Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA 11-82 CAHUILLA HILLS 1983 1 . When the city's first Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1975 the defendant' s property was zoned PR-1, which allowed a maximum of one residential unit per gross acre and Hillside Overlay which further restricted ultimate residential density and grading based on onsite specific average slope/density formulas . Wherever an overlay is applied to a base zone, the restrictions within the overlay have precedence. Under the PR zone, it appeared that 97 residential units would be permitted and as many as 1746 hotel units ( 18 units/acre) . Actual development potential could not be determined until the Hillside Overlay calculations were done. For example, under the Hillside Overlay a property with an average slope in excess of 35% would be limited to one unit/20 acres and grading on only 2 . 5% of the land. 2 . In 1979 the city adopted the Palm Valley Specific Plan which attempted to better define hillside development potential by separating relatively flat areas from steep undevelopable areas . The Fox property was rezoned from PR-1 to approximately 60 acres PR-2 and PR-3 with the balance for Open Space. The Hillside Overlay remained unchanged. While the PR zoned property appeared to allow up to 140 units or 1000 hotel rooms, the real restriction of the Hillside Overlay formulas continued to apply. 3 . The PR-2 and 3 designations were based on a large scale USGS topographical map which inaccurately represented that 60% of the 1 Fox property had slopes less then 20%. When the owner finally submitted the topographic data required by the Hillside Overlay ( 1982 ) , it was discovered that only 20% of the property contained slopes less than 20% and the overall average slope exceeded 36% . Under these conditions, the Hillside Overlay limited development to only three units . While the overlay did not explicitly limit hotel rooms, it would limit development to only 2 .5 acres requiring 97 . 5% of the property to be left undisturbed. 4 . Upon discovery of the inaccuracy of the base data on which the Palm Valley Specific Plan was based, the city initiated the West Hills Specific Plan and created the Hillside Planned Residential District (HPR) which eliminated the overlay zone. The new HPR zone allowed owners various options to calculate density based on variations in topography of a single site. In the case of the Fox property the HPR zone allowed a 58 lot subdivision compared to the three units permitted under the Hillside . Overlay. The HPR zone only allows residential uses precluding hotel development. In 1984 a citywide referendum was passed by the voters which prohibited all commercial development in the hillside. In 1985 the city approved a two phase 58 lot tentative subdivision map on the Defendant' s property. 5 . Between 1975 and 1982 the development of the Defendant ' s property was controlled by the Hillside Overlay zone. In 1983 the Hillside Planned Residential zone replaced the Hillside Overlay and the residential potential of the property was increased from three 2 units to 58 units. Neither the city or redevelopment agency acted to "down zone" the property. 6 . In 1994 , the city and redevelopment agency participated in the construction of Painters Path which significantly improved access to the Defendant' s property. This road was formerly an unimproved and unmaintained dirt path. Instead of going through the middle of a shopping center, the city required that Painters Path be constructed behind the commercial area and adjacent to the desert hillside open space. The city required that the rear loading areas of the commercial center be screened from Painters Path by large berms and trees . Every attempt was made to insure that Painters Path provided quality access appropriate for a residential use. 3 VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) ,,VC. CASE CIA 01-79 CITY OF PALM DESERT APPLICANT: Consideration 0 An Amen ment To T e Palm Desert Genera Pan To Incorporate A Specific Plan For The Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area. Mr. Williams gave an in-depth review of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Plan as presented to the Council. In addition, he noted the following changes based on additional concerns raised by property owners since adoption of the Plan by the Planning Commission: Page 61 : Section 25 . 14. 050 - Add: H. When said zone district exists in conjunction with the .hillside overlay district, the setback provisions specified above shall not be applicable. The required setbacks shall be as approved by the Planning Commission as a part of their action on the required Conditional Use Permit. Page 63 : Section 25 .14. 060 - Add: H. When said zone district exists in conjunction with the hillside overlay district , the setback provisions specified above shall not be applicable . The required setbacks shall be as approved by the Planning Commission as a part of their action on the required Conditional Use Permit. Page 65 : Section 25. 52 . 040 - Delete: "Grading in the hillside areas shall be limited to streets and shall comply with all standards of the Grading Ordinance. " -Add: Return to present writing. Page 65 : Section 25. 52 . 060 - Add: [ i C. The use of glass facing the City shall be carefully considered. Mr. Williams reviewed the correspondence received relative to the Plan, attached and made a part of the report to Council . Mayor Pro-Tem. McPherson declared the Public Hearing open and. invited input in FAVOR of the Plan. MR. GEORGE FOX addressed Council as owner of over 10% of the property in question. He indicated that he and his engineering firm were in the process of preparing a study on his property and advised of his intention to submit an alternate development proposal if the Palm Valley Storm- water Channel Plan presented any conflicts . He stated that they were not far enough into their own plans to present any specifics . MRS. DORIE CREE, 500 Devon Place, Long Beach, California , addressed Council stating that both the Staff and Planning Commission had put a lot of work into the Plan and had done a fine job. She indicated she represented a group of 30 property owners in this area, and they were all very much in favor of the study with the changes Mr. Williams had noted. Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson noted that this was a very important matter, stating Council ' s desire to continue the matter to April 12th to receive any further input that might be applicable. Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Brush seconded to continue the Hearing to the meeting of April 12, 1979; carried unani- mously with the members present. March 22, 1979 - Page 4 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) F. REQUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF TRACT NO. 9129 AS COMPLETE, MAR RAKESH BUILDING AND COUNTRY CLUB CORPORATION, APPLICANT. Rec: By minute motion, accept Tract 9129 as complete and authorize the City Clerk to release bonds for said tract . G. REQUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF TRACT NO. 5796 , PHASES 1, 2, 3 , & 4, AS COMPLETE, IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB, APLICANT. Rec: By minute motion, accept the work as complete and instruct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried unanimously. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CASE GPA O1-79, CITY OF PALM DESERT, APPLICANT: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN TO INCORPORATE A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE PALM VALLEY STORMWATER CHANNEL AREA (CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FROM MEETING OF MARCH 22, 1979) . Mr. Williams reported that at the previous Council meeting, Staff had presented changes to the draft plan that had been forwarded to Council by the Planning Commission. Staff has prepared Resolution No . 79-36 which would adopt the Plane . as recommended with changes discussed at the last meeting . He pointed out that since the last meeting, Council had received a letter from Rancho Mirage indicating their favor of the amendment with one concern dealing with density in the range of slopes exceeding 20%. Our Plan speaks of 35%. Then in Study Session, Council had received a series of letters from Mr. Fox who asked that Council exclude his l property from this Plan to allow them to move forward with J their Master Plan for his property. In review of his plans , Staff felt it would be appropriate that Council not grant his request and incorporate his property because his con- cept, in its present state, could be developed to the City' s standards . The zoning adjustments recommended by this Plan will not be presented to the Council for at least 3 months which will leave Mr. Fox with sufficient time to submit his plans . In Mr. Fox' s second letter, he asks that overhead utility lines be allowed initially and buried later . This is also in accordance with Mrs . Cree' s request. In his third letter , Mr. Fox suggests that any fees for bridges, etc. be collected from the commercial area. However , these fees can only be required on property which will benefit from improvements , and Staff can find no justification for imposing such fees on commercial development as they would not be direct bene- factors . In conclusion, Mr. Williams stated that it was Staff ' s recommendation that Council adopt Resolution No. 79-36 with the suggested revisions. Mayor Mullins invited input in FAVOR of the amendment . MRS. DORIE CREE, 500 Devon Street , Long Beach, addressed Council as a property owner in the area being discussed . and expressing her favor of the amendment . However, she indicated that they were very interested in building their home in the near future and asked if she were to file for a building permit next month, could she get it or would she have to wait until the Plan and related zoning are all in effect. Mr. Williams responded that Mrs . Cree would have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit which would be processed through the Planning Commission. If approved, she could then be issued a building permit . April 8 , 1979 Page 3 Mayor Mullins invited input in OPPOSITION to the Plan, and none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing closed. Mayor Mullins pointed out that a lot of work had gone into this Plan, and Paul Williams and his staff were to be con- gratulated on it. Councilman Newbrander added that it was a beautiful study which had been very well presented. Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Brush seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No . 79-36 , amending the Palm Desert General Plan to incorporate the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area Specific Plan. Motion carried unanimously. VIII . RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 79-37 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF E CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF CERTAIN DEEDS FOR PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE CITY IN ACCOR- DANCE WITH THE C. O.D. SPECIFIC PLAN AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO RECORD SAID DEEDS. Mr. Ortega stated that this was another in the series of resolutions presented to Council for purchase of land within the C. O.D. Specific Plan area for the purpose. of widening Monterey Avenue. We have been successful in purchasing 2 more lots for this widening, said lots being located about in the middle of Monterey Avenue . A total of 28 lots are to be purchased, and thus far , the City has acquired about 14. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No . 79-37 . Motion carried unanimously. B. RESOLUTION NO. 79-38 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF E CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A POLICY FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FOR CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE BY CITY REPRESENTATIVES . Mr. Ortega advised that the City had not had a formal policy relative to these reimbursements . From time to time, both Council and Staff must attend educational seminars or work shops . This resolution sets forth guidelines related to attendance by City representatives. Councilman Wilson stated that nothing in the Policy addressed itself to out-of-state travel . With the cost of gas and air fare, he. thought Council should take a closer look at it , and he would like to see a statement relative to City Council approval before attendance is approved. Each case should be reviewed individually. Councilman Brush pointed out that each trip is specified in the budget, and approval is given at that time. Councilman Wilson stated that this was done on a departmental basis, and he would like to see a report on out-of-state travel by all departments combined, a figure he found to be frighteningly high. Councilman Brush suggested the item be taken off the Agenda for further discussion in a Study Session. Councilman Wilson also pointed out that under the section entitled "General" , the term "social expenses" was weak and wide open. Who defines what is social? Mr . Ortega responded that all expenses , including social expenses, were approved not only by the Department Head involved but also by the Director of Finance, and any questionable social expense could be denied. Councilman Wilson asked that this be more specifically defined in the resolution. Councilman Wilson moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to continue the matter of Resolution No. 79-38 to the meeting of April 26, 1979, to allow time for further discussion with Staff in Study Session. Motion carried unanimously. .April 8 , 1979 Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. 79-36 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN TO INCORPORATE THE PALM VALLEY STORMWATER CHANNEL- AREA SPECIFIC PLAN. CASE NO. GPA 01-79 WHEREAS, the City Council did, on the 22nd day of March, 1979, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and a continued hearing on A ri�T 12, 1979, to consider an amendment of the Palm Desert General Plan, filed Fy die City of Palm Desert, to include the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area Specific Plan as an element of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Environmental Quality Procedure Resolution No. 78-34" in that the Director of Environmental Services has deter- mined that this project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment on February 2, 1979, and the appeal period has expired; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and consideribfi ���� the testimony and arguments , if any, of all persons desiring heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to recommend approval of the General Plan amendment : 1 . The Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area Specific Plan meets the intent and purpose of the Palm Desert General Plan with regard to the development 'of neighborhood plans _l for various portions of the community. ! 2. The Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area Specific Plan J conforms to all requirements of the California Govern- ment Code and the State Planning and Zoning Law. 3 . The Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area Specific Plan provides a logical land use pattern which is compatible with all existing and proposed development in the study area. 4. The Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area Specific Plan provides the framework for the development of necessary public works improvements which will ensure the protec- tion of the public health, safety, and general welfare of the entire community. 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 con- stitute the findings of the Council in this case. 2. That it does hereby approve the Planning Commission' s action on Case No. GPA 01-79 approving an amendment to the City's General Plan to incorporate the provisions and recommendations . of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area Specific Plan as expressed in Planning Commission Resolution No . 461. 3. That it does hereby approve the General Plan Amendment known as the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area Specific Plan, labeled Exhibit "A" , subject to the revisions labeled Exhibit "B" , for the reasons set out in this Resolution. -1- RESOLUTION NO. 79-3' PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, held on this 12th day of April, 1979, by the following vote, to wit : AYES: Brush, McPherson, Newbrander, Wilson & Mullins NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None - n . / ED R D. MULLINS , MAYOR ATTEST: .S ILA R. jG4LLIGAN, TY CLERK C .OF. PALM DES ER CALIFORNIA ..J -2- j v RESOLUTION•NO. 79- 36 EXHIBIT "B" AMENDMENTS TO EXHIBIT A Page Nos. Amendment 61 and 63 Add the following to Sections 25. 14 . 050; 25. 14. 060; and 25. 14. 070: H. When said zone district exists in conjunction with the hillside overlay district , the setback provisions specified above shall not be applicable. The required setbacks shall be as approved by the Planning Commission as part of their action on the required Conditional Use Permit . 65 Delete Section 25. 52.040 and return to present writing. 65 Change Section 25. 52. 060 C to read: The use of glass facing the City shall 1 be carefully considered. I� WEST HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1. Introduction and Background 1 2. Development Policies 9 3. Implementation and Recommendation 13 4. Proposed Ordinance 14 - 21 5. Appendix 1 - Abridged Palm Valley Area Plan 6. Appendix 2 - Overview: Palm Valley Area Specific Plan 7. Appendix 3 - Existing "H" and "D" Overlay Districts WEST HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN INTRODUCTION The West Hills Specific Plan (GPA 03-82) provides the land use policies which will regulate development in most of the area formerly covered by the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area Specific Plan (hereafter referred to as the Palm Valley Plan). The area consists of 782 acres located west of the Palm Valley Storm Channel (Illustration I). The policies contained herein will superceed all existing policies relating to hillside development contained in the Palm Valley Area Plan and will have the effect of an amendment to the Palm Desert General Plan. An abridged Palm Valley Plan is contained in Appendix 1. The commercially zoned property between Painters Path and Highway I I I will not be subject to policies and zoning recommendation contained in this amendment but will remain subject to existing general plan policies and zoning ordinances. The West Hills Amendment was initiated after it became evident that the types and densities of development permitted by the Palm Valley Plan were not reflective of the city's aesthetic and environmental goals concerning hillside development. This conclusion was reached after a thorough study identified serious deficiencies in the Alan's data base, analysis, conclusions and implementation. A detailed discussion of these deficiencies is contained in Appendix 2. BACKGROUND HISTORY: Development within the study area has paralleled the general growth of the Palm Desert area as a resort community. Most of the hillside area came into private ownership through the Small Tract Homestead Act of 1938. Within two years following' the enactment of the law, the Secretary of the Interior detailed the terms and conditions under which five acre tracts could be leased and provided for issuance of deeds after specified improvements had been completed. By 1945 all desert land available for homesteading had been claimed. - 1 - In 1953 the Cahuilla Hills Improvement Association was organized to coordinate the provision of services for the growing number of residences being constructed on the small homesteads. The group obtained road grading service from the Southern California Edison Company. Telephone service became available in 1959. In 1966, an improvement district was formed by Coachella Valley Water District and a $1,200,000 bond issue was approved to provide a pressure water system in the southernly portion of the study area. When the city incorporated in 1973, the majority of the developed homestead property (Section 36) was left in the unincorporated area. The more sparcely developed homesteads in Section 30 were included within the city limits. The Homesteading Act was rescinded in 1976. Previous conditions applied as part of the original act no longer apply. Twenty-three parcels in the study area still remain in the ownership of the Bureau of Land Management. Aside from the construction of one two-car garage, minor remodeling of existing residences and grading of one access road, there has been no significant development within the study area since incorporation. TOPOGRAPHY: The principal topographic features within the study area are steep rocky hillsides with slopes in excess of 35% bisected by narrow canyons. Flatter terrain, 101to 5001in width, is located at the toe of the slopes and at the mouths of the canyons. Slopes in these areas range from 0% to 20%. There is generally an abrupt natural delineation between the flat areas and the steep hillsides. Steep, irregular and greatly eroded topography is the major constraint to development in the area. At the present time, there are no available topographic maps sufficiently accurate to precisely locate building sites, roads or utility lines. DRAINAGE: Most of the flat areas within the study area are located at the mouths of drainageways. Any development in these areas must adequately deal with the infrequent yet potentially - 2 - �I IPA 03o82 � �•' 1 1 i? ; i i i STUDY AREA �— LOCATION Is Ulj I �s•..N•[ I I I .•. -�Q I M M 1 ��' iI UI _ .� ?;.• ©'-' r.r.,r.. :l .." ";ICI I� 'I+ lot r- :era l r, 1�/� p� ��•� S .J• •i. �n � •."'gyp •..v.�Ji 1 • •i• �•• '•� 1/ ..••.•.. .... °`• ^, mid • n' ,/ ' - NC/� e' ••� • � i it destructive water flows which come down the canyons. The major drainage structure in the area is the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. The existing dirt channel was constructed along a natural drainageway by Coachella Valley Water District in cooperation with the original subdivider of Palm Desert. It is located at the western edge of the Dead Indian Debris Cone extending from the mouth of Cat Creek to the Whitewater River. In 1976, a flood control study completed by Bechtel Corporation for the cities of Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells recommended concrete lining and channel realignment. In 1981, the Palm Desert Redevelopment Project Are i a was expanded to include all areas south of the Whitewater River allowing the use of redevelopment bonds I to finance channel improvement. Engineering for the channel was completed in April 1982, and work will soon be underway. The new design contains provisions for handling waters originating in the study area. FLORA: The flora of the study area may be divided into two types according to terrain: Species associated with the narrow flats lying west of Painters Path and those of the steeper slopes and rocky canyons. j The narrow flats support species not found on the slopes of the canyons and arroyos:,, Cattle spinach, hoary saltbush, sandpaper weed, Palo verde, spanish needle and others. The flora of the hillsides, canyons and cliffs, include many species of plants, some perennials, many ephemerals or annuals that must be identified by their dead, dried, skeletons. The perennials include: Indigo bush with their violet pink stems, a few silver leafed encelia rather desiccated, creosote, desert sweet, desert lavender, burrobush, catclaw and bird-of-paradise. The ephemerals or annuals comprise many species in quite a few families of plants. The buckwheat family, known technically as the Poly-Goniaceae are represented by buckwheats with names such as: Desert trumpet,' little trumpet, flat I top, yellow turban, rigid spiny herb and others. Forget-me-nots, blazing star, pepper grass, brown-eyed primrose, bottle washer, wooly plantain, gillias, desert daisy, etc. are some of the plants identified from their dried remains in the study area. The main body of wild - 3 - plant life is generally located in the ravine areas. FAUNA: The fauna of the study area like the flora is generally located within the ravine area. The reptilian fauna found in the study area are the desert mountain speckled rattlesnake, the Santa Rosa chuckawalla, the barred collared lizard, Henshaw's night lizard, cliff lizard, tuberculate gecko, gridiron or zebra-tailed lizard, long-tailed and Stansbury's uta, the tiger whiptailed lizard, crested lizards or desert iguanas, flat-nosed horned lizard, scaley lizard, banded gecko, leopard lizard, red diamond rattlesnake, Van Denburgh's night snake, the Lyre night snake, rosy boa and the diurnal red racer. The mammalian fauna typical of the study area are: The desert bighorn sheep, pack rat, the antelope squirrel, the canyon mouse, cactus mouse, deer mouse, long-tailed pocket mouse, short-eared pocket mouse, spiny pocket mouse, coyotes, desert gray foxes, bobcats, ring-tailed cat, canyon bat, long- nosed bat, big brown bat and the pallid bat. Avian fauna typical of the study area include: The rock wren, linnet or house finch, desert or gambel quail, roadrunner, white-rumped shribe, Says Phoebe, phainopepla, gambel white-crowned sparrow, Audubon warbler, tree, cliff, violet-green rough-winged and barn swallows, vaux, white-throated and black swifts, swainson and gray-cheeked thrushes. Audubon, Wilson, Townsend, palm and other warblers, ash-throated, wieds and Cassin kingbirds, coves and western flycatchers, Costa and Ana hummingbirds, Scott and hooded orioles and the western tanager. EXISTING LAND USE: The existing land uses within the study area as of May 1982, are set forth in summary form on Illustration 2 and Table 1. There are three land uses presently existing within the boundaries of the study area; single-family residential, public institutional and/or recreational and commercial. The residential uses comprise approximately 16.2% or about 126.5 acres of the land within the study area. Such uses are primarily located within the southern hills portion of the study area. Recreational uses located in the central portion of the study area, comprise approximately 0.3% or about 2.4 acres of the land within the study area. The commercial uses located along Highway 111, comprise nearly 2.6 percent or about 20.1 acres of land within the study area. Although only existing commercial uses have been inventoried herein, all the property between Painters Path and Highway I I I has - 4 - i been committed to commercial development. Accordingly, for purposes of this study, no further discussion of this area will be included. The balance of the study area comprising approximately 80.9 percent or 633.0 acres of land is made up of unused land or open space uses including the Palm Valley Stormwater Drainage Channel. All existing public streets and major highway facilities are locate d in the northerly portion of the study area or east of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. Other existing roads within the study area are private, accommodating one lane of traffic. The roads are graded but unpaved and generally in poor condition. There are three private unpaved grade crossings of the Palm Valley Storm Channel and one paved public crossing. OWNERSHIP PATTERN: There are 103 separate parcels located within the study area ranging in size from 1 acre to about 35 acres. Parcel boundaries, existing structures, public utility and private rights- of-way, are shown in Illustration 3. There are 18 parcels of less than ifive acres, 60 of 5 acres and 25 parcels larger than 5 acres. Eighty parcels are in private ownership. Twenty- three parcels are owned by the Bureau of Land Management. HOUSING: I There are 26 single-family homes within the study area. Eight are in (poor condition and considered uninhabitable. Eleven are in fair condition. Fair condition is defined as a habitable dwelling in need of repair and maintenance. The remaining units are in good condition and appear to be permanently occupied. UTILITIES: Development within the study area is presently served by Septic tanks, public water supply, telephone and electricity. The location of the water, adjacent public sewer and power lines is shown on Illustration 4. There is no natural gas provided in the study area. I - 5 - TABLE NO. 1 SUMMARY OF EXISTING LAND USES IN THE PALM VALLEY STORMWATER CHANNEL SPECIFIC PLAN AREA USE ACREAGE % OF TOTAL Residential 126.5 16.2 Commercial I 20. 1 2.6 I C�j Recreational ' 2.4 0.3 Open Space and/or unused land 633.0 a 80.9 TOTAL _ 782.0 100.0 a. Includes Stormwater Channel WATER SUPPLY SERVICES: i As shown in Illustration 6, only a small portion of the project area is presently served by water lines. That portion is located south of Painters Path and is part of Coachella Valley Water District, Improvement District No. 6. The portion along Highway III is served by the Coachella Valley Water District, Service Area 34 system. The existing water lines were installed in 1966 and have been exposed at various locations over a period of years by the natural weathering process. Because of the.extreme slopes on the site, booster and pressure tanks have been provided I where necessary. Water for the system presently comes from underground wells which are supplied from the groundwater basin. According to Coachella Valley Water District officials, the groundwater basin can provide a sufficient supply of water to accommodate the growth allowed by this amendment; the only constraint being of improving and providing additional water service. The water lines presently provided, serve both the domestic and fire p1otection needs of the City of Palm Desert and the project area. SANITARY SEWER SERVICES: I Public sanitary sewer service can be provided to the study area according to Coachella Valley Water District officials. At the present time the only portion of the study area served with a public sewer is located between Highway III and Painters Path in the northern tip of the study area. All developable land within the study area which may be served would require the user to pay the fees for construction and use. Sewer construction is estimated at $50 - $150 per lineal foot. Annexation to two - 6 - i J SPA -@3tf82.--- W-F EXISTING PROPERTY BOUNOARIES I rl fS F a• . a » •. N a PR0R0l 9N, ♦ M ♦� T7 6gIN06R1' um u >s i� ( UlAU CI LAND MANAatMQIT i♦ n IDw Ji 6A P6RCKRRTY ►ROrCAT sRV wITN 6 ar FAIR I�� 91NQlE FAMIU' R[S TCmTURpF*cnRry WIT" w C I lTMJCTUIf[6 POOR R[s w J i CTN[R PUBLIC PRCPlRTT , I I ; I I ' improvement districts is also required. i The majority of sewer lines in the vicinity are 8" and acccording to Coachella Valley Water District officials, have sufficient capacity to handle any additional flow from the project area. Septic tank installation is permitted by the Riverside County Department of Health when it is not economically feasible to serve an area with public sewers. The C.V.W.D. works with the Riverside County Department of Health in determining who will be served and suitability of soils for septic tanks. The existing water reclamation plant serving the study area, is located on Cook Street. The average design capacity of the plant is 2.5 million gallons per day with a maximum capacity of 4 million gallons per day. According to the C.V.W.D., the study area in question can be served with sewers, without significant effect on the reclamation plant or existing treatment facilities. ELECTRIC POWER: All electric power lines are overhead and generally follow existing roadways in the study area as shown on Illustration 6. According to Southern California Edison Company officials, electric power can be provided to the study area. Undergrounding may be . impossible due to prohibitive installation costs, and rocky slopes. COMMUNITY AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES: The Palm Desert Community Center, containing two tennis courts and a community building, is located within the study area. SCHOOLS: i Kindergarten through twelfth grade school services are provided by' the Desert Sands Unified School District. The area is served by Washington School for grades K-2; Lincoln - 7 - •\� CITI�[/MI>•. u•art• w. .. —.. �' Ell EXISTING ! lEn PUBLIC UTILITIES I , , f1 i �� \.�_�� N •III . ♦ � y�GPM � Y v / I I I • /+::•::-r SEWER LINE cal uew S'1 wMw. ,t I E '�/; ✓'�t WATER LINES . ' a ELECTRIC LINTS 717 sue,[ a �.. .__,_....:..�.4.1` ELECTRIC POLE r ^ I I I � I r I r-- School for grades 3-5; and the Middle School for grades 5-8. Indio High School serves this area for grades 9-12. I I FIRE PROTECTION: It can generally be concluded that the fire department's response time to any portion of the study area would be greater than 5 minutes. The existing water main provides flow of 500 gpm which flow meets county standards. The city requires 1500 gpm for fire flow i purposes. Accordingly, the existing water system except for that portion of the study area located between Highway II I and Painters Path may be considered inadequate for fire protection purposes. Due to steep grades and the lack of maintenance, existing roads do not provide an adequate level of service for emergency vehicle access. The existink at-grade channel crossings would be inaccessible during periods of flood. In the future, bridges will be constructed as part of the Palm Valley Storm Channel improvements. POLICE PROTECTION: The project area receives sheriff protection from the City of Palm (Desert by contract with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. The major constraint is the condition of existing roads. EXISTING LAND USE REGULATIONS: As is discussed in the Introduction and Appendix 2, the land use policies as set forth in the Palm Valley Plan contained several internal inconsistencies and were based upon inaccurate base information. In addition, a key recommendation of the plan, the elimination of the average slope formula procedure for determining density, was never implemented. The continued existence of the slope density procedure negates most of the land use policies contained within the Palm Valley Plan. Although the base zoning changed in 1979, from 1 d.u./ac. to designations ranging from open space to 3 d.u.%ac., the hillside overlay enacted as part of the original Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance of 1975, superceeds - 8 - I all other designations, sets density and limits grading.The drainage overlay, applied throughout the area regulates design according to flood hazards. Since both hillside and drainage overlays rely upon applicant supplied environmental data, their exact impact cannot be precisely predicted. No one has ever completed the prescribed overlay procedures during their 7 years of existence. The current hillside and drainage overlay regulations are contained in Appendix 3. DEVELOPMENT POLICIES The hills west of the Palm Valley Storm Channel are a prominent geologic feature visible to all Palm Desert residents. They provide a sharp contrast between the urbanized areas within the cove and the rugged Santa Rosa Mountains. It shall be the policy of the City of Palm Desert to restrict development in the West Hills to those projects which will preserve the natural landscape. Due to the highly variable terrain and the lack of detailed topographic data, this amendment will not attempt to assign specific densities. Analysis of the few topographic maps which do exist and field observations indicate that most property within the study area falls within three categories: 1. 10% or Less. These areas are located between the storm channel and the toe of the mountains. This land is similar in character to the developed areas east of the channel and can accommodate development without significant environmental or aesthetic impacts. 2. 11% to 20%. A limited amount of gradually sloping land is located in canyon bottoms and in isolated spots in the hillside. Develop- ment in the canyon bottoms are restricted by drairiage problems. The gradually sloped hillside areas are generally located on exposed ridge tops or benches and therefore create access and visual problems. - 9 - 3. 36% and Greater. The study area is characterized by a sharp break between the gently sloping alluvial plan and the steep slopes. These steep hillsides comprise most of the study area and contain slopes in excess of 36% with many areas over 50%. The grading required for even minimal access and building site preparations creates severe aesthetic and environmental problems. Under the Hillside Overlay, these three types of topography were averaged together when I they occured on the same parcel. This procedure tended to obscure the low impact development potential of the flatter areas. Under the following procedures, the applicant will have opportunity to i apply a separate analysis to each topographic type and apply standards specified under the appropriate option. Residential density, . building sites, location of roads and degree of grading shall be determined at the time of application based upon a property owner financed topographic survey and analysis. All residential and open space designations for privately owned property shown on the current zoning map and in the Palm Valley Specific Plan shall be rescinded and replaced with an H-PR designation. Publicly owned land will remain in open space. Existing planned commercial, general commercial and service industrial designations will remain. Density and grading limitations shall be determined by the following options: OPTION NO. 1: AVERAGE SLOPE: Density and grading shall be determined by the average slope of the parcel according to the following formula and tables: 5=.00229IL Where: S = Average percent slope A - 10 - I J� r•� A � SPECOFOC PLAN WEST HOLLS Ole LAND USE Q PA 03 = 82 Legend ° •ems ,. •µ;P .` = ��_� _ HILLSIDE :, ° •e°. •; ; — H. P. R. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL ••e .�Q,•;:': . : ter=^� • ' '• • • • ° ° ' C-I GEN. COMMERCIAL • p '• ' • l S.1. SERVICE INDUSTRIAL PLANNED • PC. (4) °• • • -- '• COMMERCIAL (Resort) r i PUBLIC ° • b .. a .. . .. 00 r" 0. S. OPEN SPACE me 01160 . , a p• .°°• . . e .: •p0a . ems, • • .II v• .. PALM 1 OC[[RT CITY IIrIT A I = Contour interval, in feet L = Summation of the contour length, in feet A = Area of the parcel in acres, of ownership being considered. Density within the district shall be based on the following scale: Percent Slope Minimum Acreage Per Dwelling Unit 1. 10 - 15 0.66 acres; 2. 16 - 20 1.00 acres; 3. 21 - 25 1.25 acres; 4. 26 - 30 1.66 acres; 5. 31 - 35 2.50 acres; 6. 36 or over 5.00 acres; GRADING. The minimum of percentage of a lot to remain in a natural state without cut or fill shall be determined on the basis of the average slope of the natural terrain of the lot. Such determination shall be made on the basis of the natural state as being defined as the condition of the lot prior to any new development. The following table indicates the minimum percentage of a lot to remain in a natural state: Percent slope Percent of the Lot to Remain in the Natural State A. 10 - 15 32.5 1 B. 16 - 20 47.5 C. 21 - 25 62.5 D. 26 - 30 77.5 E. 31 - 35 92.5 F. 36 or greater 95.0 I This section shall not be construed to limit grading so as to prohibit safe vehicular access to the approved building site. I The planning commission may require that density be transferred from one portion of a site to a more suitable area in order to minimize aesthetic and environmental impacts of developments. OPTION NO. 2: TOE OF SLOPE Owners of parcels located at the toe of the slope may delineate areas adjacent to the valley floor, which after application of the slope formula are shown to have an average slope of less than 10%. These areas will no longer be subject to the restrictions contained I in the hillside overlay and will be assigned a density of 3 d.u./acre. If the remaining area of a 5 acre parcel exceeds 4 acres, an additional unit may be I I - 11 - I developed in the hillside. If the remainder is less than 4 acres, the hillside must remain undeveloped. For the remaining parcels larger than 5 acres, density will be determined through Option #1, or Option #3. OPTION NO. 3: DWELLING UNIT SITE Instead of determining density by the average slope of the entire parcel a property owner may delineate specific dwelling building sites (minimum area .5 acre) whose average slopes are 20% or less. Overall parcel density using this option shall not exceed 1 dwelling unit per acre. Grading on the site shall be limited to the minimum required for safe access and the structural requirements of the dwelling unit. Grading for the building pad shall not involve an area greater than 109000 square feet. That area disturbed by grading other than that required for access or building foundation, including all visible cuts or fills must be contoured and landscaped to blend with the surrounding natural terrain prior to final inspection or within one year following completion of grading if construction has not commenced. The city may require any measure it feels necessary to mitigate adverse environmental or aesthetic impacts of grading or construction. Location and grades of access roads shall be as approved by the fire marshal and planning commission. If the planning commission determines that adverse aesthetic and environmental impacts of site and access grading cannot be adequately mitigated, then the designated location shall not qualify as a building site under this option. Architectural design and materials shall to the greatest practical extent blend with the natural terrain. OPTION NO. 4: PREFERRED DEVELOPMENT AREA The ability of the city.'s design review process to insure proper siting of units within the hillside is directly proportional to the size of the parcel. Certain lots may not contain any acceptable sites while others may contain several. The larger the parcel, the greater the likelyhood that suitable locations can be found. It is therefore advantageous to encourage 12 - the consolidation of smaller parcels so that sites can be developed according to aesthetic and environmental criteria instead of arbitrary existing property lines. It is also the city's desire to concentrate development on the less visible lower slopes. The following option offers increased density for larger parcels or combination of parcels submitted under one development plan if at least ten acres are located in the preferred development area as shown on the attached map. Density shall be based upon the following table: AREA DENSITY 10-19 acres 2 d.u./5 acres 20 acres 3.d.u./5 acres Site location, grading, roads and architectural design shall be as approved by the planning commission and design review board and shall minimize adverse aesthetic and environmental impacts and shall maximize the preservation of the natural character of the hillside. This option cannot be applied in conjunction with any other options. IMPLEMENTATION: The following procedural steps are required to implement the policies contained within this plan: I. Pass Resolution No. rescinding all policies contained within the Palm Valley Area Specific Plan and adopting the West Hills Specific Plan and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. U. Adopt findings and Resolution No. recommending approval of Change of Zone 08-82 and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it pertains thereto. i I i - 13 - i 11 ... lea•an :r�a •i:u•I .....Jar Prcferrcc�J Develo ►�� meni •� , nre �3 i • r ryy+�r'Pt ,Jews /maps Alsooll ago iii � I Ail •,r 4 I tsa.Ml rlilll `/ •y�r.•�;ry? �Lsu■o■uu■ Nt aiTi1RCF a NOTICE OF DETERMINATION Negative Declaration TO: (X) County Clerk ( ) Secretary for Resources County of Riverside 1416 Ninth St., Rm 1311 4050 Main Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Riverside, CA FROM: City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the public resources code. Proiect Title/Common Name: GPA 03-82, ZOA 11-82 and C/Z 08-82 Date of Project Approval: February 24, 1983 State Clearinghouse Number (f submitted): None Contact Person: Philip Drell I Project Location: Area bounded by the Palm Valley Storm Channel and Western City Limits. Project Description: Amendment of hillside development policies andlordinances. This is to advise that the City of Palm Desert has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: I. The project ( ) will, 00 will not, have a significant effect on the environment. 2. An environmental impact report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the negative declaration may be examined at the above city hall address. X A negative declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the negative declaration may be examined at the above city hall address. 3. Mitigation measures VO were, ( ) were not, made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A statement of overriding considerations ( ) war. was not, adopted for �� OF SUFERVISCRS this project. rr _ u y 70A-n'D,� J A-sz.(s 2LVI V76— MAR 1 7 %3 Signat.�e Title Date Received for Filing "' i PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 831 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-E 1-3 D.U./5 ACRES D, H; PR-1 D, H; PR-2 D, H; PR-3 D, H; O.S. to H-PR D; AND O.S. TO C-1, AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR PROPERTY BETWEEN THE PALM VALLEY CHANNEL AND THE WESTERN CITY LIMITS. ' CASE NO. C/Z 08-82 WHEREAS, the planning commission of the City of Palm Desert, (California, did on the 5th day of October, 1982, hold a duly noticed public and a continued public hearing on November 8, 1982 and December 7, 1982, to consider a change of zone from R-E 1-3 d.u./5 ac. d, h; PR-1 d, h; PR-2 d, h; PR-3 d, h; 0.5. to H-PR, d; and O.S. to C-1 for property between the Palm Valley Channel and the western city limits, more particularly described as: Western Portions of Sections 18, 19, 30 and 31 T55 R6E 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. 80-8911, in that the director of environmental services has determined that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared. 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 to justify their actions, as described below: 1. The proposed zoning more accurately reflects the physical constraints of property and better protects the public health, safety and welfare than existing designations. 2. The proposed zoning provides property owners with a clearer understanding of zoning restrictions. 3. The proposed zoning is consistent with the Palm Desert IGeneral Plan and the West Hills Specific Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the planning commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: I. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in these cases; 2. That the planning commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of a change of zone from R-3 1-3 d.u./5 ac; PRi 1 d, h; PR-2 d,h; O.S. to H-PR, d; and O.S. to C-1 as shown on Exhibit "A" attached. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of December, 1982, by the following vote, to wit: I AYES: DOWNS, KRYDER, WOOD NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: CRITES, RICHARDS I RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /pa .�_ •,wen PROPOSED it 5.1. :• •:•;; WA G�OLLV � Y�1 V• . , a o e;a.ve Legand O O . a• HILLSIDE e °� e •o�•e. ` I • �°• :� °• '•o° / \ it °o • ee. • o e s •'° 1 H' P R' PLA N ED RESIDENTIAL ° •• e . '• a;: : . : ��� o • • : '° Q.° - C-I GEN. COMMERCIAL S. I. SERVICE INDUSTRIAL o ° O °..�• p r� e • N • • I •.:• -° .: •, PLANNED °° • • COMMERCIAL (Resort) ° e , • duo' • : •. e ems • • ee i tl �w ,: •— PUBLIC aaIQ � e•ee • • O I OPEN SPACE e '•• • j ....J us AW • • • ° - DR AGEWAY •°� o e � D OVERLAY ve a .� ,• °.. . • o e ° C �C;IUC�07 Q o� • . O r/ •AL Y Oflf RT cirT LIMIT mm M i ORDINANCE NO 322 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT, AMENDING TITLE 25 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY CREATING CHAPTER 25.25 (H-PR - HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) AND DELETING CHAPTER 25.52 (H - HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT) AND APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. CASE NO. ZOA 11-82 i WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 13th day of January, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing, to consider amending Title 25 of the Municipal Code by creating Chapter 25.25 (H-PR - Hillside Planned Residential District) and deleting Chapter 25.52 (H - Hillside Development Overlay District) and approving a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by Resolution No. 832 has recommended approval; WHEREAS, said application has complied with requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined the project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts to justify its action as described below: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan and affected specific plans. 3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. The City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the considerations of the council in this case. 2. That it does hereby approve a zoning ordinance text amendment, as provided in the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit "A". 