an arterial street from Interstate 10 to the Whitewater Storm
Channel where it transitions into a major thoroughfare. A street section for a major
thoroughfare requires 118' of right-of-way, which allows for each side of the street to
have a meandering sidewalk, parking or bike lane, and two (2) vehicle lanes with a
center median. Currently, the right-of-way between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza
Way varies between 61' and 81', which is 57' to 37' less than the City's street design
requires.
UNI
Staff Report
G PA 05-01
Page 6
October 27, 2005
The current four (4) lanes are narrow, the sidewalk is adjacent to vehicles traveling
35-40 miles per hours, and there is no bike lanes or center median. The Department
of Public Works has designed a potential widening plan that includes a four -lane
road with a double left on Portola to Fred Waring Drive, a center median, bike lanes
and a 12-foot parkway on both sides of the street (see Exhibit A). The design will
improve Portola as a major link for the schools providing for bike lanes and moving
the sidewalk off the curb to improve pedestrian safety. To implement this potential
design the new right-of-way will vary between 88' and 99'. The two (2) office projects
proposed on Portola Avenue were conditioned to dedicate between 6' and 14' of
land for the right-of-way for future widening. Both projects had conditions that
included cash payments for the cost of the street widening and future median.
Land Use Solution:
With traffic levels increasing and associated impacts, three (3) land use solutions
were studied for compatibility with Portola Avenue and the surrounding residential
neighborhood:
A. Low and Medium Density Residential
B. Office Professional
C. Open Space
A. Residential:
Historically, single-family homes fronting on major thoroughfares have
deteriorated throughout the City. As traffic volume increased, noise, safety
issues, potential road widening and reduced the quality of life have led to
lower levels of maintenance and deterioration.
If the Portola properties remain residential, design incentives need to be
adopted, which allow property owners to mitigate and balance the negative
impacts associated with living on a major thoroughfare (safety & noise).
The design standard needs to provide for safer vehicular movement.
Vehicular movement can be improved by requiring shared driveways with
side entry garages and/or rear loaded garages with access from Catalina
Way and De Anza Way. Requiring shared driveways and/or rear -loaded
garages will reduce or eliminate driveway access on Portola. Implementing
design incentives for low -density single-family development requires a
General Plan amendment to Low Density 0-4 units per acre and a zoning
ordinance amendment that provides design standards for shared and/or rear
loaded garages.
To achieve the current 4-10 units per acre General Plan density on these lots
with adequate yards and safe circulation two story standards would be
needed. Currently the zoning ordinance prohibits two-story adjacent to single -
it
Staff Report
GPA 05-01
Page 7
October 27, 2005
story residential. Implementing medium density would require a change of
zone from R-1 to R-2 and design standards for shared driveways, rear loaded
garages and two-story development.
Based on the impacts on these properties and the unique long-term design
solutions required to mitigate them, medium density residential development
is not the most compatible use for high traffic corridors adjacent to low -
density single-family homes and is therefore not recommended.
B. Office Professional:
Unlike residential uses, which are negatively impacted by their proximity to a
major thoroughfare, office professional uses benefit from exposure to a busy
street. Therefore they do not require the same level of mitigation as
residential needs to maintain value.
Our experience on Monterey and Fred Waring has demonstrated that office
use is compatible with low -density residential development. Pursuant to our
zoning ordinance, they can be economically designed to residential standards
as was shown by the Ford application. Offices can reduce curb cuts with
shared driveways (see Exhibit D). In addition, the City can require dedication
of the necessary right-of-way and installation of the street improvements for
the potential widening. Office professional buildings can make economic use
of small parcels. Implementing office professional requires a change of zone
from R-1 to O.P.
The adjacent neighbors expressed concerns that office use would increase
traffic on Portola Avenue. According to the Trip Generation Manuel, a single-
family home averages 9.57 trips per day and a general office building
averages 11.1 trips per day per 1,000 square feet of office space. There are
13 lots between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way. As single-family the
average trips per day are 125. If all 13 lots were developed with offices, the
projected 40,000 to 50,000 square feet of office space would generate 444 to
555 trips per day. Compared to single-family homes, office use would add
319 to 430 trips per day resulting in a 1.49% increase to the current traffic
volume of 24,474. Impacts to the interior residential streets would be
negligible. It is unreasonable to expect major street fronting properties to bear
all the brunt of adjacent traffic, while being denied the benefits of a
compatible use.
Ironically, the economics of office development allows it to be more
compatible with low -intensity residential since it can be designed to single -
story residential standards.
Staff Report
GPA 05-01
Page 8
October 27, 2005
C. Open Space:
The last land use designation considered is open space. If these properties
are designated open space, the City could widen Portola and construct a
passive park similar to Baja Park on Fred Waring Drive. Baja Park serves as
a walking area to the Civic Center, including landscaping, berms, benches,
drinking fountains, public art, and a meandering sidewalk. If a similar park
were developed on Portola, costs including acquisition, relocation, demolition,
design, construction, would be between $4 and $7 million with annual
maintenance of $50,000.
Open space is compatible with Portola and the residential neighborhood.
However, there are several disadvantages. Landscaping and sound walls do
not provide as effective noise buffer as buildings. In addition, the City would
bear all costs associated with the street widening, park development and
maintenance.
III. CONCLUSION:
After analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of three (3) possible land use options,
office professional development pursuant to our ordinance is the most compatible
use with Portola Avenue and the adjacent residential neighborhood.
Development of a passive park can be compatible with both, but at significant
expense. There may be higher priorities for the use of our limited park development
and maintenance funds. For example, the development cost of the area as a passive
park would equal the cost of four (4) or five (5) neighborhood parks.
Regardless of the decision, the City needs to act affirmatively to implement the
solution so that property owners have some certainty as to the City's future plans.
We don't want to repeat the experience associated with the widening of Fred Waring
Drive, which was delayed for 10 years with significant hardships for property owners
and increased City expense. If the decision is to preserve the existing low -density
residential development, the General Plan Land Use designation needs to be
changed from medium to low density. If the decision is to allow office professional
pursuant to our single -story residential scale ordinance, then these properties should
be dual designated in the General Plan as Office Professional (C-OP)/Low Density
(R-L) 0-4 units per acre and a change of zone from R-1 to Mixed O.P./R-1 is needed,
which allows these lots to remain single-family and also provide them with the option
to sell their property as compatible office use.
ME
Staff Report
GPA 05-01
Page 9
October 27, 2005
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project area was previously assessed and evaluated as part of the General Plan
Environmental Impact Report that was adopted. No further environmental review is
necessary at this time.
Submitted By:
Tony Bagato
Assistant Planner
Approval:
Services
Cit,
Department Head:
Drell
Director of Community Development
RESOLUTION NO. 05-103
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT DESIGNATING 13 LOTS ON
THE WEST SIDE OF PORTOLA AVENUE, SOUTH OF FRED WARING
DRIVE, AS DELINEATED ON EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED, OFFICE
PROFESSIONAL (C-OP)/RESIDENTIAL LOW (R-L) 0-4 DWELLING
UNITS PER ACRE AND REMOVING MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(R-M) 4-10 UNITS PER ACRE AS A PERMITTED USE.
CASE NO. GPA 05-01:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 10 cn
day of November, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing to a consider a request by the
CITY OF PALM DESERT for the above mentioned; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act,
Resolution No.05-52," in that the Director of Community Development has determined
that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and was previously
accessed in the General Plan EIR approved March 15, 2004; 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 approval of the General Plan
Amendment:
1. That Office Professional (C-OP) pursuant to our General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance requirements for single -story residentially scaled office buildings
on Portola Avenue is the most compatible long-term land use on Portola
Avenue and the low -density residential neighborhood to the west.
2. That these properties should also remain single-family so that the existing
homes remain legal conforming and also provides property owners with the
option to sell their property as compatible office use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Palm Desert, Califomia, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the City Council in this case.
2. That General Plan Amendment 05-01 (attached hereto as Exhibit A) is
hereby approved.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-103
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council, held on this 10"' day of November, 2005, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
BUFORD A. CRITES, Mayor
2
1-171.11. I ) t I i
ANCHO RD -_
LR-M ; IR-M
1
R-M -k>`
Bhp, cY
C-OP/R-H
R-M
CHOP/R-H
ettestiato
City of Palm Desert
OS/PP
A
l i ! I I f II
EL): e,-_,e-An.cpms-ng-fie,_
•
SUBJECT i
PROPERTIES
R-M ER F--, - ,
i r-+ rLi �C7 � Di
4 i 1
R-M COP/R-MCL �hl 1 1 'ti. Cbk t' yi
R-M *
i r-;rvil 1 -1----1-- 1 ' 't DE ANZA
i ',' \ \
)EL�Y I 1Tr
I1
R-M
-M R-M �R-M
C-OP/R-H t.. ,' • C-OP/R-H
C-OP/R-H
PALM DES
Case No. GPA 05-01
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
EXHIBIT A
�Jr
ProposedtCPA
Office Professional/
Medium Density Residential
To
Office Professional/
Low Density Residential
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO, 05-103
Date: 11/10/05
1�
CITY Of PR1Dl DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346-061 1
FAX: 760 341-7098
I nloN palm -desert org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. GPA 05-01
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert
City Council to consider an amendment to the City's General Plan, removing Office
Professional (C-OP) from fourteen (14) lots on west side of Portola Avenue between Fred
Waring Drive and De Anza Way. These properties are also know as APNs 627-131-028,
627-131-041, 627-131-042, 627-131-043, 627-135-002, 627-135-003, 627-135-007, 627-
164-012, 627-164-006, 627-164-007, 627-164-008, 627-164-009, and 627-164-010.
SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, November 10, 2005, AT 4:00 P.M. in the
Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm
Desert, Califomia, 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 raising 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 KLASSEN, City Clerk
October 30, 2005 Palm Desert City Council
13
CITY Of KAM OE$ERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346-0611
FAX: 760 341-7098
info@palm-desert.org
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOTICE OF ACTION
Date: September 21, 2005
City of Palm Desert
Re: GPA 05-01
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken
the following action at its regular meeting of September 20, 2005:
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF
CASE NO. GPA 05-01 BY ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2355 AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED 4-1
(COMMISSIONER FINERTY VOTED NO).
Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk, City of Palm
Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision.
Philip Drell, Se retary. _ Ard
Palm Desert Planning Commission
/tm
cc: Coachella Valley Water District
Public Works Department
Building & Safety Department
Fire Marshal
mnuan0aicruu
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2355
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECCOMMEDING TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
ELEMENT DESIGNATING 14 LOTS ON THE WEST SIDE OF PORTOAL
AVENUE, SOUTH OF FRED WARING DRIVE, AS DELINEATED ON
EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED, OFFICE PROFESSIONAL (C-OP) OR OPEN
SPACE (OS -PP), AND REMOVING MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-
M) 4-10 UNITS PER ACRE AS A PERMITTED USE.
CASE NO. GPA 05-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 6th day of September, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing to a consider a
request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for the above mentioned; 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.05-52," in that the Director of Community Development has determined
that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and was previously
accessed in the General Plan EIR approved March 15, 2004; 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 recommending
approval of the General Plan Amendment:
1. That residential development is not the most compatible land use for the
future of Portola Avenue because of the increasing traffic volume, noise,
and safety concems.
2. That Office Professional (C-OP) or Open Space (OS -PP) are the most
compatible land uses with Portola Avenue and the low -density residential
neighborhood to the west.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Palm Desert, Califomia, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Planning Commission in this case.
2. That General Plan Amendment 05-01 (attached hereto as Exhibit A) is
hereby recommended for approval to the City Council.
15
PLANNING COMMISSruN RESOLUTION NO. 2355
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 20th day of September, 2005, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: CAMPBELL, JONATHAN, LOPEZ, TSCHOPP
NOES: FINERTY
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL Secretary
Palm Desert PI nning Commission
C------- '---P -5 . -.
DAVID E.TSCHOPP, Chairpe n N
i
2
R-H
FRED WARING DR
SANTA ROSA WAY
ouvi CT
C-OP/R-H
C-OP/R-H
STATE HWY 111
PALM DESERT DR N
City of Palm Desert
ASTER DI
R- E
r�r■
OS/PP
FRED WARING
SUBJECT
PROPERTIES
C-OI?/R-H
ALESSANDRO DR
a
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE MAP
EXHIBIT A
Cam.-OP/R-H
C-OP/R_}
ALESSANDROIC
a
STATE HWY 111
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2355
Date: 9/20/2005
PM
400
1
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANKING -COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 6.2005
Commissioner Lopez concurred. He thought the project would fit perfectly
into what was to be developed into that area and didn't have a problem with
Condition No. 18. He thought there needed to be some type of monitoring of
traffic at that intersection in the future, but would leave it up to Public Works.
Chairperson Tschopp was very much in favor of the project, but shared
Commissioner Lopez's concerns on the number of cars coming out from the
development needing to go out onto Spyder Circle to make a U-turn which
seemed to be very ineffectual as far as that whole drive and how it would
develop in the future, but he was in favor of the project. He was trusting
Public Works to do their job on maintaining the free flow of traffic on the
street. He noted that a motion was made and seconded and called for the
vote.
Motion carried 4-0-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained).
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2350, approving
Case No. PP 05-13, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-M-
1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained.)
COMMISSIONER JONATHAN REJOINED THE MEETING.
Mr. Summers came forward and said he just wanted to thank staff. He said
they were very helpful in getting this done for them.
