Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 848 and 849 CZ 90-12 Amendment 1 and Development Agreement - Crest Partners • CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I. TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL II. REQUEST: TO APPROVE OR DENY PRE-ANNEXATION ZONING OF PCD/HPR (PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL - 228.5 ACRES) O.S. (OPEN SPACE - 41 1 .5 ACRES) AND A ZONE CHANGE FROM HPR TO PCD/HPR FOR 54 ACRES; WITH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS "THE CREST" CONSISTING OF 151 HOMESITES ON 640 ACRES NORTH OF THE "CAHUILLA HILLS AREA" AND 54 ACRES OPPOSITE THE PALM VALLEY CHANNEL FROM THE "SOMMERSET" CONDOMINIUMS. III. APPLICANT: CREST PARTNERS 11750 SORRENTO VALLEY ROAD SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 IV. CASE NO: C/Z 90-12 AMENDMENT : e ► P DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT V. DATE: JUNE 26, 1997 MEETING DATE —C �- i VI. CONTENTS: C3'LUNTINUEDTO '1— IO—Qj ❑ PASSED TO 2ND READING A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION B. DISCUSSION C. DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 848 FOR ZONE CHANGE D. DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 849 FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT E. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED MAY 20, 1997 F. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. G. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED MAY 20, 1997 H. PCD TEXT I. LEGAL NOTICE J. LETTERS CONCERNING PROJECT A. RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Adopt Ordinance No. 848 approving C/Z 9-12 Amendment #1 and pass to second reading. 2. Adopt Ordinance No. 849 approving a development agreement with Crest Partners and passing it to second reading. STAFF REPORT CASE NO. C/Z 90-12 AMENDMENT #1 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT JUNE 26, 1997 B. DISCUSSION: The project was originally scheduled for hearing before the Council July 13, 1995 but has been continued to a time uncertain. Since that time the developer has negotiated with the City to refine the project further resulting in relocation of eight units, specifying open space dedication timing and inclusion of a development agreement. Due to the inclusion of the development agreement, the Planning Commission took a closer look at the project and requested: additional information/language, and updating exhibits in the text to reflect changes to the project that have occurred since the project was originally submitted in 1990. The Planning Commission first heard the "newest" version of the project, which is basically the same project with a development agreement on May 20, 1997, continued it to June 3, 1997 where no new information was submitted, and then to June 17, 1997 where a revised PCD text/exhibits will be reviewed. At the May 20, 1997 meeting two spoke in favor and two others spoke with concerns about the emergency access into the Cahuilla Hills area - which was clarified in the PCD text. A few letters were received from residents of Bighorn Golf Club initially requesting a continuance, but no further concerns have been received from these residents. The Commission will make a final recommendation on the project on June 17, 1997 - which is after the writing of this report - but will be forwarded to the Council prior to the meeting. Prepared by: t40A-3 ._ Phil Joy (Th Reviewed and Approved by: �e„ i ip Drell Am CITY COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED X* DENIED *1) Waive further reading and RECEIVED OTHER pass Ord. No. 848 to second NELT_NC ?SATE reading approving C/Z 90-12 ;:.vhs CRITES, S DER, 4 _ � Amendment #1; 2) Waive further ,0Es BENSON, SPIEGEL reading and pass Ord. No. 849 3SENT: NONE S to second reading approving a � ...�_ _ _......._ ..r._._.. BSTAIN:s NONE development agreement with VERIFIED BY: SRG/rdk Crest Partners. Origthal on File with City Clerk's Office 2 7, N, 7 . CuVoVNWDeser xi A.-407 •.. 8,e" 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 1 TELEPHONE(619)346.0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. C/Z 90-12 AMENDMENT #1 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council for consideration to approve or deny a request by MILLER/ RICHARDS PARTNERSHIP for pre-annexation zoning of PCD/HPR (Planned Community Development, Hillside Planned Residential - 285.4 acres) O.S. (Open Space - 410.3 acres) and a zone change from HPR to PCD/HPR for 55 acres, and a development agreement for a project known as "The Crest" consisting of 151 homesites on 640 acres north of the "Cahuilla Hills area" and 55 acres opposite the Palm Valley Channel from the "Sommerset" condominiums. APN's 628-320-001, 631-020-001 thru 004 & 631-030-004 .I`.•. .� I -------_- ---___ ,_ I'armor - _ ♦ y • I • 0 1RANCMOj ' ti 1, I . ,� 3z:..armiti. MIRAGE , PROJECT SITE 11.\• li a ^..s 1 •1r.,yq I W O .f.s• • .LII� i,�,/: "Two , 1. c 7• pCys d...e gi, PROPERTY"A" f�, .r- `. '1 ' : 1 ,, I.... /dt'. II • • /IE7• y,I t ti .� M 1,4 4 IY. I �.�Rj�/itigiglia t., , '�;t}' I • i Xis 4: u, MUli - i i I ifelrirr I ' • .4.‘ I I t%44-44M-- I •..._ n,r." �--\ _ +• PROPERTY-s- '"'"i /. is I iI `=wil �.. I »II -rt --- • •—om t s E �...1:1• I 1 ww _= ) y=i . (i/ . SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, June 26, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project is available for review in the department of community development/planning at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The project has been previously assessed for CEQA purposes. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk June 1 2, 1 997 City of Palm Desert, California ORDINANCE NO. 848 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE PCD TEXT FOR "THE CREST" FOR A MAXIMUM OF 151 UNITS. CASE NO. C/Z 90-12 AMENDMENT #1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of June, 1995, on May 20, June 3 and June 17, 1997, and the City Council did on July 13, 1995 and June 26, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by CREST PARTNERS for "The Crest"; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89," in that the director of community development has determined that the project has been previously assessed (SCH #91021034); and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said city council did find the following facts to justify their actions, as described below: 1 . Proposed zone change is consistent with general plan designation that was part of a previous application. 2. Proposed zone change is consistent with recommended county general plan amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the council in this case. 2. That the city council does hereby approved Change of Zone 90-12 Amendment #1 . PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California ORDINANCE NO. 849 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEVELOPMENT PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A AGREEMENT FOR A MAXIMUM 151 UNIT PROJECT KNOWN AS "THE CREST". CASE NO. C/Z 90-12 AMENDMENT #1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of hearing Desert, considerCalifornia, a regaest byid on hCREST e 26th day of June, 1997, hold a duly noticed public PARTNERS for "The Crest"; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following fact to approve said development agreement: 1 . The agreement is consistent with the City's adopted General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: SECTION 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the council in this case. SECTION 2. That the Master Development Plan entitled The Crest is attached as Exhibit "A" of the Development Agreement along with associated map of development plan. SECTION 3. The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this Ordinance in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: June 17, 1997 continued from May 20 and June 3, 1997 CASE NO: C/Z 90-12 Amendment #1 Development Agreement REQUEST: Pre-annexation zoning of 640 acres north of the "Cahuilla Hills" area and 55 acres across the Palm Valley Channel from the "Sommerset" condominiums to Planned Community/Hillside Planned Residential with a development agreement for a project known as "The Crest" consisting of 151 homesites on 695 acres (410 acres to be dedicated as open space). APPLICANT: Crest Partners (Miller Richards Partnership) 11750 Sorrento Valley Road San Diego, CA 92121 DISCUSSION: The project has been continued to replace outdated exhibits in the PCD text, to update the development agreement to reflect the last changes made to the PCD text, and to incorporate concerns that the Planning Commission had from the meeting of June 3, 1997. The City's "standard conditions of approval" have been included as Exhibit C - as requested by the City Attorney - with the understanding that further refinement or interpretation of these conditions will be made as individual tract maps are submitted to reflect the low density nature of the project. A final plan showing 151 homesites has been prepared reflecting the eight homesites transferred from the 55 acre area to the rear 640 acres. A non-disturbance section has been added to the agreement to further clarify the issue that no homesite development will occur in the open space area prior to dedication. II. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. recommending to the council approval of zone change and development agreement. STAFF REPORT C/Z 90-12 AMENDMENT #1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT JUNE 17, 1997 III. ATTACHMENTS: - Staff report of 5-20-97 - Revised PCD text and development agreement Prepared by Phil Joy / Reviewed and Approved by Phil Drell /tm 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PRE-ANNEXATION ZONING OF PCD/HPR (PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL - 285.4 ACRES) O.S. (OPEN SPACE - 410.3 ACRES) AND A ZONE CHANGE FROM HPR TO PCD/HPR FOR 55 ACRES, AND A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS "THE CREST" CONSISTING OF 151 HOMESITES ON 640 ACRES NORTH OF THE "CAHUILLA HILLS AREA" AND 55 ACRES OPPOSITE THE PALM VALLEY CHANNEL FROM THE "SOMMERSET" CONDOMINIUMS. CASE NO. C/Z 90-12 AMENDMENT #1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of May, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by CREST PARTNERS for the project described above; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 97-18," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project was previously assessed by an Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 91021034; 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 to justify their actions, as described below: 1 . Zone change and development agreement are in conformance with the General Plan. 2. Zone change and development agreement conform with Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 91021034. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval Change of Zone 90-12 Amendment #1 Development Agreement. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 17th day of June, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JAMES CATO FERGUSON, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary City of Palm Desert, California • SELZER, EALY, HEMPHILL & BLASDEL, LLP June 11, 1997 TO: Phil Drell, City of Palm Desert R E C F P V E Phil Joy, City of Palm Desert JUN 1 1 1997 FROM: Paul T. Selzer, Esq. RE: Crest Development Agreement C t C �ALM Attached please find a draft of the DA with the modifications we agreed to at the PC meeting and at a meeting Ty and I had with Jim Ferguson. The only sections modified are Section 4.5.3 which clarifies the issue with respect to the 8 lots which were moved and puts it in conformity with the Specific Plan document and Section 16 to which we have added a provision with respect to a Nondisturbance Agreement which we will provide to protect the city prior to the dedication of the remaining open space. We have attached Exhibit C for your convenience. It is also my understanding that Ty Miller should have the revised Plan document to you by Friday. I will be traveling to Washington DC today, but will call you upon my arrival. I have scheduled a conference call for today at 4:OOp. If there are any other changes to be made, we can discuss them at that time. I can then have Sandy make the changes and get the revised document back to you in the morning. PPS63752 such annexation. 4.5 Development in Accordance with PCD/HPR. 4.5.1 The City recognizes and agrees that Developer's decision to move forward with development will be governed by, among other things, its own economic condition, market conditions for the product it is offering and the availability of financing all of which factors fluctuate from time to time. Therefore, development of the Site shall commence and be completed at the sole discretion of Developer. However, in the event the Developer, at its sole discretion, proceeds to construct the Project, in phases or in its entirety, the Project shall be developed on the Site in accordance with the provisions of the PCD/HPR, including such modifications authorized and provided for therein, including such additional modifications which may be mutually agreed upon, in writing, between Developer and City. 4.5.2 City understands and agrees that certain exhibits and maps contained within the PCD/HPR or attached thereto are conceptual in nature and that actual development of the Site need only to conform generally with such exhibits and maps, so long as the actual development meets the overall goals and objectives of the PCD/HPR. 4.5.3 Developer may submit applications for the approval of such site development plans ("Site Development Plans") and tentative maps ("Tentative Maps") relating to the Project and such other approvals as may be required by the laws of the State of California or the City at any time during the term hereof("Additional Approvals"), and the City agrees that it shall expeditiously process and approve such Site Development Plans, Tentative Maps and additional applications provided they substantially conform to the Existing Project Regulations (as defined in Section 15.2 hereof) and the provisions of the PCD/HPR. In order to accommodate desires of the City with respect to the location of certain lots upon the Site, it was necessary to relocate 8 lots from the City Property to the County Property. Therefore, th it r ;a a r s #tit, ............................ ............................. , if thertire-within-213-96-ef the-- .;;::.:::............................:::.;;:.; act m ;t 1" t atld�fio :: sl nftal>ti€ is f::c;; : it< standards ds , tie C:� ;t : .:,.. .t o. r t ac�modet ad t aloso :kiii . .: , : >. .. . . ... . : con st rat a€# i over r i:.. ... ...r>::f' :..:. ' W 1 : :m :t. PTS63751:06/10/97:PINAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT , ab ely, #t 801 di0000 t f 0 *** t is .he level::ped on a ing a stxe::as a:::cl ter devel ent:: ::::a::>dens :::o '::no greater...: than o dwelling w try the gross acre upon a location isfactory to bo :tbe:4oy.plo::er:and:the: r rovidediht weve that<there shall:: >;«.:<:>: :< ;:» .... and g Leo t v gappoted withinfort ........... itlibpopertylmOntottOni ................ 4.5.4 City shall not impose any condition to any Site Development Plan, Tentative or Final Map or Additional Approvals except insofar as such condition is expressly set forth in the PCD/HPR or this Agreement, or such standard conditions to Tentative Maps as are set forth on Exhibit.C, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. 4.6 Procedure for Development. Any Site Development Plan and/or Tentative Map may cover the entirety of the Project or there may be several Site Development Plans or several Tentative Maps covering the Project. In any case, the Developer may phase its subdivision of the Project by applying for final subdivision maps covering less than an entire Tentative Map or the entire Project. 5. Project Approval And Incorporation Herein. The PCD/HPR, each of its terms and provisions, each modification thereto as provided for therein, and each of its appendices and exhibits are hereby approved and incorporated herein by reference. Each subject matter and item set forth in the PCD/HPR, subject to such modifications which are permitted pursuant to the terms of the PCD/HPR or as the Parties may later agree in writing shall be and remain permitted during the entire Term hereof. 6. Public Improvements. In order to develop the Site as contemplated by the provisions of this Agreement, Developer may desire or may otherwise be required to construct public improvements that will benefit not only the Project and the Site but also other properties within an identified area of benefit. It is the intent of the parties that Developer be reimbursed to the extent legally allowable based upon City's then existing agreements with the Coachella Valley Association of Governments and in accordance with City's then existing policies concerning the subject of Developer reimbursements. Further, the City shall assist Developer in the formation of assessment districts and the establishment of reimbursement contracts and/or other such available mechanisms to fairly apportion the cost of required offsite improvements among the benefitted properties, consistent with state laws in effect at the time such assistance is requested. 7. Reservations, Dedications and Exactions. It is hereby further understood and agreed that no reservations or dedications of land or other exaction will be required by City during the Term except as set forth in the PCD/HPR. PTS63751:06/10/97:PINAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT govern the development of the Site during the entire Term hereof. Such Existing Project Regulations shall continue to apply, notwithstanding the development of the Site as provided herein, to the reconstruction of any Developer Improvements or Public Improvements damaged or destroyed from any cause. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, no amendment to, revision of or addition to the General Plan, the zoning classification and standards, the PCD/HPR or any of its appendices or Exhibits shall be applicable to the Site without Developer's written approval, whether adopted or approved by the Council or any office, board, commission or other agency of City, or by the people of City through an initiative or referendum measure (including, without limitation, growth control measures, including those which limit, meter or place additional qualifications or discretionary review on the issuance of building permits or any regulation which affects timing or phasing of the Project, or any moratorium or limitation upon utility service to the Project), and no such Agreement, revision or addition shall be effective or enforceable by City with respect to the Project. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer may, at Developer's sole discretion, as evidenced by a written consent thereto, choose to be governed by any future law, rule, regulation or policy adopted by the City. 15.3 Exclusions from "Existing Project Regulations". As used herein, "Existing Project Regulations" shall not include municipal laws and regulations which do not conflict with Developer's vested rights to develop and use the Site in accordance with this Agreement. Developer and its successors and assigns and all persons and entities in occupation of any portion of the Site shall comply with such non- conflicting laws and regulations as may from time-to-time be enacted or amended hereafter. Specifically, but without limitation on the foregoing, such non- conflicting laws and regulations include the following; 15.3.1 Building, electrical, mechanical, fire and similar codes based upon uniform codes incorporated by reference into the City of Palm Desert Municipal Code,and; 15.3.2 Procedural rules applicable to land use entitlement applications relating to the Project; provided, however, the City may not, under the guise of being a procedural rule, change a procedure or procedures that are provided or specified PCD/HPR. 16. Dedication of Open Space. As partial consideration of the vested benefits to Developer granted hereunder, within thirty days from the Effective Date, Developer shall deliver to City a grant deed conveying marketable title, free and clear of financial encumbrances to 100 acres of the Dedicated Open Space ("Initial Dedication") as set forth in the PCD/HPR. i , PTS63751:06/10/97:PINAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ��A i4:::::� .W..�viev'�:'s .`.: Y�F.MWi.���� t�'� IJJYK Ji�}iM-�M1Y'�� t• � ♦,� sal>:":r ide that::: evelo::a ::4hafl::::n :::d stur ::: r:allo re d�rb� o y: :.................................................................... ..................... :.............................................................................................. shall::re n:n eff :a id ��.rior to 'cone: . :::..::::::::::.:....:.:::.::..:......:::::::::.::.:. .::..:.:::::.:::...:::::::.:::..:.�. .� oj';te.;balane�:c�f:thechcated : : : .n S:rice::: rov: >::;:: ..;..:..:..: ::>::>::;:.. ..;...:; ..:..:..::::..,:.....:...:::. ..,..;:.:....,.ee ...;..:.: ......... s..... .. tl.: : t :>t§: :: exec :::,: .e:: 0u:::A s0. b ::: 040# shall::not::he::recorded:b .>:tbe:>Cit� bat:bona:tlde: rc�rs< or r ue> : ': .;::::>> :;:: :>::::<:::>::::>:::::: : end b�.:«the ..r:..ov ions:::ther f :virtaa::of::;th. ; ...:..r :t n:::h' :.'. f::<:>In:::a tttnn: ............ Y: ::::�. :::::: :::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::.i .::::::::::.::....:.:....:::e.: .:+chat.o.:::::ereo:•::::::::::::::dd:::::::::::. l velo:iii. venants and agrees;that: t:shall:: routde<:am::noti ::t f:st ch:n�on :' '�::i iiii ::: ::i: :i::i::::i::i::: ::i::C;�:�i:!::i::i :i:::�:: ::.:::i ::::::C::::i::i ::::iiiiisi4::: :: :: ::i::i' ::�: ....... drst b agr ement ati,::.>such bo. fide uro ass pr :::::...:..:.Yam..::....:........:......p.....aJ......... : '.;; .:..n, at Bch ttxtte as op r.tar. is €tc es0:6 yr ass€ins has received::fro :::;City:all:::s€ch a titl . nts, a its::: sd:authorizations .: :ed:1*::tt to,:::be .in constr c o >o ,al;<o r::: . : hase::o. :dev:.elo ment:: ::::tl e S to::> :sball to .:::::. :.:#iCity.;ot .rkbre; 1t,.;; :;an ol+ r,; ; pt Il§og n J C .:.;tq. .:::............................. . adchttnal>::ortionsof:::the: icated:.. en:' ce "Subse ent:>l dt .t s" ? The .............. acreage included in any Subsequent Dedication shall bear the same relationship to the acreage contained within the entire remaining Dedicated Open Space to be dedicated (after the Initial Dedication) as the number of residential units for which it is receiving such entitlements, permits and authorizations required by it to begin construction upon bears to 151, and shall be described by a line generally parallel with the outer boundary of the land included in the Initial Dedication. Except as expressly provided in the PCD/HPR or this Agreement, the City shall not impose or require any additional dedications or exactions from Developer in connection with the approval or development of the Site. Notwithstanding the dedication herein required, in the event Developer is required by any local, state or federal regulatory agency to provide mitigation as a result of the Project, it may use the Dedicated Open Space as all or a portion of such mitigation. It is the intention of the Parties that Developer may "bank" the open space and natural resource values located upon the open space lands to satisfy mitigation requirements which may be imposed (either prior or subsequent to the dedication of the Open Space to the City) by regulatory agencies other than the City. 17. Supersession of Agreement by Changes in State or Federal Law. In the event that State or Federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement which preempt the Agreement or City's authority to perform hereunder, or the action or inaction of any affected governmental jurisdiction other than City or any instrumentality thereof, prevents or precludes compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement as a matter of law, the parties shall: PTS63731:06/10/97:FINAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PHILIP DRELL, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: JUNE 3, 1997 SUBJECT: THE CREST CASE NO. C/Z 90-12 AMENDMENT NO. 1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Due to continued efforts to refine the PCD document and development agreement, staff is recommending that commission take public testimony and then continue this matter to the next Planning Commission meeting on June 1 7, 1997. PHILIP DRELL DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /tm MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 place and they were adding a few trees. He thought it was a Palm Desert project and indicated that Mr. Thornbury was a Palm Desert architect. He said that the construction financing would be coming from a Palm Desert bank and they hoped to bring money from Rancho Mirage and Cathedral City into Palm Desert and they were anxious to get approval for the project. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. He asked for commission comments or action. Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he had no problem with the project and felt it was a really good addition and there was definitely not a parking problem, but he wanted to comment about car washes. He said he wasn't sure how the standards for car washes were calculated, but he wanted to alert staff that car washes were very labor intensive businesses and employees brought in a lot of cars. He thought Harv's was a good example of not having adequate employee parking. He felt that it has the potential to create a problem, but fortunately this application was not a problem but he wanted to bring it up to staff as an issue for other car washes that might not be as nicely situated at this one. Chairperson Ferguson indicated that service stations and car washes were covered in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Review and it was a concern that has being taken into consideration. Chairperson Ferguson called for the vote. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1806, approving PP/CUP 97-5, subject to conditions. Carried 5-0. B. Case No. C/Z 90-12 Amendment No. 1 Development Agreement - CREST PARTNERS (MILLER RICHARDS PARTNERSHIP), Applicants Request for approval of pre-annexation zoning of 640 acres north of the "Cahuilla Hills" area and 55 acres across the Palm Valley Channel from the "Sommerset" condominiums to Planned Community/Hillside Planned Residential with a development agreement for a project known as "The Crest" consisting of 151 homesites on 695 acres (410 acres to be dedicated as open space). Mr. Joy stated that this was the same project that the commission approved unanimously a couple of years ago and consists of zoning for up to 151 custom homesites. The homesites were mostly located in a bowl-shaped area presently outside the City limits north of the Cahuilla Hills area that would be brought into the city when the project is approved. Access to the project would be from Highway 74 across a new bridge over the Palm Valley Channel and it would intersect Highway 74 and Homestead. The road would then 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 proceed over 55 acres that are already in the city and would allow up to 21 units to be developed on those 55 acres. After Planning Commission last approved the project it was continued indefinitely at the Council level and since that time the applicant has been in negotiations with the City in order to make the project more palatable. The main change to the project was the inclusion of a development agreement, which through some negotiating transferred eight of the units from the 55 acres to the bowl-shaped County area, and part of those negotiations were some allowances as far as the grading restrictions to allow those eight units to be fitted into the rear of the bowl-shaped area. He said it was also written into the text of the development agreement that those additional eight units could be clustered. While they were talking about 151 custom homesites, there was also a little flexibility so that they could do some casitas type of project like in Bighorn. Also through some negotiations the 410 acre open space dedication could be made incrementally with the 100 acres up front and this would become effective 30 days after execution of the agreement. The remainder of the open space would be dedicated as adjacent tracts are processed. He said this was also when a better definition of where the lines should be located could be made. The main feature of this project was that this was not the last public hearing that would be held on it. This application was merely stating the maximum number of units that the site could accommodate and it would be required of future subdivision maps to prove that actual subdivisions could be made in conformance with the City's hillside zoning criteria. They have analyzed it and when they first looked at the project it was determined that up to 185 units could be developed on the site and still conform to the City's hillside zoning. Through letters going back and forth with the County the 151 unit number was arrived at. He said it was acknowledged that some of the documents in the accompanying PCD text which were distributed to commission were a little out dated and noted that this has been around since 1989. He said that at this point what they were trying to achieve was that staff and the applicant were hoping to find out what the commission and council wanted to see added into the text at this point. Once all the input was gathered, any changes could be made between the two readings of the zone change before the City Council. He noted that a few letters of concern had been received and the first letter which was included with the commission's staff report alluded to the emergency access required by the Fire Marshal. Although staff favored a route shown on the plans currently going into the Cahuilla Hills area, staff was allowing the applicant to wait until they actually submitted a subdivision map to show where it would be since it required negotiations with adjacent property owners wherever it is located. Three letters were also received from residents of Bighorn Golf Club asking for a continuance due to late noticing and referring to The Crest as a condominium project. For the record he indicated that Bighorn Golf Club is located over a mile away from this project so it was out of the 300-foot notification area. He stated that the project was planned for custom home sites rather than condominiums. Staff recommended approval of the project. Commissioner Jonathan advised the commission that he owns property within close proximity of this project and would be abstaining from any discussion or voting on this matter. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 Chairperson Ferguson asked Mr. Joy how many people were determined to be within 300 feet of this project. Mr. Joy replied approximately 75. Chairperson Ferguson said that he has been contacted by a number of people who pointed out to him that most of the Cahuilla Hills residents live on five acre parcels which by definition put them more than 300 feet away and notwithstanding that fact they would be very visually affected by the project and many of these people were not just from Bighorn. He knew this subject came up when the commission was evaluating microwave antennas and it was noted that people closer to the antennas were less affected than people who were farther away and he thought this might be one such instance. He pointed that out because several of the people that have called him live directly across the wash and the properties were appurtenant to this project and they received no written notice. He said he knew that Councilman Crites has a parcel immediately appurtenant to the parcel and he received no written notice. He thought staff was dismissing this as sort of a concern of Bighorn a mile away, but he thought it was a little more serious than that. Secondly, Chairperson Ferguson asked if the commission was being asked to approve the development agreement tonight. Mr. Joy replied that the commission was being asked to recommend approval of the basic form of it to City Council. Chairperson Ferguson asked what basic form meant. Mr. Joy said that as discussed earlier, he was referring to the PCD text and all the implications that go with the development agreement. He noted that the commission has had many development agreements before them. He indicated that one item they talked about that was lacking were the standard conditions of approval that have been placed on a project that the City normally places on any types subdivision maps. As he said during his staff report, anything the commission would like to see included in the development agreement they would like to add by reference and hopefully the project could move on in that fashion. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the commission was approving this proposal tonight or not. Mr. Joy clarified that the commission couldn't approve the development agreement, they could only recommend approval to the City Council. Chairperson Ferguson noted that paragraph 5, page 8 of the development agreement said that each of the terms, provisions and modifications set forth in the PCD text including all of its appendices and exhibits are approved and hereby incorporated into this agreement. He asked if they were generally recommending to the Council that they approve it. Mr. Joy concurred. Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. He noted that they would be following the normal format: they would ask all those in favor of the project to speak, then all those in opposition and then if necessary the applicant would be given a brief rebuttal period. MR. TY MILLER, the applicant, stated that he was the owner of this property and it had been owned by his family since 1922. He said they have been working diligently with the City since 1989. They came down and met with the city and different planning people and council members. They did a lot of due diligence before with community groups, homeowners' associations and they really tried to take into account all of the aspects that might be of concern to the community. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 The biggest concern was hillside development and he thought they had come up with one of the most innovative and very environmentally sensitive projects, and probably the most environmentally sensitive project the commission and council have reviewed. He said they didn't come up with this concept. They had seen it done very successfully in Scottsdale and other parts of Arizona. He indicated it was a different project: they wouldn't grade everything, put in streets and gutters and street lights or a project like that. As most of the commissioners had seen this project twice, and approved this twice, he thought they understood that this was a very unique project being sensitive relative to the land. He thought that was what the value was, that perhaps with this project people would think of the desert as opposed to Hawaii and instead of reproducing Hawaii everywhere. He said it was a different concept and they would be leaving the desert in its natural state. He thought it might be worthwhile to tell the commission about their organization for those who didn't know anything about them. Their company had been a privately held company and they were headquartered in San Diego. They had done a lot of developments and he noted that he has been Chairman of the Creomesa Planning Group in San Diego so he knew a lot of the commission's concerns relative to the amount of paperwork they review and the high salaries they were paid to do it. He said he appreciated their position. He indicated that they developed 2,000 acres in Oceanside where they had a development agreement and a similar sort of scenario that has worked very favorably and he thought that the Rancho del Oro project was one of the best projects in Oceanside. He said they own several million square feet of projects in California as well as several hundred units, so they have a lot of experience in doing this type of development. They have also done some hotel development and he thought they had one of the nicest hotels in Rancho Santa Fe and it was a high quality development. He thought they were recently rated number one on the Zagot Survey and in the Forbes Magazine as one of the finest resorts. They wanted to do a high quality development and he thought it showed and that they could because they have a very favorable basis. He said they were proposing, provided that they were allowed to build this project, that they would be giving the most visually impacted property to the City. That was the basic concept. He noted that more than 91 % of the project would be left in its natural state. He said it was nothing like Bighorn or some of the other developments that basically took the desert, graded it, and then rebuilt it. In Scottsdale it was a completely different concept, they actually fence their construction area. If there was a two-acre lot and they build a pad of 10,000 square feet, it was actually fenced during the construction period and built so that cement and all the pollutants didn't run into the desert. When they were finished, they would have a pueblo style house and very strict site development standards in terms of the type of homes that can be built and the type of materials. Their standards were much more stringent than Palm Desert's codes and went down to something like CC&Rs in terms of what the buildings would look like, the color pallets and would be a lot more detailed than what was in the basic code. They thought that was necessary because they wanted to 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 build a high quality project. He told commission there would be about 410 acres that would be open space, dedicated open space given to the City and depending on what the City wanted to do with the open space, that became the property of the City. It was basically so that all of the most sensitive view shed would be given to the City. They also had a dedication called desert park that essentially was like dedicated open space because they wouldn't develop anything in it; on the other hand they might have a park bench or something like that. Dedicated open space would be the most restricted where they wouldn't have any control over it at all and there were some discussions about not even being able to walk in it. Some of the property they would like the people to be able to hike on or picnic. Once they give the land to the City, they would make their own rules for the open space and he felt it was reasonable that people should be able to hike on property adjacent to them, particularly if it was undeveloped. To clear up any ambiguities there might be between desert park and dedicated open space, they basically looked the same except in a desert park they could walk through it and the ownership would be retained and dedicated back to the homeowner's association, but it wouldn't be developed on. He said it was a title issue more than anything else. It would look like the Lord made it. He hoped that cleared up some of the ambiguities. He stated that he wanted to make this informal and asked the commission to ask questions at any time. He didn't want to bore the commission with too much, but indicated that the last time they were before the commission was two years ago. He said that more than 91 % of the project was dedicated open space. He didn't think there was another project like this in Palm Desert on the scale of this project. He showed the commission their conceptual land use plan on an overhead monitor which showed the land being dedicated to the City. He said that nothing would be developed in there except for some storage tanks in one canyon for irrigation purposes. He also showed the desert park area and said originally there were eight units included there that were actually beautiful lots on the ridge lines and he thought they were some of the most valuable property in the entire development, but there were people on the council that were concerned about these issues so they decided that in order to make peace with everyone that it would be best to turn that into a park. All they had done was take that acreage for those large eight lots that was roughly 15 to 20 acres and all of that had been turned into desert park. He indicated that the adjacent property owners there were five acre lots on the ridge line that would one day be developed unless it was acquired by the City. He said they were surrounded by five acre lots that were adjacent to them that would ultimately be developed unless they were acquired or otherwise put into open space. He thought this was a very major concession on their part because those lots were worth a lot of money and they just went away. They agreed to relocate those eight lots into the other upper County area. That entire 640 acres was in the County and so they said they would down zone the lower piece of property, and if they were allowed to fit it into the upper portion, that would be fair. He said that all of the upper portion of the property was virtually invisible from the valley floor. He indicated that they have a certified EIR that shows 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 they studied the visual impacts based on CEQA standards and did computer simulations and all that information was public record and showed that hardly any of the property is visible. Even with the additional compromise of leaving that additional property as open space he thought they got a fair compromise in being able to achieve the density they need to make this work because it was very expensive property to develop because the infrastructure costs were enormous and so they thought that was perhaps a fair trade off. He