3. The City Clerk is directed to publish this ordinance once in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, and shall certify to the passage of adoption of this ordinance, and the same shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 24th day of February, 1983, by the following vote, to wit: c AYES: JACKSON, KELLY, PULUQI NOES: SNYDER, WILSON ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE M O S, PULUQI, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GIL AN, City k City of Palm Desert, Califo a e L i ORDINANCE NO. 323 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 R-E 1-3 D.U./5 ACRES D,H; PR-1 D,H; PR-2 D,H; PR-3 D,H; O.S. to H-PR b; AND O.S. TO C-1 AND THE DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN AREAS PDA (PREFERRED DEVELOPMENT AREA) AND i APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR PROPERTY BETWEEN THE PALM VALLEY CHANNEL AND THE WESTERN CITY LIMITS. CASE NO. C/Z 08-82 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: A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is herebyapproved. SECTION 3: The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general Q 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 24th day of February, 1983, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: JACKSON, KELLY, SNYDER, & PULUQI NOES: WILSON ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE OMEO S. PULUQI, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLI N, City Cl City of Palm Desert, Califor /lr CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 322 EXHIBIT "A" HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SECTIONS• 25.15.010 Purpose. oil 25.15.020 Permitted uses. 25.15.030 Development standards. 25.15.040 Abandoned uses. 25.15.050 Circulation. 25.15.060 Structural design. 25.15.070 Fire protection. 25.15.080 Erosion control. 25.15.100 Submittal requirements development plan. 25.15.110 Environmental assessment. 25.15.120 Required materials. 25.15.130 Optional preliminary approval procedure. 25.15.010 Purpose. The purpose and intent of the Hillside Planned Residential District is: I A. To encourage only minimal grading in hillside areas that relates to the natural contours of the land and will not result in extensive cut and fill slopes that result in a padding or staircase effect within the development; B. To retain natural vegetation which stabilizes slopes and where necessary to require additional landscaping to stabilize slopes and maintain the necessary cuts and fills in hillside areas; a C. Require the retention of natural landmarks and features including vistas and the natural skyline as integral elements in development proposals in hillside areas. 25.15.020 Uses and activities permitted by approved development plan. 1. Grading. 2. Single family attached or detached dwellings. 3. Land subdivisions. 4. Remodels and additions only require department of environmental services approval. i 25.15.030 Development standards. Development standards shall be as approved by the planning commission in a public hearing and shall be based upon the following development options. The minimum density obtainable shall be 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. It will be the responsibility of the applicant to provide sufficient data supporting the applicability of any option. The planning commission shall make a final determination concerning which option or combination of options is appropriate. Firms submitting topographic data,must be registered civil engineers. I OPTION NO. 1 - PARCEL AVERAGE SLOPE METHOD This option requires a topographic map of the entire parcel with maximum 5 foot contour intervals. Using the following formula and tables the average slope for the entire parcel is determined leading to density designations and grading limitations. A. Average Slope Formula: 5=.00229IL Where: _S = Average percent slope A I = Contour interval, in feet L = Summation of the contour length, in feet A = Area of the parcel in acres, of ownership being considered. _ 1 _ 1 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 322 B. Density within the district shall be based on the following scale: Percent Slope Minimum Acreage Per Dwelling Unit 1. 10 - 15 0.66 acres; 2. 16 - 20 1.00 acres; 3. 21 - 25 1.25 acres; 4. 26 - 30 1.66 acres; 5. 31 - 35 2.50 acres; 6. 36 or over 5.00 acres. C. Grading. The minimum of percentage of a lot to remain in a natural state without cut or fill shall be determined on the basis of the average slope of the natural terrain of the lot. Such determination shall be made on the basis of the natural state as being defined as the condition of the lot prior to any new development. The following table indicates the minimum percentage of a lot to remain in a natural state: Percent Slope Percent of the lot to Remain in the Natural State 1. 10 - 15 32.5 2. 16 - 20 47.5 3. 21 - 25 62.5 4. 26 - 30 77.5 5. 31 - 35 92.5 6. 36 or over 95.0 (Ord. 97 S1(part), 1975: Exhibit A S25.29-3.02). D. Density transfer. The planning commission may require a transfer of density from one portion of a parcel to another, to mitigate adverse environmental or aesthetic impacts. a OPTION NO. 2- TOE OF SLOPE Owners of parcels located at the toe of the slope may delineate areas adjacent to the valley floor (minimum area .33 acre, minimum dimension 100 feet), which after application of the slope formula described in Option No. 1 are shown to have an average slope of less than 10%. These areas will no longer be subject to the restrictions contained in this title, will be assigned a density of 3 d.u./acre and shall be developed according to procedures set out in Chapter 25.24. If the remaining area exceeds 4 acres, an additional unit may be developed in the hillside. If the remainder is less than 4 acres, the hillside must remain undeveloped. For a remainder larger than 5 acres, density will be determined through Option No. 1 or No. 3. OPTION NO. 3 - DWELLING UNIT BUILDING SITE Instead of determining density by the average slope of the entire parcel as in Option No. 1, the applicant may delineate specific dwelling unit building sites whose slopes are 20% or less and are not adjacent to the valley floor, if the following criteria is met: 1. Minimum area of .5 acres. 2. Minimum dimension of 100 feet. 3. Maximum of overall density of one dwelling unit per acre. F-5" s- : i is The city may require any measure it feels necessary to mitigate adverse environmental or aesthetic impacts of grading or construction. Location and grades of access roads shall be as approved by the fire marshal and planning commission. If adverse aesthetic and environmental impacts of site and access grading cannot be adequately mitigated, then the designated location shall not qualify as a building site under this option. - 2 - f� R r CHv �Q Q o o 2 ww e L • 'r.JJWJJ����....i� tt C_CNi1 ys,. t:. . A. '�J�eYif_ i. 'ryg. ,Z SPy lI C��3 3 , • �16 Wh■ conftusd • V � I ' �1•y 1 W / �:1•' III 1 . I (.Ir� JNy'! 1 J ��•xl i ti.. lil /r I PALM DESERT CITY 111 LIMN � N /7 CoY'"ry O RI VCTI SIO£ I 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CAUFORNIA92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Pursuant to Title 149 Division 69 Article 79 Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code). Case No: GPA 03-82, C/Z 08-82 and ZOA 11-82 Common Project Name (if any): West Hills Amendments Applicant/Project Sponsor: City of Palm Desert Project Desuiption /Location: General plan, zoning ordinance and map amendment dealing with density and development standards in hillside areas west of the Palm Valley Storm Channel. The director of environmental services, 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. s AMON A. DIAZ TE TE Director of Envi nmental Services RAD/pa CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 322 Density for the area remaining after the application of Option No. 3, shall be determined via Option No. 1 or No. 2. Architectural design and materials shall to the greatest practical extent blend with the natural terrain. GRADING RESTRICTION FOR PROPERTIES OVER 10% SLOPE DEVELOPED UNDER OPTION NO. 2 AND OPTION NO. 3 Grading on the site shall be limited to the minimum required for safe access and the structural requirements of the dwelling unit. Grading for the building pad shall not involve an area greater than 10,000 square feet. That area disturbed by grading other than that required for access or building foundation, including all visible cutsior fills must be contoured and landscaped to blend with the surrounding natural terrain prior to final inspection or within one year following completion of grading if construction has not commenced. OPTION NO. 4 - PREFERRED DEVELOPMENT AREA The ability of the city's architectural review commission process to insure proper siting of units within the hillside is directly proportional to the size of the parcel. Certain lots may not contain any acceptable sites while others may contain several. The larger the parcel, the greater the likelyhood that suitable locations can be found. It is therefore advantageous to encourage the consolidation of smaller parcels so that sites can be developed according to aesthetic and environmental criteria instead of arbitrary existing property lines. It is also the city's desire to concentrate development on the less visible lower slopes. The following option offers increased density for larger parcels of combination of parcels submitted under one development plan if at least ten acres are located in the Q preferred development area as shown on the zoning map. Density shall be based upon the following table: AREA DENSITY 10-19 acres 2 d.u./5 acres 20 acres 3. d.u./5 acres Site location, grading, roads and architectural design shall be as approved by the planning commission and-architectural commission and shall minimize adverse aesthetic and environmental impacts and shall maximize the preservation of the natural character of the hillside. This option cannot be applied in conjunction with any other options. 25.15.040 Abandoned uses. If pursuant to this section, an existing building and or building site is to be abandoned, the abandoned building-shall be removed from the site and properly disposed of and the site regraded and'landscaped to blend with the terrain prior to any other building permits being issued for the property. 25.15.050 Circulation. alignments where possible shall parallel contours of the natural terrain A. Street alig Po and be located in valleys or on ridges so as not to be visible from the valley floor. B. Street lighting, when required, shall be of low profile design and unobtrusive. 25.15.060 Structural design. Site plan review in accord with Chap I er 25.70 is required for all,development. Structure height and setbacks shall be flexible-in order to-achieve the purposes of this section., - 3 - CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 322 25.15.070 Fire protection. In areas where there will be a fire hazard, in the opinion of the fire agency, the following shall apply: A. Clearance of brush or vegetative growth from structures and roadways shall be in accordance with the uniform fire code and approved by the fire agency. B. Roof shall be of incombustible material approved by the fire agency. C. All easements for fire breaks shall be dedicated to this purpose through recordation. D. All buildings shall be equipped with fire suppression automatic sprinkler systems approved by the fire marshal. 25.15.080 Erosion control. All manufactured slopes shall be planted or otherwise protected from the effects of storm runoff and erosion within thirty days after completion of grading. Planting shall be designed to blend with the surrounding terrain and the character of development. 25.15.090 Preservation of open space. In order to insure permanent retention of the natural terrain as required in Section 25.15.040, a covenant approved by the city attorney shall be recorded dedicating all building rights to the city and insuring that the natural areas shall remain as shown.on.plans.approved by the city. 25.15.100 Submittal re irements for development plan. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit unless otherwise provided), or land subdivision, a development plan shall be approved by the planning commission. This may include, as determined by the director of environmental services, the following information as set out in Sections 25.15.110 through 25.15.130. 25.15.110 Environmental assessment. All applications shall comply with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. 25.15.120 Required information. The director of environmental services and or planning commission may require any of the following information: A. Accurate topographic maps indicating the following: 1. Natural topographic features with an overlay of the proposed contours of the land after completion of the proposed grading; 2. Slope analysis with at least five-foot contour intervals and a slope analysis showing the following slope categories: 10% - 15% 26% - 30% 16% - 20% 31% - 35% 21% - 25% 36% and over; 3. Elevations of existing topographic features and the elevations of any proposed building pads, street centerlines and property corners; . . . 4. Locations and dimensions of all proposed cut and fill operations; 5. Locations and details of existing and proposed drainage patterns, structures and retaining walls; 6. Locations of disposal sites for excess or excavated material; 7. Locations of existing trees, other significant vegetation and biological features; 8. Locations of all significant geological features; including bluffs, ridgelines, cliffs, canyons, rock outcroppings, fault lines and waterfalls. - 4 - 1 J . CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 322 9. Locations and sizes of proposed building areas and lot patterns; 10. Any other information required by the planning commission; B. Site plans and architectural drawings illustrating the following: 1. Architectural characteristics of proposed buildings; 2. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns; including street widths and grades and other easements of public rights-of-way; 3. Utility lines and other service facilities; including water, gas, electricity and sewage lines; 4. Landscaping, irrigation and exterior lighting plans; 5. Locations and design of proposed fences, screens, enclosures and structures; including drainage facilities; 6. Any other information required by the planning commission; C. Reports and surveys with recommendations from foundation engineers or geologists based upon surface and subsurface exploration stating land capabilities; including soil types, soil openings, hydrologic groups, slopes, runoff potential, percolation data, soil depth, erosion potential and natural drainage patterns; D. Archeological studies in areas where existing evidence seems. to indicate that significant artifacts of historic sites are likely to be encountered in order to insure that these artifcats and/or sites are not inadvertently destroyed; i E. Additional information to include: 1. Average natural slope of the land; 2. Acreage and square footage calculations; 3. Area of impermeable surfaces; 4. Ratio of parking area to total land area; 5. Ratio of open space to total land area; 6. Description of maintenance program for proposed developments involving joint or common ownership; 7. Any other specific information determined to be of special interest relevant to the applicant's proposal. 25 15 130 Optional preliminary approval procedure. The applicant may choose to submit information and request a preliminary approval from the planning commission which will assign the appropriate development standard option, determine density, identify building sites, access roads and locations. No permits shall be issued until final approval is obtained. i /pa - 5 - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 832 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CREATING THE H-PR HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, CHAPTER 25.25 AND DELETING THE "H" HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT CHAPTER 25.52 AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT ' PERTAINS THERETO. CASE NO. ZOA 11-82 WHEREAS, the planning commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 5th day of October, 1982, hold a duly noticed public hearing and a continued public hearing on November 8, 1982 and December 7, 1982, to consider a zoning ordinance amendment creating the H-PR Hillside Planned Residential District, Chapter 25.25 and deleting the Hillside Development Overlay District, Chapter 25.52. 1 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. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared. 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 to justify their actions, as described below: WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to recommend approval of a zoning ordinance text amendment: 1. That the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance. �— 2. That the zoning ordinance amendment is con_istent with the adopted general plan and the West Hills Specific Plan. 1 3. That the zoning ordinance amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare, than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the planning commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1. That the above recitations -are true and correct and constitute the considerations of the commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend a zoning ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit "A". PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at. a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of December, 1982, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: DOWNS, KRYDER, WOOD NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: CRITES, RICHARDS �._ RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RA MON A. DIAZ, Secretary /pa i _ I .o l PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 830 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE PALM VALLEY AREA SPECIFIC PLAN BE RESCINDED, THAT THE WEST HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN BE ADOPTED AND THAT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT PERTAINS THERETO BE APPROVED. CASE NO. GPA 03-82 WHEREAS, the planning commission did on the 5th day of October, 1982, hold a duly noticed public hearing and a continued public hearing on November 8, 1982 and December 7, 1982, to consider the rescinding of the Palm Valley Area Specific Plan and the adoption of the West Hills Specific Plan relating to hillside development policies for the area generally bound by the Palm Valley Channel and the western city limits; and, WHEREAS, the director of environmental services has determined that the amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on this environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering the testimony and arguments of all persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to recommend the rescinding of the Palm Valley Area Specific Plan and the adoption of the West Hills Specific Plan: 1. The policies contained within the Palm Valley Area Specific Plan were based upon a faulty topographic analysis and contradict long standing city goals concerning development of steep hillside areas. 2. The implementation of the policies contained within the Palm Valley Area Specific Plan would result in a threat to the public health, safety and general welfare of the entire community. 3. The proposed West Hills Specific Plan provides policies which will both l fulfill the city's desire to preserve the environment and allow property owners a reasonable use of their land. 4. The West Hills Specific Plan will ensure the preservation of the public health, safety and general welfare of the entire community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the planning commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1. That the above recitations. are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council that the Palm Valley Area Specific Plan be rescinded and that the West Hills Specific Plan be adopted for reasons set out in this resolution. 3. That a Negative Declaration of ' Environmental Impact is hereby recommended for approval. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of December, 1982, by the following vote to wit: AYES: DOWNS, KRYDER, WOOD NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: CRITES, RICHARDS RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary � I I I January 13, 1983 I I Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council, the West Hillsiide Specific Plan culminates a 12 month effort beginning in January 1982. In December 1981, Mr. George Fox, owner of 97 acres of hillside property, approached the city with the desire to submit a proposed development plan for hearing. It was noted that Mr. Fox's proposal would not be permitted under existing city hillside development regulations. On January 28, 1982 an oral report was given to the city council concerning city hillside policy and the inquiry by Mr. Fox. On February 25, 1982, a staff report with an attached hillside development ordinance implementing the Palm Valley Specific Plan was given to the city council. A joint study session was held with the planning commission on March 16, 1982. At that session a hillside ordinance review committee was established composed of Planning Commissioners Buford Crites, George Kryder, Councilman Jim McPherson and Mayor Roy Wilson. On March 25, 1982, the committee recommended to the council a reexamination of the Hillside Specific Plan, after consultation with the city attorney. That recommendation was based on 1. concerns that the present plan no longer reflected the long irange goals and objectives of the city; 2. concerns raised throughout the region relating to hillside development; 3. the impact of the Palm Valley Channel on hillside development. The council accepted the committee report and instructed staff to prepare a new specific plan retaining the subcommittee to review the plan as it developed. From April through September staff and the committee met periodically to develop a plan which would indeed be consistent with the city's long range objective in terms of the hillside area. During that period the committee also met with v I arious property -I i I i owners and their representatives to discuss the mutual concerns for the hillside. In late September, a meeting was held with staff and hillside property owners; at that time the proposed revised plan and its ramifications were presented in an informal discussion type meeting. On November 8th, a public hearing before the planning commission was held and initial public testimony and staff report accepted by the commission. That hearing was subsequently continued to December 7, 1982, at which time the planning commission adopted a series of resolutions recommending to the city council adoption of the plan, and enactment of the ordinances before you this evening. i The main objective of the proposal is to balance the environmental and aesthetic concerns with private development rights in this sensitive area. The overall impact of the plan would be to permit approximately y: of the units which could ha�e been developed under the previously adopted specific plan, but increasing the number of units which can be developed over the city's hillside development ordinance. i In summary, the present zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the presently adopted plan because it is impossible to implement said plan under curren i t regulations. This situation is not in concert with the State Planning Act which requires zoning to be consistent with adopted plans. The solution is to either amend plans or in draft appropriate legislation: The West Hills Specific Plan is a combination of these alternatives: I OPTION 1: Slope Density Formula Slope Density AC/DU 10-15 .66 16-20 1 21-25 1.25 26-30 1.66 31-35 2.5 36 5 H - This is a'Right I -2- I I OPTION 2: I Owners of parcels at the toe of slope may separate areas adjacent to valley floors, use slope formula and if the average slope is less than 10% these areas are not subject to hillside overlay regulations and will be permitted a density of 3 d.u./acre. I If the remaining area of a 5 acre parcel exceeds 4 acres, an additional unit may be developed in the hillside. On any parcel larger than 5 acres density will be determined through Option 1 or Option 3. OPTION 3: I Instead of requiring density determination based on the average slope as computed for the entire parcel, the owner has the option of identifying specific dwelling building sites of a minimum area of S4 acre whose slopes are 20% or less. Overall parcel density may not exceed 1 d.u./acre. i Grading shall be minimum and grading for building pad shall be limited to a maximum 10,000 square foot area. I OPTION 4: Lot Consolidation If a person owns at least 10 acres in the area designated as the preferred development area (shown on map) the density shall be computed to permit on 10-19 acre sites to have a density of 2 d.u./ 5 acres and sites of 20 acres of greater 3 Id.u./5 acres. This option is absolute and cannot be used in conjunction with other development options. Under the Palm Valley Channel Specific Plan, approximately 720 units could have been developed within the planning area. The proposed West Hills Plan would permit a maximum 433 units; if one owner were to acquire all of the hillside area and avail himself of Option 4. The action before council this evening would be to... _3_ I I I 1. Adopt Resolution No. , rescinding all policies contained within the Palm Valley Area Specific Plan and adopt the West Hills Specific Plan and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact therefore 2. Introduce and pass to second reading ZOA 11-82 and C/Z 08-82. At this point, I would like to review some of the issues, and clarify some of the I legal points raised during the planning process. 1. What did the Palm Valley Channel permit? The plan by itself did not permit any type of land use or activity. It is totally incorrect to say "the plan permitted". The plan did identify certain residential densities, but the ordinances were never revised to permit the development of those densities. 2. Hotel development. Much has been said about the potential for hotel development. It should be clarified that a hotel was never allowed in the area as a matter of right; it required a conditional use permit. It was determined that in the hillside overlay area a hotel's density would be equal to the residential density. I During the discussions on the plan it was determined that because such a provision would make hotel development totally impractical that it should ble excluded from the plan. I 3. Density—Why the reduction? i When one speaks of density reduction, it is a reduction of those densities called for in the adopted specific plan not that which has been permitted since 1975. 1 In actuality, what this plan calls for and provides for is an increase in the allowable I -4- i development despite a reduction in the residential density redommended in the specific plan. I 4. Why weren't the ordinances revised to implement the Palm Valley Channel Specific Plan? I Because it was determined that the plan did not reflect the long range goals and objectives of the city relating to hillside development. The city determined that the data base and assumption on which the Palm Valley Plan was based were in error. Ar I I I I I I I -5- I i �U2VE3r����^ 544 �eoz9an c 5'\�. ��inf2id9 E, ea�ifoznca ��11 'IENVI'CPiNJENTAL SERVICES Planning Commission ,, GF PALM DESERT City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Deserts Ca, 92260 Res Jan 13 Mtg, and my property. 6.69 Gentlemen, acres in NW of Sec 31 T5S &6E My property is unique because it is not rag- ged. It is adjacent t6 the flood control channel and the proposed road that will be neat to the channel. The land is not mount- ainous and has a natural roadway up the slope from the proposed channel road. Zoning should not be too restrictive and flower the value. I want to make a quality development there$ with eight or ten sites for beautiful homes. We can plan at least that many without a mat- erial change of the landscape and grading. I feel that the gentle slope of this view property entitles it to a separate identity. I plan to enhance the beauty of the hills in the development. - Sincerely, R. Virginia Black Purves (Mrs. E. H. Purves) I t� J MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 1983 I Councilman Jackson stated there was much confusion about the options presented. She stated she favored hiring an outside planning firm to study it and make recommendations. She also stated she felt the property owned by Mr. Fox should be considered separately in that she felt it desirable for a hotel development as it had direct access to Highway 111. She also felt hillside development I could be very prestigious. She concluded by stating more study should be made. Councilman Kelly stated he felt Staff had done a good job resolving a difficult problem. I Councilman Wilson stated the City was one of the few if not the only city in the State with a general plan approved by its citizens. He noted that during the referendum on the plan, one of the major issues was line of sight and hillside development. The citizens were against their views being 'obstructed and hillside development. He could not justify changing that now, and he agreed there was substantial confusion over the plan. With respect to reviewing one portion of the hillside differently from the others such as Mr. Fox's property, he felt that in so doing, a precedent would be set that would have to be followed for all others. Councilman Snyder said that he could not believe that an outside planning firm, unfamiliar with our city and its people, could do any better a job than our own staff. However, disallowing any development would mean the City would have to find the money to purchase the property, and he found that difficult to justify. He suggested the formation of a subcommittee to review all the input received in the hopes that this group could come up with a resolution satisfactory to most. ( Mayor Pulqui suggested an option that would allow a hotel on property with more than 50-60 acres accumulated. He too felt there was confusion that should be clarified before action on thisis'sue. Councilman Jackson moved to continue the item to the meeting of February 10, 1983, with the appointment of a subcommittee to review input and suggest alternative methods of resolution. Councilman Snyder seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimous vote of the Council. Mayor Puluqi appointed Councilmen Snyder and Kelly to the newly formed subcommittee along with two member of the Planning Commission to be determined by its Chairman. i MAYOR PULU I CALLED A 10 MINUTE RECESS AT 10:20 P.M. HE RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 10:40 P.M. C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION TO ANNEX CERTAIN CONTIGUOUS TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CASE NO. ANNEXATION NO. 14 - LAFCO FILE NO. 82-33- 4. I D. /REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION TO ANNEX CERTAIN CONTIGUOUS TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CASE NO. ANNEXATION NO. 15 - LAFCO FILE NO. 82-34-4. Mayor Puluqi declared the Public Hearing open for both Annexation 14 and and Annexation 15 and asked for Staff's report. Mr. Diaz reported that the annexations had been approved by LAFCo and that this was the last step in their finalization. He i noted a letter from Bob and Jo Fraser, 2422 Biola Avenue, San Diego; California, in favor of Annexation 14 (attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "B"). I -7- I. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 832 I EXHIBIT "A" HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SECTIONS: 25.25.010 Purpose. 25.25.020 Permitted uses. 25.25.030 Development standards. 25.25.040 Abandoned uses. 25.52.050 Circulation. 25.52.060 Structural design. 25.52.070 Fire protection. 25.52.080 Erosion control. 25.52.100 Submittal requirements development plan. 25.52.110 Environmental assessment. 25.52.120 Required materials. 25.52.130 Optional preliminary approval procedure 25.52.010 Purpose. The purpose and intent of the Hillside Planned Residential District is: A. To encourage only minimal grading in hillside areas that relates to the natural contours of the land and will not result in extensive cut and fill slope's that result in a padding or staircase effect within the development; B. To retain natural vegetation which stabilizes slopes and where necessary to require additional landscaping to stabilize slopes and maintain the necessary cuts and fills in hillside areas; C. Require the retention of natural landmarks and features including vistas and the f natural skyline as integral elements in development proposals in hillside areas. �— 25 25 020 Uses and activities permitted by approved development plan. 1. Grading. 2. Single family attached or detached dwellings. 3. Land subdivisions. 4. Remodels and additions only require department .of environmental services approval. 25.25.030 Development standards. Development standards shall be as approved by the planning commission in a public hearing and shall be based upon the following development options. The minimum density obtainable shall be 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. It will be the responsibility of the applicant to provide sufficient data supporting the applicability of any option. The planning commission shall make a final determination concerning which option or combination of options is appropriate. Firms submitting topographic data must be registered civil engineers. OPTION NO.1 - PARCEL AVERAGE SLOPE METHOD This option requires a topographic map of the entire parcel with; maximum 5 foot contour intervals. Using the following formula and tables the average slope for the entire parcel is determined leading to density designations and grading limitations. A. Average Slope Formula: S = .00229IL Where: 5= Average percent slope A I = Contour interval, in feet L = Summation of the contour length, in feet A = Area of the parcel in acres, of ownership being considered B. Density within the district shall be based on the following scale: -2- I . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 832 Percent Slope Minimum Acreage Per Dwelling Unit 10 - 15 0.66 acres; 16 - 20 1.00 acres; 21 - 25 1.25 acres; 26 - 30 1.66 acres; 31 - 35 2.50 acres; 36 or over 5.00 acres C. Grading. The minimum of percentage of a lot to remain in a natural state without cut or fill shall be determined on the basis of the average slope of the natural terrain of the lot. Such determination shall be made on the basis of the natural state as being defined as the condition of the lot prior to any new development. The following table indicates the minimum percentage of a lot to remain in a natural state: Percent Slope Percent of the lot to Remain in the Natural State 10 - 15 32.5 16 - 20 47.5 21 - 25 62.5 26 - 30 77.5 31 - 35 92.5 36 or over 95.0 (Ord. 97 §!(part), 1975: Exhibit A §25.29-3.02). D. Density transfer. The planning commission may require a transfer of density from one portion of a parcel to another, to mitigate adverse environmental or aesthetic impacts. OPTION NO. 2 - TOE OF SLOPE Owners of parcels located at the toe of the slope may delineate areas adjacent to the valley floor (minimum area .33 acre, minimum dimension 100 feet), which after application of the slope formula desc,.bed in Option No. 1 are shown to have an aver..ge slope of less than 10%. These areas will no longer be subject to the restrictions contained in this title, will be assigned a density of 3 d.u./acre and shall be developed according to procedures set out in Chapter 25.24.. If the remaining area exceeds 4 acres, an additional unit may be developed in the hillside. If the remainder is less than 4 acres, the hillside must remain undeveloped. For a remainder larger than 5 acres, density will be determined through Option No. 1 or No. 3. OPTION NO. 3 - DWELLING UNIT BUILDING SITE Instead of determining density by the average slope of the entire parcel as in Option No. 1, the applicant may delineate specific .dwelling unit building sites whose slopes are 20% or less and are not adjacent to the valley floor, if the following criteria is met: 1. Minimum area of .5 acres. 2. Minimum dimension of 100 feet. 3. Maximum of overall density of one dwelling unit per acre. The city may require any measure it feels necessary to mitigate adverse environmental or aesthetic impacts of grading or construction. Location and grades of access roads shall be as approved by the fire marshal and planning commission. If adverse aesthetic and environmental impacts of site and access grading cannot be adequately mitigated, then the designated location shall not qualify as a building site under this option. Density for the area remaining after the application of Option No. 3, shall be determined via Option No. 1 or No. 2. Architectural design and materials shall to the greatest practical extent blend with the natural terrain. GRADING RESTRICTION FOR PROPERTIES OVER 10% SLOPE DEVELOPED UNDER OPTION NO. 2 AND OPTION NO. 3 -3- i PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 832 Grading on the site shall be limited to the minimum required for safe access and the structural requirements of the dwelling unit. Grading for the building pad shall not involve an area greater than 10,000 square feet. That area disturbed by grading other than that required for access or building foundation, including all visible cuts or fills must be contoured and landscaped to blend with the surrounding natural terrain prior to final inspection or within one year following completion of grading if construction has not ! commenced. OPTION NO. 4 - PREFERRED DEVELOPMENT AREA The ability of the city's design review process to insure proper siting of units within the hillside is directly proportional to the size of the parcel. Certain lots may not contain any acceptable sites while others may contain several. The larger the parcel, the greater the likelihood that suitable locations can be found. It is therefore advantageous to encourage the consolidation of smaller parcels so that sites can be developed according to aesthetic and environmental criteria instead of arbitrary existing property lines. It is also the city's desire to concentrate development on the less visible lower slopes. The following option offers increased density for larger parcels or combination of parcels submitted under one development plan if at least ten acres are located in the preferred development area as shown on the zoning map. Density shall be based upon the following table: AREA DENSITY 10 - 19 acres 2 d.u./5 acres 20 acres 3 d.u./5 acres Site location, grading, roads and architectural design shall be as approved by the planning commission and design review board and shall minimize adverse aesthetic and environmental impacts and shall maximize *the preservation of the natural character of. the hillside. This option cannot be applied in conjunction with any other options. 25.25.040 Abandoned uses. If pursuant to this section, an existing building and or building site is to be abandoned, the abandoned building shall be removed from the site and properly disposed of and the site regraded and landscaped to blend with the terrain prior to any other building permits being issued for the property. 25.52.050 Circulation. A. Street alignments where possible shall parallel contours of the natural terrain and be located in valleys or on ridges so as not to be visible from the valley floor. B. Street lighting, when required, shall be of low profile design and unobtrusive. 25.25.060 Structural design. Site plan review in accord with Chapter 25.70 is required for all development. Structure height and setbacks shall be flexible in order to achieve the purposes of this section. 25.25.070 Fire protection. In areas where there will be a fire hazard, in the opinion of the fire agency, the following shall apply: A. Clearance of brush or vegetative growth from structures and roadways shall be in accordance with the uniform fire code and approved by the fire agency. B. Roof shall be of incombustible material approved by the fire agency. C. All easements for fire breaks shall be dedicated to this purpose through recordation. D. All buildings shall be equipped with fire suppression automatic sprinkler systems approved by the fire marshal. 25.25.080 Erosion control. All manufactured slopes shall be planted or otherwise protected from the effects of storm runoff and erosion within thirty days after completion.of grading. Planting shall be designed to blend with the surrounding terrain and the character of development. 25 25 090 Preservation of open space. In order to insure permanent retention of the natural terrain as required under this title, a covenant approved by the city attorney -4- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 832 shall be recorded dedicating all building rights to the city and insuring that the natural areas shall remain as shown on plans approved by the city. 25.25.100 Submittal re uirements for development plan. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit unless otherwise provided), or land subdivision, a development plan shall be approved by the planning commission. This may include, as determined by the director of environmental services, the following information as set out in Sections 25.25.110 through 25.25.130. 25.52.110 Environmental assessment. All applications shall comply with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. 25.25.120 Required information. The director of environmental services and or planning commission may require any of the following information: A. Accurate topographic maps indicating the following: 1. Natural topographic features with an overlay of the proposed contours of the land after completion of the proposed grading; 2. Slope analysis with at least five-foot contour intervals and a slope analysis showing the following slope categories: 10% - 15% 26% - 30% 16% - 20% 31% - 35% 21% - 25% 36% and over; 3. Elevations of existing topographic features and the elevations of any proposed building pads, street centerlines and property corners; 4. Locations and dimensions of all proposed cut and fill operations; 5. Locations and details of existing and proposed drainage patterns, structures and retaining walls; 6. Locations of disposal sites for excess or excavated material; 7. Locations of existing trees, other significant vegetation and biological features; 8. Locations of all significant geological features; including bluffs, ridgelines, cliffs, canyons, rock outcroppings, fault lines and waterfalls; 9. Locations and sizes of prc^osed building areas and lot patterns; 10. Any other information required by the planning commission; B. Site plans and architectural drawings illustrating the following: 1. Architectural characteristics of proposed buildings; 2. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns; including street widths and grades and other easements of public rights-of-way; 3. Utility lines and other service facilities; including water, gas, electricity and sewage lines; 4. Landscaping, irrigation and exterior lighting plans; 5. Locations and design of proposed fences, screens, enclosures and structures; including drainage facilities; 6. Any other information required by the planning commission; C. Reports and surveys with recommendations from foundation engineers or geologists based upon surface and subsurface exploration stating land capabilities; including soil types, soil openings, hydrologic groups, slopes, runoff potential, percolation data, soil depth, erosion potential and natural drainage patterns; D. Archeological studies in areas where existing evidence seems to indicate that significant artifacts of historic sites are likely to be encountered in order to insure that these artifaats and/or sites are not inadvertently destroyed; E. Additional information to include: 1. Average natural slope of the land; 2. Acreage and square footage calculations; 3. Area of impermeable surfaces; 4. Ratio of parking area to total land area; 5. Ratio of open space to total land area; 6. Description of maintenance program for proposed developments involving joint or common ownership; 7. Any other specific information determined to be of special interest relevant to the applicant's proposal. 25.25.130 Optional preliminary approval procedure. The applicant may choose to submit information and request a preliminary approval from the planning commission which will assign the appropriate development standard option, determine density, identify building sites, access roads and locations. No permits shall be issued until final approval is obtained. -5- I" MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1982 APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL: Mr. Craven explained that they will not have the maximum number of pupils at all times; he explained that the reason they would like to expand up to grade 3 is because a child can stay at one school for up to six years; there will be no traffic impacts on Cabrillo; and, they will continue to regulate the noise generated. Mrs. Craven stated there is no problem with traffic congestion from the school; most people in the neighborhood work during the day and school hours are from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Vice Chairman Richards closed the public hearing and asked for commissibners' comments. Commissioner Wood felt there seemed to be conflicting testimony; but also felt that the location was zoned for this facility. Commissioner Crites felt there was a wide variety of objections but was not sure that all the issues were attributed to the school. Commissioner Crites felt that the issue comes down to whether or not the commission is willing to approve something that is of community value and opposed by the immediate neighborhood. Commissioner Downs felt the expansion should not be in an R-1 zone. Commissioner Wood felt the objections should be clarified by staff and the matter should be continued. Vice Chairman Richards voiced opposition based on Mrs. Cook's objections and the testimony received from the immediate neighborhood. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Vice Chairman Richards, to reject findings as recommended by staff. Carried 3-0-1 (Commisioner Wood abstained). Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to instruct staff to prepare a resolution denying CUP 14-78, with commission's findings. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Wood abstained). A TEN MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED - THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:50 P.M. B. CASE NOS. GPA 03-82, C/Z 08-82, and ZOA 11-82 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Consideration. of a general plan amendment, change of zone, zoning ordinance amendment, and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, involving hillside development standards for property generally located between the Palm Valley Storm Channel and western city limits. Mr. Drell gave the staff report outlining the factors which had generated the proposed revisions to present plans and ordinances. The goal of this amendment would be to preserve the natural character of the hillside, while providing property owners with a reasonable use of their land. Base density would be set at 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. Through development options, a density of up to 3 dwelling units per acre could be approved for those areas at the base of the mountains having less than 10 percent slope. Vice Chairman Richards opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR. There being none, he asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION: LEROY KIRKPATRICK, 33-801 Dana Point, objected to proposals which might result in limiting development on his 3.5 acres to one unit. He asserted that he had been assured that 2 or 3 units could be built on his land. DORI CREE, explained that the zoning recommended in the Palm Valley Area Specific Plan was based upon many considerations including the visibility of the slopes, and the eventual developments occurring on them, from different parts of the city. She -3- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1982 along the bottom of the slopes further stated that she acquired four, five acre parcelsg P based upon the recommendation in the old plan of a one dwelling unit per acre density. She objected to the new proposals since they might limit her to 4 to 8 units. She requested that higher density be allowed on her property and along the base of the mountains. ALAN PERRIER, 3001 Tahquitz-McCallum, Palm Springs, explained that he represented Mr. Fox, owner of 97 acres in the study area. He felt that the proposals were not adequately understood and severely limited his client's property. A great deal of time and effort went into the Palm Valley Specific Plan and implementation of its recommendation could result in high quality attractive development. He also objected to the prohibition of hotel development in the new plan's zone. He requested that the commission study the issues more thoroughly before making a decision. ROBERT RICCIARDI, 42-600 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, stated that he represented owners of 50 acres in the study area and argued that the slope formula and the development options were too rigid. He favored proposals which would give the commission greater flexibility in determining density and grading. He also requested a continuance so that alternative proposals could be developed. Vice Chairman Richards felt that the plan was not clear to the property owners in informing them of the number of dwelling units they could develop; more precise information as to permitted land uses should be provided. He concluded that this matter should be continued until then. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Wood, to continue the public hearing to a special meeting on November 8, 1982, at 7:00 p.m. for further study. C. CASE NO. PP 01-82 - J.P. CONSTRUCTION, INC., Applicants Request for approval of a precise plan to allow construction of three industrial buildings on a 101,045 sq.ft. parcel in the S.I. zone on the north side of Mayfair Drive, east of Green Way. Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report and recommended approval. Vice Chairman Richards opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MR. SVEND PEULIKCE, 74-831 Velie Way, stated he had not reviewed the conditions of approval and was not sure he concurred with them. Commission asked the applicant if he wished to continue this case to the next meeting. Mr. Peulikce agreed. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Wood, to continue this matter to the meeting of October 19, 1982, to allow the applicant further review of conditions of approval. V. ANNUAL ELECTION OF OFFICERS - 1982/83 A. Nomination for Chairman Motion was made by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to L nominate Commissioner Wood for Chairman for the year 1982/83. Carried unanimously. B. Nomination for Vice Chairman Motion was made by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to nominate Commissioner Richards for Vice Chairman for the year. 1982/83. Carried unanimously. -4- MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 1.0, 1983 D. REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE AND LABOR & MATERIAL BONDS FOR TRACTS 15734 AND 15735 AND TO. ACCEPT ONE-YEAR MAINTENANCE BOND, SHADOW MOUNTAIN RESORT & RACQUET CLUB, APPLICANT. Rec: Approve the request and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bond and the Labor be Materials Bond for said tract and to accept a one-year maintenance bond. E. REPORT FROM RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT FOR MONTH OF D CEMBER, 1982. Rec: Receive and file. F. RESOLUTION NO. 83-14 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, SETTING FORTH ITS FINDINGS AND AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF FILES FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & SAFETY THAT HAVE BEEN MICROFILMED. ' ltec: Waive further reading and adopt. G. REQUEST FOR REFUND FOR 1980-81 & 1981-82 FIRE TAX OVERCHARGE ON PARCEL NO. 625-122-009-39 MR. A. D. BABCOCK, APPLICANT. Rec: • By Minute Motion, approve the request and authorize the City Treasurer to refund the amount of $2,592 from prior years' fire tax revenues. Upon motion by Wilson, second by Kelly, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented by unanimous vote of the Council. -VIL ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A None Via. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT WEST HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN), ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, CHANGE OF ZONE AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CONCERNING HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND STANDARDS FOR THE AREA .GENERALLY-..BOUNDED BY THE PALM VALLEY STORM CHANNEL AND THE WESTERN CITY LIMITS. CASE NOS. GPA 03-82, ZOA 11-82 and C/Z 08-82. (Continued from the meeting of January 13, 1983.) Mayor Puluqi announced that the public testimony portion of the hearing had been closed at the meeting of January 13, 1983, and would remain closed unless the majority of the Council wished to reopen it. He asked Mr. Diaz to make staff's report. Mr Diaz reviewed the report stating the Council had created a subcommittee at their January 13, 1983, meeting to review issues raised during that hearing. The consensus of the committee was that some type of alternative which would permit further evaluation of major hillside parcels should be permitted. As a result, staff recommended the use of.the development agreement as set forth in the California Government Code, Section 65864 through 65867.5. The committee concluded that this should be the only revision to the West Hills specific Plan as submitted. He reviewed the provisions of the development agreement noting that such an application would require Planning Commission approval and Council approval. It would give the City an opportunity to examine portions of the hillside area in excess of r`'` -2- r MINUTES r ~} REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 109 1983 50 acres and yet at the same time include them in the plan and to have separate studies when these areas are ready for development. He concluded by recommending the adoption of Resolution No. 83-3 and the first reading of Ordinance Nos. 322 and 323. Councilman Jackson moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 83-3 and to waive further reading and pass Ordinance Nos. 322 and 323 to second reading. Councilman Snyder seconded the motion. j Councilman Wilson spoke against the motion. He felt that when this process started, it was an attempt to reach a reasonable compromise between the original land development designation without opening the hillsides to rampant development. He felt strongly that the City was opening the door. to it and would be very sorry in the future. It would be unfair to developers to give them the impression that if they acquire large acreage, they might have a shot at developing those hillsides.,, He said that philosophy is not consistent with the desires of the majority of the people in the City nor the Council today of past Councils. Councilman Snyder concurred that hillside development should not be encouraged. However, he felt the latest committee had achieved a compromise that put in adequate safeguards to protect the City from such rampant development. Councilman Kelly said that he was satisfied with the original recommendation — before the latest committee recommended this development agreement. He felt that this new proposal satisfied concerns raised during the public hearing. Mayor Pulugi called for the vote, and the following votes were cast: AYES: Jackson, Kelly, Snyder, do Pulugi NOES: Wilson B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMEN RELATING TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD REORGANIZATION. (Continued from the meeting of January 27, 1983.) Mayor Puluqi noted that the public testimony portion of the public hearing had been closed at the meeting of January 27, 1983, and would not be reopened unless a majority of the Council so desired. He called on Mr. Diaz for the staff report. Mr. Diaz reviewed the new recommendations which were reducing the number of architects from 7 to 5 and letting all members be named by the Council to reflect whatever area of expertise the Council so desired and designated terms of office. Councilmen Wilson and Snyder both stated this was a technical advisory board and that the makeup consisting of a majority of architects was important. They favored the designated term of office. Councilman Kelly moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 326 to second reading amended to read "a majority of 3 architects, if available". Councilman Jackson seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimous vote. C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PERMITTING IDENTIFICATION SIGNS HAVING AN AREA NOT TO EXCEED 35 SQUARE FEET FOR ANY "URGENT CARE FACILITY" — CASE NO. ZOA 10-829 CITY OF PALM DESERT, APPLICANT. Mayor Pulugi declared the Public Hearing open and asked for the staff report. Mr. Diaz reviewed the report in detail noting that the Council had approved the request to modify the sign ordinance to allow for urgent medical care facilities for additional signage of 35 square feet at its meeting of August 12, 1982. However, prior to staff's submittal of the MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 1983 Councilman Wilson asked about the following and Mr. Erwin advised the necessary corrections: Page 8 1982 should be 1983. Page 40 Section 5.A.9 should be 14.01.090(4) Page 40 upoon should be upon. Page 42 blanks should be filled in with $500. Page 51 blanks should be filled in with $500. Councilman Wilson asked Mr. Smith of Coachella Valley Television whether or not interconnect as mentioned on Page 56 was now required. Mr. Smith responded that while it was not required, it was being provided. Upon motion by Snyder, second by Wilson, Ordinance No. 318 was passed to second reading by unanimous vote of the Council. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT WEST HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN), ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, CHANGE OF ZONE AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CONCERNING HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND STANDARDS FOR THE AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY THE PALM VALLEY STORM CHANNEL AND THE WESTERN CITY LIMITS. CASE NOS. GPA 03-821 ZOA 11-82 and C/Z 08-82. Mr. Diaz reported that the the West Hillside Specific Plan culminates a 12 month effort beginning in January 1982. In December 1981, Mr. George Fox, owner of 97 acres of hillside property, approached the city with the desire to submit a proposed development plan for hearing. It was noted that Mr. Fox's proposal would not be permitted under existing city hillside development regulations. On January 28, 1982 an oral report was given to the city council concerning city hillside policy and the inquiry by Mr. Fox. On February 25, 1982, a staff report with an attached hillside development ordinance implementing the Palm Valley Specific Plan was given to the city council. A joint study session was held with the planning commission on March 16, 1982. At that session a hillside ordinance review committee was established composed of Planning Commissioners Buford Crites, George.Kryder, Councilman Jim McPherson and Mayor Roy Wilson. On March 25, 1982, the committee recommended to the council a reexamination of the Hillside Specific Plan, after consultation with the city attorney. That recommendation was based on: 1. Concerns that the present plan no longer reflected the long range goals and objectives of the city; 2. concerns raised throughout the region relating to hillside development; 3. the impact of the Palm Valley Channel on hillside development. The Council accepted the committee report and instructed staff to prepare a new specific plan retaining the subcommittee to review the plan as it developed. From April through September staff and the committee met periodically to develop a plan which would indeed be consistent with the city's long range objective in terms of the hillside area. During that period the committee also met with various owners and their representatives to discuss the mutual concerns for the hillside. In late September, a meeting was held with staff and hillside property owners; at that time the proposed revised plan and its ramifications were presented in an informal discussion type meeting. On November 8th, a -3- MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 1983 public hearing before the planning commission was held and initial public testimony and staff report accepted by the commission. That hearing was subsequently continued to December 7, 1982, at which time the Planning Commission adopted a series of resolutions recommending to the City Council adoption of the plan, and enactment of the ordinances before you this evening. The main objective of the proposal is to balance the environmental and aesthetic concerns with private development rights in this sensitive area. The overall impact of the plan would be to permit approximately Y2 of the units which could have been developed under the previously adopted specific plan, but increasing the number of units which can be developed over the city's hillside development ordinance. In summary, the present zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the presently adopted plan because it is impossible to implement said plan under current regulations. This situation is not in concert with' the State Planning Act which requires zoning to be consistent with adopted plans. The solution is to either amend plans or draft appropriate legislation: The West Hills Specific Plan is a combination of these alternatives: OPTION 1: Slope Density Formula Slope Density AC/DU 10-15 .66 16-20 1 21-25 1.25 26-30 1.66 31-35 2.5 36 5 OPTION 2: Owners of parcels at the toe of slope may separate areas adjacent to valley floors, use slope formula and if the average slope is less than 10% these areas are not subject to hillside overlay regulations and will be permitted a density of 3 d.u./acre. If the remaining area of a 5 acre parcel exceeds 4 acres, an additional unit may be developed in the hillside. On any parcel larger than 5 acres density will be determined through Option 1 or Option 3. OPTION 3: Instead of requiring density determination based on the average slope as computed for the entire parcel, the owner has the option of identifying specific dwelling building sites of a minimum area of A acre whose slopes are 20% or less. Overall parcel density may not exceed 1 d.u./acre. Grading shall be minimum and grading for building pad shall be limited to a maximum 10,000 square foot area. - OPTION 4: Lot Consolidation If a person owns at least 10 acres in the area designated as the preferred development area (shown on map) the density shall be computed to permit on 10-19 acre sites to have a density of 2 d.u./ 5 acres and sites of 20 acres of greater 3 d.u./5 acres. This option is absolute and cannot be used in conjunction with other development options. MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL .MEETING JANUARY 139 1983 Under the Palm Valley Channel Specific Plan, approximately 720 units could have been developed within the planning area. The proposed West Hills Plan would permit a maximum 433 units; if one owner were to acquire all of the hillside area and avail himself of Option 4. The action before council this evening would be to: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 82-3, rescinding all policies contained within the Palm Valley Area Specific Plan and adopt the West Hills Specific Plan and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact therefore. 2. Introduce and pass to second reading Ordinance Nos. 322 and 323. At this point, he reviewed some of the issues, and clarified some of the legal points raised during the planning process. 1. What did the Palm Valley Channel permit? The plan by itself did not permit any type of land use or activity. It is totally incorrect to say "the plan permitted". The plan did identify certain residential densities, but the ordinances were never revised to permit the development of those densities. 2. Hotel development. Much has been said about the potential for hotel development. It should be clarified that a hotel was never r allowed in the area as a matter of right; it required a L conditional use permit. It was determined that in the hillside overlay area a hotel's density would be equal to the residential density. During the discussions on the plan it was determined that because such a provision would make hotel development totally impractical, it should be excluded from the plan. 3. Density--Why the reduction? When one speaks of density reduction, it is a reduction of those densities called for in the adopted specific plan not that which has been permitted since 1975. In actuality, what this plan calls for and provides for is an increase in the allowable development despite a reduction in the residential density recommended in the specific plan. 4. Why weren't the ordinances revised to implement the Palm Valley Channel Specific Plan? Because it was determined that the plan did not reflect the _ long range goals and objectives of the city relating to hillside development. The city determined that the data base and assumption on which the Palm Valley Plan was based were in error. He concluded by noting a letter from Mrs. B. Virginia Black Purves in support of "not too restrictive zoning" (said letter attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A"). Mayor Puluqi noted that during the year this matter was studied, interested parties had contacted the Council in favor and against the proposal. He then invited input in FAVOR of the plan, and the following people spoke for low density development on the hillside: -5- MINUTES 7ANUARY 13, 1983 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING * * * a • • t + a � � � � * s • a � * * �c * x x : * + � * * � a � MR. GEORGE SMITH, Palm Desert Community Church Board of Directors. Mr. GEORGE SWEET, 46-370 Ocotillo for Desert Peoples United. MRS. MARIAN HENDERSON, 73-597 Pinyon, Palm Desert, for Desert ' 1 Beautiful. MR. LAWRENCE PREY, 73-385 Joshua Tree, Palm Desert, on behalf of St. Margaret's Church Board of Directors. MR. HENRY B. CLARK, 73-183 Willow Street, Palm Desert. MR. GEORGE RITTER, 73-345 Juniper, Palm Desert, for Palm Desert Property Owners' Association. Mayor Puluqi invited input in Opposition to the plan, and the following spoke: MS. KAY CRAIG, 73-922 Belair, Palm Desert, spoke against any development of the hillsides. MR. EUGENE KAY, 73-020 Homestead, Palm Desert, spoke against any development of the hillsides. MR. DEAN COLE, 72-740 Carab Court, Palm Desert, against any development and suggesting the decision should be made by the voters. MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI, architect on behalf of a developer,opposed the plan in that he felt it did not provide enough density. He additionally suggested many specific revisions to the proposed plan and the hiring of an outside professional planning team to analyze the hillside development. MR. JIM PAUL, Pasadena, against any development of the hillside. MR. GEORGE FOX, Chicago, Illinois, spoke against the plan in that it did not provide for commercial development of his property which he felt most suitable for a hotel complex. He presented a plan and pictures for Council's review (on file and of public record in the City Clerk's Office). MR. TOM ESSEN, engineer for Mr. George Fox, displayed charts showing the terrain of the hillside of Mr. Fox's development for the benefit of the audience and Council. MAYOR PULUQI CALLED A 10 MINUTE RECESS AT 9:07 P.M. HE RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 9.20 P.M. MR. GREG LARSON, 72-554 Beavertail, Palm Desert, spoke against the plan in that no one seemed to fully understand it. He asked for more study and report to the public. MRS. ELAINE BROERMAN, 249 S. Beckley, Pasadena, spoke against the plan as it was too restrictive. MR. LEROY KIRKPATRICK, Dana Point, spoke against the plan as it was too restrictive. MRS. DORI CREE, Long Beach, felt the plan too restrictive. MRS. MARY BEYE, Lake Arrowhead, felt the plan too restrictive. With no further input offered, Mayor Puluqi declared the Public Hearing closed. i -6 6AA 01-79 Appendix I i, PALU VALLZY STOtJWA:'EP. r esaxrrr AAA •�—� speaLfla Plan City of Palm Desert Department of Environmental Services ]j�� 5 L!i i FEE. 27• 19n. Aortt"12: i979 use configuration for this alternative could be developed, several major con- cerns regarding the study area needed to be resolved. i The first of these concerns was the study area' s severe slopes. To re- solve this concern, a slope analysis was completed. The results of this analysis are shown on illustration 12. It can be noted from this map that 328.10 acres or 42% of the study area has slopes in excess of 20.%; 143.30 acres or 19% of the study area has slopes between 10% and 20%; and, 210.70 acres or 27% of the study area has slopes that are less than 10%. Accordingly, approximately 46% of the study area may be considered developable in terms of existing City standards and policies. Such standards and policies requiring the undergrounding of public utilities; public sanitary sewer; paved roads with grades less than 20%; the preservation of natural drainage courses, the desert corridor system, and scenic views; and, the provision for adequate fire and police protection. It may be concluded that if development is limited to those portions of the study area with slopes less than M that such development could meet all existing City standards and be in conformance with and compli- mentary to existing City policies. In order to clarify the relationship between slopes and sewage disposal systems, the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health was contacted. In general , the information gathered from this agency supports the concept that hillside areas with slopes in excess of 25% are practically impossible to serve with private septic tanks or public sanitary sewer. Department repre- sentatives said that several permits for the study area had been rejected be- cause of rocky slopes and lack of adequate percolation and space for septic. systems to operate. While they indicated that public sanitary sewers could be installed in portions of the study area with slopes in excess of 20%, the feasibility of installing such systems is questionable because of the prohibi- tive cost involved. Therefore, unless the individual property owners of the parcels involved on steeper slopes are willing to bear the burden of the cost 40 �� PALM VALLEY STORMWATER CHANNEL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN 12 ate �w1Y, •ui� .I?��x� 1 SLOPE ANALYSIS r •-li, •Sw-- 9 J�� � .a'`':r±•A ;l.— .:-. .III,... !'�-- { ♦ ? \� !+ I++iT a Q..fYG3L14..Lt AREAS WITH 0 SLOPES IN ��°G, s� ^;,.,_ — — 711�s�7,"_ ' r7- ® EXCESS OF 20•/. r - �' •4� ';� .:r, '.Y��• �� �"� AREAS WITH SLOPES LESS .``� /• THAN 10-/. ice• ` (J ARE AS WITH SLOPES � .' it .• _I I I�I!,� BETWEEN 10%ana 20% ri ,S` :T '�! - ---- ,--fir /,.�"• EXISTING ORAINAGE COURSES _ •r, a 1 OIrOA�PrrR 1U�.M pR Ary.e Al RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE Based on analysis of inventory findings , evaluation of the six alternative land use plans, and discussions with and public hearings held by the Planning Commission on October 18, 1978, November 15, 1978, December 20, 1978, January_ 17, 1979, and February 14, 1979, the land use alternative shown on Illustration number IS is-recommended for adoption. While this plan does not and cannot meet all the development constraints associated with the I� subject property it does represent a composite of public and private efforts aimed at resolving the major problems and issues associated therewith. The Specific Plan recommended for adoption is intended to serve as a guide for making ultimate development—decisions about the study area as development proposals are advanced by the public and private sectors involved as well as to implement existing City policies as expressed in the Palm Desert General Plan. It should be noted that the recommended development alternative is similar to and represents a refinement of alternative numbers five and six. The major differences are related to density, road locations, and bridge crossings . The rationale for the changes included in the recommended alternative are based on the issues raised at the January 17, and February 14, public hearings. Under the recommended alternative residential uses would account for approximately 397 acres or 51 percent of the study area. The densities of the residential uses would range from one dwelling unit per five acres to .three dwelling units per acre. Commercial uses would account for 56.2 acres or 7 percent of the study area. Serivice Industrial would occupy approximately 4.4 acres or 1 percent of the study area and 324.7 acres or approximately 41 percent of 49 uA.,,. . ':...�.. w PALM VALLEY STORMWATER ;�J �-• �� CHANNEL AREA SPECIRC PLAN U95RAIM his RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT �- ALTERNATIVE '-a_.. •- �`� ';:�ter' �.Y. VA1T l.e.r OAmHT V" LOW Comfy Idu./deft ` �'I [.. _•.. :.:,I OPEN SPACE COMMERCIAL 11. 9 uj - �� �I I SERVICE INOYSTwAL Ira P l y �Ca O I r PROP. PUSUC STREET • .. - 1 -�7" I. Jj . en Ana.SOn SM./qw: .. . '.::� l.'•: .• .•� • 'a -50 the study area would remain in open space. Based on the land use acreages approximately 655 to 701 dwelling units could be constructed under this alternative. The population of the study area could be expected to reach approximately 1571 to 1682 persons with about 261 to 280 of that total being of school age. A summary of the proposed land use acreages, dwelling units, population, and densities for the recommended alternative is shown on Table 5. This alternative provides for increased densities on the flatter portions of the study area and for density flexibility within the portion of the study area located above the 20 percent slope line. The northern portion of the study area remains essentially the same as under each of the previous alternative:% Three crossings of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel have been shown Qon this development alternative:_ These crossings combine at grade crossings with a single bridge crossing. At grade crossings being located at the extension of Bel Air Road and the Community Center where existing at grade crossings now provide access to the study area. -The third crossing recommended as__a bridge crossing is at the extension of Thrush Road. It should be noted that the proposed bridge crossing would provide for the easy extension of public utilities to the majority of the property owners in the study area as well as providing access if the stormwater channel is flooded. The bridge crossing which would cost approximately $300,000 according to estimates provided by the District 8 Office of the California Department of Transportation could be financed through the establishment of a bridge fund or as a part of the construction plans of Channel improvement. Since, however, financing of such a structure was not included in any of the preliminary design reports prepared by the Bechtel l 5/ TABLE 5 SUMMARY TABLE OF PROPOSED LAND USE ACREAGES, DWELLING UNITS, POPULATION, AND DENSITIES FOR THE RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE. Use Acreage Dwelling Density populationb Density Units DU/Acre Pop/Acre Residential PR-1 106. 3 106 1. 0 254 2.4 PR-3 175.4 526 3.0 1262 7.2 Hillside Res Estate 115. 0 23 - 69 0.2 -• 0.6 55 - 166 0.5 - 1.4 Commercial 56. 2 --c --c --c --c Service Industrial 4.4 _c —_c --c c Open Spacea 324.7 --c --c --c --c TOTAL 782.0 655 - 701 0.8 - 0.9 1571 - 1682 2.0 - 2.2 a Open Space category includes the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel . b Population is calculated on the basis of 2 .4 persons per dwelling unit . c Not applicable. NOTE: School age population under the recommended alternative would range from 261 to 280 based on the 1976 Census figure of .4 persons per household being of school age. 52 Corporation for the Stormwater Channel it would appear to be impractical to include them at this point in time. In addition to the three crossin9g._2f the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel , a public collector street system is shown on the plan which extends from the Thrush Road crossing north to the Fox property and south to the extension of an existing road system in the Cahuilla Hills. Such a road system in combination with the at grade crossings and the single bridge crossing should provide adequate access to the study area at all times. ------------------- As with previous alternatives, a major portion of the study area remains in open space uses. Such open space uses include the Bureau of Land Management property and the majority of lands with slopes in excess of 20 percent. Since the provision of public services to the study area was and still remains a major constraint to development of any of the alternative development plans, a logical development sequence is shown on Illustration number 16. This G'. Illustration is provided to identify priority levels for development in logical sequence and as a reference for use by perspective developers and the Planning Commission in review of development proposals. In as much as the provision of public services is essential to the study area, it is recommended that this development sequence also be utilized to evaluate the yearly progression of such facilities. The four priority areas identified on the Illustration are first priority, second priority, third priority, and fourth priority. The first priority area includes that part of the study area already provided with essential urban services. Accordingly, the first priority development area is that area generally located in the northern portion of the study area adjacent to Painters Path and Highway 111 . The second priority development area consists of that portion of the study 53 :I:..:....:....... PALM VALLEY SERMWATER CHANNEL AREA SPEpflC PLAN :rz sue' I ` ©© : LOGICAL DEVELOPMENT I �- SEQUENCE 1 Irl:r 'III If III•II is `\\\Q\� l�n/� / J—+y EVEnRST LOPMENT PR D fVfENT AREA — II SECOND PRIORITY IG:II':•I II: \�\ \ \\�;� DEVELOPMENT AREA ji a!'; rmopp PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREA FOUR7M PRIORITY I. `�• III! "' \ ;( OEVELOPMENT AREA m 4 v I i I j \ f ID I o � I ; m owauar .u...r ea•r nn.. : s� L area on the lands with slopes less than 10 percent. This area lies adjacent to the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel and existing development. It may be concluded, therefore, that urban services may be readily provided to this portion of the study area at moderate cost. The third priority development area consists of those lands in the study area with slopes between 10.percent and 20 percent.' This area represents that portion of the study area for which the normal eaten sion of urban services would be possible once such services were provided to the second priority development area. The fourth priority development area con- sists of the remainder of the study area. This part of the study area in general lies above the 20 percent slope line and represents that portion of the study area that would be the most difficult and the most costly to supply with essential urban services. It should be noted with respect to the logical development sequence Illustration t priority levels one, two, and three would require © the improvement of the property in terms of. access and utilities at the time of development and priority level four would require improvement at the com- pletion of priority level three. Unless further objections or technical data is advanced, it would appear that all the major concerns and development constraints associated with the study area would be mitigated with the adoption and implementation of the recommended development alternative. SUMMARY Since a number of development alternatives were considered as a part of this_ study and much information was advanced in accordance therewith, the following list is provided. as a summary of the specific recommendations relating to adoption of the recommended development alternative: ss l 1_ Access to the study area_- s�.rgyj dedtwn a* g_d�crossings_ and one bridge crossing. The at grade crossings_to..be_.l.ocated..at. the extension of Bel Air Road and ,at the-Community Center— The-bridge crossing to be located at the extension of Thrush Road. 2. A collector street system is provided in the study area. This system extends from approximately 1400 feet north of the Community Center to approximately 3600 feet south of the Bel Air Road crossing where the proposed road joins an existing road in the Cahuilla Hills. The road lies adjacent to the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel except in the central portion of the study area, where the road is aligned with existing property boundary lines lying approximately 350 feat- west of the- Stormwater- Channel . 3. A bridge fund of $1000 for each new dwelling unit built in the study area shall be established to provide for the construction of the bridge crossing at Thrush Road. 4. All roads and at grade crossings within the study area shall be paved. Individual property owners with parcels lying above the 20 percent slope line shall improve the roads passing through their property. Those below the 20 percent slope line shall improve the road systems at the time of development. 5. Paving the hillside roads shall be accomplished in accordance with existing City ordinances in order to provide for adequate emergency and other vehicle access. 6. Public utility improvements within the study area shall be provided in accordance with existing City policy at the time of development. The only exception to this recommendation is that the properties located above the 20 percent slope line shall be provided with the option of alterna- tive improvement installation pursuant to appropriate building codes and the compliance with all regulations established by the Riverside County Health Department. S6 6. (cont. ) Such interim measures, however, shall only apply to the subject area until required public utilities become available in accordance with the logical development sequence shown on Illustration number 16 at which time the connection to public sewer and undergrounding of other public utilities shall be required. 7. The plan provides far its re-evaluation and review at the end of a five year period. Such review would ensure that the plan properly reflects any new or changed conditions prevailing at any given point in time. 8. Densities on the flatter portions of the study area have been increased to three dwelling units per acre to compensate for the loss of net developable acres, additional financial burden, and to preserve the remaining flora and fauna in the balance of the study area. 9. The portion of the study area located above the 20 percent slope line allows for one to three dwelling units per five acre parcels based on the development �) standards outlined in the hillside development overlay zone. 10. The commercial area lying south of Highway 111 and. adjacent to Painters Path would remain essentially the same. No changes are being recommended in this portion of the study area. 11 . Open space would generally include all of that land located above the 20 percent slope line, all of the land currently in the ownership of the Bureau of Land Management, and the Stormwater Drainage Channel . Such a designation would, in combination with lower densities , maintain the best remaining wildlife habitats , drainage courses, plants and hillside views within the study area. J5 7 IMPLEMENTATION rImplementation of the recommended development alternative for the study area as describ ed in the preceding sections p g t ons of this report would provide the City of Palm Desert with an efficient design for the attainment of the develop- ment policies expressed in the City's General Plan. In a practical sense, however, the recommended development plan is not complete until the steps re- quired for its implementation are set forth. After formal adoption of the re- commended development alternative, realization of the plan will require faith- ful dedication on the part of the public officials concerned with the promotion of its implementation. The plan, thus, is only the beginning of a series of required actions to achieve the objectives expressed in the plan. Accordingly, one of the major tasks in plan implementation becomes the periodic reevaluation .and review of the selected plan alternative to insure that it properly reflects the conditions prevailing at any given point in time. Immediate plan implementation action recommended for the Palm Valley Storm- water Channel Area Specific Plan include: 1 . Public--informational hearings and responsible agency review. (completed) 2. " Adoption of the specific- plan by the Planning Commission and City Council as a General Plan Amendment. (completed) 3. Revision of the City's Zoning, Subdivision, and Grading Ordinances. 4. Establishment of a bridge fund. It should be noted that the plan implementation recommendations described herein are to the maximum extent possible based upon and related to existing City regulations and policies and predicated upon existing State enabling legis- lation. $8 Sry PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS The first step toward specific plan adoption is the holding of a public informational hearing or hearings to acquaint residents and land owners within the study area with all of the details of the proposed plan and to solicit public reaction. The plan may thereafter be modified to incorporate desirable new ideas advanced at the hearings. At the same time that the public informational hearing process is being con- ducted, an external review process involving responsible agencies or agencies which may be affected by adoption of the plan should also be conducted. Such a review process in addition to seeking comments from all concerned, also provides for the fulfillment of the City' s statuatory responsibilities regarding the California Environmental Quality Act. Three public informational hearings were scheduled for review of the plan document by the Planning Commission. These hearings were held January 17, February 1� and February 27, 1979. The purpose of these hearings was to acquaint property i owners with the findings and recommendations of the plan, receive their comments, and to consider comments received from other public agencies. Copies of all correspondence related to this review process as well as the official minutes of the hearings are included in Appendices A, B; and C. ADOPTION OF SPECIFIC PLAN Subsequent to the public review process , the Planning Commission recommended approval of the plan to the City Council by adopting Resolution No. 461 which is included in appendix D. The plan was then transmitted to the City Council for additional public hearings held March 22 and April 12, 1979, and final adoption. The City Council adopting Resolution No. 79-36 is also included in Appendix D. 59 Since the specific plan is intended to refine and implement the General Plan, adoption of the Specific Plan automatically amends the General Plan and its mandatory elements by reference. Accordingly, those elements of the General Plan which refer to the development of the specific plan for the Hillside and Mountain areas in the City of Palm Desert and development of specific neighborhood plans are hereby amended to incorporate the detailed policy direction implicit. in the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area Specific Plan. It should be noted with respect to the City' s statuatory responsibilities re- quiring compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act that the City filed a Negative Declaration for this project, in as much as the City' s General Plan addressed the environmental concerns related to the study area and adoption of the specific plan for the Palm-Valley Stormwater Channel area further mitigated those environmental concerns. A copy of the Negative Declaration and filing dates is included in Appendix E. C ORDINANCE REVISIONS Revisions to the City' s Zoning, Subdivision, and Grading Ordinances is the final step in implementer the adopted Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area Specific Plan. This step which requires separate action ensures that all pertinent Ordinances conform with the recommended development alternative. Zoning Revisions The zoning code is designed to implement the policies of the General Plan and Specific Plans developed subsequent thereto. It also provides the mechanisms and authority for regulating development. Accordingly, the zoning code is perhaps the single most important planning implementation tool available for local governments such as the City of Palm Desert. Adoption of the recommended development alternative for the Palm Valley Storm- water Channel Area Specific Plan will require revision to the City's Zoning Map T in accordance with Illustration No. 17 -and the Zoning Ordinance text in accord- ance with the following: RE - Estate Residential District Delete Sections 25.14.050 through 25.14.140 and replace with the following sections: 25.14.050 Development Standards for 5 acre lots All development on lots 5 acres or larger as shown on the zoning map shall comply to the following minimum development standards: A. Minimum lot area shall be 5 acres or larger as determined by the City Council and indicated on the zoning map; B. Minimum lot width, two-hundred fifty feet; C. Minimum lot depth, three-hundred feet; D. Minimum rear yard, two-hundred feet; E: Minimum side yards, one-hundred feet; F. Maximum building site coverage, ten percent; G. The minimum dwelling unit size as specified in Section 25.56.320 shall be not less than 2000 sq. ft. for all lots at least 5 acres in size. H. When said zone district exists in conJunction with the hillside overlay 015trict, the setback provisions soecified above shall not be aoplicaole. The required setbacks shall be as approved. by the Planninq commission as a part of their action on the required Conditional Use Permit. 25.14.060 Development Standards for Existing Lots of Record or Lots Greater Than 1 Acre But Less Than 5 Acres. All development on existing lots of record or lots greater than 1 acre, but less than 5 acres as shown on the zoning map shall comply with the following minimum development standards: A. Minimum lot area shall be 1 acre or larger as determined by the City Council and indicated on the zoning map; B. Minimum lot width, two-hundred feet; C. Minimum lot depth, two-hundred fifty feet; -0. Minimum rear yard, one-hundred feet; E. Minimum side yards, fifty-feet; PALM VALLEY STORMWATER L- CHANNEL AREA SSPEpCHIC�PLAN I $ . I �;a�~�- •,��tLIW�u U�11N�tV1UU VUI�b 17 JJ c► .. PROP. ZONING PR'•3 a n -- _. NO II NOTE- O.S. TM uercf Ipcandn of Spnma gafrM Boundary lima ssaaranna district,by suctions mall as dsfvmin" as devomalam plans (f P.R..1 d•n S '� �'�= : •/, an suamNN, y a.n �—•�—\� tee/ _. ter: U L/ a-e RES. ESTATE t� t3 drstllna unit/5 dery \, R• PRpI PR.-1 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL I e.u./cc. JI PR.-2 PLANNED RES. O.S. --.lr PR.-] PLANNED RES. •. RR.• _ ._ --7r � 3d.u./cc C-I GEN COMMERCIAL 71 { j _ 14 PLANNED COMMERCIAL din W / S-1 SERVICE INDUSTRIAL _— PUBLIC INSTITUTION __• .._._—_.. .,:l�' .. � 0.5 OPEN SPACE I r• ORAIouit T, EL000 PLAIN$ wa7ERCm0uR5E � n HILLSIDE I �G/lY UM?1 r� +.a. SCENIC PRESERVATION F. Maximum building site coverage, twenty percent; G. The minimum dwelling unit size as specified in Section 25.56.320 shall be not less than 2000 sq. ft. for all lots at least one acre in size. H. When said zone district exists in conjunction_ with the hillside overlay district, the setback provisions specified above shall not be aoplicable. The required setbacks shail be as approved bytnP Planning Commission as apart of their action on the required Conditional Use Permit. 25.14.070 Development Standards for 1 Acre Lots or Less, but Not Less Than 40,000 Square Feet All development on lots at least one acre in size but not less than 40,000 square feet as shown on the zoning map shall comply with the following mini- mum development standards: A. Minimum lot area shall be 40,000 sq. ft. as determined by the City Council and indicated on the zoning map; B. Minimum lot width, one-hundred fifty feet; C. Minimum lot depth, two-hundred feet; D. Minimum rear yard, fifty feet; C' E. Minimum side yards, twenty-five feet; F. Maximum building site coverage, twenty-five percent; G. The minimum dwelling unit size as specified in Section 25.56.320 shall be not less than 2000 sq. ft. for all lots at least 40,000 sq. ft. in size. H. When said _zone district exists in conjunction with the hillside overlay district, the setback provisions specified above shall not be_ applicable.. The required setbacks small be as approved by the Plannina Commission _ as a part of their action on the required Conditional Use Permit. 25. 14.080 General Development Standards Applicable to All Lots The following standards shall apply to all lots in the RE district: A. Maximum building height, thirty feet; B. All parking and loading shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 25.58 C. For provisions regarding utilities, see 25.56. 100 of this title; 0. All signs shall be in compliance with Chapter 25.68; E. All development shall comply with the provision of Chapter 25.70 for site plan review by the Design Review process. /2 25. 14.090 Special Standards All development in the RE District shall comply with the hillside development standards of Chapter 25.52 and other special standards required by conditional use permits for conditional uses. Delete Section 25.52.060 and replace with the following: 25.52.060 Structural Design and Landscaping Architectural compatibility of structures to adjacent terrain and site plan review in accord with Chapter 25.70 shall be required for all development in a hillside development overlay district. In addition, the following criteria shall be considered: A. Lot size, height and setbacks shall be flexible in order to achieve the purposes of this section. . B. Color of structure shall match or blend with existing hillside. C. The use of.glass facing the City shall be carefully considered. D. There shall be no use of Palms or other plants not indigenous to the hillside for landscaping. Revise Section 25.52.090 Preservation of Open Space to read: In order to insure permanent retention of the natural terrain as required in Section 25.52.040 proposed development plans shall consider landscape com- patibility and/or use of natural vegetation where the natural landscape has been disturbed and a covenant approved by the City Attorney shall be recorded \ dedicating all building rights to the City and insuring that the natural areas shall remain as shown on plans approved by the City. D - DRAINAGEWAY, FLOODPLAIN, WATERCOURSE, OVERLAY DISTRICT Revise Section 25.46.070 Special Standards to read: Development of hillside canyon areas shall not occur until hydrology is submitted which specifies techniques for management of runoff. The exact location of development shall be determined by a hydrologist. Other standards required under conditional use permits shall also apply. Subdivision and Grading Revisions While no specific revisions to the Subdivision or Grading Codes are re- quired, it should be noted that the recommended plan should serve as a basis for the preparation of .the preliminary and final tract maps within the study area. In this respect, the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Specific Plan should be re- garded as a guide or point of departure against which to evaluate proposed tract maps. Developers should be required to fully justify any proposed departures C, from the plan demonstrating that such departures are an improvement to or proper refinement of the adopted specific plan. BRIDGE FUND Establish a bridge fund of $1 ,000 for each new dwelling unit built in the study area by ordinance for the purpose of constructing a bridge at the extension of Thrush Road to provide adequate and all weather access to the study area in accordance with the plan recommendations . In as much as this 'implementation step would require separate action by the City Council no further discussion will be offered. Inform the Coachella Valley County Water District when this action occurs and of the other specific plan recommendations regarding the crossings of the Palm Valley Channel so that such recommendations may be included in future improvement plans and actions by the District. L PUBLIC IP1F�CNAL HEARIM PALM VALLEY Sr RUWAM CHA14NEL AREA SPDCIFIC PIM WFDIwEMAY - FEMMARY 14, 1979 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL CC=1L CRAM= Cbairnan Kelly announced that prior to this meeting, the Commission had net in Study Session. No decisions were reached as a result of this study Session. - 7 Mr. Williams presented for discussion and review 12 issues which summarize the comments from property owners, interested citizens , and other agencies received through conferences, correspondence or the January 17, 1979 public hearing. He also discussed the recommended action to resolve each issue. A copy of the issues reviewed is attached hereto. Following the presentation of the 12 issues Mr. Williams commented on additional correspondence received. He indicated that copies of this correspondence as well as all correspondence received would appear in the Appendix of the subject study. - He said it was hoped that sufficient direction could be set forth at this meeting to provide a recommendation to the City Council for adoption of the plan. C Chairman Kelly then opened the public hearing to take testimony in favor of or opposition to the plan. Persons speaking at the public hearing and a summary of their comments follows: 1. G. GE= FOX, Fox Farms, 1512 Jarvis, Chicago, Illinois. Fox's comments were related primarily to the development of the property he owns in the study area. He indicated that the physical development of the land is as important as the structure. He indicated further that improvements such as roads are the responsibility of the individual landowner. Fox said he was interested in quality dvelopment and has hired the firm of Perkins and Will to do a financial feasibility study for development of his property. To clarify his position, and intent in this matter he prepared for presentation to the Planning Commission a letter which he read for the record. A copy of the letter appears in the Appendix of the subject study. 