Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Res 01-87-88 and Ord 990 27-acre Park 72500 Thrush Road
Resolution No. 01-87 Ordinance No. 990 Resolution No. 01-88 CITY OF PALM DESERT ISK7t.;, G DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT a.J4 bj `' ' 9 35•rr STAFF REPORT I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a General Plan Amendment from Hillside Planned Residential to Park, a Change of Zone from Hillside Planned Residential,Drainage (H.P.R., D.) to Open Space, Drainage (O.S.,D.) and a Precise Plan of Design to allow the construction of a 27 acre park with a parking lot, restroom, picnic areas and multi-use trails at 72-500 Thrush Road, APNs 628-050-002, 628-050-018, 628-150-001, 628- 260-058. III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 IV. CASE NOS: GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP01-01 V. DATE: June 28, 2001 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Executive Summary C. Background D. Analysis VII. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Resolution No.01-87 and Draft Ordinance No. 990 B. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2070 C. Planning Commission minutes involving Case Nos. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, and PP 01-01 D. Planning Commission Staff report dated May 15, April 17, March 20, 2001 E. Plans and exhibits 1 i Resolution No. 01-87 Ordinance No. 990 Resolution No. 01-88 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 JUNE 28, 2001 A. RE_COMMENDATIQN: 1. That the City Council adopt Resolution No.01-87 , approving GPA 01-01 2. That the City Council waive further reading for C/Z 01-01 and pass Ordinance No. 990 to second reading. 3. That the City Council adopt Resolution No. OL_88 approving PP 01-01, subject to conditions. B. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The request is for approval of a general plan amendment from Hillside Planned Residential to Park, a change of zone from Hillside Planned Residential, Drainage to Open Space, Drainage and a precise plan of design to allow the construction of the 27 acre Homme/Adams Park. The proposed facilities include three parking areas with five (5) spaces each entirely within the CVWD right-of-way directly adjacent to the service road, a restroom, picnic areas and an on-site multi-use trail. C. BACKGROUND 1. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: H.P.R., D- Vacant South: H.P.R., D- Vacant East: PR-7 - Single Family PR-18 - Multi-family R-1 S.P./P- Churches West: H.P.R., D - Single Family, Vacant 2. CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS: The site is vacant with scattered smoke trees, palo verde trees and typical desert scrub. Illegal dumping has occurred on the site primarily on the eastern edge of the property. In addition, there is evidence that the site has been utilized in the past by the homeless as a camping area. 2 Resolution No. 01-87 Ordinance No. 990 Resolution No. 01-88 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 JUNE 28, 2001 South Cliff Road crosses the site approximately 900 feet south of the Thrush Road Bridge and is used to access 6 existing hillside homes and 5 undeveloped lots. An area of approximately 'A acre near the bridge has historically been used for parking and as the main ingress/egress point for off-road vehicles. In order to maintain the parking area and help minimize off-road vehicle access to the site, the City delineated the parking area with palm logs. This temporary parking area is proposed to be removed upon completion of the permanent parking areas. The City is also storing approximately 9000 linear feet of palm logs which will be used to identify the perimeter of the park and to help eliminate additional vehicle access points. 3. PROJECT HISTORY This project was before the Planning Commission on three different occasions. The original park concept presented to the Commission included active facilities such as a tot lot, volleyball court and turf area. However, after meeting with the adjacent residents, including Indian Creek Villas, Vista Paseo, and the adjacent hillside property owners, it was determined that , currently, there is not a need for these amenities and there was, in fact, opposition to such facilities at this location. An objection was raised conerning the location, appearance and size of the temporary parking lot. Other concerns were also presented related to the traffic, noise, lighting, dust, access and security. The plan has been revised and the project, as conditioned, addresses these concerns. At it's May 15, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed project. The Parks and Recreation Commission recommended approval of the revised design adding that the restroom should be installed with the construction of the park. Commissioner Barnes and Commissioner Bats dissented feeling that the restroom should wait until the need for a restroom was verified. 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The 27-acre open space park design includes the following facilities: three parking areas with 5 spaces each within the CVWD right of way adjacent to the access road, restroom, picnic areas, and multi-use trail. The project is 3 Resolution No. 01-87 Ordinance No. 990 Resolution No. 01-88 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 JUNE 28, 2001 designed to function as a stand-alone open space park as well as a trail head for the future Cahuilla Hills trails system. The specifics of each item is discussed below: Multi-Use Trail Loop The multi-use trail will be used for walking, jogging, bicycling and other similar activities. The trail will be delineated with native material. The trail is designed as a loop extending the entire length of the property. This trail will be available for use by dog owners with the option of running their dog(s) off leash. Signage will be provided advising hikers that unleashed dogs may be present and that dog owners are responsible for the behavior of their animals. Picnic Areas: A total of three picnic areas are distributed throughout the site and include picnic table(s) and trash cans. Additional trees may be added to provide increased shade. Parking Areas (including access issues): The parking layout includes three parking areas with five spaces each for a total of fifteen parking spaces. Two of the areas will be located north of Thrush Road bridge with one parking area south of the bridge. The parking areas are shown entirely within the CVWD right of way to limit the amount of natural area disturbed. Staff has met with CVWD and discussed the access and parking issues. Staff is expecting a follow-up letter from them regarding the specifics, but theyhave been willingto work with the Cityto allow access P � and parking if their concerns with safety and liability are addressed. At a minimum, CVWD mentioned that the following would be required: A. Extend the existing channel fencing located south of Thrush Road to tie in with the Thrush Road bridge. B. Install fencing and auto barricades along the channel, north of Thrush Road for the portion of the channel road which will be used as access for the park. 4 Resolution No. 01-87 Ordinance No. 990 Resolution No. 01-88 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 JUNE 28, 2001 C. Pave or otherwise provide a hard surface for the channel road adjacent to the park. D. That the City will be responsible for maintenance and accept liability for the access road adjacent to the park. Staff will continue to work with CVWD regarding the specifics of the park proposal related to the channel road and parking area including all access, safety and security issues. As part of the project, the City will replace the existing gates along the channel at Thrush Road, which will be locked each evening, and at the north end of the park site which will allow authorized vehicle access only. Both will be designed to prevent unauthorized motor vehicle access but allow pedestrian access. In addition, staff will work with CVWD to have the existing, non-functioning gates along the channel, south of Greene Way replaced. RestroLorm The restroom is proposed at the north end of the park near the access point to the Cahuilla Hills trails. Staff is not proposing to install the restroom at this time but would like to obtain approval for the restroom which would allow construction when the need arises. With the seasonal closure of hiking trails in bighorn sheep sensitive areas, the Homme/Adams park will be a regional facility attracting users from throughout the city. Therefore, we anticipate the need for onsite restrooms at the Homme/Adams park in the future. The Parks and Recreation Commission recommended that the restroom be installed with the construction of the park. Commissioner Bats and Commissioner Barnes dissented feeling that the restroom should wait until the need is verified. Palmlogs:_ The Planning Commission added a condition to the project (Department of Community Development condition 12) that the City's Landscape Manager be utilized to work with the perimeter site design which may include use of palm logs, boulders, railroad ties, and split rail fencing, or any combination 5 Resolution No. 01-87 Ordinance No. 990 Resolution No. 01-88 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 JUNE 28, 2001 of the four. The Commission objected to the appearance of the palm logs. As for the alternatives, staff feels that none of them combine maintaining the natural character of the site and providing cost/effectiveness as well as the palm logs. For example, if boulders were used to delineate the 10,000 +/- linear feet of property line, the approximate cost would be $625,000 (5000 two-foot diameter boulders x $125/boulder). Boulders may be effective and natural, but the cost is prohibitive for this type of project. Staff is recommending that the palm logs be installed and that additional measures be evaluated and installed based on need. Fufure Access_Roads: Access from Calle de los Campesinos to private property west of the park will be via South Cliff Road and a private access road extending north. There will be no other vehicle access through the park property. This road is not on park property and will be developed in the future by adjacent private property owners. 5. GENERAL PARK INFORMATION A. Park Hours The proposed park hours are from dawn to dusk. B. Lighting There will be no activity lighting for this park. Restroom security lighting is the only proposed illumination. C. Noise There is a potential for an increase in the noise levels in the area around the park. However, the amenities proposed and the related activities are not historically noise producing in nature. No amplified music or motorized vehicles will be permitted in the park. The installation of effective gates will prevent motorcycles and off-road vehicles from using the access road as a race track. 6 Resolution No. 01-87 Ordinance No. 990 Resolution No. 01-88 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 JUNE 28, 2001 D. Facility Rules and Security With one exception, all City of Palm Desert public park rules shall apply These rules include: no alcohol, no overnight camping, etc. In addition, no amplified music shall be permitted at this park. The proposed exception relates to the current leash requirement that the City has for all of its parks. This site has historically been used to run dogs off leash and staff is recommending that this be permitted to continue. In discussions with the City Attorney, state law puts the responsibility of maintaining a dog under control on the owner and that if the park is signed indicating that the owners are responsible for the actions of their dog(s) and that the facility permits dogs off leash, the City will not be any more liable than it is at its other parks. In order to allow this site to be a leash optional park, an amendment to the Municipal Code is required. 6. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT The general plan amendment request is to change the current Hillside Planned Residential general plan designation to the Park designation. This better reflects current and future intended status of the site. The Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element of the General Plan will be revised to include the 27 acre parcel as a designated park. 7. CHANGE OF ZONE The change of zone request from the current Hillside Planned Residential, Drainage designation to a more appropriate Open Space, Drainage zoning designation will properly identify the property and officially include it in the City's open space inventory. D. ANALYSIS The proposed project including the parking areas, picnic areas, multi-use trail, restroom and palm logs will provide the public a trail head to the existing and future Cahuilla Hills trails and provide a hiking opportunity when other trails in the area are closed. In addition, with the development of a City park and the included mitigation measures, the existing problems with off-road vehicles, dust and noise will be 7 Resolution No. 01-87 Ordinance No. 990 Resolution No. 01-88 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 JUNE 28, 2001 greatly reduced. All improvements are designed to preserve and protect the essential natural character of the property. Activities within the park shall be regulated to minimize the impact on adjacent property owners. The general plan amendment from Hillside Planned Residential to Park and change of zone from Hillside Planned Residential to Open Space will modify the existing designations so they are consistent with the proposed project. The Director of Community Development has found that the above project will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared. Prepared Ay: R- • -d and Colic/ J FF W " EPLECK RICH • 'D J. Fe ERS, P.E. PARKS & RECREATION ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER FOR PLANNING MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Reviewed and Concur: ' - ed and C c P I DRELL CAI"LOS ORT A DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY CITY MANAGER DEVELOPMENT CITY COUNCILCTION: DENIED APPROVED ��/ *Approval of the Park with the RECEIVED OTHER following direction: 1) Consideration of the restroom facility to be l!g� P© taken u at a later time, once MEETING DATE r p , AYES: `' ' ` �`' j the need is demonstrated; 2) NOES: .14 .At, ! resolution of the gate concern, N.M •R either by CVWD or the City; ABSENT: �� ABSTAIN: _7�'[«� 461r 3) continuance of the issues of VERIFIED BY: delineating materials (palm logs, Original on File with C'4•y C rk' S Office boulders, etc.) and roadway surfacing to the meeting of July 19, 2001 8 L TY Of MUM DUE • 0,3., 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. Itl�, `..n PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2378 .�- ----., TEL: 760 346-0611 �. i- N�i•�:; FAX:760 341-7098 �= �=; info®palm-d .o, CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 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 approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a General Plan Amendment from Hillside Planned Residential to Park, a Change of Zone from Hillside Planned Residential,Drainage (H.P.R., D.) to Open Space, Drainage (O.S.,D.) and a Precise Plan of Design to allow the construction of a 27 acre park with a parking lot, restroom, picnic areas and multi-use trails at 72-500 Thrush Road, APNs 628-050-002, 628-050-018, 628-150-001, 628-260-058. _�w.A- • illa snit ��� , • v /MENNEN — A■■■s■■■1' iu . /11111■■■■■■ ILOE ti■■■■■■■u . .., SuP; f _' \It* s�0j aR w L" I„ n•777•J / UI woxw u �■■�■■■■*AEU■■■ mulim■rr■■■■■ \ � 0-rA■■■■■■uu �4d1 ■■UIiIUU■■■ Ir<iin■■■muipo■■■ � ^a muu.u..ii.■■■■■ 14 ■■■■■■iii■■■uu•u• IIIIMIMINEMIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIMIN ■•�••� onnu ■ =a■IRINNMEINIU■ili i l cl . •I■■/ SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, June 28, 2001, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, Secretary June 13, 2001 City of Palm Desert, California o?v1 .. CITY Of P11iffl DESERT : 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92 260-2 5 7 8 y TEL: 760 346-061 1 ,L s-y! FAX 760 341-7098 info@palm-desert org PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: May 17, 2001 City of Palm Desert Re: GPA 01-01 , C/Z 01-01 , and PP 01-01 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of May 15, 2001 : PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01 AND PP 01-01 TO CITY COUNCIL BY ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2070, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED 4-0 (CHAIRPERSON LOPEZ WAS ABSENT). Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Philip Drell, S retary Palm Desert P nning Commission /tm cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2070 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL TO PARK, A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, DRAINAGE (H.P.R., D.) TO OPEN SPACE, DRAINAGE (O.S., D.), A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE ONE OF A 27 ACRE PARK WITH A PARKING LOT, RESTROOM, PICNIC AREA AND MULTI-USE TRAILS AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AT 72- 500 THRUSH ROAD. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 15th day of May, 2001 , hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of the City of Palm Desert for approval of the above-mentioned project; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will have no significant impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify granting approval of said precise plan: 1. The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. 4. The design of the precise plan is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning, as amended. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2070 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO.GPA 01-01, CIZ 01-01, PP01-01 Department_of Community Development: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development/Planning, as modified by the following conditions: 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise, said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permit and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of such permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of Community Development and shall include provisions for recycling. 6. Hours of operation shall be from dawn to dusk. 7. No lighting, other than security lighting at the bathroom, shall be permitted. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2070 EXHIBIT "A" Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO.: G PA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP01-01 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A 27-acre open space park with parking lot, restroom, picnic area, and multi-use trails at 72-500 Thrush Road. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effect, may also be found attached. ay 15, 2001 PHILIP DREL DATE DIRECTOR O COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent May 1 1 , 2001 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 01-12 - L. LEE BOSLEY, M.D., TRUSTEE FOR THE CST PROMOTIONS, INC. Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge two lots, Lot Nos. 26 and 27 of Tract 25296-2, 916 Andreas Canyon Drive and 914 Andreas Canyon Drive. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case Nos. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant (Continued from March 20 and April 17, 2001) Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; a General Plan Amendment from Hillside Planned Residential to Park; a Change of Zone from Hillside Planned Residential, Drainage (HPR, D) to Open Space, Drainage (OS, D); and a Precise Plan of Design to allow the construction of a 27-acre park with a parking lot, 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 restroom, picnic area and multi-use trails at 72-500 Thrush Road, APNs 628-050-002, 628-050-018, 628-150-001 , 628-260-058. Mr. Winklepleck noted that the plan had been revised per the direction given by the commission at the April 17 meeting. Issues discussed included splitting up the parking area, adding additional picnic areas, repositioning the multi use trail, identifying options with the palm logs and meeting with CVWD regarding the access and parking issues, and reexamining the need for the restrooms. Mr. Winklepleck stated that the multi use trail was moved about 100 feet east on the west property line. He noted that there was some confusion about the future access roads. He explained that they were shown on the plans to acknowledge that there is an easement there. Ultimately it would be the property owners responsibility to construct the road. The City would not construct the road with the construction of the park. Regarding the picnic areas, Mr. Winklepleck said there was one shown on the previous plan at the north end of the park. That was revised to include two additional picnic areas. Where there weren't trees, theycould add a couple of trees and a picnic P table or two and a trash can. That was the extent of the picnic areas. They were not looking at any shade structures or anything along those lines. The parking areas were split up into three areas with room for five cars each. He said he included a detail to show what it would look like with an access road and the parking areas. Mr. Winklepleck said he talked with CVWD and they have certain concerns that were outlined in the staff report and were primarily with the liability issues and the fact that there isn't any barrier between the City's property and the wash. They would ask for the City to construct some sort of barrier especially where there is vehicle access to the parking areas and would include a minimum of fencing and potentially some vehicle barriers, the standard kind found up and down Highway 74. They also discussed gating issues because of off road vehicles, motorcycles and such using the channel and the noise and dust problems because of that. CVWD seemed willing to work with the City and ultimately what would occur out there would depend on what we request. At this point we previously talked about leaving the access road open for vehicle traffic during the day and closing it off at night between the park area or Thrush Road and Green Way to allow access there. After further study staff recommended that no 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 vehicle access be allowed there at all except for official CVWD vehicles or the Sheriff. Staff recommended that the gates be replaced at the north end of the park and at Thrush Road and allow pedestrian access only. That would allow the Thrush Road gate to be closed in the evening to prevent park usage at night. Staff would continue working with the District. Regarding the issues from the Vista Paseo homeowners on the off road vehicles, noise and dust, staff would work with CVWD to have those non functioning gates worked on. As far as the restroom, they talked about a restroom and commission directed staff to take the restroom at Cahuilla Hills Park back to the Parks and Recreation Commission for their recommendation. Mr. Winklepleck explained that they were looking at two separate types of uses at the parks. Cahuilla Hills would probably eventually need a restroom, but the difference in that facility versus this facility was that the primarily usage at Cahuilla Hills is tennis court usage from folks that live fairly close and have access to restroom facilities, whereas the Homme Adams Park would be more of a citywide usage where people may come from the east side of the city and may not have easy restroom facility access. Staff anticipated the need at this site, so staff was requesting approval of the restroom. It was not staff's intent to install it right now, but to leave it up to the Parks and Recreation Commission as to the appropriate time when there have been enough inquiries or requests for it. Prior to actually installing it staff would like to see a need for it, but wanted the ability to install them quickly when needed. Mr. Winklepleck said that he looked at alternatives to the palm logs and something that would provide a vehicle deterrent barrier and at the same time maintain the natural character of the site. Other than boulders, staff hadn't found a good alternative. Using boulders around the entire park would cost about $625,000. A standard two foot by two foot boulder was around $125.00 installed. Obviously with that kind of cost staff would not recommend that kind of alternative. Staff was open to other alternatives, but at this time staff felt the palm logs would be best. He recommended that Planning Commission recommend approval of the park to the City Council. Commissioner Campbell asked how often there would be police surveillance at the park or if the neighbors that live there were supposed to call the police when there was a problem. Mr. Winklepleck said there wasn't a set patrol at this time. After speaking with the Sheriff's 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 Department, there would be more patrols in the beginning to establish their visibility. It would probably be two or three times a day to start. It would essentially be a visual patrol. They wouldn't be sitting there and watching unless something was happening. There was no concrete answer at this time, but he has talked to the Sheriff representative about it but at this point there were no set numbers. He noted that in the past the City has been able to direct the Sheriffs when we need their focus at a specific location and that has worked in the past. Commissioner Campbell asked if the gates would be locked at dusk. Mr. Winklepleck said yes, it would be put on the Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District's circuit. They lock up the Ironwood Park restroom, Soccer Park restroom and Palm Desert Country Club restroom. It would be one of their standard stops. He confirmed that the police could check after that time to make sure no one was there. Commissioner Tschopp asked what type of fence would be next to the channel. Mr. Winklepleck said there was an existing fence that ends approximately 100 feet south of the Thrush Road bridge. It was five to six feet high and chain link. He anticipated something similar to that unless otherwise directed by Planning Commission or Council. He thought chain link would probably work the best, but they were wide open for any suggestions. Commissioner Tschopp said that on the type of restroom, he asked if it would be similar to the one at Ironwood. Mr. Winklepleck concurred that it would be similar and said that there are some very nice systems so that they wouldn't have to run sewers. It was staff's intent to have a fully self-contained facility, split block, small, no more than 400 square feet with one men's room and one women's and a small storage area for supplies. Very similar to Ironwood or Palm Desert Country Club. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was any combination of vegetation or split rail fence or something else that would look better than end to end dead palm trees. M r. Winklepleck said that they were trying to avoid actual fencing to maintain the natural open space character of it. Short of any man-made things, boulders and the palm logs seemed to be what was out there. Commissioner Jonathan noted there were three parking sections and he asked if there would be any logistical problem in moving a section to the south to be closer to that southerly picnic area. Mr. Winklepleck said 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 they tried to keep the parking north of the facility primarily because that was where it was previously. Also, if they did have vehicle access anywhere up and down the channel they would just have to improve that area as well. They kept it in the previous general vicinity. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the gate at Thrush Road would be locked at night, but he assumed that access would still be available south on the water road. Mr. Winklepleck concurred. He said that the existing residents that use that access would have full access. Commissioner Jonathan said that in theory if someone wanted access to the park they just head south and they could access the multi use trail. Mr. Winklepleck said that essentially they would be parking on the right-of-way. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Winklepleck looked at railroad ties as an alternative to palm logs. Mr. Winklepleck said they were an option. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he didn't know if they were more sanitary, but there was some concern raised earlier about mice or rats. Mr. Winklepleck said it was termites. Mr. Drell explained that railroad ties were eight inches. Palm logs were 18 inches to two feet so a railroad tie would barely provide an obstacle. Commissioner Jonathan asked about a combination of split rail like at residential homes with the two logs that go across, so perhaps a combination of that type of fencing with maybe the palm logs. He asked if that was conceivable. Mr. Winklepleck said that it was conceivable. The reason they stuck with the palm logs was to maintain the natural aspect. It could work if designed properly. Vice Chairperson Finerty noted that the public hearing was open and asked for testimony in FAVOR. MR. ROD JOHNSON, 150 Vista Paseo in Palm Desert, stated that he and the President of the Homeowners Association met with Mr. Winklepleck and they were very pleased with the changes. He liked the idea of the parking being spread out and the way it was planned rather than in one spot because it wou Idn't affect any of the neighbors as much as it would if it were all in one location. He also thought fencing was a marvelous idea to stop the vehicular traffic from going back and forth between the two parks, because that's what some of the SUVs and pickup trucks did. Their biggest problem was with motorcycles. Sometimes they used the bottom of the wash. He thought the idea of putting the chain link 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 1 5, 2001 fence up, while it wasn't the most attractive looking, along side the wash would help prevent some of the problems that occur now where kids throw boulders in the wash. It still wouldn't stop them from throwing pop and beer cans and bottles in there and causing a lot of debris, but it seemed to be a favorite spot to toss things. He had seen people take smaller rocks and throw them against the mountainside to chip it loose and get them down to throw them into the wash. Even after being cleaned up it took little time before it was a mess again. In the event of a flood it would really cause some problems because there was a great deal of debris that seemed to be thrown in there. He noticed that up from the Presbyterian Church and Episcopal Church they have a chain link fence on both sides of the wash. That seemed to keep a lot of problems away from the wash. A motorcyclist couldn't go into the wash because of the chain link fence and exit somewhere else and drive by on either side of the wash as they currently do. Mostly the motorcycles were on the west side of the wash right now. The only thing he was a little concerned with but not greatly was that the restroom was not totally eliminated but would probably be built later. He still strongly felt that restrooms are a gathering spot for trouble, drug use, sexual activity, and other problems that can result from having restrooms. He said that at least they would be locked at night if they are built, but maybe Mr. Winklepleck's idea of not building them immediately but having a watch and wait situation to see what kind of a need would be a very good idea. Definitely if they are constructed they needed to be locked at night. The palm log situation was a concern to some of the residents. Presently the logs looked pretty decent because they are new and haven't deteriorated, but as time goes by they do not look very good once they start to rot. That again was something that could be put in at a later date if there wasn't money to do it immediately. He liked the railroad tie idea and had used them extensively at his home in Los Angeles in a hillside situation, but he had to stack them up and put stakes behind them to make sure that they would hold back the soil. They look better and don't deteriorate as rapidly as palm logs. He didn't know if anyone had given consideration to the fact there is a great deal of rocks of various sizes, some boulder size and some not, that exist 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 in the area right now and he wondered if some of those could be moved and used without a big expense or a combination of the two, palm logs and the rocks that are existing. He said that there seemed to be a lot of rocks t here and rocks of a decent size would sort of prevent the smaller motorized vehicles from going over them. That was a possibility to look into. The police surveillance was an important issue to them because they don't really see a lot of police cars in their neighborhood to start with. He wasn't just talking about inside Vista Paseo because that's gated and they only come in when there is a call for them, but in the neighborhood in particular like Pitahaya, which requested additional police surveillance because people were going too fast down Edgehill and using their street to go over to the Target bridge. Even after that they had po lice surveillance for a while after the neighborhood complained a great deal, but it ended and he rarely ever saw a police car there now and certainly they didn't park and watch for speeders and there was a lot of speeding in that neighborhood. He stressed t hat he wanted them to look into using existing rock in the area and maybe someone could do a survey to find out how many might be there. He knew that hauling beautiful rock in like they did on the entrance to the airport at Palm Springs was rather expensive. If they could use some existing rock, and he thought there was enough there to use in certain areas at least, that would help out. MS. DORI CREE, 47-205 South Cliff Road in Palm Desert, complimented Mr. Winklepl eck on the park. She felt they had come a long way since the April meeting. She stated that she was in favor of the parking. The palm logs would be a deterrent to having cars come in there so she thought it was a good idea. She would have preferred the rocks, but if that couldn't happen, the palm logs were great. She also liked the multi use trail layout. Her only comment at this point was that since they would be paving the road along the channel north, she would have liked to have seen the paving extended south of Thrush bridge. They have two preschools there, the Presbyterian and the Episcopalian preschools. Cars coming in there would not necessarily all go north. Some of them would go south along that road also. Other 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 than that theyhave come a longwayand she complimented Mr. p Winklepleck on his work. Vice Chairperson Finerty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell complimented Mr. Winklepleck on what he had done since the first meeting. She was in favor of the parking and picnic areas and she was glad the restroom wouldn't be installed until it was needed. She wanted to make a comment like Commissioner Tschopp. As far as the logs were concerned, instead of having a perimeter of these ugly brown logs, have maybe a break and have some rocks. She agreed with Mr. Johnson, she didn't think they needed to buy the rock since there were enough rocks in the area. She agreed with Ms. Cree about paving the road to the south of the bridge. She was in favor of recommending approval to City Council. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He would suggest that in addition to what had been said that he would be in favor of paving the road south of Thrush Road, which would enable adding a five-space parking or moving the one located in the center of the three existing ones so that it is closer. He thought that if they were going to put a picnic area there, and it was a nice location, they should allow a family to park their car there so they could take their picnic basket over. He stated that he thought the park needed a restroom, and if there is an appropriate activity there he didn't think the solution was to not have a restroom for the people who don't break the rules, the solution was to work with police and he knew that the Sheriff's Department was very effective in dealing with that, so he was comfortable with giving staff latitude as to timing when the restroom should go in, but it made sense for a park to have a restroom especially if they wanted families to go there and enjoy it and kids needed to go to the bathroom and he would rather they went inside a structure. He stated that with regard to the fencing situation, he would definitely like to see staff be a little more creative and artistic with it. He liked the palm logs, but he thought they could be enhanced with a combination of adding some rocks. He didn't know if it was cost effective or environmentally appropriate to move rocks from their existing locations. If it was, fine, if not the City had a couple of dollars to buy a 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 few boulders that it could intersperse along with the logs and maybe with some railroad ties where appropriate where they could be effective along with those rustic looking wooden fences. A combination of any, some or all of the above might enhance the perimeter fencing and still be effective and accomplish the objectives. With those comments, he thought they arrived at a designed which accommodated the needs of the overall community as well as all the surrounding residents. He too complimented staff for doing that. Commissioner Tschopp concurred. He agreed they had come a long way on the park. With the palm logs, he thought there are some very talented landscapers in the city who could come up with a better combination of vegetation, rocks, split rails like the ones used out west that would enhance that natural look as opposed to making it look man made. He would really like to see them doing something like that and couldn't imagine any where else in the city where they would allow palm logs to be used to this extent. He concurred with paving the road to the south. It would benefit the park. If the restroom wasn't built now, it would be built soon. He would prefer to see it now beca use families would use the park and if they had ever gone to a park with children they knew that restrooms were needed and older folks needed restrooms also. Having had some experience with restrooms and parks around the city, they do work. The City took care of them and locked them and crime hadn't been a problem. He thought it was a well thought out plan and had come a long way and he complimented staff and the community for working together. Vice Chairperson Finerty concurred. She said she too would like to see, if appropriate, the existing rocks moved and interspersed with the palm logs. She asked Mr. Drell if that would be appropriate. Mr. Drell said he could not recommend that. They would be looting the natural features of the park to build it which he thought would be inappropriate and just the damage of bringing in heavy equipment because these needed large movers to move. Mr. Drell said he would not recommend looting the natural features of the park to build a wall. He also noted that there weren't that many big ones. Most of them were eight or ten inches which wouldn't be an effective barrier. To create a barrier it needed to be a couple of feet high. He thought it would be appropriate to add as 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 a condition that they explore additional methods to create and delineate the park in addition to the palm logs, but he would not recommend looting the natural boulders in the park to create it. Commissioner Campbell asked if they would use rocks to accent logs and some shrubs. Mr. Drell objected to shrubs because irrigation would have to be added. He said staff could look at that, but it made it more complicated. Split rail fencing, especially along the street frontage, would still be in the semi-developed environment, so staff could look at all those alternatives. He stated that right now the current directive from the City Council was to install the logs. They had been delaying it since an encroachment permit was pending from the Water District since it would go on their property, but staff would forward to the Council that they would like the Council to investigate alternatives and staff would look at split rail and other sorts of fencing materials that are less intrusive and more economical. Commissioner Jonathan thought that Council has and would feel free to disagree if they wished, but he would want the condition of approval to specify not so much that staff would explore, but that staff would work together with its landscape design specialist to create a perimeter fencing that combines the elements discussed, the palm logs, the rail road ties, boulders, and the split log fencing as effectively as possible. He also suggested that they add as a condition of approval that the access road south of Thrush Road be paved as well, or modify the existing condition. When he said paved he meant the same type of pave and chip seal. He concurred that it should be taken down to South Cliff Drive. He also recommended a condition to add a five parking space section or moving the one he referenced earlier to the south so that it was somewhere in close vicinity to the southerly picnic area. With those conditions, he was prepared to move for approval. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked if Commissioner Jonathan would want to add another condition about two or three patrols per day at first by the Sheriff's Department as suggested by Mr. Winklepleck. Commissioner Jonathan said he wasn't comfortable in his expertise as to how many patrols, but he agreed that some kind of condition that staff would monitor the activity together with the Sheriff's Department to ensure as peaceful a situation as possible. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked for a second to the motion. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. 11 3lr MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2070, recommending to City Council approval of GPA 01-01 , C/Z 01-01 and PP 01 -01 , subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0. B. Case No. CUP 01-09 - JOLEIN PRICE, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to operate a 96 square foot massage establishment within the existing Gold's Gym and the existing Abbas Aromas & Herbs store located at Desert Country Plaza at 77-900 and 77-920 Country Club Drive. Mr. Smith explained that the applicant indicated that this would be a one person operation. At any one time she would be at one location or the other, either in the Gold's Gym facility or at the Herb store location which was in the same commercial center. Mr. Smith indicated that the property is zoned PC and massage establishments are permitted in the PC zone with the approval of a conditional use permit. This would be a limited sized operation with only 96 square feet in each location. It would be compatible with the surrounding area and would not impact on the parking in the area. The center has a large field of parking in the area south of the buildings. It would appear that a massage therapist would be compatible with the gym and the health food operations. Findings for approval were outlined in the staff report. Mr. Smith stated that this is a Class 3 categorical exemption for CEQA purposes. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions in the draft resolution. Vice Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. 12 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jeff Winklepleck, Parks and Recreation Planning Manager DATE: May 15, 2001 continued from April 17, 2001 SUBJECT: Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a General Plan Amendment from Hillside Planned Residential to Park, a Change of Zone from Hillside Planned Residential,Drainage (H.P.R., D.) to Open Space, Drainage (O.S.,D.) and a Precise Plan of Design to allow the construction of a 27 acre park with a parking lot, restroom, picnic area and multi-use trails at 72-500 Thrush Road, APNs 628-050-002, 628-050-018, 628-150-001 , 628-260-058. CASE NOS.: GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 I. BACKGROUND This project was continued from the April 17, 2001 Planning Commission meeting with the direction that staff revise the preliminary plan to split up the parking area, add additional picnic areas, reposition the multi-use trails, identify options to using the palm logs, meet with the Coachella Valley Water District to discuss access and parking issues and re-examine the need for restrooms. The site plan has been revised per the direction of the Planning Commission. The current plan includes a multi-use trail, three picnic areas, three parking areas, a restroom and use of palm logs to delineate the park. The specifics of each item is discussed below. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 MAY 15, 2001 Multi Use Trail: The multi-use trail has been moved and is shown a minimum of 100 feet from the west property line/future access road area. It should be noted that the future access road is not a part of this project and will not be installed by the City. It is shown on the plan only to indicate that an easement exists to all the properties adjacent to the park. It will be the property owners' responsibility to construct the road. Picnic Areas: A total of three picnic areas are shown on the plan which include the original picnic site at the north end of the park as well as two additional sites. One is located approximately 200 feet north of Thrush Road and the other is located adjacent to the hill approximately 400 feet south of Thrush Road. The picnic areas will include picnic table(s) and trash cans. Additional trees may be added to provide increased shade. Parking Are (including access issues) The parking layout has been revised to include three parking areas with five spaces each for a total of fifteen parking spaces. The parking areas are located north of the Thrush Road Bridge and are shown entirely within the CVWD right of way to limit the amount of natural area disturbed. Staff has met with CVWD and discussed the access and parking issues. They seem willing to work with the City to allow access and parking if their concerns with safety and liability are addressed. At a minimum, CVWD mentioned that the following would be required: A. Extend the existing channel fencing located south of Thrush Road to tie in with the Thrush Road bridge. B. Install fencing and auto barricades along the channel, north of Thrush Road for the portion of the channel road which will be used as access for the park. C. Pave the channel road north of Thrush Road which will be used as access for the park. D. That the City will be responsible for maintenance and accept liability for the access road to the park. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 MAY 15, 2001 Staff will continue to work with CVWD regarding the specifics of the park proposal related to the channel road and parking area including all access, safety and security issues. At the last meeting, the concept of opening the channel road from Thrush Road bridge to Greene Way bridge for vehicular access during the day and closing it at night was discussed. After further consideration, staff is proposing to keep the channel road between Greene Way bridge and the park closed for vehicular traffic at all times (except for official vehicles) and install new access gates to permit pedestrian and bicycle access only. The City would replace the existing gates along the channel at Thrush Road,which would be locked each evening, and at the north end of the park site. In addition, as a mitigation measure to minimize noise and dust, gates and fencing to prevent vehicle access staff would work with CVWD to have the existing, non-functioning gates along the channel, south of Greene Way replaced. Restroom: The restroom is proposed at the north end of the park near the access point to the Cahuilla Hills trails. Staff is not proposing to install the restroom at this time but would like to obtain approval for the restroom which would allow construction when the need arises. The existing Cahuilla Hills Park and tennis courts are primarily used by residents from the local neighborhood with relatively convenient access to their own restroom facilities. With the seasonal closure of hiking trails in bighorn sheep sensitive areas, the Homme/Adams park will be a regional facility attracting users from throughout the city who will have significantly less convenient access to restroom facilities. Therefore, we anticipate the need onsite restrooms at the Homme/Adams park in the future. Palm Logs: Staff has investigated altematives for the palm logs that would be used to delineate the park, provide a vehicle barrier/deterrent and maintain the natural character of the site. Unfortunately, other than boulders, no other good alternatives have been identified. As for the boulder alternative, the approximate installed cost for a boulder which measures two feet in diameter is $125. Therefore, the approximate cost of using boulders to delineate the 10,000 +/- linear feet of property line at the park is $625,000 (5000 boulders x $125). Staff does not recommend this alternative. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 MAY 15, 2001 I I. ANALYSIS The proposed project including the parking areas, picnic areas, multi-use trail, restroom and palm logs will provide the public a trailhead to the existing and future Cahuilla Hills trails and provide a hiking opportunity when other trails in the area are closed. In addition, with the development of a City park and the included mitigation measures, the existing problems with off-road vehicles, dust and noise will be greatly reduced. All improvements are designed to preserve and protect the essential natural character of the property. Activities within the park shall be regulated to minimize the impact on adjacent property owners. The general plan amendment from Hillside Planned Residential to Park and change of zone from Hillside Planned Residential to Open Space will modify the existing designations so they are consistent with the proposed project. As stated in the previous report, the Director of Community Development has found that the above project will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared. III. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends: A. Adoption of the findings; B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending approval of GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01 and PP 01-01 to the City Council. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 MAY 15, 2001 IV. ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Resolution B. Planning Commission minutes and report dated April 17, 2001. C. Legal Notice D. Plans and exhibits Pre ared n Reviewed and Approved: Jeff Win e le.k Phil Dre Parks and Recreation Planning Manager Director of Community Development 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL TO PARK, A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, DRAINAGE (H.P.R., D.) TO OPEN SPACE, DRAINAGE (0.S., D.), A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE ONE OF A 27 ACRE PARK WITH A PARKING LOT, RESTROOM, PICNIC AREA AND MULTI-USE TRAILS AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AT 72- 500 THRUSH ROAD. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 15th day of May, 2001, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of the City of Palm Desert for approval of the above-mentioned project; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will have no significant impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify granting approval of said precise plan: 1. The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. 4. The design of the precise plan is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning, as amended. 1 73 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings for the Commission in this case. 2. That approval of GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, and PP01-01 is hereby recommended to the City Council, subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 15th day of May, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Jim Lopez, Chairperson Philip Drell, Secretary 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO.GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP01-01 Department aLCommunity Developments 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development/Planning, as modified by the following conditions: 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise, said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permit and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of such permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of Community Development and shall include provisions for recycling. 6. Hours of operation shall be from dawn to dusk. 7. No lighting, other than security lighting at the bathroom, shall be permitted. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. (Dept. of Community Development conditions cont'd) 8. Dog owners shall be required to maintain their dog(s) under their control and clean up after their dog(s). Owners failing to comply with this regulation and all other applicable rules and regulations shall be subject to fines and/or prosecution as allowed by law. City's leash law within park ordinance shall be revised to provide for necessary exceptions. 9. The City shall enter into an agreement with CVWD regarding the access road, gates and parking areas. 10. The channel road gate at Thrush Road will be locked at dusk each day to limit afterhours vehicle traffic to the parking areas. 11. The restroom shall be locked each evening at dusk. Departmentof Public Works: 1. All grading and other related site work shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Riverside County Fire Department: None 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO.: GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP01-01 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION. A 27-acre open space park with parking lot, restroom, picnic area, and multi-use trails at 72-500 Thrush Road. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effect, may also be found attached. PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 5 I/7 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jeff Winklepleck Parks and Recreation Planning Manager DATE: April 17, 2001 continued from March 20, 2001 SUBJECT: Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a General Plan Amendment from Hillside Planned Residential to Park, a Change of Zone from Hillside Planned Residential,Drainage (H.P.R., D.) to Open Space, Drainage (O.S.,D.) and a Precise Plan of Design to allow the construction of a 27 acre park with a parking lot, restroom, picnic area and multi-use trails at 72-500 Thrush Road, APNs 628-050-002, 628-050-018, 628-150-001, 628-260-058. CASE NOS.: GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 I. BACKGROUND This project was continued from the March 20, 2001 Planning Commission meeting with the direction that staff revise the proposed plan eliminating the active areas and relocating the parking lot towards the north end of the property more adjacent to the trail connection. In addition, the Commission requested a more quantitative number related to traffic and more information on the Thrush Road bridge related to pedestrian and vehicular access. 1 Tv PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-01, C!Z 01-01, PP 01-01 APRIL 17, 2001 II. DISCUSSION A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Parking The design has been revised with the 36 space parking lot, restroom and picnic area being relocated approximately 600 feet north of the Thrush Road bridge. Access to the parking area will be via the Palm Valley storm channel road subject to CVWD approval. In addition, the current design locates the parking area entirely within the fifty foot CVWD right of way to limit the amount of natural area disturbed. This is also subject to CVWD approval. If the City is unable to gain approval from CVWD, the access road and parking area would be located entirely on the park property. 2. Traffic The City's Transportation Manager, Mr. Mark Greenwood, indicated at the last meeting that the proposed park would create fewer than 100 trips per day. Staff has discussed this further and this number was reaffirmed. This number is based more on the City's experience with it's more intense existing parks than on the trip generation data provided by the ITE (International Transportation Engineers) which is very limited in scope. In comparison, if this property were developed as a residential project based on the allowed density, it would create 600-700 trips per day. The trip generation data on housing is much more accurate and these numbers are much more reliable. 3. Thrush Bridge The Thrush Bridge provides twenty-four (24) feet for two-way vehicular access and a four (4) foot sidewalk along the south side for pedestrian access. The current dimensions are adequately provide for safe vehicular and pedestrian crossings. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 APRIL 17, 2001 B. PREVIOUSLY STATED PROJECT CONCERNS At the last meeting, the Planning Commission received letters from three adjacent property owners expressing a variety of concerns with the proposed project. Staff responded to the concerns verbally, but feels that a written follow-up is warranted. Following is a synopsis of the the three letters that were received from Dori Cree, Richard and Marilyn Fromme, and Everett and Patricia Aplet as well as staff responses. • Ms. Cree's Letter: Ms. Cree's letter expressed concern with the location of the facilities and their impacts in relationship to her properties. The visual impact and the concern that people would choose to explore beyond the park into the residential properties were the primary impacts stated. She also indicated that if the public facilities were located toward the northern side of the Thrush Bridge entrance that it would greatly diminish the negative effect on the her residential properties. Response: The current proposed design has relocated the parking lot, restroom and picnic facilities to the north end of the property more adjacent to the trail access. The proposed location of the multi-use trail has not been changed. • The Frommes' Letter: The Frommes letter requested that a fence be located on the common boundary line between adjacent to the trail to discourage tresspassers and keep hikers from throwing rocks and debris onto their property. In addition, they had a concern with the palm logs and potential termite problems that might be related to their placement on site. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 APRIL 17, 2001 Response: The trail is related to the proposed park, but is not of the current request and the requested fencing would be part of the trail project proposal. Also, the City has discouraged the use of fencing in the hillsides in order to maintain the natural character. With regards to the termite issues, staff spoke to the District Conservationist with the Natural Resource and Soil Conservation Service who works closely with date growers in the valley, and they indicated that termites do not like the palm trees carbon to nitrogen ratio. However, if termites are discovered in the logs, the trees can be treated. • The Aplets' Letter The Aplets' letter listed 12 areas of concern related to the proposed park and are as follows: 1. Proceeding with the proposed park development without appropriate environmental reviews. Response: The temporary parking lot was located in the area historically used for parking and palm logs were placed to define the area as well as to close off the main entry for off road vehicles. Ultimately, the palm logs which are currently stored on site will be used to surround the entire park to assist in limiting all access to off-road vehicles. If the approved permanent parking lot is in a different location, the temporary lot will be restored in a natural condition. 2. Insufficient review of the potential traffic hazards for vehicles and pedestrians at the Thrush Road bridge and connecting streets as a result of the park. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 APRIL 17, 2001 Response: Based on the traffic created from a similarly scoped facility (Ironwood Park), the increases in traffic would be minimal (<100 trips/day) and the current street and bridge design will adequately handle the increases. 3. Inadequately addressing drainage in the park design. Response: The majority of the park will remain natural and the current drainage pattern will remain. A public works condition states that any work on site be approved by the Public Works Director and any necessary drainage requirements would be applied at that time. 4. Possible violation of State and/or City ordinances in relation to temporary parking lot construction. Response: See Response #1 above. 5. Provision for adequate vehicular access and possible CEQA violation because of noise, dust and high level of traffic that does not now burden these properties. Response: In the proposed design traffic will be confined to the existing CVWD maintenance road which will be improved to eliminate dust generation. The low level of projected traffic will not conflict with existing residential use. 6. The possible change in nature of the existing easement across our property from private to public. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 APRIL 17, 2001 Response: The existing easements which surround the 5 acre parcels are for public purposes. 7. Boundary identification at park and trails is needed to help prevent tresspass, confrontations, preserve the personal liability exposure of property owners at current levels, guard against animal attacks, avert damage to the hillsides and reduce the likelihood of vandalism. Response: The palm logs will serve as the damarcation and the park will be adequately signed to identify the park boundary. Sheriff patrols will also assist in limiting the above items. Property owners will be permitted to build appropriate fencing to secure their property. 8. Concerns with sufficient patrols to prevent vandalism, loud parties or any other activity that would disturb the serenity normally afforded the residences protected by the Hillside Planned Residential District. Response: The Sheriffs department would be directed to patrol the park which has been a great help in decreasing these issues. 9. Installation of lighting beyond the needed security lighting at the restroom: Response: No lighting is being proposed beyond that required for restroom security. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 APRIL 17, 2001 10. Any park design that would allow the connection of electrical utilities in any manner not in full accordance with City ordinances specifically related to undergrounding. Response: Any electrical connections will be underground in accordance to the current City Ordinances. 11. Any other result of the park development or construction that could adversely affect the peace and tranquility currently afforded the residences by the Hillside Planned Residential District. Response: Under the current zoning, approximately 60-70 homes could be built on this site. The impact by such a project would be much greater than what is being proposed. Park use will conform will all applicable noise and other related City ordinances. 12. Any element of park design and/or construction not preserving the intent and purpose of the Hillside Planned Residential District provisions. Response: The proposed zoning and general plan are less intensive than the current designations. The proposed park will meet the intent and purpose of the Hillside Planned Residential zoning designation. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 APRIL 17, 2001 C. NEW PROJECT CONCERNS Staff met with representatives from the Vista Paseo Homeowner's Association along with their legal counsel on April 11, 2001 to discuss concerns and questions with the proposed park. A letter is included with the staff report listing these concerns. Vista Paseo is the residential development north west of the proposed park site across the Palm Valley Storm Channel. The closest unit in Vista Paseo is approximately 200 feet from the area identified as picnic area on the plan. Following are the concerns and questions along with staffs response: 1. What are the short and long term plans for the park? Response: The plan for the park is as presented. Any changes to the ultimately approved plan will be required to go back through the public hearing process. 2. What is the ingress/egress plan for the park? Does the entrance link with an existing street? Response: Main Ingress/egress will be from Thrush Road with a secondary access from Greene Way which can be closed at night by a system of gates. 3. The Board is concerned with the statement in the proposed Resolution that the plan "will not substantially depreciate property values". How did staff evaluate the adverse impact that the park may have on property values in the area and specifically Vista Paseo? 8 5J-- PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 APRIL 17, 2001 Response: There is no evidence that development of the previous City parks have had a negative affect on adjacent property values. The proposed park is less intense than the existing parks. No active facilities are planned. This equates to less noise, less traffic and no lights therefore minimizing the impacts on the surrounding properties. 4. The proposed Resolution also states that the "precise plan" will not endanger the public peace. How did staff arrive at this conclusion? The Board believes that the park may indeed create an environment which will be disruptive to the peace and quiet of the community. The Board is concerned that the park will be a magnet for disruptions, loiterers, vagrants, and in particular motorcycle riders. Response: Based on the lack of active facilities, the noise levels will be lower than the City's other existing parks. Although additional noise may be created by the development of the property as a park, the levels will be within those established by ordinance for residential properties. As a formal park, the Sheriffs department will be directed to patrol the facility regularly which, in the past, has minimized problems. In addition, the proposed restroom will be locked every evening to discourage use of the facility after dark. All standard park rules will be in effect including prohibition of alcohol, no amplified music, no overnight camping, etc. 5. Who will be responsible for policing the new park if there are breaches of the peace? Response: The Sheriffs Department. 6. Does the City have any plan to prevent or address safety/security risks to the nearby homeowners, in particular Vista Paseo, due to the new park. 9 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 APRIL 17, 2001 Response: The added Sheriffs patrols along with increased use of the facility by the public will help to decrease illegal activities on site and in the area. This has occured most recently with the Palm Desert Country Club Neighborhood park. 7. The board is concerned that the park causes negative impact on scenic mountain views. Response: The park is being developed as an open space facility with minimal disturbance of the natural area. The park will not impact scenic mountain views. 8. Does the open, unimproved nature of the park present a fire hazard and, if so, are there plans to deal with that hazard in terms of maintenance, etc? Response: The facility will be maintained by a landscape contractor to ensure that the vegetation does not create a fire hazard. 9. The Board feels that the park will cause an increase in traffic on Highway 74 at Thrush Road and at the Baptist Church. Has planning staff considered and addressed this? Response: The projected trips/day is estimated at less than 100 which will not have a significant impact. 10. What are the official hours of the park? Response: The park is a dawn to dusk facility. 10 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 APRIL 17, 2001 11 . Is there any security or guard at the park, either on-site or drive-by? Response: No security guard is planned for the park. Security will be provided by the Palm Desert Sheriff Department with patrols. 12. If tennis courts are planned for this park in the future, how will lighting be increased from the present plan? Response: No tennis courts are planned for this site. 13. The Board believes that there will be an increase in noise levels from the park from increased traffic, dogs, etc. Has planning staff taken this into account in their plan? Response: See response #4 above. 14. The open/undeveloped plan of the park presents a dust nuisance issue. Is there a plan to control dust at this park? Response: This proposed park site is sheltered from the majority of the prevailing winds. Should there prove to be a dust or blowsand problem, stabilizers or other approved methods will be used to mitigate the issue. In addition, the access road to the parking area will be either asphalt with a natural colored chip seal or binders will be used to minimize the dust created by vehicle access. 