Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 05-104, 05-105 and Ord 1103 GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 and TT 33837 Emerald Desert RV Park 11-10-2005CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Approval of a general plan amendment, change of zone, precise plan of design, including a height exception for the apartment portion of the project, parcel map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for an 758-unit residential project (608 condominium units and 150 apartment units) on 79.6 acres at the northeast corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive, 76-000 Frank Sinatra Drive (the existing Emerald Desert RV Park property). SUBMITTED BY: APPLICANT: CASE NOS: DATE: CONTENTS: Steve Smith, Planning Manager Taylor Woodrow, Inc. 15 Cushing Irvine, CA 92618 Emerald Brooks LLC 1100 Quail, #102 Newport Beach, CA 92660 GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 and TT 33837 November 10, 2005 Recommendation Executive Summary Discussion Draft Resolutions and Ordinance Planning Commission Resolution No. 2361 Planning Commission Minutes Planning Commission Staff Report of October 18, 2005 ARC Minutes Related Exhibits Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 05-104 approving GPA 05-02. That the City Council pass Ordinance No. 1103 to second reading relating to Case No. C/Z 05-02. Staff Report Case Nos. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 and TT 33837 Page 2 November 10, 2005 That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 05-105approving PP 05-12 and TT 33837, including a height exception for the apartment project, subject to conditions. Executive Summary: Project Description The applicant proposes amendment to the general plan and zoning to facilitate approval of an 758-unit residential project (608 condominium/single family units on 71.55 acres and 150 apartment units on 8.05 acres). The applicant's original intent had been 100% single family ownership condominium units at 9.22 units per acre. The apartment units were specifically added to the project at the request of Cal State and UCR to provide for future student, staff and faculty housing units within walking distance to the campuses. The general plan amendment will change the land use designation from C- R/H (Resort/Hotel Commercial) to R-M/R-HO (Medium Density/High Density Overlay) 4-22 upa. The change of zone will be handled in two steps. The condominium/single family unit area (71.55 acres) will be rezoned from R1 M to PR-9 (Planned Residential, nine units per acre) and the apartment portion of the site (8.05 acres) will be rezoned from R1 M to PR-19. The site plan places the condominium/single family units on the north side of Frank Sinatra Drive, east of Gerald Ford Drive. The apartments will be at the west end of the site on the east side of Gerald Ford Drive, 1,200 +/- feet north of Frank Sinatra Drive. The project also includes a 24-lot tentative tract map (12 lots in Phase 1 and 12 lots in Phase 2) on the condo area of the site and two lots in the apartment area. Planning Commission Hearing Planning Commission considered this matter at hearings on September 6, 2005 and October 18, 2005. At the September 6, 2005 hearing three people Staff Report Case Nos. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 and TT 33837 Page 3 November 10, 2005 spoke generally asking questions about the project. Staff met with the residents following the September 6 Planning Commission meeting as did the developer's representative. October 18, 2005 one person, Betty Schaffer, spoke generally asking questions about the signalization requirements in the area. Ultimately, the Planning Commission recommended approval on a 4-0 vote (Commissioner Finerty absent). Condition 9 of the Planning Commission Resolution requires that the apartment project remain rental housing in perpetuity. The applicant requests that he be allowed to seek amendment to the condition if housing needs in the city change in the future. Staff has no objection to this modification and amended Condition 9 of the draft Council resolution accordingly. Discussion: Background Emerald Desert RV Park was originally approved in 1986 for 241 mobile home spaces, 201 RV spaces, a 9-hole golf course, two tennis courts, a clubhouse, pro shop and convenience market. This part of the project was completed in October of 1990. As of June 1991 the developer was unable to attract any manufactured housing units so an amendment was approved to convert 232 vacant mobile home spaces to 695 RV spaces. Emerald Desert RV Park has operated since then with 893 RV spaces, nine mobile home lots and a 9-hole golf course. Site Description The property comprises 79.6 acres at the northeast corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive and slopes down gently from northwest to southeast approximately ten feet. Staff Report Case Nos. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 and TT 33837 Page 4 November 10, 2005 Adjacent Zoning and Land Use North: Southern Pacific Railroad and Interstate 10 South: PR-3 / Avondale and Palm Valley Country Clubs East: PR / Palm Valley Storage and Maintenance area West: PR-5 / Vacant part of Cal State Campus Site General Plan and Zoning University Park Area 1. General Plan The site is currently designated C-R/H (Resort/Hotel Commercial). The applicant proposes to amend the land use to R-M/R-HO (medium density/ high density residential overlay). The general plan land use element, as approved March 15, 2004, for the University Park area identified 618 acres for residential use (313 acres low and 305 acres medium/high) with a unit count that ranged from 3,392 units to 5,993 units. In the period since March 15, 2004, four residential projects have been approved. Low density projects like Ponderosa with 237 units on 80 acres and Marix with 270 units on 68 acres (at 3.0 and 3.9 upa respectively) were toward the high end of the "low" (0-4 dwelling units per acre) category. The Dolce project with 159 units on 37 acres (4.3 upa) barely made it into the medium category (4-10 upa). The Sares Regis project with 320 units on 26 acres (12.3 upa) barely made it into the "high" category (10-22 upa). These projects, coupled with other anticipated developments in the University Park area will, at build out, leave this area at the low end of the total projected unit range. The current application for the El Dorado R.V. Park site would add 80 acres with approximately 758 total units. We also expect a future application for 55 acres on the north side of Dinah Shore west of Miriam Way (west of Costco) l� Staff Report Case Nos. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 and TT 33837 Page 5 November 10, 2005 with a total of 715 units. Adding this land (135 acres) would increase the total "medium/high" designated land in the University Park area from 305 acres to 440 acres. If we leave the total expected unit count prescribed in the general plan (3,392 units to 5,993 units) unchanged, we will be effectively lowering the expected density from a range of (11.9 upa - 19.7 upa) to a range of (7.7 upa - 13.6 upa). The question then becomes can we add the expected units and still remain within the total unit count prescribed in the general plan. The "low" density projects came in with densities toward the high end of the "low" category. As a result, we anticipate a total of 1,073 "low" density units versus the 938 units delineated in the general plan. The reverse is true with the "medium/high" density projects. The two "medium/high" density projects which have been processed (Dolce/Sares Regis) provide a total of 479 units (159 + 320 = 479) on 63 acres (37 + 26 = 63 acres) for an average density of 7.6 upa, well below the expected range of 11.9 - 19.7 upa. Extrapolated over the total 305 acres, this would result in a total of 2,318 "medium/high" density units plus the 1,073 "low" density units for a total of 3,391 units. Adding the two new sites with 1,473 units (758 + 715 = 1,473) would bring the total to 4,873 units, well within the 3,392 - 5,993 general plan range. Even if all the remaining vacant 242 acres of "medium/high" designated land came in at 12 units per acre (4.4 upa above the current average), we would still be below the 5,993 unit maximum (4,873 units + 242 x 4.4 (1,065 units) = 5,938 units. 2. Zoning: The property is currently zoned R1 M (single family/mobile home residential district). The applicant seeks approval of PR-9 zoning for the condo site and PR-19 for the apartment site. Site Plan, Access, Circulation, and Parks for Single Family Condo Units This portion of the project contains 608 units within a gated community in five (5) distinct neighborhoods: compact lots, auto courts, cluster, town homes, and flats. 5 Staff Report Case Nos. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 and TT 33837 Page 6 November 10, 2005 1. Parks and Open Space The project contains 7.45 acres of park/open space (10.4%) of the site plus a bike route corridor along the north edge of the property. Within the project is a centrally located 2.85-acre neighborhood park and clubhouse facility. Dispersed around the various neighborhoods are four (4) "pocket parks" with sizes of 1.68 acres, 1.6 acres, 1.1 acres and .22 acres. 2. Access/Circulation The condominium/single family lot project takes its main access from Frank Sinatra Drive in the same location as the existing RV park access at the Eldorado Drive intersection (to be signalized). The main driveway circulates north then turns west to where it intersects with Gerald Ford Drive. This intersection will not be signalized, but will provide right in, right out and left turn in movements. No left turn exiting the project will be permitted here. A signalized intersection at the northwest edge of the project will align with a Cal State entrance and will provide joint access for the apartments and a future industrial project to the west. Onsite circulation is via a series of loop and dead-end "local" streets which provide adequate circulation. Street widths in the project include a 62-foot median divided street at the entries, and 32-foot to 28-foot to 24-foot wide streets all measured curb to curb. Some of the longer street segments were designed with slight curves to break up long uninteresting straight views. In order to better control traffic flow, streets in certain areas (i.e., compact lots and auto courts) of the project do not connect. Neighborhoods 1. Town Homes (Attached) This area of the project will be located at the east end of the project north of Frank Sinatra and east of the main access road. There will be 103 one and two-story (1 and 2 bedroom) attached single family residences which range in size from 915 to 1,833 square feet. A single motorcourt serves eight units and removes garages from the street scene. M. Staff Report Case Nos. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 and TT 33837 Page 7 November 10, 2005 2. Auto Courts (Detached) This area of the project is located west of the main access from Frank Sinatra and extends north of the main access road after it turns west. There will be 111 two-story (3 and 4 bedroom) single family residences ranging in size from 2,000 to 2,450 square feet. The units are arranged in a cluster configuration with garages removed from the street scene. 3. Compact Lots (Detached) This area of the project is located to the center of the site and south of the main access road. There will be 87 two-story (2 and 3 bedroom) single family residences ranging in size from 1,650 to 2,011 square feet. This neighborhood has garage access from a rear alley thereby removing vehicles from the street scene. 4. Cluster Homes (Detached) These units will be located at the west end of the project adjacent to Gerald Ford and Frank Sinatra. There will be 151 two-story (2 and 3 bedroom) single family units ranging in size from 1,357 to 1,475 square feet. The units are in an eight-plex cluster configuration with garage access from a rear alley thereby removing garages from the street scene. 5. Flats (Attached) These units will be located on the north side of the site between the neighborhood park and the railroad. There will be 156 two-story (2 and 3 bedroom) single family residences ranging in size from 1,176 to 1,320 square feet. A single motorcourt serves six (6) units with rear loaded garages. Parking The parking requirements for residential condominiums vary with the number of bedrooms. Studio and one bedroom units are required to have at least one covered space and one open space. Two bedrooms and larger are required to have two covered spaces plus one half open space per unit. Staff Report Case Nos. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 and TT 33837 Page 8 November 10, 2005 Based on 25 one bedroom units and 583 two bedrooms or greater, the required parking is 1,191 covered spaces plus 319 open spaces for a total of 1,510 spaces. The project provides 1,191 covered spaces and 484 open spaces for a total of 1,675 spaces. Staff has two areas of concern with parking: 1. In the "Flats", 52 of the 156 units have two covered tandem parking spaces 12 feet wide by 36 feet deep. 2. In the "cluster" units, 32 of the 151 units have one (1) garage parking space which has a difficult four point turning movement to exit the garage space. These issues will be discussed further in the analysis section of the report. Architecture and Building Height The one and two-story buildings have been attractively articulated in Spanish architecture. The structures feature pitched roofs with barrel tile. Walls will be finished in stucco accented with steel balcony railings. The applicant has provided quality architecture on all sides of the building. The units have been designed to comply with the 24-foot maximum height limit prescribed in the PR zone. The architecture has been given preliminary approval by ARC. PROJECT DATA CODE PROVIDED Building Setbacks: West (Gerald Ford) 32 feet 34 feet South (Frank Sinatra) 32 feet 34 feet East 20 feet 52 feet North As approved 52-70 feet Coverage 50% maximum 36% Parking: Covered 1,191 1,191 Open 319 484 Total 1,510 1,675 Height 24 feet 24 feet F Staff Report Case Nos. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 and TT 33837 Page 9 November 10, 2005 Apartments At the west end of the property an 8.05-acre area has been set aside for 150 apartments which were requested by representatives of Cal State and UCR. 1. Location The apartment project will be located on the east side of Gerald Ford Drive, 1200 feet north of Frank Sinatra Drive. 2. Access The project has one access point from Gerald Ford Drive which will be signalized and which will align with a future driveway on the Cal State campus on the west side of Gerald Ford Drive. The site plan also provides a driveway connection with the business/industrial zoned site to the west. This will allow for that traffic to egress to the east. The project access driveway will provide dual lanes for both ingress and egress. Adequate stacking is provided. 3. Circulation A central driveway 31 feet in width runs the full length of the project with smaller loop and dead end driveways 31 feet in width providing direct access to the units. The circulation is adequate. 4. Site Plan and Parking The project is a series of 14 two (2) story buildings with a total of 150 units. The units are generally organized around a central clubhouse/ recreation area which contains a pool, spa, tennis courts and barbeque area. The units adjacent to Gerald Ford Drive are oriented with the garage doors facing inward to provide a more acceptable exterior architectural appearance. All units have one garage parking space and one open parking space. IJ Staff Report Case Nos. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 and TT 33837 Page 10 November 10, 2005 5. Unit Layout The project includes five unit types as follows: 2 Bedroom 2 Bath 1,096 square feet 2 Bedroom 2 Bath 1,035 square feet 1 Bedroom 1 Bath 754 square feet 3 Bedroom 3 Bath 1,360 square feet 3 Bedroom 2 Bath 1,333 square feet On the first floor (ground level) there are ten garage parking spaces with four units located beyond the parking area. Two common stairways provide access to six second floor units. 6. Architecture The buildings provide a Mediterranean theme with "S" concrete the roofs, wrought iron balcony enclosures and extensive use of decorative louvered shutters on the units. The plan packet includes two design concepts for the clubhouse. As of the writing of this report, we are unaware as to which is preferred, however, both are acceptable. The two-story units will be a maximum of 26 feet in height. The Planned Residential District allows two-story development with a maximum height of 24 feet. The applicant will require an exception to the height requirement as provided in the PR zone. In the past, the Planning Commission and City Council have granted exceptions to the height limit in instances where there is no impact to adjacent properties and if the design of the buildings is enhanced with the additional height. This property is bounded on the north by the railway. To the west is a business/industrial site which, pursuant to the Wonder Palms Master Plan, could be as high as 35 feet. To the east is the proposed 24-foot high condo project by Taylor Woodrow. Across Gerald Ford Drive is the Cal State campus. I c� Staff Report Case Nos. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 and TT 33837 Page 11 November 10, 2005 There will be no impact to adjacent properties if this height exception were approved. The architecture is attractive and will be compatible with the Taylor Woodrow condo project to the east. October 11, 2005 ARC granted preliminary approval of project architecture. Tract Map The proposed tract map divides the 71.5-acre site into two basic areas: Phase 1 and Phase 2. The map then divides each of the phasing areas into 12 lots which correspond with the units contained in the precise plan. The map also divides the apartment site into two "lettered lots." Once the precise plan, general plan amendment and zoning are approved, then the findings for the map approval can be met. Conditions will be imposed on the map to tie the recording of the map to the issuance of grading permits within each phase. Analysis The projects are attractively designed medium density (8.49 upa and high density 18.6 upa) residential projects which are ideally located across the street from the Cal State and UCR campuses. The projects will provide very attractive housing for future students, faculty and administration. 1. Noise and Vibration The projects are located adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad and the Interstate 10 Freeway. These facilities cause noise and vibration. An acoustical and ground vibration site assessment dated July 21, 2005 prepared by Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc. (copy attached hereto by reference) concluded that in the worst case noise to the site is at 64 dba with typical background levels averaging 62 dba with the freeway traffic identified as the dominant source. These levels were obtained with the existing eight -foot wall along the north edge of the property in place. Staff Report Case Nos. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 and TT 33837 Page 12 November 10, 2005 The vibration study concluded that vibration associated with rail activity would be "slightly noticeable to humans during nighttime hours. No impacts to structures would be indicated." The acoustical study notes that Union Pacific Railway currently produces approximately one freight train passerby every hour and this is expected to change to at most two trains per hour in the future. Equating these train events to an hourly noise level produces a current level of 55.5 dBa Leq-h. With the future two trains per hour, this would increase to 58.5 dBa Leq-h. Even with these levels below the 60 dba threshold, the study notes that the site could experience "instaneous peaks above 90 dBa due to signaling and warning devices." The study concludes that these events "could result in nuisance impacts to sensitive receptors within the development." The study recommends that interior noise reduction methods be "examined." A second study "Structural Acoustical Analysis/CCR Title 24 Survey" dated July 28, 2005 details the actual mitigation proposed in the construction of the housing units on this property. These construction mitigation measures will be conditioned on the projects. Pursuant to noise concerns expressed from Palm Valley Country Club residents to the east, the City is pursuing the establishment of a "quiet zone" where train horns "would not be routinely sounded." 2. Traffic Issues The project if approved will change the land use from an RV park to an 758- unit residential community. The applicant has had a traffic impact analysis prepared by LOS Engineer, Inc. (a copy of which is attached by reference). The traffic impact analysis was prepared on the original 810-unit project. The report concludes that an 810-unit project will create 5,205 trips per day which is an increase of 3,078 above that created by the present RV park. The impacts identified will be less for the modified 758 unit project. The analysis outlines a series of mitigation measures which will reduce the traffic impacts to "less than significant." The mitigation measures will be a condition of project approval. Staff Report Case Nos. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 and TT 33837 Page 13 November 10, 2005 3. Parking (Condos) The plan in the "Flats" neighborhood provides 52 of the 156 units with two tandem garage parking spaces 12 feet wide by 36 feet deep. Municipal Code Section 25.58.220 requires that units provide two parking spaces and that "each space shall contain ten feet by 20 feet of unobstructed area." Typically, these spaces are side by side for an area 20 feet by 20 feet. Tandem spaces 10 feet by 40 feet would also meet code. Staff recommends that the tandem spaces be approved with minimum dimension of ten feet by 37 feet. The three-foot reduction in length is based on cars being generally shorter than when the code was written. This is also consistent with reduced stall length which was approved for commercial parking lots in 2001 when required lengths were reduced by 1.5 feet from 18 feet to 16.5 feet, plus two feet of overhang. This will be conditioned. In the "Cluster" units, 32 of the 151 units have two garage parking spaces at the end of a 150-foot long 24-foot wide driveway. The only turn -around is provided at the next unit where the garage doors are inset three feet providing 30 feet between doors. This space allows for a four -point turn around for medium and small vehicles. SUV's would need to back into/or out of these spaces the full length of the driveway. From a staff perspective, these are legal, usable spaces with restricted ingress or egress. The market will price these units accordingly. 4. Bicycle Route Between the railroad and the north boundary of the projects is an area set aside for a future bike route which is being built in sections. A condition of approval requires that each project construct its segment of the bike route. 5. Fiscal Impact The general fiscal analysis prepared for the University Park area showed considerable positive fiscal results due to the dominance of revenue producing commercial uses in the vicinity. Generally we know that the project's value will be set when individual units are sold. In each instance tax increment should be increased above the base rate. (3 Staff Report Case Nos. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 and TT 33837 Page 14 November 10, 2005 6. On -site Service Worker Parking The plan presently does not provide an on -site service worker parking area. Such an area should be provided so that these workers are not relegated to arterial streets or nearby commercial centers. Staff has provided a condition in the draft resolution requiring that a minimum of 20 on -site service worker parking spaces be provided for the Taylor Woodrow project. Conclusion Locating residential units on this property will provide necessary residential units within walking distance of the Cal State and UCR campuses for students, faculty and staff. The general plan amendment to "medium/high" residential and zone changes to PR- 9 and PR-19 to permit 758 units can be effected without revising the maximum number of residential units prescribed for the University Park area. The projects as conditioned on approval will mitigate identified potential impacts including noise, vibration and traffic. The projects as designed will result in architecturally attractive residential complexes with a townhouse feel. Quality touches added to the projects include direct garage access for all the units, balconies and enhanced paving in the auto courts of the condo units. The projects as designed and conditioned will comply with all requirements of the PR zone district, except for the height exception which is necessary for the apartments. Architecture for both projects have been given preliminary approval by the Architectural Review Commission. CEQA Review The project was reviewed for compliance with CEQA. The applicant prepared site specific traffic impact analysis and noise and vibration studies. These reports identify potential environmental impacts and recommend mitigation measures. The \4 Staff Report Case Nos. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 and TT 33837 Page 15 November 10, 2005 mitigation measures will be made conditions of approval of the projects. With these mitigation measures in place the project as designed will not have an adverse impact on the environment. Submitted by: Steve Smith Planning Manager (ices (Wpdocsvm\snPpO5-12 cc2) Department Head: 1117-, �-', -4�� Phil Drell Director of Community Development Approval: -�,-Carlos L. Orte a� City Manage Is RESOLUTION NO.05-104 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM C-R/H (RESORT/HOTEL COMMERCIAL) TO R-M/R-HO (MEDIUM DENSITY/HIGH DENSITY OVERLAY) FOR A 758-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (608 CONDOMINIUM/ SINGLE FAMILY UNITS AND 150 APARTMENT UNITS) ON 79.6 ACRES AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FRANK SINATRA DRIVE AND GERALD FORD DRIVE, 76-000 FRANK SINATRA DRIVE. CASE NO. GPA 05-02 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 10th day of November, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of TAYLOR WOODROW, INC. and EMERALD BROOKS LLC, for approval of the above described project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2361 has recommended approval of the requested general plan 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. 05-52," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of the general plan amendment as described below: General Plan Amendment The proposed residential project will provide much needed housing units within close proximity to the California State University and University of California on the west side of Gerald Ford Drive. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. E RESOLUTION NO. o5-i n4 2. That the City Council does hereby approve Case No. GPA 05-02 as shown on Exhibit A attached. 3. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as shown on Exhibit B attached is hereby certified. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 BUFORD A. CRITES, Mayor I/ ?INE OR b r T 1 V �I "tWOME OR City of Palm Desert ,fQe." Case No. GPA 05-02 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT EXHIBIT A 1 i C /� "'o\\ N, Proposed \ GPA\� R P a COMMERCIAL, RESORT To RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY/ HIGH DENSITY OVERLAY rn CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 05-104 Date: RESOLUTION NO. 05-104 EXHIBIT B Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: GPA 05-02 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Taylor Woodrow, Inc. 15 Cushing Irvine, CA 92618 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Emerald Brooks LLC 1 100 Quail, #102 Newport Beach, CA 92660 A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a General Plan Amendment from C- R/H (Resort/hotel Commercial) to R-M/R-HO (Medium Density/high Density Overlay) for a 758-unit residential project (608 condominium/ single family units and 150 apartment units) on 79.6 acres at the northeast corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive, 76-000 Frank Sinatra Drive. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 0 M RESOLUTION NO.05-105 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN, INCLUDING A HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR THE APARTMENT PROJECT, AND A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR A 758-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (608 CONDOMINIUM/ SINGLE FAMILY UNITS AND 150 APARTMENT UNITS) ON 79.6 ACRES AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FRANK SINATRA DRIVE AND GERALD FORD DRIVE, 76-000 FRANK SINATRA DRIVE. CASE NOS. PP 05-12 AND TT 33837 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 10th day of November, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of TAYLOR WOODROW, INC. and EMERALD BROOKS LLC, for approval of the above described project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2361 has recommended approval of the requested precise plan and tentative tract map; 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 an adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of the precise plan, including a height exception, and tentative tract map as described below: Precise Plan of Design: 1. The design of the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Planned Residential zone, except for the height of the apartment project for which a height exception is requested, and the Palm Desert General Plan. 2. As conditioned, the project will be compatible with adjacent uses and will not depreciate property values in the vicinity. 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. 'D-3 RESOLUTION NO. 05-105 Tentative Tract Map 33837: The plan as designed complies with the municipal code requirements for residential condominium/single family projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That a height exception allowing for a maximum building height of 26 feet on the apartment project is hereby approved. 3. That Case Nos. PP 05-12 and TT 33837 are hereby approved, subject to conditions. 4. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as shown on Exhibit A attached is hereby certified. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 BUFORD A. CRITES, Mayor a-`f RESOLUTION NO. 05-105 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. PP 05-12 AND TT 33837 Department of Communitv Development: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Applicant shall participate in a commercial recycling program as determined by the City Environmental and Conservation Manager and applicable Waste Disposal Company. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of Community Development. 6. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public works prior to architectural review commission submittal. CK I RESOLUTION NO. 05-105 7. Final landscape plans shall comply with the parking lot tree planting master plan and shall be approved by the Architecture Review Commission. 8. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan. 9. That the apartment project shall remain as an apartment project in perpetuity. Applicant may request amendment to this condition if rental needs in the city change. 10. That the construction of the units in both projects shall comply with the mitigation measures identified in the Structural Acoustical Analysis prepared July 28, 2005 by Investigative Science and Engineering. 11. That the applicant shall construct a bike path to City specifications in between the railroad and the north limit of the project. 12. That the tandem parking spaces shall have a minimum dimension of 10 feet by 37 feet. 13. That no part of Tentative Tract Map 33837 shall record prior to issuance of grading permits for units in that particular phase. Riverside Countv Fire Department: 1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, appropriate NFPA Standards, CFC, and CBC and/or recognized fire protection standards. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per UFC article 87. 0 RESOLUTION NO. 05-105 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of 1,500 gpm for single family dwellings and 2,500 gpm for multifamily dwellings. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) W'x2-1 /2"x2-1 /2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 200' from any portion of a single family dwelling measured via vehicular travelway and 165' from any portion of a multifamily dwelling measured via vehicular travelway. 5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. 6. Please be advised the proposed project may not be feasible since the existing water mains will not meet the required fire flow. 7. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The fire Marshal shall approve the locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All valves and connections shall not be less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. 8. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and Water - flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per CBC Chapter 9. 9. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3. 10. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A10BC extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 11. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system per NFPA 96 in all public and private cooking operations except single-family residential usage. 12. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 1 50' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street, the roadway must 5 RESOLUTION NO.05-105 be 32' wide and 28' wide with parking on one side. Final roadway geometry shall be approved by Fire Marshal. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn -around, 55' in industrial developments. 13. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers or other means, provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key over -ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16" with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 14. A dead end single access over 500' will require a secondary access, sprinklers or other mitigative measures approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstance shall a dead end over 1,300' be accepted. 15. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or an emergency gate from an adjoining development. 16. This project may require licensing by a state or county agency. To facilitate plan review, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal a letter of intent detailing the proposed usage and occupancy type. 17. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the City. 18. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction. Department of Public Works: GENERAL 1 . Landscaping maintenance of any common areas and property frontages shall be provided by a homeowners association and or property owner, shall be water efficient in nature and in accordance with the City of Palm Desert landscape design standards. Applicant shall be responsible for executing a declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, which declaration shall be approved by the City of Palm Desert and recorded with the County Recorder. The declaration shall specify: (a) the applicant shall oversee the formation of a property owners association; (b) the property owners association shall be formed prior to the recordation of the property owners association. Landscaping plans shall be submitted for review simultaneously with grading plans. n �)- d RESOLUTION NO.05-i ng 2. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 3. The maintenance of the retention areas shall be by the homeowners association. BONDS AND FEES 4. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 5. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79- 17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 6. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 7. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. 8. Storm drain/retention area design and construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. Project is required to retain on -site the increase in flows for a 100 year storm. 9. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications on electronic files shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 10. Improvement plans for utility systems shall be approved by the respective provider or service districts with "as -built" plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to project final. Utility plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for improvements in the public right of way prior to issuance of any permits. 1 1 . Complete tract map shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. 12. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works. 7 I RESOLUTION NO. n5-in5 13. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 14. Any entry gates for the project shall be set back 100 feet from the curb -line of the adjacent street. 15. Waive of access to Frank Sinatra and Gerald Ford Drives, except at approved locations, shall be granted on the final map. REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION 16. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. • Maintain, replace and construct -where necessary, matching sidewalk on Frank Sinatra and Gerald Ford Drives. • Construct and instal a landscaped center median on Gerald Ford Drive where adjacent to project. • Construct 10-foot wide bike path along northern and eastern boundary to connect with Frank Sinatra Drive. • Project shall install appropriate storm drain facilities on Gerald Ford and Frank Sinatra Drives. • Project shall provide a signalized intersection at the project entry on Frank Sinatra Drive, pay for half of the signalized intersection at Frank Sinatra and Gerald Ford Drives, and bond for half of a future signal at the apartment entry on Gerald Ford Drive. Rights -of -way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements shall be dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 17. All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. No occupancy permit shall be granted until public improvements have been completed. 1:3 D RESOLUTION NO. 05-105 18. Traffic safety striping shall be installed to the specifications of the Director of Public Works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the placement of any pavement markings. 19. Full improvements of interior streets based on residential street standards in accordance with Section 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be provided. 20. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works. 21. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control, as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. 22. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit for storm water discharges associated with construction. Developer must contact Riverside County Flood Control District for informational materials. :, 3I RESOLUTION NO. o5-1o5 Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NOS: PP 05-12 AND TT 33837 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Taylor Woodrow, Inc. 15 Cushing Irvine, CA 92618 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Emerald Brooks LLC 1100 Quail, #102 Newport Beach, CA 92660 A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a precise plan of design and a tentative tract map for a 758-unit residential project (608 condominium/ single family units and 150 apartment units) on 79.6 acres at the northeast corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive, 76-000 Frank Sinatra Drive. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE NO. 1103 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 107, THE PALM DESERT ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R1M (SINGLE FAMILY/MOBILE HOME RESIDENTIAL) TO PR-9 AND PR-19 (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL NINE UNITS PER ACRE AND 19 UNITS PER ACRE) FOR A 758-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (608 CONDOMINIUM/ SINGLE FAMILY UNITS AND 150 APARTMENT UNITS) ON 79.6 ACRES AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FRANK SINATRA DRIVE AND GERALD FORD DRIVE, 76-000 FRANK SINATRA DRIVE. CASE NO. C/Z 05-02 The City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN, as follows: SECTION 1: That a portion of Ordinance No. 107 referencing Section 25.46.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Map (Chapter 35.46 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code) is hereby amended to read as shown on the attached Exhibit "A." SECTION 2: That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit "B" attached, is hereby certified. SECTION 3: The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Palm Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this day of , 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California BUFORD A. CRITES, Mayor Jl ALL6 P.C.D GF1/2. 4<O P.0 D P.R.-5 P R • 5 .FRANK SINA ,4FR Df Cg-V}t P.R.•3 s P.R.-3.5 "�:�PIEoJ r /P.R.•3.5 Vf IREaTOM`E DR, PR.-35 City of Palm Desert P.R.-3 0 0 0 Case No. C/Z 05-02 CHANGE OF ZONE EXHIBIT A 11 +4: Proposed Zoning Changes R-1-M R-1-M To To P.R.-9 P.R.-19 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. Date: 1103 4iy- ORDINANCE NO. 1103 EXHIBIT B Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 1 5070) of the California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: C/Z 05-02 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Taylor Woodrow, Inc. 15 Cushing Irvine, CA 92618 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Emerald Brooks LLC 1 100 Quail, #102 Newport Beach, CA 92660 A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a Change of Zone from R1 M (single family/mobile home residential) to PR-9 and PR-19 (Planned Residential nine units per acre and 19 units per acre) for a 758-unit residential project (608 condominium/ single family units and 150 apartment units) on 79.6 acres at the northeast corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive, 76-000 Frank Sinatra Drive. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2361 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM C-R/H (RESORT/HOTEL COMMERCIAL) TO R-M/R-HO (MEDIUM DENSITY/HIGH DENSITY OVERLAY), A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R1 M (SINGLE FAMILY/MOBILE HOME RESIDENTIAL) TO PR-9 AND PR-19 (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL NINE UNITS PER ACRE AND 19 UNITS PER ACRE), A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN AND A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR A 758-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (608 CONDOMINIUM/ SINGLE FAMILY UNITS AND 150 APARTMENT UNITS) ON 79.6 ACRES AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FRANK SINATRA DRIVE AND GERALD FORD DRIVE, 76-000 FRANK SINATRA DRIVE. CASE NOS, GPA 05-02. C/Z 05-02. PP 05-12 AND TT 33837 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 which was continued to October 18, 2005, to consider the request of TAYLOR WOODROW, INC. and EMERALD BROOK, for approval of the above described project; 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 an adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending to City Council approval of the general plan amendment, change of zone, precise plan, and tentative parcel map as described below: General Plan Amendment and Chanoe of Zone: The proposed residential project will provide much needed housing units within close proximity to the California State University and University of California on the west side of Gerald Ford Drive. Precise Plan of Desian: 1. The design of the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Planned Residential zone and the Palm Desert General Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2361 2. As conditioned, the project will be compatible with adjacent uses and will not depreciate property values in the vicinity. 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. Tentative Tract M n 3�: The plan as designed complies with the municipal code requirements for residential condominium/single family projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of GPA 05-02 as shown on Exhibit A attached, C/Z 05-02 as shown on Exhibit B attached, PP 05-12 including a height exception to 26 feet for the apartment portion of the project, and TPM 33837. 3. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as shown on Exhibit C attached is hereby recommended for certification. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 18th day of October, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, JONATHAN, LOPEZ, TSCHOPP NOES: NONE ABSENT: FINERTY ABSTAIN: NONE DAVID E. TSCHOPP, Chairpers n A-A-0 PHILIP DREL Secretary. Palm Desert P anning Commission 2 3� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2361 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. PP 05-12 AND TT 33837 Department of Communitv Development: The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Applicant shall participate in a commercial recycling program as determined by the City Environmental and Conservation Manager and applicable Waste Disposal Company. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of Community Development. 6. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public works prior to architectural review commission submittal. 7. Final landscape plans shall comply with the parking lot tree planting master plan and shall be approved by the Architecture Review Commission. 3 3 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2361 8. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan. 9. That the apartment project shall remain as an apartment project in perpetuity. 10. That the construction of the units in both projects shall comply with the mitigation measures identified in the Structural Acoustical Analysis prepared July 28, 2005 by Investigative Science and Engineering. 11. That the applicant shall construct a bike path to City specifications in between the railroad and the north limit of the project. 12. That the tandem parking spaces shall have a minimum dimension of 10 feet by 37 feet. 13. That no part of Tentative Tract Map 33837 shall record prior to issuance of grading permits for units in that particular phase. Riverside Countv Fire Deoartment: 1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, appropriate NFPA Standards, CFC, and CBC and/or recognized fire protection standards. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per UFC article 87. 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of 1,500 gpm for single family dwellings and 2,500 gpm for multifamily dwellings. 4 3 (� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2361 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) W'x2-1 /2"x2-1 /2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 200' from any portion of a single family dwelling measured via vehicular travelway and 165' from any portion of a multifamily dwelling measured via vehicular travelway. 5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. 6. Please be advised the proposed project may not be feasible since the existing water mains will not meet the required fire flow. 7. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The fire Marshal shall approve the locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All valves and connections shall not be less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. 8. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and Water - flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per CBC Chapter 9. 9. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3. 10. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A10BC extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 11. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system per NFPA 96 in all public and private cooking operations except single-family residential usage. 12. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street, the roadway must be 36' wide and 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn -around, 55' in industrial developments. 13. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers or other means, provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key over -ride system to allow for. emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16" with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2361 14. A dead end single access over 500' will require a secondary access, sprinklers or other mitigative measures approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstance shall a dead end over 1,300' be accepted. 15. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or an emergency gate from an adjoining development. 16. This project may require licensing by a state or county agency. To facilitate plan review, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal a letter of intent detailing the proposed usage and occupancy type. 17. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the City. 18. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction. Deoartment of Public Works: GENERAL 1 . Landscaping maintenance of any common areas and property frontages shall be provided by a homeowners association and or property owner, shall be water efficient in nature and in accordance with the City of Palm Desert landscape design standards. Applicant shall be responsible for executing a declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, which declaration shall be approved by the City of Palm Desert and recorded with the County Recorder. The declaration shall specify: (a) the applicant shall oversee the formation of a property owners association; (b) the property owners association shall be formed prior to the recordation of the property owners association. Landscaping plans shall be submitted for review simultaneously with grading plans. 2. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 3. The maintenance of the retention areas shall be by the homeowners association. BONDS AND FEES 4. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. A s-_�? PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2361 5. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79- 17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 6. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 7. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. 8. Storm drain/retention area design and construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. Project is required to retain on -site the increase in flows for a 100 year storm. 9. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications on electronic files shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 10. Improvement plans for utility systems shall be approved by the respective provider or service districts with "as -built" plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to project final. Utility plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for improvements in the public right of way prior to issuance of any permits. 1 1 . Complete tract map shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. 12. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works. 13. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 14. Any entry gates for the project shall be set back 100 feet from the curb -line of the adjacent street. 15. Waive of access to Frank Sinatra and Gerald Ford Drives, except at approved locations, shall be granted on the final map. REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION 16. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. 7 3� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2361 • Maintain, replace and construct -where necessary, matching sidewalk on Frank Sinatra and Gerald Ford Drives. • Construct and instal a landscaped center median on Gerald Ford Drive where adjacent to project. • Construct 10-foot wide bike path along northern and eastern boundary to connect with Frank Sinatra Drive. • Project shall install appropriate storm drain facilities on Gerald Ford and Frank Sinatra Drives. • Project shall provide a signalized intersection at the project entry on Frank Sinatra Drive, pay for half of the signalized intersection at Frank Sinatra and Gerald Ford Drives, and bond for half of a future signal at the apartment entry on Gerald Ford Drive. Rights -of -way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements shall be dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 17. All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. No occupancy permit shall be granted until public improvements have been completed. 18. Traffic safety striping shall be installed to the specifications of the Director of Public Works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the placement of any pavement markings. 19. Full improvements of interior streets based on residential street standards in accordance with Section 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be provided. 20. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works. 21. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control, as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. 22. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the : �C) PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2361 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit for storm water discharges associated with construction. Developer must contact Riverside County Flood Control District for informational materials. City of Palm Desert Case No. GPA 05-02 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT EXHIBIT A Proposed GPA 4 COMMERCIAL, RESORT To RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY/ HIGH DENSITY OVERLAY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1 2 3 61 Date: 10-18-05 - ;--" REVISION �.�' i r PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18. 2005 No. PP 05-21, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-0-1-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained, Commissioner Finerty absent). COMMISSIONER JONATHAN REJOINED THE MEETING. D. Case Nos. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 and PM 33837 - TAYLOR WOODROW, INC., Applicant (Continued from September 6, 2005) Request for recommendation to the City Council to approve a general plan amendment, change of zone, precise plan of design, parcel map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for a 758-unit residential project (608 condominium units and 150 apartment units) on 79.6 acres at the northeast corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive, 76-000 Frank Sinatra Drive (the existing Emerald Desert RV Park property). Mr. Drell noted that Commission had the staff report that described the project and said the developer would be giving a rather lengthy presentation, so he would direct his comments to the general plan amendment and change of zone. He noted a map exhibit was passed out that showed the University Park area and brought them up to date on how the overall implementation of the general plan in that area is panning out in terms of both projects that have been approved and those in the application process. They could see every single residentially zoned property and every single one of them were in fairly advanced stages of design or application for approval. The sites in the general plan not currently designated residential included the project before them, and then the project on the far western edge near the freeway. The site before them was currently designated for Resort Commercial and the one on the far west side was designated for Planned Commercial. Referring to the table on the map, the general plan goal in this area was to develop between 4,000-6,000 dwelling units. The presumption had been that a fair number of them would be in the high density range. What is happening is they are coming in in either the medium density range averaging between 5-10 units per acre, or the lower part of the high range of 10-22 and coming in with something less than 15. The result is, in order to meet that goal of 7 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJEO 1E11S10N y OCTOBER 18. 2005 between 4,000-6,000 units, it was appropriate to expand residential designations. The second goal of the general plan was to put appropriate housing adjacent to major destinations. The project before them would be adjacent to Cal State/UC Riverside site being developed and the hope was that eventually the Cal State property would be the single largest destination in the Coachella Valley. It would be the single largest employer in terms of people who work there and eventually would have up to 15,000 students. So in terms of the overall strategy of the jobs -housing balance and shortening trips, staffs hope was to provide high quality, appropriate housing adjacent to these major destinations, then a fair number of those folks would choose to live there, thus keeping them off the arterial system. Mr. Drell stated that the project primarily includes medium density between 5-10 units per acre single family ownership product and at the specific request of the Dean of Cal State, Fred Jandt, and Mike Webster of UCR, it also included a rental component of 150 units. He noted that the other thing they were finding is because of the lucrative nature of the ownership market, few people want to build rental housing. The typical balance in most communities is about 30%. What they were finding is that they almost have to twist people's arms to provide rental housing. Around the university it was felt that it was essential that there be some rental housing. So that is why the 150-unit apartment component was included in the project. All in all, its proximity to Cal State, balancing the fact that they are getting mainly lower and medium density projects, justified the expansion of the residential designation in the general plan and the redesignation for medium density residential. In staffs view, that made this an ideal site for the project as designed. As a general overview of the project itself, he said it was somewhat unique in that it is probably our first master planned community not associated with a golf course. So it is a master planned residential community designed for permanent residences, not for second homers or retired persons. It was specifically oriented toward people who will be living full time and working in this area. He said they projected something approaching 15,000 to 20,000 employees being employed specifically in this region between Monterey and Eldorado. Staff felt the project would hopefully address that need in a level of design quality, both in terms of site planning and architecture, which is 4q MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION - REYISIM SUBja" OCTOBER 18, 2005 comparable to any of the country clubs built in Palm Desert. But with that sort of design, instead of being applied toward the tourist second home market, it would be applied to the permanent residential market. Mr. Drell recommended approval and said he would let the developer and his team describe the project. Commissioner Lopez noted that they had before them a letter from Ken Tatlow that urges the Emerald Desert RV Resort to remain. It sounded like his home. Mr. Drell agreed that it sounded like there was a whole group of people who live there full time. Commissioner Lopez asked if the park would stay if the project did go through. Mr. Drell explained that the owner of the park sold it and we have no ordinances that would require the preservation of the park. He said it was a conditional use and the existing zoning was for a manufactured housing single family subdivision originally, which is the base zone. Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. TIM DAY, Taylor Woodrow Homes, 16745 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 140 in San Diego, California, 92127, thanked the Commission for the opportunity to present their project. He said they had a dvd they wanted to show that would walk them through the product. As Mr. Drell explained, the project originally came forward with a single family development on the entire property at a density of about 9.22 units per acre. At the request of Cal State, UCR, and working with the City, they incorporated a partnership with Brook Street, a 150- apartment complex, which the Commission would also see some information on tonight. He said the proximity to the Cal State campus seemed ideal and they were on their way in developing a very strong relationship with the campus. He noted that they were on one single agenda tonight and there was a single staff report that discussed both projects, but they were two separate projects. They would have separate entrances, separate components, one is a rental, and the Taylor Woodrow project is a for sale project only. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SU BJEw �%AFT = REVISION OCTOBER 18. 