2. 0. R. HCb%IE, 261 Cordoba Way, Palm Desert. Homme wished to reiterate his concerns for the subject study and his property. He indicated that he was in no hurry to develop his property and that there were certain physical barriers which would preclude such development. 1. HHerecammended that a crossing be provided to the study area via Tbrush Road. 9d Public Information Heraing Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area Specific Plan Page two He said the thoughts expressed at the last meeting and in the petition presented to the Planning Ccamission which petition appears in the Appendix of the subject study set forth a list of criteria necessary for building . He suggested that the Planning Commission consider increasing the density on the flatter portions of the.project area from 2 to 3 to 5 dwelling units per acre. This recommendation he said was based on the McBueon project on the east side of the Palm Valley Stoamwater Channel and the cost involved with providing the bridge crossings of the Channel. 3. CBARIM MARTIN, M744 Highway 111, Palm Desert. Martin suggested that up to 3 dwelling units per. acre in the 5- acre portion of the study area be considered. He recommended that the matter of sewage disposal be left to the Riverside County Department of Health. He suggested the continued use of at grade crossings rather than bridge crossings. He said he does not want to. see the small landowner financially tied by the improvements proposed. Martin again stated his position on structure design and the need for structures to be compatible with landforms particulary in this unique area. 4. DICK WILLEERG, Perkins and Will, Chicago, Illinois. Willberg indicated that he had been employed by G George Fox to prepare a financial feasibility analysis for the Fox property and to prepare alternative conceptual development plans. He reiterated the concerns of his client and his firm's in the preparation of the conceptual plans. The public hearing was closed after receiving all comments from those present. The Ccamissioners then recapitulated the concerns raised and made the following recommendations: 1. Use a less definitive delineation of zoning lines on the proposed zoning map and pay closer attention to the existing property lines. 2. Increase the density in the flatter portions of the study area to PR-3. 3. Eliminate all but one bridge crossing and continue maintenance of at grade crossings and other access points. .Y a Public IL:Ormation Hearing Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area pecific Plan � . Page three The rca +;sson then suggested, and the Staff concurred, that a draft resolution addressing possible changes to the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area Specific Plan be prepared for consideration on February 27, 1979. Cn a motion by Cass oner Snyder, seconded by Ccmniss oner gryder, the matter was continued to February 27, 1979, at 7:00 P.M. ; carried unanimously (5-0). y� II S am rWo m o ., 11 4 B�dpyp �C'' . ��yy mm WpuFJ p Ouo SGIN Uy NG..Oi . we yvp{Em� ° a Q (46 Ems e�P d U rJ L a Y o w w y qa c yptl 0 4 0 6 Y C 5S ym V�Y� �yS� C. d O 2 fo�J1 m (y m I.Ni � /1 � R Y S�m � m • F1 • ri a m E S L � m � q p`�E S � S C Y O Q aS � ``•� 1C 1 tOJ �pp fffi�Yll 5Gi .i tl ey Y m a m mom 43�� m gm g A $ aYra.1 I 3 Ira $ i gG O m w O 0. u Yq �E 4E c pp i G e�aa enc a �9 qu a: -E.w m m U N LN m — N` 6 N �w V c6 L w .qi tiw � o � o c ru 03� y.yy+ � .m. •+� ;]](( � O m �j u� YNl N F L c`. Y .Na �^ L OL• u � yy N I � N y O "✓1 V � " V 7 J Y � Y n C �•a.� W y � �{a.. L R R C n U vv J R L V g m C ` `G C oCo S V U V GE . 99 II DISCUSSICN OF ISSUES ISSUE NO. 1 Consider the feasibility of developing the 97-arse Fox property as a resort complex with 250 units. DISCUSSICN The Fax property contains apprcx tely 97 acres. It is located near the northern end of the study area; bounded on the south by land csuxently in open space uses and owned by the Coachella Valley Recreation and Parr District, and on the north by vacant or undeveloped land. The site is presently zoned Planned Residential, with 1 dwelling unit per acre. The property is further restricted by the hillside overlay zone. Based on the acreage and current zoning, the theoretical maximmm dwelling unit yield from the property is 97 residential units. This maxim<mm yield, however, may be reduced considerably through the application of the hillside overlay zoning district formula for the computation of usable land area. Under the proposed zoning as reccamended in the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area Specific Plan, the land area has been-reduced but the density increased on the flatter portions of the property to compensate for the loss. For all practical purposes, then, the density remains approximately the same under the recommended plan as it is under the current zoning designation. The yield under the recommended plan would be apprcnamately 72 dwelling units. Although Oit appears to be a net loss, it should be noted that under the current zoning designation, no factor was applied for the loss of units due to the hillside overlay zoning. Furtbermore, it should be noted that under either the existing or Proposed zoning designations, that resort hotels with a mnximim of 18 units to the gross acre and related auxilliary commercial uses are permitted within the Planned Residential district by approved development plan. Accordingly, under the existing zoning, a maximum of 1746 units could be allowed and under the proposed zoning, a maxi= of 844 units. Perhaps the single most important element related to the subject property is the designation of Open Space. Such a designation reduces the gross developable acres, by eliminating the development of any land with slopes in excess of 2(P,o. The 201to slope line, it should be remembered, was selected to limit development because of the unique character of the land, the existing wildlife habitats, potential view obstructions, drainage, limited access, undevelopable Property west of the hills area, and the inability of utilities to be reason- ably extended beyond this point. Since it is the intent of the property owner in this case to submit a master plan for a resort hotel complex, which use would be permitted under the existing or proposed zoning, and since the number of units as proposed would not conflict with the. proposed plan, the feasibility of developing the 97- acre site for a resort ccmplax does not appear to be an issue at this time. Further consideration of this issue would therefore be withheld until conceptual plans are submitted. /UU Discussion of Issues Page Two ISSUE NO. 2 ' Clarify the D and H zoning overlay designations as shown on the recommended plan. DISCUSSION The D and H zoning designations used in the proposed Specific Plan refer to unique drai.nageway and hillside characteristics to be considered prior to the development of any land within the subject study area. The overlay zones are intended to be compatible with and work' in conjunction with the basic under- lying district. It should be noted that both the D and H overlay zones have already been attached to much of the property within the study area. Inasmuch as the severely sloped area bas essentially been eliminated from development b zoning such lanric as Open Space, the hillside overlay zone applied to the balance of the study area is used primarily for the purpose of providing flexibility and compatibility of design for individual projects or residences to the surrounding terrain. It should be noted that under the proposed plan, the computation of adnimm, acreage per dwelling unit and the percent of a lot to rennin in the natural state based on slope percentage has been eliminated. The D overlay zone, which refers to natural drainageways, has been included because of the need to provide a method of draining the hillside areas to the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel as development progresses. While much of the draivageway overlay zone would remain intact, the proposed Specific Plan recommends that a hydrologist be required to locate appropriate drainage courses and provide for pumper managemem of run-off. For your information and comparison, copies of the existing hillside and drainageway overlay districts and those proposed as a part of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area Specific Plan are attached hereto, following the discussion of issues. ISSUE NO. 3 Reconsider the proposed access points and collector roads, specifically: access from Painters Path; access from Thrush Road; continued use Qf at-grade crossings; fewer bridge crossings; and alternatives to paving on hillsides. DISCUSSION A variety of access points and collector road systems were analyzed as part of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area Specific Plan. These alternatives can be noted on the land use alternatives identified as Nos. 1 through 5 in the subject study. They range from a single access road entering the study area at Painters Path and parallelling the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel with no bridge crossings recommended; to the recommended alternative which provides for three bridge crossings and two independent collector roads. The locations for the proposed bridge crossings and collector roads were selected for the recommended plan on the basis of topography, their ability to serve existing development in the study area, their potential for future extension to provide an integrated traffic circulation network within and between the study area and Cabuilla Hills, the direct access provided from existing major arterial' streets and the existing location of public.sewer and water service lines. Discussion of Issues page Three The Thrush Road crossing was not selected to be utilized as an access point under any of the alternatives because of the indirect route thorough an existing residential development for potential residents of the study area. However, it should be noted that this would not preclude the continued use of an at-grade corssing at this location. Access from Painters Path into the study area was considered impractical because of the major rock outcroppings existing in the study area which mould have to be removed, and would thus scar the natural beauty of the hills. Again, it must be noted that such an action does not preclude a property owner such as G. George Fox from gaining access to his property in this manner, Provided all hillside development standards are complied with. Such decisions, however, can only be made at the time of a project application submittal. With respect to the continued use of at-grade crossings and thereby eliminating all or sane of those bridge crossings proposed under the recommended plan, the Commission should consider the cost of providing bridge crossings and the purpose which the bridge crossings serve. Cost factors will be considered as a part of the discussion under Issue No. 4. As a practical matter, bridge crossings were provided primarily for two purposes. The first was to allow access to the study area when the Palm Valley Stcrmwater Channel is flooded; and the second was to provide emergency vehicle access. Since these purposes can essentially be fulfilled by the provision of a single bridge crossing in combination with the continued use of at-grade crossings to provide adequate access to the area, the Commission may wish to consider the elimination of all bridges with the exception of the one located at the Bel Aire crossing. This crossing is centrally located in the study area, and provides direct access to State Highway 74. A second alternative would be to provide a single bridge crossing at Thrush Road, where a legal access easement now exists. While this location does not provide direct access to State Highway 74, it is centrally located in the study area and all properties within the study area could gain reasonable access to this crossing location during those times when the Palm Valley Stoxmwater Channel is flooded. Since emergency vehicles as well as other utility and construction vehicles will require access to hillside properties when the study area is fully developed, it imuld seen impractical at this time to reca[mend anything less than paving on hillside roads. A financing method for the improvement of hillside roads is included in the discussion section of Issue No. 4. ISSUE NO. 4 Consider alternatives to the financing of the proposed improvements. DISCUSSICN As noted in the report, and in accordance with existing City policy, utility improvements are provided at user expense through the formation of a utility improvement district. Accordingly, no further discussion on financing options for utility improvenents will be offered. Tnc financing methods are available for the construction of the proposed bridges. The first method would place the responsibility for providing the bridges an the Coachella Valley County Water District at the time that the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel is improved. Such bridge funding would then become a part /oz Discussion of Iss.es Page Four the overall construction cost of the Cbannel. It should be noted, however, that bridge crossings were not included in the Bechtel study now under consid- eration by the Water District. The second method .of financing would be the establisknent of a bridge fund requiring a non-refundable deposit of $1,000 for every new dwelling unit built within the study area. If a total of 502 units were, therefore, built within the study area in accordance with the recommended plan, a total of $502,000 would be available for construction of at least one bridge. Such a bridge, as explained in the discussion of Issue No. 3 would permit the majority of the proerty owners access to their property even at those.timea-when the channel was flooded. It is recommended, with respect to the paving of the existing road system in the hills area, that the property owner of every new bane built in the study area above the 20`k slope line be required to improve existing roads running through their property, with sufficient improvements to preserve the road. All of those properties located below the 20% slope line would be required to have improved access at the time of development. ISSUE NO. 5 Consider increasing density on plan or providing greater density flexibility. DISCUSSION Two things should be noted with respect to the density issue. First, densities in the plan area were determined on the basis of the Palm Desert General Plan; and secondly, to mitigate environmental concerns raised in the inventory and analysis section of the plan document. While density ranges could be provided on the recommended plan, it would appear to serve no useful purpose, inasmich as a specific density range would be required at the time of adoption of proposed zoning change. It should be noted with respect to the 5-acre parcels that density flexibility was provided through modification to the zoning ordinance. Such modifications permit the development of existing parcels ranging in size from 1 to 5 acres. A copy of these zoning modifications is shown on pages 55 and 57 in the subject report and are attached hereto following the discussion of issues. ISSUE NO. 6 Consider the feasibility of a retirement center or tennis complex for the flatter portions of study area. DISCUSSION Ina=ch as both institutional facilities and resort hotels are permitted within the Planned Residential district by approved development plan, the feasibility of a retirenent center or a tennis complex could only be considered at the time of sutrnittal of a specific project. ISSUE NO. 7 Consider zoning ordinance modifications to accommodate issues raised such as building height, sewage disposal and density flexibility. K . xc. 1 y .4: Discussion of Issues Page Five DISCQSSIM . n Since some of the zoning ordinance modifications recamiended in the plan have been included under discussions of other issues, no further discussion will be offered herein. ISSOE NO. 8 Clarity the Phasing Plan and its use and/or implementation. and consider a time line projection for completion of utility improvements. DISCQSSIM The Phasing Plan was prig na- y intended to be used as a guide for property owns and prospective developers in the study area. It thereby provided the property owner and developer with an idea of how development should progress within the study area. It was not intended as a determent to development, but merely to point out that the cost involved with providing utility and road improvements in accordance with existing City ordinances and policies would be substantially increased should a developer wish to develop Property in Priority Level 4, rather than waiting for the normal extension of such improve- ments. In that sense, then, the Phasing Pian did become a mandatory element of the Specific Plan and would economically restrict development in the study area, or would, as was pointed out, become a marketplace concept. It is important to remember, however, in dealing with this Phasing Plan, that required utility and road improvements have not been reduced or eliminated by this plan, but the need for such improvements have in fact been re-emphasized in accordance with the development constraints listed in Section 2 of the plan document. Two mratters must, therefore, be resolved by the Planning Ccmaission with respect to this issue. The first is whether existing City policies should be changed, and the second is whether or not the continued development of areas where it is unreasonable to expect compliance with existing City policies should be permitted unless that permission is granted on a conditional basis with the provision that all appropriate City ordinances will be complied with within a specified period of time. For example, permit the installation of a holding tank on a 5-acre parcel in the hills area with the condition that within one year following occupancy, the property owner must hook up to a public serer if the sewer becomes available. The problem area with respect to the Phasing Plan appears to be the 5-acre parcels lying above the 2CP,o slope line. It is reasonable to assume that the other Priority Levels could proceed in an orderly fashion and comply with existing City policies regarding utility and road improvements. Accordingly, the Ccnmission may wish to simply require compliance with existing City ordinances within a 5-year period for those 5-acre parcels located above the 2To slope line. Such a condition would permit development of the 5-acre parcels at the present time, allow a reasonable amount of time for the extension of the required public utility and road improvements, and provide for the reconsideration of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area Specific Plan recommendations at that time, in accordance with any new or changed conditions. �• i boy Discussion of Ism Page Six ISSUE NO. 9 Consider alternatives to public sewers. DISCUSSION While a variety of private sewage disposal systems are available, such as individual septic tanks followed by seepage pits or leech fields, individual package treatment plans, holding tanks, evapo-transporation systems and surface mounds, the type of system to be provided on any individual lot is based on a study of the site, its contours and soils. Accordingly, when a project is submitted for approval, the determination for the type of sewage disposal system to be installed must be made on an individual basis and based on the facts available for that site. Such determinations lie within the realm and authority of the Riverside County Environmental Health Services Department. Therefore, if the Planning Czmmission chooses to permit the continued use of private wastewater treatment facilities, it is recommended that appropriate information be transmitted to Riverside County for their recommendation on the type of treatment facility to be utilized. It should be noted, however, that any private treatment facility permitted should only be done so as a temporary meaqu a until public sewers are available to which the property owner may hook up. ISSUE NO. 10 Clarify Open Space zoning designation. DISCUSSICN Since the Open Space zone is clearly defined in the existing zoning ordinance, no further discussion will be offered. A copy of the Open Space district section of the ordinance is herewith attached, following the discussion of issues. ISSUE NO. 11 Clarify the role of wildlife preservation in the plan. DISCUSSION It can be noted from the inventory and analysis section of the plan document as well as the alternative land use discussions that wildlife preservation was a development constraint utilized in the preparation of the recommended plan. The wildlife canon to the hills area is generally located within the non- buildable ravine areas and at the higher elevations. It was for these reasons that it was recommended to maintain lower densities in the western portion of the study area. Thus, the retention. of 5-acre minimum parcels above the 2To slope line, such densities being compatible with Open Space preservation as well as wildlife preservation. P_ r� 3 z s t a Discussion on of Issues page Seven ISSUE M. 12 Consider the feasibility of eliminating the mandatory underground of public utilities. DISCOSSIM The undergrounding of public utilities is consistent with existing City ordin- ances and policies. Therefore, unless there is new evidence to indicate that such ordinances and policies should be changed, it is recommended that they not be eliminated from this study. While there may be sane special cases or hardships involved with the 5-acre parcels within the study area, if the Ccmmiss cn chooses to utilize the approach discussed under Issue No. 8, such special cases would be acccmnodated until 1984. At that time, the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area Specific Plan would be subject to review and revision in accordance with any new cr changed conditions. /ob III. Adopt findings and Resolution No. Zone Ordinance Amendment 11-82 deleting Chapter 25.52 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code (H) Hillside Development Overlay District and establishing a Hillside Planned Residential District Chapter 25.25 and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it pertains thereto. HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sections: 25.25.010 Purpose. 25.25.020 Permitted uses. 25.25.030 Development standards. 25.25.040 Abandoned uses. 25.52.050 Circulation. 25.52.060 Structural design. 25.52.070 Fire protection. 25.52.080 Erosion control. 25.52.100 Submittal requirements development plan. 25.52.110 Environmental assessment. 25.52.120 Required materials. 25.52.130 Optional preliminary approval procedure 25.52.010 Purpose. The purpose and intent of the Hillside Planned Residential District is: A. To encourage only minimal grading in hillside areas that relates to the natural contours of the land and will not result in extensive cut and fill slopes that result in a padding or staircase effect within the development; B. To retain natural vegetation which stabilizes slopes and where necessary to require additional landscaping to stabilize slopes and maintain the necessary cuts and fills in hillside areas; C. Require the retention of natural landmarks and features including vistas and the natural skyline as integral elements in development proposals in hillside areas. - 14 - 25.25.020 Uses and activities permitted by approved development plan. 1. Grading. 2. Single family attached or detached dwellings. 3. Land subdivisions. 4. Remodels and additions only require department of environmental services approval. 25.25.030 Development standards. Development standards shall be as approved by the planning commission in a public hearing and shall be based upon the following development options. The minimum density obtainable shall be 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. It will be the responsibility of the applicant to provide sufficient data supporting the applicability of any option. The planning commission shall make a final determination concerning which option or combination of options is appropriate. Firms submitting topographic data must be registered civil engineers. OPTION NO.1 - PARCEL AVERAGE SI:OPE METHOD This option requires a topographic map of the entire parcel with maximum 5 foot contour intervals. Using the following formula and tables the average slope for the entire parcel is determined leading to density designations and grading limitations. A. Average Slope Formula 5=.00229IL Where: S = Average percent slope A I = Contour interval, in feet L = Summation of the contour length, in feet A = Area of the parcel in acres, of ownership being considered. B. Density within the district shall be based on the following scale: Percent Slope Minimum Acreage Per Dwelling Unit 1. 10 - 15 0.66 acres; 2. 16 - 20 1.00 acres; 3. 21 - 25 1.25 acres; 4. 26 - 30 1.66 acres; 5. 31 - 35 2.50 acres; 6. 36 or over 5.00 acres. C. Grading. The minimum of percentage of a lot to remain in a natural state without cut or fill shall be determined on the basis of the average slope of the natural terrain of the lot. Such determination shall be made on the basis of the natural state as - 15 - being defined as the condition of the lot prior to any new development. The following table indicates the minimum percentage of a lot to remain in a natural state: Percent Slope Percent of the lot to Remain in the Natural State 1. 10 - 15 32.5 2. 16 - 20 47.5 3. 21 - 25 62.5 4. 26 - 30 77.5 5. 31 - 35 92.5 6. 36 or over 95.0 (Ord. 97 Sl(part), 1975: Exhbit A 525.29-3.02). D. Density transfer. The planning commission may require a transfer of density from one portion of a parcel to another, to mitigate adverse environmental or aesthetic impacts. OPTION NO. 2 - TOE OF SLOPE Owners of parcels located at the toe of the slope may delineate areas adjacent to the valley floor (minimum area .33 acre, minimum dimension 100 feet), which after application of the slope formu.= described in Option No. 1 are shown to have an average slope of less than 10%. These areas will no longer be subject to the restrictions contained in this title, will be assigned a density of 3 d.u./acre and shall be developed according to procedures set out in Chapter 25.24.. If the remaining area exceeds 4 acres, an additional unit may be developed in the hillside. If the remainder is less than 4 acres, the hillside must remain undeveloped. For a remainder larger than 5 acres, density will be determined through Option No. 1 or No. 3. OPTION NO. 3 - DWELLING UNIT BUILDING SITE Instead of determining density by the average slope of the entire parcel as in Option No. 1, the applicant may delineate specific dwelling unit building sites.whose slopes are 20% or less and are not adjacent to the valley floor, if the following criteria is met: 1. Minimum area of .5 acres. 2. Minimum dimension of 100 feet. 3. Maximum of overall density of one dwelling unit per acre. The city may require any measure it feels necessary to mitigate adverse environmental or aesthetic impacts of grading or construction. Location and grades of access roads shall be as approved by the fire marshal and planning commission. if the planning commission determines tht adverse aesthetic and environmental impacts of site and access grading cannot be adequately mitigated, then the designated location shall not qualify as a building site under this option. Density for the area remaining after the application of Option No. 3, shall be determined via Option No. 1 or No. 2. Architectural design and materials shall to the greatest practical extent blend with the natural terrain. GRADING RESTRICTION FOR PROPERTIES OVER 10% SLOPE DEVELOPED UNDER OPTION NO. 2 AND OPTION NO. 3 Grading on the site shall be limited to the minimum required for safe access and the structural requirements of the dwelling unit. Grading for the building pad shall not involve an area greater than 10,000 square feet. That area disturbed by grading other than that required for access or building foundation, including all visible cuts or fills must be contoured and landscaped to blend with the surrounding natural terrain prior to final inspection or within one year following completion of grading if construction has not commenced. OPTION NO. 4 - PREFERRED DEVELOPMENT AREA The ability of the clty's design review process to insure proper siting of units within the hillside is directly proportional to the size of the parcel. Certain lots may not contain any acceptable sites while others may contain several. The larger the parcel, the greater the likelyhood that suitable locations can be found. It is therefore advantageous to encourage the consolidation of smaller parcels so that sites can be developed according to aesthetic and environmental criteria instead of arbitrary existing property lines. It is also the city's desire to concentrate development on the less visible lower slopes. - 17 - The following option offers increased density for larger parcels or combination of parcels submitted under one development plan if at least ten acres are located in the preferred development area as shown on the zoning map. Density shall be based upon the following table: AREA DENSITY 10-19 acres 2 d.u./5 acres 20 acres 3. d.u./5 acres Site location, grading, roads and architectural design shall be as approved by the planning commission and design review board and shall minimize advese aesthetic and environmental impacts and shall maximize the preservation of the natural character of the hillside. This option cannot be applied in conjunction with any other options. 25.25.040 Abandoned uses. If pursuant to this section, an existing building and or building site is to be abandoned, the abandoned building shall be removed from the site and properly disposed of and the site regraded and landscaped to blend with the terrain prior to any other building permits being issued for the property. 25.52.050 Circulation. A. Street alignments where possible shall parallel contours of the natural terrain and be located in valleys or on ridges so as not to be visible from the valley floor. B. Street lighting, when required, shall be of low profile design and unobtrusive. 25.25.060 Structural design. Site plan review in accord with Chapter 25.70 is required for all development. Structure height and setbacks shall be flexible in order to achieve the purposes of this section. 25.25.070 Fire protection. In areas where there will be a fire hazard, in the opinion of the fire agency, the following shall apply: - 18 - A. Clearance of brush or vegetative growth from structures and roadways shall be in accordance with the uniform fire code and approved by the fire agency. B. Roof shall be of incombustible material approved by the fire agency. C. All easements for fire breaks shall be dedicated to this purpose through recordation. D. All buildings shall be equipped with fire suppression automatic sprinkler systems approved by the fire marshal. 25.25.080 Erosion control. All manufactured slopes shall be planted or otherwise protected from the effects of storm runoff and erosion within thirty days after completion of grading. Planting shall be designed to blend with the surrounding terrain and the character of development 25.25.090 Preservation of open space. In order to insure permanent retention of the natural terrain as required in Section 25.52.040, a covenant approved by the city attorney shall be recorded dedicating all building rights to the city and insuring that the natural areas shall remain as shown on plans approved by the city. 25.25.100 Submittal requirements for development plan. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit (unless otherwise provided), or land subdivision, a development plan shall be approved by the planning commission. This may include, as determined by the director of environmental services, the following information as set out in Sections 25.25.110 through 25.25.130. 25.52.110 Environmental assessment. All applications shall comply with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. 25.25.120 Required information. The director of environmental services and or planning commission may require any of the following information: 1. Accurate topographic map and model indicating the following: a. Natural topographic features with an overlay of the proposed contours of the land after completion of the proposed grading; b. Slope analysis with at least five-foot contour intervals and a slope analysis showing the following slope categories: 10% - 15% 26% - 30% 16% - 20% 31% - 35% 21% - 25% 36% and over; c. Elevations of existing topographic features and the elevations of any proposed building pads, street centerlines and property corners; - 19 - d. Locations and dimensions of all proposed cut and fill operations; e. Locations and details of existing and proposed drainage patterns, structures and retaining walls; f. Locations of disposal sites for excess or excavated material; g. Locations of existing trees, other significant vegetation and biological features; h. Locations of all significant geological features; including bluffs, ridgelines, cliffs, canyons, rock outcroppings, fault lines and waterfalls. i. Locations and sizes of proposed building areas and lot patterns; j. Any other information required by the planning commission; 2. Site plans and architectural drawings illustrating the following: a. Architectural characteristics of proposed buildings; b. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns; including street widths and grades and other easements of public rights-of-way; c. Utility lines and other service facilities; including water, gas, electricity and sewage lines; d. Landscaping, irrigation and exterior lighting plans; e. Locations and design of proposed fences, screens, enclosures and structures; including drainage facilities; f. Any other information required by the planning commission; 3. Reports and surveys with recommendations from foundation engineers or geologists based upon surface and subsurface exploration stating land capabilities; including soil types, soil openings, hydrologic groups, slopes, runoff potential, percolation data, soil depth, erosion potential and natural drainage patterns; 4. Archeological studies in areas where existing evidence seems to indicate that significant artifacts of historic sites are likely to be encountered in order to insure that these artifcats and/or sites are not inadvertently destroyed; 5. Additional information to include: a. Acreage and square footage calculations; b. Area of impermeable surfaces; c. Ratio of open space to total land area; d. Description of maintenance program for proposed developments involving joint or common ownership; - 20 - e. Any other specific information determined to be of special interest relevant to the applicant's proposal. 25.25.130 Optional preliminary approval procedure. The applicant may choose to submit information and request a preliminary approval from the planning commission which will assign the appropriate development standard option, determine density, identify building sites, access roads and locations. No permits shall be issued until final approval is obtained. - 21 - PROPOSED -�, Legend o ' o. e • • • • •° 1 1 1 ee • . •e. s e e.ouo ore}p��o �•. \, 1 -- HILLSIDE H. P. R. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL •••• e�°• :i a �� a: ° p moo•• e • ' • • • ° • ' C•I GEN. COMMERCIAL • °°' S.I. SERVICE INDUSTRIAL ow ; •° •: •• PLANNED 06 PC'(4) COMMERCIAL (Resort) M • d.0 • ..•• e a •. .; 1. • • ' L__1 Pueuc • ei a '�' � • e • • ::..:. .:_- 0. S. OPEN SPACE 04 • •: • o°• a.'• ••.•' // �.•: .^ . • • • a . ° • e • d •1 . . . .1. -� -;;•: : a° :••• DRAINAGEWAY ° ' e° D OVERLAY .• e i. •i a•° � . e • :e= •p .I w��• ^ p / C1 • �.�� .Imam!•_ --.---- Preferred Develop� n� ent •�, , ire h ,.•n ■■■ 'w ::c /memo SENSE MEMO ■■ ' ` smosommunmess _ `t Chanter 25 . 52 H HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT Sections : 25 . 52 . 010 Purpose . 25 . 52 .020 Conditional uses . 25 . 52 .030 Development standards . 25 . 52 . 040 Grading. 25 . 52 . 050 Circulation. 25 . 52 . 060 Structural design. 25 .52 . 070 Fire protection. 25 .52 .080 Erosion control . 25 . 52 . 010 Preservation of open space. 25 .52 .100 Submittal requirements for conditional use permit. 25 .52 .110 Environmental assessment. 25 .52 .120 Required materials . 25 . 52.130 Final site, grading and improvement plan approval . 25 .52. 010 Purpose . The purpose and intent of the hill- side eve opment overlay district is: A. To encourage only minimal grading in hillside areas that relates to the natural contours of the land and will not result in extensive cut and fill slopes that result in a padding or staircase effect within the development; B . To retain natural vegetation which stabilizes slopes and where necessary require additional landscaping to stablize slopes and maintain the necessary cut and fill slopes in hillside areas ; C. To encourage design -proposals for development in hillside areas that will materially reduce the need for grad- ing and disturbance of the natural environment in hillside areas . In order to encourage creative design, the planned i residential development approach to development of those hillsides which are designated as being potentially build- able by the general plan is strongly encouraged ; D . Require the retention of natural landmarks and fea- tures including vistas and the natural skyline as integral elements in development proposals in hillside areas . Hillside areas are those areas indicated on the city ' s • zoning map as having average slopes before grading in excess - `of ten percent. (Ord . 97 Sl (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A 525 . 29-1) . 25 . 52 . 020 Conditional uses . All uses in the underlying district are permitted subject to the issuance of a condi- tional use permit. The density for residential development within the district shall be determined on the' basis of the average slope of the natural terrain of the parcel . No grading or excavation of any kind shall be permitted until a conditional use permit and/or grading plan is approved . (Ord . 97 S1 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A 525 . 29-2) . 25 . 52 . 030 Development standards . A. The average slope of a lot within the district shall be computed by application of the following formula to the natural slope : 375 b7 •:x 25 .52 . 040--25 .52 .050 S . 00229IL Where: S - Average percent slope A I = Contour interval , in feet L = Summation of the contour length, in feet A = Area of the parcel in acres , of ownership being considered. B . Density within the district shall be based on' the following scale: Percent Slope Minimum Acreage Per Dwelling Unit 1. 10 - 15 0 . 66 acres ; 2. 15 - 20 1 .00 acres ; 3 . 20 - 25 1 .25 -acres ; - 4 . 25 - 30 1 .66 acres ; 5. 30 - 35 2 .50 acres; 6. 35 or over 20 . 00 acres . C . Any area of the lot having a percentage of slope of thirty-five percent or greater shall be excluded from the allowable area that may be allowed in computing density. The area of both public and private streets shall be excluded in calculating net area of a lot. (Ord . 97 51 (part) , 1975 ; Exhibit A 525 .29-3) . 25 . 52 . 040 Grading. The minimum of percentage of a lot to remain in a natural state without cut or fill shall be determined on the basis of the average slope of the natural �.. terrain of the lot. Such determination shall be made on the basis of the natural state as being defined as the condi- tion of the lot prior to any new development. The following table indicates the minimum percentage of a lot to remain in a natural state : Percent Slope Percent of the Lot To Remain in the Natural State A. 10 - 15 32 . 5 B . 15 - 20 47 .5 C . 20 - 25 62 . 5 D . 25 - 30 77 .5 E. 30 - 35 92 . 5 F. 35 or greater 97 . 5 . (Ord . 97 §1 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A §25 . 29-3 . 02) . 25 . 52 . 050 Circulation . A . Street alignments where possible shall parallel contours of the natural terrain and be located in valleys or on ridges at locations not visible from the valley floor . B . where streets are required between a vallev and ridge the principal of grading shall be half cut/half fill rather than all cut or all fill and where possible shall not be at locations visible from the valley floor . C . Sidewalks , when required, need not parallel the �• curb line. 376 �p� 25 . 52 . 060--25 . 52 . 110 D. ' Street lighting, when required, shall be of low profile design and unobtrusive. (Ord. 97 §1 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A §25 . 29-3 .03) . 25 .52 .060 Structural design . Site plan review in accord with Chapter 25 . 70 is required for all development in a hillside development overlay district. Lot size, height units and setbacks shall be flexible in order to achieve the purposes of this section. (Ord. 97 51 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit 525 :29-3 .04) . 25 .52 . 070 Fire protection . In areas where there will be a ire bazar , In the opinion of the fire agency , the fol- lowing shall apply : A. Clearance of brush or vegetative growth from struc- tures and roadways shall be in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code and approved by the fire agency . B . Roof shall be of fire retardant material approved by the fire agency. C. All easements for fire breaks shall be dedicated to this purpose through recordation. (Ord . 97 51 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A 525 .29-3 .05) . 25 .52 .080 Erosion control . All manufactured slopes shall be planted or otherwise protected from the effects of Cstorm runoff and erosion within thirty days after completion of grading. Planting shall be designed to blend with the surrounding terrain and the character of development . (Ord. 97 51 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A §25 . 29-3 . 06) . 25 . 52 . 090 Preservation of open space . In order to insure permanent retention of the natural terrain as required in Section 25 . 52 . 040 , a covenant approved by the city attorney shall be recorded dedicating all building rights to the city and insuring that the natural areas shall remain as shown on plans approved by the city . (Ord . 97 51 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A §25 . 29-3 . 07) . 25 . 52 . 100 Submittal requirements for conditional use permit . Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit for any development in those areas designated with a hillside overlay district , a conditional use permit shall be approved by the planning commission . The application for the conditional use permit shall include the following infor- mation as set out in Sections 25 . 52 .110 through 25 . 52 . 130 . (Ord . 97 §l (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A 925 . 29-3 . 08) . 25 . 52 . 110 Environmental assessment . A . A conditional use permit for preliminary site , gracing or improvement plans shall undergo an initial environmental assessment by the planning division to determine whether the proposed develop- 377 25 . 52 .120 ment cound have a significant adverse effect on the environ- ment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and would, therefore , require the subsequent preparation of an environmental impact report. B . If an environmental impact report is required, the city planning commission shall emphasize compliance with CEQA by critically reviewing EIRs and suggesting mitigation mea- sures that could be incorporated into the initial site, grading and/or improvement plan . Procedures to minimize dis- turbances to natural terrain, drainage patterns , wildlife habitats , historically significant areas and migratory routes of animals shall be considered and evaluated by the city planning commission. (Ord. 97 51 (part) , "1975: Exhibit 'A 525 . 29-3 . 08 (1) ) . 25 . 52 .120 Recuired materials . A. In consideration of the granting of approval of a conditional use permit for pre- liminary site , grading or improvement plans , the city plan- ning- commission requires the submission of the following : ing : 1 . Accurate topographic maps indicating the follow- _ a. Natural topographic features with an overlay of the proposed contours of the land after completion of the y proposed grading; b. Slope analysis with at least five-foot contour intervals and a slope analysis showing the following slope categories : 101 - 15% 25% - 30% 25% - 20% 30% - 35% 20% - 25% 351 and over ; C . Elevations of existing topographic features and the elevations of any proposed building pads , street centerlines and property corners ; d. Locations and dimensions of all proposed cut and fill operations ; e . Locations and details of existing and proposed drainage patterns , structures and retaining walls ; f . Locations of disposal sites for excess or excavated material ; g . Locations of existing trees , other significant vegetation and biological features ; h. Locations of all significant geological fea- tures ; including bluffs , ridgelines , cliffs , canyons , rock outcroppings , fault lines and waterfalls . i . Locations and sizes of proposed building areas and lot patterns ; j . Any other information required by the plan- ning commission; 2 . Site plans and architectural drawings illustra- ting the following : a. Architectural characteristics of proposed �. buildings ; 378 !�Q 25 . 52 .130 b. ., Vehicular and pedestrian circulation� patterns ;' including street widths and grades and other easements of public rights-of-way ; C . Utility lines and other service facilities ; including water, gas , electricity and sewage lines ; d. Landscaping, irrigation and exterior lighting plans; e. Locations and design of proposed fences , screens , enclosures and structures ; including drainage facilities; f. Any other information required by the plan- ning commission; 3 . Reports and surveys with recommendations from foundation engineers or geologists based upon surface and subsurface exploration stating land capabilities; including soil types, soil openings , hydrologic groups , slopes , runoff potential , percolation data, soil depth, erosion potential and natural drainage patterns ; 4 . Archeological studies in areas where existing evidence seems to indicate that significant artifacts of historic sites are likely to be encountered in order to ensure that these artifacts and/or sites are not inadver- tently destroyed; S . Additional information to include : a. Average natural slope of the land; � } b. Acreage and square footage calculations ; C. Ratio of structures to total land area ; d. Ratio of parking spaces to building square footage; e . Ratio of parking area to total land area ; f. Ratio of open space to total land area ; g . Description of maintenance program for pro- posed developments involving joint.or common ownership ; h . Any other specific information determined by the planning commission to be of special interest relevant to the . applicant ' s proposal . B . Discretion may be exercised by the planning commis- sion in their approval of a conditional use permit for pre:. liminary site , grading or improvement plans . Conditional approval may be made to insure that building design , safety considerations and public facilities ; including proposed land- scaping , irrigation , lighting, fencing, screening and other improvements are designed in concert with the natural charac- teristics of the hillside areas so as to enhance scenic , natural and historic amenities , including the natural skyline . (Ord . 97 §1 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A §25 . 29-3 . 08 ( 2) ) . 25 . 52 . 130 Final site , grading and improvement plan aonroval . Upon approval of a conditional use permit for preliminary site , grading and/or improvement plans , the applicant should prepare final site , grading and/or 379 a 25 .54 . 010--25 . 54 . 030 improvement plans which incorporate the terms and conditions specified by the city planning commission in their action of approval or conditional approval . Recommendations shall, thereafter, be made to the city council relative to the pro- posal and subsequent authorization to issue a building and/or grading permit. (Ord. 97 51 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A 525 . 29-3 . 08 (3) ) . C 1 \ 25 . 46 . 010--25 . 46 . 030 Chapter 25 . 46 D DRAINAGEWAY , FLOODPLAIN, WATERCOURSE OVERLAY DISTRICT i Sections : 25 .46 . 010 Purpose. 25 .46 . 020 Application. 25 . 46 .030 Conditional uses: 25 .46 .040 Prohibited uses . 25. 46 .050 Development standards . 25 .46 . 060 Site plan review. - 25 . 46 .070 Special standards . 25 . 46 . 010 Purpose. The D district is intended to be applied to those areas of the city which, under present con- ditions , are known to be subject to flooding. The objec- tives of the D district shall be : A. To prevent loss of life and property and to minimize economic loss caused by flood flows ; B . Establish criteria for land management and use in flood-prone areas that is consistent with that promulgated by the Federal Insurance Administration for the purpose of providing flood insurance eligibility for property owners; C . To prohibit occupancy or the encroachment of any �. structure, improvement or development that would obstruct the natrual flow of waters within a designated drainageway, floodway , or watercourse; D . To regulate and control uses below the elevation of the one-hundred-year flood flow. It is contemplated that where flood control measures are provided so as to elim4nate flood hazards the D district will be removed from the property . (Ord. 97 91 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A 925 . 