Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 02-135 thru 02-139 GPA 02-01 CZ 02-01 TT 30438 PP-CUP 02-03 and DA 02-01 The Crest - Destination Development CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Consideration of approval of: A. Certification of Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project known as "The Crest." B. A general plan amendment from Open Space (O.S.) and Hillside Planned Residential to Open Space (O.S.) for the entire 640 acres and a change of zone to prezone the entire 640 acres Open Space (O.S.) as it relates to Section 25 T5S R5E. C. A tentative tract map and precise plan / conditional use permit for an 18- hole golf course, driving range, comfort station and open pavilion located on 240 +/- acres in the southeast corner of Section 25 T5S R5E (remainder of Section 25 to be dedicated open space) and a residential village (44 lots), clubhouse and maintenance facility located on 63 +/- acres in the northwest corner of Section 31 T5S R6E. D. A development agreement relating to the project known as The Crest located on property in Section 25 T5S R5E and a portion of Section 31 T5S R6E. E. A general plan amendment from very low density residential to Hillside Planned Residential and a change of zone to prezone to Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) to facilitate annexation to the city, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto, for nine lots in the northeast corner of Section 36 T5S R5E. F. A resolution requesting LAFCO to take proceedings for Palm Desert Annexation No. 36. III. APPLICANT: Destination Development Corporation City of Palm Desert 74-001 Reserve Drive (Re: Property in Section 36) Indian Wells, CA 92210 IV. CASE NOS: GPA 02-01 , C/Z 02-01 , TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 AND DA 02-01 V. DATE: October 24, 2002 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 AND DA 02-01 OCTOBER 24, 2002 C. Draft Resolution Nos. 02-135 ,02-136 , 02-137 ,02-138 ,02-139 and Ordinance Nos.1027 , 1028 , 1029 D. Planning Commission Minutes of September 17 and October 1 , 2002 E. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2155, 2156 and 2157 F. Planning Commission Staff Reports dated September 17, 2002 and October 1 , 2002 G. Related maps and/or exhibits A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1 . That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 02-135 certifying a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project known as The Crest. 2. That City Council adopt Resolution No.07136 approving a general plan amendment from Open Space (O.S.) and Hillside Planned Residential to Open Space (O.S.) for the entire 640 acres as it relates to Section 25 T5S R5E. 3. That City Council pass Ordinance No. 1027 to second reading approving a change of zone from Open Space (O.S.) and Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) to Open Space (O.S.) (prezoning to facilitate annexation to the city) for 640 acres relating to Section 25 T5S R5E. 4. That the City Council adopt Resolution No.02-137 approving a tentative tract map and precise plan/conditional use permit for an 18-hole golf course, driving range, comfort station and open pavilion located on 240 +/- acres in the southeast corner of Section 25 T5S R5E (remainder of Section 25 to be dedicated open space) and a residential village (44 lots), a clubhouse and maintenance facility located on 63 +/- acres in the northwest corner of Section 31 T5S R6E. 5. That the City Council pass Ordinance No. 1028 to second reading approving a development agreement relating to the project known as The Crest located on property in Section 25 T5S R5E and a portion of Section 31 T5S R6E. 2 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 AND DA 02-01 OCTOBER 24, 2002 6. That the City Council adopt Resolution No.02- 138approving a general plan amendment from very low density residential to Hillside Planned Residential and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto, for nine lots in the northeast corner of Section 36 T5S R5E. 7. That the City Council pass Ordinance No. 1029 to second reading approving a change of zone to prezone to Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) to facilitate annexation to the city, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto, for nine lots in the northeast corner of Section 36 T5S R5E. 8. That the City Council adopt Resolution NoA2-139 requesting LAFCO to take proceedings for Palm Desert Annexation No. 36. B. DISCUSSION: BACKGROUND: 1 . PROJECT DESCRIPTION / LOCATION: The project is an exclusive gate-guarded residential village and golf course comprising 44 single family lots, a 15,000 square foot clubhouse and 18-hole golf course located west of Highway 74 with access from a new road across the Palm Valley Channel opposite Homestead Road. The Crest project involves 703 acres of land of which 640 acres are currently outside the city limits. The golf course will occupy some 240 of 640 acres in Section 25 (Area "A") (outside the city) and the residential village, clubhouse and maintenance facility will occupy 63 acres (Area "C") presently in the city. A driveway will connect the residential village/clubhouse area to the golf course and will follow an existing graded road / easement which crosses the five-acre lot at the northeast corner of Section 36 (Area "B") currently not in the city. As a general rule it is prudent to have all of a development (including connecting driveways) under one governmental jurisdiction. In area "B" a ravine traverses from northwest to northeast. If it decided to annex any property in Section 36 then it makes sense to 3 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 AND DA 02-01 OCTOBER 24, 2002 establish the city limit at a natural physical delineator (i.e., ravine). This area "B" then comprises nine lots with a total area of 33.4 acres. 2. PROCESS: The project can be divided into two steps for processing purposes. Step 1 : In order to annex areas "A" and "B" into the city we must amend the General Plan to be consistent with the project and topography and then prezone these areas consistent with the General Plan. Step 2: Approval of the tentative tract map and precise plan / conditional use permit for the golf course, clubhouse and 44 residential lots. 3. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Area "A" is a vacant bowl shaped area (640 acres) west of the ridge that has a cross marking the top. This area is east of the first significant rise of the Santa Rosa Mountains. This area contains several low ridges and is occasionally bisected by steep canyons. This bowl shaped area is generally not visible from the valley floor. This area is also intersected by Ramon Creek and Bruce Creek. Area "B" comprises the nine vacant lots in Section 36. This area is bounded in the south by the Bruce Creek ravine. This area is also comprised of steep areas and flatter alluvial areas. Area "C" is comprised of a vacant area of small desert washes and the foothills of the lower reaches of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The area is bounded on the east by the Palm Valley Storm Channel and the Sommerset residential community. 4 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 AND DA 02-01 OCTOBER 24, 2002 4. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: ZONING LAND USE North HPR Vacant West County Vacant South and East PR-8 Residential Condos 5. GENERAL PLAN / ZONING: Area "A" HPR and O.S. / HPR - O.S. Area "B" Very low density residential 1-3 du/acre / n/a Area "C" HPR / HPR 6. PROJECT HISTORY: Development of this property has been before the City since 1992. Originally 209 single family dwellings were proposed on 695 +/- acres. An EIR was prepared on the 209 unit project and certified in November 1992. An amended 104 unit development plan was approved at that time. In 1995 an amended proposal for 151 units was presented. June 20, 1995 the Planning Commission recommended approval on a 4-0 vote. This plan included 137 estate lots in the upper bowl area where the golf course is currently proposed. This project was considered at several City Council meetings in late 1997 and early 1998. On February 27, 1998 City Council by minute motion declined to annex the area and tabled action on the prezone and project. 7. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: This application was before Planning Commission at its meetings of September 17, 2002 and October 1 , 2002. September 17, 2002 17 persons spoke basically from one of three areas. a. Owners of property in Area "B," the nine lots on the northeast corner of Section 36, spoke in general support of The Crest project but opposed the prezoning / annexation of their property to the city. They generally wanted assurance that they would have 5 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 AND DA 02-01 OCTOBER 24, 2002 access through The Crest to Highway 74 and preferred meeting the County standards rather than City hillside development standards. b. Owners in Sommerset expressed concern with clubhouse noise, parking lot lights, loss of use of hillside area and loss of view of hillside. c. Representatives for the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club and other naturalists spoke expressing opposition to development of the hillside area. Planning Commission continued the matter to October 1 , 2002 to allow staff to notice the hearing as it relates to a draft development agreement which was to be part of the package recommended to City Council and to allow the applicant to meet with nearby residents and respond to environmental issues. At the October 1 , 2002 meeting the draft development agreement was presented. Also, the Department of Fish and Game submitted a letter dated September 25, 2002 (copy enclosed) indicating that the mitigation measures included in the final SEIR are satisfactory and the SEIR consultant provided additional responses to the written comments received from the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club (see attached memo dated September 23, 2002). Also, legal counsel for Sommerset submitted a letter indicating that a meeting had been held and that they requested a clause be added to the development agreement to establish an ongoing relationship with a Sommerset committee and discuss issues of mutual concern. At the October 1 , 2002 hearing several of the owners of the nine lots in Section 36 spoke once again urging that they not be annexed to the city. Following discussion the commission on a 4-0-1 vote (Commissioner Jonathan abstaining) voted to recommend approval of all applications subject to conditions and modifications to the development agreement (i.e., add section per Sommerset request and amending trails/easement section per staff recommendation). 6 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 AND DA 02-01 OCTOBER 24, 2002 GENERAL PLAN AND PREZONING: Area "A" is currently general planned HPR (Hillside Planned Residential) and O.S. (Open Space). The applicant proposes to amend the general plan land use to O.S. (Open Space) for the entire section (640 acres). Consistent with this designation the applicant proposes to prezone the entire area Open Space (O.S.). The open space district is intended to provide areas reserved for parks, public or private recreation, open space and governmental public uses. The open space designation and prezoning will preclude residential development but would allow a private golf course subject to a conditional use permit. Area "B" is currently general planned "very low density residential" (one to three dwelling units per acre). The area is currently not prezoned. Due to the slope conditions in this area being greater than 10%, it is proposed that the general plan be changed to HPR (Hillside Planned Residential) and that the nine lots be prezoned HPR. This would permit residential development of at least one unit per five-acre parcel. The proposed general plan amendments and prezonings to Open Space and Hillside Planned Residential are consistent with the City's goals of preserving to the greatest extent possible the hillside areas. The density of development on the nine lots in Section 36 will be consistent with the current County zoning (i.e., one unit per five acres). PRECISE PLAN / CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / TENTATIVE TRACT MAP: The project is a gate guarded residential village and 18 hole golf course with clubhouse and accessory facilities (i.e., parking lot and maintenance area). 1 . PROJECT ACCESS: The entry to the site is proposed at an intersection with Highway 74 opposite Homestead Road via a bridge over the Palm Valley Channel. A dirt road which extends westerly through the residential village will provide access to the golf course. This dirt road will be paved and widened. 7 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 AND DA 02-01 OCTOBER 24, 2002 The road is in a canyon which reduces its visual impacts associated with its construction. In addition, staff has inserted a condition which requires that the road be finished with a durable dust free surface with color to blend with the hillside. The tentative tract map shows a secondary fire access at the south limit of the residential village connecting to the CVWD access road. 2. PROJECT LAYOUT: The tentative map / precise plan of design shows a 240-acre 18-hole golf course in the lower southeast corner of Area "A." This golf course will be enclosed by a wrought iron fence to keep the bighorn sheep in the natural open space area to the north and west. The remaining 400 acres of this section will be dedicated open space. It should be noted that not all of the 240 golf course acres will be disturbed. The golf course architect is committed to minimizing disturbance and to making the artificial features indistinguishable from nature itself. The golf course will be served by the paved access road mentioned in (A) above. The golf course facility will include a practice facility, equipment and cart storage, starter house, comfort stations and an open air pavilion. On the lower 63-acre (Area "C") property, a maintenance facility, 15,000 square foot clubhouse and 44 single family dwelling lots are proposed. The residential lots range in size from 6,760 square feet to 36,760 square feet. Homes on these lots will range in size from 1 ,500 square feet to 2,700 square feet. The clubhouse has been designed to blend into the desert hills with the use of natural stone, smooth sand, plaster and other natural materials. Adobe walls and a stone-tiled roof complete the facility. The residential units (Bahatas) have been designed to blend into the canyons and ridges in a manner similar to the clubhouse. 3. PROJECT DENSITY: Area "C," where the residential village and clubhouse are proposed, is currently zoned HPR. Density of development in the HPR zone is 8 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 AND DA 02-01 OCTOBER 24, 2002 determined based in average slope. According to slope analysis performed as part of previous projects, this area has an average slope of 30.4% which would permit 23 units (i.e., two units per five acres). The 640 acres in Section 25 (Area "A") are eligible for HPR zoning which would permit development at a minimum of one unit per five acres (128 units). In order to assure the City that the area will be open space in perpetuity, the applicant proposed to general plan and prezone the entire section open space. Under these circumstances the HPR zone allows for the density to be transferred to cluster the development on the lower, less environmentally sensitive lands. The tentative tract map/precise plan provides for 44 single family lots. The SEIR and the development agreement provide for up to 60 units. Any change to create more than 44 units will require amendment to the tract map and precise plan with full public hearing and noticing. 4. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: The plans were reviewed by ARC at its meeting of May 28, 2002 and endorsed its general concept. ARC will review actual building and landscape plans when they are available. ARC was supportive of the design elements and the large amount of natural landscape material proposed to be used. PROJECT DATA Project Code Requirement* Site Area 700 +/- acres N/A Maximum Units 44 140 Residential Setbacks: Front 15 feet Rear 10 feet Sides 5 feet each side Parking 2 covered spaces/unit 2 covered spaces / unit 9 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 AND DA 02-01 OCTOBER 24, 2002 Project Code Requirement* Height 20 feet max. two stories Clubhouse Setbacks: Front (east) 600+ feet to channel Rear (west) 1 ,000+ feet Sides (south) 260 feet (north) 440 feet Parking 141 spaces ** expandable to 180 Height 16 feet to 26 feet Maintenance Building: Front (east) N/A Rear (west) N/A Sides (north 24 feet (south) 1 ,000+ feet Parking 28 spaces ** Height 18 feet maximum * In the HPR zone development standards are as approved by the Planning Commission/ City Council in a public hearing. ** Parking at the clubhouse needs to provide for golfers, diners and employees. Code standards for a golf course is five spaces per hole (90 spaces). It is expected that this private course will have fewer rounds of golf and hence need fewer spaces. Also, 44 of the members will reside in the village and would drive their own cart to the course. In the clubhouse the main areas needing additional parking will be the dining room and lounge (3,000 square feet) which has a parking requirement of 30 spaces and employees. The applicant advises that the clubhouse would have approximately 25 employees on-site at anyone time for a total of 145 required spaces. The plan shows 141 spaces. The applicant notes that they are reviewing the parking layout in this area and have a plan which provides 180 spaces. 10 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 AND DA 02-01 OCTOBER 24, 2002 At the maintenance facility the plan shows 28 spaces. The applicant advises that the golf course will employ 25 persons. 5. AREAS OF CONCERN: Bob Ricciardi, representing the interests of four of the nine property owners in Section 36 (Area "B") has written requesting that a condition be imposed as follows: That the applicant "(Crest Country Club) shall honor all legal easements through its properties and prior agreements and will work with the adjacent homeowners association." In his letter Mr. Ricciardi refers to the road easement which was established in 1982 and a 1990 agreement which was negotiated with Miller-Richards Limited Partnership (the previous applicant in 1992 and 1995) to bring power, sewer and water to the "association" lots. Generally the City is reluctant to become involved in civil matters between property owners. In this instance these lots have been provided with access easements along the perimeter of the lots southerly to the Cahuilla Hills neighborhood and out to Highway 74. The access easement documents may provide access for these lots through the Crest. In either case access is provided. The provision of utilities is a matter between the property owners and the various utilities. Other than requiring utilities to be underground, the City is not involved. A letter was received from the Lesters (copy enclosed) who own a unit in Sommerset. They express concern with: 1 . The location of maintenance facilities. 2. The possibility of locating the golf course where the residential village is proposed. 3. Construction in the southerly end of the site. 4. That the building blend in with the mountain. 11 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 AND DA 02-01 OCTOBER 24, 2002 5. That the structures be no more than two stories and that plants not obscure their view of the mountain. RESPONSE: 1 . The maintenance facility is located at the northern limit of the site. 2. The residential village has been located on the lower, less environmentally sensitive property. 3. Construction in the southern end of the site is limited to dwellings. 4. All buildings have been designed to blend in with the natural environment. 5. The residences are limited to two stories, 24 feet in height. 6. A natural desert landscape pallet will be allowed. This will include native trees. A letter was received from Nancy De Santo of Painted Canyon Road expressing concern that there not be a fire access from The Crest through the Cahuilla Hills community and the location of the maintenance facilities. RESPONSE: 1 . There is no fire access from The Crest project into Cahuilla Hills area. 2. The maintenance facility is located west of the storm channel at the north limit of the site. F. TRAILS: The City is pursuing the construction of hiking trails to connect Homme Park with the Cahuilla Hills trail system. Access through or around The Crest property is needed. Condition No. 14 requires that the applicant grant a trail easement around or through the east and south sides of The 12 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 AND DA 02-01 OCTOBER 24, 2002 Crest in a location satisfactory to the Director of Community Development. Similar language is provided in the development agreement. G. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: Chapter 25.37 of the Municipal Code allows the City to enter into development agreements: The purpose of this chapter is to provide the city with greater control and flexibility in the evaluation of projects by tailoring development standards to the unique features of a particular site and linking them with specific development proposals and performance criteria. The applicant seeks approval of a development agreement to secure rights to develop beyond those granted to typical approved projects in the zone. Specifically, the development agreement: 1 . Grants a 15-year period of approval with the clock starting 30 days after adopting of this agreement or the date the applicant acquires title to the property. The usual tentative map and precise plan have a two-year approval period. The longer period is warranted due to the complexity of this project and the various levels of government approvals required. 2. Allows any or all of the residential units to be sold as up to four (4) fractional interests (timeshare). The time share ordinance requires various levels of commitment be demonstrated (i.e., 18-hole golf course, 500-room hotel and a minimum of 50 units in the program). This project includes an 18- hole golf course to be built in difficult mountainous terrain and in order to build in the mountains, the applicant must donate 910 13 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 AND DA 02-01 OCTOBER 24, 2002 acres of appropriate lands for open space. This level of commitment should warrant this exception to the remaining timeshare provisions subject to payment of all usual timeshare fees. 3. Allows special setbacks and building heights in the project. Specifically the residential units will have the following setbacks: Residential Units: Front: 15 feet Rear: 10 feet Sides: 5 feet Height: 20 feet Clubhouse Height: 30 feet Typical residential lots of this size would have front setbacks of 15 feet, rear 15 feet, sides five feet minimum with a total of 14 feet. Heights for these single story units would be 18 feet. The typical clubhouse height would be limited to 24 feet unless an exception was granted as has been done for several clubhouses in the city. The current clubhouse design shows a 26-foot high building. 4. In the matter of project parking, the applicant proposes to provide two car parking spaces per unit, one of which is to be covered, one open, plus one covered golf cart space per unit. Typical residences provide two covered spaces per unit. 5. Roads within the project will be between 16 and 20 feet in width. This width of street is acceptable given the limited traffic volumes, subject to acceptance by the Fire Marshal. 6. Developer shall provide the City with trail easements around or through the south and east side to connect with the Cahuilla Hills trail system. 14 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 AND DA 02-01 OCTOBER 24, 2002 This is consistent with Condition No. 14 of the draft resolution. 7. The City agrees to cooperate in construction of irrigation lines from Goldenrod Road well site to the site. The City is currently considering an ordinance which would establish a process for use of former CVWD well sites. Within the limits of that future ordinance, the City will cooperate with the applicant. 8. Developer agrees to provide enough on-site parking for contractors and service personnel and employees. The issue of private communities requiring construction and service personnel to buy transponders and/or park off site and travel in with designated personnel has been a problem elsewhere in the city. This provision should address the concern. 9. The applicant will be permitted to grade the site to the minimum required to create safe access, construct the golf course, safe usable residential pads and the pad for the clubhouse and maintenance building. Municipal Code Section 15.15 limits the amount of grading depending on the average slope of the project. The code did not envisage a golf course in the hillside which would be built into the natural environment and totally re-naturalized which will be done in this instance. Considering the total amount of property involved in the project, the amount of area disturbed and not re-naturalized will be a small percentage.* The waiver of this provision requires that only the minimum amount of grading necessary be done and that this be after approval of Public Works Department and Architectural Review Commission approval. H. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified for this property in 1992. For this project a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) has been prepared. The SEIR has identified impacts 15 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 AND DA 02-01 OCTOBER 24, 2002 associated with the project and proposes mitigations. The SEIR concludes that all impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The most controversial issue to be identified in the SEIR involves impacts on the habitat area of the peninsular bighorn sheep and the desert tortoise. The applicant proposes to mitigate this impact through dedication of open space easements at a ratio of two acres for each acre of the utilized area. The applicant proposes to convey via easement or dedication 400 +/- acres of hillside open space plus 480 +/- acres of offsite bighorn habitat land plus 30 +/- acres of offsite dry desert wash for a total of 910 +/- acres. Utilized area in the project amounts to 303 +/- acres (golf course 240 acres and residential village 63 acres). Staff has conditioned that these open space areas be dedicated to the City of Palm Desert or other agencies as assigned for open space purposes. The SEIR consultant has responded to all comments received on the SEIR as of the writing of this report and will be available to answer questions pertaining to the SEIR and its process. With respect to the 33.4 acres in the northeast corner of Section 36, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was prepared. That project (i.e., general plan amendment, prezoning and annexation to the city) will not result in significant impacts to the environment since the proposed designations do not represent a significant change from County zoning. Staff and Planning Commission recommend that the SEIR for the Crest project be certified and that Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the project area in Section 36 (Area "B") be approved. PLAN FOR SERVICES AND RESOLUTION REQUESTING LAFCO TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS The applicant has prepared a plan for services for the property, subject to annexation (copy enclosed). Staff has prepared a draft resolution with the annexation of the 640 acres in Section 25 and the 33.4 acres (nine lots) in Section 36. If it is determined that the annexation should proceed without the nine lots in 16 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 AND DA 02-01 OCTOBER 24, 2002 Section 36, then this resolution does not need to be adopted as the annexation of Section 25 can be processed by the individual property owner. If both areas are to be annexed, then the resolution must be adopted so that the City becomes the applicant. CONCLUSION: The current project is superior to any of the previous plans which had significant development in Section 25. The most recent plan had 137 dwellings in the area where the golf course is currently proposed. The golf course architect is committed to blending the golf course into the natural surroundings. The tract map notes that the golf course area impacts 240 acres. Of this area more than 95 acres will be undisturbed. Turfed area will be approximately 100 acres. The residential village and clubhouse will blend into the existing natural environment. The project will result in 910 acres of dedicated natural open space. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved: ( _ 'k- T VE SMITH PHILIP DRELL PLANNING MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Review a d Concur: Review and Concur: HOMER CROY CARLOS L. 0 hSS'EGA ASSISTANT CIT ANAGER OF CITY MANAGER DEVELOPME SERVICES - /tm CITY COUNCI'L CTION: , APPROVED DENIEL RECEIVED OTHER MEETING DATE /O a0 ' AYES:L' , ,- l.bscy 1, NOES: 'ePJIP�'1/ piP�� -- ! ABSENT j"j p ABSTAIN: n Dne VERIFIED BY: K.,/�klr Original on hie with City Clerk's 0lfl,ci *Approved staff recommendation on a good faith basis, with the amendments stated for Resolution No. 02-137 and requesting that before second reading of Ordinance Nos. 1027, 1028, and 1029 occurs, an analysis of the issues with the Hillside Ordinance and the nine lots be completed, making every effort to do so for the meeting of November 14, 2002. SLOPE ANALYSIS CASE NO. DA 02-01 According to slope analysis performed for previous applications, the property in the area of the residential village has an average slope of 30% and the fenced area (golf course) has an average slope of 30%. Grading in areas of 30% is limited to 22.5% of total property area. For purposes of this analysis, the "project area" will include the 700-acre Crest project and the additional 500 acres of off-site mitigation lands for a total of 1 ,200 acres. In the golf course area 140 of the 240 acres will be disturbed and not renaturalized (i.e., turf area, cart paths, comfort stations, pavilion, etc.). In the residential village area 30 of the 60 acres will be disturbed for a total of 170 disturbed acres. The disturbed area then amounts to 170/1200 - 14.2% of the total "project area." If we were to just consider the immediate "Crest" property, grading would amount to 170/700 = 24.3% versus the 22.5% permitted in the ordinance. f? CITY CLERKECEI 'S OEDFFICE PALM DESE^T, CA 2002 OCT 17 AM 9: 33 PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Clerk's Filing Stamp (2015.5.C.C.P) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Riverside I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of Proof of Publication of the County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen No.2709 F PALM years,and not a party to or interested in the CITY LEGAL NOTICE DESERT above-entitled matter.I am the principal clerk of a CASE NOS. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01 TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 and DA 02-01 printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, will be held before the Palm Desert City Council printed and ublished in the cityof Palm Springs, to consider a request by DESTINATION DEVEL- OPMENT CORPORATION for approval of: County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been 1. A general plan amendment from Open Space (O.S.) and Hillside Planned Residential to Open adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Space (O.S.) for the entire 640 acres and a change of zone to prezone the entire 640 acres Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of Open Space(O.S.)as it relates to Section 25 T5S California under the date of March 24,1988.Case 2. A tentative tract map and precise plan/condi- Number 191236;that the notice,of which the tional use permit for an 18-hole golf course, driv- ing range, comfort station and open pavillion lo- annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller cated on 240+- acres in the southeast corner of Section 25 T5S R5E (remainder of Section 25 to than non pariel,has been published in each regular be dedicated open space)and a residential village and not in any (44 lots), clubhouse and maintenance facility lo- and entire issue of said newspaper cated on 63 +/-acres in the northwest corner of supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: Section 31 T5S R6E. 3.Certification of Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and Final Subsequent Environmen- talcb Impact Report prepared for the project known October 11 as The Crest. 4. Approval of a development agreement relating to the project known as The Crest located on property in Section 25 T5S R5E nad a portion of Section 31 T5S R6E. 5.A general plan amendment from very low den- sity residential to Hillside Planned Residential and All in the year 2002 a change of zone to prezone to Hillside Planned I certify(or declare)under penaltyof perjurythat the Residential (HPR) at facilitate annexation to the city, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental foregoing is true and correct. Impact as it relates thereto, for nine lots in the g gnortheast corner of Section 35 T5S R5E. 11th A Draft and Final Subsequent Environmental Im- pact Report are available for review at Palm Des- Dated at Palm Springs,California this day ert City Hall during regular business hours. October SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday,Oc- Of ,2002 tober 24,2002,at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Cham- ber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which timeWritten and place all interestedare persons invited to attend and be heard. W comments con- cerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the Signature hearing. Information concerning the proposed g project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Develop- ment 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 Wilted to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspon- dence delivered to the City Council at,or prior to, the public hearing. RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California PUB: October 11, 2002 RESOLUTION NO. 02-135 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SEIR) FOR DEVELOPMENT OF "THE CREST" GOLF CLUB AND RESIDENTIAL VILLAGE. CASE NOS. GPA 02-01 , C/Z 02-01 , TT 30438, PP/CUP 02- 03 AND DA 02-01 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 24th day of October, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of Destination Development Corp. for consideration of the above-mentioned SEIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended certification by adoption of its Resolution No. 2155; and WHEREAS, a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared for "The Crest" project to address the environmental effects, mitigation measures and project alternatives associated with the proposed project known as "The Crest"; and WHEREAS, the SEIR for "The Crest" was prepared pursuant to the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act (hereinafter "CEQA" Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq hereinafter "Guidelines"); and WHEREAS, written comments on the Notice of Preparation were received and incorporated into the SEIR for "The Crest"; and WHEREAS, written comments on the SEIR for "The Crest" were received from the public during and after the public review period; and WHEREAS, such comments were responded to through a response to comments and submitted to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed all environmental documentation comprising the SEIR for "The Crest", considered any oral communication made at the public hearing, and has found that the SEIR considers all environmental effects of the proposed project and is complete and adequate and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines; and WHEREAS, Section 21081 of CEQA and Section 15090 of the Guidelines require that the City Council make one or more of the following findings prior to RESOLUTION NO. 02-135 approval of a project for which an SEIR has been completed identifying one or more significant effects of the project, along with statements of facts supporting each finding: FINDING 1 : Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the SEIR. FINDING 2: Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. FINDING 3: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the SEIR; and WHEREAS, the mitigation measures included in the SEIR are designed to reduce or eliminate the environmental impacts described herein. Mitigation measures are structured according to the criteria in Section 15370 of the CEQA Guidelines. This section provides generally that "mitigation" includes: a) avoidance of an impact; b) minimization of an impact; c) rectifying an impact by restoration; d) reducing or eliminating an impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations; and e) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. Additionally, mitigation measures have been drafted to meet the requirement of Public Resources Code Section 21081 .6, a monitoring program. In most cases herein, the drafting approach defines the following for each mitigation measure: 1 . A time for performance. In each case, a time for performance of the mitigation, or review of the evidence that mitigation has taken place, is provided. The performance points selected are designed to ensure that impact related components of project implementation do not proceed without establishing that the mitigation is assured. 2. A responsible party supervising performance. In each case, a public official is named in the mitigation measure as responsible for ensuring that the mitigation is carried out. To guarantee that the mitigation measure will not be inadvertently overlooked in connection with the 2 RESOLUTION NO. 02-135 issuance of a later permit, the supervising public official is the official who grants the permit called for in the performance. 3. Definition of mitigation. In each case (except where a mitigation, such as a geotechnical report, is a well-known procedure or term of art), the mitigation measure contains the criteria for mitigation, either in the form of adherence to certain adopted regulations or identification of the steps to be taken in mitigation. To further facilitate the monitoring of these measures during project implementation, each measure has been drafted in a manner suitable for use as a condition of approval. It is anticipated that the mitigation measures herein may be used without additional monitoring report requirements, as each measure is designed to be self-executing. The City of Palm Desert is implementing a monitoring program as identified in the SEIR in accordance with State Mandate Section 21086 of the Public Resources Code. WHEREAS, Section 15093(a) of the Guidelines require the City Council to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project; and WHEREAS, Section 15093(a) requires that, where the decision of the City Council allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the SEIR but are not mitigated, the City Council must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the SEIR or other information in the record. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1 . The City Council hereby certifies the SEIR for "The Crest" project as adequate and complete in that it addresses all environmental effects of the proposed Crest Golf Club and Residential Village and fully complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Guidelines. Said SEIR is composed of the following elements: a. Draft SEIR for "The Crest" b. Appendices to Draft SEIR c. Comments received on SEIR and responses to those comments 3 RESOLUTION NO. 02-135 d. Resolution of Certification and Findings e. All attachments, incorporation and references delineated in items a. through d. above. All of the above information has been, and will be, on file with the City of Palm Desert, Community Development Department, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California 92260. 2. This City Council adopts the Findings with respect to each environmental effect identified in the SEIR and the explanation of its rationale with respect to each such finding set forth in the document entitled "Statement of Findings" attached hereto and marked as Exhibit A and made a part hereof. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this _ day of _ , 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 4 RESOLUTION NO. 02-135 EXHIBIT A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS have been prepared based upon the Initial Study, Addendum and special studies prepared in the course of assessing the Crest project. A. The subject GPA and CZ are prerequisite to the initiation of annexation proceedings through the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). The subject lands have been included in the larger Crest annexation at the request of LAFCO. B. The subject General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will not, in and of itself adversely affect existing or planned land uses, City designations being equivalent to those permitted under the prevailing Riverside County General Plan. C. Access issues associated with the subject properties are not affected by the subject action, and remain civil issues between private property owners. D. An Initial Study and Addendum was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), supported by special studies prepared on the subject and adjoining lands for the Crest project. E. It was determined based upon the evidence available, that the proposed action will have no significant adverse effect on the subject lands or the environment. 5 RESOLUTION NO. 02-136 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DESIGNATION OF OPEN SPACE FOR SECTION 25 T5S R5E. CASE NO. GPA 02-01 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 24th day of October, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of Destination Development Corp. for a golf course and residential village known as The Crest; and WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to use part of Section 25 T5S R5E for a golf course and dedicate the remainder for open space purposes; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2155 has recommended approval of the general plan amendment; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to justify its actions, as described below: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: The proposed "open space" land use designation is consistent with the applicant's proposed us of the property (golf course and dedicated open space) and is consistent with the City's goal of preserving the hillside area to the greatest extent possible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment 02-01 (Exhibit A). 2. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this , day of , 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 1 C7 O�: _ 1`�Lrnmii1EE iltal 1r . riiiiiin c _-ter -_ :111111 C?. ions• —.■iu■Ii .1uu• ' '. Q Iti'-, �. III JIB<. . �,, T „)`a 1`11 1 •..rT.. �'_ I 1.1 • per■■ ���i..r i.... Ij1 1 ■■■ \ MU I-�� ;.��1r �'�M lei ► .•Mil 4111 .:, , ..................... I MIENS �_ ..........a.a........■ SECTION I AID 25 ' . : al a..11- r, ...r..o.IS■■, allAINOW ��=� id ■i. IMI J . •24-giora■1 apt i ♦< • ■ - ■ cIr0 ■ FIIuI III si 16i=amo ..iniiiiiii, flay.. !R A ■■■....EE 2 r. �� ` /IIIL.�r•�Ii , u2 O, IM ....imm ffir -I rt::--.--T t--:=, SECTION um■� SECTION ma , A. N� 361 .y = '.+ •; , 'A Ear r smia ikira�� lIMA N 4 f U =Ill. 1 tl �N�� Proposed � GPA Mil ill Illinfi 4. ,4,':;1:,:"://trO • 4 'IQ ��. uuuosi nnu � -0,407 -0,OW F.1474IP Open Space and �i� �� moo �'` ' .ae.,�. I Hillside Planned [ I 1��,op gil 4. Residential 11 �r� ���I�t i�r, ,:/.' 4/4i ii To �r�1 I Open Space it .141,106,1 eity a/a m..9eeert Case No. GPA 02-01 CITY COUNCIL ov f GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. i jj�..�,� 4 EXHI1: IT A Date' October 24, 2002 RESOLUTION NO. 02-137 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, PRECISE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 44 LOT RESIDENTIAL VILLAGE, 18-HOLE GOLF COURSE AND CLUBHOUSE. CASE NOS. TT 30438 AND PP/CUP 02-03 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 24th day of October, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by Destination Development Corporation for a 44-unit project as described above; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2155 has recommended approval of TT 30438 and PP/CUP 02-03; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to justify its actions, as described below: PRECISE PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: 1 . The design of the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the HPR and O.S. zones and the Palm Desert General Plan. 2. As conditioned, the project will be compatible with adjacent uses and will not depreciate property values in the vicinity. 3. The project will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. 4. That the location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives and purpose of the zone district and general plan. 5. That the proposed use will comply with each provision of the zoning except for variances or adjustments provided for in the development agreement. TENTATIVE TRACT: 1 . That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans, as amended. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. RESOLUTION NO. 02-137 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the. proposed density of development. 5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 8. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not restrict solar access to the property. WHEREAS, in the review of this tentative tract map the City Council has considered the effect of the contemplated action on the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing these needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of Palm Desert and its environs, with available fiscal and environmental resources. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That approval of the above described Tentative Tract Map 30438 and Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit 02-03 are hereby approved, subject to the attached conditions. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 02-137 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 24th, day of October, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 3 RESOLUTION NO. 02-137 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. TT 30438 AND PP/CUP 02-03 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Recordation of said map shall occur within 24 months from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted by the Planning Commission; otherwise, said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department United States Fish & Wildlife Service California Department of Fish & Game Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Final grading plan for all areas shall be subject to review by Planning Commission prior to grading activity. Golf course residential village, clubhouse and maintenance building area shall integrate natural terrain and landscaping into design. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 02-137 6. Final grading plan for all areas to include re-naturalization measures and grading restrictions as specified in the Hillside Ordinance. 7. A detailed parking lot and building lightings plan shall be submitted to staff for approval, subject to applicable lighting standards. Plan to be prepared by a qualified lighting engineer. 8. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801 ) and the approved landscape plan. 9. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of permits including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, TUMF and school mitigation fees. The residential village setbacks shall be as follows: Front Setback 15 feet Rear Setback 10 feet Side Setbacks 5 feet each 10. That the mitigation measures identified in the S.E.I.R. prepared for The Crest shall be conditions of approval on Case No. PP/CUP 02-03. 1 1 . That the open space areas to be dedicated as mitigation for impacts on the bighorn sheep and desert tortoise shall be dedicated to the City of Palm Desert or other public resources agency as determined by the City. 12. That the golf course design be coordinated with and approved by the City Landscape Subcommittee. 13. That the applicant shall provide full and complete access to all employees of the site. The intent of the condition is that all employee vehicles will be parked on- 5 RESOLUTION NO. 02-137 site during employment hours. Developer agrees to provide adequate onsite staging of employees/workers to avoid traffic conflicts on Highway 74. 14. That the applicant grant a trail easement around or through the east and south sides of The Crest project in a location satisfactory to the Director of Community Development. Department of Public Works: 1 . Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map or issuance of grading permits. 2. Drainage facilities shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works. In addition, proposed drainage facilities / improvements that impact the Palm Valley Channel shall be subject to review and approval by the Coachella Valley Water District. 3. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. Said study will include, but not be limited to, the investigation of both upstream and downstream impacts with respect to existing and proposed conditions. 4. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79- 17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map or issuance of grading permits. Construction costs associated with the proposed project entry traffic signal may be used as a credit against said fees. 5. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. All improvements within State Highway 74 right-of-way shall be in accordance with Caltrans standards. 6. Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the respective service districts with "as-built" plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to project final. 7. Improvement plans for all improvements, public and private, shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The installation of such 6 RESOLUTION NO. 02-137 improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works Department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. 8. Landscaping maintenance on State Highway 74 frontage shall be provided through a property owners association. Applicant shall be responsible for executing a declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, which declaration shall be approved by the City of Palm Desert and recorded with the County Recorder. The declaration shall specify: a► the applicant shall oversee the formation of a property owners association; b) the property owners association shall be formed prior to the recordation of the final map; and c) the aforementioned landscaping maintenance shall be the responsibility of the property owners association. 9. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking approval before construction of any improvement is commenced. Offsite improvement plans for all improvements within exiting and proposed public rights-of-way to be approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior to recordation of final map. Such offsite improvements shall include, but not be limited to, curb and gutter, asphalt paving and concrete sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration and provisions for deceleration/acceleration lanes at project entry points. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the City of Palm Desert. 10. Waiver of access to State Highway 74 except at approved locations shall be granted on the Final Map. 11 . In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. Preliminary landscape plans shall be submitted concurrently with grading plans. 12. As required by Section 26.32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, and in accordance with the Circulation Network of the City's General Plan, dedication of half-street right-of-way at 55 feet on State Highway 74 shall be provided on the final map. 7 RESOLUTION NO. 02-137 13. As required under Section 12.16 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, any existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground per each respective utility districts recommendation. If such undergrounding is determined to be unfeasible by the City and the respective utility districts, applicant shall agree to participate in any future utility undergrounding district. 14. Traffic safety striping on State Highway 74 shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works and Caltrans prior to the placement of any pavement markings. 15. Full improvements of interior streets based on residential street standards in accordance with Section 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be provided. Proposed interior street sections shall be subject to review and approval in conjunction with tentative tract map applications. Those areas to be designated as "Emergency Access Road" shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal and the Director of Public Works. 16. Complete tract maps shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 17. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works and Caltrans, as applicable. 18. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 19. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 20. All required offsite improvements for this project shall be installed in conjunction with the first phase of development. 21 . Site access, with respect to size, location and number, shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works and Caltrans. 8 RESOLUTION NO. 02-137 22. Applicant shall provide a phasing plan which specifies the project construction activity with respect to on-site/off-site infrastructure improvements as well as possible final map filing. 23. Provision for the continuation of any existing access rights which may be affected by this project shall be included as a part of the final map process. 24. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 12.12, Fugitive Dust Control. 25. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 26. Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with current and subsequent National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permits (Permit #CAS000002) for storm water discharges associated with construction activity. 27. Project design shall accommodate the proposed Palm Valley Bicycle Trail to be located on the Palm Valley Channel access roads. Riverside County Fire Department: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, NFPA, UFC and UBC, or any recognized fire protection standards. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all buildings per UFC article 87. 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a gpm fire flow of 1500 gpm for single family dwellings. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) 4"x2-1/2"x2-1/2", located not less than 25' nor more than 200 feet from any portion of a single family dwelling measured via vehicular travelway. 9 RESOLUTION NO. 02-137 5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. 6. Please be advised the proposed project may not be feasible since the existing water mains will not meet the required fire flow. 7. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street the roadway must be 36' wide and 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around 55' in industrial developments. 8. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers or other means provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key over-ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16" with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 9. A dead-end single access over 500 feet will require a secondary access, sprinklers or other mitigative measures approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstances shall a dead-end over 1 ,300 feet be accepted. 10. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or an emergency gate from an adjoining development. 1 1 . All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 12. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws or when building permits are not obtained within 12 months. OTHER: 1 . At dead end provide hammer heads for turn around for fire apparatus. 2. Provide second access with bridge over CVWD channel. 10 RESOLUTION NO. 02-138 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT RELATES TO NINE LOTS IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 36 T5S R5E. CASE NO. GPA 02-01 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 24th day of October, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the above noted general plan amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2157 has recommended approval of the proposed general plan amendment; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 02-60", in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the general plan amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to justify its actions: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 1 . The existing City General Plan designation for the area is "very low density residential" one to three dwelling units per acre. 2. The area subject to the amendment has an average slope in excess of 10%. 3. Given the average slope condition, the area is more appropriately designated Hillside Planned Residential. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment 02-01 , Exhibit "A" attached hereto and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit "B" attached hereto. RESOLUTION NO. 02-138 2. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this , day of , 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 '-T7 ' 1rlllwMIIIM 11 r . ...1..., , .. .. —11 ii s 4 If. - -atiL •. . ---r 1 i 1 11. Fara.,,graTv:IP Itt4j4- ' , 'dr 117-721:01 I . ik 4 4 ° J in: ��■III■11 �` . .itilipC� I t �I�I�IIII�11 r'''.-,III A. m1..l1ha1T"woiVw.wn\,i t. ':s,og.-,tw,,w .,A1 F.; ..•.III,n.'!I.:: ... ,- :i:,*.a:.z ,....44: '.:.'r,:i onn..., s rung I ok`11 ,.,/..a iM,I..- 1 --sr"16.16',.:-'tei/Tifilifiremml INENEKTIti■■■■ omit3* /: i Al a�s� .41 =MINIM VP Ell rr.7l INIE, - ",� 8•ououno.wu.■.■ ■ -simmiuml I■■■r �i mans .uniu.`. i SECTION IiIIj nti v1tim iA.r.4:l1'.,f7•4 M:Iiei 4,:l..i.1i.:liN-sk,1'iun ''/'7'4$-.l.o:14,A04 a,A-.-i..l-,...1r e--0itl1.ji:r4,'1i1.11-.m:4.h.1, 25 I . ;l ; 11 „11i Hit _ I .. ;I ,e:.. ■ 14ini� rur r• lt. LLL Vie! V/� m11111111111111111111 1II!1HHhIUUiU i p1fr1JJi1Ii.I'IL'L • „* ,J , ME ' ,I SECTION ;,l::.,- w�� ✓t. '� EimirsEcTioNlip.....i 31 �: ,Zi :+.�1�.,.,,,,,,, ' `MI r4/14 /7---(„14. iir4-#22.7Millihilti met* 810141111122:1 al ■ hz Mr, /�� ��Iry Proposed lillial 11111111111 i1 ' ' ,$ g$ %� ,�;y GPA ■■ ■ „; A:g AI ia//a /1/0, j■ III � � ',dill. ;� r �'���uulipuu�i;:::„..."1"), IJ '' -,nor 1 io �, . ��►�i ;i �;,1iIIIrj�♦ 1�� VeryLowDnity ;t :��� ��, —��� Residenia'� 1r '�O' •'I.•• Oillii*wort To 1 W are is; ♦a` •/4 f ■ hk HillsePnned ; f Residential eily aiYafin.9eaert Case No. GPA 02-01 CITY COUNCIL c" 'r GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. 02-138 M ° EXHIBIT A. Date: October 24, 2002 RESOLUTION NO. 02-138 EXHIBIT B Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: GPA 02-01 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A general plan amendment from very low density residential to hillside planned residential and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates to nine lots in the northeast corner of Section 36 T5S R5E. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /tm 4 RESOLUTION NO. 02-139 A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF PALM DESERT REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR PALM DESERT ANNEXATION NO. 36 (673 +/- ACRES) TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA. RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, that WHEREAS, City of Palm Desert desires to initiate a proposal pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, for the above noted annexation; and WHEREAS, notice of intent to adopt this resolution of application has not been given to each interested and each subject agency; and WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is uninhabited and a description of the boundaries of the territory is set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, this proposal is consistent with the sphere of influence of the city of Palm Desert; and WHEREAS, it is desired to provide that the proposed annexation be subject to the following terms and conditions: None; and WHEREAS, the reasons for this proposed annexation are as follows: 1 . The request is a logical expansion of the city boundaries. 2. The proposed annexation is consistent with the Municipal Organization Act which encourages limiting the number of annexations to those areas considered logical growth areas. 3. The proposed area to be annexed is of satisfactory size to provide municipal services without adversely affecting the rest of the community. 4. The City has approved a project known as "The Crest" which utilizes a portion of Section 25 T5S R5E as golf course which will be built in conjunction with a residential village (44 single family dwellings) to be built on land currently within the city limits. 5. The residential village is connected to the golf course via an access road which extends through property located in the northeast corner of Section 36 T5S R5E. RESOLUTION NO.02-139 6. The City believes that the project can be best developed if all elements are under one jurisdiction. WHEREAS, this Council certifies that: 1 . With respect to the Crest project located in Section 25 T5S R5E and Section 31 T5S R6E, a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report has been certified. 2. With respect to the nine lots in the northeast corner of Section 36 T5S R5E a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared. NOW, THEREFORE, this Resolution of Application is hereby adopted and approved by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert and the Local Agency Formation Commission of Riverside County is hereby requested to take proceedings for the annexation of territory as described in Exhibit "A", according to the terms and conditions stated above and in the manner provided by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. PASSED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of , 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 . . IIIN IN% - , ..._„,i,..._ in..i 1111 2,74.41,44,.,a _ 1:3 - —sun llllll la -.1.1jIMMI .....„, mit 7-01,:toliimiumwawm.: O !" MI iF ..wa glIL7R0== I 17 010•10 1(. ,..... o 1111/411,1 _, zamori,or I V ' • ' .......:.......-..... PI\,,,...A.,.%7 D --. IV4gCS-OPPEWroar.461 441711171 ales...:- .11j:lig, ".4Yr. :E*,,,g..1 it fir,10 E III i Iiis441667:4 '''., '::igilF*:ON sir4S. ,.._., r_\ 1 in 1 r mi 1 ks:.-tittlif.ri..i,it,Fel /111/11.1.t. A.p.,014,4 Mt Ill OM irt11111 IV 1 f 0141"106V 4 / 11.11,0 I ..- *NI 1111.111..11 Vt. ' ' 4. ft hai dr.:* I .0 1.11:11.411,1 14 1 Lig I if nitlielh me Te r 4, , ., , ,' _filliEntliVA - nummuninpnv I , Arammemossumasmam - timmiumosir - •.1111 I IIII 1111111\I tam ;.iniume ul SECTION • •41 25 43.,.... 4#,,,, tira-146::: :A rifiliiMaii inlIC IIMM-Il im ii fir \ ' \\\ r , E N \ IIEB7411 \ I A In.' /111:-1777triTitiqtrix:4141. -; r",‘,./„,1,,',710intratin, iiell- ItNitiPi .00(4;,J:'," IMN:91:131C17,411.1(4,01i li• INIII — ,,,„....!,,,r,"'!inc, 'AN.-';,,Iv .411-"ammo:U.44C MINIII i'...,,,I4 Oil ApAit ='..;.:11.,••.--- .71,- -.1. faeltewililiftE il:iA i,":',': - RIM Ez1.14":„.„,, 1_.340sliiiifils: %If,e-fxv." w. = SECTION Nom= ., ,--= ..--,- -,1.`- :$•.-- -$111,,, -0:?I- lelaillit Ord. 36 LI 1 OUINICUitillIttgliN!i'. lig Mid W trams Ca211181111111 * 111 — ___.— WM Lill /Ay *Ii. 46111511111111141 3 1: mil mi ift 1 //AP A vor _...—Amm1M11111.1.1,__ .. INNIIIIMI -,.. v. si ie., EN J 11111111. l \j/2 ,A0 % Proposed 0` 111. I j PIM . ! V,'i'vir ffiro74iiiii s----;:e1" p 4sV Annexation ,ommilmiliatmhdlite- . 4. AN 1111110/' ''.41,1 Iii*Aclif, oh „iert 7.1 Myl...T warnact... Area .it 4 .... .., ,.. ..,_. til,...114.74, iwil, .4:41IN rep „s6nviro.s....ji I—I 0'4 • 4' " A ;Nip Ala, •117Air :4. 4/111 400111.'IL Thf' N .1,„ .. ey... - ---**4 .44.; • -,1 cr .411.11- #14.4treg, .1 * iii , 000111, *allow*Am •-• .. 0, _ al,a i..?atm_Veoed CITY COUNCIL Annexation # 36 RESOLUTION NO. 02-139 7..._ ,,,,,,.....,.., EXI-II I IT A Date: October 74, 2002 4 r MINUTES ' r r' A SUBJECT R. PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION rt" un REVISION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2153, approving TT 30801 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case Nos. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438 and PP/CUP 02-03 - DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Applicant Request for a recommendation of approval to the City Council of: 1 ) A general plan amendment from Open Space and Hillside Planned Residential to Open Space for the entire 640 acres and a change of zone to prezone the entire 640 acres Open Space as it relates to Section 25, T5S R5E; 2) A general plan amendment from very low density residential to Hillside Planned Residential and a change of zone to prezone Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) for nine lots in the northeast corner of Section 36; 3) A tentative tract map and precise plan/conditional use permit for an 18-hole golf course, driving range, comfort station and open pavilion located on 221 +/- acres in the southeast corner of Section 25, T5S R5E ; and 4) Certification of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project. Commissioner Jonathan advised the commission and audience that he would be abstaining on this matter. He explained that he owns property adjacent to or possibly a part of the current application and therefore had a conflict of interest and he would abstain from discussion and voting on this matter. (Commissioner Jonathan left to sit in the audience.) Mr. Smith addressed the commission. He explained that the project is an exclusive, gate-guarded residential village and golf course comprising 44 single family lots to be located in the area generally west of the channel. It was an area located west of Highway 74. He said it would take access from a new access road that would have a bridge across the Palm Valley Channel and it would generally be opposite the Homestead Road which is to the east. The project involves 734 acres of land of which 675 acres were currently outside the city. The golf course would occupy some 221 7 rit MINUTES SUBJECT T( PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION A' '� REVISION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 acres of the 640 acres in Section 25. That was the area in the southeast corner of Section 25. The residential village, clubhouse and maintenance facility would occupy some 69 acres located just west of the channel. There was an existing roadway that extends from the west side of the wash through the property. They would have access from the residential village up to the golf course area on this existing roadway that would be widened and improved with an acceptable all-weather surface. Part of the area was currently not in the city. As a general rule he said it was advisable or preferable to have all of the pieces of the project under one jurisdiction; hence, they were looking at annexation of the nine properties. The reason the nine properties were being looked at is because of an existing ravine which traverses northwest to southeast in the general location of the southerly limit of those parcels. That would seem to provide for a natural physical delineator for the city limit. He explained that they were basically looking at a two-step process. In order to annex areas A and B or the areas in Section 25 and the identified nine lots, they had to amend the General Plan to be consistent with the project and with the topography and then prezone these areas consistent with the General Plan. Step two involved the approval of the tentative tract map and the precise plan and conditional use permit for the golf course, the clubhouse and the 44 residential lots. As background, Mr. Smith indicated that in 1992 the Planning Commission considered a previous Environmental Impact Report that supported 209 lots on the project site. That EIR was certified in November of 1992. An amended development plan was approved at that same time for 104 units. In 1995 there was another application for this property before them. At that point it was for 151 units and June 20, 1995 the Planning Commission recommended approval of that plan on a 4-0 vote. The plan included 137 estate lots in the upper bowl area where the golf course was currently being proposed. So by way of contrast, he said all of the residential construction at this point was in the area immediately west of the channel. The only thing happening in the 8 • MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ; a SUBJECT TC SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 REVISION upper bowl area was the golf course and some comfort stations and an open-air pavilion area. Relative to the General Plan and the prezoning for the areas that would be subject to annexation into the city, Section 25 was currently general planned Hillside Planned Residential and Open Space. The applicant proposed to amend the general plan to all Open Space. That was the entire 640 acres. Consistent with that designation, the applicant proposed to prezone the entire area Open Space. The Open Space District was intended to provide areas reserved for parks, public and private recreation, open space and governmental public uses. The Open Space designation and prezoning would preclude residential development in perpetuity but would allow a private golf course subject to approval of the conditional use permit. The area identified as "B" in the staff report was currently general planned very low density residential which was one to three dwelling units per acre. Due to slope conditions it was proposed that the general plan and zoning be changed to HPR (Hillside Planned Residential) and that the nine lots be prezoned HPR. This would permit residential development of at least one unit per five-acre parcel. The proposed general plan amendments and prezoning to Open Space and Hillside Planned Residential were consistent with the City's goal to preserve to the greatest extent possible the hillside areas. The density of development on the nine lots in Section 36 would be consistent with the current County zoning in the area. Project access. Mr. Smith said the entry to the site was proposed at an intersection of Highway 74 opposite Homestead Road via a bridge over the Palm Valley Channel. He noted that there was a condition that required that the road that extends up from the residential village up into the golf course area be finished with a durable dust-free surface with color to blend into the hillside. Project layout. Mr. Smith stated that the design showed a 221-acre 18- hole golf course in the lower east corner of Section 25. The golf course would be enclosed with a wrought-iron fence to keep the bighorn sheep in the natural open space area to the north and to the west. The remaining 420 plus acres in this section would be dedicated open space. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ! SUBJECT ft SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 1 it./ REVISION Not all of the 220 acres in the golf course area would be disturbed. The golf course architect was committed to minimizing disturbance and making the artificial features indistinguishable from nature itself. The golf course would be served via the paved access road mentioned previously. The golf course facility would include a practice facility, equipment and cart storage, starter house, comfort stations and the open-air pavilion. On the lower 59-acre property, there would be a maintenance facility, a 15,000 square foot clubhouse and 44 single family dwelling lots. The residential lots would range in size from 6,760 square feet to 36,760 square feet. Homes on these lots would range from 1 ,500 square feet to 2,700 square feet. The clubhouse had been designed to blend into the desert hills with the use of natural stone, smooth sand, plaster and other natural materials. Residential units had been designed to blend into the canyons and ridges in a manner similar to the clubhouse. Staff felt a case could be made for upwards of 128 units including the 640 acres in Section 25 based on a previous slope analysis. In order to assure the City that the area would be open space in perpetuity, the applicant proposed the general plan and prezoning of the area to open space. Under those circumstances, the HPR zone allowed for the density to be transferred to cluster the development on the lower, less environmentally sensitive lands. He noted that the applicant was only requesting 44 lots at this time. That's all they ever expected to see. The plans had been reviewed by Architectural Review at its meeting of May 28 and they endorsed its general concept. ARC would review the actual building and landscape plans when they were available. Relative to parking on the site, the current plans provided for 141 spaces. The breakdown of the parking needs on the site for the golf course was 90 spaces based on code with a requirement for five spaces per hole and the number of employees the applicant expects. They could come up with a total requirement of 145 spaces. The applicant indicated that they were reviewing the parking lot layout and had a plan to provide 180 spaces. Given the private nature of the complex, staff was satisfied with 141 . Mr. Smith said that in the HPR zone all of the setbacks, heights and other standards of the zone would be set by the approval by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council. 10 MINUTES r SUBJECT T( PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 .V REVISION The maintenance facility plan showed 28 spaces. The applicant advised that the golf course would employ 25. Mr. Smith noted that there had been some correspondence received on this matter. The correspondence received early enough was included in the packets and some of the issues were highlighted. As well, the commission received additional material as late as when they walked in this evening. Mr. Smith explained that Mr. Ricciardi, representing the interest of four of the nine property owners in Section 36, wrote requesting that a condition be imposed that the applicant honor all legal easements through its properties and prior agreements and work with the adjacent homeowner's association. Mr. Smith said Mr. Ricciardi was referring to an easement which was established in 1982 and an agreement negotiated in 1990 with Miller Richards Limited Partnership, the previous applicant, to bring power, sewer and water to the association lots. Mr. Smith said that generally the City was reluctant to become involved in civil matters between property owners. In this instance these lots have been provided with access easements along the perimeter of the lots southerly to the Cahuilla Hills neighborhood and out to Highway 74. The access easement documents might provide access for these lots through the Crest. In either case access would be provided. Relative to utilities, that matter was between the property owners and the various utilities. Other than requiring that the power lines be underground, the City would not be involved. Mr. Smith stated that a letter was received from the Lesters who own a unit at Sommerset. They expressed concern with the location of the maintenance facilities, the possibility of locating the golf course where the residential village was proposed, construction in the southerly end of the site, that the building blend in with the mountain, that the structures be no more than two stories high and that plants not obscure their views. Mr. Smith said that the applicant would make a full presentation and would outline where the buildings, village and structures would be located, but the maintenance facility was at the far north end of the site. It couldn't be any further away. The residential village was located on the lower, less environmentally sensitive areas. Construction in the southern end of the site was limited to dwellings. All buildings had been designed 11 MINUTES SUBJECT TC PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REVtS10N SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 to blend in with the natural environment. The residences were limited to two stories and 24 feet in height. The landscape palette would be a natural desert landscape and it would include native trees. Mr. Smith stated that Nanci De Santo of Painted Canyon Road expressed concern that there not be a fire access from the Crest through the Cahuilla Hills community. Mr. Smith said that had been part of previous plans; it was not part of this plan. She also had concern with the location of the maintenance facilities. As indicated, it was at the far north side of the site. Today a letter was received from Liann Chavez of Valley Crest Lane which the commission received a copy of. Her concerns were relative to open space and the possibility that it would block access to the main trail up to the hillside. There was a Condition No. 14 in the draft resolution which required the applicant to dedicate an easement through or around his property to assure that we do have connections to the Cahuilla Hills trail system. Mr. Smith said that she stated she has observed a lot of wildlife in the area. As part of the approval the applicant will be required to dedicate over 900 acres of nearby hillside area to offset the use of the hillside lands. The applicant and his consultant would discuss that issue at greater length. Ms. Chavez was also concerned with the noise of ripping and blasting. Mr. Smith was assured there would be no blasting. Relative to cultural aspects, Ms. Chavez asked if the appropriate tribes had been notified. Mr. Smith said they had and they were sent copies of the environmental documentation. Relative to water use, Ms. Chavez was concerned that this project would use three acre feet per day and that it would not be a very good use of water. Mr. Smith said that the applicant would be using water from a wellsite that was not in production due to problems with high nitrate levels, so the water they would be using on the golf course was not potable water for human consumption. Mr. Smith explained that there was a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report prepared on this project which the commission received a copy of a week ago. The SEIR identified impacts associated with the project and proposed mitigations. The SEIR concluded that all impacts could be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The most controversial issue to be identified involved impacts on the habitat of the peninsular bighorn sheep 12 • MINUTES ' SUBJECT TC PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSIONDitA FT um REVISION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 and the desert tortoise. This would be mitigated through dedication of open space easements and a total of 910 acres would be dedicated. The consultant who prepared the SEIR responded to all the comments received as of the writing of the report. Late this afternoon staff received a letter from the Center for Biological Diversity and a response had not been prepared for that yet. When commission was ready to act on this matter, staff was recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval and certification of the SEIR to the City Council. With respect to the 33 acres in the northeast corner of Section 36, the nine lots, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was prepared. The prezoning and annexation to the city would not result in significant impacts to the environment since the proposed designations did not represent a significant change from the county zoning. In conclusion, Mr. Smith stated that the current project was superior to any of the previous plans. The most recent plan had 137 dwellings in the area where the golf course was now proposed. The golf course architect was committed to blending the golf course into the natural environment. The residential village and the clubhouse would blend into the natural environment and the project would result in 910 acres of dedicated natural open space. Mr. Smith further stated that late last week staff received a draft of the proposed development agreement for this project. The development agreement was not included in the legal notice with the rest of the project which he just outlined. It did need to go through a legal notice procedure before the commission could act on it and it was not yet before them. Staff was prepared to notice the development agreement for the meeting of October 1 and, therefore, recommended that after the commission took public testimony on the general plan amendment, change of zone, the tentative tract map and the precise plan/conditional use permit, that those issues be continued to October 1 so that all of the issues could be acted upon together rather than on a piecemeal basis. He asked for any questions. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT TC SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 REVISION Commissioner Lopez asked about the lot size of 6,760. He asked if there was a minimum size of lot configuration and if it was sufficient. Mr. Smith said that for a 1 ,500 square foot home that would be sufficient. On the issue of annexation, Commissioner Tschopp noted there was a petition/letter from a group of homeowners around the project who claimed they didn't wish to be annexed into the city at this time and asked staff to further address that issue on how and why Palm Desert would be annexing neighbors not part of this project. In reading the letter, Mr. Smith said that they weren't opposed to the project in concept. He thought they wanted to be consulted and staff would urge the applicant take advantage of the next two weeks to see if some type of agreement could be reached with those parties. The City could initiate annexations, so technically it wasn't a request of the applicant for the annexation. On the front page of the staff report the applicants listed were Destination Development Corp. and the City of Palm Desert regarding property in Section 36. As indicated, Mr. Smith said it was preferable to have those properties in the city and have the project under one jurisdiction. Could the project go forward with just Section 25 being annexed into the city? Yes, it could. It was just that the connecting road would go through the county. Mr. Drell said that when they do annexations they want to create logical boundaries. Technically many annexations include certain property owners or homeowners that didn't want to be annexed and there was a process through LAFCO which would actually be the ruling body on the annexation itself which would allow for those property owners to voice their opinions one way or another on whether they should be included or not. But ultimately once a logical boundary was determined, it was a matter of 51 % of the property owners representing 51 % of the assessed valuation. So in essence unwilling property owners could be brought along by a majority property owner if it was determined by LAFCO that that is the most logical municipal boundary. As far as the possible annexation, Commissioner Tschopp asked if normal procedures for annexation would be followed and these individuals would be given an opportunity to voice their opinion. Mr. Drell said that was correct and it wasn't this body or the City that would ultimately rule on annexation, it would be LAFCO. 14 • MINUTES ` ` SUBJECT R.PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION t - REVISION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 Given some of the problems experienced at other developments similar to this with parking and stacking of workers on adjacent streets, Commissioner Tschopp asked if that had been taken into consideration here. This was different in that it didn't directly have a frontage/public road, but he assumed they had taken that into consideration. Mr. Smith said that there was a section in the development agreement that would take care of this issue. Commissioner Tschopp asked if that prohibited parking outside of the gates. Mr. Smith said that it required that they provide parking for service personnel, employees and contractors during the time of construction on the site and that they provide them with transponders. After construction was completed, Commissioner Tschopp asked how workers and individuals would access the site and if it was through the main gate. Mr. Smith said yes, there was only the one access point. Commissioner Tschopp asked if they would be allowed in 24 hours per day or whenever service is required and would not be stacked up out front. Mr. Smith said it was staff's intent to provide for that in the development agreement. He urged the commission to get the developer to commit to that also. Commissioner Tschopp noted that it looked like nine of the units would be on septic tanks and asked if that was correct. Mr. Smith said that would be for the nine lots identified earlier. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the rest of the project would be on CVWD service. Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. TED LENNON, Senior Vice President at Destination Development Corporation, 74-426 Desert Tenaja in Indian Wells, addressed the commission. He informed commission that he had a power point presentation. He noted that Mr. Smith already covered the history of the site and the prior attempts to develop this private property. Mr. Lennon said he got excited about the project and came up with the concept that they could create a project without bringing housing up to the top of the hill and therefore lights, parking, barking dogs, etc., and they could just create a special place up there. The rest of the project they could do a good job of hiding as well. 15 MINUTES �� r SUBJECT TC PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ' — REVISION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 Mr. Lennon stated that he would start with the development concept. He wanted to create a very special world class golf course in a natural desert landscaped environment that would fit in with the terrain. They were taking a lot of land for a very small area of golf course. There were about 240 acres that would be fenced in of which only 100 acres would be turfed on the golf course. Besides the golf course, their intent was to create an architectural village. He said their entry would be located just south of the last church, St. Margaret's Church, on Highway 74. He said they would create a beautiful landscaped setting similar to the Reserve. The drainage canal and service road wasn't particularly attractive, so they would create a very attractive bridge to get people into the project and would use a combination of earth berming and low profile walls which would kind of encompass the project and hide most of that area. He said they would create an architectural village with all earthen colors. They would use the natural stone and plaster to blend in. Then they would use their development agreement to put long term obligations on the future owners and operators and on themselves to work things out. He said they would like to be able to go into this project and use the development agreement to be able to down zone without going back through the full process. They weren't asking to up zone, but to down zone and make slight adjustments to tweak the plan as they go forward. Their intent was to save as many of the beautiful brown rocks. He thought they were one of the experts in the desert at salvaging desert plants. He showed a vignette of one of the holes of golf created at the Reserve where they hid the t-boxes in the rocks and minimized the grass and pointed out that it was all native desert landscaping. Mr. Lennon indicated that they saw some interesting projects in Costa Esmeralda in Sardinia, a famous resort development where the wealthiest people in the world congregated and then hired the best architects in the world to hide and build homes into the countryside into a rather barren desert-type island countryside. There were some wonderful architectural experiences and they hoped to duplicate it in the concept they came up with. It would 16 MINUTES SUBJECT Tl PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION I ' - REVISION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 be used for the clubhouse, on the product, and it would be earthen colors. He showed pictures of the entry guard gate, a rendering of the clubhouse with stucco, stone and a roof of tumbled concrete tile. Very flat, low profile properties. He said it was a very small clubhouse. He showed a small putting green off the back of the clubhouse and indicated there were some interesting small waterscapes and fireplaces in the background. He said it would be a very beautiful, intimate building that would literally disappear into the hillside and mountainside. He showed a layout and pointed out the entry road, which would be hidden from everyone including the parking area which was sunken down. When someone comes up the road, they would pull into a cul-de-sac where they would drop their car off. He pointed out the main entry to the clubhouse, the golf course entry and locker rooms with a small fitness center. As they walk through the entry door there would be a vignette right across of a wonderful stone fire pit chimney area and a small water element. This area would generally be hidden all the way around and the small rock walls of the native rock from that area would basically hide cars from seeing homes in the lower area and the homes would see beautiful rocks that would blend in. He said that if the Sommerset homes could see right across, they would be looking into the oasis area of the lower cove and a small home to the right. He said the homes were on the small side. They were all detached. In this area all the homes would be one-story homes with tumbled stone roofs, latilla overhangs and they should have wonderful desert landscaping and this area should be very special. He showed some preliminary plans for the units. He described them as patio homes with inside/outside fireplaces. Small, wonderful little getaways. In their development agreement, which would be coming up at the next meeting, he said they would be looking for the flexibility to down zone within the approved guidelines. They were also looking for resolution on the easement issues, a club residential program, and would commit to additional mitigation commitments that weren't required in the Environmental Impact Report, and were 17 • MINUTES _ SUBJECT IC PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION I t REVISION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 also trying to establish some design guidelines that might work especially for this project for something they might need an exception for, like a battered stone wall in the sides of houses, and they wanted to address that at that stage. And then subcontractor parking. He believed that a condition was also put in the staff document requiring onsite parking. He said they understood what caused the off-street parking and would solve that at their project. In addition in the development agreement, they were unaware that the City would be putting in a requirement for the trails, but they were going to commit to that and the trails. He showed a rendering of the corner section down below and showed where the entry would come in. He said that today a driving range was built just like a golf hole. It would be beautiful, undulated and they would leave some of the rock mountains in it. Then there was kind of a major ridge line and where probably anyone in Cahuilla down below who wasn't highly elevated, everything would kind of disappear from sight. The course was mostly in a bowl in that area and they went through and identified the rock outcroppings, the canyons, and the natural blue line flows. He said they purposely avoided building the golf course in those natural canyons. There were numerous little river areas. It wasn't a huge amount of water, just the one steep mountainside. It came down a multitude of small canyons. Almost all the canyons would be preserved. There was also a seep where the water comes up through the ground and that was going to be inside their area, but they recently negotiated at the request of Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife to keep that on the outside and fenced out of the project. And they were also obligating themselves to clean that area up and get it back to its form. There was another seep up above they would probably commit to cleaning up also. He showed pictures of the location inside the bowl looking across and a simulation of what a golf hole could look like. He also showed pictures of the village area. He pointed out the location of their triangular piece of land at Highway 74 and pointed out the location of St. Margaret's and St. Margaret's playground, as well as the church below them. He said they have started some 18 MINUTES SUBJECT Tt PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION r - REVISION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 communication with the church about expanding. They have some additional land that wasn't being used in there and they could either create a desert park to tie into the Crest landscaping or advancing the cause and kind of beautifying the whole section. He said a wonderful thing that had been happening these last few months is that the City had been undergrounding the power lines along the street there and that would make that area very beautiful. He said they should be able to contribute to that area with a wonderful landscaped area, a very attractive bridge and then there would be a guard gate. Mr. Lennon stated that back in a canyon, the maintenance yard was hidden and couldn't be seen and there was a mountain kind of in front of it. He pointed out the location of some smaller lots for longer, narrower homes. He said there were about seven or eight homes in that area facing up into the rocks. Those were really the only smaller lots. He thought the lots averaged about 13,000 or 14,000 square feet when taking them all and dividing that by the current count of 44. He explained that the intent is to create a wonderful desert setting with some creeks, the blue Palo Verde and the best of what we have here in native desert vegetation. The homes would all be high end. He pointed out where the residents would enter into the project. They would encourage the use of electric cars and they were trying to create an electric car space at every one of the residences. He said they hoped to encourage that. As part of their concept, they didn't want heavy construction equipment coming down from the golf course every day so they would be building bunkers hidden into the mountainside where the larger equipment would just stay at the top of the hill and wouldn't have to come down the hill every day and they could take electric vehicles up to the top, back and forth. He thought that was an important design detail. He said they were trying to keep only electric vehicles on that road if they could. It would be designed as a fire road and would meet the legal requirements for fire trucks, but their intent was to keep it for electric vehicles. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT T(. SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 to, 1 t t - REVISION Mr. Lennon explained that the golf experience was kind of a private enclave and it would be difficult to see the residential component. He noted that it was a very small residential project for a golf community. They knew that and had a concept for this project thought that probably half of the residents and people that join this club would already be here and belong to another club. So they didn't expect to generate a lot of new bodies in town. As part of their environmental approach, they would be using electric cars and using native indigenous landscaping. He noted they have had a wonderful success with that at their last project and won many awards with it. He thought they knew more about salvaging desert landscaping and growing smoke trees from seed then maybe anyone else in the valley. They would be settng aside open space and encouraging electric car use. In the Environmental Impact Report they were very pleased that the responses from all the agencies were minimal. They have had a long-term relationship of working with the agencies, listening to them, and making adjustments to their plans. They made major adjustments to their golf course. They moved a couple of holes of golf because of sheep trails up above. They agreed to double the mitigation land and in general the only comment they got back on the Environmental Impact Report was from Fish and Game. They met with them that week and he thought they had worked out all of their issues with them. He said they have been working with the Sierra Club, the City, Fish & Game and Fish & Wildlife regarding trails. He noted there was a controversy because there are wonderful hills to hike in and there are issues, but they need to protect the bighorn sheep so they had all been working together to try and work out some of these problems. In their development agreement, they were going to move to make further commitments to create some kind of special annuities and annuities for some of the local causes. He explained that when they have a golf course like this they were able to sometimes do charity events that raise for some of the environmental groups in the neighborhood of $100,000 per tournament. They have had a long-standing program to do that type of thing at the Reserve. They put on an annual tournament 20 • MINUTES �t L.iy SUBJECT R PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION t I REVISION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 for the Living Desert every year, the Mousetrap Tournament. That was one of the commitments he made. At the Reserve they take a percentage of every sale and half that money goes into the Living Desert, the other half goes to the University's Ecological Reserve. He said they take a fee out of every club membership sold and they dedicate that to a wildlife conservation fund. That also allowed donations to the Humane Society and their Board each year distributes that money depending on how much money comes in. He said it was a good amount of money and they were able to help some of the different agencies. They take a position of giving back and that was kind of the motto at the Reserve project and the members there were getting involved in it and they were committed to that. As a result of their last meeting, Mr. Lennon indicated that there would be trails and the City's trail system, the park and the parking lot down below there and coming up the hill, there was the cross that could be seen lit up at night. That was barely within their property and he thought the owners were keeping that out and they might be deeding it to St. Margaret's. Mr. Lennon noted that the current trails have been man made and they wander into this kind of critical sheep habitat area off to the side. It was that side of the hill where they originally had golf, but they moved it all down on the other side of the hill at the request of three of the agencies. What they were proposing, and it was a major joint operation, was to try to abandon a couple of the trails that led off into an area that was hoped to be rejuvenated. He indicated that area was also on their property, but that would be dedicated open space. They could get rid of some of the trails, create new trails to tie into the other trails and then they designed a trail on their property that came through and followed some of the natural trails. He pointed out a little strip of land owned by the Bureau of Land Management that they could work with, so it made more sense to bring the trail out and they agreed to allow the trail to work up on their property wherever it was naturally going up to the end. 21 MINUTES {' SUBJECT TC PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION I " REVISION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 He explained that they intended to commit to two major fund raisers a year for a couple of different entities. One was the Friends of Desert Mountains. He noted that he is the President of the Friends of Desert Mountains. He explained that the Friends of Desert Mountains started out as a fundraising group for the Coachella Valley Mountain Conservancy and they were now out on their own and go out as an independent entity that goes out and acquires land. They weren't a political entity and didn't go to city council meetings or planning commission meetings; they just go out and buy land. They option it and act as the conciliator for Fish & Game and Fish & Wildlife. He said this entity has put aside about 8,000 acres for open space in the last few years. This would be a recipient of the annuity and golf program. In addition to the current plan, they had talked to Fish & Game and Fish & Wildlife and had been advised that it made sense and they were going to start a foundation for the recovery of the bighorn sheep through the Community Foundation of Palm Desert and that would come out of annuities from club members. They would obligate them to pay every year. He said they hoped to get in the neighborhood of $50,000 a year going into that annuity. That annuity could be set up as a foundation. They would set it all up and if they could convince other developers to go into it, it would be a good starting program for part of this recovery. A committee would be set up to disperse the funds. He said the funds might be used to help buy a ranger to police the trails and maybe purchase other trails to get trails out of the bighorn area and into the right area, but it was a good program. Mr. Lennon noted that they were acquiring the land at the top. They acquired 640 acres in Section 25, 63 acres in Section 36, they would be acquiring 45 acres offsite desert dry woodland wash, and 480 acres of sheep habitat. Total sheep habitat would be 480 acres offsite and 400 onsite. They weren't counting the onsite 400-acre piece that they would be setting aside for open space, but if they added that to the 400 acres offsite, they were setting aside 880 acres in sheep habitat. As a deduction from that, he thought they would be using about 100 acres of turf on the golf course. He noted that 100 acres of 22 MINUTES SUBJECT R. PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSIONij I REVISION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 turf generated a lot of oxygen, but in the desert it wasn't considered the best kind. Ten acres would be for golf facilities at the top which included the starter facility, the bunkers hidden, the bathrooms, etc. Then they set the 60 homes, which really averaged about 2,500 feet and if they counted the patios and pools, they use up hardscape of about 4,500 feet, so that was about 270,000 square feet. That was about seven acres earth to ground they would be losing. Then the common areas and roads for real estate and up to the golf course, club and parking, about 10 acres. The maintenance building used six acres. He said they ended up doing a project where they take 1 ,228 acres and leave 1 ,083 open space, native vegetation, sky to ground in natural open space. He thought that made this a special project. He thought they had a chance to create the finest golf club in the valley. They were thinking world class beyond the valley as well. This would be a rare opportunity to be part of nature with no parking, no cars, no street lights, no traffic going by, no homes to look at, no noise, no stereos and it should be very special. Architecturally, they like to do really nice things, do them right and hide them. He noted that their golf course irrigation water, the bulk of the water use, would come from high nitrate water that's been unpotable. He thought that was a good use of it and it would filter back down and should be potable. He said that nitrate was often a fertilizer that was actually added, so it would eliminate fertilizer use on the golf course. For jobs and services, a project like this generates $3 million per year in payroll of staff and gardening people for this community. That was a huge number and would be a wonderful job source. If they could have a clean air industry coming in, this was it. Building this project, construction jobs would be $100 million. It would have its own policing system. The police would be there, but there would be minimal calls and use of the police. This particular project should have a minimal effect on the school system, but they did pay substantial school fees. He noted he already mentioned the natural space set aside, the trails and open 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION L. a SUBJECT TC ' � SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 E,1 I� REVISION space. And they came up with a solution to the subcontractor parking which has been an irritant in the city most recently. He closed by saying that Lowe Enterprises, which he has been part of since the early 1970's, has been a presence in the valley since 1972. They have been property owners here, developers here, since 1972 and it was nice to be a local developer developing something here. He liked to think they had been leaders environmentally in doing good projects. Chairperson Finerty asked if there were any questions for Mr. Lennon. Commissioner Tschopp indicated that from the pictures it looked like there was an extensive use of water for lakes and so forth around the residences and golf course. He asked how much water would be used. Mr. Lennon said that for the main lake they added an island to it to reduce the amount of water, but that area was the energy dissipation for the water coming out the canyons, so he couldn't give an exact acre feet, but he could come back with that at the next meeting. The water coming down the canyons were in small creeks coming down. Commissioner Tschopp said he assumed that the areas shown in blue on the plans were filled lakes. Mr. Lennon said that was correct. He said they needed the storage for the golf course water. So mostly that was the nitrate water. Commissioner Tschopp noted that Mr. Lennon said he would take care of the subcontractor parking, but indicated there had been a lot of problems with service workers who couldn't get into a development and tied up surrounding streets or during golf tournaments. He asked if Mr. Lennon would be willing to mitigate that in the agreement down the road. Mr. Lennon said they have committed to solve that problem. They could do that by giving out a transponder to each vehicle. What was happening now was there was an individual fee for every person and the people who didn't want to pay it end up pooling 24 • MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION • SUBJECT TC Li IA AFT- REVISION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 cars. If they were pooling far away, that was a nice thing for the world. If they have a contractor or service, they would have a program where they would all have a transponder as part of that. The head person has to give them that and they have to have that to come in and work. Commissioner Lopez noted that there was a comment made earlier about blasting and asked if there was any need for blasting during the construction phase. Mr. Lennon said they expect it to be minimal. They have had two or three of the grading people up there and they were told they have to go in about 20 feet and they expect to do minimal grading. Commissioner Lopez noted there were residents along the east side of the wash and asked Mr. Lennon to expound on what they would see when they look across that wash area. Mr. Lennon said they had one vignette up there looking in across dead on into the residential community, so it was low density, earthen colored homes, highly landscaped with Palo Verde trees. It should be a beautification. Right now there was heavy off-road vehicle use and night use of the properties. They would like to not look down on them, so they would be creating small walls. They wanted them to see up into the mountains beyond them and they should be a blur. Commissioner Lopez said that the clubhouse facility would have verandas and outdoor space and the ability to have some type of entertainment when they have parties or fundraisers. He said that created music and noise and in the desert noise travels a long distance. He asked for any thoughts on that issue. Mr. Lennon replied there were two thoughts. First of all, the first people it would effect would be their own residents who live right there in the valley. It was a small clubhouse and the whole concept of this club was not to be typical to other clubs. He didn't want to compete with the Reserve, the Vintage, Bighorn or Eldorado, so it was their current intention to only have meals and 25 MINUTESL SUBJECT TC PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION > '. REVISION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 barbecues after tournaments and to get away from the normal Friday and Saturday night dinner house. That was the current plan. He said they need good neighbors and they wouldn't ruin their own residential neighborhood which was right there. Mr. Drell stated that there was a city ordinance by a voters referendum that banned commercial use of the hillside. These facilities would not be open to the general public. This was not going to be a commercial restaurant that people could just go to. This was a private club that would not be open to the general public. Chairperson Finerty indicated that the commission would now accept testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. Referring to request to speak cards, she called Mr. Dickinson to the podium. MR. JOE DICKINSON, 72-346 Canyon Lane in the Sommerset development addressed the commission. He said they have been owners there for 25 years. He stated that he was not necessarily opposed to what was happening, he just wanted to make sure that what they have won't be injured by the development that would be across the wash from them. Sommerset has 193 units. It's on 33 acres and it was directly opposite their access area on the other side of the wash. He said that they knew that over the years kids go on that side, the developer's side, to play their music and drink their beer and he has had to call the police. That happened frequently. He asked what the noise would be like at the clubhouse. What the noise would be like even though it's down played. Because they're in a cove there and everything kind of bounced off those hillsides. He was also concerned about the lighting and parking lot. He said their property grades upward to the south and asked what the two-story units would look down into. If the parking lot lights were on, would they see them? Would they shine and interfere with their sleep because the master bedrooms were on the second floor? He said he would like to think that the council would have representatives with the development people that would come to Sommerset and test these different aspects of what might be infringing on their rights for sound and lighting. That could all be 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION w SUBJECT TC SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 ! I am REVISION demonstrated by testing noise from the location of the clubhouse, etc. MS. LIANN CHAVEZ, 72-304 Valley Crest Lane in Sommerset, stated that she was in one of those two-story units that would look directly down on this new project. She said she has a lot of concerns. She wrote a letter and believed that all the commissioners received a copy. It had been mentioned a few times and she said she didn't want to go through the whole thing and would try not to repeat things that have already been brought up. They received a legal notice in early September and that was the first she had heard of the project. She came to the Planning Department and looked at the EIR. She assumed that was the most current. It said Subsequent EIR. What she found just looking at the EIR was what she put in her letter. Her biggest concern was that she felt it was really important to preserve the open space and these rocky hillsides. They are right below the Cahuilla Hills and it is knobby and rocky hills. She didn't know how anybody could build anything without blasting. She said she is also a geologist and she has seen folds and faults in the rocks. There are significant geologic formations. As the proponent said, he wanted to preserve the rocks, but once they are torn up, they wouldn't see dipping beds and folded beds and fault scarps. The EIR said that the fault that is clearly visible from the Sommerset side of the storm channel is not active. She supposed it is an old fault. She said she was home this morning and there was an earthquake. It is an active region and one of the big concerns in the EIR would be from severe ground shaking from an event on the San Andreas. She didn't know how all of the rock was proposed to be used. If it was just decorative and would not be effective or what, but the EIR mentioned that there would be unavoidable significant impacts. She said this was not a little project and they could hear from the proposal to trade off open space that this is going to disturb a habitat. She has lived in this residence for four or five years and she has noticed that they have a resident owl that lives along the channel. They have birds and has seen raptures. She said she wasn't a bird person, but has seen some type of eagle in the trees there. There were lots of birds in the migratory season that she didn't know what there were but couldn't see how if 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION : ': ET SUBJECT TC eL SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 tt ttEVISION another development comes in that brings in man, it's going to push all of this habitat out of there. There was going to be open space further up the hill or in the rocky part of the terrain, but she wasn't sure that would support the habitat that was there now. Obviously it would drive the sheep farther away. The other big concern she mentioned in her letter is that there is a planned park, the Homme Adams Park which she understood was being constructed right away and the plan was to connect the trails from the Cahuilla Hills Park down below up to the Homme Adams Park and up into the higher reaches of the mountains. The EIR said that the trail that would provide access would go right through where the proposed golf course was and there was no mitigation for it. She didn't know if all of that has already been changed since she saw it in the EIR. She just saw the EIR that was available in the Planning Department. But that seemed to be in opposition. They planned for open space and then allowed a development that's private and doesn't allow people to come in. There were a lot of people that hike up and down the storm channel and every day they see them out. It was not people in their off-road vehicles. She hadn't seen anyone in an off-road vehicle and she lives right there. The other big issue she felt has been misrepresented is the water use. In the EIR it states that there would be something like three acre feet of water per day used on the golf course and there would be lakes. She thought this was a tremendous amount of water. The mention about the high nitrate water; in the EIR it mentioned one well that's contaminated with nitrate. She didn't know what percentage of their water would be from that one well, but she had a feeling it wouldn't supply the whole project. So the fact that it is non-potable water, that didn't seem to be true just reading the EIR. To conclude, she questioned if we need another world class golf resort for the richest people in the world or could we preserve our open space which is why everyone wants to live here and also provide habitat for other animals and birds that also reside. DR. JERRY MEINTS, 71-450 Painted Canyon in the Cahuilla Hills of Palm Desert. He stated that he has been a resident of Palm Desert since 1965 and a resident of the Cahuilla Hills since 1972. For the past 30 years he has looked over the property. Moving there in 1972, he moved to the Cahuilla Hills to get away from the 28 MINUTES , SUBJECT TC PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION tFA ~ REVISION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 city. His home is several acres to the west of the nine properties. He built his own home, raised his four children, and for the last 30 years he's looked on the Miller property and wanted, as a militant naturalist, to never see that property change. It's beautiful; it's pristine. His wife and children have all hiked with him on that property for many many years. For years he opposed any sort of development. The problem he had was he couldn't write a check big enough to buy it and he said he has learned in his own edification that you can't stop people from developing their own property if they are doing it within reasonable guidelines. They dealt with the Miller people. In addition to owning over the years approximately 20 acres in that area to the left of the nine lots, he purchased one of the orange parcels (the one to the west of the cluster of nine) over ten years ago. Their plan at that time since they have all three older children in college and out on their own, was to build a small home for he and his wife and leave behind their three dwellings and kind of down size like most people do. Their goal was still that. Their current perspective on this project was confusing. They would still love to see nothing happen. But the reality was that was not feasible. When he compared what was being proposed to what the Millers proposed, 180 plus houses, he was incredible relieved that there would be no houses. As he looked out at all of this property from his backyard, the possibility of hearing a lot of construction, a lot of dogs and a lot of neighbors was a sad picture. The project currently proposed was somewhat of a relief. Their concern as property owners in this orange cluster was that they have, because they are part of the County, they have certain rights that were guaranteed to them by County code that they would probably lose if this was annexed into the city. In addition, the Federal Land Tract of 1938 guaranteed that they have guaranteed access, ingress and egress to their homes and no one could ever stop them from developing their parcels in Section 36. For those that have been around a long time, all of Section 36, while it is million dollars residences and wonderful homes and ranches and equestrian paradises, really at one time was homesteaded. So all of those properties are protected including their nine. As a group they were not opposed to this project in concept, but they really felt that unless they had a better dialogue between them, the developers and the City, they 29 MINUTES SUBJECT TC PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FT- REVISION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 might find themselves annexed, optioned, never purchased, blocked from building their homes, denied access they have been guaranteed through the Federal Land Tract of 1938 and through the easement the City blessed back in the 90's. So they asked that the Planning Commission give them a delay to have that dialogue before any decision is made that would effect their homes and their development. He said he would love to see the open space never change, but knew that wasn't realistic. He applauded the developer. He has seen the Reserve and they have done some awesome things. Looking at this from his home, it was probably going to be gorgeous and would probably affect their community in a very positive way. As a homeowner of one of the orange parcels, they needed the Planning Commission's help and needed some time to make sure their rights, their access, their ability to develop their homes they have planned or their right to be purchased at a reasonable fair market value was not lost. MR. DANIEL PATTERSON, a desert ecologist with the Center for Biological Diversity, P.O. Box 493 in Idyllwild. He said that his sister is a resident of Palm Desert and his parents are residents of Rancho Mirage. He said they sent in a letter today and wasn't sure if the members of the board had a copy. (Chairperson Finerty confirmed the commission received it.) He said the concerns they have here were in a large part outlined by the California Department of Fish & Game which to their knowledge remained in a position of serious concern with this project. He said that was based on a very recent communication with the department. Also, deep concerns with the fact that this habitat is designated critical habitat essential for the conservation, survival and recovery of peninsular bighorn sheep. They couldn't continue to have these types of hillside projects and at the same time try to recover the sheep. It didn't work like that. It was a death by a thousand cuts approach to continue to have these types of development in critical habitat and the more of these types of projects that get developed, despite the good intentions of the developer, the longer they are going to see delays in recovering that species. It was just as simple as that. Habitat loss has been identified as one of the main reasons for decline of this animal which is the very symbol of the Coachella Valley. They see it on banks, on street signs, 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ' � SUBJECT It SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 't t l " REVISION everywhere and it was one of the main reasons people want to live there is to see these animals which are disappearing. He said they found it in some ways ironic that the golf course especially had to be located in such prime sheep habitat. This was occupied habitat. This wasn't just habitat that may be used; it was being used. It's currently seeing sheep there right now and these were low elevation animals. They couldn't just go up to the top of mount San Jacinto. They were elevation sheep and need this habitat. He asked if we really need another golf course in critical habitat when right now there were more than 18-hole golf courses in the Coachella Valley than there are individual bighorn sheep. Each sheep could have its own course. There have been innovative golf course sharing ideas that have been successful in the past. He thought perhaps this could be another one. Their concern was that the commission and the council take a real hard look at this. They thought that approval of the EIR as it reads now will violate state and federal law and they have to consider what situation they might be getting into and if they were going to be approving what they think is a very flawed document in violating state and federal law. So they wanted to be in a position to support the City to make a decision to at the very least put this project back to the drawing board and avoid critical habitat for the bighorn sheep. That was the biggest concern of the Center and their 7,500 members, a significant amount of which live right here in this valley. MS. ELIZABETH VAN ZANDT, 48-255 Monroe Street #41 in Indio, addressed the commission. She stated that she is a professional naturalist and she was speaking tonight be she too was very concerned about this prospective golf course, mainly, that would be located on critical bighorn habitat. People that have studied ecology know that the single biggest cause of the loss of species, extinction of species and endangerment of species was loss of habitat. That was certainly the case here in the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains. That is the reason the bighorn were in danger today. She said she attended a meeting where they discussed the bighorn sheep problem, the endangerment, and what could be done about it. She said a lot of ideas came up and they have been implemented such as closing areas from January to 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION _ SUBJECT TC SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 I iFT. REVISION June and beyond. Her hiking club, the Coachella Valley Hiking Club, has honored this, but questions asked at that meeting were if developers could continue to develop in critical habitat. She saw again another proposal to develop within critical habitat and she thought that for the recovery of the species, this was something they had to really look carefully at. She asked if we were going to care about the recovery of this species or care about yet another golf course. Her other concern was water. She said we are in a second year of a record drought. Our ground water, our aquifer, is being over drawn. It was not being replenished. There was not any water replenishing it. They were talking about pulling from a well. Whether or not this well has nitrates, that well was still pulling from ground water. That ground water is what fills the seeps that the bighorn drink from. When that ground water is over drawn from that well, there would not be water for the bighorn to drink from. They need the water; they need the habitat. She sincerely believed that we do not need another golf course here in the Coachella Valley. MR. JEFFREY MORGAN, 1485 Via Escuela in Palm Springs, said that the bulk of his comments was contained in a written text which he was submitting as part of the process. He said that he originally intended to get it to the commission earlier today, but circumstances didn't permit it, so he would read it (see attached letter identified as Exhibit A). He also said that there were many other problems with this project then he addressed in his letter because it was a very large project. Many other people have mentioned issues like water and the down draft of the aquifer and all those things need further consideration. MR. DAVID ROGERS stated that he lives in Rancho Mirage at 71- 521 San Gorgonio, but is one of the property owners identified in the orange area. He said that they already addressed one of his concerns on putting this off until October to make a decision regarding the development. They wanted more time to talk to the developer and resolve some of their differences and their questions because they were going to be affected by what is done. If this would allow them additional time, that was really his reason for 32 MINUTES SUBJECT Tl PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION " REVISION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 being at the meeting. So they really satisfied that portion of it and he appreciated that. MR. SABBY JONATHAN, 42-620 Caroline Court in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He stated that he personally has a great deal of respect for Mr. Lennon and thought he has done some really good work here. That went for him and his entire design team. They were a proven quantity and he thought they could do great work and he didn't really know of anyone who could do something like this in a more environmentally sensitive manner. He didn't have a problem with the project, the Crest. Their issue was the City's proposed change to the general plan, the prezoning and the annexation of their nine parcels. He owns the property on the northeast corner and there was a roadway that goes from the lower portion of the Crest through to the golf portion of the Crest and it went through the middle of his five-acre parcel. He said that was okay. Historically the City has not initiated annexation proceedings. They have taken a neutral position. And he thought that has been good public policy. This exception to that public policy was ill advised and unwarranted. By staff's comments, it was not necessary to the Crest project. So it left him wondering, "why do it?" They have some negative impacts to their property as a result of that. On the other hand, by not annexing into the city that did not impact the property and leaves things status quo, so they don't see the point of the annexation proposal from the City. He stated that they purchased this five-acre parcel to build their dream home. It was not an investment per se. Their desire was not to sell it; it was not to see it become part of the Crest. They want to build their dream home up there and they knew where they want to build their home and have a general idea of what they want to build up there. They periodically go up that dirt road and just kind of sit there and enjoy and think to the future when they are in a position where they can do that. What the City is proposing would prevent them from realizing their dream. They were currently under the County. The County would let them build their home in the way they want. What they want 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 <t SUBJECT TC I REVISION to build he thought they could build under HPR. It wasn't anything weird, or extravagant or big or multi-story, but it was more complicated under HPR. Their biggest concern is that where their homesite is would be allowed under County but it's on the ridge line and takes advantage of the view as other homes in Cahuilla Hills do. Under HPR they were pretty confident they would not be allowed to do that. That their right to develop their property in the way they are currently allowed to do, with the intent that they purchased their property, that right would be taken away from them as a result of the City's proposed annexation, change of general plan and prezoning. So they objective to that part of what was before the commission. Not to the Crest project as proposed by Mr. Lennon, but to the annexation, the change in the general plan and the prezoning that is being suggested which appeared to be unilaterally by the City. The annexation of their property is unnecessary and inappropriate and from staff's comments, unrelated to the project. Why do it? They respectfully requested that the Planning Commission deny the City's request for the change of general plan, prezoning and annexation as it relates to those nine lots. Speaking for himself and his wife, at least to their lot if they couldn't do the rest. He thanked the commission. MS. ASHLEY PATTERSON, 72-755 Cactus Court in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. She said that she was hoping to offer a unique perspective that wasn't really represented at the meeting. It was coming from the children that live in the Coachella Valley. She said she is a teacher and teaches at Amelia Earhart Elementary School in La Quinta. She shared with her students that she would be coming to the meeting tonight to speak to the commission about a development that was proposed to be going in Palm Desert and they had a little conversation about it. One of the things they studied about in fourth grade all across the state, fourth graders study their state. They study the state of California and they are talking about natural resources right now and the things that California has to offer. Her coming to the meeting offered a really great teachable moment in her classroom and what became very clear to her was the very poignant comments that her students made to her when they had an "ah ha" moment of why would adults take land away from an animal or a plant when 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT TC SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 l � REVISION they need it to survive. One of her students asked why they would do that if they knew it would hurt them and she didn't have an answer. She wanted to offer that perspective to the commission because often times some of the most important things that we tend to not recognize or not see come from kids. So they asked her to share some of those comments with the commission tonight and they were writing letters, drafting letters, to them. They weren't ready. She said they should expect them soon. They were very excited and were drawing pictures for them, too. But they wanted her to let the commission know that they very much wanted to see our bighorn sheep stay in our valley and our desert tortoise stay in our valley and prosper and that they'll find lots of other places to golf. MR. RUSSELL DAVIS, 45-660 Paseo Coronado in Indian Wells, addressed the commission. He said that he has been a resident of the desert for well over 20 years. He is a practicing attorney here. He stated that he has a five-acre property right next to Mr. Jonathan's. He noted that it was something he bought well over ten years ago. It's been a wonderful place where they've looked forward to having a place to build a retirement home up in the hills and come out from down below. He said he echoed what Mr. Jonathan said in terms that it seems to be a taking of their property. He didn't hear a very good response as to why the nine parcels were being included. That was his only objection. He had absolutely no problem with the project that Mr. Lennon put forward. He thought Mr. Lennon had done a wonderful job over at the Reserve and from everything he has seen, he knew he would do a wonderful job here. Their concern was if they were incorporated into the city, if they were annexed in, they would have severe restrictions in building. He considered that a taking of his rights and those were his concerns. MS. LAURIE MASOTTO, with the law firm of Peters and Freedman at 74-075 El Paseo, Suite C-4 in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. She stated that she was at the meeting on behalf of the Sommerset Homeowners and their members. As the commission had heard from other homeowners who had already spoken, the Sommerset project would be directly effected by this 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 jKAFT. SUBJECT TC REVISION development due to its location. As the commission knew, they look at a beautiful open space across the wash area right now and what was proposed were the clubhouse and maintenance facility and residences immediately across from the area where they are located. They have significant concerns and she would also concur with the homeowner who spoke earlier to ask that the applicant meet with the Sommerset homeowners directly to discuss mitigation measures if any could be implemented. They have serious concerns about the structures; how close they will be located to the wash area and therefore impact the views and visibility. They have concerns about the street lighting. She noticed that on the plan there was a street parallel to the wash area and the street lighting needed to be addressed. Lighting on the residences that will impact the Sommerset homes needed to be addressed and look at what is planned for that. She also saw some minimal what looked to be shrubs. She was trying to determine what screening, if any, has been offered along that area so as to provide some sort of buffer. They want to keep in mind that the Municipal Code and the intent of the zoning regulations was to foster a harmonious and workable relationship among land uses. The details didn't seem to have been worked out. They also wanted to make sure that private lands are used in the most appropriate and most beneficial way. From the details they had seen, it did not appear that any screening or any consideration of the Sommerset homeowners interests and their right to quietly enjoy their property has been taken into consideration. Also, in the residential districts there is specific language in the code about protecting residential properties from noise, illumination, unsightliness, odors, dust, dirt and other objectionable influences. A lot of those would be a concern during construction. The dust and noise associated with construction. But the long-term noise and illumination due to golf course lighting, use of the maintenance facilities in early morning hours and heavy equipment, lawn mowers, etc., those were very big concerns that homeowners have. Again, the homeowners would prefer that the open space remain and that this development be reconsidered; however, if the commission was intending to approve this, they would certainly call for a meeting with the homeowners to discuss 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT TC SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 - U % r REVISION appropriate screening and buffers and address the concerns she raised. MR. MARSHALL TENKEN, 72-312 Canyon Lane in Sommerset, addressed the commission. He said that so far this evening from his perspective he had not heard one thing where he as an individual could benefit from this. He heard how the developer could benefit and that was probably going to be the way it was going to happen, but from his perspective he didn't know how he benefited. He said they overlook the wash. They were the last homesite next to the wash and he really liked the lower view as opposed to the higher view and if there were any plans to change the homes to the higher view, that would be preferable from his perspective. The main question he had was how long the construction would take place. He asked if there was any way during the commission's consideration that they might be able to put a cap of a beginning time and an ending time so that this wouldn't be dragged out for a long period of time. At the golf course, nothing had been mentioned -- they talked about the number of parking places but he didn't know how many memberships were going to be sold. He thought there were 129 parking spaces and asked if that was correct. (Mr. Lennon said 180 from the audience.) Mr. Tenken said he didn't know how a $100 million investment would be translated to 180 parking spaces. It seemed like it would require a lot more parking for that kind of investment. MR. JIM RICHARDS, a property owner of 48-270 Verbena addressed the commission. He stated that he has no problems with the intent of Mr. Lennon and has seen what he could do. He thought Mr. Lennon would do what he says he will do. He stated that he was a little bit in sympathy with the folks in the orange section. He thought the City has selectively over the years cherry picked what they want in the city and left alone what they didn't want in the city. What was going to happen to the remaining section of 36 was they were surrounded by the city and yet the folks who live in Cahuilla Hills who pay the sales taxes and so forth have never been given the option to be involved with the city. In some cases many don't want that. They have just paid for 37 • MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT TC. SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 L) I\ Imtl - REVISION their roads. Now the City was going to say they want to take a little section because it suits their purpose. He didn't know when the LAFCO hearing would be and asked if Mr. Drell knew. Mr. Drell explained that it would occur after our process and the Council initiates the annexation application along with the applicant. That would occur after all of these other things happen. So it could be six or eight months from now. Mr. Richards pointed out that the LAFCO group would be the ultimate decider on whether that annexation or any part of the annexation will take place. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Their task was to determine logical boundaries at cities. If they can be shown compelling reasons why those nine parcels don't meet that definition, then they can delete them from the annexation. He didn't really believe that the City has any specific benefit one way or another. He thought the rational was based on the physical boundary of the wash, the most likely access to those parcels would be through the city. To get from one part of the project to another, they would have to drive through it. The general thought was they shouldn't have to drive from the city to the county to the city. He didn't think the City had a strong feeling about it either way. Mr. Richards said that if he was sitting LAFCO he would be of the opinion that if they were going to take some, they better take it all. He firmly believed that cities have been neglecting in the past a couple of areas. He stated that the people who have owned this land have owned it longer than anyone in the auditorium had been alive. That was 80 some odd years that the Tyler Richards people have owned this property. Long before environmentalists were even known to be existent. He said he has lived there in the area for over 30 years and sat on the Planning Commission for over 13 years. He hadn't seen any bighorn sheep there and he presumed that they might be there. He had never seen a development that came across their desk when he was on the commission that had the environmental concerns that this group had brought before the commission. They were talking about the most minimalist amount of activity that he has ever seen and he had been involved with 38 MINUTES '1` SUBJECT IC PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION .. REytS$©N SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 I the bighorn and listened to months and months of testimony from the sheep people, so he urged the Planning Commission to consider the fact that this was probably the last best chance. If they didn't allow the owner of the property who has owned it so long to develop, either buy him out or take this development and make the adjustments with the folks who have problems with it at Sommerset and the folks who have problems with it that own the nine lots in the orange section and at least consider what the City out to be doing by surrounding the folks in Section 36. MR. WILLIAM HARRIS, 40-640 Ventana Court, addressed the commission. He stated that he is the Parish Administrator for St. Margaret's Episcopal Church and was speaking on behalf of the church. He said that from their standpoint the project looks pretty favorable. The only portion of the property that came against them was the entrance way and the bridge. From the designs they had seen and in talking with the developers, that seemed to be good and they were in favor of this project. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone else wished to speak. There was no one. Chairperson Finerty asked Mr. Lennon if he had any rebuttal comments. Mr. Lennon said he would like to respond to three quick items and then he would like to have Mr. John Criste, the project's environmental consultant, to step forward to address a couple of the other issues. Mr. Lennon said that they would continue to talk with the annexed people on solutions to see if there is any other way to do that. It wasn't really their choice to include them. It was suggested that was the best way to do it, but they were willing to talk to them. Secondly, they would meet with the Sommerset people if someone would give him a phone number and who they would like him to contact. And finally, he said he would love the opportunity to address that fourth grade class if possible. He thought that would be an interesting political lesson for them and he would appreciate that opportunity and thought it would be interesting. 39 MINUTES SUBJECT IC PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT- REVISION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 MR. JOHN CRISTE, Terra Nova Planning and Research at 400 South Farrell in Palm Springs, addressed the commission. He explained that his firm prepared the Environmental Impact Report on the project and he just wanted to clarify a couple of points that had been raised in the testimony that had been heard. First of all, concerns had been raised about the unavoidable significant impacts associated with the project. As represented in the Draft and Final EIR it had been determined that there no significant impacts that were unmitigated. So with the mitigation measures that were incorporated, they didn't have that issue. With regard to trails access, rather than hindering trails and their development and use, the project actually facilitates trails and resolves issues that have been raised by the resource agencies with regard to the access of people into sheep habitat, so the situation there was enhanced by the project. With regard to water use, if they read the Environmental Impact Report there was a careful discussion. The Water District required that they use a rather arcane sort of approach to quantifying the water. But the fact of the matter was that on a daily basis the project uses about 1 .8 acre feet per day and that was clearly cited in the environmental report. Mr. Criste noted that it was also mentioned that their site is occupied by bighorn sheep and that it is prime habitat and someone referenced one of the important resources that the resource agencies use to determine that and one of those was the Seitz Act for the Santa Rosa Mountains and it clearly defined this area as a zone of deficiency in this document which was still referenced in the recovery plan for the bighorn sheep. With regard to the use of the site by bighorn sheep, their biologist provided in the technical appendix in the EIR telemetry data which shows that the golf course area, the fenced in area, had not been occupied since at least 1982 any sightings whatsoever of sheep in that area. It was not to say that the sheep weren't an important issue or that they haven't tried to respond to the issues raised by the resource agencies. There was brief mention of seeps and drought conditions. The well site the developer was proposing to use is 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT IC 1"SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 REVISION located pretty far east of this site. It was not within an area of groundwater that feeds the seeps. The seeps were fed by groundwater and the Santa Rosa Mountains. He stated that the seeps were also pretty much determined to not having been used by sheep and unavailable for use by sheep and that they were heavily impacted by invasive plants, which this project would address by mitigation of the removal of invasive plants. The issues of the resource agencies that were raised primarily by Fish and Game were issues that have been worked with the resource agencies through several site visits with biologists from Fish and Game and the Fish and Wildlife Service on site, at numerous meetings, detailed discussions, refinements to the plan in response to concerns raised, and the mitigation measures or the discussion in the Final EIR which was in the staff report and bound copies that the Planning Department had addressed all the issues and they believed to the satisfaction to the Department of Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife Service. Also with regard to the annexation issue, as Mr. Drell pointed out, it was one of access. LAFCO doesn't like to see access to an area like this and in fact didn't want it to be through two jurisdictions. They like it to be contiguous. He said they could only be contiguous at a point if only Section 25 were annexed and that was undesirable from LAFCO's point of view. From a physical point of view, he thought that Mr. Jonathan was right in that it wasn't physically required, but LAFCO policy encouraged them to extend the area for their consideration of annexation because of the natural terrain and the wash to the south. They did feel, however, that access to these lots or to many of these lots was still available from the west side through the Cahuilla Hills community. He said that summarized his responses and said he would be glad to answer any questions. There were no questions and Chairperson Finerty closed the public hearing. Mr. Erwin advised that the public hearing be left open. Chairperson Finerty concurred and stated that the public hearing would be open. Chairperson Finerty asked if the commission would give any comments tonight or if there was a motion to continue the matter to October 1 . Mr. Drell said that was up to the commission as to whether they have questions or want to leave their comments for the next meeting when there would probably be more detailed responses. 41 • MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION fT SUBJECT Tt SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 ;' REVISION Commissioner Campbell said she would vote to continue the meeting and defer her comments until after the review of everything at the next meeting. Commissioner Lopez concurred, but expressed his appreciation to everyone who came out to the meeting to speak, one way or the other. He told them their input is valuable. They would be going through another session on October 1 and they were more than welcome to come back and he would withhold his comments until that time. Commissioner Tschopp stated that he would withhold his comments also. He did state that there was a very diverse group out there and a lot of different issues. Some want to maintain what they have so they can build higher up on the hills and some who don't want any development, but he hadn't heard anyone who wanted to keep open space by tearing down their own house. He hoped that the developer would take the time to meet with some of the adjacent property owners and perhaps discussion some of the issues brought up tonight. Chairperson Finerty stated that she was also appreciative of everyone taking the time to come out this evening and thought that Mr. Lennon would be speaking with people from Sommerset and suggested that he speak with Ms. Massoto, the attorney, and she could give him the information. And for those homeowners in the orange section, see what they could do with annexation and that would give them two weeks to have that dialogue. She asked for a motion to continue the hearing. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, continuing this matter to October 1 , 2002 by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Per Planning Commission direction on September 3, 2002, presentation of a resolution denying a conditional use permit to allow short-term rental of a single-family dwelling located at 73- 426 Joshua Tree Street, Case No. CUP 02-13. 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 FT- SUBJECT TL REwsioN VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case Nos. PMW's 02-13, 02-14 and 02-15 -AVONDALE VILLAS, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of three parcel map waivers to allow lot line adjustments into the golf course to increase lot depth for Lots 1 , 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Tract 26553 in Avondale Country Club, also known as 75-771 , 75-779, 75-787, 75-803, 75-81 1 , 75- 795, 75-763, 75-827, 75-755, and 75-819 Heritage West. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. 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 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03, and DA 02-01, - DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Applicant (continued from September 17, 2002) Request for a recommendation of approval to the City Council of: 1 . A general plan amendment from Open Space (O.S.) and Hillside Planned Residential to Open Space (O.S.) for the entire 640 acres and a change of zone to prezone the entire 640 acres Open Space (O.S.) as it relates to Section 25 T5S R6E. 2. A general plan amendment from very low density residential to Hillside Planned Residential and a change of zone to prezone to Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) to facilitate annexation to 2 , f BRAFT AFT SUBJECT It MINUTES REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 the city, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto, for nine lots in the northeast corner of Section 36. 3. A tentative tract map and precise plan / conditional use permit for an 18-hole golf course, driving range, comfort station and open pavilion located on 221 +/- acres in the southeast corner of Section 25 T5S R5E (remainder of Section 25 to be dedicated open space) and a residential village (44 lots), clubhouse and maintenance facility located on 59 +/- acres in the northwest corner of Section 31 T5S R6E. 4. Certification of Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project. 5. Approval of a development agreement relating to the project known as The Crest located on property in Section 25 T5S R5E and a portion of Section 31 T5S R6E. Commissioner Jonathan informed the commission that he would be abstaining from discussion and voting on this matter because he is an adjacent property owner. Mr. Smith informed the commission that there was an illustrative view of the project on the overhead. He said he would not go over the details from two weeks ago. He indicated that relative to the matters which were before the commission on September 17, additional information was received. He noted that commission received a copy in their packets of a letter from Fish and Game indicating that the mitigation measures included in the Final EIR were satisfactory. Secondly, the commission received a memo from the EIR consultant providing additional responses to the comments which were received from the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club. That was a memo dated September 23. Also on the 23rd, the EIR consultant forwarded an email in which he noted a few changes for inclusion or incorporation into the staff report relating specifically to the number of acres in the golf course area being 240 acres as opposed to 221 . The area of the residential village should reflect 63 acres rather than 59. There were also some other modifications that were outlined in the memo the commission received. Fourthly, the commission was advised that there was a meeting with the Sommerset community and the applicant on September 26. Staff passed out to commission today a memo from representatives from Peters and Freedman, Lauri Massoto, indicating that they did meet and appreciated the developer's 3 MINUTES SUBJECT TC PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 4.' REVISION OCTOBER 1, 2002 cooperation in discussing the plans for the future and that they have agreed to work with an authorized committee to be formed from the homeowner's association to address landscaping and other concerns as construction proceeds. The Association requests that the agreement be incorporated into the development agreement for the project. He said the commission could put it into the development agreement or they could insert it as a condition on the precise plan. Either would work. As well, staff distributed to the commission just before the meeting a letter from Peter Latourette of Flower Drive in the Sommerset development in support of the project. And a letter from D. Fox representing the Desert Trails Hiking and Biking Club opposed to the project. Mr. Smith noted that the commission received a copy of the draft development agreement in their packets under a separate report. He explained that this portion of the application had not received a legal notice at the time of the last hearing on September 17. It has since been noticed and the mailing of the notice to the neighbors was done. Mr. Smith explained that the Municipal Code provides for the City entering into development agreements. Specifically, the development agreement at hand would grant a 15-year approval period with the clock starting 30 days after the adoption of the agreement or the date which the applicant acquires title to the property. It would allow the residential units to be sold up to a four fractional interests per unit. It set out setback requirements for the residential units. It provides for parking modification for the residential units: one covered space for a car plus one covered golf cart space. It provided for road widths between 16 and 20 feet. It provided for trail easements around or through the south and east to connect to the Cahuilla Hills trail system. Staff noted in the report that in order to be consistent with Condition No. 14 of the draft resolution, the language in Section 203.5 of the agreement needed to be changed to read, "Developer shall grant necessary easements to the City for public hiking and /or equestrian trails on the perimeter of the site in areas designated by developer and acceptable to the City, California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for such purpose allowing trail linkage from Homme Park to Art Smith Trail Head. Such trails shall not compromise project security. Developer shall have no liability for the design, construction, maintenance or use of said trails. The City shall be responsible for any environmental clearances or agency permits or approvals which may be required to effect trails construction. The City agrees to aid within limits the construction of irrigation lines from the Golden Rod Road wellsite to the 4 MINUTES SUBJECT TC PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION it-41r - REVISION OCTOBER 1, 2002 property." He said there were other provisions and he would respond to them if the commission had any questions. Staff's recommendation was that the commission recommend approval to the City Council of the general plan amendment, the change of zone, the tentative map, the precise plan, the conditional use permit as it applies to the Crest project and certification of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. And also that Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the general plan amendment and the prezoning on the nine lots adjacent to the Crest property in Section 36 and that they recommend approval to the City Council of the Draft Development Agreement as amended with respect to the trails access easement section. He said he was available for any questions. Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification. He noted that in the development agreement under residential development it indicates development of up to 60 dwelling units and yet in everything they had seen so far it referenced 44 lots. He asked if that was an issue. Mr. Smith said no. He explained that the Environmental Impact Report reviewed up to 60 units, hence the 60 units shown in the development agreement. The tentative map before the commission was for 44 lots. Commissioner Tschopp asked Mr. Smith to explain the extent of the City's involvement in E-4 on page 6 and if he could then explain or clarify G-3 and G-5 on page 8. Mr. Smith said that under 4 on page 6, the City shall assist the developer in its discussions with private parties regarding the abandonment and/or relocation of private easements and/or rights-of-way which the developer deems may adversely effect the needs and development design of the project. Commissioner Tschopp asked if that was something the City would normally do on a project this size. Mr. Drell thought they might be hung up on the meaning of the word "assist." According to the City Attorney in this reading it was vague. Assisting was that we would facilitate and cooperate, but he didn't think it had any force of any particular action. Commissioner Tschopp said that was his question. The extent of the City's involvement. Mr. Hargreaves noted that it said "assist the developer in its discussions." Mr. Drell said that we would just facilitate the discussion and no more than that. Commissioner Tschopp asked about G-3 on demolition. He asked if that came with certain parameters and limitations. The way he read it they would not 5 MINUTES SUBJECT T( PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION r .. REVISION OCTOBER 1, 2002 need to apply every time they needed to demolish something. He noted that one of the concerns expressed at the prior meeting was on the amount of demolition that might take place that would create noise. Mr. Smith said that when he thought of demolition he thought of structures. He said he was looking to the City Attorney about this language. Mr. Hargreaves indicated he wasn't involved in the negotiation of this development, but it appeared to say that the developer can get demolition permits or excavation permits and would have to comply with the requirements of those permits. They could go ahead and get those permits without the necessity of applying or receiving at the same time any building permit. So it looked like a temporal disconnect. They could go ahead and get their demolition permits and excavation permits without having a building set to go. Mr. Drell said that was not unusual. As a matter of course people get grading permits. He wasn't sure what an excavation permit was. We have a grading permit and typically they are pulled considerably prior to building permits. He said he wasn't sure why this was in there in that there was no city ordinance that required them to be connected other than they have to be consistent with an overall project design. But the permits themselves were sequential and not connected. That was just stating what the city policy and city ordinance already states to a certain degree. Commissioner Tschopp said he would then assume that in G-5 the right to subdivide the site had nothing to do with further development beyond what has already been approved. Mr. Smith said that conceivably they could come back with a remapping in the residential village area that would create a total of up to 60 units. Mr. Drell concurred. This would allow them to apply. It would still be a process like this but in essence they weren't giving up their rights to ask. Regarding the 15-year approval of the tentative tract map and precise plan, Commissioner Tschopp thought that seemed a little excessive. He asked if we have ever granted those types of initial periods when the normal term is two years. Mr. Drell said that we have had development agreements that were at least 10 years. We have had development agreements that cover the ongoing operation of projects that run for 30 or 40 years, but those really didn't become operative until the project got built. The affordability housing projects had these development agreements which control the rents. Fifteen years was on the outside of probably most development agreements we've looked at. Most were in the ten-year range. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT TC OCTOBER 1, 2002 $ 1 REVISION Commissioner Tschopp asked if the time was shortened, it would only mean that the applicant would need to come back to the commission, not that they would necessarily change anything. He was trying to look for the reason they want to extend for such a long period of time. Mr. Drell said the commission would have to ask the applicant why he was concerned. Typically once a project is initiated, then there were automatic extensions going on. So the issue would be if for some reason the project wasn't built for 11 or 12 years because he suspected from the nature of this project that when it gets built it would get built in one shot. They weren't going to build 11 of the 18 holes of golf and the residential development was such that it would get developed in one shot. So they would have to ask the developer his concern with 10 years versus 15. Commissioner Campbell noted that there was also a requirement that requires that on-site parking be provided for the employees and contractors and then Mr. Smith added that the commission may wish to add a sentence requiring these workers to be staged within the site and not on Highway 74. She asked if that could be made into a condition so they didn't have any problems. Mr. Smith said they could add that into the section. He knew that commission had concerns in the past in that regard. If they wanted, it could certainly be added in. Chairperson Finerty noted that the public hearing was open and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. TED LENNON, 74-426 Desert Teneha in Indian Wells, addressed the commission. He stated that he is the Senior Vice President of Destination Development Corporation, the developer of the property. He indicated he would address some of the points brought up. Starting with the ten years versus the 15, he explained that the last agreement they did with the City was for ten years. He said it did go by quickly. The development agreement did not commit the City to very much. It was kind of general language, but the kind of things they would like 15 years if the city suddenly said they had to do 50-foot roads or something. If they looked at the agreement, he didn't think there was anything in it that should scare anybody. They have to come back to the table anytime they redo the tentative maps and so forth. So their attorneys advised them, and it was discussed with the City's attorney, and he believed 15 years was a logical time. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT TC OCTOBER 1, 2002 Linn ' s REVISION On the issue of excavation/grading, he said it should just be grading. Very common in a project like this they would go ahead with the golf course grading prior to having a club house design or something years later on. That was the intent of that and very common. He stated that from day one they have committed that they would resolve the onsite parking problems. He asked for any other questions. Commissioner Tschopp asked about the timeshare. They now modified their proposal to include the sale of the units up to four fractional interests. Mr. Lennon explained that they didn't modify it, from the beginning they have had this program and put the words in there. Their intent was in a private club like this, it was currently very popular for the members to be able to share a given unit and in their concept they were talking about four members would own an individual unit. So they had a small section of the project they where they would attempt to have that. That didn't mean more bodies coming to the project or more traffic, it was all the members of the golf club. They would have some flexibility. The main reason for the development agreement was to have some flexibility going in. They were taking that same footage shown on the tentative map and might turn them into lesser lots. They'd have to come back to change the tentative to go for 60, but they didn't intend to expand outside the project area they already identified for lot building. They have national members and the fractional concept would allow them to own a quarter share and come and use the units. Commissioner Lopez asked if the fractional concept would only be available for members. Mr. Lennon said they thought it only made sense for those that belong to the club because of the price in relationship to the golf course, so they expect not to sell any product to non-member people. They couldn't eliminate them or forbid them to do that. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the number of memberships increased. Mr. Lennon said no, it didn't effect that. Memberships were limited. He also said that they had a good meeting with the Sommerset people and 8 It MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT Tt OCTOBER 1, 2002 Rr' /ISM it was alright with him to incorporate that they would agree to continue to work with the committee as the project is ongoing because it was harder to just look at a set of plans and resolve everything, so they said as the project got built they would continue to relate with them. He thought that was fine. Regarding the trails, Mr. Lennon said they came up with the idea of donating the trails to the City and wrapping them around the project and making it all work. There was one sentence in the agreement that got taken out and he wasn't sure why. They asked that it not interfere with security, but that it also wouldn't interfere with their golf course. They agreed on a plan that didn't seem to do that, but then that got taken out and he didn't know why that happened or who requested that, but they would like to get that back in. Mr. Drell said that he would agree that the trail would not interfere with the golf course. Mr. Lennon asked if it was okay to put that language back in. Mr. Drell said that was fine. He noted that it would be a mutually agreeable trail route that would meet both party's interests. Chairperson Finerty asked for any other questions or comments. There were none. Next was public testimony for anyone wishing to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. Referring to the public speaker cards turned in, Chairperson Finerty asked Dr. Jerry Meints to address the commission. DR. JERRY MEINTS, 71-450 Painted Canyon in the Cahuilla Hills of Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said it has been his residence for 35 years. He noted that he spoke before the commission a couple of weeks ago expressing their long-term commitment to seeing this property developed in a manner that was harmonious with the natural environment. Many of them were ambivalent; they would like to see nothing ever happen there. They were also realistic and as a recovering naturalist he realized he couldn't stop a person from building on their own property. He was struck with a comment two weeks ago. He heard a lot of people demand or make comments about wanting open space, but no one volunteered to tear their house down to create 9 MINUTES SUBJECT TC PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION Olin Tim REVISION OCTOBER 1, 2002 it. It was still ringing in his ears. He said he had to step aside and be somewhat realistic. In addition to living on five and in some points more than 20 acres in the Cahuilla Hills on the border of this project, he was also one of the land owners of the nine parcels in question. Two weeks ago he noted that they raised the issue that while they were not opposed to this project, in fact in concept he thought it was probably one of the most environmentally sensitive projects to be proposed in the desert, ever. And he has been here since 1965 and looked closely at our beautiful valley. He said their problem really was the fact that as it exists, they currently enjoy guarantees and options by the County of Riverside because they were not in the city of Palm Desert currently. The zoning and building codes were much more reasonable in the County and allowed them not only access to their property, but allowed them the opportunity to build. He said that many of them bought this property, and he has owned his over ten years, with the plan of selling their big house now that their kids were all grown up and moved away to college and building a smaller home for himself and his wife and their one remaining small child. He said they weren't certain being annexed to the city would allow them the opportunity to build their home. Moreover, the Federal Land Tract of 1938 guaranteed them and all other homesteaded properties permanent access to their property. No one could block their ingress or egress or their ability to bring utilities to their properties and that was a federal law that guaranteed that homesteaders would be able to improve their properties. So it was long standing and had great history. He didn't think that many people in Palm Desert really knew that Section 36 was one of the original homestead sections, but it was. He said it would be very hard for them to agree to annexation because the developers had not really provided them with any concrete proposal that would either guarantee that they would have the ability to have access on their road to their property, which was now being proposed to be the developers, nor had the City given them any indication that they would be guaranteed the ability to build on their properties, nor has the developer of the City guaranteed them that they would be paid fair market value for this property. So with that concern, while they could see the value of this development, they certainly couldn't agree and opposed being annexed into the city of Palm Desert because they would lose all of their rights and their abilities now guaranteed to them. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT It OCTOBER 1, 2002 - REVISION MR. SABBY JONATHAN, 42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 102 in Palm Desert addressed the commission. He noted that the commission heard his comments at the last meeting so he would try to be brief. He thought the project was a wonderful use of that particular site. His only objection was with regard to his specific lot. He is one of the nine and they believed that they have certain entitlements under the County including the location of the homesite(s) and a few other entitlements. The concern was that those entitlements would be lost as a result of being annexed into the city and having the zone changed to Hillside Planned Residential. That was the sum total of his concerns. He thanked the commission. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in FAVOR or the project. There was no one. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in OPPOSITION. MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI, 75-090 St. Charles Place, Suite A in Palm Desert addressed the commission. He stated that there were several problems they have as property owners and as the developer of the first four parcels they see that were closest to the section line. He said they had a very good meeting with Mr. Lennon today and there were several areas they thought they would explore, but they would have to explore them with the City. The problem with this preannexation agreement, there was no annexation agreement with the property owners of the nine lots; it was just with the Crest. The nine lots were just something the City said, "Gee, let's take these lots and bring them in." The City had not talked to them; they sent them a letter saying they wanted to annex their property and when they do, they would become part of the Hillside Ordinance. Well, there was no guarantee that Hillside Ordinance would let anybody build a lot unless they did a complete topo on their property and that would be a big cost to the property owner just to see what the Hillside Ordinance did to him and he did not have time to do that because the commission was ready to vote today. The City, the City Council, they had no idea what they had in mind. The problem there is the City has not met with the nine property owners, hasn't gone over anything with these nine property owners, hasn't shown them exactly what the annexation to the city would really mean and, therefore, it was really just a land grab on the part of the City to take in the nine lots and they would go from there. That was not really fair 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ,,,T OCTOBER 1, 2002 i SUBJECT II fut I REVISION until there was some type of preannexation agreement for the property owners of the nine lots. He said they explored that with Mr. Lennon today and he said he would be in favor of working with the City and working this out. So he would like the commission to leave the nine lots out at this time until something was worked out so that the nine lot owners knew they weren't getting stiffed somehow or if something was being taken away from them that they had under the County that they would not get under the City. Mr. Ricciardi said that he wrote a letter to Mr. Smith stating that as one of the original developers there, they got their easement from the wash all the way up to the four first parcels there, approved through the City. He stated that he had to write an EIR and do everything and get that approved. He said that Mr. Drell was well aware of that. So they wanted to make sure in this preannexation agreement that the rights under that easement that they have would be allowed and nothing would be taken away from them there either. So he would like to see this once again tabled for another two weeks so that the City would meet with the nine property owners (nine parcels but only seven property owners) to go through this and do it properly. Take the time to do it right so they didn't have nine property owners that were tremendously upset with the City because this was being rushed. No one from the City as far as he could see was looking out after the interests at all of these nine property owners. Mr. Lennon didn't need those nine parcels to do his development. He didn't need them at all, so the commission could approve the project and just eliminate the nine parcels entirely and his development would not change all. That was really why they would like the commission to table it or just take the nine lots out at this time and address the nine property owners and do them separately, which he thought would be correct thing to do. At least take a couple of weeks, have the City meet with the nine property owners and have the City tell them what is really going on so that the nine property owners could get some level of assurance here that it wasn't just a land grab on the part of the City to do away with the hillside properties looking down on the city. He requested that the commission do that for them. MR. RUSSELL DAVIS, 45-660 Paseo Coronado in Indian Wells, stated that he was one of the property owners of the nine lots. He said there 12 MINUTES r=�^IST7z- PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1M SUBJECT � t OCTOBER 1, 2002 � REVISION wasn't much more that he could add other than he did like the Crest and thought it was a great project. He likes Palm Desert; it is a great city. But thanks, but no thanks at the present time if they wanted to include them in. What they were doing was restricting their rights and taking property away from them. He said they should understand that if a city, any municipality, takes property they have to compensate the people for taking it. He said this was a taking when they changed their zoning from very low density residential to hillside planned residential. They couldn't do what they wanted to do before. There was really no reason for the City to want to include those nine lots other than to restrict the building on those nine lots. He said they would like to see the Crest, but they wanted to see their property kept as it is. If the City wanted to bring them in, they would like an agreement that the zoning would stay the same. If that couldn't be done, he was requesting the Planning Commission to reject only the inclusion of the nine lots into the city. He thanked the commission. MS. CAROL ROBINSON, 72-459 Desert Flower Drive in the Sommerset community addressed the commission. She said she would like to correct these gentlemen. She didn't know who they spoke with who has anything to do with Sommerset, but their Homeowners Association had not had a meeting regarding this, has not spoken to its residents or communicated with them in any way and did not speak for them. She asked whatever happened to no hillside development. It seemed to her that all of them, all the people in power, had already decided that they were going to do this development, but asked what it would bring them. She could kind of understand what it brought Mr. Lennon and the other people of this development, but she wanted to know what it brought to the City. If they stepped outside of this building right now and looked upon the hill they would see a cross. That cross was where all of this would take place. That could be seen from the entire desert. Palm Desert's seal has an empty mountain on it. They were going to have to change the seal and put development up there. She asked why they wanted this. She stated that they don't need another golf course and it was only for a few people and they were going to put timeshares on it? She asked what they were thinking. What happened to the desert as we had it? If nothing else, she asked if they could please wait until the residents were back here. At Sommerset probably two-thirds of their people were gone now. They weren't even around and would return and 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 4 5'MITI' illiSUBJECT Tt. si Is%i .: - REVISION all this would have already been decided for them. She said she would like to know from someone why this was a good thing for the city of Palm Desert. She said she felt they had already decided they were going to do this, but she thought it was very sad for the city if they did. She thanked the commission. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone else wished to speak. Chairperson Finerty closed the public hearing, but asked if Mr. Lennon wished to make rebuttal comments. Mr. Drell said he could make some clarifications relative to some of the comments. Chairperson Finerty asked if Mr. Lennon wished to comment. Mr. Lennon said no. Mr. Drell stated he would address the comments on the nine lots and what the likely result would be. One, the action before the commission was not the annexation of those nine lots. The action of the Planning Commission was the designation of what zoning would occur if those nine lots were annexed to the city. The initiation of the annexation itself would not occur at the City Council level and the actual approval or disapproval of the action on that annexation would occur at an independent body called LAFCO, (Local Agency Formation Commission) that meets in Riverside. The annexation to the city in no way impacts any existing private access easements or any relationship those properties have with the public utility, private utility or any utility, nor did it in any way effect the development rights conferred on those properties as original homesteads. Under the City ordinance, every existing parcel could have a house built on it and any access which was conferred to those parcels by the Homestead Act were not effected or could not be effected by our zoning or annexation to the city. So none of those issues regarding the rights conferred on those homestead parcels were effected by the annexation to the city. He said we do have more rigorous development and design review standards for hillside development. Palm Desert allows hillside development. Palm Desert as a matter of law must allow economic use of every parcel in the city. If we prohibit all use, we would have to come with a checkbook and buy it. He said the City is buying parcels and trying to buy parcels and actually made an effort to buy this parcel. We just didn't have the $12 million it was going to cost. So the City's ordinances have always allowed development of parcels and as the gentleman pointed out, these were development rights that were conferred by the U.S. Government when the property was granted for a lot of these parcels and, therefore, the City couldn't take those away. The City does have a right to zone. Our obligation is to provide economic use of the property and allowing at least one unit of development on each parcel provides that economic use. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 SUBJECT TC 4" REVISION Mr. Smith said he had a comment for the record regarding the pad height on the tentative map relative to the maintenance building. There was a memo from the engineer and it would be eight feet lower than what was shown on the tentative map which the commission had before them. Chairperson Finerty thanked everyone for coming out and expressing their concerns, which was very important. She believed that this project was not only beautiful, but it was put together by an environmentally sensitive gentleman, Mr. Lennon. She appreciated his approach in dotting the l's and dotting the is and meeting with everyone he needed to meet with and trying to address the concerns. She understood the concerns about being annexed. As Mr. Drell explained, all the City would be doing was prezoning for a possible annexation in the future. They weren't the body that decides upon annexations. But she did say that Palm Desert does have more rigorous design standards than the County, but she believed that was a good thing. She was a little concerned about why there was a hesitancy to be annexed into the city upholding those high standards. She was in favor of the project and felt it would be an asset to the city. There had been many projects before them for this particular area and this was by the best. She appreciated the lengths Mr. Lennon and his team had gone to, to try and please everyone and address those concerns. Commissioner Campbell concurred. This project had been before them two times and in comparison this project was very very low density and they would have quite a bit of open space. Since the low density would only be from 44 to 60 homes, they would be nicely camouflaged on the mountainside and she didn't not think they would be very obstructive to anyone's view from those living in Sommerset or anywhere else. It would be more pleasing to the eye then some of the existing structures presently on the hillside. Looking at Mr. Lennon's other projects such as the Reserve, they wouldn't even think that any areas had been disturbed on the mountainside. It was very beautifully done and she thought they should be very happy to have a project like this in our city. She was in favor of the project. Commissioner Lopez thanked the individuals that spoke this evening and those at the previous meeting. He said the commission appreciated their comments and input and their passion for this particular project. He noted that it was a very aggressive program and one that he thought personally had the very best use of the property that was there. Having been a resident here for 20 years 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 DRAFT_ SUBJECT T( and watching the development and growth of our community, he had been in the area at a homesteader's for a cook out on evening and looking out over the valley was quite beautiful. And there was no where near the development that there was currently now in the Cahuilla Hills. So the growth had been not only in the Palm Desert area, but also up into the hills. And done very well. He thought there had been discretion used in the ability for growth to occur in that area and in this particular case, it was a great use of the property. The developer has done a great job in communicating with the homeowners in Sommerset and he wanted that to continue during the course of development and would appreciate it if they would keep an open ear to those individuals that have concerns regarding anything from noise to anything else that relates to the development of the program. There needed to be an open line of communication, perhaps even a direct line available for those homeowners in that area to communicate to someone so that they know they can get an answer to a question as the development progresses through its construction. He thought the mutual agreement with the trails for hiking in the area was very important and they wanted to keep those areas open even though at times they were in jeopardy of closing for whatever reasons there might be regarding the environment or conditions regarding rain or lack of moisture in the area and a fire hazard. Commissioner Lopez indicated that the annexation of the nine lots, they had four of the seven owners come forward tonight to speak in concern of that. He stated that he was very concerned regarding that. He didn't disagree, but there were rights that needed to be listened to and upheld. He thought that at this particular meeting and with this particular document, it did not preclude that from occurring. He thought the conversation between the land owners and the City and the agreements, etc., should continue and he didn't think that should be something that would jeopardize their ability to build, their ability to get to their property, and he surely wouldn't want to see something in the future where they were landlocked. Commissioner Lopez stated that the project overall being back in that valley, and he had driven back there, he thought it was a better use of the land than it was currently being used. He saw a lot of empty beer bottles, a lot of tracks from four-wheel vehicles, and it looked like it could be a hang out for a lot of the youth in that area and he did not think that was the right use of that property. And those that live in the hills probably heard it once in a while. He thought it was a much better use and once the project was finished, in the evening there would be virtually nothing they would see in the way of lights and the golf course was pretty much dark, so it would still be absolutely gorgeous in the evening. He was also in favor of the project. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 ,° :3, k ;;':` SUBJECT Tt ' " REVISION Commissioner Tschopp thought that the applicant had taken a very sensitive piece of land and by proposing a low density development it would not adversely effect the wildlife nor would it adversely the residents of the city of Palm Desert. He thought it would in fact be a wonderful addition to the city. The property is adjacent to the city. It's contiguous to other development. In some ways the concerns expressed for the wildlife in the area would be mitigated to a great degree and perhaps even be enhanced in some ways in that it would provide a buffer between the current/existing development there now. The applicant limited the hillside development within the project to a very minimal amount, something the City has always held to be a high priority. There had been a huge reduction in potential land use density. Back in 1992 they had an approval for 209 homes. The 44 to 60 was a huge reduction and the way it was tucked into the land up there would not create any additional visual, noise or other problems that other large developments might. In fact, some of the contiguous property owners excluding the nine who own the parcels right next door, their bigger concerns might be with the nine other parcels because as this project is proposed, it would not have as adverse an affect on Sommerset and some of the other developments as the potential could be for the other nine contiguous parcels that could develop under County standards at this time. Although he understood the concerns of the nine adjacent property owners, they did have their day to speak to the individuals and the agencies involved in the annexation and he encouraged them to do so to protect some of their rights, but for the city of Palm Desert and the residents that live in that area, he thought those lots would be better off in the city under the higher standards that the City imposes as opposed to the County. They just needed to drive around Palm Desert to see where county zoning laws were applied and where city zoning laws were applied and they knew the difference in the standards. The project was environmentally friendly, sensitive to the nature habitat. It would not impact schools; he didn't envision a lot of these golfers taking their kids to local schools. Traffic would not be impacted and the noise and visibility would be very low. The hiking trail continuance and so forth was exactly the goals the City has. So he thought the developer had done an exemplary job on a very sensitive piece of property and thought that the City would be very proud once the project was built and part of the city. Chairperson Finerty asked for a motion to approve the findings. Commissioner Campbell made that motion. Commissioner Lopez asked about the topics brought up this evening that needed to be corrected or added. Mr. Smith said 17 • MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 urMrSUBJECT Tt 1. REVISION those would be in minutes and the commission could just indicate as amended. Commissioner Lopez said he would second the motion with those items as amended. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2155, recommending to the City Council approval of a general plan amendment and prezoning designation of open space, a tentative tract map, precise plan and conditional use permit for a 44-lot residential village, 18-hole golf course and clubhouse, and certification of a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report as it relates to "The Crest", Case Nos. GPA 02-01 , C/Z 02-01 , TT 30438 and PP/CUP 02-03, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2156, recommending to the City Council approval of a development agreement relating to the project known as "The Crest" located on property in Section 25 T5S R5E and a portion of Section 31 T5S R6E as amended. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2157, recommending to the City Council approval of a general plan amendment from very low density residential to Hillside Planned Residential, a change of zone (prezoning) for purposes of annexation to Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates to nine lots in the northeast corner of Section 36 T5S R5E, Case Nos. GPA 02-01 and C/Z 02-01 . Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). 18 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: September 17, 2002 CASE NOS: GPA 02-01 , C/Z 02-01 , TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 REQUEST: The applicant seeks a recommendation of approval to the City Council of: A. A general plan amendment from Open Space (O.S.) and Hillside Planned Residential to Open Space (O.S.) for the entire 640 acres and a change of zone to prezone the entire 640 acres Open Space (O.S.) as it relates to Section 25 T5S R6E. B. A general plan amendment from very low density residential to Hillside Planned Residential and a change of zone to prezone Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) for nine lots in the northeast corner of Section 36. C. A tentative tract map and precise plan / conditional use permit for an 18-hole golf course, driving range, comfort station and open pavilion located on 221 +/- acres in the southeast corner of Section 25 T5S R5E (remainder of Section 25 to be dedicated open space) and a residential village (44 lots), clubhouse and maintenance facility located on 59 +/- acres in the northwest corner of Section 31 T5S R6E. D. Certification of Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project. APPLICANT: Destination Development Corporation 74-001 Reserve Drive Indian Wells, CA 92210 City of Palm Desert (Re: Property in Section 36) STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 BACKGROUND: A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION / LOCATION: The project is an exclusive gate guarded residential village and golf course comprising 44 single family lots, a 15,000 square foot clubhouse and 18-hole golf course located west of Highway 74 with access from a new road across the Palm Valley Channel opposite Homestead Road. The project involves 734 acres of land of which 675 acres are currently outside the city limits. The golf course will occupy some 221 of 640 acres in Section 25 (Area "A") (outside the city) and the residential village, clubhouse and maintenance facility will occupy 59 acres (Area "C") presently in the city. A driveway will connect the residential village/clubhouse area to the golf course and will follow an existing graded road / easement which crosses the five-acre lot at the northeast corner of Section 36 (Area "B") currently not in the city. As a general rule it is prudent to have all of a development (including connecting driveways) under one governmental jurisdiction. In area "B" a ravine traverses from northwest to northeast. If it decided to annex any property in Section 36 then it makes sense to establish the city limit at a natural physical delineator (i.e., ravine). This area "B" then comprises nine lots with a total area of 33.3 acres. B. PROCESS: The project can be divided into two steps for processing purposes. Step 1 : In order to annex areas "A" and "B" into the city we must amend the General Plan to be consistent with the project and topography and then prezone these areas consistent with the General Plan. Step 2: Approval of the tentative tract map and precise plan / conditional use permit for the golf course, clubhouse and 44 residential lots. 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01 , TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 C. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Area "A" is a vacant bowl shaped area (640 acres) west of the ridge that has a cross marking the top. This area is east of the first significant rise of the Santa Rosa Mountains. This area contains several low ridges and is occasionally bisected by steep canyons. This bowl shaped area is generally not visible from the valley floor. This area is also intersected by Ramon Creek. Area "B" comprises the nine vacant lots in Section 36. This area is bounded in the south by the Bruce Creek ravine. This area is also comprised of steep areas and flatter alluvial areas. Area "C" is comprised of a vacant area of small desert washes and the foothills of the lower reaches of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The area is bounded on the east by the Palm Valley Storm Channel and the Sommerset residential community. D. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: ZONING LAND USE North HPR Vacant West County Vacant South and East PR-8 Residential Condos E. GENERAL PLAN / ZONING: HPR / HPR. F. PROJECT HISTORY: Development of this property has been before Planning Commission since 1992. Originally 209 single family dwellings were proposed on 695 +/- acres. An EIR was prepared on the 209 unit project and certified in November 1992. An amended 104 unit development plan was approved at that time. In 1995 an amended proposal for 151 units was presented. June 20, 1 995 the Planning Commission recommended approval on a 4-0 vote. 3 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 This plan included 137 estate lots in the upper bowl area where the golf course is currently proposed. This project was considered at several City Council meetings in late 1997 and early 1998. On February 27, 1998 City Council by minute motion declined to annex the area and tabled action on the prezone and project. II. GENERAL PLAN AND PREZONING: Area "A" is currently general planned HPR (Hillside Planned Residential) and O.S. (Open Space). The applicant proposes to amend the general plan land use to O.S. (Open Space) for the entire section (640 acres). Consistent with this designation the applicant proposes to prezone the entire area Open Space (O.S.). The open space district is intended to provide areas reserved for parks, public or private recreation, open space and governmental public uses. The open space designation and prezoning will preclude residential development but would allow a private golf course subject to a conditional use permit. Area "B" is currently general planned "very low density residential" (one to three dwelling units per acre). Due to the slope conditions in this area being greater than 10%, it is proposed that the general plan and zoning be changed to HPR (Hillside Planned Residential) and that the nine lots be prezoned HPR. This would permit residential development of at least one unit per five-acre parcel. The proposed general plan amendments and prezonings to Open Space and Hillside Planned Residential are consistent with the City's goals of preserving to the greatest extent possible the hillside areas. The density of development on the nine lots in Section 36 will be consistent with the current County zoning (i.e., one unit per five acres). III. PRECISE PLAN / CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / TENTATIVE TRACT MAP: The project is a gate guarded residential village and 18 hole golf course with clubhouse and accessory facilities (i.e., parking lot and maintenance area). A. PROJECT ACCESS: The entry to the site is proposed at an intersection with Highway 74 opposite Homestead Road via a bridge over the Palm Valley Channel. 4 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 A dirt road which extends westerly through the residential village will provide access to the golf course. This dirt road will be paved and widened. The road is in a canyon which reduces its visual impacts associated with its construction. In addition, staff has inserted a condition which requires that the road be finished with a durable dust free surface with color to blend with the hillside. The tentative tract map shows a secondary fire access at the south limit of the residential village connecting to the CVWD access road. B. PROJECT LAYOUT: The tentative map / precise plan of design shows a 221-acre 18-hole golf course in the lower southeast corner of Area "A." This golf course will be enclosed by a wrought iron fence to keep the bighorn sheep in the natural open space area to the north and west. The remaining 421 acres of this section will be dedicated open space. It should be noted that not all of the 221 golf course acres will be disturbed. The golf course architect is committed to minimizing disturbance and to making the artificial features indistinguishable from nature itself. The golf course will be served by the paved access road mentioned in (A) above. The golf course facility will include a practice facility, equipment and cart storage, starter house, comfort stations and an open air pavilion. On the lower 59-acre (Area "C") property, a maintenance facility, 15,000 square foot clubhouse and 44 single family dwelling lots are proposed. The residential lots range in size from 6,760 square feet to 36,760 square feet. Homes on these lots will range in size from 1 ,500 square feet to 2,700 square feet. The clubhouse has been designed to blend into the desert hills with the use of natural stone, smooth sand, plaster and other natural materials. Adobe walls and a stone-tiled roof complete the facility. The residential units (Bahatas) have been designed to blend into the canyons and ridges in a manner similar to the clubhouse. 5 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 C. PROJECT DENSITY: Area "C," where the residential village and clubhouse are proposed, is currently zoned HPR. Density of development in the HPR zone is determined based in average slope. According to slope analysis performed as part of previous projects, this area has an average slope of 30.4% which would permit 23 units (i.e., two units per five acres). The 640 acres in Section 25 (Area "A") are eligible for HPR zoning which would permit development at a minimum of one unit per five acres (128 units). In order to assure the City that the area will be open space in perpetuity, the applicant proposed to general plan and prezone the entire section open space. Under these circumstances the HPR zone allows for the density to be transferred to cluster the development on the lower, less environmentally sensitive lands. D. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: The plans were reviewed by ARC at its meeting of May 28, 2002 and endorsed its general concept. ARC will review actual building and landscape plans when they are available. ARC was supportive of the design elements and the large amount of natural landscape material proposed to be used. PROJECT DATA Project Code Requirement* Site Area 700 +/- acres N/A Maximum Units 44 140 minimum Residential Setbacks: Front 20 feet Rear 10 feet Sides 5 feet each side Parking 2 covered spaces/unit 2 covered spaces / unit Height 24 feet max. 2 stories 6 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 Project Code Requirement* Clubhouse Setbacks: Front (east) 600+ feet to channel Rear (west) 1 ,000+ feet Sides (south) 260 feet (north) 440 feet Parking 141 spaces ** expandable to 180 Height 16 feet to 26 feet Maintenance Building: Front (east) N/A Rear (west) N/A Sides (north 24 feet (south) 1 ,000+ feet Parking 28 spaces * * Height 18 feet maximum * In the HPR zone development standards are as approved by the Planning Commission in a public hearing. * * Parking at the clubhouse needs to provide for golfers, diners and employees. Code standards for a golf course is five spaces per hole (90 spaces). It is expected that this private course will have fewer rounds of golf and hence need fewer spaces. Also, 44 of the members will reside in the village and would drive their own cart to the course. In the clubhouse the main areas needing additional parking will be the dining room and lounge (3,000 square feet) which has a parking requirement of 30 spaces and employees. The applicant advises that the clubhouse would have approximately 25 employees on-site at any one time for a total of 145 requires spaces. The plan shows 141 spaces. The applicant notes that they are reviewing the parking layout in this area and have a plan which provides 180 spaces. At the maintenance facility the plan shows 28 spaces. The applicant advises that the golf course will employ 25 persons. 7 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 E. AREAS OF CONCERN: Bob Ricciardi, representing the interests of four of the nine property owners in Section 36 (Area "B") has written requesting that a condition be imposed as follows: That the applicant "(Crest Country Club) shall honor all legal easements through its properties and prior agreements and will work with the adjacent homeowners association." In his letter Mr. Ricciardi refers to the road easement which was established in 1982 and a 1990 agreement which was negotiated with Miller-Richards Limited Partnership (the previous applicant in 1992 and 1995) to bring power, sewer and water to the "association" lots. Generally the City is reluctant to become involved in civil matters between property owners. In this instance these lots have been provided with access easements along the perimeter of the lots southerly to the Cahuilla Hills neighborhood and out to Highway 74. The access easement documents may provide access for these lots through the Crest. In either case access is provided. The provision of utilities is a matter between the property owners and the various utilities. Other than requiring utilities to be underground, the City is not involved. A letter was received from the Lesters (copy enclosed) who own a unit in Sommerset. They express concern with: 1 . The location of maintenance facilities. 2. The possibility of locating the golf course where the residential village is proposed. 3. Construction in the southerly end of the site. 4. That the building blend in with the mountain. 5. That the structures be no more than two stories and that plants not obscure their view of the mountain. 8 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 RESPONSE: 1 . The maintenance facility is located at the northern limit of the site. 2. The residential village has been located on the lower, less environmentally sensitive property. 3. Construction in the southern end of the site is limited to dwellings. 4. All buildings have been designed to blend in with the natural environment. 5. The residences are limited to two stories, 24 feet in height. 6. A natural desert landscape pallet will be allowed. This will include native trees. A letter was received from Nancy De Santo of Painted Canyon Road expressing concern that there not be a fire access from The Crest through the Cahuilla Hills community and the location of the maintenance facilities. RESPONSE: 1 . There is no fire access from The Crest project into Cahuilla Hills area. 2. The maintenance facility is located west of the storm channel at the north limit of the site. F. TRAILS: The City is pursuing the construction of hiking trails to connect Homme Park with the Cahuilla Hills trail system. Access through or around The Crest property is needed. Condition No. 14 requires that the applicant grant a trail easement around or through the east and south sides of The Crest in a location satisfactory to the Director of Community Development. 9 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 G. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified for this property in 1992. For this project a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) has been prepared. The SEIR has identified impacts associated with the project and proposes mitigations. The SEIR concludes that all impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The most controversial issue to be identified in the SEIR involves impacts on the habitat area of the peninsular bighorn sheep and the desert tortoise. The applicant proposes to mitigate this impact through dedication of open space easements at a ratio of two acres for each acre of the utilized area. The applicant proposes to convey via easement or dedication 400 +/- acres of hillside open space plus 480 +/- acres of offsite bighorn habitat land plus 30 +/- acres of offsite dry desert wash for a total of 910 +/- acres. Utilized area in the project amounts to 280 +/- acres (golf course 221 acres and residential village 59 acres). Staff has conditioned that these open space areas be dedicated to the City of Palm Desert or other agencies as assigned for open space purposes. The SEIR consultant has responded to all comments received on the SEIR as of the writing of this report and will be available to answer questions pertaining to the SEIR and its process. With respect to the 33.3 acres in the northeast corner of Section 36 a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was prepared. That project (i.e., prezoning and annexation to the city) will not result in significant impacts to the environment since the proposed designations do not represent a significant change from County zoning. Staff recommends that Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the SEIR for the Crest project be certified and that Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the project area in Section 36 (Area "B") be approved. IV. CONCLUSION: The current project is superior to any of the previous plans which had significant development in Section 25. The most recent plan had 137 dwellings in the area 10 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 where the golf course is currently proposed. The golf course architect is committed to blending the golf course into the natural surroundings. The tract map notes that the golf course area impacts 221 acres. Of this area more than 95 acres will be undisturbed. Turfed area will be approximately 100 acres. The residential village and clubhouse will blend into the existing natural environment. The project will result in 645 acres of dedicated natural open space. V. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of GPA 02-01 , C/Z 02-01 , TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 subject to conditions, certification of the SEIR for The Crest project and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates to the general plan amendment and change of zone for the nine lots in Section 36 (Area "B"). VI. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolutions B. Legal notice C. Comments from city departments and other agencies D. Plans and exhibits E. Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (delivered 09/06/02) Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by: Steve Smith Phil Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development /tm 11 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: October 1 , 2002 continued from September 17, 2002 CASE NOS: GPA 02-01 , C/Z 02-01 , TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 REQUEST: The applicant seeks a recommendation of approval to the City Council of: A. A general plan amendment from Open Space (O.S.) and Hillside Planned Residential to Open Space (O.S.) for the entire 640 acres and a change of zone to prezone the entire 640 acres Open Space (O.S.) as it relates to Section 25 T5S R6E. B. A general plan amendment from very low density residential to Hillside Planned Residential and a change of zone to prezone Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) for nine lots in the northeast corner of Section 36. C. A tentative tract map and precise plan / conditional use permit for an 18-hole golf course, driving range, comfort station and open pavilion located on 221 +/- acres in the southeast corner of Section 25 T5S R5E (remainder of Section 25 to be dedicated open space) and a -esidential village (44 lots), clubhouse and maintenance facility located on 59 +/- acres in the northwest corner of Section 31 T5S R6E. D. Certification of Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project. APPLICANT: Destination Development Corporation 74-001 Reserve Drive Indian Wells, CA 92210 City of Palm Desert (Re: Property in Section 36) STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 02-01 , C/Z 02-01, TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 OCTOBER 1 , 2002 BACKGROUND: This matter was continued from the commission meeting of September 17, 2002, in order to allow for a legal notice to be published and circulated on the development agreement and allow for further discussion of issues raised at the public hearing. II. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 1 . The Department of Fish and Game has submitted a letter dated September 25, 2002 (copy enclosed) indicating that the mitigation measures included in the final EIR are satisfactory. 2. The EIR consultant has prepared additional responses to the written comments received from the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club (see attached memo dated September 23, 2002). 3. The EIR consultant has also provided updated information on The Crest project which should be incorporated into the staff report (see attached memo dated September 25, 2002). The changed noted in the memo are hereby incorporated into the September 17, 2002 report by reference and will be inserted into the report when referred to the City Council. 4. On September 26, 2002 a meeting was held with the applicant and representatives of the Sommerset community. The outcome of this meeting will be reported at the commission meeting on Tuesday. III. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of GPA 02-01 , C/Z 02-01 , TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 subject to conditions, certification of the SEIR for The Crest project and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates to the general plan amendment and change of zone for the nine lots in Section 36 (Area "B"). IV. ATTACHMENTS: A. Copy of Staff Report dated September 1 7, 2002 B. Letter from John D. Criste dated September 23, 2002 C. Letter from Department of Fish and Game dated September 25, 2002 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 OCTOBER 1 , 2002 D. Letter from John D. Criste dated September 23, 2002 regarding Staff Report changes E. Letter from Isle M. Richards Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by: Steve Smith Phil Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development /tm 3 MEMORANDUM Date: September 23,2002 To: Planning Commission,City of Palm Desert From: John D. Criste,AICP, T Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. Subject: Crest Golf Club & Residential Village -Responses to Comment Letters Front The Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club The Planning Commission is considering several items associated with the Crest Golf Club and Residential Village project. These include a Tentative Tract Map, Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit, General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, Development Agreement and Annexation. The Planning Commission is also reviewing a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. At the Commission's public hearing on September 17, 2002, the Commission received two letters, one from the Sierra Club (Club) and another from the Center for Biological Diversity (Center) with both dated September 17th. The Commission should be aware that the Sierra Club and the Center were both sent copies of the Notice of Preparation of the Subsequent EIR but neither group provided comment or input. Both groups were also sent copies of the Draft SEIR but even with an extended time frame within which to provide comments, neither group provided comments. The purpose of this memorandum is to review the comments made by the Sierra Club and the Center in their September 17, 2002 letters, and to provide information that is responsive to the concerns raised. LETTER FROM THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY: 9.17.02 Responsiveness to California Department of Fish and Game Concerns Reference is made to the Draft SEIR comment letter submitted by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). As set forth in the Final SEIR response to comments to the CDFG letter, each and every concern raised by Fish and Game was addressed in detail. These responses were based upon close and on-going consultation and field visits with Fish and Game, as well as the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The mitigation measures set forth in the Draft and Final SEIR will serve as the basis for the Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit and the California Department of Fish and Game Section 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement, both of which are in process. Minor refinements to the project (placement of 2nd seep outside golf course fence and minor amendment to a proposed public trail alignment) description have been requested and are now under way. Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert/Memo/Page 2 Crest Golf Club & Residential Village/9.23.02 Draft SEIR Violates State and Federal Law The Center's letter says that they feel strongly that approval of the Draft SEIR will violate state and federal law. However, nowhere in this letters is the nature of this violation cited. We believe that this comment has no basis in fact. Finally, the Center states that approval of the project and "other big developments" within critical habitat will further impede recovery of the bighorn sheep, and will force conservation groups to pursue relief in the courts. The subject property is privately owned land with a demonstrated potential for development. The Center is correct that the proposed development is located within critical habitat for the sheep. However, the conclusions reached in the environmental review process, including numerous surveys by consulting biologists, as well as biologists and resource managers from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game, agree that the proposed project's impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance through the measures set forth in the Draft and Final SEIR. SIERRA CLUB- SAN GORGONIO CHAPTER: 9.17.02 Impacts to Bighorn Sheep Habitat The Club's letter references the loss of habitat as a major factor in the continued decline of the sheep. The loss of habitat in the Santa Rosa and St. Jacinto Mountains has taken many forms associated with encroachment by urban development. Based upon the assessments conducted for the Crest project, the subject property and its habitat have already been significantly impacted by adjoining and nearby development. The development site, including Section 25 has and continues to be impacted by extensive off-highway vehicle use, roaming of domestic pets, trail and cross-country hiking, and noise and light from vehicles and barking dogs in the adjoining Cahuilla Hills neighborhood. The proposed project, and especially the golf course component planned for the southeast quadrant of Section 25, would result in the fencing in of approximately 240± acres, with the balance of the site (400± acres) to be put into permanent conservation. The proposed fence will exclude sheep but more importantly the fence will preclude the domestic pets, off-highway vehicle use and intrusive trail and cross-country disturbances that currently impact the most viable habitat in Section 25. The golf course component, as refined through consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and CDFG, does not constitute a meaningful incursion into or fragmentation of viable sheep habitat. Rather the course and its fence exclude the adverse level of human activity, which has pushed sheep off most of Section 25 and limited their on-site activity to very occasional use of the highest terrain in the northwestern portion of the site (please see telemetry data in Appendix D of the Draft SEIR). Isolating the 400± conservation acres with private golf and sheep fencing from the adverse effects associated with the adjoining residential neighborhood is expected to enhance sheep use of Section 25. Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert/Memo/Page 3 Crest Golf Club &Residential Village/9.23.02 Impacts to Bruce and Ramon Creeks Both Bruce and Ramon Creeks occur within and pass through portions of the proposed golf course. Within Section 25,both creeks cut through bedrock and have little or no sand or typical wash woodland vegetation. Limited impacts to these creeks will occur through the construction of on-site water features and stormwater facilities. These have been delineated in application materials, which have also been reviewed by the resources agencies, and impacts have been quantified in the SEIR. Mitigation measures set forth in the Draft and Final SEIR, which were developed in consultation with the FWS and CDFG, mitigate potential impacts to dry wash woodlands to less than significant levels. Furthermore, the Draft and Final SEIR are serving as the basis for the Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit and the California Department of Fish and Game Section 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement, both of which are in process. Two On-Site Seeps As discussed in the Draft and Final SEIR, and as described in the Biological Assessment prepared for this project (see Appendix D of the SEIR), the biological resource surveys conducted on this site included detailed surveys of the seeps and surrounding lands. There was no evidence of sheep using either seep. Both seeps lacked surface water, and the upper seep is infested with fountain grass. Biological consultations and bighorn specialists indicated that the proximity of the seeps, especially the lower seep, to residential development in the Cahuilla Hills neighborhood deter sheep from using the seeps. Concern was also expressed regarding the threats to sheep associated with the adjoining residential development and the possible appropriateness of placing the lower seep within the golf course fence. Subsequent consultations with CDFG and FWS indicate the agencies' preference for both seeps to be located outside the golf course fence. The fence will accordingly be pulled back in an easterly direction. Mitigation measures set forth in the Draft SEIR require that exotic, invasive plant materials be removed from the seeps and that they be remediated in accordance with a plan to be approved by the CDFG and FWS. The westerly most seep will not be visible from the golf course but it does have views into the western portion of the Cahuilla Hills neighborhood, which may explain why no sheep sign were detected in this area. The lack of free water at both seeps may also explain why there is no indication of sheep use. The construction of the golf course and the sheep fence will exclude many of the urban disturbances that currently impact these areas. This protection from roaming pets, off- highway vehicles and other human intrusions should enhance the use of the seeps by foraging and nesting birds, and a variety of mammals. Given the proximity of the seeps to the Cahuilla Hills neighborhood, it is unlikely that sheep will use these sites. On-Site and Off-Site Mitigation Lands The Club letter references the mitigation lands described in the Draft SEIR. Based upon subsequent discussions and consultations with biologists from the California Department of Fish and Game and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the project proponent has agreed to purchase off-site sheep habitat at the rate of 2 to 1 for golf course lands in Section 25 encompassed within the aforementioned sheep exclusion fence, as well as for impacts to desert dry wash woodlands. Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert/Memo/Page 4 Crest Golf Club & Residential Village/9.23.02 Consultations with CDFG and FWS have directed the applicant to certain areas within the Santa Rosa Mountains where acceptable sheep habitat should be secured. Acreage has already been identified that has previously been found acceptable by the resource agencies to mitigate impacts to sheep and dry wash woodland habitats. These lands will be clearly described in the Army Corps 404 Permit and the CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement. In summary, the developer has agreed to protect and conserve approximately 400± acres of Section 25, in perpetuity, as wildlife habitat for bighorn sheep and other native species. In addition, the developer will secure another 480 acres of bighorn sheep habitat in the area, increasing total secured and protected sheep habitat to 880 acres. Project mitigation will also result in the protection of approximately 30 acres of desert dry wash woodland. The net result is the permanent protection of 920± acres of wildlife habitat for development which will utilize less than 300 acres, providing a better than 3 to 1 mitigation ratio. Sheep Exclusion Fence Effectiveness The Club letter asks how the sheep exclusion fence will keep sheep on the outside and avoid sheep being caught inside the fence. As designed and presented to the City and the resource agencies, the fence will be a continuous and complete enclosure, which will only be accessible through a gate to be located at the southeast corner of the enclosure. Habitat Modification and "Taking" Argument Finally, the Club letter characterizes the project, i.e. the golf course, as an adverse modification of critical habitat. As discussed above and in the Draft and Final SEIR prepared for the Crest project, most if not all of Section 25 has already been adversely modified by the full range of urban edge effects previously described. The net effect of the golf course project will be to preserve and protect most of these lands from these urban effects and should enhance conditions for expanded sheep use of lands within Section 25. No "take" of bighorn sheep, as defined by state or federal regulations, will occur from the approval and the development of the project as mitigated. Impacts to bighorn sheep identified in the Draft and Final SEIR are mitigated to a level that is less than significant. Summary A reasonable and objective assessment of the proposed Crest project, and the mitigation measures developed in concert with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game, should conclude that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on biological resources occurring within the project area. The potential benefits associated with the project are expected to promote the goals and objectives of the Bighorn Recovery Plan and the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. JDC/tic cc File STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS,Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 4.1571. Eastern Sierra &Inland Deserts Region , 4775 Bird Farm Rd.Chino Hills.CA91709 RECEIVED 7 Y ED (909) 597-5043 SEP Z 6 2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT 25 September, 2002 Mr. Phil Drell City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Drell: The California Department of Fish and Game (Department) has received the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and response to comments on the Crest Draft SEIR. The Department appreciates your incorporating our comments and recommendations into the Final SEIR. The Department is satisfied with the mitigation measures that have been incorporated and will continue to work with the City of Palm Desert and the project proponent in developing the Streambed Alteration Agreement for the project. Thank you for including us in the discussions. Please continue to coordinate with Mr. Eddy Konno, Associate Biologist, at (760) 771-0375. Sincerely, /: Glenn Black Senior Environmental Scientist Eastern Sierra — Inland Deserts Region cc: Guy Wagner, USFWS, Carlsbad Monroe, Tonya From: TNPRPS@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 9:13 AM To: ssmith@ci.palm-desert.ca.us Cc: tlennon@loweenterprises.com; bmunson@Ioweenterprises.com; nfarhat@loweenterprises.com Subject: Crest Ctr&Sierra Club Letters Response & Staff Report Matters Steve: I have completed my response memorandum to the two letters received from the Ctr. and the Sierra Club at the PC hearing on 9.17. Bill Munson and Ted Lennon are reviewing it and I hope to e-mail it to you this morning. Then you can go ahead and print it and include it in your staff report. As we discussed last week, there were a couple of details in the Crest staff report that needed to be corrected. I didn't get to them until now and I apologize. • The golf course planning area in Section 25 is 240± acres as set forth in the Final SEIR, rather than the 221 acres in the staff report. • Section 31 development is on a total holding of about 63± acres, rather than the 59 acres in the staff report • In addition to the SEIR, the beginning and other portions of the staff report should reference the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the GPA, CZ and Annexation actions (please see the EA) . • In the background discusson, the proposed SR 74 access drive is referenced as being opposite Homestead. The access drive is actually about 250 feet south of Homestead. • The Project description references the project involving 734 acres. The project actually encompasses 703± acres (640 plus 63) . • In section C, Property description, both Bruce and ramon Creeks pass through the golf course area. • Add OS to the General Plan and Zoning descriptors. • Under section II. General Plan and Prezoning: We had recommended and you did report on proposed development potential of 1 du/5ac for the nine Section 36 lots. We suggested HPR-5. Do you want to use this to be clear on the limitations of development on these lots? • In section III.B. : Project Layout, the first sentence should reference the golf course component at 240± acres rather than the 221 acres. Also, the remainder in the Section 25 should be 400± acres. • In section III.G: Environmental Impact, in addition to the SEIR references, this sections should also discuss the Mitigated negative Declaration that addresses the GPA, CZ and Annexation issues. • In section IV: Conclusions the golf course fencing will encompass 240± acres and the project will result in the dedication of 910± acres of on-site and off-site open space. Additional private open space will also result but is not technically mitigation. • Draft resolution: should reference the EA as well as the SEIR; and should also reference the annexation action. This one I'm not sure about because it looks like there are two resolutions; you know best how to address this. I hope the above is helpful and I apologize for the delay. Questions? Please call; I 'm here all day (320-9040) . Thanks 1 Wednesday,September 25,2002 3:09 To: PD PI Commission From:Desert Trails 568-0727 Page: 1 of 2 I4 H. Rzel.44 4 :ti :i•. ::•:i}:?: ::•:•:::ti}::{{v:v:ti:•:•:•:•:•:ti ::}:v:}.::{i•:•:•:•}:•::}::i:°:::•:.. :•:•:•:•:' {tititi:ti:titi}:i ::iiv.. :::tiff{•.ti..�.. ti•:�ti:. ..y. .,t 1V�1V,�'1�.1�.�.}71111�'1�t'�,�.111�.�71}}}.:•1.J{.1;;'1t1�.�t��,�.1�,�,}1.:•.{':,1y,.11�..}V,.,.,.:'�h.•:1,,.:ti.�1t11�.��11�.�.1�s,,11.}11�Y�11,�,1�,�,�11i1•,1}��•.ti•.%,�11,Sfi�SS; !'�'RkS,�SSH'kkRk:'S!_:t 72-316 Canyon Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 • Home Phone 760-568-0727 Email imr©netzero.net September 25, 2002 Palm Desert Planning Commission RE: Case# GPA 02-01, C/Z 02/02,TT 30438 and PP/CUP 02-03-Destination Development Corporation. Dear Council Members: I attended your meeting on September 17th and was sorely disappointed with the so-called outcome - well,to be determined in your words! I am representing, not only myself- having lived at Sommerset since 1979 (permanently since 1988) but also as a representative of DESERT TRAILS HIKING Club. The presentation from the developer we received was in my opinion at best a good sales pitch. Granted he is working with the"Environment". However I was up at the"Reserve" recently and hate to tell you that the hills are"sheered off"for building sites etc. IMO not a very pretty sight. The Environmentalists (i.e. Sierra Club, CHVC's representative, Idyl!wild) and homeowners from my area made up a pitiful handful, probably due to the fact that a lot of affected homeowners are not yet in the desert,to make you "hopefully" rethink. Alas, in dealing with agencies like yours, I have always been sorely disappointed as MONEY ALWAYS walks and well, you know the rest. Now as to representing myself, I guess my address speaks for itself. I remember quite well, when the so-called "flood channel"was put in without any meetings or consultations with us homeowners then - 2 years of dust, noise and earth movement - cracked tiles throughout the house as well as cracks in structure and concrete patios. Was anyone liable for fixing it then? NO, of course not - and I have an uneasy feeling this will be handled much the same way. Have yet to see water in the channel as it mainly serves for the drainage of pools and lakes for"Bighorn" above! As for the impact on our"view" it's definitely going to be dismal (clubhouse in front of me!). VIEW, that's what we bought in 1979 with extra $$$, the tranquillity of the surrounding hills, wildlife galore and now and very upset with the City of Palm Desert wanting to take that away. As to our hiking trails (Desert Trails hiking club) - this Valley was hailed as a hikers paradise - alas, we find out that government agencies put a definite stop to most of the hiking trails in the Valley during the season. Somehow ironic, as hikers don't disturb natural habitats of wildlife or take watering places/holes away - just passing through enjoying the scenery and wildlife along the way. On the other hand you! City of Palm Desert/Planning Commission will allow another development in the Received Sep-25-2002 03:08pm From-7605680727 To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 001 Wednesday,September 25,2002 3:09 To:PD PI Commission From:Desert Trails 568-0727 Page:2 of 2 hills encroaching on the"watering holes"of the Bighorn sheep? As someone at the meeting suggested we have enough golf-courses to give everyone of the Bighorn sheep its own! THINK ABOUT IT. By all means, I am not a proponent of the Bighorn sheep (the institute could get about 20k animals from Desert Hot Springs same strain only having been divided by the freeway(I-10) to our location over here In South PD, but then heck-they could lose their grants, donations (of which your esteemed guest spoke of donating X-amounts)therefore gaining Instant approval for the project. The BHS would be healthier if the constant in-breeding therefore weakening of their immune system,would stop. Furthermore I do NOT believe for one minute that the proposed 44 units will be able to sustain the expense of this development as well as the golf course without selling outside golf memberships and/or further development/approval of additional units in the hills. However, should this development be granted/approved by you, then I suggest you put in time restraints with heavy penalties to be paid to the city. (Any infringements/non-adherence should carry a penalty of minimum a $ 5,000.00 fine and up from there.) Here are some suggestions you should consider before granting the application and I am still hoping that you won't: 1: day/time limit to be put on construction. (Mon-Fri only! 8:00am - 6:00pm). No construction on weekends. 2: plenty of water trucks to cut down on the dust level for us homeowners adjacent to the site. 3: time limit on the whole construction ( let's say 1 1/2 years ). If extended then another heavy fine to be paid to the city per day of overage. 4: any damage done to our properties facing the construction site due to earth movement/blasting etc. to be borne by the developer. 5: No approval for any more home sites past the 44 proposed units in the future. 6: any blasting to be limited to a 3 month span only and then for 1 hour during the middle of the day. I will try to attend your next meeting on October 1st, however I would like this letter to be put before the board. In the meantime I hope that you will consider the pros and cons against this development and maybe bring it to a halt. Thanking you in advance for your consideration. U4 Rze Signature Received Sep-25-2002 03:08pm From-7605680727 To—PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 002 ethdia ./,)7-21 Sierra Club San Gorgonio Chapter Serving Riverside and San Bernardino Counties Tahquitz Group • Los Serranos Group "�► San Bernardino Mtns. Group • Mojave Group Moreno Valley Group September 17 , 2002 Reply to Jeff Morgan, 1485 Via Escuela, Palm Springs, CA 92262 Telephone # (760) 320-4610 Fax # (760) 322-3185. September 17 , 2002 Mr. Phil Drell, Community Development Director, and The City of Palm Desert Planning Commission. Palm Desert, CA 92260. Re: Crest Golf Club and Residential Village Project. Dear Mr. Drell and members of the Planning Commission, Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I have reviewed the draft subsequent environmental impact report on the above referenced proposed development. I am making these comments regarding this DSEIR on behalf of the Tahquitz Group of the Sierra Club. As you know, the Sierra Club has serious concerns regarding continuing development and the impact of such development on Peninsular bighorn sheep throughout their range and particularly in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains and especially in critical habitat that has been designated as such by the USFWS. The definition of critical habitat is that it is essential for the conservation, recovery and survival of the species. The importance of habitat conservation cannot be understated and it is recognized that loss of habitat is a major factor in the continued decline of peninsular bighorn sheep. Reference: CDFG, USFWS, The Recovery Plan for Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, The Santa Rosa Mountains Wildlife Habitat Management Plan (Sikes Act) and other data published referencing The Bighorn Institute. The development of the golf course portion of the project, specifically in Section 25, would result in an immediate and direct loss of designated critical habitat. Additionally it would cause a further fragmentation and incremental incursion into critical habitat that would, in effect, move the sheep up the hill and further away from areas that are currently used by the sheep. Both recent and historical data indicates usage of the site by peninsular bighorn. Recent telemetry data and observations have confirmed this usage. Printed on Recycled Paper. ...To explore, enjoy and preserve the nation's forests,waters,wildlife, and wilderness... C Om Both Bruce Creek and Ramon Creek will be severely impacted by the development of the golf course. The document fails to adequately determine the impacts to these streambeds or offer any satisfactory mitigation measures. Additionally there are two seeps on the site, both of which are considered to be water sources for peninsular bighorn sheep and other wildlife. The fencing of the site would exclude sheep completely from one of these seeps and, due to proximity to the fence and other disturbances by humans such as noise, light, vehicles, maintenance operations etc. would effectively preclude use of the other. The document addresses mitigation in only a vague and inconclusive manner. References to past (undocumented) and future consultations with various agencies is completely inadequate. Additionally the conservation easement on 390 acres and the acquisition/conservation of a further 250 acres and again 15 acres of dry desert wash is also inadequate. There are no specific details of where these off site conservation lands are located and no discussion of the quality of these lands in relation to suitable habitat for peninsular bighorn sheep. It should be noted that conservation easements cannot be considered mitigation as they only limit disturbance. The golf course portion of the project is proposed to be fenced. What will be done to keep the sheep on the right side of the fence. Does the proposal also include fencing the whole area outside the project boundaries at the mountain/urban interface which is probably the only way to prevent sheep becoming trapped. The development of the site would be an adverse modification of critical habitat for peninsular bighorn sheep and the mitigation measures proposed for the construction of the project are inadequate (Ref. letter from Glenn Black, CDFG, August 28 , 2002) and would in all likelihood result in a 'taking' due to increased disturbance and further loss of habitat. The Peninsular bighorn sheep is listed as endangered by the USFWS and as a fully protected threatened species by The State of California. State law prohibits the taking of a fully protected species. Sincerely, Jef rey Morgan, Vice Chair, Conservation Committee, Tahquitz Group, Sierra Club. � ` } RECEIVEDDESTINATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SEP 2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT September 20, 2002 Ms. Ashley Patterson do Amelia Earhart School 45-250 Dune Palms Road Indio, CA 92201 Dear Ms. Patterson, Thank you for taking the time to appear and voice the concerns of you and your students at the Palm Desert's Planning Commission meeting last Tuesday and to share your student's feelings regarding"habitat" destruction and The Crest project. I would like to offer to address your 4`h grade students and share some of my thoughts on this issue with them as well as giving them the opportunity to express their views. I believe it will be a positive, informative that further their the environment and the governmental process of pProvalfor proposed developments. My schedule is open Wednesday and Thursday of next week and I look forward to meeting you and your students. I may be reached through my Assistant Bonnie Keller at 779-1646.. Sincerely, Ted R. Le on Sr. Vice President Destination Development Corporation TRL/bkV cc: Vickie Barber Principal, Amelia Earhart School Cindy Finerty, Planning Commission 74.0001 Reserve Drive Indian Wells,California 92210 760-779-1646 Fax:760-779-1469 www.destinationhotels.com A Lowe Enterprises Company CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: October 1 , 2002 CASE NO: DA 02-01 as it relates to GPA 02-01 , C/Z 02-01 , TT 30438 and PP/CUP 02-03 (The Crest) REQUEST: Recommendation to the City Council of approval of a development agreement relating to the project known as The Crest located on property in Section 25 T5S R5E and a portion of Section 31 T5S R6E. APPLICANT: Destination Development Corp. 74-001 Reserve Drive Indian Wells, CA 92210 I. BACKGROUND: The subsequent environmental impact report, general plan amendment, prezoning, tentative tract map and precise plan/conditional use permit for The Crest project were considered at the September 17, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. These items were continued at that time to allow staff to notice the public hearing as it relates to a draft development agreement which was to be part of the package recommended to the City Council. Chapter 25.37 of the Municipal Code allows the City to enter into development agreements: The purpose of this chapter is to provide the city with greater control and flexibility in the evaluation of projects by tailoring development standards to the unique features of a particular site and linking them with specific development proposals and performance criteria. II. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT POINTS: The applicant seeks approval of a development agreement to secure rights to develop beyond those granted to typical approved projects in the zone. STAFF REPORT CASE NO. DA 02-01 OCTOBER 1, 2002 Specifically, the development agreement: A. Grants a 15-year period of approval with the clock starting 30 days after adopting of this agreement or the date the applicant acquires title to the property. The usual tentative map and precise plan have a two-year approval period. The longer period is warranted due to the complexity of this project and the various levels of government approvals required. B. Allows any or all of the residential units to be sold as up to four (4) fractional interests (timeshare). The time share ordinance requires various levels of commitment be demonstrated (i.e., 18-hole golf course, 500-room hotel and a minimum of 50 units in the program). This project includes an 18-hole golf course to be built in difficult mountainous terrain and in order to build in the mountains, the applicant must donate 910 acres of appropriate lands for open space. This level of commitment should warrant this exception to the remaining timeshare provisions subject to payment of all usual timeshare fees. C. Allows special setbacks and building heights in the project. Specifically the residential units will have the following setbacks: Residential Units: Front: 15 feet Rear: 10 feet Sides: 5 feet Height: 20 feet / two stories Clubhouse Height: 40 feet Typical residential lots of this size would have front setbacks of 15 feet, rear 15 feet, sides five feet minimum with a total of 14 feet. Heights for these two story units would be 24 feet. 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. DA 02-01 OCTOBER 1, 2002 The typical clubhouse height would be limited to 24 feet unless an exception was granted as has been done for several clubhouses. D. In the matter of project parking, the applicant proposes to provide two car parking spaces per unit, one of which is to be covered, one open, plus one covered golf cart space per unit. Typical residences provide two covered spaces per unit. E. Roads within the project will be between 16 and 20 feet in width. This width of street is acceptable given the limited traffic volumes, subject to acceptance by the Fire Marshal. F. Developer shall provide the City with trail easements around or through the south and east side to connect with the Cahuilla Hills trail system. This is consistent with Condition No. 14 of the draft resolution. The language in Section 203(5) of the agreement needs to be changed to read: (5) Trails Access/Easements: Developer shall grant necessary easements to City for public hiking and/or equestrian trails on the perimeter of the Site in areas designated by Developer and acceptable to the City, California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for such purpose, allowing trail linkage from Homme Park to Art Smith Trailhead. Such trails shall not compromise project security. Developer shall have no liability for the design, construction, maintenance or use of said trail(s). City shall be responsible for any environmental clearances or agency permits or approvals which may be required to effect trail(s) construction. G. The City agrees to cooperate in construction of irrigation lines from Goldenrod Road well site to the site. The City is currently considering an ordinance which would establish a process for use of former CVWD well sites. Within the limits of that future ordinance, the City will cooperate with the applicant. 3 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. DA 02-01 OCTOBER 1, 2002 H. Developer agrees to provide enough on-site parking for contractors and service personnel and employees. The issue of private communities requiring construction and service personnel to buy transponders and/or park off site and travel in with designated personnel has been a problem elsewhere in the city. This provision should address the concern. I. The applicant will be permitted to grade the site to the minimum required to create safe access, construct the golf course, safe usable residential pads and the pad for the clubhouse and maintenance building. Municipal Code Section 15.15 limits the amount of grading depending on the average slope of the project. The code did not envisage a golf course in the hillside which would be built into the natural environment and totally re-naturalized which will be done in this instance. Considering the total amount of property involved in the project, the amount of area disturbed and not re-naturalized will be a small percentage.* The waiver of this provision requires that only the minimum amount of grading necessary be done and that this be after approval of Public Works Department and Architectural Review Commission approval. The Public Works Director has submitted comments on the draft development agreement, see memo attached. Commission can discuss these issues and direct staff accordingly. Staff would also note that Section 203(8) requires that on-site parking be provided for employees and contractors. In the past commission has heard complaints that their workers are not permitted to access the site until a specific hour in the morning and are backed up on the public street. Commission may wish to add a sentence requiring these workers to be staged within the site and not on Highway 74. *See attached Slope Analysis 4 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. DA 02-01 OCTOBER 1, 2002 III. RECOMMENDATION: That the draft development agreement be recommended for approval to the City Council. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by: ---- )Iiit/L)02 Steve Smith P I Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development /tm 5 SLOPE ANALYSIS CASE NO. DA 02-01 According to slope analysis performed for previous applications, the property in the area of the residential village has an average slope of 30% and the fenced area (golf course) has an average slope of 30%. Grading in areas of 30% is limited to 22.5% of total property area. For purposes of this analysis, the "project area" will include the 700-acre Crest project and the additional 500 acres of off-site mitigation lands for a total of 1 ,200 acres. In the golf course area 140 of the 240 acres will be disturbed and not renaturalized (i.e., turf area, cart paths, comfort stations, pavilion, etc.). In the residential village area 30 of the 60 acres will be disturbed for a total of 170 disturbed acres. The disturbed area then amounts to 170/1200 - 14.2% of the total "project area." If we were to just consider the immediate "Crest" property, grading would amount to 170/700 = 24.3% versus the 22.5% permitted in the ordinance. •�•� •. CITY OF PALM DESERT 'E E IVE I) ��..:,, Si 2002 i OraPUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT :Yo All,. --*4'41 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ; INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM CITY OF PALM DESERT • .4lEO=9 3��J�•.• To: Steve Smith, Planning Manager From: Joseph S. Gaugush, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Date: September 25, 2002 Subject: Proposed Development Agreement— City of Palm Desert/ Destination Development We have reviewed the subject document and offer the following comments: Section 203 (3): Revise roadway width to "...not more than twenty-four (24) feet." Section 203 (7): Delete reference to California Department of Transportation. The City should not be placed in a position of obligating Caltrans with respect to the Encroachment Permit process. Section 203 (8): Delete "...to the extent practical." The developer's obligation to provide contractor/service personnel parking should be absolute. Section 203 (9): Delete the work "expeditiously" from the last sentence. Joseph S. Gaugush, P.E. /sd cc: Homer Croy, Acting ACM for Development Service Mark Greenwood, Engineering Manager G:\PubWorks\Joe Gaugush\word data\Memos\S Smith-Destination Development.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE PROJECT KNOWN AS "THE CREST" LOCATED ON PROPERTY IN SECTION 25 T5S R5E AND A PORTION OF SECTION 31 T5S R6E. CASE NO. DA 02-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 1st day of October, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. for a recommendation of approval of DA 02-01 to the City Council; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending to City Council approval of said request: 1 . The proposed development agreement is consistent with the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 25.37 Development Agreements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That approval of Development Agreement DA 02-01 (Exhibit A as amended) is hereby recommended to City Council for approval. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 1st day of October, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CINDY FINERTY, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2155 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND PREZONING DESIGNATION OF OPEN SPACE, A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, PRECISE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 44 LOT RESIDENTIAL VILLAGE, 18-HOLE GOLF COURSE AND CLUBHOUSE, AND CERTIFICATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS IT RELATES TO "THE CREST." CASE NOS. GPA 02-01 , C/Z 02-01 , TT 30438 AND PP/CUP 02-03 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 17th day of September, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to October 1 , 2002, to consider a request by Destination Development Corporation for a 44-unit project as described above; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify its actions, as described below: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND PREZONING: 1 . The proposed "open space" land use designation and prezoning is consistent with the applicant's proposed use of the property (golf course and dedicated open space) and is consistent with the City's goal of preserving the hillside area to the greatest extent possible. 2. The proposed prezoning is consistent with the proposed general plan amendment. SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: 1 . The S.E.I.R. has been completed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. 2. Any potential adverse impacts have been considered as part of the S.E.I.R. and mitigation measures have been imposed which will reduce any impacts to a level of insignificance. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2155 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 02-01 (Exhibit "A"), a Change of Zone (prezone) 02-01 (Exhibit "B"), TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03 and certification of a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of the final S.E.I.R. as complete, to include the draft S.E.I.R.: a. Comments received on the draft S.E.I.R. and related responses by City. b. Public testimony regarding the S.E.I.R. during the Public Hearings and related responses. 3. That the above recitations are true, correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 1st, day of October, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, LOPEZ, TSCHOPP, FINERTY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: JONATHAN CINDY FINERTY, Chairperson (1 3 ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2155 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. TT 30438 AND PP/CUP 02-03 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Recordation of said map shall occur within 24 months from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted by the Planning Commission; otherwise, said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department United States Fish & Wildlife Service Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Final grading plan for all areas shall be subject to review by Planning Commission prior to grading activity. Golf course residential village, clubhouse and maintenance building area shall integrate natural terrain and landscaping into design. 6. Final grading plan for all areas to include re-naturalization measures and grading restrictions as specified in the Hillside Ordinance. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2155 7. A detailed parking lot and building lightings plan shall be submitted to staff for approval, subject to applicable lighting standards. Plan to be prepared by a qualified lighting engineer. 8. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801 ) and the approved landscape plan. 9. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of permits including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, TUMF and school mitigation fees. The residential village setbacks shall be as follows: Front Setback 20 feet Rear Setback 10 feet Side Setbacks 5 feet each 10. That the mitigation measures identified in the S.E.I.R. prepared for The Crest shall be conditions of approval on Case No. PP/CUP 02-03. 11 . That the open space areas to be dedicated as mitigation for impacts on the bighorn sheep and desert tortoise shall be dedicated to the City of Palm Desert or other public resources agency as determined by the City. 12. That the golf course design be coordinated with and approved by the City Landscape Subcommittee. 1 3. That the applicant shall provide full and complete access to all employees of the site. The intent of the condition is that all employee vehicles will be parked on- site during employment hours. Developer agrees to provide adequate onsite staging of employees/workers to avoid traffic conflicts on Highway 74. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2155 14. That the applicant grant a trail easement around or through the east and south sides of The Crest project in a location satisfactory to the Director of Community Development. Department of Public Works: 1 . Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map or issuance of grading permits. 2. Drainage facilities shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works. In addition, proposed drainage facilities / improvements that impact the Palm Valley Channel shall be subject to review and approval by the Coachella Valley Water District. 3. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. Said study will include, but not be limited to, the investigation of both upstream and downstream impacts with respect to existing and proposed conditions. 4. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79- 17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map or issuance of grading permits. Construction costs associated with the proposed project entry traffic signal may be used as a credit against said fees. 5. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. All improvements within State Highway 74 right-of-way shall be in accordance with Caltrans standards. 6. Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the respective service districts with "as-built" plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to project final. 7. Improvement plans for all improvements, public and private, shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The installation of such improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works Department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2155 8. Landscaping maintenance on State Highway 74 frontage shall be provided through a property owners association. Applicant shall be responsible for executing a declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, which declaration shall be approved by the City of Palm Desert and recorded with the County Recorder. The declaration shall specify: a) the applicant shall oversee the formation of a property owners association; b) the property owners association shall be formed prior to the recordation of the final map; and c► the aforementioned landscaping maintenance shall be the responsibility of the property owners association. 9. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking approval before construction of any improvement is commenced. Offsite improvement plans for all improvements within exiting and proposed public rights-of-way to be approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior to recordation of final map. Such offsite improvements shall include, but not be limited to, curb and gutter, asphalt paving and concrete sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration and provisions for deceleration/acceleration lanes at project entry points. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the City of Palm Desert. 10. Waiver of access to State Highway 74 except at approved locations shall be granted on the Final Map. 11 . In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. Preliminary landscape plans shall be submitted concurrently with grading plans. 12. As required by Section 26.32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, and in accordance with the Circulation Network of the City's General Plan, dedication of half-street right-of-way at 55 feet on State Highway 74 shall be provided on the final map. 13. As required under Section 12.16 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, any existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground per each respective utility districts recommendation. If such undergrounding is determined to be 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2155 unfeasible by the City and the respective utility districts, applicant shall agree to participate in any future utility undergrounding district. 14. Traffic safety striping on State Highway 74 shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works and Caltrans prior to the placement of any pavement markings. 15. Full improvements of interior streets based on residential street standards in accordance with Section 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be provided. Proposed interior street sections shall be subject to review and approval in conjunction with tentative tract map applications. Those areas to be designated as "Emergency Access Road" shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal and the Director of Public Works. 16. Complete tract maps shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 17. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works and Caltrans, as applicable. 18. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 19. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 20. All required offsite improvements for this project shall be installed in conjunction with the first phase of development. 21 . Site access, with respect to size, location and number, shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works and Caltrans. 22. Applicant shall provide a phasing plan which specifies the project construction activity with respect to on-site/off-site infrastructure improvements as well as possible final map filing. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2155 23. Provision for the continuation of any existing access rights which may be affected by this project shall be included as a part of the final map process. 24. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 12.12, Fugitive Dust Control. 25. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 26. Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with current and subsequent National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permits (Permit #CAS000002) for storm water discharges associated with construction activity. 27. Project design shall accommodate the proposed Palm Valley Bicycle/Golf Cart Trail to be located on the Palm Valley Channel access roads. Riverside County Fire Department: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, NFPA, UFC and UBC, or any recognized fire protection standards. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all buildings per UFC article 87. 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a gpm fire flow of 1500 gpm for single family dwellings. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) 4"x2-1 /2"x2-1/2", located not less than 25' nor more than 200 feet from any portion of a single family dwelling measured via vehicular travelway. 5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2155 6. Please be advised the proposed project may not be feasible since the existing water mains will not meet the required fire flow. 7. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street the roadway must be 36' wide and 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around 55' in industrial developments. 8. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers or other means provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key over-ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16" with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 9. A dead-end single access over 500 feet will require a secondary access, sprinklers or other mitigative measures approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstances shall a dead-end over 1 ,300 feet be accepted. 10. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or an emergency gate from an adjoining development. 11 . All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 12. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws or when building permits are not obtained within 12 months. OTHER: 1 . At dead end provide hammer heads for turn around for fire apparatus. 2. Provide second access with bridge over CVWD channel. 9 I eiRk c7 IN I11-Firaill IPIPENCITIN il 2241.46 4.:11 1 eh NNNNN 11111111 lllll II • 11 Vill IllilM1 aa el aaaaaaaaaaaaa.31 ' iliTucil otea..1.., ... .111 I 4 a . I. ilillp. i"alkir -—r nal I I 11011rp MN (NO,. P illidtm voirn-ivrA4dmr4 in a ..0. t 0 vi _ imm•Elliffillr_M111111 -1,4TMI TOME II I ZIA 010 4111...z, , kit" .1-1. ‘ i1111111111 II . VilsIMI'. :INWt...."'',11,063 4.nowirAl 11111M 4%.*,.•1:':K.-44>--m• •or;---Ne I rig WittigkeVier**.er my.pzi. ,. lariti:pqaw;;;;aaaaaaa lllllllllll!zoo,.,1 1 0,0„„„„.,v , ,,, , v Rom ins oi,,,,,,0 Initag,4...1, •i•la..; avelf sat ASO e"II 1 4,0 or,Iii,,,111181814,A:,*;••Aferlett 11,4‘••• 4/4,.• • 1 4is t 1.147. okllizifirral V,47:11111tr;4....: ,, , , \,,,,,\\, 11111.1..al ;-...lisaibiroi.:7-.:'4111/171114113 ,- , ,,, :„‘ . I , Soil!1 lb poir.1 I ma airlk.ffilfie ,,' Nk,W 4 , , ' ‘,.. , •• N\ 'e\ 111 i M ./4p /401 111P wins Ilk. ,loy 0 10•4 x, zA ''''s',',,': `‘-';‘,:\•::‘,W,\‘‘\:: pm.. 1;11gliiiii Art MVP clp.4.4 I Ve' Ito os Am. • -.afro/ ''''41, N.,\,..\\, 4,, ---\\•,4,* :...,,k, s- vr, as All`4..4 gb•ZW 1 1 ilittAiiow ellIMINtib.at 1 '\ N .• ,,-'':' , •, ' , -, : -.\:' I MI 7-41.417 , murarmitratram , _ .4,,,r,‘:.:,, assimandurrunn 1 -:f17- :411::::::::nnieuma•is W \x''• \OZ.'`,\\• *\ \\ \ 'MEM ...., _,,,, - 01111111111111111111. a ' v•"\,,, \V\- , -, ,--,,\*', ‘ ‘, ,,,,,-, vN, ass mon aisoilitiorek el ' 's,',' \, •, '' .:.‘,„ p-1,-- 2 oriiir A• s , , - - , SECTION - I 'iiihrz # 111,1Ir Ale,' _ELA -ME Ownfa ,- 25 -, '- •' - ' -k‘ '-•: \'- \ I 11111 I\.‘..•,-,,,,‘,,- ...•,,, _ - • -',..' ,,s'N, „:- wr,v_ , ,pitritaL v. •— a.- 'd s*`W,';‘‘, ,k,,s,, ,' ';4 '' N',A: \'; . it-dulta0MO,,,,,• W IV •WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIP,,,,,,=WM INOM \`, . ‘; `e,;_•‘,',, '‘‘‘ \ ' .1.I W‘- :,'-• I ';, \,,-','• `. - ,\-;\ , •''\• -:- '`- 1M ' IliMLIII 0 'Y. 1,1 .I • - ''‘ ,, '•• ' s • -• ' ' -,''' ''• \ 1111 11 s;, ;;\•;A.Wsk\s,,,,s\:\,',\A; . , ,,,all :11.1Thamoodoloimil,,iiiilisifflin11111_•' • .aumISMIIIIMISIMI liTir 01,- ,,,,.. - .s-. -\•..„-- -',:\-\\',,,‘\‘‘` ''‘‘',.\\A•,.. • s'L's`\ s -'' , • wi. a 1 irf, n =I i two.Ojai;o, F-, ilkowill,..... r„.:,„, •p/r, (o_mom =II muidUll Elm I Fr , ' I:•Nalkigg4:11 T-11•1 ilik-#411051H , RIM „ '•, ic,,,,,iles:::..■&111•_Vilk"LIME L--z 11111.111-1111111 III A•sv,,,", II ri.iili llllllllllllllll ,..ii-p*,,rarip tlim 1161111MaTin i F. 1 41111t44—lp El 'IMO, .1r1..t,4. '...,-r-:7 iii'll.IMI it1;iii..14,*.*IIIIIM 1111=11111111 . Fall /ellen At h I 1111111111111=' ' ''' e . 1:4;1P, "'-4:: 1,,* 0----k,,..„),4. •, ,• SECTION ,!,.,14.64:11-24 r 36 N 31 :sli,;1',"; ,f:•Zf."Af, 211,,,, ' .'--. ..:,: et`4.014"11.111,--A: 4.t= iafiTs`` ;•4'1,4. ME illillir IMEICSMilii01111111111.211111/t WOE. 1111 1.1 111 I p..-___,-;.-...i.1,-,_,14.- ...rnii. supz,,,,Mirao.MIIP‘,4 i Zusilla -z 0 11111rallin 111111111 Ell rel, /7---w„f irttfagititalittlin min mwmillip!El or *I mom num III ...... i., ac......." lir la glW Proposed , GPA 1111.11 1111 1 - ''' Sl /Arm"....-,„..... s ,.,4 ‘4,,,, I 11111.1111 glipling 4 :y I tmitilli _. 4 •,,,,- .'.d Et 4..,..3,.!a lir gillW047 'IL 7 1411=111.1f=m;....L' ' Open Space and - *.ob.%•••••- maffer,"---tib wi...m..llll.aliiiiimoaT imuly, :116._..„,..„..810,....,,1 Hillside Planned 40 TO P.900), 141004/41-Kt,4 1 ma „Iloilo* now sp itlithrio IIIMIIIbi;!%/10 Residential i -*Ns I 1— 1 Igt i 1 LI PI in:Agitifth To illtbi iltatiovatap_ ite if/ or pi ti, •41.: . .111 ill xi I Open Space IIIII •""•01407# "%Ay, 4P •al I lailt341041"14%/s-"r-- zil Obi al.906n-.°66 Case No. GPA 02-01 PLANNING COMMISSION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. 2155 1.74111 3 \.;:,........•17 EXHL1 IT A Date: October 1 , 2002 \c, r' a (/�plr' 1 I D i4 111■ .ii-11'"' 41 I I , I 111 VII I WA%t-AP 114 SS SR te o , IIIO �` : 1,kt D !- 1►alllll 1pi me •..•■ •�rr,/iiiiiu/■vui�;' 's gor V,,i, 4'�::�1111■� ltIA �� ■.■I;�• '��1�� •i III■■1 I 1—_ ik r■ �1 Ia f11-i1l�■■■1 I. ; , 1allI,MrII1Jll'81�A:ail -, mwmuiliuun■■m \\ \ \s \\\ \\\�\`\ \• \ �\�\\ �C tm /IIII�IIOIII��1�■U�IU \\\\ .\ \� \ „ 1._-- i /I111111111111. . EINEM Ian SECTION I ��■�>A� \� .'' 11,4 �'I%sump•:,...%/. • I. v��,vy \����vv�t ��v�A,,v� ,��y I i iv, , lii�1'lll IS,. rA � , �. ., .... • di.1.!!rnignir° ' ..14.i.iiii., yekliareed:am ;;;;T.,--- :i'Voime smorrdaill gem ill 111110I--1/l1 I J ,11�D� I.mF°'■riri.c■k l.,J Yall •..a■ri lull r\t■•.�■■/.7�•■/i1`". A.., � 1 .� jlgj11III=rr `TIF •.. i:y d".7urgi�.6 .l.�l�� SECTION :?,' ....,,4 -.11 ;,, 4� Mn,!SECTION 11 I a�..•o„ _`" iRIIIIIUURIIt ° J a * Zoning Chang / ■ti�■�—� -imosiIII imi1111/111 �JJ �,,I11 iIt4 ; .di 7 !Moir i 4 11111.14%3 it i AI To • r 41111161 I �� t�i�r is I gir lies4 .:� :�i4 .. i1_,,, �j Open Space lir eily¢l'✓'ain:waled Case No. C/Z 02-01 PLANNING COMMISSION �De* •. 215 5 ?� Change of Zone RESOLUTION lift g .1 NO. EXHFiIT • Date: October 1 , 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2156 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE PROJECT KNOWN AS "THE CREST" LOCATED ON PROPERTY IN SECTION 25 T5S R5E AND A PORTION OF SECTION 31 T5S R6E. CASE NO. DA 02-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 1st day of October, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. for a recommendation of approval of DA 02-01 to the City Council; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending to City Council approval of said request: 1 . The proposed development agreement is consistent with the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 25.37 Development Agreements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That approval of Development Agreement DA 02-01 (Exhibit A as amended) is hereby recommended to City Council for approval. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 1st day of October, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, LOPEZ, TSCHOPP, FINERTY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: JONATHAN „v: / CINDY FINERTY,Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, S cretary Palm Desert Planning Commission RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Palm Desert Attn: Carlos Ortega 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 (Above Space for Recorder's Use Only) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into this day of , 2002, by and between the CITY OF PALM DESERT, a California municipal corporation ("City"), and DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a California corporation ("Developer"), pursuant to the authority of Section 65 864 et seq. of the Government Code of the State of California: RECITALS A_ To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California adopted Sections 65864 et seq. of the Government Code authorizing any city, county or city and county to enter into a development agreement with an applicant for a development project, establishing certain development rights in the property which is the subject of the development project application. City has adopted an ordinance and regulations establishing procedures and requirements for the approval of development agreements. B_ City and Developer desire to enter into this Agreement in order to facilitate the development of certain real property ("Site") located either within, or within the Sphere of Influence of, the City of Palm Desert, more fully described in Exhibit A attached hereto and shown on.the map attached as Exhibit B. The real property will be developed pursuant hereto for (i) a residential subdivision; and (ii) a private membership golf club ("Club") with golf and other recreational amenities more particularly described herein (collectively, the "Project"). C. This Agreement will be binding on the Site upon the recordation in the Official Records of Riverside County, California of this Agreement. Approximately 63+ acres of the Site is located within the City, and approximately 640+ acres of the Site is located within the City's Sphere of Influence in the unincorporated area of Riverside County. Developer desires to secure entitlements for the Site from the City and to annex into the City the portion of the Site which is within the City's Sphere of Influence. 136922.7-Word-10/03/02 D. Developer has either an ownership interest in the Site or the right to acquire the Site, and therefore has a legal or beneficial interest in all of the Site. E. Developer and City have determined that the Site is best suited to development as a residential subdivision project and as the Club. F. City has given due notice of its intention to adopt this proposed Agreement, has conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to Government Code Section 65867 and City's ordinance and regulations relating to development agreements, and has found that the provisions of this Agreement and its purposes are consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in City's General Plan as amended concurrently with adoption of this Agreement. G. Development of the Site, which is vacant, requires the construction of substantial public improvements, many of which will benefit both the project and surrounding areas. The development risks and uncertainties associated with the long term nature of the Project, including the cost of these public improvements, could discourage and deter Developer from making the long term commitments necessary to develop the Project. Therefore, the parties desire to enter into this Agreement in order to reduce or eliminate such uncertainties. H. Developer's work in connection with the Project shall include developing the improvements referred to herein as the "Developer Improvements". The "Developer Improvements" include the rough grading, roads and streets, utilities, finished pad grading, drainage gutters, storm water and flood control facilities, water system facilities and all other improvements deemed necessary by Developer or required by City to prepare the Site for development as provided herein. As permitted by law, City and Developer desire to establish design and development standards and permitted uses for the Project and to identify the scope of improvements to be required for, and as a result of, the Project. I. City, by entering into contractual agreements such as this, acknowledges that the obligations of City shall survive beyond the terms of the present City Council members, that such action will serve to bind the City and future Councils to the obligations herein undertaken, and that this Agreement shall limit the future exercise of certain governmental and police powers of City. By approving this Agreement, City Council has elected to exercise certain governmental powers at the time of entering into this Agreement rather than deferring its actions to some undetermined future date. The terms and conditions of this Agreement have undergone extensive review by the City and its Council and have been found to be fair, just and reasonable. City has concluded that the approval and development of the Project as provided herein will serve the best interests of City's citizens and that the public health, safety and welfare will be best served by entering into this Agreement. City acknowledges that Developer would not consider or engage in the development of the Project without the assurances of the development entitlements provided for herein. By entering into this Agreement, City desires to vest in Developer certain development entitlements as specified in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which 136922.7-Word- 10/03/02 2 are hereby acknowledged, City and Developer (each herein sometimes called a "Party" and jointly the"Parties") do hereby agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS A. [Sec. 100] Property Description. The Site is that property described in Exhibit A. The Developer represents that it has a legal or equitable interest in the Site. This Agreement will affect title to and impose obligations and liabilities on the Site only upon the recordation of this Agreement in the Official Records of Riverside County, California. The Developer represents that from and after the date on which this Agreement is recorded against the Site, all persons who thereafter acquire a legal or equitable interest in the Site (excepting owners or claimants in easements) will acquire such interests subject to this Agreement. B. [Sec. 101] Term. (1) Commencement and Length of Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon the Effective Date as defined herein and shall extend for a period of fifteen (15) years after the Effective Date. The "Effective Date" is the date which is two (2) business days after the later to occur of(i) the date which is thirty (30) days after the date of final adoption by the City of the ordinance approving this Agreement or (ii) the date on which Developer or an affiliated entity acquires fee title to the Site. Thereafter, unless said term is modified or extended by circumstances set forth in this Agreement or by mutual consent of the Parties, subject to the provisions of Section 1000 hereof, upon expiration of said term this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further force and effect and the Parties shall, upon request of the City, execute an appropriate certificate of termination which shall be recorded in the official records of Riverside County, subject, however, to the provisions of Section 407 hereof. (2) Government Code Section 66542.6(a). Pursuant to Section 66452.6(a) of the California Government Code, the time for the approval by the City of any tentative, final or parcel map prepared with respect to the Site shall be extended for a period equal to the period this Agreement remains in effect. Such time for approval, and the term of this Agreement, shall be extended and remain in effect for an additional period of time equal to the period of any injunction or moratorium affecting the issuance of grading, building or any other permits or entitlements which are necessary to the development of the Project or any structure to be constructed within the Site. C. [Sec. 102] Sale or Assignment; Binding Covenants. (1) Covenants Run With Land. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the Parties hereto that this Agreement shall not be severable from Developer's interest in the Site and the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute covenants which shall run with the Site or any portion thereof upon the recordation of this Agreement, and that thereafter the burdens and benefits hereof shall bind and inure to all successors in interest to the Parties. 136922.7-Word-10/03/02 3 (2) Right to Assign. After completion of the Club, Developer shall have the right to freely sell, assign, exchange or otherwise transfer its interest under this Agreement as part of a contemporaneous and related sale, assignment or transfer of its interest in the Site, or any portion thereof, without the consent of the City. In addition, Developer shall have the right at any time to freely sell, assign, exchange or otherwise transfer its interest under this Agreement to any entity which is affiliated with or any of whose constituent entities are affiliated with Developer. Any sale, assignment, exchange or transfer of Developer's interest under this Agreement to an unaffiliated (in any way) party prior to completion of the Club shall only be effective upon the consent of City; provided, however, that City must give its consent unless City reasonably concludes that the proposed transferee does not have the capability to complete the Club. Developer shall notify the City of any such sale, assignment, exchange or transfer by providing written notice thereof to the City Manager in the manner provided in Section 800 hereof. (3) Release Upon Transfer. Upon the sale, assignment, exchange or transfer of Developer's rights and interests in the Site or any portion thereof, Developer shall be released from its obligations under this Agreement with respect to the Site, or the portion thereof so transferred, arising subsequent to the effective date of such transfer. Any such transferee shall be obligated and bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement and shall be the beneficiary thereof and a party thereto, only with respect to the Site, or such portions thereof so transferred to such transferee. Any such transferee shall observe and fully perform all of the duties and obligations of the Developer contained in this Agreement, as such duties and obligations pertain to the portion of the Site sold, assigned, exchanged or transferred to it. D. [Sec. 103] Recordation of this Agreement. Promptly following the Effective Date, City shall record this Agreement in the Official Records of Riverside County, California so that it encumbers the Site. ARTICLE 2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE A. [Sec. 200] Entitlement Applications for the Project. Developer has submitted to City applications and supporting materials relating to the Project consisting of an application for a general plan amendment (the "General Plan Amendment"), an application for a zone change (the "Zone Change"), an application for approval of a tentative tract map (the "Tentative Tract Map") and an application for approval of a precise plan/conditional use permit (the "Precise Plan/CUP"). The City has certified the Final Subsequent EIR ("EIR") relating to the Project. The City has also approved the Developer's Precise Plan/CUP, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Tentative Tract Map for the Site. The Site shall be developed as established in the approved Tentative Tract Map, the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Precise Plan/CUP, except for such changes which may be mutually agreed upon hereafter between Developer and City. B. [Sec. 201] Permitted Uses. The Developer shall have the right to develop the Site for the following uses: 136922.7-Word-10/03/02 4 (1) Residential Development. The area of the Site designated for residential development on the site plan showing anticipated facilities and their locations on the Site attached hereto as Exhibit C may be developed with up to sixty (60) residential dwelling units (each, a "DU") and one (1) on-site caretaker residence. Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary set forth in Chapter 25.100 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, each DU may (but need not) in developer's sole discretion be sold as up to four (4) fractional interests, each of which fractional interests shall permit the owner of such fractional interest to occupy a DU (which may or may not be the DU in which such owner has a fee interest) for a portion of each calendar year. (2) Club. The Club may be developed by Developer on the areas of the Site designated for such use on Exhibit C hereto. The Club may consist of any or all of the following recreational amenities: a private membership golf course, a driving range, a starter house, comfort stations located in various areas of the Project, an open air pavilion with covered roof and retractable sides, a clubhouse building which includes food and beverage areas, satellite food and beverage facilities or mobile serving vehicles (including for the sale of alcoholic beverages) located as designated by Developer on or near the golf course and other facilities, appropriate maintenance bunker facilities located in various areas of the golf course, swimming pools, and other recreational amenities appropriate for a private golf club. The golf clubhouse, maintenance building, entry gate and gatehouse, parking and other recreational uses shall be located as shown on Exhibit C. Such facilities and locations may be revised by Developer so long as they are substantially similar to that shown on Exhibit C, and so long as the number of DUs does not increase beyond sixty (60)plus the caretaker unit. D. [Sec.202] Project Phasing; Project Scenarios. The Parties acknowledge that Developer cannot at this time predict when, or the order in which, individual buildings in the Project will be developed on the Site. Such decisions with respect to phasing of the Project will depend upon a number of circumstances not within the control of Developer, including, without limitation, market conditions and demand for the use or uses within the Project, the condition of capital markets and availability of appropriate financing for the development of the Project (such as construction or interim and permanent loans, and/or equity capital) and other similar factors. In order to retain the flexibility necessary to respond to such market conditions, Developer shall have the right to develop the Project in phases, in such order, and at such times as Developer deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business analysis of those factors determining, in Developer's judgment, the appropriate course of development of the Project. However, in connection with each phase, Developer shall be required to: (i) comply with the Development Standards (as hereinafter defined); (ii) provide sufficient parking for the anticipated uses in such phase, as determined pursuant to the Development Standards; and (iii) implement the mitigation measures required for such development pursuant to the EIR. E. [Sec. 203] Special Development Provisions. The Parties agree that certain development rights are hereby granted to allow Developer to take advantage of the special and unique type and character of the Project and the Site. These special development provisions are as follows: 136922.7-Word-10/03/02 5 (1) Project Development Standards: The DUs, clubhouse maintenance building and other structures shall be developed along private roads. Permitted building heights and set backs shall be consistent with those set forth on Exhibit D attached hereto. (2) Project Parking Provisions: Because the DUs will have seasonal use and generally lower demand for on-site parking on a per-residence basis than full time residences, each DU shall have at least one (1) garage or carport parking space and one (1) designated open air space. In addition, each DU shall have one covered space for an electric golf cart. Parallel on-street parking and visitor parking areas (equalling .5 spaces per DU) shall be permitted within the Development consistent with roadway design and safety considerations. (3) Road Design and Development Standards: On-site roads may be constructed of asphalt, concrete, decomposed granite and soil binder, or other material which meets generally accepted performance criteria, including those of the City Fire Marshall. Road widths shall be the minimum found acceptable by the City Fire Marshall, anticipated to be not less than sixteen (16) feet and not more than twenty-four (24) feet. Golf course access drives shall have an improved travel width of not less than sixteen (16) feet. Throughout the project, road edging may be at-grade concrete retainer strips with appropriate parallel drainage channels unless Developer elects to install curbs and gutters. (4) Private Easements and Rights-of-Way: The City shall assist the Developer in its discussions with private parties regarding the abandonment and/or relocation of private easements and/or rights-of-way which Developer deems may adversely affect the needs and development design for the Project. (5) Trails Access/Easements: Developer shall grant necessary easements to the City for public hiking and/or equestrian trails on the perimeter of the Site in areas designated by Developer for such purpose and acceptable to the City, California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Such trails shall allow trail linkage from Homme Park to Art Smith Trailhead. Such trails shall not compromise project security or the golfing experience for persons using the Club facilities. Developer shall have no liability for the design, construction, maintenance or use of said trail(s). City shall be responsible for any environmental clearances or agency permits or approvals which may be required to effect trail(s) construction. (6) Dedication of Open Space: A conservation easement or conveyance for conservation shall be established in perpetuity for those portions of the Site shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit E. A fence shall be erected to preclude access to the golf course and associated lands by Peninsula bighorn sheep. (7) Irrigation Line Right-of-Way & Encroachment Permit: The City shall cooperate and facilitate the provision of an encroachment permit and necessary right-of-way approval from the City so as to permit Developer to construct an irrigation line from Developer's irrigation well on Goldenrod Road to the Site. Such irrigation line shall be designed and constructed in compliance with applicable law at the time such design is submitted to the City. 136922.7—Word-10/03/02 6 (8) Contractor/Service Personnel Parking: Developer shall provide appropriate on-site parking facilities and a transponder program to contractors, service providers and employees to eliminate the demand for off-site parking. (9) Right to Combine Lots. Developer shall have the right, by recordation of lot tie agreements, to combine two (2) or more lots in the area designated for DUs into one larger lot, and upon such combination to either allow such lots to have different grades or to regrade all of such combined lots to the average graded level of such combined lots. City will cooperate in, and process, any lot line adjustments requested by Developer. (10) Art in Public Places. Developer shall be permitted to satisfy any applicable art in public places requirements onsite in a location visible from Highway 74. Such art and its location shall be subject to the approval of the City's Art in Public Places Commission. (11) Grading. Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary set forth in Chapter 25.15 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, grading on the Site shall, to the extent commercially feasible, be limited to the grading reasonably required to effect safe access to the Site and that reasonably required to develop the Residential Development and the Club, both as described in Sec. 201 of this Agreement. The grading plan for the Site shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Department of Public Works. Such grading plan shall also be reviewed and approved by the City's Architectural Review Commission but solely to confirm that such grading plan complies with the provisions of this paragraph. F. [Sec. 204] Reservations and Dedications. No reservations or dedications of land will be required by City during the Term except as agreed to in writing by City and Developer in Developer's sole and absolute discretion and as provided in Section 203 (6) hereof. G. [Sec. 205] Processing of Applications and Permits. (1) Processing of Applications. City will accept and shall diligently process all applications for discretionary and other permits or other entitlements with respect to the Project in accordance with this Agreement. If requested by Developer, City will initiate or cause to be initiated all necessary legal proceedings pursuant to the Benefit Assessment Act of 1982 (Government Code Section 54720), or any other applicable provisions of law, to include the Site in a maintenance district for purposes of funding the ongoing maintenance of flood control facilities of benefit to the Site. To the extent such proceedings are initiated and completed by the Coachella Valley Water District, City legally consents to the inclusion of the Site in such maintenance district. (2) Discretionary Approvals. Development of the Site by the Developer is subject, inter alia, to the following discretionary approvals: (a) approval of one or more additional parcel maps; and (b) approval of one or more additional tentative tract maps. 136922.7-Word-10/03/02 7 If, at any time during the term of this Agreement, an act of Developer relating to the Project requires an administrative approval, variance, conditional use permit or other City approval, including, but not limited to, the discretionary approvals listed in this Section 205, Developer shall apply to the City in accordance with the applicable procedures then specified therefor and generally in effect for such administrative approval, variance, conditional use permit or other City approval. In reviewing and approving applications for discretionary approvals, the City may exercise its full discretion under the law and may attach such conditions and requirements as may be deemed necessary or appropriate to carry out the policies, goals, standards and objectives of the General Plan and to comply with legal requirements and policies of the City pertaining to such discretionary approvals. (3) Demolition and Grading Permits. During the term of this Agreement, Developer shall be entitled to obtain one or more demolition permits or grading permits for the Project without the necessity for applying for or receiving any building permit; provided, however, that Developer shall be in compliance with all requirements of the City Municipal Code other than any requirements to apply for or receive any building permit. (4) Certificates of Occupancy. Promptly after completion of any portion of the Project, including any required mitigations, in compliance with the terms hereof and all applicable statutes, ordinances and regulations applicable to the construction of improvements such as those completed on the Site, upon application, the City shall provide Developer with a Certificate of Occupancy therefor. (5) Subdivision Right. This Agreement shall not impair the right of Developer to further subdivide the Site in accordance with applicable law and the terms of this Agreement. The City agrees to promptly consider in good faith one or more tract maps and other applications necessary or appropriate to accomplish such subdivision. Any approval of such an application may include reasonable conditions. Developer may post a bond or letter of credit reasonably approved by the City Manager as to form, amount and issuer, as security for satisfaction of any condition that may be satisfied by the payment of money. H. [Sec. 206] Design Review. Nothing set forth herein shall impair or interfere with the right of City to require the processing of building permits as required by law and to conduct its architectural review of any specific improvements proposed for the Site pursuant to the applicable provisions of the City's Municipal Code which are in effect at the time such review is conducted; provided, however, no such review shall authorize or permit City to impose any condition and/or withhold approval to any proposed improvement the result of which would be inconsistent with the Tentative Map, the Zone Change, the General Plan Amendment, the Precise Plan/CUP, or the provisions of this Agreement. I. [Sec. 207] Easements. If easements on property adjacent to the Site are required in order for Developer to complete grading for the Developer Improvement, City shall cooperate with Developer in efforts to obtain such easements. City shall not be obligated to incur any expense in connection 136922.7-Word-10/03/02 8 with such cooperation. City shall cooperate with Developer in connection with the abandonment of existing utility or other easements and facilities and the relocation thereof or creation of any new easements within the City necessary or appropriate to the development of the Project. If any such easement is owned by the City, City shall, at the request of Developer, take such action as may be necessary to abandon existing easements and relocate them as may be necessary or appropriate. J. [Sec. 208] Rules, Regulations and Official Policies. (1) Applicable Rules, Regulations and Official Policies. For the term of this Agreement, the rules, regulations, ordinances and official policies governing the permitted uses of land, density, design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the development of the Site shall be as set forth in this Agreement; provided, however, that development of the Site shall be subject to municipal ordinances and regulations which do not conflict with the provisions hereof, including, without limitation, building, electrical, mechanical, fire and similar codes, and ordinances which regulate the manner in which activities may be conducted or which prohibit any particular type of activity on a city-wide basis, in a particular zone(other than development limitations which are inconsistent with the rights granted hereby) or on some other valid, non-discriminatory basis. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, to the extent any future changes in the General Plan, zoning codes or any future rules, ordinances, regulations or policies adopted by the City purport to be applicable to the Site but are inconsistent with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail, unless the parties mutually agree to amend or modify this Agreement pursuant to Section 1000 hereof. Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), (5) and (6) of this Section 208, the City shall not, in subsequent actions applicable to the Site, apply new rules, ordinances, regulations or policies which conflict with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. To the extent that any further changes in the General Plan, zoning codes or any future rules, ordinances, regulations or policies adopted by the City are applicable to the Site and are not inconsistent with the terms and conditions of this Agreement or are otherwise made applicable by other provisions of this Section 208, such future changes in the General Plan, zoning codes or such future rules, ordinances, regulations or policies shall be applicable to the Site. (2) Changes in State or Federal Law. This Section shall not preclude the application to the Project of changes in City laws, regulations, plans or policies, the terms of which are specifically mandated and required by changes in state or federal laws or regulations. In the event state or federal laws or regulations enacted after the date of this Agreement, or action by any governmental jurisdiction other than the City, prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement or require changes in plans, maps or permits approved by the City, then the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to determine the feasibility of modifying, extending or suspending one or more provisions of this Agreement as may be necessary to comply with such state or federal laws or regulations or the regulations of such other governmental jurisdiction. In addition, Developer shall have the right to challenge such new law preventing compliance with the terms of this Agreement, and, in the event such challenge is successful, this Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. To the extent that any actions of federal or state agencies (or actions of regional and local agencies, including the City, required by federal or state agencies) have the effect of 136922.7—Word—10/03/Q2 9 preventing, delaying or modifying development of the Site, the City shall not in any manner be liable for any such prevention, delay or modification of said development. The Developer is required, at its cost and without cost to or obligation on the part of the City, to participate in such regional or local programs and to be subject to such development restrictions as may be necessary or appropriate by reason of such actions of federal or state agencies (or such actions of regional and local agencies, including the City, required by federal or state agencies). (3) Payment of Fees. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, all future applications for approvals, permits and entitlements shall be subject to the development and processing fees and taxes at their respective rates which are in force and effect at the time the application therefor is filed. (4) No Further Approvals. The City shall not require the Developer to obtain any further approvals or permits for the development of the Site in accordance with this Agreement during the Term. (5) City's Retained Authority. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the authority of the City to adopt and apply codes, ordinances and regulations which have the legal effect of protecting persons or property from conditions which create a health, safety or physical risk. (6) Other Vesting Statute. The parties intend that the provisions of this Agreement shall govern and control as to the procedures and the terms and conditions applicable to the development of the Site over any contrary or inconsistent provisions contained in Sections 66498.1 et seq. of the Government Code or any other State law now or hereafter enacted purporting to grant or vest development rights based on land use entitlements (herein "Other Vesting Statute"). In furtherance of this intent, and as a material inducement to the City to enter into this Agreement, the Developer agrees that, except as expressly provided herein: (a) Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in any Other Vesting Statute, this Agreement and the conditions and requirements of land use entitlements for the Site obtained while this Agreement is in effect shall govern and control the Developer's rights to develop the Site; and (b) The Developer waives, for itself and its successors and assigns, the benefits of any Other Vesting Statute insofar as they may be inconsistent or in conflict with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and land use entitlements for the Site obtained while this Agreement is in effect; and (c) The Developer will not make application for a land use entitlement under any Other Vesting Statute insofar as said application or the granting of the land use entitlement, pursuant to said application, would be inconsistent or in conflict with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and prior land use entitlements obtained while this Agreement is in effect. (7) Need for Public Hearings. This section shall not be construed to limit the authority or obligation of the City to hold necessary public hearings, to limit the discretion of the City or any of its officers or officials with regard to rules, regulations, ordinances, laws and 136922.7-Word-10/03/02 10 entitlements of use which require the exercise of discretion by the City or any of its officers or officials. L. [Sec. 209] Encumbrances and Lender's Rights. (1) Permitted Encumbrances. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to any lien placed upon the Site. The Parties agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit any owner of an interest in the Site from encumbering the Site with any deed of trust or other security device securing financing with respect to the Site; (2) Lender's Rights. The holder of any mortgage, deed of trust, or other security arrangement ("Lender") with respect to the Site, or any portion thereof, that has requested, in writing, receipt of notice of any event of default under this Agreement shall be entitled to receive a copy of any notice of default and shall be allowed an opportunity to cure such default. The Lender shall receive a Second Default Notice thirty (30) days before the City institutes legal proceedings and the Lender shall again be allowed an opportunity to cure such default. The holder of any mortgage, deed of trust, or other security arrangement with respect to the Site, or any portion thereof, shall not be obligated under this Agreement to construct or complete improvements or to guarantee such construction or completion, but shall otherwise be bound by all the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to construe, permit or authorize any such holder to devote the Site, or any portion thereof, to any uses, or to construct any improvements thereon, other than those uses and improvements provided for or authorized by this Agreement, subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. M. [Sec. 210] Interaction with Somerset Homeowners Association. During the period in which the Developer is constructing the improvements on the Site, the Developer shall meet from time to time with any authorized committee appointed by the Somerset Homeowners Association. The purpose of such meetings shall be to discuss the concerns of said Association about landscaping and other issues. ARTICLE 3 OBLIGATIONS OF THE DEVELOPER A. [Sec. 300] Improvements. The Developer shall develop the Site in accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the discretionary approvals referred to in Section 205 hereof. The failure of the Developer to comply with the terms and conditions of or fulfill any obligation of the Developer under this Agreement or any discretionary approvals, shall constitute a default by the Developer under this Agreement. Any such default may be cured by Developer as set forth in Section 400 hereof 136922.7-Word- 10/03/02 1 B. [Sec. 301] City's Good Faith in Processing. Subject to the discretionary approvals referred to in Section 205 hereof, the City agrees that it will accept, in good faith, for timely processing, review and action, all complete applications for zoning, special permits, development permits, tentative maps, subdivision maps or other entitlements for use of the Site in accordance with the General Plan and this Agreement. The City shall inform the Developer, upon request, of the necessary submission requirements for each application for a permit or other entitlement for use in advance, and shall promptly review said application and schedule the application for review by the appropriate authority. C. [Sec. 302] Developer's Insurance. Before commencing work pursuant to any City-approved permit on the Site, the Developer shall obtain general liability insurance reasonably approved by the City Manager as to form, amount and carrier. Thereafter,the Developer shall maintain the insurance during the term of this Agreement. D. [Sec. 303] Environmental Requirements. The Developer shall, in connection with the development of each new improvement on the Site, comply with the mitigation measures set forth in the EIR. ARTICLE 4 DEFAULT,REMEDIES, TERMINATION A. [Sec. 400] General Provisions. Subject to extensions of time by mutual consent in writing, failure or unreasonable delay by either Party to perform any term or provision of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event of default or breach of any terms or conditions of this Agreement, the Party alleging such default or breach shall give the other Party not less than thirty (30) days notice in writing specifying with particularity the nature of the alleged default and the manner in which said default may be satisfactorily cured. During any such thirty (30) day period, the Party charged with being in default shall not be considered in default for purposes of termination or institution of legal proceedings. After notice and expiration of the thirty (30) day period, if such default has not been cured or is not being diligently cured in the manner set forth in the notice, the other Party to this Agreement may at its option: (a) terminate this Agreement, in which event neither Party shall have any further rights against or liability to the other with respect to this Agreement or the Site; provided, however, if portions of the Site are held in separate ownership at the time such event of default occurs and such event of default is related only to one portion, this Agreement may be terminated only as to such portion and no such termination shall impair the continuing applicability of this Agreement to the remainder of the Site; or 136922.7-Word-10/03/02 12 (b) institute legal or equitable action to cure, correct or remedy any default, including, but not limited to, an action for specific performance of the terms of this Agreement; provided, however, that in no event shall either party be liable to the other for money damages for any default or breach of this Agreement. B. [Sec. 401] Developer Default; Enforcement. No building permit shall be issued or building permit application accepted for the building shell of any structure on any portion of the Site if the permit applicant owns or controls such portion of the Site and if such applicant or any entity or person controlling such applicant has been found to be in default as to such portion of the Site by the City Council of the City under the terms and conditions of this Agreement, unless such default is cured or this Agreement is terminated. A default as to an owner of any portion of the Site shall have no impact on any portion of the Site not owned by such defaulting owner. The Developer shall cause to be placed in any covenants, conditions and restrictions applicable to the Site, or in any ground lease or conveyance thereof, an express provision for an owner of the Site, lessee or City acting separately or jointly to enforce the provisions of this Agreement and to recover attorney's fees and costs for such enforcement. C. [Sec. 402] Annual Review. The City Planning Department shall, at least every twelve (12) months during the term of this Agreement, review the extent of good faith substantial compliance by the Developer with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Such periodic review shall be limited in scope to compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement pursuant to California Government Code Section 65865.1. Notice of such annual review shall include the statement that any review may result in amendment or termination of this Agreement. The costs of notice and related costs incurred by the City for the annual review conducted by the City pursuant to this Section 402 shall be borne by the Developer. The City Manager shall provide thirty (30) days prior written notice of such periodic review to the Developer. Such notice shall require the Developer to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to provide such other information as may be reasonably requested by the City Manager and deemed by such person to be required in order to ascertain compliance with this Agreement. If, following such review, the City Manager is not satisfied that the Developer has demonstrated good faith compliance with all the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the City Manager may refer the matter, along with his recommendations, to the City Council. Failure of the City to conduct an annual review shall not constitute a waiver by the City of its rights to otherwise enforce the provisions of this Agreement nor shall the Developer have or assert any defense to such enforcement by reason of any such failure to conduct an annual review. D. [Sec. 403] Enforced Delay, Extension of Times of Performance. In addition to specific provisions of this Agreement, either Party hereunder shall not be deemed to be in default where delays or defaults are due to war, terrorism, insurrection, 136922.7-Word-10/03/02 13 strikes, walkouts, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, casualties, acts of God, governmental entities' enactment of conflicting state or federal laws or regulations, new or supplementary environmental regulations, litigation or similar bases for excused performance. If written notice of such delay is given to the City within thirty (30) days of the commencement of such delay, an extension of time for such cause shall be granted in writing for the period of the enforced delay, or longer as may be mutually agreed upon. E. [Sec. 404] Limitation of Legal Acts. In no event shall the City, or its officers, agents or employees, be liable in damages for any breach of violation of this Agreement, it being expressly understood and agreed that the Developer's sole legal remedy for a breach or violation of this Agreement by the City shall be a legal action in mandamus, specific performance or other injunctive or declaratory relief to enforce the provisions of this Agreement. F. [Sec. 405] Applicable Law and Attorneys' Fees. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Developer acknowledges and agrees that the City has approved and entered into this Agreement in the sole exercise of its legislative discretion and that the standard of review of the validity or meaning of this Agreement shall be that accorded legislative acts of the City. Should any legal action be brought by a party for breach of this Agreement or to enforce any provision herein, the prevailing party of such action shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs and such other costs as may be fixed by the Court. G. [Sec. 406] Invalidity of Agreement. (1) If this Agreement is determined by a court to be invalid or unenforceable, this Agreement shall automatically terminate as of the date of final entry of judgment. (2) If any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court to be invalid or unenforceable, or if any provision of this Agreement is rendered invalid or unenforceable according to the terms of any law which becomes effective after the date of this Agreement and either Party in good faith determines that such provision is material to its entering into this Agreement, either Party may elect to terminate this Agreement as to all obligations then remaining unperformed in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 400, subject, however, to the provisions of Section 407 hereof. H. [Sec. 407] Effect of Termination on Developer Obligations. Termination of this Agreement shall not affect the Developer's obligations to comply with the General Plan and the terms and conditions of any and all land use entitlements approved with respect to the Site prior to such termination, nor shall it affect any other covenants of the Developer specified in this Agreement to continue after the termination of this Agreement. If portions of the Site are held in separate ownership at the time of such termination, this Agreement may be terminated only as to such portion and no such termination shall impair the continuing applicability of this Agreement to the remainder of the Site. 136922.7-Word-10/03/02 14 ARTICLE 5 HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT A. [Sec. 500] Hold Harmless Agreement. The Developer hereby agrees to and shall indemnify and hold the City, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents and employees harmless from any liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injury, including death, as well as from claims for property damage, which may arise from the Developer's or the Developer's contractors', subcontractors', agents' or employees' operations under this Agreement, whether such operations be by the Developer, or by any of the Developer's contractors, subcontractors, or by one or more persons directly or indirectly employed by or acting as agent for the Developer. This provision shall survive and continue for a period of one (1) year after the termination of this Agreement. The City shall have the right to select its own counsel to defend it in any indemnified claim unless either (i) Developer is also sued and its counsel can defend all parties, or(ii) Developer's insurer requires engagement of counsel other than that selected by City. In the event of any legal action instituted by a third party or any governmental entity or official arising out of the approval, execution or implementation of this Agreement (exclusive of any such actions brought by the Developer) including such actions brought pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Developer agrees to and shall cooperate fully and join in the defense by the City of such action and shall indemnify and hold the City, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents and employees harmless from any liability for damages, costs or attorneys' fees which may arise from such action. This provision shall survive and continue for a period of one (1) year after termination of this Agreement. The City shall have the right to select its own counsel to represent it in any action of the type referred to in this paragraph. ARTICLE 6 PROJECT AS A PRIVATE UNDERTAKING A. [Sec. 600] Project as a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between Parties hereto that the development of the Site is a separately undertaken private development and that the contractual relationship created hereunder between the City and Developer is such that Developer is an independent contractor and is not an agent of the City. None of the terms or provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership or joint venture between the City and Developer or to provide third party beneficiary rights to any person or entity not a Party hereto. The only relationship between the City and the Developer is that of a governmental entity regulating the development of private property and the owner of such private property. 136922.7—Word—10/03/02 15 ARTICLE 7 CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN A. [Sec. 700] Consistency With General Plan. The City hereby finds and determines that execution of this Agreement is in the best interests of the public health, safety and general welfare and is consistent with the General Plan as amended concurrently with the approval of this Agreement. ARTICLE 8 NOTICES B. [Sec. 8001 Notices. All formal notices required by this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, to the principal offices of the City and the Developer with copies sent as set forth below. The addresses of the parties as of the date hereof are as set forth below. Such written notices, demands, correspondence and communication may be directed in the same manner to such other persons and addresses as either party may from time to time designate in writing. The Developer shall give written notice to the City, within ten (10) days after the close of escrow, of any sale or transfer of any portion of the Site and any assignment or partial assignment of this Agreement, specifying the name or names of the transferee, the transferee's mailing address, the legal description of the land sold or transferred, and the name and address of any person or entity to whom any notice relating to this Agreement shall be given with respect to such transferred portion of the Site. Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows: If to City: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attention: City Manager and City Attorney Telephone: (760) 346-0611 Fax Number (760) 346-7098 With a copy to: Best, Best& Kreiger Attn: David Erwin 75-760 Highway 111, Suite 200 Indian Wells, CA 92210 Telephone: (760) 568-2611 Fax Number: (760) 340-6698 136922.7-Word-10/03/02 16 Notices required to be given to the Developer shall be addressed as follows If to Developer: Destination Development Corporation do Lowe Enterprises Attn. Corporate Counsel 11777 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90049 Telephone: (310) 820-6661 Fax Number: (310) 207-1132 With a copy to: Destination Development Corporation Attn: Theodore R. Lennon 74-001 Reserve Drive Indian Wells, CA 92210 Telephone: (760)779-1646 Fax Number: (760) 779-1469 With a copy to: Luce Forward Attn: Ms. Timi Hallem, Esq. 777 S. Figueroa Street, Ste 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 892-4903 Fax Number: (213) 892-7731 ARTICLE 9 RECORDATION A. [Sec. 900] Agreement. The City and the Developer shall record this Agreement and any amendments or modifications thereof in the Official Records of Riverside County, California as required by applicable law. ARTICLE 10 MISCELLANEOUS A. [Sec. 1000] Amendment of Agreement. This Agreement may be amended from time to time with respect to any portion of the Site by mutual consent of the City and the Developer (to the extent that it continues to own any portion of the Site) and of the then-current owner(s) of the portions of the Site affected by such amendment, with City costs payable by the amendment applicant, in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Sections 65867 and 65868. B. [Sec. 1001] Waiver of Provisions. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the Party against whom enforcement of a 136922.7-Word- 10/03/02 17 waiver is sought. No waiver of any right or remedy with respect to any occurrence or event shall be deemed a waiver of any other occurrence or event. C. [Sec. 1002] Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each provision of this Agreement of which time is an element. D. [Sec. 1003] Entire Agreement. This Agreement is executed in duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original. This Agreement consists of eighteen (18) pages and five (5) exhibits, which constitute the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties. Said exhibits are identified as follows: Exhibit A—Description of Site Exhibit B—Map of Site Exhibit C — Site Plan of Project Exhibit D—Building Heights and Setbacks Exhibit E—Area Designated for Conservation Easement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. "CITY" CITY OF PALM DESERT, a California Municipal Corporation. Effective Date: By: (Mayor, City of Palm Desert) 2002 Attest: Carlos Ortega City Manager Approved as to form: David Erwin City Attorney 136922.7—Word— 10/03/02 18 "DEVELOPER" DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a California Corporation DATE OF SUBMISSION BY BY: Developer: Theodore R. Lennon, Sr. V.P. , 2002 136922.7-Word-10/03/02 19 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) On , 2002, before me, (name of notary) , a notary public, personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person (s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledge to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity (ies), and that by his/her/their signature (s) on the instrument the person (s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person (s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) On , 2002, before me, (name of notary) , a notary public, personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person (s) whose name (s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity (ies), and that by his/her/their signature (s) on the instrument the person (s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person (s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. 136922.7—Word—10/03/02 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) On , 2002, before me, (name of notary) , a notary public, personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person (s)whose name (s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity (ies), and that by his/her/their signature (s) on the instrument the person (s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person (s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. 136922.7-Word-10/03/02 1 EXHIBIT A-1 THROUGH A-5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION- EXHIBIT A-1 ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 5 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. ACCORDING PLA i iii EU . 120737.10-TAH-f 0/08/01 EXHIBIT A-2 ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTYLOCATED IN THE CITY OF PAT M DESERT. RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 1: THE NORTH HALF OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2 IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN; EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT BY DEED RECORDED DFCFMPFP Q 106(1 A C T\1CTr?T n ir_\TT \Tr, i ('i- + nr nrr.Tf-T r nr.r^nnr, rTh RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTH HALF OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 21 ' 05" WEST, ON THE EAST SIDE OF SAID NORTH HALF, 265.95 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE LEFT WHOSE TANGENT BEARS SOUTH 28 DEGREES 55' 52" WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 650.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 24 DEGREES 46' 53", A DISTANCE OF 281.14 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTH HALF; THENCE NORTH 88 DEGREES 57' 55" EAST ON SAID SOUTH LINE 81.06 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 120737.10-TAH-i 0/08/01 EXHIBIT A-3 ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. RIVERS COUNTY, C.-VLIFOR.NL-A, DESCRIBED AS-FOLLOWS: PARCEL 2: THAT PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF LOT 1 OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3 1, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE • 6 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, LYING NORTHERLY OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE STORM WATER CHANNEL AS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 2, 1960 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 102408 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 120737.10-TAH-10/08/01 EXHIBIT A-5 ALL L THAT CERTAIN RE XL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRLBED AS FOLLOWS: THE NORTH 330.00 FEET OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF LOT I IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, AND THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH 3 30.00 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, LYING WESTERLY OF THE PINE TO PALMS HIGHWAY, CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, BY DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 17,1936 IN BOOK 266 PAGE 480 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, CONVEYED TO THE COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, A PUBLIC AGENCY, OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BY DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 16, 1957 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 66503 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 120737.10-TAH-I 0roa/0 1 • • r.R.A. ore-oav 652-02 • N.