`i D. Case No. GPA 05-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Request for approval of an amendment to the City's General
Plan Land Use Element to remove Office Professional (C-OP)
from 14 lots on the west side of Portola Avenue between Fred
Waring Drive and De Anza Way.
Mr. Bagato read the staff report. He noted that letters were received from
Ming Lowe, Donald Smith, Mr. and Mrs. Gustavo Diaz, Doug and Anne
Walker, Ramona and Gary Fletcher, Nina and Rodney McDonald, Marge and
George Ezmedian, Cecile and Art Felix, and Kammie Tavares. He said that
most of the letters addressed concerns that had been raised in the past. A
few of the neighbors were actually okay with Office Professional, but were
12
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005,
opposed to any commercial development, and expressed concerns with
impacts into the adjacent streets.
Commissioner Jonathan congratulated Mr. Bagato on a thorough and
comprehensive report. He said it was actually quite good. He did have a
couple of questions. The ultimate staff recommendation was to recommend
to City Council for them to reaffirm the current Office Professional/Medium
Density land use designation and initiate a change of zone from R-1 to Office
Professional / R-2. He asked if Mr. Bagato could provide clarification. If the
land use designation included a medium density residential component, he
asked why the zoning would be an R-2 designation for residential. Mr.
Bagato explained that the R-1 wouldn't permit the density that Medium
Density would allow. Commissioner Jonathan concluded that the R-2 would
allow the Medium Density 4-10 units per acre. Mr. Bagato concurred.
Regarding the O.P. designation that staff was recommending for Portola,
Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was similar to the Palma Village Plan
which was cited in the staff report in that it would allow the adjacent lots to
be used for parking in conjunction with office professional. Mr. Bagato said
no.
On Fred Waring and on Monterey, Commissioner Jonathan noted that has
proven to be very effective in terms of a buffer. That includes a building,
parking, a six-foot wall, and then 20 feet of landscaping, and then residential.
It was kind of a natural buffer that declines in intensity. He asked if that was
considered as part of the staff recommendation. Mr. Bagato said that in this
area they were only looking at smaller scale office buildings when the
discussion took place. They were really just trying to address the properties
on Portola and that was not looked at.
Commissioner Lopez noted that one of the considerations was open space
and asked for a little more information as to what that would look like. He
asked if it would be similar to Fred Waring as far as setbacks to the wall, the
height of the wall, etc. Mr. Bagato explained that the lots on Fred Waring
varied from 35 to 45 feet after the street was widened, so the lots were pretty
narrow and limited the amount of development that could be done there in
the future. On these lots after the widening there would be somewhere
between 70 to 140 feet left, which provided significant land for development.
So the walls would be much further back from the street and there would be
more landscaping. However, given the location next to a major thoroughfare,
13
MINUTES
PALM DESERT. PLANNING COMMISSION ., ., SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
staff didn't believe that this kind of park would be compatible for recreational
use such as basketball facilities. It wasn't large enough for that. They also
didn't want to have children necessarily playing these kinds of activities next
to Portola. So it would be similar to Baja Park, but twice the size, and the wall
would probably be eight feet, which was typical for sound walls. He didn't
know if they could go higher. But the wall would be farther back from the
street and the landscaping increased. There were no potential design ideas
yet. Depending on what happened here, there could be in the future.
Chairperson Tschopp asked if it was Public Works' opinion that the widening
of the street would have to be done at some point in time given the volume
of traffic increasing. Mr. Bagato said their opinion is they would like to do it
right now if they could, whether the road width increased or not. That was
what the engineers told him. Chairperson Tschopp asked about the timing
for something like this. Mr. Bagato said it wasn't within the five-year time
frame, but this conceptual plan was kind of what they were going with to
hopefully schedule it down the road, but he didn't know the timing of the
widening. He just knew it was not within the five-year planning phase, but
realistically, if they had the means and the ability to do it, they would love to
do it now.
Chairperson Tschopp indicated that some of the drawings Mr. Bagato gave
them showed what the road would look like after widening, and it pretty much
eliminated some of the homes and it took out a decent portion of everyone
elses lots, and so forth. He asked if Mr. Bagato could expand on that. If
nothing was done, these people were going to be impacted tremendously.
He assumed nothing being done was not an option, something had to be
done, so how else would they go about it if the street wasn't widened? Mr.
Bagato asked for him to repeat his question.
Chairperson Tschopp noted that the drawings showed that a significant
portion of people's property would be taken. Mr. Bagato said that was
correct. Chairperson Tschopp said it also showed most of the homes along
that stretch being impacted severely. Given that the street, in the opinion of
Public Works and staff that it has to be widened at some point in time, he
asked what the alternative would be if they left it status quo. Mr. Bagato said
that the only alternative if it was never widened was to leave it as it is, but
traffic would continue to increase either way, which would impact the
properties. Mr. Drell indicated that there were four lanes now and it became
a priority issue. In reality the greater problem was north of Fred Waring.
14
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6.2005
Basically it is an arterial up until Fred Waring, so the goal would be six lanes
up to that point. Since they didn't think they would ever get more than four
lanes south, there had to be ways to get people right and left. So in that
diagram, the bigger problem is the free right they put in because all it takes
is two cars stopped at the signal and it didn't work. So in terms of the higher
priority, it was getting that southbound right to work to improve the efficiency
of that intersection.
Mr. Drell thought the issue south of Fred Waring was that although it's
substandard and isn't ideal, they could probably live with it. Again, he
thought what happened on Fred Waring was a good example. They had
discussions like this in the early 1990's for Fred Waring trying to think how
to solve that problem. And then they put it off for ten years and they
eventually had to bite the bullet and did what they had to do. Kind of what
was inherent in the general plan process was not to look two years or five
years down the road, but to look to the end game and say okay, if they were
going to encourage people to invest in this part of the city, they needed to tell
them what the long-term goal is. Again, he thought it was a mistake what
happened to those people on Fred Waring over those ten years. They were
left in limbo not knowing. There was this thing hanging over their heads, not
knowing when it would fall. So that was the purpose of the general plan, to
come up with a land use and it wouldn't matter if it fell or not. If the land use
was compatible with what they project today and 20 years from now, then let
the market decide when the change should occur, which is like what they did
on Fred Waring west of San Pablo. They said let the market decide when the
residential should change to office, but unless they allow for office, the
market couldn't operate. Back to the traffic issue, they could probably limp
along with what they have their right now. In ten years they might think
differently.
Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing. He noted that he had
Request to Speak cards, some of which he believed were to speak toward
an earlier issue. He said he would go through the cards first and if he missed
anyone, he would ask for anyone else who wished to speak to step forward.
He asked for anyone who wished to speak in FAVOR to step forward. Mr.
Drell said there was such a range of options that anyone could probably talk.
Chairperson Tschopp noted that there were blue cards that were very much
in opposition. Mr. Drell said opposition to what. The item on the agenda is
the elimination of the O.P. designation. They were not recommending it, but
that was the item on the agenda. So favoring the elimination of the O.P. on
15
2-,l
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6.2005
the agenda, they were speaking in favor of the agenda item. Just because
staff had a disagreement, that didn't change what the agenda item is.
Chairperson Tschopp thanked him for clarifying that. He said what they
would do is read the blue cards and start with those people first and then
everyone else would be invited to speak. Beginning with the first name, he
invited Mr. Angle to speak.
MR. THOMAS ANGLE, 44-454 San Jose Street, addressed the
Commission. He said that the back of his property faces the back of
the property that is on Portola. His back bedroom is 12 feet from the
fence. He has a swimming pool that extends there which is on that
property. He has a bathroom which is next to the master bedroom
which has a window facing that property. if they were to allow
buildings, commercial buildings, 18 feet tall that would be on the
street looking toward his house, the back of his house and all that
property would be open to view by anybody that would be in those
buildings.
Also, the traffic coming in in the morning or traffic going out in the
evening would be like him living next to a parking lot. It would go on
and on and on. When he bought that property in 1977, the house was
already built. He understood it was started in 1946 and finished in
1950. He had no conception or wasn't given any hint that there would
be high-rise office buildings overlooking his property. If they allow
that, according to the experts he talked to and he has a half -acre
piece, the value of his property would be lessened by between
$300,000 and $400,000. That was something to consider. So what he
was asking of them was to not allow office buildings that would be
looking back into his property. Keep them single story just like his
house. Any taller and he's living next to a parking lot. He thanked
them.
MS. MING C. LOWE stated that she owns the comer of Portola and
Catalina at 73-985 Catalina Way. She said they just did all of this with
City Council and didn't quite understand what they were up to doing
it again. She had pictures on a board that she made up for the last
time to show their neighborhood. It is a historical neighborhood in
Palm Desert, it's a low profile neighborhood and it's flanked by
schools at either end. A lot of the traffic was from parents picking up
their children from school. She noticed on Fairway, and a little parallel
IR
C
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6.2005§
street to Portola, that it was blocked off so that people couldn't go
around faster to go up the street and she noticed that Fairway has
been slowed way down. So her suggestion would be some way to
leave things the way they are but slow it down. The vacant property
that the City owns, she didn't see why it would cost millions of dollars
to put in a couple of desert rocks and a couple of plants and make a
nice little path for people to kind of sit and take it easy and still have
a neighborhood feeling and a feeling of Palm Desert when they are
driving up and down the street.
She showed the colored map that was attached to her first letter. She
didn't know if they were given copies.
Chairperson Tschopp confirmed that they received her letter with the
attachment.
Ms. Lowe said at that time the issue was McFadden's building. But
this was the same issue. It is all residential. She didn't understand the
point of putting in offices in the middle of a neighborhood. The other
thing is how many cars come in and out. The count didn't matter.
There were children walking up and down the street and people
walking up and down the street. She asked if they had a cross walk
person standing at each driveway for each of these office
professionals for children and the few cars that were coming in and
out. She said she thought there was a requirement for an eight -car
parking lot or a certain amount of parking for each office professional.
So they weren't just talking about buildings, but parking lots. That
wasn't a neighborhood thing and at night these things are unattended
and she didn't think parking lots had a very good reputation for what
goes on in them.
But her thought was to keep in mind that there are schools on either
end of Portola. The City has really helped certain neighborhoods by
slowing them down and putting signs up like Fairway, no through
traffic, and she didn't know why they would start in the middle of a
neighborhood with office buildings here. It didn't make sense. Also,
with the plan of street widening, her property is on a comer, so she
would lose her front yard and her back yard and what's left? And if
they take away all the neighborhoods, what would they have? Some
kind of strip malls or something like that? She was really really against
17
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION _ SEPTEMBER 6.2005.
it and didn't know what the point was. She asked if it was revenue for
the two vacant lots that the City owns. Would the City like office
professional so they could build some office buildings and get some
revenue from those two vacant lots they own? She didn't understand
their motivation for starting in the middle of a neighborhood. She
noted the City's lots were sort of in the middle between De Anza and
Fred Waring, right in the middle. They weren't talking about doing this
down here where they said would connect to the freeway. She
counted houses and stopped counting, but from Fred Waring down
there are houses and people living there.
Another thing was that houses were being built. Recently.
McFadden's property was just bought and the people were very
happy and they were moving their daughter into this house. They
didn't have a problem buying it and were calling it their hacienda and
were looking forward to a nice future there. Another house was being
built just a little further up. So that was her opinion.
MR. DOUG WALKER addressed the Commission. He said he and his
wife own property at 44-326 San Jose Avenue. He really thought he
was coming here this evening to commend the Planning Commission
members and the City Council for following up on some previous
decisions, both at the Commission level and at the City Council
meeting, one of them back in February with a recommendation to go
back to R-1. Hopefully he would still be able to feel that way at the
end of this session this evening.
He said he and his wife wrote a letter and the Commission would
probably be able to see that they wrote it before they saw the agenda..
What they saw was a legal notice of the meeting indicating there
would be a public hearing to consider the amendment to the plan to
remove office professional from the lots and they assumed return of
those to the R-1 designation. So the letter they wrote was based on
the legal notice they received and there was no indication in that
notice that there had been staff recommendations developed that
somehow ran totally counter to this proposal. He was more then a bit
concerned and disappointed that staff didn't somewhere along the line
try to notify and involve some of the concerned citizens that live in the
area who have been to previous meetings and who he thought had
in a very professional fashion responded to the proposals and
18
a�
MINUTES
PALM DESERT _PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6.2005
provided input to both Planning Commission and City Council. But he
looked at the agenda and said wow, what a change from what they
thought was being recommended. In the past, as he thought had
already been mentioned, Planning Commission and the City Council
both voted unanimously against Mr. McFadden's requests and
proposal for office professional building to be sited on Portola and
Catalina.
And then there was another proposal from the Fords that was rejected
by the City Council. He didn't recall what the vote and
recommendation was at the Planning Commission. But during
meetings at both the Planning Commission and City Council, he
thought people heard a number of comments and concerns that were
expressed by residents of the Palma Village area about reasons and
rationale for maintaining the R-1 designation in that location. They
included a number of issues, and he didn't want to go back through
all of those, but certainly there was concern about high density.
Maybe he wasn't well informed in terms of engineering and traffic
flow, but it seemed to him that if there was already a traffic problem,
and there would be a growing traffic problem on Portola, how would
that help if they added office professional or medium density
residences which would cause increased need for ingress and egress
of vehicles rather than going the other direction and reducing the
problem?
They mentioned a number of traffic issues, including child safety in
terms of getting out of the Palma Village area and moving down
Portola. It would seem that the increase in traffic and driveways would
increase some risks and problems there. There were discussions of
building height and he thought this group, thank you, agreed that two-
story buildings, at least at prior meetings, was something that was
really not fitting with the current residential nature of that
neighborhood. And then, as had already been explained very nicely,
there were privacy issues for folks that have property immediately
behind the homes on Portola and there were other issues.