26-1) . 25 . 46 . 020 Application . The D overlay district shall be aoclied to those areas that are known to be subj-ect to flood- ing as determined by the city council , based on recommendations by the affected flood control district. (Ord . 97 §1 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A 525 . 26-2) . 25 . 46 . 030 Conditional uses . The following uses and structures shall be permitted in the D district subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit by the planning com- mission : A. New residential , commercial , industrial , and agri- cultural structures permitted by the underlying district regulations involved, and when they comply with all of the conditions listed below: 1 . Floodproofing and/or . flood protective measures 370 , e e 25 . 46 . 040--25 .46 . 060 :;hall be required to be installed in a manner meeting with the approval of the chief engineer of the affected flood con- trol district. 2 . Building and health code requirements applicable to floodplain districts shall be complied with. 3 . The bottom elevation or first floor of any struc- ture shall be at least one foot above the level of the one- hundred-year flood. Exceptions may be recommended by the building official only for nonr=sidential structures which are adequately floodproofed, in accordance with the Building Code , up to the level of the one-hundred-year flood . 4 . Landfills , improvements , developments , or other encroachment effect on the one-hundred-year flood level- such that the water surface elevations of the one-hundred-year flood are increased by more than one foot shall be fully offset by requirements for stream improvements meeting with the approval of the chief engineer of the affected flood control district; B . Public utility facilities ; C . Recreation areas , parks , campgrounds , playgrounds , fishing lakes , hunting clubs , riding and hiking trails , golf courses , golf driving ranges , polo fields , athletic fields , parking lots , all of which involve only the open use of land without permanent structures or improvements ; D . Temporary and readily removable structures accessory to agricultural uses . (Ord. 97 91 (part) , 1975 ; Exhibit A §25 . 26-3) . 25 . 46 .040 Prohibited uses . The following uses are specifically prohibited in the D district: A. Excavations that will tend to broaden the flood- plain or direct flood flows out of the natural floodplain; B . Landfills , improvements , developments ; or other en- croachments that would increase water surface elevations of the one-hundred-year flood more than one foot or that cannot be fully offset by stream improvements as provided in Section 26 . 46 . 070 ; C . Storage of floatable substances or materials which will add to the debris load of a stream or watercourse . (Ord . 97 91 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A §25 .26-4) . 25 .46 . 050 Develooment standards . The property develop- ment standards of the underlying zone shall apply insofar as they pertain to the uses of this district . (Ord . 97 91 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A §25 . 26-5) . 25 . 46 . 060 Site plan review . All development shall be subject to a site plan review as prescribed in Chapter 25 . 70 . (Ord . 97 §1 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A §25 . 26-6) . C 25 .46 .070 Soecial standards . There are none except as require under conditional use permit. (Ord . 97 §1 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A §25 . 26-7) . 371 /�� - HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT Delete Section 25.52.030 and 25.52.040 and replace with the following: 25.52.030 Development Standards All development shall comply with the standards established by the under- lying district as shown on the zoning map. 25.52.040 Grading Grading in the hillside areas shall be limited to streets and building pads and shall comply with all standards of the Grading Ordinance. Revise Section 25.52.060 Structural Design to read: Architectural compatibility of structures to adjacent terrain and site plan review in accord with Chapter 25.70 shall be required for all development in a hillside development overlay district. Lot size, height units and set- backs shall be ?lexible in order to achieve the purposes of this section. Revise Section 25.52.090 Preservation of Open Space to read: In order to insure permanent retention of the natural terrin as required in Section 25.52.040 proposed development plans shall consider landscape com- patibility and/or use of natural vegetation where the natural landscape has been disturbed and a .covenant approved by the City Attorney shall be recorded dedicating all building rights to the City and insuring that the natural areas shall remain as shown on .plans approved by the City. 0 - DRAINAGEWAY, FLOODPLAIN, WATERCOURSE, OVERLAY DISTRICT Revise Section 25.46. 070 Special Standards to read: Development of hillside canyon areas shall not occur until hydrology is submitted which specifies techniques for management of runoff. The exact, location of development shall be determined by a certified hydrologist. Other standards required under conditional use permits shall also apply. -Portion of Minutes Ralm Desert City Council Marsh 22, 1979 VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) C. CASE GPA O1-79, CITY OF PALM DESERT APPLICANT: Consideration An Amen enc To e a esert Genera an To Incorporate A Specific Plan For The Palm Valley Scormwacer Channel Area. Mr. Williams gave an in-depth review of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Plan as presented to the Council. In addicion, he noted the following changes based on additional concerns raised by property owners since adoption of the Plan by the Planning Commission: Page 61: Section 25.14.050 --Add: H. When said zone district exists in conjunction with the hillside overlay district, the setback provisions specified above shall not be applicable. The required - - -setbacks-"shall be as.approved by the Planning Commission as a part of their-action-on the. required Conditional Use Permit. Page 63: Section 25.14.060 - Add: H. When said zone district exists in conjunction with the hillside overlay district, che. secback provisions specified above shall not be applicable. The required setbacks shall be as approved by the Planning Commission as a part of chair action on the required Conditional Use Permit. Page 65: Section 25.52.040 - Delete: "Grading in the hillside aZeas shall be Limited to streets and shall comply with all standards of the Grading Ordinance." Add: Return to present writing. - Page 65: Section 25.52.060 - Add: J C. The use of glass facing-che City shall be carefully considered. Mr. Williams reviewed the correspondence received relacive to the Plan, attached and made a part of the report to Council. Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson declared the Public Hearing open and invited input in FAVOR of the Plan. MR. GEORGE FOX addressed Council as owner of over 10% of the property in question. He indicated that he and his engineering firm were in the process of preparing a study on his property and advised of his incencion to submit an alternate development proposal if the Palm Valley Storm- water Channel Plan presented any conflicts. He sta Eed that they were nor far enough into chair own plans to present any specifics. MRS. DORIE CREE, 500 Devon Place, Long Beach, California, addressed Council stating that both the Staff and Planning Commission had put a lot of work inco the Plan and had done a fine job. She indicated she represenced a group of 30 property owners in this area, and they were all very much in favor of the study with the changes Mr. Williams had noced. Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson noted that this was a very important matter, stating Council's desire co continue the matter to April 12th to receive any furcher inpuc that might be applicable. Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Brush seconded to continue the Hearing to the meecing of April 11, 1979; carried unani- mously with the members present. 11 APPENDIX 11211 OVERVIEW: PALM VALLEY AREA SPECIFIC PLAN I. INTRODUCTION The following internal inconsistencies within the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area Specific Plan and implementation procedures set .forth therein, seriously compromise the usefullness of the document as a planning tool and might lead to legal action challenging the validity of the present hillside zoning regulations: 1. THE PLAN DOES NOT SPECIFY WHICH DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE WAS ACTUALLY ADOPTED. The Plan contains 7 development alternatives (pages 31-57). The last alternative is called "The Recommended Development Alternative". Although staff has assumed that the recommended alternative was adopted, there is no statement within the plan text or within the resolutions of approval identifying which alternative was adopted. SOLUTION: To avoid this problem in future Specific Plans, only the adopted land use alternative should be contained in the final drafts. 2. AN INACCURATE SLOPE ANALYSIS IS THE FOUNDATION FOR THE PLAN'S RECOMMENDED LAND USE. The density designations contained within the recommended alternative (Page 49) were based on a slope analysis (Page 40-43). The methodology used to arrive at this analysis was not discussed. It was concluded that 46% or 354 acres of the study area contained slopes of less than 20%. Based upon this assessment, property with slopes less than 10% were assigned densities of 3 d.u./acre and slopes between 10% and 20% were designated at 1 d.u./acre. Property containing an average slope in excess of 20% was designated as open space; except for privately owned 5 acre parcels which were given densities of 1-3 d.u./five acres. The accuracy of the plan's slope analysis came into question following a field investigation of a 97 acre hillside site. The plan identified this site as having 59 acres with slopes of less than 20%. Using a two foot contour interval, topographic map of the site, a new slope analysis was completed utilizing the average slope formula procedures outlined in the Zoning Ordinance Hillside Overlay. This analysis identified only 12-15 acres with slopes of less than 20%. Most of the area designated in the plan as less than 20% slopes contained slopes between 35% and 50% according to the average slope formula. Based upon this example and our field observations, the plan's slope analysis may have over-estimated the amount of developable land (as defined by 20% slope) by as much as 300%. SOLUTION NO. 1: Conduct a photometric survey of the plan area and produce a maximum 10' contour interval topographic map (costs $5,000 -10,000). Assign densities based upon a slope analysis of this map. Without an accurate topographic map it would be inappropriate to assign residential density categories ignoring the slope, the principal constraint. SOLUTION NO. 2: Eliminate all density designations in the area. Densities for a particular site would be assigned through the development plan process following an owner financed survey and slope analysis. - 1 - Palm Desert City Council April 12, 1979 VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CASE GPA 01-79 CITY OF PALM DESERT APPLICANT: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENt TO THE PALM DEffftfN L Ltk`I TO INCORPORATE A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE PALS VALLEY STORMWATER CHANNEL AREA (CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FROM MEETING OF MARCH 22, 1979) . Mr. Williams reported that at the previous Council meeting, Staff had presenced changes to the draft plan that had been forwarded to Council by the Planning Commission. Staff has prepared Resolution No. 79-36 which would adopt the Plan as recommended with changes discussed at the last meeting. 8 He pointed out that since the last meeting, Council had received a letter from Rancho Mirage indicating their favor of the amendment with one concern dealing with density in the range of slopes exceeding 20%. Our Plan speaks of 35%. Then in Study Session, Council had received a series of letters from Mr. Fox who asked that Council exclude his property from this Plan to allow them to move forward with their Master Plan for his property. In review of his plans, Staff felt it would be appropriate chat Council not grant his request and incorporate his property because his con- cept, in its present state, could be developed to the City's standards. The zoning adjustments recommended by this Plan i will not be presented to the Council for at least 3 months which will leave Mr. Fox with sufficient time to submit his plans. In Mr. Fox's second letter, he asks that overhead utility lines be allowed initially and buried later. This is also in accordance with Mrs. Cres's request. In his third letter, Mr. Fox suggests that any fees for bridges, etc. be collected from the commercial area. However, these fees can only be required on property which will benefit from improvements, and Staff can find no justification for imposing such fees on commercial development as they would not be direct bene- factors. In conclusion, Mr. Williams stated that it was Staff's recommendation that Council adopt Resolution No. 79-36 with the suggested revisions. Mayor Mullins invited input in FAVOR of the amendment. MRS. DORIE CREE, 500 Devon Street, Long Beach, addressed Council as a property owner in the area being discussed and expressing her favor of the amendment. However, she indicated that they were very interested in building their home in the near future and asked if she were to file for a building permit next month, could she get it or would she have to wait until the Plan and related zoning are all in effect. Mr. Williams responded that Mrs. Cree would have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit which would be processed i chrough the Planning Commission. If approved, she could then be issued a building permit. Mayor Mullins invited input in OPPOSITION cc the Plan, and none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing closed. Mayor Mullins ooinced out that a lot of work had gone into this Plan, and Paul Williams and his staff were to be con- gratulaced on it. Councilman Newbrander added that is was a beautiful scudy which had been very well presented. Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Brush seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 79-36. amending the Palm Desert General Plan co incorporate the Palm Valley Scomwacer Channel Area Specific Plan. Motion carried unanimously. a.. 4 OVERVIEW: PALM VALLEY AREA SPECIFIC PLAN REPORT 3. THE PROPOSED ZONING IN THE PLAN IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE. In the recommended Development Alternative (page 50), 22 acres of the Fox property were designated 1 d.u./acre. In the proposed zoning (page 62) and in zoning amendments which followed, these 22 acres, were zoned PR-2, twice the density indicated in the plan. SOLUTION: See No. 2. 4. ELIMINATION OF HILLSIDE OVERLAY SLOPE/DENSITY FORMULA WAS AN IMPORTANT FEATURE OF THE PLAN, BUT WAS NEVER IMPLEMENTED. •Within the Discussion of Issues Section (Page 99-106), Issue No. 2, Page 101 states: "ISSUE NO. 2: Clarify the D and H Zoning Overlay designations as shown on the recommended plan. DISCUSSION: The D and H zoning designations used in the proposed Specific Plan refer to unique drainageway and hillside characteristics to be considered prior to the development of any land within the subject study area. The overlay zones are intended to be compatible with and work in conjunction with the basic underlying district. It should be noted that both the "D" and "H" Overlay Zones have already been attached to much of the property within the study area. Inasmuch as the severely sloped area has essentially been eliminated from development by zoning such lands as Open Space, the Hillside Overlay Zone applied to the balance of the study area is used primarily for the purpose of providing flexibility and compatibility of design for individual projects or residences to the surrounding terrain. It sh ould be noted that under the proposed plan, the computation of minimum acreage per dwelling unit and the percent of a lot to remain in the natural state based on slope percentage has been eliminated. On the original 1975 Palm Desert Zoning Map, the plan area was designated 1 d.u./acre density with Hillside and Drainage Overlays. Whenever an overlay is applied to a base district, the overlay has precedence. The Hillside Overlay contains a procedure for determining density based upon an average slope formula. In nearly every case, the Hillside Overlay with densities ranging from 1.5 d.u./acre to 1 d.u./20 acres is more restrictive than the base district. Therefore, any change in base district density has little effect as long as the Hillside Overlay remains unchanged. The recommended Palm Valley plan was designed to rezone severely sloped areas from 1 d.u./ac to open space. The density originally allowed in these areas would be transferred to the flatter areas by rezoning slopes less than 20% to 1-3 d.u./ac. Since these areas were already identified (erroneously ) to have slopes less than 20%, the slope formula was thought to be unnecessary and could be eliminated. - 2 - OVERVIEW: PALM VALLEY AREA SPECIFIC PLAN REPORT As has already been discussed, this conclusion was incorrect. Most of the areas identified as having less than 20% slope are actually in the 35% to 50% slope category (See discussion on slope analysis). Despite the existing PR-1 and RE 43,560 zoning, the Hillside Overlay Ordinance then and now in effect limited areas over 35% slope to a maximum density of one dwelling unit per 20 acres. There was no density to transfer. rr 'on w severely had been The second incorrect assumption as that all se sloped areas a P Y P eliminated from development by the open space zoning. As we have learned from the Fox property, most of the area designated in the plan as relatively flat has an average slope between 35 to 50%. When the Zoning Map was amended to be consistent with the Palm Valley Plan, areas designated as over 20% slope were rezoned Open Space. The erroneously identified flatter areas were rezoned PR-1, PR-2 or PR-3 but the Hillside Overlay slope/density formula was retained intact thus negating the map changes except for the open space zoning. A preliminary analysis of Mr. Fox's property shows that although the 59 acres zoned PR-2 and PR-3 would yield 140 dwelling units, the application of the slope formula would allow only 3 to 15 units, depending on interpretation. The slope formula also applies to the amount of the site which must be left in a natural state (ungraded) (Page 108). Slope analysis of the Fox site shows an average of 39% slope. Even if the density formula was eliminated permitting Fox 140 units, the grading formula would prohibit grading on 97.5% of the site since his average slope exceeds 35%. He would thus be required to develop his 140 units on 1.475 acres or a density of 94.9 dwelling units per acre. SOLUTION: Remove all density designations within the area covered by the Hillside Overlay. Property owners would be guaranteed 1 unit per parcel. Ultimate density would be determined through slope and infrastructure analysis as part of the Development Plan process. If the existing slope density/grading formulas are thought to be too restrictive, they can be adjusted to allow higher densities and more extensive grading of flatter sites. 5. THE HILLSIDE OVERLAY DOES NOT APPLY TO HOTEL DEVELOPMENT. In Discussion issue No. 1 (Page 700). The plan states: "...it should be noted that under either the existing or proposed zoning designations, that resort hotels with a maximum of 18 units to the gross acre and related auxilliary commercial uses are permitted within the Planned Residential District by approved Development Plan". In reference to the Fox 97 acre site it states: "Accordingly, under the existing zoning, a maximum of 1746 units could be allowed and under the proposed zoning, a maximum of 844 units". This interpretation is only partly correct. The Hillside Overlay Density Formula regulates only "dwelling units". A dwelling unit is defined as "one or more rooms and a single kitchen designed for occupancy by one family for living and sleeping purposes". _ 3 _ OVERVIEW: PALM VALLEY AREA SPECIFIC PLAN REPORT It is unclear if the Hillside Overlay regulates transient occupancy Hotel Unit versus permanent occupancy dwelling units. Although the overlay may not limit hotel units, it still controls grading. Mr. Fox would have to construct his 844 room hotel on 1.475 acres. This would translate to a density of 572.2 units per acre on the 1.475 acres. SOLUTION: Revise Hillside Overlay to include limitation on hotel construction. II. SUMMARY Development in the hillside has always been controlled by the Hillside Overlay. All restrictions within the overlay superceed and are more stringent than the underlying zoning district. The only functioning designation is "H". The Palm Valley Specific Plan proposed elimination of the slope/density formula and assigned densities according to an inaccurate slope survey. When the Zoning Ordinance was amended, the slope/density formula was retained invalidating the entire Specific Plan Process in spite of written commitments made to landowners for densities shown on the plan. Development to plan densities would violate long standing city policies concerning hillside preservation. Staff believes that the long standing policy should be retained. Property owners throughout the area are showing increased interest in developing to the designated densities. }S; - A Ci 25 .46 . 010--25 .46 . 030 Chapter 25 .46 D DRAINAGEWAY, FLOODPLAIN , WATERCOURSE OVERLAY DISTRICT Sections : 25 .46 .010 Purpose . 25 . 46 . 020 Application. 25 .46 .030 Conditional uses . 25 .46 .040 Prohibited uses . 25 . 46 .050 Development standards . 25 .46 .060 Site plan review. 25 . 46 .070 'Special standards . 25 . 46 .010 Purpose. The D district is intended to be applied to those areas of the city which, under present con- ditions , are known to be subject to flooding. The objec- tives of the D district shall be : A. To prevent loss of life and property and to minimize economic loss caused by flood flows ; C B. Establish criteria for land management and use in flood-prone areas that is consistent with that 'promulgated by the Federal Insurance Administration for the purpose of providing flood insurance eligibility for property owners; 1 — C . To prohibit occupancy or the encroachment of any l structure, improvement or development that would obstruct the natural flow of waters within a designated drainageway , floodway , or watercourse; D . To regulate and control uses below the elevation of the one-hundred-year flood flow. It is contemplated that where flood control measures are provided so as to eliminate flood hazards the D district will be removed from the property . (Ord. 97 §1 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A §25 . 26-1) . 25 .46 .020 AP placation . The D overlay district shall be aoolie to those areas that are known to be subject to flood- ing as determined by the city council , based on recommendations by the affected flood control district. (Ord . 97 §1 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A §25 . 26-2) . 25 .46 . 030 Conditional uses . The following uses and structures shall be permitted in the D district subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit by the planning com- mission : A. New residential , commercial , industrial , and agri- cultural structures permitted by the underlying district regulations involved, and when they comply with all of the conditions listed below: 1. Floodproofing and/or flood protective measures 370 (Palm Desert 8/15/78) xh R » MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1982 APPLICANTS REBUTTAL: Mr. Craven explained that they will not have the maximum number of pupils at all times; he explained that the reason they would like to expand up to grade 3 is because a child can stay at one school for up to six years; there will be no traffic impacts on Cabrillo; and, they will continue to regulate the noise generated. Mrs. Craven stated there is no problem with traffic congestion from the school; most people in the neighborhood work during the day and school hours are from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Vice Chairman Richards closed the public hearing and asked for commissioners' comments. Commissioner Wood felt there seemed to be conflicting testimony; but also felt that the location was zoned for this facility. Commissioner Crites felt there was a wide variety of objections but was not sure that all the issues were attributed to the school. Commissioner Crites felt that the issue comes down to whether or not the commission is willing to approve something that is of community value and opposed by the immediate neighborhood. Commissioner Downs felt the expansion should not be in an R-1 zone. Commissioner Wood felt the objections should be clarified by staff and the matter should be continued. Vice Chairman Richards voiced opposition based on Mrs. Cook's objections and the testimony received from the immediate neighborhood. Moved by Commissione, Downs, seconded by Vice Chairman Richards, to reject findings as recommended by staff. Carried 3-0-1 (Commisioner Wood abstained). b Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded y Commissioner Crites, to instruct staff to prepare a resolution denying CUP 14-78, with commission's findings. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Wood abstained). A TEN MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED - THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:50 P.M. B. CASE NOS. GPA 03-8 GZ 08-82,� and ZOA 11-92 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Consideration of a general plan amendment, change of zone, zoning ordinance amendment, and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, involving hillside development standards for property generally located between the Palm Valley Storm Channel and western city limits. Mr. Drell gave the staff report outlining the factors which had generated the proposed revisions to present plans and ordinances. The goal of this amendment would be to preserve the natural character of the hillside, while providing property owners with a reasonable use of their land. Base density would be set at 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. Through development options, a density of up to 3 dwelling units per acre could be approved for those areas at the base of the mountains having less than 10 percent slope. Vice Chairman Richards opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR. There being none, he asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION: LEROY KIRKPATRICK, 33-801 Dana Point, objected to proposals which might result in limiting development on his 3.5 acres to one unit. He asserted that he had been assured that 2 or 3 units could be built on his land. DORI CREE, explained that the zoning recommended in the Palm Valley Area Specific Plan was based upon many considerations including the visibility of the slopes, and the eventual developments occurring on them, from different parts of the city. She -3- 3v MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1982 permit up to 22,000 sq.ft. if the applicant can demonstrate that the grading will not be harmful. He also felt that in some situations road and driveways greater than 20% are acceptable. Mrs. Cree expressed her great concern over the specific plan and the general plan. She felt the whole concept of this study was being changed and believed the analysis was unfair. She asked for staff to address that issue. Mr. Diaz replied that the specific plan done in 1979, as far as density, was incorrect and was never implemented. MR. LEROY KIRKPATRICK, 33-801-A Silver Lantern, Dana Point, Ca 92629, felt there were too many restrictions and property owners should be allowed to build. He addressed a concern to the city attorney; an easement road prior to city annexation was maintained by the Coachella Valley Water District. When the city annexed that area he was told that that road would be maintained by the city, but nothing has been done. It was believed that this road is Thrush Road. He suggested that another road into his area (Section 30) should be public domain. (Note: The road was not identified) City Attorney Doug Phillips replied that he would investigate the matter and send Mr. Kirkpatrick a letter. Chairman Wood closed the public hearing and asked for further comments from the commission. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to reopen the public hearing and continue this matter to the meeting of December 7, 1982, 7:00 p.m. for further examination of Option 4. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Crites abstained). VUL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS - NONE DC. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS - NONE X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE XL COMMENTS - NONE XIL AD30URNMENT Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary ATTEST: RALPH WOOD, Chairman /lr -3- 3� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1982 delete the slope density formula.. MR. ROBERT H. RICCIARDI, 42-600 Bob Hope Drive, representing Dr. Bertran and Mr. Beckendorf, requested the following amendments: 1) Deletion of the requirement that the topography map be completed by an engineer approved and under contract to the city. 2) Increasing permitted grading on 35% slopes to allow 22,000 sq.ft. pads and grading radin for pools, and tennis courts. 3) Allow road grade greater than 20%. 4) Substitute the word compatible for blend in reference to building and landscape architecture. 5) Delete section requiring dedicating of building rights for open space. 6) Height limits should be specific. Chairman Wood requested staff to make a presentation. Mr. Diaz addressed the concerns raised: He first stated that public notice was given in accordance with legal requirements; regarding present zoning in the area, the general plan designates planned residential, hillside overlay. In answer to Mr. Perrier's comment he explained that within the hillside overlay hotels are not permitted without a conditional use permit; and, 50 to 60 dwelling units could be built depending on the option selected. In regards to the specific plan, he explained that this plan was adopted in 1979 but does not reflect the present goals and policy of the city. Slope density formula . elimination was suggested and Mr. Diaz explained why the formula was needed. Regarding public improvements, he felt that they have not been definitive or demanding in that area because it could run into an expense greater than the recommended densities could afford. He then introduced Mr. Drell to present option 4. Mr. Drell described the noticing procedures in order that the public and commission understood that every effort was made to explain to the public what was being proposed. In response to Mr. Ricciardi's concerns, Mr. Drell stated: 1) He agreed that the civil engineer need not be under contract to the city. 2) 22,000 sq.ft. of grading would be excessive, although the current 5,000 sq.ft. limitation could be increased to 10,000 sq.ft. 3) The fire marshal still requests the 20% limit on road grades. 4) Blend better expresses the city's architectural concerns. 5) Dedication of building rights only emphasizes to prospective property owners that open space must be preserved. 6) The height limit is worded to give maximum flexibility. Mr. Drell then explained the new option designed to encourage lot consolidation by permitting higher density as the amount of acreage accumulated increases. Commissioner Richards was not clear as to what option 4 meant, but also referred to a concern expressed by Mr. Perrier regarding no follow-up for the slope density formula. Commissioner Richards asked staff to explain. Mr. Drell referred Mr. Richards to Appendix #2 of the proposal which discusses the deficiencies of the adopted specific plan and ordinances. Commissioner Richards stated that he thought the reason for the new plan was because the topography map used to calculate the slope density was inaccurate. Mr. Diaz replied that that was one of the problems with the specific plan. Commissioner Kryder needed clarification on the square feet allowed and whether this included amenities. Mr. Diaz explained that it did not. Commissioner Richards in addressing the 20% road grade issue stated that on an isolated hillside a property owner could build a road up to the 20% grade and then say that the remaining road to his home was his driveway. He asked staff to address this issue. Mr. Diaz stated that in option l a property owner does not have to meet the 20% grade requirement; but if that same property owner wished a second unit then he would have to meet the 20% road grade requirement. Commissioner Richards asked staff to address the concern of heights. Mr. Drell stated that the height is not limited to give flexibility. Mr. Perrier commented on the road design and stated that if a limitation of 20% grade is made, he felt that in areas it would have to exceed that 20% grade. He did not see the justification that if a property owner builds a home that exceeds this 20% he does not have to comply within that 20% but if he built 2 units he must comply. Mr. Ricciardi felt that on the 10,000 sq.ft. limitation, this should be amended to -2- 3� MINUTES ADJOURNED PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY - NOVEMBER 8, 1982 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wood called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Kryder in. ROLL CALL Members Present: Commissioner Crites Commissioner Kryder Commissioner Richards Chairman Wood Excused Absent: Commissioner Downs Staff Present: Ramon Diaz Stan Sawa Phil Drell Linda Russell Doug Phillips, City Attorney IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: OCTOBER 19, 1982 Chairman Wood approved the minutes as submitted. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz reviewed the actions of the council for the meeting of November 4, 1982. VL CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE VIL PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case Nos GPA 03-82, GZ 0&82 an ZOA 11-92 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Consideration of a general plan amendment, change of zone, zoning ordinance amendment, and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, involving hillside development standards for property generally located between the Palm Valley Storm Channel and western city limits. Chairman Wood announced that the commission and staff had reviewed this matter in study session prior to the meeting. Commissioner Crites excused himself from this public hearing item because of a possible conflict of interest. He stated that while he felt no conflict existed and such broad interpretation of the law was not proper, he would abstain based on .advise of the city attorney. Chairman Wood noted that a staff report would be presented after public testimony is given. He opened the public hearing and invited testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MRS. DORI CREE, requested to be allowed to build 1 more unit per 5 acres on the bottom 5 acre parcels (those located at the toe of the slope). She felt that the property owner's requests versus the proposed ordinance is not a significant difference. MR. ALAN PERRIER, representative for Mr. Fox, gave a thorough explanation of the 1979 specific plan and concluded that The rescinding of the specific plan represented a significant change. He did not feel the present formula for density determination is fair. He suggested that the present ordinance be amended to implement the specific plan and -1- e ' 25 . 52 .130 b. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns ; including street widths and grades and other easements of public rights-of-way ; c . Utility lines and other service facilities ; including water, gas , electricity and sewage lines ; d. Landscaping, irrigation and exterior lighting plans; e. Locations and design of proposed fences , screens , enclosures and structures ; including drainage facilities; f. Any other information required by the plan- ning commission; 3 . Reports and surveys with recommendations from foundation engineers or geologists based upon surface and subsurface exploration stating land capabilities; including {' soil types , soil openings , hydrologic groups , slopes , runoff potential , percolation data, soil depth, erosion potential and natural drainage patterns ; 4 . Archeological studies in areas where existing evidence seems to indicate that significant artifacts of historic sites are likely to be encountered in order to ensure that these artifacts and/or sites are not inadver- No tently destroyed; 5 . Additional information to include: a. Average natural slope of the land; b. Acreage and square footage calculations ; it C. Ratio of structures to total land area; d. Ratio of parking spaces to building square footage; e . Ratio of parking area to total land area; f. Ratio of open space to total land area; g. Description of maintenance program for pro- posed developments involving joint or common ownership; h. Any other specific information determined by the planning commission to be of special interest relevant to the applicant ' s proposal. B. Discretion may be exercised by the planning commis- sion in their approval of a conditional use permit for pre- liminary site, grading or improvement plans. Conditional approval may be made to insure that building design, safety considerations and public facilities ; including proposed land- scaping, irrigation, lighting, fencing, screening and other improvements are designed in concert with the natural charac- teristics of the hillside areas so as to enhance scenic, natural and historic amenities, including the natural skyline . (Ord. 97 §1 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A §25.29-3 .08 (2) ) . 25 52 130 Final site grading and improvement plan approval . Upon approval of a conditional use .permit for preliminary site, grading and/or improvement plans , the applicant should prepare final site , grading and/or 379 Re IT_ dLY _ .y Y y_ fi AM �u.f. IL� 25 .54 . 010--25 . 54 . 030 improvement plans which incorporate the terms and conditions specified by the city planning commission in their action of approval or conditional approval . Recommendations shall , thereafter, be made to the city council relative to the pro= posal and subsequent authorization to issue a building and/or grading permit. (Ord . 97 51 (part) , 1975: Exhibit A 525 .29-3 . 08 (3) ) , Chapter 25 .54 SP SCENIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT Sections : L 25 .54 . 010 Purpose . 25 .54 .020 Permitted and conditional uses . 25 .54 .030 Development standards . 25 .54 . 040 Specific standards . 25 . 54 .010 Purpose. It is the purpose of the scenic preservation over ay to designate those scenic corridors which have a special aesthetic quality and to provide the opportunity for special standards for development in these areas to protect that quality. (Ord. 97 §1 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A 525 . 31-1) . 25 .54 .020 Permitted and conditional uses . Any per- mitted or conditional use which is allowed within the base district shall be allowed; provided, that it shall first be reviewed and approved by the design review board and/or planning commission which shall have taken specific notice of the fact that such development is within a scenic. corridor as noted within the city 's general plan. (Ord. 97 51 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A $25 .31-2) . 25 . 54 . 030 Development standards . The development stan- dards of the underlying base district, in addition to any conditions which may be required by the design review board, shall apply. The design review board shall be concerned with at least the following: A. Preservation of scenic vistas ; B . Setbacks; C . Landscaping; D. Building heights; E. Signs ; F. Mitigation of excessive noise impacts . (Ord . 97 51 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A 925 .31-3) . 380 ti O s F a. ' xr l 1 City of Palm Desert Transmittal TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL REQUEST: Adoption qlft general plan amendment (West Hill Specific Plan), zoning ordWEnce amendment, change of zone and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact concerning hillside development policies and standards for the area generally bounded by the Palm Valley Storm Channel and the western city limits. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert CASE NOS: GPA 03-82, ZOA 11-82, C/Z 08-82 DATE: January 13, 1983 CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion' C. Draft Resolution No. Draft Ordinance No. Draft/Ordinance No. D. Draft West Hills Specific Plan E. Planning Commission Resolutions and Minutes F. Draft Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact G. Correspondence I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: A. GPA 03-82 - Pass Resolution No. , rescinding all policies contained within the Palm Valley Area Specific Plan and adopting the West Hills Specific Plan and approving a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it pertains thereto. B. Introduce ZOA 11-82 and C/Z 08-82 and pass to second reading. 11. DISCUSSION: The hills west of the Palm Valley Storm Channel were originally zoned by the county one dwelling unit per acre. When the city adopted its zoning ordinance and map in 1975, the hillside overlay district was added to the 1 d.u./acre classification. Overlay districts always have precedence over the provisions of the base zone whenever the overlay is more restrictive. The hillside overlay determines density and grading according to the average slope for the parcel in question. Allowable densities range from one unit per .66 acres for property with average slope of 10% to one unit per 20 acres for slopes over 35%. The overall impact of the overlay was to substantially reduce permitted residential densities below one dwelling unit per acre. -1- In 1979 the Palm Valley Area Specific Plan was adopted. This plan recommended zoning ordinance amendments and zone changes based upon a staff slope analysis which indicated that nearly 250 acres of the hillside area had slopes of less than 20%. These areas were to be delineated on the zoning map and designated PR-1, 2 or 3, d,h. The privately owned 5 acre parcelsilbated on slopes shown to be greater than 20% were designated 1-3 dwelling units per 5 acres. All previously residentially zoned land over 20% slope was rezoned open space. The proposed zoning recommended by the plan would allow approximately 720 units on 721 residentially zoned acres. The intent was to retain the overall 1 d.u./acre density while confining most development to the lower slopes. Since the staff slope analysis and proposed zoning were designed to severely limit development on slopes over 20%, the plan went on to recommend the elimination of the hillside overlay average slope procedure for calculating density. The apparent intent was to return to the overall one unit per acre preincorporation density while confining development to lower slopes. The elimination of hillside overlay slope density formula and grading limitations was required to implement the recommended development alternative. In July 1979, two months after adoption of the plan, zoning ordinance and map amendments were adopted with the advertised intent of implementing the recommended development alternative. The recommended change of zone was approved, with the hillside overlay designation. Some minor amendments were made to the hillside overlay ordinance but the slope/density procedure was left intact. The failure to eliminate the slope/density procedure negated the zoning map amendments. If a property has an average slope of 36% it would be assigned a density of 1 d.u./acre per 20 acres even if the base zone gave it 1 d.u./acre or 100 d.u./acre. This contradiction created some confusion when Mr. George Fox proposed a 250- 350 unit resort on his 97 hillside areas. The topographic data submitted by Mr. Fox showed that areas designated in the staff slope study to be less than 20% slope and zoned PR-2 and PR-3 were actually greater than 50% slope. The project appeared to be in accord with the specific plan but was in conflict with the zoning ordinance. -2- Mr. Fox had formally submitted an application in March 1979 during the specific plan hearing process. The plan specifically noted that a 250 unit project on his site was acceptable. Staff refused to accept the application and requested more environmental data. In December of 1981 Mr. Fox contacted the city inquiring as to the feasibility of his resort proprosal under existing ordinances. An analysis of the topographic map submitted by Mr. Fox's engineer indicated that under existing zoning which included the hillside overlay slope/density procedure, the subject 97 acres would be allowed 3 dwelling units. Most of the areas shown on the specific plan slope analysis to be less than 20% slope were in fact greater than 50% slope. Since Mr. Fox's property is typical of the whole area, it is likely that most of the property within the hillside has average slopes in excess of 35%. Since this conclusion was in direct conflict with statements contained within the Palm Valley Plan, staff brought the issue to the council on January 1982 and a joint city council/planning commission study session was held in March. of 1982. State law requires that ordinances be consistent with general and specific plans. Staff presented a draft ordinance implementing the specific plan. The consensus of the meeting was to reject the new ordinance and instead amend the specific plan to be consistent with the goals of the existing hillside overlay. It was also determined that the hillside slope/density procedure applied equally to hotels and single family dwellings. In Mr. Fox's case, a hotel would be limited to 3 units. An ad-hoc committee consisting of two councilmen and two commissioners was formed to work with staff. On the advice of the city attorney, staff began work on an entirely new specific plan. After a series of meetings throughout the spring and summer, the West Hills Specific Plan was produced. During this period, the committee received extensive input from various property owners within the area. The committee determined that while the Palm Valley Specific Plan overstated the ment potential of the hillsides the existing hillside overlay was too develop p � g restrictive. After reviewing a variety of staff proposals, the committee approved a set of policies which represented a compromise between the two extremes. -3- While the Palm Valley Plan called for 700 to 800 units and the existing overlay allowed approximately 150, the new policies and density options would allow up to 350 units. The goal of these policies are to allow property owners a reasonable use of their land while preserving the natural character of the hillsides. The proposal was first presented before a fully noticed public study session on September 22. They were fully explained and specific questions were answered concerning how individual properties might be affected. During three planning commission public hearings the proposal was further refined. The proposal gives property owners 4 options in determing density. Option No. 1 is basically the original slope/density procedure with some modification. The average slope of the entire parcel is calculated and an overall density assigned. The minimum density has been changed from 1 dwelling per 20 acres to one dwelling per 5 acres. This will allow the previously subdivided 5 acre parcels to have at least one unit. It has always been city policy to allow a legally subdivided parcel at least one building site. Options No. 2 and 3 allow the applicant to apply the slope formula to specific areas of their property to determine zones of 10% slope or less and between 10% and 20%. Areas 10% or less would receive 3 d.u./acre; 11-20% would be allowed 1 d.u./acre. Option No. 4 would give overall densities up to 3 d.u./5 acre if property owners accumulated smaller parcels and submitted them for development under one development plan. This option would promote better site planning and allow density transfers from the upper slopes to lower slopes. The density provisions are accompanied by grading, landscaping and architectural design controls to insure that development will be compatible with the overall goal of preserving the natural character of the area. -4- The zoning ordinance and map amendments .will implement the specific plan by replacing the existing hillside overlay with a new hillside planned residential zone (H-PR). All privately owned residential property will receive this classification. All privately owned land formerly designated as open space will also receive this designation. Areas to be developed or left in open space shall be delineated when a development plan is approved. The standards are such that 95% of hillside area will be left in a natural state. Ar -5- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING THE PALM VALLEY AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AND ADOPTING THE WEST HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN AND APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. CASE NO. GPA 03-82 WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 13th day of January, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the rescinding of the Palm Valley Area Specifc Plan and the adoption of the West Hills Specific Plan relating to hillside development policies for the area generally bound by the Palm Valley Channel and the western city limits; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by Resolution No. 830 has recommended approval; WHEREAS, the director of environmental services has determined that the amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on this environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering the testimony and arguments of all persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to rescind the Palm Valley Area Specific Plan and adopt the West Hills Specific Plan: 1. The policies contained within the Palm Valley Area Specific Plan were based upon a faulty topographic analysis and contradict long standing city goals concerning development of steep hillside areas. 