//-' of NW 1/4 of SEC.3/, T.5S.,R.6E, ore-oos O/e-Ooe m 2530 oror O 0 13 1 i s roo bl� 0 t. &WYA,w-k . v. @�x/ `4 '' • M i 'MM Lo •28 VC) 35 I.. X RI'S p • ` 1. S.I/ . . • ? 7N 0 , il '-® to to .,l. LOT ..., .,,, LET — — — 2 r'r,,//"r -• .,%.! — — — O 06 Oro. 0 I n I it Af I171,,)4/1,Wil.td?0, 147•211-II-♦ . • AlAESSAT'S MAP B/r.e1l re.of MAY'98 R/YOTS/DE,Ct UNfY GL/f, JUL 3 1 "3°Z • r/7 A ate-000 1 652 —03 015-On 1V.1/. ' of NW 1/4 of NE. //4 of SEC.3/, r.5S.,R.6E.. o/A-o7 +� 3t - I ! 14 /// ® L t nl .. t ® y '' Lu 1L .. , Jot.. I r l 1 f O r '• t '� ,.® t � � '' 77_ �® •�.1 } © _ 3Y/ /MrIVIEW _ ‘Q lt • [ .‘,(,::,I: ..1-4- -............_, ::L1 -. ..,.. , ).... 0410----__ ..,) , ..........___ ---------_____ ....., . c) •• O �\ .iO a� \ 'I \. N ,_. e 0 . . -. � o ..,, e ) it ' N\ -13—)x- •P • ------------_______ ---7 ---...._._ tNI /1111 PI (Co Ttl..... R.\ o AQ ,X/P -30 .Doc/ hb./3006 1 8 o.r.j O.t.o r R/f .r/Jst nw•m.- 4.p ASSESSORS MAP RA;652 PC.03 JUL 3 119 RIVERS/Of COLT TY CALM h l• n 1 rn..z MAY ' 98 SEC. 25,, r 5 S. R.5 E. rRa 06i.006 62u- 32 • • • • • 686 23 14 i <� iar� �r <•1_/9 I I• 30 • I /'•• 1'00' • • I 0 .. I V Is • er • le-le .;!. 0 c • 0 Cam 686 - -- . aW _. +CIec1 5 • I •j .. ® • 1 • oar.. . Le ,.., <'lS 3J 36 -•. Jp 0 . . ►Slt�ffrl 836 31 35 • _NMI ASSfSSO/7'S AIA/' /7K 6C PG 31 �= RIVERsinr COVN1 r, CA or Inalinlinini ein= • EXHIBIT B _ .---- _ i ,.....,..—..„. . .i.----, ' ' - ‘.l. 1 ."- "d/VX.'-!-"i ,\z: . -`_S-_"-- - :,-"'",•''''': 4!- \: . -.V4% .- . VI'. t••• ..-":" ---- - - . 1 •-• ' , , _„,,,,44,' f ---: -- - - --- ' ,--‘,.st,'"';,6, .-.,: -• ,. • .--%-'-d" 4.--- • ., ::. i. , . --1 ' ' ' ----•—.2' - ' • - -.•-•:.tzt.re. . I .• '',...M.,f4 • s • -..":". — __. ''''• 1' .1 ; '1•,„•<-. ., , - . - . , - , Fr4r**a M ,-"-::'-' 1.,-.•-. • 1%* . • 't ., . ' ' --'-*•,':-''''''''' i' -1-.-.- -• - • - - ' /* * -':----.-:-.'--v.- '- •- -' ' ' ''' ' • - ••*•' v5.•,'-'73,A.C.,-- , .. ', , ••• ' ' ' ,•,,,,, ...1 4.671003,...-.- .I.>---' --- 'In' • 1. ,_... Z._s___T, ‘_ _ , _ A....,„,_ _,---,- Ilk, . ••, • ,!...,_-,...,- ..., .,,, -',)--4,:,-2,_-,--2," ''-..-..:.../'-.\•.-•,..''-„l k-,,-.,'--:i,.-.'-;'s-•,,',_ --,',"---,.,'-',',--."4-'--1-J.'-•,,,,-_-',,,-•,.-,_,.„--,t,.-, -' -'\•--,-"_-.,'' _,-4,'--.-.'-s-.',''.'.,'',,,,,,:---;-'-,,'.,-:.'',-,'--'--''-'-L-',\-/•;,-•)^-.-4",i1'-`,1-441.5f..-,-',-,)(....-.--.-r,-,N''.-,i-,,4-'..,..,-)-•,"-.)„''-k`-7-.-,"--\-•',,,-1..-.-..-.-.',1--,7--3_t--,-2--6'i4.,,la,,,,n_af•':l=•i ;b‘4,_..4..i f_c•L A--•-.-,1...•',r',',,,,.I•t.-,;,--4:-4,.,.4r7.•-1.Z..-,..-.:•,i"- ,„'•,'.`;•.c4'.''V: :.P_Ei-L.'.4L?,.-1."-_-.- . _ L. 4 - Z. c / 44 ...- =' . P -"i-,--,.t..‘,--.j•-,^_"n1--,•,-1•;'_•'.._.,'I..,:,,-.._•-..--,-.-,-.,-.-.'vr''.i.---7.''t,4 i q-"ii_d,.,,,,,L.A,,'.--_A , --1_-,,!.--4,:,-.-- 7,i, ,.._, -, „ ,:fe v r,,g - - ‘ .,.-.,..,i r,•.`ze-l--:-' '• --,cr---- ---, 244 - .' • g, - -, . ---_, p,.i-,-,,..-L.-.•!-..t ,- 0 , • -• 4 . _ - - - ,,„.,---,'\'1. '', 414 - t•iiiec'A...,, '-s' . -:-: • " -.. ' ! '' . -I' - '): . . ' - ' ! C C." -:------ -,.''''*4,'1.‘i 1.;'i C- • *' ' - k- -"7- --•.*,*"-, ‘17,; .. . : :` 1.--- - _,,,,-1-,-,,,,‘ s'--_, ' , ' • • • , ! ,-.; t • • • • ._!‘ii--17-4-1,,,t-Vkitwi'.7-'1 - -... .` ‘1 4: -I.:4:.:(7:- ;11k, I ,,. Ilanning ikivi- ,_‘-, 7v.,.f4,4,4 -4--.142 If - r- . -A ;it, --1--- • --•- ::::::::::- ..,,,- , i- = - - ' '--.- ••__ .s.,.'••-?.-c--,,-,1 ,11,-;4 . ---- `- `;I:-----.}-, .r- 1-.: •,-..• .r..•#• .“:"$::-.••::.----•fri ,-- •--Aini,:-..,,,,f.„-..,,,,4-.4,-1,4„, ', --- --!;', -)-; : ...,''.•, ::' -' .":;-:'......' *4' s-l-ri-, •--",3,---- 1,-t-z-1- '--•"',.. ••• A • , "-- \:.-,•.'..e."6 - , • , - • - - 4--7-2".r-, - ..-.1"`.;f..4-i• \--'44.---.. - -..--- .411M/Piir tl,•, , .-.„,..., -.. . „. ... . . ,,,....., tiv, „ 4: 4,0 00,-----m-- 1. - ..... R 11...rs)8\A ..` '- '''.., ,, ; .' -.• ''''i'.- , -. r...'?_34'''''•'-?4-•''' .''" .•.. i......‘.:.1. :.• : ti.1.•• •:''''''''',N4l.4''' ,A(7,,. .., •J , • , '', 1 ,„ :_ ,_ ,.... WI',-",17:,1 kr,...„ .. 71...e. •.. • ..T.T. • -T'', ' N'' ; ;? , ' \. '''.t \' '''•.'' , , j• . • p *.,. . .....,--A. :-1A.,m -„ , ,,A.wp._ , - ; • , ' --, 44''''Ki Vitw Cc il, \1 er,I, -;‘ ,.'.: :4.-,,, ,,'0 - :' i' ,3 :1.• ,:ky;-_- ,_,- r-rk ' ' . _, ,„ i "-- ' ...,".;:':''''''' . —.1 'A -• 74-.44, -• - - , - ' ,,. ,,,,,, -- ,..,,C', - i • '' - :, *. IY_.:: %-'.: ., , , - '.410..11,-. ' ' -I n '-''---1' -'.-r. 'iL-1- 4 -' , • _- 44., c-1 c 1. ' - ,:....t,-...•.; , ,.... .,,, • ...11,VI '- , --,,, . _}-- ,_ _:. .1 , 4. 41 •-•-• ; r, '‘.‘ '. I'N,3 -- --* i , 4 -- '• '. --- ' ,,.. , , •(., E , ,. n 1 1 - - ' A_,...., E • •-•n ', ' ', '-',...__ elivol '---''' : I - eel • . "1,- ------ '' '' -' • '' C . - • '' , ____ ,-. ! ,,. 7.'' -..- - , '' • 'N- ''• ' ‘" -" ' -4'''''' 'I v `-' „ . . -,-3"---,.) ‘-' • -.;)'1 , ,, ' -- ' . ..' - ) (-7- '- , - ,f.t? n• ,- - . • .r---- ', t$., __.._' ' 7,- '•-'- -- _,....----:10,---"---f'",---- \v \,., '') '''-'- --'•:".---- ' '-'. _--'',•----••••'•' "7.''s : T-" 7-'' . _ -,-„,. . -,,-._. r.--__‘, , •,. _._, _ ,' -, r, - - ,_ ,..--1\,„ „ C-. ''''4 '-'...2- . „-'''''Ll',', • -1 - Ln-'---'-_, -) /' ^- N,....- i''' ii. - , „\ /- Al „1,-T',:-.-1,_ -k,-.;,•.,;,,•-.),,', - . -i , , , ' • - - 'N-\ ,,,-', ,-,.. • k„ ' ,--1 _ ‘ ).-,. L- • • ' -.,\, - , . - -,t-, i•-•,„,-,, -,, - • - ‘ „ • _. _.. ---- -- , '--•Nfof-..4-, ) .- _ . r- . .z - -'(- `vir.. 1. • - ------.., 5-N r 1 • .- '--'--. • ,i J1,4•N: i ,.‘ ,-. •-,--';• _. " .' • ---.--d 4,- -‘,J.. - ''''' ' '.‘t - - •••••• s--*\-`•r''' 14 i • , C. /- ..ii Lit--.4.1‘.f-N \..-., ‘6,.. 4. Rauch.Mirage 0,...0.0, ...-r tr-14 E 1 AIX) . '•",...''' - l '9 ' ......-7. ., . ",,,-",..._....--.. ..i CO-..VV61 11t l...h. ,IC Trir OV-TED L.,-.CS...St....VT C4' -.MS P.,11.4k.REDOETK VERTK....0.0%.4*0,IA, r-- 1 Crest Golf Club & Residential Village L 4 TERRA NOVA® Project Vicinity Map 1-2 Planning&Research, k, City of Palm Desert - , Inc. ' ' ^ | / '66 I-D TT R . ` . . ^ / . . . • , „ . ,i'", " ' •i/ -2••b•..-,/.% • 1.)11.1. / .',.....•,1 % I" V/Ji.1),. e:i%;'P-I. . • ..-,i'SE 1 /1 . . '; -r• ••••./...-J1.1.1 ,....••c,•-.1,1•,4 IA.!.'1 ':fict:Its1:1,.IN 1 .1/ - j.S..1 pla).,-T5i41 1 ."7-if;:----- ,11 riii • .1 IIII:li I Illt10(01.:". 'It •••- ..• • •li I. j.4!(:"..;....'1.1,i4e•ts•-_.14:1' ''.., :.!...11:1,,,,..//41/ ... l!„1//,', .' / /•‘.....1k). i .. ... , ;•. • li ..„1,r•;. • '''- 1.'I:it,-:li,:---11:: 'Ill:, .-,.?. ---,fig,- 1.1(•',./)/-.4V,i1 V ' ) 1 ti 1., • Al l) ..,,.'‘,11 • 2 . ,.. . . .... , .111 OP- ..11111,111111;. • • • • ,. .7• '. • • : •:''..lit-;',--7- ‘ (---- c 'e .f-ii -;(1,fr/dre•-",-_,_../(• , ,V; • fri ter,./7/,:b\)s i? •.1..,„ ' • ;,, 1.,•,........,uolk‘L i l 1 . . .,le ••I••1,I I ,,:),it.......:`:1;,•••:„."... s1‘,), \,, E, , ...."."1,,,,,,,e1",/ 40;.••".. j f f„.•::'k,,,.., I 1 ..: ' :. l•-iri,.. ..il l!• jiill',..7...:ZZ' "',2,7- 'of '- --."-4, •"'%.5, .1••••,.,,./a -c/t/J;",,,4 IV :1 C• 11 11;.1. , • TIN,. lottil: (','"';'11.11(1•••IIIIiiii(1,1• • • '• . •:•,.-.Z- ."..!11111 Ill)ilt ; -1---:=---•-'- - ir.,,,,u„- „. . ;y01,"10: ,-,-.1), :,-,, .,-;vu... ,-... I . • (1.....-- . ,.,. s. .....,....,;01....., . •.i i ., 0), ii : , .-..---- ./•,. .- ; • 1,-'-----...-..: 7 11- .7,11/C5 - .. '.4./•'• ' ,.• -k•'-'-•' -.,--"":- „r•• \ .......„ 1,tl. .. .!„., .1111.11,4d 1.--z.. - • „ ...pi. z,• ..- 11. ',. 14.2f/j/..it(, .3 -• lc--_I ..flij..-_-_...--\Np"ft it,•/0 1.4,i •,,,'),':',,k\'I-1 .1 ••• 4. .......% _. -',.,./, ..11 4•It l'i, ",=--• ......" -.• 1 ‘,..-- .I •I • 1 11 .' Pi I:..r..!.. -...0•Ai".1,3 - ,„. ,i, ,-"v--.:----- , -- .-,-v,--;-, , -. .,,/, 01 ,--=_-_-.4,=-___-,f; ,... 1,\)) ' ..fi,) ,;-'\,)o tk..Jiti. -,, ...\ I r •r ill'i /II; .'"''' 'VI) •i114•1;•,-11::;th",•,' ',.... . • --,.14•/_ 0'• .'fi. :%.:...f...;"?.;; -Q-.7.-- •----- : ,- ..,;',/71\i/AV-t 4.;, -'ilelL.C.,,. 1) 1",,r; if.. 1 /,i •1 - 1 . : !•,-..y... ...1':. • ..p4:1_,- _.,. 1. • .• et•2.,......41 .11::::•-1,-•,„•-:--," sZj:01 1 _;.z_...--•7•-•-.----- 4 c-r•<-:,./l'$1/ye':I •\Nu 6 )/--;-•:11‘ 1, rt.,:,/ .1 (,.:• sil .i:-i-_-..,-- •-_-_--_-...---y. ))A - ,-,....-:-0 -_-:::._-_-_-i 1„...1 ,.. /1,...f.. 1 , ,. ,).y. 1 -• 1 1 -\,...) )11. " • . •- .6. ,,.,/-•1.:I:i .. '1110i'.el- , . 1,. •..-"..- I A .•r,;i ' , '::si='7_.... ;.'.."-----_-::24„,i tcf . .., . _. 'A ii• 1 . ' cis241.\-:!'f-, :•7'441 i II , 1,'\1;•..!/11 . ) ' 11. PP • '.-. - ' .-:Li . z......;,. !•))) f .: • ‘1 ii II 1 La ail). ... 111,•,•h'1'....,.. . ,, F.;.. v.::: ,i , ,.,, .??..,..'In .4 • • ). 0 ,(' ' i itiCi_j(Calg.C.:' • flif)-vi'7:k II.g''W P .. yr/Pi •- l'•Ill " • i . •1'1111 fi.pir ' • . . 0!• •J(':-1 ::• R t't4.4.;)) ' '% - iti ...../...,-)71111•;\-,(11// (',3 '• ., .....,11)..1 It. • ..,.1111 - - Z- Callf•-•: ... _Jo rt., ; . ,.. , $ _.-,,,,,:., . , . 11,..,..::: . ,.:...igliti•.'ir- . • • 1., - •-/ ,./.1,,1' . .,., •1,.•••,-..../ •I Sjvii I &fit • / 1,/ :,. . • • -li 11....,1 t:J/1 • ' • ••‘ e•-. • ' ••/ .. "! •• ',-,t-s3. -,.,• ..,- -.,,,,, ... .-..•- s'-',...--1 j 2/i...., • .•. . . ,1,1•• ' .1.0-... '••,!;11: • --(;"'•; - •- -, • 1 -•-•• -------- - '-• ) • ..sy . 11%f:i. ,,,•..f,i I 1 NI•• , - --- .- -- i 1• -- , . -.,--=.-.- 1 - •,...• • • - - :-_-•, --- .- ....,,,t-.7.,,:t: / ,. ,.., ,,I,,,,..,,„., ; .„ •• , 4,1.1. ........, t.•,, - „,..., - : • „V , •_, •• 1 • : ,i ) ..../. r I ell , I I .jj?, • -1)5 ' , : i • • • •," . •, :. -: I : .:•••. lif, •. -1•.•J i• ' '•, _/•i ••=t/ . k ;.-e-•,?p,t/i i fi-ri. _ • \ • • • • - .r.,J. //••:.• -••01.•:- .;/ - ti •1.-f-•:-:,-,. -- ---'-j•tr- ,,7-' ,-// ,.. iffi‘t). ).';4` :7-,P, .- : ' ,. • • •••••ii." : Q-1••:-: ••.„:4' •.i-: ,s._-- 1:--i ,.1jf:i p .. - ii:.--cv • I • .1' i•-i('•• ' . - - • , , .., ,ir:....41.:(11,4%tri....... ii. (-ji;J ',-...._ „I : .711)1 - - . • t . i• I f f . • ;)11/A );1 i :::i L .:. . • •• • •.-., .,- • ...?...)..1, • • i•,-, . • .. 'you -• /;t • Ig,. - • --, /1.•--,.• • • ,,, _I 9 •-*••,••' ft- ) %/4•7 •''.r. ///7- rt ' , ., . .. • ,,. - _• .d.o.• . !;...' l'j • 4'r • . - e) -i-s-I.,‘ 0• . e . ,.....„ .....,..._-..,_...... _....,/.., ,gric,..")..1,'1/1) f/11 ,•L .....- 1 '. 1, j (r 1 c %4 is • )1,11e3: ' -'•-:;..----•'•-•••'• .•• ..'' . -.• ' - --- ' ,•41-k--,%‘-,- ' -,-,--k 2j((5 #c:.....q r. r .". . ,,,,,, . • . . .. ,11,i. • i." •,.,4-,.i; ..;ir- - .,... • .., .1. 1! ,;,•,-_-:. :::.•11 .1 n '. • . • . . .. ,„ . _ . N....... . , ,,..-.7 •,_c c/._._( ...-ksi -7: •r:. ..-.11,0 . -:-,-.. -_ • • !II • I. , , .,..• ___ • (.,:, )(/----'\%. ..:::•:-; )i'' /16..‘,.4:1 ....• - .- • ..- 1 ,--,...., ). f•-4 .,. .i• :- •,...„, F;.;'.- Ili' I . -..z•-• . , . • ' ' '. ,i I I I) I I .. 71'..:-..-7 .1. * . . )t . • - ,C;)-21-'-c--- s ; )N 1-`,.-",- . , . ,l'/ ' ) " I( 't Pi I . - • ,,t/i. • *.; ; ./, ... : • ( • -• 11,.,1 . 0 •1‘, olioliiii:' : .,• ' ., ,,i•i , 1 ,j,ii , .:in -I. ,.. 1 i.1.! . . ...ti-. - i sot-: . .. ..:9_,.,...., ).)(2 .,--lse),-- 4,.... \sf. . (,,.:,--.•,... .r Si •r // A A H i , • i-i Ali " '' I'll..eillop • . ii, ' - ., .. „.. .:- )11 •1., •-•• •••i,f-• 1 . - • A / ..i f"-- 717.•-•:--- . c " 1 1 t i )(I 'L.,)t '• ' 4 •-• _.) •••••••" • t '-•;.. tir../' _ .• ..,.. i . . . - '. • • • •: - ---- •• ./..- PC1 ;1111 111.1.11' '' (101-. .. .. ...., r.tItilkii9C-;=%-'-i; ./.!sv1 i':1 i :-.2r "._.. '.. 'Li. '1 .• - -' .:::".""t3 ' t7. . --' L..'-. lir414 .1..(. -/ ,1)4.. . 11'1\‘ I t'l .. ..,-../_:-• ' . •---i ..!ilr. 7- L, -fa :•, • - , f - • ...., ;, • , ,1.10 ) iii ill..,i ,111110 , , , -, F-. • - - i .- ;• ,. .-• • r-••• - -'-' ''‘)1, i• '?...... ,,:Iii..s. l'‘ „toil, t I!. e. ...t I,, 'PP..•111!.1.fli „i11...1,, ...,.:- -:- • I i/ : :0•. ) - i. ..,..f.______. _•-_,,.,• _\ ccl , .i? (I ..,\ r. `•! -:. 1,• . , :, ;: -„-z _, • • ,.. s ••'..(.----....r....:0.-:-..,..;N Jii ...,/ It)iti.„1\‘ .r, I,) ,:a . . . 1, : .',.. ••• •: • :f..-•:--_:-....•;.4 ::., - : ; , .• • =-%-z,..•:_••= .• '.` ( 'r' . / • j'( :.N` . . ill/11.. Ifil'*.i• • '"....)14,011/((,;. IL.,III .,)...1, IllIggir .:',.;„,...,.1.„....,_ 41. ..-..-.. , / .. -•- .. ( ' : , .f 0 --S ))\.5D..,,,,,,. - .'.. 0 jii•\\11%/r.'--;.;)'(...il'37 111(V)1 . ,•Z•• • '.• II/ '',/I. . i I . . ,I. • ' '"• . • - ,.-:=:17 ;;1111.1 I/ - . . r" le iiiikl IV °ill') iti, ' 1,111.))1111 IC ... • •••%': •.?..31if, k'.11 4: - ,s;1••••,i), .- ,• ..• • , il$ r . 1 • ;:_-:41-r)4),...,,-.-',./ , ..,/c.f„ , ....\\,(j,.... ...\.. •--I t- 11/ . ' ,‘ ••A k JaiAl A111 TO I' .'':' 7/ IiIIII/ • .•.:-.44'' %--.. . ----:7.4:';' •.''•••-.1•111/11 '1 .7 .'-'.- yy, ii ily ,,:unill I I, 1, ,,,11,•,l•.i ii i ..-:-,...,/ ,••• •;•' •----%---= -- '• • •I 1 • i 1'74- • 11"91:; ! lii .‘i'.\,\. •f" 1/. y\i .;. ) , ,.4' J.11 !i ill!, . ii,,1,, •,, .),),,II,,if• .•••:.,/. • • ...,:,:,:::: :i.:: 1:.1 Il,I I •I • ,e, t,-6,_,--„,.........,,,-.- _I 1.1 4( ,0...:••7\ 1 .• , . .. •, •.' i•' I 1,1 „,,i„.,1()IIIVP MI( IIII.:,it . • 'IM,...f.;:::.... i -• •,;-„,/•,..): *-.', •(111•1•• '• ,_• )•._ ......_..-...._.,„;„_.."---.3--•__-.1-."•/' (I f •!if*•,,:___ 'I "I'll c I, • \ v ...%! 1 ..., ., ...- . ,1 1- . ii..1 1;111141 , •, •7 qiifr •,0 ',(, .%.,.:...'''' ...(i,4_-_X.:-:.:.,,i ..-f.,1••.... -..,.,.: 1....0., , r.,.. ----- ________ -- ___ .__,;.,\,,,, ,I ?..1.,..: \... . k..;li. .) ),''-.11:-.. Il.p. .I go., • . 'ilsi ')A,Iil• 'a••', ',,:.-----1'..1.,";4',.;-:.,..:" !..-.1-,.-_,-. .i..,:•:••• Ali „',,-' ..--... --,-------""-•••\.. N.,'..„....,. ----z-...- \g, g g f--,‘" g . ,./.. ,. . , II) ./r/,/ 1'0' A ..... - , rf. ' if't 1 c_...1._g"1-1-.... ., ..,1-'; -::•-',: ;.1-:.t.- .' -••.'/: : •••'. '-: --:-=•------=--.----- ---- •-I l 'Alf- 1 1-/,‘. .' \ ..' t•e"'-•-X ( .•Nt . . I /eV''''• 1..1.11'. ' 1111111,, ir,'..• . ..,!,.1.•....,,-•,,T4.::..z.?....-:',.-7-,,,,i. 1 '',..--j 4.:•:::::.-..-__,_ • •• ..- • , - _:., ._...„. - ___,....-,.__ . ••••,..„......„... _____ _ i_A .....„_.-.....zo.......„„\ hi '", 1•111,1, it,' .• ;- =i‹..... 1.'....•.a•-.;73-r • --:.-' =-7:--'-' -- "•.:..; •,/,di -- 1'. 7"--------- ---.7•-------- _, ----'-'s`s --z-s..-- It.v.:/..t.,L.::/-='-- -----\,_--.7""\l, \t1\ -.,,_.,• j • •\ .V,I : •.4 "''''' ..1.1.',1' ," -, .7':•i•P•i/H.r.-L:-•'---.----.--:- -- -f "f:YP)!"/1 ) ,;'':f---4; ,=" ..--,•------ _-_--------f-7--- -----,, ----"1-• \`,_- „._..-----'- .11,7-- \Y1)-`s ' - ,;;"-e;- '• . `k` 4 'I vivi,1 ') • , .. 4.'4 ,,A:. .::.i ...L.,..----5.---:-.:-..:1- -_:__.!2_.. -. , •'..:•• f .....:;,..... -="c•.,-... . :----_-_ -_:-....•--------------•-< --_-,----:-...-,- N ...-,)v..-_ \:,-, . --1- ‘,,--yr.-,.-- Fr,-, )11A., j , . .,, ,...,.,.: •:,....,..:,..,.....„,...,fi. -'. .:4%). . i ?( .,..,-- !.-.,,w,.......:../.,.,,,....:„.,...„-•77.t I I_____.-..::.....„........,....... ..., -,...r is. ‘.,1‘ j . L......t, n,. \ ,.., ...... 1 ,, ) r ., . . , ./ l 1‘..'1 ' 3 %43:!: •:. .'., .•%."7--'-;;-..,--•-i•,;f'. :•:,!%,* ------3•7' .;cv.t:g.I;4;: i i A"-•"'-'17.1Z:kz"l‘1---g'P pi, -..-..zA- 1._,. 'OIiii)..., a1.',. '. •• .:i'4;1.'.:.,•• .t7i;,,oj'if ati4li,,'.l•l•l'i''-':-1•1;i.:.,..,.....f./'%.'%•1I:/rE1 11:11 1)1f,11:•1.f111'1l4, i•*:-'-•:/.4''',. .--r,-',.--l--.e.,?-.4- kii/-1. 1-:---".--..s-•_--::'-----'-'--I-'.k.vt-i sr:)--.1 ,.‘1--•\.f..\,?,•i\dc / S)„\:-I,•e.i.,..Av.s'f,r..•,•11I% tr,? '::-.• •.:14'r.-r 1.'"--..'•'''?' I :."1**-•:----'---.' ---z-"•\...,..... it n ..\3 -,-.... ., \\•,. t:. ,--:-:-•:.-:- •---- -_-•:.,-,--- --------.,,,," -•,••.,'N,,,„ ft••k;:•-•-•"....;-'•i• L.t.: , •.• -,•-\•-. \ 'c,/-- • '1.••• .. ;,".1,::::•:,3\i 4 . A \.V.. ' 1-.`i Iii 1'-1••:.. V i',1P,'..!.1,1illti."..:•-. •••••••• '/*;7./..jii. :•17 " t-e--i'l .• -..1;----14.v, .., j...-_= ___-_ :. .. \:.„-3,. . !4.._-0---.,. _, ,s\.. \oi , -,A; ," ,/ .. . ..111,410, L-1.:::-...1\v,...:11._," .,,f " -...-__-_.r.L.7-f,,-_-...1--,-_--. ------. _ : A‘.- >--- ;..1i,t ,* ,.) iyi l'.-' kvWt'i.i..- it:•6*/\I• '‘'.. •:.?At )..• 1 './ • ..' 1 'IPA'• -• '.- '=•-i.-,.‘ • . .. '••';;'," I.,t•', -. ;;,-7-1•-:;.""<,----,,I..._.....---.;•!f• -<.--;._------=^,--,',,'-1;1 -••, , ''iil ----"Q‘; ‘..,>Ik)e-f ig,, e--......./ , ,,I., L_,i i fi.-'-"j1 t\V./ '-I ‘-1.. - V.,t A .,.. •.il . 31,10, :.....-7,, •,,,,,),:„.. .,4,,,,.1 -,• ).il...,- -.........:;.___:,_-_-_,-..:. •;.i.i...,-7-.-.-1014„,..,- ,_ , .,.......;...„..,,,..„.:.„.3, .r...:::-- -Co•:.: ,...,..s--s---_-_::;- -‘ir,..,‘,..•-• \ i ) . i •••• I i r. . . .r.::_ 0 .. .1 ,p.,}1 ,f:„.1 • o. , ' /-,1--.',-_-_ ,%, .,, ,''. N...-•1 If ' ----'-, ..,..-------c--...... -,_z4,' .s _-_-- .- ---w , .A...._.,1 ,) 1 1- " • • - *' ' li if''•• ://i v.' .' :*--.....i'•f• ;-:-_-=-:--__----,_--_--. -. • 1 I i , . .••'•'• , '1'4/4 'WI,..".'• ' .1 •, -. • -:•-F-----...1.7...-a----F--:-..._-_'.: 5;1,i ,f-•• '114".'1111 i-rri T./I ---,•-••••• ----1-..,- ----'- --"--%:.- k, -..-:I l..%7 '"'" le‘"rIA / '‘,I.) •*::••.• " ' ' - A '•,. ',/i/ - I' .1. )46, ; :,.-"---..1. -.:72.Ffr7.---.7.-1, :- ./(1/.1•;,,i.1.it ,1 'hi f. (I__ g, : -;-L.--;..S • '''4., -'"•"---'. • ) •-• '*. ' ' 1 1 ' :}-,' 11,ll I . . s/• II • . „g. r••,,g1.)111,,,,,,•,-- ,,...,,,,,,,. Iglu f t .. , • :...,.•_,_-_,r,..i.7-..r. 11(11.1,4.,,,'//Mill r 1 --F..:77t,FA,...:,....*a.- t l'a..:: ''"- . ,.,-_ ..-L.4.4..... "`- i, ' ( C . .14•11..9Y ; (illifit 'I 1)")111''(I' •.1'_f • / 1./. --. )f.V.I. •• "---7-.-Se-i7-''''. .. 'V't.".Y.VW %WI k'11---11[4=--- - --` 'ti;.1--,'.:... \ ) • ••-.4'• •' ;1111 . !,,' i'., /./ 1-if',!-1.e ••••'' 1.'•-•:.„I '.f 1':"--7-3.•';'--:-2-'''s. r •it.•,11j1 ll „., It./-•%(..,...... .,',',..r.:-------,...„._. ..... ...2____--- .......-7-.....„--s.„,......)._ ' .... '"' / \l''',_,..."N‘, .1/ I I , iiiiV „. ,; ••.A-. s,-.i. . • !:-4 .;,1.' --,--•'•'-=•-•• •t 1,---17,.,.1j. )1 IVI 4e........ - --,_.------'',,..,,•- •:•:" - '--„*•••---.• ---""*) i . . .1.•n " • "thirtilt i41110'.; t.i'tie l'j!..1) ''i.,c•-••.# 1..! .?'.7-7.-..' " 1.,141 if'j .. lir t'i --------,-,.5:.-:-.. -'--------- ..---"--- -\) ( . r 4 \•). I'(1 I A Aft, •\"•-,s I t _ ". g .• 1"V101/1411111/1 1. • •t ig,,9_,1,;7=.4 1,-.2•,. , 'Ai . b - ...:.;--.4.• 0.,101.11,9jitaf.,:,..„-------•:%>_____z;____._.-----_-_,- ---•31,___----051---_-‹ ..___,-• )? , ..,_ d - I r",....., , ...... . . • 1. it i 11"' • ,,i.,,..-..-..1....,),. • • '4.t 4.1( 'il . ..1 ilitil. ,.._____Vu--_- -- -•<•-•- ------.----'- ----Z:-.---- - ... - ....11.11))14%,i I T'...7':.111 ,!*.11,--:-;.: .., ', •4..;,7 i•• v••••4 ,"; ‘',-1.!--------- - -----"--i ,(, - or a t lii•. 1 lye gill 1 .',..!1, -, •:• •. -;1.:.'• •: I. A. 4.1. .--..4.-,--- -......--------------------- --_---.7--:7--- _-___-• ;'' : ..•1 '....:11.,..4., 1,,...,. .•., vuoill ,0. :••:!,4. . • .i . .)..i• I•./._:„.... -. ,..s.,-__-_-__...- _-__,,-_-_-__--:::.--t.-_--,1 0) (%i(ti. \ ,:-_-_- ,, _. _--- , *1 EXHIBIT D BUILDING HEIGHTS AND SETBACKS The following development standards shall apply: Minimum Building Setbacks: Front yard: Fifteen (15) feet Rear yard: Ten (10) feet Interior side yard: Five (5) feet Building Heights: Residential building or structures shall not have a height exceeding twenty(20) feet from finished pad elevation. In no case shall the building exceed two living stories above the pad elevation of the building site. Country Club/Golf Course or recreational facilities buildings or structures shall not have a height exceeding thirty(30) feet from finished pad elevation. - _ EXHIBIT E CONSERVATION EASEMENT .. . ,. ...•...-- --..... -7.-%.::-.1.:'.. ...ti:".‘•-•1•••- •--141, --."--__;:z..:. ...- ""=...-••••••••••---- ••:• "-.-----•--r•-• -=:_•:-•_...-=.".:.-"''...• •••••,•••-••••1...4.21:1.:.."' -,-*•••••-....;,1;16.111;••••••+"--1.-%' •••---*•••••••Ir...., ' .N.S. S.....- ..- , \ .. .-. . ...... ..... . . • .. -.- ••••••••-• ........ - ......--. . .... .4'\ .' 74-1. -•,-i-- -..,--='- • ,--- - -;,...--: -.,•..-4. . . , ---- --.7:...:_a-- -1-•- . - _ - -..-.-- _. ...•= ...:-__•:--.:=-_- -_-„.:••=*.---,--_-_------ _ _r_.---- •:,- - - •- --.. -- = - .., ...: .,.. • , . ,... ....- ..,.:. ...7-_: ......---7:-.....------____' ....• ..: - -------__=i. : • : - .......... .„A.,- - . ...-: ......,;••••-•-.V...•,-. •-•;7. ••••.-....--.....___------.= ....F - ..- - : %sr-. : •• • -111 %- •77.- . -;;-... -- -Z. -=•.....-• .- 7 ' '' -_._ ........- -: -.• 'L...' r•-••-...,. 7...M ..• ' ' ".--- .....-•••• 77' -.----.7.........* 7- - ...- • • .. -:•.7?1,..-,--7---"r" ''!--- . . - •-.. ..----- • .-•:•:-:••:-.----...--:N;:.;;"•• -,•'' '-.---_-.....-•:.••,--*.:t":-......-:2.4••••• -:-..-F. •• - ---z--;__-.- •.: .:-.'",-- ---7-.. =•-•---7 r......,. .. . •;-.*._-.,-;. . .. . ..•.. -....... -.._ • - ......,......." ... _____ -, le.p.- •."..-2.`-.11-7.....`,"\<!••••:1,•••Iti,..•- .•:'..7...;- ......"-'..-- •.;..."'. •••..Z.... ..."-••••-s......--.•..7.. ..:..- -r ..."-. •••••.••• -1:''ta. -=.•::.••t,-••••:. ••••. .' :7- :- •...sir•-•, --- •t...L..'--=.--•••. • :':•••-r.• -*-- -•:•:?.. •ZZ•I'.."‘"'i..::::,:7-'---•:::1..'• -''• •••',"'=':• •'----:÷-•-• 7. :•" -... ..., ...r••11•••..,., . --zt .7...-.7.. ••••.: ---;;._ :_: .,,,......,:..-;,i-2,-....-_am -r_ ::--:-.•_::,- . (..,•,,:,.-•__ --•......„--:..a.:• ,....,.•:\. .• -•- .". .):,.,.... •.....--=--..,..„.: =--- - •- ,.:.:::11;‘....,......p::-....-.-_. . .--'.'" -----. •17---•---' •• '"' •-....•‘•:•'-."-'-'--=--•: .. 'I.".' -••••.""..---, - = .....-:„- -z-.•---- .1:'31.•••„.,, .,,t...,„.. „...,.„........; ... ... --Z...z.--- -:.•• •:•-•:-.;...q. I--:. „,-= -..:.-_•-__--•i\ •••-• •----• ,..--....=- ••\‘--- •\ . ‘- ; • •• •• •r.: • -* -•• - -=- ....... .•0‘- . •.. --EF. - -.....- •••;..,, :r,• --•....,.. ... ... 4- p.-- ....--;..---_=..- -- 4.•/,......Z. I. --•r.----•••\<`--:.."-••-•••1 \\..;\""'Vs.,".,\\...•.:•.:(2.'"'L'S.,\.>,.•.#'•,;.:.i;-:.---.:• "--...::;*•,;*-.-i-••.1..- •1'..,.Z-__- ---_____-'Inik ":-.:••,. *:.-74--:.,-."F;..?..'s.1•1%':;....-...ils" •.:A--':''''"•.-g-:7--:*---""1-----:----7- -..--....-ve-.:-.... ; _;,..--::-_1...•.rsz, •.\ -3':'1 V 1111 Al:tri-.1. '..`• ..\•0•":".. ;;•".•••• ...-= --tet.:(1--- ---- .---• s •k: 'AN.'.s.r-:-....!:,.0.;: .. '.1,_''! !.^ •-•`,.-1-7-CC-r.,77-"MadRZT.)11,'„,-...,_-= \ .‘..,\ ,_ •••=,..:,,,rzze..........-=_.. ‘;,\,......-__:, k kill:, , kky'• 1•••:-,, ,•• .•-, -.. .. . •••, ...\7"-----------=____--.. n‘ I •-•'""'•f•-... - • ••-Z-= ••• *, -." ••' • ----•-•-••:-.,--Zi-•;'/' •‘....‘1.t-s•-•••••• .‘ ..k .1•1"---.7-s•,•••: .----••-.-......:'"7•1•7-e"-z,_-.7-:::7•••:.,):•.11r1:.•; -• "•:••-r A - • ‘•• •t-- •-..-z.3 -...,_-_-_.,,,. 1.,v.....1/4.‘,- . •Ii••1, ..;;;;Zi ..---r- Q_-7:ta.. 7...,1•=4--.0.11'q:',...1 7. :, - ,.....,-- -sul, ,,..."/..:•iv .., ......--.•.,=-•--•-47., --_-_-:--,-.il\••••.;.,-,•••,\,•t!,•;•,„;61,kt‘r-••.• s-'"---....-1-.--.: --,------ ••.,1'.Ns.",•\\--4 "----,-_-_,7, ••---:.:,••• ,: . : 4....."',.•.'"..=...••t - 7. :'•'... ..- .=. ' . l,f."7411,k,:,‘a•;.•\,••xkit' Z-,.'...,-l-_.-.:',;;;‘,..:',7,-_--;.--.Z.--...X‘,.. ."•••"..\...k,w‘ ‘,1,1 ....;,..- -=_;_-" -. :..."...- --- -- • -,,..-.-7.:•• •--:Z.;-,t• .,•:".'.- .• ,(;...... --ii-,....- v:•-•--• .• ••,.••/‘. --"- • ...-•,::::-..",='• -•-,..)cp`v•VAllitill"i( --•.--'-----'=--------"---,-"--u • 11) • . ::- 7.--_=.:. c..V.--.'"•..;-!,z.'"i10".41--••::,. ....-•.:•..:._'‘''Ailt•-\ --:.., •V"1-...1 .1 % -----.''''---------. ----•------ tt---•••"-''''',:iti.. 3 ' --•-• - 401111111.0,..f--"-• 7:. -• ' *-'.- -... - ..S1 • 7 -.;.. ,..,.....-- . ._... i-..... . ... ..,,,... .;..,,,;:,,;....%.--_:%:.. 1::: 1/4\,... :".,::.*:.!'‘ ....:`,.;i •••••:-Is..`••• :. •_:. --,t'7,7.' :::----.z-_--f a."-- _-_-=-_,_-:.----- S.: illil:1%, • ..--• --- .- 'AL•,.,. .... .,„...7.,•:.,.,.....V...c.....„„,!....... _, ....7:,....,sr.4.4. \1.......Ats„.%1/4,:: -,'..fib,/ :•:.%••:,1!:;',%.`,...,.....\.--,....7.• •--L-_-----:-- •-•--z-____-------.--•. z...-:lb:,)t f As, - . •••...., ,(.... • ,• , . \ .:.,.,.. • -- . .. -• ... . •- ..... .... ---••• - -,.•- ,• .= •. • . . _____ ';','N•,14..,...• r n 1 V• ..,:: • •i.1 --•"1.1'41/4'.1,•;•-'..•1k%\•••"111. \\r•17-• •"trii)ti'1 1 ti• (,••kSt ' cif.--••-`t ••: s -:•----•-„‘,‘\\‘‘,•\ s' s--"' --r. .-- -.7.-=-----'! - •7.-••• ' .\ ,„, -- .•c.t..."../16.•,., '•!A,k. \..•,•.•,;':,`,ikl.to•iilisq 1 IR1/111' ,I). .„lib•.s., . A •-sa,..-:-....--_:.-.-, -__.:;Am\ ,,.,. .,,,,..,_ • • -•• :,-....7-c$35, '• . ,/,. . r ,#1........,„::: . k 2.-7,.•., : -.I- -1--.-7.--.7.- .-_•Z;A:71))))),Ali . ,Stt• --, \ • \ •. -•\\‘:"C '‘ ... . ", t -..t . •.• •\ kl1/4,... \V"•• ...:-.• .4- . 3 . \.,, . .•......„.: ..=.'•: :i.'-4: . . s.....=.••:•:•\;...._..:. ,'UV 11;'. ..\\.&•Sts,"1 s".----::---"•.--t--•z--t:I'---______----.....---- -••,_,Sti%,,,I,11 .r .,...., ... .,.. a ..,--zi_.--..--............:-.::- -.I. •s.:\ „,,,. 0' n.,,( ---...;-_,-.. . --z_.-. ,. ,:.), -- , • ---N.,....„,_ ,... -r \..."-7:...7., i ...._.,..,:••••••••:-.4.....- , -:.:-.--'Ir.--;•-•,'' i't.':!! ;)till,\N'.1 7---;-•-,,A);'..!. s$ \\%. 1 ' .L.44-.... . „... ___••••o:,:,o1,.-•• ... :•••%VN '173.- -....._.:....-., ''.._...._.•• s..f• •. • - -------.---'--2 -• • -•• - . • '.••):1411111. , ....-- =....-..." •••••.•••••••....,.."••••4•• , .„,„,-:‘ 7,.:.- ..:\ •,s,,'. kk .• ‘'.k , akk.‘,...‘ \\ • -,... LI.:•1 ---:' -: --=---...'::lit:. :.•....i...•-!..... ..:z.:.--...,....... ,. ........1\k 1 \\.\2:2•,....1„;ii,N'y k\‘0 .,,, 2.• ----:::..-7-.... ..1-2--%., z:,.., .:47zi, ---_,,-,:-...1.... -.••••••$,,,, % ? ....r.?.....--z,..... A. ..„...... ''') \ 11 k. -N, .r...„..-_,„•••:‘,:.,---.k....•••• li i '•Ns.••• -4 '•• : - -'- --. ...i. ) ..;iil 11 \• . ' ' ,..7:?na L.•• -. ... • ,t\l`•\. ._.,,,, .* . •,%., A\ ., (qm,'\i'•,', ---s.;---,_. . , .v.-- f-•. -:1;. ..---.%::-='-:... .-.-,.:_14.9') ---1911.1 \ 'ti;:`).\.- .-41) ‘ \s‘•'''T ))5 '1 ) ri * .- 4----` --- ' .:-=--------„ ----?;„ li e=z_As ,-- •) ., . . ,A ., • ;) I ;‘) ... ...,, . •• • . . c ' (ii-3-:-t---m---- ----------_z..... .---;- .../, ••/ Ac)-,15 ),, t,(, , 1,. ," ,.c. • • / __ . .. 0 • , --_____,.---.---. "-v.--ke-..":.; .., . .• ••••• •‘ \. \ s) 7,‘..`:, ."k:::".. :• ...II/ I kt..... 0 'r. ' ' '-- f k..•":-....Wt ' (I: •: _,_„ „........7 ..c.,......77-......,.--11,-A• '"' "s•'-.--.. • '•\\\' - •N\.......\:.,....,..... •••,.............N ..--,,•, 0.., ' 74,••- •.t.'i'-=`---- '....- _-:(I!,4( '7- ,.....4,..,.........,...... ...... ... /)\ CC'''''''''..-=•...... ..".\`...;7/k f---51rt/0 ),,,ifj,\1‘,..i. 1 \ jy„ :Ili'.;,,)1••• ;'/I,y;-,.,--(2.7-:.)!// , \,\i p, .2:11, ,.- k L,-. .. ...T.Yill /i I ,,-..-s.---.- \\ -. ik.‘,7\-1 ,--11 •p .-t-T . s.7-...."-\":• s4 ',S--..MN-TA t _ ii i I r- ,,\(;),i L.-4-...-iccnig_s:-. ,. . ,,,:,,. .--,..........„ksk,\ ..- .„... ' •,-;,. ,k./ : .:.....-..e...„- 1 \0 tt .. , •liP Vl14i/v/1/i1/7)/1/(c 1 4r1 riiff„.s..(.qt.,...,,,......,z._.:.71./,.7....:/j1..\i:g 0fr-'1.p p,.-y er:„....--,..-/.-,._1 A 'Q..1 i.7t .'- .. .. : ...- .:.•.-''. \-:.2 -.i -...- ..... 1 la, \\\,k\•.\..;„z•‘ksv 1.-.1..k-ti • \,........ •)11/\ \k....4.::. \-,.... •--•--‘ - ; _...-zv, •.... ,-..N.,-,.... ,,.. .., ;,Ti---..,\, yr_ ,,,\\..........‹.::::,„ ','"7;,,,,\s-r • , i\ - •)-:-.... ...\ ____-------=--\•:-.11 ' ttly,F\ ....‘, , _2_ ...\z„....,))) CV 4E:6 , ....• '--.'7:---'-':-------.-/; (Ili' . ,--: „I ,' • - '''''',.......‘ ___,....."' ..--.‘ • /, ---..:19 „I A .N _.,.-., :( -• .. .sr"••••.-.I .:"...:,' •\ \ : j---/ rie e , . :•••77-,- ,, • IC,,---_•.,„„..,Cli\,_ i / ,-,•-"•=-7%----- - ,... .,.--:-.,_'_,:.) .--‘ -.11 ' • ....... L. 1..,--'',..set.,. ,rt ' 7 IZ....?::\i ,, ......"....„........,....",..........".....N: \, .s.'---- ' • 1 tf (*.' ... r,•_,..- .• r•,---_--...,.. .,, . ,- ....... 1 F.., ''..''‘ ';.."^.,7,%•... ..\if.....2.4%........tiV"., . \N ..::e.N. : i 1 ikl ---=•-• , _...., _ ,..-- --'.--,. . .. s-•-•,S...........,‘ ,, (‘-:•'/- . . - -. 1 rr*-- -- !I j .r..;\.,,N .' •- -••• -- ./.--- • ,..,_ ......1-•-_.. .. „••• --I\-_-.:0• ), ,,_-_--. ,, , • •••• , c- -,.... ,., : --......, • :-........‹•,- -• :-,s.., ••••; v... - ... /. -.-I;,-;-",„, -‘.....,.N.. . •g,-,--•• ‘.__. ,. •........,)) I4...-• --."--..„--•-• .....,- -.•-• -.. --ii%I ••-' -S. / 3 • • I ,.' . ... :•/. ? •-s. ." .. --...... --"I' s•i3;\, I \ ' ,r\-\------ ..,,,--17....•• : .-, ..... ..... 7,.. .„..i. .....,___;,,,.... ...cp-....7 ra .).... , • • . ,...- .... ....: ",.....---.-- - „ . tc....-; .e • • ; -,:f.•••(As 7....„c. 1. -.:‘ 1 ,J- .-.,- -•*4.,..„ -r, t---(. dtir;/? r N... .Z.;%.:•-_,.7:1 .7' 1.1, ir.-. ....0:54,..„--....; .....4.- , • •:- ;77.- . • -,-.-....:• , i . (---, : i - -st......• ••\:%..,,/---' r ,,i„ c<:s..... ..--___.if - N ,.., .1 N..pw -:‘...,-/- - ,-..(1--cr--„ _,--• ' 0 • n,://,:.\... - I •'s •-.-•........ .... 1 "1‘........• ••..• -• i \:::71 No....• .‘\g'. ••••••::./ "L':•),. •'...., ...%,‘....... A : -... 1 l ..-••••-'--./".-\'...%*‘ 4.17:::1X•\ _: .-0"7.____,_,.:, ....,........•••••-- LT,.,:t...,..,„, 4.T.,.... --•.%.-.. ..:.-....--• ......_ .....--;,..• __.......4 i I p.............• ......../ ........., . . ••••• - ,••=............::,'•'•' •".•••• ......,ti..4....-- ....- - •••••• -- :7 1 4" :: 0..!_.- IF Yslh -, s--q-7-:: ::_... . -- --' -•--\. -'-‘ '.F-- ---,_--••=-'...,_ " -•--"--,)y- :__, _;,...,•-',..,.--.!'\- ---,\.---; ,•? - -.,\._ -77\:(2.7z\ :"-1 ? .-..----;12.11,c, ) --'N ..........c--- ' ' -7 ,,,----.'-......'.1._-_...---,:.„,....N(CC-, .: :.-•.11..----•-"z•,.e.•-..Z. .1 ‘ •,-.• e•-'"-r-- 'k.,--:*-ir,t, -4 :\--••"7",...%.N1,k.:,.\ 1.,e7;.. .1...=L....,.‘" --......,_ - •••"•;„.._21; 1,• i s, /••••: ....--.. - <„,•--•••3 ,\ '••••-•'• ......„.-...-.sZ,-..•,7 -.---/---. -../- ......: ..":•-.s....c.Nzgl/..,:":,.1•(4.....--...zzipz-z.-.....--.-:',",...,--.‘......0,-..,--\._ ... ...-... ....c „T.--;, -.....A "---.- ••••.-...-N..;. •-... .-N• • --• . • CP'!"*t....-•‘-',....17. '"""-.1' •"\--"r.." . ....."5••••/-tt-----%X.C==.„,„ ,•1.Z.....""WO-. .. -".......77-... ...• .. •••.-''::\-;;....7.-*" . . ••,,...-.V./. •-N.'"z.......1-"•-•••••s/ . ••-•,,c.,,:' .„:,:.•• ..- ......„-.42.1...“- .A .. ,C-1---X‘F...;•...NZ.. ••••• -•""-•••"-N.: ....."---11.1)1 • ' . •••• •17.- .......•'`......\N .•.'"*. \-‘Z...Z.I.S•••1-Z,-\.t."-s-77(fr " 'Zr....7"; -;'••....1.-.. .s. 11 ..,--...,':.tr...._;:.%77i4Av*. ---------, . ..1 ,. ....---.-..,:‘...;..7:1,......_. • . s .....k.../".,.e ----1,/ .5...-... ‘ , „., ....,_ .___4::: . ' ,`-z..-:.:- ..........,.:,L.g...-- -. '• ____.--•• - ,...:1 *. .', •••,..A . .......-....... ,.......:,....z. „-:\„..i ...e. t, --7•\, ‘‘..--•:. i •s---„,-... ........ -.......... -, , •••••• •••,- , • ._ ,.:- st...4(a, -\---•s--S---, _ ..-• -, ....:1 INI ..... ..„,,,.....,...,...... • ...... •t....„_,.......... ts ''''''''•• • •••.----- -... . .,...\,-..... .,:i , .. .''''' "N -' 1 • .,......• ••. ,/`•. - f.i •••• \• ' • ..•••••/....-.-,, .14.0.-,••••••,••••=7..- .=-......... ...... .. .....,......... ......... .......s.... ........ .-....... s' ....:::::40g .,. .....! • PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2157 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, A CHANGE OF ZONE (PREZONING) FOR PURPOSES OF ANNEXATION TO HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL (HPR) AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT RELATES TO NINE LOTS IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 36 T5S R5E. CASE NOS. GPA 02-01 AND C/Z 02-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 17th day of September, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to October 1 , 2002, to consider the above noted general plan amendment and prezoning; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 02-60", in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the general plan amendment and prezoning will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify its actions: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 1 . The existing City General Plan designation for the area is "very low density residential" one to three dwelling units per acre. 2. The area subject to the amendment has an average slope in excess of 10%. 3. Given the average slope condition, the area is more appropriately designated Hillside Planned Residential. PREZONING: The proposed prezoning to HPR is consistent with the proposed general plan amendment. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2157 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of a general plan amendment from "very low density residential" to "hillside planned residential" (HPR) and prezoning "hillside planned residential" nine lots in the northeast corner of Section 36, T5S R5E (Exhibits A and B attached). 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (Exhibit C attached). 3. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 1st, day of October, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, LOPEZ, TSCHOPP, FINERTY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: JONATHAN I CIN�- J2i/64 Y FINER hairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, ecretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 I elk \ I Ai ���,..��. �rrnuunnunuu u II 1 iiii•i�!i` 7r/1111111* -I I I Ir itir 1 ii I! i 1." Alliallilli: --ila zaccts-1 1 \4tchtt..‘• O fiLuoiw INE,Einai 100M, 111Vik &. CD -.1 -7--TI\ 1,i, g 11111\*Pa%\14( ID .il At* gigNou■non glrp�'' ;•'•Y.; . • _r__\w i` ll/tlI! •rr:C' fs �'°•.. MMMI �ari jiiiJ� � l ui :_ iiZ4*omil • iegir I �!!" qiA iiiitf����.�� IM I__EM '.( a./.././././///..■......E • ..i�uun1nu. • I._-- ,', • nue:unuTi' SECTION IIII IIIMIIIIIII . iiiiiedit 25 M MN * I____ ■■■■■.u.:11:■. FILM ■�aii u _�__11_ ,. � � iuuuuu■ I____ •' . ..�. 1____ /■..■.■... ........::::: .. 111111111111•01nal. 2 i,7 1 I*/0201411e. ill ithkiMa li 1111___fir_!-A__I_ r.�..:Pal• I' _ _ IIIU '_ ,L'1 g_ w /■w..• i 1a�a as a ,: a �l,,. II w u• •.■F.:,��2.:Ew i:: `� , a Trl / as a%q�`�.q!& :��O .a.: ■ , � �/I/I///¢� ;ice roi I ",�� • IT'SECTION 1i.,h a` SECTION ✓.-,'"4-a', .. memo& 36 —Join=NNW r31 ,,,,:iiwrioeiitlindati 4 itamonommisnimr---:.---in ir• ark; eq..isemost., It wq,,IICIIII Isms es _ E� —1 4 / . 111-•'-,11�,,R., i /�/: AIVW P GPAed o4 __ 1!_.1111_■1WWI - ,' i, f/►� ��� ____ ._.11111111111111t, (7 �'toWI -1.. ,.. �'tulmuuuuduun ,� :.�&!I �itr. Very Low Density I `b :•M�■� lnn�ii ��.:�R: f1, wetii�.ls� ,,.1 I Residential en To ,• �I��1 pow i. Hillside Planned IP 1! aikI!V1JLVLI . Residential tm-Ingivih &hf -? "t- e Case No. GPA 02-01 PLANNING COMMISSION d A• �• :lit• GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. 2 1 5 7 s;;e;;, EXFII !tIT A Date: October 1 , 2002 1'm■a.u■aa�u - . r.�� a 1 1'1 all■■■,11 I ID •� w a�iiii jtaa iilI^lunllOwiiliiu_i V„•:7hununuilli•11 ■t.hOg=�I aural u I ; _ ���—.il uwm:il kt 2 i 'nnu■m1u�u■'11 I i NI I e.WO ;,,Kojit• P w, RI__i$ 1 _...,41060,Ewfiewiffavii . ,r..., .?. .41 80,iii,/„,,t4A1C 1 41111 I •�r.r.,inuNplauppl 1A:1 :. -iib i_.•1 1 i wan Q ai►qu_Waalaaay;i�:%_,:y�� , �:•:11�i. it sr I I yn ■♦ liuullanlul�al 1 1_� ,Luca 1• "DUB „`. as r: �.�;�:z •1 a■■I il • ll ^� •11�■■I - Min �` ; 499 �fl •.11 ; 21161114111111 �111:- ir " iiMi rill.'Ai: 'is� - 77--PIM MIPMMVIM?i M ;,. aIuuumi ■w■t■■ ■MINI ' • .■IaII■■■I■.t■■I■I■ ■ ■.__- i -- a u.u.uutitunuut■I 1 .c.;i -' ://UIIIlII■IIU .. //III Iliiimi i 25 a■a.aa.�,,.:r SECTION _ ll II �. •uuaa 1.al•., t1f6tititititiYtYO 1 � `u� #pir � 1 : �. �...: a ,�.., ,..„. ,,,,, 4.. „. , I j i�11tjjai . // /. :„, ://,/ , �,. ••tsar�'.:. I � t1�j�/A _ ..a , �,_ ■� s � •. ei ice. 1���'wall r� murilllifir�■� t' fii iiun.ti, �` �f� ru.=�'I<3 ' I /t;f sw■S.� EtmalriM.1a111l111.1111111 "11111.1M.O.1111.1ftr.1141PiSWr !`Tit,"_ ► Rla ., ?4 p' .•;, 1 a.l ± .'.a, ..e.■as , iit l SECTION 14�■' VA ', lllll 1111•AINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIMMIW. ir—oui .Act: Ell inm,111111 .4 86, MIMI .1161IBI11 4.li 04001111I1 - iiiiillini /1-•:tot, Proposed r r I11 lli i Zoning Change 111 _ 110 [7,/:,, ,,,,';, 1 Q 1.- 1 kiiTrii: •tea, .'1 PI listeo/�i�il TO I �1� hp i,. ■j �4 4 ���� • Hillside Planned 11' A�411 _tam1k t • _... •mit t■•. '■ a: �� Residential ei4e(/Yaim17e erl Case No. C/Z 02-01 PLANNING COMMISSION r• a WM Change of Zone RESOLUTION NO. 215 7 .'11114( 11113 EXHI It IT it Date: October 1 , 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2157 EXHIBIT C Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NOS: GPA 02-01 and C/Z 02-01 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A general plan amendment from very low density residential to hillside planned residential, a change of zone (prezoning) and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates to nine lots in the northeast corner of Section 36 T5S R5E. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. 71-11`eaffej, 2002 PHILIP DREL DATE DIRECTOR 0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /tm 5 CITY OF PALM DESERT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Department of Community Development/Planning Attention: Steve Smith FROM: Joseph S. Gaugush, Director of Public works/City Engineer SUBJECT: TR 30438; THE CREST DATE: August 16, 2002 The following should be considered conditions of approval for the above-referenced project: (1 ) Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map or issuance of grading permits. (2) Drainage facilities shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works. In addition, proposed drainage facilities/improvements that impact the Palm Valley Channel shall be subject to review and approval by the Coachella Valley Water District. (3) Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. Said study will include, but not be limited to, the investigation of both upstream and downstream impacts with respect to existing and proposed conditions. (4) Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map or issuance of grading permits. Construction costs associated with the proposed project entry traffic signal may be used as a credit against said fees. (5) Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. All improvements within State Highway 74 right-of-way shall be in accordance with Caltrans standards. (6) Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the respective service districts with "as-built" plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to project final. (7) Improvement plans for all improvements, public and private, shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The installation of such improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works Department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. (8) Landscaping maintenance on State Highway 74 frontage shall be provided through a property owners association. Applicant shall be responsible for executing a declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, which declaration shall be approved by the City of Palm Desert and recorded with the County Recorder. The declaration shall specify: (a) the applicant shall oversee the formation of a property owners association; (b) the property owners association shall be formed prior to the recordation of the final map; and (c) the aforementioned landscaping maintenance shall be the responsibility of the property owners association. (9) As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans for all improvements within existing and proposed public rights-of-way to be approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior to recordation of final map. Such offsite improvements shall include, but not be limited to, curb and gutter, asphalt paving and concrete sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration and provisions for deceleration/acceleration lanes at project entry points. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the City of Palm Desert. (10) Waiver of access to State Highway 74 except at approved locations shall be granted on the Final Map. (11) In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. Preliminary landscape plans shall be submitted concurrently with grading plans. (12) As required by Sections 26.32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, and in accordance with the Circulation Network of the City's General Plan, dedication of half-street right-of-way at 55 feet on State Highway 74 shall be provided on the final map. (13) As required under Section 12.16 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, any existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground per each respective utility districts recommendation. If such undergrounding is determined to be unfeasible by the City and the respective utility districts, applicant shall agree to participate in any future utility undergrounding district. (14) Traffic safety striping on State Highway 74 shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works and Caltrans prior to the placement of any pavement markings. (15) Full improvements of interior streets based on residential street standards in accordance with Section 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be provided. Proposed interior street sections shall be subject to review and approval in conjunction with tentative tract map applications. Those areas to be designated as "Emergency Access Road" shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall and the Director of Public Works. (16) Complete tract maps shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. (17) Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works and Caltrans, as applicable. (18) A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. (19) Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. (20) All required offsite improvements for this project shall be installed in conjunction with the first phase of development. (21) Site access, with respect to size, location and number, shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works and Caltrans. (22) Applicant shall provide a phasing plan which specifies the project construction activity with respect to on-site/off-site infrastructure improvements as well as possible final map filing. (23) Provision for the continuation of any existing access rights which may be affected by this project shall be included as a part of the final map process. (24) Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 12.12, Fugitive Dust Control. (25) The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. (26) Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with current and subsequent National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permits (Permit # CAS000002) for storm water discharges associated with construction activity. 27 Project design shall accommodate the proposed Palm Valley Bicycle/Golf Cart Trail to be located on the Palm Valley Channel access roads. co JOSEP S. +SAUGUS , P.E. G:\PubWorks\Conditions of Approval\TMAPSTR 30438 The Crestwpd ,N.„... RIVERSIDE CC \ITY 0l'oat Ott PRO IfC/O9k FIRE DEPARTMENT r�LTh In cooperation with the f rlir, ,,toter c.o.,. California Department of Ioretry and Fire Pr teiikiit IM 210 West San Jacinto Avenue • Perris. California 92570 tt(RECEIVE Goi10 L1 V1J "'"I.I Cove Fire Marshal's Office `,_ ; j 2002 Tom Tisdale 70801 Highway Ill Fire Chief Rancho Mirage CA 92270 (760) 346-1870 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Proudly serving the _ unincorporated areas of Riverside TO I,'i,j_ ,S i-.� r '�-i /9////2_______,County and the *L cities of: 0:4I" 4,d . Banning REF: Beaumont Calimesa If circled, conditions apply to project Canyon Lake 0 With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above Coachella referenced project, the fire department recommends the following lire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municip:11 Desert Hot Springs • Code, NFPA, UFC, and UBC or any recognized Fire Protection Indian Wells Standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the Indio remodel or construction of all buildings per IJFC article 87. / Lake Elsinore 2• A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual La Cum In pressure must be available before any combustible material is place on the job site. Moreno Valley Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a Palm Desert gpm flow of: •:. , 1500 gpm for single family dwellings Perris 4. 2500 gpm for multifamily dwellings Rancho Mirage 5. 3000 gpm for commercial buildings San Jacinto The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super �.l Hydrant (s) 4"x2 Y2"x2 '//", located not less than 25' nor more than: Temecula ((, 200' from any portion of a single family dwelling measured via vehicular travehvay 7. 165' from any portion of a multifamily dwelling measured via Board of Supervisors vehicular travelway Bob Buster 8. 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via District 1 vehicular travelway John Tavaglione I .� Water Plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include District 2 U verification that the water system will produce the required lire now. Jim Venable 10. Please be advised the proposed project may not be feasible since the District 3 existing water mains will not meet the required fire flow. Roy Wilson District 4 Tom Mullen District 5 11. Install a complete NITA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a 3000 square foot total cumulativeindicator floor ae valvesa. The Fire Marshal shall approve the locations ofI fire department connections. All valves and connections shall not he less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. 12. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic and persystems and Water-flow switches shall be monitored UBC Chapter 9. 13. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3. 14. Install portable fire extinguishers per NITA 10, but not less titan one 2A10BC extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 15. Install a I lood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system per NITA 96 in all public and private cooking operations except single-family residential usage. 16. Install a dust collecting system per UFC Chapter 76 if conducting an operation that produces airborne particles. 4 ) All building shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending all portions of the exterior walls of the Gist sto►y. The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street the roadway must be 36' wide and 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of ISO' shall he minimum 45' radius turn-around 55' in industrial developments. Litporwovitidheindlw5iOt'hoaf Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers or other means provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key over-ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16" with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 19 A dead end single access over 500' will require a secondary access, sprinklers or other mitigative measures approved(� (►�' the 3Ot►e heMarshal. Under no circumstance shall a cleat accepted. C20 A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main emergency gate from :►n access points from a main roadway or an en c . adjoining development. 21. This project may require licensing by a state or county agency, to facilitate plan review the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal a letter of intent detailing the proposed usage and occupancy type. Ct.-) All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approval h the city. 23. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval . prior to construction. PIav%,s.-4 L ^8/-c.-i r-o - .--(- I t 24 ! Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Marshal's Office at (760) 346-1870 Location: 70801 highway 111, Rancho Mirage CA 92270 Other: �� . /2,,71„ �/, ,�' . %set%✓. 7'�.1,..c-�-4.�'1' �7``r.-Pr•-1�..-4-.�t , i_et-,Gam` . C,hir- - ,,1 ' GL L .I e A , . -- e.) -7-----717(11- , Sincerely, Michael II. Wilson Fire Marshal CAHUILLA HILLS PROPERTY OWNERS 42 - 620 CAROLINE COURT , SUITE 102 PALM DESERT , CA 92211 RECEIVED SEP 1 2 2002 September 11, 2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Mr. Steve Smith City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Re: The Crest GPA 02-01 & CZ 02-01 Dear Mr. Smith: The undersigned are all property owners, adjacent to the proposed project known as "The Crest." While we are not opposed to the project in concept, we do have the following concerns. 1 . We believe there is no legal basis for including our property in The Crest application. We are not a part of that development. 2. With regards to our property, we object to the proposed annexation into the City of Palm Desert. 3. We object to the proposed General Plan Amendment, as it relates to our property. 4. We object to the proposed pre-zoning of our property as Hillside Planned Residential (HPR). 5. We have specific rights and expectations with regards to the development of our property under County standards. We are concerned about the loss or diminution of those rights under City standards. Because of these concerns, for now we must take a position of being opposed to the proposed project. However, if our concerns could be addressed and resolved, we would likely be in favor of the proposed project. Accordingly, we would suggest a continuance of the application, in order to give staff, the developer, and the property owners an opportunity to meet. We hope that by resolving these issues, we can create a win/win situation for all concerned. Page 2 of 2 Sincerely, Dr. Jerry Meints (Lot 3) Ramona Palmer (Lot 6) Sean Abaii (Lot 7) Russell Davis (Lot 8) David A. Rogers (Lot 8) Sabby Jonathan (Lot 9) Wendy S. Jonathan (Lot 9) Betty Barker (Lot 23) Counseling C /b1., , Sep 11 02 04: 4 e p Village JONATHAN & ASSOC. PAGE 03 by:1iI20©2 L::56 1760779�3926 Page 2 of 2 Sincerely, arty M 90‘ 44.1 (Lot 3) Ramona Palmer(Lot 6) Sean Abaii(Lot 7) Russell Davis(Lot 8) David A. Rogers (Lot 8) iI Sabby Jonathan (Lot 9) Wendy S. Jonathan (Lot 9) Betty Barker(Lot 23) _`/20 0 2 . - 1.7E056E2 yy Page ' of Sincerely. ' Dr. Jerry Meint$ (trot 3) it Ramon: of 6) ' � (�' Antoine s •a' ( of 7) Russell Oav (Lot,8) David A. Rogers; (Lot 8) Sabby Jonathan (Lot 9) Wendy S. Jonathan (Lot 9) Betty Banter (Lot 23) 1 i III 1'i FROG 1 RUSSELL L DAVIS 760 341 do z,— PA 03 9-11-2002 1 :05P11 ,�pr1CJ AN g ASSOC. OS/11/2002 13;53 17607758925 { Page 2 of 2 Sinew-sty, Dr. Jerry Meint$(Lot 3) Ramona Palmer (Lot 6) Sea an (Lot 7) R sell Davis(Lot 8) David A. Rogers(Lot 8) Sabby Jonathan (Lot 9) Wendy S. Jonathan (Lot 9) Betty $erker(lot 23) 09- 11/02 02:21 FAX 760341161 QNATFiAN & ASSOC. i nvL 8i11l2EE2 14:C1 17t077963� Page 2 of 2 \ . Sincerely, I Dr. .ferry Meints (Lot 3) ______._.—..-----\---"'—"---- Ramona Palmier(Lot 6) Sean Abail (Lot 7) Russell Davis (Lot 8) .\ David A. Rogers (Lot 8) I i Sabby Jonathan (Lot 9) ' Wendy S. Jonatharn(Lot 9)I I ' Betty Barker (Lot 23) 1 Page 2 of 2 Sincerely, Dr. Jerry Meints (Lot 3) Ramona Palmer (Lot 6) Sean Abaii (Lot 7) Russell Davis (Lot 8) David A. Rogers (Lot 8) ( rA/1,-..6) - Sabby Nona tan Lot 9) Wendy S. Jonathan (Lot 9) Betty Barker (Lot 23) Page 2 of 2 Sincerely, Dr. Jerry Meints (Lot 3) Ramona Palmer (Lot 6) Sean Abaii (Lot 7) Russell Davis (Lot 8) David A. Rogers (Lot 8) Sabby Jonathan (Lot 9) Wendy Jonath Lot 9) Betty Barker (Lot 23) U9:03 rAX �807i899i1 Cu_ .Q)UU: vai aii cvvc t�.is rM (GV/IOailIL l l( lg VV 7/VV� 09/11/2882 14:05 1763775i JDNGTNON 8 ASSOC. RAGE 62 Page 2of2 Sincerely, Dr. Jerry Meints (Lot 3) Ramona Palmer(Lot 6) Sean Allah(Lot 7) Russell Davis (Lot 8) David A. Rogers (Lot S) Sabby Jonathan (Lot 9) Wendy S. Jonathan (Lot 9) . ,r_t i�r11G 4J`t,_ Betty Barker(Let 23) RECEIVER AU J L) 3 2002 Southern California Gas Company 1981 W.Lugonia Avenue rd The COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Redlands,CA 92374-9720 Gas CITY OF PALM DESERT Mailing Address: Company, PO Box 3003 Redlands,CA 92373-0306 A Sempra Energy-company August 15, 2002 City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert CA 92260-0611 Attention: Steve Smith Re: The Crest Thank you for the opportunity to review your plans for the above referenced project. We have no comments or recommendations to submit on this particular development project. If you need any additional information, please call Gertman Thomas at (909) 335-7733. Sincerely, (734 1 y� Bruce Bocking Technical Supervisor 08/23/02 16:36 12760 202 4294 SCE PLANNING PS alooi SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON' 14 An EDISON INTERNATIONAL Company 0.4I- August 23, 2002 M(,VII'a, 0 20 CI,, -keze 0? OpPq`A eSe4,Epg4� City of Palm Desert r vENT Attn: Steve Smith Planning Manager 73510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 ..ia. --- �+T ,S..l,. �F 'Slirw ':dii"r I*l�, ..��u_-..� 41 ti�i5ifid„„;I'i:::'a::nta..�S'c,��olfEfi11E1: .a ( wii>1E.. !y 4 Is �p{I `�, �1I it !<"'IF ' •d a,o_v i i y- F!:4igi i wt4W11, 1 r�r0'° •!i"r^4 .ri±!4i�r^'S.,.:- 52.�G..oir^i TS iij lyn«',if'-.�._R'x'�}7b ��. •u::n.::ay�,.�.,.��y,.,�� -cak.��Jc.i.,..�o n , r,... in:5crnrw ���Y��.;t�'." min m.�r „ c.-:+xf�=;'`crS^ �{�'`dg '1a'r•'•",P�Mr,:w3 cw-.-- rob _'1:",G'w,y II7R �'n'�' p j. ; M1L'1�1,1,. ..l.,tCom� tuC:'i ::S..,iflR 'y, ":'u'meie:C."wv"{`w 't....,...�!„rn?i�.:1" ..�«t.r.q _.._ : : � .,.,,.�,f�,.r- s+xr. r,�:i,.�AA1��F.�"•`a�w. All��',"�r�,w�iw&�w,aru::r:�a...L.:�3U'Sf'A!nt� ,,, .vt. 'a1C,T,l;� „„ r r>'yr� 'liwr.4 L_..:,..N_ >3..i' ' mr- mreil:va.cta_ ei7f... r..�•�.3'.j Fk t[• t!i���+„w' Ni6Li l •.: n 7Ju:.n�."--ri,.�::ii•iki nuiuirT u,.n ,veilw+ i..;._-„ i.,.rw im:?n._.. `.-'� :�ri:Ct ...: � 1.._,.....•,.'..as,-iT nn�u,u�, Dear Mr. Smith: This is to advise that the subject property is located within the service territory of the Southern California Edison Company(SCE) and that the electrical loads of the project are within parameters of projected load growth which SCE is planning to meet in this area. Our total system demand is expected to continue to increase annually; however, excluding any unforeseen problems, our plans for new distribution resources indicate that our ability to serve all customers' loads in accordance with our rules and tariffs will be adequate during the decade of the 2000's. Current conservation efforts on the part of SCE customers have resulted in energy savings. Optimization of conservation measures in this project will contribute to the overall energy savings goal. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to call me at(760) 202-4278. • Sincerely, ISd'je-A4Al rry Smith Customer Service Planner 36100 Cathedral Canyon Dr. Cathedral City,CA 92234 Received Aug-23-2002 04:20pm From-760 202 4294 To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 001 \isi ATE` ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY AT, STRIC COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058• COACHELLA. CALIFORNIA 92236 •TELEPHONE(760)398-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS JOHN W.McFADDEN.PRESIDENT THOMAS E.LEVY.GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER RUSSELL KITAHARA.VICE PRESIDENT JULIA FERNANDEZ.SECRETARY TELLIS AL MANAGER PATRICIA ODEKAS A.LARSON August 26, 2002 STEVEN B.ROBBINS.REDW NE AND SHERRILISTANT L.ATTORNEYS PETER NELSON File: 0163.1 050631-1 050631-2 Department of Community Development RE eTh E I VE T1) City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive kn. 2 7 2002 Palm Desert, California 92260 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Gentlemen: Subject: Tentative Tract Map No. 30438 This area is designated Zone B on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Stormwater runoff from this area may be diverted to the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. Nuisance flows or other nonstormwater generated runoff may not be discharged into the Palm Valley Channel. Plans for stormwater protective works shall be submitted to the district for review. This area lies on the mountain slopes west of Highway 74 and is not subject to flooding from stormwater flows except in rare instances. The runoff from the adjacent local drainage areas can cause serious damage to improvements. The design of interior drainage works should include provisions for solving this local drainage problem. This area shall be annexed to the stormwater unit of the district. A portion of this area is adjacent to the right-of-way of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. We request that the developer be required to install suitable facilities to prohibit access to this right-of-way. The developer shall obtain an encroachment permit from the district prior to any construction within the right-of-way of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. This includes, but is not limited to, surface improvements, drainage inlets, landscaping, and roadways. TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY Department of Community Development City of Palm Desert -2- August 26, 2002 The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. The district will need additional facilities to provide for the orderly expansion of its domestic water and sanitation systems. These facilities may include wells, reservoirs, booster pumping stations and sewerage facilities. The developer will be required to provide land on which some of these facilities will be located. These sites shall be shown on the tract map as lots to be deeded to the district for such purpose. Additional domestic water and sewer pipelines will have to be installed by the subdivider in order for the district to provide service to all parcels. This area shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 54 and 80 of the district for sanitation service. Plans for grading, landscaping and irrigation systems shall be submitted to the district for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. The project lies within the area of benefit of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Replenishment Program. Groundwater production within the area of benefit is subject to a replenishment assessment in accordance with the State Water Code. If you have any questions please call Dan Charlton, stormwater engineer, extension 316. Yours very truly, Tom Levy General Manager-Chief Engineer cc: Don Park Riverside County Department of Public Health 82-675 Highway 111, CAC Building, Second Floor, Room 209 Indio, California 92201 DC:j I\eng\sw\aug\ttm3043 8 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT SOLTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON Kathleen DeRo'a An EDISON INTERNATIONAL"Company RECEIVED August 22, 2002 AUG 2 7 2002 City of Palm Desert Phil Drell C'OMMCNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTME\'i Director of Community Development CITY OF PALM DESERT 73510 Fred Waring Dr Palm Desert, CA 92260 Subject: Transmittal of Draft Subsequent EIR (SCH No. 1991021034)for the Crest Golf& Residential Village in Palm Desert, Riverside County Dear Mr. Drell, Thank you for including Southern California Edison (Edison) in the review process for the above referenced document. Crest Golf Course and Residential Village Development Project is located within the service territory of Edison. Edison's power distribution system is prepared to deliver the power by the State's electricity market to this area. The California Independent System Operator is the agency now responsible for managing the State's electric grid and securing power supplies. The relocation, reconstruction, extension or under grounding of Edison's electrical distribution system which may be necessitated within the proposed area will be performed by Edison in accordance with Edison's effective Tariff Schedules approved by and filed with the California Public Utilities Commission. Please include the following concerns in your report: • Please be aware that the SCE facilities may be impacted by the project and may require relocation. Facilities will be relocated at the customer expense unless a recorded land rights on private property contains a relocation clause to move facilities at SCE expense. • The integrity of any and all SCE land rights will be maintained and the developer at no cost will secure all replacement land rights to SCE. • Identified SCE properties may require relocation, please make sure REO is provided 5 sets of street improvements plans showing all SCE facilities at no less than 50 scale drawings 20 or 30 is preferred. It is critical to provide SCE plans as soon as possible to: Mark Mainer Manager of Real Estate Operations Corporate Real Estate Southern California Edison 14799 Chestnut Street Westminster, CA 92683 If you have any question or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (760) 202-4211. Sincerely, 1\6.1 —;cam _. `Kathleen DeRosa Public Affairs Region Manager 36100 Cathedral Canyon Cathedral City,CA 92234 760-202-421 I _ Fax 760-202-4136 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS,Gov DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME RECEIVED Eastern Sierra & Inland Deserts Region SEP 0 3 2002 4775 Bird Farm Rd. Chino Hills. CA 91709 (909) 597-5043 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT 28 August 2002 Mr. Phil Drell City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert. CA 92260 Dear Mr. Drell: The California Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR),(SCH# 1 991 021 034) for the Crest Golf Club and Residential Village. The proposed project consists of construction of 60 dwelling units and associated facilities, an 18-hole championship golf course. a practice hole/driving range, a starter bunker, an open-air pavilion. equipment storage facilities and three comfort stations. The project is located in the southwestern portion of the City of Palm Desert and its Sphere-of-Influence. in the Coachella Valley region of Riverside County. The entire project site totals 703 acres, with total disturbed area encompassing 313 acres. The remaining 390 acres is to be kept in open space. The habitat on site consists of Sonoran creosote bush scrub. Sonoran mixed woody and succulent scrub, and desert dry wash woodland. In addition. two seeps occur on the project site The proposed project is located within the historic and current range of peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis cremnobates) a fully protected. state-listed threatened species and federally-listed endangered species. Requisite habitat for the species is present throughout the project area. The total area of 703 acres considered in this document is within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) critical habitat designation for the peninsular bighorn sheep. This designation also coincides with the essential habitat designation in the Recovery Plan for the Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges. The adverse modification of critical habitat resulting from this project needs to be addressed within the SEIR. A more in-depth analysis of reducing the effects of habitat loss, modification. fragmentation and restriction of range is required. Additional mitigation measures that benefit the recovery of the species such as habitat restoration, clearing water sources of exotics, and additional fencing should be included. Page 2 Mr. Phil Drell 28 August 2002 The document refers to the Hanson model classification system "Zone of Deficiency" on pages IV-2 and V-14. to indicate that the project lands are not as valuable to sheep as other lands. This misinterprets the meaning of "Zone of Deficiency". The use of the Hanson model classification system in the Santa Rosa Mountains Wildlife Habitat Management Plan. (Sikes Act plan) was used as a tool to call attention to habitat values and point out potential impacts or conflicts. The Sikes Act plan clearly states "primary, secondary and deficient areas to bighorn should not be considered of less importance than vital areas. Each acre of bighorn habitat is important to maintaining the present population". Lands that fall within the "Zone of Deficiency" are just as important to bighorn sheep survival as lands that fall within the Vital. Primary and Secondary categories. Several mitigation measures are described in the SEIR to reduce, avoid or eliminate significant impacts to wildlife resources to a level of insignificance. These include: a conservation easement over the 390 acres of the project site that is being left undisturbed. conservation easement or title to 250 acres of additional off-site bighorn sheep habitat and 15 acres of dry wash woodlands The conservation easement over the 390 acres of the project site that is being left undisturbed does not qualify as mitigation for the impacts. Bighorn sheep are losing habitat that once was protected from line-of-site to the homes lower on the slope. Non-habituated sheep tend to keep a distance from the edge of development, usually by line-of-site to human disturbance. The 390 acres surrounding the golf course may be impacted by edge effects that go beyond the actual footprint of the development itself. The construction of an eight foot fence only alleviates the impacts of habituated sheep entering the development in search of water and forage. Outward impacts may include. but are not limited to' noise, lights, line-of- sight to people and vehicles, unfamiliar objects and exotic flora and fauna. Additionally. in `Sierra Club vs. City of Palm Springs' it concludes that placing deed-restrictions on the non-used portions of the site does not amount to mitigation. It states "It does not affect or ameliorate the acreage to be used for the golf course. It merely defines the limit of the habitat loss." Other projects within the range of the peninsular bighorn sheep have mitigated loss through the purchase and dedication of off-site habitat at ratios up to 3:1. Thus the 250 acres offered as off-site mitigation are not sufficient to compensate for the impacts of the project on peninsular bighorn sheep. The SEIR also does not specify where the 250 acres of replacement bighorn sheep habitat is to be acquired. Current guidelines. in the recovery plan. recommend that: "...compensation habitat should be acquired within the range of the affected ewe group and at a similar elevation comparable to the impact." The affected ewe group for this project is the Northern Santa Rosa Mountains ewe group and compensation habitat would need to be purchased within this portion of the range at a similar elevation. Page 3 Mr. Phil Drell 28 August 2002 Mitigation measures include a plan for a barrier fence to exclude bighorn sheep from the project area. The SEIR does not specify when construction of the fence would be completed. Construction of the fence should be completed prior to any ground - altering activity associated with this project. The Department opposes the elimination of watercourses and/or their channelization or conversion to subsurface drains. All wetlands and watercourses, whether intermittent or perennial, must be retained and provided with substantial setbacks which preserve the riparian and aquatic values and maintain their use by both on-site and off-site wildlife populations. 1. The Department has direct authority under Fish and Game code ' 1600 et seq. In regard to any proposed activity which would divert, obstruct, or affect the natural flow or change the bed. channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake. 2. A discussion of potential adverse impacts from any increased runoff, sedimentation. soil erosion. and/or pollutants on streams and watercourses on or near the project site, with mitigation measures proposed to alleviate such impacts must be included. 3. The Department is in the process of complying with a writ of mandate issued by the Superior Court of California (Mendocino Environmental Center vs California Department of Fish and Game, Respondents. Bruce Choder, River Rat Salvage. et. al. Real Parties). The writ of mandate states: A writ of mandate shall issue ordering the California Department of Fish and Game on or before May 1 1999. to prepare and implement a program or process that will incorporate a CEQA review into the Fish and Game Section 1603 process. The writ of mandate shall further order the California Department of Fish and Game to cease and desist entering into Section 1603 agreements after May 1. 1999. unless such agreements have been subject to a CEQA review. The writ of mandate clearly spells out what the Department's responsibilities are under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with respect to all Streambed Alteration Agreement's (SAA). In this regard; the Department is emphasizing in comment letters on projects that impacts to lakes or streambeds alternatives and mitigation measures must be addressed in CEQA-certified documents prior to submittal Page 4 Mr. Phil Drell 28 August 2002 of an application of a SAA. Any information which is supplied to the Department after the CEQA process is complete will not have been subject to the public review requirements of CEQA. In this instance, the Department has three choices: 1) refuse to issue the SAA: 2) not file the Notification because CEQA has not been complied with and return the package to the lead agency for further CEQA action: or 3) become the lead agency. In order for the Department to process a SAA agreement. the CEQA-certified documents must include an analysis of the impacts of the proposed project on the lake or streambed, an analysis of the biological resources present on the site, copies of biological studies conducted on the site, biological survey methodology and a discussion of any alternative measures, avoidance measures. mitigation measures which will reduce the impacts of the proposed development to a level of insignificance. The SEIR does not adequately determine the impacts to streambeds within the project area. The method of delineation of streambeds for the Department's streambed delineation for the Department covers the area from stream bank to stream bank. This usually results in a larger area of disturbance than under the Corps delineation. The document indicates 10.12 acres of Bruce Creek and 4.71 acres of Ramon Creek are impacted by the project. The SEIR does not indicate the types of vegetation within each creek. This needs to be included and the mitigation proposed. Mitigation for desert dry wash woodland habitat consists of restoration or replacement at a 3.1 ratio. Two seeps are also located on the Project site. These seeps are considered water sources for bighorn sheep and other wildlife. One of the seeps will be located within the fence and therefore bighorn sheep will no longer have access. It is possible that because of the proximity to the fence. non-habituated sheep will not have access to the second seep. Mitigation for the loss of these water sources should be included in the document. The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Questions regarding this letter should be directed to Mr Eddy Konno. Associate Biologist. at (760) 771-0375. Sincerely. • c•f�'� Glenn Black Senior Environmental Scientist Eastern Sierra — Inland Deserts Region Page 5 Mr. Phil Drell 28 August 2002 cc: G. Wagner. USFWS. Carlsbad STATE OF CALIFORNIA � ( •.... of Planning s Office and Research ( *V) State Clearinghouse Gray Davis August 26,200_' ,� ::1:0PMENT t Tal Finney GOVERNOR g -"rt 2002 INTERIM DIRECTOR 'O:1M NITYDE DEP.4RT.uEgq CITY OF PALM DESERT Phil Drell City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Warning Drive Palm Dessert,CA 92260 Subject: Crest Golf Club and Residential Village Precise Plan/CUP,TTM,GPA,Change of Zone,etc. crg#: 1991021034 Dear Phil Drell: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Supplemental EIR to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on August 23,2002,and the comments from the responding agency(ies)is(are)enclosed. If this comment package is not in order,please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c)of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments,we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at(916)445 0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, Terry Roberts Director,State Clearinghouse • Enclosures cc: Resources Agency i4on TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 1991021034 Project Title Crest Golf Club and Residential Village Precise Plan/CUP,TTM, GPA, Change of Zone, etc. Lead Agency Palm Desert, City of Type SIR Supplemental EIR Description Private golf club and practice facilities, up to 60 unit residential village with single family and attached units,clubhouse, maintenance building, ancillary recreation facilities and parking; onsite drainage facilities. Lead Agency Contact Name Phil Drell Agency City of Palm Desert Phone 760/346-0611 Fax email Address 73-510 Fred Warning Drive City Palm Dessert State CA Zip 92260 Project Location County Riverside City Palm Desert Region Cross Streets SR-74/Homestead Parcel No. Township 5S Range 6,5 E Section 31,25 Base SBBM Proximity to: Highways 74 Airports Railways Waterways Schools St. Margaret's Land Use Vacant, Illegal dumping and OHV use RivCo:W-2 (Controlled Dey) City HPR and Open Space RivCo: Mountainous Areas (1 du/10 ac) and Low Density Residential (0-.2 du/ac)City GP: Hillside Planned Residential HPR) and Open Space Project Issues AestheticNisual; Air Quality; Archaeologic-Historic; Drainage/Absorption; Flood Plain/Flooding; Geologic/Seismic; Noise; Public Services; Recreation/Parks; Schools/Universities;Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation:Water Quality; Water Supply;Wetland/Riparian; Wildlife; Landuse; Cumulative Effects Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Conservation; Department of Fish and Game, Region 6; Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; California Highway Patrol;Caltrans, District 8; State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 7; Native American Heritage Commission; State Lands Commission Date Received 07/10/2002 Start of Review 07/10/2002 End of Review 08/23/2002 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. California RE - 'onal Water Quality C - ntrol Board �•�' 'S vo Colorado River Basin Region 1. %� Winston H. Hickox Internet Address: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov Gray Davis Secretary for 73-720 Fred Waring Drive,Suite 100,Palm Desert,California 92260 Governor Environmental Phone(760)346-7491 •FAX(760)341-6820 Protection July 17, 2002 Mr. Phil Drell City of Palm Desert ' 73-150 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: CREST GOLF CLUB AND RESIDENTIAL VILLAGE PRECISE PLAN/CUP, TTM, GPA, CHANGE OF ZONE, ETC. SCH# 1991021034. The Regional Water Quality control Board (Regional Board)staff received and reviewed the above-referenced document. The proposed project would involve generation of storm water from the project site, which has the potential to adversely impact receiving surface waters. Therefore, the Regional Board staff requests that you file a Notice of Intent to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Construction Activities. The permits require preparation and submittal of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Compliance with the permits will prevent and mitigate potential water quality impacts. Included with this letter are the storm water permit forms that must be completed and submitted to our - • office for approval. If you have any questions, please call me at (760) 776-8986. /{/Nr\.,A)/--/ KOLA UN Water Resources Control Engineer fi `� cc: State Clearing House File Ref: ER RN ED YN)PC6H6Y 1 �L _L; ,, . L - - - chTAim . .. l .,!,,i ;�'... California Environmental Protection Agency Zap Recycled Paper STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS,TRANSPORTATIC D HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAVIS,Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ` DISTRICT 8 464 W Fourth Street,6th Floor MS 726 San Bernardino,CA 92401-1400 PHONE(909) 383-6327 FAX (909)383-6890 July 18, 2002 1 11U t5 T � D 08-Riv-74-94.440 SCH# 1991021034 ( Z- J U L 2 2 2002 Mr. Phil Drell STATE CL E'-\H b HOUSE Community Development Director City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Drell: Crest Golf Club &Residential Village Project, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Destination Development Corporation, Proponent We have completed our review of the above document that identifies environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with this golf course/residential development project. The site proposed for development is located west of State Route 74 right-of- way(SR 74 R/W), at Homestead Road. Desired project development includes a total of 104 residential dwelling units and an 18-hole championship golf course. The following comments addressing the identified mitigation measures are hereby offered for your consideration: • Measures proposed to mitigate development impact to SR 74 include the installation of a stop sign and related pavement markings at the project entry road. Since typical placement of signs and markings occurs immediately adjacent to intersection curb returns, encroachment within the existing State right-of-way is likely. Therefore, relevant information regarding Caltrans permit issuance, State design criteria, construction practices or policies should be included in any discussion of this project impact mitigation measure. It should also be noted that compliance to State standards in place at the time of permit issuance will be required. • Routine maintenance of State highway improvements including lane striping, is provided by Caltrans forces only on an as needed basis, as determined by Maintenance staff. As worded in this document, the statement regarding median striping implies that maintenance by Caltrans forces is to be provided as project mitigation. Please clarify the intent of this statement or delete the reference to Caltrans. Mr. Phil Drell July 18, 2002 Paget Thank you for providing us this opportunity to review and offer our comments concerning this supplemental environmental impact report. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Ms. Rosa F. Clark at (909) 383-6908 for assistance. Sincerely, Original signed by R.B.Balanza for: LINDA GRIMES, Chief Office of Forecasting/IGR-CEQA Review Transportation Planning Division cc: J. Pagano, Operations Surveillance A N. Athuluru, Encroachment Permits-Riv.Co. B. Frank, State Clearinghouses/ 74PD_CrestGolttlubVillage_DraftSEIR.doc �\11//*CIS, w BERMUDA DUNES Desert Sands Unified School District RANCHO MIRAGE G IL INDIAN WELLS a 47-950 Dune Palms Road • La Quinta, California 92253 • (760) 777-4200 PALM DESERT Y .LA°UINTA a •p INDIO • RECEIVED August 9, 2002 2002 l'0: MUNITI DECEI(li \T DEPlr",!E\" Mr. Steve Smith C T o-P.A! DE,9EBT Planning Manager City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert,CA 92260-0611 Request for Comments: TT30438 Dear Mr. Smith: This is in response to your request for input on the above referenced project and its effect on public schools. All actions toward residential development will potentially result in an impact on our school system. School overcrowding is a District-wide concern for Desert Sands Unified School District. The District's ability to meet the educational needs of the public with new schools has been seriously impaired in recent years by local, state and federal budget cuts that have had a devastating impact on the financing of new schools. As you are aware, there is a school mitigation fee that is currently collected on all new development at the time building permits are issued. Please feel free to call me if you have further questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Peggy Reyes, Director Facilities Services PR/cros SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA t, `_ 4- . July 23, 2002 Mr. Phil Drell Community Development Director of City of Palm Desert ASSOCIATION GOVERNMENTS of 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: SCAG Clearinghouse No. 120020367 Crest Golf Club and Residential Main Office Village 818 West Seventh Street 1.2tn Floor Dear Mr. Drell: Los Angeles,California Thank you for submitting the Crest Golf Club and Residential Village to SCAG for 90017-3435 review and comment. As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG reviews the consistency of local plans, projects and programs with regional t(2l3)236-180o plans. This activity is based on SCAG's responsibilities as a regional planning organization pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance provided f(2i3)236-1825 by these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment of regional goals and policies. www.scag.ca.gov Officers:President:Councilmember Hal Benison, We have reviewed the Crest Golf Club and Residential Village, and have Los Angeles•First Vitt President:Mayor Pro Tem determined that the proposed Project is not regionally significant per SCAG Bev Perry,Brea•Second Vice President:Supervisor Charles Smith,Orange County•Immediate Part Intergovernmental Review (IGR) Criteria and California Environmental Quality Act President:Supervisor Jon Mikels,San Bernardino CEQA Guidelines (Section 15206 . The proposed pointy (CEQA) ) p p project is not a residential Imperial County:Hank Kniper,Imperial County• development of more than 500 dwelling units. Therefore, the proposed Project does not Jo Shields.Brawley warrant comments at this time. Should there be a change in the scope of the proposed Los Angeles County:Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, Los Angeles County•Zev Yaroslaysky Los Angeles Project, we would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment at that time. County • Melanie Andrews. Compton • Harry Baldwin,San Gabriel•Bruce Barrows,Cerritos• George Bass,Bell•Hal Benson,Los Angeles•Ken A description of the proposed Project was published in SCAG's July1-15, 2002 Blackwood,Lomita•Robert Bruesch,Rosemead• P P P P Gene Daniels, Paramount • Ruth Galanter, Los Intergovernmental Review Clearinghouse Report for public review and comment. Angeles • Eric Garcetti, Los Angeles •Wendy Greuel,Los Angeles•James Hahn.Los Angeles• Janice si• Sand Angeles Jacobs, ElNate Segundo Holden.Tom The project title and SCAG Clearinghouse number should be used in all LaBonge,Los Angeles•Bonnie Lowenthal,Long correspondence with SCAG concerningthis Project. Correspondence should be sent Beach • Lawrence Kirkley, Ingh,vood • Keith P j P McCarthy, Downey • Cindy Miscikowski, Los to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator. Ifyou have anyquestions, please Angeles•Pam O'Connor,Santa Monica•Nick r� 9 Pacheco,Los Angeles•Alex Padilla.Los Angeles• lilii ltaci MC di (213) 230-1 80 y. Tharik you. Jan Perry Los Angeles•Beatrice Proo.Pico Rivera •Mark Ridley-Thomas,Los Angeles•Ed Reyes.Los Angeles • Karen Rosenthal, Claremont • Dick Sincerely, Stanford,Azusa•Tom Sykes,Walnut•Paul Talbot, Alhambra•Sidney Tyler,Jr..Pasadena•Dennis / �•//,// Washburn,Calabasen•Jack Weiss,Los Angeles• J1/7#iXi • Ron Bares,Los Alamitos•Ralph Bauer,Huntington - ifIEY �ITH,AICP Beach•Art Brown,Buena Park•Lou Bone,Tustin (� •Elisabeth Cowan,Costa Mesa Cathryn DeYoung, , S lior Regional Planner Laguna Niguel l ••Richard ixon.Laee Forest•m Alta • Intergovernmental Review Duke,La Palma•Shirley McCracken,Anaheim Bev Perry,Brea•Tod Ridgeway.Newport Beach Riverside County:Bob Buster,Riverside County• Ron Loveridge,Riverside•Greg Pettis,Cathedral .r City • Ron Roberts,Temecula •Jan Rudman, 1 v TN )' 9•�i,, t RE(/'1'I y(,�.