As he recalled looking back at a copy of the agenda from February
10, at that time the City Council voted to direct the staff to initiate a
general plan amendment that would remove the office professional
land use on Portola as indicated on the legal notice and on the
19
'a--5
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 6.2005
agenda. That was approved, he believed 4-1, and he was hoping they
could truly trust what has happened at previous meetings to be
continued by both the Planning Commission, as well as the City
Council.
The suggestion that had already been made, and he didn't know what
the overall cost factor would be, but where there is open space, this
was certainly not the first time this idea had come up to use in that
area. If there needed to be a widening of Portola, use that space or
the open space that exists for some type of park area that people can
use for walking and access and be away from the immediate curb by
the street. If Portola was widened, where would there be room for
office professional or two-story buildings without having them
immediately in their back yards? That was already an issue and it
would be an increased issue if the staffs recommendations were
followed.
He couldn't do anything other than just to strongly urge this
Commission to proceed in line with their previous actions and the
previous City Council actions and approve the recommendation to
make the area along Portola, Fred Waring to De Anza, officially R-1.
He said he appreciated their consideration.
MRS. ANNE WALKER, 74-539 Monte Verde Way, said they've owned
the property on San Jose since being built in 1975. They were the
original owners. It's right in back of the comer of Portola and Catalina.
She couldn't believe they were here. She said it seemed like they
have been fighting this battle and fighting this battle and once they
thought they had resolution, here it came again. She disagreed with
Mr. Bagato about the property values decreasing. If they did comps
with the real estate agent, they would find that they have continued
to increase. Mr. McFadden, when they denied his O.P. zoning,
wanted to build his two-story building behind them at the comer of
Catalina and Portola. He was able to sell that property as an R-1 and
if they would drive by that property, those people are putting a lot of
money into it and it was really looking good. It was painted, there
were bushes, they started a wall, and they have a fancy mail box.
Those properties aren't going down hill, they are going up hill. He sold
his property that he had for less than a year and made a big profit. He
20
IS
I
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6.2005
made a profit selling it as R-1 on Portola. So some of those
assumptions are incorrect.
She was worried about the two-story aspect that Mr. Angle also
mentioned because her daughter and son-in-law live in that home.
They just spent $50,000 redoing that home they own on San Jose
and they didn't want people looking in the backyard. That would ruin
the whole single family dwelling atmosphere. So she was really
against two-story, whatever use it was.
She said she would like some certainty. The Planning Commission
denied Mr. McFadden his O.P. zoning. It went to the City Council and
they unanimously denied that zoning and that building. The same
thing happened with the Fords. Their property on Portola, even
though the City Council said it was a beautiful property, said it couldn't
be a better fit for a single family look, but they denied unanimously
changing the zoning from R-1 to O.P. If she could read from the
minutes from the February 10 City Council meeting, the City Council
voted 4-1 to "initiate proceedings for a general plan amendment
removing the Office Professional land use on Portola Avenue
between Fred Waring and De Anza Way." They asked the Planning
Commission to remove that. That is what the City Council asked of
them and they would only hope that the Planning Commission would
follow their lead. They would really appreciate it. She thanked them.
Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone else wished to speak regarding this
matter.
MS. JEAN MARTIN, 44-276 San Jose Avenue in Palm Desert,
addressed the Commission. She said they have been working on this
since 1999 opposing any change of zoning in that area. She has lived
in that house since 1960. She raised her son there, had her mother
with her, etc., as many residents did. And some of their kids now own
the property and are raising their children. This has always been
family oriented and they wanted to keep it that way. She thanked
them.
MS. RAMONA FLETCHER, 73-969 Olive Court in Palm Desert, said
that they came tonight to thank them very much for hearing them one
more time and bringing this back to R-1, as it has been since the very
21
MINUTES
PALM DESERT_ PLANNING COMMISSION _._ _ SEPTEMBER.6. 2005
beginning. She listened to the report tonight, as the Commission did.
She hoped they had her letter and read it because she was fortunate
enough to have had the staff report in her hands and addressed it.
She was surprised to find that Mr. Bagato had drawn up some plans
of homes. She didn't recognize that as being what they were talking
about here. This is an established neighborhood. People have homes
they have put money into, they are proud of it and there is no blight,
except there are a couple of empty lots that the City owns and there
was a home right next to that that has been allowed to deteriorate
because they wanted to build an office professional.
This overlay they are talking about is just that. It is an overlay. During
the time they went through all those hearings for the general plan,
different things, different people brought it up. Office Professional was
one, R-1 was one, Open Space was another. Now they have all this
there and they are fighting over essentially two empty lots and one
place next to it. The rest of these places are owned, they are
established, and people live there. They are not wanting anyone to
take all these homes, demolish them, and put up anything else. These
are homes and pride is taken in them.
Ms. Fletcher said they thoroughly approve removing any office
professional overlay from this and she hoped that all of them would
agree and support what they have worked for all this time. She asked
if there were any questions from her letter. Many of her neighbors
also signed it. Some couldn't be here because of vacation and they
were all out having a good time. As soon as they got out of the
meeting tonight, she hoped to be doing the same thing. So if they had
any questions, she was present to answer them. If not, she asked
them to please support the removal of the overlay. She thanked them.
MR. JOHN ARIANO, 44-565 San Jose Avenue in Palm Desert,
addressed the Commission. He said he received an incredible
amount of information this evening. First and foremost he was
disappointed that he has been completely out of the loop. He hasn't
received any mailings for any of this. He was informed by a neighbor
and he called City Hall and requested that he get a mailing of tonight's
hearing. So there was a lot of information to digest this evening.
22
101
MINUTES
PALM DESERT_ PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6.2005
However, he had a couple of opinions. He wasn't completely opposed
to office professional buildings. He has seen the work that has been
done on Fred Waring. The architecture was beautiful and the
landscaping was beautiful.
He wasn't in favor of two-story buildings. Single story he would be.
When they look at some of the homes between Fred Waring and De
Anza on Portola, they are in need of repair and landscaping. One
thing he did learn by calling the office was that the empty lots that are
owned are planned for apartment complexes, single -story apartment
complexes. Whether or not that was true he had no idea. If those
empty lots are going to be providing single family housing units, a
single family home, that was great, but if they were going to be zoned
for apartment buildings that would create more noise and more traffic
then a single -story office professional building. So maybe he and
everyone else in this room needed more specifics as to what the
plans are for those empty lots that currently exist and the design. He
thanked them.
MR. PAUL BOWIE, 71-774 Chuckawalla in Palm Desert, stated that
he owns the property at 44-401 Portola. He was here in a state of
shock. He, like other people who made comments and he supported
everything the others had said, he viewed this as almost an attempt
to get a sell out of the owners. Things have been said about letting
the market dictate what to do, which meant building bigger streets and
it was said tonight that if Public Works had its way, they would build
six lanes today. That has been evident for a long time. They could go
back and read the letter he filed about six lanes on Portola and he
has stated in writing that Public Works needs to reject and kill any four
lanes. He didn't hear any planning. All he heard was more: more
lanes, more multi -family, more this and more everything. That wasn't
planning. This was simply running wild.
In the very beginning when the office professional came up,
particularly in the case of Fords, he didn't take a position either way.
That property is contiguous to his property. It looked like it was going
to be a nice idea. The plans looked okay, but of course it was turned
down. He was obviously naive. It looked like it was going to be a nice,
easy deal where places could be constructed for office and everyone
could get along and so forth. But now he came here tonight and found
23
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6.2005.
out like other folks that they were looking at two -stories, multi -family
and other stuff like that. Absolutely not. He hears this business from
staff that people let their property run down. That is false. It has been
stated otherwise tonight. Properties have been upgraded. He has
upgraded his property. He put thousands of dollars into it. It is under
lease and it is well maintained. He did this out of respect for the city
and for the residents nearby.
Other things that came to mind tonight, he didn't make any notes, but
was simply reacting to what has been said by staff and the staff keeps
picking at this. This is a residential area and has been a residential
area since the beginning of time. It used to be a grapefruit grove and
some of those properties, including his, still have the original
grapefruit trees from the old ranch. All he could say in frustration is
the City wants to keep picking away at this issue. A few houses down
there where people are getting along, are trying to do things and
make . it, and are making improvements. He didn't want to be the
target of a sell out of some kind of a deal. He has had a realtor
chasing him around for the last year wanting him to sell his property
at, quite frankly, a very substantial price. Now he starts to say to
himself, what is going on? Are they going to cobble together lots here
and put in two-story and have multi -family and let it be done like that?
He rejected that. He respects the people down there and asked this
Commission to maintain the intent of residential for the 14 lots that
were under discussion tonight. He thanked them.
MR. ANTHONY PITEL, 44-399 Lingle Lane in Palm Desert,
addressed the Commission. Referring to the exhibit, he said it is all
homes. Continuing all the way down Portola it is all homes. And
continuing up Portola just to 111 there are businesses, but farther up
Portola there are homes that are gated communities or homes.
Everywhere around there are homes except for that little island right
there. He asked why they would want to put in businesses right in the
middle of a neighborhood. That was ridiculous. Where his property is
he wasn't effected by people looking over into his property or anything
else, but he lives in that neighborhood. Probably longer than these old
folks. He has lived there 34 years. He bought the property from his
parents. He has two lots there. So he intended to live there another
34 years or 50 more years. His kids walk down that street, around
Catalina, onto his private street (Lingle Lane), and they go into their
24
�o
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6.2005,
home. That was a bad place to put offices. There are homes that abut
Portola on Santa Rosa and then there are all condos. It is a
neighborhood. It wasn't the same as Fred Waring. It wasn't the same
as Monterey. Those go through and they are all businesses. All up
Portola it is residential. They need to put a park in there. That is the
heart of Palm Desert. He has lived there 34 years. Not part time, not
leasing his property, 34 straight years he has lived on that street and
he would live there many more years. It is a bad decision, so he
supported not putting in Office Professional. He thanked them.
Chairperson Tschopp closed the public hearing and for Commission
comments.
Commissioner Finerty told the audience that she gets it and hears what they
are saying. She didn't know why they were going through this all over again.
They went through it with the General Plan and she listened to them over
and over again. She heard loud and clear through the McFadden project and
the Ford project that they don't want office professional. They understand,
or at least she did, that they want to protect the integrity of their
neighborhood and she supported that. She would be inclined to change it
only to Open Space if that was what was acceptable. Office Professional
should not be and multi -family apartment complexes were also not what it
should be. So she would not be in support of what staff recommended.
Commissioner Campbell worked with the General Plan also and said they
have been through this before. She was not in favor of the multi -story
apartments and they really didn't need to tear down all of those homes and
put more residential homes there. She was in favor of Office Professional,
but not the two-story kind, just like a regular home would be or have it Open
Space.
Commissioner Jonathan concurred, but he wanted to explain why. He was
sitting there really listening to them, and they are good people and are long
time residents of the city, and they really struck a chord with him and he
empathized with their concerns. If he was living in their neighborhood, he
would have the exact same concerns.
He wanted to tell them a couple of things. Number one, this kind of use of
space along major roads does work. It wasn't the worst thing that was
running through their minds. There are places in the city where it works. He
25
31
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 6.2005
thought on Portola in their neighborhood it could work because they weren't
talking about tall buildings. They weren't talking about a second story that
would look into their back yards. They were talking about structures that
would look like homes. There were good examples on Deep Canyon if they
would take time to drive and look at those. So it has the possibility of
working.
The question of why was asked tonight. Why do this? What differentiates
these homes on Portola is that they have a driveway that goes onto a very
very busy street and yes, he gets it. He understood where they were coming
from, but the Commission's responsibility here is to listen to them,
understand their needs, but also their job as Planning Commissioners is to
look at the bigger picture. Sometimes that puts them in a position where they
aren't just catering to the people in front of them, but looking at other needs
as well. They may agree or disagree, but he wanted them to hear the answer
to the question why. These properties are differentiated because they have
a driveway that goes onto a major street. The other residential homes, when
they look at all the yellow areas on the map, they are differentiated because
they have other access. They don't have to go directly into a driveway off of
Portola and then reverse out. That was a dangerous, unacceptable situation
just asking for problems.
He would love another situation and he commended staff for bringing several
alternatives to the table. Because open space, if the City wanted to spend
$3 million - $5 million, he was happy with that and it would be great. It is part
of what they as the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council
in going through the General Plan amendment. They felt that more open
space is needed. So if the Council makes that decision, he would be 100%
in support of that. Short of that, if the current situation is unacceptable where
they have these homes and driveways backing onto Portola, then what other
alternatives were they left with? If someone more creative then the people
here in this room tonight could come forward and suggest other alternatives,
he would certainly keep an open mind. But short of that, the Office
Professional could be a reasonable alternative if designed properly. He
thought it would not end up being their worst nightmare.
The other question as to why they were here is they did go through a
General Plan amendment that the Planning Commission recommended to
Council to allow this Office Professional use. Council said yes, we agree, and
in fact the General Plan included that. What Council did earlier this year was
26
3'd-,
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6.2005,
reverse themselves and say no, they now see a project that fits into that
zoning, it is office professional residential in scale, but for whatever reason
the Council did not like it, so they needed to clean up the General Plan and
the zoning and change what they approved previously. That is why they were
back here tonight. No one wanted to be back here readdressing an old issue,
but the Council changed its mind and wanted Planning Commission to make
a recommendation changing the General Plan designation. That's why they
were there tonight.