2005 He said they put in a lot of time and effort into the architecture and theme, which he thought they would see with the dvd. They tried to maintain a strong pedestrian accent to the project; a lot of pathways. They tried to remove the garage door architecture from the front of the house and move it to the rear and make a more community feel. Each neighborhood within the development had some component of a recreational amenity, whether it was a passive park, pocket park or a larger community park with pools and some structures for special events and functions. He thought they would enjoy the dvd and wanted to move into that and then would like an opportunity to answer any questions. They had all of their professional and consultant staff, traffic and civil engineers and architect present, as well as representatives from Brook Street and Taylor Woodrow. He also said they had some conditions they wanted to discuss and how they would like to revise them. He asked when the appropriate time would be to bring them up. Chairperson Tschopp said it was the appropriate time right. Regarding Community Development Condition Nos. 13 and 14 on page 4 of the resolution, Mr. Day requested that No. 13 be deleted. He said in discussion with Mr. Drell today that they would contract maintenance services and those workers would have codes for the gates to get in and they thought it would be appropriate to delete it. Condition No. 14 said no part of TT 33837 shall record prior to issuance of building permits for the units in that particular phase. He thought it was the City's attempt for assurance if approval was given and the project lay fallow. He said they would like to revise it for approval of a mass grading permit prior to recordation. The third condition came in a letter form from the Public Works Department today and it was more of a clarification. The last bullet item under No. 16 said the project shall provide a signalized intersection at the project entry at the Gerald Ford Drive and pay half of the signalized intersection for Frank Sinatra and Gerald Ford. He thought the first signal referenced was at the Frank Sinatra/Eldorado intersection. Mr. Joy confirmed he was correct. Mr. Day asked for any questions before going through the dvd. 10 0 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SU81rt,1 REVISION OCTOBER 18. 2005 Commissioner Jonathan noted that for Community Development Condition No. 13, Mr. Day said there was an agreement with staff to delete that requirement because the project would contract out for maintenance services. He said they also needed a place to park. Mr. Drell indicated they would be able to park within the project in the proximity of the work they are doing. The project has street parking throughout the project and he thought the biggest problem was where there are country clubs that have a whole onsite crew and there wasn't sufficient parking associated with the yard. Commissioner Jonathan also noted that as part of their packets the Commission received a dvd and asked if they were intending to show the same one. Mr. Day said that was their intention. They wanted to provide it to them ahead of time to allow them extra viewing time. Commissioner Jonathan said he personally didn't need to see it again, but it was the Commission's pleasure. Other commissioners requested that it be shown and the dvd was played. At the conclusion of the dvd presentation Commissioner Campbell asked about the range of the home prices. Mr. Day thought they would be from the low $300,000's through the low $400,000's. Chairperson Tschopp said that throughout the presentation and in the CD presentation, they talked about the move -up home buyers and affordable price. He said there were no conditions that the housing project be that way and asked if it was the applicant's intent to market to the local market as stated. Mr. Day confirmed that it was their intention to market to locals. They already had some preliminary meetings with different local groups. They saw a wide variety of opportunity. Some would be move down buyers tired of the yard, move up buyers, and people who want to find something more reasonable within the Coachella Valley. He said there was a wide mix. In addition to the rental units, there was some opportunity for the local work force to be in proximity of work. 11 -41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION :T. SUBJE61 REVISION OCTOBER 18, 2005" Chairperson Tschopp noted that the Commission received a lot of information on the traffic impact and on the noise and asked if he could briefly touch on both of those issues for the Commission's benefit and those in the audience. MR. JUSTIN ROSSIS, the traffic engineer, stated that he is a licensed civil and traffic engineer. He indicated that the traffic study addressed the increase in traffic from this project while taking credit for the existing RV park. A slight variation to that was he looked at including total volumes on the project driveways, so no credit was taken at the project driveways. The distribution or assessment of where the project traffic would travel was based on discussions with City staff. No direct impacts were calculated due to project, but there were some agreements between the applicant and the City on participation for the need for a traffic signal at the project entrance on Eldorado and Frank Sinatra; 50% shared toward the future signal at Gerald Ford and Frank Sinatra; and a future signal on Gerald Ford and the apartment driveway to be determined with the development of the university campus and when the signal was needed. Percentage -wise, he thought it would be 50% or as determined later. At the build -out stage, he looked at the project's potential for cumulative impacts in the area based on volumes provided by City staff. There was one cumulative impact at the Cook Street -Interstate 10 eastbound offramp. Based on the proposed mitigation by a preferred alternative, the mitigation went away. The fair share for that was 3% from the project's trips to that intersection. It was his understanding that the condition said that in lieu of paying that 3%, the applicant would pay 50% toward the signal, instead of 33% originally discussed at Gerald Ford and Frank Sinatra. He asked for any questions. MR. JEREMY LOUDDEN addressed the Commission and indicated that he did the noise and vibration assessment. He said they went out and did existing noise and vibration measures of actual train events since that seemed to be the number one concern. He said there was some noise from the interstate which was nearby on the other side of 12 In MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJE61 Li J I tj - REVISION OCTOBER 18, 2005 the railroad tracks. They also looked at the noise along Frank Sinatra and Gerald Ford to see how that would impact this project. When looking at it, they noticed that most of the noise from Interstate 10 was blocked by the ballast of the rail line, so the only real concern was going to be from the rail line, from what's existing, and the proposed second track. They did an analysis of the future predictions of all the roadways and the rail line and used all of them against the project to see what the worst case sound loads would be and then to determine if mitigation would be required and if so, what that mitigation would entail. What they found was that the existing eight -foot wall currently between the rail alignment and the project would be sufficient to reduce the sound levels in the outdoor use areas of the ground floor. In the upper floors, the wall would not be adequate because it didn't break the line of sight, but instead they had to do architectural treatments to the structures to help reduce it and make comfortable living for the residents. He said that was the report in a nutshell and was present to answer questions. Commissioner Lopez asked if he could address the vibration to the structures. Mr. Loudden said they set up seismographs to take measurements of existing train events at 50 feet from the center of the tracks. The measurements they found ranged from one to six thousandths of an inch movement, which is barely perceptible for humans. And that was at 50 feet. This project is located approximately 160 feet away from the nearest residential structure. To propagate that out, they found that the vibration levels would be imperceivable to most humans. The mitigation for structures is they post tension slabs and that was pretty typical construction. They also found there wouldn't be any breakage of vibration until they reached two inches per second. They were at half an inch per second roughly. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they considered as an indirect mitigation a requirement to notify buyers and renters in the proximity of the railway train tracks and if it would be a DRE requirement. 13 41� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUB1Et,1 REVISION OCTOBER 18. 2005 Mr. Day said yes, there would be a full disclosure that they would make to potential buyers. He wasn't exactly sure how it worked for rentals, but believed it was the same. It would be disclosed in full prior to any negotiation. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it would also apply to resales. Mr. Day explained that it would be a recorded document against the property. Commissioner Jonathan asked how that would be communicated to potential buyers. He asked if it would only show up if they did a title search during escrow. Mr. Day said yes, during escrow all the title information and disclosures would be provided to the potential buyer for resales. Commissioner Jonathan asked the City Attorney if there was a method or if they were allowed to impose a methodology where notification would have to occur, not just through a title search, but in another more obvious manner, for both potential buyers and renters. Mr. Hargreaves said they have the ability and they could capture them on the first sale, but there was a problem with subsequent sales. It was very difficult to implement. The way they implement notice requirements is through recorded documents against the property. Supposedly people would get notification through the title search. There was also a disclosure requirement during the sale of residential real estate based on California law. Commissioner Jonathan agreed that if it was a condition on the applicant, it no longer applied after it was sold. He thought the problem they experienced in Palm Valley was that people don't read their title reports. They should, but they don't. But there is something recorded. He wasn't sure if there was an effective way to get around that on subsequent sales. Mr. Hargreaves noted that they couldn't protect people against their own omissions. If they are buying a house and they couldn't figure out that there was a railroad track there, there wasn't much they could do. Mr. Drell noted that the tracks have been there since 1870. Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Day if he knew the total number of bedrooms, including the homes and the apartments. He asked if they could tell them after the dvd was over. The staff report indicated that there would be 25 one -bedroom units and 583 two -bedrooms or greater. That didn't 14 WA SUB18,1 A'-'m@Tm REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18. 2005 enable him to calculate them. He wanted to know how many total bedrooms there were between the homes and the apartments. Mr. Day said they would work it out during the dvd. He pointed out there were some local residents present and he wanted the Commission to know that they had gone out and met with their neighbors, including the university, and tried to make sure they all understood what the project was like and the quality of architecture. He said they were basically provided the same information as the Commission. The dvd presentation was shown. Chairperson Tschopp asked if there were any other questions of the applicant. Commissioner Lopez noted that there was mention of a bike path that goes along the railroad tracks. Mr. Day said it was a multipurpose path. Commissioner Lopez asked what was between the bike path and the railroad tracks. Mr. Day said there was a 30-foot Edison easement that the bike path would be contained within and then there was the rail. Regarding Commissioner Jonathan's question on the total bedroom count, he said there would be 1,637 bedrooms of which 255 were rental. The rentals had 60 one -bedrooms, 150 two -bedrooms and 45 were within the three -bedrooms. There were no other questions of the applicant. Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR. There was no response. He asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the matter. MS. BETTY SCHAFFER, 38-330 Tandika Trail, said she lived a block or so from the proposed development. She said she was confused about the traffic signals that were talked about. There seemed to be a change in there. They were told there would be a traffic signal at Frank Sinatra and Eldorado, which would be the main entrance for the housing units. It seemed to be iffy about the Gerald Ford part. She was wondering if there was one planned for Frank Sinatra and Gerald 15 M MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJE6t ii1► rA "Tm REVISION OCTOBER 18. 2005 Ford, or for the Gerald Ford exit for the apartment section. There was not a lot of room between those intersections and traffic could very easily pile up there and it could be dangerous if there wasn't a signal. So she really wanted to know what the exact plan was for those intersections. There was no one else wishing to speak. Chairperson Tschopp asked if Mr. Day would clarify the signalization. Mr. Day explained that they have agreed through the traffic study to commit 100% funding for the signal at Frank Sinatra and Eldorado. So there would be a signal placed there. They were contributing 50% of the cost of the signal at Gerald Ford and Frank Sinatra. There was a signal required there. The third signal, which would be north on Gerald Ford at the entry to the apartments, would be bonded for some portion of that now, but the City preferred that it not be implemented until the need actually existed with development of the university. Mr. Drell clarified that the signal at Sinatra and Gerald Ford had long been planned as part of the University development. Public Works liked to wait until the warrants justify the amount of turning movements. People didn't like stopping at right lights when there wasn't any traffic coming from the other direction. So those are all definitely planned to happen when the need is there. Commissioner Campbell noted that there was a signal on Berger Lane South that goes into the University. Mr. Drell agreed. He said it was midway between Gerald Ford and Cook Street. He indicated that the other signals were not needed at this time. The one that would be installed with the project would be the Eldorado signal. The applicant was contributing their share. The other signals would be installed when the need arose. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the answer to Mrs. Schaffer's question is that as part of the project, Frank Sinatra and Eldorado would receive a signal. At a later time they could expect signals at Gerald Ford and Frank Sinatra and at Gerald Ford at the entrance to the apartments. Mr. Drell said that was correct. The apartment entrance was designed as close as they could get to the anticipated main accesses to the campus. Commissioner Lopez asked if there would also be a crosswalk. Mr. Drell said yes. 16 sa-- _ SUBJE ,, MINUTES REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18. 2005 Chairperson Tschopp closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan asked staff if ARC made a finding of aesthetic enhancement to justify the height exception that was being requested and if they addressed that issue. Mr. Drell said yes. He said part of it was to get the interior space and the diversity of the roof line. He noted that the project the Redevelopment Agency was building on Santa Rosa received a height exception for the very same reason. Commissioner Jonathan understood that there was precedence for it, but what he was asking was if ARC specifically looked at the aesthetics and said that the two -foot exception was necessary in order to accommodate the architectural design. Mr. Drell said he wasn't at the meeting and couldn't tell him that. It was something that was requested for them to rule on every time it comes before them, but he wasn't at the meeting. Mr. Drell clarified that they were talking about the apartments. Part of it was a unique site in that it is adjacent on the west to a planned industrial property with a height of 35 feet. When evaluating height, they not only looked at the architectural quality, but the potential impact of the height on views of surrounding properties. The university was on one side, the railroad tracks on the other, and the 35-foot high industrial buildings on the one side also went into their decision. Commissioner Jonathan asked if he was saying that the height exception only applied to the apartment buildings. Mr. Drell concurred. All the residences would be 24 feet high or less. Chairperson Tschopp asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Campbell stated that she was impressed with the whole development. Reading the minutes from Architectural Review, their team went back a few times and they gave up two lots to create more pools that Architectural Review thought they should have. The project was impressive and she thought it would be an asset to the community. It would bring in more people to the desert and they needed an area where they could work in the university area. Looking at that area and the train noise, that railroad has been there since 1870 like Mr. Drell said. The impact from 1-10 would be more than the trains since the trains go slowly along and wasn't a high speed. She moved for approval. 17 G3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJ&t Li k i h T*0 REVISION OCTOBER 18. 2005 Commissioner Lopez said he had mixed emotions about it. He loved the plan and thought the plan was great. Architecturally it was very attractive and had an interesting layout with all the different communities and how they blended together and the sense of space. He thought the neighborhoods flowed very well. The apartment complex of 150 units was necessary for this area in terms of the university, whether it was for students or faculty or a mixture. He thought that was an important aspect of the project. He also thought it was a risk. Anything built this close to what continues to be a busy and what he thought would be a busier railroad access would be risk for years to come. He wasn't sure at the beginning. The demand right now is huge. He was concerned with the proximity of the railroad, the noise, and the vibration and how it would effect the structures in the future. According to the experts, it should be okay, so his concerns were minimized. Overall, he thought it was a good project. It was a lot in one space, but when they looked at the overall build out from the general plan standpoint, it fit pretty well and he thought it was a nice project and welcomed it. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Drell was suggesting the tandem parking be 37 feet instead of 40 feet. He asked if that length would accommodate two trucks or SUV's. Mr. Drell said it would probably accommodate two mid sized SUV's, but not a full sized truck. There was good news and bad news. The good news is that basically those units would be discounted by virtue of the fact that anyone who needs that extra room to park would obviously not be interested in them. Any parking issue that occurs would be confined to this project. There was no parking on Gerald Ford. So that was something they kind of agonized over, but would let the market decide what that unit was worth with that type of discount. If someone didn't want to live with that, they wouldn't buy that unit. Regarding the noise issue, as a result of complaints from Palm Valley and Regency, the City did their own comprehensive noise study of the whole corridor. The conclusion was the problem wasn't the train, it was the whistle on the train. The train was something you get used to. It turned out that even though we have no gate crossings, for whatever reason the engineers have gotten into the habit of blowing their whistle when they go by Palm Desert. There is a process they can go through, through the National Rail Board, where there are no gate crosses they can petition for a quiet zone and instruct the engineers not to blow the whistle, which they were pursuing. That ended up being the most disturbing aspect. Hopefully when they solve that problem, they'll be able to solve it for the whole city. 5H SUBJEUi REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18, 2005 Commissioner Jonathan hoped so. He happened to be standing in the Frank Sinatra/Spyder Circle area and didn't know a train was coming and when it did, it startled him. He didn't recall hearing a whistle, it was just the noise of the train and the vibration. It is out there. He had a few concerns about this project and one of them was the noise, but there was also caveat emptor. He hoped people were aware and should be aware there is a railroad track out there and let the market forces dictate people's decisions. Unfortunately, sometimes they see people making those decisions, as they've witnessed in Palm Valley and Regency, and then perhaps are regretful or whatever and try to point fingers and get the City to solve the problems they themselves created or bought into. He guessed that was just a fact of life, but he didn't see it was this project's responsibility to solve the issue. They are aware of it and have done what they can. Hopefully it wouldn't be a problem that comes back. But he did have concerns about it. Commissioner Jonathan also had concerns about the parking because it is kind of a self-contained project. If they have a shortage of parking, there will be a problem. He found the bedroom count interesting at 1,637 bedrooms. He was assuming they are all drivers because they turn into drivers at some point. They're either college students or their families, moms and dads each have a car, then they get visitors and work people, so a one to one ratio would be his expectation. The total parking spaces would be 1,675, so they actually exceeded the bedroom count and there is some amount of street parking. He said he had some really significant concerns coming into the meeting tonight, but thought those concerns had been resolved. Overriding all of that to some extent was the excellent planning that went into the project if the actual product was half as attractive as what they saw on the dvd. But if they end up with anything close to that he thought it would be quite an addition to our beautiful city, particularly given that these aren't high -end homes. They were entry level, move down, affordable for students and young families and so forth. Given that, he thought this was really stepping up the curve so to speak and he complimented the architect in that regard. The circulation looked like it was smartly done. The development would add to the overall traffic in our community, but that was a fact of life and they couldn't keep a good thing a secret forever. People would come, so the key was to manage that growth intelligently and he thought this project did that. He also complimented staff in looking ahead in that regard. 19 S5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION � SUBjEw .. A� ri , REVISION OCTOBER 18. 2005 He said he liked the bike path and wished he could see more and more of it, particularly in this area. He thought bike use would be prevalent. He seconded the motion. Chairperson Tschopp commented that he also had a few concems. One was noise. He lives somewhat in the vicinity and when the atmospheric conditions are right, they could hear the trains late at night. The tracks have been there a long time and would only get busier and he thought any buyers would be aware of that. There was also an interstate there. Most people would be able to see that it might have an impact on their quality of life if they like having their windows open to the north. He thought that was something that was mitigated as well as possible. He had some concerns on the traffic. There would be an increase in the number of cars entering and exiting this portion of the city. But it was located right on or adjacent to good arterial streets so it would give the person driving a car either in or out a lot of different opportunities to use different streets. He thought it was well located from a traffic standpoint. He also had some concerns about the density and the closeness of some of the units to each other. But looking at some of the other developments down here, this was no different from a lot of developments, only it didn't have a golf course. If they look at Palm Valley Country Club or Indian Ridge Country Club, some of those units were actually closer then some of these units would be. Given all that, he believed it was very well designed architecturally and hoped what they saw was what they would get because it would be a very nice looking project. He loved the rear garages. He hated driving up to homes and seeing the garages. He was glad to see them incorporating them in the back of the house where it needed to be. He liked the idea of the narrow streets; a little more intimacy for the people who live there and the streets being more intended for the interaction of the people who live there. He liked the idea and hoped the intent was for the locals and those people who work in our community to be able to live there. Whether that happens or not will be a market condition, but he believed this probably provided as good an opportunity for someone who lives in the area to live here as any. All in all he was very much in favor of the project and again, hoped it would go up just as it was presented tonight. Commissioner Jonathan requested clarification that the motion included the elimination of Condition No. 13 and amendment to No. 14. Commissioner 411 56 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION i'TW SUBJEw KVISION OCTOBER 18. 2605 Campbell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan said his second to the motion did as well. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2361, recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 and PM 33837, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent). E. Case No. ZOA 05-03 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for a recommendation to the City Council to approve a zoning ordinance amendment to add Section 25.112 regarding exceptions based on unconstitutional takings. Mr. Drell said that basically this ordinance provides an administrative procedure an applicant would have to follow if they intend to pursue what they call a "takings" as a result of one of our land use decisions. Chairperson Tschopp indicated that it seemed to basically be the procedure on how to do it. Mr. Drell said it forces the applicant to come out front during the administrative process and make the case that our decision is removing them of the economic use of their property. Mr. Hargreaves was in concurrence with the amendment to the ordinance. Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked for any testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was none and the public hearing was closed. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent). 21 —5-� CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: October 18, 2005 continued from September 6, 2005 CASE NOS: GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 and TT 33837 REQUEST: Recommend to the City Council approval of a general plan amendment, change of zone, precise plan of design, parcel map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for an 758-unit residential project (608 condominium units and 150 apartment units) on 79.6 acres at the northeast corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive, 76-000 Frank Sinatra Drive (the existing Emerald Desert RV Park property). APPLICANT: Taylor Woodrow, Inc. Emerald Brooks LLC 15 Cushing 1100 Quail, #102 Irvine, CA 92618 Newport Beach, CA 92660 I. BACKGROUND: Emerald Desert RV Park was originally approved in 1986 for 241 mobile home spaces, 201 RV spaces, a 9-hole golf course, two tennis courts, a clubhouse, pro shop and convenience market. This part of the project was completed in October of 1990. As of June 1991 the developer was unable to attract any manufactured housing units so an amendment was approved to convert 232 vacant mobile home spaces to 695 RV spaces. Emerald Desert RV Park has operated since then with 893 RV spaces, nine mobile home lots and a 9-hole golf course. II. SITE DESCRIPTION: The property comprises 79.6 acres at the northeast corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive and slopes down gently from northwest to southeast approximately ten feet. M STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 AND TT 33837 OCTOBER 18, 2005 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: Southern Pacific Railroad and Interstate 10 South: PR-3 / Avondale and Palm Valley Country Clubs East: PR / Palm Valley Storage and Maintenance area West: PR-5 / Vacant part of Cal State Campus Site III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes amendment to the general plan and zoning to facilitate approval of an 758-unit residential project (608 condominium/single family units on 71.55 acres and 150 apartment units on 8.05 acres). The applicant's original intent had been 100% single family ownership condominium units at 9.22 units per acre. The apartment units were specifically added to the project at the request of Cal State and UCR to provide for future student, staff and faculty housing units within walking distance to the campuses. The general plan amendment will change the land use designation from C-R/H (Resort/Hotel Commercial) to R-M/R-HO (Medium Density/High Density Overlay) 4-22 upa. The change of zone will be handled in two steps. The condominium/single family unit area (71.55 acres) will be rezoned from R1 M to PR-9 (Planned Residential, nine units per acre) and the apartment portion of the site (8.05 acres) will be rezoned from R1 M to PR-19. The site plan places the condominium/single family units on the north side of Frank Sinatra Drive, east of Gerald Ford Drive. The apartments will be at the west end of the site on the east side of Gerald Ford Drive, 1,200 +/- feet north of Frank Sinatra Drive. The project also includes a 24-lot tentative tract map (12 lots in Phase 1 and 12 lots in Phase 2) on the condo area of the site and two lots in the apartment area. K 1� STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 AND TT 33837 OCTOBER 18, 2005 A. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING UNIVERSITY PARK AREA: 1. General Plan: The site is currently designated C-R/H (Resort/Hotel Commercial). The applicant proposes to amend the land use to R-M/R-HO (medium density/ high density residential overlay). The general plan land use element, as approved March 15, 2004, for the University Park area identified 618 acres for residential use (313 acres low and 305 acres medium/high) with a unit count that ranged from 3,392 units to 5,993 units. In the period since March 15, 2004, four residential projects have been approved. Low density projects like Ponderosa with 237 units on 80 acres and Marix with 270 units on 68 acres (at 3.0 and 3.9 upa respectively) were toward the high end of the "low" (0-4 dwelling units per acre) category. The Dolce project with 159 units on 37 acres (4.3 upa) barely made it into the medium category (4-10 upa). The Sares Regis project with 320 units on 26 acres (12.3 upa) barely made it into the "high" category (10-22 upa). These projects, coupled with other anticipated developments in the University Park area will, at build out, leave this area at the low end of the total projected unit range. The current application for the El Dorado R.V. Park site would add 80 acres with approximately 758 total units. We also expect a future application for 55 acres on the north side of Dinah Shore west of Miriam Way (west of Costco) with a total of 715 units. Adding this land (135 acres) would increase the total "medium/high" designated land in the University Park area from 305 acres to 440 acres. If we leave the total expected unit count prescribed in the general plan (3,392 3 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 AND TT 33837 OCTOBER 18, 2005 units to 5,993 units) unchanged, we will be effectively lowering the expected density from a range of (11.9 upa - 19.7 upa) to a range of (7.7 upa - 13.6 upa). The question then becomes can we add the expected units and still remain within the total unit count prescribed in the general plan. The "low" density projects came in with densities toward the high end of the "low" category. As a result, we anticipate a total of 1,073 "low" density units versus the 938 units delineated in the general plan. The reverse is true with the "medium/high" density projects. The two "medium/high" density projects which have been processed (Dolce/Sares Regis) provide a total of 479 units (159 + 320 = 479) on 63 acres (37 + 26 = 63 acres) for an average density of 7.6 upa, well below the expected range of 11.9 - 19.7 upa. Extrapolated over the total 305 acres, this would result in a total of 2,318 "medium/high" density units plus the 1,073 "low" density units for a total of 3,391 units. Adding the two new sites with 1,473 units (758 + 715 = 1,473) would bring the total to 4,873 units, well within the 3,392 - 5,993 general plan range. Even if all the remaining vacant 242 acres of "medium/high" designated land came in at 12 units per acre (4.4 upa above the current average), we would still be below the 5,993 unit maximum (4,873 units + 242 x 4.4 (1,065 units) = 5,938 units. 2. Zoning: The property is currently zoned R1 M (single family/mobile home residential district). The applicant seeks approval of PR-9 zoning for the condo site and PR-19 for the apartment site. B. SITE PLAN, ACCESS, CIRCULATION, AND PARKS FOR SINGLE FAMILY CONDO UNITS: This portion of the project contains 608 units within a gated community in five (5) distinct neighborhoods: compact lots, auto courts, cluster, town homes, and flats. 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 AND TT 33837 OCTOBER 18, 2005 1. Parks and Oven Soace The project contains 7.45 acres of park/open space (10.4%) of the site plus a bike route corridor along the north edge of the property. Within the project is a centrally located 2.85-acre neighborhood park and clubhouse facility. Dispersed around the various neighborhoods are four (4) "pocket parks" with sizes of 1.68 acres, 1.6 acres, 1.1 acres and .22 acres. 2. Access/Circulation The condominium/single family lot project takes its main access from Frank Sinatra Drive in the same location as the existing RV park access at the Eldorado Drive intersection (to be signalized). The main driveway circulates north then turns west to where it intersects with Gerald Ford Drive. This intersection will not be signalized, but will provide right in, right out and left turn in movements. No left turn exiting the project will be permitted here. A signalized intersection at the northwest edge of the project will align with a Cal State entrance and will provide joint access for the apartments and a future industrial project to the west. Onsite circulation is via a series of loop and dead-end "local" streets which provide adequate circulation. Street widths in the project include a 62-foot median divided street at the entries, and 32-foot to 28-foot to 24-foot wide streets all measured curb to curb. Some of the longer street segments were designed with slight curves to break up long uninteresting straight views. In order to better control traffic flow, streets in certain areas (i.e., compact lots and auto courts) of the project do not connect. The 24-foot wide streets have no parking, while 28-foot wide will be limited to parking on one side. The 32-foot wide streets will allow parking on both sides. 61 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 05-02, CIZ 05-02, PP 05-12 AND TT 33837 OCTOBER 18, 2005 C. NEIGHBORHOODS: 1. Town Homes (Attachedl This area of the project will be located at the east end of the project north of Frank Sinatra and east of the main access road. There will be 103 one and two-story (1 and 2 bedroom) attached single family residences which range in size from 915 to 1,833 square feet. A single motorcourt serves eight units and removes garages from the street scene. 2. Auto Courts (Detachedl This area of the project is located west of the main access from Frank Sinatra and extends north of the main access road after it turns west. There will be 111 two-story (3 and 4 bedroom) single family residences ranging in size from 2,000 to 2,450 square feet. The units are arranged in a cluster configuration with garages removed from the street scene. 3. Compact Lots (Detachedl This area of the project is located to the center of the site and south of the main access road. There will be 87 two-story (2 and 3 bedroom) single family residences ranging in size from 1,650 to 2,011 square feet. This neighborhood has garage access from a rear alley thereby removing vehicles from the street scene. 4. Cluster Homes (Detachedl These units will be located at the west end of the project adjacent to Gerald Ford and Frank Sinatra. There will be 151 two-story (2 and 3 bedroom) single family units ranging in size from 1,357 to 1,475 square feet. The units are in an eight-plex cluster configuration with garage access from a rear alley thereby removing garages from the street scene. N G3 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 AND TT 33837 OCTOBER 18, 2005 5. Flats (Attachedl These units will be located on the north side of the site between the neighborhood park and the railroad. There will be 156 two-story (2 and 3 bedroom) single family residences ranging in size from 1,176 to 1,320 square feet. A single motorcourt serves six (6) units with rear loaded garages. D. PARKING: The parking requirements for residential condominiums vary with the number of bedrooms. Studio and one bedroom units are required to have at least one covered space and one open space. Two bedrooms and larger are required to have two covered spaces plus one half open space per unit. Based on 25 one bedroom units and 583 two bedrooms or greater, the required parking is 1,191 covered spaces plus 319 open spaces for a total of 1,510 spaces. The project provides 1,191 covered spaces and 484 open spaces for a total of 1,675 spaces. Staff has two areas of concern with parking: 1. In the "Flats", 52 of the 156 units have two covered tandem parking spaces 12 feet wide by 36 feet deep. 2. In the "cluster" units, 32 of the 151 units have one (1) garage parking space which has a difficult four point turning movement to exit the garage space. These issues will be discussed further in the analysis section of the report. E. ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING HEIGHT: The one and two-story buildings have been attractively articulated in Spanish architecture. The structures feature pitched roofs with barrel tile. Walls will 7 C, q STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 AND TT 33837 OCTOBER 18, 2005 be finished in stucco accented with steel balcony railings. The applicant has provided quality architecture on all sides of the building. The units have been designed to comply with the 24-foot maximum height limit prescribed in the PR zone. The architecture has been given preliminary approval by ARC. PROJECT DATA CODE PROVIDED Building Setbacks: West (Gerald Ford) 32 feet 34 feet South (Frank Sinatra) 32 feet 34 feet East 20 feet 52 feet North As approved 52-70 feet Coverage 50% maximum 36% Parking: Covered 1,191 1,191 Open 319 484 Total 1,510 1,675 Height 24 feet 24 feet F. APARTMENTS: At the west end of the property an 8.05-acre area has been set aside for 150 apartments which were requested by representatives of Cal State and UCR. 1. Location: The apartment project will be located on the east side of Gerald Ford Drive, 1200 feet north of Frank Sinatra Drive. 2. Access: The project has one access point from Gerald Ford Drive which will be signalized and which will align with a future driveway on the Cal State campus on the west side of Gerald Ford Drive. The site plan �-5 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 AND TT 33837 OCTOBER 18, 2005 also provides a driveway connection with the business/industrial zoned site to the west. This will allow for that traffic to egress to the east. The project access driveway will provide dual lanes for both ingress and egress. Adequate stacking is provided. 3. Circulation: A central driveway 31 feet in width runs the full length of the project with smaller loop and dead end driveways 31 feet in width providing direct access to the units. The circulation is adequate. 4. Site Plan and Parkina: The project is a series of 14 two (2) story buildings with a total of 150 units. The units are generally organized around a central clubhouse/ recreation area which contains a pool, spa, tennis courts and barbeque area. The units adjacent to Gerald Ford Drive are oriented with the garage doors facing inward to provide a more acceptable exterior architectural appearance. All units have one garage parking space and one open parking space. 5. Unit Lavout: The project includes five unit types as follows: 2 Bedroom 2 Bath 1,096 square feet 2 Bedroom 2 Bath 1,035 square feet 1 Bedroom 1 Bath 754 square feet 3 Bedroom 3 Bath 1,360 square feet 3 Bedroom 2 Bath 1,333 square feet 0 G� STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 AND TT 33837 OCTOBER 18, 2005 On the first floor (ground level) there are ten parking spaces with four units located beyond the parking area. Two common stairways provide access to six second floor units. 6. Architecture: The buildings provide a Mediterranean theme with "S" concrete tile roofs, wrought iron balcony enclosures and extensive use of decorative louvered shutters on the units. The plan packet includes two design concepts for the clubhouse. As of the writing of this report, we are unaware as to which is preferred, however, both are acceptable. The two-story units will be a maximum of 26 feet in height. The Planned Residential District allows two-story development with a maximum height of 24 feet. The applicant will require an exception to the height requirement as provided in the PR zone. In the past, the Planning Commission and City Council have granted exceptions to the height limit in instances where there is no impact to adjacent properties and if the design of the buildings is enhanced with the additional height. This property is bounded on the north by the railway. To the west is a business/industrial site which, pursuant to the Wonder Palms Master Plan, could be as high as 35 feet. To the east is the proposed 24-foot high condo project by Taylor Woodrow. Across Gerald Ford Drive is the Cal State campus. There will be no impact to adjacent properties if this height exception were approved. The architecture is attractive and will be compatible with the Taylor Woodrow condo project to the east. October 11, 2005 ARC granted preliminary approval of project architecture. 10 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 AND TT 33837 OCTOBER 18, 2005 G. TRACT MAP: The proposed tract map divides the 71.5-acre site into two basic areas: Phase 1 and Phase 2. The map then divides each of the phasing areas into 12 lots which correspond with the units contained in the precise plan. The map also divides the apartment site into two "lettered lots." Once the precise plan, general plan amendment and zoning are approved, then the findings for the map approval can be met. Conditions will be imposed on the map to tie the recording of the map to the issuance of permits within each phase. IV. ANALYSIS: The projects are attractively designed medium density (8.49 upa and high density 18.6 upa) residential projects which are ideally located across the street from the Cal State and UCR campuses. The projects will provide very attractive housing for future students, faculty and administration. A. NOISE AND VIBRATION: The projects are located adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad and the Interstate 10 Freeway. These facilities cause noise and vibration. An acoustical and ground vibration site assessment dated July 21, 2005 prepared by Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc. (copy attached hereto by reference) concluded that in the worst case noise to the site is at 64 dba with typical background levels averaging 62 dba with the freeway traffic identified as the dominant source. These levels were obtained with the existing eight -foot wall along the north edge of the property in place. The vibration study concluded that vibration associated with rail activity would be "slightly noticeable to humans during nighttime hours. No impacts to structures would be indicated." The acoustical study notes that Union Pacific Railway currently produces approximately one freight train passerby every hour and this is expected to change to at most two trains per hour in the future. 11 r�? STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 AND TT 33837 OCTOBER 18, 2005 Equating these train events to an hourly noise level produces a current level of 55.5 dBa Leq-h. With the future two trains per hour, this would increase to 58.5 dBa Leq-h. Even with these levels below the 60 dba threshold, the study notes that the site could experience "instaneous peaks above 90 dBa due to signaling and warning devices." The study concludes that these events "could result in nuisance impacts to sensitive receptors within the development." The study recommends that interior noise reduction methods be "examined." A second study "Structural Acoustical Analysis/CCR Title 24 Survey" dated July 28, 2005 details the actual mitigation proposed in the construction of the housing units on this property. These construction mitigation measures will be conditioned on the projects. Pursuant to noise concerns expressed from Palm Valley Country Club residents to the east, the City is pursuing the establishment of a "quiet zone" where train horns "would not be routinely sounded." B. TRAFFIC ISSUES: The project if approved will change the land use from an RV park to an 758- unit residential community. The applicant has had a traffic impact analysis prepared by LOS Engineer, Inc. (a copy of which is attached by reference). The traffic impact analysis was prepared on the original 810-unit project. The report concludes that an 810-unit project will create 5,205 trips per day which is an increase of 3,078 above that created by the present RV park. The impacts identified will be less for the modified 758 unit project. The analysis outlines a series of mitigation measures which will reduce the traffic impacts to "less than significant." The mitigation measures will be a condition of project approval. C. PARKING (CONDOS): The plan in the "Flats" neighborhood provides 52 of the 156 units with two tandem garage parking spaces 12 feet wide by 36 feet deep. 12 r"I STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 AND TT 33837 OCTOBER 18, 2005 Municipal Code Section 25.58.220 requires that units provide two parking spaces and that "each space shall contain ten feet by 20 feet of unobstructed area." Typically, these spaces are side by side for an area 20 feet by 20 feet. Tandem spaces 10 feet by 40 feet would also meet code. Staff recommends that the tandem spaces be approved with minimum dimension of ten feet by 37 feet. The three-foot reduction in length is based on cars being generally shorter than when the code was written. This is also consistent with reduced stall length which was approved for commercial parking lots in 2001 when required lengths were reduced by 1.5 feet from 18 feet to 16.5 feet, plus two feet of overhang. This will be conditioned. In the "Cluster" units, 32 of the 151 units have two garage parking spaces at the end of a 150-foot long 24-foot wide driveway. The only turn -around is provided at the next unit where the garage doors are inset three feet providing 30 feet between doors. This space allows for a four -point turn around for medium and small vehicles. SUV's would need to back into/or out of these spaces the full length of the driveway. From a staff perspective, these are legal, usable spaces with restricted ingress or egress. The market will price these units accordingly. D. BICYCLE ROUTE: Between the railroad and the north boundary of the projects is an area set aside for a future bike route which is being built in sections. A condition of approval requires that each project construct its segment of the bike route. E. FISCAL IMPACT: The general fiscal analysis prepared for the University Park area showed considerable positive fiscal results due to the dominance of revenue producing commercial uses in the vicinity. Generally we know that the project's value will be set when individual units are sold. In each instance tax increment should be increased above the base rate. 13 O STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 AND TT 33837 OCTOBER 18, 2005 F. ON -SITE SERVICE WORKER PARKING: The plan presently does not provide an on -site service worker parking area. Such an area should be provided so that these workers are not relegated to arterial streets or nearby commercial centers. Staff has provided a condition in the draft resolution requiring that a minimum of 20 on -site service worker parking spaces be provided for the Taylor Woodrow project. V. CONCLUSION: Locating residential units on this property will provide necessary residential units within walking distance of the Cal State and UCR campuses for students, faculty and staff. The general plan amendment to "medium/high" residential and zone changes to PR- 9 and PR-19 to permit 758 units can be effected without revising the maximum number of residential units prescribed for the University Park area. The projects as conditioned on approval will mitigate identified potential impacts including noise, vibration and traffic. The projects as designed will result in architecturally attractive residential complexes with a townhouse feel. Quality touches added to the projects include direct garage access for all the units, balconies and enhanced paving in the auto courts. The projects as designed and conditioned will comply with all requirements of the PR zone district, except for the height exception which is necessary for the apartments. Project architecture has been given preliminary approval by the Architectural Review Commission. VI. CEQA REVIEW: The project was reviewed for compliance with CEQA. The applicant prepared site specific traffic impact analysis and noise and vibration studies. These reports M STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 AND TT 33837 OCTOBER 18, 2005 identify potential environmental impacts and recommend mitigation measures. The mitigation measures will be made conditions of approval of the projects. With these mitigation measures in place the project as designed will not have an adverse impact on the environment. The Planning Commission should recommend approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to the City Council. VII. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the findings and adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 and TT 33837, subject to conditions. VII1. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice C. Comments from city departments and other agencies D. Plans and exhibits Prepared by: Steve Smith Planning Manager Review and Concur: Homer Croy ACM for Development Services AM 15 Reviewed and Approved by: Phil Drell Director of Community Development r� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM C-R/H (RESORT/HOTEL COMMERCIAL) TO R-M/R-HO (MEDIUM DENSITY/HIGH DENSITY OVERLAY), A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R1 M (SINGLE FAMILY/MOBILE HOME RESIDENTIAL) TO PR-9 AND PR-19 (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL NINE UNITS PER ACRE AND 19 UNITS PER ACRE), A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN AND A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR A 758-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (608 CONDOMINIUM/ SINGLE FAMILY UNITS AND 150 APARTMENT UNITS) ON 79.6 ACRES AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FRANK SINATRA DRIVE AND GERALD FORD DRIVE, 76-000 FRANK SINATRA DRIVE. CASE NOS. GPA 05-02. C/Z 05-02. PP 05-1 ZAO TT 33837 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 which was continued to October 18, 2005, to consider the request of TAYLOR WOODROW, INC. and EMERALD BROOK, for approval of the above described *project; 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 an adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending to City Council approval of the general plan amendment, change of zone, precise plan, and tentative parcel map as described below: General Plan Amendment and Chanae of Zone: The proposed residential project will provide much needed housing units within close proximity to the California State University and University of California on the west side of Gerald Ford Drive. Precise Plan of Design: 1. The design of the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Planned Residential zone and the Palm Desert General Plan. —1 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2. As conditioned, the project will be compatible with adjacent uses and will not depreciate property values in the vicinity. 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. Tentative Tract Map 33837: The plan as designed complies with the municipal code requirements for residential condominium/single family projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of GPA 05-02 as shown on Exhibit A attached, C2 05-02 as shown on Exhibit B attached, PP 05-12 including a height exception to 26 feet for the apartment portion of the project, and TPM 33837. 3. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as shown on Exhibit C attached is hereby recommended for certification. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this -t= day of October, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 DAVID E. TSCHOPP, Chairperson Iq PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. PP 05-12 AND TT 33837 Department of Commupity Develooment: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Applicant shall participate in a commercial recycling program as determined by the City Environmental and Conservation Manager and applicable Waste Disposal Company. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of Community Development. 6. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public works prior to architectural review commission submittal. 7. Final landscape plans shall comply with the parking lot tree planting master plan and shall be approved by the Architecture Review Commission. 3 --�5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 8. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan. 9. That the apartment project shall remain as an apartment project in perpetuity. 10. That the construction of the units in both projects shall comply with the mitigation measures identified in the Structural Acoustical Analysis prepared July 28, 2005 by Investigative Science and Engineering. 11. That the applicant shall construct a bike path to City specifications in between the railroad and the north limit of the project. 12. That the tandem parking spaces shall have a minimum dimension of 10 feet by 37 feet. 13. That the condo site plan provide for a minimum of 20 on -site service worker parking spaces. 14. That no part of Tentative Tract Map 33837 shall record prior to issuance of building permits for units in that particular phase. Riverside Countv Fire Deoartment: 1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, appropriate NFPA Standards, CFC, and CBC and/or recognized fire protection standards. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per UFC article 87. 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 4 --� rr�' PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of 1,500 gpm for single family dwellings and 2,500 gpm for multifamily dwellings. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) (4"x2-1 /2"x2-1 /2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 200' from any portion of a single family dwelling measured via vehicular travelway and 165' from any portion of a multifamily dwelling measured via vehicular travelway. 5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. 6. Please be advised the proposed project may not be feasible since the existing water mains will not meet the required fire flow. 7. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The fire Marshal shall approve the locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All valves and connections shall not be less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. 8. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and Water - flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per CBC Chapter 9. 9. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3. 10. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A10BC extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 11. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system per NFPA 96 in all public and private cooking operations except single-family residential usage. 12. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street, the roadway must be 36' wide and 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn -around, 55' in industrial developments. 13. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers or other means, provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. over -ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16" with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 14. A dead end single access over 500' will require a secondary access, sprinklers or other mitigative measures approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstance shall a dead end over 1,300' be accepted. 15. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or an emergency gate from an adjoining development. 16. This project may require licensing by a state or county agency. To facilitate plan review, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal a letter of intent detailing the proposed usage and occupancy type. 17. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the City. 18. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction. H D i 4A.J10 City of Palm Desert Case No. GPA 05-02 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT � EXHIBIT A Proposed GPA COMMERCIAL, RESORT To RESIDENTIAL, rv`iZr�� MEDIUM DENSITY/ HIGH DENSITY OVERLAY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Date: -) I A R: S K-SIIM�FTR�FOR AR: 3 PA 15 City of Palm Desert MOMM kq,� -, Vr Proposed Zoning Changes 1-1-M R-1-M To To ' R.-9 P.R.49 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Date: 44-. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT C Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NOS,: GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 AND TT 33837 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Taylor Woodrow, Inc. 15 Cushing Irvine, CA 92618 PROJ CT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Emerald Brooks LLC 1 100 Quail, #102 Newport Beach, CA 92660 A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a General Plan Amendment from C-R/H (Resort/hotel Commercial) to R-M/R-HO (Medium Density/high Density Overlay), a Change of Zone from R1 M (single family/mobile home residential) to PR-9 and PR-19 (Planned Residential nine units per acre and 19 units per acre), a Precise Plan of Design and a Tentative Tract Map for a 758-unit residential project (608 condominium/ single family units and 150 apartment units) on 79.6 acres at the northeast comer of Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive, 76-000 Frank Sinatra Drive. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT E W CIIY 0[ Pr,L.M 9 1 S I P I 71-510 FRCD WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT. CALIFORNIA 92260-2S78 TIL: 760 346-061 i FAX: 760 341-7098 miov-p,1m-&s,rt.nrIt CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-07, PP 05-12 AND PM 33837 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by TAYLOR WOODROW INC. for approval of a general plan amendment, change of zone, precise plan of design, parcel map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for an 761-unit residential project (61 1 condominium units and 150 apartment units) on 79.6 acres at the northeast corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive, 76-000 Frank Sinatra Drive (the existing Emerald Desert RV Park property). SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 18, 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 at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary October 3, 2005 Palm Desert Planning Commission MW Taylor Woodrow October 11, 2005 The City of Palm Desert RECEIVED 00, 11 M Planning Commission COMMUNITY DUBLOPMENT DEPARTMENT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive CITY OF PALM DESERT Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: October 18, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting — Spanish Walk Dear Commissioner Tschopp: Attached, please find a copy of a presentation DVD with accompanying booklets which demonstrate the theme and exceptional quality of the proposed Taylor Woodrow Homes Spanish Walk community. The DVD presentation will be provided for viewing at the October 181" Planning Commission meeting. The smaller booklet (8-1/2" x 11") contains printouts of selected screen images shown in the DVD presentation in order to allow you to view components of the DVD during the public hearing or when a DVD player is not readily available. The larger booklet (11" x 17"), contains a more detailed presentation of the community's function, including the overall land plan, paseo/open space areas, product layout, and architecture and street/entry elevations. Taylor Woodrow Homes is honored to work in a supportive relationship with the Planning Commission, City Council and City staff to ensure the development of a unique, high quality master planned community which will further the efforts of the City of Palm Desert to be the preferred community within the Coachella Valley. Please feel free to view the presentation products at your leisure and call with any questions or comments. Taylor Woodrow Homes and all of our consultant team look forward to a long and enriched relationship with the City of Palm Desert. I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to meet with you prior to the Planning Commission meeting to discuss the project and address any questions you may have. Again, thank you for the opportunity to develop a community within the City of Palm Desert. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 760.275.0598. Sincerel Ti othy K. Day Senior Project Manager -dL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2005 MINUTES apologize for not being at the last meeting but we did have somebody here. They brought back what they thought was pertinent information and passed it along. The idea is that we have compromised at this point. Based on code, I understood that you could build 1:1 on this site. Mr. Drell stated that as a one-story retail building you can cover the site from sidewalk to sidewalk. Mr. Smith stated that they're proposing a restaurant that has a demand for 2'/2 times as much parking complicates the issue. Mr. Drell stated that given that the applicant is asking for an amendment of a conditional use permit because with the restaurant, they're exceeding that entitlement. Every project, regardless of what the entitlement on paper is, it has to be approved by the ARC. Mr. Lieberman stated that they're giving up 1,000 square feet of supposedly buildable land to provide this setback. Mr. Drell stated that they're in excess of buildable land by 3,000 or 4,000 square feet because of the restaurant. Mr. Lieberman stated that he didn't know where these numbers were coming from. Mr. Drell suggested that they have a working session with himself, John Vuksic, Diane Hollinger, Spencer Knight and Mr. Lieberman. Because of the restaurant, they're in excess of the entitlement and it's a discretionary approval. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he remembers talking about the offsets in this building because it is so long and so massive. The offsets that were represented in the perspective need to be realized in the working drawings. It's as simple as that. The project is so close on the architecture but we're arguing over small things at this point. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved Gregory to continue the request wit architect is to have a study session Spencer Knight and Diane Hollinger. Commissioner Hanson absent. 1. CASE NO.: MISC h seconded by Commissioner the understanding that the with Phil Drell, John Vuksic, Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI TAYLOR WOODROW HOMES, INC., 15 Cushing, Irvine, CA 92618-4200 NATURE OF PROJ M APPROVAL SOUGHT: Introduction and discussion of an 810-unit mixed residential development. tg&pTION: 76-000 Frank Sinatra Drive (Emerald Desert site) G:Planning0onna QuaNeempdocslApmin AR050 UNIN 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2005 MINUTES ZONE: R-1 M Gil Miltenberger, Regional Manager for Taylor Woodrow, was present and introduced Tim Day, Senior Project Manager. Taylor Woodrow has been in Southern California for 28 years and are known for high quality master plans and housing. Emerald Desert is currently an RV park and they thought that this would be a special opportunity to bring a mid - density project to the desert. Monica Simpson, SWA Landscape and Bob Heide, Heide Architecture are on the team for this project. They are going to create paseos, pathways and walkways throughout the neighborhood. There will be five product types, which vary in density and brings the overall density to between 8-10 per acre. They have about 70 acres to work with. Two of the product types are attached, two that are detached and then future apartments. Ms. Simpson, SWA Landscape, stated that each housing type is broken down into small, interconnected neighborhoods. They're connected by a main landscaped boulevard which goes from Frank Sinatra to Gerald Ford. The idea is that the community park is located central to the project so everybody has the advantage of driving by it. There's also a variable landscape setback along the boulevard and other open space features. All the streets connect to the park in different ways. The paseo system leads to the community pools and the park. It's a very walkable, open environment. There's also a city biketwalking project with gardens and parks that connect to the trail. Rather than surround the project with a 6' wall they decided to open up the project and create some architectural presence along Frank Sinatra and Gerald Ford. Mr. Heide, architect, stated that there is a great deal of emphasis on the paseo system that works through the entire plan. Every one of the programs that they're presenting puts emphasis on a pedestrian system that really works off the street. If you look closely at any one of the product lines you're going to see the suggestion of a paseo system. It mandates that there is a strong architectural presence on the paseos. We're forced to use four-sided architecture consisting of stucco and the roofs. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the Fire Marshal would approve the hammerhead portions of the design. Mr. Heide stated that they've met with the Fire Marshal and it was approved. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he likes the circulation and the park is very nice and it meanders so you can't see all the way down to the end. It was suggested that they take the same meandering idea with the secondary areas. Ms. Simpson commented that some of the roads actually stop in a pocket park so you won't see all the way down the street. G:Planning0onna OuaiverUpdocs\AWT in\AR050814.MIN 1 M. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2005 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic stated that he likes the product and that it's very nicely done. On a project like this, it's going to come down to the details. The windows need to be recessed and be careful with proportion. The roof tile on one of the examples is very beautiful. It's two-piece tile with mudded bird stops. Mr. Miltenberger stated that there is a real commitment to detail, however, we probably won't be able to represent that particular element. We will be doing projected balconies and using doors that are recessed. Commissioner Vuksic encouraged the applicant to use file that looks like two-piece tile, instead of using S-tile with manufactured bird stops. Mr. Miltenberger stated that the first course of the eave is done with a two-piece product and then they fill in the balance of the roof with an S- tile, which is a great way to disguise the roofing system. Commissioner Gregory pointed out that they're showing one main pool and three satellite pools but they all seem to be toward the north end of the project. He was wondering about the proximity for many of the people along the massive southern portion of the project and if there could be a more equitable distribution of pools. Ms. Simpson stated that the Auto Court product and the Compact Lot product has the ability to put dipping pools within their lots. Mr. Miltenberger stated that they wanted to put the pools in the higher density areas. Commissioner Gregory stated that he wanted to make sure that the possibility of putting dipping pools on the southern prototypes would be available. Commissioner Oppenheim asked about the size of a dipping pool. Mr. Miltenberger stated that it could be 15' x 15' or 15' x 20'. Some are 10' x 10' and 3' deep. Commissioner Van Vliet concurred with Commissioner Vuksic's comments. There are some really nice elements on the northern side, but it seems like the lower comer is linear with higher density and not quite as interesting in terms of the street layout. The paseo concept is great, but it puts all the garages on the back side which becomes a harsh corridor of concrete. There isn't much room for landscaping. There's just a whole series of garages with hardscape. Enhanced paving could make it look interesting. Most people are going to come into their houses that way. Ms. Simpson stated that there are a lot of pockets where landscaping could occur that would spill out into the lane, which would soften this area. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that there's minimal landscaping in the Flats product. Ms. Simpson stated that there are some opportunities to add vertical plant material that would help soften up this area. The alleys are 30' wide, door to door. G:PlanningOwna 0A1veewpdocs%"n1AR0W614.MIN 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2005 MINUTES Commissioner Lopez asked about the trash locations and wondered if they were using dumpsters. Mr. Miltenberger stated that the trash cans will be brought out to the curb face by the homeowner on trash day and then they'll be stored in the garage or the yard area after the trash is picked up. Commissioner Lopez stated that the architecture looks good, but when I first looked at this on the site plan I thought that it was very linear. I see a lot of this when I go visit my dad in Orange County. I think it looks good but I have a little problem with the site planning, but I understand that there are costs involved and you have to make money too. You've addressed a lot of that with the architecture and landscape design. Sometimes there are buildings there where they don't need to be linear. They don't have to be in a straight row. Sometimes when they're linear and you can tweak the buildings, you're not looking into someone's backyard or windows. Ms. Simpson stated that they have tried to vary the buildings from the street so you don't get too much of a line. Commissioner Lopez commented that he agreed with Commissioner Gregory about the pool locations. Mr. Heide stated that there are a lot of playful characteristics with respect to how the buildings layer back. Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager, stated that one of the major concerns that he has is that they have a reduction of planting space. The concept is that they can just fit it In and the plants will grow anywhere. At this point, you're really substandard in your planting spaces. They're too small. There are no spaces that are substantial enough to support the type of tree population that's shown on the design. The planting spaces need to be looked at and considered carefully. Ms. Simpson stated that they're actually wider than what you see between curbs and sidewalks. Mr. Knight stated that Palm Desert isn't like the rest of the world. People try to put large trees into 5'-6' wide spaces and it doesn't work. Ms. Simpson stated that the larger trees are located along the boulevard and they have 15' between the curb and the wall. Mr. Knight stated that this Is something that he looks for in his review and it becomes an architecture problem because you can't shoe horn trees in to small spaces. In terms of a single planter space for a tree, the minimum planter size is 6' x 8' clear space. Ms. Simpson stated that a lot of that depends on what kind of tree it is. Obviously, we're not going to put a big tree in a small space. If we have a 6' x 6' planter, we'll use a small tree. Mr. Knight stated that they won't have a 6' x 6' planter. It's too small. They need 6' x 8' of clear space. Mr. Heide stated that they have 6' x 8' planters along the paseo. Mr. Knight stated that the other dynamic is that this design will not pass the water efficient ordinance, based on the plant palette demonstrated here. With our water efficient ordinance, you have to consider water conservation at the front end of the design, not later. Ms. Simpson stated that a lot of it will be gravel and the plants were taken from the G:PlanningOwna Qua1ver%vpdocsVlgdnM050814.MIN 19 <Z?-� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2005 MINUTES City's plant list. Mr. Knight stated that it's the planting density that's the issue. Commissioner Gregory suggested that the applicant make sure that they're in sync with whoever lays out the utilities. In high density projects, it's common for utilities to run their lines right through the planters. Commissioner Lambell stated that the trick in her mind is to make something look like what it's not. What it is is 8-10 units per acre. There are long straight streets with little, tiny trees. Make that high - density reverberate as you're trying to find that address. Anything that you do that meets the landscape requirements and architectural requirements, we urge you to do because that will stop it from looking like 8-10 units per acre. That's what we want to try to negate. Commissioner Gregory asked that on the very high -density units where you do not have planting on the Auto Courts, what will be done there. Mr. Heide stated that they don't have dimensions for a tree so there will be 3' x 4' pockets for smaller planting. Commissioner Gregory stated that he wanted to address this now. Staff is going to want some type of tree to soften those alleys. If trees can't be planted in spaces smaller than 6' x 8', is it possible to add some areas for trees. Mr. Heide stated that this program requires one garage door after another. We don't have room for a 6' x 8' planter for a tree. All of the other programs will have room for the 6' x 8' planter areas. This higher -density program with so many garage doors doesn't allow us to carve out areas for planting. It's an internal parking area to service the homeowner. Mr. Knight stated that what he's seeing in a high -density population is the reduction in the size of the planting spaces where they try to shoe horn trees in and think that everything is going to be okay. The bottom line is that it won't be a long term solution. You're developing in one of the worst areas in the desert in terms of climatic conditions, so you're got plant material that's being forced to grow in a harsh environment in concrete in undersized spaces. It needs to be taken into consideration and it wouldn't be professionally sound on our part to allow that to happen. It happens on the coast because the growing environment is much different than it is here in the desert. Mr. Knight asked if the alley was going to be concrete or asphalt. Mr. Heide stated that he wasn't sure if they've gotten that far yet. Mr. Knight stated that the soil in the root zone in an area with asphalt in the desert is 110'+. Roots will not grow in anything over 104% With asphalt you get no penetration underneath it. Concrete is a little different because of the reflective properties which tends to insulate the G:PlanningOwna Quaivw*4x =c AgrNn%AR050614.MIN 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2005 MINUTES soil and drop it just enough to allow root penetration. If you use asphalt, know that the roots aren't going any further. If you use concrete or pavers, then they might have a chance. Pavers are even better than concrete. coon: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for conceptual approval and the applicant was directed to return with more detailed drawings of each product, as well as a revised landscape plan. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP 01-16 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROV& SOUGHT: Discussion regarding height of the Henderson Community Building. LQ_QATION-, 72-575 Highway 111 (Paseo Entrada) ZONE: OP Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. The meeting was adjourned at 3:43 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:PIannIngOwna Qua1verW4xk=WprtiMAR0W614.MIN 21 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 12, 2005 MINUTES appears more centered on the facade. The sign on the back was approved as submitted. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners Hanson, Gregory and Van Vliet absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 05-12 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS); TAYLOR WOODROW HOMES, INC., 15 Cushing, Irvine, CA 92618-4200 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised plans for an 810-unit mixed residential development. Spanish Walk LOCATION: 76-000 Frank Sinatra Drive (former Emerald Desert site) ZONE: R-1 M Mr. Smith stated that this is the Emerald Desert site on Frank Sinatra. Monica Simpson, site planner and landscape architect for Taylor Woodrow Homes, was present to address the commission. The site is located at the intersection of Gerald Ford and Frank Sinatra. We've got approximately 810 units that we're getting approval for on an 80-acre site. There are five different housing types including a cluster unit (detached unit), compact lots for small single-family homes, flats (higher density product), auto courts (detached with four homes sharing an auto court) and a more traditional townhome-type product. The project has one major community collector road that links all the different neighborhoods together. Along that road is a central park with additional open space areas. At the last meeting, there were comments about the rigidity about the plan with straight streets so we went back and curved some of the upper streets and added some curbs. We've also added a choker, which is necking down the intersection with landscape and a sidewalk so that when you look down the street, you have some landscape that actually encroaches into that view so you don't actually see straight down the street. We've also added some special paving at the intersections around the park to help break up the street system. We had a workshop with Diane Hollinger to refine our plant palette and we'll continue to refine that list and we know what's G:Planning\Mnna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin1AR050712.MIN 4 9 D ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 12, 2005 MINUTES available. The landscape will have a desert palette with desert trees and accents. The idea is that the main street will have more of a lush desert appearance. Turf is going to be limited to selected areas in the park. Most of the other landscape will be dry rock or decomposed granite. There will be an 8'-10' trail that runs along the back side of the property which connects to a city-wide trail. Another comment made at the last meeting, was the lack of community pool areas in certain portions of the project. We've removed two lots and added a pool. The compact lots have enough room to have their own pools. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the average density of the project. Ms. Simpson stated that it's about 10 units per acre. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he likes the site plan and the location of the parks and how they break up the main promenade and the way the street meanders so they can't look all the way down it. Mr. Drell stated that there will be an associated component of 150 apartments, which will interact to a certain degree with the commercial projects that are occurring to the west. At the boundary of the apartments and the commercial will be a signalized intersection shared between the commercial, apartments and the university. Ms. Simpson stated that they're working closely in developing the plans for the apartments to make sure that the edge works between the unit types. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the acreage of the project. Ms. Simpson stated that it's about 80 acres. Colin Leu, representative for Heide Architects, was present and stated that he's in charge of the cluster units and also the townhomes. What has changed from the previous presentation is that they went further to develop the B and the C elevations. They're not 100% complete because there's a lot of work involved. What has also changed is the detailing of the wrought -iron balconies, the garage doors, the soffit above the garage doors, the shutter details, the window trims, and the save details. In general, the style is all the same (Spanish). Ms. Simpson made sure that there was room for trees in the auto court. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the material to be used on the balconies, posts on verandas and railings and stated that they look like they're very small dimension wood. It's very nice in keeping with the style of architecture, but wondered what it was going to look like several years from now. Mr. Leu stated that they had intended to use wood, but instead of using wood railing, they were going to use tubular steel and paint it dark brown. You really can't see a difference and it's not going to twist or warp. G:Planning0onna Quaivar\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050712.MIN 5 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 12, 2005 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic wanted to see pictures of what the roof is going to look like with the boosting of the tile. It might look fine with just the first three rows done with boosting, but photos would help. The renderings show shadows in the window areas and wanted to know if there was going to be reveal in the windows. Mr. Leu stated that they intend to have 2 x 4 walls but they're going to use 2 x 3 nailers to give the window a 1" recess. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this is a very nice project. The articulation in the architecture is really nice. Mr. Drell stated that they should have a special comer elevation for each of the products. Commissioner Vuksic concurred and stated that a couple of the elevations have blank walls on the two-story units. Mr. Leu stated that they pay very close attention to four-sided architecture. On the interior units where they're only eight feet apart, the side walls won't really be seen. The paseo elevations are important. The windows will still be recessed on the interior elevations but they won't have as much articulation as the exterior walls. Examples were shown to the commission. Jeremy Lauden, representative from Investigative Science Engineering, was present and stated that he's working on the acoustical study. The initial review showed that the worst case would require a 12' high barrier, which is based on the train noise. We took a measurement of the train over a ten-minute period instead of an hourly period, per City standard, and we utilized that, which gave us the 12' high wall. Right now we're looking at multiple train events through one hour with durations of less than ten minutes and we're finding that there might be the opportunity to reduce the wall down to 8' along most of the actual project site. Mr. Drell stated that the City did a generic study along the whole route in response to complaints from people who already have an 8' high wall. People have been showing up at City Council meetings saying that they want to City to pay for a higher wall. Mr. Drell stated that the problem is that this proposed project has two-story buildings and wondered how an 8' high wall would block sound at 16'. Mr. Lauden stated that an 8' or 12' wall won't do much for the second story. Therefore, the second story becomes more of an architectural treatment. We were also going to try to minimize the windows on the side facing the train and they will also use thicker glass on the windows that they do put on this elevation. We will also minimize balconies and balcony exposures to the train side and try to put them on the other side. These are things that we're still trying to figure out. Mr. Drell G:Planning0onna Qualver\wpdocs\Ag in\AR050712.MIN 6 91?__ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 12, 2005 MINUTES stated that they're going to need some very illustrative exhibits to show the physics of how the sound works. The way the buildings are oriented, there are open corridors that lead towards the train tracks. If the buildings were going the other way, they would block the sound. The Council is going to need some pretty graphic convincing of what their mitigation is going to be. Mr. Lauden stated that on the last project that he did with Taylor Woodrow, which was located along Interstate 15, they did modeling receptors all the way through the corridors so they could show how the sound was going to drop off and how the buildings are going to help buffer with the noise. Mr. Smith stated that the person who is complaining about train noise lives 600 feet from the tracks with an 8' high wall, a six -lane street and tamarisk trees between him and the train. Mr. Lauden stated that their disclosure documents are very thorough. In the CC & R documents they have a civil engineer do exhibits which are part of the noise study. Commissioner Lambell asked how far this proposed project is from the railroad track. Mr. Tim Day stated that the existing wall is about 100 feet from the tracks. Commissioner Lambell stated that she'd be more worried about the noise from 1-10 than the intermittent train. Mr. Drell stated that the noise from 1-10 is like the ocean and you get used to it and it disappears. It's the intermittent sound that gets your attention. Mr. Lauden stated that he took long-term measurements between the tracks and the existing wall and took measurements close to the 1-10 and during one train event and we found that the sound levels were below 65, which is below the City standard. Once you go inside the wall, the sound would obviously be reduced. The 1-10 is offset enough so that I'm not too worried about it. From building facade, the 1-10 is probably 450 feet away. I don't see a problem with the freeway, but the train events will be more difficult to meet the City standard. We're trying to make sure that the people who are going to live there are going to be comfortable, especially on the second floor where the bedrooms are located. Glass on the second -story windows are going to have to be dual pane and dual glaze. They may even have to go to a triple pane window to help with the noise. Commissioner Lopez stated that the site plan is nice. When I first looked at the site plan, I thought that it was very linear and it looked like you were trying to get as many people in here as possible. I think that you've addressed it as best as you could with the corridors, paseos, common areas and recreation areas. You've softened it as well as you could for a project that's this compact. The site plan is driven by what's going on to the west at the university. It was suggested that the applicant think about mailbox locations and trash locations. Mr. Drell G:Planning0onna Qualver\wpdocsWgminWR050712.MIN 7 6_33 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 12, 2005 MINUTES stated that they should also consider the location of the utility boxes as well. Mr. Drell stated that if the applicant wants to make any changes, then it has to come back to the commission for their approval. The apartments will be processed under a separate application. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for preliminary approval subject to (1) submit photo of detail of boosting of roof tile, (2) show special comer elevation for each product, (3) approval by Landscape Manager, and (4) use tube steel where small wood members are shown. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners Hanson, Gregory and Van Vliet absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP 05-05/CUP 05-01 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS): ERNEST RAMIREZ, 668 N. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 517, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised elevations for the conversion of existing Texaco gas station to a new Jiffy Lube drive through facility. LOCATION:, 74-180 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Bagato stated that he received revised plans based on comments made at the last ARC meeting. Ernest Ramirez, applicant, was present and stated that one of the comments that they failed to make a revision on was the trellis, which comes out beyond the exiting of the facility. The wall has been reduced from V to 4'. Commissioner Lopez asked if there would be any way to get a little more of a cantilever on the west elevation. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he didn't even want to critique the proposal because I have to stare at it to try to figure out what changed. I don't think you understood me last time or you didn't take me seriously. This is not an acceptable building, in my opinion, to go G:Planning0onna QuaiveAwpdocsWgmin\AR050712.MIN 8 qq CITY OF PALM DESERT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Department of Community Development/Planning Attention: Steve Smith FROM: Mark Greenwood, City Engineer SUBJECT: PP 5-12, PM 33837 Taylor Woodrow Inc, Emerald Desert DATE: July 1, 2005 The Public Works Department will comment on the project after a traffic study is completed and plans are submitted on the adjacent apartment project site -which is anticipated within a couple weeks. IIS R ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY G� COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (760) 398-2651 • FAX (760) 398-3711 DIRECTORS OFFICERS PETER NELSON. PRESIDENT STEVEN B. ROBBINS. PATRICIA A. LARSON. VICE PRESIDENT GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER TELLIS CODEKAS MARK BEUHLER, JOHN W.McFADDEN ASST. GENERAL MANAGER RUSSELL KITAHARA 13, JULIA NDEZ. SECRETARY AASST. July 2005 AN PARKS. TO GENERAL MANAGER REDWINE AND SHERRILL. ATTORNEYS Department of Community Development City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Gentlemen: File: 0163.1 0421.1 RECEIVED0721.1 AIL 21 W COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMWT CITY OF PALM DESERT Subject: General Planning Amendment No. 05-02, Change of Zone No. 05-02. Plot Plan No. 05-12 and Parcel Map No. 33837 This area lies on the sandy area in the northern portion of Palm Desert and is considered safe from regional stormwater flows except in rare instances. This area is designated Zone C on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Drainage from this area is contributory to the Mid -Valley Stormwater Project. The City shall require mitigation measures to be incorporated into the development to prevent flooding of the site or downstream properties. These measures shall include on -site retention of water from the 100-year storm and may include dedication of right-of-way for regional flood control facilities or other participation in the financing of regional flood control facilities. The City shall require mitigation measures to be incorporated into the development to prevent flooding of the site or downstream properties. These measures shall require 100 percent on -site retention of runoff from the 100-year storm. Since the stormwater issues of this development are local drainage, the District does not need to review drainage design further. The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this District. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY 0- t� �v O WMWA ,m o Desert Sands Unified School District r� � y 47-950 Dune Palms Road • La Quint&, California 92253 • (760) 777-4200 • •o �a u woa ouw►&ti7 June 29, 2005 RECEIVED Steve Smith, Planning Manager J U L 0 1 20 City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Palm Desert, CA 9M60-2578 CITY OF PALM DESERT Request for Comments: Case No: GPA 05-02, Cfl 05-02,PP 05-12, and PM 33937 Dear Mr Smith, This is in response to your request for input on the above .,.t,..,—ced project and its effect on public schools. The Desert Sands Unified School District boundaries do not include Rancho Mirage property located at the northeast corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive. Therefore, we are unable to comment as this location is outside of our boundaries and within the Palm Springs Unified School District boundaries. We are returning the packet of information mailed to us. If you have any questions with regards boundary maps at www.dsusd.klZca.us. Services, Facilities Services. to our boundaries, you may access our You will find the maps under Business Please feel free to call me at (760) 771-8521, if you have further questions. Thank you. Sinc e on McGilvrey Office Specialist Facilities Services /sm enclosures RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT In cooperation with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 73710 Fred Waring Dr. 8102 • Palm Desart, Caffomla 92260 • (780) 346-1870 • Fax (760) 779-1959 Craig Anthony Fire Chief Proudly Ong the Cove Fire Marshal's Office 73710 Fred Waring Drive #102 arms of Riverside Palm Desert CA 92260 County and the Cities of: - (760 ) 346-1870 Banning e Beaumont e e Canyon lake e Coachella e Desert Hot Springs e Indian Wells 0 Indio 0 Lake Elsinore 0 La Quints e Moreno Valley e Palm Desert 0 Perris e Rancho Mirage e San Jacinto e Temecula Board of Supervison Bob Buster, District t Juba Tavaglioae, District 2 Jim Venable, I District 3 Roy Wilson, District 4 Marina Ashley, District 3 ; TO: V t REF: TPc,lbtrt S"M Tkxz& a -r-*4¢d�tt If circled, conditions apply to proiect DATE: 4?--L\rri With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, the fire department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, CFC, and CBC or any recognized Fire Protection Standards: The Fin Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all buildings ner UFC article 87. A fin flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the iob site. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a gpm now of: 1500 gpm for single family dwellings 2500 gpm for multifamily dwellings 3000 gpm for commercial buildings The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant (s) 4"x 2'A" x 2 %", located not less than 25' nor more than: 200' from any portion of a single family dwelling measured via vehicular travelway 165' from any portion of a multifamily dwelling measured via vehicular travelway 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelwav Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required ire flow. �. Please be advised the proposal project may not be feasible since the existing water mains will not meet the required fire flow, Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve the Q locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All valves and connections shall not be less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved hvdrant. Exemgftd are dne and two familv dwellingp. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and Water -flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per CBC Chapter 9. W. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chanter 3. a nstall portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A1OBC extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire CWv extinguisher is reauired in all commercial kitchens. V Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system per NFPA 96 in all public and Drivate cooking_gperations except single-family residential usage. 16. Install a dust collecting system per CFC Chapter 76 if conducting an operation that produces airborne oarticles. TU All building shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street the roadway must be 36' wide and 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn -around, 55' in industrial develonments. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers or other means provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key over -ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16' with minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". Lt9 A dead end single access over 500' will require a secondary access, sprinklers or other mitigative measures approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstance shall a dead end over 1300' be accepted. C2O) A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or a emerieeate from an adioining development. 0O This project may require licensing by a state or county agency, to facilitate plan review the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal a letter of intent detailinLthe proposed usage and occupancv tvne. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. /�. All fire sprinkler systems, flied fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted se4arately to the Fire Marshal for approval nrior to construction. 24. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws or when building hermits are not obtained within twelve months. 25. All elevators shall be minimum gurnev size. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Marshal's Office at (760) 346-1970 in Palm Desert. I. tion: 73710 Fred Waring Drive #102. Palm Desert CA 92260 Other: Sincerely, David A. Avila Fire Marshal INTEROFFICE MEMORADUM City of Palm Desert RECEIVED AUG 0 5 2005 "OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPABTMUT TO: STEVE SMITH, PLANNING MANAGER CITY OF PALM DE98R? FROM: FRANKIE RIDDLE, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST SUBJECT: GPA 05-02, C2 05-02, PP 05-12, AND PM 33837: TAYLOR WOODROW, INC. DATE: AUGUST 4, 2005 The precise plan has been reviewed to determine the need for a bus shelter/stop at the project location and inclusion of required trash/recycling enclosure for each project. Bus Shelter: After reviewing the plans and receiving comments from Eunice Lovi of SunLine Transit Agency it has been determined that this project will be conditioned with a requirement for a bus shelter and turnout. However, if service is not provided in the area at the time of construction, then the condition will be reexamined by the City to determine if the need for public transit facilities still exists. Trash Enclosures: The plan does not appear to reflect a trash enclosure as it is a single-family project with waste disposal service to individual homes. However, Waste Management of the Desert must still review and approve the plans prior to final approval by the City, since its vehicles will be servicing the complex and needing access to each street. The Applicant may contact Jennifer at Waste Management of the Desert at (760) 340-6445 regarding this issue. cl`�> FRAWE-RIDDLE SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST 1 p " --- CITY OF PALM DESERT ART IN PUBLIC PLACES INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Steve Smith, Planning Manager From: Deborah Schwartz, Public Art Coordinator P`' Date: 06/29/05 Subject: Case No. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12, and PM 33837 The Art In Public Places Department recommends that the public art fee for the 810+ residential units to be located at the northeast comer of Frank Sinatra and Gerald Ford Drives, 76-000 Frank Sinatra Drive, be used for an onsite public art project. Our conservative estimation is that the fee will be approximately $240,800 and feel that this amount will allow for a public art project. 03 PALM DESERT POLICE DEPARTMENT Served by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department Bob Doyle, Sheriff -Coroner 73520 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760)836-1600 Fax (760) 836-1616 June 28, 2005 City of Palm Desert Planning Department 73510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 ATTN: Steve Smith, Planning Manager RE: GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12, and PM 33837 Dear Mr. Smith, • Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the plan to build an 810+ unit residential project on 80+/- Acres at the northeast corner of Frank Sinatra Dr and Gerald Ford Dr, 76000 Frank Sinatra Dr. Since complete plans were not submitted showing the specific designs for the houses, floor plans, lighting, and landscaping, I will comment on the overall exterior design. The following issues of concern related to public safety and law enforcement are presented: 1. Addressing: The name of the complex should be posted near the front entrances of Gerald Ford and Frank Sinatra. This may assist police and fire department personnel responding to the location. 2. Exterior Lighting: I recommend landscape lighting along the length of the exterior walls in all areas along the public roadways. This could deter any potential thieves from attempting to climb over the walls during darkness and could help prevent vandalism to the walls. 3. Exterior WalUFence: The exterior wall should be a minimum of six feet high and should not have any landscaping boulders or trees placed close enough to the wall that would allow a potential thief the assistance for climbing. The exterior wall should have landscaping of the type, and situated in locations, to maximize observation while providing the desired degree of aesthetics. An example of this would be the Bougainvillea that has green foliage with red flowers but also has thorns throughout the bush that would deter climbing over it. These plants along the wall could also prevent graffiti. These improvements would be especially important on the north section of wall by the train tracks. 4. Exterior Gates: If electronic entry/exit gates are to be installed at the two entrances, Knox Boxes should be installed on the outside of each gate to allow police and fire department access in the event of an emergency response. I0� Page 2 5. Common Area: All park areas should be well lit during darkness to prevent vandalism to the property. Well lit common areas will also deter any would be thieves from hiding in these parks in an attempt to watch unsuspecting victims. Should the Planning Department, developer, or construction staff have any questions regarding the above law enforcement and public safety concerns, they may contact Deputy Robert Bishop at (760) 836-1671, between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Re tfull4tB tted, Deputyroop ID # 2759 Palm Desert Police Department � 05 online raaNs1141tNer A Public Agency July 25, 2005 Ms Frankie Riddle, Senior Management Analyst City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 MEMBERS Desert Hot Springs Rancho Mirage Indio Palm Springs Palm Desert Coachella Cathedral City Indian Wells Riverside County La Quinta RECEIVED RE: GPA 05-02, C2 05-02, PP 05-12 & PM 33837 Dear Ms. Riddle: ':JL 2 8 205 "01mu'Arm Dly"p1U? DZPA"101 Cffy OT P" DBSBST This letter is a follow up on our meeting on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 regarding the proposed commercial development at the northwest comer of Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Fond Drive. The SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed project at 76-000 Frank Sinatra Drive. Based on further review of the proposed commercial development, SunLine is not requesting the inclusion of transit amenities in the proposed development. As such, there is no need to condition the developer to construct a bus turnout and install a bus shelter as part of the project. Although, we currently do not offer direct bus service to the proposed development; SunLine continues to examine how best to meet mobility needs in Coachella Valley. We are currently conducting a Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) to examine existing bus routes, as well as determine the need for new bus routes to serve transit needs in the valley. As part of the on -going study, we are looking at all bus routes in our service area to evaluate areas in the valley that have experienced growth and need more transit service. The study results will include a Master Plan that will outline areas in the valley that may need additional transit service and amenities over the next several years. To ensure that the project is pedestrian friendly, SunLine recommends that you construct sidewalks in all areas fronting the project to ensure that future customers are able to access services that will be offered within the project area, as well as current services offered in the neighborhood. �oq 32-505 Harry Oliver Trail, Thousand Palms, CA 92276 Ph 760.343.3456 Fax 760.343.3845 www. sunline. olg Ms. Riddle, Senior Management Analyst Page Two SunLine is willing to meet with you to discuss our comments should you have any concerns. Please feel free to contact me at 760-343-3456, ext. 119 if I can be of further assistance to you. Sincerely, �oVI Eunice Lovi Director of Planning cc: Mikel Oglesby, General Manager Mike Greenwood, City Engineer Steve Smith, Planning Manager Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner CITY OF PALM DESERT BUILDING & SAFETY DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Steve Smith, Planning Manager From: Sam Szymanski, Plans Examiner Date: July 11, 2005 Subject: GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-02 and PM 33837 I have reviewed the information provided and have one comment concerning exterior noise as it relates to residential developments located near railways, highways, etc. The California Building Code, Appendix Chapter 12, Division IIA — Sound Transmission Control has been adopted by HCD per the adoption matrix and is enforced by the local jurisdiction. Section 1208A.8 as a whole covers Exterior Sound Transmission Control. Section 1208A.8.4 specifically states, " Residential structures to be located where the Ldn or CNEL exceeds 60 db shall require an acoustical analysis showing that the proposed design will limit exterior noise to the prescribed allowable interior level. The noise element of the general plan shall be used to the greatest extent possible to identify sites with noise levels potentially greater than 60 db." I have attached a copy of the entire Appendix for your information. H:W&= MeawAol 0 APPENDD( CHAPTER 12 2WI CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE Division UA—SOUND TRANSMISSION CONTROL SECTION 1200A — SOUND TRANSMISSION CONTROL 1208A.1 [For MCD 11 General. 1208A.1.1 [ForWD 1]Purpose and scope. T hie purpose of this section is to establish uniform minimum noise insulation perform- ance standards to protect persons within new hotels, motels, dor- mitories, apartment houses and dwellings other than detached single-family dwellings from the effects of excessive noise, includ- ing, but not limited to, hearing loss or impairment and interfer- ence with speech and sleep. This section shall apply to all buildings for which applications for permits were made subse- quent to August 22, 1974. 1208A.1.2 Defunitions. The following special definitions shall apply to this section: SOUND TRANSMISSION CLASS (STC) is a single -number rating used to compare walls, floor -ceiling assemblies and doors for their sound -insulating properties with respect to speech and small household appliance noise. The ST1C is derived from labora- tory measurements of sound transmission loss across a series of 16 test bands. Laboratory ST1C ratings should be used to the greatest extent possible in determining that the design complies with this section. FIELD SOUND TRANSMISSION CLASS (FSTC) is a single -number rating similar to STC, except that the transmission loss values used to derive the FST1C are measured in the fell All sound transmitted from the source room to the receiving room is assumed to be through the separating wall or floor -ceiling assembly. This section does not require determination of the FSTC, and field measured values of noise reduction should not be reported as transmission loss. IMPACT INSULATION CLASS (IIC) is a single -number rat- ing used to compare the effectiveness of floor -ceiling assemblies in providing reduction of impact -generated sounds such as foot- steps. ThtellC is derived from laboratory measurements of impact sound pressure level across a series of 16 test bands using a stan- dardized tapping machine, Laboratory IIC ratings should be used to the greatest extent possible in determining that the design com- plies with this section FIELD IMPACT INSULATION CLASS (FIIC) is a single - number rating similar to the I1C, except that the impact sound pressure levels are measured in the field NOISE ISOLATION CLASS (NIC) is a single -number rating derived from measured values of noise reduction between two en- closed spaces that are connected by one or more paths. The NIC is not adjusted or normalized to a standard reverberation time. NORMALIZED NOISE ISOLATION CLASS (NNIC) is a single -number rating similar to the NIC, except that the measured noise reduction values are normalized to a reverberation time of one-half second NORMALIZED A -WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL DIFFER- ENCE (D.) means, for a specified source room sound spectrum, D. is the difference, in decibels, between the average sound levels produced in two rooms after adjustment to the expected acoustical conditions when the receiving room under test is normally furnished DAY -NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVEL (l,d) is the i A -weighted equivalent continuous sound exposure level for a 24-hour period with a 10 db adjustment added to sound levels occurring during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL (CNEL) is a metric similar to theL,d,,, except that a 5 db adjustment is added to the equivalent continuous sound exposure level for evening hours (7 p.tn to 10 p.m.) in addition to the 10 db nighttime adjustment used in the Ld,,. 1208A.1.3 [For HCD 11 Relevant standards. The current edi- tion of the following standards is generally applicable for deter- mining compliance with this section. Copies may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) at 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, Penn- sylvania 19103. ASTM C 634, Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Environ- mental Acoustics. AS7ME 90, StandardMethod forLaboratoryMeasurement ofAir- borne Sound Transmission Loss of Building Partitions. AS7ME 336, Standard Test Method forMeasurement ofAirborne Sound Insulation in Buildings. AS7ME 413, Standard Classification for Determination of Sound Transmission Class. AS7ME 492, StandardMethod ofLaboratoryMeasurement oflm- pact Sound Transmission Through Floor -Ceiling Assemblies Using the Tapping Machine, AS7ME 497, Standard Recommended Practice for Installation of Fixed Partitions of Light Frame 7jppe for the Purpose of Con- serving Their Sound Insulation Efficiency. ASTM E 597, Recommended Practice for Determining A Single -Number Rating of Airborne Sound Isolation in Multi- unit Building Specifications. AS7ME 966, Standard Guide for Field Measurement ofAirborne Sound insulation of Building Facades and Facade Elements. AS7ME 989, Standard Classification forDetermination of Impact Insulation Class (IIC). ASTM E 1007, Standard Test Method for Field Measurement of Tapping Machine Impact Sound Transmission Through Floor -Ceiling Assemblies and Associated Support Structures. ASTM E 1014, Standard Guide for Measurement of Outdoor A -Weighted Sound Levels. 1208A.1.4 [For HCD 11 Complaints. Where a complaint as to noncompliance with this chapter requires a field test, the com- plainant shall post a bond or adequate funds in escrow for the cost of said testing. Such casts shall be chargeable to the complainant if the field tests show compliance with this chapter. If the tests show noncompliance, testing costs shall be borne by the owner or builder. 1208A.1.5 Local modification. The governing body of any city or city and county may, by ordinance, adopt changes or modifica- tions to the requirements of this section as set forth in Section 17922.7 of the Health and Safety Code. 1208.4.1.6 Interdwelling sound transmission control. 12084.1.6.1 Wall and floor -ceiling assemblies. Wall and floor -ceiling assemblies separating dwelling units or guest rooms from each other and from public or service areas such as interior corridors, garages and mechanical spaces shall provide airborne sound insulation for walls, and both airborne and impact sound insulation for f loor-ceiling assemblies. EXCEP770N. Impact sound insulation is not required for floor -ceiling assemblies over nonhabitabte rooms or spaces not de- 1-332 C A C A C A C A C A C c A c A C c A C c c c 2001 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE signed to be occupied, such as garages, mechanical rooms or storage areas. 12084.2 Airborne Sound Insulation. All such acoustically rated separating wall and floor -ceiling assemblies shall provide airborne sound insulation equal to that required to meet a sound transmission class (STQ rating of SO based on laboratory tests as defined in ASTM E 90 and E 413. Field-tested assemblies shall meet a noise isolation class (NIC) rating of 45 for occupied units and a normalized noise isolation class (NNIC) rating of 45 for un- occupied units as defined in ASTM Standards E 336 and E 413. ASTM E 597 may be used as a simplified procedure for field tests of the airborne sound isolation between rooms in unoccupied buildings. In such tests, the minimum value of Dm is 45 db for com- pliance. Entrance doors from interior corridors together with their pe- rimeter seals shall have STC ratings not less than 26. Such tested doors shall operate normally with commercially available seals. Solid -core wood -slab doors 1318 inches (35 mm) thick minimum or 18 gage insulated steel -slab doors with compression seals all around including the threshold, may be considered adequate without other substantiating information Field tests of corridor walls should not include segments with doors. If such tests are impractical, however, the NIC orNNIC rat- ing for the composite wall -door assembly shall not be less than 30. Penetrations or openings in construction assemblies for piping, electrical devices, recessed cabinets, bathtubs, soffits or heating, ventilating or exhaust ducts shall be seakd lined insulated or otherwise treated to maintain the required ratings. 1208A.d ImpactSound Insulation. All acoustically rate! sepa- rating floor -ceiling assemblies shall provide impact sound insula- tion equal to that required to meet an IIC rating of SO based on laboratory tests as defined inASTME 492 andE 989. Field-tested assemblies shall meet afield impact insulation class (FHC) rating of 45 for both occupied and unoccupied units as defined inAST 74 E 1007 and E 989, with the exception that the measured impact sound pressure levels shall not be normalized to a standard amount of absorption in the receiving room. Floor coverings may be included in the assembly to obtain the required ratings. These coverings must be retained as a perma- nent part of the assembly and may be replaced only by otherfloor loor coverings that provide the required impact sound insulation 1208.4.4 Tested Assemblies. 1208A.4.1 Laboratory -tested wall or floor -ceiling designs hav- ing STC or IIC ratings of SO or more may be used by the building official to determine compliance with this section during the plan review phase. Field tests shall be required by the building official when evidence of sound leaks or f tanking paths is noted, or when the separating assembly is not built according to the approved design 1208.4.42 Generic sound transmission control systems as listed in the Catalog of STC and IIC Ratings for Wall and Floor -Ceiling Assemblies, as published by the Office of Noise Control, Califor- nia Department ofNealth Services, or the Fin Resistance Design Manual aspublished by the GypsumAssociation, may be used to evaluate construction assemblies for their sound transmission properties. Other tests from recognized laboratories may also be used When ratings for essentially similar assemblies differ, and when ratings are below STC or lIC 50, find testing may be used to demonstrate that the building complies with this section 1208A.4.3 For field testing, rooms should ideally be large and re- verberant for reliable measurements to be made in all test bands. APPENDIX CHAPTER 12 This is often not passible for bathrooms, kitchens, hallways or rooms with large amounts of sound -absorptive materials. Field test results should, however, report the measured values in all bands, noting those which do not meet relevantASTMeriteria for diffusion. 12084.4.4 It should be noted that STC ratings do not adequately characterize the sound insulation of construction assemblies when the intruding noise is predominantly low pitched, as is often produced by amplified music or by large pieces of mechanical equipment It should also be noted that the transmission of impact sound from a standardized tapping machine may vary considerably for a given design due to differences in specimen size, flanking trans- mission through associated structure and the acoustical response of the room below. Laboratory iIC values should therefore be used with caution when estimating the performance of hard -surfaced floors in the fold Additionally, IIC ratings may not always be ade- quate to characterize the subjectively annoying creak or boom generated by footfalls on a lumber floor. 120845 Cerdfleadon. Field testing, when requires% shall be done under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical testing and engineering and who shall forward test re- sults to the building official showing that the sound isolation re- quirements stated above have been met Documentation of field test results should generally follow the requirements outlined in relevant ASTM standards. 12084.6 Not adopted by the State of California. 12084.7 Not adopted by the State of California. 12084.8 Exterior Sound Transmission Control 1208A.8.1 Application consistent with local land -use standards, residential structures located in noise critical areas, such as prox- imity to highways, county roads, city streets, railroads, rapid tran- sit lines, airports or industrial areas shall be designed to prevent the intrusion of exterior noises beyond prescribed levels. Proper design shall include, but shall not be limited to, orientation of the residential structure, setbacks, shielding and sound insulation of the building itself. 1208A.82 Allowable interior noise levels. Interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 db in any hab- itable roan. 77ie noisemetric shall be either the day -night average sound level (L,e„) or the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), consistent with the noise element of the local general plan NOTE. 1,& is the preferred metric for impkmenting these standards. Worst -case noise levels, either existing or future, shall be used as the basis for determining compliance with this section Future noise levels shall bepredicted fora period of at least 10 years from the time of building permit application 1208A.8.3 Airport noise sources. Residential structures to be located where the annualLd. or CNEL (as defined in Title 21, Sub- chapter 6, California Code of Regulations) exceeds 60 db shall re- quireanacoustical analysisshowing that theproposed design will achieve prescribed allowable interior level For public -use air- ports or heliports, the Ldm or CNEL shall be determined from the airport land -use plan prepared by the county wherein the airport is located For military bases, theLdm shall be determined from the facility Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) plan For all other airports or heliports, or public -use airports or heliports for which a land -use plan has not been developed the L,d„ or CNEL shall be determined from the noise element of the general plan of the local jurisdiction 1-332.1 �1 o APPENDD(CHAPTER 12 20M CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE When aircraft noise is not the only significant source, noise lev- els from all sources shaft be added to determine the composite site noise level. 4208A.8r4 Other noise sowea. Residential structures to be lo- cated when the 14W or CNEL a xceds 60 db shall require an acoustical analysis showing that the proposed design will limit ex- terior noise to the prescribed allowable interior level The noise element of the local general plan shall be used to the greatest ex- tent passible to identify sites with noise levels potentially greater than 60 A. 1208.4.85 Compliance. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report; prepared under die su- pervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engi- neering, with the application for a building permit The report shall show topographical relationship of noise sources and dwelling sites, idend'f ication of noise sources and their character- istics, predicted noise spectra and levels at the exterior of the pro- posed dwelling structure considering present and future land usage, basis for the prediction (measured or obtained from pub- lished data), noise attenuation measures to be applied; and an analysis of the noise insulation effectiveness of the proposed con- struction showing that the prescribed interior noise level require- ments are met If interior allowable noise levels are met by requiring that win- dows be unopenable or closed, the design for the structure must also specify a ventilation or air-conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment The ventilation system must not compromise the dwelling unit or guest room noise reduction. 