2. The implementation of the policies contained within the Palm Valley Area Specific Plan would result in a threat to the public health, safety and general welfare of the entire community. 3. The proposed West Hills Specific Plan provides policies which will both fulfill the city's desire to preserve the environment and allow property owners a reasonable use of their land. 4. The West Hills Specific Plan will ensure the preservation of the public health, safety and general welfare of the entire community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby rescind the Palm Valley Area Specific Plan and adopt the West Hills Specific Plan for reasons set forth in this resolution. 3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is hereby approved. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council held on this day of , 1983, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ROMEO S. PULUQI, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California /lr - J r ORDINANCE NO. 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 R-E 1-3 D.U./5 ACRES D,H; PR-1 D,H; PR-2 D,H; PR-3 D,H; O.S. to H-PR D; AND O.S. TO C-1 AND THE DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN AREAS PDA (PREVERRED DEVELOPMENT AREA) AND APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR PROPERTY BETWEEN THE PALM VALLEY CHANNEL AND THE WESTERN CITY LIMITS. CASE NO. C/Z 08-82 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: A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is hereby approved. SECTION 3: The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Palm Desert Post, 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 , 1983, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ROMEO S. PULUQ i, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California /lr CITY ,COUNCIL ORUIIdA110E i10 shall be recorded dedicating all building rights to the city and insuring that the natural areas shall remain as shown on plans approved by the city. 25.25.100 Submittal requirements for development plan. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit tunless otherwise provided), or land subdivision, a development plan shall be approved by the planning Commission. This may include, as determined by the director of environmental services, the following information as set out in Sections 25.25.110 through 25.25.130. 25.52.110 Environmental assessment. All applications shall comply with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. 25.25.120 Required information. The director of environmental services and or planning commission may require any of the following information: A. Accurate topographic maps indicating the following: 1. Natural topographic features with an overlay of the proposed contours of the land after completion of the proposed grading; 2. Slope analysis with at least five-foot contour intervals and a slope analysis showing the following slope categories: 10% - 15% 26% - 30% 16% - 20% 31% - 35% 21% - 25% 36% and over; 3. Elevations of existing topographic features and the elevations of any proposed building pads, street centerlines and property comers; 4. Locations and dimensions of all proposed cut and fill operations; 5. Locations and details of existing and proposed drainage patterns, structures and retaining walls; 6. Locations of disposal sites for excess or excavated material; 7. Locations of existing trees, other significant vegetation and biological features; S. Locations of all significant geological features; including bluffs, ridgeiines, cuffs, canyons, rock outcroppings, fault lines and waterfalls; 9. Locations and sizes of prc^osod building area and lot patterns; J 10. Any other information required by the planning commission; B. Site plans and architectural drawings illustrating the following: 1. Architectural characteristics of proposed buildings; 2. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns; including street widths and grades and other easements of public rights-of-way; 3. Utility lines and other service facilities; including water, gas, electricity and sewage lines; 4. Landscaping, irrigation and exterior lighting plans; 5. Locations and design of proposed fences, screens, enclosures and structures; including drainage facilities; 6. Any other information required by the planning commission; C. Reports and surveys with recommendations from foundation engineers or geologists based upon surface and subsurface exploration stating land capabilities; including soil types, soil openings, hydrologic groups, slopes, runoff potential, percolation data, soil depth, erosion potential and natural drainage patterns; D. Archeological studies in areas where existing evidence seems to indicate that significant artifacts of historic sites are likely to be encountered in order to insure that these artifcats and/or sites are not inadvertently destroyed; E.. Additional information to include: 1. Average natural slope of the land; 2. Acreage and square footage calculations; 3. Area of impermeable surfaces; 4. Ratio of parking area to total land area; 5. Ratio of open space to total land area; 6. Description of maintenance program for proposed developments involving joint or common ownership; 7. Any other specific information determined to be of special interest relevant to the applicant's proposal. 25 25 130 Optional preliminary approval procedure. The applicant may choose to submit information and request a preliminary approval from the planning commission which will assign the appropriate development' standard option, determine density, identify building sites, access roads and locations. No permits shall be issued until final approval is obtained. -5- ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT, AMENDING TITLE 25 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY CREATING CHAPTER 25.25 (H-PR - HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) AND DELETING CHAPTER 25.52 (H - HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT) AND APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. CASE NO. ZOA 11-82 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 13th day of January, 1983, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, to consider amending Title 25 of the Municipal Code by creating Chapter 25.25 (H-PR - Hillside Planned Residential District) and deleting Chapter 25.52 (H - Hillside Development Overlay District) and approving a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by Resolution No. 832 has recommended approval; WHEREAS, said application has complied with requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-8911, in that the director of environmental services has determined the project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts to justify its action as described below: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan and affected specific plans. 3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. The City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the considerations of the Council in this case. 2. That it does hereby approve a zoning ordinance text amendment, as provided in the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit "A". 3. The city clerk is directed to publish this ordinance once in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, and shall certify to the passage of adoption of this ordinance, and the same shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this _ day of , 1983, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ROMEO S. PULUQI, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California CITY COWiCIL ORDIidAfiCE i40. EXHIBIT "A" HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SECTIONS: 25.25.010 Purpose. 25.25.020 Permitted uses. 25.25.030 Development standards. 25.25.040 Abandoned uses. 25.52.050 Circulation. 25.52.060 Structural design. 25.32.070 Fire protection. 25.52.090 Erosion control. 25.52.100 Submittal requirements development plan. 25.52.110 Environmental assessment. 25.52.120 Required materials. 25.52.130 Optional preliminary approval procedure 25.52.010 Purpose. The purpose and intent of the Hillside Planned Residential District is: A. To encourage only minimal grading in hillside areas that relates to the natural contours of the land and will not result in extensive cut and fill slopes that result in a padding or staircase effect within the development; B. To retain natural vegetation which stabilizes slopes and where necessary to require additional landscaping to stabilise slopes and maintain the necessary cuts and fills in hillside areas; C. Require the retention of natural landmarks and features including vistas and the natural skyline as integral elements in development proposals in hillside areas. 25.25.020 Uses and activities permitted by approved development plan. 1. Grading. 2. Single family attached or detached dwellings. 3. Land subdivisions. 4. Remodels and additions only require department of environmental services approval. 25.25.030 Development standards. Development standards shall be as approved by the planning commission in a public hearing and shall be based upon the following development options. The minimum density obtainable shall be 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. It will be the responsibility of the applicant to provide sufficient data supporting the applicability of any option. The planning commission shall make a final determination concerning which option or combination of options is appropriate. Firms submitting topographic data must be registered civil engineers. OPTION NO.I - PARCEL AVERAGE SLOPE METHOD This option requires a topographic map of the entire parcel with maximum 5 foot contour intervals. Using the following formula and tables the average slope for the entire parcel is determined leading to density designations and grading limitations. A. Average Slope Formula- 5 = .00229IL Where: S = Average percent slope A I = Contour interval, in feet L = Summation of the contour length, in feet A = Area of the parcel in acres, of ownership being considered B. Density within the district shall be based on the following scale- -2- CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. v- A Percent Slope Minimum Acreage Per Dwelling Unit 10 - 15 0.66 acres; 16 - 20 1.00 acres; 21 - 25 1.25 acres; 26 - 30 1.66 acres; 31 - 35 2.50 acres; 36 or over 5.00 acres C. Grading. The minimum of percentage of a lot to remain in a natural state without cut or fill shall be determined on the basis of the average slope of the natural terrain of the lot. Such determination shall be made on the basis of the natural state as being defined as the condition of the lot prior to any new development. The following table indicates the minimum percentage of a lot to remain in a natural state: Percent Slope Percent of the lot to Remain in the Natural State 10—_ 1 5 32.5 16 - 20 47.5 21 - 25 62.5 26 - 30 77•5 31 - 35 92.5 36 or over 95.0 (Ord. 97 §1(part), 1975: Exhibit A §25.29-3.02). D. Density transfer. The planning commission may require a transfer of density from one portion of a parcel to another, to mitigate adverse environmental or aesthetic impacts. OPTION NO. 2 - TOE OF SLOPE Owners of parcels located at the toe of the slope may delineate areas adjacent to the valley floor (minimum area .33 acre, minimum, dimension 100 feet), which after application of the slope formula desu:bed in Option No. 1 are sho-:m to have an average slope of less than 10%. These arras will no longer be subject to the restrictions contained in this title, will be assigned a density of 3 du./acre and shall be developed according to procedures set out in Chapter 25.24.. H-4he_mirnaining area exceeds 4_acres, an additional unit_may_be,developed in the hillside. If the remainder is less than 4 acres,-the hiilsiae'must-remain-undeveloped. For a remainder larger thin 5 acres, druty will be determined through Option.No. 1 or No. 3. OPTION No. 3 - DWELLING UNIT BURM94G SITE Instead of determining density by the average slope of the entire parcel as in Option No. 1, the applicant may delineate specific dwelling unit building sites whose slopes are 20% or.less and are not adjacent to the valley floor, if the following criteria is met: 1. Minimum area of .5 acres. 2. Minimum dimension of 100 feet. 3. Maximum of overall density of one dwelling unit per acre. The city may require any measure it feels necessary to mitigate adverse environmental or aesthetic impacts of grading or construction. Location and grades of access roads shall be as approved by the fire marshal and planning commission. If adverse aesthetic and environmental impacts of site and access grading cannot be adequately mitigated, then the designated location shall not qualify as a building site under this option. Density for the area remaining after the application of Option No. 3, shall be determined via Option No. 1 or No. 2. Architectural design and materials shall to the greatest practical extent blend with the natural terrain. GRADING RESTRICTION FOR PROPERTIES OVER 10% SLOPE DEVELOPED UNDER OPTION NO. 2 AND OPTION NO. 3 -3- CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE i Grading on the site shall be limited to the minimum required for safe access and the structural requirements of the dwelling unit. Grading for the building pad shall not involve an area greater than 10,000 square feet. That area disturbed by grading other than that required for access or building foundation, including all visible cuts or fills must be contoured and landscaped to blend with the surrounding natural terrain prior to final inspection or within one year following completion of grading if construction has not commenced. OPTION NO. 4 - PREFERRED DEVELOPMENT AREA The ability of the city's design review process to insure proper siting of units within the hillside is directly proportional to the size of the parcel. Certain lots may not contain any acceptable sites while others may contain several. The larger the parcel, the greater the likelihood that suitable locations can be found. It is therefore advantageous to encourage the consolidation of smaller parcels so that sites can be developed according to aesthetic and environmental criteria instead of arbitrary existing property lines. It is also the city's desire to concentrate development on the less visible lower slopes. bination of The g p following option offers increased density for larger parcels or com parcels submitted under one development plan if at least ten acres are located in the preferred development area as shown on the zoning map. Density shall be based upon the following table: AREA DENSITY 10 - 19 acres 2 d.u./5 acres 20 acres 3 d.u./5 acres Site location, grading, roads and architectural design shall be as approved by the planning commission and design review board and shall minimize adverse aesthetic and environmental impacts and shall maximize 'the preservation of the natural character of the hillside. This option cannot be applied in conjunction with any other options. 25.25 n40 Abandoned uses. if pursuant to this section, an-existing building and or building site is to be a�.andoined, the abandoned building shall be removed from the site and properly disposed of and the site regraded and landscaped to blend with the terrain prior to any other building permits being issued for the property. 25.52.050 Circulation. A. Street alignments where possible shall parallel contours of the natural terrain and be located in valleys or on ridges so as not to be visible from the valley floor. ,�. _—Street—lighting,—whL r*Mlred—shall-bed-of -low'- profile—design- -an d _unobtrusive., „` .7 ti , tip' 617 y . '�' r, 25.25.060 Structural design. Site plan review in accord with Chapter 25.70 is required for all development. Structure height and setbacks shall be flexible in order to achieve the purposes of this section. 25.25.070 Fire protection. In areas where there will be a fire hazard, in the opinion of the fire agency, the following shall apply: A. Clearance of brush or vegetative growth from structures and roadways shall be in accordance with the uniform fire coke and approved by the fire agency. B. Roof shall be of incombustible material approved by the fire agency. C. All easements for fire breaks shall be dedicated to this purpose through recordation. D. All buildings shall be equipped with fire suppression automatic sprinkler systems approved by the fire marshal. 25.25.080 Erosion control. All manufactured slopes shall be planted or otherwise protected from the effects of storm runoff and erosion within thirty days after completion.of grading. Planting shall be designed to blend with the surrounding terrain and the character of development. 25 25 090 Preservation of open space. in order to insure permanent retention of the natural terrain as required under this title, a covenant approved by the city.attorney -4- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1982 further stated that she acquired four, five acre parcels along the bottom of the slopes based upon the recommendation in the old plan of a one dwelling unit per acre density. She objected to the new proposals since they might limit her to 4 to 8 units. She requested that higher density be allowed on her property and along the base of the mountains. ALAN PERRIER, 3001 Tahquitz-McCallum, Palm Springs, explained that he represented Mr. Fox, owner of 97 acres in the study area. He felt that the proposals were not adequately understood and severely limited his client's property. A great deal of time and effort went into the Palm Valley Specific Plan and implementation of its recommendation could result in high quality attractive development. He also objected to the prohibition of hotel development in the new plan's zone. He requested that the commission study the issues more thoroughly before making a decision. ROBERT RICCIARDI, 42-600 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, stated that he represented owners of 50 acres in the study area and argued that the slope formula and the development options were too rigid. He favored proposals which would give the commission greater flexibility in determining density and grading. He also requested a continuance so that alternative proposals could be developed. Vice Chairman Richards felt that the plan was not clear to the property owners in informing them of the number of dwelling units they could develop; more precise information as to permitted land uses should be provided. He concluded that this matter should be continued until then. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Wood, to continue the public hearing to a special meeting on November 8, 1992, at 7:00 p.m. for further study. C. CASE NO. PP 01-82 - J.P. CONSTRUCTION, INC., Applicants Request for approval of a precise plan to allow construction of three industrial buildings on a 101,045 sq.ft. parcel in the S.I. zone on the north side of Mayfair Drive, east of Green Way. Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report and recommended approval. Vice Chairman Richards opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MR. SVEND PEULIKCE, 74-831 Velie Way, stated he had not reviewed the conditions of approval and was not sure he concurred with them. Commission asked the applicant if he wished to continue this case to the next meeting. Mr. Peulikce agreed. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Wood, to continue this matter to the meeting of October 19, 1982, to allow the applicant further review of conditions of approval. V. ANNUAL,ELECTION OF OFFICERS - 1982/83 A. Nomination for Chairman Motion was made by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to nominate Commissioner Wood for Chairman for the year 1982/83. Carried unanimously. B. Nomination for Vice Chairman Motion was made by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to nominate Commissioner Richards for Vice Chairman for the year 1982/83. Carried unanimously. -4- _ 3� PALM DESERT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION 73-833 EL PASEO ' PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 / ✓ �u }��� TELEPHONE 346-2804 ( /� A ,Von-Profit Corporation 7 December 1982 Planning Commission City of Palm Desert Jentlemen: In a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Palm Desert Property Owners Association on December 7 , " 1982 , it was unanirmusly voted to recommend to your body t'iat there be no change at the present time in zon:k{tg in the Cahuilla Hills area. We are presently opposed to any zoning action that may re- sult in. any increase in residential density in the Cahuilla Hills area. Very ,truly yours , lei Tennison Present 3C MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 79 1982 and the council had chosen not to implement those densities. Regarding the question of hotel development, Mr. Diaz stated that the committee reviewing the plan had considered permitting hotels with a density equal to regular residential density, or in this case a 60 unit hotel. In response to Mr. Paul and Ms. Broerman, Mr. Diaz commented that the new proposals were not taking away development rights. The public hearing was opened in order to give the audience a chance for rebuttal. Mr. Fox stated that the people in the homestead area have been given an ultimatum and owners on upper hillside have been denied development. The public hearing was closed and a 10 minute recess called at 8:43 p.m. — The meeting reconvened at 8:55 p.m. Chairman Wood asked for comments from the commission. Commissioner Richards explained to the public that they are trying to do some honest planning. He disagreed with staff relative to Mr. Fox's property; he felt it was down-zoned as proposed and was inclined to separate this property from the others. He added that staff had done a good and thorough analysis in studying the matter. Commissioner Wood concluded with a statement that the commission had a very difficult job in making a decision and as a result not everyone would be happy with it. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 8301 recommending to the City Council to rescind the Palm Valley Area Specific Plan, and adoption of of The West Hills Specific Plan (GPA 03-82) and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact be approved. Carried 3-0-2 (Commissioners Crites and Richards abstained). Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to adopt findings and Planning Commission Resolution No. 831, recommending approval of a Change of Zone (C/Z 08-82) from R-E 1-3 d.u./5 acres D,H; PR-1 D,H; PR-2 D,H; PR-3 D,H; and O.S. to H-PR D and O.S. to C-1, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for property between the Palm Valley Channel and the western city limits. Carried 3-0-2 (Commissioners Crites and Richards abstained). Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 832, recommending approval to the City Council of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 11-82, creating the H-PR Hillside Planned Residential District, Chapter 25.25 and deleting the "H" Hillside Development Overlay District Chapter 25.52 and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. Carried 3-0-2 (Commissioners Crites and Richards abstained). VIIL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS - NONE IX. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS A. 173 C - LYNDALE MANOR - Request for approval to record an agreement in lieu of undergrounding existing utility poles in the C-1, S.P. zone located at the northwest corner of San Carlos Drive and North Palm Desert Drive. Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report and explained that the applicant was requesting to be a part of any future undergrounding district in lieu of the required undergrounding now. It was noted that the pole would have to be relocated if it's in the alley area, which is to be paved. Staff recommended approval. MR. PAUL HENRY, representative, was present to answer any questions the commission might have. Moved by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to approve the -4- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1982 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * planning process. Mr. Drell reviewed the differences in density between the previously adopted and the proposed plans. At this time Chairman Wood called for testimony from property owners in the hillside area who wished to speak. MR. GEORGE FOX, Chicago, owner of 97 acres, stated he has been working to create a proper development in that area for many years. He stated that in 1979 he was told that he could construct 350 unit hotel. He further stated that his proposed density is the same as he originally was down-zoned to in 197% and now he is being told that the city made a mistake. He felt he could develop a major project on his 97 acres that would enhance the area. He emphasized that he would save the site aesthetically and opposed the proposed plan. MR. TOM ESSON, engineer, 940 Villa Road, Palm Springs, spoke on behalf of the 97 acres owned by Mr. Fox. He presented a drawing of a slope analysis and explained the different impacts proposed developments might have on the hills. He also reviewed Mr. Fox's 1979 proposal. MR. ALAN PERRIER, attorney for Mr. Fox, explained how the property was zoned in 19699 1979, and under the present proposal. He felt that it was a mistake to adopt an ordinance that would preclude the development of a hotel. In reviewing minutes of hearings in 1979 for the specific plan, he felt thorough study was made and much time was spent, therefore, the plan should be implemented. He suggested implementation of the 1979 specific plan, elimination of roads on 35% slope, and upper hillside properties to meet same standards as the 5 acre parcels. MR. JAMES PAUL, owner of 4 acre parcels, felt cheated'because he has been restricted to develop and stated that Mr. Fox's desires should be more responsive. He also felt that his view of the valley floor had been destroyed by developments in the flat lands. MR. JEFFREY PAUL, felt that Commissioner Crites should reconsider his withdrawal in this matter. He stated that people in the flat lands do not want to see any development. MS. ELAINE BRODNEX BROERMAN, Pasadena, resented that her opportunity to develop on her property has been taken away. She stated that she has been a long time property owner and feels she has a right to develop. Chairman Wood closed the public hearing and asked staff to address the concerns expressed. Mr. Diaz responded to the concerns and issues raised during the public testimony portion of the public hearing. In response to Mr. Smith, he stated that the option to encourage lot consolidation was an attempt to try and locate hillside development to lower hillside areas and minimize the impact on higher slopes. He equated this type of option with existing planned residential zones which permit higher densities as a method of encouraging better development. He further stated that bridges across the channel were part of the present flood control program, and any bridges in addition to those being built as part of that program, would have to be as a result of an assessment district composed of affected property owners. He concluded that streets in the area would be private and not maintained by the city; the density of the area immediately east of the church was 3 units per acre which was lower than similar property on the west side of the channel. In response to the question of access, Mr. Diaz replied that the bridges which were part of the present Palm Desert Redevelopment Plan would resolve that problem. In response to comments made by Mr. Fox and his representatives, Mr. Diaz stated that the proposed action was not a down-zoning. Under current regulations which were in effect since 1975 the total number of units that could be developed in the area owned by Mr. Fox was 3 to 5; the proposed regulations would permit nearly 60 units. Mr. Diaz further stated that while the 1979 plan called for higher densities than those proposed under the current plan the zoning regulations were never revised and higher densities never existed; -3- �5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1982 Declaration of Environmental Impact, involving hillside development standards for property generally located between the Palm Valley Storm Channel and western city limits. Mr. Drell reviewed the changes to the proposed ordinance as a result of the previous hearing. He described a new development option which permitted increased density for larger sites or combination of parcels submitted under one development plan if at least ten acres are located in the preferred development area as shown on the zoning map. The object of this option was to encourage hillside property owners to merge their acreage and discourage development in the higher hillside areas. It was noted that the Palm Desert Property Owners Association submitted a letter to the planning commission recommending rejection of any changes to hillside development standards. Staff recommended approval of a general plan amendment, change of zone, and zoning ordinance amendment. Chairman Wood explained that based on the advice of the city attorney, Commissioner Crites would abstain from discussion and vote. Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this matter. MRS. ALEXIS NEWBRANDER, 46-260 Cottage Lane, Palm Desert, commended staff for their efforts. She described the hillsides in Palm Springs and Rancho Mirage as overbuilt, and feared the same would occur here. She urged approval of the proposed plan and amendments. MRS. MARIAN HENDERSON, 73-595 Pinyon Street, Palm Desert, president of Desert Beautiful, felt that the protection of the hills is invaluable and recommended that no changes be made until further study is made. MR. GEORGE SMITH, representing the Palm Desert Presbyterian Church, stated that they have been concerned with this matter for a long time. The specific concerns were density, right-of-way and maintenance of roads, and bridges. He felt the new option was a "gerrymander" method to encourage development. He also felt that all these concerns should be studied further. MR. WILLIAM PRAY, 73-385 Joshua, Palm Desert, concurred that this matter needed further study. MR. HANK CLARK, 73-183 Willow, stated there were many concerns expressed and added that he was not aware of the proposed changes to the general plan. He felt that the concerns were obvious: scaring of the hillside and channel; tremendous expense to build a bridge; water and sewer; maintenance of roads; and, vandalism. He requested denial at this time. Commssioner Richards stated that many people present were not at the previous hearings and asked staff to reiterate the problems and purpose of this hearing. Mr. Diaz explained that the proposed general plan amendment called for lowering. the residential densities set forth in the 1979 Palm Valley Channel Specific Plan. He stated that the present zoning regulations were inconsistent with the current plan and that such an inconsistency was in violation of the state law. The inconsistency occurs because present hillside -development regulations preclude the development of densities set forth in the Palm Valley Channel Specific Plan. Mr. Diaz then stated that, earlier this year, at a joint meeting of the council and commission, the options to correct this inconsistency were identified; either revise the plan or the ordinance. Because the current plan was based on inaccurate data and the densities set forth were unacceptable, staff was instructed to prepare a new plan and a committee composed of councilmen and commissioners was created. Mr. Diaz concluded that prior to the first public hearing a general meeting was held and property owners inside the planning area and within three feet were notified; in addition, numerous press releases were made during the entire. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - DECEMBER 79 1982 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Downs in. ROLL CALL Members Present: Commissioner Crites Commissioner Downs Commissioner Kryder Commissioner Richards Chairman Wood Staff Present: Ramon Diaz Stan Sawa Phil Drell Steve Smith Phil Joy Linda Russell Al Cablay Doug Phillips IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 16, 1982 Chairman Wood approved the minutes as submitted. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL. ACTION Mr. Diaz reviewed the actions of the Council for the meeting of December 2, 1982. VL CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the planning commission or audience request specific items be removed from the consent calendar for separate discussion and action. A. DP 03-791, TT 14803, and 183 MF - KAUL CONSTRUCTION CO. - Request for approval of an one year time extension of a development plan, tentative tract, and design review case for a 36 unit condominium project on the south side of Country Club Drive, approximately 245 feet east of Sagewood Drive. B. CUP 07-31 and 232 MF, GII.ANO DEVELOPMENT CORP. - Request for approval of an one year time extension of a conditional use permit and design review case for a 13 unit condominium project on Ryway Place, 250 feet north of Grapevine Street. C. DP 08-819 3OF FINANCIAL CORP. - Request for approval of an one year time extension of a development plan for a 168 unit condotel on the south side of Highway 111, approximately 300 feet east of Shadow Hills Road. Rec: Approve as presented. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to approve the consent calendar items as presented. Carried unanimously 5-0. VIL PUBLIC HEARINGS A. tmued Case Nos. GPA 03-929 C/Z 08-92 and ZOA 11-82 - CITY OF ALM DESERT!', Applicant Consideration of a general plan amendment, change of zone, zoning ordinance amendment, and Negative PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE PALM VALLEY AREA SPECIFIC PLAN BE RESCINDED, THAT THE WEST HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN BE ADOPTED AND THAT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT PERTAINS THERETO BE APPROVED. CASE NO. GPA 03-82 WHEREAS, the planning commission did on the 5th day of October, 1982, hold a duly noticed public hearing and a continued public hearing on November 8, 1982 and December 7, 1982, to consider the rescinding of the Palm Valley Area Specific Plan and the adoption of the West Hills Specific Plan relating to hillside development policies for the area generally bound by the Palm Valley Channel and the western city limits; and, WHEREAS, the director of environmental services has determined that the amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on this environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering the testimony and arguments of all persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to recommend the rescinding of the Palm Valley Area Specific Plan and the adoption of the West Hills Specific Plan: 1. The policies contained within the Palm Valley Area Specific Plan were based upon a faulty topographic analysis and contradict long standing city goals concerning development of steep hillside areas. 2. The implementation of the policies contained within the Palm Valley Area Specific Plan would result in a threat to the public health, safety and general welfare of the entire community. 3. The proposed West Hills Specific Plan provides policies which will both fulfill the city's desire to preserve the environment and allow property owners a reasonable use of. their land. 4. The West Hills Specific Plan will ensure the preservation of the public health, safety and general welfare of the entire community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the planning commission of the City Bert of Palm Desert, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council that the Palm Valley Area Specific Plan be rescinded and that the West Hills Specific Plan be adopted for reasons set out in this resolution. 3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is hereby recommended for approval. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of December, 1982, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary 2: INITIAL STUDY NOTES FOR "MAYBE" AND "YES" RESPONSES FOR CASE NOS. GPA 03-82, C/Z 08-82 AND ZOA 11-82 1C. The proposed policies and zoning could result in extensive grading of already flat sites but would severely limit grading within the hillside. Modification of prominant geologic features would be prohibited. Density transfers and site development standards are designed to retain natural topography to the greatest extent possible. 3A & C. Development within drainageways will be required to channel or otherwise control flood waters. In certain cases this might involve changes in the course of water movement. Under no circumstances will the proposals result in greater flood hazards to downstream properties. 5A. Developments will cause a localized alteration in animal diversity especially in the lower flat areas. Within the hillside, development will be confined to 5% of the acreage with minimal destruction of habitat. 12. Although the proposal will eliminate all designated open space, the development standards require that 95% of the hillside be retained in a natural state. Li 6. Yes Maybe No 25. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or to curtail the diversity in the environment' b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future. ) c. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resourc= is relatively small , but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) _ d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings , either directly or indirectly? _ Initial Study Prepared By: 1V Yes Maybe No 18. Public Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal result in a net change in government fiscal flow (revenues less operating expenditures and annualized capital expenditures)? 19. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need �o new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications system? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? JG 20. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. The creation of any health hazard or Potential health hazard? b. A change in the level of community health care provided? 21. Social Se r"ices. Will the proposal res-ult in an increased denand for provision of general social services? 22. Aesthetics . Will the proposal result in: a. Obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? _ — b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? c. lessening of the overall neighborhood (or area) attractiveness, pleasantness, / and uniqueness? ✓ 23. Licht and G— Will the proposal produce ew — _ n :ght ar g gT are? 24. Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, / object, or building? V/ y4 , 4. ` Yes Maybe No 14. Emolo ent. Will the proposal result in add�tiona new long-term jobs provided, or a change in the number and per cent employed, unemployed, and underemployed? y/ 15. Housing. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in number and per cent of housing units by type (price or rent range, zoning category, owner-occupied and rental , etc. ) relative to demand or to number of families in various income classes in the City? b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a demand for additional housing? _ _✓ 16. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal resu t in: - a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? _ _ ✓/ c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? _ _ ✓ d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation — — or movement of people and/dr goods? e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , / bicyclists, or pedestrians? ✓ 17. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon , or result in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? _ _ _✓ b. Police protection? _ _ ✓ c. Schools? _ _ _✓ d. Parks or other recreational facilities? ✓ e. Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? f. Other governmental services? }Z � 3. Yes ltbe No 6. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in :.the rate of use of any natural resources? - r � —• b. Depletion ofaany non-renewable natural resource? / 7. Energy. Will the proposal result in: Jt . a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Cemand upon existing sources of energy, or re- quire the.deselopment of new sources of energy? 8. Risk of Uoset t iDoes the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, bui not limited to, pesticides, oil , chemicals, or radiation) in ' the event of an accident or upset conditions? 1� !� 9. Econo=cLoss. Will the pruposal result in: A- a. A change in -the value of property and improvements endangered by flooding? t b. A change in the value of property and improvementsrexposed to geologic hazards beyond accepted carlruni�y risk standards? 10. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels toathe point at which accepted community noise and vibration levels are exceeded? ✓ 11. Land Use. Willathe proposal result in the !'Iteration of the present developed or planned land use of an area? ✓ _ 12. Open Soace. Will the proposal lead to a decrease in the :umount of designated open space? 13. Population. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteration oie the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population Of- the City? b. Change in the population distribution by age, income, *eligion, racial , or ethnic group, occupational class, household type? l r Yes Maybe No 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a.-. Changes. in currents, 'or the course or 1 ` direction of water' movements? "` . b. Changes in-absorptfian rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and- amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of / flood waters? — _✓ d. Alteration of.the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? e. Change in the quantity of ground` waters, 1 either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an j aquifer by cuts or excavations? V/ f. Reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? ✓ 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass , and craps )? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, / or endangered species of plants? ✓ c. Introduction of new species of plants into p p o an area , or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? S. Animal. Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds , land animals including reptiles, or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers s any unique, — — rare, or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals Into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to exittinn .,,,iA74ra 1000 CASE N0. 6P�03 u I:Yi OIRONifE:`TT3L SERVICES DEPT. INITIAL STUDY EYi 9IROY51E.NTAL ZVALUATION CSECXLIST NOTE: The availability of data necessary to address the topics listed below shall form the basis of a decision as to whether the application is considered complete for purposes of environmental assessment. ENVIROffMENNTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers, possible mitigation measures and comments are provided on attached sheets) . Yes Maybe No 1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? — _ — b. Oisruptions, displacements, compaction, or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? _ - d. The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? N/ c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? h Dexter Woods 751 F. Avenue Coronado, Ca. 92118 October 31, 1982 pity of Palm Desert Palm Desert, California Dear Alp 1 � )7 2 I believe that the basic zoning the 1979 Specific Plan for the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Area was establishing was carefully studied thought out, and conservative. One unit per acre on the lower lots and 1 to 3 max. units on the higher lots with more visibility was agreeable to everyone. The D/H overlay was left on stricktly to compliment and work in conjunction with the underlying zoning. The Specific Plan also states that re-evaluation should take place in five years when' enough time has passed to bring about changes. Only two years have passed and the City of Palm Desert is wanting to radically down-zone our hills from what ve had established in 1979. Why? Please refer to the attached which is page 103 from the Specific Plan. Issue #5 refers to density flexibility on the 5 acre lots. Please reconsider the alternatives you are now proposing! Sincerely, Dexter oods (�J Lots #20, #21, and #26 Section #30, Palm-Desert P.S. Please have this letter and accomanying paragraph from the attached page 103 made part of your Nov. 8th meeting. Z5 _ ..rs. Wilflarl H. Cree, Jr. ;-CO DcVon Mace Long ?eae'.h. California 9�207 October 21, 1982. li Mr. Ray Diaz, Director Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, California 92260 Dear Ray: itHaving lived in the Phoenix-Scottsdale area of Arizona, which is world- i renowned for its beautiful desert and mountains (Camelback Mt. . Mummy Mt. , etc. ), I couldn't help but see potential for esthetic improvement in the hills of Palm Desert which are dotted with nothing but tiny home- steaders' shacks. With this in mind, I purchased my initial two 5-acre lots in Sec. 30 of the hills of Palm Desert in 1978. From December ' 78 thru July 179, I ! attended all the meetings the City conducted in their study for the area west of the Coachella Valley Water Channel. These seven month long. in depth studies concluded in August '79 with the passing of Ordinance #212 which was unanimously approved by Councilmen Roy Wilson, Alexis Newbrander and Mayor Pro-Tem. James E. McPherson. Based upon these public hearings and guided by the subsequent reports issued by the City of Palm Desert. I purchased an additional four 5-acre parcels located at the base of the hillsides which were now zoned PR-1. I have attached the ordinance which lists all the lots in Sec. 30 with ".eir new zoning designations and have circled the ones I purchased; four at the base of the hillside are PR-1 and the two with higher elevations are listed as 2 units per 5-acre parcel. CERTAINLY THIS IS CONSERVATIV ZONING FOR THESE HILLSIDES! Especially when the City plans to zone the flatter portions of Section 30, THREE UNITS PER ACRE, which is contiguous/adjacent/in front of my lower lots). . . . . The property I purchased does not fall into this category; had I chosen to buy land with less than a 100 slope, much acreage was available for purchase in 1979 on the East side of Hiway #74 for a lot less money than I was spending for the viewsite lots I purchased based on Ordinance #212 and the zoning it i designated. I respectfully ask the City of Palm Desert NOT TO DOWN-ZONE my property, which the three new alternatives the City is considering would do. I feel the City has an obligation to me to at least retain the zoning upon which I based my purchase in 1979, for a reasonable period of time. My four lots at the base of the hillsides have beautiful viewsite ridges which an accomplished hillside architect can utilize to minimize obtru- sive structures yet maintain maximum views. A master plan and design i 40 City of Palm Desert " October 21, 1982 Page Two. j review hoard can control this. I plan to be a resident of these hills in Palm Desert and would like to be a member of this design review board l to help create and maintain a hillside with dignity that is in keeping with I the beauty of the surrounding desert. li I look forward to and would appreciate a reply to my letter. i I� i V r�y yours, i 1 Dori G. Cree i 4 1 October 27 , 1982 Mr . & Mrs . Fred Beyl Box '773 Lake Arrowhead , Ca . 