In summary, they really struck a chord and he empathized with their
concerns, but they were kind of between a rock and a hard place. There is
a situation on Portola that is not acceptable. It is dangerous and they couldn't
have people reversing out onto a street like that. They were just asking for
bad events to take place and he thought that was unacceptable. Short of
another alternative, he had to agree with staff. He thought it was well thought
out and given all their options, it was a reasonable recommendation with one
exception. He could not support two-story residential. He understood that a
developer, if it went residential, had to make a return, but he didn't think it
made sense from a planning standpoint.
Commissioner Lopez said he too has listened and they struck a chord with
him also from the standpoint that their concerns were such that they wanted
to leave this as an R-1 location. They already know that there's more traffic
on that road then that road can take or should be taking. They know there
would be continued growth and there would be more traffic on that road. It
was inevitable. Having lived in that area for many years, right off Rutledge
and his kids go to Lincoln School, he knows the dangers along that road and
what it was like during the height of the school season. The chances of
things going on on that particular road increased each year with the amount
of traffic that goes along there at the speed it currently goes and kids were
going in and out of those on those sidewalks from those developments and
it is a dangerous situation.
The best thing to happen along that location would be to widen that road and
move those sidewalks away from that street and create a situation that is
much safer than currently exists. But to do that they somehow had to
develop that property in one of two areas and that would be to either develop
it to an open space park, that's one alternative that has been brought forward
tonight. The concern he had about that is open space or parks in general
would provide locations for more kids to go in that area if that was the way
27
33
MINUTES
PALM DESERT. PLANNING, COMMISSION S_EPTEMBER 6.2005
the park was developed. It could be a walk through park and that would be
fine. But that would create more hazards he thought for the youth that go
along Portola Avenue.
The other part would be to convert it to office professional, single story,
looking like residential and this way moving that sidewalk back and allowing
some kind of an area to develop and create a much safer environment than
what currently exists. But, unfortunately, the group before them tonight would
like nothing to happen. They would rather have everything remain the same
and he feared that they were going to develop something that they would all
regret in years to come. As the traffic continues to grow, a situation could
develop there that is not very healthy.
He was opposed to any type of two-story development along Portola,
whether residential or commercial. Folks who live on San Jose do not want
to have people looking down into their backyards. He was in favor of an open
space area and if that is one of the alternatives that the City Council takes,
he would be in agreement with that. He liked the idea of open space and
liked the idea of open parks with proper setbacks. He liked the way that it
currently exists with the office professional. As an alternative, open space,
and thought it was the best alternative they could come up with right now
based on current conditions on Portola.
Chairperson Tschopp said this was a very difficult decision. They were
hearing different opinions tonight and his would probably fall right there with
them. He heard their comments and concurred that he would not like two-
story buildings looking down into his backyard, whether office or apartments.
However, they have seen where a well -designed office professional built to
residential standards and height could be a very good buffer and a shield to
traffic, noise and so forth that occurs on a major thoroughfare. The thing that
scared him was doing nothing. They weren't taking away any uncertainty of
what will have to happen at some time in the future, which is address a major
thoroughfare happening on Portola. There is no way to divert that traffic and
would be adding to it with the bridge, putting in an interchange and the traffic
was already increasing tremendously and would only continue to do so. So
at some point in time they would have to look at it again. He thought it was
time to do it now.
The buffer has worked before and worked very well. It has shielded and
actually been a benefit to people on the in -lying streets. Tonight most of the
28
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6.2005
speakers, except for maybe one, were people who live on San Jose behind
it and their concern was the buffer. He truly believed there was a way to do
that with office professional, single story, and protecting them from the noise
and traffic better than just leaving it the way it is. He, too, had a very big
concern about people backing out onto Portola from their houses and that
would still be a real problem.
So he was in favor of staffs recommendation without the second story
request.
Commissioner Finerty commented that if the Ford project didn't protect
everyone and create the right buffer, she didn't think there was any project
for O.P. that could. She noted that Mr. Drell mentioned at the beginning of
the meeting that at the end of the fiscal year, the City found themselves with
$4 million left over and the staff report said that the passive park would be
$3 to $5 million, so that would pay for it. And there is an annual maintenance
of $50,000 and that would basically be one piece of artwork and they would
have the area dealt with. The other thing that didn't make any sense to her
was staff purporting concern that there's been so much traffic on Portola and
then, on the other hand, they are recommending that they make this two-
story multifamily for apartments. She didn't understand what they were trying
to say, but she did hear the residents loud and clear and with that, she would
make a motion to delete office professional from this area and that would be
exactly what the City Council had done back in February.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty to delete Office Professional from this
area. The motion failed due to lack of a second.
Commissioner Campbell said she was in favor of Office Professional with
single story, or Open Space. No multifamily dwellings or other single family
homes. Mr. Drell asked if that would include reducing the residential
designation from Medium Density to Low Density, which is the current
residential zoning. Commissioner Campbell said there wouldn't be any
residential, she was talking about Office Professional or Open Space.
Commissioner Jonathan concurred and was prepared to second that motion
with the clarification that Office Professional would be residential in scale,
one story. Commissioner Campbell concurred.
29
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6.2005
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Jonathan, by minute motion, to recommend that City Council approve O.P.
and/or O.S.; Office Professional to be residential in scale, single story in
height. (Residential use to be removed.) Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner
Finerty voted no).
Mr. Drell stated that staff would prepare a resolution for adoption at the next
meeting.
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
None.
X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES
A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
Commissioner Campbell reported that there was no meeting.
B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE
Commissioner Finerty indicated that there would be a meeting
tomorrow.
C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE
Commissioner Finerty advised that there wasn't a meeting.
XI. COMMENTS
None.
30
_3Q
( C
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: September 6, 2005
CASE NO: GPA 05-01
REQUEST: Consideration of an amendment to the City's General Plan Land Use
Element, removing Office Professional (GOP) from fourteen (14) lots on
west side of Portola Avenue between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza
Way.
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
I. BACKGROUND:
Portola Avenue, between Highway 111 and Santa Rosa Way has been zoned R-1
since the City incorporated, which allows a density of 4 dwelling units per acre.
These properties have been designated Medium Density 4-10 units per acre in the
General Plan since 1980. A change of zone to bring the area into conformance with
the General Plan has never been initiated.
During the preparation, review and approval of the General Plan, there was
considerable debate concerning traffic circulation requirements and appropriate land
uses along Portola Avenue, between Highway 111 and Rutledge. Increased traffic
was impacting the singe -family properties. The City engineer anticipated future road
widening to address projected traffic levels and improve safety on the street. The
City Council and Planning Commission determined that an alternative land use was
needed which would be consistent with the increased traffic volume, provide for
future road widening and improvements, and be compatible with the surrounding
residential neighborhood. To address these issues, Office Professional (C-OP) and
Open Space (OS) were added to the Medium Density designation on the west side
of Portola between De Anza Way and Fred Waring Drive. To ensure that office
buildings were compatible with Portola and the single-family neighborhood, language
was added in the General Plan requiring residentially scaled office buildings.
Program 10.8 of the Community Design Element states:
"The City shall amend the Zoning Ordinance implementing the C-OP
designation to assure that appropriate, more restrictive architectural
standards affecting building heights and setbacks, and other
development standards are applied to office development along non -
arterial street corridors to ensure compatibility with surrounding
residential areas." (Community Design Element, pg III-154, attached).
STAFF REPORT
GPA 05-01
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
After the general plan was approved, the McFadden project proposed a change of
zone from R-1 to Office Professional (C/Z 04-02) and a precise plan (PP 04-22) to
construct a two-story office complex on the west side of Portola, north of Catalina
Way. On September 23, 2004, the project was denied by the City Council because it
was not residentially scaled. At that same meeting a Zoning Ordinance amendment
(ZOA 04-01) was approved requiring office buildings to meet all the standards of a
one-story single-family home implementing Program 10.13.
In October 2004, the Ford project proposed a change of zone from R-1 to Office
Professional (C/Z 04-05) and a precise plan of design (PP 04-31) for a one-story
residentially scaled office building that met all the standards of a single-family home.
On January 13, 2005, the project was denied based on the neighborhood opposition.
The neighbors expressed concerns that office use would increase traffic on Portola
and would not be compatible with the residential neighborhood. Many were opposed
to any land uses other than single -story residential or open space. It was believed
that the Ford project was as close to residential as the City would ever get with an
office building. The City Council directed staff to initiate a general plan amendment
removing Office Professional (C-OP) from Portola.
II. DISCUSSION:
In 1996, the traffic volume on Portola Avenue averaged 13,134 trips per day. Today,
it averages 26,474 trips per day exceeding the General Plan 2020 projection of
24,275 trips per day. Traffic levels will continue to increase as the north area of the
City develops. If it is believed that small office buildings will adversely impact
adjacent single-family residential properties, then exposure to a four -lane road with
26,474 trips per day is even more detrimental to the single-family residential
properties directly on Portola.
A land use(s) designation is needed to address the long-term issues of both property
owners on Portola, adjacent residential properties, and the City's future right of way
needs. The ultimate land use solution needs to be a compromise that provides for
land uses that are compatible with a high traffic road on one side of the property and
a low intensity residential use on the other.
In 1985, the City adopted the Palma Village Specific Plan, which successfully
addressed this issue on Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive. The single-family
neighborhood extended to the street, traffic and noise were increasing, driveways
were unsafe, properties were deteriorating, and the roads needed to widen.
Conversion to office professional was used as the land use solution. Over the past
20 years, office projects have. been developed which have enhanced the
appearance of the street, protected the values of the adjacent homes and provided
the necessary right-of-way for Fred Waring and Monterey widening. The Specific
Plan Policy Criteria (pagel) states that land use regulations shall encourage
development which:
o Are compatible with existing and future land uses.
2
STAFF REPORT
GPA 05-01
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
o Address the needs of the Palm Desert community.
o Are economically feasible in the foreseeable future.
The same factors that impacted residential uses on Monterey Avenue and Fred
Waring Drive are impacting homes on Portola. The high traffic volume has resulted
in unsafe driveways, increased noise, and the need for potential road widening.
Unsafe driveways:
Between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza way there are three (3) residential
properties that have driveways that require vehicles to back out onto the street.
There is no curbside parking to provide a space for vehicles to back out safely. Two
(2) properties have modified their driveways to provide a turn around area in the rear
yard. Three (3) other properties have removed front yard landscaping and replaced it
with concrete or gravel to use the front yard as a parking lot and turnaround. These
modifications have been done to allow vehicles to drive out safely.
Increased road noise:
As traffic has increased so has the road noise. Two (2) properties have front yard
block walls to mitigate the noise. Road noise is a negative impact that reduces the
quality of life.
Potential road widening:
Portola Avenue is an arterial street from Interstate 10 to the Whitewater Storm
Channel where it transitions into a major thoroughfare. A street section for a major
thoroughfare requires 118' of right-of-way, which allows for each side of the street to
have a meandering sidewalk, parking or bike lane, and two (2) vehicle lanes with a
center median. Currently, the right-of-way between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza
Way varies between 61' and 81', which is 57' to 37' less than the City's street design
requires.
The current four (4) lanes are narrow, the sidewalk is adjacent to vehicles traveling
35-40 miles per hours, and there is no bike lanes or center median. The Department
of Public Works has designed a potential widening plan that includes a four -lane
road with a double left on Portola to Fred Waring Drive, a center median, bike lanes
and a 12-foot parkway on both sides of the street (see Exhibit A). The design will
improve Portola as a major link for the schools providing for bike lanes and moving
the sidewalk off the curb to improve pedestrian safety. To implement this potential
design the new right-of-way will vary between 88' and 99'. The two (2) office projects
proposed on Portola Avenue were conditioned to dedicate between 6' and 14' of
land for the right-of-way for future widening. Both projects had conditions that
included cash payments for the cost of the street widening and future median.
3
3s
STAFF REPORT
GPA 05-01
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
Land Use Solution:
With traffic levels increasing and associated impacts, three (3) land use solutions
were studied for compatibility with Portola Avenue and the surrounding residential
neighborhood:
A. Low and Medium Residential
B. Office Professional
C. Open Space
A. Residential:
Historically, single-family homes fronting on major thoroughfares have
deteriorated throughout the City. As traffic volume increased, noise, safety
issues, potential road widening and reduced the quality of life have led to
lower levels of maintenance and deterioration.
If the Portola properties remain residential, design incentives need to be
adopted, which allow property owners to mitigate and balance the negative
impacts associated with living on a major thoroughfare (safety & noise),
provide for the potential road widening, and improve the quality of life.
These design standards must increased front, side, and rear setbacks to
provide for vehicular movement, sound walls with landscaping, and potential
widening, which still allowing for usable yard space. Vehicular movement can
be improved by requiring circular driveways in the front, shared driveways
between properties, or rear -loaded garages for corner lots on Catalina Way
and De Anza Way (see Exhibit B & C). Shared driveways and rear -loaded
garage will reduce the number of driveways on Portola.
To improve the quality of life on Portola, design incentives need to provide for
a quiet environment, usable indoor and outdoor space to maintain property
value. All these potential solutions require more space than is possible with
the current single -story requirements. Vehicle maneuvering area eliminates
other yard uses.