displayed another exhibit that showed the conceptual lot layout and showed where the lots would be and indicated that the lots had stakes on them and various council members had been up there to look at the specific locations of those lots to make sure they wouldn't visually impact the community in a negative way, so they actually placed stakes on those exact lots in the lower portion. The upper portion in the County was 700 acres. While it might look to be fairly high density, it wasn't and he noted that in San Diego they have built thousands of units on 200 acres. This was 140 units and 151 units spread out over that area. He thought the concept was very interesting and the area that he lives in is Rancho Santa Fe and it was a fairly well known area and had very restrictive CC&Rs, which was why they put in restrictive CC&Rs for this project because they would create value over time--although they might be a pain to deal with when explaining to the first time buyer why they couldn't build this or that because it was restricted, but over the long term there was very fine value developed. He said this concept of not fencing was a very different concept. He said these lots would give out 200 feet on center so they were very far apart and they averaged three quarters of an acre to three to five acre lots, depending on the lay of the land. He said that almost none of their lots were squares. They were designed around the contours of the land which is not the case in typical subdivisions. He said it was not easy to relocate eight lots because they couldn't just say that they would make some lots smaller. They were siting these lots in unique places to minimize the grading; in other words wherever there was a place for a house, that was where they had to put it. They wouldn't go in there and create places for all the houses. It was a completely different concept than how most developers look at property, even though when they are finished it may look natural but typically it was all graded under, repacked, mounded up and rebuilt. This was a different type of project. One of the unique features they proposed was that the homeowner might own a two-acre lot and he built an estate type house and had 15,000 feet to work with, he couldn't fence his entire property. In Scottsdale he thought it was beautiful. When looking at property in Scottsdale, a house could be seen here or there and because there was no fencing and no landscape barriers between everyone breaking up visually the expanse of the desert, it was a completely different feeling from a neighborhood that plants oleanders up and down between everyone and everyone has their private square. He said because of the distance between properties you wouldn't be able to tell where one property began and another ended. The eye would tell them that there is twice as much property there and there would be no artificial or man made barriers. He thought it was very innovative. He said that if someone wanted to build a house, they 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 would build it on a pad and then they would have to dedicate back through the homeowners association all of the area outside of their homesite and it became open space and they couldn't fence it or develop it--it stayed as natural desert. He showed one design with a pool and indicated that houses were intended to be anywhere from 3500 square feet and up. He said that essentially concluded his part of the presentation. He stated that since they had been through the commission twice, he hoped the third time would be a charm. He said they were unanimously approved twice, once for 185 units and two years ago for 151 units. He said for the big picture the project was the same, but better because they relocated eight lots and put about 15 to 20 acres of that into open space area so substantially they were looking at the same project twice. He noted there might be some inconsistencies with some of their documents, but they were not substantive in his view. Chairperson Ferguson stated that according to his staff report the project failed for approval on a 2-2-1 vote and was passed to council with no recommendation on a 4-0 vote. To say that the commission has approved this project unanimously twice was a bit misleading, at least according to the staff report. Also, his colleagues were on the commission when this came through the last time, but he wasn't. He hoped that Mr. Miller wasn't suggesting that he should approve it simply because two years ago his colleagues did. He said he just wanted to caution the applicant along those lines. He indicated this was a new project before them for a fresh look. Mr. Miller said he understood, but wanted to be sensitive to those who maybe saw it before. He indicated that part of the reason they didn't change all of their exhibits was for that reason. They had some new people that they had to make sure that they had everything clear for and other people that they didn't want to change the appearance of all the exhibits so that everyone would say that this was a totally different project. He noted it was a huge project and in San Diego he was dealing with General Dynamics on a 230-acre site and they were given a thick document to review and all he wanted to know was what the changes were. He said he has worked diligently with staff on trying to keep the documents reasonably as similar as they were before by using exhibits so they wouldn't confuse staff, commission and council who are trying to make decisions on information they've looked at before. He apologized if he made a mistake when he said they were approved unanimously; he thought they were and that it was his error. He knew they were approved twice and it was relatively smooth sailing in his view and there weren't major controversies at the commission level. He requested that if there are inconsistencies in documents or if there were questions that the commission has on specific exhibits relative to unit count, he could clarify a number of issues like how the sewer lines would cross the storm channel or details like that--he would be happy to clarify those in person or right now and make any revisions they needed to cover any inconsistencies because they were not fundamentally changing the project. If there are exhibit errors or numbers that needed to be re-clarified for consistency, they would be 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 happy to make those prior to the City Council meeting, but in his view they weren't substantive deviations from what they had proposed previously. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he has spoken to Mr. Miller at some length on several occasions and also to Mr. Miller's attorney, Mr. Selzer, in addition to Councilperson Crites and Councilperson Benson, who he believed had walked this site previously and were the ones that Mr. Miller alluded to. Chairperson Ferguson said that he noted about ten inconsistencies in the proposal, as well as in the development agreement, and he faxed those to Mr. Miller this afternoon and said he would be happy to make his notes a part of the record so that everything was done properly (see Exhibit A). He said he also spoke to Mr. Joy who indicated that there were probably ten other maps that bore no relevance to the current project that were contained in the current proposal. He said it was not his inclination to go through every one of those tonight for reasons he would discuss under commission comments, but he felt the applicant knew what his concerns were. Mr. Miller concurred and didn't think he was usurping anything. On the commission he sits on, they tried to work through inconsistencies and ambiguities as best they could so that they could clarify anything that was a confusion because it was not their intent to confuse, mislead or otherwise confuse anyone. He said he appreciated the hard work everyone put in to review a very complex project. He said they would make whatever clarification needed to be made for any inconsistencies or ambiguities. He indicated that any technical questions could be directed to Paul Selzer, his attorney that helped them draft the development agreement. He said he would be happy to answer any questions on any level and would do the best he could and if he didn't know the answer, he would get the answer. Mr. Joy said he wanted to set the record straight that the first time the project came before the planning commission was in 1992 and the commission voted 2-2-1 for approval of a 209-unit project. Then they voted 4-0 to send the project up to council with no recommendation at all. When it came back again as a 151 -unit project, it was approved unanimously. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR of this project. MR. PAUL SELZER, the attorney for the project developers, stated that he didn't have anything to add, but he was ready to answer any questions with respect to the development agreement. Chairperson Ferguson said he would like to give Mr. Selzer an opportunity to respond to a couple of things since most of his concerns about the proposal were because of problems with the development agreement. He suggested they start with page 7 paragraph 4.5.3. It said that site development plans, tentative maps and additional applications for the development of the County portion of the site shall be deemed to be in substantial conformance with the provisions of chapter 4 site development and estate residential standards of 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 the PCD/HPR if they were within 20% of the standards set forth therein. Cross referencing that with page 41 of the proposal there was no such reference. Chairperson Ferguson said he had already brought that to Mr. Miller's attention. Mr. Selzer replied that the language on the last three lines of section 4.5.3 with respect to the 20% deviation which should read, as a result of conversations with staff, the same as page 41 B and the second bullet point. He said that because they moved units from the lower portion of the project to the upper, and because the project was designed to have a specific number of units on the upper and the lower, they recognized that it was likely that there would have to be deviations in some of the standards in order to move some of those lots. In discussions with Councilman Crites, it was agreed that they could do that. The question was how they could measure that and what criteria they would use so that as plans came through staff could judge whether or not that deviation was appropriate or not. He said that to be very frank, the type of that deviation was not specifically negotiated. They proposed a 20% deviation. After staff had an opportunity to review it and after the two city council people had an opportunity to review it, it was decided that was probably too generous. So what they suggested was that from approximately the bottom half of the second bullet point at the bottom of page 41 , which would be modified to read, "The City will allow deviation from City standards sufficient to accommodate the additional lots on property A in such a fashion to be generally consistent with the overall character of the development. Alternatively, at the sole discretion of the developer units may be developed on a single site as a cluster development with a density of no greater than four units to the acre upon a location satisfactory to both the developer and the city." He said that language had been approved as a substitute for the last three lines of section 4.5.3. It had been reviewed by staff and the city attorney. Chairperson Ferguson asked if it just didn't make it into the copies of the agreement that the commission received. Mr. Selzer said the re-draft of the agreement was done last week and he had been out of town until today and it was his fault it was not included. Chairperson Ferguson noted that section 4.5.4 on page 7 said that the City shall not impose any conditions to any site development plan, tentative or final map or additional approvals except in so far as such conditions were expressly set forth in the PCD/HPR or this agreement or such standard conditions to tentative maps as are set forth in Exhibit C. He said there are not standard conditions set forth in Exhibit C and he asked if he was saying, in effect, that once this development agreement was approved the City was incapable of placing any conditions on this development as plans are brought before the commission. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 Mr. Selzer stated that the City has a set of standard conditions which is Exhibit C although he didn't know what was included in the commission's packet. He said that staff developed a set of standards which would be appended as Exhibit C and those standards would apply to the project. Chairperson Ferguson asked if those standard conditions were available. Mr. Joy replied that they had been prepared and had hoped they were included in the development agreement. He knew the applicant had a copy of them and understood with the applicant being out of town how it didn't get included. He said those conditions were in staff's files. Chairperson Ferguson requested a copy from staff and apologized to Mr. Selzer. Chairperson Ferguson said that he wanted to go through enough of the document to be able to show that he has some serious problems with the development agreement. He thought that from Mr. Seizer's aspect it was a well-written document, but from the City's aspect he wasn't so sure that the City was getting much of a benefit from the bargain and he wanted to give Mr. Selzer the opportunity to address some of these issues. Chairperson Ferguson asked about the incremental dedication of open space and if under the applicant's proposal that 30 days after approval of this agreement the City would be vested with 100 acres, which he thought was indicated at least on one of the maps, but thereafter the acreage included in any subsequent dedication would bear the same relationship to the acreage contained in the entire remaining dedicated open space to be dedicated as the number of residential units for which it is receiving such entitlements, permits, authorizations, required by it to begin the construction for the 151 units. He asked if the applicant was saying that they would dedicate the land as the City approves their lots. Mr. Selzer concurred. Chairperson Ferguson said that if they didn't develop any lots, the City wouldn't receive any open space. Mr. Selzer thought that was fair and accurate. If this property was undeveloped, he asked what the difference was. Chairperson Ferguson indicated that if the City didn't approve their plans to their liking, they could also withhold the dedication of open space. Mr. Selzer said that was correct if the City didn't approve the plans consistent with the terms of this agreement. Chairperson Ferguson noted that basically they were holding the balance of the acreage over the City's head. Mr. Selzer disagreed. He said that after 30 years of doing documents like this, notwithstanding that these were words drafted by one person, reviewed by the City Attorney, the Planning Commission and the City Council, none of whom might be here when this property is developed. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 While he wanted to believe that the document answers all the questions with respect to the development, his experience told him that seldom was the case and there were always questions. In discussing this with Councilman Crites specifically, they offered to dedicate in phases for that very reason. It was to keep the playing field level. He said Chairperson Ferguson suggested that they were somehow holding this over the City, but he was suggesting that the only benefit of this property to them was if, as, and when they could develop the property. If they could not develop it, they would not make the dedication. If they don't develop it, it all remains as open space. In talking with Buford Crites and Jean Benson, which was the term they agreed upon, that would keep the playing field level and it would allow both parties to go forward in good faith to make sure that the development occurred in the way agreed upon in the document. He didn't see it as holding anything over the City's head. The City controlled whether or not this property eventually developed. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the parties could move forward in good faith by the complete dedication of open space and the pledge and covenants by the City to operate in the manner Mr. Selzer was suggesting and that if there was a breach by either party, that this become the operative document for a lawsuit. Mr. Selzer thought that Chairperson Ferguson, as an attorney, knew the value of lawsuits and how expensive they are. He thought that was a very second rate alternative--they were expensive, cumbersome and seldom served anyone any purpose. The reason for the phased dedication was that the City would always be 100 acres ahead. The first dedication was a "gimme" and was there in advance. The balance of the dedication was done pro rata based upon the 151 units as the projects were approved consistent with the agreement. The other reason that they have proposed this was that there were other governmental entities to whom they must go to before this project would ever happen, including the Department of Fish and Game, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, to deal with Bighorn sheep issues in particular. After a great deal of experience with those entities, even though this document says they get credit for dedications, in fact a dedication once made has a great deal less weight with those entities than a dedication promised but not yet made. He said he could assure commission that they would stand ready with Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife to offer that same dedication. They, however, do not have those approvals yet and were reluctant to give up title to that property prior to securing it. Chairperson Ferguson said he wanted to clear up something that Mr. Selzer said earlier about not knowing who would subsequently be on City Council--he asked if Mr. Selzer's document provided that no entity of the City for the next 20 years could amend, change or substantively alter this document. Mr. Selzer concurred, unless they agreed to the change. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 Chairperson Ferguson noted that it wouldn't matter what the composition of the council was, this document would govern. Mr. Selzer stated that he would like to believe that everyone would read the same meaning into these words as he intended them to have and that when they were finished here tonight and after the City Council meeting, but over time subsequent developers as well as City Council and Planning Commissioners may read into this document different nuances to what is in the document. That was their concern. MR. CALVIN CREE, 47-400 South Cliff Road in Palm Desert, stated that he has lived here since 1973 and he wanted to make a few comments about this project in support. He said for the past 24 years he has hiked that hill probably no less than very few people in this valley, except for some ancient Cahuilla Indians, so he knew this area intimately and after studying the land use plan, he thought it was very environmentally sensitive to the surrounding area. He said he heard a comment made that there might be a conspiracy or something to not notify people within a 350' perimeter of this site and said that the reason he knew about this project was because having lived there so long, he made it his business to know what is going on in that area. He indicated he lives in Section 30 and that it was surveyed by the federal government in 1947 for federal land grants and it was put out for homesteading in 1958. The west boundary and south boundary of Section 30 contained several five acre parcels and on the west portion there were three and a half acre parcels that were not homesteaded because they were either inaccessible or in a wash area. He heard a comment that Councilman Crites mentioned that he is adjacent to the project. Mr. Cree said he didn't believe he is and Councilman Crites has property on two one-acre parcels off of Chapel Hill Lane and there were a couple of five acre parcels between this site and his property like there were some BLM parcels between Mr. Cree's property and they have 30 acres in Section 30 and this section. He felt it would be very compatible with the desert park area that they have dedicated in that it is adjacent to these parcels that are still owned by the Bureau of Land Management and were not developed and would probably not be developed in the foreseeable future. He also commented that in the 24 years that he has been here he has witnessed a lot of growth in the flat lands. They have hillside property and he thought it was interesting that he has seen the entire city evolve and mature with the exception of Section 30 and in 1990 or 1991 everyone in the city was mailed a notice that there was a $20 million redevelopment bond for improving streets and public right of ways and he thought it was interesting that every portion of the incorporated city of Palm Desert was affected by this redevelopment bond except Section 30 where they live. He remembered going to someone in Redevelopment and meeting with them and commenting about this and that person told him off the record that the City would rather assume that the hillside doesn't exist. He was in support of this project because he believed that there was finally a chance for the City to start paying attention to this area that in his opinion has been very neglected. He thought that this area, especially 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 in Section 30, was for the most part inaccessible to a lot of traffic so his section got a lot of illegal trash dumping and drug use and he hikes and runs in that area almost daily and he sees needles and felt it was a haven for felons and illegal activity. He also said he was excited that the City might start paying attention to this area to help it redevelop and catch up with the rest of the incorporated areas. Chairperson Ferguson said he hoped that Mr. Cree didn't hear the word conspiracy from the commission and explained that the City has a standard 300 foot radius notice procedure and the observation was that it doesn't always work in every situation and suggested that this might be one of them. Also, he indicated that he walked the property and all the developable areas both in the city and county and he began from Councilman Crites' property, so he thought it was close enough to merit notice in his opinion and that was where that comment came from. DR. JERRY MEINTZ stated that he has been a resident of Palm Desert for 32 years and has been living in the Cahuilla Hills since returning from Vietnam in 1972. He said he was one of the few residents living in Section 36 of the Cahuilla Hills that can actually see this project. Most of the people that have addressed the issues, whether pro or con, couldn't even see the development at all, unless they come into their area and there were about ten homeowners in that area that would be able to view the project. He said he has been opposed to this project for about 32 years. When he came to know the Miller family and realized that private property is private property and development continues to happen in the desert, he decided to give up a role of being obstructionistic and decided that if he was going to have any impact on this project, he should get involved, learn about it and understand it so that he could address issues that are of real concern. What he found over the years in working with individuals, with planning, staff and City Council because he has written letters and been outspoken, was that this project had some problems initially and has some merits. First, there was no hilltop construction and as a naturalist, or a recovering naturalist because he no longer believes that it is his right to dictate to people that own private property what they can do with it, he believed it was the responsibility of the governing agencies to dictate what is okay or not okay. The militance was gone but the need to set standards, boundaries and to address issues was still very much alive and well in his mind. Also, they have been hearing about the ecologically protective nature of the development and being the sceptic that he is, he said he went to Scottsdale and visited Desert Mountain and Troon and the description that they heard earlier this evening was happening there; 10,000 feet are fenced off and people couldn't touch anything outside of it. He said they have to respect nature and develop within the context of what nature has dictated without violating it. He felt that many of the residents that live in Cahuilla Hills do just that. He stated that his house is very strangely shaped because he and Craig Davenport rolled boulders around creosote bushes to save those bushes- -they thought they were significant and important. What he was really suggesting was that development needed to fit the natural contours of 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 the land and this was the only project he has seen in the desert that has even proposed that and after coming back from Scottsdale and looking very carefully at these proposals and plans and talking for hours in depth with these developers, he believed they intended to do that. His problem has not necessarily been with the developers, but with the City. Their history has been stopping Rancho Bella Vista which most of the Cahuilla Hills residents did effectively when the city was in its infancy and they proposed nearly 1 ,000 units and a major hotel and were going to do just what the City allowed Bighorn Golf Club to do and when he heard the debate here this evening about granting on these properties incrementally, he was in favor of it because he hasn't been able to trust the City. The City and Bighorn promised that there would be no leveling of hills or mass development up on the hillsides of that property. The Bighorn developers courted all of them in the community of Cahuilla Hills and promised that they wouldn't do those kinds of things, yet behind closed doors decisions were later made that undid those agreements, so he was really concerned that the City hold the developer's feet to the fire and do exactly what is agreed upon and also that they hold the City's feet to the fire to make sure they don't make any deals later on down the road. With the changing nature of the City Council and Planning Commission, for him those were very real concerns because he has seen those agreements fall apart and people go back on their word and he didn't want to see it happen again. Another issue he wanted to address was low level density. He thought that clearly with 750 acres, giving 90% back for open space was his idea of how development should happen in the Cahuilla Hills. Most of the residents have open space between their properties and enjoy hiking and running with their dogs and doing things that people go to the hillsides to do. The next important issue to him was that there was no golf course and he didn't want to sound prejudiced against golfers and he wasn't, but he didn't like golf courses or greenbelts and he didn't like "Orange County" and that "nonsense" being imported into the desert and as far as he was concerned the beautiful property up there in Section 30, 32 and 36 was pristine and was God's country and should be left just as natural as Eden. In addition, he agreed with Mr. Cree. Not only has his section been sorely overlooked in terms of amenities, so has theirs. The difference was they didn't want help--they were a County community and they liked it that way and didn't want paved roads or curbs and didn't want to be told that they couldn't have their motor homes parked on the street. They are up