12014.8.6 Field testing. When inspection indicates that the construction is not in accordance with the approved design, or that the noise reduction is compromised due to sound leaks or flanking paths, field testing maybe required A test report showing compliance or noncompliance with prescribed interior allowable levels shall be submitted to the building official. Measurements of outdoor sound levels shall generally follow the guidelines in ASTM E 1014. Field measurements of the A -weighted airborne sound insula- tion of buildings from exterior sources shall generally follow the guidelines in AS791! E 966. For the purpose of this standard, sound level differences mea- sured in unoccupied units shall be normalized to a receiving room reverberation time of one-half second Sound level differences measured in occupied units shall not be normalized to a standard reverberation time. q -332.2 CITY 0[ P h L M 0 [ S [ P I 73-5[o FRED wARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9226o-2578 TRL: 760 346-o61 i FAX: 760 341-7098 m(ov palm -dews oq CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-07, PP 05-12 AND PM 33837 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by TAYLOR WOODROW INC. for approval of a general plan amendment, change of zone, precise plan of design, parcel map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for an 810-unit residential project (660 condominium units and 150 apartment units) on 79.6 acres at the northeast comer of Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive, 76-000 Frank Sinatra Drive (the existing Emerald Desert RV Park property). 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 at, or prior to, the public hearing. I PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary August 25, 2005 Palm Desert Planning Commission 1 I CITY 01 P 0 1 M 0 1 S I R I 73-510 FRED W ARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 AS TEL: 760 346-o6i i FAX: 760 341-7098 info O palm -desert. org September 21, 2005 Mr. Justin Rasas, PE LOS Engineering, Inc. 6342 Ferris Square San Diego, CA 92121 Subject: Traffic Study for Emerald Desert Redevelopment Project Dear Mr. Rasas: Review of the Traffic Study for Emerald Desert Redevelopment Project results in the following comments: • On Page 6 under Existing Street System, the descriptions of the existing streets classifications should be per the current General Plan Traffic Circulation Network. Appendix should show the current Circulation Network as well. The current General Plan can be accessed on the web at hftp://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/P_FinalDraft.asp. • On page 10 in Figure 5: Existing Volumes, at the intersection of Frank Sinatra Drive and Eldorado Drive (No. 8) the figure shows a total of 7 vehicles exiting the project site for both the AM and PM peak periods. The existing volumes exiting the project site should equal the values given in Table 4 on Page 12 for the existing RV Park. • Beginning on Table 2: Existing Intersection Level of Service for the intersection of Frank Sinatra Drive at Eldorado Drive with all -way stop controls, the eastbound right turn volume is many times greater than the left turn. It may be more appropriate to calculate the unsignalized LOS with one left-thru lane and one exclusive right turn lane for the eastbound approach. • On Page 13 under Project Access and on Page 14, Figure 6, the existing access on Gerald Ford Drive immediately north of Frank Sinatra Drive (No. 6) will remain an unsignalized "T" intersection. The northern project access on Gerald Ford Drive (No. 11) will align with a future roadway from the university site and be signalized. These revised intersection configurations may result in a redistribution of the project traffic. • On Page 16 under Existing + Project Conditions, the AM and PM peak hour trips generated from the site should be equal to or greater than the total project traffic values given in Table 4 on Page 12 without Credit for existing RV Park. • On page 19 under Cumulative Project, the inclusion of year 2000 phase traffic, as presented in the traffic study for the CSUSB Campus, is inappropriate. The university currently has two occupied buildings and traffic generated by the site was accounted for by the traffic data collected in 2005. At this time, there is no identifiable Cumulative Project traffic that should be addressed by this traffic study. • On Page 24 under Build -Out (Year 2020) Conditions, future traffic conditions should be based on the volumes presented in the City of Palm Desert General Plan Traffic Study, dated September 2003. The general plan traffic study volumes should be used as the starting point for any analysis concerning build -out conditions. � 13 Page Two Mr. Justin Rasas September 21, 2005 Im Beginning on page 32 under Conclusions and Recommendations, recommended mitigations should be reviewed and revised once the traffic impacts are reanalyzed addressing the comments given herein. Each of these items will need to be revised prior to acceptance of the traffic impact analysis as final. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (760) 776-6450. Sincerely, 4W ,UGC Mark Diercks, P.E. Transportation Engineer MSD/msd Attachements cc: Michael Errante, P.E., Director of Public Works Mark Greenwood, P.E., City Engineer f Mlit�� GAPOWorks\Mark Dlercks\word data\Letters\Ltr to JRasas - Emerald Desert Traffic Study.doc CITY Of PRIM OESERI `� Ni�I1� M IIf.Il11 �YI� 1 I I PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) 22 AI ■ • ...q 345 102 qq 3 24 t i2�.4 30.0 Y 40A 5 2 �71JA Le 24.3 1.0 7.1 Al 91 30.1 E3 52.1 13� 21 12 Ni�T A c[ W 22.7 55.6 61.6 �t7.1 � s 211.5 9 15.0 - 7.1 3" 9A Y5 221.1 222 7.5 72 .4 30.3 410 i7 4 7 ! 42.2 0 9 11A 14.1 w V 413 - 309 34.4 �. 7 1 58.1 7A 15 0 102 341 2 2.1 AL1 _ rww.nwai - 2" 273 / 2Q1 2UI 17.4 4. 3:12 314as 43 27 �,r..srr. 130 22.6 3V 2&Q 20.4 33.7 25.0 39.0 Y,rNHLVUW 74.0 - 2A 31.3 512 l ag m A 14U .ern a rw 39.0 114.2 ?&0 �. 2A JAL 2.0 37.3 ZA ..� 145; 9.5 Mw.i�r� 1'S 33.5 40. 4U 47.5 50 N6Ei A 4 r 7A fmi �9 ep259i:o ls� 72 o i 17. LEGEND: its " VEHKUS PER DAY (1001YS) 1.7 I - 2A �,www PALM vESERT GEmEm PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY: Patin Desert CaT wrJa - 00055-7rd3 Ro*w .4. UCPD Area 4-3 CRY of ftim Desert AM e � � �� ucsuororoas I■A usmnw w Tr&Mc Cimuladon Norwot* 44 G d C047UWCLfiAR CM70MC NAW � CVI"TWCU■w r 1 1 APPUFsroIs ± o~ 41 4:L7lAt � y C J � Aawtrmt oratrtVt ann;nt-Ft _ •LIDArt t ,SIG awosyw /Aw w ` + amiss aw • vm oun nor nw -. CAUVAWAW nem w 7 fs" MUM- w 7 I■so away w nsn v w } 4 � DL to sA1 i 6 ♦OOyD. $ . Vx4'4� a � lrA7t OPJJl VA ■ ■ �sZlClip � r As"naw loRnpLa AR 1 rrr L"*nd �� 1bonDtybhnD A/ro ce 8eaoraq sheet Collector "met /b"I "w CNY soUndary 0 0.s 1 r■�r, �a R4rAfta Apd B. 2004 II Department of Community Development City of Palm Desert 2 July 13, 2005 The District will need additional facilities to provide for the orderly expansion of its domestic water and sanitation systems. These facilities may include wells, reservoirs, booster pumping stations and sewerage facilities. The developer will be required to provide land on which some of these facilities will be located. These sites shall be shown on the tract map as lots to be deeded to the District for such purpose. Additional domestic pipelines will have to be installed by the subdivider in order for the District to provide service to all parcels. This area shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 58 and 81 of the District for sanitation service. Plans for grading, landscaping and irrigation systems shall be submitted to the District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. The groundwater basin in the Coachella Valley is in a state of overdraft. Each new dwelling unit contributes incrementally to the overdrdft. The District has a Water Management Plan in place to reduce the overdraft to the groundwater basin. The elements of the Water Management Plan include supplemental imported water, source substitution and water conservation. The elements of this plan should be incorporated in the environmental mitigation plan for this development to reduce its negative impact on the Coachella Valley groundwater basin. If you have any questions, please call Kesi Sekhon, Stormwater Engineer, extension 2290. ly, Mark L. Johnson Director of Engineering cc: Jeff Johnson Riverside County Department of Public Health 82-675 Highway 111, CAC Building, Second Floor, Room 209 Indio, CA 92201 KS:md\eng\tw\osjuIy\gpa 05-02 040634-3 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT /}� m.=. .i7- _ :IL..= Al PREFERRED ROADWAY CROSS 1w RIwT OF WAY Rh ». 1 n. 24' 42' le' 42' 24' PARKWAY ROADWAY RII ROADWAY PARKWAY r VARIES 6' 12. 12' 12' 9' e' IT1 12,Ir i' vARlES IV 1 Ste. IA' Irl. I I I I t' IMI. S.W. \` CURS t GUTTER I am D e MEANDERING WALK s. U.C. U.C. ARTERIAL STREET SECTION SCALE: t• - IO' R/r ItV RIGHT OF WAY R/W S6' Ss• Is' 3Y 13r tr PARKWAY ROADWAY MEOMN ROADWAY PARKWAY 6• ARK w r 12' 12• �' 6' Ir i2' e' ifARIES 6' Sr, I I I I A sr I \` culls At GUTTER cum MEANDERING WALK ►ARKINO� UTLITY RK[ UTRJTY CORRIDOR THOROUGHFARE SECTION CORM00011 SCALE: t' . IO' R� IOW MONT OF WAY R/W IV X 12' 30' 'B' PARKWAY ROADWAY TW.TL ROADWAY PARKWAY S. ARIE 6' tr 12' 6' 6' Ir Ir 6' VARE3 Y CUNT ! GUTTER eKE LANE 6• MEANDERING WALK NO PARKING :44, UTILITY UTILITY C0MMOR SECONDARY STREET SECTION COMMON SCALE: I' - ID' R/W 76' RIGHT Of WAY Rh I` tr 20' t2' 20' t2• TK.TL T>UTILITY LEA i� nIRN LAZE I PARKWAYI ROADWAY MEDIAN ROADWAY PARKWAY SW SIDEWALK DR TTETL C.S GRAM SHOULDER W. I e' I tr b• 6• ti• I e• SS� ASPHALT PAVING I{ � AGGREGATE BASE AGGREGATE BASE _� �_ R/W RIGHT OF WAY LIME ( STREET CENTERLINE S, A. CURB R GUTTER I PARKING M A• S' UTILITY CORRIDOR • GRADE OR ABOVE �GRFOR C1111D T eRR LANE FACILITIES (I.E. WATER METERS. ...) COLLECTOR STREET SECTION TELL. RISERS. [TC. SCALE: I' 10' R 56' MIGHT OF WAY R/W Rp 40' RIGHT OF WAY R/r 2r 2r YIy 20• E 2O' 10' tr IV 10' 1 r IT 12' r IPARK ROADWAY ROADWAY PARK I C.S ROADWAY ROADWAY QS WAY WAY I 6 6 I I I �I S.W. I Sr. II I 22 I _1L 3><_ 1L txlRs a a ER KAnvE � r A.e s+ocWKx 4. c LOCAL STREET SECTION RURAL STREET SECTION SCA L. t' • IE SCALE: I' . ID' ENVIRONMENTAL* CHECKLIST FORMA 1. Project Title: Spanish Walk 2. Lead Agency and Name and Address: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 3. Contact person and Phone Number: Stephen R. Smith, Planning Manager Department of Community Development (760) 346-0611 ext. 486 4. Project Location: Northeast corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Taylor Woodrow 6. General Plan Designation (subject to amendment): R-M/R-HO (Medium Density/High Density Overlay) 7. Zoning: PR-10 and PR-19 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, Precise Plan of Design and Tentative Parcel Map to facilitate approval of an 810-unit residential project on 79.6 acres currently occupied by an RV park. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) NORTH: Union Pacific Railroad and 1-10 Freeway SOUTH: Residential EAST: Maintenance Facility WEST: Vacant/Future Cal State Campus 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None CITY/RVPUB/1998/32095 PAGE 1 OF 14 FORM "J" ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: •The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities/Service Systems Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology/Water Quality x Noise Recreation Air Quality Geology/Soils Land Use/Planning Population/Housing XTransportation/Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. • `/ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will /x- not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Si ature 6-� e Up , • Printed Name CITY/RV PUB/2004/546265 Date CA+, For FORM "1" Page 2 of 14 111 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: • I ) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross- referenced). 5) Earlier analyses maybe used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3XD). In this case, a brief 0 discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: • a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and CITY/RVPUB/2004/546265 FORM "J" Page 3 of 14 b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. • • SAMPLE QUESTION Issues: AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, tress, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 11. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Ill. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality ismanagement or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the CITY/R V PUB/2004/546265 Page 4 of 14 Las Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact x X x X No Impact x FORM "J" i 2- I • Issues: project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? • e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct • removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? C 1 TY/R V PU B/2004/546265 Less Than Significant Potentially With Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact X X x X X X k FORM " ]" Page 5 of 14 Las Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant • Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: • a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ' 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Vl. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault • Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and No Impact y k X CITY/RVPUB/2004/546265 FORM 07 Page 6 of 14 `�� Less Than Significant • Potentially Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Then Significant impact No Impact Issues: Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? \/ X iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? "X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating • substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to CITY/RVPUB/2004/546265 FORM "J" Page 7 of 14 \ ;�'J • Issues: Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? • h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? V1I1. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the • course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- C ITY/R V PUB/2004/546265 Less Than Significant Potentially with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact x x x X ""X y y FORM " J" Page 8 of 14 2;�"_5 • Issues: site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures • which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? • X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: C 1 T Y/R V P U B/2 004/54 62 65 Page 9 of 14 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact • Issues: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing • without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)? • housing, b) Displace substantial numbers of existing g, CITY/RV PU B/2004/546265 Less Than Significant Potentially with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated x Less Than Significant No Impact Impact X X x ®r X FORM "J" Page 10 of 14 12-'1 • Issues: necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X1I1. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? • Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION. Would the project: • XV a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the C ITY/RVPUB/2004/546265 Las Than Significant Potentially With Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 04 X x No Impact x x FORM "J" Page I 1 of 14 Len Than Significant Potentially with Less Than • Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) • Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g) with adopted policies, plans, or programs Conflict p p , p p g. supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause • significant environmental effects? CITY/RVPUB/2004/546265 FORM "J" Page 12 of 14 \ 11--) - I • Issues: d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? In making this determination, the City shall consider whether the project is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910, et. seq. (SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code Section 664737 (SB 221). e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providees existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XV11. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat or a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.) CITY/RVPUB/2004/546265 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact X X x X No Impact X X FORM "I" Page 13 of 14 130 • Issues: is • c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? C I TY/RV PU B/2004/546265 Less Than Significant Potentially With Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact FORM IT' Page 14 of 14 131 INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12, TPM 33837 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST) I. AESTHETICS a, b, c. The site has a scenic vista to the mountains to the west. Gerald Ford Drive and Frank Sinatra Drive are not scenic highways. There are trees on the site. The proposed development must be approved by the Palm Desert Architectural Commission. d. New light will be produced, but the project will be required to prevent lighting spill over. In addition, the requirement for an engineered lighting plan per Ordinance No. 826 will assure that this condition is fulfilled. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES a, b, c. The site has been occupied by a 893-space RV park since 1986. Prior to its use as an RV park, it was used for the raising of grapes. III. AIR QUALITY a&b. During construction, particularly grading, a potential dust problem is a short- term impact. Requiring that the ground be moistened during days in which grading occurs will mitigate this problem. This is required by City of Palm Desert Grading Ordinance. Because the site is already an urbanized setting, its development will not result in an overall deterioration of ambient air quality. C. Development of this site will not result in any climatic changes. This is due to its size and identified uses. � 32- INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12, TPM 33837 SEPTEMBER 6, 2005/OCTOBER 18, 2005 d. The proposed development does not call for uses which would create substantial pollutant concentrations. e. The proposed development does not call for any odorous land uses. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a. The property is in the designated area of the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard. Mitigation requirements were placed on the RV park development. No additional mitigation is necessary at this time. b. No riparian habitat present on site. C. No wetlands habitat present on site. d. No migratory fish or wildlife present on site. e. No local policy or ordinance protecting biological reserves other than that delineated in item (a) above. f. See (a) above. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-d. The cultural resource study performed as part of the General Plan Update found no evidence of any cultural, archeological or historical significance on this site. In addition, state law requires that should any evidence be found during construction, construction must cease and the site cleared. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a (i-iv). The area is subject to earthquakes and seismic shaking. Various studies have concluded that with proper building design which is required by the Uniform Building Code people will not be exposed to substantial adverse effects. 2 133 INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12, TPM 33837 SEPTEMBER 6, 2005/OCTOBER 18, 2005 MITIGATION MEASURES The City of Palm Desert grading and building permits procedures required detailed geotechnical reports addressing grading specifications and the settlement and expansive characteristics of onsite soils. All structures must be designed to UBC requirements to insure that buildings are constructed within the acceptable level of risk set forth herein for the type of building and occupancies being developed. b. Development will reduce blow sand erosion. There is no top soil present. C. See mitigation measure above. d. See mitigation measure above. e. Sandy soil is capable of supporting septic tanks, but they will not be used as sewers are available. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a. Site and immediate area are not subject to routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. b. Project will not create health hazards or potential health hazards. C. There is presently no school within 1 /4 mile of the site. d. The site has not been identified on the list of hazardous materials sites. e. Site is not within two miles of a public airport. No private airstrip in area. g. Project will not interfere with City's emergency response or evacuation plan. h. Project will not increase the fire hazard in area with flammable brush, grass or trees. 3 INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12, TPM 33837 SEPTEMBER 6, 2005/OCTOBER 18, 2005 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY While any development results in the use of water and therefore reduces the amount otherwise available for public water supplies, the Coachella Valley Water District assures that there is sufficient water supplies to accommodate this growth. In addition, the Coachella Valley Water District plans to construct additional water facilities in the Palm Desert area to accommodate current and future development. a. Project will be required to comply with Palm Desert Master Plan of Drainage and the grading ordinance. b. Project will use water provided by CVWD and will not interfere with groundwater recharge. c, d, e. Water will be redirected to drainage facilities designed and constructed to accept the water from the site. f. Project will not substantially degrade water quality. g. Site is not within a 100-year flood hazard designated area. h. See (g). Area is not subject to flooding. Area is gently sloping desert land not subject to seiche, tsunami or mud flow. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING a. The site is zoned for mobile home use and designated resort/hotel/ commercial in the general plan amendment. b. Project is subject to a change of zone and general plan amendment. C. Property is not subject to habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, other than that discussed in Section IV (a1). 4 � a5 INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12, TPM 33837 SEPTEMBER 6, 2005/OCTOBER 18, 2005 X. MINERAL RESOURCES a. No known mineral resources. b. No locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on local general plan. XI. NOISE AND VIBRATION a,b,c,d. The property is located adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad and the 1-10 Freeway along its northern boundary. An acoustical and ground vibration site assessment dated July 21, 2005 prepared by Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc. (copy attached hereto by reference) concluded that in the worst case noise to the site is at 64 dba with typical background levels averaging 62 dba with the freeway traffic identified as the dominant source. These levels were obtained with the existing eight -foot wall along the north edge of the property in place. The vibration study concluded that vibration associated with rail activity would be "slightly noticeable to humans during nighttime hours. No impacts to structures would be indicated." The acoustical study notes that Union Pacific Railway currently produces approximately one freight train passerby every hour and this is expected to change to at most two trains per hour in the future. Equating these train events to an hourly noise level produces a current level of 55.5 dBa Leq-h. With the future two trains per hour, this would increase to 58.5 dBa Leq-h. Even with these levels below the 60 dba threshold, the study notes that the site could experience "instaneous peaks above 90 dBa due to signaling and warning devices." The study concludes that these events "could result in nuisance impacts to sensitive receptors within the development." 5 �3 INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12, TPM 33837 SEPTEMBER 6, 2005/OCTOBER 18, 2005 Pursuant to noise concerns expressed in existing residential developments in the area, the City is pursuing the establishment of a "quiet zone" where train horns "would not be routinely sounded." The study recommends that interior noise reduction methods be "examined." A second study "Structural Acoustical Analysis/CCR Title 24 Survey" dated July 28, 2005 details the actual mitigation required in the construction of the housing units on this property. These construction mitigation measures will be conditioned on the property. Construction and subsequent use for residential housing may temporarily increase ambient noise level. The increase is not expected to create an annoyance to adjacent residential properties. All uses on the site will be required to comply with the city noise ordinance. MITIGATION MEASURES Strict adherence to construction hours and days will be required. Additional measures to mitigate construction noise will be required if necessary. Noise to be mitigated so that noise levels set in the General Plan Noise Element are not exceeded. City will diligently pursue through the Federal Railroad Administration establishment of a "quiet zone." e & f. Project is not within two miles of a public airport or in the vicinity of a private airstrip. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING a-c. The project is an 758-unit residential project. The 758 units to be created will be consistent with the amended general plan and zoning intensities and densities. The site is currently an 893-space RV park. ,,� �3l INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12, TPM 33837 SEPTEMBER 6, 2005/OCTOBER 18, 2005 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES The property is presently occupied by an 893-space RV park. A commitment to urban uses was made as the area surrounding the study area has been developed and the general plan and zoning maps designated for residential development. Infrastructure improvements (i.e., streets, utilities) have been made and are adequate to serve the proposed development. The proposed amended land use would increase the economic productivity of the land in terms of land efficiency versus the current state of the land. The project will result in a net increase on fiscal flow to the City of Palm Desert. Property tax generated on the site, including those generated by the improvement of this project, will go to the City of Palm Desert. Fire and Police Protection Police and fire services have indicated that they can service the proposed project. Schools The project will be required to pay school mitigation fees per state law at time of building permit issuance. Parks The project is a residential development of 96 units per acre which will generally be family oriented. Existing and proposed parks will be adequate to serve these families. Applicant will be required to pay statutory park mitigation fees. Other Public Facilities Libraries and other public facilities are adequate to serve the project. XIV. RECREATION The project will be consistent with general plan densities and the population generated was considered as part of the recreation element. Onsite recreation 7 �3-<'5> INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12, TPM 33837 SEPTEMBER 6, 2005/OCTOBER 18, 2005 facilities will be significant, yet are not expected to have an adverse physical effect on the environment. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a-b. A traffic impact analysis dated July 25, 2005 has been prepared by LOS Engineering, Inc. (a copy of which is attached by reference). The traffic impact analysis concludes that an 810-unit project will create 5,205 trips per day which is an increase of 3,078 above that created by the present RV park. The project is now projected to be 758 units, which should have less traffic impact than an 810-unit project. The analysis outlines a series of mitigation measures which will reduce the traffic impacts to "less than significant." The mitigation measures will be a condition of project approval. C. Project will not change air traffic patterns. d. Street design and intersections will be designed to meet all city standards and the project will not include incompatible uses. e. Emergency access will be acceptable. f. There will be a demand for additional parking facilities which will be supplied by the project on site in compliance with city code. g. Off-street sidewalks will be provided for pedestrians and bicyclists. Street improvements will minimize traffic hazards to motor vehicles. Project will also complete a section of the valley -wide bike system adjacent to the railroad. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a. Project will not exceed limits. b. CVWD has indicated ability to serve this project. C. Construction of said facilities are currently under review. They will occur with or without this project. P \31 INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12, TPM 33837 SEPTEMBER 6, 2005/OCTOBER 18, 2005 d. See (b) above. e. See (b) above. f. Landfill space is available in the immediate area and long term will be available at Eagle Mountain. g. City will enforce these statutes through Community Development Department. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. None. b. None. C. None. // 9 40 N\11\.Y. •. •• a•N ••1 IN"IIeM gsiuedS rrrr ,,4•zL x.,oac 4'9�/s ..PZZ X. aSeaeD u,apuel L Ueld ;Lei I�I I I11 ► C.� ) ,�o "ve ."z '4L S -x NAV — ,44s --P�.r Wl7/aVhi %SY y.`voe 1 xt9 iLn�.�iy/- /! CiJ' �1aAr''7 w2+ml 'p471C�fij% - �l x,(� 1�►�y �9ad / oL x ,,� 'o - / 1L x,�•�6/ oo� ace-nycn� - .4L X., •Zv'W 9m d 9r w v b4- w-4--w w.-Ju,&v -W J o/ *[ kECEIVED CIT Y ':l_cRK'S OFFICE PALM DESERT, CA 2005 AUG 29 PM 4: 21 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5.C.C.P) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Riverside I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above -entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of a printer of the, DESERT SUN PUBLISHING COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, County of Riverside, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California under the date of March 24,1988. Case Number 191236; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than non pariel, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: August 25*, 2005 All in the year 2005 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Paini ftorings, Signature this —25'', — day ,2005 'Mis is space for County Clerk's Filing Stamp RECEIVED AUG 3 0 2005 COMMUNITY DBVBLOPMBNT DBPAITMBNT CITY OF PALM DESERT Proof of Publication of 14,D- CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: September 6, 2005 CASE NOS: GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 and PM 33837 REQUEST: Recommendation to the City Council approval of a general plan amendment, change of zone, precise plan of design, parcel map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for an 810-unit residential project (660 condominium units and 150 apartment units) on 79.6 acres at the northeast comer of Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive, 76-000 Frank Sinatra Drive (the existing Emerald Desert RV Park property). APPLICANT: Taylor Woodrow, Inc. 15 Cushing Irvine, CA 92618 I. DISCUSSION: The applicant requests a continuance to the Planning Commission meeting of October 18, 2005 in order that a video presentation of the project as suggested by Planning Commission can be completed. That Case Nos. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 and PM 33837 be continued to October 18, 2005. Prepared by: S ev Smith Planning Manager ;Revie a Conc Homer Cr ACM for ev lopment Services Re ' ed and Approved by: c Phil Drell Director of Community Development �--±> r. WIL September 1, 2005 = RECEIVED Phillip Drell SE? 0 2 2005 Palm Desert Planning Commission ;OMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT Palm Desert, Ca. 92211 CITY OF PALM DESERT Dear Mr. Drell: We have just been.adyised that there is going to be an amendment of the general plan foal a BIG development on F nk Sinatra and El Dorado Streets. Parce� number is GPA0502cz050'7. We are wondering w y wq: were not notified, in writing, as we have lived in Avonda a for the past 23 years. Anything, of this magnitude deern5 corside�atlon for others living close by. High density and low income apartments will make a huge environmental impac : on our area. We have no apartments near us. It is interesting arid. v ny`odi that this is being proposed at this time of the year when sb many people leave the Desert, "'OFF SEASON'. We are very unhappy with the way this is being handled. Consider this is our notification of disapproval of the proposal. Please present this as our n - of cation bf disapproval at the Planning Commission meeting on Sept-`Vh. Sincerely, Clyde and EloiseCr 38230 Tandika IT. T Palm Desert, Calif, 1 Received Sep-01-2001 1108 Frw-612 341 3421 . .7o-PALM DESERT PUBLIC V Paso DOI 14q i nursaay, oeptemDer U I, Lwo 14.010 rnl NVU WIN %,WIW1 YYIIIIg1110 LJJroV 1- Ivvv RECEIVED 5-co 20 COldi[ilNi jTy OF PALM DF.SEiCt�BNT Mr. Phillip Drell Palm Desert Planning`CdMinl0gon Palm Desert, CA 92211 Dear Mr. Drell, 1k:L 26M St. Ct N.W. Gig Harbor, WA 88335 253-101r196Q September 1, 2006 We are winter visitors to Palm Desert and have a home at Avondale, on El Dorado and Frank Sinatra. It nee recently come to our attention that the former motor home park, Emerald Desert, is being considered for development The parcel number Is GPA0502CZ0507. The location of Emerald Desert Is across Frank Sinatra Street from Avondale. We understand that development and progress am essential; however, we feel that the proposed density and type of housing are Inappropriate. We understand that consideration Is being given to at least 700 condominiums as well qs an additional 128 apartment type low income housing. This lihat conducive to the exlWng surrounding upscale residenoes. Ft"fermore, we are wondering why we have not been notified of these proposed changes. We find It odd*that. rlgof.this magpitude would be desk with during the 'off season hen many of us who are concerned are not there to partldpatd. We find It odd that we haw not been notified by mail of such a project. We are very disappointed with this proposal and the manner It is being handled. Consider this as our nottfIcation of disapproval of the pro"L Plesse.pre"nt this at the Planning Commission rri6ddn4 fhls nexe-tuesday �1ep i nber 6, on our behalf stating that VAO sire against tins developm�t.': WE feel that this needs to be rs�vbRW wfierl more of those Impsotid can be there to respond. Sincerely, 42f D. 77Carol E. W1111am(sl/ 38210 Tandika Trail W . Palm Desert, CA 92'21i ` r Received Sec-01-2005 15:42 Fron-253 651'1966' To -PALM DESERT PUBLIC N Paso 002 IJ City of Palm Desert/Adopted 3.15.04 Comprehensive General Plan/Noise Element Table V-4 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments CNEL (dBA) Land Uses Residential - Single Family Dwellings, Duplex, Mobile Homes Residential — Multiple Family Transient Lodging: Hotels and Motels School Classrooms, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes and Convalescent Hospitals Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries Office Buildings, Business, Commercial and Professional Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture Source: Palm Desert General Plan Update Noise Background Study", Urban Crossroads, 2003: and California Department of Health Services, "Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of the Noise Element of the General Plan," 1990 Explanatory Notes ® Normally Acceptable: With no special noise reduction requirements assuming standard construction. Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design [HNormally Unacceptable: New construction discouraged. If new construction does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. IClearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Noise Element V-51 41 City of Palm Desert/Adopted 3.15.04 Comprehensive General Plan/Noise Element Generally, the City of Palm Desert enjoys a quiet noise environment consistent with its character as a resort residential community. Major roadway noise sources, however, most notably affect ' the City. Palm Desert and planning area residents and visitors value the peaceful and quiet atmosphere enjoyed presently, and the focus of future efforts should be to protect the community's environment from noise, the unwanted sound which could intrude as population increases, and eliminate existing noise problems whenever feasible. GOAL, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS Goal A noise environment that respects community residents and reflects the community's appreciation for a sense of place, with the peace and quiet that is in balance with the City' resort residential character, sensitive receptors and natural wildlife habitats. Policy 1 Noise sensitive uses, including residential neighborhoods, schools, congregate care facilities, libraries, churches, resorts, wildlife habitat, and community open space shall be protected from potentially significant sources of community noise. Program LA Periodically, review the General Plan Land Use Map and address potential incompatibilities that may arise between land use and project community noise levels. As appropriate, amend the Land Use Map to preclude or limit such incompatibilities. Responsible Agency: Planning Department, Public Works Department, Planning Commission, City Council Schedule: Ongoing. Program 1.11 Develop and maintain an inventory of existing noise sources and areas of potential incompatibility, and establish methods, guidelines and procedures to reduce the noise levels in ' these areas to the greatest extent practical. Mitigation menus and strategies shall be incorporated into future updates to the City Development Code. Responsible Agency: Planning Department; Public Works Department Schedule: 2004-05 Program LC Where noise mitigation measures are required to achieve the City's noise limit standards, the emphasis of such measures shall be placed upon site planning and project design. On a project - specific basis, the use of noise barriers shall be considered as a means of achieving the noise standards only after all other practical design -related noise mitigation measures have been integrated into the project building Responsible Agency: Planning Department Schedule: Continuous Program LD Maintain and enforce the City's Noise Control Ordinance that establishes community -wide noise standards and identifies measures designed to resolve noise complaints. Responsible Agency: Planning Department Schedule: Continuous, Concurrent with substantial traffic volume increases. Noise Element V-53 1 �� City of Palm Desert/Adopted 3.15.04 Comprehensive General Plan/Noise Element Policy 2 Encourage proposed large-scale or mixed use developments with the potential to generate substantial noise to be planned and designed to minimize noise impacts on nearby noise -sensitive land uses. Program 2.A Use Specific Plans and other master planning processes, and the development review process to assure the appropriate use of buffers, building setbacks and orientation, walls and other acoustical barriers between noise sources and sensitive land uses. Walls and other acoustical barriers shall be designed to be as visually pleasing as possible, incorporating landscaping, variations in color and patterns, and/or changes in texture or building materials. Responsible Agency: Planning Department; Planning Commission, City Council Schedule: Project -specific; Ongoing. Program 2.B Noise created by new transportation improvements, including new or expanded roadways and railroad improvement projects located near sensitive land uses, shall be mitigated to the greatest extent practicable to assure that the noise environment on adjoining lands is compatible with the City's Noise Control Ordinance for outdoor living/activity areas and for interior spaces. Responsible Agency: Planning Department, Planning Commission, City Council Schedule: Immediate; Continuous. Program 2.0 The City shall encourage developers in potentially noisy areas to explore and utilize innovative site planning, building and materials technology to mitigate environmental noise and enhance living and work environments. Responsible Agency: Planning Department, Public Works Department, Building and Safety Department Schedule: Project -specific; Ongoing. Policy 3 The potential for long-term and project -specific land use patterns, traffic distribution, and individual development to generate adverse and incompatible noise impacts shall be assessed, and significant impacts shall be appropriately mitigated. Program 3.A The General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and development review standards shall be used to assure adaptively managed land use patterns, directed and controlled traffic patterns, and project designs that assure compatibility with the area noise environment. Responsible Agency: Planning Department Schedule: Continuous Program 3.13 The City shall restrict grading and construction activities that may impact residential neighborhoods and other sensitive land uses to specified days of the week and times of day. Responsible Agency: Planning Department Schedule: Continuous Noise Element V-54 141 City of Palm Desert/Adopted 3.15.04 Comprehensive General Plan/Noise Element Program 3.0 Periodically review and amend the Land Use and Zoning Maps, as appropriate, to assure reasonable land use/noise level compatibility. Responsible Agency: Planning Department Schedule: Continuous. Policy 4 Project designs shall include measures that assure that residential interior noise exposures do not exceed 45 dB CNEL levels and otherwise comply with State of California noise insulation standards as defined in Title 25 (California Noise Insulation Standards). Program 4.A Proposed residential and other noise -sensitive developments may be required to conduct initial and on -going monitoring of exterior and interior noise environments to assure compliance with applicable City and state regulations and standards. Responsible Agency: Planning Department, Public Works Department Schedule: Project -specific, Continuous. Policy 5 Promote increased public awareness of the significant consequences of noise and sound pollution. Program 5.A Provide public opportunities to discuss integrating environmental considerations into the economic decision -making process through information and education prggrams, emphasizing the goal of preserving balance between economic development, tourism, and respect for and appropriateness of quiet places in the community. Responsible Agency: Community Development, Public Works Department Schedule: 2003-04; Continuous Policy 6 The City shall develop and maintain a roadway network that is consistent with the resort residential character of the City, avoids impacts to sensitive receptors, and provides fixed routes for truck traffic. Program 6.A The City-wide circulation network shall provide an efficient hierarchy .of roads that make efficient use of local and collector streets to direct primary traffic loads onto major arterial roadways. Through -traffic in residential neighborhoods shall be discouraged. Responsible Agency: Planning Department, Public Works Department Schedule: Annual Review; Amend General Plan, as appropriate Program 6.B The City shall designate specific truck routes, which avoid or minimize truck traffic in residential and other sensitive areas. Truck routes shall be established that make efficient use of highways and major and arterial roadways. Truck routes shall be posted with signage prohibiting non -local trucks, as appropriate. Responsible Agency: Planning Department, Public Works Department Schedule: Public Works Department Noise Element V-55 1 �0 Emerald Desert Project Description The site is located in Palm Desert, at the northeast corner of the Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive intersection. The proposal consists of 810 in six distinct neighborhoods: t ➢ Compact Lot ➢ Autocourt ➢ Cluster ➢ Townhomes ➢ Flats ➢ Apartments The integration of affordable low and moderate income households within the development provides a broad range of housing types. The Land Plan takes on a traditional configuration with easy accessibility to the centrally located parks and pocket parks, establishing a rural characteristic. Design Intent Rich detailing of roofs, stucco and balconies reveal the elevation's Spanish heritage and provides a visual link to established neighborhoods of Palm Desert, while conjuring an image of a neighborhood from earlier and simpler times. Plan Concepts The Compact lots product being proposed are two-stor y, single-family residences ranging in square footage from 1,650 to 1,870 square feet. The three plans are alley loaded removing garages from the major street link and are two to three bedrooms with an optional granny suite being offered in Plan 2. Lot sizes and setbacks are varied, integrating low walls into the design, which encourages diversity along the street scene. The use of low walls as an integral part of the design encourages outdoor living as iwell as an extension of the living spaces. The plans are designed with alley loaded garages, thereby effectively removing automobiles from the street scene. ' The Autocourt product being proposed are two-story single-family residences ranging in square footage from 2,000 to 2,450 square feet. The four plans are set in a cluster configuration and removes the ' garages from the streetscene. Three to four bedrooms are being offered with Plan 4 offering a Master Bedroom down. Configuration of the plan promotes outdoor living whether in the courtyard or the oversize porches, which promotes interaction among neighbors. A Paseo links the homeowners of Plan 3 and 4 with a protected link to the street. In certain site plotting, the Plan 3 and Plan 4 have direct entries from the street, providing for larger yards. The Cluster product being proposed are two-story, single-family residences ranging in square footage from 1,357 to 1,475. The four plans are set in an 8-plex cluster configuration and removes the garage from the streetscene. Two to three bedrooms are being offered with a protected Paseo linking the homeowners of Plan 2, Plan 3 and Plan 4 to the street. In some plotting, the Paseo links to a pedestrian r throughway promoting neighborhood interaction among the five neighborhoods. The Townhome product being proposed are one and two-story attached single-family residences ranging in size from 915 to 1,833 square feet. A single motorcourt serves eight units and removes the garages from the streetscene. Two to three bedrooms are being offered with an optional loft being offered in Plan 4. The Paseo serving the units, link to a pedestrian throughway, promoting interaction among the five neighborhoods. The Flats product being proposed are single story attached single-family residences ranging in square footage from 1,176 to 1,320. A single motorcourt serves six units and removes the garages from the streetscene. Two bedroom units are being offered with generous living areas. The Paseo serving the units link to a pedestrian throughway, promoting interaction among the five neighborhoods. Summary The principal goal is to design plans and elevations that foster a sense of community for both its ' intended residents and the neighborhoods to which it belongs. Specific consideration of the neighborhood street scene, outside living spaces and interior details are goals as well. The project has succeeded in the goals of designing flexible floor plans that can adapt to a variety of needs and lifestyles with a specific emphasis on elevation character, while maintaining the architectural integrity of Spanish Colonial vernacular. City of Palm Desert/Adopted 3.15.04 Comprehensive General Plan/Land Use Element ' Policy 8 Low income/affordable housing shall not be located within one area of the community, but shall ' be dispersed where feasible, appropriate, and compatible with surrounding land uses. Program 8.A The City shall monitor the amount of low income housing available and make best efforts to meet State requirements for providing such housing types. Responsible Agency: City Council, Planning Commission, Community Development Department; Redevelopment Agency Schedule: Continuous Policy 9 ' Within the University Park planning area, the City shall uniformly apply a "High Density Overlay" designation to all lands designated for Medium. Density Residential (R-M) development to provide the opportunity to develop at R-H densities in compliance with specific performance criteria. ' Program 9.A The "High Density Overlay" development standards assigned to allow development of R-H (High Density Residential, 10-22 du/ac) on any R-M lands within the University Park planning area shall be further elaborated and incorporated into the City Zoning/Development Code and shall be consistent with the following performance criteria. 1. The percentage of residential units, whether single or multi -family, that shall be ' available for homeownership. 2. High density residential neighborhoods shall be located in proximity and have convenient access to public transportation. 3. High density residential development shall be located in proximity to schools, parks and commercial services, which shall be accessible by means of non -motorized vehicle routes. 4. The percent of proposed high -density units to be reserved to meet the affordable housing needs of the community. 5. Adequacy and usability of landscaped open space planned internal and integral to the rdesign of high -density developments. 6. Development plans reflecting creative and innovative design in site planning, building design and landscape treatment, consistent with the General Plan Community Design Element. 7. Development proposals with high -density residential units shall include analyses of the potential fiscal impacts of the development. Responsible Agency: City Council, Planning Commission, Community Development Department; Redevelopment Agency Schedule: 2W4; On -going Land Use Element III-30 �5� 9.24.030 Sound level !units. Page 1 of 1 Palm Desert California Municipal Code ^ Up « Previous >> Next - Main TOC ? Search 9.24.030 Sound level limits. A. The following one -hour average sound level limits, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply as indicated in the following table: Zone Residential —All zones Commercial zone ManufacturingIndustrial Aqricultural zone Time 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 7 a.m, to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Applicable Limit One -Hour Average Sound Level Decibels 55 45 65 55 70 55 B. If the measured ambient noise level exceeds the applicable limit as noted in the table in subsection (A) of this section, the allowable average sound level shall be the ambient noise level. The ambient noise level shall be measured when the alleged noise violation source Is not operating. C. The sound level limit between two zoning districts shall be measured at the higher allowable district. (Ord. 691 § 2, 1992: Ord. 647 § 1, 1991; Ord. 420 (part), 1985) http://www.codemanage.com/palmdesert/index.php?topic=9-iv-9_24-9_24_030 7/29/200 15 All& CIIV OF P 0 1 M 0151RI 73-510 FPED WARINC DPIVF PALM DE$ERT, CALIFORNIn 92260-2578 TE L. 76o 346-oG11 RAz 76o i41-7o98 .nlor P.I, do, r, ." CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05.12 AND PM 33837 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by TAYLOR WOODROW INC. for approval of a general plan amendment, change of zone, precise plan of design including a height exception for the apartment portion of the project, parcel map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for an 758-unit residential project 1608 condominium units and 150 apartment units) on 79.6 acres at the northeast corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive, 76-000 Frank Sinatra Drive (the existing Emerald Desert RV Park property). 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, 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 City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk October 30, 2005 City of Palm Desert, California 155 1W 1 (I LUCJJ LJ. LN 1 (CILLbCILC17L LIAbib KV HESURT PAGE 01/01 RECEIVED L :: 1 7 2005 •:OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OctAbCr 17, 2005 CITY OF PALM DESERT Attention: Stcve Smith Palm Desert Planning Commission I am writing to inform you of our opposition to the rezoning of the Emerald Desert RV Resort. I understand the owners of this resort are seeking approval to re7Am the resort in order to build single family homes. As a winter resident for the past four years, this is more than an RV Resort to us. This is our home, as well as the home to many of our friends who return year after year. Emerald Desert RV Remrt is not a trailer park, but one of the best RV Resorts in the United States. Additionally, it is the only RV Resort in the city of Palm Desert. The nearest public RV Perk is more than 10 miles away and is not of the some caliber as the Emerald Desert Resort. The clients that visit this resort year after year are returning customers who treat the park with respect because it is their home. 'ilia location of the freeway nearby makes this an excellent location for an RV Park, but very undesirable for single family homes. How long would it be before the homeowners are asking the city to spend money on soundprooflr; because of the nqjjrby freeway and railroad tracks? In addition to being home for hundreds, the Emerald Desert RV Park holds many conventions annually. Eacb year up to 600 units (1200 people) visit the park for 5 or 6 days of convention and activities. Rezoning this area :for single family bones not only takes away the homes of many of us, but also forces these conventions to relocate to another city, thus taking with them their abundant spending. I hope this letter encourages you to look at the Emerald Desert RV Resort as an area that is already a home to many, and that you would reconsider any rezoning permits that may force families like mine to relocate. Thank you Ken Tatlow 760-902-2342 Iscp CIIY 01 P 0 1 M 9 [ S I P I 73-5io FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92760-7S78 TIL: 760 346—o61 I FAX: 760 341orS RECEIVED in(nYpd-desert va Iim CITY OF PALM DESERT ,'OMMUNITYDEVELOPMINTDEPUTMENT LEGAL NOTICE CITY OP PALM DESERT CASE NOS. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-07, PP 05-12 AND PM 33837 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by TAYLOR WOODROW INC. for approval of a general plan amendment, change of zone, precise plan of design, parcel map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for an 761-unit residential project 1611 condominium units and 150 apartment units) on 79.6 acres at the northeast corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive, 76-000 Frank Sinatra Drive (the existing Emerald Desert RV Park property). Pto ICO. �O I I/y \ , /� ,�,� PAW i �i P R.-! SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 18, 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 at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun October 3, 2005 PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission ?.: y- 5 r At €Z t it F j.I j 4' `tjr'���,'-t` 3':.:.5 .t�1 ,." �•T t.alfill x i �s . y't = �� � � �_4`.;! :f``4-. � . t .+r "r'' "i�•„�''� � k �� t� - `?' [ � g } a 'I'•+_r.,+,,-.+,Mr.f.�.w e , 1 .�, —41 t' .�,.,y` :",�'•:,' �« I F,4 ,.l ,F ,i 1 1} I _ f t I •J 36Ile Id is, 5 VARIES r a IV (IN. COMMUNITY COLLECTOR SECTION A -A I ' -t! r 6 ; D T Off f l � 1 ',4s GRAPHIC SCALE "" DD +,\ p ♦ SCALE 1 =80 6` ;?' 0 40 80 160 240 320 1 Q v 1 S�V'L l V l'i4 YF'i.ci 1 F m � STPt. CTLML 9 Qp r Q i ►�' � f D p t il� r � D �. LOCAL STRt=t= i SECTION B-B _t; 0 D 32' —IAAIAA A A AA AA D ♦ �r t DV VV V D VVIVVIIV CD L I IAAIAA'A AAAAA 1 32'---- AA AA j A JAAJAA , Ile , VDDD D D VV VV----Ivvlvv V V VV VV t 1 !r. i , r ♦ C•_..,+t' i' ( FJA C-T C..,.,)3 �\ AAA A A AAA ��---� I . IC—C � I - LANE SECTION { - . 166' JAAJAA A A AAIAAI AAA A A AALL r FT F l 1 _ 32' = 4 L 3 _ 4 L 3 _ 4 L 3 a VVVV V D VVIVD T �© Vvlvv D V VVIVVI IVVIVV V V VVIVVI f ,© I I n i n I [v 1---- 3 STALLS ----{ 1--- 3 STALLS —1 .7 ~• �--_ _ F--- 3 STALLS 3 STALLS -----1 � - - = I = 17 STALLS I 11 V V 11 V V 11 V V 1 Z/ STALLS 1 STALL f -- f -- 3 STALLS 3 STALLS 1 STALL j-- }------ 3 STALLS —�-{ ' , '" j--- 3 STALLS -- 1AA AA -1 - / s T VV VV F>' _w n a 32'F � t � 3 �� P J � A A 0 q I F `�. I . I DD DV q I 3 1lM t llAl t N' 1lM t M / + � t � � ,f `'^^+_ u ! Y a R1r t 1l/tl t •J !tM 1 { +` i I © 3 4 L� 3 4 ♦s' = r_s rr■ ♦! .__r i.1. •rr f i r._. /d, —_. r_. l _ © '" © © © �� © "s IP o » F � { ernr : w,r I i 1r1.1 t f11Y1/ ! .r1f Irw ! lfwl t erw t , rplx r t IML — , t►v tfltti r ■t nn • rL-R-- -�- _ F � F&� 5 M wl ! ` ' I f --- 3 STALLS 3 STALLS --1 26 STALLS j 1-- 2 STALLS -'--1 4 STALLS 1 M I---- 3 STALLS ---f f - -- 3 STALLS ---4 `%' _ /" j------ 3 STALLS -- }---- 3 STALLS ---j _ j-F-- 3 STALLS -� �f ( - wI I t 1 1 1 I 1 �, { �-----� 3 STALLS -- ( ' ---- 3 STALLS —"'� "' E--- - 3 STALLS ---� j 6 STALLS V ! t T 5 I TL't'�i Z CCIO,0■i t:© 0■1 ] I I 1 1,0 i I I s .,, 32' I I 3�' �, �� I .� d a ___�_,� a o AA AAA1AAAlAU Ad kAAj 1 1 ! 1 © 1 1 vat~i I 32' 1 L! I in !' ' It" i' Cl � -� C--- - qruff 1 _ Y� -"ff"' V� "o f4 \ ]� - - t 3 - d 3 - t 3 E i> E y �� VV �� VV -� JLn 0 ei- � I '% 32' 1# J 3J 1 _ L L L AA AA AA AA AM#��AA Fj 3 4 L 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 --� _ _ rn wr • wr w rr • wr r w.r • w.. r , i r k - -- - V V "#H 7VV J VV VV V V Niq �'V-V7 _ 1 14t =L Iv cy I 11 n 1 n I I n n 11 n I , •• ! a, i i 2 L z 1 z 1 p 1 2 1 1---- 3 STALLS --1 f---- 3 STALLS --1 t-- 3 STALLS ,� '-`'• 1 � , _ � ,7 7 � I 3 STALLS j--- 3 STALLS --I 1 1 STALL i-- __- ___ e 1 — f - 1, - : j sr 3 sra_Ls 3 STALLS ' ' n = s STALLS I ! - 12 STALLS = , = 6 STALLS N - + ao i = 8 STALLS = 3 STALLS Imo_ ~1 �- —� f 3 STALLS N , - 4 STALLS = f = 4 STALLS = ` 4 STALLS - j 4 STALLS - M ASS I �— �{ ( 3 STALLS -� 1 ---- 3 STALLS —y-I 3 STALLS -i '`' 4J { 3 STALLS ---� i , { - 1 I RA t t nrl r r 1■.. • r __ 1 { 241 ... � _� i i i i i ; 5 T 5 I 5 T 5 T 5 T ® .�-7 ► '� C.-y © ► '� Cy © G --t- I I, 1 I I .a o■ 1 I 1 .o o. I ZZI o 1 1 r © Y i 1 LtJ ,r 1 1 , © © L© © i y `� © ©j 1—A Lr) �c ( I IIng i I i L- I ! i + 3 d 3 t --- - `—t t--— . r l I-� ^_.. I p l L-j `i.- j L r L-i I L-j `]..,Ju L1 � � . I ._..._...,., I u A" Lam!' t.4 0 0 C1J \✓ � _ CIO FRANK R LLJ -IDtL GUEST PARKING SUMMARY Ln _C CITY OF PALM DESERT DESIGN: DRAFT: PLANNING AREA 1 PLANNING AREA 2 PLANNING AREA 3 PLANNING AREA 4 PLANNING AREA 5 TOTAL B.D.F. A.A.P. 3 L The Keith Companies o PROPOSED N0. OF 811 � PLAN GUEST STALLS 73 1 1 1 79 86 137 484 * NOTE: PARCEL MAP 33837 CHECK: DATE: B.D.F. AUG. 2005 PARKING REQUIREMENTS PER CITY OF LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SBM GUEST STALLS REQUIRED 43.5 55.5 77.5 64.5 78 319 PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE 25.58.300 FOR: DWG NO. EX971SITE 73-733 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 100, Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760) 346-9844 „ TAYLOR WOODROW SHEET 1 OF 1 City of Palm Desert University Park Area Residential Projects 0 1,500 3,000 Feet September 19, 2005 ZN (Anfr opme6il 715 me, _Ie�;_ — _. Units. GENERAL PLAN LANDUSE CATEGORY By General Plan Resolution 4-20 RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY I Woulit. RE RESIDENTIAL, mmum DENsrrylHiGH DENSITY OVERLAY RESIDENTIAL, MIXED USE TOTA L Rcs imv nA i- C-R `____-N�l,ri-- ::_:..—a_ '' ._,�wa r,_ Projected Buildout RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, A&DIUM DENSITY (Anticipated 11)4:weloprnent� RESIDENTIAL, L, HIGH DENSITY -BP - ----------- 430 Sirtqle-fdimily - Detached [TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 240 S i r1gle -fam ily - A ftache d C-R 525 Con0onlinkirns 1 1 1?5 Units total r—;p — DU , (Anticipated Devejopnlellt) 15OAparfrnents 450 Units Total T i 6WAGRE 0 DUIAGRE !-BPC-R 14 AG 11 SARES REGIS GROUP! f 20 AC. M D.LJ_ 41.5m �1,0.,TaMRY 332 D.U.. ACRC; 6C W1 225 Condos CIs J�ingle4jlnly -QAOC� (Under Construction) Kj' t., - Dak.ich&l 320 Condominiums R-L 3 OUINC RE C-R N 2?AC J7C $0 AC U M7 0,U. H DOLCE DEVELOPMENT (Approved) C_R/H 159 Single-family - Detached RESIDENTIAL LAND USES Low Density (R-L) 0-4 du/ac Medium Density (R-M) 4-10 du/ac High Density (R-H) 10-22 du/ac - SHEPHERD LANE (Anticipated I Du i It) C-RIH 68 Single-family - Detached SHEPHERD LANE pated I Bu ilt) 3156iligie-family - Detached KAUFMAN and BROAD (Built) 166 Single-faimily - Df�tached if C-R/H--, 4 T 11 T _77= PONDEROSA HOMES 11 (Approved) 237 Single-family - Detached TEXT R-L R-MIR-HO MU MAX POT A CRES � UNITS 313 938 289 4,769 16 286 R-L 313 11,056 R-M 276 1,999 R-H 205 2,680 794-F 5,735 ** Note: Additional 176 Acres Resulting From Property Owners Requests To Convert Land Use From Commercial to Residential DESERT WELLS 237.' (Anticipated Davelopment} 540 Single-f imil y - Detached 210 Single-family -Attached 750 Units Total DESERT WELLS 237 TAY 1- OR WOO DR 0 VV HOMES (Approved) (Pending Approval) 270 Single-family - Detached 375 Single-family - Detached 285 Sing le -fa m ily -Attached A LI I 660 units Wtal r 10 Due RE R-L I Ar, 21 8 in oo4anfiy Macho] 11 A- A os/pp 19GA13t4 9 0LJWyrF?r- C-OP IDFILI (Anticipated 10AG Developme BROOKS STREET 280 Cortdorni NuMs 6 _1E1J,'! [L TTi i (Po n d ing Ap p rova 1) Q DIPACA I f,; 73AC P] 150 ApAftm��nt -01D, 060 D.U. C . ......... T 7 j J J I -BP osipp I S 0 U 1,5, f, DIMID OW XRE16DW�)ACRA-C Dl iiiii 5.2AC 20.5ACII la.I.AC LF' T20 D1J. 92.V. llaau. Gi silo-famfly"Singre-fam ;IV sz = � twhed.Drcit4rhsd 1,16 2 AU 114 D_U .. ........... 1_. 17 E41 k ArTifly. Dec