The main design incentive that creates the space necessary to mitigate noise,
safety, potential road widening, and balances the quality of life impacts
associated with living on a major thoroughfare is two-story residential
development. Implementing the incentive for low density single-family
development requires a General Plan Amendment to low density and a
zoning ordinance amendment, which provides design standards for two-story
homes. To achieve medium density residential the General Plan allows, and
provide for mitigation measures, two-story is even more necessary.
4
`f D
STAFF REPORT
GPA 05-01
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
Implementing the incentive for medium density would require a change of
zone from R-1 to R-2 and design standards for two-story development.
Unfortunately, two-story development has been perceived to be incompatible
with single -story homes and the zoning ordinance prohibits it in this situation.
Specific design guidelines would need to be approved to implement two-story
residential uses on Portola.
Based on the impacts on these properties and the unique long-term design
solutions required to mitigate them, residential development is not the most
compatible use for high traffic corridors adjacent to low -density single-family
homes.
B. Office Professional:
Unlike residential uses, which are negatively impacted by their proximity to a
major thoroughfare, office professional uses benefit from exposure to a busy
street. Therefore they do not require the same level of mitigation as
residential needs to maintain value.
Our experience on Monterey and Fred Waring has demonstrated that office
use is compatible with low -density residential development. Pursuant to our
zoning ordinance, they can be economically designed to residential standards
as was shown by the Ford application. Offices can reduce curb cuts with
shared driveways (see Exhibit D). In addition, the City can require dedication
of the necessary right-of-way and installation of the street improvements for
the potential widening. Office professional buildings can make economic use
of small parcels. Implementing office professional requires a change of zone
from R-1 to O.P.
The adjacent neighbors expressed concerns that office use would increase
traffic on Portola Avenue. According to the Trip Generation Manuel, a single-
family home averages 9.57 trips per day and a general office building
averages 11.1 trips per day per 1,000 square feet of office space. There are
13 lots between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way. As single-family the
average trips per day are 125. If all 13 lots were developed with offices, the
projected 40,000 to 50,000 square feet of office space would generate 444 to
555 trips per day. Compared to single-family homes, office use would add
319 to 430 trips per day resulting in a 1.49% increase to the current traffic
volume of 24,474. Impacts to the interior residential streets would be
negligible. It is unreasonable to expect major street fronting properties to
bear all the brunt of adjacent traffic, while being denied the benefits of a
compatible use.
Ironically, the economics of office development allows it to be more
compatible with low -intensity residential since it can be designed to single -
story residential standards.
{
STAFF REPORT
GPA 05-01
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
C. Open Space:
The last land use designation considered is open space. If these properties
are designated open space, the City could widen Portola and construct a
passive park similar to Baja Park on Fred Waring Drive. Baja Park serves as
a walking area to the Civic Center, including landscaping, berms, benches,
drinking fountains, public art, and a meandering sidewalk. If a similar park
were developed on Portola, costs including acquisition, relocation, demolition,
design, construction, would be between $3 and $5 million with annual
maintenance of $50,000.
Open space is compatible with Portola and the residential neighborhood.
However, there are several disadvantages. Landscaping and sound walls do
not provide as effective noise buffer as buildings. In addition, the City would
bear all costs associated with the street widening, park development and
maintenance.
Ill. CONCLUSION:
After analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of three (3) possible land use options,
office professional development pursuant, to our ordinance is the most compatible
use with Portola Avenue and the adjacent residential neighborhood.
Depending on development standards, residential uses will either not be compatible
with the high intensity use of the major thoroughfare or the low intensity use on the
adjacent single-family residential. If the City is going to mandate residential
development then two-story development is needed to achieve long-term viability.
Development of a passive park can be compatible with both, but at significant
expense. There may be higher priorities for the use of our limited park development
and maintenance funds. For example, the development cost of the area as a passive
park would equal the cost of four (4) or five (5) neighborhood parks.
Regardless of the decision, the City needs to act affirmatively to implement the
solution so that property owners have some certainty as to the City's future plans.
We don't want to repeat the experience associated with the widening of Fred Waring
Drive, which was delayed for 10 years with significant hardships for property owners
and increased City exp. If the decision is to preserve the existing low -density
residential development, the General Plan Land Use designation needs to be
changed from medium to low density. If the decision is to encourage medium density
development, then a change of zone from R-1 to R-2 is needed. Regardless of the
type of residential development, two-story standards will be required to promote
redevelopment and achieve long-term viability. If the decision is to allow office
professional pursuant to our current codes and two-story multi -family development,
then the current Office Professional (C-OP)/Medium Density land use designation
remains and a change of zone from R-1 to Mixed O.P/ R-2 use is needed.
2
C
STAFF REPORT
GPA 05-01
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project area was previously assessed and evaluated as part of the General Plan
Environmental Impact Report that was adopted. No further environmental review is
necessary at this time.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council:
• Reaffirm the current Office Professional (C-OP)/Medium Density 4-10 units
per acre land use designation.
• Direct staff to initiate a change of zone from R-1 to Office Professional
(O.P)/R-2, and
• Direct staff to initiate a zoning ordinance amendment to develop alternative
standards that will include two-story for multi -family development.
VI. ATTACHMENTS:
A. City Council minuets dated February 10, 2005
B. Copy of Community Design Element, pg III-154
C. ZOA 04-01
D. Exhibits
Prepared by:
TonytX5_
8aa_To
Assistant Planner
Reviewed and Approved by:
Philip relli
Director of Community Development
HorWer Croy
ACM of Comrr
avelopment
7
�3
(�IIY 01 P 0 1 M 0 1 S I
73-510 FRIED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9226o-2578
TILL: 760 346—o6i 1
FAX: 76o 341-7098
mfo®polm-des..t. oq
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. GPA 05-01
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert
Planning Commission to consider an amendment to the City's General Plan, removing
Office Professional (C-OP) from fourteen (14) lots on west side of Portola Avenue
between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way. These properties are also know as APNs
627-131-028, 627-131-041, 627-131-042, 627-131-043, 627-135-002, 627-135-003, 627-
135-007, 627-164-012, 627-164-006, 627-164-007, 627-164-008, 627-164-009, and 627-
164-010.
SAID public hearing will be held on TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, 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 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 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 (or city council) at, or prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
August 22, 2005 Palm Desert Planning Commission
�14
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2005
Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 05-4.
Motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Ferguson and carried by a 4-1 vote, with
Councilman Kelly voting NO.
B. RESOLUTION NO. 05-14 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A CHANGE OF
ZONE FROM R-1 TO OFFICE PROFESSIONAL AND A PRECISE PLAN OF
DESIGN FOR A 1,826 SQUARE FOOT GENERAL OFFICE BUILDING
LOCATED AT 44-447 PORTOLA AVENUE Case Nos. C/Z 04-05 and
PP 04-31 (Robert and Marilyn Ford, Applicants) (Continued from the meeting
of January 27, 2005).
MS. MARILYN FORD, of 48-770 Shady View Drive, Palm Desert, addressed
the City Council. She and her husband were the owners of
44-447 Portola Avenue, which they never expected would become such a
controversy. She noted that they were 25-year residents/taxpayers of the
City, property owners and real estate professionals, and they never would
have considered purchase of the subject property as a primary residence
without the possibility of rezoning it. She felt it was obvious that the busy
traffic and proposed future setbacks on Portola Avenue will continue to make
this a busier street and more and more undesirable for residential. They
agreed with the City Council's decision last year to make Portola Avenue
conform to the surrounding area closer to Highway 111 and the potential
office professional designation. Nothing had changed since last year's action
on the office professional possibility, and they felt it would be a mistake to
revisit the lengthy process in the next agenda item involved in reversing that
decision. She said they still hoped to have their own small office space
somewhere in the City of Palm Desert, believing they were one of the very,
very few people who would want to build a less than 2,000 square foot,
residential -in -nature office building, with probably five vehicles total. She
said they believe the City made the right decision, and they commended it
for looking at the City's future vision and the best use of this very busy
highway.
Councilman Kelly moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 05-14.
Motion was seconded by Councilman Spiegel, and it carried by a 5-0 vote.
C. CONSIDERATION OF THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS FOR A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REMOVING THE OFFICE
PROFESSIONAL LAND USE ON PORTOLA AVENUE BETWEEN
FRED WARING DRIVE AND DE ANZA WAY (Continued from the meeting
of January 27, 2005).
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, direct staff to initiate a General
Plan Amendment, removing the Office Professional land use on Portola Avenue between
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2005
Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way. Motion was seconded by Councilman Kelly, and it
carried on a 4-1 vote, with Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson voting NO.
Mayor Crites noted that consideration of the proceedings did not mean that
office professional land use on Portola Avenue will be removed; there were
a variety of options that might come before the Planning Commission, the
City Council, and staff on whether or not to revise the existing land use
designation.
Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson commented that the City had done its best to
provide notice on the General Plan process and policies. At that time, his
desire was to try to provide a parachute for those property owners so that
they didn't have steadily declining property values. He requested that
specific notice be given the owners of record for each of the parcels along
Portola between Fred Waring and Alessandro to be sure theywould have the
opportunity to speak to the issue. He was curious to see what each of them
would say.
Mayor Crites added that he'd like to extend notice to the residents at least
two property owners' back from Portola, who he felt would have comments
that would be equally interesting.
MR. CHRIS McFADDEN said he wished to speak on this item, disappointed
that it had been considered so quickly. He was a Portola property owner and
had feelings similar to those of the Ford's. He acquired three parcels
immediately along Portola approximately six or eight months prior to the
actual recommendation for the zone change overlay. He had hoped to
obtain an office professional use through his application, which was turned
down. He was currently trying to sell that property, and there were two
remaining overlays on it — open space and medium density residential. He
said the Planning Department was totally unaware of the open space overlay
aspect, and he asked for some clarification, as it had a significant effect on
the property values.
Mayor Crites responded that the City will be initiating that entire discussion.
He urged Mr. McFadden to visit with Planning Manager Steve Smith about
the issue over his property's designation and also to participate in the
hearing process about continuing the existing zoning or alternatives
suggested by the property owners.
12
CCity of Palm Desert/ Adopted3.15.04
Comprehensive General Plan/Community Design Element
Program 10.A A
The City shall review all commercial, institutional and industrial development to assure
accommodation of pedestrian -oriented circulation, safe and convenient ingress and egress,
screening of outdoor storage/loading and other unsightly areas, lighting, signage, and the
planting of landscaping to provide an effect of permanency in the near -term.
Responsible Agency: Planning Department
Schedule: Continuous
Program 10.B
The City shall amend the Zoning Ordinance implementing the C-OP designation to assure that
appropriate, more restrictive architectural standards affecting building heights and setbacks, and
other development standards are applied to office development along non -arterial street corridors
to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential areas.
Responsible Agency: Planning Department, Planning Commission, City Council
Schedule: 2004-05
Policy 11
Community and neighborhood activity centers shall be established at appropriate locations to
create recreational opportunities, encourage social interaction and provide a sense of public
space and center for neighborhood activity.
Program 11.A
The City shall continue to actively pursue joint use agreement with the Desert Sands and Palm
Springs Unified School Districts to promote the appropriate public use of school open space, and
athletic and other facilities as integral parts of adjoining and nearby neighborhoods.
Responsible Agency: Parks and Recreation Department, Planning Department, School Districts,
Planning Commission, City Council
Schedule: Continuous
Program 11.B
The City shall review development proposals for opportunities to integrate parks, plazas, squares
and other open space areas that allow and facilitate public use and social interaction.
Responsible Agency: Planning Department, Planning Commission, City Council
Schedule: Continuous
Policy 12
The City shall maintain and enforce a Sign Ordinance that minimizes the size, scale and number
of signs needed to provide functional identification and exposure to convey messages, while
minimizing impacts on traffic safety, streetscape appearance and scenic viewsheds.
Program 12.A
The City shall review and, as necessary, revise the signage regulations set forth in the Zoning
Ordinance addressing all aspects of sign review, and shalt establish finite periods by which
existing non -conforming signage shall be retired.
Responsible Agency: Planning Department, Planning Conunission, City Council
Schedule: Continuous
Community Design Element
III-154
L4 I
ORDINANCE NO. 1078
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICE PROFESSIONAL (O.P.)
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, CHAPTER 25.25 OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, RESTRICTING BUILDING HEIGHT
AND REQUIRING RESIDENTIAL SCALE ARCHITECTURAL
DESIGN FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS WHICH MAY BE
DEVELOPED IN AN O.P. ZONE ON LOTS FRONTING ON
PORTOLA AVENUE BETWEEN FRED WARING DRIVE AND
DE ANZA WAY.
CASE NO. ZOA 04-01
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 23rd
day of September, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to
the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.25; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2291 has
recommended approval of the proposed amendment; 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.. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that
the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15305 (Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations)
of CEQA Guidelines; 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 its approval as described below:
1. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of
the Zoning Ordinance.
2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted
General Plan and affected specific plans.
3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health,
safety and general welfare then the current regulations.
L�-7
ORDINANCE NO. 1078
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED 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 ZOA 04-01 as delineated in the attached Exhibit "A" is hereby ordained.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City
Council, held on this 14th day of October , 2004, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: cBITES, PERGOSON, MMLY, SPIEGM
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: BENSON
ABSTAIN: NONE
d
ROBERT A. SPIEL Mayer {
ATTEST:
RA ELLE D. KLA SEN, CI Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
2
q1
ORDINANCE NO. 1078
EXHIBIT A
That Section 25.25.019 be added to read:
25.25.019 Building limitations for O.P. zoned lots fronting on Portola Avenue
between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way
Buildings in the O.P. zone located on lots fronting on Portola Avenue
between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way shall be limited to one story with a
maximum basic height of 15 feet and in no event shall the height exceed 18 feet in
height. Approval of a building height over 15 feet shall be discretionary based on
architectural merit. Project to be subject to O.P. setback standards. Overall
architectural design shall be consistent with the residential character of the
surrounding area.