there because they didn't want to be part of the low lands. They wanted their open space and to live on their ranches with the freedom to live in nature. He thought that what this project did for them was help enhance the value of their properties. He also indicated that there has been a shared relationship in planning a secondary emergency access route. He noted that Cahuilla Hills didn't have one and though they haven't had a fire • that blocked their entry way, they have had floods that blocked the entry way and he said people die when there is no secondary emergency access and that was why developments today required it. The folks at the Crest could, if there was an emergency and they couldn't exit their main road, they could go through a crash gate and 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 use the Cahuilla Hills, but more importantly the people of Cahuilla Hills could do just the same and they have seen neighbor's lives lost because response time wasn't quick enough and they also knew that emergencies happened. Another issue was that this development was compatible and would respect the rustic natural character of the hills and they didn't want it changed or ultra developed. They wanted it pretty much the same as it has always been. He suggested that while Scottsdale, Desert Mountain and Troon, were all cutting edge developments that tend to protect the majority of the open space for everyone to use, appreciate and admire, there was no such development in this desert. It was all "Orange County", even Bighorn had become a disappointment and he was frankly excited to see that someone was courageous enough to try and protect the open spaces and dedicate most of what was there back to the people. His sense about it was that this project has value, it has benefit to Cahuilla Hills, and as long as this low density was held to and as long as there were no eleventh hour deals being made, this would be a good project. Some of the people in the Cahuilla Hills had asked them, because he is co-chairman of the road committee, to ask this developer to pave their emergency access road all the way to where their pavement stops. Other residents of Cahuilla Hills didn't want pavement and they were content with soil, cement or nothing at all. His request was that whatever this commission approves, that they take a look at the area of Section 36 and at the folks by Calvin Cree and make sure they are not harmed by this project--that things that happen are beneficial and supportive to their way of life. Finally, he said it was amazing to him to see how the City has supported the residents of Cahuilla Hills. The Council authorized the purchase of an acre of land for their children's bus stop and the City, together with Edison and Sun Bus, provided a safe bus stop. Bighorn, in trying to redress some of their wrongs, had landscaped that area in the community and ultimately, even though they wanted to remain free and open and County, they felt that the City had a responsibility to look out for them and make sure things happen the way they should. He says he has never seen a developer that has offered this much to the people, the community, or to this city and for those reasons, he was in support of this project. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the proposed project. MR. PAUL BOWIE, 71-774 Chuckawalla, stated that he forwarded the letter which was in the commission's packet regarding the emergency access road. He informed commission that he was not exactly against the project, however, the matter of the emergency road he thought was just a little undefined and was open to interpretation at some other point in time. He indicated the importance of safety could never be •overlooked. He thought that primarily as stated in his letter the developer should be asked to, with his staff, provide the secondary access as he indicated more directly toward Highway 74 which could be accomplished very simply. On the other hand, the matter that was just discussed regarding a crash gate of which there was no discussion 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 in any staff document, didn't exist. He could foresee the possibility that the emergency access through Section 36 could become a secondary road convenient for various parties and he didn't want to accuse anyone of anything, but a lot of various kinds of traffic could start coming back and forth through there because they didn't want to be bothering someone else down at the main gate who lives up there and so forth. He thought it was prudent at this point in time while the door of opportunity was open for Planning Commission to take the matter of the emergency access and direct it back to staff for clarification and if there is a wish to have a crash gate, they could talk about a crash gate here and now. He wouldn't want to defer the health, safety or welfare of anyone to some other time after some door of opportunity was closed to find out that things don't work out as well as they could have at the very beginning. He said that was the summation of his comments. MS. CINDY DAVENPORT, 48-010 Painted Canyon, stated that like Mr. Bowie she was not against the project, but her main concern was the emergency exit which would be right by her home. She asked if it would be an emergency access or a service entrance. That was her main concern. Mr. Miller readdressed the commission. He clarified that the emergency exit would only be used for emergencies. He explained that one way to create value in a high end type of development was through security and there would be a gate guard at the bottom of their project. Ms. Davenport asked Mr. Miller if service vehicles would be able to use the emergency access. Mr. Miller replied absolutely not. He said it would be very inconvenient to use Painted Canyon and was way out of the way and wondered why anyone would use a dirt road for construction trucks when they could use a paved access road that was 30 feet wide and built right. Secondly, the crash gates themselves would be on their property which they would control because they wanted to control any ingress or egress. They didn't want people driving through their development. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the crash gate would have cut-locks on there for emergency purposes so that the Fire Department could gain access and no one else other than emergency vehicles. Mr. Miller concurred. He indicated that it was not a public street and it would be used for emergencies. Chairperson Ferguson asked if there was anything else Mr. Miller would like to put into the record. Mr. Miller replied no, other than he felt the emergency access would benefit everyone. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 Commissioner Beaty asked if Mr. Miller felt the issue of the crash gate or emergency access was addressed in the document. Others apparently were not comfortable with what they have read. Mr. Miller felt it was accurately addressed in the document because they talk about emergency access and it was not their desire to have a public street with people coming into their development. Commissioner Beaty asked if Mr. Miller would have a problem if the language was made clearer and binding. Mr. Miller said that they could certainly work out some agreement that made sense. Mr. Joy suggested that language be included in the development agreement. Chairperson Ferguson closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Chairperson Ferguson said he would offer a couple of observations, but wanted to address a few comments by the applicant. Chairperson Ferguson stated that conceptually he was very much in favor of the project and lived in Scottsdale for five years in the very areas Mr. Miller was talking about and he also visited there two months ago and felt it was a beautiful way to develop the desert and was environmentally sound and made sense. As indicated, he also walked through the entire bowl area that was proposed for development, as well as the lower city section, and felt it made sense and was a good development as far as he could tell. His concerns with the project were not substantive, except to a minor degree, and those were things that they had discussed regarding the water tanks, sewage lines, etc., and the issue of the emergency access road. The people in that section were sensitive to the fact that every morning they see all the workers line up at Bighorn on their property on Cahuilla Way and they block the road making a parking lot out of it. He noted that the emergency access for this project went through Dr. Meintz's property and the Davenport property and if it was paved and there was no issue of a lock on it he felt they were justifiably concerned that this would become a service entrance. Having said that he noted that he spent about 20 hours going through the PCD document and noticed that it was sort of scaled back from the original proposal of about 200 lots and he noted a number of internal inconsistencies which he had also shared with Mr. Miller and staff and made part of the record tonight by way of his notes. The problem he had with this was not the inconsistencies and not where he and the applicant thought they were heading on this, because he didn't feel they had an issue there. The problem was that the development agreement made the PCD document the bible for the next 20 years and as Mr. Selzer pointed out, future councils might not see things as clearly as Mr. Selzer does at this point. Chairperson Ferguson said that he does not see things as clearly as Mr. Selzer with one reading of the document and he thought that much could be done to make it clearer. He had taken note of the request for a continuance and what he believed to be insufficient notice, and given the peculiar circumstances of this project, he would like to afford everyone the opportunity to speak to this 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 project. They have been here some time tonight and he had not heard anyone speak in opposition to it, but they have had some concerns that he believed needed to be addressed. He suggested that commission consider continuing this for two weeks to allow the applicant the opportunity of cleaning up the PCD document. As he noted earlier staff indicated there were at least ten maps that bore no resemblance to the current proposal. There were ten or so internal inconsistencies and ambiguities that he himself pointed out and during that same period he would like to see if the City Attorney and Planning Director could take another look at this development agreement, which he personally viewed as one sided and not fair to the City. He said he did take somewhat personally the comments about residents who don't trust their city. He viewed the commission's role and his in particular as a servant of the public trust and it was the public trust he was looking out for by requesting an additional two weeks to review the development agreement, to review the proposal and in contrast to that the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance for Hillside Planned Residential at Section 25.15.120 allowed the Planning Commission to require accurate topographic maps showing the proposed contour of the land after completion of the proposed grading, a slope analysis of at least five foot increments, elevations of existing topographic features and the elevations of any proposed building pads, locations and dimensions of all proposed cut and fill operations, etc. None of those were contained in the PCD document and yet the Planning Commission was being asked to adopt that document as the bible and any deviation would render in jeopardy the dedication of any open space and Mr. Selzer might take issue with that, but that basically put a hammer over the Planning Department. If they disagreed with anything from this somewhat ambiguous document, then the whole proposal in terms of the dedication of open space would be off. He felt the PCD document could be made clearer, the development agreement could be made fairer and he thought the project could perhaps sail through whereas in the past it has met with some resistance at levels beyond the Planning Commission. That was the reason for his request for a continuance and he said he wanted to punctuate that with his support of what the applicant is trying to do and his desire not to see them run into the same snags in the future. Commissioner Campbell stated that she was in favor of the project and liked it and voted for it two years ago, but with all the unresolved questions about the development agreement, she would move to continue this matter two weeks. Commissioner Beaty said he would second the motion. Mr. Joy clarified that the requirement about the topographical information and those items were shown on actual subdivision maps. Chairperson Ferguson said that was his point. Mr. Joy indicated that if they were working for a couple of weeks on the development agreement, they might be able to clean up the language a little bit but they would not be able to supply any of that information to the commission. Chairperson Ferguson stated that there was no request in the motion for that to be done, he was simply pointing out that if they were a part of the city, which they aren't now, and they were in that existing zoning, they couldn't come to the commission without that information. It would be required in an application and the commission didn't have nearly the specificity and he discussed with Mr. Miller today the impracticability of providing that information which all the more made him reluctant to approve a document that binds the City and ties their hands and 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 future councils for 20 years and lacks the specificity that he would have liked to have seen. He merely suggested the continuance to allow the documents to be cleaned up. Chairperson Ferguson reopened the public hearing and asked for a vote on the motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, continuing C/Z 90-12 Amendment #1 Development Agreement to June 3, 1997 by minute motion. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. C/Z 97-5 - PALM SPRINGS BEVERLY ROAD ASSOCIATES, Applicant Consideration of a resolution of denial to a request for approval of a change of zone to apply the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone to one of the remaining vacant pads at the Lucky Center at the southwest corner of Washington Street and 42nd Avenue (Hovley Lane East) in order to permit a Jack in the Box restaurant with drive-thru facility. Mr. Smith explained that this matter was before the Planning Commission at the last meeting. At that time staff did not have a resolution either in favor or opposition to the request prepared. If commission adopted this resolution tonight, it would be a denial without prejudice which would allow the applicant to subsequently amend his application and the City could at some point in the future perhaps review a drive-through restaurant on this site pursuant to a request for a development agreement and enter the process in that manner. Staff suggested that commission adopt the resolution. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1807, denying C/Z 97-5. Carried 5-0. B. DISCUSSION OF APPROVAL HISTORY OF LUCKY CENTER AT WASHINGTON STREET AND HOVLEY LANE EAST. Mr. Smith indicated that pursuant to the direction of the Commission at their last meeting, staff undertook a more comprehensive review of what transpired as best as staff could figure it out. Mr. Drell had an extensive discussion with Paul Clark, the Principal Planner for the County, and basically staff's report of May 15 outlined that while the applicant filed an application in March of 1994, he had a previous conceptual approval for a drive-through. Then in March of 1994 he filed for the specific drive-through and had a hearing set for May 19, 22 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: May 20, 1997 CASE NO: C/Z 90-12 Amendment #1 Development Agreement REQUEST: Pre-annexation zoning of 640 acres north of the "Cahuilla Hills" area and 55 acres across the Palm Valley Channel from the "Sommerset" condominiums to Planned Community/Hillside Planned Residential with a development agreement for a project known as "The Crest" consisting of 151 homesites on 695 acres (410 acres to be dedicated as open space). APPLICANT: Crest Partners (Miller Richards Partnership) 11750 Sorrento Valley Road San Diego, CA 92121 DISCUSSION: A. LOCATION/DESCRIPTION: The project is designed as an exclusive gate guarded community of large estates within a natural bowl-shaped area (outside the city) at the base of the mountains accessed by a new road across the Palm Valley Channel that will intersect Highway 74 at Homestead Road. This application provides the framework for the more detailed subdivision maps to follow, and that are necessary before any construction may commence. Once the zoning is agreed upon, an application will be made with LAFCO to bring the property into the city. B. HISTORY: The project has been before the commission twice before. The project initially consisted of 209 units and an Environmental Impact Report was prepared accordingly. However, the County indicated the maximum project size they would allow if not annexed was 104 units so when the project first went to Planning Commission on October 20, 1992, the Commission first voted 2-2-1 for approval - then 4-0-1 to send the project to City Council without a recommendation. The City Council then heard a request for a scaled back 185 unit project; the highest number staff felt the STAFF REPORT C/Z 90-12 AMENDMENT #1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MAY 20, 1997 hillside ordinance would allow, but approved the project with a 104 unit total on November 12, 1992 and re-affirmed this on February 11 , 1993. The Environmental Impact Report was certified for 209 units and general plan amendment to hillside zoning was approved however. The County later indicated they would look favorably on a project up to 151 units and the project was brought again to the Planning Commission on June 20, 1995 which approved it 4-0. The project was then continued indefinitely at City Council level until now. Two changes were made to the project which staff feels are not significant and consist of: 1 . Transferring eight units, from the visually sensitive hillside across the Palm Valley Channel from the Sommerset condominiums, to the bowl- shaped area. 2. Inclusion of a development agreement that re-affirms the planned community development zoning and serves the same purpose. C. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project was previously assessed in an Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 91021034. II. RECOMMENDATION: A. Adoption of the findings. B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending to the City Council approval of subject zone change and development agreement. III. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Development agreement C. "Crest" PCD text D. Legal notice E. Planning Commission staff report 6-20-95 2 STAFF REPORT C/Z 90-12 AMENDMENT #1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MAY 20, 1997 F. City Council staff report 7-13-95 G. Vicinity map H. Reduced site plan Prepared by P/7, � Phil Joy Reviewed and Approved by Phil Drell /tm 3 vkN' lt 11 t . h C `f o Palm Desert • $-- . 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 FAX (619)341-7098 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: June 19, 1997 Crest Partners 11750 Sorrento Valley Road San Diego, California 921.21 Re: /C/Z 90-12 Amendment #1 Development Agreement The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of June 17, 1997: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CIZ 90-12 AMENDMENT #1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1812, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AS AMENDED. CARRIED 3-0-2 (COMMISSIONERS BEATY AND JONATHAN ABSTAINED). Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Le/ STEPHEN R. SMITH, ACTING SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION /tm cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal A� as Paper PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1812 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PRE-ANNEXATION ZONING OF PCD/HPR (PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL - 285.4 ACRES) O.S. (OPEN SPACE - 410.3 ACRES) AND A ZONE CHANGE FROM HPR TO PCD/HPR FOR 55 ACRES, AND A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS "THE CREST" CONSISTING OF 151 HOMESITES ON 640 ACRES NORTH OF THE "CAHUILLA HILLS AREA" AND 55 ACRES OPPOSITE THE PALM VALLEY CHANNEL FROM THE "SOMMERSET" CONDOMINIUMS. CASE NO. C/Z 90-12 AMENDMENT #1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of May, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by CREST PARTNERS for the project described above; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 97-18," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project was previously assessed by an Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 91021034; 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 to justify their actions, as described below: 1 . Zone change and development agreement are in conformance with the General Plan. 2. Zone change and development agreement conform with Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 91021034. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval Change of Zone 90-12 Amendment #1 Development Agreement. PLANNING COMMISSIONQSOLUTION NO. 1812 • PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 17th day of June, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, FERNANDEZ, FERGUSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: BEATY, JONATHAN /1 .1101 JAMES CA I SO , Chairperson ATTEST: STE HEN . SMIT , A ting Ser Y City of Palm Desert, California 2 EXHIBIT "C" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Department of Community Development: 1 . Mitigation measures in the Environmental Impact Report SCH #91021034 are referenced further as conditions of approval. 2. Standards for development shall follow options 1 and 3 of the City's Hillside Ordinance and as clarified further by the PCD text. 3. Further interpretation or refinement of any conditions at the tract map stage shall take into account the low density nature of the project. 4. See attached Exhibit "C-1 " entitled PROPOSED OMNIBUS CONDITION DEALING WITH THE UNIQUE NATURE OF THE PHYSICAL CONDITIONS AT THE CREST. Said condition shall replace Department of Community Development Condition No. 3 only upon review and approval by the City Attorney. 5. Emergency shall be defined as an event requiring police, fire, ambulance or other similar vehicle and where access from the main access road is impractical. 6. Crash gate shall be relocated to the southern perimeter of the three properties referred to in text in Emergency Drive section of the PCD text. 7. No benches or shade structures shall be permitted along the ridge line. Ridge line shall be defined as area visible from a westerly perspective (from down valley). 3 I : , • -. ..‘g.E.-_;-q,-,. , ./ .--.. n I I r. . 1„... , . -....me-,t tw., • ,-, .1: ri!,\ .1, 1 (,. .° 51 - • tot '' V\ •• 1.',.1,6,.... ' .1.5 ‘. I a ottv" t 'moo ' ..4 .e .,.. .- • 'OrriOduim' r I .-.:1 P I -- -- . . .' I r..."••••.: '.. ? 21 :,..„1 k - INGL ,I i ' 4.. P , • 111li`', ; '-. ,f,i 1 .----, -.. 1 , 1 CACTUSr_ OR I s....44• . 7 • ...,, 'fa ' ••• :011 ""a .. _1 .. sa`.%Pt% ••.! I •••• '' t• - ;.' , e-u.,..j.1 A Wm r a soma*i i 0 I-4 r. • ..... :or SAM ISIDICILA.1 t Ac y 'fla 11°S• gii 1 1 1---)• t_. CATAL NA 4; .7; r I §g .L I H tf.t. .1-1. -,--- F:, .......,-P.-.4.7-4- ..L-- -,.. __ . t . • 1 ,..1 . : 1 1 i 7.'1 a i .1! RANCHO I foot.. • I MIRAGE . /-- 5 f')nion :otst4m4nt Is PAS/01) ' IL a PROJECT SITE 1\ . 21i b 1I 06 c )1 I I ' •Vtlit4,4 I • tee 3 sataaa• •••• + '... + ' . .' +.??; '''...\ *.11itteriftiatrisr- r 2.7 " d ....-mte5-s.. e.- • A. ___L_ , `.. I l''':i 11 :Z3:::11111t4 a••••:_e) yr a Alow I A---C i I Z1-4 • —..IJi1;-7' imommer ._ ,' I 't-. .. -, q--t7 i & PlIffell r , 14...... . 1 e N1001•00C1 3 TT."'ter.ptee • I •••77 I ' l * • p• . .. I P117012NR.51Iplz ,1 H. PROPERTY A I4 " " ....;:',..:',•<. :3:;•.1..4.;.':: :::.',t;'.4-0•,;.1..4.-.4.:'::4::.1'.',..:-.'-e• i!i.:*: 'I'glee'. • Ir 1 lel ar . g z. ,Hir 4.....3m. , L . -Vrpict,t;,,Atzff..f;;; :. I .. I • , ::.r:-.: ,,rf-:.: :.- !,..: :;: ..,..:,.;„... e, I ,t....."' -::•• •ligraq, A A :11:'. .4....ts.,., - - - - -.- - .- . .1-- •, .;... ....:.:;.;%',. ..:. .....:;...,.4.;;;:.. ''•''''' '.' ' ..-L---ak•tt:-.1"le 1 'll ! WILLW" \ i .....''':1:'....:',',:'''.:'::',. ..,.....:,...:...•,,,,,,,,,,,.. :.•,i''..,:I"r41 ir 1 :,7..::::,,:;.;:....1::-;.:i7,'..., :i..!..',<..::. ..•:.i.A.M*; :.;.,.:.,,....4••;..,-;, •:...:',.,Ati'.. .;:.ii.Va.:1:7.:::,'..2.:f.VA'.;':..V;;f.';:.. ....:•••:.'.''...Z::.1,...:: ';'',r.:;.:•..,.....:. .iip,11,Y!i.tV:V4-125g.i:1;-,4A,.7::::::4;: i'. I Sr ,:. ..: 41110ll fr- avast ea T1-CO a. ! ; i.. -:;.:'.4 .•--, d I •;••--T- -Fir: 111 r , 1 prA till? rttlic .4r"...z?, „ Alt 411 I •.1 4; : t!.,• : .i..-* :g I. 1011. 1142.3-..a. ,3 ,ifi.n....co..ciziron : .1 • Or !di il Ma•t .- '•,.'a • ';;''t'..k.:;-.,:g%•.4.'.;FO:T.5**r7Mi7.••: .•.'i...M,:Z....: -.::.:s.:;.', I .44. 44.; ...*-;,,k s- r ' ,.:,.:,:: ::::,•.;.,w....z.,,itiV.:•tzo•i.•.;.,!;•,:r'7.4..;XYli:+4,',14i :•...•.;:: i ......7.- : %Ail 1 1 .ns..41., i::<::::.::•?: :::;,::!i.,...14:1: :;,:: :'0?4•.0.i<.i•i'.:".;::;:in ..i.:'n%...,.:..••:: .. :,;•:.,.4::,.. ....;'''..;, ..ir,i;•''•i•.4.4'..t4i...i:'•.4',.:-!,••Vi.C.,i..'•-,'i,'•.. a., 'ft:L.-. ! " ,.. .7-::: usipu ,II _331_4 It L. nw ftz......, r,.. _ . . . • _ ...no ,...,..),.,*.t,)t ,.. "' .,. : ' I wirintrAs7 —3 :r-C----1.6' 4rAil.. . iiii• • tilp- • • a 7 . , 1 ... a,'.,'.' ' mys.1 004.sz ain, 5 • T, II A ti RICA TR,,,, .5 I T. I 0 •22* 4.#''', • .•.•';::::%::.•:. I" . ' r ..6,' .L.P• • e4, I i • • 4- ...7.....-7---ir• . • I .. • '1...,4* I a II 3 rlifi" r . IA PL • I I 1 •221.t:::•''A..":"8/14.11011‘IMAM 4 ' Iiii*Oil. / / iII • A, • •• . ---___r_f_a_a211.4:-.4:::-- . • '` \ I t •• " . PEE-,10PERTY '' •im imi AN) - eie• ., •---,-- • : .• Nib ' .. ...,........ 1 I i • OS/U.1 I RO a -r-c,:_e•-;-* c .-....r.„...... 1 I I • I I 1., !e7iiiry AGORA i g .r ... : . Av. . no z;.••.1r.:. ., I t ."--.'"" ts. _____r__11.1, P7i)s."' 1 t '-`4-te---..• ',. :.c...i1':* T 5 S ._ ... 1 •al. 31.1 I I ." irt,ti...1, I CAMIALA IVI .• , , n•dide" TEL.. A -I- I 6.. . I • A i 1 i 1 ,......_. , e • i ---4. 1 ,.•-• 1 .... ••••••=0••• '.:1 it ,.. Reproduced with permission granted by ' ::.......-- I -9, •• THOMAS BROS.MAPS.This map is . I u: , • . , ....,... .•. copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS. 1 1'.L.T.'..:11., I ca/-'''"r**".7•47 I • Q ••VYCL••• it is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or I :=:?.. I . I I 0 2600 any part thereof,whether for personal use I C...;:••=•••••••"••••••••• I ilb .• , .or resale,without permission. I amaaimmiimini FEET • EXHIBIT 2 VICINITY MAP a RECEIVED Paul Bowie JUN 17 1997. 