11 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 APRIL 17, 2001 15. What is the plan for emergency vehicle access into the park? Response: Emergency access will be over the existing bridges. In addition to those items raised in the letter, the representatives requested that the City work with CVWD to close off vehicular access from the Greene Way Bridge to the park site on the west side of the storm channel as well as the east side. They also requested a gate to close off access to the parking area at dusk which would help to minimize activities at the park after dark. Finally, they requested that the parking area be moved further south and west away from the channel and their development. D. MS. CREE FOLLOW-UP LETTER Staff received a follow-up letter from Ms. Cree expressing additional concerns and recommendations. The letter is included with the staff report. The concerns and recommendations are as follows with staff responses: 1 . Although the temporary parking lot has been moved to a much more convenient location for the trails and has been reduced in size, we would still like to see the City limit themselves to one parking lot at the Cahuilla Hills Park. This would be just as convenient for access the hillside trails, there would be only one parking lot for the Sheriffs Department to patrol and the Cahuilla Hills Park parking area would be only 4/10 of a mile from the new view/picnic site which the City recently purchased. Response: Homme/Adams park is proposed to be linked by trail to Cahuilla Hills Park, but it is also intended to be used as a stand-alone facility. People wishing to use this facility as a trailhead but not wishing to complete the entire loop would be inconvenienced if no parking was provided. With or without a parking lot, the Sheriff would need to patrol this park facility. Although the northernmost portion of the subject property is approximately 4/10 of a mile from Cahuilla Hills 12 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 APRIL 17, 2001 Park, the entire park site will be used and the southern most area is located approximately one mile from Cahuilla Hills Park. A lack of parking and restroom facilities at this location would prove to be inconvenient. 2. Vehicular traffic: The City not encourage vehicular traffic from the Thrush Street bridge; keep the 'gates' at the north end closed (as they have been). Keep the area along the CVWD channel open for pedestrians only. Response: The Thrush Road bridge is adequately designed for the projected traffic volume that the park will generate. The access gate at the north end of the park site will be locked to prevent vehicular use during the night. 3. Emphasize the area along the Channel road as a walking/jogging trail. It is very popular already for this purpose. Since the City now owns approx. 2 miles along the channel, it would be an improvement if some benches and shade trees were incorporated along this boundary for the people using it for their exercise route. Response: Improvement of off-site trails is not a part of this project. 4. Palm Logs: She indicates that the palm logs are not a deterrent to off- road vehicles and that the 'off roaders' are ignoring the signs. If the area along the channel were emphasized for jogging/walking, could not a berm or ditch be created or some other deterrent be installed to keep the 'off roaders' from wheeling through this environmentally sensative desert area? 13 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 APRIL 17, 2001 Response: The palm logs are currently only placed around the temporary parking area. If this project is approved, they will be placed so as to surround the facility, greatly reducing the ease of access for off road vehicles. If the logs, patrols and additional signage do not prove to be effective, other measures can be evaluated. 5. Open Space: Could the Homme/ Adams site be zoned Open Space rather than Park. Response: The proposed change of zone is from Hillside Planned Residential to Open Space. 6. Temporary Parking Lot: Could the City dismantle the temporary parking lot ass soon as possible? It is serving no purpose other than to encourage kids to gather there at night and hang out. At the last meeting the City said that it was up to us property owners to call the police when we see these violations and we can't constantly be calling the police. Response: The area where the temporary parking lot is located will be removed and re-naturalized as soon as the permanent facility is available. 7. Well sites for Bighorn: There are three well sights either under construction or planned on the west side of the CVWD channel. One is planned at the Cahuilla Hills Park between the tennis courts and parking area. Although it would be costly to change this site to a better location in the park, wouldn't it be money well spent considering the best possible utilization of the Cahuilla Hills Park? Response: The well site/pump station at Cahuilla Hills Park is not a part of this project. 14 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 APRIL 17, 2001 III. ANALYSIS Staff received a response from the United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service with respect to this project and the impact on the bighorn sheep. They indicate that this site as well as the future proposed trails conform to most of their recommendations. Their main concern remains dog access up the trails. This issue will be addressed when the trails project is processed. Their response letter has been attached. As stated in the previous report, the Director of Community Development has found that the above project will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared. IV. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends: A. Adoption of the findings; B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending approval of GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01 and PP 01-01 to the City Council. V. ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Resolution B. Planning Commission minutes and report dated March 20, 2001. C. Legal Notice D. Plans and exhibits Prypar EA by: iewed and Approved: _„ Jeff ink leck —Phirbie I Parks and Recreation Planning Manager Director of Community Development 15 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL TO PARK, A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, DRAINAGE (H.P.R., D.) TO OPEN SPACE, DRAINAGE (0.S., D.), A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE ONE OF A 27 ACRE PARK WITH A PARKING LOT, RESTROOM, PICNIC AREA AND MULTI-USE TRAILS AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AT 72- 500 THRUSH ROAD. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 17th day of April, 2001, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of the City of Palm Desert for approval of the above-mentioned project; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will have no significant impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify granting approval of said precise plan: 1. The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. 4. The design of the precise plan is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning, as amended. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings for the Commission in this case. 2. That approval of GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, and PP01-01 is hereby recommended to the City Council, subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 17th day of April, 2001 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Jim Lopez, Chairperson Philip Drell, Secretary 2 GV PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL TO PARK, A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, DRAINAGE (H.P.R., D.) TO OPEN SPACE, DRAINAGE (O.S., D.), A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE ONE OF A 27 ACRE PARK WITH A PARKING LOT, RESTROOM, PICNIC AREA AND MULTI-USE TRAILS AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AT 72- 500 THRUSH ROAD. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 17th day of April, 2001, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of the City of Palm Desert for approval of the above-mentioned project; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will have no significant impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify granting approval of said precise plan: 1. The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. 4. The design of the precise plan is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning, as amended. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings for the Commission in this case. 2. That approval of GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01 , and PP01-01 is hereby recommended to the City Council, subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 17th day of April, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Jim Lopez, Chairperson Philip Drell, Secretary 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO.GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP01-01 Department of CommunityDevelopment: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development/Planning, as modified by the following conditions: 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise, said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permit and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of such permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of Community Development and shall include provisions for recycling. 6. Hours of operation shall be from dawn to dusk. 7. No lighting, other than security lighting at the bathroom, shall be permitted. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. (Dept. of Community Development conditions cont'd) 8. Dog owners shall be required to maintain their dog(s) under their control and clean up after their dog(s). Owners failing to comply with this regulation and all other applicable rules and regulations shall be subject to fines and/or prosecution as allowed by law. Department of Public Works: 1. All grading and other related site work shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Riverside County Fire Department: None 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE N_Li GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP01-01 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A 27-acre open space park with parking lot, restroom, picnic area, and multi-use trails at 72-500 Thrush Road. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effect, may also be found attached. PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2001 it is part of the ordinance that it is required. She felt the project would enhance the area and was in favor. Commissioner Campbell concurred with the other commissioners. She felt it was a wonderful project in a great location. She was pro business, so the more people they get, the better it is when they are here all year round. That was what she wanted, not just a six months out of the year community, but a full year community. She was in favor of the project. Commissioner Tschopp concurred with his other commissioners. Chairperson Lopez concurred and reemphasized that they needed to look at traffic flow down Cook Street. He would also concur about the growth of that area. They had done a great job right now in the north sphere and he wanted to see that continue with careful growth of that area and traffic flow, especially with the college campus and more and more students. He was in favor of the project and asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2063, recommending approval of PP/CUP 00-27, a master plan of development for 5.4 acres on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive and a precise plan for an 88-room Hampton Inn to the City Council, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. E. Case Nos. GPA 01-01 , C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant (Continued from March 20, 2001) Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; a General Plan Amendment from Hillside Planned Residential to Park; a Change of Zone from Hillside Planned Residential, Drainage (HPR, D) to Open Space, Drainage (OS, D); and a Precise Plan of Design to allow the construction of a 27- acre park with a parking lot, restroom, picnic area and multi-use 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2001 trails at 72-500 Thrush Road, APNs 628-050-002, 628-050- 018, 628-150-001 , 628-260-058. Mr. Winklepleck noted that at the last meeting this item was continued to look at revising the plan and eliminating the active facilities and to look at the issue of the Thrush Road Bridge relative to pedestrian and vehicular access. Those things had been done. The Thrush Road Bridge, as noted in the report, the vehicular access lane was two-way 24 feet. There was a four-foot sidewalk along the south side of the bridge. He spoke to Mr. Greenwood who indicated that was sufficient for both vehicular and pedestrian access for this facility. There was also a question about some of the projected numbers of vehicles to the site. Mr. Greenwood reiterated that there would be approximately a maximum of 100 trips per day with the majority on the weekend mornings. Also in the report he addressed the previous letters as well as some letters that came in since the last meeting. There was also one additional letter received from Guralnick & Gilliland who represent the Vista Paseo homeowners. One issue raised was lack of notice. Mr. Winklepleck said that property owners were noticed, but the association was not noticed. The state requirements were met. The association would be noticed of consequent meetings. He noted that the current plan removed all the active areas. They shifted the parking lot to the north closer to the trail head. This would be a wide-open piece of land with a small parking area, some onsite trails, a restroom and a picnic area. The picnic area was originally shown as a picnic pavilion. After further study of the site where the trail head would be, there were a couple of nice Palo Verde trees that would be nice with just some tables under them. Mr. Drell said that for graphic purposes they were showing the parking as a significant feature on the north side. He said that the CVWD right-of-way extends 20 feet beyond the existing service road. What they were proposing to do was get an encroachment permit from CVWD to widen that road 20 feet and so there would be a road wide enough for head in parking. It wouldn't look like a parking lot as such, it would be a widened area in the road that would accommodate parking and wouldn't be a separate facility distinct from the service road. Mr. Winklepleck said that they contacted CVWD but haven't received an official response yet. Commissioner Tschopp asked if staff had any input on CVWD's plans when they plan on building these large wells. Mr. Drell asked if he meant the pump stations. Commissioner Tschopp said yes. Mr. Drell said that the three pump stations that were now in various stages of construction dated back to the 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2001 settlement agreement of the lawsuit that occurred when Bighorn (then Rancho Bella Vista) was first approved back in 1984. Litigation occurred for four or five years and there was a settlement in 1988 or 1989 which ultimately paved the way for Westinghouse to proceed with the project. Those three pump stations were part of that settlement. The City reviews them for aesthetic consideration and the one that was going in at Cahuilla Park they studied extensively trying to find alternative sites. They hired an engineer and looked at four or five alternative sites. Under the agreement it basically said that they ask and we provide. They agreed to put it somewhere else if the City paid for the additional cost. After looking at all the other alternatives, they got them to move it to another location in the park, but they basically had design input about how the walls would look and how landscaping would be, but they were pretty much stuck with the general locations relative to the engineering and requirements that they not only provide pressure up the hill toward Bighorn, but apply pressure to specific zones to the east in terms of the neighborhoods of the city. So there were hydraulic requirements that set where they go. But they had aesthetic review. Commissioner Tschopp asked if this plan were approved, what the procedure would be in the future if the City expanded the park or other facilities in the park. Mr. Winklepleck said that anything that came in beyond this, say in ten years from now and the residents want something, it would then go back through the public hearing process like this one, so it would go through Planning Commission and City Council. Chairperson Lopez noted that there were two gates, one at the bottom of the hill and one at the top, and he asked who had access and opened and closed those gates. Mr. Winklepleck said that CVWD owns 55 feet west of the Palm Valley Storm Channel that they essentially have all control on. Any access across there was with their permission. They have control and are responsible for it. Mr. Drell said that historically they didn't have a problem with other people using it as long as their access to it is not impaired. Chairperson Lopez said that if they go across Thrush Street Bridge, take a right-hand turn there is a gate right there. He asked who has the ability to open and close that gate. Mr. Drell said right now it was unlocked, but technically it was CVWD's gate. When the channel was built they basically agreed that all the existing parcels could use their access road as they had historically to get to their property. Since that portion of the road between that gate and those homes that were near the park and church, there was no property that needed access now. 17 7� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2001 There was a gate at the bottom near their water tank so for whatever reason they had gated off this section since there was no public need at this time to use it. Chairperson Lopez said that if this park was approved and they cross Thrush Street Bridge there and take a right-hand turn, that gate would always be open, but it would be closed in the evening. Mr. Winklepleck said that was what they were looking for. If they didn't give their approval, they would then have to construct the access road to the parking area completely on the city's site, which would be approximately 30 feet into the natural area. Staff thought they would give their approval. In the past in other locations they had been willing to turn over maintenance of certain items in return for access. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification that Mr. Winklepleck said that CVWD would agree to widen the road 20 feet. Mr. Winklepleck clarified that the road was currently between 20 and 24 feet wide, 24 in average. The full right-of-way was 55 feet. What they would be looking for was approval to go in and construct the smallparkinglot on theirproperty. In that one general location the City would be widening it and matching it up with the natural area as much as possible, approximately 20 feet. Commissioner Campbell asked if that would eliminate the need to outline the parking lot with the palm logs. Mr. Winklepleck said that the reason for the palm logs was two fold. One to define the parking area so that people weren't just parking wherever they wanted and, two, to hopefully keep some vehicles off the park site. Commissioner Campbell noted that the palm logs deteriorate very badly. Mr. Winklepleck didn't agree and indicated that the palm logs at the Living Desert had been there quite a while. Commissioner Campbell agreed that they have been there quite a while and they were deteriorating. That was unsightly and so were the new ones. Mr. Winklepleck said that staff was trying to find something natural or some non fence type item and non concrete curb. Something along those lines that would fit in more naturally. Commissioner Campbell noted that there were large boulders out there right now and suggested outlining the parking lot with boulders instead of using the palm logs. Mr. Winklepleck agreed that they could look at using boulders to outline the parking lot, but the problem was with the remainder of the park site. They were talking about almost two linear miles and the cost of boulders to outline the park would be extreme. Commissioner Campbell said she wasn't talking about outlining the park and that it could be left just as it is, open space, and just put the boulders around the parking lot. Mr. Winklepleck thought the problem with that was if they left it open with no sort of barrier there would be quite a few off road vehicles and there was already an issue with that. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2001 They were looking at some sort of compromise to keep it natural as well as provide a barrier to limit the majority of those off road vehicles. Commissioner Jonathan noted that there was a separately delineated parking lot. He said it looked like it would be possible to have three or four car parking areas every 100 yards or 50 yards just off the road like some state parks and asked if staff had looked at that option as opposed to creating a full parking lot. He noted that there was quite a length of straight road, so on the west side it would be possible to do some rectangular cutouts with logs or boulders for three or four cars at a time for 90 degree parkingto be spread out. Mr. 9 P Winklepleck said that was something staff could definitely look at. Commissioner Jonathan thought that would be less intrusive. He said it was a long distance from the parking lot to the edge of the park and if it was done along the road, it spread people out and would create a less intensive use and would be more practical. Mr. Winklepleck said that design wise that wouldn't be a problem. They had plenty of room to work with there and were willing to look at alternatives and that made sense. Mr. Drell said they could move that section. They already concluded that initially they probably don't need 36 spaces, but maybe half that amount. Spaces could be added later if necessary. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that staff was talking about improving and expanding the road, he requested clarification that staff wasn't talking about paving it. Mr. Winklepleck said they were talking about not making it stand out from the natural area. For access to the parking lot they were looking at a couple of things. One was paving with chip seal similar to the BLM Visitor Center where it was a more natural color or taking the existing natural dirt/gravel and combining it with some sort of binder and eliminating or minimizing the dust. Definitely not black top. Commissioner Jonathan indicated it would have more of a state park feel as opposed to a civic center park. Mr. Winklepleck agreed. He noted that this was the entrance to the Santa Rosa National Monument. Commissioner Jonathan asked for confirmation that the rest of the park other than what had been delineated for restroom and picnic areas would be left in a naturally maintained state similar to the Ironwood Park section that was natural desert. Mr. Winklepleck said that was correct. They were looking at cleaning up certain locations and possibly adding some Palo Verdes or mesquite trees similar to Ironwood Park. Commissioner Campbell asked what the plans were for providing more parking at Cahuilla Park. Mr. Drell said they would probably be adding eight or nine spaces with the construction of the pumping station which was being pushed 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2001 as close to that road as possible. There still remained about 25 feet between the road and the wall of the pumping station that they would grade, so the existing four spaces would extend down the road and there would be eight or nine more spaces. Commissioner Campbell asked if there were any plans for a new restroom there at all. Mr. Winklepleck said that at this time, no. There were a couple of things that the Parks and Recreation Commission were looking at at their next meeting. There was some concern about the picnic area, the trash can and the condition of the picnic table. They were looking at defining it a little more and maybe putting in a picnic pavilion and a real trash can. The bathroom issue hadn't really come up until this point. Typically they would respond to requests on existing parks. If they were to put this park in now, they would most likely add a restroom to it because it was an active site with the tennis courts. Commissioner Campbell indicated they had these tennis courts and picnic areas and there were no adequate restrooms for people picnicking or playing tennis. Mr. Winklepleck said he didn't disagree and noted that this park has been there since probably city incorporation. But it was being looked at. Commissioner Finerty asked if he was also looking at a new water fountain with a cooler. Mr. Winklepleck concurred. Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification that what the Planning Commission was being asked to approve didn't include specific plantings or where the parking lot would go. Mr. Winklepleck said that the commission would be approving the location of the parking lot. The landscaping could be brought back but it would be in conjunction with the City's Landscape Manager. The idea was not to over plant or under plant. They didn't want a forest out there but in key areas they wanted to upgrade. Commissioner Tschopp said that considering some of the commission comments including the palm logs and perhaps breaking up the parking lot, he wondered if it necessitates it coming back or what the exact procedure would be. Mr. Drell said that the commission would be making a recommendation to the City Council. If the recommendation was to not have palm logs or if the parking was to be broken up, that would be the recommendation. Mr. Winklepleck said that he would be willing to bring back as an informational item whatever comes out of this. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification on what would be included in the picnic area, how many tables, barbecues like for the 4th of July. Mr. Winklepleck said that they were looking at two or three picnic tables, a couple 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2001 of trash cans under existing trees and maybe some additional trees, but no barbecues. It was basically a trail head and that was what they wanted it used as. Chairperson Lopez indicated that the public hearing was still open. He had several request to speak cards and asked Mr. Leonard Stuessel to address the commission. MR. LEONARD STUESSEL addressed the commission. He said he represented the Vista Paseo Homeowners Association as their President. He reiterated that he was not notified. His address is 134 Vista Royal in Palm Desert. When they looked at this park, it looked okay to a degree. But the problem they have is that there are only a few people in this hill area and as he understood it they were the ones that asked that the parking be moved further north. He said there was a parking spot called temporary parking at the Thrush Street Bridge. They were suggesting that it stay there and make that the permanent parking lot. Because there were a lot of houses as well as all of Vista Paseo, 87 homes in the area. They had two major concerns if they were put into just two categories. They have an environmental issue which incorporated a lot of things including dust, trash, and noise. The second issue is security. He said that there is an opening that he stepped off on Sunday after church and it is 72 feet wide and there were some rocks put in but they were so small that regular people could move them. There was a gate that wouldn't stop anything. On the other side is the main mouth opening for a road that goes all the way up and into the new park. There were vehicles already going up and down there because there were no gates to stop them. One of the problems they have are four-wheeled vehicles traveling this road at high speeds, motorcycles and so forth and the police department who had been called several times said it wasn't on their priority list. He wasn't complaining about it he was just stating facts. On the other side of the wash was a trail for people to walk. He pointed out the location of the Vista Paseo wall and there were 18 homes there. That constituted a new security area problem because they already had people jumping over the wall and thefts in that area. They were afraid that more traffic on either side of this would cause more security issues than they already have. He noted that coming off that mountain were some strong winds and any dust created by either loosening up the area or 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2001 vehicles running up and down the road would all come to those area homes. They wanted the commission to consider not having the road open for vehicles to move around. He said that they have sent a letter to the Coachella Valley Water District already and they would like to have this shut off because when people park and go through these trails, they would send someone down to pick up the cars and would move back to pick up the passengers. The gate that was talked about earlier at the Thrush Bridge was not only open, it was broken open. There was another gate that was open all the time. There were some problems with both environmental issues, dust, trash and so forth, as well as security. They were asking for the commission's consideration to think this over again. They weren't against the park. Their purpose was to try and control the security, dust and debris that could be created. If the parking lot was moved up further, it would also cut down on some of the dust and noise for the other community. He said he didn't think anyone from that project was present, but they had a lot of people present from the Vista Paseo Homeowners Association that were really interested. MS. DORI CREE, 47-205 South Cliff Road in Palm Desert, complimented the Planning Department and Mr. Winklepleck on the new site plan for the park. She thought the parking lot near the trail head was more logical. The gentleman who just spoke had concerns because they have homes at the north end. She said she owns 20 acres adjoining the park so she was of course very interested in seeing what happened at the southerly end of the park, which was in direct opposition to the gentleman who just spoke. In her letter to the Planning Commission, she suggested that perhaps they could look at the two parks as one and just have one parking lot down at the Cahuilla Hills Park and eliminate the traffic along the channel and make the whole channel area the last gentleman referred to as a jogging, bicycling trail and have all of the cars park at the Cahuilla Hills Park. If that wasn't possible, she liked the location and size of the new parking lot. The other thing she was opposed to was that there was now a multi use trail around the entire park and she was hoping that could be eliminated because it goes right in front of her property and she already has one home there at 47-400 South Cliff Road. She lives there so she sees what happens. Most of the people jog along the channel and don't go into the interior for their daily exercise. When the hikers come they 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2001 would use the trails down at the south end of the park. Therefore she would recommend that the multi use trail be eliminated. She didn't feel it was needed given the fact that they have the entire channel to jog and bicycle along. She observed the temporary parking lot on Easter Sunday because a lot of people thought that the church would be using it and there wasn't one car in the parking lot on Easter Sunday. She also commented on the palm logs. Easter morning she went on a hike. She belongs to the Coachella Valley Hiking Club and they started out at the LivingDesert and she reallygot to see what thepalm logs look like 9 after they have deteriorated. She said she had photographs and they were very unsightly. They looked awful after a few years. She agreed with Commissioner Campbell who suggested using boulders. She didn't think they would have to buy them or import them. That area was full of rocks and boulders and she felt it would be easy. Mr. Drell said that if perhaps they removed every single boulder on the property and made it smooth like a golf course there might be enough, but she would be surprised at what little distance boulders went when laying them end to end. Ms. Cree said that the palm logs definitely did not keep the off road vehicles from using that area. They pull right up against them and lower their loading ramps and wheel off their three-wheelers right over the palm logs. It didn't act as a deterrent. In summary, she said that if they had to have two parking lots, she thought the size and location of the new one was better, but would prefer one bigger parking lot at the Cahuilla Hills site. They could still access the trails and would still be able to get rid of the vehicular traffic along the channel. She wanted to see the multi use trail in the interior eliminated and keep the joggers and bicyclers going along the channel. Another planning commissioner had said that they were surprised that they didn't hear from more of the property owners up above, but she didn't think they weren't really impacted by this like she is because her property is right up against the park. The other people were high and above the park, so they weren't really impacted as much as she was. MR. CALVIN CREE, 47-400 South Cliff Road, pointed out the location of his house. He also noted the location of three properties owned by his mother, Dori, and he owns the five-acre parcel identified as 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2001 temporary parking, and his mother owned two other properties there as well. He was particularly concerned about safety in this area. When the Homme family owned the property, they had it posted with no trespassing signs. It was understood by the public that it was an open space desert but was someone's property. Now just over the past month he has noticed a significant increase in people using and loitering in this area after dusk. From a security standpoint he was very concerned. He noted that in today's Desert Sun, Mayor Ferguson as one of his primary objectives for the city of Palm Desert was to continue acquiring land west of Highway 74. This area was obviously within his scope of acquisition. He also pointed out that the City's primary objective was to acquire property in this area so that it would not be developed. Now they are pursuing a concept of developing a park, which he considered a contradiction. He also pointed out that the map was a little misleading. There was a little hillside/protrusion in the middle of the lower flat desert area. It was shown as stopping at the property line. He said it actually continued into his family's property. The future access road or multi use trail was jogged out and he thought that was some creative surveying or engineering. He realized that these were federal land grants initially and that there were prescriptive easements along the five-acre boundary borders, but when this property became incorporated into the city of Palm Desert, the easements along the borders of these five-acre federal land grants were no longer applicable and he wanted the City to reconsider the location of the future access road and the multi use trail. He said he liked the new location for the parking lot. He wanted to see as much of this 27-acre area remaining open space instead of being developed into a park as possible. At the very least the properties to the south of the Thrush Street Bridge remain unimproved and eliminate the multi use trail and keep it pristine open space desert to serve as a buffer area between the public area at the north where the trail head and parking lot was located and the properties that were south of there including the residence he currently occupied. He was all for the plan, he liked the new location of the parking lot, he would like to see the south half of this area remain open space and undeveloped with the elimination of the multi use trail and he would like the reconsideration of the design and engineering of the future access road as it pertains to encroaching onto the two five- acre parcels. 