3
So
PALMA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN
Adopted
June 13, 1985
Prepared by:
Department of Environmental Services
Ramon A. Diaz
Philip Drell
Tonya Monroe
Palma Village Specific Plan Advisory Committee
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
51
51?-�
Z
LAND USE ELEMENT
INTRODUCTION
The area defined by the La Palma Village Specific Plan was the first major residential
subdivision in the Palm Desert area. When the tract was laid out in 1935 it was designed
as a small, low density single family residential village surrounded by desert and date
palms.
Over the past 50 years the desert and date palms have given way to the College of the
Desert, the Palm Desert Town Center, the Civic Center, and the Cultural Center.
Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive {formerly Greenleaf Road} have grown from
quiet county roads to major regional arterials.
While the overall growth and development of Palm Desert has significantly impacted La
Palma Village, existing land use patterns and policies have remained essentially
unchanged. The task of the Citizen Advisory Committee was to reexamine these existing
land use patterns and policies identifying areas where present policies have succeeded in
promoting desirable development, areas where minor adjustments or incentives are
required, and areas where external impacts require significant policy revisions.
Prior to formulating their recommendations, the committee set up generalized policy
criteria for evaluating the appropriatness of existing and proposed land uses in the La
Palma Village area.
POLICY CRITERIA
Land use regulations shall encourage developments which:
I. Are compatible with existing and future adjacent uses.
II. Address the needs of the Palm Desert community.
III. Are economically feasible in the foreseeable future.
r�
e
LAND USE ELEMENT
I. COMPATIBILITY
The most critical area of land use policy involves the boundaries between potentially
conflicting uses. Some uses are inherently incompatible and therefore can never
coexist, while others can be made compatible by design regulations. It is important
that any resolution to land use conflicts account for the basic requirements of both
uses so that both sides of the use boundary can develop satisfactorily. If the
solution favors one use to the detriment of another, the results are often vacant
abandoned properties.
II. NEEDS
Land use policies should not only control use conflicts, but should also encourage
specific, desired uses. Senior housing, affordable housing, creation of attractive
streetscapes, are examples of specific positive development features which should
be encouraged through land use controls.
III. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
Regardless of how compatible or desirable a use may be it will never be built if it
does not generate a profit. Existing uses which are unprofitable will not be
maintained properly. When land use controls attempt to maintain unrealistic uses;
vacant, deteriorated, and abandoned properties result which will lower overall
neighborhood quality.
GENERAL POLICY I
CITY'S ROLE
The city shall take a proactive role in promoting compatible high quality infill private
development and public works consistent with the area policy criteria.
-2-
5�
f
LAND USE ELEMENT
In examining La Palma Village, the committee paid special attention to areas with a high
percentage of vacant or deteriorated properties. While vacant land is expected in a new
subdivision, it is often symtornatic of a land use problem in a 50 year old subdivision. This
is especially true when properties remain vacant while surrounding areas experience
tremendous growth and economic development.
The predominance of vacant lots and poorly maintained properties discourage new
investment, rehabilitation, and new construction which leads to further decline. Wherever
possible, the adjustment of land use controls and other incentives should be utilized to
break this cycle.
GENERAL POLICY II
COMMERCIAL ZONE DEPTH
Multifamily and Commercial zones should be of sufficient depth to allow efficient site
planning and the creation of adequate buffer areas adjacent to single family zones.
DISCUSSION
Narrow strips of commercial and multifamily zones adjacent to single family zones are
poorly suited for quality development and negatively impact adjacent properties. It is
important to designate zones which are appropriate to the scale and quality of
development we wish to promote.
GENERAL POLICY III
TRAFFIC
Whenever possible, general through traffic should be directed away from local residential
streets.
-3-
f
LAND USE ELEMENT
DISCUSSION
Often the inadvertent result of traffic and road improvements is the encouragement of
non -local traffic through residential areas. Where this has occurred, circulation redesign
should attempt to discourage this non -local traffic.
GENERAL POLICY IV
ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS
For new development to effectively serve as a stimulus for overall neighborhood
improvement, it must be of sufficient high quality to change both neighborhood and city
wide attitudes about the area's future. New projects must therefore meet the same high
architectural and site planning standards being applied to new projects elsewhere in the
city.
GENERAL POLICY V
LEGAL NON-CONFORa41ING USES
To prevent legal non -conforming residential properties from becoming blighted, a process
shall be created to allow presently non -conforming residential properties to obtain
conforming status through architectural and site rehabilitation.
DISCUSSION
The adoption of the city's zoning map of 1975 resulted in extensive down zoning of multi-
family property developed under the county. This change created a number of legal non-
conforming duplexes and apartments. Under the city's non -conforming ordinance, these
units may remain as they presently exist, but they cannot be replaced if they are
destroyed or substantially damaged. This non -replacement feature discourages lenders
from financing the sale or rehabilitation of these units. This often results in low levels of
building maintenance leading to generalized deterioration.
-4-
LAND USE ELEMENT
GENERAL POLICY VI
BUILDING HEIGHT
Building heights shall be regulated to preserve the area's overall low profile character.
Appropriately sited limited height two story development shall be permitted within the R-
2 and R-3 zones to maximize open space, off street parking, and site planning efficiency.
Two story development standards shall be reduced from the present 30 foot. limit to 22
feet for flat roofed buildings, 24 feet for pitched roofs, and 25 feet for office professional
buildings. Height shall be measured from finished grade.
DISCUSSION
The plan area presently contains R-2 and R-3 zones which allow two story structures to a
maximum height of 30 feet. While two story developments contribute to both the
livability and economic feasibility of multi -family projects, improperly sited two story
buildings can block views and destroy privacy of adjacent properties. The existing 30 foot
allowable height far exceeds that which is necessary for good architecture. Height
regulations should be designed to protect views and privacy while allowing the planning
flexibility afforded by two story construction.
GENERAL POLICY VII
SURPLUS CITY LAND
The city shall either landscape, suitably develop, or sell vacant surplus city land within
the Palma Village area.
DISCUSSION
The city presently owns vacant residential lots and portions of lots originally acquired for
road widening. These areas are often used for illegal dumping and generally detract from
M
Sl
LAND USE ELEMENT
the value of adjacent properties. Wherever residential properties back onto arterial
streets or major thoroughfares, the city shall initiate a parkway landscaping perimeter
decorative wall program. This is especially necessary on the south side of Fred Waring
west of 4onterey Avenue and East of Portola Drive.
SPECIFIC AREA ISSUES POLICIESSAND IMPLEMENTABLE PROGRAMS
AREA 1 Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue.
ISSUES
With the development of the civic center, cultural center, town center, and street
improvements and extension to Interstate 10, Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue are
becoming major regional arterials. The existing pattern of low and medium density single
family development is incompatible with the projected traffic volumes and emerging
character of these important streets.
POLICIES
1. New Development on Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue should reflect as to
scale and overall quality the public improvements represented by the civic center,
college, and cultural center and should be compatible both with the high traffic
volume arterial highway and the adjacent residential land uses.
2. Use zones fronting on these streets shall have sufficient depth to allow substantial
projects while creating a landscaped buffer for adjacent single family uses.
3. Incentives shall be provided for lot consolidation to facilitate larger projects and
minimize access points to Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue. Whenever
feasible the redevelopment agency shall assist in this effort.
-6-
.519
LAND USE ELEMENT
IaMPLEMENTATION
1. Where subdivision patterns permit, a special zone, minimum 200 feet in depth, would
be created allowing either Office Professional or High Density zoning depending
upon compatibility. The Office Professional designation would be applied to the
south side of Fred Waring Drive between Monterey Avenue and San Pablo and along
the east side of Monterey Avenue between Fred Waring and Catalina, R-3 2,500
would be applied on the south side of Fred Waring Drive between San Pablo Avenue
and Portola Avenue and on the west side of Monterey north of Fred Waring Drive.
The Scenic Preservation Overlay will be removed allowing two story construction
adjacent to Fred Waring with a 24 foot height limit.
The zones will require a minimum 20,000 square foot area and will require a 20 foot
landscaped project setback adjacent to any single family residential district. This
requirement will create a 20'-32' wide landscaped green belt adjacent to residential
uses. There will be no access allowed from these projects to local streets.
2. Where subdivision pattern precludes attainment of the 200 foot lot depth, the
existing Office Professional Zoning will apply. This area would include the west side
of Monterey Avenue between the Town Center and Fred Waring Drive and the north
side of Fred Waring between Monterey Avenue and Fairhaven.
3. On the north side of Fred Waring between Portola Avenue and San Pascual Drive, a
modified multi -family zone overlay would be created which would allow High
Density Residential use with a 22 foot height maximum and 30 foot rear building
setback to compensate for the lack of green belt buffer.
4. Whenever feasible projects shall be required to execute mutual access agreements
creating shared parking and rear circulation, minimizing the need for multiple curb
cuts on Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue.
5. Surplus city land remaining after road widening of Monterey Avenue and Fred
Waring Drive shall be landscaped by the city. Additional landscaping shall be
required wherever Office Professional use abut these areas.
-7-
s-�
LAND USE ELEMENT
AREA 2 Monterey Avenue, south from the McAllister property to Highway 111 east to
Las Palmas Avenue.
ISSUES
The Monterey/Highway I I I intersection has become the primary Comm, "al focus of the
city. High quality commercial development has occurred along ea6, leg except this
northeast block. A major effort should be made to encourage development in this area
comparable in quality to Palm to Pines and the Town Center.
The interior residential area, if adequately buffered from the commercial activity, can
continue to offer a safe and very convenient residential environment. Presently the signal
at San Gorgonio Way and Monterey Avenue has encouraged through traffic on San
Gorgonio threatening the areas residential character.
POLICIES
1. Commercial zoning in this area shall be expanded to allow for substantial
commercial projects with adequate off-street parking.
2. The interior residential area shall be preserved and protected from the adverse
impacts from commercial development by the creation of green belts and traffic
circulation improvements discouraging non-resident through traffic.
IMPLEMENTATION
1. Expand C-1 zoning to a depth of two lots with assistance from the Redevelopment
Agency.
2. Convert the second row of lots to a common use (President's Plaza type), parking
area which will be separated from the residential area by a wall and 30 foot wide
landscaped green belt.
-8-
Go
LAND USE ELEMENT
3. Create a parking improvement assessment district which will finance acquisition
construction and maintenance of the parking lot.
4. Study methods to slow traffic and reduce volumes on San Gorgonio Way.
5. With the exception of the lots involved in the commercial expansion green belt
project, zoning shall remain consistent with existing land uses. The three circles
shall remain R-1; Royal Palms R-2 (5); Las Palmas and Las Flores, R-3.
AREA 3 Santa Rosa Way to Guadalupe Avenue between Monterey Avenue and San
Pablo Avenue.
ISSUES
This area contains a mixture of single family homes, duplexes, and small apartments. All
the multifamily units were built prior to incorporation. The existing R-2 (7) zone allows
only one unit per 7,000 square foot lot. Since few lots exceed 7,200 square feet, the area
has developed as a single family neighborhood since 1973.
With the creation of a substantial Santa Rosa green belt (see Area 1 policies) this area
will be protected from the high intensity uses to the north and should continue to provide
a safe, moderate income housing.
POLICIES
This area should be encouraged to continue developing as a moderate priced single family
neighborhood.
IMPLEMENTATION
The R-2 (7) zone shall remain.
-9-
LAND USE ELEMENT
AREA 4 Monterey Avenue west to Fairhaven Drive.
ISSUES
If adequately buffered from traffic impacts, this area can continue to provide safe
moderately priced single family housing.
POLICY
Preserve and enhance the areas single family character.
IMPLEMENTATION
None required.
AREA 5 Alessandro Drive.
ISSUES
Alessandro Drive marks the transition between Highway III commercial and adjacent
residential uses. The street is presently dominated by vacant lots on the north and
commercial rear yards on the south. The north side is zoned R-3 (4) to a depth of 80 feet
to 140 feet and is limited to one story due to the adjacent R-1. The generally
unattractive streetscape created by the commercial rear yards and the height restriction
has discouraged multifamily development in the R-3 (4).
POLICIES
1. Land use controls and incentives shall be used to encourage high quality office
professional and multi -family residential development on the north side of
Alessandro.
-10-
LAND USE ELEMENT
2. Frontage Road Commercial uses should be encouraged to remodel their rear yards
creating a more attractive streetscape.
IMPLEMENTATION
1. The north side shall be rezoned to R-3 2,500 to an average depth of 200 feet
depending upon subdivision patterns. Two story construction shall be excluded
within 100 feet of the R-1 zone.
2. In conjunction with the formation of a parking assessment district, Highway III
owners would be encouraged to remodel their rear elevations. Expansion into rear
yards would be permitted as part of an in -lieu fee program financing the purchase
and construction of parking lots on the north side of Alessandro.
AREA 6 San Pascual and Catalina.
ISSUES
This area contains a diverse mix of residential types ranging from half acre lots to 18 per
acre apartments. The city has constructed a senior center on 1.65 acres at the northwest
corner of San Pascual and Catalina. The area east of San Pascual is substantially
developed. The western area is 50 percent vacant. Overall quality of maintenance is
inconsistent throughout.