�, j'' Corona•Charles White,Moreno Valley ■ / �- - -s_ v.J� f?, ! /' - e San Bernardino County: Jon Mikels, San `� Z !�c Bernardino County • Bill Alexander, Rancho Cucamonga•Lee Ann Garcia,Grand Terrace•Bob _ Hunter,Victor:0e•Susan Lien,San Bernardino• j Li i. ^ ' ' Gary Ovitt,Ontario•Debra Robertson,Rialto Ventura County:Judy Mikels,Ventura County• p.,.T•`f.�,. '.�.'i1 i1C'.`'1T1' ... Glen Becerrs,Simi Valley•Cul Morehouse,San T 1` i l "'.-s Li t iiUr,1j�'.1''i�E.r,, Buenaventura•Toni Young,Port Hueneme COMMUNITY llE�ELp(i�'�,,�• t,,, iKT1fE,V'r CITY OF J'Au Dr--�`' CITF(iF'P.�K;K OgSF.RT Riverside County Tr nsportation Commission: Robin Lowe.Hemet Ventura County lragapprtation Commission: Bill Davis.Simi Valley ,, Printed on Recycled Paper 559-S/02/02 STATE OF CALIFORNIA oEt�EOF►U00,4e Governor's Office of Planningand Research ,;�� m`� z State Clearinghouse %c.o.� Gray Davis Tal Finney GOVERNOR INTERIM DIRECTOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT DATE: July 31, 2002 RECEIVED A�iG 0 5 2002 TO: Phil Drell City of Palm Desert :OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 73-510 Fred Warning Drive CITY OF PALM DESERT Palm Dessert, CA 92260 RE: Crest Golf Club and Residential Village Precise Plan/CUP,TTM, GPA, Change of Zone, etc. SCH#: 1991021034 This is to acknowledge that the State Clearinghouse has received your environmental document for state review. The review period assigned by the State Clearinghouse is: Review Start Date: July 10, 2002 Review End Date: August 23, 2002 We have distributed your document to the following agencies and departments: California Highway Patrol Caltrans, District 8 Department of Conservation Department of Fish and Game, Region 6 Department of Parks and Recreation Native American Heritage Commission Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 7 Resources Agency State Lands Commission State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights The State Clearinghouse will provide a closing letter with any state agency comments to your attention on the date following the close of the review period. Thank you for your participation in the State Clearinghouse review process. 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov ' ,MATE � ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY �STRIC COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 •COACHELLA,CALIFORNIA 92236•TELEPHONE(760)398-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS JOHN W.McFADDEN,PRESIDENT THOMAS E.LEVY,GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER RUSSELL KITAHARA,VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON,SECRETARY TELLIS PATRICIA ODEKAS A.LARSON August 2, 2002 STEVEN B.ROBBINS,ASSISTANT TO GENERAL MANAGER REDWINE AND SHERRILL,ATTORNEYS PETER NELSON RECEIVED File: 0163.1 050631-1 AUG 1 5 2002 050631-2 050631-3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 050631-4 CITY OF PALM DESERT 050525-1 050525-2 050525-3 050525-4 Phil Drell Community Development Director City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Dear Mr. Drell: Subject: Subsequent Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Crest Golf and Residential Village Project We have received your Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Crest Golf and Residential Village Project dated July 5. On page III-45, under Mitigation Monitoring, paragraph 2, it is stated that the responsible agency for flood control is the Riverside County Flood Control District. This project lies within our boundary and, therefore, the Coachella Valley Water District is the agency responsible for flood control issues. We have no further comments. If you have any questions please call Dan Charlton, stormwater engineer, extension 316. Yours,very truly, -(6 li['om Levy General Manager-Chief Engineer DC:dd\eng\sw\j uI\drel l TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY 01 . RANCHO MIkI1GC RECEIVED AUG1 9 2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT August 15, 2002 Mr. Phil Drell Community Development Director City of Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: Draft Subsequent EIR for the Crest Golf Club & Residential Village Dear Phil, Thank you for forwarding a copy of the Draft EIR for our review. I have reviewed the document and concur with the recommended mitigation measures, except I did not see a specific measure which requires the undisturbed acreage to be dedicated to the Mountains Conservancy with an open space easement. Of course it is possible to shrink the size of the golf course and thereby disturb less mountainous area, but that option must be balanced with the obvious goal of providing a first class golf course. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please forward a copy of the Final EIR when it becomes available. Sincerely, Randy Bynder Planning Manager TON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCE 1-+OUSIr1C AUTHOR'T Y PU3UC LUDDRAPY PUBLIC WORKS -4511 Te! t763) 325-2266 Tel. (760) 770-3207 Te' i7&. 73-321'_. T.. (75. -7323 Te!. (760) 770-3224 8830 Fax. (760) 324-9351 Fax. (760)324-0528 Far.. (760) 770 3261 Fax. (760) 341-5213 Fax. (760) 770-3261 69-825 F+IGFFWAY 111 / RANCH-0 MIRAGE. CA 92270 www.ci.rancho-mirage.ca.us PALM ,SERT POLICE DEPART ENT p�M E.17•••\) Served by the c ` Riverside County Sheriff's Department Larry D. Smith, Sheriff 73520 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert,CA 92260 (760)836-1600 Fax(760)836-1616 August 19, 2002RE C E I TE D City of Palm Desert ' ; ; L i 2002 Planning Department 73510 Fred Waring Dr. coMMUN►TY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Palm Desert, CA 92260 CITY OF PALM DESERT ATTN: Mr. Phil Drell Community Development Director Re: Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Crest Golf Club and Residential Village Project Dear Mr. Drell, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced project. I have examined the submitted report and have determined there are no issues of concern to the Palm Desert Police Department at this time. When specific site plans are submitted, the Palm Desert Police Department requests notification for comment on the proposed plans at that time. Sincerely, 441-%-,1 Jon J. Gaw, #3095 Deputy Sheriff Community Oriented Policing Officer Aug-22-2002 02:24pm From- T-680 P.001/001 F-513 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON Kathleen DeRosa Region Manager An EDISON INTERNATIONALP"Dumpily August 22, 2002 City of Palm Desert Phil Drell Director of Community Development 73510 Fred Waring Dr Palm Desert, CA 92260 Subject:Transmittal of Draft Subsequent EIR (SCH No. 199102103.4)for the Crct Golf& Residential Village in Palm Desert, Riverside County Dear Mr. Drell, Thank you for including Southern California Edison(Edison)in the review process for the above referenced document Crest Golf Course and Residential Village Development Project is located within the service territory of Edison. Edison's power distribution system is prepared to deliver the power by the State's electrioity market to this area. The California Independent System Operator is the agency now responsible for managing the State's electric grid and securing power supplies. The relocation, reconstruction, extension or under grounding of Edison's electrical distribution system which may be necessitated within the proposed area will be performed by Edison in accordance with Edison's effective Tariff Schedules approved by and filad with the California Public Utilities Commission. Please include the following conoems in your report: - Please be aware that the SCE facilities may be impacted by the project and may require relocation. Facilities will be relocated at the customer expense unless a recorded land rights on private property contains a relocation clause to move facilities at SCE expense. • The integrity of any and all SCE land rights will be maintained and the developer at no cost will secure all replacement land rights to SCE. • Identified SCE properties may require relocation, please make sure REO is provided 5 sets of street improvements plans showing all SCE facilities at no less than 50 scale drawings 20 or 30 is preferred. It Is critical to provide SCE plans as soon es possible to: Mark Mainer Manager of Real Estate Operations Corporate Real Estate Southern California Edison 14799 Chestnut Street Westminster, CA 92683 If you have any question or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (760) 202-4211. Si rely, DeRosa Pub'c Affairs Region Manager 36100 Cathedral Canyon Cathedral City,CA 92234 760.202-421 1 Fax 760-202-4136 - R`eteived Aug-22-2002 02:24pm From- To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 001 Dr.and Mrs.Gary Lester �iL;- �0Q2 72304 Blueridge Court Palm Desert,CA :t�f[';;; i ''zL� JEPAHT11E:ti; CITY OF PAL DESERT City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert,CA 92260-2578 FAX: 760-341-7098 To whom it may concern: Re: case nos. GPA 02-01,TT 30439 and PP/cup 01-03 As a Summerset homeowner we are very concerned about the proposed construction in section 31. We are especially concerned about the southern portion of section 31. We feel that if they are permitted to build maintenance facilities it could lead to unsightly parking of trucks and other value decreasing things. We would like to have you have a study done about the feasibility of putting the golf course in section 31 and 36 thereby beautifying the area instead of detracting from the area. We particularly protest the construction in the 7 shaped area at the southern most end of section 31. Also requested, because of their location is the requirement that the building is discreet and blends into the mountain as to preserve the appearance of our mountain. Also of concern is the building of more than 1 or 2 story buildings. And last but not least is the planting of trees that will completely block out the view of the beautiful mountain. There may not be a law regarding our views however the general population of Palm Desert love our mountains and do not want them defiled. Sincerely, —7— e74.4 Patricia E.Lester Gary G. ester Mailing address 17962 Darmel Place Santa Ana,CA 92705 • A. DeSanto Danny RECEIVED Nancy L. DeSanto 71-487 Painted Canyon Road JUL0 32002 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 760-568-1166 CITY OF PALM DESERT July 7, 2002 City Of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Attention: Steve Smith Reference: The Crest Dear Steve, Thank you so much for spending the time with me the other day in our discussion in reference to the new development named The Crest. You had suggested that I put my concerns in a letter to you before the meeting July 16, 2002. I have talked to several neighbors of mine in the Cahuilla Hills area and we seem to agree on the concerns that I will state later on. I have also encouraged several neighbors to attend the July 16, 2002 meeting as well. After talking to several residents of the Cahuilla Hills I have come up with the following concerns. 1. Several residents did not even have a clue as to the nature of this project at all. When I was in a few weeks ago I mentioned this concern to Phil that we should be notified. I was told that anyone within 300 yards of project would be notified. I asked to be put on the mailing list as I felt that anyone facing this project should be notified 300 yards away or not. Cahuilla Hills consists of several little mountain tops that will be looking at this project. My house looks directly at this project as well as several others on Painted Canyon. As of this date I still have not received my mailing. I have followed up myself by coming in to City Hall. Personally I feel that this is another project being slipped through. Lets face it,look at the timing of the meeting, mid July. Most people are on vacation this time of year. That was the first clue. 2. It is my understanding that a few property owners have been approached as to selling their lots and/or giving access to this project for a fire road. It had been proposed in the past to put in a fire road access coming up Painted Canyon. I have been told that this is not an issue at this point but wish to address this issue as a few of these property owners I feel would not hesitate to sell their land without any regard for the other residents. You know anything for a buck. As residents of Cahuilla Hills we pulled together as a neighborhood to fund the paving of our roads up here. The roads had been dirt roads for years. The dust was killing us. We spent about $150,000.00 to get this job done. We did not have any help from the county nor will the roads be maintained by the Danny A. DeSanto Nancy L. DeSanto 71-487 Painted Canyon Road Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 760-568-1166 county. I feel that if a fire access road gets approved coming down Painted Canyon that in time it will be used for construction and we will have another situation just like Big Horn. Every day we fight the traffic to get in and out of our community due to these guys parking on both sides of the street. They use the red zones for staging their jobs as you have to have a transponder to get in these days. I have been almost hit several times taking my kids to school in the morning. It is like running an obstacle course twice a day. Nails litter the intersection constantly. In a nut shell members at Bighorn don't want workers using the front gate so what happens they get pushed to the side for all of us to deal with. I don't have a choice I have to use that street daily and it is just out of control. I have brought up this issue to Big Horn security and for a while the intersection is kept clean, but as with anything else the squeaky wheel gets the oil. If I don't squeak things don't get done. We don't want a fire road, construction entrance in our neighborhood. Not only will this excess traffic tear up our roads paid for by our money, but it will also bring an element to this quiet neighborhood that we don't want. We don't want this dumped in our front door because the members at The Crest don't want to be bothered. I kid you not my husband just came in to tell me I have a wood screw in my tire. BigHom strikes again. I have had about six flats in one year. Time to start squeaking again. 3. I am very concerned with the placement of maintenance shacks and gardening equipment on this project. I have watched as the road on the top of the ridge has been graded and wonder just how much will be graded down. I look directly at this ridge and what myself and my neighbors do not want to see is utility/maintenance buildings on the backside of these ridges again in our front yard. We have always enjoyed a free and clear view of the beauty around us up here. Alot of the people up here have lived here for twenty plus years and the beauty is the rural feeling of the area. There just isn't too much of that anymore. If you allow The Crest to cut down these ridges for roads and etc. you will be taking away that beauty from us for the enjoyment of a few. know that this project will bring in tons of money for the city, but do they have to ruin it for the rest of us? To sum it all up: We don't want any changes to The Cahuilla Hills with the exception of a signal at the intersection of 74 and Cahuilla Way and a warning to BigHorn to keep the roads clean of debris and workers parked in the red zone. Please help us to maintain the rural ambiance of our quiet neighborhood. Do we really need another golf course anyway? I know that I can't change the course of what some call progress but could you just keep it all on the other side of the ridge? Sincerely, Nancy Nancy DeSanto t. • O2 •"III'., ,,Ina 4011/11U1 I --w OA. ye:ailits li 1 • •.. " • ♦:/Lyff Z �rilli 1 i il WOO fob Vek SO 4 J c4 jo,, `��17 SECTION ' 25 � II •jew �1 - . ir.k,\,. ��- vu..:„. „,, , •L1,: , -:N °,1,11/1/1//11 arlWeitifiiii: T -� yr11 k.�t k Dili,; 0 1 1 illllilllll i. .1:,:H,� i �Ii �, ��lll�jll�jl4li';ij%/%1 � �11 //II• I '\ /C- ■: ,�� w IIII III II/1/p ,/ � ```4S i II01111'9/q/ / w/�` 41. SECTION I tuti SECTION �i� 111LI s iikli- 36 I' 31 ��'`'� Ii \ , , ii H._____i 4_,_ _ B„, ea g a/a ..Deo LOCATION MAP FO ID .. "1-37: , C/Z 02-01 and GPA 02-01 \\ "�"°� TT ®� 3 8 and PP/CUP 02-03 PROPERTYAREA ;cam, '° rf ' r' C`Y ••'.t.:.(.._.:;,*—__3%4--"->' ' r'- — 1•.' y ' 1 , , \ S`a ,. K, .1 1`* ‘`` {• *e •sue iL"•:•.,ts - lE \...,..-..„,-).— ..,) '1.1 , ; , .,. Ranenomiqr.. ::-.;,:.:::.. .s..-.. .,, ‘ b--, i , 1 \,.,11�.i ,`� 'j_".. • '1 l SI•rjonater lipoeel `•��..) ...., �.• ' (?�m / �-\ A•'' i _��= _ jr-,— roc _ �- .- =e ��a 4� ; V'�1 C �� • -� to a G/ \^ ' ` v. ' i `ram^.`�� • 1 R- :•, - -",' ", w r J -Z". ^:r— • T' =y`4.. .... fir . i *J I!\'... \•)� "V /' _ \ •9. vas-.•c .. r ::: •} • • :. •., Planni• Arek \ :.tea.`4 %i ..•,g• ->:.••:,e ,�`•7_ . . . - - _ Are _ - :. •,, :•. tit , ,ems _ , ' r • r1 _ ✓ . I e, r R.. y 4 ' I -: Cpbmllr•2Ula qp . :_? ' r • ., .-,. Y1', :� oC7"' : \ a ▪ ` ' �'_ f1 -nL4N/ -4 A�#S E L-- •. orsnxLier,,Channel `•. u �i '-` �r •v - ▪ i _ V _ ,�' ICE ' 't- '-- -7Z-i).(--- . V • •."�•' -, t.---, I of \�--'..,, f.1 .� /' •s e •6 E So•ree: USGS 7.5'Map,Rancho Mirage Quadrangle •• SCALE 24 o00 . A1o3 COE KM 'AM VIM CEO TT • CONTOUR INTERVAL.0 FEET -"-"..•u.•u•.a..• ROTTED LINES flflh6ENt J••oot CONTOOR• •.,TONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF I Vre r '• . Exhibit Palm Desert Annexation #3 (1.-; /��` L 4 TERRA NOVA® City of Palm Desert .' ,:. Planning& Research, Inc. Crest Annexation Vicinity Map ‘.:"3,:'-'`y' t,%1.• - ,-,i tArti ,3,4kIlitk:,,,v , . lb, 1 •.-,‘,,, . . 1. .'ttdl1(I- y yam ,'_ 1� Y�• .• p ,i' • .� • 1.4 r;., � .0 ^V ! y. ..y,�r �y. I. -_ •y y7y{Z nLt ^)A I =. 44140111k "".I''' :' • x' ' r7" .-i t 'k I' •`\S -r,"T-7l ,,_ N ti ' ,'Zir -lit 4 ,Q_��A'1�G1 4.1; to 1t ` ;I _ 1 a3 • III �,•a �• • . t. \ a�a�t„ii Ire .", "' :fir ',J - 11 Scattered Single' -+`-Cj it ,; "a te k��' . - '1.' 14N FamilygiResidential i , \r .. . +! • g. • ♦\ v• .le E ,r _y 1 i t4 tom& m s w• ilk. a 14-' .11"4 41 m'i ..S 1. � :'�4 �*� •a�"". •,_Zj 11. ` �E '� ' r ', I ' •r '• � , w+t��r• 74 '1'a n. 1 r \�StiMargaret's• �'7 1 Church/School - .,• .. . . , • . .... .7110, _, . ....,.,,lairr,,.. .,..... . ‘ _ ,.., .....:: ,,...r. r- 747: A. tt > =Gr : -4. :t 1. ..vA y ", lif +'�;•- Condominiums ,' "- •., • • • ?'N Cahuilla Hills 1_ _ ,_- ,, firm .• i ---Q„ - ¢- '1 r 4 f s w -3 s _.-�. lAtre:Ar;(4.04::41.-:. -I-# Z " • '..‘, \ . • F••1 _'{', , _ • _ 1 8.,�. , . t Canyons•at•Bighorn • - I. - - - : , - $ ` a •_,ri�r.�,T+•ice% FEET V' i' .1 Palm Desert Annexation No. 3 4 - Exhibit TERRA NOVA City of Palm Desert ;, �/ 1'1annin�' : itcscarch. Inc_ Aerial Boundary Map I • • if ?-if t \ . �` ;\'�' •, l ` l� \ 1 /r-fri- � \� '' 'Q7 N.'`1Q. \\ al:\♦ I ' ari! r ,l /�- . \ • ♦ .• Qkk "--. ./P,- '. NS.,\:•\''''‘' .1 s\''. '...‘-'‘,..‘1 \SZN.0 k. \7\)..,,..1k1:44 ......;);12/..‘ -\\ „.....si. .1} ‘ -'.-- ••.II.••7.•:Tilos' ) s r.--.,'S\i 7, ...,...., N,s,...---) . ( ,...4k, \„,..„ , 5. \:„,_ . ...) 1...,....;„...... "• As,..:*** ....•••.. '14:r\ ) i A 1( i '. IN.,..:.:Z fr \* ...i.l•--' 'Z:`,.,, . .:,4::, •••r•••••••••!• /iv 1`. t,`. :> ` \ �a ---�:rr--�) (I' . II; r i i , �'t ! c `--1 1 ` j �: l;,- _ -. \ � 1. _%- -- ``\,`�`N` - /-' Cj'l;'ASS % �` `JPr7-kti )lt%'�% \--`i, ',w 1. \\ - , ram 2 J`:- ;/ )) t . - f ' ./Y . ( . S { J L ----�� • --• '/j _ -ice 11 .' `- t• .\• . r\!` c .It� ! �' �G-ter r • • �_.:"•` ti� k \\-- S. , '.;-'•-- --'-7---•\ (\‘,..„ 0 • 'S.. c...... ,,, % --,----._. f----' -%-.N\../..,:/. ,'-i, . i.:(r.,'"fil..„.„..„1 ....,k,,,_,,,C ,;: ..0::... %� ;;%/-�\'�, ,I '�Jam\ 1 , °S.i%''N '\A \� < "' `\ - `~~ � i.. 1 i 1 J( r \• f�� _�.�\`\�` ��\I'-� `J c\...._. / i•.....,_,;• '_'tip \.I'` ` \N. � `3� 11.41• •••: J)\; W; ` .— 2itie7catki I n ), `,`\Via{ /� �:,, 3�r /++� .; ;Y 21 ,. c . ‘N.' '- '- .;- - ' 41 __\:14m4,„......h..% 11/1° l'; 4.4. t III `i , , 1 Vr,, HI) )if / i,- \.... ,..... (, fi c,op ) . c cs--.. / • T.....S\:,''''\•N --.1 - i"----, --‘ \,.../ f:...w ,.:• •• •,--,:' 44-0. < < :4, li 1,4,-,f----I, ...f--),./;-)) (----) ‘‘i cy000\ 1 \-,--•-•.`"'0 ..., ,..L I cb cs,% . . vc:..........-Ic....3--, •-•:-;.>-li *in__•• , '*.1 •:..5 , -if / , c•---)io.-\ ) /1/40\,--- -----\--.;_---),.....:•=„„:07.3,----,-- :,....!„....T 7..., ....... :''' '1.---'. �r �� ,����• i 1 I.:f 1../: -.'.. N---- .ct- b (. . i.1 -'':La? Cf+ �1l �a, ,‘,... • ti.c:- --\ 1 11MMI : ` r',r\} \( (u . _1_ .. 4_ - Ia 7 _L,_ 7.: i' -. __Mesa View Dr_. ) i 2.- \ k,,,ji;), 1 - *. A" . 'i tir. • -... .., c i, t3------,:l. ..,,,,.. m, 0 .-----N. r�� 1 I�V } Y}�`" a r,---1.....:...! _. . i ✓J` ) ..,*._•.'::'• lI•�' : ;. • J J 1 '3 « '', n• ' �• ,--may' - .J • fit 1. Vie' reek , • .�-L �� 11 r-^▪- •• „ Indian Hills Way • ��• /r���, '1I-- --1 �-aa as.�. - ! I: 'i r\ ( • . 1 1 • yr` r ._ _` • 6. 1 " ill = - • Park `... li ``�i �; a lY� ' • .•�.•� a Zi �=3-\ 1 rk 3l a ,,,11. • N � o • � � , � o uloo C Vr- /- -- I �� 71 :eit l,• • • • • .' • J/J� �.., J /1 ( 1 I �s�_, ) 1 I �c-- ; 1 1 J r.l I / I FEETI A r ,.. Exhibit Palm Desert Annexation No. 3 �j L TERRA NOVA® City of Palm Desert •.",,,,,-"4- I Planning &Research, Inc. Topography Map \:1: , ' }1 City of Palm Desert CEQA Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: City of Palm Desert Annexation No. 36 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Phil Drell Director of Community Development City of Palm Desert (760) 346-0611 4. Project Location: Riverside County, California County of Riverside, California 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Destination Development Corporation 74-001 Reserve Drive Indian Wells, CA 92210 6. General Plan Designation: Located in Riverside County and Palm Desert City Sphere of Influence. County-designated as Rural 4 (0-.2du/ac, 5 acres and larger) City-designated as Low Density Residential (1 - 3 du/ac). Requesting re-designate to HPR-5 (1 du/5ac). 7. Zoning: Located in the County of Riverside, zoned R-1-1 (Residential, One-Family Dwelling) No current City zoning. Requesting pre- annexation zoning to designate lands as HPR-5 (1 du/5ac). 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project,and any secondary,support,or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The total annexation area is comprised of a total of ten currently undeveloped, vacant parcels, totaling approximately 673.32+ acres, located in the County of Riverside, and within the City of Palm Desert's sphere-of-influence. An annexation application is being filed concurrently with the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for an annexation action in accordance with the Cortese-Knox Local Government Act (Government Code Section 57075-57093). The subject action also includes the above referenced amendments to General Plan land use and Zoning designations on the subject 673.32±acres. The largest portion of the annexation area is comprised of one 640+ acre section of land that is one of two planning areas of a proposed development project, the Crest Golf Club and Residential Village. This portion of the annexation area may also be described as Section 25, Township 5 South, Range 5 East, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian. Portions of the Crest project are already located within the City of Palm Desert corporate limits. This annexation action is being proposed primarily to incorporate all portions of the proposed Crest project within the City of Palm Desert. Also included in this annexation action are nine additional parcels, totalling 33.32+ acres, located in Section 36, immediately south of Section 25. The area comprised by these parcels may also be described as a portion of the north 1/2 of the northeast 1/4 of the of Section 36, Township 5 South, Range 5 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian. With the exception of one parcel on which the Crest project developer has secured a right-of-way agreement to provide Crest project golf course access, these parcels are unrelated to the development of the Crest project. Parcels within Section 36 are the principal subject of this Initial Study. A Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SCH#1991021034) has been prepared on the Crest project itself, including Section 25, described above. The Crest Draft SEIR analyzes and provides for mitigation of potentially significant environmental impacts within the Crest project planning area. The subject Initial Study is being prepared to accompany the Crest Draft SEIR and to address the Riverside LAFCO annexation action and associated City GPA and CZ. Biological and cultural resources technical studies conducted in conjunction with preparation of the Crest Draft EIR surveyed the entire annexation area, including these additional lands in Section 36. A request for annexation, a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and a Change of Zone (CZ) have been filed with the City of Palm Desert for Section 25 and for the annexation lands with Section 36. 9. Existing and Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. Currently the 673.32± acres comprising the total annexation area are undeveloped vacant lands generally comprised of small desert washes, and foothills and plateaus of the lower portions of the Santa Rosa Mountains. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: As described above, the 33.32± acres of the annexation area that is the subject of this Initial Study is immediately south of Section 25, which comprises the largest portion of the annexation area, and is analyzed in the Crest Draft EIR. Lands northeast of the subject annexation area are comprised of scattered single family housing and the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. Lands immediately east of the subject area are proposed for development of the residential and club component of the Crest project, and are comprised of small desert washes and the foothills and plateaus of the lower reaches of the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains, and the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel generally forms their easterly boundary. State Highway 74 lies easterly of the Channel and runs generally northeasterly through the immediate vicinity. Easterly and southeasterly of the subject annexation area, and located east of the stormwater channel, are several single and multi-family developments, including 2 condominiums, ...,bile homes, and apartments. The area ... ectly to the south of the subject annexation area is comprised of open space and scattered single-family housing of the Cahuilla Hills neighborhood, water storage tanks and several unimproved drainages. To the west are small desert washes and scattered single- family housing. Section 25, the largest portion of the total annexation area, is located immediately north of these lands. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g.,permits,financing approval,or participation agreement.) Approval or permitting may be required by the following agencies: At this time, no additional approval or permitting is required, as no development is currently planned for the subject portion of the annexation area. As part of the construction permitting and review process, individual landowners will be required to comply with applicable City, State and Federal requirements during design and construction. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL 1'A<TORS POTENTIALLY AFFECT 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. X Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Public Services Population and Housing X Biological Resources X Utilities and Service Systems X Geological Problems Energy and Mineral X Aesthetics Resources X Water/Hydrology Hazards Cultural Resources X Air Quality X Noise Recreation X Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. 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. n I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" 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 pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature - Date Phil Drell, Community Development Director City of Palm Desert, California Printed Name For 4 Evaluation of Environmental 1111pacts 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 reference 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) "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: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less 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 XVIII, "Earlier Analysis,"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)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 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) The analysis of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance 5 Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Mitigated Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: AESTHETICS. Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?(Project description) X b)Damage scenic resources,including,but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X ("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: The Crest Project",prepared by CRM Tech,April 22,2002). c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Project description). X d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?(Project X description). II. AGRICULTURAL 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 prepared by the California Dept.Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a)Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland)to non-agricultural use? X ("County of Riverside Western Half Agricultural Resources Map", Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan,prepared by the Riverside County Planning Department, 1982.) b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract?("County of Riverside Western Half Agricultural X Resources Map",Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan, prepared by the Riverside County Planning Department, 1982.) c)Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature,could individually or cumulatively result in X loss of Farmland,to non-agricultural use?("County of Riverside Western Half Agricultural Resources Map",Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan,prepared by the Riverside County Planning Department, 1982."Soil Survey of Riverside County, California,Coachella Valley Area," U.S.Dept.Of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 1979.) 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 Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (Coachella X Valley PMto Attainment Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan, September 1996. Draft 2002 Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation, prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District,May,2002). b)Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation?(CEQA Air Quality X Handbook,prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District,April 1993). 6 Po Ilv Potentially Less Than \u Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Mitigated c)Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state X ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?(CEQA Air Quality Handbook,prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District,April 1993). d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X (Project description). e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Project description). X IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse impact,either directly or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or X regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?("Biological Survey of the Crest Development Site,"AMEC Earth and Environmental,May,2002. "Recovery Plan for Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, California,prepared by the U.S.Fish&Wildlife Service,approved October 25,2000." Project description.) b)Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, X policies,regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? ("Biological Survey of the Crest Development Site,"AMEC Earth and Environmental,May, 2002. Project description).Project description). c)Adversely impact federally protected wetlands(including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.)Either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities X through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means?("Biological Survey of the Crest Development Site,"AMEC Earth and Environmental,May,2002. Project description). d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or X migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?(Biological Survey of the Crest Development Site,"AMEC Earth and Environmental,May,2002. Project description). e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?(Project X description.) f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Conservation Community Plan,or other approved local, X regional,or state habitat conservation plan? (Coachella Valley Frinte- toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, 1985,Project description). V. CULTURAL RESOURCES:Would the project: a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places,the California Register of Historic X Resources,or a local register of historic resources? (Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: The Crest Project. Project description.) 7 b)Cause a substantial adv..change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource(i.e.,an artifact,object,or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that,without merely adding to the current body of knowledge,there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, X has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example of its type,or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)?(Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: The Crest Project. Project description). c)Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? X (Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: The Crest Project. Project description). d)Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?(Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey X Report: The Crest Project Project description) VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS:Would the project: a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,or death involving: i)Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State X Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?(City of Palm Desert General Plan Update Draft Geotechnical Report. Project Description) ii)Strong seismic ground shaking?(City of Palm Desert General Plan X Update Draft Geotechnical Report) iii)Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction(City of X Palm Desert General Plan Update Draft Geotechnical Report) iv)Landslides?(City of Palm Desert General Plan Update Draft X Geotechnical Report. Project description.) b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?(Ref: Soil X Survey of Riverside County,California,Coachella Valley Area, prepared by USDA Soil Conservation Service. September 1980, Rancho Mirage Quadrangle) c)Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on- X or off-site landslides, lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d)Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or X property? e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not X available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials?(Project X description). b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the X likely release of hazardous materials into the environment?(Project description). c)Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials,substances, X or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d)Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to X the public or the environment?("Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the Crest Golf Course and Condominium Project, prepared by Quin Kinnebrew,CEG,REA II,April,2002.) 8 e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for X people residing or working in the project area?(Project description). f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip;would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the X project area?(Project description). g)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted X emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?(City of Palm Desert Multi-Hazard Functional Plan, 1996). h)Expose people or structures to the risk of loss,injury or death involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to X urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Project description). VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : Would the project: a)Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality X standards or waste discharge requirements? (Project description). b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in X aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(i.e., 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?("Engineer's Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment 2001/2002,"prepared by Water Resources Branch,Engineering Department,Coachella Valley Water District, April,2001. Project description.) c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river,in a X manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?("Existing Conditions Hydrology&Sediment Analysis for the Crest Project Site,"prepared by Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering,June,2002. Project description.) d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or X substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site?("Existing Conditions Hydrology& Sediment Yield Analysis for the Crest Project Site," prepared by Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering,June,2002. Project description.) e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? X (Project description.) f)Place housing within a 100-year floodplain,as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood X hazard delineation map (Project description). g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede X or redirect flood flows?(Project description). IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a)Physically divide an established community X b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited X to the general plan,specific plan, local costal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?(City of Palm Desert General Plan, 1980). c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan?(Project description). X 9 X. MINERAL RESOURCL.,. Would the project: a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the X region and the residents of the state? (Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Palm Springs-Consumption Region, Special Report 159,Rancho Mirage Quadrangle,prepared by California Division of Mines and Geology.) b)Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan X or other land use plan?(Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Palm Springs-Consumption Region, Special Report 159,Rancho Mirage Quadrangel,prepared by California Division of Mines and Geology.) 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 X applicable standards of other agencies?(City of Palm Desert Noise Control Ordinance. Project description). b)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne X vibration or groundbome noise levels?(Project description). c)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X (Project description). d)For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or X public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?(Project description). e)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to X excessive levels?(Project description). XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING:Would the project: a)Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for X example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?("Socio- Economic Element for the City of Palm Desert General Plan Update," prepared by Terra Nova Planning&Research, Inc.,2001. U.S. Census,2000. Project description). b)Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Project description). c)Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere?(Project description). XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a)Would the project 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?(Project description). X Police protection?(Project description). X Schools?(Project description). X Parks?(Project description). X Other public facilities?(Project description). X 10 XIV. RECREATION: a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X (Personal communication,Jeff Winklepleck,City of Palm Desert, April,2002. Project description). b)Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have X an adverse physical effect on the environment?(Project description). XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC:Would the project: a)Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e.,result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume X to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)?("Trip Generation Manual,6th Edition,"prepared by Institute of Traffic Engineers(ITE), 1997. Project description.) b)Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency X for designated roads or highways.(Project description). c)Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in X substantial safety risks?(Project description). d)Substantially increase hazards to a design feature(e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm X equipment)?(Project description). e)Result in inadequate emergency access?(Project description). X f)Result in inadequate parking capacity?(Project description). X _ g)Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?(Project X description). XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Project description). b)Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Personal communication,Bruce Clark,Principal Sanitation X Engineer,and Jim Zimmerman,Development Service Supervisor, Coachella Valley Water District,July 22,2002. "Environmental Analysis Handbook,"John G.Rau and David C.Wooten, 1980. Project description). c)Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which X could cause significant environmental effects(Project description). d)Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from X existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed(Project description). e)Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the X project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments (Project description). f)Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?(Project X description). XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- X sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, 11 reduce the number or res...,.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 the potential to achieve short-term,to the disadvantage of long-term,environmental goals? X c)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable?("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in X connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current project,and the effects of probable future projects)? d)Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or X indirectly? XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a)Earlier analyses used.Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Crest Golf Club and Residential Village and associated technical studies, July 2002. The Draft SEIR listed above is available from the City of Palm Desert.. 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. See attached addendum. c)Mitigation measures. For effects that are"Less than Significant with Mitigation 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. See attached addendum. 12 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No. 36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT ANNEXATION #36 and Associated GPA 02-01 & CZ 02-01 ADDENDUM TO CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Aesthetics I.a. The subject annexation area is located west of State Highway 74 and southwest of State Highway 111 in the City of Palm Desert Sphere of Influence (SOI). These lands are currently undeveloped. The current City of Palm Desert General Plan designates these lands as Low Density Residential, which allows a buildout range of between a minimum of one and a maximum of three dwelling units per acre. As part of the annexation process with the City of Palm Desert, a land use designation of Hillside Planned Residential — 5 (HPR-5) has been proposed. This land use designation limits development within these lands to one dwelling unit per five acres, consistent with the City's General Plan land use designation for development within Hillside areas, which is "intended to limit development in the hillside area due to site constraints and important visual and natural resources." The subject annexation area is situated west of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel and involves lands at the base of and within the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains. Portions of the subject annexation area has limited visibility from well south of the property as viewed from Highway 74. Otherwise, potential development will be either partially or completely obscured from view on the valley floor and from view from lands and roadways to the north and east by intervening terrain. No development is currently proposed for the proposed annexation lands, (also see Crest Draft SEIR, July, 2002). However, under the City's current land use designation, buildout of these lands would result in construction of from 33 to 99 homes. Without appropriate mitigation, the extensive grading associated with this density of development has potential to significantly impact scenic and visual resources The proposed Hillside Planned Residential —5 land use designation on Section 36 lands would allow no more than 9 new homes. This level of buildout substantially reduces potential resulting impacts to visual resources. Design of future homes should incorporate materials and colors that complement and blend with the surrounding desert landscape, and should incorporate native Addendum A-1 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No.36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 vegetation in landscaping as much as is feasible. In addition, design and construction should include appropriate screening of heating/ventilation/air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. The proposed Hillside Planned Residential — 5 land use designation, which substantially limits potential development consistent with site constraints, as well the incorporation of the design and landscaping measures indicated above, are expected to reduce potential impacts to scenic resources to less than significant levels. I.b. The proposed project is located in the lower portions of the foothills and plateaus of the Santa Rosa Mountains, and as such has numerous rock outcroppings and areas of elevated terrain. Development of the proposed residences on annexation lands in Section 36 will require mass and fine grading of hillsides within the Santa Rosas foothills. Buildout under the City's current General Plan land use designation could theoretically allow the development of up to 99 single-family homes. This intensity of land use on the subject lands would require extensive grading and other major landform alteration on rocky outcropping. This extensive site preparation has potential to significantly impact scenic resources. Development of these lands under the proposed HPR-5 land use and zoning designations will substantially reduce the potential impacts to the visual character and quality of the site. It will also be consistent with the adjoining development pattern in the Cahuilla Hills neighborhood. Such development should incorporate natural scenic resources to the greatest extent practical, while limiting grading activity. Construction of residences under the proposed HPR-5 designation, as regulated by current City ordinances, codes and regulations, should result in manageable and limited impacts to the scenic resources of the mountains and foothills. Cultural and historical resource surveys conducted on the Crest project lands also surveyed lands within the subject portion of the annexation area. These lands were not found to harbor any historical buildings or other cultural or historical resource (Ref. "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: The Crest Project", prepared by CRM Tech, April 22, 2002). The annexation area is not adjacent to any designated scenic highways, although it is within one-half mile of State Highway 74, which is a designated scenic highway by the California Department of Transportation. As discussed in Section I.a., above, as these lands are developed, project design, grading and construction will need to take into consideration viewsheds visible to traffic along this highway. I.c. The subject Section 36 annexation lands are largely comprised of rocky outcroppings with small, shallow pockets of alluvium that has been cut by Bruce Creek and associated tributaries. The terrain of adjacent properties to the south (Cahuilla Hills neighborhood) has already been disturbed by the construction of homes, roadways and flood control improvements but at densities comparable to that proposed for the subject lands in Section 36. Other nearby disturbance is associated with CVWD water tanks, and the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel Addendum A-2 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No.36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 and associated service roads. Development-related disturbances on other nearby lands also includes other single and multi-family housing units (on the valley floor) in the project vicinity, and associated roadways and other infrastructure. The limited nature and relatively low intensity of potential development of these subject Section 36 annexation lands under the proposed designation may be expected to significantly reduce such impacts. However, landscaping and screening of structures, roadways and other infrastructure should be incorporated into all future residential development, and may be expected under this development scenario to reduce the visual impacts to surrounding properties. In addition, landscaping plans and materials applied to development areas and boundaries should serve to integrate a harmonious transition between the natural and built environment. Native and appropriate non-invasive non-native plants should be applied so as to emulate the natural vegetation pattern of the washes and foothills. All future development plans shall be subject to City review and permitting processes. I.d. The current County land use designation on the proposed Section 36 annexation lands allows a maximum residential density of one unit per five acres. Future development of these lands under the current City land use designation could theoretically result in the construction of as many as 99 single family homes. Increased light and glare from outdoor structural lighting, and from reflective surfaces such as windows, automobiles, and other reflective surfaces can be expected to result from such development. The construction of up to 9 single family units under the proposed designations and consistent with County designations, limits the potential for increased light and glare associated with development as compared with development under the current land use designation. All lighting associated with such development should be designed in accordance with City standards and should avoid flood or "uplighting", which could be visible outside the area of development. Limiting the development potential of these lands to one unit per five acres will reduce impacts resulting from new light sources to less than significant levels. Agricultural Resources I I a.-c. Buildout of the annexation area will not impact agricultural resources, or result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. (Ref: "County of Riverside Western Half Agricultural Resources." Map, Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan, prepared by the Riverside County Planning Department, 1982.) The annexation area lies near and within the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains and in the vicinity of existing residential and community development. Existing land uses in the vicinity of the annexation area include open space, single and multi- family housing, a church/school complex, the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel, and State Highway 74. These lands are generally comprised of alluvial material and rock and are therefore unsuitable for agricultural activity. (Ref: "Soil Survey of Riverside County, California, Coachella Valley Area," U.S. Dept. Of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 1979). Addendum A-3 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No. 36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 Air Quality III.a. In 1993 the Coachella Valley was re-classified from a "moderate" to "serious" non-attainment area for PM10. Agriculture and construction-related site disturbance signify the most substantial sources of fugitive dust emissions. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has prepared the 2002 Coachella Valley State Implementation Plan (CV-SIP), which outlines an enhanced PMto reduction program in order to attain federal PMto standards by the earliest date possible. PM to mitigation measures as set forth in the CV-SIP become mandatory upon its adoption. (Ref. Draft 2002 Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan (2002 CV-SIP), prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District, May, 2002). Development associated with the proposed annexation and proposed land use and zoning designations may result in limited increases in short-term and long-term local pollutant levels. As stated above, the Coachella Valley is an area of "serious" non-attainment for PKo (Ref: Coachella Valley PKo Attainment Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan, prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District, September 1996.) While soil conditions in the annexation area are generally favourable for controlling PKa emissions' generation, the project area is subject to occasionally strong winds and has a limited potential for generation of fugitive dust during construction. Increases to short-term and local long-term pollutant levels from buildout under the existing land use designation have potential to be significantly higher than those related to buildout under the proposed designation land use and zoning designations. Site disturbance, grading and development are associated with the generation of fugitive dust. Without proposed development plans it is not possible to quantify relative amounts of fugitive dust generated by each scenario. It is clear that potential densities associated with development under existing designations will necessitate a greater site disturbance, whereas the limited nature of development under the proposed land use and zoning designations will substantially limit site disturbance and resulting fugitive dust generation. Construction-related emissions include emissions from grading equipment associated with project construction, and emissions from construction worker trips to and from the project site. Without existing development plans, construction- related impacts associated with buildout of these lands under each land use designation are difficult to quantify. It should also be noted that development of Section 36 annexation lands under the current designation could theoretically involve the construction of up to 99 single-family homes. Individual rather than concurrent development may be expected to reduce impacts resulting from construction-related emissions. Addendum A-4 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No. 36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 In response to requirements of SCAQMD to monitor air quality impacts associated with fugitive dust from site disturbance and grading activities, the City of Palm Desert carefully monitors new development so as to manage and mitigate construction-related fugitive dust generation. Based on the type of development proposed, the City may require implementation of various dust control mitigation measures, including the following: • water site and equipment morning and evening and during all earth-moving operations • spread soil binders on site, unpaved roads, and parking areas • operate street-sweepers on paved roads adjacent to site • re-establish ground cover on construction site through seeding and watering or other appropriate means • pave construction access roads,as appropriate To minimize construction equipment emissions. the City may also the developer and contractors to implement the following: • wash off trucks leaving the site • require trucks to maintain two-feet of freeboard • properly tune and maintain construction equipment • use low sulfur fuel for construction equipment To reduce construction-related traffic congestion, the developer and contractors may also be required to implement the following: • configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference • provide a flag person to ensure safety at construction sites, as necessary • schedule operations affecting roadways for off-peak hours, as practical As indicated above, mitigation measures addressed in the CV-SIP, which include extensive construction site-related dust control and site management practices, will become mandatory upon the adoption of the CV-SIP. (Ref. Draft 2002 Coachella Valley PM 10 State Implementation Plan," prepared by South Coast Quality Management District, May, 10 2002). The City's permitting and review process for future development of these lands should require the incorporation of mitigation measures discussed in the CV-SIP into development plans, as appropriate for the level of development. III.b-c. Emissions associated with buildout of the annexation area include stationary source and moving source emissions. Calculations of stationary source emissions include emissions from electrical power plants outside the City of Palm Desert, as well as the consumption of natural gas for space and water heating, cooking and related activities. Power plant emissions consist primarily of combustion products, Addendum A-5 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No. 36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 such as carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, sulfur oxides, particulate matter and reactive organic gases (ROG). As indicated above, buildout-related emissions are also those associated with potential traffic and circulation impacts. In order to calculate these development- related moving source emissions, it is necessary to determine the number of trips the development will generate. As discussed in Section XV, below, trip generation represents the amount of traffic that is attracted to a site or that is produced by the development that occurs there. It is estimated that maximum buildout of the annexation area under the current land use designation would generate approximately 947 vehicle trips per day. Maximum buildout of the annexation area under the proposed land use designation is consistent with the current and proposed County designation (1 du/5 ac), which would generate approximately 86 vehicle trips per day. Based on calculations of stationary source emissions, as described above, and moving source emissions associated with project buildout, Table 1, below, shows anticipated cumulative daily project-related emissions for the annexation area under the current land use designation at maximum buildout. Table 1 Anticipated Cumulative Daily Project-Related Emissions Associated with Buildout of the Annexation Area—Low Density Residential @ 3du/ac (pounds per day) SCAQMD Stationary Total Threshold Source Emissions Anticipated Criteria* Emissions Power Nat.Gas Total lbs. Total lbs. Plants Consumption Per day Per day Carbon Monoxide 0.31 0.44 25.21 550 Nitrogen Oxides 1.80 1.76 8.58 100 Sulfur Oxides 0.18 - 0.18 150 Particulates 0.06 0 0.26 150 ROCs 0.02 0.12 1.08 75 *Threshold criteria offered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for assistance in determining the significance of air quality impacts. Source:Table A9-2, "CEQA Air Quality Handbook,"prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District,April 1993. Table 2 below, shows cumulative daily stationary source emissions related to buildout of the project area under the Hillside Planned Residential—5 designation. Addendum A-6 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No. 36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 Table 2 Anticipated Cumulative Daily Project-Related Emissions Associated with Buildout of the Annexation Area - HPR-5 (pounds per day) Moving Total SCAQMD Stationary Source Anticipated Threshold Source Emissions Emissions Emissions Criteria* Power Nat.Gas Vehicles Total lbs. Total lbs. Plants Consumption at 50 mph Per day Per day Carbon Monoxide 0.03 0.04 2.22 2.29 550.00 Nitrogen Oxides 0.16 0.16 0.46 0.78 100.00 Sulfur Oxides 0.02 0.00 - 0.02 150.00 Particulates 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.03 150.00 ROCs 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.10 75.00 *Threshold criteria offered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for assistance in determining the significance of air quality impacts. Source:Table A9-2, "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District,April 1993. As the previous tables illustrate, stationary and moving-source emissions associated with buildout of the annexation area under either the current or proposed land use designations are expected to result in low emissions and will not approach exceedance of any SCAQMD threshold pollutant criteria. However, emissions associated with maximum buildout under the current land use designation will be notably higher than those associated with buildout under the proposed land use and zoning designations, and therefore represent a larger incremental increase in impacts to regional and local air quality. Combustion technology, particularly that associated with vehicular movement, will continue to improve, and overall reductions in pollutant emissions from improved efficiency can be expected. Given that the desert environment places stringent performance demands on development, it can be expected that building technologies to be applied to buildout of the annexation area will be superior. Advanced methods and technologies can also be expected to reduce the impacts of pollutant emissions from power plants and the use of natural gas, through the implementation of and updating of California Title 24 building codes and the economics of more efficient use. There are, nonetheless, several actions that can be taken to further reduce the various project impacts on air quality. Mitigation measures are embodied in the Palm Desert General Plan, as well as other measures promulgated by the City and South Coast Air Quality Management District to mitigate development impacts within the Palm Desert area. Mitigation measures shall be applied to all future development on these lands and are expected to reduce air quality impacts below Addendum A-7 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No. 36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 levels of significance. Mitigation measures shall include, but are not limited to, the following: Grading and development permits shall be reviewed and conditioned to require the provision of all reasonably available methods and technologies to assure the minimal emissions of pollutants from future development, with review by the City of Palm Desert. In addition, mitigation measures including but not limited to phasing and staging of development and installation of low-polluting and high-efficiency appliances may be expected to manage impacts related to generation of criteria pollutants and ozone precursors. Provision for a lower density of buildout may be expected to further reduce pollutant emissions. III.d. The annexation area is located in proximity to single and multi-family residences and within one mile of the St. Margaret's Episcopal Church/School complex. While it is expected that any increase in pollutant concentrations would be limited to the construction phase of the project, and that these increases would be managed using proper construction practices, such increases may be expected to be further reduced by the provision of lower density buildout of the subject lands. In addition, construction-related impacts are generally short-term and temporary. Construction related to future development within the annexation area is likely to take place on an individual, per parcel basis, which should generate lower pollutant levels. As indicated above, pollutant concentrations resulting from buildout of the annexation area are not expected to exceed established thresholds for criteria pollutants. III.e. Neither the construction nor operation of the project are expected to result in the long-term emission of objectionable odors which affect a substantial number of people. Odors from grading, laying of asphalt, construction vehicles and other sources are expected to be relatively minimal and short-term. However, such impacts resulting from buildout of the proposed land use and zoning designations, with potential for construction of up to 9 new single-family homes, may be expected to be much more limited than those which at least theoretically could result from the current land use and zoning designations, with potential for construction of up to 99 single-family homes. Addendum A-8 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No. 36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 Biological Resources IV.a. The annexation area is located on currently undeveloped lands in the lower portions of the foothills and plateaus of the Santa Rosa Mountains, and includes local drainage features. A biological survey was conducted by AMEC Earth and Environmental (AMEC) biologists on the subject and the adjacent lands of the proposed Crest development in the Fall of 2001 and again in March and April of 2002. (Ref: "Biological Survey of the Crest Development Site," AMEC Earth and Environmental, May, 2002). Portions of Section 36, within which annexation lands lie, have been designated critical habitat for the Peninsular bighorn sheep by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. (Ref: "Biological Survey of the Crest Development Site," AMEC Earth and Environmental, May, 2002). Telemetry data collected on the Northern Santa Rosa herd since the early 1980s shows occasional sheep observations in the northwest portion of the adjoining Section 25, approximately 1/4 to 1/2 mile northwest of the annexation lands located in Section 36. Potential impacts to sheep from the adjoining Crest project are expected to be mitigated by the reduced number of homes and their distance from important sheep habitat. The Crest golf course and associated sheep fence will further buffer the potential residential development from sensitive habitat. Impacts from appropriately regulated development are expected to be less than significant. (Potential impacts to sheep from development of the proposed Crest golf course are further discussed in the Draft Crest Golf Club and Residential Village Environmental Impact Report(SCH#1991021034). Development of the subject Section 36 annexation area under the proposed land use and zoning designations would reduce such impacts. Future development should incorporate appropriate mitigation measures in compliance with guidelines set forth in the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Recovery Plan. (Ref: "Recovery Plan for Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, California, prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved October 25, 2000"). IV.b. The subject property is traversed by Bruce Creek, a local drainage that partially originates in Sections 25 and 26, north and northwest of the subject annexation area. A limited area of Desert Dry Wash Woodland, including mesquite and other riparian vegetation, is present in the annexation area, and the lower reach of Bruce Creek and its associated alluvial fan located in Section 31, immediately east of the annexation area. Potentially significant losses to riparian and wetland habitat within Bruce Creek could be adversely affected by residential development on the nine Section 36 lots. The proposed nine-unit development potential (Hillside Planned Residential-5) is a significant reduction from the up to 99 units under current City land use designations. Prevailing County designations limit development to a maximum of one dwelling unit per five acres, consistent with prevailing site conditions and the proposed designations. Addendum A-9 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No.36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 The development of these lands under the proposed land use and zoning designations represents a ten-fold reduction in potential land use intensity, and may be expected to significantly reduce potential impacts to sensitive habitat areas. These designations also allow retention of additional open space that may be re-vegetated with native plant species. Future development shall be subject to the City's review and permitting process and should be required to implement appropriate mitigation measures to protect sensitive biological resources. Such mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, re-vegetation/enhancement plans for the re-vegetation and restoration of on-site dry wash habitat affected by development, to include plants demonstrated as native to the site and vicinity. The prohibition of toxic or invasive non-native plant species and the anticipated payment of MSHCP fees at the time of development may adequately mitigate impacts associated with the nine lot/nine homes proposal for lands in Section 36. IV. c. A freshwater seep is located within Bruce Creek in Section 36. (Ref: "Biological Survey of the Crest Development Site," AMEC Earth and Environmental, May, 2002), within the annexation area. This is an important resource area that merits careful upstream management and protection. The proposed land use and zoning designations for Section 36 lands will greatly reduce the potential impact of development on adjoining annexation lands. Two seeps were also located in the southwest quadrant of Section 25 and will remain undisturbed (Ref.: Crest Draft Subsequent EIR, July, 2002). Neither seep has free water and their locations close to residential development in the Cahuilla Hills make them undesirable for sheep use. Nevertheless, mitigation measures such as those proposed in the Crest Draft SEIR, should be considered in the City's permitting process for future development within the annexation area. This will assure remediation of on-site seeps for enhancement of these water sources for local wildlife. Remediation measures included removal of incompatible non- native species. Future development of these lands will be subject to the City's permitting and review process and should include monitoring of construction plans to avoid or mitigate impacts to on-site seeps or other sensitive biological resources that may be found to occur on these lands at the time of such development. IV.d. Certain natural communities, such as the Desert Dry Woodland Wash, are characterized by their use during migration of some species. The designation of portions of Section 36 as critical bighorn sheep habitat is also an important consideration. The Desert Dry Wash Woodland located in the lower reaches of Bruce Creek in Section 31 (immediately east of the subject lands) provides nesting habitat for year-round and summer resident bird species. Several nests (mainly Verdin) have used the larger Blue Palo Verde trees located in this area. Development during the period from Spring to early Fall could disrupt the nesting Addendum A-10 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No. 36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 season for bird species using this area. (Ref: "Biological Survey of the Crest Development Site," AMEC Earth and Environmental, May, 2002). The topography of these lands is similar to those already surveyed, indicating potential for natural communities such as Desert Dry Wash Woodland to occur on the subject property. Without proper mitigation, development of these lands under the current land use and zoning designations may result in significant impacts to on-site natural communities, requiring extensive removal of vegetation, and lessening the potential for retention of open space or areas where native vegetation could be re-planted. Development of the Section 36 annexation lands under the proposed less intense HPR-5 designation will better assure development that minimizes site disturbance, runoff and erosion, and which maximizes preservation of on-site habitat. IV.e-f There are currently no local policies to protect biological resources on the subject lands, with the exception of the Coachella Valley Fringe-toed lizard, which is not expected to occur on site (Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, 1985). No regional Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plans have yet been adopted which would affect the subject property. However, the City is involved, through CVAG, in the on-going development of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). Future development on these lands will be required to take place in conformity with the Recovery Plan for Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges. As has been stated previously, the proposed land use and zoning designations has potential to greatly reduce development-related impacts to such biological resources by limiting the nature and scope of development on these lands. Cultural Resources V.a.-d. A cultural resources survey was conducted on lands within the Crest project, and included the area within Section 36 that is the subject of this Initial Study. The survey was prepared by CRM Tech in April, 2002. The resulting survey report (Ref. "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: The Crest Project", prepared by CRM Tech, April 22, 2002) indicates that the lands within Section 36 were found to harbor no historical or archaeological resources. Therefore, no archaeological or historical resources are expected to be impacted by development associated with buildout of these lands. However, at the time of development, should potentially significant resources be uncovered during project grading, then all work in that area shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature of the finds and redirect project grading or construction until any necessary resource mitigation has taken place. Geology and Soils VI.a.-i. The San Andreas Fault and the San Jacinto Fault Zones are regionally active faults, however, the subject lands are not located in a state designated Fault Addendum A-11 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No.36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 Hazard Zone. Although site specific geological studies have not included these lands, the nearest mapped active fault is the Coachella Segment (Banning Branch) of the San Andreas Fault Zone, located approximately 12.0 miles to the northeast of the annexation area. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to be impacted by ground rupture by known earthquake faults. These lands could be subject to strong ground shaking during a moderate earthquake, which could result in ridgetop shattering and differential settling. (Ref: City of Palm Desert General Plan Update Draft Geotechnical Report, prepared by Earth Consultants International, April 2001.) VI.a.ii.-iv. The annexation area may be subject to strong seismic ground shaking, due to the proximity and activity of the nearby San Andreas Fault Zone. Because the subject lands are underlain primarily by bedrock, the probability of liquefaction is low. However, potential for ground failure may exist as these lands are developed, due to the importation of fill material and manufacturing slopes. Grading design and proper compaction are necessary to mitigate this hazard. Areas situated along the bases of slopes may be subject to seismically-induced rockfall or landslides, or landslides resulting from intense rainfall. (Ref: "Seismic, Geologic and Flooding Sections of the Technical Background Report to the Safety Element of the General Plan for the City of Palm Desert, prepared by Earth Consultants International, January, 2002.) Seismic and other geologically-related hazards must be carefully considered in developmental planning and construction. All structural design shall be performed in accordance with on-site soils and geology analyses, the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code, including California amendments, and the seismic design parameters of the Structural Engineer's Association of California, as applicable. With regard to topographic and geotechnical conditions, it is not assured that all of the subject nine parcels in Section 36 are developable. VI.b.-d. Soils in the area are Rock Outcrop, which are stable and have low wind and water erosion susceptibility Soils are constrained with regard to shallow excavations and building site development. The annexation lands are not located in an area of expansive soil. (Ref: Soil Survey of Riverside County, California, Coachella Valley Area, prepared by USDA Soil Conservation Service. September 1980, Rancho Mirage Quadrangle). Specialized design, engineering and construction techniques may be required to facilitate development of these lands. While soils may be capable of supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems, it is not clear whether on-lot septic tanks are viable for all the proposed HPR-5 lots. The use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems would probably be unsuitable for densities currently allowable under the City's General Plan. Future development plans shall be subject to City review and approval, and should be evaluated, based on the level of development, with regard to appropriate provision of waste disposal systems within the annexation area. Addendum A-12 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No. 36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 Buildout at higher densities has the potential expose greater numbers of structures and people to geotechnical hazards related to strong seismic ground-shaking as a result of the proximity to active regional faults, than does buildout at the lower densities provided for under the proposed land use and zoning designations. As indicated above, specialized design, engineering and construction techniques may be required to facilitate development of these lands. While these techniques may make construction on these lands feasible, without mitigation, environmental impacts associated with the higher density have potential to be significant. By comparison, the land use and zoning designations proposed as part of this annexation will decrease the numbers of structures and people exposed to risks associated with strong seismic ground shaking and related hazards. All future development plans should be evaluated to assure that seismic and other geologically-related hazards are carefully considered in developmental planning and construction. Hazards and Hazardous Materials VII.a-b. While development of these lands may require limited quantities of potentially hazardous materials used in roadway construction to be transported through the surrounding area, and may result in the generation of limited quantities of household hazardous wastes, development will not result in the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, and is not expected to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. VII.c. Although a church/school complex is located within one mile of the annexation area, the annexation area, development of these lands for residential uses will not incorporate the routine transport or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, development of the annexation area is not anticipated to present significant impacts in this regard. VII.d. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for Section 25 and lands within Section 31, which are part of the Crest project, also included database and resource searches for lands within one mile of the Crest property. (Ref. "Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the Crest Golf Course and Condominium Project," prepared by Quin Kinnebrew, CEG, REA II, April, 2002). The assessment indicates no known hazardous materials sites within one mile of the Crest property. Based on these findings, buildout of the annexation area is not expected to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. VII.e.-f. The annexation area is not located within the vicinity of a public airport or a private airstrip, and therefore development of the annexation area will not affect airport safety or the safety of people residing or working in the project area. VII.g. Development of the annexation lands will not interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Access to these lands may be viable Addendum A-13 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No.36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 through the existing circulation network within the Cahuilla Hills neighborhood to the south. Development of these lands under the City's current General Plan land use designation could theoretically result in up to 99 single-family homes. Resulting development could necessitate a more extensive emergency access circulation network. Development of these lands should include, as part of the City's permitting and review process, input from appropriate Fire and Police personnel to assure adequate emergency access and evacuation routes in accordance with the City's "Multi-Hazard Functional Plan" and the "Palm Desert Hazard Management Plan." (Ref. City of Palm Desert Multi-Hazard Functional Plan, 1996). VII.h. Vegetation on the annexation lands is sparse and is not expected to be able to support a wildfire of any significance. Therefore. development of these lands does not expose people or structures to hazards induced by wildland fires. Landscaping incorporated into future development should be designed so as to preclude such hazards, and should be subject to City and Fire Department review and approval. Hvdrolo2v and Water Oualitv VIII.a. Development of the annexation area has limited potential to result in urban runoff resulting from pesticides or fertilizer used on lawns. The City's permitting and review process for future development should include adequate review of proposed stormwater discharge plans to assure compliance with Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. VIII.b. Buildout of the annexation lands will increase demand for this limited resource. The City and the annexation area are served by the Whitewater River subbasin, which is currently (2000) in an overdraft condition of about 0.38%. CVWD has implemented a wide range of programs for water conservation and groundwater recharge. These include expanded tertiary wastewater treatment and use, importation of Colorado River water, and water-conserving landscape guidelines. (Ref. "Engineer's Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment 2001/2002," prepared by Water Resources Branch, Engineering Department, Coachella Valley Water District, April, 2001). Coachella Valley Water District's calculations for domestic water demand for its urban service area includes and represents an aggregation of residential, commercial and industrial use. It also factors in golf course resorts, irrigation and other uses. Once converted to a per capita consumptive figure, this total demand is used by CVWD to estimate future water demand, and yields a current per capita consumptive demand of 550 gallons per day (gpd). Again, this is an aggregate figure accounting for all water uses within a community; therefore, it is not wholly representative of a single, specific land use such as residential development. Addendum A-14 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No. 36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 Current water demand in the City of Palm Desert is somewhat complicated by the high percentage of second and seasonal homes in the community. These may be vacated for several months a year, thus utilizing little or no in-house domestic water during those vacant periods, although landscape demand is assumed to be relatively constant. However, these considerations are included and accounted for in CVWD's per capita consumption factor. The city's low current average household size of 2.13 persons increases the complexity of this analysis. (Ref. "Socio-Economic Element" for the City of Palm Desert General Plan Update, prepared by Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc., 2002, and the 2000 Census). Major sources of consumption include golf course and other landscaped areas, and these represent the largest portion of total water consumption. As indicated above, while the CVWD water demand figure overestimates water usage for residential dwelling units, its use is helpful in providing a conservative analysis of future water consumption associated with the project. The CVWD methodology also represents the cumulative or demand growth inducement associated with residential development. Likely usage and resulting potential impacts to groundwater supplies and recharge resulting from buildout under the City's current General Plan land use designation are quantified in Table 3, below. Table 3 Per Capita Water Consumption (gpd) Low Density Residential Allowable Number of homes Per capita density constructed consumption figure 1 du/ac 33 38,659.50 2 du/ac 66 77,319.00 3 du/ac 99 115,978.50 Based on CVWD aggregate per capita consumption figure of 550 gpd, and Palm Desert per household population of 2.13 persons. By comparison, the proposed Hillside Planned Residential — 5 land use designation, which limits buildout development of these lands to one dwelling unit per five acres, would result in a per capita consumption figure of 10,543.50. CVWD estimates that of total domestic water consumed, approximately 40% is reintroduced into the groundwater table (non-consumptive return) and is therefore not lost. Based on this figure, per capita consumption under the current Low Density Residential designation for one dwelling unit per acre is reduced to 23,195.70 gpd; for two dwelling units per acre to 46,391.40 gpd, and for three dwelling units per acre to 69,587.10 gpd. Addendum A-15 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No.36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 The same non-consumptive return figure applied to the proposed Hillside Planned Residential — 5 land use designation, yields a per capita consumption figure of 6,326.10 gpd. Mitigation measures that should be applied to reduce impacts to groundwater supplies should include the use of drought tolerant desert landscaping, to the greatest extent practical, efficient irrigation systems. In addition, the use of low- flush toilets and water-conserving shower heads and faucets should be required as part of new-home construction. Although mitigation measures are expected to reduce impacts to water resources to levels of insignificance for both the current and the proposed land use designation, it is clear that development under the proposed land use designation substantially reduces (by 900%) impacts to water consumption from those of the higher density buildout. VIII.c. Buildout of the subject Section 36 annexation lands may result in the alteration of existing drainage patterns. These lands are traversed by Bruce Creek, as discussed above. Within Sections 25 and 31, and in conjunction with the Crest project, a system of stormwater and sediment retention and detention basins is proposed to manage stormwater and sediment flows through the Crest project. This system includes stormwater and sediment management features within upper and lower Bruce Creek. (Ref. "Existing Conditions Hydrology & Sediment Yield Analysis for the Crest Project Site,"prepared by Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, June, 2002). Although the portion of Bruce Creek that traverses Section 36 is not directly impacted by the Crest development or its flood control system, lands within Section 36 may benefit from the system as it manages stormwater and sediment flows along downstream portions of Bruce Creek passing through Section 36. It is unclear whether and to what extent development on the nine Section 36 lots could result in fill in the Bruce Creek drainage. Substantial erosion on or off-site that may occur during construction should be managed using proper grading techniques, site watering and soil compaction, and temporary stormwater detention facilities. VIII.d. As indicated above, development of the subject annexation lands may necessitate alteration of existing drainage patterns within the site in order to manage stormwater runoff Development of these lands may require an all-weather stormwater crossing across the portion of Bruce Creek that traverses the western portion of these lands. Development will be subject to review by the City and the Coachella Valley Water District prior to construction, and project designs should comply with NPDES requirements. Without mitigation, buildout of the annexation area has the potential to impact Bruce Creek. The proposed land use and zoning designations will substantially reduce the potential impacts associated with residential development on these lands. As discussed above, proposed stormwater management plans will be Addendum A-16 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No.36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 subject to City and CVWD review prior to implementation, and should incorporate mitigation measures that will limit impacts to Bruce Creek as much as feasible, as well as managing stormwater runoff to avoid on and off-site flooding potential. VIII.e. As discussed in Section VIII.c, above, a stormwater and sediment management system to be constructed along Bruce Creek within the Crest project may benefit future development within Section 36. These lands are approximately one-half mile west of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel, which serves as the outlet for the Crest project stormwater management system. Plans for future development on these annexation lands, including associated stormwater runoff estimates, will be subject to review by the City of Palm Desert and CVWD prior to construction. In addition to the construction of homes, driveways, roadways and other impervious surfaces are also associated with such development. Neither the current nor the proposed land use designations are expected to substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on-or off-site. The proposed land use and zoning designations will reduce potential development-related runoff by several fold. VIII.f-g. The subject portion of the annexation area is on lands not currently mapped by FEMA. A hydrology study prepared for the Crest project has indicated that the drainage area for Bruce Creek encompasses approximately 1.15 square miles. At its outlet at the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel, Bruce Creek discharges a 100- year peak flow of 1,306 cfs, and a Standard Project Flood (SPF) flow of 1,661 cfs. Bruce Creek is projected to generate a SPF volume of about 336 acre feet and a sediment load of about 6.10 acre feet. A portion of Bruce Creek originates in Section 26 and flows southeast through Sections 25, 36 and 31. Bruce Creek is an ephemeral desert wash cutting through bedrock, is dry most of the time and generates limited alluvial deposits largely concentrated at the mouth of the creek immediately west of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. (Ref. "Existing Conditions Hydrology & Sediment Yield Analysis for the Crest Project Site," prepared by Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, June, 2002). Buildout at the proposed land use and zoning designations (HPR-5; 1 du./5 ac.) density is more consistent with the City's General Plan restrictions on hillside area land uses, and may be expected to expose fewer structures and persons to potential flood hazards that may exist. Future development plans, subject to City and CVWD review, should incorporate appropriate mitigation measures to manage potential flooding hazards associated with the area's topography. Buildout of the subject lands within Section 36 under the current Palm Desert General Plan land use designation would allow construction of up to 90 more homes than under the proposed land use designation. Although the subject lands are not currently mapped by FEMA, the annexation area is characterized by Addendum A-17 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No.36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 several natural drainage courses and is located near the base of steeply sloping rocky hillsides that may have limited potential for flooding. Land Use and Planning IX.a.-c. The development of the subject annexation area will not physically divide an established community. These lands fall within an area generally identified by the City as a Hillside Area, which include lands primarily located south of El Paseo and west of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel within the City's corporate limits. According to the City's General Plan, the Hillside Areas "have been the slowest to be developed due to the site constraints and the City's strict hillside development regulations. However, as the remaining vacant land in south Palm Desert is built out, pressure to develop the hillsides will increase." Development of these lands under the City's current land use designation, Low Density Residential, allows for the construction of up to three dwelling units per acre resulting in up to 99 new single-family homes. The City's Hillside Planned Residential Designation is, according to the City's General Plan, "intended to allow limited development in the hillside area due to site constraints and important visual and natural resources. In no case does the density exceed two dwelling units per acre." (Ref.: City of Palm Desert General Plan, 1980, as amended). At maximum buildout, the current City General Plan designation conflicts with allowable densities set forth for Hillside Areas within the City of Palm Desert General Plan. A General Plan Amendment has been filed with the City requesting the redesignation of these lands to Hillside Planned Residential-5 (HPR-5), allowing buildout at no more than one dwelling unit per five acres. This designation is also consistent with the City's HPR zoning designation, which sets the range of densities on HPR-zoned lands at a minimum of one dwelling unit per five acres, and a maximum of two dwelling units per acre. This pre-annexation zoning designation request has been filed with the City. It is also consistent with the current Riverside County General Plan land use designation, Residential 4, which allows up to .2 dwelling units per acre or parcels of five acres and larger, which equates to an allowance of one dwelling unit per five acres. Smaller legal lots which otherwise meet development standards may also have up to one home. As indicated in Section IV, there are currently no local policies to protect biological resources, with the exception of the Coachella Valley Fringe-toed lizard, which is not expected to occur on site (Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, 1985). No regional Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plans have yet been adopted which would affect the subject property. However, the City is involved, through CVAG, in the on-going development of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). Development on lands designated as critical habitat for peninsular bighorn sheep should be reviewed for conformity with the Recovery Plan for Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges. As has been stated previously, the Addendum A-18 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No.36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 proposed land use designation has potential to greatly reduce development-related impacts to such biological resources by limiting the nature and scope of development on these lands. Mineral Resources X.a.-b. No significant or valuable mineral resource is known to occur on the subject annexation area lands, and therefore buildout of the area will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or locally-important mineral resource recovery site. (Ref: Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Palm Springs-Consumption Region, Special Report 159. Rancho Mirage Quadrangle, prepared by California Division of Mines and Geology.) Noise XI.a-b. Buildout of the subject lands will result in short-term increases in noise generated by construction activities and related traffic. Although construction-related noise impacts associated with buildout of the annexation area are not expected to generate noise levels in excess of those established by the Palm Desert General Plan or related City ordinances, nor to generate excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels, buildout under the current City designation has potential to generate higher construction related noise impacts. Construction of up to 99 new single-family homes on these lands may generate increased construction-related noise. XI.c. Construction-related activities and traffic as a result of development of the annexation area may produce increased short-term noise levels. While the increase in existing ambient noise levels may not be substantial, it will add to the overall noise environment. The proposed land use and zoning designations would reduce potential traffic and associated noise by about 900 percent. Nonetheless, a variety of prudent noise mitigation measures should be considered, including mechanical equipment, such as fans and compressors, which generate a continual drone that can impact the quality of life for surrounding residents. If utilized on residences within the annexation area, rooftop compressors may generate intrusive mechanical noise, unless property located and screened. Future development should incorporate proper and adequate shielding of these systems, including techniques such as pad-mounting of mechanical equipment behind block walls, which may be expected to reduce potential adverse noise impacts within the annexation area and to surrounding residences. Residents in the annexation area would be largely unaffected by exposure to noise generated by traffic on State Highway 74 due primarily to distance, but also possibly by naturally-occurring sound barriers created by the rock outcroppings and ridges of the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains. Mitigation of noise impacts related to operation of HVAC equipment should be incorporated into the design and construction of homes within the annexation area. Addendum A-19 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No. 36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 The City of Palm Desert has established community-wide noise standards. These standards emphasize the value of an acceptable noise environment and are intended to regulate excessive noise from existing uses and associated activities. They are also meant to serve as a guide for identifying other pertinent noise regulations so as to direct the location of potential noise generators and sensitive land uses. The regulations for noise measurement and monitoring, as well as special provisions and exemptions, are set forth in the City's Noise Control Ordinance as part of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. (Ref. "Noise Element" of the City of Palm Desert General Plan Update,prepared by Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc., 2001.) Future development should be done in compliance with the established City ordinance. XI.d.-e. The annexation area is not in the vicinity of an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport, or located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, buildout of the annexation area will not expose people residing in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with air traffic. Population and Housing XII.a. Although buildout of the annexation area would result in the construction of new homes, population growth as a result of the new housing created under the is less than significant. Potential population is also 900 percent less than that theoretically possible under current City designations. Based on the current average household size within the City of Palm Desert of 2.13 persons (Ref. "Socio-Economic Element" for the City of Palm Desert General Plan Update, prepared by Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc., 2002, and the 2000 Census), population growth resulting from buildout under the current land use designation would range between 70 and 211 persons. Under the proposed land use, population would increase by 20 persons. Potential impacts on public services and facilities under each scenario are discussed in Section XIII, below. XII.b.-c. Buildout of the subject portion of the annexation area will not replace existing housing or displace existing residents and therefore will not necessitate construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Public Services XIII. Police and Fire Protection Services The City receives twenty-four hour police protection through the Riverside County Sheriff's Department, via a contractual agreement with the County. As of 2001, the City's police force was comprised of 70 officers, with approximately 45 deputies assigned to the City. That level of staffing provides approximately 1.75 sworn officers for every 1,000. This staffing ratio is comparable or superior to the regional average, providing an effective level of police protection. The average response time for the highest priority emergency calls was 4.6 minutes. (Ref. Addendum A-20 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No.36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 "Police and Fire Protection Element for the Draft City of Palm Desert General Plan,"prepared by Terra Nova Planning &Research, Inc., 2001). The City of Palm Desert is a member jurisdiction of the Cove Communities Service Commission, along with the cities of Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells. Through this affiliation, the City contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department, which in turn contracts with the California Department of Forestry for the provision of fire protection services. Through this arrangement, each member city has access to services provided by fire stations in each of the other two cities. In addition, the County's Regional Fire Protection Program provides response via the station that is physically closest to the emergency, regardless of the official jurisdiction from which the emergency call originates. This program allows for shared use of specialized equipment and personnel and the most efficient method of emergency response. (Ref. "Police and Fire Protection Element for the Draft City of Palm Desert General Plan,"prepared by Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc., 2001). The Cove Communities' fire protection contract provides services and staffing that include fire fighters, paramedics, fire inspectors, maintenance of fire stations and vehicles, and review of commercial and housing development plans. The 2001 staffing levels provide service of up to 1.59 personnel per 1,000 population, a level comparable or superior to the national average and one which is expected to provide an effective degree of protection. (Ref. "Police and Fire Protection Element for the Draft City of Palm Desert General Plan," prepared by Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc., 2001). There are three fire stations within the City of Palm Desert's incorporated limits. They are Station No. 333, located on Town Center Way just south of Fred Waring Drive; Station No. 71, at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Country Club Drive, and Station No. 67, located at 73-200 Mesa View Drive. Station No. 67 is the closest to the annexation area and is staffed by 8 personnel and equipped with a Type 1 (city interface) engine, staffed by three people per day. The station is also equipped with a paramedic unit (ambulance), staffed by two people per day. Staffing assigned to this engine was recently increased to assure adequate staffing levels. (Ref. "Police and Fire Protection Element for the Draft City of Palm Desert General Plan," prepared by Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc., 2001, and Personal Communication, Bruce Stumreiter, Riverside County Fire Department, May, 2002). Buildout of the annexation area under the current land use designation, while it does not represent a significant increase in population, does have potential to generate limited additional demand for police and fire protection services. In addition, such development would represent an incremental increase in demand police and fire protection services and facilities. Addendum A-21 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No. 36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 Buildout of the annexation area under the proposed land use designation is expected to have a less than significant impact on fire and police protection. The limited nature of development of these lands under this designation will not substantially increase population or demand for these services in an area already largely developed as residential. It will represent a limited incremental increase in demand for police and fire protection services and related facilities. As buildout of the annexation area occurs, the Police and Fire Departments will routinely evaluate staffing needs to determine whether additional personnel and/or services are required to adequately serve the area. Schools The annexation area and vicinity are within the boundaries of the Desert Sands Unified School District. The District operates three elementary schools, one middle school and one high school within the City. Elementary schools include Abraham Lincoln Elementary School, located at 74-100 Rutledge Way; Carter Elementary School located at 74-251 Hovley Lane; and the George Washington Charter Elementary School at 45-768 Portola Avenue, located closest to the subject property. It includes kindergarten through fifth grades, and is one of the oldest schools in the District. As a charter school, Washington School is financially independent of the District and receives funding directly from the state. The school can accommodate 704 students and has made reduced class-size enrollment a priority. During the 2000-2001 school year, enrollment was 707 students. (Ref. "Schools and Libraries Element" for the City of Palm Desert General Plan Update,prepared by Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc., 2001). Palm Desert Middle School is located at 74-200 Rutledge Way, adjacent to the Abraham Lincoln Elementary School. The school can accommodate a total of 1,245 students from sixth through eighth grades. Enrollment for the year 2000- 2001 was 1,207 students. Palm Desert High School was constructed in 1987 and is located at 43-570 Phyllis Jackson Lane. The school has a total capacity of 2,115 students, and its 2000-2001 school year enrollment was 1,728. (Ref. "Schools and Libraries Element" for the City of Palm Desert General Plan Update, prepared by Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc., 2001). Many school facilities in the school district are currently overcrowded and rely on temporary, portable classrooms to provide additional classroom space. The school district's master plan has identified needed expansion at existing schools, as well as the need for new elementary and middle school facilities within three to five years. (Ref. "Schools and Libraries Element" for the City of Palm Desert General Plan Update, prepared by Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc., 2001). There are six private schools located within the City of Palm Desert. They include Desert Adventist Academy with kindergarten through eighth grades; Sacred Heart Catholic School, which offers kindergarten through eighth grades; St. Margaret's Episcopal School for elementary and middle school students; two campuses of Addendum A-22 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No.36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 Montessori School of the Valley, serving pre-school through kindergarten, and first grade through 5th grades, respectively; and Montessori School of the Desert, a pre-school-only facility. (Ref. "Schools and Libraries Element" for the City of Palm Desert General Plan Update,prepared by Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc., 2001). The City is also home to several public and private institutions of higher learning, including College of the Desert, a California State Community College; California State University-San Bernardino, Coachella Valley Campus; University of California-Riverside Extension Program; and Chapman University. (Ref. "Schools and Libraries Element" for the City of Palm Desert General Plan Update,prepared by Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc., 2001). As indicated above, the subject property lies within the boundaries of the Desert Sands Unified School District. Buildout of the project under the City's current land use designation will result in the construction of up to 99 single-family dwelling units. The table below estimates future school enrollment associated with buildout of these lands under the current designation, based on an assumption that each residential unit houses a permanent population of school-age children. It should be note that this table reflects maximum potential buildout of these lands at three dwelling units per acre. Table 4 Potential School Enrollment at Buildout Low Density Residential Grade Maximum Potential Student Buildout Level Buildout Units Generation Rates Enrollment K-5 Single-Family 99 0.2167 21 6-8 Single-Family 99 0.1012 10 9-12 Single-Family 99 0.1176 12 TOTAL: 43 Based on Student Generation Rates, "Residential Development School Fee Justification Study for Palm Springs School District", June 26, 1998. These factors are believed to be representative of student generation rates throughout the Coachella Valley region. The above table, which represents conditions at maximum buildout of the annexation area, includes all residential units. As stated above, it assumes that each residential unit will include a permanent population of school-age children. By comparison, the following table estimates future school enrollment associated with buildout of these lands under the proposed designation, again based on an Addendum A-23 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No.36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 assumption that each residential unit houses a permanent population of school-age children. Table 5 Potential School Enrollment at Buildout Low Density Residential Grade Maximum Potential Student Buildout Level Buildout Units Generation Rates Enrollment K-5 Single-Family 9 0.2167 2 6-8 Single-Family 9 0.1012 1 9-12 Single-Family 9 0.1176 1 TOTAL: 4 Based on Student Generation Rates, "Residential Development School Fee Justification Study for Palm Springs School District", June 26, 1998. These factors are believed to be representative of student generation rates throughout the Coachella Valley region. Parks and other public facilities The City of Palm Desert has two parks located in the annexation area vicinity. Cahuilla Hills Park is a 27.5-acre community park located west of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel at the Green Way Bridge, approximately 1 mile north of the residential portion of the subject property, and northeast of the lands on which the golf course is planned. Park facilities include two tennis courts, a picnic area, and parking, with the remaining 26± acres being left as natural open space. The City plans to link Cahuilla Hills Park to the Homme/Adams Park, described below, through a system of trails. (Ref. "Parks and Recreation Element for the City of Palm Desert Draft General Plan," prepared by Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc., 2001). Also in the annexation area vicinity is the Homme/Adams Park, a regional park being developed by the City on lands immediately west of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel at Thrush Road. This site is located within approximately one mile northeast of the annexation area. When completed, this passive use park will occupy approximately 27 acres and include picnic areas, restrooms and parking. It is planned to serve as a trailhead into the Cahuilla Hills Park trails system. (Ref. Personal communication with Jeff Winklepleck, City of Palm Desert, April, 2002). Currently there are a limited number of official City trails in the annexation area vicinity. These are comprised of unlinked trails located within Cahuilla Park and in proximity of the Homme/Adams Park. As mentioned above, the City has a planned system of proposed trails to link Cahuilla Trails Park to Homme/Adams Park. Addendum A-24 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No.36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 (Ref. Proposed trails mapping provided by City of Palm Desert, April, 2002 and personal communication with Jeff Winklepleck, City of Palm Desert, April, 2002). It is unclear to what extent development of the annexation area under the current City land use designation may increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks and other recreational facilities, or to generate the need for additional local and regional facilities. However, maximum buildout of these lands under the current designation, based on an average household size within the City of Palm Desert of 2.13 persons (Ref. "Socio-Economic Element" for the City of Palm Desert General Plan Update, prepared by Terra Nova Planning & Research, 2001, and the 2000 Census), would increase population within the City by 211 persons and may therefore generate a limited increase in the use of, or need for expansion of,these facilities. Buildout associated with the proposed land use has limited potential to impact recreational facilities, as buildout would result in the construction of nine single- family homes, and based on the average household size within Palm Desert cited above, a resultant population increase of approximately 20 persons. Recreation XIV.a. As indicated in Section XIII, above,development of the annexation area under the current City land use designation has potential, although not significant, to increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Although on-site recreational resources may be a part of future development of these lands, potential population increases as a result of this buildout may accelerate physical deterioration of recreational facilities. Buildout associated with the proposed land use has limited potential to impact recreational facilities, as buildout would result in the construction of nine single- family homes, and as stated above, a resultant population increase of approximately 20 persons. XIV.b. Currently, no plans for development of these lands have been filed with the City of Palm Desert. Therefore, no new private or public recreational facilities are planned in conjunction with development of the annexation area. Transportation/Traffic XV.a.-b. The annexation area is located within one-half mile of an existing state highway, Highway 74. Future buildout should be developed in compliance with the Draft Riverside County Congestion Management Program (Ref: Draft Riverside County Congestion Management Program, prepared by VRPA Technologies, October 2001) and plans for development should be reviewed so as not to exceed acceptable levels of service set forth by the City of Palm Desert. Addendum A-2.5 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No. 36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 In order to determine traffic and circulation impacts, it is necessary to estimate trip generation, or the amount of traffic that is attracted to a site or that is produced by the development that occurs there. For buildout of the annexation area, trip generation rates used were based on data collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). (Ref. "Trip Generation Manual, 66 Edition." Prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 1997.) Trip generation rates are shown in the following table: Table 6 Trip Generation Rates City of Palm Desert Annexation #36 Peak Hour AM PM Land Use Units In Out In Out Daily Single-Family Dwelling Units 0.19 0.56 0.65 0.36 9.57 Detached The following table shows unweighted trip-ends per day, based on the trip generation rates above, expected to be generated by buildout of the annexation area under the various density allowances of the current land use designation. Number of vehicles per hour during the AM and PM peak hours are also shown. Table 7 Trips Per Day City of Palm Desert Annexation #36 Low Density Residential Vehicles per hour Number of Trip-ends AM PM dwelling units per day Peak Hour Peak Hour 33 316 25 33 66 632 50 67 99 947 74 100 By comparison, buildout of the annexation area under the proposed land use designation would be expected to generate 86 trip ends per day, with 6 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 9 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. It should be noted that for all buildout scenarios, the data collected by ITE are a conservative benchmark against which to measure potential impacts. Actual trips generated per development scenario may be expected to be much lower than those reflected here. However, these data do provide some basis for comparison between buildout of the annexation area under the current versus the proposed land use designation. Addendum A-26 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No. 36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 XV.c. Buildout of the annexation area is not expected to impact air traffic patterns or air traffic safety, as it is located approximately 4 miles from the nearest airport. XV.d-g. Buildout of these lands is unlikely to substantially increase hazards to a design feature, or incompatible uses. Issues relating to adequate emergency access should be addressed as these lands build out, although access appears to be viable through the existing circulation network within the Cahuilla Hills neighborhood to the south. Buildout of these lands is not expected to conflict with the City's adopted plans and policies which support alternative modes of transportation, and future development should be reviewed to assure compliance with such plans and policies. Utilities and Service Systems XVI.a. Buildout of the annexation area is not expected to have a significant impact on wastewater treatment requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. XVI.b. The Coachella Valley Water District provides wastewater collection and treatment services to the City of Palm Desert, as well as to much of the remainder of the Coachella Valley. The CVWD sewage treatment plant that treats effluent collected in the vicinity of the annexation area is located approximately 4 miles northeast of the annexation area on Cook Street in the City of Palm Desert. The recently expanded facilities have increased the plant's treatment capacity to 18.5 million gallons per day (mgd). The plant's current average usage rate is approximately 14 mgd. The plant also treats and has expanded storage for tertiary treated water. CVWD delivers reclaimed wastewater for irrigation to several projects. Recent expansion has increased tertiary water capacity to 15 mgd. (Personal communication, Bruce Clark, Principal Sanitation Engineer, Coachella Valley Water District, July 22, 2002.) CVWD provides wastewater collection and treatment services to existing residential and other development in the vicinity of the annexation area. CVWD has 12-inch sewer mains located within the Highway 74 right-of-way that connect to 8-inch sewer mains located within private streets in existing residential development just east of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel, within approximately one-half mile of the annexation area. (Ref. Mapping provided by CVWD, May, 2002). Currently these facilities do not extend to lands west of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel within the annexation area. (Ref. Personal communication, Jim Zimmerman, Development Service Supervisor, Coachella Valley Water District, July 22, 2002). Domestic wastewater flows average about 100 gallons per capita per day. (Ref. John G. Rau and David C. Wooten, "Environmental Impact Analysis Handbook," 1980.) Buildout of the annexation area under the City's current land use designation will result in the construction of up to 99 residential units. Maximum buildout of these lands at the City's average household size of 2.13 persons per Addendum A-27 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No.36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 household, (Ref. "Socio-Economic Element" for the City of Palm Desert General Plan Update," prepared by Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc., 2001) would mean a buildout population of approximately 211 residents. At 100 gallons of effluent per capita per day, this equates to 21,100 gallons generated per day by residents. The same analysis for buildout under the proposed land use designation yields a total of 1,917 gallons per day generated by residents of the annexation area. Should future on-site development be connected to CV WD's existing sewer system, additional capacity is available at the CVWD Cook Street sewage treatment plant to service the annexation area. Capacity should be evaluated as future development builds out. Buildout will generate an incremental demand for new wastewater treatment facilities; this incremental demand may be expected to be higher under the current land use designation. XVI.c. As indicated in Section VIII, above, the annexation area is traversed by Bruce Creek. Bruce Creek, which is also described above. Within Sections 25 and 31, and in conjunction with the Crest project, a system of stormwater and sediment retention and detention basins is proposed to manage stormwater and sediment flows through the Crest project (also described briefly in Section VIII, above). Although the portion of Bruce Creek that traverses Section 36 is not directly impacted by this flood control system, lands within Section 36 may benefit from the Crest drainage management system. It is unclear whether development of Section 36 within the annexation area may require the construction of new storm water drainage facilities, although the need is not expected to arise given the low possible density of development allowable from the proposed land use and zoning designations. XVI.d. Buildout of the annexation area may be expected to impact long-term demand for water supplies to a limited extent. All future development should develop landscaping in compliance with the City's existing water conservation landscape ordinance for all new projects. (Ref: City of Palm Desert Municipal Code, Title 24. "Environment and Conservation.") Increased demand for domestic water resources is an on-going issue facing the Coachella Valley. (Ref: Coachella Valley Water District Draft Water Management Plan, prepared by Coachella Valley Water District, November 2000.) Although the implementation of mitigation measures are expected to limit increased demand for domestic water resources, future development will require assessment of domestic water supply needs and will be subject to review by the City and CVWD. XVI.e. The wastewater treatment provider for this project is Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), which currently has more than adequate capacity to serve present wastewater treatment needs in the City. In addition, CVWD continually increases the capacity of its plants by constructing new treatment ponds, aeration plants and other structures. Potential wastewater generation was estimated for Addendum A-28 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No. 36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 buildout under both the current and proposed land use designations within Section XVI.b. As indicated within that Section, wastewater treatment capacity should be evaluated as future development builds out. Should future development be connected to CVWD's sewer system, buildout will generate a limited incremental increase in demand for new wastewater treatment facilities, which may be expected to be greater than that generated by buildout of the current land use designation. XVI.f. The City of Palm Desert has a contractual agreement with Waste Management of the Desert for solid waste collection and disposal services. Residential pick up is generally provided once per week, and commercial pick up is offered up to six days a week. Waste Management disposes of waste collected in the City at the Edom Hill Landfill, which is located just northwest of the City limits and is owned and operated by Riverside County. Currently the landfill's operating permit allows a maximum of 2,651 tons of waste per day, with an average of 1,295 tons per day received at the landfill in 2000. With the landfill nearing maximum capacity, it is expected to close in the year 2004. (Ref. "Water, Sewer and Utilities Element for the Draft City of Palm Desert General Plan," prepared by Terra Nova Planning& Research, Inc., 2001). Under the proposed land use designation, maximum buildout would consist of 9 single-family dwelling units, generating up to 18 tons of solid waste per year. (Ref. Based on California Integrated Waste Management Board compilation of waste generation rates. Rates used are from the Ventura County Solid Waste Management Department, "Guidelines for Preparation of Environmental Assessments for Solid Waste Impacts," September 1992.). Under the current land use designation, maximum buildout of the annexation area could theoretically will reach 99 single-family dwelling units. These residences could generate up to 202 tons of solid waste per year. Buildout of the annexation area will contribute to a limited cumulative increase in the volume of solid waste generated. Although buildout under neither the current nor proposed land use designations are expected to create unusually high quantities of solid waste or unusual hazardous waste conditions, nevertheless, it is clear that buildout under the current designation would result in a higher volume of solid waste generation as compared with that of the proposed land use. Waste management operations should be monitored to assure the safe, cost-effective disposal of solid waste for future development. This is particularly important as the Edom Hill Landfill closure date approaches. The existing level of solid waste services and landfill capacity available to the City of Palm Desert are expected to adequately serve the annexation area. Future development should include implementation of a waste recycling program to minimize landfill utilization. Addendum A-29 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No.36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 Mandatory Findings of Significance XVII.a. Buildout of the annexation area has a limited potential to degrade the quality of the environment. Impacts have been quantified as much as feasible based on available data. Based on these analyses, development under the proposed land use designation provides greater limitations on potential degradation as compared with those that may be expected from buildout under the current land use designation. The subject lands are within critical habitat for the Peninsular bighorn sheep, a species designated as sensitive by both federal and state agencies. Future development should incorporate appropriate mitigation measures in compliance with guidelines set forth in the Bighorn Sheep Recovery Plan, as well as other appropriate mitigation measures to protect sensitive biological resources and habitat as may be warranted by the level and siting of such development. A survey conducted by CRM Tech in April, 2002, has indicated that developable portions of section 36 annexation lands do not harbor archaeological or historical resources. Future development should proceed in compliance with City's General Plan goals, policies and programs that seek to protect sensitive and valuable natural and cultural resources, and should support the City's involvement,through CVAG, in the CVMSHCP. XVII.b. Buildout of the annexation lands has potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of some long-term environmental goals, including the preservation of locally and regionally important viewsheds, and protection of the sensitive Peninsular bighorn sheep. Planning and implementation of future development should take into account long-term environmental goals as set forth above, and will require further assessment, and the development and appropriate mitigation measures, as such development occurs. XVII.c. Buildout of the annexation lands under the proposed land use and zoning designations substantially limits the potential for development impacts, but has the potential to result in individual impacts, which are expected to be limited and with mitigation, can be reduced to less than significant. Based on available data, which is limited by the absence of currently existing development plans, potentially significant individual impacts affect such issues as aesthetics, air and water quality, land use and planning, noise, biological resources, geology and soils, hydrology, and utilities and service systems. However, as indicated above, the implementation of mitigation measures may be expected to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Addendum A-30 TN/City of Palm Desert/8.23.02 CEQA Initial Study Addendum/Annexation No. 36,GPA 02-01 &CZ 02-01 Cumulative impacts are expected to be limited, however, some regional issues, such as air quality and water resources, will continue to be impacted as the Coachella Valley develops. Although mitigation measures have been addressed herein based on available data, issues related to development of these lands will need to be addressed, and potential impacts mitigated, as these lands build out. XVII.d. Without mitigation, buildout of the annexation area may potentially have direct and indirect adverse impacts on human beings. As has been discussed within this document, greater potential for direct and indirect adverse impacts on human beings is expected to exist under the current land use designation as compared with those existing under the proposed designation. However, with the implementation of mitigation measures, which have been addressed herein as much as feasible using available data, and additional mitigation measures to be developed and implemented as development occurs on these lands, potential direct and indirect adverse impacts to human beings are expected to be reduced to less than significant levels. Addendum A-31 CREST GOLF CLUB AND RESIDENTIAL VILLAGE DRAFT STAFF REPORT MATERIALS Environmental Review In 1991-92, a development application for 209 single family homes was filed on 695± acres of the subject 703± acre site. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for that project, which included pre-annexation zoning and a request to the City of Palm Desert to annex approximately 640 acres of the subject property. In November 1992, the City certified this EIR and approved a modified development plan to allow approximately 104 dwelling units. The associated annexation of the unincorporated 640 acres (Section 25) was not accomplished at that time. In 1995, application was made to the City of Palm Desert to modify this approval to allow 151 dwelling units on the 695± acres. The City Council took action but never finalized approval of the amended application. In March 2002, the current project proponent filed applications for the Crest Golf Club and Residential Village project, which is described below. As part of an effort to provide a more detailed and integrated analysis of the potential impacts associated with the new development proposal, the City and the developer have agreed that a Subsequent EIR (CEQA Section 15162) should be prepared to address issues in a thorough and comprehensive document. The subject Subsequent EIR (SEIR) evaluates existing conditions and potential impacts associated with the proposed development. The SEIR analysed a wide range of environmental issues, including land use compatibility, transportation and circulation, geology, air quality, cultural and archaeological resources, and other areas of environmental concern. The analysis also addresses alterations of the physical environment, including impacts to biological and other resources, and constraints including topography, flooding hazards, and the availability of public services and facilities. Comments on the Subsequent EIR The Final SEIR responds to issues or questions raised by several agencies, including the California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG), CalTrans, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, CVWD, Desert Sands Unified School District and the City of Rancho Mirage. The only substantive comments were from CDFG, and the responses to their comments in the Final SEIR are based upon subsequent consultations with CDFG as well as US Fish & Wildlife Service staff. The Final SEIR provides the expanded mitigation measures requested by these resource agencies that they feel will reduce potential impacts to biological resources to levels of insignificance. The applicant is also processing permits with the Army Corps of Engineers and CDFG, which are based upon the mitigation measures set forth in the project SEIR. Staff concurs that the mitigation measures set forth in the Draft and Final SEIR mitigate impacts to levels of insignificance. K-10.1- 1\s %'; ,p CITY OF PALM DESERT RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH# 1991021034) FOR THE Crest Golf Club and Residential Village Project PREPARED FOR CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CA 92260 PREPARED BY r TERRA NOVA PLANNING&RESEARCH,INC.` 400 SOUTH FARRELL,B-205 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 September 11,2002 TN/City of Palm Desert Crest Final SEIR Response To Comments on Draft EIR FINAL SEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR CREST GOLF CLUB & RESIDENTIAL VILLAGE PROJECT SEPTEMBER 11, 2002 CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 1991021034 AGENCY COMMENTS/RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The Response to Comments on the Draft SEIR for the Crest Golf Club and Residential Village Project has been prepared in accordance with Section 15088, 15089 and 15132 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The following agencies and interested parties have commented on the Draft SEIR. Please note that Section I contains verbatim comments from agency and other interested parties, and subsequent responses. Section II contains the full text of commenting agency correspondence. SECTION I: AGENCIES/PARTIES PAGE A. California Regional Water Quality Control Board B. California Department of Transportation - District 8 C. California Department of Fish & Game D. Coachella Valley Water District E. Desert Sands Unified School District F. Southern California Association of Governments G. City of Rancho Mirage 2 TN/City of Palm Desert Crest Final SEIR Response To Comments on Draft EIR SECTION II: A. California Regional Water Quality Control Board B. California Department of Transportation - District 8 C. California Department of Fish & Game D. Coachella Valley Water District E. Desert Sands Unified School District F. Southern California Association of Governments G. City of Rancho Mirage 3 TN/City of Palm Desert Crest Final SEIR Response To Comments on Draft EIR A. CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD A.1. Comment: The proposed project would involve generation of storm water from the project site, which has the potential to adversely impact receiving surface waters. Therefore, the Regional Board staff requests that you file a Notice of Intent to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Construction Activities. The permits require preparation and submittal of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES). Compliance with the permits will prevent and mitigate potential water quality impacts. A.1. Response: Comment noted. Please see Mitigation Measure No. 5 on page III-44 of the Draft SEIR, which requires that the project proponent submit said plans and secure said permit. 5 TN/City of Palm Desert Crest Final SEIR Response To Comments on Draft EIR B. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - DISTRICT 8 B.1. Comment: Measures proposed to mitigate development impact to SR 74 include the installation of a stop sign and related pavement markings at the project entry road. Since typical placement of signs and markings occurs immediately adjacent to intersection curb returns, encroachment within the existing State right-of- way is likely. Therefore, relevant information regarding CalTrans permit issuance, State design criteria, construction practices or policies should be included in any discussion of this project impact mitigation measure. It should also be noted that compliance to State standards in place at the time of permit issuance will be required. B.1. Response: Comment noted. In addition to the review of preliminary access drive designs by CalTrans, the project proponent has filed an application for an encroachment permit from CalTrans and is required to conform to State design criteria, construction practices and policies. The City shall require the developer to secure all necessary CalTrans clearances before construction of the access drive in the SR 74 right-of-way can begin. This mitigation measure is hereby incorporated by reference into the Subsequent EIR. B.2. Comment: Routine maintenance of State highway improvements including lane striping, is provided by CalTrans forces only on an as needed basis, as determined by Maintenance staff. As worded in this document, the statement regarding median striping implies that maintenance by Caltrans forces is to be provided as project mitigation. Please clarify the intent of this statement or delete the reference to Caltrans. B.2. Response: Comment noted. The referenced Mitigation Measure (No. 2, page III-16) states, "The CalTrans and the City shall maintain the two-way left turn median striping on Highway 74." The primary intent of this measure is to assure that the visibility of the existing striped center turn median is maintained to optimize intersection operational safety. It is assumed that CalTrans and the City will continue to coordinate their maintenance programs and communicate any observed deficiencies. 6 TN/City of Palm Desert Crest Final SEIR Response To Comments on Draft EIR C. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME C.1. Comment: The total area of 703 acres considered in the document is within the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's (Service) critical habitat designation for the peninsular bighorn sheep. This designation also coincides with the essential habitat designation in the Recovery Plan for the Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular ranges. The adverse modification of critical habitat resulting from this project needs to be addressed within the SEIR. A more in-depth analysis of reducing the effects of habitat loss, modification, fragmentation and restriction of range is required. Additional mitigation measures that benefit the recovery of the species such as habitat restoration, clearing water sources of exotics, and additional fencing should be included. C.1. Response: As noted in the biological survey report prepared for the proposed development, habitat on the site is predominantly sparse Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub; very few annuals were found due to on-going drought conditions. Elements of Sonoran Mixed Woody and Succulent Scrub are also present in low densities over the site. Identification of desert dry wash woodland was limited to the lowest reaches of Bruce Creek, with a limited area in the lowest portion of Ramon Creek, which is largely off-site. Although there is no evidence of development on the subject property, the site has already been impacted by significant adverse modification of habitat by the unregulated access and use by off-highway vehicle (OHV), recreational shooting and free-ranging pets from adjoining development. Evidence of OHV disturbance, including uprooted cactus and crushed perennials and soils disturbance and erosion, is extensive both within Bruce Creek and on adjoining elevated plateaus and foothills in Sections 31 and 25. Well-established and new residential development at a wide range of densities occurs adjacent to and in proximity of the subject property. Access to the subject property is enhanced by the adjoining Cahuilla Hills neighborhood road network and the service road for the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. As noted above and in the Draft SEIR, a wide range of urban edge effects have impacted the subject property and adversely impacted the habitat values on these lands. 7 TN/City of Palm Desert Crest Final SEIR Response To Comments on Draft EIR Through on-going meetings, consultations and field visits with biologists from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Bighorn Institute and the private sector, project golf course design has been modified and refined. The goal has been to limit impacts on on-site and nearby habitat. The area encompassed within the sheep exclusion fence has been reduced and more tightly drawn in to the southeast quadrant of Section 25. The re-configuration preserves connectivity between limited public lands to the east with an old sheep trails network located in the northern portion of section 25. This redesign significantly reduces any restriction in range introduced by the proposed project. It should also be pointed out, and as is evidenced in aerial and other photos in the Draft SEIR, that existing residential development east of Section 25 and west of the stormwater channel, as well as that in Section 36 (Cahuilla Hills neighborhood), is likely to continue to deter sheep foraging or traversing in this area. As further evidenced by several years of telemetric data on sheep movements sheep have stayed on the most elevated terrain west and northwest of the proposed golf course site (see Appendix D of the Draft SEIR). Given the site's contiguity with existing development and associated urban effects, the project is not expected to be a significant contributor to habitat fragmentation or restriction of range. Mitigation measures that benefit the recovery of the Peninsular bighorn sheep have been incorporated into the Draft SEIR, and include the requirement that undeveloped lands within Section 25, approximately 400f acres based upon adjustments resulting from agency consultations, be dedicated as open space in perpetuity. These lands are clearly the superior on-site habitat and are contiguous to elevated habitat to the northwest and west. The construction of the sheep exclusion fence and the on-going management and monitoring associated with the golf course will effectively eliminate the highly disruptive urban edge effects that currently impact these lands and in the longer term should enhance the reuse of these lands by the local sheep population. Mitigation measures also include the purchase and permanent protection of sheep habitat in the Northern Santa Rosa Mountains, which will serve to secure an expanded, protected 8 TN/City of Palm Desert Crest Final SEIR Response To Comments on Draft EIR habitat area for the sheep. Based upon discussions with agency biologists, the project proponent shall purchase additional off- site mitigation lands for the benefit of local sheep at the rate of 2 acres per every acre in Section 25 enclosed within the sheep exclusion fence. These lands would be in addition to the 400± acres to be dedicated as open space in Section 25. This will result in securing 880± acres of sheep habitat for permanent protection and management. Also as required in mitigation measures set forth in the Draft SEW, the project proponent shall be responsible for remediation the adverse impacts of exotic, non-native plant species on two seeps that occur within Section 25. C.2. Comment: The document refers to the Hanson model classification system "Zone of Deficiency" on pages IV-2 and V-14, to indicate that the project lands are not as valuable to sheep as other lands. This misinterprets the meaning of"Zone of Deficiency". The use of the Hanson model classification system in the Santa Rosa Mountains Wildlife Habitat Management Plan, (Sikes Act plan) was used as a tool to call attention to habitat values and point out potential impacts or conflicts. The Sikes Act plan clearly states "primary, secondary and deficient areas to bighorn should not be considered of less importance than vital areas. Each acre of bighorn habitat is important to maintaining the present population". Lands that fall within the "Zone of Deficiency" are just as important to bighorn sheep survival as lands that fall within the Vital, Primary and Secondary categories. C.1. Response: Comment noted. Clearly, all remaining habitat that is currently viable or which can be made viable for the Peninsular bighorn sheep is important to the recovery of the species. Nonetheless, as discussed in the Sikes report' cited in the Draft SEIR, the classification of habitat is functional: "Bighorn habitat is divided into four habitat classifications modelled after Hanson's habitat classification system; it recognizes that different areas within the sheep range have differing significance relative to• the maintenance of the sheep population. "Santa Rosa Mountains Wildlife Habitat Management Plan: A Sikes Act Project" Prepared by the US Bureau of Land Management and the California Department of Fish and Game.September 1980. 9 TN/City of Palm Desert Crest Final SEIR Response To Comments on Draft EIR Classification of the habitat are based on the following factors: bighorn utilization and preference, terrain characteristics, vegetation, proximity to urban areas, sensitivity to disturbance, and importance to bighorn sex and age classes.i2 The subject lands are not nor have they been utilized by sheep for several years. The most favorable terrain characteristics within Section 25 are proposed for permanent protection as sheep habitat. The proximity of long-established urban development has adversely affected habitat values, but will be somewhat mitigated by the construction of the sheep exclusion fence, which are expected to effectively exclude and eliminate the currently adverse urban impacts to sheep habitat on the site. Nonetheless, it is agreed that each acre of remaining viable habitat is important to sheep recovery. C.3. Comment: Several mitigation measures are described in the SEIR to reduce, avoid or eliminate significant impacts to wildlife resources to a level of insignificance. These include: a conservation easement over the 390 acres of the project site that is being left undisturbed, conservation easement or title to 250 acres of additional off-site bighorn sheep habitat and 15 acres of dry wash woodlands. The conservation easement over the 390 acres of the project site that is being left undisturbed does not qualify as mitigation for the impacts. Bighorn sheep are losing habitat that once was protected from line-of-site to the homes lower on the slope. Non-habituated sheep tend to keep a distance from the edge of development, usually by line-of-site to human disturbance. The 390 acres surrounding the golf course may be impacted by edge effects that go beyond the actual footprint of the development itself. The construction of an eight-foot fence only alleviates the impacts of habituated sheep entering the development in search of water and forage. Outward impacts may include, but are not limited to: noise, lights, line-of-sight to people and vehicles, unfamiliar objects and exotic flora and fauna. Additionally, in `Sierra Club vs. City of Palm Springs' it concludes that placing deed-restrictions on the non-used portions of the site does not amount to mitigation. It states "It does not affect or ameliorate the acreage to be used for the golf course. It merely defines the limit of the habitat loss." Other projects within the range of the peninsular bighorn 2 Ibid.(page 12.) 10 TN/City of Palm Desert Crest Final SEIR Response To Comments on Draft EIR C.B. Comment: The Department is in the process of complying with a writ of mandate issued by the Superior Court of California (Mendocino Environmental Center vs California Department of Fish and Game, Respondents, Bruce Choder, River Rat Salvage, et. al. Real Parties). The writ of mandate states: A writ of mandate shall issue ordering the California Department of Fish and Game on or before May 1, 1999, to prepare and implement a program or process that will incorporate a CEQA review into the Fish and Game Section 2603 process. The writ of mandate shall further order the California Department of Fish and Game to cease and desist entering into Section 1603 agreements after May 1, 1999, unless such agreements have been subject to CEQA review. The writ of mandate clearly spells out what the Department's responsibilities are under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with respect to all Streambed Alteration Agreement's (SAA). In this regard, the Department is emphasizing in comment letters on projects that impacts to lakes or streambeds, alternatives and mitigation measures must be addressed in CEQA-certified documents prior to submittal of an application of a SAA. Any information which is supplied to the Department after the CEQA process is complete will not have been subject to the public review requirements of CEQA. In this instance, the Department has three choices: 1) refuse to issue the SAA; 2) not file the Notification because CEQA has not been complied with and return the package to the lead agency for further CEQA action; or 3)become the lead agency. In order for the Department to process a SAA agreement, the CEQA-certified documents must include an analysis of the impacts of the proposed project on the lake or streambed, an analysis of the biological resources present on the site, copies of biological studies conducted on the site, biological survey methodology, and a discussion of any alternative measures, avoidance measures, mitigation measures which will reduce the impacts of the proposed development to a level of insignificance. C.B. Response: Comment noted. One of the stated purposes for the preparation of the subject Draft SEIR is to assess potential environmental impacts associated with the issuance of a Section 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement for the proposed project. The 15 TN/City of Palm Desert Crest Final SEIR Response To Comments on Draft EIR project proponent and the environmental consultant have met, conferred and visited the development site with CDFG representatives, who have been instrumental in modifying and refining the design of the proposed project. As required, the Draft SEIR and associated biological assessment prepared for this project characterize the biological resources occurring within potentially impacted washes and streambeds, discuss survey methods, discuss and recommend alternative project design, and set forth a variety of mitigation measures, which are expected to reduce potential impacts to these resources to a level of insignificance. C.9. Comment: The SEIR does not adequately determine the impacts to streambeds within the project area. The method of delineation of streambeds for the Department's streambed delineation for the Department covers the area from stream bank to stream bank. This usually results in a larger area of disturbance than under the Corps delineation. The document indicates 10.12 acres of Bruce Creek and 4.71 acres of Ramon Creek are impacted by the project. The SEIR does not indicate the types of vegetation within each creek. This needs to be included and the mitigation proposed. Mitigation for desert dry wash woodland habitat consists of restoration or replacement at a 3:1 ratio. C.9. Response: The method of streambed delineation used in assessing project impacts did use the "stream bank to stream bank" method of quantifying impacts, and was based upon an assessment of streambed alteration resulting from project development (see Exhibits III-7 & III-8 on pages III-30 & 31, respectively). Section III-F. and the biological assessment prepared for this project (Draft SEIR Technical Appendix D) describe in detail the type and extent of vegetation occurring within on-site washes and streambeds. (see Draft SEIR pages III-46 to III-55). Vegetation identified within the washes consist of microphyllous riparian shrub and tree species, including Blue palo verde (Cercidium floridum ssp. floridum), Honey Mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa var. torreyana), Smoke tree (Psorothamnus spinosus), Catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii), Cheesebush (Hymenoclea salsola), Chuparosa (Justicia californica), and Desert Lavender (Hyptis emoryi). Bruce Creek wash is substantially more diverse than Ramon Creek was, and both have been impacted by tamarisk and fountain grass. 16 TN/City of Palm Desert Crest Final SEIR Response To Comments on Draft EIR Based upon extensive discussions with CDFG and based upon a variety of mitigation strategies and management strategies, the Department has indicated that the purchase and dedication of off- site desert dry wash woodland at the rate of 2 acres for each acre lost to development will reduce impacts to washes and streambeds to levels of insignificance. Also see amended Mitigation Measure No. 2 in Response C.3. above. C.10. Comment: Two seeps are also located on the Project site. These seeps are considered water sources for bighorn sheep and other wildlife. One of the seeps will be located within the fence and therefore bighorn sheep will not longer have access. It is possible that because of the proximity to the fence, non-habituated sheep will not have access to the second seep. Mitigation for the loss of these water sources should be included in the document. C.10. Response The biological resource surveys conducted on this site for the subject Draft SEIR included detailed surveys of the seeps and surrounding lands. There was no evidence of sheep using either seep. Both seeps lacked surface water, the upper seep is infested with fountain grass. Biological consultations and bighorn specialists indicated that the proximity of the seeps, especially the lower seep, to residential development in the Cahuilla Hills neighborhood deter sheep from using the seeps. Concern was also expressed regarding the threats to sheep associated with the adjoining residential development and the possible appropriateness of placing the lower seep within the golf course fence. Subsequent consultations with CDFG and the Service indicate a preference for both seeps to be located outside the golf course fence. The fence will accordingly be pulled back in an easterly direction. Mitigation measures set forth in the Draft SEIR require that exotic, invasive plant materials be removed from the seeps and that they be remediated in accordance with a plan to be approved by the resource agencies. 17 TN/City of Palm Desert Crest Final SEIR Response To Comments on Draft EIR D. COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT D.1. Comment We have received your Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Crest Golf and Residential Village Project dated July 5. On page III-45, under Mitigation Monitoring, paragraph 2, it is stated that the responsible agency for flood control is the Riverside County Flood Control District. This project lies within our boundary and, therefore, the Coachella Valley Water District is the agency responsible for flood control issues. We have no further comments. D.1. Response Comment noted. The referenced Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program No. 2 is hereby amended to cite CVWD rather than Riverside County Flood Control as the responsible agency. 18 TN/City of Palm Desert Mag Falls Dr. Final EIR Response To Comments on Draft EIR E. DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT E.1. Comment: All actions toward residential development will potentially result in an impact on our school system. School overcrowding is a District- wide concern for Desert Sands Unified School District. The District's ability to meet the educational needs of the public with new schools has been seriously impaired in recent years by local, state and federal budget cuts that have had a devastating impact on the financing of new schools. As you are aware, there is a school mitigation fee that is currently collected on all new development at the time building permits are issued. E.1. Response: Comment noted. The proposed project would allow the development of up to 60 dwelling units, which are planned as second and vacation homes. Therefore, the development of the subject units are not expected to generate a significant number of school age children requiring the services or facilities of the school district. Nonetheless, the Draft SEIR fully assessed the potential student generation potential of these units as permanent residences. The Draft SEIR also identified impact fees that will help to off-set impacts to local schools. 19 TN/City of Palm Desert Mag Falls Dr. Final EIR Response To Comments on Draft EIR F. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS F.1. Comment: We have reviewed the Crest Golf Club and Residential Village, and have determined that the proposed Project is not regionally significant per SCAG Intergovernmental Review (IGR) Criteria and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15206). The proposed project is not a residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. Therefore, the proposed Project does not warrant comments at this time. Should there be a change in the scope of the proposed Project, we would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment at that time. F.1. Response: Comment noted 20 TN/City of Palm Desert Mag Falls Dr.Final EIR Response To Comments on Draft EIR G. CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE G.1. Comment: Thank you for forwarding a copy of the Draft EIR for our review. I have reviewed the document and concur with the recommended mitigation measures, except I did not see a specific measure which requires the undisturbed acreage to be dedicated to the Mountains Conservancy with an open space easement. G.1. Response: Comment noted. It has not yet been determined to what agency or entity the subject mitigation lands should be dedicated or conveyed. While the Mountains Conservancy may be the appropriate owner and/or manager of these lands, final disposition of the aforementioned Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit and associated Biological Opinion Letter, and the CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement will establish to whom the lands or conservation easements should be conveyed. G.2. Comment: Of course it is possible to shrink the size of the golf course and thereby disturb less mountainous area, but that option must be balanced with the obvious goal of providing a first class golf course. G.2. Response: Comment noted. As discussed above, on-going consultations with CDFG and the Service have resulted in a substantial reduction in the golf course area to be enclosed in the sheep exclusion fence. Consultations have resulted in a compression of the golf course more tightly in the southeast quadrant of Section 25, thereby avoiding old sheep trails and placing one of two seeps outside the fence. The golf course design also limits grading and preserves drainages and important topographic relief, including rocky outcroppings, in this planning area. 21 TN/City of Palm Desert Mag Falls Dr.Final EIR Response To Comments on Draft EIR SECTION II COMMENT LETTERS ON THE DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The following comment letters were received on the Draft Subsequent EIR transmitted to various public agencies and interested parties. Comments restated in Section I are bracketed in this section and correspond to the comment numbers in Section I. 22 ir ROBERT H. RICCIARDI ARCHITECT A Professional Corporation ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN September 4, 2002 RECEIVED Steve Smith Planner City of Palm Desert Planning Dept.Waring Drive �`i� 0 tu�2 FredCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Palm Desert, CA 92260 CITY OF PALM DESERT Re: Crest Country Club Dear Steve, As a member of the property's Homeowner's Association for parcels numbered 8,9,21,22,23, and 24 in section 36, Township 5 South, Range 5 East, San Bernardino Base & Meridian , County of Riverside, herein called the Parcels (see attached Exhibit B-1), I am writing this letter to you. The right to travel across and use of access for the Parcels is recorded ii. a Deed of Easement dated 2/8/82 & recorded 3/9/82 in Book 1982, Page 39790, of Official Records, Riverside County, California, herein called the Road Easement. The recorded Road Easement through properties once owned by Robert S. Bertrand, Frances Louise Bertrand, Richard Beckendorf, Helene Beckendorf, and Farber and Soloman was purchased after the Deed of Easement was recorded by Milliard-Richards Limited Partnership, A California Corporation. The Deed of Easement is exclusively for the Parcels and the land the Road Easement runs through and for no other properties. No one property owner of the Parcels can deny the use of the road to any other Parcel owner, or make a private agreement to any other party for the use of the road easement. The Road Easement starts at the CVWD wash to the east and stops in parcel 8 to the west. There is also a road easement through parcel 8 and 9 for parcel 23 that the Road Easement serves. The Crest Country Club and no individual Parcels owner have any legal right to deny access to the Parcels in question. Also each of the Parcels has United States Government deed access right away, 30 feet wide, on all property lines. The Crest Country Club must also honor this deed access requirement. In May of 1990 the Parcels Homeowner's Association negotiated an agreement with Miller- Richards Limited Partnership reconfirming the right of easement, and Miller-Richards Limited Partnership would also bring power, sewer and water to the Parcels, and pave the Recorded Road Easement when they developed their surrounding properties. We expect them to honor this agreement also (See Exhibit A-1). Also they are realigning and changing the Road Easement without our consent and are not acknowledging our legal rights to use The Road Easement. 