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2001 MR. WARREN SLAUGHTER addressed the commission. He said that he and his wife own nine acres across the wash and it was an extension of the Thrush Avenue Bridge. He said they were delighted about the possibility of having a dedicated road there. He said that they have owned their property for many years and it was very difficult to get financing on a residence when they didn't have a right-of-way over to another right-of-way. He added that he did have a key to the lock which he has had for several years. He said that he didn't violate the trust that was placed in him and he has never gone through that gate where he didn't get out and close the lock, no matter which way he was going. They did that because that was how they got over to their property. He was also glad that there were comments about these vehicles and motorcycles. It seemed like there were more around and he knew that putting up signs didn't do any good, but he was wondering if everyone affected would say that they have never and would never give those drivers permission to drive on their property if the police department might feel that trespassings were in fact taking place. He thought the people taking Thrush Road along to the right, there were some pretty good building sites there and he was sure that they too would be delighted with the possibility of a dedicated road in front of them. He said they were remiss in not telling them about two moves that they made. They didn't have his address and he didn't learn about any of this until they arrived today, but that had been rectified and the City now had his correct address. He said his current address is 21 Rue Cannes in Newport. MR. BILL GRIFFIN, 161 Vista Paseo, said that he home was in the center. None of his property adjoined the canal. He wanted the commission to know that they have called the police department many times at 11 :00 p.m. because of the motorcycles going up and over those hills at night. By the time the police get there the motorcycles are already gone. But they have been there two years and they have had at least 15 incidents at night with these motorcycles He thought they must be coming across the access above. He said that dust was a problem. The wind came from San Diego and right up over Bighorn and down. Any movement of that dirt created more dust. He didn't care what anyone else said, he thought the parking lot should be paved and the driveway should be paved. There was no way they could stop dust and if they were going to have 25 or 30 cars a day both in and out that 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2001 was going to create a lot of dust. All of those people in those apartment buildings were affected by the dust and for people that moved here for health reasons dust was a big problem. It was bad enough when they had wind storms, so he did think that the idea of breaking up the parking lot into smaller parcels was good and he also thought they need to have a chain link fenced gate and a gate that could be locked at night. There was a lot of activity up there. Drugs, kids up there at night, a couple of times there were bon fires up there at night, so they really needed to look at that problem. Every time they have had a problem, and one time there was a major problem with a big fire and by the time the police came and got up there they were gone. They definitely needed a locked gate for safety. He said that everyone that has been along the Vista Paseo wall has had intrusions into their property. He didn't think there was one homeowner in Vista Paseo that hasn't had people come over the wall or had things removed. He knew that people all behind him have had patio furniture and things taken over that wall. He thought it was a problem that needed to be addressed and they didn't need more problems. He was in the center, but he knew that the owners along the wall have had real problems so he thought they needed some kind of security system at night. MR. RODNEY JOHNSON, 150 Vista Paseo, said he was a member of the homeowners association. He said that his property is directly on the channel side. It was true what Mr. Griffin just said that kids jump over the fence occasionally. Most of them have had to raise the wall just to keep the eye level out because the typical wall level isn't adequate to keep people from looking in or crawling in because of the wash area which was a trail area and continuation of Edgehill on the south side near the Baptist Church where Edgehill goes over and it was raised up higher than the property line so they had a good view into the lots. They could come over the wall quite easily and frequently did. They have also had rocks thrown into their pool. Their neighbors left out a box of chocolates for their pool man because he comes very early in the morning and it was not there come morning. He feared having the park, although it looked like a nice idea and sounded like a good idea, and thought it could cause a lot of problems. Already it was a teenage hangout. Kids have beer parties. Those of them that walk in the area notice that there are beer bottles, some broken, often times thrown into the channel where they break. As frequently as it was 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2001 cleaned up it became rather dirty and messy quite rapidly. He was afraid thepark would encourage more usage bythe kids who could do 9 9 a lot of damage, especially if it wasn't locked up at night. That was the primary thing. If it went through, he felt it was essential that it be locked. Presently the bridge or gate by Thrush and the gate by Edgehill that goes over by the Baptist church were not locked. They could just lift it up and move it over. Once in a while it was locked, but frequently it wasn't. The one by Thrush was never locked. Often times it was open and laying on the ground. He used to live in Los Angeles in the Mulholland corridor between Laurel and Cold Water Canyons. They had a big problem when the Santa Monica Mountains National Conservancy put in a number of view points and cars would pull in and look at the wonderful scenery over Fryman Canyon and a number of others. Eventually the park service had to install gates that they would lock at night and open in the morning. There were a lot of beer and pot parties especially on weekend nights. It became a major problem. Lots of broken bottles and trash and things of that nature. He was concerned about the motorcycle noise. The motorcycles and atv's and suv's go through there on the west side of the channel right now. They create a lot of dust and pollution. Sometimes noise late a night. He said there was apparently a former home site that burned down a number of years ago and there was a lone palm tree that people liked to hike to. He said it was a wonderful hike. The only problem was that suv's go up there and motorcycles. They have seen the lights from motorcycles at night. It created a bit of a problem for people who wished to go to bed early or those who didn't wish to see dust and pollution or hear the noise. He said he was a little concerned about the restroom situation as well. He wasn't sure how many of them were aware that there are some homeless people who live in the foothills next to the wash. They frequently walk the area and go down to Target to use the restroom. If a restroom was located in the park, it could become a very convenient bathroom and a little scary to any family that may wish to use it. Some of these are mentally people to y disturbed, not just homeless. Homeless in some sense in that some didn't wish to go to a shelter, but wanted to be on the streets on their own and created an element that was a little dangerous. He thanked the commission for their time and hoped they would consider some of the issues brought up. 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2001 MS. MARIE BOCHNEWICH, an attorney with the firm of Guralnick & Guilliland. She said that the commission had their letter. Their address is 74-399 Highway 1 1 1 , Suite M in Palm Desert. She said she wouldn't reiterate the contents of the letter or the excellent comments that they had heard from the residents of Vista Paseo. She thought they had probably gathered that this area has a little bit of a free-for-all element in that it was open planned, uncontrolled, the gates there didn't seem to have any system for keeping the wash channel area secure. They had concerns about increased pedestrian traffic and off road vehicle traffic as this park is improved. Not that they were opposed to the park. The Association encouraged converting this from residential use which it was currently zoned for to open space/park. It was just a matter of fine tuning it so that they think through how they could channel use of this park in such a way that it wouldn't create additional negative noise and dust impacts, attract criminal vagrant type elements. She said she didn't want to over emphasize that but their residents' concerns and experiences of crime in this area were genuine, both from calling about noise nuisances from atv's and motorcycle vehicles to actual break-ins, burglaries and robberies. She said she had a couple of concerns. Some of the homeowners mentioned that they do want the parking lot to be locked and secured. She thought there was a system in place where someone from the Parks and Recreation facility could come in during the morning and lock it at night. Dawn to dusk. If they separated the parking into a broken up three spaces every couple of yards scenario as discussed earlier, she didn't think they would have the ability to control parking or the opening and closing of the park. She would oppose that. As mentioned in her letter, the Association was against moving the parking lot closer to Vista Paseo. That would create all the noise and rumpus from people coming and going throughout the day closer to the high density residential area of Vista Paseo and the neighboring community. They would much prefer to see the parking area stay where it is and hope that well marked trails leading people to the trail head would get pedestrians out of their cars and going in the right direction. They also had a concern, and she wasn't sure and would like to talk more with staff about this, but they were concerned about pedestrians taking a short cut by trying to get to the trail head once this was more formalized by cutting through the wash either to be picked up at the end of a hike or just to sneak up to the furthermost trail. They wanted to decrease pedestrian traffic along the wash and 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2001 channel, not encourage more of it. To that end they would seek the City's assistance in encouraging CVWD to do whatever it takes to get the gates beefed up. They probably needed a lot stronger gates. Even if they are locked, these gates weren't a serious barrier to people that wanted to get up there and motor around day and night. She was sure CVWD would be open to some gentle encouragement from the City to beef that up, to lock it and make it accessible only to emergency vehicles and actual CVWD utility use. That was what it was for. That was really all it should be used for. She hoped the City could help them with that. They had addressed that separately but hadn't heard back from CVWD. With regard to the restroom, she understood that it wasn't planned to be built immediately, but to the extent that there would be one, they would prefer that it be in another location in the park and not so close to their residents so that if it attracted teenagers at night or what other people might be hanging around, they would rather have that noise in a further part of the park. They would certainly expect that it would be locked at night and opened in the morning and that the park be patrolled and specifically that the bathroom be patrolled by police or some kind of Parks and Recreation personnel to make sure it isn't being used for drug use, teenagers drinking, vagrants camping out in the bathroom, etc. Those were their thoughts. They do support the park. It is a great thing for the city to be able to add this for the citizens of Palm Desert, but they would like it fine tuned from a security standpoint. Mr. Drell said that in response to Mr. Cree, the easements that he spoke of are federal patents that were inherent and recorded on each of those parcels. The federal government created those and they still exist and they are public easements for public purposes. When the city incorporated they did not eliminate those easements. That was why they were showing that future access road. He said they didn't propose to build that access road, but they were just showing that the development of the park did not preclude those easements. As far as the city was concerned, the ability to build that road exists but the city wasn't going to build it. That would be up to the owners of those properties if and when they wanted to gain access and build their properties. Relative to the multi use trail, when there was a public site like this, unless they built a trail they would end up with trails all over the place. Building the trail and making it a very obvious path of least resistance preserved the open space, otherwise people would create the trails if it wasn't 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2001 built. People would tend to stay out of the undisturbed areas if the trail was clearly marked. In terms of why they changed the location of the parking lot, it wasn't merely to address the concerns of the property owners on the south side. After they went and looked and saw the existing temporary parking lot sitting right in the center of that property, it was a very prominent developed feature. That degraded the natural nature of the park. The City's goal was to provide parking but make it as least obtrusive and as least intrusive into the natural area of the park as possible. Relative to the picnic area, people would choose to congregate where it is most comfortable. Where it was most comfortable in this area was where they have always congregated - in that area against the hill where the trees are. The location of the parking lot, which could be moved any where along that road, but he agreed that any place it went they should make it a dust free surface. Any place they invite people to drive on that road should be a dust free surface. Again, it could be moved any where on that place it was just a matter of how far people would have to walk to get where they want to go, which was the picnic area where the trees are. That motivated this new design as well as addressing the specific concerns. They tried to come up with a location that made the most sense for the site. Mr. Winklepleck said he had no doubt that there was a dust issue and that the majority of it was caused by the road. There might be some dust because of the vacant properties, but the primary reason for this park was to remain open space. They planned to disturb as little of the property as possible. Where it had been disturbed, they wanted to revegetate it and renaturalize it. Staff believed that would limit the amount of dust from this property. If in the future dust was still an issue from this property, they could look at mitigating it with some sort of soil cement or something that would harden or bind the top surface, the lighter particulate matter to keep it from getting up into the air. As far as vehicular access along CVWD's road as well as the restroom, it was their intention and could be a condition, and it was standard at all of the parks, that the restrooms are locked when the park closes and in this case the park closes at dusk. There were people on City staff that opened the facilities in the morning and Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District locked them. As far as the gate access, they could work with CVWD to beef up the gate to make sure that they have access to it and that we could lock it. They wanted it open for hikers and people don't hike at night. As far as the park, development of a park versus open space, the majority of the site would remain open space. Park might not be the right word. It was more of a trail head. They didn't anticipate a great deal of activity on this particular site, so 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2001 essentially what they saw was what they were going to get. Open space. He thought the noise issues were primarilywith vehicles includingmotorcycles, 9 Y , atv's and such running up and down the CVWD road and the trail that would lead out of this particular facility. When they got to the trail project, one of the things they should look at was re-engineering or revising the trail to limit access to atv's and there were ways to do that. He said there would most likely be an increase in noise on the site. When they brought in additional people, there would noise. Staff didn't anticipate that the noise of the people using the facility would be increased above the standard ambient noise level. If there was noise after dark, as an official park site one of the directions to the Sheriff's Department would be for them to go out and patrol the site and respond to calls. They didn't want issues at this site any more than the residents around it. They wanted this site to be one the city could be proud of. He felt they have been successful with other parks in the city. The one thing about bringing in additional people to the site was that bringing in additional people wasn't necessarily a bad thing. Where they have certain unsavory characters using the park, when people come in who want to use the park, those unsavory ones usually go elsewhere. That's what happened at Palm Desert Country Club Park. The City has had very good experience with that. They were willing to look at mitigation measures with the gates and working with CVWD to minimize the dust and any impacts on adjacent property owners. Commissioner Finerty said she understood Mr. Winklepleck's reference to Palm Desert Country Club Park, but there really weren't going to be any amenities or active things to do at this park, so she didn't think there was going to be a great deal of usage by the residents in the area to drive the other people away. After listening to the property owners and the homeowners association, she wasn't hearing that people want the park. Mr. Winklepleck said the park wasn't just for the people in that area. This might be one of our only trails open to the general public from January through June, which was lambing season. All of the other trails which were now under voluntary closure might not be under voluntary closure much longer. They might be under permanent closure during those times. Short of developing an official facility where people can hike out of and controlling it, people would continue hiking in areas where they aren't supposed to be hiking. So staff was working closely with BLM, Fish and Game, and Fish and Wildlife to try and develop this site and these trails to accommodate people in this area as well as the general public. He agreed that Palm Desert Country Club and this facility were two 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2001 different uses. The main difference was that there would be more people at Palm Desert Country Club because it is an active facility. But there was also night use of that facility. Staff felt that the additional day use at this location as an official park, the Sheriff would be directed to go to this facility and they would respond. Commissioner Finerty said she knew the Sheriff was directed to go, but the reality was that when the Sheriff was called they more than likely would have more important things to do and by the time they actually show up, usually the intruders are gone. Mr. Drell said that when they opened Ironwood Park, before they got Ironwood Park on the Sheriff's patrol, they had a problem at Ironwood Park with kids hanging out there late at night. They got complaints from the neighborhood. They instructed the Sheriff not just to go up there responding to calls, but to show up there periodically as part of their patrol. Once they started doing that the problem disappeared. He said that this is a regional facility. Just like the Civic Center Park. If they had asked the residents of Monterey Country Club, they were not in favor of those ballfields. They didn't ask for them and they felt they were intrusive upon their peace and quiet. But it is a regional facility that serves a regional, although relatively low level, desire for hiking trails in the hillside. Whenever they do a regional facility, to the greatest extent possible they try to mitigate the impact of that facility on the adjacent neighborhood. The purpose of that was not to serve that neighborhood's need essentially. They initially asked if they wanted anything and they said no. The existence of the park wasn't to serve this neighborhood, but to service a regional need. Chairperson Lopez noted that the soccer park was a relatively new area with restrooms and picnic areas and gates that open and close. He asked about those gates. Mr. Winklepleck said that the only time the soccer park gates were closed was if they had some major field renovations. They were roll across gates and he thought they had only closed them four or five times since the facility opened. Chairperson Lopez asked if there had been any problems in that park. Mr. Winklepleck said there had been some minor vandalism to some of the existing equipment, but considering the number of people that go there, the amount of occurrences have been minor. He couldn't think of anything major. There had been some graffiti and one of the large concrete balls being hit and rolling down into the field. Mr. Drell said that the issue of security was one where the folks that were intending to engage in criminal or undesirable activity wouldn't be dissuaded by whether it was public or private property. Those were the people who use it now. All of those things exist now and those folks have never respected that the property was privately 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2001 owned by the Hommes. The difference now was that the City owned it and when the City invests in it as a city facility, then the obligation became the City's to make sure it is safe and reflects the level of quality and security that the other facilities reflect. The fact that it was now public, there was a greater chance that all of those problems that had been identified would be addressed because it is now ours. Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Finerty said that there were a number of issues including dust, palm logs, the parking lot location, the number of spaces, if the trail should be along the channel or property lines, the restrooms, the gates need to be beefed up and locked, there was an issue with noise, and the only thing she could support tonight was the change of zone to open space rather than a park. Mr. Winklepleck explained that the open space zoning designation allowed for parks as permitted uses. The soccer park was zoned open space. Commissioner Finerty said that they were being asked to approve a change of zone from hillside planned residential to park. Mr. Winklepleck said that was the general plan designation. Commissioner Finerty said she was suggesting that they just make it open space with no park. She didn't see a great need for a park. All she was hearing was that there are a group of hikers that apparently need a trail. Otherwise, they would make their own trail. That was the only real need that exists out there along with a few places for them to park. Commissioner Jonathan said he heard the testimony a little differently. He heard just about everyone say that they were in favor of the park, but they had certain concerns. He also respected staff's comments that this would be a regional facility. Of course the greatest response would be from the ones affected, which was as it should be. He was glad that they were here. They weren't going to hear from people living across Fred Waring. He saw this as a tremendous and wonderful opportunity to create and preserve open space within the city's borders. The real issue was how to design it in a way to create the least impact to surrounding residents. This kind of use was preferable to a multi residential development, which it was currently zoned for. Some of what they heard, not unexpectedly, was that the property owners on the south want the parking lot on the north; the property owners on the north want the parking lot on the south. His solution was to split the difference and 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2001 create the parking lot along the perimeter road. He thought that was the perfect solution. If they ended up with four parking space lots along the CVWD road as miniature cutouts, he thought that was a more practical plan and a better place to put cars because that was a very long park. If they put the parking lot at one end or the other that seemed impractical. That was number one in terms of the design. Number two was the multi use trail. He thought it made sense. When people see a trail, they intrinsically get the message to walk along the trail and not off of it. Listening to the comments though, he thought the trail could be moved from the exterior maybe not entirely to the interior, but making more use of that interior area because with the trail just on the outside there was a great temptation to ignore the trail and walk across the park. He thought they could bring it inside and possibly remove some of the more intense use such as people walking and talking further away from residences. As issue number three, Commissioner Jonathan said that he didn't have a problem with picnic area per se, but he liked the Ironwood Park concept where there were some scattered tables along the trail. He wouldn't even call them picnic areas. It seemed if they spread out the use instead of putting everyone in one corner that they were making better use of that open space. He was talking about four or five tables scattered within the park itself. In summary, he saw this as an opportunity to create and preserve open space. He would like the design elements to address the issues of the residents which he thought were understandable and valid and he thought there was a way to accomplish that. Commissioner Campbell said that what she would like to see done was to first take care of Cahuilla Hills Park. If they were going to have 12 or 13 parking spaces there and new picnic tables and restrooms, there was no need to have a parking lot or restrooms in this area. She would like to see it as is, open space without anything on it. If for any reason they needed to have a multi use trail, if people wanted to hike they could walk from Cahuilla Hills Park and go up the trail. She would be in favor of sprucing up the park and having the 12 or 13 parking spaces there and leaving this area open space as is without anything on it. She also thought that they should take care of the CVWD gates though and the locks. Commissioner Tschopp thought that this was a lot of land not to have any parking. He liked Commissioner Jonathan's suggestion of trying to spread some parking out similar to what they do at national parks at trail heads. The problems that exist right now were absent the park. He thought they would 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2001 continue as long as there is land there and since there was going to be land there whether it was developed or not, they needed to address the problems. The alternatives included a housing development which he didn't think was too exciting and keeping it completely open with no use to the public, which he didn't think would be acceptable to other residents of Palm Desert. He felt they owed it to the taxpayers to give them some type of access. He heard that people weren't opposed to the park and he was glad to hear that because when visiting the great cities of the world, a lot of them were defined by their parks. He was glad to see the City taking a proactive approach at trying to put more parks in. He did want to see the City make a real commitment to the safety, the noise and so forth generated by the people who would use the park. They weren't talking about the ones using the park legally, but the ones that were breaking the law today. They needed to put up barriers to keep the atv's, the suv's, and motorcycles out of there. Having some experience with Ironwood Park, it was exactly as Mr. Drell said. Initially there were some problems with Ironwood Park. The teenagers found out there was a park there. Within a couple of months of calling the police and getting the City's commitment, the problem went away completely and they actually have a better area now than before when it was vacant. So he did believe that the City would address the safety concerns and that the police would make a commitment to do that. Regarding dust and noise, the City needed to address that with some type of product on the road to keep the dust down and they were talking pedestrians walking through the park, not vehicles, so he felt that if done properly, the trails would not increase the dust and perhaps might even mitigate some of it that exists right now. He would like to see the City take a different look at the palm logs. He didn't think they were exciting and weren't back to nature. He thought it might be a case where they City could incorporate some of the citizens' concerns into a committee, an oversight group of individuals, that as the park was developed those people could meet periodically and respond to the City with their concerns and things they see going on. But he believed with the City's commitment, we could see a very good park there. Chairperson Lopez also concurred with Commissioner Jonathan in that they have a great opportunity to develop something that they could all be proud of. But it needed to be developed very carefully. He was very concerned about the accessibility of the homes along the wash to crime. He said that was of great concern whether there was a park or not and needed to be looked at sometime in the future. On that note, the access to this area with the gates, 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2001 access to the road, dust mitigation on that road and getting down to the parking area, he liked Commissioner Jonathan's idea of spreading that parking out a little bit and doing away with a formal parking lot. The parking lot there now was really an eyesore. He thought it would be nice to put it back to its natural state. Regarding the multi use trail, he agreed that a meandering trail through the middle would be good. Also to the south if the trail could end at the hill there, it would give a bit of a buffer to the residents in that area or at least access to that road. They could still keep it open space, but he wasn't sure how they would treat that or access to that area. It was very concerning to hear the comments regarding the use of this area by motorcycles at night. He hoped that as they proceed down the road on creating what would be a great opportunity, hopefully this would be discouraged. He had seen it happen at Ironwood Park and he lived in that area for a while. He was around the soccer park a lot in the early hours and didn't think there was a problem there. As they develop this area, he was hoping that a lot of these problems would decrease. He wasn't sure about the crime in the area and felt they needed to take a look at that since it was a whole other issue. It was very concerning in that area. He felt they should look at the proposed park as a trail head park. It is used for people who like to go hiking. He thought that was how it would remain. There would still be joggers, walkers and people going down the pathways north and south along the wash, but it would open up an opportunity for people to access the trail head and the trails up into the hills. The alternative was a residential area and that wasn't an exciting prospect. He felt the plan needed to be fine tuned a little bit and he wanted some direction from the commission. Commissioner Finerty said that if they all felt there were existing issues that needed to be resolved and Commissioner Jonathan thought about spreading out the parking lot, they talked about the multi use trail moving to a different site, getting more security on the gates. She thought they were all in agreement with open space. She didn't know if anyone was in favor of the palm logs. They need some type of barriers against the atv's, suv's and motorcycles. She was wondering if a continuance would be appropriate to try and work out as Commissioner Jonathan indicated the design issue until they have more of a level of comfort that the concerns that were expressed were addressed. Commissioner Jonathan thought the issues had been summarized very well and that they needed to be addressed. If staff was also in concurrence, he felt 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2001 a continuance would be appropriate. In the long run he hoped they would have happy neighbors and a better product. Commissioner Campbell said she would also like staff to bring back the plans for the other park so they don't duplicate what should be in one park. Commissioner Jonathan thought that was reasonable, but in driving and walking the area, he didn't see the two parks as being directly related because there was a great distance between the two. For example, he would be concerned if there was a restroom at Cahuilla Park that was supposed to be usable by someone that would be picnicking at the south end of this park. That had to be over a 30 minute walk. He didn't disagree that there should be a restroom for the tennis facilities, he was just saying that they were two separate parks and he wasn't sure they wanted to link them in terms of limiting for example one restroom facility for the two parks. Mr. Drell said that suggestion would be one to be made to the Parks and Recreation Commission. He agreed that was a separate site and was not before the commission at this time. If the Planning Commission wanted to make that suggestion that they look at improving that park, it would go to that commission and staff would report back. Commissioner Finerty noted that Mr. Winklepleck said that at the next Parks and Recreation Commission meeting some of these suggestions for Cahuilla Park were going to be discussed. She asked if staff could make this an informational item at the next meeting. Mr. Winklepleck agreed and said he would update the Planning Commission at the next meeting. He said they were just going to look at conceptual ideas as to what is needed up there. They knew some specifics like the drinking fountain with cold water and a few other items. He would be glad to bring that back as an information item. Commissioner Tschopp noted that some people mentioned the problem with crime. Having been on the Public Safety Commission, he encouraged the residents to show up to a Public Safety meeting. They typically have two council members sitting on it, Councilman Dick Kelly and the Mayor. He felt that the residents should bring up these issues because they didn't have a park up there yet and there were no facilities up there, but they had problems. He thought those types of issues could be addressed no matter what happened on this piece of property. He believed that the City would take their comments and concerns seriously and look at alternatives. 