POLICIES
1. Preserve the single family zone east of San Pascual.
2. Encourage construction of senior housing surrounding the senior center.
3. West of San Pascual, make zoning consistent with the multi -family character of
existing development.
-11-
LAND USE ELEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION
1. Rezone blocks fronting on San Pablo to north to Fred Waring Drive and east to San
Raphael R-3. Rezone block north of Catalina east of San Raphael R-2.
2. Create a Senior Housing Overlay allowing higher density, reduced dwelling sizes and
parking requirements for senior housing projects. The overlay shall be applied
within walking distance of the senior center. Northeast corner of Catalina Way and
San Pascual Avenue shall be restricted to one story by the Scenic Preservation
Overlay.
AREA 7 Portola Avenue to Deep Canyon Road.
This area contains a broad range of housing types and quality from the up scale Portola
del Sol to some severely deteriorated single family units. There are no inherent land use
conflicts which prevent the development and enhancement of this area as a quality
affordable single family neighborhood.
POLICY
Encourage the preservation and rehabilitation of this area as a moderate priced single
family neighborhood.
IMPLEMENTATION
Maintain present R-1 status.
AREAS 8 and 9 McAllister and Jeffrey Properties.
ISSUES
These two parcels represent the last large pieces of unsubdivided acreage in the study
area. Due to the convenient close -in location of the sites both property owners are
-12-
co q
0
LAND USE ELEMENT
interested in the development of senior housing. Since senior housing represents a lower
intensity of development in terms of household size, noise and traffic impacts higher
densities might be accommodated on these large sites if properly designed.
POLICY
Allow submission of proposals for compatible planned senior housing on these parcels.
IMPLEMENTATION
Apply senior housing overlay to the existing R-1 and PR-5 zoning for these parcels.
-13-
ro5
LAND USE ELEMENT
-14-
m
CIRCULATION EUMENT
The plan area is adequately served by public roads. The principal circulation issue has
been the intrusion of non -local traffic through residential neighborhoods. As more high
intensity development occurs in the surrounding area the impact of non -local traffic will
increase. Discussions have centered around the possible closure of two streets: San
Gorgonio Way at Monterey Avenue and Fairhaven Drive at Parkview• Avenue.
San Gorgonio receives a great deal of non -local through traffic associated with the Town
Center and from the neighborhoods to the north. At this time San Gorgonio residents are
strongly divided as to whether the elimination of through traffic is worth the resulting
inconvenience.
Fairhaven Drive, presently linking Park View Drive and Fred Waring Drive could become a
short cut to the Town Center for residents of One Quail Place and proposed developments
in Rancho Mirage. In this case, the neighborhood seems fairly unanimous in its desire to
see Fairhaven Drive closed at Park View Drive.
It is also inportant that when closures occur, adequate right-of-way is acquired to
construct complete cul-de-sac improvements. Where this has not been done, dead end lot
property owners end up with their driveway being used as public turnarounds.
POLICY:
1. Whenever it is consistent with public safety, sound circulation planning and the
wishes of the effected neighborhood; local residential streets should be closed or
otherwise modified to discourage non -local through traffic.
IMPLEMENTATION:
1. Fairhaven Drive will be cul-de-laced before Parkview Drive. San Gorgonio shall
stay open pending a study to determine neighborhood preferences and alternatives to
reduce traffic speeds and volumes.
-1 S-
ro11
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
2. All dead end streets in the study area shall be adequately signed and the cul-de-
saced with full improvements.
-16-
PUBLIC FACILITIES
The quality and variety of a neighborhood's public facilities can have a significant impact
on the safety, convenience and quality of life of its habitants. The public facilities to be
discussed in this element include roads, street lights and sewers.
I. ROAD ISSUES:
The dominating public facility within the study area is the road system. With a few
exceptions, it is without curb or gutters and is six to eight feet narrower than
ultimate design width. Isolated areas suffer flood damage during summer
thunderstorms due to improper street drainage. These storms also cause damage to
the pavement edges.
In addition to creating a more attractive streetscape, a well designed curb and
gutter system will significantly reduce drainage problems and solve the problems of
crumbling asphalt edges. The area is also without street lights.
POLICY:
1. The city shall actively encourage and facilitate the creation of curb and gutter
districts.
2. Safety low intensity street lighting shall be provided at intersections of
collector streets, major thoroughfares and arterials.
IMPLEMENTATION:
1. The city shall circulate assessment district petitions to all property owners
and will assist interested residents in the collection of required signatures.
2. Property owners whose household income falls below the HUD "lower" 80% of
median level may elect to defer their curb and gutter assessments until sale of
their property.
-17-
PUBLIC FACILITIES
3. Lighting and landscaping district shall be formed to finance the construction
and maintenance of intersection street lighting in the study area.
II. SEWER ISSUES:
With a few exceptions, the plan area is without sewers. As the individual systems
.age and increased development occurs, maintenance may become a problem in some
areas.
POLICY:
A long range goal shall be the extension of sewer lines throughout the study area.
IMPLEMENTATION:
Conduct a feasibility study to determine the costs and timing of an area wide sewer
project.
-Is-
-,-70
PARKS AND OPEN SPACES
PARK ISSUES:
In the Recreation Element of the Palm Desert General Plan, neighborhood parks are
to be provided with service areas of between K and Y4 mile. The plan area presently
does not contain any neighborhood parks. Most of the plan area is beyond the
desired 14 mile radius of the Community Park and the planned San Pablo Park. In
addition, access to these parks may involve the crossing of two four lane highways.
Small neighborhood parks can provide a wide range of recreational experiences for
all ages and serve as a meeting place and focus for neighborhood identity.
POLICY:
Provide each of the three major blocks in the plan area with a small neighborhood
park which shall include a tot lot, basketball or volleyball court, and general
landscaped area.
IMPLEMENTATION:
Potential sites shall be studied for possible acquisition. An advisory committee shall
be formed in each block to work with the Parks and Recreation Commission to
determine park design.
OPEN SPACE ISSUES:
The city presently owns potential lots fronting on Fred Waring Drive west of
Monterey and the east side on Monterey Avenue south of Fred Waring. If properly
landscaped, these areas can provide a visual buffer for the adjacent residential
areas. In addition, the Land Use Element proposes creation of green belts on the
north side of Santa Rosa Way and north of the Highway 111 commercial area
between Monterey and Las Palmas.
-19-
PARKS AND OPEN SPACES
POLICY:
Whenever adjacent property owners cannot be induced to maintain and landscape
these parkway areas, the city shall provide landscaping.
IMPLEMENTATION:
Plans shall be prepared and monies budgeted for the installation of landscaping in
these areas.
-20-
t
ECONOMIC AND HOUSING ELEMENTS
The plan area comprises the city's largest stock of lower and moderate priced ownership
housing. Median ownership costs were 25% lower in the 1980 census than in the city as a
whole. Rental costs are only slightly lower than the city median. Of the areas
approximately 1,500 dwelling units, 388 (25%) are actual multi -family apartments with
the balance being single family homes. Fifty percent (50%) of the total dwelling units are
renter occupied indicating a large percentage of single family detached rentals.
In 1980, the area median income was $17,015 compared to $19,647 for the whole city and
$22,100 for the San Bernardino/Riverside County area. This places over one half of the
plan area households below the HUD lower income threshold and 70% below the moderate
level.
Being the oldest subdivision in Palm Desert, the area contains the oldest public
infrastructure and private housing stock. In a recent survey conducted by the city's code
enforcement division, the area's overall condition and level of maintenance was
significantly below the city-wide average.
The specific plan land use element discusses proposed land use changes providing for
multi -family development on Fred Waring Drive, San Pablo Avenue, and Alessandro Drive.
Senior housing will be encouraged in the vicinity of the senior center at Catalina Way and
San Pascual Avenue and on two large sites off of Monterey Avenue and Deep Canyon
Road. Developments in these areas will be required to address lower and moderate
income housing needs.
It is hoped that these land use changes will stimulate high quality new construction which
will in turn encourage increased investments and maintenance of existing housing. To
augment this effort, the General Plan Housing Element has proposed the use of
Redevelopment Agency housing funds in this area to provide below market rate financing
for rehabilitation and purchase of housing by lower and moderate income households.
-21-
__i3
F
i
ECONOMIC AND HOUSING ELEMENTS
POLICY:
1. The city shall encourage new infill multi -family and senior housing in
appropriate areas through use of the Affordable High Density and Senior
Housing Overlays.
2. Existing single family and multi -family neighborhoods shall be enhanced by use
of Redevelopment Agency housing funds to encourage rehabilitation and owner
residency, increasing housing quality and opportunities for lower and moderate
income households.
IMPLEMENTATION:
1. Apply R-3 2,500 and Senior Housing Overlays to areas indicated in the Palm
Village Land Use Element.
2. Solicitate from financial institutions proposals for the operation of a
compensating balance low interest loan program to aide in the rehabilitation
and purchase of housing in the plan area by lower and moderate income
households.
-22-
Ming C. Lowe
august 29, 2005
city of palm desert
73-510 fred waring dr.
palm desert, ca 92260-2578
re: case # GPA 05-01
dear palm desert planning commission,
my property, since 1967, is on the southwest corner of portola and catalina way:
73985 catalina way.
in regard to your notice of august 22, 2005 i think it would be very much appreciated by
the majority of my neighbors and most assuredly myself, if office proffessional would
be 'removed' from the ciity's general plan for our neighborhood.
also.... apparently the dity owns two vacant lots in the center of the strip of homes under
consideration ... i would like to suggest the land be used as a small park that could be
enjoyed by the passing shool children, senoir citizens and others dwelling in our historical
palm desert neighborhood.
we and certainly i would be extremely grateful for any help from the city towards
'slowing' things down and contributing towards the preservation, stability, safety,
serenity and sanity of our homes and of ourselves.
very truly,
ming c. lowe
ps. attached is my view of the neighborhood ..... and the sincere hope that 'office
proffessional' is 'not' established right in the middle of it ....... and possibly, in the
future........ in my back yard.
P.O. Box 289 Palm Desert Ca. 92261 Ph. 760-349-3369 www. mingclowe. com --1 `e
ati SCH
ALESSANDRO DR
ZONE
CHANGE
nEAst r±0 O.P.
CATALINA WAY
%I . riW3
RAW Santa
-FRED WARING
MUL / STUDIO
PO BOX 269
PALM DESERT, CA 92261
www.minaciows.com
OOL
A DR013% wAI—)
kip' ��
DE ANZA WAY
r, it's
CATALINA Y"
wl—m
J_w
u►T ir+XwR4�`�
A' lei
yg11'�y1 YiM1
1► ��i � 1 i� 111
FRED WARING DR
w � o.P
SCHOOL H°t^SS
RECEIVED
Ming C. Lowe
.�,. �,( Q 0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
=Janua7, 2005 uP ,�^ 4 ' ` ' - CITY OF PALM DESERT
resolution: 05-14
Ca �►o j 40A 65- 01_6ry o F
and old business... initiation of general plan amendment.
city council
city of palm desert
73-510 fred waring drive
palm desert ca 92260
dear city council members,
regarding the proposed zone change from de anza to fred waring on portola
i had a few more thoughts:
if 'possible' street widening of portola in the future and disruption of residences is of
concern to the city planners ... why encourage 'multiple' family dwellings or office
proffesional buildings... with the 'increase' of required parking, hence the increase of
traffic flow from these buildings that would result.
it is not so much the increase of traffic on portola that concerns me ..but the increase of
'crossing over' of the 'sidewalks' from side streets and 'driveways' that would interupt
the flow of 'pedestrian' traffic existing on portola from children walking to and from
schools and general neighborhood congestion ..why not just keep it simple, as is
..single family residences?
thank you, again, for your consideration.
sincerely,
ming c. lowe
ps. 'at present' the section of de anza to fred waring on portola is 'entirely' residential.
there are no 'existing' commercial units or offices on this section .... and since the city of
palm desert became a city ...no building permits have been given for such.
P.O. Box 289 Palm Desert Ca. 92261 www. mingclowe. com
an
City of Palm Desert
Case GPA 05-01
RECEIVED
Hearing Date: September 6, 2005 SEP 0 2 2005
COMMUNITY DEVMPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
PLANNING COMMISSION
I am not able to attend the scheduled meeting. I do have three related items I would
like for you to take into consideration before you make your decision.
I am not against small business being incorporated into Portola Ave. However it should
be a type of business that has a very small onsite customer cliental.....with a very small
parking lot. For example, an independent insurance agent. Also the traffic for these
business' must stay on Portola Ave. and not be directed onto the residential streets. (The
McFadden project had the parking lot exit on Catalina Way).
My concerns are for the safety of the residents in these family neighborhoods.
1. We have no sidewalks in our neighborhood. Our residents are primarily families
with school age children and senior citizens. It would be extremely hazardous to
have additional traffic going down our residential streets.
2. Business would bring people into the neighborhood. Strangers that otherwise
would not be there. As you know this increases crime. We need to keep our kids
and our seniors safe.
3. My own personal request: We bought a house with a huge backyard that we
constantly enjoy. We would hate to loose our privacy because people are looking
down at us from their two story office building window.
Our neighborhood has improved tremendously over the last two years. Almost all of
the home are now owner occupied and most all of the homes have gone through major
improvements. It is one of the few middle class non -gated family neighborhoods left in
the desert. It is very important to keep the integrity of the neighborhood in the upward
direction it is taking. Bringing in too much business or business' that are too big would
not be beneficial to this section of our community.