92352 Att : Planning Commission City Council City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Ca . Dear Mr. Diaz; Director of Environmental Services : We understand that Mayor Wilson has been the chairman of a "hillside study group ' made up of Buford Crites and George Kryder and staff and that it was this study group who recommended the 3 alternatives to the 1979 Specific Plan for the area west of the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel. We cannot fathom how in just this short period of time , the same people who were involved in that long study of the hillsides in 1979 can now come up with these 3 new alternatives which in essence literally will keep our hillsides from properly developing.' In 1979 , we property owners and the City concluded that we did not want to see the hills overly developed. The zoning arrived at in the July , 1979 meeting was an average of two units per five acres on the elevated lots and one unit per acre on the lower lots (which is where our 8 acres is located) . It was reasoned at that time that this was NOT EXCESSIVE density for land that was going to be so costly to develope . We request that the Planning Commission and the City Council look into the 1979 zoning conclusions and reconsider its dramatic reversal of one unit to five acres. Please . . . . . give us an alternative we can live with: .' These are our precious VIEW LOTS. 997acM/.c We 've held on to this property f6r over 20 years waiting for the City ' s growth (bridges) to reach us and now suddenly the City wants to give us this complicated slope formulas which we lay people don t even begin to understand BUT which keeps us, when all is said and done , from building on our lots . Mayor Wilson who was then on the City Council and George Kryder and Alexis Newbrander and James McPherson all were present at those meetings in 1979 and they voted on our new zoning (see enclosed) . You told us one thing then and now why are you same people reversing your ideals of just 2 years hence? Something just doesn 't seem right . . . . . We owned land (where Sommerset Villas on Hiway #74 is located) and sold it because there was no slope . We opted to keep our view sites The City of Palm Desert. has a responsibility to us property owners West of the Stormwater Channel. Please make this letter part of Your Nov . 8th meeting. Sincerely yours , Fred & Mary Beyl 'r2 Mr. Phillip Drell September 15, 1982 Assistant Planner City of Palm Desert I received your notice in regards to the public review and discussion on September 22, 1982, regarding planning and zoning for hillside property. I will be unable to attend the meeting. I want to let you know that we would like to retain the zoning on our property as currently exists.We feel the best use for this property would be for recreational commercial , along Painters Path. Best Regards Mike Moss (314) 741-6506 2444 Fair Acres St. Louis, Mo. 63136 43 PROOF OF PUBLIC:..SON This space tthe County Clerk's Filing Stamp (2015.5 C.C.P.) �I 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 Proof of Publication of years, and not a party to or interested in the above- Ho.19o4 CITY or PALM DESERT. ................................ entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer ? CAsiwos cPAcsa+s,. cfz @M and i0A 11-a2 of the DESERT SUN PUBLISHING COMPANY a news NOTICE Public HEREBY GIVEN __.._._.__ that a forehearing will be.............................. hild before the Palm' o con- paper of general circulation, printed and published .der a request by city of Palm Desert for a general plan amendnunt,toning or nonce in the City of Palm Springs, County of Riverside, amendmeat, change of zone end a negative declaration of and which newspaper has been adjudged a news- faI st �eto�i vooi Iny n11161 a to ant stonderde for roperty between the at paper of general circulation by the Superior Court eelNY storm cnaanalnd aIna vrastern.clry llmlri more.par- .ticuloriydeecrttMd-p: -: of the County of Riverside, State of California, under c venlaasots.c+ldtls to tgrw, 'wilt_.. be the date of August 5, 1927, Case Number 53125; nyI` that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed left = copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has ab I ' b.-an published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof �✓ on the following dates, to-wit: y S.eot.emb.e:..25.. .. ..... .......................... ................................................ .. ... ......... all in the year 19..aa. I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Palm Springs, California this ---- 5th day of ......S-ept.emblzr....................1, 19..a2.. ........ ........... Signature PROOF OF PUBLICATION December 21, 1982 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. GPA 03-82, C/Z 08-82 and ZOA 11-82 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by the City of Palm Desert for a general plan amendment (rescinding the Palm Valley Specific Plan and substituting the West Hills Specific Plan), a zoning ordinance amendment, change of zone and negative declaration of environmental impact as it pertains thereto, involving hillside development standards for property between the Palm Valley Storm Channel and the western city limits more particularly described as: PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 18, 19, 30, and 31, T5S R6E Is • •' , N>Hs xswi,try _ ' :••: I.�= ;sic S SAID public hearing will be held on January 13, 1983, at 7:00 p.m., in the council chambers at the Palm Desert City Hall, 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission PUBLISH: Palm Desert Post December 30, 1982 /pa I September 22, 1982 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. GPA 03-82, C/Z 08-82 and ZOA 11-82 0 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by the City of Palm Desert for a general plan amendment, zoning ordinance amendment, change of zone and a negative declaration of environmental impact as it pertains thereto, involving hillside development standards for property between the Palm Valley Storm Channel and the western city limits more particularly described as: PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 18, 19, 30 and 31, T5S R6E ,r�' :�� :�'�� ice--•.ice I— �'rr . li �I �� i •;•lr \.• 4 1 !p: u. /irk'i/'Y /��!L(�+ .,i•s�C nV`� i, a., •1 \j( II�r-'"_—L�:��''(mac•-' ��-r�s_.�9__I jib /� '--ram... , ` «• �.-�.. v..rv.— •C '7�7� ./,�I - '-iij..'_�g.r ;�.........� ..�' d� 'j i•'') �lr.l:�� . SAID public hearing will be held on October 5, 1982, at 7:00 P.M., in the council chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall, 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission PUBLISH: Desert Sun September.25, 1982 /pa 4+- PALM DESERT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION 73-833 EL PASEO PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE 346-2804 �• /� A Non-Profit Corporation 7 December 1982 Planning Commission City of Palm Desert Gentlemen: In a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Palm Desert Property Owners Association on December 7, 1982 , it was unanimously voted to recommend to your body that there be no change at the present time in zoning in the Cahuilla Hills area. We are presently opposed to any zoning action that may re- sult in any increase in residential density in the Cahuilla Hills area. Very truly yours , iW lliam Tennison' Present 1 Y l+� gw URI�f''1 cr?ll�"'711, 1� NOV ' 1 1982 850 'lohth Wtey Stteet Bunbatk, Ca. 91505 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DESERT October 29 1982 TO: PLANNING CO(,VITS�0. PALM CITY COUNCIL DIRECTOR OF ENVIRON4ENTAL SERVICES DEAR CITY OFFICIAL: (Ve ante dismayed with yniuc neU three aP,te natives Soh owc hitttsides west os .the sto)LmunteA ehamiet. 1. Yowc scope aizaCysis Sotmu a is so dis6i.eu.tt .that you need to be an engineeA to Sigute out ia'iat you're saying, We had an engineeA do Just that and what you ante tettiiig as is: YOU (IANT TO KEEP THE HILLS OF PALM DESERT THE WAY THEY .ARE SHANTY 1 ?'N OF PALAf DESERT: : 2. The onntets o6 .the STnteA portions get to have 3 units pen acne . . . . . . white the heat o6 us get w p ac, ea. . . . . . Sometl7ing Just doesn't seem night oa 5a,vA heAe. . . . 3. Fft. IfuSoAd rtUe_s is a member os .the lu:f.Psi.de study group which made .these neco tecemmendations Sot .the chmtges .to the Specisic PCan os 1979. He .its ei.v.uig on a 1 4, 114 acne getgeous vivo-bite .Cot in ouA h.iit.5 wit%ch is 1 £ 112 mite SRom .the centeie o6 Pa Cm Deseh.t.. He has handty anybody ePse tiv.i.ng thence coitlt him in those hilts and has .the pczAadise o6 COUNTRY LIVING in .the City Limits. (le get the Setting that it is peopte Eihe trim who wouEd .Like to beep that atca o6 Patm DeseAt the roay it .its. . . . Is theAe a consti.ct os uttetuts heAc?? 4. What happened to the Sine study we a t worked so hand on in 1979? An aveAage oj 2 routs per Sive acres is Aeasonabft Sot t_and that fl;W be 40 lte&Ubty expensive ,or us pcopeAty owners ta_ceUe3­pe! Please have this tetteh Lead out Coud at you Nov. 8th meeting with the Ptanning Commission as it is doubtsuf that I taLtt be able to attend. I sineeActy hope that the City is going to make a mote thorough study o6 owe hiZtsides using .the Specisie Min St:idy and aP.t the vaCuabte in6o)tmation thereat. Please AcSex to the attached which is a page out o6 .that plan which exptains and discusses the "D £ H ZONING DESIGNATIONS" Isn't this basicafty .the whote issue why the Spcci6ic Plan is now trying to be Revised? You" ttu2y, aell. � A. C. MONTENARO LOT 0 38, SECTION 030, CITY OF PALM DESERT Discussion of Issues Page' 'D o ISSUE NO. 2 -Clarify the D and H zoning overlay designations as shown on the recommended plan. DISCUSSION The D and H zoning designations used in the proposed Specific Plan refer to unique drainageway and hillside characteristics to be considered prior to the development of any ].and within the subject study area. The overlay zones are -intended to be compatible with and work-in conjunction with the basic under- lying district. It should ID6 noted that both the D and H overlay zones have already been attached to much of the property within the study area. Inacnuch as the severely sloped area has essentially been eliminated from development by zoning such lands as Open Space, the hillside overlay zone applied to the balance of the study area is used primarily for the purpose of providing ,,flexibility and compatibility of design for individual projects or residences to the sufrbunding terrain. It should be noted that under the proposed plan, the computation of minimum acreage per dwelling unit and the percent of a lot to remain in the natural state based on slope percentage has been eliminated. The D overlay zone, which refers to natural drainageways, has been included because of the need to provide a method of draining the hillside areas to the Palm Valley StorTmvater Channel as development progresses. While much of the drainageway overlay zone would remain intact, the proposed Specific Plan recommends that a hydrologist be required to locate appropriate drainage courses and provide for proper management of run-off. For your information and comparison, copies of the existing hillside and drainageway overlay rla districts and those proposed as a part of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area Specific Plan are attached hereto, following the discussion of issues. ISSUE NO. 3 Reconsider the proposed access points and collector roads, specifically: access from Painters Path; access from Thrush Road; continued use of at-grade crossings; fewer bridge crossings; and alternatives to paving on hillsides. DISCUSSION A variety of access points and collector road systems were analyzed as part of the Palm Valley Stonimater Channel Area Specific Plan. These alternatives can be noted on the land use alternatives identified as Nos. 1 through 5 in the subject study. They range from a single access road entering the study area at Painters Path and parallelling the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel with no bridge crossings recommended; to the recommended alternative which provides for three bridge crossings and two independent collector roads. The locations for the proposed bridge crossings and collector roads were selected for the recommended plan on the basis of topography, their ability to serve existing development in the study area, their potential for future extension to provide an integrated traffic circulation network within and between the study area and Ca,huilla Hills, the direct access provided from existing major arterial streets and the existing location of public sewer and water service lines. 'Al Dexter Woods 751 P. Avenue Coronado, Ca. 92118 October 31, 1982 pity of Palm Desert Palm Desert, California Dear Alp . �/4 Z I believe that the basic zoning the 1979 Specific Plan for the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Area was establishing was carefully studied, thought out, and conservative. One unit per acre on the lower lots and 1 to 3 max. units on the higher lots with more visibility was agreeable to everyone. The D/H overlay was left on stricktly to compliment and work in conjunction with the underlying zoning. The Specific Plan also states that re-evaluation should take place in five years when enough time has passed to bring about changes. Only two years have passed and the City of Palm Desert is wanting to radically down-zone our hills from what we had established in 1979. Why? Please refer to the attached which is page 103 from the Specific Plan. Issue #5 refers to density flexibility on the 5 acre lots. Please reconsider the alternatives you are now proposing! Sincerely, ➢exter nods Lots #20, #21, and #26 Section 1130, Palm Desert P.S. Please have this letter and accomanying paragraph from the attached page 103 made part of your Nov. 8th meeting. a ;i Mrs. STriMam 11. Cree, Jr. p S' f- 5®0 Devon Mae- JN Long Beach, CaaRforeila 90807 QC-( 2 9 1982 October 2J.,, 1,98 � `2-RV10ES ETIVW010"V6_ .. Mr. Ray Diaz, Director Environmental Services CITY OF PMtA ° S`1' City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, California 92260 Dear Ray; Having lived in the Phoenix-Scottsdale area of Arizona, which is world- renowned for its beautiful desert and mountains (Camelback Mt. , Mummy Mt. , etc. ), I couldn't help but see potential for esthetic improvement in the hills of Palm Desert which are dotted with nothing but tiny home- steaders' shacks. With this in mind, I purchased my initial two 5-acre lots in Sec. 30 of the hills of Palm Desert in 1978. From December. ' 78 thru July 179, I attended all the meetings the City conducted in their study for the area west of the Coachella Valley Water Channel. These seven month long, in depth studies concluded in August '79 with the passing of Ordinance #212 which was unanimously approved by Councilmen Roy Wilson, Alexis Newbrander and Mayor Pro-Tem. James E. McPherson. Based upon these public hearings and guided by the subsequent reports issued by the City of Palm Desert, I purchased an additional four 5-acre parcels located at the base of the hillsides which were now zoned PR-I. I have attached the ordinance which lists all the lots in Sec. 30 with their new zoning designations and have circled the ones I purchased; four at the base of the hillside are PR-1 and the two with higher elevations are listed as 2 units per 5-acre parcel. CERTAINLY THIS IS CONSERVATIV ZONING FOR THESE HILLSIDES! Especially when the City plans to zone the flatter portions of Section 30, THREE UNITS PER ACRE, which is contiguous/adjacent/in front of my lower lots). . . . . The property I purchased does not fall into this category; had I chosen to buy land with less than a 10° slope, much acreage was available for purchase in 1979 on the East side of Hiway #74 for a lot less money than I was spending for the viewsite lots I purchased based on Ordinance #212 and the zoning it designated. I respectfully ask the City of Palm Desert NOT TO DOWN-ZONE my property, which the three new alternatives the City is considering would do. I feel the City has an obligation to me to at least retain the zoning upon which I based my purchase in 1979. for a reasonable period of time. My four lots at the base of the hillsides have beautiful viewsite ridges which an accomplished hillside architect can utilize to minimize obtru- sive structures yet maintain maximum views. A master plan and design J i City of Palm Desert October 21, 1982 Page Two. i review board can control this. I plan to be a resident of these hills in Palm Desert and would like to be a member of this design review board to help create and maintain a hillside with dignity that is in keeping with the beauty of the surrounding desert. I look forward to and would appreciate a reply to my letter. V ry truly yours, t Dori G. Cree S i { October 27 , 1982 Mr . & Mrs . Fred Beyl Box 773 Att : Planning Commission Lake Arrowhead, Ca . 92352 City Council City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Ca . Dear Mr . Diaz ; Director of Environmental Services : We understand that Mayor Wilson has been the chairman of a "hillside study group ' made up of Buford Crites and George Kryder and staff and that it was this study group who recommended the 3 alternatives to the 1979 Specific Plan for the area west of the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel. We cannot fathom how in just this short period of time , the same people who were involved in that long study of the hillsides in 1979 can now come up with these 3 new alternatives which in essence literally will keep our hillsides from properly developing! In 1979, we property owners and the City concluded that we did not want to see the hills overly developed . The zoning arrived at Ln t e u y £6; L9 /9 meeting was an average of two units per five acres on the elevated lots and one unit per acre on the lower lots (which is where our 8 acres is located) . It was reasoned at that time that this was NOT EXCESSIVE density for land that was going to be so costly to develope . We request that the Planning Commission and the City Council look into the 1979 zoning conclusions and reconsider its dramatic reversal of one unit to five acres . Please . . . . . give us an alternative we can live with: : These are our precious VIEW LOTS. r---� %97 ac M�c We 've held on to this property f dr over 20 years waiting for A/t/V 4 the City ' s growth (bridges) to reach us and now suddenly the �� 7 City wants to give us this complicated slope formulas which we lay people don t even begin to understand BUT which key eps us, when all is said and done , from building on our lots . Mayor Wilson who was then on the City Council and George Kryder and Alexis Newbrander and James McPherson all were present at those meetings in 1979 and they voted on our new zoning (see enclosed) . You told us one thing then and now why are you same people reversing your ideals of just 2 years hence? Something just doesn 't seem right . . . . . We owned land (where Sommerset Villas on Hiway #74 is located) and sold it because there was no slope . We opted to keep our view sites The City of Palm Desert has a responsibility to bs property owners West of the Stormwater Channel. Please make this letter part of Your Nov. 8th meeting. 1 Sincerely yours, Fred & Mary Beyl cJ�y,tt-�isp O`tFts Mr. Phillip Drell September 15, 1982 v,t pP� Assistant Planner EN`Ty op City of Palm Desert I received your notice in regards to the public review and discussion on September 22, 1982, regarding planning and zoning for hillside property. I will be unable to attend the meeting. I want to let you know that we would like to retain the zoning on our property as currently exists.We feel the best use for this property would be for recreational commercial , along Painters Path. Best Regards At,— Mike Moss (314) 741-6506 2444 Fair Acres St. Louis, Mo. 63136 PALM DESERT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION 73-833 EL PASEO PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 ✓` -o.J p/P TELEPHONE 346-2804 /� A Non-Profit Corporation 7 December 1982 Planning Commission City of Palm Desert gentlemen: in a regular meeting of the Board o- Directors of. the Palm Desert Property C...ners Association on December. 7 , 1982 , it was unani+tiously voted to recommend to your body t'1at there be no change at the present time in zoning in the Cahuilla Hills area. We are presently opposed to any zoning action that may re- sult in any increase in residential density in the Cahuilla Hills area. Very truly yours , i7 lliam Tennison Present ORDINANCF. NO . 212 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DELETING SECTIONS 25 . 14 . 050 THROUGH 25 . 14. 140 AND REPLACING THEM WITH SECTIONS 25 . 14 . 050 THROUGH 25 . 14. 100 PERTAINING TO RESIDENTIAL ESTATE ZONES , AMENDING SECTIONS 25 . 52 . 060 AND 21 . 52 . 111 , AND 25 , 41, 010 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO HILLSIDE DEVELOP- MENT, AND AMENDING SECTION 25 . 92 ET. SEQ . OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR VARIOUS PARCELS OF LAND, TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOM P7ENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE ADOPTED PALM VALLEY STORMWATER CHANNEL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, CASE NOS . ZOA 02-79 AND C/Z 06-79 . The City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, pursuant to City Municipal Code Sections 25 . 82 . 060 and 25. 84. 080, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as follows : SECTION 1 : That Sections 25 . 14. 050 through 25 . 14. 140 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code are hereby deleted and replaced with Sections 25 . 14 . 050 through 25 . 14 . 100 and Sections 25 . 52 . 060, 25 . 52 . 090 and 25 . 46 . 070 are hereby amended, as shown on the attached Exhibit , labeled "Exhibit A" . SECTION 2 : That the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Section 25 . 92 et, seq . , the Zoning Map, is hereby amended to change the zone for various parcels of land as illustrated and described in the attached Exhibits , labeled Exhibits 'B' and ' C ' . SECTION 3 : The City .Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this Ordinance in the Palm Desert Post , a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and the same shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. *PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this 9th_ day of August , 1979, by the following vote, to wit: AYES : Brush, .eNewbrander, Wilson & McPherson r , 'NOES : None ABSENT: Mullins i ABSTAIN: None EDWARD D. MUL NS , Mayor or JAMBS E. cPHERSON, Mayor Pro-Tem ATTEST: , SHEILA R. G IGAN, C ' C er 1 City of Palm Desert , lifornia ,VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS . REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AND MAP TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOM11ENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE P PALM VALLEY STOPJRJATER CHANNEL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN. CASE NO . CZ 06-79 AND ZOA 02-79 Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing OPEN and asked Staff for their report : Mr . Crump reported that by its action on April 18 , 1979 , the Planning Commission enacted to hold a Public Hearing on this Case No . The Planning Commission made five changes to Planning Commission Resolution No. 497 , four of those pertaining to wording of the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment. The remaining change pertained to the Resolution wording of the justification for the Zone Change . Based on Justification Recommendation from Staff, it was recommended to annrgvtl the Change of Zone by adnPr;nn o ce No. 212. Mayor Mullins invited input in FAVOR of the Request , and none was offeredC. ; li"' vit'ed in aPppS T `"one-was offered. , He declared the Public' Hearing CLOSED-----`— �a-_•On--a-motion by. Counc3-l-da-n IIEP.her—§on; seconded by Councilman ce`- 2 Brush, Ordinan passed t_o second reading�y a 4-0-1 vote . E::HIBIT "C" 'Page 2 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 212 ASSESSOR' S PROPOSED PARCEL NUMBER CHANGE OF ZONES RE 43 , 560 H �2 �- t II. RE 43 , 560 H 628-120-11 RE 43 , 560 H to RE 1-3du/5ac. ,D.H. 628-030-01 RE 43 , 560 H to RE 1-3du/5ac. ,D. H. 6-8-030-02 RE 43 , 560 H to RE 1-3du/5ac. ,D.H. 628-030-03 RE 43 , 560 H to RE 1-3du/5ac. ,D.H. 628-030-04 RE 43 , 560 H to RE 1-3du/5ac. ,D. H. 628-030-06 RE 43 , 560 H to RE 1-3du/5ac. ,D.H_ 628-030-10 RE 43 , 560 H to PR-1 , D.H. 628-030-05 RE 43 , 560 H to RE 1-3du/5ac. ,D.H. 628-030-07 RE 43 , 560 H to RE 1-3du/5ac. ,D.H. 628-030-08 RE 43 , 560 H to P_f%-1 ,1) _H.:. 628-030-09 RE 43 , 560 H to RE I-3du/5ac. ,D. H. 628-030-11 RE 43 , 560 H to PR-1, D.H. 628-020-08 RE-- H to PR-3 , D.H. 628-020-09 RE 43 , 560 H to PR-3 , D.H. 628-020-010 RF. 43 . 5Fn F to RE 1-3du/5ac...D. H.- 628-130-13 RE 43 , 560 D. H.to RE 1-3du/5ac. , D_1 628-130-14 RE 43 , 560 D.H.to PR-1 ,D.H. 628-130-15 RE 43 , 560 D.H.to PR-3 ,D. H. 628-120-01 RE 4.3 , 560 H to RE 1-3du/5ac . ,D. 1 628-120-02 RE 43 , 560 H to RE 1-3du/5ac. ,D.1 628-120-03 . RE 43 , 560 H to RE 1-3du/5ac. ,D. 1 628-120-04 9 RE 43 , 560 H tolp PR-1 , D. . 628-120-05 RE 43 , 560 H to RE 1-3du/5ac. , D. 1 628-120-06 4WE Fail RE 43 , 560 H to + Ro�3du/5ac. ,D.1 628-120-07 RE 43, 560 H PR-1 ,D .H, 628-120-08 RE 43 , 560 H to RE 1-3du/5ac. ,D.1 628-120-09 RE 43 , 560 H to RE 1-3du/5ac. , D.1 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM CITY OF PALM DESERT TO: City Council and Planning Commission FROM: Department of Environmental Services SUBJECT: Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area DATE: February 26, 1982 Specific Plan Attached are excerpts from the adopted Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. Included are: 1. The Adopted Development Alternative. (Pages 49-57) 2. The Implementation Section. (Pages 58-65) 3. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of February 14, 1979, covering staff responses to 12 issues raised by public comment. (Pages 96-115) 4. Minutes from March 22, 1979, City Council Meeting adopting plan. In reviewing the enclosed material, Council and Commission Members may wish to take note of what could possibly be construed as internal inconsistencies which may have led to some confusion in implementing plan policies. A key element of the apparent adopted Development Alternative was the designation of most of the hillside, over 20% slope as open space. The areas below 20% were rezoned 2-3 d.u./ac. to compensate for the restrictions in the open space zone (No. 8, No. 9, and No. 11 of summary Page 57). In response to a question from Mr. Fox, staff appears to contend that the proposed zoning would allow 844 hotel units (Page 100). In Item #1 of the "Summary of Issues and Recommended Action" section, a 250 unit hotel was described as feasible under existing and proposed zoning (Page 99). In the April 12, Council Minutes, Staff seems to indicate that a 250 unit hotel development could be built to city standards. (Page 125). All these discussions concerning Mr. Fox's property were predicated on the elimination of the existing Hillside Overlay Zone's slope density formula. In response to a question concerning the impact of the existing Hillside Overlay, staff states "It should be noted that under the proposed plan the computation of minimum acreage per dwelling unit and percent of a lot to remain in the natural state based upon slope percentage, has been eliminated". (Page 101). On page 115, the proposed Hillside Ordinance Amendment is included with the deletion of the slope formula. PALM VALLEY STORMWATER CHANNEL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (CONTINUED) Although all the preceeding discussions pointed to the elimination of the slope formula, there is no mention of removing the formula in the "Implementation " section. When the Zoning Ordinance was amended 3 months later, the slope formula was left intact. Within the Hillside overlay there is no distinction made between hotel units, condominiums or single family dwellings. If the existing slope density formula is applied to Mr. Fox's property it would not be 844 or 250 units but instead would be a maximum of 97 units and since the density formula uses a different method of calculating slope than was employed by the Plan, Mr. Fox might be limited to as little as 5 units. This possible confusion applies to all properties throughout the area although with lesser impact. PHIL DRELL, Assistant Planner /pa January 13, 1983 Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council, the West Hillside Specific Plan culminates a 12 month effort beginning in January 1982. In December 1981, Mr. George Fox, owner of 97 acres of hillside property, approached the city with the desire to submit a proposed development plan for hearing. It was noted that Mr. Fox's proposal would not be permitted under existing city hillside development regulations. On January 28, 1982 an oral report was given to the city council concerning city hillside policy and the inquiry by Mr. Fox. On February 25, 1982, a staff report with an attached hillside development ordinance implementing the Palm Valley Specific Plan was given to the city council. A joint study session was held with the planning commission on March 16, 1982. At that session a hillside ordinance review committee was established composed of Planning Commissioners Buford Crites, George Kryder, Councilman Jim McPherson and Mayor Roy Wilson. On March 25, 1982, the committee recommended to the council a reexamination of the Hillside Specific Plan, after consultation with the city attorney. That recommendation was based on 1. concerns that the present plan no longer reflected the long range goals and objectives of the city; 2. concerns raised throughout the region relating to hillside development; 3. the impact of the Palm Valley Channel on hillside development. The council accepted the committee report and instructed staff to prepare a new specific plan retaining the subcommittee to review the plan as it developed. From April through September staff and the committee met periodically to develop a plan which would indeed be consistent with the city's long range objective in terms of the hillside area. During that period the committee also met with various property -1- owners and their representatives to discuss the mutual concerns for the hillside. In late September, a meeting was held with staff and hillside property owners; at that time the proposed revised plan and its ramifications were presented in an informal discussion type meeting. On November 8th, a public hearing before the planning commission was held and initial public testimony and staff report accepted by the commission. That hearing was subsequently continued to December 7, 1982, at which time the planning commission adopted a series of resolutions recommending to the city council adoption of the plan, and enactment of the ordinances before you this evening. The main objective of the proposal is to balance the environmental and aesthetic concerns with private development rights in this sensitive area. The overall impact of the plan would be to permit approximately S4 of the units which could have been developed under the previously adopted specific plan, but increasing the number of units which can be developed over the city's hillside development ordinance. In summary, the present zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the presently adopted plan because it is impossible to implement said plan under current regulations. This situation is not in concert with the State Planning Act which requires zoning to be consistent with adopted plans. The solution is to either amend plans or in draft appropriate legislation: The West Hills Specific Plan is a combination of these alternatives: OPTION 1: Slope Density Formula Slope Density AC/DU 10-15 .66 16-20 1 21-25 1.25 26-30 1.66 31-35 2.5 36 5 H - This is a Right -2- OPTION 2: Owners of parcels at the toe of slope may separate areas adjacent to valley floors, use slope formula and if the average slope is less than 10% these areas are not subject to hillside overlay regulations and will be permitted a density of 3 d.u./acre. If the remaining area of a 5 acre parcel exceeds 4 acres, an additional unit may be developed in the hillside. On any parcel larger than 5 acres density will be determined through Option 1 or Option 3. OPTION 3: Instead of requiring density determination based on the average slope as computed for the entire parcel, the owner has the option of identifying specific dwelling building sites of a minimum area of 1'a acre whose slopes are 20% or less. Overall parcel density may not exceed 1 d.u./acre. Grading shall be minimum and grading for building pad shall be limited to a maximum 10,000 square foot area. OPTION 4: Lot Consolidation If a person owns at least 10 acres in the area designated as the preferred development area (shown on map) the density shall be computed to permit on 10-19 acre sites to have a density of 2 d.u./ 5 acres and sites of 20 acres of greater 3 d.u./5 acres. This option is absolute and cannot be used in conjunction with other development options. Under the Palm Valley Channel Specific Plan, approximately 720 units could have been developed within the planning area. The proposed West Hills Plan would permit a maximum 433 units; if one owner were to acquire all of the hillside area and avail himself of Option 4. The action before council this evening would be to... -3- 1. Adopt Resolution No. , rescinding all policies contained within the Palm Valley Area Specific Plan and adopt the West Hills Specific Plan and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact therefore 2. Introduce and pass to second reading ZOA 11-82 and C/Z 08-82. At this point, I would like to review some of the issues, and clarify some of the legal points raised during the planning process. 1. What did the Palm Valley Channel permit? The plan by itself did not permit any type of land use or activity. It is totally incorrect to say "the plan permitted". The plan did identify certain residential densities, but the ordinances were never revised to permit the development of those densities. 2. Hotel development. Much has been said about the potential for hotel development. It should be clarified that a hotel was never allowed in the area as a matter of right; it required a conditional use permit. It was determined that in the hillside overlay area a hotel's density would be equal to the residential density. During the discussions on the plan it was determined that because such a provision would make hotel development totally impractical that it should be excluded from the plan. 3. Density—Why the reduction? When one speaks of density reduction, it is a reduction of those densities called for in the adopted specific plan not that which has been permitted since 1975. In actuality, what this plan calls for and provides for is an increase in the allowable -4- development despite a reduction in the residential density recommended in the specific plan. 4. Why weren't the ordinances revised to implement the Palm Valley Channel Specific Plan? Because it was determined that the plan did not reflect the long range goals and objectives of the city relating to hillside development. The city determined that the data base and assumption on which the Palm Valley Plan was based were in error. Ar -5- t INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: Ralph Wood, Chairman Planning Commission and Sub-Committee to Study Hillside Plan FROM: Phyllis Jackson SUBJECT: Hillside Development DATE: January 21 , 1983 A few thoughts for you to consider in your deliberations . First , I agree wholeheartedly that the City should try to avoid any further scarring of the higher slopes such as now exists with the random homes that were originally homesteaded. In time these may be improved and the roads landscaped or dyed to conceal the cuts . The City' s first consideration should be to discourage any construction above a certain determined elevation. The owners of this land ob- viously have a right to improve it as long as they meet the zoning requirements and can afford the expensive off-site improvements . The City cai,aot eliminate the possibility of future hillside development unless they compensate the owners . A reasonable solution is to encourage lot consolidation with owners of property in the "preferred" or less visible lower slopes . This can certainly be accomplished by the options set forth in the proposed ordinance , however, I don' t feel option 4 has been taken far enough to attract a developer who has the financial capabilities and expertise to build a large, quality project on the lower slopes . (i .e . , Thunderbird Villas . . .you hardly know they' re there .) Suggest you consider a density formula as follows : 30 A 3 du/5 acres 40 A 4 It 50 A 5 60 A 6 " 70 A 7 80 A 8 90 A 9 " Over 100 A 10 (Absolute maximum) This would at least put Mr. Fox within the realm of economic feasi- bility for a small , exclusive hotel and villas nestled into his canyon , as he portrayed. I believe everyone concerned and responsible for the destiny of this City must make decisions that are in the best interest of all the citizens , not just a few. I believe the commission, staff and council MEMO TO : Ralph Wood , Chairman, Planning Commission FROM: Phyllis Jackson SUBJECT: Hillside Development January 21 , 1983 must bear in mind, at all times , that one day Palm Desert will no longer have ground to develop and builder' s fees , etc . will stop , thereby eliminating a large portion of the revenues that have allowed us to improve our streets , build a civic center , sports complex, parks , etc . , as well as maintain them. Without this revenue , we may well face a City tax down the road, and I am sure the citizenry will be more vocal about that than one or two luxury hotels which attract affluent visitors that , in turn, keep our business community flourishing. Sales tax revenues are a drop in the bucket compared to occupancy tax. . .remember , the City only receives approximately $1 . 00 out of every $6 . 00 of sales tax, but we keep all of the occupancy tax. . . that' s a lot of bucks not to be considered plus the economic advantage to the merchants and restaurants . I 've heard the comment that Rancho Mirage would gladly exchange all of their restaurants for one more Marriott ! Above all , let' s play fair and make wise , economic decisions . . . .not political ones ! !HYLL r your ear. ACKSON CC : Sub-Committee Members City Council Members Planning Commission Ray Diaz Phil Drell - 2 - PROOF UBLICATION (2010s 2015. 5 CCP) PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF CASE I �r NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV Council to consider a request by the Palm Valley specific Plan LEGAL NOTICE amendment, �q We of zone r 1 thereto; Involyirp hinslde deve ■.■ Channel and the western ci}�. O3—B2 PORTIONS OF SECTIONS CREATIVE STITCHERY KITS Asst size picture and I am a citizen of the United - pillow kits.design stamped on needlecraft States and a resident Of the TT ' . - homespun.includes County aforesaid : I am over the i �,r yarns,embroidery floes. needage o f eighteen h t e en REG 2.insirucibne, g g years and not � �'- , % REG 2.97 a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer L1 of THE DESERT POSTS 1 k a newspaper of general circula- :.� � tions printed and published weekly 1.77 z. in the city Of Riverside ) County - Adult 1000 piece jigsaw of Riversides and which newspaper puzzles.21 -2"z271a'. has been adjudged a newspaper of REG 2.47 general circulation by the .: a. Superior Court of the County of C ra ola I Riverside, State of Lalifornias y .ow under date of October 59 1964s ` Case number 83658; that the a A. 670 notices of which the annexed is been b i r a printed co has ee u 1 shed p P >r p Y 16CraYoIa' crayons . r:':::?.1:•�.:{�::.:each REG 99• in aa egul r a r and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any �: supplement thereof on the following dates to-wit : ( f 12/30 11982 570 ••'""• Erasable Eraser Mate pen fr or retractable and ••'arr'l• r ��fa REIG98•Ninety Eight pen, I Certify (or declare) under P' penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated December 30$ 1982 at Riversides California SAID public fairing will -2 1 the place all Desert City Hallrson are. e �� RAM all Interested ecrsaM are. -- --- --- -- — —'� �- 75 "'� RAMON A. DIA2, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commis CITY OF PALM DESERT (Ufolzr OO ff 10mm- Im =�N=C&nof3v 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CAUFORNIA92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code). Case No: GPA 03-82, C/Z 08-82 and ZOA 11-82 Common Project Name (if and: West Hills Amendments AAPpliCant/Project Sponsor: City of Palm Desert Project Description /Location: General plan, zoning ordinance and map amendment dealing with density and development standards in hillside areas west of the Palm Valley Storm Channel. The director of environmental services, 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. AMON A. DIAZ D TE Director of Envi nmental Services RAD/pa Mrs. uo'iiiicrn [.-I. Cree, Jr. - &00 Devon Fuse 'i Long Se-a-ch, Caiifornia 9V,07 October 21,-.1982, Mr. Ray Diaz, Director Environmental Services iCity of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, California 92260 Dear Ray: Having lived in the Phoenix-Scottsdale area of Arizona, which is world- renowned for its beautiful desert and mountains (Camelback Mt. , Mummy Mt. , etc. ), I couldn't help but see potential for esthetic improvement in the hills of Palm Desert which are dotted with nothing but tiny home- steaders' shacks. With this in mind, I purchased my initial two 5-acre lots in Sec. 30 of the hills of Palm Desert in 1978. From December. ' 78 thru July '79, I attended all the meetings the City conducted in their study for the area west of the Coachella Valley Water Channel. These seven month long, in depth studies concluded in August 179 with the passing of Ordinance #212 which was unanimously approved by Councilmen Roy Wilson, Alexis Newbrander and Mayor Pro-Tem. James E. McPherson. . t Based upon these public hearings and guided by the subsequent reports issued by the City of Palm Desert, I purchased an additional four 5-acre parcels located at the base of the hillsides which were now zoned PR-1. I have attached the ordinance which lists all the lots in Sec. 30 with their new zoning designations and have circled the ones I purchased; four at the base of the hillside are PR-1 and the two with higher elevations are listed as 2 units per 5-acre parcel. CERTAINLY THIS IS CONSERVATIVI. ZONING FOR THESE HILLSIDES! Especially when the City plans to zone the flatter portions of Section 30. THREE UNITS PER ACRE, which is contiguous/adjacent/in front of my lower lots). . . . . The property I purchased does not fall into this category; had I chosen to buy land with less than a 10° slope, much acreage was available for purchase in 1979 on the East side of Hiway #74 for a lot less money than I was spending for the viewsite lots I purchased based on Ordinance #212 and the zoning it designated. I respectfully ask the City of Palm Desert NOT TO DOWN-ZONE my property, which the three new alternatives the City is considering would do. I feel the City has an obligation to me to at least retain the zoning upon which I based my purchase in 1979, for a reasonable period of time. My four lots at the base of the hillsides have beautiful viewsite ridges which an accomplished hillside architect can utilize to minimize obtru- sive structures yet maintain maximum views. A master plan and design City of Palm Desert October 21, 1982 Page Two. j, I review board can control this. I plan to be a resident of these hills in Palm Desert and would like to be a member of this design re:�iew board to help create and maintain a hillside with dignity that is in keeping with the beauty of the surrounding desert. I look forward to and would appreciate a reply to my letter. Very truly yours, Dori G. Cree Dexter Woods 751 F. Avenue Coronado, Ca. 92118 October 31, 1982 ¢ity of Palm Desert Palm Desert, California Dear I believe that the basic zoning the 1979 Specific Plan for the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Area was establishing was carefully studied, thought out, and conservative. One unit per acre on the lower lots and 1 to 3 max. units on the higher lots with more visibility was agreeable to everyone. The D/H overlay was left on stricktly to compliment and work in conjunction with the underlying zoning. The Specific Plan also states that re-evaluation should take place in five years when enough time has passed to bring about changes. Only two years have passed and the City of Palm Desert is wanting to radically down-zone our hills from what we had established in 1979. Why? Please refer to the attached which is page 103 from the Specific Plan. Issue #5 refers to density flexibility on the 5 acre lots. Please reconsider the alternatives you are now proposing! Sincerely, Dexter oods Lots #20, #21, and 1126 Section #30, Palm Desert P.S. Please have this letter and accomanying paragraph from the attached page 103 made part of your Nov. 8th meeting. �I 'i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - DECEMBER 7, 1982 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. 11. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Downs III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Commissioner Crites Commissioner Downs Commissioner Kryder Commissioner Richards Chairman Wood Staff Present: Ramon Diaz Stan Sawa Phil Drell Steve Smith Phil Joy Linda Russell Al Cablay Doug Phillips IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 16, 1982 Chairman Wood approved the minutes as submitted. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz reviewed the actions of the Council for the meeting of December 2, 1982. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the planning commission or audience request specific items be removed from the consent calendar for separate discussion and action. A. DP 03-79, TT 14805, and 183 MF - KAUL CONSTRUCTION CO. - Request for approval of an one year time extension of a development plan, tentative tract, and design review case for a 36 unit condominium project on the south side of Country Club Drive, approximately 245 feet east of Sagewood Drive. B. CUP 07-91 and 232 MF, GILANO DEVELOPMENT CORP. - Request for approval of an one year time extension of a conditional use permit and design review case for a 13 unit condominium project on Ryway Place, 250 feet north of Grapevine Street. C. DP 08-81, JDF FINANCIAL CORP. - Request for approval of an one year time extension of a development plan for a 168 unit condotel on the south side of Highway 111, approximately 300 feet east of Shadow Hills Road. Rec: Approve as presented. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to approve the consent calendar items as presented. Carried unanimously 5-0. VIL PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case Nos. GPA 03-82, C/Z 08-82 and A 11-82 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Consideration of a general plan amendment, change of zone, zoning ordinance amendment, and Negative MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1982 Declaration of Environmental Impact, involving hillside development standards for property generally located between the Palm Valley Storm Channel and western city limits. Mr. Drell reviewed the changes to the proposed ordinance as a result of the previous hearing. He described a new development option which permitted increased density for larger sites or combination of parcels submitted under one development plan if at least ten acres are located in the preferred development area as shown on the zoning map. The object of this option was to encourage hillside property owners to merge their acreage and discourage development in the higher hillside areas. It was noted that the Palm Desert Property Owners Association submitted a letter to the planning commission recommending rejection of any changes to hillside development standards. Staff recommended approval of a general plan amendment, change of zone, and zoning ordinance amendment. Chairman Wood explained that based on the advice of the city attorney, Commissioner Crites would abstain from discussion and vote. Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this matter. MRS. ALEXIS NEWBRANDER, 46-260 Cottage Lane, Palm Desert, commended staff for their efforts. She described the hillsides in Palm Springs and Rancho Mirage as overbuilt, and feared the same would occur here. She urged approval of the proposed plan and amendments. MRS. MARIAN HENDERSON, 73-595 Pinyon Street, Palm Desert, president of Desert Beautiful, felt that the protection of the hills is invaluable and recommended that no changes be made until further study is made. MR. GEORGE SMITH, representing the Palm Desert Presbyterian Church, stated that they have been concerned with this matter for a long time. The specific concerns were density, right-of-way and maintenance of roads, and bridges. He felt the new option was a "gerrymander" method to encourage development. He also felt that all these concerns should be studied further. MR. WILLIAM PRAY, 73-385 Joshua, Palm Desert, concurred that this matter needed further study. MR. HANK CLARK, 73-183 Willow, stated there were many concerns expressed and added that he was not aware of the proposed changes to the general plan. He felt that the concerns were obvious: scaring of the hillside and channel; tremendous expense to build a bridge; water and sewer; maintenance of roads; and, vandalism. He requested denial at this time. Commssioner Richards stated that many people present were not at the previous hearings and asked staff to reiterate the problems and purpose of this hearing. Mr. Diaz explained that the proposed general plan amendment called for lowering the residential densities set forth in the 1979 Palm Valley Channel Specific Plan. He stated that the present zoning regulations were inconsistent with the current plan and that such an inconsistency was in violation of the state law. The inconsistency occurs because present hi!lside development regulations preclude the development of densities set forth in the Palm Valley Channel Specific Plan. Mr. Diaz then stated that earlier this year, at a joint meeting of the council and commission, the options to correct this inconsistency were identified; either revise the plan or the ordinance. Because the current plan was based on inaccurate data and the densities set forth were unacceptable, staff was instructed to prepare a new plan and a committee composed of councilmen and commissioners was created. Mr. Diaz concluded that prior to the first public hearing a general meeting was held and property owners inside the planning area and within three feet were notified; in addition, numerous press releases were made during the entire -2- .� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1982 planning process. Mr. Drell reviewed the differences in density between the previously adopted and the proposed plans. At this time Chairman Wood called for testimony from property owners in the hillside area who wished to speak. MR. GEORGE FOX, Chicago, owner of 97 acres, stated he has been working to create a proper development in that area for many years. He stated that in 1979 he was told that he could construct 350 unit hotel. He further stated that his proposed density is the same as he originally was down-zoned to in 1979, and now he is being told that the city made a mistake. He felt he could develop a major project on his 97 acres that would enhance the area. He emphasized that he would save the site aesthetically and opposed the proposed plan. MR. TOM ESSON, engineer, 940 Villa Road, Palm Springs, spoke on behalf of the 97 acres owned by Mr. Fox. He presented a drawing of a slope analysis and explained the different impacts proposed developments might have on the hills. He also reviewed Mr. Fox's 1979 proposal. MR. ALAN PERRIER, attorney for Mr. Fox, explained how the property was zoned in 1969, 1979, and under the present proposal. He felt that it was a mistake to adopt an ordinance that would preclude the development of a hotel. In reviewing minutes of hearings in 1979 for the specific plan, he felt thorough study was made and much time was spent, therefore, the plan should be implemented. He suggested implementation of the 1979 specific plan, elimination of roads on 35% slope, and upper hillside properties to meet same standards as the 5 acre parcels. MR. JAMES PAUL, owner of 4 acre parcels, felt cheated because he has been restricted to develop and stated that Mr. Fox's desires should be more responsive. He also felt that his view of the valley floor had been destroyed by developments in the flat lands. MR. JEFFREY PAUL, felt that Commissioner Crites should reconsider his withdrawal in this matter. He stated that people in the flat lands do not want to see any development. MS. ELAINE BRODNEX BROERMAN, Pasadena, resented that her opportunity to develop on her property has been taken away. She stated that she has been a long time property owner and feels she has a right to develop. Chairman Wood closed the public hearing and asked staff to address the concerns expressed. Mr. Diaz responded to the concerns and issues raised during the public testimony portion of the public hearing. In response to Mr. Smith, he stated that the option to encourage lot consolidation was an attempt to try and locate hillside development to lower hillside areas and minimize the impact on higher slopes. He equated this type of option with existing planned residential zones which permit higher densities as a method of encouraging better development. He further stated that bridges across the channel were part of the present flood control program, and any bridges in addition to those being built as part of that program, would have to be as a result of an assessment district composed of affected property owners. He concluded that streets in the area would be private and not maintained by the city; the density of the area immediately east of the church was 3 units per acre which was lower than similar property on the west side of the channel. In response to the question of access, Mr. Diaz replied that the bridges which were part of the present Palm Desert Redevelopment Plan would resolve that problem. In response to comments made by Mr. Fox and his representatives, Mr. Diaz stated that the proposed action was not a down-zoning. Under current regulations which were in effect since 1975 the total number of units that could be developed in the area owned by Mr. Fox was 3 to 5; the proposed regulations would permit nearly 60 units. Mr. Diaz further stated that while the 1979 plan called for higher densities than those proposed under the current plan the zoning regulations were never revised and higher densities never existed; -3- y - MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1982 and the council had chosen not to implement those densities. Regarding the question of hotel development, Mr. Diaz stated that the committee reviewing the plan had considered permitting hotels with a density equal to regular residential density, or in this case a 60 unit hotel. In response to Mr. Paul and Ms. Broerman, Mr. Diaz commented that the new proposals were not taking away development rights. The public hearing was opened in order to give the audience a chance for rebuttal. Mr. Fox stated that the people in the homestead area have been given an ultimatum and owners on upper hillside have been denied development. The public hearing was closed and a 10 minute recess called at 8:43 p.m. — The meeting reconvened at 8:55 p.m. Chairman Wood asked for comments from the commission. Commissioner Richards explained to the public that they are trying to do some honest planning. He disagreed with staff relative to Mr. Fox's property; he felt it was down-zoned as proposed and was inclined to separate this property from the others. He added that staff had done a good and thorough analysis in studying the matter. Commissioner Wood concluded with a statement that the commission had a very difficult job in making a decision and as a result not everyone would be happy with it. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 830, recommending to the City Council to rescind the Palm Valley Area Specific Plan, and adoption of of The West Hills Specific Plan (GPA 03-82) and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact be approved. Carried 3-0-2 (Commissioners Crites and Richards abstained). Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to adopt findings and Planning Commission Resolution No. 831, recommending approval of a Change of Zone (C/Z 08-82) from R-E 1-3 d.u./5 acres D,H; PR-1 D,H; PR-2 D,H; PR-3 D,H; and O.S. to H-PR D and O.S. to C-1, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for property between the Palm Valley Channel and the western city limits. Carried 3-0-2 (Commissioners Crites and Richards abstained). Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 832, recommending approval to the City Council of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 11-82, creating the H-PR Hillside Planned Residential District, Chapter 25.25 and deleting the "H" Hillside Development Overlay District Chapter 25.52 and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. Carried 3-0-2 (Commissioners Crites and Richards abstained). VHI. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS - NONE IX. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS A. 173 C - LYNDALE MANOR - Request for approval to record an agreement in lieu of undergrounding existing utility poles in the C-1, S.P. zone located at the northwest corner of San Carlos Drive and North Palm Desert Drive. Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report and explained that the applicant was requesting to be a part of any future undergrounding district in lieu of the required undergrounding now. It was noted that the pole would have to be relocated if it's in the alley area, which is to be paved. Staff recommended approval. MR. PAUL HENRY, representative, was present to answer any questions the commission might have. Moved by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to approve the -4- PALM DES, RT PROPERTY OWNERS ASoOCIATION 73-833 EL PASEO PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE 346-2804 A Non-Profit Corporation 7 December 1982 Planning Commission City of Palm Desert Gentlemen: In a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Palm Desert Property Owners Association on December 7 , 1982 , it was unanimously voted to recommend to your body t1at there be no change at the present time in zonip;g in the Cahuilla Hills area. We are presently opposed to any zoning action that may re- sult in. any increase in residential density in the Cahuilla Hills area. Very truly yours , iW lliam Tennison Present V �• , 1982 850 Notth Vaoley SJtee'_ 8atbanh, Ca. 91505 �r.l i'IR�rviSrrriiaL Sr:S.'•iiCF& (lctohet 290 1982 TO: PLAMYING COM,'ITSSTOV CITY COUVCTL DIRECTOR OF E91VIPOV'!ENTAL SEM"CES DEAR CITY OFFICIAL.- (tie ate dismayed with yout nco theee altvitatives Jot out hittsides toeat 06 .the st6"UmKtet channel. 1. Yout slope nital,tsi.s 6otmula is so di66.ietr t .that you need to be an enginect .to §igttke out ahat you'te saying. we had an engineeJt do lust that and what you ate tellinq us is: YOU NAVT TO KEEP THE HILLS OF PALM nESERT THE NAY THEY .ARE SHANTY 1?�PX OF PALM DESF.PT:: 2, The otme s o6 the JlAtct pottians get to have 3 unites pet ante . . . . . . while the )test o6 us get uapt p act cs. . . . . . Something Just doesn't seem tight of 6aik heAe. . . . 3. Nt, 11u4otd C.tZtes is a member o6 .the hillside study group whirh made these new tecommertdati.ons Got the changes .to the Speci.6ic Ptan o6 1919. He ,its living on a 1 4 114 acre gatgeaus vicrr-site lot .in out h.i,P,.a WI .eh its 1 £ 112 mite 6tom the centeA o6 Palm Deseat. He has hutdly anybody else ti.vinq there with him in those hiles and has the pa)adise o6 COMMY LIVING in the City timits. Ne get the bee-ing that it its people titre him who would .eihe to keep that atea o6 Palm DesW the oxty it .is. . . . 1s there a con6tict o6 inteAnts here?? 4. What happened to the 6i.ne study we ate wotked so hand on in 1979? An avehage o6 2 twits .ct 6ive acres is reasonable Got tand that ruLU be so tFC; ,y expensive of is ptope�tty tnun- to ev ope. P.P_ease have this lett.et Lead out loud at you Nov, Bth meetingtoi,th the Planning Commission as it is doubt6at that I watt be.able to attend. I sineete.ey hope that .the City is going to make a mote thorough study 06 out hillsides using the Spcci6ir Phut Sttidy raid aCt the valuable in6ormation thetein. Please tc6et t0 the attached which is a page out o6 that plat which explains and discusses the "D £ H ZONING DESIGNATIONS" Isn't this basicaltrl .the whole issue ttdty, .the Speci6i.c Plana now trying to be revised? You" ttrtl.y, A. C. MONTEUARO LOT 0 39, SECTION a30, CITY OF PALM DESERT October 27 , 1982 x, Mr . & Mrs . Fred Beyl Box 773 Lake Arrowhead, Ca . 92352 Att : Planning Commission City Council City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Ca . Dear Mr. Diaz ; Director of Environmental Services : We understand that Ma or Wilson has been the chairman of a "hillside study group ' made up of Buford Crites and George Kryder and staff and that it was this study group who recommended the 3 alternatives to the 1979 Specific Plan for the area west of the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel. We cannot fathom how in just this short period of time , the same people who were involved in that long study of the hillsides in 1979 can now come up with these 3 new alternatives which in essence literally will keep our hillsides from properly developing! In 1979 , we property owners and the City concluded that we did not want to see the hills overly developed. The zoning arrived at in the July , meeting was an average of two units per five acres on the elevated lots and one unit per acre on the lower lots (which is where our 8 acres is located) . It was reasoned at that time that this was NOT EXCESSIVE density for land that was going to be so costly to develope . We request that the Planning Commission and the City Council look into the 1979 zoning conclusions and reconsider its dramatic reversal of one unit to five acres. Please . . . . . give us an alternative we can live with. ! These are our precious VIEW LOTS . 97 ac..vt/ti We 've held on to this property f dr over 20 years waiting for N w4 the City 's growth (bridges) to reach us and now suddenly the /011162 City wants to dive us this complicated slope formulas which we lay people don t even begin to understand BUT which keeps us, when all is said and done , from building on our Lots .y Mayor Wilson who was then on the City Council and George Kryder and Alexis Newbrander and James McPherson all were present at those meetings in 1979 and they voted on our new zoning (see enclosed) . You told us one thing then and now why are you same people reversing your ideals of just 2 years hence? Something just doesn 't seem right . . . . . We owned land (where Sommerset Villas on Hiway #74 is located) and sold it because there was no slope . We opted to keep our view sites The City of Palm Desert has a responsibility to us property owners West of the Stormwater Channel. Please make this letter part of Your Nov . 8th meeting. Sincerely yours , Fred & Mary Beyl of those properties o C— improved access at the time of development. ,�-ISSUE A'O. nsider increasing density on plan or providing greater density flexibility. DISCUSSION Two things should be noted with respect to the density issue. First, densities in the plan area were determined on the basis of the Palm Desert General Plan; and secondly, to mitigate environmental concerns .raised in the inventory and analysis section of the plan document. While density ranges could be provided on the recommended plan, it would appear to serve no useful purpose, inasmuch as a specific density range Nwuld be required at the time of adoption of proposed zoning change. It should be noted with respect to. the 5-acre parcelslthattdensitjr� f-lexibAity was provided throug0nodification .to the zoning ordinance. Such modifications �ypermit the* development of existing parcels ranging in size from l f"595 tcres.` A copy of these zoning modifications is shown on pages 55 and 57�E subject report and are attached hereto following the discussion of issu�Jg d VF C.J ISSUE nTO. 6 NOV 81982 EwrRON Consider the feasibility of a retirement center or tennis compleV140�F 1 AL SE flatter portions of study area. p�M pE ERTES DISCUSSION Inasmuch as both institutional facilities and resort hotels are permitted within the Planned Residential district by approved development plan, the feasibility of a retirement center or a tennis complex could only be considered at the time of submittal of a specific project. t �I City of Palm Desert Interoffice Memorandum TO: CITY MANAGER AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUBJECT: HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT DATE: FEBRUARY 25, 1982 Council received a staff report at its January 28th study session, concerning Hillside Development standards. The report requested clarification of the City's hillside development policies. The report was initiated as a result of an inquiry by an owner of 97 acres of hillside property. Council directed staff to convene a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to examine this and other issues affecting City development; that meeting will be on March 16th. Present Hillside Development Standards were established in 1975. The Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area Specific Plan, which recommended changes to those standards, was adopted in 1979. Attached are sections of the Specific Plan relating to discussion of critical issues, the current Hillside Ordinance, and the proposed revisions to that Ordinance. The department is concerned that the plan's proposed revisions are inadequate to properly guide development in the hillside areas. Therefore, a proposed Hillside Overlay Ordinance is attached. Finally, the City's revised Grading Ordinance, which will impact hillside grading, is included. The proposed Hillside Ordinance not only implements revisions suggested in the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Plan but also limits uses, densities and substitutes a development plan for a conditional use permit. The one concern which is not addressed within this report on the proposed Ordinance is the existing subdivided areas of the Cahuilla Hills. Created under county jurisdiction, there exists a grid pattern of individually owned five acre parcels which make density transfer impossible. This issue was not addressed in the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Plan. Staff will be looking at this problem and will have a recommendation by March 16th. The materials attached to this report are to provide Council and Commission with some background and basis for discussion of future hillside development. Ar APPENDIX 112" OVERVIEW: PALM VALLEY AREA SPECIFIC PLAN I. INTRODUCTION The following internal inconsistencies within the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Area Specific Plan and implementation procedures set forth therein, seriously compromise the usefullness of the document as a planning tool and might lead to legal action challenging the validity of the present hillside zoning regulations: 1. THE PLAN DOES NOT SPECIFY WHICH DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE WAS ACTUALLY ADOPTED. The Plan contains 7 development alternatives (pages 31-57). The last alternative is called "The Recommended Development Alternative". Although staff has assumed that the recommended alternative was adopted, there is no statement within the plan text or within the resolutions of approval identifying which alternative was adopted. SOLUTION: To avoid this problem in future Specific Plans, only the adopted land use alternative should be contained in the final drafts. 2. AN INACCURATE SLOPE ANALYSIS IS THE FOUNDATION FOR THE PLAN'S RECOMMENDED LAND USE. The density designations contained within the recommended alternative (Page 49) were based on a slope analysis (Page 40-43). The methodology used to arrive at this analysis was not discussed. It was concluded that 46% or 354 acres of the study area contained slopes of less than 20%. Based upon this assessment, property with slopes less than 10% were assigned densities of 3 d.u./acre and slopes between 10% and 20% were designated at 1 d.u./acre. Property containing an average slope in excess of 20% was designated as open space; except for privately owned 5 acre parcels which were given densities of 1-3 d.u./five acres. The accuracy of the plan's slope analysis came into question following a field investigation of a 97 acre hillside site. The plan identified this site as having 59 acres with slopes of less than 20%. Using a two foot contour interval, topographic map of the site, a new slope analysis was completed utilizing the average slope formula procedures outlined in the Zoning Ordinance Hillside Overlay. This analysis identified only 12-15 acres with slopes of less than 20%. Most of the area designated in the plan as less than 20% slopes contained slopes between 35% and 50% according to the average slope formula. Based upon this example and our field observations, the plan's slope analysis may have over-estimated the amount of developable land (as defined by 20% slope) by as much as 300%. SOLUTION NO. 1: Conduct a photometric survey of the plan area and produce a maximum 10' contour interval topographic map (costs $8,000 -10,000). Assign densities based upon a slope analysis of this map. Without an accurate topographic map it would be inappropriate to assign residential density categories ignoring the slope, the principal constraint. SOLUTION NO. 2: Eliminate all density designations in the area. Densities for a particular site would be assigned through the development plan process following an owner financed survey and slope analysis. - 1 - OVERVIEW: PALM VALLEY AREA SPECIFIC PLAN REPORT 3. THE PROPOSED ZONING IN THE PLAN IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE. In the recommended Development Alternative (page 50), 22 acres of the Fox property were designated 1 d.u./acre. In the proposed zoning (page 62) and in zoning amendments which followed, these 22 acres, were zoned PR-2, twice the density indicated in the plan. SOLUTION: See No. 2. 4. ELIMINATION OF HILLSIDE OVERLAY SLOPE/DENSITY FORMULA WAS AN IMPORTANT FEATURE OF THE PLAN, BUT WAS NEVER IMPLEMENTED. Within the Discussion of Issues Section (Page 99-106), Issue No. 2, Page 101 states: "ISSUE NO. 2: Clarify the D and H Zoning Overlay designations as shown on the recommended plan. DISCUSSION: The D and H zoning designations used in the proposed Specific Plan refer to unique drainageway and hillside characteristics to be considered prior to the development of any land within the subject study area. The overlay zones are intended to be compatible with and work in conjunction with the basic underlying district. It should be noted that both the "D" and "H" Overlay Zones have already been attached to much of the property within the study area. Inasmuch as the severely sloped area has essentially been eliminated from development by zoning such lands as Open Space, the Hillside Overlay Zone applied to the balance of the study area is used primarily for the purpose of providing flexibility and compatibility of design for individual projects or residences to the surrounding terrain. It should be noted that under the proposed plan, the computation of minimum acreage per dwelling unit and the percent of a lot to remain in the natural state based on slope percentage has been eliminated. On the original 1975 Palm Desert Zoning Map, the plan area was designated 1 d.u./acre density with Hillside and Drainage Overlays. Whenever an overlay is applied to a base district, the overlay has precedence. The Hillside Overlay contains a procedure for determining density based upon an average slope formula. In nearly every case, the Hillside Overlay with densities ranging from 1.5 d.u./acre to 1 d.u./20 acres is more restrictive than the base district. Therefore, any change in base district density has little effect as long as the Hillside Overlay remains unchanged. The recommended Palm Valley plan was designed to rezone severely sloped areas from 1 d.u./ac to open space. The density originally allowed in these areas would be transferred to the flatter areas by rezoning slopes less than 20% to 1-3 d.u./ac. Since these areas were already identified (erroneously ) to have slopes less than 20%, the slope formula was thought to be unnecessary and could be eliminated. - 2 - 1i - OVERVIEW: PALM VALLEY AREA SPECIFIC PLAN REPORT As has already been discussed, this conclusion was incorrect. Most of the areas identified as having less than 20% slope are actually in the 35% to 50% slope category (See discussion on slope analysis). Despite the existing PR-1 and RE 43,560 zoning, the Hillside Overlay Ordinance then and now in effect limited areas over 35% slope to a maximum density of one dwelling unit per 20 acres. There was no density to transfer. The second incorrect assumption was that all severely sloped areas had been eliminated from development by the open space zoning. As we have learned from the Fox property, most of the area designated in the plan as relatively flat has an average slope between 35 to 50%. When the Zoning Map was amended to be consistent with the Palm Valley Plan, areas designated as over 20% slope were rezoned Open Space. The erroneously identified flatter areas were rezoned PR-1, PR-2 or PR-3 but the Hillside Overlay slope/density formula was retained intact thus negating the map changes except for the open space zoning. A preliminary analysis of Mr. Fox's property shows that although the 59 acres zoned PR-2 and PR-3 would yield 140 dwelling units, the application of the slope formula would allow only 3 to 15 units, depending on interpretation. The slope formula also applies to the amount of the site which must be left in a natural state (ungraded) (Page 108). Slope analysis of the Fox site shows an average of 39% slope. Even if the density formula was eliminated permitting Fox 140 units, the grading formula would prohibit grading on 97.5% of the site since his average slope exceeds 35%. He would thus be required to develop his 140 units on 1.475 acres or a density of 94.9 dwelling units per acre. SOLUTION: Remove all density designations within the area covered by the Hillside Overlay. Property owners would be guaranteed 1 unit per parcel. Ultimate density would be determined through slope and infrastructure analysis as part of the Development Plan process. If the existing slope density/grading formulas are thought to be too restrictive, they can be adjusted to allow higher densities and more extensive grading of flatter sites. 5. THE HILLSIDE OVERLAY DOES NOT APPLY TO HOTEL DEVELOPMENT. In Discussion issue No. 1 (Page 700). The plan states: "...it should be noted that under either the existing or proposed.zoning designations, that resort hotels with a maximum of 18 units to the gross acre and related auxilliary commercial uses are permitted within the Planned Residential District by approved Development Plan". In reference to the Fox 97 acre site it states: "Accordingly, under the existing zoning, a maximum of 1746 units could be allowed and under the proposed zoning, a maximum of 844 units". This interpretation is only partly correct. The Hillside Overlay 'Density Formula regulates only "dwelling units". A dwelling unit is defined as "one or more rooms and a single kitchen designed for occupancy by one family for living and sleeping purposes". - 3 - 19 1 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUBJECT: WESTERN HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN DATE: MARCH 25, 1982 T It is the recommendation of the Hillside Overlay Review Committee that the City re-examine its present Hillside Specific Plan. The recommendation is based on: T. Concern that the present plan is inconsistent with the long-range goals of the City. 2. The recent concerns voiced within the City and the region concerning hillside development and standards. 3. The impact of the Palm Valley Channel on hillside development. It is, therefore, recommended that the City Council direct staff to begin preparation of a new specific plan for its hillside areas. KAMON A. DIAZ i /lr MINUTES PALM DESERT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING TUESDAY - DECEMBER 29, 1982 2:00 P.M. - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. The meeting was called to order at 2:20 P.M., after a one hour and twenty minute study session. Due to a lack of a quorum some of the cases were discussed before a vote was taken. lI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by Mr. Barton, seconded by Mr. Holden, the minutes of the December 14, 1982, meeting were approved as submitted. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Chairman Martin abstained). III. MEMBERS PRESENT: Vern Barton Al Cook Rick Holden Charles Martin MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Gregory Bernie Leung STAFF PRESENT: Ramon A. Diaz Patricia Armitage III. CASES: 1. CASE NO: 241 MF APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS[: JAMES SATTLEY, 74-050 San Marino Circle, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a one story, 3 unit apartment building. LOCATION: Southwest corner of San Pablo and Royal Palm. ZONE: R-2 (5) and R-3 S.P. Mr. Diaz reviewed the staff report and related the comments received from Mr. Leung. He stated that the board had reviewed the plans during the study session and had concurred with staff's recommendation that preliminary approval be granted subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and added Conditions Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 listed below. Mr. Wade Ritchie, project designer stated that the added conditions would be acceptable although he disagreed with Condition No. 5 which requires that the parapet wall be continued on the south elevation and that more trees be added. He felt that the existing date palms would suffice to shade the south side and that the property on the south had sufficient landscaping to shade it. Chairman Martin indicated that the board does not allow landscaping to take the place of a man-made structure to provide shade. Mr. Holden added that the purpose of the landscaping was to break up the long wall elevation and the date palms would not be sufficient to accomplish this. - 1 - DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 289 1982 CASE NO. 241 MF (CONTINUED) On a motion by Mr. Holden, seconded by Mr. Barton, the board approved the preliminary plans subject to the following conditions already listed irr the staff report and added Conditions Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8: 1. Construction plans shall be submitted for approval to the city fire marshal prior to issuance of building permits. All conditions shall be made a part of construction and no certificate of occupancy shall be issued until completed. 2. Final construction drawings, including a final landscaping, grading, lighting, amenities, trash storage, walkway layout, irrigation plans and sign program shall be submitted to the design review board. No final inspection or occupancy permit shall be given by the department of environmental services to this project until the aforementioned approved plans and construction shall have been completed. 3. Compliance with any condition as may be established in the precise plan process. 4. That a parcel map be submitted, approved and recorded to consolidate all the lots into one lot. 5. Parapet wall on the south elevation to be continued another 20 feet and trees shall be added on the south sideyard areas about 40 feet from San Pablo. 6. A tower or shade structure shall be added tothe west elevation. 7. The building shall be moved southerly and easterly. 8. The tower over the garage shall be shifted away from the garage openings. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. 2. CASE NO: 239 MF APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SUNRISE COMPANY, 41-500 Monterey Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary and final approval of plans for a television head-in building. LOCATION: South side of Country Club Drive between Portola and Cook. ZONE: PR-4 Mr. Diaz reviewed the staff report indicating that this was an application for a television head-in building which would be located on the south side of , y Club Drive. ' - The board reviewed the materials board and felt the color of the stucco should be darker. r. en asked if t e project would be surrounded by a wall and if so, he- felt that it should be reviewed by the environmental services staff. - 2 - DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 28, 1982 3. CASE NO. 239 MF (CONTINUED) Mr. Phil Smith of Sunrise Company, replied that the entire 240 acres would be walled in but it had not yet determined how it would be done. Chairman Martin was concerned that their choice of trees would not provide the necessary screening for the building. Mr. Smith replied that they had used Ficus trees on the other side of Cook Street. He added that they would definitely pick the trees that would provide the proper screening in as short a time as possible. Some trees would be 24 inches and others 48 inches. On a motion by Mr. Holden, seconded by Mr. Cook, the board approved the preliminary and final plans subject to the following conditions: 1. The fascia shall be moved 904instead of at an angle to the roof line. 2. Stucco-sha-ll be a darker shade thah submitted on the materials boa �and.the final color shalt be submitted to the board for approval. 3. Fencing shall be reviewed by staff. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. 3. CASE NO. 92 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MAXI• DELGUIDICE, 56-805 19 Palms Highway, Yucca Valley, CA 92234. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of change to existing exterior elevations for a portion of Las Sombras Center. LOCATION: Within the commercial center at the northwest corner of Highway II I and Fred Waring Drive. ZONE: PC (4) S.P. Mr. Diaz indicated that this application was before the board at its December 14, 1982, meeting at which time the board had expressed concern over the screening of the mechanical equipment; that they should indicate how the building would terminate and meet with the adjoining buildings and that a letter be submitted to the board from the owner approving the changes, these concerns have since been met and plans were before the board for them to review. The board reviewed the plans and their only concern was that they would prefer to see fewer but more expensive light fixtures. Mr. Delguidice was present and indicated that the light fixtures at the entrance would be larger than the others and they would definitely be better than the ones currently used on the building. On a motion by Mr. Barton, seconded by Mr. Cook, the changes to the exterior elevations were approved subject to the applicant submitting a picture of the light fixtures. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. - 3 - DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 28, 1982 IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS: ELECTION OF NEW CHAIRMAN: Chairman Martin stated that it might be appropriate at this time to name a new chairman and submitted his resignation as chairman. Mr. Holden moved that Mr. Martin's resignation be accepted and that Mr. Barton be nominated as chairman. Mr. Cook seconded and the motion was carried 3-0-1 with Mr. Barton abstaining. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD REORGANIZATION A discussion occurred regarding the proposed reorganization of the design review board. Some of the concerns expressed by the board were over the fact that the board would be comprised by a minority of architects which could crea a an inadequate evaluation - evelopments_o ower aesthet—f1 quality.; another concern was that if the board were reduced, it would i icu t to secure a quorum for the meetings. Mr. Diaz indicated that there would be planning commission and city council public hearings at which time board members could present their position. A staff report and agenda would be sent to each of them to review before the public hearings. V. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. A ON A. DIAZ, Secretary /pa - 4 - December 21, 1982 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. GPA 03-82, C/Z 08-82 and ZOA 11-82 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by the City of Palm Desert for a general plan amendment (rescinding the Palm Valley Specific Plan and substituting the West Hills Specific Plan), a zoning ordinance amendment, change of zone and negative declaration of environmental impact as it pertains thereto, involving hillside development standards for property between the Palm Valley Storm Channel and the western city limits more particularly described as: PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 189 19, 30, and 31, T5S R6E —.... _ ME is N ,r ' Lru M—� ( © •, ^� GGGLLL��JJJIII✓✓✓...,,���jjj��_ vl ' L i , , _ _• t ®. :- .•Ar, 1 `.'�^ to .. .'•+ •ea'.��r:it 'I: ._._..... � .•nrr.•Y�1... is wa'.:.iy".F:CI �.7:+=w.`��1L�:'w�>��..iar. SAID public hearing will be held on January 13, 1983, at 7:00 p.m., in the council chambers at the Palm Desert City Hall, 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission PUBLISH: Palm Desert Post December 30, 1982 /pa e s ¢ y. v 25 .46 .040--25 .46 . 060 j shall be required to be installed in a manner meeting with the approval of the chief engineer of the affected flood con- trol district. 2 . Building and health code requirements applicable to floodplain districts shall be complied with. 3 . The bottom elevation or first floor of any struc- ture shall be at least one foot above the level of the one- hundred-year flood. Exceptions may be recommended by the L building official only for nonresidential structures which are adequately floodproofed, in accordance with the Building Code , up to the level of the one-hundred-year flood . 4 . Landfills , improvements , developments , or other encroachment effect on the one-hundred-year flood level such that the water surface elevations of the one-hundred-year flood are increased by more than one foot shall be fully offset by requirements for stream improvements meeting with the approval of the chief engineer of the affected flood control district; B . Public utility facilities ; C. Recreation areas , parks , campgrounds , playgrounds , fishing lakes , hunting clubs, riding and hiking trails, golf courses, golf driving ranges , polo fields , athletic fields , parking lots , all of which involve only the open use of land without permanent structures or improvements ; D. Temporary and readily removable structures accessory to agricultural uses . (Ord. 97 51 (part) , 1975: Exhibit A 525 .26-3) . 25 . 46 . 040 Prohibited uses . The following uses are specifically prohibited in the D district: A. Excavations that will tend to broaden the flood- plain or direct flood flows out of the natural floodplain;B . Landfills , improvements , developments , or other en- croachments that would increase water surface elevations of the one-hundred-year flood more than one foot or that cannot be fully offset by stream improvements as provided in Section 26 . 46 .070 ; C . Storage of floatable substances or materials which will add to the debris load of a stream or watercourse . (Ord. 97 51 (part) , 1975: Exhibit A 525 .26-4) . 25 46 050 Development standards . The property develop- ment standards of the underlying zone shall apply insofar as they pertain to the uses of this district. (Ord. 97 51 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A 525.26-5) . 25 46 060 Site plan review. All development shall be subject to a site plan review as prescribed in Chapter 25 . 70 . (Ord. 97 5l (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A 525 . 26-6) . 371 i' 2 - 25 . 50 . 010--25 . 50 . 050 25 . 50 . 010 Purpose . The purpose of the N district is to provide for the continued availability of land for the conservation of natural resources and the preservation and protection of wildlife habitat areas and areas with signifi- cant natural vegetation as limited resources . (Ord . 97 §1 i (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A §25 . 28-1) . 25 .50.020 Permitted uses . All uses permitted in the underlying district shall be permitted in this district subject to the careful consideration by the design review process of the preservation of the unique natural element of the property. (Ord. 97 51 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A 925 .28-2) . 21 - 10 .030 Development standards . All the development standards an requirements set forth is the underlying dis- trict shall be complied with. Additional standards for development may be required by the design review process to ensure that modification to existing natural vegetation and any disturbance of the terrain and natural land features are compatible with adja- cent areas and will result in a minimum disruption to the wildlife habitat and natural vegetation on the site. (Ord . 97 91 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A §25.28-3) . 25 . 50 .040 Cost of inve_s_tigations. All costs and ex- penses ir,.urred as a result o the requirements of this chapter including the cost and expenses of an independent review of the material submitted under the chapter by qual- ified persons retained by the city shall be borne by the applicant. (Ord . 97 §1 (part) , 1975: Exhibit A §25 . 28-4) . 11 _I0 . 050 Site an review. All development within this over ay istrictIhall be subject to the provisions pre- scribed in Chapter 25 .70 . (Ord . 97 §1 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A 925 . 28-5) . Chapter 25 .52 H HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT 4 Sections : 25 .52.010 Purpose. 25 .52 . 020 Conditional uses . . 25 .52 .030 Development standards . 25 * 52 * 010 Grading. 25 . 52 .050 Circulation. 25 . 52 . 066 structural design. 25 . 52 .070• Fire protection. 374 .;; '; a u 25 . 52 . 010--25 . 52 . 030 Sections : (Continued) 25 . 52 .080 Erosion control . 25 . 52 . 090 Preservation of open space . 25. 52.100 Submittal requirements for conditional use 3 permit. ' 25 . 52 .110 Environmental assessment. 25 . 52 .120 Required materials . 25 . 52 .130 Final site , grading and improvement plan approval . 25 . 52 .010 Purpose_. The purpose and intent of the hill- side development overlay district is : A. To encourage only minimal grading in hillside areas that relates to the natural contours of the land and will not result in extensive cut and fill slopes that result in a padding or staircase effect within the development; B. To retain natural vegetation which stabilizes slopes and where necessary require additional landscaping to stablize slopes and maintain the necessary cut and fill slopes in hillside areas ; C . To encourage design proposals for development in hillside areas that will materially reduce the need for grad- ing and disturbance of the natural environment in hillside areas . In order to encourage creative design , the planned residential development approach to development of those hillsides which are designated as being potentially build- able by the general plan is strongly encouraged; D . Require the retention of natural landmarks and fea- tures including vistas and the natural skyline as integral elements in development proposals in hillside areas . Hillside areas are those areas indicated on the city ' s zoning map as having average slopes before grading in excess of ten percent. (Ord. 97 Sl (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A 525 .29-1) 25 . 52 .020 Conditional uses . All uses in the underlying district are permitted subject to the issuance of a condi- tional use permit. The density for residential development j within the district shall be determined on the basis of the average slope of the natural terrain of the parcel . No grading or excavation of any kind shall be permitted until a conditional use permit and/or grading plan is approved. (Ord. 97 51 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A §25 .29-2) . 25 . 52 .030 Develo ment standards . A. The average slope of a tot within the district shall be computed by application of the following formula to the natural slope : 375 77 4 'y �N 25 . 52 . 040--25 . 52 . 050 5=.002291L Where : S = Average percent slope A I = Contour interval , in feet L = Summation of the contour length, in feet A = Area of the parcel in acres , of ownership being considered . B . Density within the district shall be based on the following scale: Percent Slope Minimum Acreage Per Dwelling Unit 1. 10 - 15 0 .66 acres ; 2 . 15 - 20 1 .00 acres ; 3 . 20 - 25 1 .25 acres ; 4 . 25 - 30 1 .66 acres ; 5 . 30 - 35 2 .50 acres; (� 6 . 35 or over 20 .00 acres . u C . Any area of the lot having a percentage of slope of thirty-five percent or greater shall be excluded from the n allowable area that may be allowed in computing density . 1] The area of both public and private streets shall be excluded in calculating net area of a lot. (Ord . 97 §l (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A §25 .29-3) . 25 -52 .040 Grading . The minimum of percentage of a lot n to remain in a atural state without cut or fill shall be determined on the basis of the average slope of the natural terrain of the lot. Such determination shall be made on the basis of the natural state as being defined as the condi- tion of the lot prior to any new development. The following table indicates the minimum percentage of a lot to remain in a natural state: Percent Slope Percent of the Lot To Remain in the Natural State A. 10 - 15 32. 5 B . 15 - 20 47 .5 C. 20 - 25 62 .5 D. 25 - 30 77 .5 E. 30 - 35 92 . 5 F. 35 or greater 97 . 5 . (Ord . 97 51 (part) , 1975: Exhibit A §25 . 29-3 .02) . 25 . 52 . 050 Circulation. A. Street alignments where possible shall parallel contours of the natural terrain and be located in valleys or on ridges at locations not visible from the valley floor. B . Where streets are required between a valley and ridge the principal of grading shall be half cut/half fill rather than all cut or all fill and where possible shall not be at locations visible from the valley floor . C . Sidewalks , when required, need not parallel the curb line . 376 (Palm Desert 8/15/78) `[ & _ N bob i� 25 . 52 . 060--25 . 52 .110 .i D . Street lighting , when required , shall be of low profile design and unobtrusive. (Ord. 97 §1 (part) , 1975 : ( Exhibit A 525 . 29-3 .03) . L 25 . 52 .060 Structural design. Site plan review in accord with Chapter 25 . 70 is required for all development in . a hillside development overlay district. Lot size, height units and setbacks shall be flexible in order to achieve the purposes of this section . (Ord . 97 i §1 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit 525 .29-3 .04) . 25 . 12 .070 Fire rotection. In areas where there will ' be a ire hazard, in the opinion of the fire agency , the fol- lowing shall apply : A. Clearance of brush or vegetative growth from struc- tures and roadways shall be in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code and approved by the fire agency . ' B . Roof shall be of fire retardant material approved by the fire agency. C . All easements for fire breaks shall be dedicated to i this purpose through recordation. (Ord. 97 §1 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A §25 .29-3 .05) . I � 25 .52 .080 Erosion control . All manufactured slopes shall be planted or otherwise protected from the effects of storm runoff and erosion within thirty days after completion of grading. Planting shall be designed to blend with the surrounding terrain and the character of development. (Ord . 97 §1 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A §25 .29-3 . 06) . 2° 52 . 090 Preservation of open space. In order to insure permanent retention of the natural terrain as required in Section 25 . 52 .040 , a covenant approved by the city attorney shall be recorded dedicating all building rights to the city and insuring that the natural areas shall remain as shown on plans approved by the city . (Ord . 97 51 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A §25 . 29-3 .07) . 25 . 52 . 100 Submittal recuirements for conditional use ep rmit. Prior to the issuance of-any building or grading for any development in those areas designated with a hillside overlay district, a conditional use permit shall be approved by the planning commission. The application for the conditional use permit shall include the following infor- mation as set out in Sections 25 . 52 .110 through 25.52 .130 . (Ord. 97 §1 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A §25 . 29-3 .08) . 25 . 52 . 110 Environmental assessment. A. A conditional use permit for preliminary site , gracing or . improvement plans shall undergo an initial environmental assessment by the planning division to determine whether the proposed develop- 377 41 25 . 52 .120 ment cound have a significant adverse effect on the environ- ment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and would, therefore , require the subsequent preparation of an environmental impact report . B . If an environmental impact report is required, the city planning commission shall emphasize compliance with CEQA by critically reviewing EIRs and suggesting mitigation mea- sures that could be incorporated into the initial site, grading and/or improvement plan . Procedures to minimize dis- turbances to natural terrain, drainage patterns , wildlife habitats , historically significant areas and migratory routes of animals shall be considered and evaluated by the city planning commission. (Ord. 97 51 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A §25 . 29-3 .08 (1) ) . 25 . 52 . 120 Required materials . A. In consideration of the granting of approval oF a conditional use permit for pre- liminary site, grading or improvement plans , the city plan- ning commission requires the submission of the following : 1. Accurate topographic maps indicating the follow- ing : a. Natural topographic features with an overlay of the proposed contours of the land after completion of the proposed grading; b. Slope analysis with at least five-foot contour intervals and a slope analysis showing the following slope categories : 10% - 15% 25% - 30% 25% - 20% 30% - 358 20% - 25% 358 and over ; c. Elevations of existing topographic features - and the elevations of any proposed building pads , street L centerlines and property corners; d. Locations and dimensions of all .proposed cut and fill operations ; e. Locations and details of existing and proposed drainage patterns , structures and retaining walls; f. Locations of disposal sites for excess or excavated material ; g. Locations of existing trees , other significant vegetation and biological features ; h. Locations of all significant geological fea- tures ; including bluffs , ridgelines , cliffs , canvons , rock outcroppings , fault lines and waterfalls . i . Locations and sizes of proposed building areas and lot patterns ; j . Any other information required by the plan- ning commission; 2 . Site plans and architectural drawings illustra- ting the following : a. Architectural characteristics of proposed buildings ; ,I 378 �.p �f a