75-090 ST. CHARLES PLACE, SUITE A• PALM DESERT, CA 92211 TELEPHONE 760-346-2223 FAX 760-340-2693 EMAIL: RICCIARDI7@aol.com Page 2 The fact that the Crest County Club wants to be a private country club is understandable, and the fact that their properties do not touch each other except at the point where Section 25 meets Section 31 (see Exhibit A-1) and therefore they must use the Parcels lots 8 and 9 to obtain useable access is also understandable. The point is the Milliard —Richard Limited Partnership must work with the people who have the invested rights in the Road Easement through their properties and the Homeowners Association that represents these invested rights. The Road Easement was never intended to be extended to Section 25. The Homeowners Association has no objections against The Crest County Club Project as long as Miller-Richard Limited Partnership or The Crest Country Club allows what was agreed to before and that is, total access to the Parcels on their legal easement and brings power, sewer and water and provides a paved road for both fire trucks and vehicle access to the Parcels. The Homeowners Association expects the City of Palm Desert to put a condition of approval in The Crest Country Club project that states: Crest County Club shall honor all legal easements through its properties, and prior agreements and will work with the adjacent homeowner's association. If you have any questions please call me. Sincerely, Robert H. Ricciardi _ ,,-- • . . R. . c.d - L ` _)LC. ,.;6, T. 55.. R.S c EXHIBIT B..1 • ; 1. 23/.vc —�� 3/.4G• cc�. l/' • O vt.)14;s..; • O c . G e• ,e. V 5.00AcF"'. 5.00Ac ,_7f{! ' 0 o M1'r;,T,;: s . .. 6 N.D 'KvEAIIl •:. .• ' ^'V� r J• .. yr•.. h Yat! t;a ,O 4 O A — tft.7;s:.. 5 f+� )J/. 23. >v i JJ' 23' LG 2. fS ---� �- { .63/ RaT 1 •,, /75.00 ,4 % •41ri �rt v :i • , ' 470Ac._ h, h ' 0. v o.l (9 4.,_ •.... --.........---- C 4 2. ..7.2• i I. r. ?-i..4-r.,:1:%;,-;.}:,'-'...0:'17...-'t:7......:2;rir,-4.;41',...:574::...uA.,h';--Is''',...Ft --"''---'" q.411A. :1".11-....„:;`f-..,r-l'..'-t---:' , ic_': 5.00 Ac ., 5.00 Ac v-� /g. y V • 2.50 Ac • n v2.SOAc _73/.0o• 33 I.00" cC/. 99• FIRST AMERiCAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY ANY 'OAre-LOCO NO.[NEW 3625 Fourteenth Street — 634-1600 Vas ro 1r,z Riverside, California 92501 "This map may or msy not be a survey /e 23'2 of the land depicted hereon.You should not rely upon it for any purpose other than orientation to the general location of the parcel or parcels depicted. First American Title'expressly disclaims any • liability for alleged foss or damage = , which may result from reliance upon this map." r • EXHIBIT'4-1e \\ .MILLER— RICHARDS PROPOSED ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT w• Arw.,.-uo•eI THROUGH PORTIONS OF SECTION 31, TSS, R6E L :;� AND PORTIONS OF SECTION 36. TSS. R5E ' (Mil Cr e1aDIK --. . 1 ' / SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN of-• W 1 8 Q.1^ \ ?S J s `JE ,,�s JONATHAN o n CC 5.A/`` P-e,e-Leo-ooe J 37 \ N ist..„ 3 s'. . / ................. .... ...........y 6 , _..;..-..t. ., ••••=lem, tx*rtnlac noo°so tAstxn •'\ .., .... — ... /uRoa+,a+t 'WC Of wt.. Wirt D< slag•' s.k,. BOTTOM OF RAVINE \ 1 ,,,, w _ _r \ / WPC SIX• 10 St19.!S•TTva ett TOPUI I 0 e os \ solrin SIX IA s•stTo.,eoan ma or tnsTlK Me a eoml ntC. �\\ss FVn p AOR amlOUllo.V 1R Oi n.R[to.[Kl[11�1=et to Qn{r lX DI$1I UID[7<t �// FILL WHT as IOU OEM.Ir,ld el%et 1a Z0 Cra SOILS MS.1n1U Mioar1 MtArecni o.s am ARAM Cr TIC �N.`` �� EXISTING ROAD CITT R rMA Assn. -s's ` - \ \ 1.IAIt Cr Aae LULK.1 Ny \_ `� PROPOSED EASEMENT —\ ""'°`e1LDIK i. \ � FARBR�SOLOMON c` /13 AFX eat �o-oo�� / \ / BERTRAND 11 o m \ p��i \ A►N 031-020-0O1 ,^ `.-- -rr�+ari .^ 'Air \ • BERTRAND & BECKENDORF Alyp\\14 y 15 0�00 0`' \ • / APH ex+-oxo-ooi H8EG1(f o��o°` � � w C�° / amnia R1S+1K[a4An F,4+C°� /N, ,ana an" �/ �i.�Pp� . .--7/ nt'• rats E . \ /.... / . 0 CH'E .yv�‘a sl ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FROM `� \ pAtt1 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT •• \• / ---..........„.... 'SOMERSET'/ 'MOUNTAINBACK' CONDOMINIUMS 4b. GO-19R B / \\ MILLER=PALM DESERT \ IV = PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT • / UUUUw,`V , �� . eorr. *+[Lau++oe er Rts Munn Is nsR Vrd1 Ottci 1,•r I tauq lC,. n,o-tlat ,-• JR sui.ii1 lu tt.Ctf['•D...al tiF't1 nYp❑ • II. Oct 01 02 12: 58p Dia Fox 76n 'R46-3288 p. l . • De/tela 14111#11:04 hiking&blking club ♦♦♦ PO Box 413 Rancho Mirage,CA 92270 ♦ 346-3288 e-mail: Desedesor sZOW50megs.com JJ��.. http://desort-tra)15.50megs.com OCT 0 1 2002 October 1st, 2002 COMMUNITY OF PALM DESERTARTMENT Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring br. Palm Desert, Ca 92260 Att: Philip Drell RE: &PA 02-01, C/Z 02/02, TT 30438 and PP/CUP 02-03-Destination Development. Dear Mr. Drell: Having talked to the BLM over this past weekend we were informed that they are considering closing most of the hiking trails around here permanently. The reason cited is the terrible drought we have been experiencing in the valley the past four years, therefore allowing wildlife to forage for water closer to civilization. However you, the City of Palm Desert, is in the process of approving yet another development which will drain more of our most precious resource WATER. Not only will this new development, if approved, encroach into wildlife habitat, but it will take away what few water holes there ore, in addition to draining water for another golf course, as if there were not enough here in the desert. We are sorely disappointed and hope that you will reconsider your decision. Very truly yours, D. Fox Received Oct-01-2002 01 :43pm From-760 346 3288 To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 001 PETER LA TOURETTE -I V 1-:› 72-445 DESERT FLOWER DRIVE It,E D PALM DESERT, CA 92260-6267 co`, (760)346-1595 '�1°'�!l1Yc�,h`vpaf^ 2 September 30, 2002 oFg�.N°ES'Rp4RTr `f Wi' City of Palm Desert Staff City Council Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Subject: The Crest Development-Palm Desert Ladies and Gentlemen: I am a resident of Sommerset which is immediately south of the new proposed Crest Development off Highway 74. I had questions concerning certain aspects of the new Crest Development. In order to answer our questions,Mr. Ted Lennon and his development team for the Crest met with a few of the residents of Sommerset last Thursday and I toured his Reserve project this afternoon. Some items of concern were the location of maintenance facilities,parking lot lighting and location of housing units and the clubhouse. The Crest team has assured us the maintenance facility will not be viewable by Sommerset residents, parking lot lighting will be low level without pole lights(such as the Reserve), and landscape, wall and/or berm screening will be installed to provide privacy for both Sommerset and Crest residents. Mr. Lennon has indicated he plans to blend his development with the desert environment such as he has at the Reserve. Density at the Crest will be, obviously, very low. I also understand hundreds of acres will be dedicated, as a condition of approval, to open space. The Reserve, much like other projects in Carefree/Scottsdale and Tucson,Arizona, reflect the best of desert environmental planning and design. After our review and discussion of the above concerns, and other items, and my tour of the Reserve, I would hope the City would proceed with the approval of this project. I, as a resident of Sommerset, would look forward to the Crest as a neighbor. Sincerely, Peter La Tourette 10/01/2002 1 3: 36 1760436'^ 12 PETERS AND FREFnMAN PAGE 01 PETERS & FREEDMAN, L.L.P. RC ATTORNEYS AT LAWi, ' .�. 74-075 EL PASEO, SUITE C-4 .k I %; PALM DESERT,CA 92260 OLIji 2002 Tel:(760)773-4463 Tel:(760)773-2626 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Fax:(760)773-0919 CITY OF PALM Dr'- SIMON J.FREEDMAN mall@hoalaw.com DAVID M.PETERS www.hoafaw.com KEENAN A.PARKER ENCINITAS OFFICE MARK T.GUITHUES 191 CALLE MAGDALENA MICHAEL G.KIM SUITE ZZO STEPHEN M.KIRKLAND ENCINITAS.CA 92024 LAURIE F,MASOTTO Tel:(760)436-3441 JAMES R.McCORMICK JR. Fax:(760)06-3442 STEVEN R,NAPOLES OF COUNSEL LAURIE S.POOLE October 1, 2002 VIA FACSIMILE (760) 341-7098 Philip Drell, Secretary Planning Commission City of Palle Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drivc Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: Sommerset Homeowners Association Project: The Crest Applicant: Destination Development Corporation Case Nos. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438 and PP/CUP 02-03 Our File No. 1365 Dear Mr. Drell: As you know, representatives of both Sommerset Homeowners Association and Destination Development Corporation met on Thursday, September 26, 2002, to discuss the proposed development near Highway 74 behind the Sommerset community. The Association appreciated the developer's cooperation in discussing its plans for this area. Destination Development has agreed to work with an authorized committee to be formed by Sommerset Homeowners Association, to address landscaping and other concerns as construction proceeds. The Association requests that this agreement be incorporated into the Development Agreement for this projcct. Received Oct-01-2002 01 :33pm From-17604363442 To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC A Page 001 10/01/2002 13:36 176043E 2 PETERS AND FREcm"AN PAGE 02 October 1, 2002 Page 2 If you have any questions,please contact me. Sincerely, PETERS &FREEDMAN LLP Lawrie F. Masotto LFM:im cc:Board of Directors Destination Development (via facsimile) Received Oct-01-2002 01:33pm From-17604363442 To—PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 002 �� ? Center for Biologicai Diversity '�•� '� Protecting and restoring endangered species and wild places of North America and •141s the Pacific through science,policy,education,citizen activism and environmental law. %ees September 17,2002 Mr. Phil Drell, Community Development Director Palm Desert Planning Commission Palm Desert City Council 760.340.0574 fax Greetings Mr. Drell and Honorable City Council and Planning Commission members, On behalf of our over 7500 members, including many in the Coachella Valley, the Center for Biological Diversity urges the Council. to reject the draft EIR for the proposed Crest Golf Club and Residential Village Project. As detailed by the State of California-Department of Fish and Game, the Sierra Club and others, the draft EIR for this project is fatally flawed. By reference, we incorporate the comments of the State and Sierra Club. The Center feels strongly that approval of this draft Elk will violate state and federal law. Approval of this or other big developments within critical habitat will further impede recovery of the endangered Peninsular Ranges bighorn sheep, and will force conservation and community groups to pursue relief in the courts. We hope to be in a position to support a decision to conserve and recover bighorn sheep by denying this draft Elk for the Crest. Sincerely, Daniel. R. Patterson RECEIVED Desert Ecologist Sb- 1 2 2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Tucson • Idyllwild • Silver City • Phoenix • Berkeley • Boema.n • San Diego • Sitka DANIEL R. PATTERSON, DESERT ECOLOGIST POB 493 IDYLLWILD CALIFORNIA 92549 909.659.6053 x 306 TEL / 659.2484 FAX DPATTERSON@BIOLOGICALDIVERSITY.ORG • WWW,BIOLOGICALDIVERSITY.ORG Received Sep-17-02 04:32pm From- To-PALM DESERT CITY CLE Page 01 RECEIVED City of Palm Desert SEP 1 6 2002 Planning Commission September 9, 2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT RE: Case Nos. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438 and PP/CUP 02-03 The Crest Project Golf Course and Residential Village I am a resident of Sommerset, a Condominium development directly adjacent to the proposed golf course and residential village proposed by Destination Development Corporation. I received a legal notice of the proposed zone change on September 3, 2002. Upon inquiry to the Planning Dept.of Palm Desert, I was informed that the comment period for the EIR document closed on August 23, 2002, but the Planning Commission would accept comments until the meeting scheduled for September 17, 2002. After a brief review of the EIR copy at the Planning Department, I would like to offer the following comments: GENERAL COMMENTS ON PROPOSED CHANGE OF ZONE FROM OPEN SPACE/HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL The current zoning of Open Space/Hillside Residential should be preserved for this area for the following reasons: OPEN SPACE 1. The area surrounding the new 27 acre Homme-Adams Park should remain as open space. Homme-Adarns Park will be designed as a trailhead park, connecting trails from Cahuilla Hills Park upward into the mountain areas of the Coachella Valley trail network. Should this proposed golf course and residential development be approved, it will block access to the main trail up the hillside. There is no alternate route because of the rugged terrain. Open Space for the enjoyment of all residents should be a priority over another private golf resort neighborhood which will block Open Space access to residents. The area is currently utilized on a daily basis by hikers,joggers, and residents of the surrounding area. (There are trails on both sides of the Stormwater Channel). UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (AS IDENTIFED IN THE EIR DOCUMENT) 1. BIOLOGICAL The area under consideration has been identified in the EIR as critical Bighorn habitat. Has the Bighorn Institute been notified of this proposed development and given an opportunity to comment'? As a resident close to the Stormwater Channel, I have observed raptors, falcons, and a resident owl living in a Palo Verde tree along the Stormwater Channel trail. This climate zone provides 1 habitat for many migratory birds including sensitive species such as the Black tailed gnatcatcher and Chuckwalla. The EIR survey identified 43 species of animals in this area. 2. VISUAL The proposed golf course and residential village, with up to in residential units, will pose a direct negative visual impact to the residents of Sommerset neighborhood. This"viewshed"was NOT considered in the EIR document. A residential development on lower Bruce Creek (directly across from Sommerset residents) would have significant potential to increase the level of light and glare in the foothills area, negatively impacting Sommerset residents. Allowing a zone change from Open Space/Hillside Residential to Hillside Development would cause negative visual impacts to residents utilizing the Homme-Adams Park, and would block access to mountain trails(Homme- Adams is planned as a trailhead park). 3. NOISE Because this proposed development would involve tearing down the hillside of bedrock,the noise of ripping and blasting would be considerable, causing a negative impact to residents of Sommerset neighborhood. Traffic noise and rooftop air conditioning units would continue to cause negative noise impacts to surrounding residents, as well as to people attempting to enjoy the Homme- Adams trailhead park. 4. CULTURAL The EIR document has identified two archeological sites that warrant further studies. Have the appropriate Tribes been notified of this proposed development and given opportunity to comment? 5. SIGNIFICANT GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES The area currently zoned Open Space/Hillside Residential contains unique geological features, including overturned folds, and a fault scarp which is clearly visible from the Stormwater Channel berm. The geological report done for the EIR identifies this fault as "inactive", but gives no supporting documentation. The geologic report also indicates the primary geologic hazard is severe shaking from an earthquake along the San Andreas Fault, along with slope instability. ground subsidence, and erosion. The report indicates that extensive grading would be necessary(after the ripping and blasting of bedrock materials—why allow developers to tear down our rocky hillsides?) 2 6. FLOODING The geologic report indicates portions of the site (the lower alluvial fan) are within a designated FEMA 500 year flood plain. The hazard of sheet flooding and erosion make this a poor location for residential development. 7. WATER USE Water resources are a critical concern in our desert environment. Approval of this project would demonstrate VERY POOR water stewardship by the City of Palm Desert. This project would allow a massive waste of our precious groundwater, greater than 3 acre-feet per DAY! This would total more than 686 acre-feet per year! Only a few Palm Desert citizens would enjoy this "private"recreational site, but we would all pay for the tremendous waste of our groundwater_ If one acre-foot of water supplies an average family's water needs for one year, how can the City allow 3 acre-feet PER DAY to be wasted on one hillside development, which should remain as open space? CONCLUSION This proposed development would CLASH with existing open space uses for the hillside. When Homme-Adams Trailhead Park is built, let there continue to be open space with beautiful rocky terrain and mountain vistas, not another private golf resort that blocks access to the citizens of Palm Desert. Please preserve the open space for present and future generations. Keep our hillsides OPEN SPACE!! ! Respectfully Submitted by O Z Liann Chavez 72-304 Valley Crest Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 3 The Keith Companies September 27, 2002 40786.00.000 Mr. Steve Smith Senior Planner City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Subject: Grading Pad Revision for Tentative Tract No.30438,The Crest Dear Steve: The Keith Companies, Inc. (TKC)inadvertently showed the pad elevation as 658.0 for Lot"F" on sheet 2 of 3 of the tentative tract map. The correct pad elevation is 650.0. Lastly, the text reference to Lots"R", "S", and"T"shown on sheet 2 should be ignored. The lot designations and areas shown on sheet 1 are correct. Thank you for noting these minor changes in the public record. Please call me at(760)346-9844 if you have any questions regarding these items. Sincerely, THE KEITH COMPANIES,INC. Dan Ruiz, P.E. Director of Engineering-Palm Desert Division RECEIVE,T) SEF • ' 2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT i;_' """ CITY OF PALM DEF. :'. Palm Desert Division 73-733 Fred Waring Drive Suite 100 Palm Desert California 92260-2590 T:760.346.9844 F:760.346.9368 www.keithco.com PLAN FOR THE PROVISION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES FOR ANNEXATION NO. 36 CREST GOLF CLUB & RESIDENTIAL VILLAGE INTO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RIVERSIDE COUNTY Prepared for the Local Agency Formation Commission Riverside County 1485 Spruce Street, Suite J Riverside,CA 92507 Prepared by r L Terra Nova Planning& Research,Inc.® 400 South Farrell Drive, Suite B-205 Palm Springs,CA 92262 Carlos Ortega, City Manager City of Palm Desert John D. Criste,AICP Planning Consultant October 22, 2002 1 Terra Nova/Destination Development C.,1Y.,ration/City of Palm Desert Plan of Services for Annexation No.36/Crest Golf Club&Residential Village PLAN FOR PROVISION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES ANNEXATION NO. 36 INTO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RIVERSIDE COUNTY I. INTRODUCTION AND PLAN COMPONENTS A. Introduction The following discussion provides a plan for services for the acreage proposed to be annexed into the City of Palm Desert. The annexation area includes approximately 673.32+ acres (gross). It is located within the City's current sphere-of-influence for probable expansion, as determined by the Riverside County Local Area Formation Commission(LAFCO). As illustrated by the Annexation Area Location Map (Exhibit 1), the major portion of the annexation area is comprised of one of two planning areas of a proposed development project, the Crest Golf Club and Residential Village. A discussion of the Crest development project is included here to provide a context for the discussions regarding the annexation area that follow in Section II. Additional annexation lands occur contiguous with and immediately south of the proposed golf course site, and include nine additional parcels, described below. These lots are currently undeveloped, vacant lands. The proposed Crest development, including both project planning areas, totals approximately 703± acres, plus a five acre parcel which provides access to the golf course. Crest project Planning Area A, located immediately southeast of Section 25 of the annexation area, is already located within the City limits and, as such, is not a part of this Plan for Services. Planning Area A can also be described as a portion of Section 31, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, SBB&M. Development within Planning Area A is planned to include a maximum of sixty (60) dwelling units, a golf clubhouse and associated facilities, and a maintenance building and facilities. These proposed land uses are consistent with the City's adopted General Plan and City zoning designations. The remaining portion of the proposed Crest development, located immediately northwest of Crest project Planning Area A, encompasses approximately 646± acres, and is known for purposes of the Crest project as Planning Area B. These lands are within the City's Sphere of Influence. Planning Area B can also be described as Section 25, Township 5 South, Range 5 East, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian. Of these 640± acres, approximately 240± acres is proposed for development as an 18-hole championship golf course, practice hole and driving range, with comfort stations and an equipment storage facility. The balance is to be retained as open space. As noted above, access to the golf course will be through the Crest project Planning Area A and an easement on a five acre lot adjoining that planning area and also proposed for annexation. 2 Terra Nova/Destination Development C.,.yoration/City of Palm Desert Plan of Services for Annexation No.36/Crest Golf Club&Residential Village The Crest City and the developer are applying for annexation of the 673.32+ acres acres comprising Section 25 and nine parcels located in Section 36, Township 5 South, Range 5 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian. The nine lots in Section 36 total 33.32± acres are immediately south of and contiguous with the 641± acres included in the request for annexation and described in this Plan for Services. With regard to the proposed Crest development project, the project developer has secured right-of-way through one of subject Section 36 parcels to provide project access. The other eight parcels are not directly related to the Crest project but have been included at the request of LAFCO staff. The area comprised by these nine parcels may also be described as a portion of the N 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of Section 36, Township 5 South, Range 5 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian. Currently the 673.32± acres comprising the annexation area are undeveloped vacant lands generally comprised of desert washes, and foothills and plateaus of the lower portions of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The annexation area is generally bounded on the west and north by the vacant and undisturbed foothills, canyons and plateaus of the Santa Rosa Mountains, on the east by hilly terrain with scattered single family homes on large lots. The Palm Valley Stormwater Channel lies further east, with the St. Margaret's church/school complex and State Highway 74 occurring east of the channel. The annexation area is bounded on the south by scattered, single family residential family development, generally known as the Cahuilla Hills neighborhood. B. Plan Components This plan for services demonstrates that the range and level of service currently available within the annexation area will, at the least, be maintained by the annexing agency and other responsible agencies. No significant change in services or service providers will result from the proposed annexation. The plan addresses both public infrastructure and services, and includes a discussion of domestic water,wastewater, electricity, natural gas, solid waste disposal, flood control, roadways, law enforcement, fire protection, public schools and library services. The plan also enumerates and describes services to be extended to the affected territory, the timing in which these services can feasibly be extended to the affected territory, an indication of any improvements or upgrading of infrastructure the local agency would impose or require, an indication of how the agency's services will be financed if the change of organization is approved, and an indication that any expansion of services will not result in unnecessary duplication of services. Two environmental documents have been prepared, in accordance with CEQA requirements, to assess potential environmental impacts and provide suggested mitigation measures for those impacts as they relate to the development of these lands. These documents are the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Crest Golf Club and Residential Village (SCH#1991021034), and a CEQA Initial Study (Environmental Assessment, or EA) for the City of Palm Desert Annexation#36. 3 Terra Nova/Destination Development C.,.Foration/City of Palm Desert Plan of Services for Annexation No.36/Crest Golf Club&Residential Village Availability and provision of municipal services to the Crest project are discussed at length in Section III of the Draft SEIR for the Crest project. Potential impacts related to provision of public services within the additional annexation lands are discussed in the above-reference Initial Study. Copies of these documents shall be included with the complete annexation application. II. MUNICIPAL SERVICES A. Domestic Water The Coachella Valley Water District provides domestic water to development within the City limits, as well as much of the rest of the Coachella Valley. CVWD utilizes deep wells to extract groundwater from the Whitewater River Subbasin. CVWD's domestic water system includes 50 wells with an average depth of 900 feet. CVWD also has a total of 27 reservoirs serving the City of Palm Desert planning area(which includes the City's sphere-of-influence lands), with an average capacity of 1.8 million gallons. The largest (i.e., main or trunk) water lines are generally located along section lines, with smaller lines branching into individual sections. CVWD currently provides domestic water services to the proposed annexation area. CVWD has 12-inch water mains located along Highway 74, as well as 8-inch and 12- inch mains in private streets within existing condominium, mobile home and apartment residential development immediately east of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. CVWD also has 24-inch mains located in the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel in the project vicinity, as well as a 16-inch main running east-west just southeast of Section 25, and immediately northeast of the additional annexation lands. There are also 8-inch and 12-inch water mains throughout the Cahuilla Hills neighborhood immediately south of the annexation area. The area is served by two reservoirs with a total capacity of 1.5 million gallons.1 (See attached Exhibit,Public Services within the Annexation Area). Under current conditions, annexation of these lands would place no increased demand on water resources. Proposed buildout of Section 25 of the annexation area is an 18-hole golf course. Demand•for irrigation water in non-turf landscape areas is expected to be limited by the use of native plant and other drought-tolerant planting materials. The developer of the Crest project is investigating purchasing an off-site well from CVWD. This well,which has been taken out of service due to unacceptable nitrate levels, would supply the project with non-potable water for golf course irrigation. The well is located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the subject property and east of Highway 74, within the City of Palm Desert. Water delivery from this off-site well to the project will require the installation of a new pipeline, for which the developer will apply for encroachment permits from the City of Palm Desert and CalTrans to allow pipeline installation along City streets and Highway 74 enroute to project access. Approximately 93 percent of water consumed by the project will be from a high nitrate well being acquired by the project proponent. 1 Mapping provided by Coachella Valley Water District.May,2002. 4 Terra Nova/Destination Development C.,.Y.iration/City of Palm Desert Plan of Services for Annexation No.36/Crest Golf Club&Residential Village The incremental expansion of a water delivery system to future development in the remaining portion of the annexation area will occur as new development demands these services. However, buildout of these lands at maximum allowable densities would result in the construction of no more than 9 new single family homes and is not expected to have a significant impact on water resources. In addition, CVWD has facilities located within the immediate vicinity of the annexation area, from which extension of services would be available. Cost for extension of these services would the responsibility of private developers or landowners requesting such extensions. B. Wastewater The Coachella Valley Water District provides wastewater collection and treatment services to the City of Palm Desert as well as much of the remainder of the Coachella Valley. The CVWD sewage treatment plant that treats effluent collected in the project area is located approximately 4 miles northeast of the site on Cook Street in the City of Palm Desert. The recently expanded facilities have increased the plant's treatment capacity to 18.5 million gallons per day (mgd). The plant's current average usage rate is approximately 14 mgd. The plant also treats and has expanded storage for tertiary treated water. CVWD delivers reclaimed wastewater for irrigation to several projects. Recent expansion has increased tertiary water capacity to 15 mgd.2 CVWD provides wastewater collection and treatment services to existing residential and other development in the project vicinity. CVWD has 12-inch sewer mains located within the Highway 74 right-of-way that connect to 8-inch sewer mains located within private streets in existing residential development just east of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel, within approximately one-half mile of the annexation area.3 Currently these facilities do not extend to lands west of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel within the annexation area.4 (See attached Exhibit, Public Services within the Annexation Area). Under current conditions, annexation of these lands will have no impact on demand for sewer treatment services and facilities. Although sewer collection lines will need to be extended from existing facilities to service the buildout of the residential portion of the Crest project, neither buildout of the proposed golf course, nor buildout of the nine additional parcels in Section 36, are expected to place significant additional demand on wastewater collection and treatment facilities. Consistent with the prevailing development pattern in the Cahuilla Hills neighborhood, on-lot septic systems are expected to serve development on these lots. The proposed golf course will provide three"rest stations"with toilets that will discharge into underground storage tanks. These tanks will be regularly pumped and will otherwise be maintained in good working order. No discharge of effluent will occur from these facilities. 2 Personal communication,Bruce Clark,Principal Sanitation Engineer,Coachella Valley Water District, July 22,2002. 3 Mapping provided by CVWD,May,2002. 4 Personal communication,Jim Zimmerman,Coachella Valley Water District,July 22,2002. 5 Terra Nova/Destination Development C.,.r,..ration/City of Palm Desert Plan of Services for Annexation No.36/Crest Golf Club&Residential Village C. Solid Waste The City of Palm Desert has a contractual agreement with Waste Management of the Desert for solid waste collection and disposal services. Residential pick up is generally provided once per week, and commercial pick up is offered up to six days a week. Waste Management disposes of waste collected in the City at the Edom Hill Landfill, which is located just northwest of the City limits and is owned and operated by Riverside County. Currently the landfill's operating permit allows a maximum of 2,651 tons of waste per day, with an average of 1,295 tons per day received at the landfill in 2000. With the landfill nearing maximum capacity, it is expected to close in the year 2004.5 The City's recycling program has provided for diversion of more than 50 percent of the waste stream from delivery to the landfill. This program has resulted in preserving additional landfill space for non-recyclable materials. The annexation area is currently undeveloped; therefore, annexation under current conditions would result in no.additional generation of solid waste. Neither buildout of Section 25 of the annexation area as proposed, nor residential buildout of the remaining annexation area at maximum allowable density, is expected to create unusually high quantities of solid waste or unusual hazardous waste conditions. D. Electricity Electrical service is currently provided to most of the City of Palm Desert, including the sphere-of-influence area that is the subject of this Plan for Services, by Southern California Edison (SCE) Company. SCE has 12 kV underground distribution lines located along Highway 74 just east of the annexation area, as well as 12 kV distribution located within private condominium, mobile home and apartment residential development located just east of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel and southeast of the annexation area. SCE 12 kV distribution lines are also located within the Cahuilla Hills neighborhood immediately south of the annexation area. There are three SCE substations located within the City of Palm Desert, which step down voltage for local distribution. The Silver Spur Substation, located south of Haystack Road and west of Portola Avenue, is closest to the subject property. (See Exhibit 2, Public Services within the Annexation Area). Irrigation equipment associated with the development of the golf course on Section 25 of the annexation area is not expected to generate significant demand for electrical services, nor would residential buildout of the nine additional parcels in Section 36. SCE has indicated that it is prepared to deliver power to this area. However, infrastructure related to provision of electrical power, including service lines, will need to be extended to serve development as buildout occurs. s "Water,Sewer and Utilities Element for the Draft City of Palm Desert General Plan,"prepared by Terra Nova Planning&Research,Inc.,2001. 6 Mapping provided by Southern California Edison.May,2002. Personal communication,Arlen Averitt,Southern California Edison,July 26,2002. 8 Kathleen DeRosa, Response letter to"Notice of Preparation of an EIR,the Crest Golf Club and Residential Village,"April, 19,2002. 6 Terra Nova/Destination Development C.,_,.iration/City of Palm Desert Plan of Services for Annexation No.36/Crest Golf Club&Residential Village E. Natural Gas Natural gas service is provided to the City of Palm Desert and the annexation area by the The Gas Company (formerly Southern California Gas Company,) a Sempra Energy Company. The Gas Company currently has 4-inch distribution lines located along Highway 74 in the vicinity of the annexation area, as well as 2-inch and 4-inch lines located within existing condominium, mobile home and apartment development east of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel and in the Cahuilla Hills neighborhood immediately south of the annexation area.9 (See attached Exhibit, Public Services within the Annexation Area). The Gas Company utilizes regulator stations to decrease pressure from transmission lines in order to make natural gas service available to local customers. These stations are sited to optimize local service. Annexation of these lands would in and of itself result in no additional demand for natural gas service or facilities. Final buildout demand is not expected significantly impact resources or service capacities. The extension of service lines into the golf course is not required, and extensions to the subject residential lots can be accomplished through the existing distribution system located within the Cahuilla Hills neighborhood or through utility extensions constructed concurrent with the Palm Valley Channel access bridge. F. Telephone Telephone service is currently provided to the City and surrounding areas by Verizon (formerly GTE). This service can be expanded to the annexation area as demanded by future development. The company's current policy is to supply telephone lines to any residence or business desiring it on fee basis. Verizon has facilities located in the annexation area vicinity that can be extended to serve the annexation area as needed for buildout. G. Roadways Most roadways within the City of Palm Desert are currently constructed and maintained by the City, although many projects have private roads. Maintenance is primarily funded through the gasoline tax as well as other sources.10 The annexation area is currently undeveloped, vacant land, with no existing roadways. New roadway construction planned for the proposed Crest development is limited to a private interior roads to access residential and recreation facilities. These roads will be privately constructed and maintained by the developer. Maintenance of these roadways will be funded by Homeowner's Association dues.11 9 Mapping provided by The Gas Company, 2002,and personal communication,Ken Kennedy, The Gas Company,July 25,2002. 0 Personal communication,Luis Espinoza,City of Palm Desert,July 25,2002. 11 Personal communication,Bill Munson,Destination Development Corporation,April 17,2002. 7 Terra Nova/Destination Development CU.YJration/City of Palm Desert Plan of Services for Annexation No.36/Crest Golf Club&Residential Village Access to the residential parcels located within Section 36 included in the annexation area can be provided through an extension of the existing circulation network within the Cahuilla Hills neighborhood immediately south of the annexation area. New roadway construction will most likely be development driven. F. Flooding/Hydrology The City of Palm Desert and the Coachella Valley Water District are responsible for the review and analysis of development proposals that occur within the City limits. The City Engineer currently reviews and manages flood control infrastructure projects within the Palm Desert city limits, in accordance with the City's Master Drainage Plan, which was adopted in 1993. The Plan includes the City's sphere-of-influence, which encompasses the annexation area, and requires that development fund local, project-specific improvements. The two main streams draining the annexation area are Bruce Creek and Ramon Creek. Both are ephemeral desert washes cutting through bedrock, running only occasionally after significant rainfall. Ramon Creek has a watershed of approximately 0.56 square miles, most of which is located within the annexation area, and is capable of generating 100-year storm flows of 1,306 cubic feet per second. Bruce Creek has a watershed of approximately 1.15 square miles, and is capable of generating 100-year storm flows of 680 cubic feet per second. Both creeks discharge via weirs into the existing Palm Valley Stormwater Channel, which is within the City's corporate limits.12 The Palm Valley Channel conveys storm flows two miles to the north and into the Whitewater River Storm Channel,which is the main drainage facility in the City and the Coachella. The annexation area is located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) delineated Zone C flood hazard zone, an area of minimal flooding. The area is also outside the limits of the 500 year flood.13 Lands within the annexation area are currently undeveloped and annexation will result in no additional hydrology-related impacts under current conditions. Buildout of Section 25 of the annexation area, as proposed, will include a system of stormwater and sediment control to manage and control stormwater flows through the project planning area, and to protect proposed residential areas downstream from flooding. These improvements will be privately funded by the Crest project developer and will be approved by the City of palm Desert and the Coachella Valley Water District.. 12 "Existing Conditions Hydrology&Sediment Yield Analysis for the Crest Project Site,"Prepared by Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering.June,2002. 13 "Seismic,Geologic and Flood Sections of the Technical Background Report o the Safety Element of the General Plan of the City of Palm Desert."Prepared by Earth Consultants International.January 17,2002. 8 Terra Nova/Destination Development G.,.,.,ration/City of Palm Desert Plan of Services for Annexation No.36/Crest Golf Club&Residential Village Buildout of the nine adjacent parcels may require the construction of a short-span, all- weather stormwater crossing on Bruce Creek as it traverses these lands. Such construction would be subject to City and CVWD review and approval. G. Police Protection The City receives twenty-four hour police protection through the Riverside County Sheriff's Department, via a contractual agreement with the County. As of 2001, the City's police force was comprised of 70 officers, with approximately 45 deputies assigned to the City. That level of staffing provides approximately 1.75 sworn officers for every 1,000. This staffing ratio is comparable or superior to the regional average, providing an effective level of police protection. Police response times vary depending on the location of the caller and responding patrol cars. All calls are prioritized, and response times are contingent on the number of calls pending and their urgency. In 2000, the Palm Desert station received 17,093 emergency phone calls from within the Palm Desert city limits. The average response time for the highest priority emergency calls was 4.6 minutes.1a Upon annexation, police protection for the annexation area will continue to be provided by the Riverside County Sheriffs Department, through the City's contractual agreement with the County. As the annexation area is currently undeveloped, no additional police personnel, vehicles or other services would be required to serve the annexation area in its current state. Development of Section 25 of annexation area as currently proposed would result in the construction of a private 18-hole golf course within the annexation area, associated with a private, gated community with restricted public access located on lands currently within the City and immediately southeast of the annexation area. The gated community will employ 24-hour on-site security staffing and surveillance cameras in the portion of the project currently within the City of Palm Desert, through which primary access to the annexation area will be available. Fencing surrounding the golf course site is anticipated to restrict public access to the golf course, protecting sensitive biological resources, and the site from current vandalism and trespass. This level of on-site security is expected to limit Sheriff's Department activity within the annexation area. The limited nature of buildout within the remaining portion of the annexation area at maximum density is also not expected to significantly increase demand for police protection services. The Sheriffs Department will routinely evaluate its staffing needs to determine whether additional personnel and/or services are required to adequately serve the area. 14 "Police and Fire Protection Element for the Draft City of Palm Desert General Plan,"prepared by Terra Nova Planning&Research,Inc.,2001. 9 Terra Nova/Destination Development( oration/City of Palm Desert Plan of Services for Annexation No.36/Crest Golf Club&Residential Village H. Fire Protection The City of Palm Desert is a member jurisdiction of the Cove Communities Service Commission, along with the cities of Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells. Through this affiliation, the City contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department, which in turn contracts with the California Department of Forestry for the provision of fire protection services. This arrangement provides each member city access to services provided by fire stations in each of the other two cities. In addition, the County's Regional Fire Protection Program provides response via the station that is physically closest to the emergency, regardless of the official jurisdiction from which the emergency call originates. This program allows for shared use of specialized equipment and personnel and the most efficient method of emergency response. 15 Annexation of the planning area will increase the geographic area to be covered by the City's Fire Department. However, as these lands are currently undeveloped, no additional structures would be covered by the City under current conditions. The Cove Communities' fire protection contract provides services and staffing that include fire fighters, paramedics, fire inspectors, maintenance of fire stations and vehicles, and review of commercial and housing development plans. The 2001 staffing levels provide service of up to 1.59 personnel per 1,000 population, a level comparable or superior to the national average and one which is expected to provide an effective degree of protection.16 There are three fire stations within the City of Palm Desert's corporate limits. They are Station No. 333, located on Town Center Way just south of Fred Waring Drive; Station No. 71, at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Country Club Drive, and Station No. 67, located at 73-200 Mesa View Drive. Station No. 67 is the closest to the annexation area. Station No. 67 is staffed by 8 personnel and equipped with a Type 1 (city interface) engine, staffed by three people per day. Staffing assigned to this engine was recently increased to assure adequate staffing levels. 17 The station is also equipped with a paramedic unit(ambulance), staffed by two people per day.18 Primary access to the annexation area is currently limited to a 1.) Coachella Valley Water District channel service road located on lands immediately southeast of the annexation area, within City limits, and 2.) the existing roadway network within Cahuilla Hills neighborhood. As the annexation area is currently undeveloped, the annexation of these lands into the City under current conditions is expected to affect a limited increase in demand for fire protection services, and is not expected to have a significant impact on the ability of the fire department to provide fire protection to the site or the City overall. The nature of existing vegetation, as well as that planned for the Crest project, largely precludes the occurrence of wildland or urban wildfires at the site. 15 "Police and Fire Protection Element for the Draft City of Palm Desert General Plan,"prepared by Terra Nova Planning&Research,Inc.,2001. 16 Ibid. 17 Personal comunication,Bruce Sttunreiter,Riverside County Fire Department,May,2002. 18 Ibid. 10 Terra Nova/Destination Development C,.,.riration/City of Palm Desert Plan of Services for Annexation No.36/Crest Golf Club&Residential Village The golf portion of the proposed annexation is not expected to create significant demand for fire services. Buildout of the nine residential lots in Section 36 is not expected to have a significant impact on current levels of fire protection increased demand for fire services, as buildout of the annexation area occurs, the Fire Department will routinely evaluate its staffing needs to determine whether additional personnel and/or services are required to adequately serve the area. I. Public Schools Two school districts provide public education and facilities to the City of Palm Desert: Desert Sands Unified School District and Palm Springs Unified School District. The portion of the City of Palm Desert adjacent to the annexation area is located within the boundaries of the Desert Sands Unified School District. The District operates three elementary schools, one middle school and one high school within the City.' Elementary schools include Abraham Lincoln Elementary School, located at 74-100 Rutledge Way; James Earl Carter Elementary, located at 74-251 Hovley Lane (K-5). and the George Washington Charter Elementary School at 45-768 Portola Avenue (K-5). Palm Desert Middle School is located at 74-200 Rutledge Way, adjacent to the Abraham Lincoln Elementary School. Palm Desert High School, constructed in 1987, is located at 43-570 Phyllis Jackson Lane. The school has a total capacity of 2,115 students, and its 2000-2001 school year enrollment was 1,728.2° There are six private schools located within the City of Palm Desert. They include Desert Adventist Academy(K-8); Sacred Heart Catholic School, (K-8); St. Margaret's Episcopal School for elementary and middle school students; two campuses of Montessori School of the Valley, serving pre-school through kindergarten, and first grade through 5th grades, respectively; and Montessori School of the Desert, a pre-school-only facility.21 The City is also home to several public and private institutions of higher learning, including College of the Desert, a California State Community College; California State University-San Bernardino, Coachella Valley Campus; University of California- Riverside Extension Program; and Chapman University. Many public school facilities in the school district are currently overcrowded and rely on temporary, portable classrooms to provide additional classroom space. The school district's master plan has identified needed expansion at existing schools, as well as the need for new elementary and middle school facilities within three to five years.22 9 "Schools and Libraries Element"for the City of Palm Desert General Plan Update.Prepared by Terra Nova Planning&Research,Inc.,2001. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 11 Terra Nova/Destination Development C—i.,Jration/City of Palm Desert Plan of Services for Annexation No.36/Crest Golf Club&Residential Village The annexation area is currently undeveloped, and therefore, annexation under current conditions would have no impact on school services and facilities. Development of Section 25 of the annexation area as currently proposed would also have no impact on schools, as these lands would be utilized for private recreational uses and open space. The residential portion of the proposed Crest development is on adjacent lands already with in the City limits, and is therefore not pertinent to this Plan for Services. Buildout of the remaining nine parcels at maximum allowable density is not expected to generate significant increased demand on school services or facilities. Although buildout of the annexation area as proposed is not expected to increase demands on school facilities, the State of California's required developer mitigation fees must be paid directly to the school district prior to issuance of building permits. School districts also benefit from school bonds recently approved by the California electorate. State Average Daily Attendance (ADA) funds are the primary source of funding for school operating costs. J. Libraries The City of Palm Desert is served by the Palm Desert Public Library, a branch of the Riverside County Library System located at 73-300 Fred Waring Drive. The library encompasses approximately shares one-half of a 40,000 square foot with the College of the Desert Library. The two libraries have a reciprocity agreement. In addition, although their books and resources are physically separated, they also share an online research database and checkout desk.23 The Palm Desert Public Library is a multi-agency facility and is part of the Riverside County Library System. Annually, approximately 2.7% of the City's 1% property tax revenue is paid to Riverside County for basic library operations and services. City General Fund revenue allocations fund additional library services. The City shared in library construction costs with the College of the Desert and the County, and is also responsible for funding a portion of ongoing maintenance and structural improvements. The College of the Desert (COD) opened its on-campus library concurrent with the Palm Desert Public Library in January 1996. All library services are available to COD students and the general public. The COD library contains more than 50,000 volumes and includes a computer lab, local history room, children's story room, community meeting room and seminar rooms. The annexation area is currently undeveloped. Under current conditions, annexation would not increase demand for library services. Buildout of Section 25 of the annexation area as proposed for use as a private golf course would not result in impacts to these services. Buildout of the remaining portion of the annexation area at maximum density is therefore expected to generate significant increased demand for library services. 23 Ibid. 12 ?v,, y (— ) ,-, , 'ir k, ' I Irr- inir I kl `^ tj 1 . 11 ',N-il lit.' /‘ gip is 01 6 7:2 Destination Development Corporation Presentation Palm Desert City Council October 24, 2002 Destination Development Corporation Crest Presentation Palm Desert City Council October 24, 2002 Ted R. Lennon Sr. Vice President THE CREST „t e r;, .. .. .IJI Irk * ' A' `ice` _ .� /C+ M K «1+; p' •„y '�:,', "1,.MMNfi.',(,� J- 1 ~ Y .11.., . �,1 P 1 • t » .• f r+t� J i1eJ ., II;M,,',!, t a a ' l .d ■ '. -01' � y 1 ,,�‘ I A1.7fi.0 E '1 � �`' fi '3« �t Z. Y�AV edit • o . fin ' Ll' •Mt . , •• sz,,, �� Mom►•:' .` • S =' f %, i •1 •* ' Y ...sue C•, 7 ', 9 1? .. .lik-_ .,-,.. _ ti 4 r 'STORY 14,411 e F T H E .� s . .� � 4 .::� I. `�.. Golf 4i rseli SITE .. 2 . . . : a ,, �: : , .. il r i-.. - .1/41o% • %0 . N'INAkNg ' - z t. 1.-.7 ; t C - ,7 = ,dam c-A:.-" 1 ` 91.r *..(.:-~4-�tiy�� 4'lt..i4- �.•.� 1:'," ,L� :4:,.:::..,.. . ! T .l�'hlx.,• n �F a�_ `'4-_ .cam j,`1 r W. ,. , ✓ 'i� DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT iliw • Spectacular natural golf course •Architectural Village rt, 4 •Natural design/organic colors „ 4%04 • Uevelo ment A reement - :, .. � 1. � ►: , }y w p g > .ter.,. ��1 . , i , , ■ - - . .4. • .. ,. .7 , . ... - •.; • • '.••'N -•ke, 1 V • .74 1 1/4 • .,,-...,, * ' .."4,14rs tew ' -4,. 4141 • i 44..-IC; NT X.• ' ••• . 1111114 .. i ,t, .4.' • ". ' , • :i. .,•,.. 4.,,,...,_ VA. ,.. . .... ...,. , . 44,,,,to• 4,, • - • v • „ -N..- • ...si•Nit ,N . • , •4IX'?.-. :' . • . et,•*'. A. .."...s.. .- . . ,• -Ir ,4„, 11,k. v. _ .. ..;, ,.— ' t • •_,. .,. ..., .... .. ir ,, t.itv.• 40 ' • • , ...-: '-'' • 6 v •PIIIIT - , . a. .• - Or _:.`••*.A. - .'• -., ",.4,.- . . • '-t-f;1., • q . _,., ilY Piti . - - 1..' 4, A ''' • i.. . ..., . N. . -- .., .. ..,_ • . te t * •'" . • .• • •,--:.'*-,' __ . •- .. -.. •.-., i • • ... . - gl 4, i ,, , , . .. ... _ _. ,.. ._. ..... • .i... 'A= . e Z ,-gwai 1' 1 .- .. ‘...... . 1 -' ••41e, it t .tiz.- ' r, ' ' - T? 46 ' # • . i., - - - -' . .. 4 ' - ..,. , . - .., . 41. i4.-.... 14 - -. -' 1 , .. • . .. :• t• . . - .• 4-: .. ... lit,.. 1 _ \ - _ 4:- .,. gg,.. . . • ""'l•-- • '.." ", " . % . ---- .... ''"'" .. ..;........7.: .i.....4".,•,...1 —.4 ‘.• -g. ,..7 .-, f_ ' ft, ... I' "..c:f.fx,-•-_ .4...-i-'- I I.E1..-..,, ... . • , .•,..,. . ,.. 4 •• • % , 1 *N. •• _ __I:4 , . 4 !/ I '.4 ',. , ' 44 A.911.1. . . --.----- _t .... lai 4i 4katill ' Z tr,, '... ... t • 03 .., 09 ,• ••• 4 • -•-•g ' --.•. :....-4.• - •'.5..•42 •:•:"..5';',4_•••:,.•c ;•••4;••••;,_.414141f,‘; •• • , , +° • -<<_ t.1Rri•%Y..,d. art.'•h'' af,l 1 4 l,1 I •••••x '-' ivy , VL., A 06 • .,,,..4. f-,. . .-....-.-0-1,,.gr. • . r.,..1." ' .• 1-..-.-'. - .'. • SI • . • '''''-`''r - ''- • Y' '/'• ?-:::-If'':,)• V"..• J r • � 4F♦ 1' 4 ,f ..I' •V. T. -�4 1 rt''C4-, _t -` y~ }� y t ,1-+,•1- r,ol f'- ` l • 7:,aun-n i.n .:...wur,n '1. t• 5' i, i 1 •••' Yr t 1: :♦• !°' -:,'Y ,,. . �,'�� jY� t s , �I''� 1 • 4� -_ }. t r n • tip 4!4'� ,t _I. lia Y r+ :.• ") :;1 r ' Oy 1 t5.� 7 �1 7! ( b T ' ,Ants r '+t,4 : ! .Lrl r . }•1 ,;,V,� \ rIT'� .i 1 it:1 1. cy' ';'4 rr{ , _11 0.7 tW .F4 , - t 1Z ). j 1 Is r , ` • 2 as w • 5',�,1 , iGY . 1 • , , ti.. ,� • (Ol rJ ti i ' ,!`. ,•I 1' fi• 17 l.N* ., arer •e r Ft: `C` y� t 1i.. • `' ...•�` r yt� •'I • -IN I .i lar4 a cJ'r'R�a1 v 1 0 M W e ,� Y I'$`\' t •t- I4. ..�J C • 1• `� -1 '� t 1 ' • 01P JI IA • F 1 a ! tr .• �( •. t ry1 a LI t .7IY ) '? I'a}r.a ti[4r. K I p : 1t s•i _,. r '41 ��„ ' ' ..Rj 4 9W /1 1at o i.r^ 1 11b r i L--';. ca I' .y'1.{S � 3�- 1 :ilr I Ir' I Jar a w o + '.. J ti lr y t r , • LL4, t1 10 f1•1 ' G aI a ill v r IF�L't r .•�,,, S 1.•a. .4.,3 >, • t ` -- °�` ^,�► .�, • d//��r .y • at 11 m p lµ ':' �M, )� 7i'S �. rr ,1 ,I ! � �T II ▪ a• a a 1 L I � 4 I, ffi Al NIA aGll AY titt4 1aa11 1 `'.,`Sh �+ Fti1 I' ,1,4 -•1 • } • c { I •3•4 \,t1,. 41. Plmov�5 ( T Yt t a I ff�,/: �� r, • a tt li ;, ,' + � rI b•+ 1 G �I ��j i. r�tA I:f' 1 � 1 't ,t Wit • n�}Y` II -- Ih l v2' ..IG, i 1 t 0 m S,»1V r 1 1 1ta1 c ;4rounnik alma 1 :n' , ;` rs r • e r' 1E011 t t.uy.ant tMvd '+1� • • , seal I Irname".I�alaal � - 'r ;pie f J` .�;iwv k' 11." 1 y:.• 7 r �, 1' � ,. ua 1 t>04 Id�d RiaLR10•c - +$; r7 - '.. ♦1u c tr4.4414,a Mwr �,,,Y. ?� «r"Q"�ii _BI'` '.� ,4 1 1 -:': 1Ht c I.roa•�10o.t !1' , 4- -7/(• .rM , t J01t t r to gammon olata a.I f y`S_!, ,' ,.v� t Jt•, .J _ ~ . .. `.- 87. i 1swr c ,r.•as..t.mat.o. , �: .t rra I rjn}r 5, K t,�tf� , eft atr I1u1NI01Jagn0 I tir } -I: i< .1 4)1 $ %, yt,,�i•t '•.., K� F` •M. tiawlARls a1n Ftol s 1 ' ; �.� II..,'1 JJ '''.• 6 7 C 1:19 T ARCH ITEC URAL , ,..,.... ..., . ... .. , , ,,, , ... . . ,, . ,.;,..L...„.„ ., . , . _ ..„__ . . i*„ , • r ; , ,,„ t - ,,N +•s ..t � ;fir , , ,..',10,_,,,,. ____,... ript..i,-. , -: : • • Costa Smeralda Sardinia • Earth Colors 1 GATEHOUSE .... . ., ...... . ._ . . • .. , .. .. . .•,. _.•_ , . ..... . . ..... __ ,....._ ._..... . - i,„:-.....,z.... • ..,..-----. -73:',,_ " ,,,.. ... ,,., . , , ,... .it. . )t.lk OS, .Ir-I.' ••••-• F:' -,' ' '':7 f ".- -- ' , '‘ '' '. . ..-'..: '. 41- " w--,,,1 , -.; %.' ....,:4571$ • e'-vi{64`...aif. ..,_-?-:-: - -• - ,, ,,,,4„..i__-- "31' '_' •,.. 4,,...."4`Alliff" • • --.1 ctal - . 4/', .- :•;,,,, ,, ;.-ftv.,..4.--...,______---_-_------.-----L---- - i.;J o • ___.......liA, ,,, 4.1,,i,, - , . AL. ‘,...„ .0,..r-• , / ,--.1;- .7:,z,..' ' . . .-. .` . . . . , . . • ,,, . .•yr F• -7 7I r PI - ` 0 f ::C'`_�L_UBHOUSE VILLAGE rr t _ �- ,k • •mot;t. + _ _ . - ' 'i,i - - •••• ,..... - . l• ••.. rt. •• _ .7.1 •:;i..iliegiiii."' i -F. ;1 4 --.1. 21.- e,..- w, - • . .• am • '; . r •W •� . • . - ' - - - 1, .. 1 �gg )e . • :: icy , _ t1 -'� i " _ n { 1 limit-. ' '. r 4111. ■ - r ■ NiVror •i 'fir .e _talltallP - • - . . _ ..._ , 1 CL ' r y r 0 SE . . . _. • __ __ ..... . _,. . /, ,,, ,ltifitki ,, • ,.,..a,.,,,•,:t-z,b.'.T..-i47•4,'-„s,.„.‘'Z.'.,'.."....;:•..•;.1...,.\.I..-N.-N--,-.2N....---......-——. , --. lis, i ...--•-•, _—.r'.`-'-''•'• :. 'k"4.,*.'‘".-•'A.•I•,'. ,_'T .;4A:.-,'l•..'"A:l4'_ 74 4, * '' ' :-'.4:,- -„„.•,.:.,•• i' 'b " 4 ,•..4... -.-- 'rip•. •.'.., • kr -,./4.'1'7• + ' • ' _ 0,-••••• 4 , • ' ...' ... , :,.. . . . 4,17,„ , ---. , r--1 ', ,.. .. . ..../. ,/, ,,, • ..,' , %INV . , ;Arn, ,.,.....ma.",`,,,-..7„..,.7-011r's.' . t•'', —. :. . 4.7444401/Si_z ..• tr ' '''' , , , r t.'- • ; AM*.i ' - '' *.*ill'... !"2';'1.•''• 4 - ",-...."mj"IIP'. .%‘ ` "j444-''''•- .' : ''Zttr;•.XIALrg • '1 . • tiiiidiiit,00 ', v., , , .1 0 .h.,,,4 Ira.„4-Ligi . '' ",-,-" 11 sr _ _, _ ••.'• ---; '-ia ,_-_—. - - , -,:..---- '''• tab- No., • r „. . - .._ ''' 'IC' . - _ - I ... • Ir 1 %, l',\— - 4 4. t '''..,• • "", r. 1 • I - av - , , tq ^} i F' 1 �'* 1 i 7 ` /-% . -- \ J , 1 ' �i• r L c ►VV���Yiiccc ri ] --. \ ( ,1, n Y ti '�1. '• /Y� \ Y.•r, .,, ar-r, -` ' r-` i _ IL _/ �I yl,v �'}�_ '! e , 4 _ 1:4 4--. - , /Ili- '':-'i &Air-K..,/ 1 , 4.-'--,--- /' ‘. . 4 j i J '4` -���t� III `` 1 i , I r,` - -- � ! ! pp/ ,.- A � 4 4 i 01%, 1g ... '-'\ \- --j \\..-,, ._, 41$4111Vill `� f • * \ I �Q-�`, - Li I 4v. I pp j j�• 5. „j '1 rr t 7 i OS ' I / ,r." t r- ..0. � I ) ,i'.:,:,, 7 ; \44........., ....----/..;:. '-----/ .?„------ 1 . i i I / „..„.: , „.........." 1,77 i i ../..--\\ (\c„ -------,\ i = •ili ..— ,... .. • •:f i,,,,i, — • • -,?,.v-tr•:• • - ,, .,••'••...-.di c....",'N;.114: -" • 11.,-;-: '.;,Itl' • . %,..ri 1.. i.,.;:..7*-.,...•1'1 • :• :I'S •:,:r•• . 1 ••11 •...,..•-,: : ..1:J.. .r rd . , .. ... ... c 1.r .t•A..'• '. ., .r.Trlifil', . ___ _. , _ ,,,_ , . ,,.,„, •,'.r.i.ric,... i',-,:-.........,Zill_ 11.1/1.3119. . ' , ' '•.::..,1'.' Zfr-,:li I I !ri- ...±...". •• _.,4,. • : •,,.p•-,..,-,,,,FY,7-- , ee,,.•-.•••-••••:...., ..,--,•••....... • • ' i 6,''?',..' . -•••••• •••••--• ..i i•.,e,'.;,(••1/.1 i.:•"-.' '41111111.ii:I*11'1 .• - •,•1, 1.• i• if•hir ,,i to147. ' ---, . i• . . ...,_....... ,...„ .. • ' ... .•et, .-t 3 12 '•!If . .„ ••• ,•„. 1.1 Pri • __.,,, - ' •'' .1 tit•••• `v • n...-1 ..1 01.171 - .- '. ' 1 ;1!Iiilti : _ .7..]:•1 1•''10‘11;1 Miar.;i ...4 Ital .;,;---; . . . 'ilill Al --:•-..i-:d-. .''',...' . -,.. 77"; , ..i -- ...-i I. . . 1 1 rItly..:. , . j. I•:' zci Li rirtUI:1 1, --i 1 7 F 7 •.,..ivas. i •., : p---_,-----Li i .„,, ,t,•,-,me,,. .,.........., ,•- I:. •,t,. _ - • 1,c...2,;,,) 6:',Jr•I l'••.461i; ,.."•• ...1 i, .1.•,..,.1.;;L-;:•:....: . t•--T, 1 -,.., - .,s. ,, , IA 11. il ,...1!...(7.7.1.-:72.1 f t `,"•'!'-',P7712.' • ' • • ..• - • 1 4 ',.it-NI...-.,..1,,,,...4• irtlFirti ? ?.! _.01•14.1e1 ,d't ;q197.411 ' 'I i '' - ...,.k.I • ..1 ‘..... ...-4- ..2r,te714,-4.. ..c.--e, ...orzuel.k: 1- ,.-',...er--'0 r...-4 .... , , . • ;1 n • . ......-4„,, i. • -- -......-_ . ; i 11 i .1111' 1 1 • ::1.1 I \t. :1 . • '1 '''''i i!)1 'bl .'• .. _..:._ K — ,-.-i I :I i,. s.) I• 1 I Z- ;;.! - - '4,1 rcgie %, 1 . _ , . •Ia.-m.4J ' _,..--- 1,i__ :.,1f1.14 i —• ,-1 x .5'. .-...'•1 ,b r ••:i , tt'dri,l i •, _•,. - <1* .•.g,....ica •.•••••,,ce t•7-:-. .,,,,,i.. ,d k•-• . 'i . . . . , ._ , • _ • . ' . . . . - -- -1 , v-- WIG 4 , - •e., ,„, .1' '' %it %i ,,__• ..t. , ' ‘,1 ....._4%,...„,• , ,k I ' \ ( . , ' -....,11 lit I) i • 1 1 --.. - L 1 I , ).. , . •t 1 t' i . .. , .-ti . .„ • . ,- • 4 , s,., • ; ..- ..• • v , 7 -' tti . 4 1 •' 1 ' , r.eNlitt . 1 • • ,p ., . . ikl- " ! , i r - k• 1 • . 4, , r 't . r Cr'', . , • '. ' .i -- Ak • -11 :'• i 1 i 1,.... '1:1:7,-..,' , „.'• , o• ,, f 4.• '- , t t.I. . . ' ' ki ( I , . . „ 11. 1 • ..,•........ ... i , , '.. . 1 I 7 _ -1 • ..., , .1 t- . .. .. f•t— . • ,', • Av— - ' k; -.17 • .+1 ',/'..., • ift,ilt.' , i • • i 1 . .4:i ‘) .-• '' '1. .(1\ ••4 1 . r ..t L tr t i, i il 1, y.... 1 I iit Ilk- ..-, I t, 7 . .- ..... r .. ., . 7I,- ' ,,v, ',. •Ii 1 •, .'' 1- • ' ' •IIK . ••„e• 1 I ' . 1 , r . -- , 4, I, • 4 t„,. • .. , „.•• ..„,,,.. , , .... ,. . _ • r-111 ..,,.., N ••••,., 4 s• 7 ., . I. N, k 1 E f BAHATAS RESIDENCES ...-___- ___ fon: . 47i:'---N -C1 �, if 1 Iii r .).' .'. ....,0 iti,, :. ‘:,...i-.q.,_ a 4. ,' : --) _ . ': ,�• .� _, _ H- Poll i " yaj ..1. +' ,{fYr�r■ S ri. Fi ;.�+.rl . Li' •..' . ' 1 1 --. -- -01 -- i :1 .7.,, , 7-11. r.o._ -•\ Eft 4, _ -_,,, ;-_, . .., lif r M:W. ,I 1 ,. j' .1 �',i..k . _ •=1.1 MI pi 1,).''',.., 14..., ♦ _ Ili t . /,-. f 1, • ,l p fia l� • 3 NF�}1a :�,7' 2 Crwrtu ' 7+R ♦ ' 1 r 1 7D9_Si . .au 1 A- 1 ! T t • , ['i1:t., :7-:--r..•'.•.7•-.E.,.•..`--".=-t-•-.. _ _I____ . _____....-/j1 ;-.., • `� f4tjb f ram/ • 1 1 -_�..... • 4_,. ...:^.7 .''' --. ' ' A-.-...,• .........-.-.-.. -• .>11 • [ LAIC --..1. ',. .. 1. .`jam_ t — 4roioirim ., • 11 -1-1. --- -' • . -- ' R.Jk, . ° III�_ nz-• II o' Az * -- _ S5 . - . • • s• r- :...,-•• , ,, ,_(iv ... . s., 0 NI -0`.i , r • :.t:F '-e-- i .1 '. - ; ,•e•z: - .:.,..—...,. - '-'tlil ...--' -...':_ ....;."' ." ;- .. I .. ilif * -.....i . .: '','-, /.. . s.. . L . A % ...., g , pA,'' :• .; ''. . ' ' ,. '. , A•;.. , •6 • . , : ' • . , ''':S ,it.tr,, ', A i '...t.T. v.A.1,....i. • . 1,..--L..: • ' )• trte.--L.)-1-. ,,, ' . p. . 1 . ,.. _.• . ...14,, , , , r::7- •• . i'1 • 713= .• . ..;.-') ' t.\--;.- 1 .. o .• IA.:, I: - ('' i'; .r. e. ' .‘•-4 • l • . . -! If .'. ' •1'11011' *1 .-4 - • ., .. --'. .f... . •• ...... 1 ..' .... f ?•••4 Ft: ! , A iksi , -) . , • 'i. 1 . -,,i--. :- '-4 . _ ‘.. ..,-1 1 ; ...,, , i ... • \• . ' 5'4 . ....`...•-,. .... --- t—t.s.',, • . , ' ..• ..,,..,.... ,,-7. - ' ' . ' ‘- - '::4!“.• . ,, % t, ..".--11, •t t rt ' ••... • ? %, ) , r i •i. , . • ,:,;.(. ' i • '-V, ' 13 • .'' , "- '' •-• • "- .- _ / •14 • ..,•,. r ,.4 ... . ... r - r e.•:, ...., ' i. Ai„ )•, : • ,.'1 • .4- - A , I.- , ! O .... j \\Ni '- - Id - 1 L . • ' ' . • - -1.r • ' • •• ••• ! i: :1• . -.( • 1.: s 1 • . :U.' '' ' I., - - . • . 1-.. ... -r,s, .1.•01- • )1_gi • • i 4 p' .:.,. .--•_ _ _____ .. ;i_.-... • .?win",--••••„ "• 4.. litt,i:;.' • '• ? I! !.ti rt .' ;` .I1 ; it TOM DOAK D-E17 d(((���-... IG TED . !J �{ . = 47i1' , r ' . .. .. . ` .i •. • • „ x<-! t �} :, � ' -+ ( '�. ,,J'� r I. ,� 1 ,i tL�` I, T.. .r`t, • 1pii._-. • ., rid .tir ,,4,"'1,:! .fi .1 4.4-:• ? •'".! .-,*. � 1r1, _ ,t • t. ,,1.�1 A-'• 5 C" �`7.-4;Ia ''�' 1r' •=1- 4 -'t. , -1 I - ' ,• 1..�' 14 •.,17r1 i - • .L...,.... It � 4� �1••` •`�':., -.:�� "sit... ,' .. k, p ,.• i .0 1: I',•.'PL•Sh•, 't +' • • l t t!.' ;r-y t t.....4- . ,- . - ..-.. --‘..-— -. ', Vr "i•7r{t.•- - 1'� t t} {f ' - • • • 11-' - t, .,•, iWl C•1J,rrl .tr `.. r-A. l ' 4.'I_. '�Y�d ti- d'4, , i t,r ... -, _ '1•rit •1.�.'1' r tiilk ii ,' �':,Fi l ,�.I,A;.� ! ar ; t It r• � ' +r,'I +tir'ti+.; 1 ,I� r I, Y ' k 1 ! I •L - :'r'L � . ,• _ ;ti r �•'Ti1��. 1 ' �, • >r�• iJ1 ►'�M _NS.R'_k.%.•,• _I '� 17"i* , r, �� 11 •.' i ,7'F 1' '1' i+: tiY t�1 '4•'. •;=''' "ice 1.,1 •.I•I. - 't I f t r �G +. t•'�i .. 7 � I-'F-.`•r°+•, � I� � .• V�� J �,, • `� ' ' ! r �' _I,y �'" hi. tti. `� 7 3 y,',y7.71.11 t.t `-':, • .t L4 't • . � t I. % ' o•.'r l r.'J'..,—d, • I\- 4� 1 Ty Y 4• ' • I ;� i„1'�+t ii�' {' t i7'fi �.k ',' !•tom ..ill ti A:.,T••' 1 y f- .• 4'� Fy, ., I , rti, �` I r y t 'M,i+ f ' I:i ‘x 1 .� ` I '' f .' 4 .... 11 ;`,t.' 1" t , 4 r i i t 7 ' �-. "'• •..... it r r_ . W '� �I {,#' .1 4 r ":r . ,it..x r Ir J 111_• .Ip. • r. • ��6 r• . 1:• F - 1 -rill ', .t ; 1 •!SI'L. '.� •}1`r.r I11'• I ' .• i J a 'i..y." `- ti.r\'; f i + ri. }T" I . , cyS K'r ` +� , J '.I' 'y , A `.•=t .y.s .. ' ,I! ia'[ - •1 1 Lf ..�. ,4 '; , r I4'. - y'- -.,•. t :i it. • ' ..ic j**,l fly .• ,I. .• I, I �w 1 L . I;*}n t(y .r _Ii.. , } '.! fir' �'. . L k�'� �'4 k .-- ` Il �`4 t ✓:'1�itiS4'.• �'. I. ,t 11 n T_ ' •h 41 t�• '4• .. -•• '•e.l +t, '11 ', 1 :la ; r"""`1 's r. �., I ~ Y _ .'1•. • !•Ct� s t, '� _ .r. 1.V. r' :;t,,1 Ii''% ÷ f+ • - -— -` ' 1J I + {.t - • - + '7 - '•• " I i�. • !4' r. '� � ter ~l,,�y� •• • F j''. is d • I jl7` yy i_ ti: - �, r -fA � • ' , • � -,'.•� �e mod,.,,', ,�L. .. • _ , _. I .- - .•., 1 'l• i-.Mb- II , f 4 '• • , 11,1 i pr. .. i -_,„ • , 1 i: ' 3., tl%•1 ;„:‘,I!, . ., - • i t , . , , I ' "•• • T,, .4 , • ,. 1., r • , • : .t-.' , 1 't $ . r I ''s •`0'. 4 I . . 0. .. -' I.‘th• , ._ 0 • ,•r. I• 4. .1 4 r, I •''' I - '''...' )1 1 • . -• , 1 -1 " ‘ ' •.. ; ,, • .! 1 I. 4 ' ,1 • .. Icii e . i k • • - : - '",17***':•• 't 1 . I . Vir ... • • ''' i,k ..•...'`..., 1 . li* ..11' - • i • . . 41 • •. -., --". ,t ii ' ••• • ., ,' - ::,...:,---i, • ., N 'f•S' • ! . . •,-! I --.4.- , , .4P- ',.. 4--. ,, • ----4—•,:-., ••” .—.% •t,' ' '''•IL -', '; ,...i.,1 . j - 4 . - '/ ' •••:/.'- ;.- ' -...;;40'.:`7, ik'll 17•r4 4. 0 ' iir .41*. • . • ::: * f, -,...' . 4 .'"- , • 1 • ! ,._ :' ';'.--..', ..f ''.7? r--- :-.i . . '.41 , • -LI ." ? •. . .•16- 1: . - • --• t ''' •--" ' , 4• e" 4 • • ..... 2'.. ' 4,;C:,',.;; .4':1. -;* ' ' .*'"''. ::. ,..'0'#'*".'°•••" ,1 :". :.. 0 ' . , ' V•*'. 4- -- -• t, •, ',/.i '• :./r,..- ..* ,,,-"..f':-' ,. ''....-v ,., - - 44';;,...;.' ...173;*utt.e• ---.1 •-* • --d -- ENVIROMENTAL APPROACH s e" ' ti: : I. , ,• Desert Landscape .� . ` ', 7 ►;� ? „. . ' ,: 4 ,,, . � 'A 't, 1 r ,t �. i , : 1. ',% , . ,4 • Open Space - • , ;' ir { i ' ' • . .. '�'�'� .� Alt y4 .I Electric Car Use • EIR/Mitigation ...., , DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ADDRESSES : • Flexibility to Downzone Within Approved Guidelines from 60 Approved Units. • Club Residential Program • Commits Developer to Additional Mitigation Commitments • Establishes Design Guidelines • Sub-contractor Parking Solution • Public Trails Program DiENSPACE CHART 640 acres (Section 25) 13 acres (Section 36) 45 acres Desert Dry Woodland Wash 480 acres Sheep I labitat (480 off site 400 on site = 880) 4h2.,28 acres < 100> acres 'Turf < 10> acres Golf Facilities 41r 7> acres 60 homes @ 4,500 SF — 270,000 < 12> acres Common Areas, Roads & Miscellaneous < 10> acres Club and Parking < 6 — acres Maintenance Building and Parking iiiimmilllit- 083 acres 88% NATURAL OPEN SPACE (sky to ground/water) MITIGATION , , , , , • LA N DS • , . . ., • . • , ,, .. ..„ .„.,...... . ....._, .." . . .. .:,,,,.,, . •T RA I LS ? = ',. , .-,,,,,, ... J _ -'..� Njr• . � ✓ e'er A,. , j ...:_•_ . .. ,, ., 1� { f y , ti ANNDITIEs „ . k-r .- , ... . . ,,,,,- ,. .. , ,,,/..•,1** • EVENTS ,3.. �a r ... ' yam^ ,r i •1 - S.F.. ... !'h ti _ ,�; .:r, —�- --�_—_ 6 PHASE II ` --__ .�� --��j •_ .(.. • •r 1.)1/' ! /� �+1 r i%•r/,�i _ 1 - ? • �� TS - c' ems �s ,jj�, (, ���� r� > ;�� � . N kill A ' ''' iy� .• � _1� - _���i`V'!91°Ili /✓'•i rfffJ/ -��tisN,`� \!�� ,4, ��' �- %�_ • - • - "- : •_: ^ --,i - tar• 1 } :iLt ( - / -c�� R _f_. _it } �. ,, /7 - it '! , 11I 1 - _-_ - A• i„,,,v,___Lci-_-_-_...p,._ , . -- ---_,-- :.-2 \ \ \\‘1\c :__.--...„.....7---- --s.:142) i; r 1-WOA\ ------) ,..,_____,--7--/,zza,7# .. -?-1 4,•:.,V.:))) ( - . "_,"r. . o ..p Y\t11\--1)) , , • , . -400 ) ( )• ��,'i�( 1 ti i i',/ _. -, /.�^\s,:��;;� 1\`�--_ �- - '' a . 1�' ��•'r(' �-- a 1vir o a::� `lam �,� f�s: k‘) ___ , ---„:"----- ..... ..„„...... , ..„„ c______ _......,,..„.. ._... --,,,,- 410.,. „ilk '''''''worrii-,‘"),*4,t4A,N, _ i .,,., \cao.v..,..... --nmirv-ft,_41:41mt,,,,,„ ,v10,..„----:. \> .:' , ? 0 11 lk._44. _Y --4"- ,..._4. 1 I V>11 -. / // C ��, \9 �-.+" �j..'� r4r+-e;:ten- R3:: `- •___'-^\���CZr ram, ,--c co. _.V •;:j.I.:::-..7,A 07,-:',V,..\.:>_....:: ..1.:...s...7., { /C/. .-"Z& ,.."*Clift 1i'. -\Ik 4 )) • ?II; i ' !If ' ' r(:. -1111‘...• .4.-r'-''' ) i OV't-N.-S.:N. ' ',it '.•:\i..,... ...%''N •-..."4-j..1. 16.':fr::1.-'"r '''.\ )")' ....;--.-''', f;,,17.., c7.,') T ; C.) , •k •••:.:''.., •':':.::.•... •".•:. \‘.:% . \:.....- s''• - '''' .01 !",:::. 0 'N., , , \: . ... ..,..:.....„,,..,,7\, y 1 ,\ `� ,1. , �.""`=�����\ .yam- `1\\,\�.‹ ) �� -.c. ���\�` • 'yam ,...., , "GO - [ -,: FUNDRAISERS . , . . . ., . ,.. ... . • , .. • .,, ,. • :, . , • i I , , . of —11 ". "11 t . ,,. .., . ,... ,,. . ;4 •A... „4.,A., A r, , , ,,,L- ' ".'r.,A1 7 q ilk• A .) pv,,k ':..-if, ' - , • of ..... .MIIIIIf —Ai , . ...- 411 O. ' 4. . , • • ''' • **". /....• . • ^ . , v , 11! ' . • -.,/, - - --- ------- .. .. . ••=.....,••• ••••- --' ----7-,....,:i,:-...-- ----•_____----,----..-- :_...,-_- f . :-=---•:-.......- -:•---.---:„. .,„:• ...- -. ._ •„- ,----•k.::_......-----,--- ----•-z- ..• ,----. - ------. -- ---------__.,-,,, . . -7—y-- ts.7.:-.--,---=--..,---- 1 tsi-4'‘'-•'.' . i . . .., , . • 'i ,.• I . . ,...„, • .,, -%-,,,t.share-sr- , o' . . . ,,,,, .. v. ... 4 . ) _ J I Of:''''' .." ,Y . 0 ••• v.,. itzat I - ' ' t.• is„:.#?-$:''.; i to• • A..: SAVE THE A GIFT FOR ADOPT AN ACRE LEVELS: MOUNTAINS! THE FUTURE $H25 for a Snow-capped mountains. F Jackrabbit Family ADOPT AN ACRE Wind-swept sand Dunes. . r a#�: ;. rr„. $50 t ''• Quarters for a THE FRIENDS O F Rocky canyons.Unique and ,�,.. THE DESERT MOUNTAINS fascinating plants and animals. v, la �\� ' Covey of Quail This is our Coachella Valley. $100 Preserving and protecting this rich ,:, Running Room 4 ,,tit for a Roadrunner • natural heritage is our primary mission. ►� . $250 I .•YM z �' , y The Friends of the Desert Mountains invite \ , r Garden 4.. - ? 4. . F t Desert Flow e 4 e - you to join us in saving the mountains for for the Hummingbirds generations now and in the future. $500 . Room`µ Room to Howl ;ti You can ADOPT AN ACRE to help: for Coyotes .?' t• ' • Protect scenic vistas # $1,000 • Safeguard wildlife habitat A Quiet Canyon "•` • Reserve specific areas for recreation for Bighorn Sheep ; a • Preserve natural open spaces iT. 4 , i $5,000 ;' Open Range for h� Your tax-deductible contribution allows t' 1�` a Mountain Lion h'-'x - '-h :. the Friends to buy land and enhances our \` //��►► F • ° abilityto obtain further conservation \ $10,000 A Native Palm Oasis funding from other sources. t - - �``y f When you Adopt An Acre,you receive: • Honorary deed and photo of one of the r <,.. g natural areas you'll be helping to preserve. ~',, <,> - •Quarterly newsletter with update on your t:r „adopted acre." po'-'jjel, ...,„.. . . 4. •Adoptions at the$1,000 or higher level , receive additional benefits. it is :. � =• Makes a terrific gift! 1 t 4 COMMUNITY • Finest Golf Club in the Valley • Architecturally Outstanding • Minimal New Residents • Use of non-potable water (nitrate) • Jobs/service $3,000,000+ per year • Construction jobs $100,000,000 • Police and school system minimal demand • Open space dedication • Trails • Solution to Sub-contractor Parking . . 1'...fe-••'''s:'‘.',A. ^ -' ' .1 . ' .:!..zA-•-s-'•;•1'..i,..t..40...-- .Tr'. .,,-,*.- '----- . i':', ier;;;,‘•-•-----"`"---1,•4". .=':',---.". '. . ''. . kV'.;4...tir.., . i _, 44.,5, i ik.ror, ..•.^:: •„.;,-?Ia.:6.; -:-- ....,••'-v:irlo...-!.-,•;.--/-.'. - i.:111.7'...'1'''.g') 3 . --- -- ' \''F.Jk.':!.. • • - -• •-.--_-..=-- • - . -...,t.''''1.---k-2.1-'.-,i•••••;.--:':•-•".--..:••;,-- ...):- .'i..^.1-,11t.-,-...;:i.-.'-.1.! . .".:Y.'', .41- .' .`"'• : . -.-. ..,•_,"-,.. • •.':,.....,"Iv..,4_,.. •,',vs. - -...-: .1);.-; -4'. -.- t,',1": ,..,. ,,..-:,,:.,. .....-- . ; ... ., ,-;-..''ts-, :-... - 7 t-•.'• ' v.. - . .-.1±-41,..k.,:•:..1;:,....:-, . ' ... ;.-.1',;44:,7,z'1,.'..... :...... • 43' -'..''- ..;',' . .. '... - -- 'V l' ,4 '.., -,-.'- 1„:••-•-fn'-.,•":&_''.'--k.:•t '••••' -21-t *_4:e...:-,k-li.1•4-,^'..—-',' ':', ..0.,'.. :,' •° .'•'.:.+.1 .. -,...r•-`1404, .•Alt .? ..7.Nrtiirat.....,..,. .*. ..* ::,.'•'C 7.1',,,e9. ....i. .'f' ' ...". ......!•.!‘" ..''S'1,041,4. ':.. ..7.- . ..'--'-...':',';1.'',,:i.:-::;-1f4,1';'a,.L,'-.--- 1 s:ti...; -'.. :, ,-.... a.4.'-.::• i.V4 .'„.. -...,,. .....L.i..-,...,.. ,,;.,....,. . ..,.„.- .f.. I....4 1.,...,.. ..Jr---0,-- • ,., ..k,,c-.*. t -:...- •-... ,- --•Ar•t-,-A-S-t. • 41•=,...."7,z- ••• • - -,---' •'•• - -:'. r"'. •,..,,, '. :.. •,•,..", `...., •,.;f...-,•....,',.,..,..,.. ....,,..1,..1,,,.,,I,.., ,,- 'i*„. .-.- . • ,.,.• . k:;..,.•, .:,./..,.-..........,i.l';',. ., - ‘i...•.:•..1 74 '..! ' --.'-..,,,-;,‘‘!"-'44%''''''•:'10, if-V, A-* t''''•-; - .' -....,,-..'..6,.. :''-%-",.t.. _:: ::•• A ',',;.-......•,. Li-,-4. .- ._•;1',.-•,•.!-1,i.:',;'-4.. • ...• ..,„,... -•,,,':'•Tc.4.1‹..-',---1 - . ..-.,.; :.i•...'•--;•':',,. •',....:"fic.--r.',..,:: -',..,,..-;.hi-..:-...,;',,,... . .... .4..,Z...„.',I,;,. ,. . •';;.....,f,',III VI','AI', .. .. ';':',.,' ' , ' '.'.''',....: .-',14• ''', ' :01,III. 'A.','li.,,IV..,, ',-,'' ,.:'‘.,- .'' •la, . ..;';',',....' ''N.• ,..;. - :'''''''I'''''''''64%,'"' ''.'', ' -;\- "' ..,.iii,.,:.:'.''.1f.''-'4'4,...!'c'. '•-: "• !••:'',3,1.',.4''11;,.,..'",,:,,if,:i.:;!'c,.i(...;i;,!.;;'•1;;41.d,';7',,.;'J„I;•'.A4.l,'l...t.]k.1.,,'.,.?.s...-..?:.';.,-,,,I.-•:,.,...;.•..•..•,.;.••..',,,,•:..:.'.•',1•..,,:11:.:,.....a.•„-,.•, ,,.. ---..1/4.71,....1•-,,-'_• ..-•,••,,-,:•,._.c.o.,. -'i,,...l?:o,r„.1_;;--,.--',:-',.:.'.'_'.:'.r,;'.,?.-i.,:,-!::''.,'-"..-`.',..;',:'''.:''-,.-.1•:'.''.,.,..:'•- - .''--,••:4:,"'0..•..'t-":.pe.."'i:,•!',:,1.....::.",E2'.... . , * '4; .\ V4_ ;4' ', .'•• ',..'""' .'''.11, ‘ '''..k.,• ..11445 • .::;e.'-',..i, ,, ..:',4:V4,,,.''',.,,':.‘i.. •'' :'..'.'.,.'•'''-'.ii:.......:.:;.45 .. •..i i ".''..f- ..."'.•-:.r''' -24;,._ .1Cii:.,,.O.'.... ,;:r,,„....,t; 1.e 14.;:',.'-, ,..,, ... • -... -,-..-i: ; :..-..7-.,, ., ,.... ,.:',.. ••, . 4--. t -4',..•- -J--''''''•?''• ' . '"I;C';14 ;14;1.,- !L ,iPle)'•-:-.--;...'i..-...1-,i 4-,' ' '. -; 1:':-.:,'' \C''''',Ir'''*, ' -' ''Allifikt .•'. ''.'''''- • •- 't.---'‘ ' 1,11, ",',Chi.,-...,'.. ..V.4) :, ./:,..j..t.f:::.,,,,,,, ,„. , ;,z:..i.--,...-• •,0•::..,r(,:,?,1...,..,3,.,, _%.,?.., •, .... .... ..,.. ,. g, : .•.......... •..,,I.,,,..(•,,,..,: •'!''' 10'I A."A 11414.' .'i.:',1.1y,-_,..,;:::•-;:t.;,...,,,,,-, ;it'',,,.;..-,:`,\,.., .- ...:-,.,,,,.,...;,•,..,..: .:\ .:,-; ,.,..0.:,'„,.,,•,-......-... ,.. .. '-:•,.,:i .,.i,, ,... ,...,,,,,,,,,•. . .,.... . -.... ',. ,, ..fr,•;„,:..., •...... ..: Y' , .' 4,' 4.'. `.,•'''" ...'"--': '. '''.12i '' .''..1. '::Z tkle'r*.4.0.vt.....'''1,',.',2•...14;t",'4'‘ "';...- -' ;ilk .-,',„..r'.:•-•-.1 4S 0' .'. j:‘, A::::-..-._•-,V„ ,';,:.2.,, !.; ...- f.i.St''),,,,its'', ye • .." '1.,..71.:.',--:...-9:•,21:•.;•.., ,'=.,..:'3•,....::.`,;,.,,..•-,.., ,•....:`,,'..'It,: ,. .{:.1., '•.t";„4,Th.•: ,i,.;,-;-' ._ *...:',,•-•;:q,.;'....,'••••••:,.. -:-.4-",q .. 1.0...Agr ' •,,-.:,...,,,,,- , , -- . :.,,,*„.„ ., .; ...•.,-,., tv.,!, .,,-;,14 ,:.,. ! -.;, .;.,. %,, -,...._kt..1. -Lk"•• .< ' - , - --'---•.-- .--• • ' ''. -'"'it /4'..-:- ; v I"- .•.."4-. • (v'..'.i,'141t.00,460. ,,...9',...k.,"; ' '--- 't,.- L,.4%.,'„,•:,-..-.: --.-:,-,1 ..-1 •• -,,,,.,.;„4,,,,-- --,r t...-„, ;:' '' ............,-0,-;7. I . ,.,• ,... , , _ ., ',,,. ti. ig.:', 4.,,, . - ' '= r:r' - r 9 - . .' r'' '.','•'.."..,.';',i...„-.. r'.j .-•-•,sokfr• .%'• .1-. 2..'1., -,.,.• • n' -•-• ,-...". I- . •-----:•-• '•lisimmt,,., • ..,,,.t.r,s5.1s,, "efe.p,• •..,...7$1141w, .... • ••'•;','''''-' ••;."E•'''' , ''Laiu:...7 '..6:1--' ''..".7- '--.'"Milil_ihift•Llf.. '14,:i.' I:"...• ' . ..,:;7•W' ,1•41.1ti-,.'-. 'IV&, • .r. .. -1.. .. . , --- N''L'':'' ' -41T,"-.4" '' . •,.'-' , • •" -,r 1----'" -:;-':"---..".'..•:.... ...., . .-- , ' ..'' -,-.'..-- . .r...- . --,...:,'. ••. • ....• -..':'.',„-i. --7 , . , „:.`';',f,"•..---,..eL :',-__-_-,•-er.-----.7. 4,".•..-...'. • , ' ,... ' `.* • ,,,,.. 0.° •' ,./' .,,,•:•.-:r•Al, 1 .•-, /..• 'V.:,.''. • . ... ;•'.,,...'j-;'.:: ; ,':', . ,t..'.., ..,... qT.T;;.:::7-.:.1..:•..--;,---.':.:.., ,,•,:,--.-..',—.':,., ' -., --:.77-:-. ..•.c: . ,, , .- 4 . Ae."1 ,44 •...,..:. .: ._,., ...._ .,..,...,. ,.. z ,.h., ,.,,,,...-,.: ,.,.. ..,,I.,. , ,4,,,,,:_.., , it .....w-7,:. . ,.. .s.:-...7.7;..,5,,-,-.,2....'.. .. -,-,:ii-,,;: ,-,,., :,...,.-..;„4.....•••• Iiiii .,:..,,,,,i..„::,...r:i:)':f...'',' ' • .''' . !,d. (K., •ii-,;I:fe • r :c.-..' .,.... . L!.,Ift:1',II'':''.".*'.::-.L q.7.1t,tH.'''.-7.,-''r"'-,....;' .i'_.61*1)0',.11,." .‘,-:...stor' .i '•f" ' -,-,:fr.-.-z,,-,-:•"•,•4: . itv,.....,•- •••:-.•,-• ..4.....-. .:.:147":.' . ' ......' rA.:4' ''''.1.)11 :‘,444191V ""..o.. !,Irr'. le ...•1 ., , '--r .'1(..1t.* 1-',"..• . ' • -:'4 Y-1-- •-..-••••••:•••••'•,'' ....,, -- • ... -• . '.'`' •":"....,....:14:- .,,!•',...,„; ". • 1 ...P.'..". '` • '•:.•• •'',••• '.. '',,.. • -- .. . • .,..,).,N, ''.:..i,k',';....' • • . ',. ,,, .r. ' tv, ':se":!7 •. .,....L..'•:..'‘, --:-'4,'•• ..- "ri:".:4.. fk,kitr, r.l...4 , .v i _:..: .'• '.,.' 74"1.10.'r!ik. fif, ,A",,,.. Illr • I-..:,.:.'.., .--.. ._ .....,.,w„..,. , S*...4.!1:1'..._..:-., i.....:i74 • ' ••i!,',j:,....-*• •,.11,(' i • g_Ait, .-:,:. '..,•.,, "-..,.,.; ,.i. iv.27' .,,fV•_66:, ... h.',,,, 0 % CaIliumen -1041,t:G141:1.thai Illustrative Master Plan ., •...., , .. li _......,......, • ...• . .• ,. .,', I Destination Develo ent Corp . and � Lowe Enterprises Continuous Palm Desert involvement since 1972