Sincerely,
Kammie Tavares
73925 Catalina Way
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Doug and Anne Walker
74-539 Monte Verde Way
Palm Desert, CA 92260
September 6, 2005
Re: Zoning Amendments in La Palma Village
From C-OP back to R-1
To: Planning Commission Members, City of Palm Desert
RECEIVED
S�� 0 6 2005
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
Because we own a home at 44-326 San Jose Avenue that our daughter and son-in-law
occupy, we received a legal notice from the City of Palm Desert that indicates you plan to
consider an amendment to the City's General Plan removing Office Professional (C-OP)
designations from fourteen lots along Portola Avenue on the east side of the La Palma
Village area. We assume this is a technical follow-up to the City Council's previous
directives and the specified lots will be changed back to their original R-1 designations.
The proposed amendment appears to be a follow-up to previous City Council meetings
where, after hearing from a number of local residents, the Council Members denied two
C-OP projects and indicated their willingness to return the La Palma Village area to R-1
zoning. If the current proposed amendment is doing just that, we thank you. Please
know your follow through is much aoureciated by us and others living in the
neighborhood. It is important for members of any community to know they can trust
their elected representatives to do what they say they are going to do. We commend you
for doing what the City Council told the local residents the City would do and we will be
in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting to provide support for this issue.
Hopefully, you will cast a unanimous vote supporting the wishes of most people in this
long established, residential neighborhood by removing the few C-OP designations and
returning them to R-1.
Sin ly and appreciatively,
Doug a Walker
-0Z)
RECEIVED
5c.r 0 6 2005
COMMUNITY DIMPMENT DEPARTMOT
CITY Of PALM DESERT
From: Donald R. Smith
44239 Anacapa Way
Palm Desert, CA 92260
To: City of Palm Desert Plannimg Commission
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
Subject: Public Hearing in consideration of an amendment to the
City's General Plan, Tuesday, Sept. 6,2005 at 6:00 pm
Reference: Legal notice case No. GPA 05-01
Neither my wife nor me will be attending Subject meeting, thus this
correspondence has been prepared. We have been part time residents
in Portola Village since 1990. As for the proposed amendment, we are
strongly in favor of eliminating ALL COMMERCIALISM from the resi-
dential area in which we live. ff the underlying intent is to open our resi-
dential area to other commercial activities other than c-op then we are
opposed. We do not want any more commerciial activities in our resi-
dential area.
Sincerely yours,
0.61. • a, gold
CITY OF PALM DESERT
Planning Commission
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California
Dear Commission Members,
C
RECEIVED
SEP 0 6 20
92260 RT ClTYOB�TMPALilM14TD tArMNT
Dti/06/dS�,
September 6, 2005
Case Nos. GPA 05/01
SUPPORT
As concerned property owners we are in full SUPPORT of the City Council's
removal of the OP overlay on the City's General Plan Land Use Element.
For many years the residents have been subjected to the threat of zone
changes and have written letters, attended multiple meetings and presented
testimony before the Architectural Committee, Planning Commission and the
City Council. -to name a few. Some of those meetings, but not necessarily
all, are as follows:
* On October 10, 1999 the City Council found in favor of the residents
appeal and directed that the zone was to remain R-1;
* February 8, 2001 (GPA 99-2) zone change to OP was denied;
* In 2002 many General Plan hearings were attended by various property
owners and testimony concerning this issue was provided;
* September 2, 2004 (C/Z 04-02 & PP 04-20) Planning Commission denied
change of zone to OP.
* January 11, 2005 Appeal hearing C/Z 04-05 & PP 04-20 City Council
denied the zone change to OP and directed staff to "remove" OP use
on Portola between Fred Waring and De Anza.
As you see, we have been "tested" many times. We believe, as owners and
residents, we have proven..over and over again..the right to be left as
zoned ... R-1.
It follows that we are opposed to staff's recommendations! And we find
the report quite biased toward those recommendations. A few examples
(again not necessarily all) are:
* Page 3-Portola Avenue ends at Gerald Ford..not interstate 10. And
although the road widening may take place ten, twenty or thirty years
from now, that is not a viable reason to demolish a long established
neighborhood.
* Mr. Drell has mentioned repeatedly the economics of OP (developers)
paying for the cost of street widening. What he hasn't mentioned,
nor has he answered the question, is who will be responsible for
the surrounding owners loss of equity value and other assets and the
increased cost of insurance, etc. if the zone is changed to OP. Will
it be the city or developer/owner?
* Page 4-The properties that have deteriorated (of these 14) are owned
by the city or speculators with the expectation of changing the zone
to OP. Some owners are "on hold" with their plans for improvements
until the city clarifies its position.
* Page 5-Isn't R-2 multiple family designation and wouldn't that only
intensify the noise and traffic problems?
* Page 6-No one has suggested the purchase nor demolishing of existing
homes for "open space".
We do agree with the conclusion statement by staff "We don't want to
repeat the experience associated with the widening of Fred Waring Drive,
which was delayed for 10 years with significant hardships for property
owners and increased City exp." Still staff has recommended the same
proposal used in the Palma Village Plan of 1985 to widen Fred Waring.
Surely leaving this area residential until definative, shorter term
plans are drawn would be much wiser and in the long run..less expensive.
Page 1 g�
The last decade of zone change upheaval has been an upsetting experience
for many of the home owners. Once again, we respectfully await your
decision. PLEASE KEEP OUR NEIGHBORHOOD A NEIGHBORHOOD by your SUPPORT
of GPA 05-01! /
S' cerely, ��j/CQ
amona and Gary Fletcher
CC: City Council 73969 Olive Court
Palm Desert, Ca., 92260
(760) 776-191
Nina and Rodney McDonald
73975 Olive Court
Palm Desert M�CA., 92260
M rg and George Ezmerli
73965 Olive Court
P lm Desert, CA., 92260,
Cecile and Art
Felix
73977 Olive Court
Palm Desert, CA., 9U60
Page 2
Doug and Anne Walker
74-539 Monte Verde Way
Palm Desert, CA 92260
September 6, 2005
Re: Zoning Amendments in La Palma Village
From C-OP back to R-I
To: Planning Commission Members, City of Palm Desert
RECEIVED
SE? 0 6 2005
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
Because we own a home at 44-326 San Jose Avenue that our daughter and son-in-law
occupy, we received a legal notice from the City of Palm Desert that indicates you plan to
consider an amendment to the City's General Plan removing Office Professional (C-OP)
designations from fourteen lots along Portola Avenue on the east side of the La Palma
Village area We assume this is a technical follow-up to the City Council's previous
directives and the specified lots will be changed back to their original R-1 designations.
The proposed amendment appears to be a follow-up to previous City Council meetings
where, after hearing from a number of local residents, the Council Members denied two
C-OP projects and indicated their willingness to return the La Palma Village area to R-1
zoning. If the current proposed amendment is doing just that, we thank you Please
know Your follow through is much aDDreciated by us and others living in the
neighborhood. It is important for members of any community to know they can trust
their elected representatives to do what they say they are going to do. We commend you
for doing what the City Council told the local residents the City would do and we will be
in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting to provide support for this issue.
Hopefully, you will cast a unanimous vote supporting the wishes of most people in this
long established, residential neighborhood by removing the few C-OP designations and
returning them to R-1.
Sin ly and appreciatively,
Doug a Walker
Mr. & Mrs. Gustavo Diaz
73-978 Catalina Way
Palm Desert, California 92260
PA0*0dFFM I
oft IaY
�-
September 5, 2005 AMC ��
City of Palm Desert
Planning Commission
73 -5 10 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Re: Case No GPA 05-01
Dear Planning Commission Members:
Please be advised that we are owners of the three parcels of land, listed below, in the
effected area of Portola Avenue from Fred Waring Drive to De Anza Way and were NOT
notified of your meeting on September 6, 2005.
Parcel 1 73-978 Catalina Way
Parcel 2 73-968 Catalina Way
Parcel 3 44-277 Portola Avenue
We are absolutely opposed to any change of zoning from R-1 to Office Professional
and/or R-2. We also favor single story development in the area from Fred Waring Drive
to De Anza Way.
Respectfully submitted:
Mrs. Gustavo (Marie) Diaz
cc: Palm Desert City Council
WIN
09/06/Qb 15:04 FAX 714 800 3406 FRIST AMERICAN ADMIN. 10002
The I.Iret.Amercaa CarporQtio�a
i D.P. KENNEDY
• CMA IRMAN CMCR17Y3
September 6, 2005
I.
. i
Palm Desert Planning Commission ,..0 .
City of Palm Desert
! 73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260-2578
Sens via facsimile (760) 341-7096
j My name is Donald P. Kennedy and I am the owner of the lot on the S.W.
comer of Catalina and San Jose. My wife and I have occupied the residence
on that location for over 50 years.
Our property is directly affected by your proposed action. I attended a
meeting of the Council when this same proposal was considered and rejected.
It continues to seem unreasonable that this strip of land be designated as other
than residential and that develo i~rs continue to pursue a plan after rejection.
In the absence of some compelling mason to change, I urge the Commission
to adhere to thc, wishes of iha owners and the council.
.P.�K=medy
DPK:sre
1 FiraAmeRrAn Way, 5arita Ana, CA 92707
Tet 714.g0Q,3404r1 FAx 714.600.3406
diCRtlnYd�r'6bR1.COR1 •� ww+.f(�ttam.COm � NYSf: 4AC
Received Sep-06-2005 13:59 From-714 800 3406 To -PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Pave 002
'-'E- 'V E D
CiT 'L;Ri'S OFFICE
b C N D E S E R :. C A Paul & Barbara W. Bowie
���� NOV _4 AM!0� ' O 71 774 Chuckawalla Way
Palm Desert, CA 92260
November 7, 2005
Members Of The City Council
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Dear Honorable Mayor Crites and Council Members:
The record of oral testimony and written documents in Case No. GPA 05-01 speaks
clearly to the entire issue which states plainly and emphatically that Office Professional
Zoning/Land Use has no basis for implementation or continued pursuit.
It is asked that the Council take action to amend the General Plan and to
unequivocally remove Office Professional as a Zoning designation in this Case.
The undersigned are opposed to the taking of land or of street curb set -back from the
present point on Portola Avenue as relates to their owned property at 44 401 Portola
Avenue.
Should future measures be initiated to take land by Imminent Domain proceedings or
through Zoning /Land Use modifications such action will be resisted.
Respectfully submitted,
file
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL November 10, 2005
73510 Fred Waring Drive Case Nos. GPA 05/01
Palm Desert, California 92260-2578 SUPPORT
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
As concerned property owners we are in full SUPPORT of the City Council's
removal of the OP overlay on the City's General Plan Land Use Element on
Portola Avenue.
Our heart -felt "thanks" to you, our elected representatives for listening
and finding our opposition to the OP overlay relevant and in the best
interest of Palm Desert and the residents it has affected.
For years the residents have been threatened with a zone change from
residential to office/professional in this well established neighborhood.
We have written letters, attended meetings and presented testimony to the
Architectural Committee, Planning Commission, General Plan hearings and to
you...repeatedly. Some of these meetings, not necessarily all, are as
follows:
* On October 10, 1999 the City Council found in favor of the residents
appeal and directed that the zone was to remain R-1;
* February 8, 2001 (GPA 99-2) zone change to OP was denied;
* In 2002 many General Plan hearings were attended by various property
owners and testimony concerning this issue was provided;
* September 2, 2004 (C/Z 04-02 & PP 04-20) Planning Commission denied
change of zone to OP.
* January 11, 2005 Appeal hearing C/Z 04-05 & PP 04-20 City Council
denied the zone change to OP and DIRECTED staff to "remove" OP use
on Portola between Fred Waring and De Anza.
* September 6, 2005 (GPA 05/01) an obvious sham -hearing by Planning
Commission.
As you know, we have been "tested" and "tested". As owners and residents,
we have proven..over and over again..the right to be left as zoned...R-1.
We have consistently opposed staff's recommendations to change Portola
into another Fred Waring; however, we do agree with their statement of
September 6, 2005..."We don't want to repeat the experience associated
with the widening of Fred Waring Drive, which was delayed for 10 years
with significant hardships for property owners and increased City exp."
To leave this area residential until plans are completed for the widening
of Portola will be wiser, probably less expensive and much less disruptive
for all concerned.
The last decade of zone change upheaval and harassment has been quite an
upsetting experience for many of the home owners. Hopefully for the last
time, we once again ask for your help...PLEASE REMOVE THIS OP OVERLAY FROM
THE PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN...by your SUPPORT of GPA 05-01!
R ,IV\ . r��
1-a-973 OL V Ci
OIL. E 5 6 rQ f CA- 9r2,7-1.0o
7 Lb --t`? a — GL V-1 %
Sincerely,
Ramona and Gary Fletcher
73969 Olive Court
Palm Desert, Ca., 92260
(760) 776-1915
JEAN H. MARTIN
44-276 San Jose Avenue
Palm Desert, CA 92260
760/346-1519 - 760/346-8530
November 3, 2005
Palm Desert City Council
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Re: Case No. GPA 05-01
Dear Council Members:
On November 10, 2005 you will AGAIN address the above case.
I am sure that you have heard everything there is to hear from our
group of citizens in favor of removing the office professional land
use on Portola Avenue between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza
Way.
You have listened, with open mind, to our pleads since 1999 and
we feel that this should be put to rest forever.
You have agreed with us and on February 10, 2005 directed staff,
by a 4 to 1 vote, to initiate a General Plan Amendment to that
effect.
PLEASE let this be our last meeting with regard to this matter and
approve a General Plan Amendment.
si cerely,
JEAN H. MARTIN