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2001 Chairperson Lopez agreed. He thought they were getting very close and he felt much more comfortable with the concept and asked for a motion of continuance for one month. Chairperson Lopez stated that the public hearing would remain open. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Chairperson Lopez, continuing this matter to May 15, 2001 by minute motion. Motion carried 5- 0. F. Case Nos. PP 01-03 and DA 01-01 - COOK STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a precise plan of design for a 16,000 square foot showroom/warehouse building with ancillary office space at the northwest corner of Sheryl Avenue and Cook Street, 42-595 Cook Street. Request also includes approval of a development agreement which will limit uses in the project to those with a parking requirement of two spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of floor area or less. Mr. Smith noted that commission received a copy of the full set of plans in their packets. The property is 45,700 square feet, vacant and located at the northwest corner of Sheryl Avenue and Cook Street. The property sloped north to south and was currently zoned Office Professional. To the north were two-story apartment buildings and to the west were three single family dwellings that front on the street to the west. To the south is vacant property. To the east across the street is vacant property. The request is for a 16,000 square foot showroom/warehouse building with some ancillary office space. The project would have access from two driveways on Sheryl Avenue. The easterly driveway would go into 16 parking spaces and one turn around parking space. The front of the building would be located on the east side facing Cook Street. There would be a second driveway access further west on Sheryl leading to 16 more parking spaces, the trash area at the north end and then five overhead doors where some loading and off loading of vehicles would occur. At the west edge of the property is an existing 20-foot alley that runs between Sheryl and Merle to the north and then three single family 38 93 /�`0,ENT OF\ United States Department of the Interior r u� P Fish and Wildlife Service ��" Ecological Services -�-_ < Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 40, 3,0.% 2730 Loker Avenue,West .. .� Carlsbad,CA 92008 ''ct r i v E D v..•'`� 9 260 In Reply Refer To:TA-1589.1 «�UMTY L`va.00;;:: 'DEPART MME-' (MY Gr PALM kSEAT Phill Drell and Jeff Winklepleck City of Palm Desert APR 0 3 2001 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Subject: Proposed Park and Trails in Cahuilla Hills. The following comments address our site visit to the proposed parks and trails in Cahuilla Hills on March 7, 2001. The present trail system in the Palm Desert area largely evolved without considering the ecology and behavior of bighorn sheep. Several of these trails, such as the Art Smith, extend directly into bighorn sheep habitat and traverse lambing, watering, and foraging areas. Repeated disturbance from humans and their dogs can cause bighorn sheep to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. Bighorn ewes with lambs are especially sensitive to perceived threats. Several variables influence the degree of disturbance. Bighorns are stressed when hikers appear above them, or between them and escape terrain (steep, rocky slopes). Second, bighorns react to hikers that appear in unexpected places, so predictability is important. Third, bighorn sheep perceive domestic dogs as canid predators. Research shows that dogs stress bighorn sheep more than any other variable. Finally,the frequency, duration, and proximity of disturbance influences the behavioral responses of bighorn sheep. These factors explain some of the reasons why certain trails may cause problems for bighorn sheep. However, these factors also provide guidance towards designing a trail system that is compatible with bighorn sheep recovery. A trails system could be designed that accommodated hikers and bighorn. Ideally trails would be located below bighorn sheep along the wildland-urban interface, and not switchback through habitat placing hikers above bighorn sheep. Hikers should remain on trails so that they appear in predictable locations. Dogs should be restricted from entering essential bighorn sheep habitat. The City of Palm Desert's proposed parks and trails in the Cahuilla Hills conform to most of the above recommendations, and we greatly appreciate the City's willingness to accommodate the needs of bighorn sheep. The proposed parks and trails are basically below the majority of bighorn sheep home ranges, and are along or close to the wildland-urban interface. We realize that the voluntary closure of the Art Smith Trail has impacted the recreational needs of local residents, and as Phill acknowledged during the meeting, the Art Smith may be closed a significant portion of the year in the future. Therefore, the Service welcomes the opportunity to actively participate in finding solutions. Our major concern is that dogs will be close to or within sight of bighorn sheep habitat, and we would like to insure that dogs stay under the control of their owner and within designated areas. The BLM has informed us that several dog packs, composed of pets unaccompanied by their >y1 Phil1 Drell (TA-1589.1) 2 owners, have been seen in the area. Past research has shown that domestic dog packs can negatively impact wildlife. The Homme/Adams Park on the west side of the Palm Valley Storm Channel at Thrush Road could be used for dog walking, however measures should be developed to insure that dogs remain within the park boundaries, and that owners maintain control over their pets. For example, signs explaining rules and why they are necessary could be posted. A uniformed presence that has the authority to issue tickets may also be needed. Contingency measures should be developed should such measures fail, and bighorn sheep become adversely impacted. The potential fencing of a dog run area could serve as a contingency measure. The Homme/Adams Park is intended to serve as a trailhead for a potential future trails system in the Cahuilla Hills that would link Hommes/Adams Park with Cahuilla Hills Park and the Lower Bump and Grind Trail. Cahuilla Hills Park is oriented east and west, and therefore extends directly towards bighorn sheep habitat. Therefore, unleashed dogs in this park may have a greater probability of negatively affecting bighorn sheep in adjacent habitat. The proposed loop trail on city land near the BLM Visitors Center could provide a hiking trail, but dogs would be visible to the bighorn sheep in Dead Indian and Carrizo Canyons. Other areas owned by the city, such as the lot next to the Target Store, may offer a more suitable site for allowing dogs. In the future, we would appreciate the opportunity to provide additional comments on the specific design elements of the proposed trails and Cahuilla Hills Park. Please contact Guy Wagner of my staff at (760)431-9440 if you have any future questions, and refer to our log number(TA-1589.1) in any future correspondence regarding this project. Sincerely, (Nancy Gilbert Assistant Field Supervisor Mr. Jim Lopez, Chairperson April 12, 2001 Ms. Cynthia Finerty,Vice Chair Sonia Campbell, CommissionerRE f,, EIVErl Sabby Jonathan, Commissioner Dave Tschopp, Commissioner APR 1 2 Zatil Planning Commission City of Palm Desert u' h-TNITY C.aEr"PM:ii'OEP.;R,MENT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive crry okt.M;Fst.IT Palm Desert, California 92260-2578 RE: Homme/Adams Park Dear Planning Commission: Since the March Planning Commission meeting, we have spent considerable time leaning more about the trailheads from the Homme/Adams property and the Cahuilla Hills Park. After our due diligence, we have made the following observations: 1. Although the temporary parking lot has been moved to a much more convenient location for the trails and has been reduced in size, we would still like to see the City limit themselves to one parking lot at the Cahuilla Hills Park. a. It would be just as convenient to park at the Cahuilla Hills Park to access the trails. b. It would mean there would be only one parking lot for the Palm Desert Police Department to patrol. c. The Cahuilla Hills Park parking area would be only 4/10 of a mile (approximately 800 feet) from the new view /picnic site which the City recently purchased. 2. VEHCULAR TRAFFIC: The City not encourage vehicular traffic from the Thrush Street bridge; keep the "gates" at the North end closed (as they have been). Keep that area along the C.V.W.D. channel open for pedestrians only. 3. Emphasize the area along the Channel road as a walking/jogging trail. It is very popular already for this purpose. Since the City now owns approximately 2 miles along the Channel, it would be an improvement if some benches and shade trees (Palo Verde, Mesquite) were incorporated along this boundary for the people using it for their exercise route. This trail could be named "The Homme/ Adams Trail". 4. PALM LOGS: Although they define the area, they are not a deterrent for "off road vehicles". We've seen S.U.V.'s pull in and lower their loading ramps OVER the palm logs and wheel off their"off roaders" and take off over the flat area and up into the hills. The City sign saying"no off road vehicles permitted" are being ignored. If the area along the Channel were emphasized for jogging/walking, could not a birm or ditch be created or some other deterrent to keep the"off roaders" from wheeling through this environmentally sensitive desert area. 5. "OPEN SPACE": We understand that the City paid $1,600,000 for the Homme/ Adams property; $1,000,000 plus the additional $600,000 in some kind of creative tax consideration. We have been informed that it was purchased primarily to keep out development and make it"Open Space". The City, at an even higher cost, made the same kind of purchase behind the Big Horn property for"Open Space"; to preserve our desert as best we can. Could the Homme/ Adams site be zoned "Open Space" rather than "Park"? 6. THE TEMPORARY PARKING LOT—We most sincerely request that the City dismantle this parking lot as soon as possible. It is serving no purpose except to encourage"kids" to gather there at night and "hang out". At your last meeting in March, the City said that it was up to us property owners to call the Police when we see these violations. We can't be constantly calling law enforcement. 7. WELL SITES FOR BIG HORN: There are three currently either under construction or planned on the west side of the C.V.W.D. channel. One of them is planned to be put in between the parking lot and tennis courts at the Cahuilla Hills Park; it will cover a very large area. Although it would be costly to change the site to a better location in the Park, wouldn't it be money well spent considering the best possible utilization of the Cahuilla Hills Park? In closing, we are hopeful that the Planning Commission will look at the"Big Picture" and take into consideration that you are making decisions which will, for years to come, have a significant impact. The Cahuilla Hills Park, the Homme/Adams site, and the additional 3 five acre parcels recently purchased, represent more than 75 acres of prime desert and wildlife right in the center of our city. Sincerely, (Kej) Dori Cree 1 *(/\' " _ I.,,, 's k. •4 .'', , . • ., ,1 „. , • „ .. s'i I..!A. i,. b' • 5* N • s hit Is c i , , • I:I I, ' , ..„ ) •I ? 4 , --- . . , 1 .1. , , . . , r 04 fa, , .) , l f • • 4. ,i iiiNi 4. ..4,1 ,h.• ip, V.iwy.ijo If " • S v.s % . • • t 1111 lit 60'4. 1 10 1,: :111.' f• 1-,Abe tirit A,1 a br 1. .0 . • • :r ' . I 4 • 1 %, 1 IIL ,• . , ..• ,,,..44,,,A;,,,,',,• . 0 % . . do T rilii it;oft ,1,7,a idp voi ii, • . 4k g . i . hi Sirs , 01, ‘ .1 V. l•.' 1 . ..., - • ,.. ,..,1e •! , f, )..tP',, •*, ' I.. le.,leo . .,,,.„ .., to . * tip.. 1„. ...4‘ •,.,A.,.. ...littps.t ,., 1 41 ,,' ' -.' •-•,.e.r. 1,t, ..FA° 't 4°• . ."- IN-' itsi ..it . , — - . • .5.. ,., k 1 • 1 c ,,ii a 4* . ip $1 I , ' ' • ' . .• ir. ., li' •So i pi di 1 'I 1. i, •, • . : . • > r 4:11:,-.ir.7 r;I'..t .1 levot i ' . . :\.•-.4.:,.. .•-, •',....", ' • : :,''i:\ ii, ......0•Lti'llta i 4,kis u! • )_/ 1-:. ,,,,ilm T" ' zi.w m ,.4.'''''.15) '10c• ' fr—,.• 1 es, ,,,,, , . • ,,, ' A '1: ' .:\.1 • .: ,..,14 ,.. b i ..*pill gc gl P,10. I .:: ..---, 6 / ./ .z! ', •li . t ,I),•-ititi.-' .11' sf," ' ' S. It,.1i..;(11,7, ,- ..., . 8104 Ltrib ve." 4,,• t . 4 I • ' ilr ri -;'/ ipi ifiPt.lc IP i i'..k 4 11,3 ,. . ,' . .. , . .4.)„. ,. ' ': , 4 .. It.1.' • "sear! i:I'm.yr / i • •.• , -73, .fi..4,,,,, ,,/.•,.-poi6 ,,:. - ,I., .44, ', ,,, iqk e' ' . • '‘% '. 1 -' •.' 4 . . . , . 1 ' I • • p 0 i••1 t I i:, 1.. •. . .,r , e 47 1:`:. ,,- -• ' ' . . , i • • . , .. • ... •'le .—•.,...4.., ,J.., 4.. f I , - , ,..or • I'' fie , r • • 1 1/1 .•...''''',. .: ',.•`;'' ''i -4' : " , 'N • / • • ' i ..'• •,r.' , ', 0 ...idiaa ,,..., 6,,,,, 0441, 4.4, so alas -1 ;ffiriiiin e al 2a6t, gee e/d . Vidtriall fia Aiiiii ‹se.$4441/3 a ..•Nik ra vu1rivii 0 rikeplb ..eit rii Ilk Wiiita. mos 1 t ' st, • •SI -,,,,E-,::-,••••-••••;•„1,••• litillawa‘illillokiii NOMINE/ADAM5 PARK SITE CONCEPTUAL PLAN r ...,..-:--2.7 -t.::41ffr.;_t-g-:=Tiii::=. --: INi..„41111111111 a ift.. iritii ............:::---a: Tile ,._111111 ities Ilk. NM.............. ""*"" —iiiiiii 3r, . ....•41401Met L - 4tt1111;\ j.L...... ....:::::::::.....-. ••••=3.....- r. \ *Slt .. '''tii.:.::11.**7•ti ••••••• -----r- ..:::.----=--r. 1iEil....: :.:..i.-.:-:44-- 71:." -aisciesscI.-p .i•sisisam 0 % 4::-.. .:-- --:=::-... -4 i .::-•••----, mil - -rt. .•=1._,__.‘" j 2...t.... ..i. CL Ari$0vt b • be Is -...--r-:::---:::=-4:::r- • ---.-.:=-7------- :iii.."--- :-.7:=Turn.4-_-•-•,-434$-3-1V4f-12.--;M4:41r0V-41 r / .. .. .. , ................... "...,., .,,,,. .e _-tr,:r..2.•If...' ',7..::.:t y=...w......-..7.-....-IfIc az,,,,22, ,1.7WEn.:517.TA ----r--....=•-•=1--:-„,„...._....;-----:-:-:::.::.1., ,,!-- - .4.1„.---..6-ktftw.-zsp;,-.._- 1;_ . "' f:1'41 0\0101C§IONOW ......=-...::4 . ---74-::=-.-7—• ....-=7, ii". . — -:"..;-'i.---1-42t.i illf-::=1-"-21-... 10, __,L.• sir 0 . .69.ASJ a g IA z 1(111U111111 ht.! *"1:iii:-Vil•-••••:!..L.:.••.=:-:* E1:-.•::',,,143-;-..-- -;c:,;1>tt'i.E- 111111% - ... ...., ...=,....,...;. .0--.4....€4,..-,r itilli , Lig it 4,,kiyaaw ' -:::,--:.---=-- •••• .1:..---___,,,-,z,--_,-_,...--_i, ...... u:. C2:I -----'1. N .: .::---. Pubis ILO 41,, an [133 EqJ.v.. th. .''S. .'.i i r . ••. •••.- aitl mo LW, CEO 0 xi' .111 ty lc....,.is(..:; I .....--••••••--, -1-----:._ ,„.: Et ItZtrral 6t3 Itre,,,"'••••••toi eb: Pabo Log 1, ca3 - 4,./ Fr:::=Ir. " •-•- --:-.•:— Placiamme ...,, 033 4.414,41,air) ' Temporary PAN". Patios AM , 4444 :I;V 7 V V;A? I a 4:77c74.7 ...-.„,, I % • ...,77...„. i • • .• . •• N IIIIIIL-N — / Ilillill ate 8.0,,, -•- 411/ i 3-• .1.- LEGEND A/Existing Trail A/ ) - Proposed Trail A/Proposed Multi-Use Trail /V Access Road A/Future Arregs Road L BLM South Cliff Road Property I 7 / ( _ 1 / h , M. City Property T _...)i..._." - 7 04-12-01 02:58pm From-GURALNICK GILLILAND +7605683053 T-827 P.02/03 F-013 N,p.r?.IE A . BOCHNEWICH � L- Altorney at Law 74-399 Highway 117, Suite M Palm Desert, California 92260 Telephone (760) 340-4358 • Facsimile (760) 568-3053 April 10, 2001 via facsimile only (760) 341-7098 City of Palm Desert Community Development Department Attn: Mr. Jeff WinkleplecK Re: VISTA PASEO HOMEOWNERS ASSN - THRUSH ST. PARK Dear Jeff: Thank you for taking the time to schedule a meeting with me Vista Paseo Homeowners Association Board of Directors tomorrow, April 11 at 2:00 p.m. As we discussed, I wanted to provide you with a list of the Board's concerns, which you may be able to address at the meeting tomorrow: 1. What are the short and long term plans for the park: (i.e. 1 - 5 years). This •" issue has to do with concerns that the park may oe planned for substantial expansion in the future - if there are any concrete future plans for this park, we are interested in knowing what they are. 2. What is the plan for ingress and egress to the new park? Does the entrance link with an existing street? 3. The Board is concerned with the statement in the proposed Resolution,that Me proposed plan "will not substantially depreciate property values.- How did the planning staff evaluate the adverse impact that the park may have on property values in the area, and specifically Vista Paseo? 4. The proposed Resolution also states that "the precise plan will not endanger the public peace." How did planning staff arrive at this conclusion? The Board believes that the park may indeed create an environment which will be disruptive to the peace and quiet of the community_ The Board is concerned that the park will be a magnet for disruptions, loiterers, vagrants, and in particular motorcycle riders_ Presently, and for some time, there has been an ongoing problem with motorcycle and ATV riders using this area for recreational riding. This is a serious noise disruption. The Board is concerned that the park will increase this problem. In the past, police have refused to respond to calls regarding this problem, and the neighboring residents have no means of relief from this noisy disruption. 5. Who will be responsible for policing the new park if there are breaches of the peace? Received Apr-12-2001 02:D1pm From-+7605683053 To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 002 /00 04-12-01 02:58pm From-GURALNICK GILLILAND +7005083053 T-827 P.03/03 F-013 MARIE A. BOCI1NE1NIL1 . ATTORNET HT LAW April 10, 2001 Jeff Winklepleck Re: Thrush Street Park- Vista Paseo-HOA page 2 6. Does the City have any plan to prevent or address safety/security risks to nearby homeowners, in particular Vista Paseo homeowners, due to the new park(see#4 above)? 7. The Board is concerned that the park plan causes negative impact on scenic mountain views. 8. Does the open, unimproved nature of the park present a fire hazard, and if so v are there plans to deal with that hazard in terms of maintenance, etc.? � * The Board feels that the park will cause an increase in traffic on Highway 74 at Thrush Road and at the Baptist Church - North End. Has planning staff consiaerea ana addressed this? 10_ What are the official hours of opening and closing of the park? 1 1_ Is there any security or guard at the park, either on site or drive-by? 12. If tennis courts are planned for this park in the future, how will lighting be increased from the present plan? 13. The Board believes that there will be an increase in noise levels from the park, from increased use. traffic, dogs, etc. Has planning staff taken this into account in their plan? 14. The open/undeveloped plan of the park presents a dust nuisance issue. Is there a plan to control oust at this park? 15. What is the plan for emergency vehicle access into the park? We look forward to discussing these points, and others that the Board may wish to bring up, at the meeting tomorrow. Thank you for your assistance in tnis matter. Sincerely, D 6i, ..y./ Marie A. Bochnewich /pf M\GGpocs\1iOA\MtSC\93-159 0a10 Received Apr-12-2001 02:01pm From-+7605663053 To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 003 C) //7/ / April 16, 2001 To the Palm Desert Planning Commission Please allow me to voice the following concerns in regards to the construction of a 27 acre park at 72-500 Trush Road. While I basically have nothing against a park, questions of security and proper control arise. One of them is a noise factor. The proposed parking lot will be not much more than about 600 feet from our house on 160 Vista Paseo. No doubt, the present trails will be improved for the increasing traffic but will also permit excessive speeds. Already now, motorcycle drivers were speeding not during the day but actually after 10 PM at night and even and 1 o'clock in the morning. When contacting the police department, it was called a non-priority item. Even in the absence of night lights, one has to wonder what will be going on in the park. Signs of people sleeping and drinking in the proposed parking area have been noticed quite some time ago. Empty and broken beer botles were the proof the following morning, thereby jeopardizing the safety of dogs of people during their morning strolls. The drainage chanel is already being used as a convenient dumpsite. Items such as mattresses, Christmas trees, shoping carts, wooden pallets, tires, bicycle and lampshade have been seen in the chanel. Goodsized stones are constantly being rolled down the embankment. Parks are here to be enjoyed by the public but unfortunately some peoples behaviour leaves something to be desired. It is imperative that very close attention is directed in regards to the tranquility of the whole neighborhood, especially at night. Let us not forget, that this park is in very close proximity to whole neighborhoods not unlike parks along highway 111. Respectfully, W. & H. Schmid 160 Vista Paseo Palm Desert GURALNICK & GILLILAND ATTORNEYS AT LAW ATTORNEYS SERVING 74-399 HIGHWAY 111 , SUITE M TEMECULA OFFICE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 (909) 296-6629 TELEPHONE: (760) 340-1515 SAN DIEGO OFFICE FACSIMILE: (760) 568-3053 RECEI ET (619) 232-1300 EMAIL: GG@GGHOALAW.COM MPn i 1 / 2601 PLEASE REFER TO FILE: Vt•tvi )&N'ITYC.EVELOP,:`;;:TCEPAR:? A? CITY Or PALM!)E E T April 13, 2001 via facsimile and first class mail (760) 341-7098 City of Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: PROPOSED PARK AT THRUSH STREET CASE NOS. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 Dear Commissioners : This law firm represents the Vista Paseo Homeowners Association ( "the Association") . The Association represents the interests of the 87 homeowners residing within the Vista Paseo community, which is directly to the northeast of the proposed park. The Association has a number of serious concerns regarding the City' s plan to develop a 27-acre park at 72-500 Thrush Road. We respectfully request that the Commission consider the Association' s concerns before approving this project . 1 . Lack of notice . The Association did not receive notice of the initial hearing on this matter, although a few of the members of the Association closest to the boundaries of the park did get individual notice . Failure to notify the Association separately hindered its ability to respond to the proposed plans . The Association has made a request that in the future, the Association also gets separate notice . 2 . Parking. There is currently a parking area at the proposed park. Unfortunately, planning staff is proposing that this parking area be moved to the northeast end of the park. Evidently, this was done to alleviate the concerns of 3 or 4 individual property owners to the west regarding noise, light, etc. from the parking lot . Obviously, the Association strongly objects to the parking lot, with its attendant noise and disturbances, being moved directly adjacent to Vista Paseo in order to accommodate a much smaller number of property owners . This parking lot will cause greater negative impacts upon the Vista GURALNICK & GILLILAND ATTORNEYS AT LAW April 13 , 2001 City of Palm Desert Planning Commission Re: Thrush Street Park page 2 Paseo residents than leaving the parking lot at its existing location will cause to the few property owners who are objecting to it remaining at its current location. 3 . Security. The Association has serious concerns that this park will become a magnet for vagrants, loiterers, and criminal activity. The Association strongly believes that the park must have a substantial gate across the entrance to the parking lot . This gate must be locked and unlocked at the opening and closing times, concurrently with the locking of the restroom facilities. The Association is also very concerned that the Palm Desert Police Department provide adequate policing of this area for the safety and tranquility of the Vista Paseo residents . Additionally, the Association is very concerned the design of the trails in this area encourages increased pedestrian use of the wash and CVWD access road. The Vista Paseo community has suffered from a series of crimes including burglaries, and persons using the access road and wash along the wall behind Vista Paseo have a perfect opportunity to invade the homeowners' privacy or possibly engage in criminal activity. The design of the park needs to carefully direct pedestrians in such a manner that they will not use the wash and access road. 4 . Nuisance Caused By CVWD Road Use. Historically, the CVWD access road along the wash along the eastern boundary of the park have been used by motorcyclists and ATV riders . This has for some time caused serious disturbance to the Vista Paseo residents . These vehicles are very noisy and disruptive, and also create significant amounts of dust, which negatively impacts the Vista Paseo community. There is a gate across the road, but CVWD does not keep it locked. As such, the road has essentially become a recreational area for off-road vehicle use . The Association has repeatedly requested that the Palm Desert Police intervene to stop these disturbances, but has been told by the police that the road is not within their jurisdiction. The Association strongly disagrees with this position. The wash and access roads, while owned by CVWD, are within the city limits of Palm Desert . We are unaware of any exemption granted to CVWD to permit off-road vehicle use in this area . This road must have locked gates and a fence, which will block vehicle access to the road at all times to prevent this activity. The fence will prevent vehicles from driving around the gate to get to the road, /Gc/ GURALNICK & GILLILAND ATTORNEYS AT LAW April 13 , 2001 City of Palm Desert Planning Commission Re: Thrush Street Park page 3 which currently happens . Additionally, the police must respond to complaints from the Vista Paseo residents when motorcycle or ATV incidents occur. The Association respectfully requests that the proposed park plan be modified to address the Association' s concerns as stated above. We look forward to addressing the Commission on April 17, 2001 . Thank you for your consideration. Very Truly Yours, GURALNICK & GILLILAND , t„ Wayne . Guralnick /mb vistapaseo.101 Mr. Jim Lopez, Chairperson April 12, 2001 Ms. Cynthia Finerty, Vice Chair Sonia Campbell, Commissioner Sabby Jonathan, Commissioner Dave Tschopp, Commissioner Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260-2578 RE: Homme/Adams Park Dear Planning Commission: Since the March Planning Commission meeting, we have spent considerable time leaning more about the trailheads from the Homme/Adams property and the Cahuilla Hills Park. After our due diligence, we have made the following observations: 1. Although the temporary parking lot has been moved to a much more convenient location for the trails and has been reduced in size,we would still like to see the City limit themselves to one parking lot at the Cahuilla Hills Park. a. It would be just as convenient to park at the Cahuilla Hills Park to access the trails. b. It would mean there would be only one parking lot for the Palm Desert Police Department to patrol. c. The Cahuilla Hills Park parking area would be only 4/10 of a mile (approximately 800 feet) from the new view /picnic site which the City recently purchased. 2. VEHCULAR TRAFFIC: The City not encourage vehicular traffic from the Thrush Street bridge; keep the "gates" at the North end closed (as they have been). Keep that area along the C.V.W.D. channel open for pedestrians only. 3. Emphasize the area along the Channel road as a walking/jogging trail. It is very popular already for this purpose. Since the City now owns approximately 2 miles along the Channel, it would be an improvement if some benches and shade trees (Palo Verde, Mesquite) were incorporated along this boundary for the people using it for their exercise route. This trail could be named "The Homme/Adams Trail". 4. PALM LOGS: Although they define the area, they are not a deterrent for "off road vehicles". We've seen S.U.V.'s pull in and lower their loading ramps OVER the palm logs and wheel off their"off roaders" and take off over the flat area and up into the hills. The City sign saying "no off road vehicles permitted" are being ignored. If the area along the Channel were emphasized for jogging/walking, could not a birm or ditch be created or some other deterrent to keep the "off roaders" from wheeling through this environmentally sensitive desert area. 5. "OPEN SPACE": We understand that the City paid $1,600,000 for the Homme/Adams property; $1,000,000 plus the additional $600,000 in some kind of creative tax consideration. We have been informed that it was purchased primarily to keep out development and make it"Open Space". The City, at an even higher cost, made the same kind of purchase behind the Big Horn property for"Open Space"; to preserve our desert as best we can. Could the Homme/Adams site be zoned "Open Space" rather than "Park"? 6. THE TEMPORARY PARKING LOT—We most sincerely request that the City dismantle this parking lot as soon as possible. It is serving no purpose except to encourage "kids" to gather there at night and "hang out". At your last meeting in March, the City said that it was up to us property owners to call the Police when we see these violations. We can't be constantly calling law enforcement. 7. WELL SITES FOR BIG HORN: There are three currently either under construction or planned on the west side of the C.V.W.D. channel. One of them is planned to be put in between the parking lot and tennis courts at the Cahuilla Hills Park; it will cover a very large area. Although it would be costly to change the site to a better location in the Park, wouldn't it be money well spent considering the best possible utilization of the Cahuilla Hills Park? In closing, we are hopeful that the Planning Commission will look at the "Big Picture" and take into consideration that you are making decisions which will, for years to come, have a significant impact. The Cahuilla Hills Park, the Homme/Adams site, and the additional 3 five acre parcels recently purchased, represent more than 75 acres of prime desert and wildlife right in the center of our city. Si erely, . Lee Dori Cree CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jeff Winklepleck Parks and Recreation Planning Manager DATE: March 20, 2001 SUBJECT: Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a General Plan Amendment from Hillside Planned Residential to Park, a Change of Zone from Hillside Planned Residential,Drainage (H.P.R., D.) to Open Space, Drainage (O.S.,D.) and a Precise Plan of Design to allow the construction of a 27 acre park with a parking lot, restroom, picnic pavilions, tot lot, basketball court, volleyball court, dog run area, multi-use trails and other related facilities at 72-500 Thrush Road, APNs 628-050-002, 628-050-018, 628-150-001 , 628- 260-058. CASE NOS.: GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 I. BACKGROUND A. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: H.P.R.,D- Vacant South: H.P.R.,D- Vacant East: PR-7- Single family PR-18- Multi-family R-1 S.P./P- Churches West: H.P.R.,D- Single family,vacant B. CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS The site is vacant with scattered smoke trees, palo verde trees and typical desert scrub. Illegal dumping has occured on the site primarily on the eastern edge of the property. In addition, there is evidence that the site has been utilized in the past by the homeless as a camping area. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP01-01 MARCH 20, 2001 South Cliff Road crosses the site approximately 900 feet south of the Thrush Road Bridge and is used to access 6 existing hillside homes and 5 undeveloped lots. An area of approximately '/2 acre near the bridge has historically been used for parking and as the main ingress/egress point for off-road vehicles. In order to maintain the parking area and help minimize off-road vehicle access to the site, the City delineated the parking area with palm logs. The City is also storing approximately 9000 linear feet of palm logs which will be used to identify the perimeter of the park and to help eliminate additional vehicle access points. II. DISCUSSION A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The 27-acre open space park design includes the following facilities: parking lot (approx. 36 spaces), restroom, picnic pavilions, tot lot, basketball court, volleyball court, dog run area (fenced), open grass area (approx. 3/4 acre) and multi-use trails. These facilities have been suggested by the Palm Desert Parks and Recreation Commission and represent the most active concept proposed. They also indicated that the plan should be scaled based on input from surrounding residents and other potential users. Based on meetings with the adjacent property owners at Indian Creek Villas, who represent the e majority population in the area, there was no apparent desire to have the active amenities (tot lot, basketball, etc.) included in the park at this time. Therefore, staff suggests phasing the construction of the facilities based on need. Phase one of the park will include the parking lot, restroom, picnic pavilions and multi-use trails. The site will also be revegetated and upgraded to increase its aesthetic appeal. If additional phases are deemed necessary, an amendment to this precise plan will be processed and presented to the Planning Commission. The park is designed to be used as a stand alone facility. The multi-use trails will serve pedestrian traffic as well as bicycles. It is intended that the site also serve as a trailhead for the future trails system in the Cahuilla Hills which will link this property to the Cahuilla Hills Park and Bump and Grind trail in Rancho Mirage. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP01-01 MARCH 20, 2001 1. Lighting There will be no activity lighting for this park. Restroom security lighting is the only proposed illumination. 2. Noise There is a potential for an increase in the noise levels in the area around the park. However, the amenities proposed and the related activities are not historically noise producing in nature. Noise levels will not exceed the maximum residential one-hour average sound level of 55 decibels between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 45 decibels between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The park will close at dusk and no noise should be generated after this time. 3. Facility Rules and Security All City of Palm Desert public park rules shall apply, including: no alcohol, no overnight camping, etc. In addition, no amplified music shall be permitted at this park. B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT The request is to change the current Hillside Planned Residential general plan designation to the Park designation to reflect current and future intended status of the site. The Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element of the General Plan will be revised to include the 27 acre parcel as a designated park. C. CHANGE OF ZONE A change of zone from the current Hillside Planned Residential, Drainage designation to a more appropriate Open Space, Drainage zoning designation is being requested to properly identify the property and officially include it in the City's open space inventory. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP01-01 MARCH 20, 2001 D. PROJECT DATA Site size: 27 acres Building Height: 18 feet max. Parking: 36 spaces (additional as required) III. ANALYSIS A. The proposed open space park design and facilities shall be compatible with existing developments in the area and will comply with all zoning standards. In so doing, the project will not endanger the public health, safety and general welfare. B. CEQA: The Director of Community Development has found that the above project will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared. Staff has consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the general use of this site and, more particularly, dog use at this site as it relates to the Bighorn Sheep Recovery Plan. The City contends that this site is ideal for dog use under their owner's control as it is located in a developed area and presents a good alternative to other more sensitive areas such as the Art Smith Trail. The City has requested a letter stating the official position as it relates to this site but has yet to receive it. IV. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends: A. Adoption of the findings; B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending approval of GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01 and PP 01-01 (Phase One) to the City Council. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-01, CIZ 01-01, PP01-01 MARCH 20, 2001 V. ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Resolution B. Legal Notice C. Plans and exhibits Prepared Reviewed and Approved: Jeff Winklep k Phil Drell Parks and Recreation Planning Manager Director of Community Development 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL TO PARK, A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, DRAINAGE (H.P.R., D.) TO OPEN SPACE, DRAINAGE (0.S., D.), A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE ONE OF A 27 ACRE PARK WITH A PARKING LOT, RESTROOM, PICNIC PAVILIONS AND MULTI-USE TRAILS AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AT 72-500 THRUSH ROAD. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of March, 2001, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of the City of Palm Desert for approval of the above-mentioned project; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will have no significant impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify granting approval of said precise plan: 1. The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. 4. The design of the precise plan is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning, as amended. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings for the Commission in this case. 2. That approval of GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, and PP01-01 is hereby recommended to the City Council, subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 20th day of March, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Jim Lopez, Chairperson Philip Drell, Secretary 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO.GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP01-01 Department of Community Development: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development/Planning, as modified by the following conditions: 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise, said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permit and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of such permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of Community Development and shall include provisions for recycling. 6. Hours of operation shall be from dawn to dusk. 7. No lighting, other than security lighting at the bathroom, shall be permitted. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Department of Public Works: 1. All grading and other related site work shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Riverside County Fire Department: None 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO.: GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP01-01 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A 27-acre open space park with parking lot, restroom, picnic pavilions, and multi-use trails at 72-500 Thrush Road. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copyof the Initial Studyhas been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effect, may also be found attached. PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 5 EN IRONMENT L. CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: z 101/1'61 E lYj t)PEA_ 15 �► � 2. Lea Agency Name Ad Address• : ve\ 71`� C,R 012219 O 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: 4T-Tr \A I>1/14L Ft-ECk- 4. Project Location: 72.50•5 Tt'T112-U1514 f _>, 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: C tr-\tor � -T� �►'►'] flo e.n_ cr22 G0 6. General Plan Designation: 7 Ong: 4)2)r 8. Description ofProject (Describe the whole action involved,including but not limited to later phases of the project,and any secondary,support,or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s)if necessary.) 9. Surr undin Land ses letting: n describe a project's surroundings) Q g: (B N - CO T L L1.�,�J� NE- �‘n16.1- F Y11 vt/T' 6b1-LS 1 1 'S - \L 1't4 T C 11•,510e E- -"1 , J --i-i fArni P, N40/4f k S 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): �� 11 g1 v Cu ' F mAV-4,+ . U`1 fi s /1 O 1 u) U 1T CITY/RVPUB/1999r313785 FORM 'T' Page 1 of 14 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics 0 Agriculture Resources 0 Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology/Soils ❑ Hazards&Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources 0 Noise 0 Population/Housing O Public Services 0 Recreation 0 Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION(To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: " 4 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent- A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required O I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant or"potentially significant unless mitigated"impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are impos upon the proposed project, nothing further is required 2 101 Siainature Dat Printed Name For 1 CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T' Paee 2 of 14 �� / EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question_ A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved(e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved,including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well as project-level,indirect as well as direct,and construction as well as operational impacts_ 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation,or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"to a "Less than Significant Impact_" The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII,"Earlier Analyses,"may be cross- referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration_ Section 15063(c)(3XD). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that arc"Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts(e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated 7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion 8) This is only a suggested form,and lead agencies are free to use different formats;however,lead agencies should normally address the questions form this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T' Page 3 of 14 9) The explanation of each issue should identify a) the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified,if any,to reduce the impact to less than significance. SAMPLE QUESTION Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No ImF Impact Incorporated Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? � � � . b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited to,tress,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality 0C_ of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,or Farmland of D 0 Statewide Importance(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a 0 .�.,�! Williamson Act contract? l CITY/RVPUB/1999f313785 FORM "T' /C7)/ L]..-.. A -C 1 A Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mingahan Significant No lml Impact Incorporated Impact c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, 0 0 CD due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY. Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable 0 0 0 air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially 0 0 0 to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any El D El criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quali ty ty standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 0 D CD people? 74 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through 0 0 habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? CITY/RVPUB/!999/313785 FORM "J" Page 5 of 14 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imi Impact Incorporated Impact • b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or ❑ ❑ 0 other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected 0 0 D wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Pl (including,but not limited to,marsh, vernal pool,coastal, etc.)through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native 0 ❑ ❑ resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 0 0 0 iiirl biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat 0 ❑ 0 Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 0 0 0 histoncal resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ 0 0 archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 0 0 0 resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside ❑ 0 0 e of formal cemeteries? CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "J" /3 Paco A of 1 d I .Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imp Impact Incorporated Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS—Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 0 0 0 effects,including the risk of loss,injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the 0 0 most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 CI 0 iii Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? 0 0 0 X iv Landslides? 0 0 CI b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 0 0 tg c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that 0 0 0 ti.d would become unstable as a result of the project,and Y� potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? I d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of 0 0 0 septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 0 0 0 ik through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous matenals? CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3785 FORM "I" Page 7 of 14 i A 9 Less Than Issues: Significant Pomona), With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im Impact Incorporated Impact b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ 0 through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident ,?j conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely 0 0 0 hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous 0 O 0 71 materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, 0 0 ❑ where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of )4 a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would ❑ ❑ 0 �( the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or j`� working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ❑ 0 0 adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuationf< plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, , 0 0 ❑ injury or death involving wildland fires, including where ,3( wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 0 0 0 requirements? CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "]" 1 n___ o Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imr Impact Incorporated linnet b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 0 0 ❑ 't.5dsubstantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ 0 ❑ area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ D 0 area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ❑ 0 ❑ capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 0 0 g) Place housing within a I00-year flood hazard area as 0 0 0 mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 0 ❑ ❑ would impede or redirect flood flows? IA I) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ 0 ❑ 4 injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow? 0 0 0 CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3 7 8 5 FORM "T, Page 9 of 14 /a Loss Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No hi Impact Incorporated Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or 0 0 0 1, regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan, local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or 0 0 /4..... C natural community conservation plan? X MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and theri residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important 0 010 mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive 0 0 groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 74 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in • 0 0 0 IX the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient 0 El 0 noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing02 without the project? CITY/RVPUB/1999l313785 FORM "I" A...... 1n _c1A /a7 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No im Impact Incorporated Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, 0 0 0 where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would ❑ . 0 0 the project expose people residing or working inproject �� the area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING_ Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either- 0 0 0 directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of road or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ 0 ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the 0 0 0 construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X1II. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? 0 0 0 g Police protection? 0 0 0 Schools? CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM"I" Pagel 1 of 14 /a 3 Issues: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im Impact Incorporated Impact Parks? 0 ❑ 0 Other public facilities? 0 0 ❑ XIV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional 0 0 0 parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require ❑ 0 0 the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: . a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e.,result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of D 0 0 service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either ❑ ❑ ❑ an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that04 results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature 0 ❑ (e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0 /_" CITY/R VPUB/1 999/3 1 37 85 FORM "T, Do..v 11 ..0 1 A A4 Less Than Issues: Significant PotrntialIy With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imps Impact Incorporated Impact f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 0 g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs 0 0 0 supporting alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts, Prit bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 0 0 ❑ �,{ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (� b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ❑ 0 0 wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water _ ❑ 0 drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the • 0 construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the 0 0 0 r4 project from existing entitlements and resources,or arc new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment 0 ❑ 0 provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity 0 ❑ 0 to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state,and local statutes and ❑ ❑ 0 regulations related to solid waste? CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3 7 85 FORM"J" Page 13 of 14 30 • Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Then Significant Mitigation Significant No tm Impact Incorporated Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality 0 0 0 of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat or a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually 0 0 0 limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will 0 0 0 cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either1)4 directly or indirectly? • CITY/RVPUB/1999r313785 FORM "J" INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS.GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 ENVIRO NMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST) IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: a. Site is at the boundary of the Essential Habitat area as identified in the Recovery Plan for the Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, California dated October 25, 2000. The project will have a less than significant impact on the plan as it is located at the toe of slope adjacent to a fully developed residential area to the east and is buffered on the west by a partially developed hillside area. The hillside is developed with single family homes which includes standard related activities including dog ownership. f. See IV (a) IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING c. See IV(a) /3 JTY Of HUM DEL ., I ,.c . - 3 lS I 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2S78 :•�-=3`�1�� _ "� TEL: 760 946-0611 ,af FAX: 760 341-7098 info,palm-d .ors CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01 PP 01-01 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 approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a General Plan Amendment from Hillside Planned Residential to Park, a Change of Zone from Hillside Planned Residential,Drainage (H.P.R., D.) to Open Space, Drainage (O.S.,D.) and a Precise Plan of Design to allow the construction of a 27 acre park with a parking lot, restroom, picnic pavilions, tot lot, basketball court, volleyball court, dog run area, multi-use trails and other related facilities at 72-500 Thrush Road, APNs 628-050-002, 628-050-018, 628-150-001, 628-260-058. 4!".tailMA :'"". 11111 D s ^n� ( I A P .ti■■■■s■■■ `'' ``,: ,%I■■11■■■■■■ U:•V4c!U V; me L - Aligi'• . . 4■■■■■■qA\■■■■ lalliiMmIll � mili '�rI u■i■■i■■■ cis■■■■��g� .. 111 I�{Af� Ig �p M il l i lilt I I l l 1 I I milli SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 20,2001, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted upto the date of the hearing.p e ng. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary February 26, 2001 Palm Desert Planning Commission /33 /—�-*. f 0 0 6 "--p fa-,.3-9 r*-6/ ro c rj.riddW ?)• iyj7n-6 -7 /rq,4 a rO r- / ;7 6/,5- • a v/ c'V ' y9 Li2_›Yee P'Q/ 2/n .7' fy-/ 9 'r/'tc 0 9740,,Z_ ,,u o' r° ��1 a 4 / o/y 6.y ^'9 /<. a_,Z * f Q/yV,i 2//_9H.L /ol a 774 J a/ / r7 .,'4re..v. • // f/. - "Yr ''K,c 3-- /✓32'v-7/se/D ,e-t/ • C� b 1113S30PfYd A.1121-6/ o p n,o , 'p _,lam 1N311,WVd301N3NId013A39 AiIN(MNNIDO'' loOZ L - NtIW rr ®3Al333a 7 0 0-c £ y9-•6' RECEIVED MAR 1 5 2001 TO: MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: �� G. (MEQCMML'NITY CEVELOPk ENT DEPAR"i F:SENT CTYOF PR,!M DESERT For the past 22 years I've had a home on the 30 acres contiguous to your new HoIIrr>le Park and I've worked hard to keep its' rural, private desert integrety. (please see attached map) In my initial meeting at the park site, with Jeff Winkleple he assured me that The City was sensative to our residential sites in planning the facilities for the new park. He said the plan was to keep the southern end (by our residential acreage) as "open space" with addi tional desert planting native to the area such a more Palo Verde trees: The public facilities such as: bathrooms, parking lot, playground, basketball courts, etc. were to be at the northern side of the Thrush Rd. bridge. However, fnr_-en porary Use, a parking lot was to be installed at the Thrush Rd. bridge because it was easy. We unclrstand that it is the City's plan to acquire add'1 5 acre parcels at the northern end of the park site to facilitate their hiking trails into the hills. Additionally the 5 acre parcels toward the northern end of the park were not as receptive to fesidential development because there was no infrastructure in place. The Homme Park Site Conceptual Plan has done lust the opposite of our discussions. ALL of the public facilities are at the Southern end of the Park; directly in fruit of our residential sites. As your immediate neighbor, I look right into them and hear them. (Please see enclosed photos) When we drive to our homes, we drive by the bathrooms and the parking lot. . . .The public does not just drive into the parking lot and stay there; they continue driving on the dirt channel road to explore (our residential properties) . . . . IF the Planning Commission would reconsider their initial Park design and design the public facilities toward the northern side of the Thrush Bridge entrance, it would greatly diminish the negative effect to our residential properties. Thank you for your attention to this matter, Dori Cree \ \ L'' ai Yam 17eaeI \ c--' ' drru�,. 4\ \::: 4 ... / . HOMME PARK SITE °T CONCEPTUAL PLAN Yak ' it ..^` � L10 C \// / Tom. .!4 zip. / P.t.'1'!-I*411*P '033 Ve,A9M 0 0 0 0 0 0/ -' ce `Z.(— - ' WILLOW ST G r < PI Pi a I / ob 4 033 f14... N 0 0 7 w TV .,, �k 5 a -033_ DI EEID 7 / . i ab o a o r,•GLF RD 02.3 Dog [BO L-IIVP03:1 //- -. a���,§',9' tib L u Area 0311 RAVE BasketbaN Court : b'�0iof Volleyball Court l 016 1.0 Tot Lot LVI / Parking Lot- t / Approx 36 spaceswk Rest Room ^ / - - 1 Picnic Pavilion ri; i] R i C { N w+E 400 0 400 Feet / , February 13, 2001 /3 4 ' • • M 1 •`� ��'. 1 ♦t. a�`t ,d'I�V a , 1" ' - S - a `1 � ,• p^' 4*‘.4.' P: 2:. -: ':' : '•J '''I' °4 fi '' . '-' °' : ... yeti:' ::.1'.. 'ii-•4'‘'ll4P '. ,i, ./,L .S k i . • ♦ f� a•.T� ( ,• M ++ ` a, •"` 'RS r•t . tl• -.... ...... •"( '. ,. ,,. -,,v t - t,.'\: ' 1 , • . — • '1 - �..- tau 8.'_A.�i 1 ,•�: ' • \ •. . •f )�• yp�s )� �• I•r . �rr ' r Js• �` a •`.may i • It � y. ! i 'i1 4 ", 1 • .�, ..,:: . .„... • yip f • .• �E . . . J( -.- �. .. Syr ' ; t lit, �# ��.. • 1 1 • _ ;�..1 .. ."' ' "-Ilk& 4, . ,. ' , nr.. .1 't mh.,2%. .16: i. ',.',:t:'''Lc1;,'4'..:ti,...,„,:-."°•,i' • • :+ 1.II • C `'R',,' ':t•F` t1J. h , 1 , 11 „r.tt j y ( x'M Y c,r._r'? . t3s .4 4 a r. 7 1 � f i e 1f. J t !fir ` 4 " :j E 4 ",1 , .1 s ' `vim; i..'- ' , 1 tt1 .:.:4 oits.ii-zs.,., . • ,. • 4 ''.•..,: tg , . 0) if . A •••Rs 4 i i 1.. .46,y , 4, 0 )4. A 1 ' i' - •-•-•a'..1/41 .-- •;47,11..:.— .4,3)St .,,,;••• :, • 1 1 $_ i 1 ' ; ', r 1/1 A I. i] 1.r. .1 .. •• ' r f1-•� I'. "II . - .' 1 i ..,..1, • ,f -.. • ..1 •4..,.......... ....L..' ••••• •••- .. 'JJ 1 it ,, d4,e. r :., r Richard H. and Marilyn A. Fromme RECEIVED 48 625 Paisano Rd. MAR 1 9 CE O f Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 March 15, 2001 cr,,EL(P..:: -DEW.r:,Enr f:rrY 0,:,P':Lk'r'!JC9r Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Dear Commissioners: This letter is in response to your "legal Notice" on case no. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 concerning the park planned for 72-500 Thrush Road, Palm Desert, Ca. We are owners of the two parcels adjoining the proposed park to the north, specifically APN 628020012-1 and APN 628020013-2. We request that a fence be required on our common boundary line to discourage trespassers and to keep hikers from throwing debris down on our property. When a house is built there, it will be easy for rocks and trash to be thrown down on to the roofs of the structures causing damage to the roofs. We would also like for consideration to be given to move the building site, on the lower lot, farther back and up the hill for privacy. We live in the Cahuilla hills and have been told by exterminators that subterranean termites are worse in the hills than in the valley. We have in fact had many problems at our house. The palm tree trunks left on the ground to mark the boundaries, will attract termites for the surrounding properties. We have had termite tubes on live palm trees at our house. We request that you check with exterminators to determine that you are not creating a problem for the neighborhood by using the tree trunks as barriers. We have visited Mr. Drell and Mr. Winklepleck at City Hall to discuss these concerns. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ( j March 20, 2001 Mr. Philip Drell, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Subject: Response to City of Palm Desert Legal Notice Case No. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 Dear Mr. Drell, This letter provides written response to the subject legal notice covering the topics that are to be addressed in the public hearing scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on March 20, 2001. This response is specifically intended to protect our rights to initiate future court actions, should such actions become necessary in our view, on the subjects delineated herein. Our concerns regarding the proposed changes include: 1. Proceeding with the proposed Park development without appropriate environmental reviews. 2. Insufficient review of the potential traffic hazards resulting from increased vehicular and pedestrian traffic across the Thrush Road Bridge and connecting streets as a result of the establishment of the Park. 3. Inadequately addressing drainage in the Park design. 4. Possible violations of California State Government Codes and/or City Ordinances, such as, but not limited to; • Starting of construction of elements of the Park by the City of Palm Desert prior to completing these actions: ❖ Notification of the affected property owners, ❖ Required public hearings, ❖ Amendment of the General Plan, ❖ Approval of a Precise Plan of Design. 5. Provision for adequate vehicular access, and/or control, to the adjoining properties on the west border of the proposed park. Possible violation of CEQA because of noise, dust, and high level of vehicular traffic that does not now burden these properties. Page 1 of 3 6. The possible change in the nature of the existing easement across our property from private to public. 7. Any failure of adequate boundary identification in the design and/or construction of the Park. Identification should be provided at the Park borders (walls, fences, signs, etc.), along interconnecting trails (outside Park boundaries), or trail accesses (outside Park boundaries). We believe that boundary identification is needed, among other reasons,to: • Prevent inadvertent or unknowing trespass on private property by the Park users, • Avoid potentially contentious and/or injurious confrontations between Park users and property owners, • Preserve the personal liability exposure of the adjoining property owners at not higher than current levels, • Prevent the unwanted accumulation of animal dung, or feces, on the adjoining or surrounding properties, • Guard against animal attacks on residents, guests or pets of adjoining properties by animals frequenting the Park, • Avert damage to the environmentally-sensitive hillsides by increased vehicular, pedestrian or animal traffic that may be generated by the existence of the Park, • Reduce the likelihood of acts of vandalism against the adjoining private property. 8. Any failure of the City of Palm Desert to provide adequate or sufficient patrol of the Park to prevent vandalism, alcohol consumption, loud or noisy parties, or any other activities that would disturb the serenity normally afforded residences in the area protected by the Hillside Planned Residential District provisions. 9. Any installation of lighting beyond that specified for restroom security. Specifically, any lighting that would change the character of the hillside area at night, be obtrusive to the adjoining residences (existing or future), or interfere with the night views from said residences. 10. Any Park design and/or construction that would allow the connection of electrical utilities in any manner not fully in accordance with current City of Palm Desert Ordinances, specifically the requirement for placing such utilities underground. 11. Any other result of the Park development and/or construction that could adversely affect the level of peace, tranquility and/or privacy now afforded residences in the area protected by Hillside Planned Residential District provisions. 12. Any element of Park design and/or construction not preserving the intent and purpose of the Hillside Planned Residential District provisions. Page 2 of 3 1W We believe that the issues and concerns raised in this written response should be adequately addressed prior to allowing any additional development, and/or construction, of the subject Park. Sincerel jr)1/411157,/ ve ett L. •plet / atricia L. Aplet 77-075 Florida Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92211 Page 3 of 3 /�� I \\ 1 I \--A\ ' I e °r✓afm l7eaenl j • i ; \ \ ✓�� HOMME PARK SITE 1 I I jV-1--i CONCEPTUAL PLAN ' � � Hillside i '\ i /i i � \ % ice, I`' a� tin n10 t - Future Access Roads \ ��- ' ! 1 — _ — WILLOW ST �� I F I a i / I1 ce " IEilj it0 i Dog 1 E'( � ,,, / LLI , RuAra 'II ��� � i ' ' I I ' Basketball Court I , , T /..+- Volleyball Court i� r , ,6)R�/sH�� % Tat Lot I e ��� � Parking Lot- Hillsideikk,+ 1 Approx 36 spaces k \ . / � — l 1 I l Rest Room 1 I Picnic Pavilion I d '' l 1 ! 1 1 '4 40.1/i 1 k// ' I I . --- 74. I /"//L.-7' / I / /f (( 1 /Hillside I / �/ I I 1 i N W+E S t 1 /L' 400 0 400 Feet February 13, 2001 RECEIVED MAR. 1 5 2001 T0: NaMERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION .;(111 tt'MITY CEVELOPkt:E`1'DEPAR',►.IE!�T FROM: DORI G. CREE r'TV o;= nE;E , For the past 22 years I've had a hoarse on the 30 acres contiguous to your new Hontne Park and I've worked hard to keep its' rural, private desert integrety. (please see attached map) In my initial meeting at the park site, with Jeff Winkle le ck he assured me that The City was sensative to our residential sites in planning the facilities for the new park. He said the plan was to keep the southern end (by our residential acreage) as "open space" with additional desert planting native to the area such a more Palo Verde trees: The public facilities such as: bathrooms, parking lot, playground, basketball courts, etc. were to be at the northern side of the Thrush Rd. bridge. However, fnr temporary use, a parking lot was to be installed at the Thrush Rd. bridge because it was easy. We understand that it is the City's plan to acquire add'l 5 acre parcels at the northern end of the park site to facilitate their hiking trails into the hills. Additionally the 5 acre parcels toward the northern end of the park were not as receptive to residential development because there was no infrastructure in place. The Hanme Park Site Conceptual Plan has done lust the opposite of our discussions. ALL of the public facilities are at the Southern end of the Park; directly in frwcit of our residential sites. As your immediate neighbor, I look right into them and hear them. (Please see enclosed photos) When we drive to our homes, we drive by the bathrooms and the parking lot. . . .The public does not just drive into the parking lot and stay there; they continue driving on the dirt channel road to explore (our residential properties) . . . . IF the Planning Commission would reconsider their initial Park design and design the public facilities toward the northern side of the Thrush Bridge entrance, it would greatly diminish the negative effect to our residential properties. Thank you for your attention to this matter, JL.c Dori Cree cnf \\ erhi c i i(Arent Owed ";.3i,C?§ \ \ \ \ , - HOMME PARK SITE CONCEPTUAL PLAN ' ' 1 \// I -4!.f`j-L-':41.!$:-: - .'''', -UP Ce,sOE' 0000/ / . _ .,. WILLOW ST '‘INII0 f 4f.fsr• '6,# Ellffilgiffila) / ab 'el:l.( &'PlOIW cal -1 - 0 [}33, I' 5 [ a])13 il i13:1[lb cm ca,�J a D7,0�GLERD I :1,4,4vp cib // J w In g Run [BD Area e ®�ei� Oky RAVf1b I ,`�4 - = - - �� Basketbon Cou :111:1:1'.-111'''-:3 Q,• VoNeyban court ���, v •'Tot Lott `7 it° eio ►J Parking Lot- '. -A-7— / (iNAppt x 36 spaces / '14 . Rest doom — ►, 1 Picnic Pavilion ~ 3 �Awy' 4� t \ 3; ' "/ `e i [ w6 s _ 400 0 400 Feet February 13, 2001 r ... • fi : s ' ''''s.. *.• 1 :._ S.e '''.,. 'It • . •• • i f - • ' il 1,,, •,l• •• "I •''''''s !Sit. ' 4111 . .alw T 1 t•I C l• ,,, ..• ...,,': ..„,1_ ,...;,-,-.1. • k/ .144:*„.q•• • 4'-t • t.. "i • •3 II 2. il 1 %•' 1 ' : -', , 1 • 1 (* • I i . s •i i , .0, 'its• , •,A ''1 - . lig.. '' ' ' • 4,, • N. , . • - lift " ,t.••••••;•Ath,...,..t.t. -‘,#.. ."'"• " • •'• • ' • .... #•• • ' • lt, 114 t ... '',1 ti , • ._.1.,.. .4•••• '1' ' 4 ' IP • I.4 114 se. : • f.'• •• • 7. r •-,,,:' .if • • t ••• i i' * . .4' „, -,, , - .4- -• ati.•-•".• IV; '''••tr-....."*"• -et%\„7 ,.' , 4 . 4 II. 4. • ... ...-.''' 1." . ;a.• ' r 44: i. , • ' . f, - . ,i ...:f / . • ., T . 'IN-1 •- r .. . i„. , :: ... , . 1.\,.• .: - ,i, • .11: , •1.Not.`, - ,1 ki . . 1 • • 'I% 4.....•,' ''' ,,,. '• 4. • ••••••,-.. ' • • .•„'• ' .r 1 it 4 . . . . . 0 - ..,...,.. ,. -,• ••,‘ .- , 4, H • .. 4 t .' , • *. 4• " .....4 .> 4 • i . .. 6 ,.•- . 4' I' ... . ,•1;is,..• - • •1•• ‘i‘ ••• .41! . ' ' - •• ' ,, • , } , t "'1"4111111=,;„,.. -4,, : '1-1.i . • 1 ... - .J , -, %AD', • s. 7 - • ',"0-.6--",'W)14:7"41"-.. ' . i, .42..'‘1,...........-4. ,4- ••:A it,,1....„ ,,,, 111 MP . . . ow ':11 • % ...N.A.,. ,4,1•4.I.C.411140 •Dy__4. .4 11,1•‘ i • - ""i' 4,art' •-••• ..4-t•--''f..• !'.:•;• 4 .' • • i ." ., •:I ,pc.,. •••O.;4m.. . c, . S :••• 'IP.•&". ' ;42a1.t-4,..- fo 1 4.4:•••v lytt \". ' :.' ' ..i.,••....14* •'„„oN.; , .,o, ' i -'t-•1 ,14krit4i 7N.iir . ,. - • 4-t 34's )irVoif. • li - .•' - "-- i',•'11N-- ,r44r* Z., s',*•,,i Veit%, ,',:, •• .-. , *r• + 1 . l... •""' II ,i C ;•),4, ' ••••'-:.•e!.."-i: ', . t I, . . 4111 . , it" 4 ,•, ,.. .st,4* • • - 4,:. ,,1 • w , • 1.# , •• "•##' • t.: .. 4111"....•#4,, ,t ' it• "• , • -• - - ''. 6, , • .4•., . . It • • if\ ,\44., .--, It ' • ';0 .. ) ' •• It' 1,,, ..r. , .i !I' 1. - ,.,. . .4.1 .# ••••• . 4 ' ..1 . -.4.t. i • 1 #. ••• 1 '# • .., ..• a• . ...' • .' a/. a II- - .*C-4,.. '... -'.••••"...4.11 ''''• *#14' '; ' .. , 1.; - "•• :: '. •- II...., t 14 •••: ••• ea& ,tj It I, ,,., ...• ie.. .. N. .1...' . •'• -..,-..--.-#INP • JI -...'" 1 • li,4 • 4 .....„,___ ,. il .. i •,,' . 0, i :I . ....,...,... I = ' • if -----1 ":;.--- . .' P. .. ', h I 3 ct :•....• ._,..... _ . ,,.., , •4. ., _, - . .44i . . d . I I, • $ .;,. --,.•*-.... ,,,N. ' . ,- v‘tt d 4 - - -. itit'z' ' si n • ' . 4,eb7r .1 • . .Jtio, 4 't•‘ F • ..---,,....* •• • il .• ••••- stir,' l ..... ‘• :k'04.•• •••• 4.•4 1.;‘,1114 /f • • K t...1 .;•,:: ' '. ...* r.i.r, k., , -- I _.. _ .., . • ..... 4 b ••••.0„. . -. ' •.....4,..411,3r4.4...4t..1 .• ' 4 - .'...: .i. 1 tif -di r • . to4.,t-..iive• . •:".....,„ ' vi•' ...E..* -• li ...1-4?---• •-. •,r,,,t;•%. A! 1, il i 4p • i :St Z.47:41111'• i' V I gil. •!A.'4 • ..r.... + •..t.',,..V..S i'I 1‘A 5,.1• .'4 .• 41 • * 1 I I( : IN • , o ' St ' ...i. s'i • , ...414,-.4.; ,..: •A . • Vir • : .4 . i ... *"•,..4+:'' < - 6 1 • • •lei , - -4.'i , --`•••• 't4...r.,•-tilkstitgi , • ,. 1 4%.; '..... - . .41' ••-: • - •i . . - . • gi..111( II •0".:•.:.:.:.---- ..... •,i 11„. , ' . ‘titr,.....*:ii.oylit.,.,-:::.•,:,,,tri, . . I ; .4.. . .....-4:.,- .., . v• _ ,i ' -*....... 1• %.". "/ "N. •7*•'..N.* -t -..,,,,.......• - - ' I , •. -: , 11 t, 1 I!•.P 4 • y-- ..2•••.. .., ..,-*in ' t c.•.'"•• :i i...1•2,•1 e. •"04 • " ••„•„:„..... It s•,. .!" -• •I'i4.• I t s 4 ' •.....-• .e. • 4 v ,Alts „ •,„ . . •••_ . •-‘ l't ' - ... •.r:'t 7,'• .\'"::` •• '44* a 1 -:.•„.. 't 1.;,•:•-• ,,,,L, • -,.4,.,„, .• .- --. ••• - r: • • ' :;• •• .' � • , c. i�� l?• i l ., i• , , -T• _fir`, y�z e. • f11,N T� h • • gip• • • ` ., i1 '► y a .1.:,,. ' , .•. • / Irn ,t•1 X/i•h� �'�1 7 i. '1 • ,i i r, �s;l-.i1 it �- ,a �•.` ,JP • i• .1 •` ,'. '/, y,/ •' Il7,' .• • �r7{ ,' • +•..... • • •.•t% ' ` I ,', a tip' i i • 'isi. ice i.Tln,, `.• ..I,trill' i ', . i• i s h % ;G 4 1 _'4. ,_ V:"..:� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuingCUP 94-2 Amendment #1 to April 3 2001 minute motion. p by o Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Tschopp abstained). F. Case Nos. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; a General Plan Amendment from Hillside Planned Residential to Park; a Change of Zone from Hillside Planned Residential, Drainage (HPR, D) to Open Space, Drainage (OS, D); and a Precise Plan of Design to allow the construction of a 27- acre park with a parking lot, restroom, picnic pavilions, tot lot, basketball court, volleyball court, dog run area, multi-use trails and other related facilities at 72-500 Thrush Road, APNs 628- 050-002, 628-050-018, 628-150-001 , 628-260-058. Mr. Winklepleck explained that the current site was vacant with a few scattered shrubs and trees. The site had been used for illegal dumping. There were quite a few people that used the site to walk their dogs. There had also been some indication that it has been used as a homeless encampment. The City bought the 27 acres last year with the intent to keep it primarily as open space to provide an open space park and also a connection as part of the Cahuilla Hills hillside area to try to maintain the hillsides as vacant as possible. On the south side of the project the site was crossed by South Cliff Road. That was approximately 900 feet south of the Thrush Road Bridge. It accessed the six existing hillside homes and five undeveloped lots. The area west/ southwest of the bridge had historically been used for parking and easy off road access onto the site. The City was able to obtain palm logs from a grower in Indio. They delineated the area to try and stop some of the off road vehicles. There were additional palm logs to use to delineate the entire park. He said it was not the intent of the city to put up fencing or walls as that isn't in accordance with the city's vision of the hillsides. Mr. Winklepleck said the site was 27 acres and the current design for the open space park included a 36-space parking lot, a restroom, picnic pavilions, tot lot, volleyball court, basketball court, a green area, a dog run area, and multi use trails. This was the suggestion of the Parks and Recreation Commission and it represented the 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 most intense proposal. He said that upon meeting with the adjacent property owners at Indian Creek Villas who represented the majority of population in the area, there wasn't an apparent desire to have any active facilities. Typically at these types of meetings people give a list of what they want to see like basketball courts and tot lots. There didn't seem to be a lot of interest in any of those things. Based on that, staff was recommending that they look at this as phase one. Phase one would essentially include the parking lot, a small restroom, a picnic pavilion, and the onsite multi use trails. The park was designed to be used as a stand alone facility with the onsite trails. It was also intended to serve as a trail head for a future trail connection system into the Cahuilla Hills area. This was important in staff's mind and staff has been working with BLM, the Department of Fish and Game and Department of Fish and Wildlife with the closures of all the trails that people hike on during the season for the bighorn sheep lambing. Staff's contention with BLM was that we would provide an area for people to hike and walk their dogs. The ultimate goal would be to connect this trail firstly with the Cahuilla Hills Park, if possible with the Art Smith Trail, and eventually with the Bump and Grind Trail that comes out of Rancho Mirage. Those were long-term goals. Tonight they were just looking at the park site. As far as the issues that typically come up with a park site, that included lighting. There was no lighting proposed at this site other than needed security lighting at the restroom facility. It was proposed to be a dawn to dusk facility with no after hours activities. Staff based the design of this project primarily on that of Ironwood Park. That was the model for this park. Ironwood was 14 acres. This one would be 27 acres. As proposed with the phase one, it was less intense than Ironwood. Noise was also an issue that came up. Staff believed that with a lack of active facilities like basketball, volleyball, etc., there would be much less of a chance for loud noise. But there was always a chance that people would gather and make noise. Noise levels should not and typically did not in any of the city parks exceed the maximum residential requirements. As such, they would have the same requirements at this park as at other parks with no amplified music. As a park they would have it patrolled more often by the Sheriff's Department and they would have a little more control than they do now. The same rules would apply to this park as other parks. No alcohol, no overnight camping, and no amplified music would be allowed at this site. Traffic was also brought up. In studying the transportation engineer's guides, there was a wide range of traffic figures they used for parks. It warns not to use them too strictly. Staff looked at primarily Ironwood Park and the amount of use there. The primary usage at parks was weekend mornings and occasionally 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 on some evenings. Ironwood Park had a tot lot area and from what he has seen families primarily were gathering there. At this site staff would anticipate something similar, but as opposed to tots there would be people coming to use it to hike and walk their dogs. Staff was anticipating Saturday and Sunday mornings as the peak hours. With the 36-space parking lot, they didn't anticipate a lot of people. The request was also to change the Hillside Planned Residential General Plan designation to Park designation. This would be done to reflect the current and future use of the site. The Conservation Open Space Recreation Element of the General Plan would also be revised to include this was a designated park. The change of zone would be from a Hillside Planned Residential designation to a more appropriate Open Space, Drainage designation. It would also more properly identify and include it as open space in the city. As identified in the current Hillside Planned Residential zoning, the use was currently allowed. The current use could include up to 81 units on this site, approximately three units per acre. Staff felt an open space park was much less intense a proposal. With the phase one recommendation by staff, there wasn't a lot of project data to provide. The site size is 27 acres and 36 spaces for parking. The building height although it is 18 feet max, staff has investigated some prefabricated, split face restroom structures that they could install here. They were approximately 13 feet in height and that was to the ridge. If approved, staff would work with residents and Architectural Commission to see if there was something that needed to be done to further disguise it. He said that staff has consulted with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the use of dogs on this site and access of dogs up into the trails and access as it relates to the bighorn sheep recovery plan. He explained that the city likes this site as a dog use site as it is located in a fairly developed area adjacent to the channel with quite a few units across the channel and some homes between it and the more sensitive areas. The City requested a letter from the Department of Fish and Game but it had not yet been received. He said there were a couple of letters that were received. The first was from Richard and Marilyn Fromme. It appeared to staff that their letter was more indicative of the proposal of the trail use, a separate project staff would have to run through the commission and it mentioned rocks being thrown at their property and that would be addressed at that time. Their second concern related to the palm logs along the perimeter and termites. Staff spoke to a District Conservationist from the Natural Resources Conservation Service. They were basically the professionals that work with date growers. Spencer Knight from the city spoke with them and he indicated that the palms were monocots versus other trees which are dicots. Because 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 of the carbon and nitrogen ratio, typically termites didn't like monocots. If there was a concern, staff could look at treating the palm logs prior to installation just to ensure that there weren't any. The next letter was from Dori Cree. It was a fairly long letter. Her primary concern was the location of the facilities. He said he told her that the plan was drawn essentially where the current main activity takes place. They attempted to tuck some of the parking area behind an existing hillside that sits in the middle of the site and the restroom and picnic pavilion. City staff was willing to look at moving the location. There was a lot of area to work with. Moving it north of the bridge was a concern. Putting in a bathroom or picnic pavilion away from where it would get the most visibility was a concern because of loiterers and vandalism. Staff was willing to consider other locations. He noted that Ms. Cree owns 30 acres of which 15 or 20 acres were directly adjacent to the park to the west. The last letter was from Mr. and Mrs. Aplet, who also owned property adjacent to the park to the west, but a little farther north. There were quite a few concerns and he would try to answer them. 1 ) They felt the city was proceeding with the proposed park development without appropriate environmental reviews. He said he was assuming that he was talking about the temporary parking area that was installed. As such, basically what they did was try to keep off road vehicles off the site. If Mr. and Mrs. Aplet were speaking about the proposed project, staff had gone through the standard CEQA requirements. 2) Insufficient review of potential traffic hazards from increased vehicular traffic across Thrush Road Bridge. Based on the city's experience with a similar facility, Ironwood Park, and Public Works review, the increases in traffic were minimal and staff felt that the traffic had been sufficiently reviewed and no change was required. 3) Inadequate review of drainage for the park design. Mr. Winklepleck said that the majority of the park would remain natural and the current drainage pattern would remain other than where the parking or building area was developed. There was a condition that any work on the site be approved through the Public Works Department and they would apply any necessary drainage requirements. Number 4 addressed the temporary parking lot. He said it was a temporary measure to limit off road vehicle access. 5) No. provision for adequate vehicular access and/or control to the adjoining properties on the west border of the proposed park. Possible violation of CEQA due to noise, dust and traffic that did not now burden these properties. Mr. Winklepleck said that he assumed that they were talking about people accessing their own property. According to the plan, access was allowed on the west and at the north side of the property from the CVWD access road. Based on that staff felt that adequate access 28 /5/ MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 had been provided to the property. 6) Possible change in the nature of the existing easement across their property from public to private. Again, Mr. Winklepleck said that had more to do with the trail project than the current project. It was the city's intent in the future to use this site as a trail head eventually. But until they acquired permits and other approvals from BLM, etc., and they have identified that the trail would be a project, when that was done it would be a more appropriate time to address this. Number 7 was regarding failure of adequate boundary identification, design or construction of the park. It talked about preventing folks from accessing their property, avoiding potentially contentious or injurious confrontations between park users and property owners, personal liability exposure of the adjoining owners, preventing the unwanted accumulation of animal dung feces on the adjoining properties, guarding against animal attacks, preventing damage to environmentally sensitive hillsides by increased vehicular, pedestrian or animal traffic that may be using the park, and reducing the likelihood of acts of vandalism against private property. Mr. Winklepleck said that the palm logs would serve as a demarcation. It was also staff's intent to adequately sign the property to identify the park boundary. Other than putting up a wall or fence or something to separate people from this site to other sites or private property and other than signing it, there wasn't a guarantee that the city could give that someone wouldn't walk on someone else's property. If this is a park, there would be patrols by the Sheriff's Department. Mr. Drell said that another good example was Cahuilla Park which had picnic areas and a fairly active use of the tennis courts. It has been in existence almost since city incorporation. There were houses around it and a church. Once they provided adequate patrol, they didn't have any of the sorts of problems as described in #7. It has been a very quiet, fairly good neighbor for the surrounding uses. Mr. Winklepleck said that item 8 said that any failure of the City of Palm Desert to provide adequate or sufficient patrol of the park to prevent vandalism, alcohol consumption, loud or noisy parties or any other activities that would disturb the serenity naturally afforded residents of the area protected by the Hillside Planned Residential District provisions. He said that was partially where the Sheriff's Department comes in and where if there is an issue, people call the Sheriff's Department and there was a learning curve. People were using that site as something other than an open space park right now. There was evidence of that and evidence of beer drinking. It was something that needed to be patrolled and something that could be handled as it has been handled in the past. Staff was comfortable with that. Mr. Drell said that under the Hillside Planned Residential District this property could accommodate up to 60-70 residences. 29 /5a MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 An alternative or more conventional land use under the current zoning would be a bunch of homes that would bring in all these same impacts to a far greater degree. Mr. Winklepleck felt #9 had been addressed. There was no lighting proposed except for the restroom facility. It would be a dawn to dusk park. Any park design or construction that would allow the connection of electrical utilities in any manner not fully in accordance with the current city ordinances. Mr. Winklepleck asked the Aplets to expand on that issue to better answer their question. Any other result of the park development or construction that could adversely affect their level of peace, tranquility, or privacy now afforded residents in the area. Again, Mr. Winklepleck said that under the current standards staff felt a much more intense project could go here. The change of zone and change of general plan insured a less intense project would be developed. 12) Any element of park design and/or construction not preserving the intent and purpose of the Hillside Planned Residential provisions. The park essentially met those provisions. In some cases with walls and fences. That would be in direct conflict with our Hillside Planned Residential Ordinance. He said that they try to avoid walls in the hillside areas. Commissioner Finerty noted that on page three of the Aplets letter it noted an address on Florida and asked Mr. Winklepleck to show her where the Aplet's property was located. Mr. Winklepleck did so. Commissioner Campbell asked if Indian Creek Villas were condominiums. Mr. Winklepleck said they were condominiums. As he understood it, quite a few of them were rented out. They have an association and staff met with them. It was a fairly nice project that had been remodeled within the last five years. They were individually owned. Mr. Drell said there were four units per building and typically an owner would own the whole building. Commissioner Campbell asked if it was considered low income housing. Mr. Drell said that it practically functioned that way since the rents were quite reasonable, but it wasn't controlled in any way by the City. Rents were set by the market. Commissioner Jonathan asked what Mr. Winklepleck thought about the Thrush Street Bridge and how it was angled. He asked if the increased usage would mandate some kind upgrading of the bridge itself. Mr. Winklepleck said that speaking with Public Works, the bridge handled residential traffic now and staff didn't anticipate a lot of people walking across the bridge. There might be a few, but probably no more than now. For vehicular access, that wasn't an issue. One issue that had been brought up by Ms. Cree that didn't show 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 up in the letter was the issue of the CVWD frontage road along Palm Valley Storm Channel and dust and additional traffic. The city was willing to look at that and willing to look at treating it with some sort of asphalt and chip seal similar to what was at BLM to try and hide it instead of using the standard black asphalt. Or they could look at some sort of binder that seemed to work on a fairly high used access path to maintain the natural look and keep the dust down. They were willing to look at that. It was a CVWD access road and the city would have to obtain approval from them. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the bridge was wide enough for two-way passage. Mr. Winklepleck said that he has been out there approximately 30 times in the last 15-20 days and there had been a few occasions when he has gone by car. On a bikepath there was a small walking area on one side, but it was adequate for vehicular traffic. He guessed that it was no less than a standard two-way drive aisle at maybe 24 feet plus. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the parking lot was dedicated for use of the park or if that was going to be in some way shared with the church. Mr. Winklepleck said the intent of the parking lot was to be used by the park. Like any public parking at any parks, if there was something going on at the College, we get people parking at the Civic Center. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a pending agreement between the church and the City for use of that parking lot. Mr. Drell said no, it was a public parking lot. Like any other parking lot, the public could park there. It would be illegal for the city to give any particular rights to the church any different than any other member of the public. As members of the public, people that go to that church would have the same right to park there as any other member of the public. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was a concern of staff if that occurred. He asked if the parking lot was large enough and if there was going to be an over demand for that parking lot and if the bridge's capacity would then be exceeded. Mr. Drell said he didn't think the bridge's capacity was a function of the number of trips that go over it. Commissioner Jonathan felt that it had limited capacity in terms of the amount of traffic it could handle. Mr. Drell said that was correct, but he didn't think it was anything they could control. If it was congested, people would go slower. It was not a concern at this time. At certain high periods like Easter it was conceivable that as members of the public the people of the church might take advantage of the parking lot there. The inconvenience would be to the people trying to use it for that purpose. Commissioner Jonathan said it would be to the people trying to use that park who couldn't find a parking spot on Sunday morning. Mr. Drell didn't believe there was any way to restrict any member of the public using the park. Just like they couldn't 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 restrict who uses parking on the street. Commissioner Jonathan thought it was a design issue and the parking lot could be moved to a different part of the park if it was a concern. It was possible based on some of the letters that the design of the passive portion of the park was oriented toward the south of Thrush Road Bridge. Based on the letters and if the parking lot usage was an issue or a concern, then that whole area could be moved northward. Mr. Drell said it could be, but in this particular case he thought the Aplets and the Crees had divergent interests. One lived on the north side and one lived on the south side. Whenever a park was installed, there were burdens and benefits to people who live next to parks. He said that he lives next to a park very much like this. It is an open space park that is occasionally used by people, but 89% of the time it was vacant and he had free use of it. Every once in a while it was used and he had to share it with the public. To him the trade off was much better since he has an open field behind his house rather than a residential subdivision. He said they try to equitably distribute the burdens. They put the parking lot behind that knob to somewhat disguise it from the Cree's property. The alternative was to put it by the dog run. Then it would be shielded from view by the ridge that comes down. It would bring the activity a bit closer to the Aplet's property. They have private property owners along the entire length of the park and wherever they put the activity, it would affect one or more in a greater or lesser extent. The ideal solution would be for the city to purchase all of the parcels fronting on the park. The issue in terms of an impact was the location of the parking lot. They wanted to keep it as close to the street as they could. Right now the temporary lot was two rows of double loaded spaces and it was closer to a square than a skinny rectangle. They could have one double loaded row going north and south as close to the access road to keep it far away. Commissioner Campbell asked if staff didn't have any problem about the location of the park, why this parking lot was stuck right in the middle. It was an eyesore. Mr. Winklepleck said that when they first came up with the conceptual design, they looked at the location of the existing activity. They designed it around the existing activity. The primary existing activity was where the temporary parking lot is now and where the active areas of the current design are located. Mr. Drell said that area had already been disturbed and if they went out there they would see that people have driven all over it so in doing the temporary parking lot, they didn't want to extend the area of existing disturbance. What they did was smooth out the uneven area of disturbance and delineated it with the palm logs. Commissioner Campbell said 32 /SS MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 that the parking area was disturbed, but it was still all dirt. Now that area just existed and looking at it from the pads up above, they were looking at that and it was unsightly. Mr. Drell said that staff assumed it wouldn't be in that spot. It had been pushed entirely to the south and actually where that parking lot was now was where they showed the basketball court and volleyball court. It had been pushed to the south in an attempt to screen it behind that knob. If they felt it was more appropriate to push it to the north, it could be done. Depending on where they put it, it would affect other property owners more or less, but someone would be affected by it wherever it was located. Commissioner Campbell said that if it was pushed to the north, there aren't that many buildings that could be seen by the areas to the north if the city purchased those three lots. Where they had it right now there were more homes in that area that looked down on it. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Commissioner Campbell asked why the parking lot was placed there to begin with. Mr. Drell said that they didn't want to disturb any more area. Any area that they disturbed if they had to change would be revegetated. They picked an area already disturbed and it didn't have significant vegetation on it. They anticipated that the parking lot would end up somewhere else and they didn't want to grade any natural areas until this process was done. He advised the commission against thinking of the existing location of the parking lot as prejudicing their decision. Commissioner Campbell asked how they proposed to keep people out of the parking lot in the evening or at night. Mr. Winklepleck said there wouldn't be any lights. That should assist partially. He said that he had calls from five or six neighbors that were happy the city was doing something. They typically call when they get off road vehicles running through there. By the time the Sheriff usually shows up, they're gone. With the palm logs, that would hopefully mitigate some of that. Also, if there were teenage kids parking and drinking beer, they were typically not like off road vehicles where they go in, tear it up, and then get out of there. The chances of them getting caught are higher plus with the increased police and sheriff's presence that would help to mitigate quite a bit of that. There would be some issues whether it was with kids parking or with some off road vehicles getting in there. It was just a matter of police presence and a monitoring situation. Mr. Drell said it was no different from Cahuilla Park the way it is now. By definition open space parks were open. If they walled them in, they would no longer be open space parks. They did have some problem at Cahuilla Hills Park five or six years ago and they increased the sheriff's patrol and those problems had about disappeared. There was a burden on the public agency to monitor these things and the city has a fairly good track record. There was a problem 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 at Ironwood Park when it first opened. The people who didn't want the Sheriff's Department to be part of their party found somewhere else to go. Commissioner Finerty asked if in the meetings with the property owners the staff report indicated that they didn't have a desire to have active amenities. She asked if they had a desire to have a park at all. Mr. Winklepleck said it was an interesting meeting and was one of the few that he had been to where they didn't take any action. They didn't necessarily indicate for or against and other than the one letter about saving their children, they hadn't had any input. Commissioner Finerty asked if it would be a good idea to go back to the writers of the letters and property owners at Indian Creek Villas and explain that they could have a certain amount of houses in hillside development versus some sort of open space and a rather insignificant park. It appeared from the staff report that one of the main purposes was to have the multi use trails and have the trail head and maybe that needed to be the focus point rather than them trying to figure out what the people that would be affected wanted. Maybe they needed to know what their desires were. Mr. Winklepleck said that was why they met with them previously. Staff had spoken to them with the exception of the one lady who sent the letter that was distributed in the commission packets. They had basically seen what the commission was seeing tonight. They had been told that essentially this was what was being proposed and were asked what they wanted. Staff typically met with the neighbors and asked them what they wanted. If there were kids or more active adults, they were asked what kind of facility they would like to see. They took no vote and there were no letters other than the one. Barring negative letters, typically that meant they were in favor of it or didn't care. Mr. Drell said that staff viewed this park as a regional facility. They also looked at regional parks as a neighborhood facility as it relates to the people who live right next to it. So they looked at parks fulfilling what the regional goal was which in this case was a place for people in the whole city to have an open space area and natural area to walk around in. When they talked to the people around the soccer field, the people at Portola Country Club wanted shuffle board or horseshoes. In this case it didn't seem like the neighborhood had a strong interest in those neighborhood sorts of facilities and he agreed that as a regional facility, the open space nature became paramount in preserving to the greatest extent possible the open space nature. Commissioner Campbell said that the writer of the letter in the packet, Ms. Cree, was not available at that meeting they had and she was mostly affected by this. Mr. Winklepleck said no, the letter he was talking about was from 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 Ms. Tabachnick. Commissioner Campbell noted there was also a letter from Ms. Cree. Mr. Winklepleck explained that he personally spoke with the other letter writers. Mr. Drell said that staff has talked with Ms. Cree extensively and have for 20 years. They weren't in fundamental disagreement. There were alternatives to the location of the parking lot which would have less of an impact on her property. They have no objection to coming back with alternative sites for the parking lot. Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification on what staff was requesting from the commission because the request included a precise plan of design. He asked if they were saying there was a lot of latitude in that and that wasn't actually what was being requested right now. Mr. Drell said that based on the discussion, there were a lot of options available. They were really looking for input to finalize a precise plan given the whole range of options suggested by the Parks and Recreation Commission and the various interests of the residents. He thought the goal was for the commission to give staff direction as to what facilities should be part of this approval and secondly, where exactly they should be arranged on the property. Then they could come back with a more definitive exhibit for the commission to recommend to the council. Commissioner Campbell said that staff was also asking the commission to change the zone from Hillside Planned Residential to Park. She said that was a problem. Mr. Drell said the change of zone and general plan amendment were part of the request regardless of how the facilities were arranged on the property that was what staff was requesting. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MS. DORI CREE, 47-205 South Cliff Road, said that she had some exhibits to show the commission. She said that almost 50 years ago this infrastructure was put in. The Coachella Valley Water District put in a water main to the very top of the mountain. They had fire hydrants and it was a little residential pocket in the hillside. The hillsides to the north didn't have any infrastructure. She said that beauty was in the eye of the beholder and Mr. Winklepleck said that this flat area just purchased for the park was kind of a dump site and a site for homeless people. She said she didn't agree. When people drove along the channel road they did throw beer cans out there and still did and kids would try and park in those coves and stay overnight. In the 20 years 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 she has lived there, she has never seen it as a dwelling place for homeless. When she first met with Mr. Winklepleck, she called him when she heard about the park. She was kind of given the impression that this park was going to be an open space and trail head for their new hiking trails into the hillside. Two months later when she saw the plan for the park, she was really surprised to see a basketball court, volleyball court and a parking lot. She didn't think that was going to be part of the plan. Since writing the letter to the commission, she said she came to realize that within the radius of one mile there are actually three parks. The Homme Adams Park which the City is requesting was a long one. She used her exhibit and pointed out the location of the Thrush Bridge crossing, the knoll/ridge, and then another bridge going over the channel and the other park, the Cahuilla Hills Park where there were tennis courts. She said that the two parks were separated by nothing more than a ridge and a big Coachella Valley Water District water tank. This was the area that Mr. Drell was referring to when he said that the city was buying additional acreage for their hiking trails. The other park was on the other side of Highway 74 and it was one mile away. They have three parks within a one mile radius. She said that the Cahuilla Hills Park was two-tenths of a mile away. She asked if they needed to have a parking lot, a bathroom and those kinds of facilities at all three parks. She asked if they could keep one of them a nice, big open space that she thought was a beautiful wildlife refuge that could be improved upon with more planting of desert trees and be kept natural. This park where they already had tennis courts with night lights didn't have a bathroom. And there wasn't a parking lot. She took some photos of that park. She said she would much rather see the city consider having three parks that were compatible with one another. Perhaps have the parking facility and bathrooms at Cahuilla Hills Park where there were already tennis courts. She said there was plenty of room there to extend that tiny little parking lot there. The bridge had a much better access there. It was accessed from Painters Path and people wouldn't drive through a housing development. The Ironwood Park had big grassy areas and playgrounds for kids so her request was for the city to consider keeping this park really as more of a nature preserve and open space park. When she looked at the painting behind the commission, it reminded her of the 27 acres with the foothills in the background. The whole idea for the park was to have a trail head and gateway for hiking into the hillsides. She asked if it would really matter 36 /59 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 to the hiker if his bathroom were located 500 yards at Cahuilla Hills Park. She said it was the same for the parking lot. It was primarily for the hiker. In between there was nothing but a ridge. She had an aerial to show the commission which showed the two parks and the Thrush Bridge. The ridge separating the two parks was where the city was buying additional acreage to get up into the foothills. To the south of the Homme Adams site was the residential housing. It was the only place in the hillside where the infrastructure was in place. She requested that the Planning Commission reconsider the use for this park and look at the big picture and look at all three of these parks so close together and do something that would be more compatible, not duplicate. She felt that they were duplicating the things that they already had. She wanted the commission to take more time and look at the big picture of what this would look like 40 or 50 years from now. Not just make another playground park out of it. Commissioner Finerty said that what she was hearing was that Ms. Cree wouldn't be opposed to the change of zone from Hillside Residential to Open Space. Ms. Cree said she was opposed. She also had a plan that Mr. Homme had when he was going to do a residential development in there. He was going to do little clusters of housing. She had the same kind of zoning on her lots that he had on his and she knew that the City of Palm Desert would hold him to a very high standard. She knew that it would be an expensive property to develop, it would be good desert landscaping, good architecture, and she was never opposed or afraid of seeing a residential development going in there because she knew it would be something nice. She would like to see it kept as residential. MR. CALVIN CREE, 47-400 South Cliff Road in Palm Desert, said that he was here to speak in opposition to the proposed park as presented. He was very relieved to find out that perhaps the proposed basketball courts, volleyball courts and tot lots would not be incorporated into this conceptual plan as previously presented. He recalled the first meeting when they all met on the other side of the Thrush Street Bridge and they were discussing the purpose of this park. As he understood it, the purpose of the park was to be a trail head for access to the public lands behind Section 30 and really nothing more. When he found out the 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 extent of what else this park would provide, he became opposed to it. In the 25 years he had been in Section 30 and this area, people that cross the Thrush Street Bridge to walk their dogs were going to do just that. He doubted that they were going to go to a designated dog area or park in the designated parking lot to walk their dogs. His experience was that they generally circulate in that area across from the Thrush Street Bridge or they walk up and down the Coachella Valley Water District easement on the west side of the channel. He didn't see how having a designated dog run area would compel people to stay in that area. As indicated by Dori, he said one of the reasons this area over 20 years ago was designated a hillside specific zoning area was in order to keep this area to the highest development standards obtainable by the city. Now that this area that was designated and zoned residentially was now being proposed as open space, he was concerned what impact that would have on the quality of any potential future hillside development or development on the flat properties that have a grade or a slope. He was very concerned about that. He said that if the purpose of the park was going to serve as a trail head for access to the public lands behind Section 30, then they should be located at the northerly end of this proposed 27-acre site. It was established that one of the reasons they wanted the parking lot was that the city wanted it in the proximity of the Thrush Street Bridge to serve possibly for overflow of the churches around the holidays. By experience, he said that when the churches have a large crowd around the holidays, they will inundate Indian Creek Villas. They would park as far as Willow Street and the Highway 74 access road before they would walk over the Thrush Street Bridge in their Sunday finery and high heels to walk through dirt to get to their vehicles. So the location of the parking lot to benefit and serve the churches he didn't see. He also understood that the churches had been contemplating building a parking structure that would serve both facilities eventually. Another reason to keep the parking lot if the parking lot were to be developed for access to the trail head for the public areas, one good reason to keep the parking lot in the most northerly area was the topography of this site. The north area of this site was topographically lower than the Thrush Street Bridge area, so from a security standpoint it would be a very easy area to monitor. It would be suitable for lighting if there were to be a public restroom developed. That brought up another point. North of this area separated only by a ridge was an established park, the Cahuilla Park. That area 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 alreadyhad d a history, a presence, a reputation and people knew how to get there. This was a more suitable area to further develop for picnic areas, for restrooms, lighting, and for more public activity. The Cahuilla Park was more suitable for accessibility because it was an established road with signage and the speed limit is 35 mph down to 25 mph off of Painters Path. He was very concerned about the Highway 74 corridor where they had cars traveling 55 or 60 mph and all of a sudden slowing down and turning onto a residential street where the speed limit is 25 mph. He was wondering if Caltrans would have something to say about that as it pertains to traffic studies and the potential hazard of increased traffic access in and out of the Thrush Road access point. He encouraged the commission to consider in the conceptual plan evolving to also consider restricting and discouraging the access of this area by Thrush Road and encouraging access of this area by the Water District easement connecting to the already established Cahuilla Park to the north of that. In conclusion, he requested that the Planning Commission deny a Negative Declaration of Environmental Imp act at this time and send this concept back to planning for further consideration and review. MS. JEAN LE DUC, 45-998 Ocotillo, said she wanted to reiterate a couple of comments that had been touched on. She thought that one of the most important qualities of this piece of property is that is an undeveloped, large mass of land in a hillside area where so few opportunities in Palm Desert remain to acquire that kind of acreage. She liked the concept that had been talked about of having some kind of passive park and having this incorporate some hiking trails and multi use paths in the hopes of a more comprehensive trail planning effort up to Art Smith and some of the other trails mentioned. She said she knew that it had been discussed before, but she believed that some of the facilities actually proposed were incompatible with that sort of environment. Having volleyball courts, basketball courts weren't compatible with the sort of natural setting this piece of property represented such an opportunity to. She recommended that the Planning Commission recommend further study of this park, taking some of the direction or the input from the community which was looking at the kind of facilities that were being proposed and maybe looking a little more at the character of this piece of property and what was best suited to that piece of property and taking into consideration 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 what was very accessible in surrounding facilities. She said that with respect to the general plan and zone change ordinances, she knew there had been some suggestionadopting aconcept, of ado tinphasebut she one believed that to undertake a sort of serious entitlement like a general plan amendment and change of zone there needed to be some clarification what the immediate as well as ultimate concept of this facility would be. She thought it wouldn't be appropriate to adopt this extensive entitlement on a concept that may change or that may include these types of facilities at a later date which wasn't particularly desired at this time. She encouraged some thought about holding off on making those changes until there was a firmer concept of what this facility would encompass. MR. JOHN VUKSIC, 73-030 Caliandra, said there was good thought expressed about parks in the area. He was a little concerned when he heard about other activities planned in a later phase which may or may not happen because they all knew that if some of that happened, the rest of it would happen in the same area. It would not move to some other area. Looking at this made him think about houses in the hills in general and he thought about it as a resident. He personally was very familiar with these hills. He saw them from his back yard, his front yard and he saw them when he drove home from work. He said that he drives down Haystack and stared at that hill. He thought about it as an architect and what he thinks about houses on the hills and as someone who loves the city and is very proud of this city. The answer he had for himself was that he was not opposed to houses on the hills provided that they are site sensitive. That meant that they were designed in a way to melt into the site. They were setback from the edge, there was a good use of textures, colors, materials and landscaping to really make them blend into the hills and become part of the hills. In short, they needed to be held to a very high standard. He thought that they as a city needed to be strict about any houses being built following those standards. With the Hillside Ordinance, Planning staff, ARC, Planning Commission and City Council they needed to make sure that happened. He thought that the schematic as proposed would deter any possibility of good architecture happening on that hillside. He looked at it and at the temporary parking lot and from what he could visualize it, there was no way anyone would make the effort to build a good house up there if that was what they were looking at because they would be looking 40 /Lv3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 right at it. The result would be that it would stay as it is with some shacks and landscape that was really inappropriate with big trees on top of hills or eventually if someone built a house it wouldn't be a house of good quality. It meant that it would be over simplified, inexpensive and would be something that would be noticeable and very inappropriate for a hillside. He said they had to ask what was in the best interest of the city. He thought it was clearly not to do something with this park plan that would deter the potential for good architecture to eventually happen on that hillside. MR. RICHARD FROMME, 48-625 Pisano Road in Palm Desert, said that he lives in the hills and he wasn't going to say anything. His letter listed a couple of his concerns and about the termites. He said that he owns two 5-acre pieces that adjoin the ridge that the City just bought and Mrs. Cree had stated that there was no infrastructure there. He said that both those lots have water, one has power and there was a road to them and he has an easement from Green Way from the Water District to get back to his two lots. There was infrastructure on this side of that ridge and there were quite a few houses back there, so it wasn't just empty. Developing the lower part would upset other people that live behind that, not particularly him since he lives behind the water tank, but there would be the same problem of everyone looking out for themselves. He said he was for the park. He liked open space, too. He hadn't yet decided if he liked the tennis courts or the volleyball courts, but he thought the open space was important. He thought it should be kept open and he hiked up the trail the other day and it was beautiful. He thought there needed to be some kind of parking somewhere there for people that want to hike. Also, the parking should be as close to pavement as possible because the valley had a PM 10 problem with the dust and the more that they drive away from the pavement, the more problems that were there. MR. HECTOR MARTINEZ, 78-682 Bursera Way, said that he wasn't aware that there was a plan by the City of Palm Desert for a park in this location, but he got a letter in the mail last week and that was why he was at the meeting. This area right now was very nice as it is. It blended nicely with the mountains and he liked it that way. It was quiet, clean and there wasn't much traffic in the area. Building a park would bring residents from all over the valley to their backyards on a 41 /6. V MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 0 MARCH 20, 2001 daily basis. He said he had a bad experience in another city and liked the way the property was now. MR. EDWARD APLET noted that the commission had his letter. Mr. Winklepleck raised one issue on the undergrounding and he suggested that it be addressed. Mr. Aplet explained that he requested a number of years ago that they be allowed power overhead to their property and he wanted to make sure that the city followed their own rules with development to underground them when they put them in. As far as the Thrush Road access, that was another example of how he thought this project wasn't properly addressed. To those that have gone on that access, it was an acute angle coming across the bridge. It was immediately barricaded on what would be the west side of the Coachella Valley Water District easement so they were required to make a sharp left-turn back. The right access down the easement was normally closed by an iron gate that was put in by the Coachella Valley Water District so he thought the design if a parking lot was put near there should be designed to accommodate a direct in access from the bridge because of making that extremely sharp turn onto and off that bridge would cause traffic hazards in the future. Mr. Winklepleck said that the first issue he would like to address was the issue of having three parks within one mile. ironwood Park was across Highway 74 and staff didn't look at it as being part of this particular development. It was across Highway 74, a major highway, and served a different purpose. It was not in the hillside. However, Cahuilla Hills Park was a similar park and as discussed, the proposal would be to have a linked path. There were tennis courts at Cahuilla Hills as identified. Over the years he has heard two people ask for restrooms at that location. It might be different when they get more people hiking. p The g restroom was a standard facility at a lot of trail heads that he has seen. People would be there and people with kids would be there. He felt that a restroom was still necessary at this park site. If a restroom was necessary at the Cahuilla Hills Park, even though it was fairly adjacent, he felt that was a separate issue for those tennis players. Staff felt that zoning from Residential to Open Space if anything was less impacting and guaranteed more that the site would stay open space. Remaining residential if it was developed as a park really served no purpose. Residential property could be developed at a much more intense level than Open Space property. The dog run area was to provide something similar to what was here at the Civic Center Park 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 which was some sort of enclosed area. The problem with that was s that they couldn't find a good solution to enclosing it without some sort of fence material and hiding it and maintaining it as natural. That was one of the components that they would prefer not to include. There was a comment on the parking lot being easier to monitor at the lower elevation. His concern was the elevation. He didn't know if it had to do with how monitorable it would be. As far as monitoring it, the more people that could see it to monitor it and that would be closer to the bridge where the majority of people drive by. He thought that Mr. Greenwood could address the comment regarding speed and Caltrans. Mr. Greenwood said he didn't think Caltrans would be too concerned about this proposal. Highway 74 had 15,000 cars or more a day. The addition by this project would be imperceptible. It would not make a difference city wise. Mr. Winklepleck said that in the current conceptual plan the recommendation as far as phase one, change of zone, general plan, and precise plan as presented and as it was being recommended by staff, it was a recommendation to city council and if council was to approve that, any amendments to that plan would have to come back to the commission and council for ultimate approval. Mr. Drell said that they would dispense with the description of it as phase one. They would approve a project and it would include what gets approved and stuff that didn't get approved would be deleted from the plan. Mr. Winklepleck noted there was also a comment made in relation to parking relative to PM10 and dust concerns. If the parking area was to move, they would address that with some sort of binder or some sort of asphalt with chip seal. The undergrounding of electrical overhead was related to where the restroom was and if they were to provide electricity to that facility for lighting, they would be undergrounded and the city would follow our own rules. Staff was looking at some sort of solar power so that electricity wouldn't have to be run to that point. Regarding the access across the bridge and the 90-degree turn that would have to be made, it was a fairly sharp turn that would have to be made and if there were two large vehicles there trying to make the turn at the same time, he could see that as being an issue. He wasn't sure how often that would happen but the traffic engineer could look at it. Mr. Drell said that there was a whole catalog of traffic calming devices which intentionally make quick movements by automobiles difficult in the effort of making sure that cars go slowly. So that movement was well within the physics of automobiles but people were required to go 43 /Ole MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 slowly and they did go slowly. What he wanted to propose was that they take all these comments and come back to the commission in 30 days with other various alternatives in terms of locations, various alternative locations of the parking lot and he thought the consensus if the commission so directed was to delete the active areas, the turf, tot lot, basketball and volleyball so they were really talking about where to put the parking lot and where to put the bathroom and they would show them various spots staff felt was appropriate and the commission and public could evaluate which areas are least impacting on the open space character of the park. Commissioner Finerty asked if staff could also make some determination on just using this area as a trail head. Mr. Drell said the goal was to use it as a trail head. Commissioner Finerty said solely as a trail head with no restroom, no picnic pavilion, no parking lot. Mr. Drell said that if they use it as a trail head, every trail head he has been to has a parking lot and as soon as a real parking lot is put in, people start using it. They would use it instead of disturbing other areas. He felt that a parking lot was needed. He suggested that perhaps 36 spaces were too many for this trail head. He said that there was a problem with not enough parking at Cahuilla Park and they would be looking at expanding it. There was a pump station that would go into that park and with that pump station they were looking at adding 10 to 12 parking spaces right off of that access road as they drive in. He said there was a place to park. If they didn't give people a specific place to park, they would park any where in an uncontrolled manner. He said they could show the commission various sizes or just start with 12 to 15 spaces and design it in such a way that it would be expandable over time. Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Finerty moved to continue this project for 30 days. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. Mr.P Drell advised that the public hearing should be kept open. Chairperson Lopez reopened the public hearing. Commissioner Jonathan thanked the residents for being at the meeting to share their thoughts. He hoped that they could see that staff and the commission was very attentive and appreciative of their comments and hoped 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2001 they could come up with something that met the entire community's, as well as the immediately surrounding neighborhood's, needs. Commissioner Tschopp said that before the next meeting he would like to get a better quantitative number on the number of trips a park would generate as opposed to a medium/moderate density development in here alternative wise. He knew it would be difficult for them to come up with based on previous comments made about determining park traffic, but he felt it would be helpful in terms of what they were looking at traffic wise. Mr. Greenwood said that he had to caution the commission on not getting their hopes up because the data on parks was very limited and every park was different in every neighborhood. If they put the same park in two neighborhoods, two different things happened. No matter what numbers they brought to them, there would be a huge range. The residential side could be pinned down very closely. There would be 600-700 trips per day out of this residential neighborhood. He was comfortable saying that there would be fewer than 100 if this was a park or trail head. That was what he would say in two weeks. Chairperson Lopez said that he has used the Thrush Road Bridge but he couldn't remember if there was enough room there for two cars, or one car. He was concerned that if in fact they did proceed with some type of recreational facility here whether it be open space or anything else, he was of the opinion that if they built something, people would come. What he was concerned about was the safety of the individuals who did wish to cross that bridge whether it be dawn or dusk without having sufficient room to walk across there and he was thinking more along the lines of kids. He was looking at the safety factor that there was sufficient room for people to go across that bridge to get to what would be a very nice setting. He asked staff to take a look at that issue. He called for a vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing this matter for 30 days by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. 45 /IPS GURALNICK & GILLILAND ATTORNEYS AT LAW ATTORNEYS SERVING 74-399 HIGHWAY 111 , SUITE M TEMECULA OFFICE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 (909) 296-6629 TELEPHONE: (760) 340-1515 SAN DIEGO OFFICE FACSIMILE: (760) 568-3053 (619) 232-1300 EMAIL: GG@GGHOALAW.COM PLEASE REFER TO FILE: June 21, 2001 via facsimile and first class mail (760) 341-7098 City of Palm Desert City Council 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: PROPOSED PARK AT THRUSH STREET CASE NOS. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 Dear City Council : This law firm represents the Vista Paseo Homeowners Association ( "the Association" ) . The Association represents the interests of the 87 homeowners residing within the Vista Paseo community, which is directly to the northeast of the proposed park. The Association has worked with planning staff regarding the plans for 27-acre park at 72-500 Thrush Road. The Association is very appreciative of the City' s assistance in resolving many of its concerns regarding this park. The Association supports the plan as currently proposed; however, access along the CVWD road remains a serious concern: Nuisance Caused By CVWD Road Use . Historically, the CVWD access road along the wash along the eastern boundary of the park have been used by motorcyclists and ATV riders . This has for some time caused serious disturbance to the Vista Paseo residents . These vehicles are very noisy and disruptive, and also create significant amounts of dust , which negatively impacts the Vista Paseo community. There is a gate across the road, but CVWD does not keep it locked. As such, the road has essentially become a recreational area for off-road vehicle use . The Association has repeatedly requested that the Palm Desert Police intervene to stop these disturbances, but has been told by the police that the road is not within their jurisdiction. GURALNICK & GILLILAND ATTORNEYS AT LAW June 21, 2001 City of Palm Desert City Council Re : Thrush Street Park page 2 The Association is requesting that this road have locked gates at all times to prevent this activity. The existing gates are inadequate to properly prevent unauthorized recreational vehicle access to the road. Therefore, the Association also requests that CVWD install substantially improved gates, with a fence to prevent persons from going around the gate, along the north end of the park near St. Margaret' s Church. This will prevent unwanted intrusion into this area. The Association has sent a letter to CVWD requesting their assistance in controlling this area. The Association seeks the City' s help in coordinating with CVWD to arrange for appropriate improvements to secure this road. Thank you for your consideration. Very Truly Yours, GURALNICK & GILLILAND /(1 V " c611/(4°('NA (2 C Wayne S . Guralnick cc Len Stuessel , Preside :t, Vista Pasec HOA /mb vistapaseo.103 06-21-01 06:07pm From-GURALNICK -.AND +7605683053 T-486 P.02/04 F-918 y w 4 - • GU RALNICK & GILLILAND ATTORrET3 AT LAW ATTORNEYS SERVING 74-399 HIGHWAY 111. SUITE M TEMECuLA OFFICE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 (908) 286-8629 TELEPr1ONE (760) 340.1515 SAN DIEGO OFFICE FACSIMILE. (760) 568-3053 (e19) 252-1500 EMAIL• GG©GGHOALAW COM PLEASE REFER TO FILE. June 21 , 2001 gm, o via facsimile and first class mail (760) 341-7098 ; c City of Palm Desert imp - City Council Iv m 73-510 Fred Waring Drive IU Palm Desert , CA 92260 -42 Re: PROPOSED PARK AT THRUSH STREET " o CASE NOS. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 m ry Dear City Council : This law firm represents the Vista Paseo Homeowners Association ( "the Association") . The Association represents the interests of the 87 homeowners residing within the Vista Paseo community, which is directly to the northeast of the proposed park_ TheAssociation has worked with planning staff regarding the plans for 27-acre park at 72-500 Thrush Road_ The Association is very appreciative of the City' s assistance in resolving many of its concerns regarding this park. The Association supports the plan as currently proposed; however, access along the CVWD road remains a serious concern: Nuisance Caused By CVWD Road Use. Hlstorlcally, the CVWD access road along the wash along the eastern boundary of the park have been used by motorcyclists and ATV riders . This has for some time caused serious disturbance to the Vista Paseo residents. These vehicles are very noisy and disruptive, and also create significant amounts of dust, which negatively impacts the Vista Paseo community. Thereis agate across the road, but min does not keepit r �7W locked_ As such, the road has essentially become a recreational area for off-road vehicle use. The Association has repeatedly requested that the Palm Desert Police intervene to stop these disturbances, but has been told by the police that the road is not within their jurisdiction. Received Jun-21-2001 06:10pm From-+7605683053 To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 002 06-21-01 06:07pm From-GURALNICK 'LAND. +7605683053 T-486 P.03/04 F-918 GURALNICK & GILLILAND ATTORNEYS AT LAW June 21, 2001 Cicy of Palm Desert City Council Re : Thrush Street Park page 2 The Association is requesting that this road have locked gates at all times to prevent this activity. The existing gates are inadequate to properly prevent unauthorized recreational vehicle access to the road. Therefore, the Association also requests? that CVWD install substantially improved gates, with a fence to prevent persons from going around the crate, along the north end of the park near 5t. Margaret' s Church. This will prevent unwanted intrusion into this area. The Association has sent a letter to CvWD requesting their assistance in controlling this area. The Association seeks the City' s help in coordinating with CVWD to arrange for appropriate improvements to secure this road. Thank you for your considerat.on. Very Truly Yours, GUR.ALNICK & GILLILAND 6IAAPA1A C(C Wayne S . Guralnick cc Len Stuessel , President , vista Paseo HOA /mb v ioc�yaaco 103 • Received Jun-21-2001 06:10pm From-+7605683053 To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 003 06-21-01 08:07pm From-CURALNICK -" "LAND +7805883053 T-486 P.01/04 F-018 GURALNZCK & GILLILAND TELEPHONE (760) 340-1515 ATTORNE Y>AT LAW FACSIMILE (760) 568-3053 74-399 HIGHWAY 111, SUITE M PALM DESERT, CA 92260 PLEASE REFER TO FILE. TELECQPIE.R COVER LETTER June 21 , 2001 Please Deliver the Attached Pages to: Name: CITY COUNCIL Firm: CITY OF PALM DESERT From: Marie A. Bochnewich Total Number of Pages 3 (Including Cover Letter) Original Sent ByU.S. Mail: x Yes No 9 � ] [ Operator: Marie A. Bochnewich Telecopier No. Called: 341-7098 Recipient's Telephone Number: Document/Message Re: FOR COUNCIL PACKETS RE THRUSH STREET PARK FOR MEETING OF JUNE 8, 2OU1 Q' t THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS CONFIDENTIAL, MAY BE ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGED,MAY CONSTITUTE INSIDE INFORMATION AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. UNAUTHORIZED USE,DISCLOSURE OR COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US AT(760) 340-1515. Received Jun-21-2001 06:10pm From-+7605603053 To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 001 VISTA P EO HOMEOWNER'S ASS :1ATION President::Len Stuessel Vice-President:Connie Dedrick O Secretary Janene Marplei �. Treasurer::Frank Brophy Director:John Holleman aFj /" 7 ro Est .77 June 21,2001 4' < - car w City of Palm Desert r ) Palm Desert City Council 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Case No. GPA 01-01,C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 27 Acre Park At Thrush Road Dear Council Members: The Vista Paseo Homeowners Association, Board of Directors,have been directly involved with the Palm Desert Planning Commission,specifically Jeff Winklepleck, regarding the Thrush Park project. We are directly across a short wall from this new park site selection and have had some major concerns, which have been reduced to minor issues with the great assist from Jeff. However, one major concern remains open; that being an absolutely necessary fence on the extreme north end. Jeff and our Legal Department have made contact with the Coachella Valley Water District to make sure they understand that vehicle traffic will increase from south and north if said fence is not agreed to in the beginning! We support the park in its current modified design but we will have difficulty if we are not, early-on, successful in getting this traffic cut-off fence set in as part of the original plans. The Vista Paseo Homeowners are asking for your firm support in getting this major issue resolved, before park site work begins. With your support,this park will be beneficial to the community without causing additional noise and increased traffic dust for us who live very close to this new site. If you are not successful in convincing the Coachella Valley Water District to install this fence, consider having this fence cost added to your current plans. Sincerely, /I 04 574 1 I'd e3/4 nard Stuessel VPHA President C/O J. & W. Management Company P. O. Box 1398,Palm Desert,CA 92261 Telephone(760)568-0349 FAX(760)346-4349 ,1 / al'Yam 17eaert n■ Tennis .s Courts HOMME/ADAMS PARK SITE CONCEPTUAL PLAN CAHUILLA HILLS PARK n _,. ----J - Existing Gate-Replace 7— Note 2 / Add Fencing(6 foot) \ and Automobile Barricad Picnic Area Future . Access Road i ' T,_-7 aIMj41 M 01 WILLOW sT Rest Room ,XF g 0 Parking Areas LTio I�-HlI`ice EID (5 spaces each) • fan I-L s gj ai �......._. y' Q EAGLERO �j Jai' vi r+ Proposed 1 5 Palm Lon Placement 31 W , _. ; Picnic Area o t RAv4NRn , Existing Gate-Replace •cce 3 Note2 it I" i Z , Temporary 77,RusitRo i -- Parking Area 1 I 1Q (To Be Removed) it _t r-, Picnic Area L Extend Existing Fencing(100 +/-feet) 't $ Proposed t I Palm Log I Placement II IL I LEGEND p�Existing Trail pY�Proposed Trail Notes: A it Proposed MWU-Use Trail 1) Access Road to bepaved and chipsealed from NFuture Road /�Future Access Road Thrush Road Bridge to Gate at North end of Park - /i south Cliff Road 2) Gates to be designed to prevent vehicular /VFe ncing access but allow pedestrian access. BLM Property Q City Property wrt s 400 0 400 Feet June 20,2001