71 774 Chuckawalla Palm Desert, CA 92260 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CE?AR1iiENT June 17, 1997 City of Palm Desert Planning CommissionC CPQA'J�CESEIT 73 510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Commissioners: On Hay 20th I appeared before your Commission and spoke on the matter of an emergency gate for the Crest Development which appears in the development plans. The plans show a gate installation being on the north Section line of Section 36. I also submitted to your Commission a letter dated May 16th stating reasons why the Commission should make plans for an emergency exit other than on the north Section line of Section 36. I continue to ask that your Commission adopt that letter and its contents. Since May 20th I have contacted Paul Clark of the Riverside County Planning Commission and additionally the Palm Desert Planning Department regarding con- siderations which might have arisen between the two Planning Staffs regarding the impact of an emergency gate leading into Section 36. I have been informed by both Mr. Clark and the Palm Desert Planning Department that no discussion was ever held regarding the impact on residents and owners in Section 36. This leaves me rather set back to the extent that the County failed to take into ..account the presence of a community of residents and owners in its domain. Regarding the city of Palm Desert it is a fact that the residents and owners of Section 36 are in its sphere of influence. Speaking for myself I admonish the County Planning Commission, Indio office for not raising at least a minimum ques- tion relative to owners and residents in Section 36. For the city of Palm Desert Planning Staff I wish to remind you that there are substantial bonds between, at least some residents of Section 36 and the city relative to economics, business and social intercourse. It must be recognized that there is pride, steady improve- ment and a future in the community. I hope and trust that appropriate future planning will not be without respect, courtesy and consideration in planning matters which have an impact on the area. Let us examine the term "emergency." None of the documents prepared by the city staff contain a glossary. However, let us assume the term "emergency" is intended to mean some event of a large magnitude which poses a threat to life or to the healthy welfare of community citizens.TIt is presumed that an "emergency" could be based on at least one or more of the following: fire, flooding, an aircraft disaster, a military disaster, a hit from space debris, a hit from radio- active space debris, an act of terrorism or an earthquake. Any one of the aformentioned could involve implementing the use of an emergency exit for days or weeks predicated on the actual situation. Establishing an emergency route through Section 36 to connect with Highway 74 would automatically compound an already existing health problem by increasing the copious quantity of PM-10 airborne matter which is continuously thrown up by vehicular traffic coursing its way along, at least, Painted Canyon road. It cannot automatically be assumed that an emergency route would follow straight along Painted Canyon. Due to conditions of an emergencrlwhich cannot be totally predicted, an emergency route might be required to skirt around some portions of Painted Canyon. This would extend the total travel distance on dirt roads and magnify even more the generation of PM-10. Should the city elect to install an emergency gate on the north side of Section 36 it automatically binds itself to solving the PM-10 problem. A solution means an affirmative act to suppress P4-l0 continuously and prior to any activation //lir of an emergency exit. The simple assumption that a water truck will settle dust is not tenable given the unknown nature, magnitude, duration, availability of equipment and manpower resources in an emergency. The establishment of an emergency route through Section 36 onto Cahuilla Way and to Highway 74 adds another aspect to traffic flow. Conjestion is almot common place and sometines semi-insane on Cahuilla Way at the north gate of Bighorn development. Never mind that the city has attempted to maintain order by providing red curbs, signage and solid double yellow traffic lines. Numerous vehicle operators have the definite belief that such directives are for someone else. Riverside County Fire Department in their letter dated May 1, 1997 states a requirement for a second access to The Crest development. Implementing the Fire Department suggestion of two main access points from a main roadway offers the most sensible solution. A second main access will permit residents to enjoy additional separation of traffic between themselves and the myraid of service and logistic traffic through the community. Should the city wish to install the emergency gate which would lead through Section 36 it is right and proper to develop a plan for the gate, and the binding conditions under which it would be activated. A plan must include the exclusive type of traffic and an approved plan as set forth by the appropriate air quality district for continuous. PM-10 dust control on all possible dirt roads which could conceivably be used by emergency traffic flow. Upon completion a plan explaining its elements and rational as to why a gate into Section 36 is perceived to be superior to another option is ,to be mailed to every property owner in Section 36 seeking comment. Every single property owner and resident in Section 36 will be impacted by emergency traffic either through additional PM-10 dust generation should the city elect to not honor that duty and through the added traffic conjestion which will happen in proximity of Cahuilla Way and Highway 74. Your Commission possesses the right to adopt a Develpment Agreement with The Crest developers however, including the "emergency gated access to an adjoining development" at this time is improper, defective and wanting due to insufficient planning and the failure to consider the impact to owners and residents of Section 36. (;Respectfully submitted, Paul Bo ie -2- 1 t w Ili I i , NWtz 4I.M„I�� 1 ` a �7 A ! we Rs. 9 i $ [x. a_ o` arm. a a -- i ^, e11 - s \, ;i1 � . ® !! II is •u: :::: i J itsr 1tfY:. `• ;... n iit-•. ... Y•"�.•II 1 1 �'®i.IIY �1 le ::.... ..:,:::...... =t.. ':•:.•`i .. t:: "7':tir Ali O. - ; lJ � ' e 0 li tit ,,,„7.5 ,,. 0 a - 0 a 6 v, 11,%5* 44etkair iii 0411tecc 1 _ ; ,i 41) . 11,-. -Arosno 0 .l,far fehlp 0 .0 /. , 0,.. -e.T.0 , hk-* ON r,V-4 VAO 0 , ,4106 il 1111 1 rw, v ; �► A �® ® 'J �� ItIVIL ,4111 WI (047 4111111 Ilk \ 0 0 oillEme 0-'7-vi, '0 4* ii 101 AloppWiragei0 00A ID :a , ,vs 0. liretiaparduralis 190 ,,Taif ,1-3-1-0 014 s, \/ go aii ® 414, a / p 13 H I V L 1 r 15 EXHIBIT 7B CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: June 20, 1995 CASE NO: C/Z 90-12 Amendment #1 REQUEST: Amendment to the existing pre-annexation zoning increasing the density from 104 homesites to 151 homesites for "The Crest" - a project on 54 acres opposite the Palm Valley Channel from the "Sommerset" condominiums and 640 acres north of the "Cahuilla Hills" area - that would include 411 acres of dedicated open space. APPLICANT: Miller Richards Partnership c/o The Geritz Group 5353 West Sopris Creek Road Basalt, CO 81621 I . BACKGROUND: The project was originally applied for on 03-30-90 and consisted of 209 units on 694 acres - 54 acres within city limits and 640 acres to be annexed. The 640 acres is further divided into 411 acres of steep hillside terrain to be dedicated as open space, and 229 acres proposed for development that is less sloping terrain that forms an extension of the unincorporated Cahuilla Hills area to the south. Planned Community Development (PCD) zoning was suggested by staff as a way of holding down the density. The PCD zoning would also provide for the open space dedication while providing the property owner with some assurances of what they would be allowed to build if annexed to the city. An environmental impact report was prepared at which time it was discovered that the county would not extend zoning designations from the Cahuilla Hills area to this site, thereby restricting the density the county would allow on the 640 acre portion of The Crest to 83 units - which together with 21• units allowed on the city portion, brought to 104 units the total allowed under those circumstances . The city council retained the 104 maximum unit total as the pre- annexation zoning on 11-12-92 and re-affirmed it on 02-25-93 . The applicant then applied to the county for a general plan amendment resulting in a letter stating that county staff would support .an amendment to allow 110 to 130 units on the 640 acres in the county which together with the city' s 21 units comprises the present 151 unit application. STAFF REPORT C/Z 90-12 AMENDMENT #1 JUNE 20, 1995 II . PROJECT: With the exception of a 32 lot reduction, the project remains the same. The site is to be accessed by a new bridge over the Palm Valley Channel opposite Homestead Road on Highway 74 . The roadway continues through the 54 acres (referred to as Property B) presently in the city to the 640 acre section (Property A) where the road loops within the 229 acres to be developed (community area) . The community is bisected by numerous deep ravines and the loop road will bridge these canyons also. The proposed homesites have been identified by the applicant and a conceptual grading plan has been prepared showing initial lot pads averaging 7177 square feet - while language in the text sets the maximum pad size at 15,000 square feet or larger. Average lot sizes are 60, 000 square feet while text language sets a 30, 000 square foot minimum lot size. A recreation center including two tennis courts is also shown within this community area. As the above data indicates the project, while merely a re-zoning, also is proposing some development standards as evidenced by the pad size maximums . Also proposed is a 24 foot, two story building height. While the city' s hillside code does not exclude two story structures - it does not guarantee two story which the text language does . A mitigation to this which the applicant has proposed is not to have a single wall 24 feet tall without a break. In summary, the applicant is envisioning an exclusive area of estates ranging in size from 5,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet with capabilities of having private tennis courts . While the majority of homesites would not be visible from the valley below, it should be noted that the 20 homesites on the 55 acres presently within the city and approximately 10 homesites in the main community area would be visible in some areas . III . HILLSIDE ZONING CONFORMANCE: The PCD text becomes the development standards for the project but there is still the underlying Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) zone which the PCD text should abide by since almost the entire site meets the city' s hillside criteria standards . HPR zoning requires development to follow one of four options, only two of which are applicable to the site ( # ' s 1 and 3) . Option one bases density . and grading restrictions on average slope of the site. Under strict interpretation of this option either 142 units could be constructed disturbing a maximum of 42 .47 acres or 148 units 2 STAFF REPORT C/Z 90-12 AMENDMENT #1 JUNE 20, 1995 could be constructed on 34 . 7 acres . Under a liberal interpretation, 259 units could be constructed on 87 . 55 acres . In both cases , the steep ravines that bisect the community area increase the average slope dramatically, though the ravines are unbuildable areas . Rather than re-drawing the open space area to include these ravines , . use of option 3 does this automatically. Option 3 requires development of up to a 10 , 000 square foot pad, to only occur on 1/2 acre sites of 20% or less average slope exclusive of the ravines . A variation of this option to accommodate the up-scale community is proposed that would allow an increase in allowable pad area per increase in lot area under 20% slope. While this would translate to a 15,000 square foot pad for a 3/4 acre lot, the applicant has indicated a willingness to retain larger lots to maintain spacing. It is understood that the area of 20% or less slope not include areas of desert park that might bisect a lot so that only a 10,000 square foot pad may be possible on a two acre lot due to 1 1/2 acre of desert park' s existence on the property to protect it. Clarifying this hypothetical situation further, if a two acre lot may have 9 , 000 square feet of 20% slope on one side of a ravine and 13 , 000 square feet on the other, a 10 ,000 square foot pad would be allowed then on the 13,000 square foot site. Most of the community area lots would fall in this category while sites within the area, but over 20% average slope would fall under option one computation - which is also mandated under option 3 . Implementation of this consideration of options requires slope studies for all lots at time of map submittal . Previous studies by the applicant ' s engineer have shown that 176 units would be possible in a 283 acre community area, but similar to the previous application, the maximum number of units that county staff recommends would also be the maximum number that city staff would recommend. Even though the number of units might be similar if developed in the city versus county, city staff feels that the city' s hillside zoning is far more environmentally sensitive than county regulations in terms of grading restrictions, location of units and re-naturalization of disturbed areas . It was also staff ' s suggestion that if the recreation center was deleted it could be replaced by an extra homesite since a homesite would be less offensive than two tennis courts and a clubhouse - but in any case would still follow option 3 criteria of the hillside zoning code. Staff ' s only other concern was that the open space recordation be made or. agreed to at time of annexation rather than at time of adjacent map recordation - which the applicant has agreed to. 3 STAFF REPORT C/Z 90-12 AMENDMENT #1 JUNE 20, 1995 IV. RECOMMENDATION: A. Approval of findings . B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No . recommending to the city council approval of PCD text C/Z 90- 12 Amendment #1 for 151 units maximum with the adoption of option 3 standards and open space dedication as specified in the staff report . V. ATTACHMENTS : A. PCD text, appendices dated 3-15-95 , legal notice (previously delivered) B. County letter dated 12-5-94 Prepared by 7��i`-, Reviewed and Approved by PJ/tm 4 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I . TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II . REQUEST: Pre-annexation zoning of PCD/HPR (Planned Community Development, Hillside Planned Residential - 228 .5 acres ) O. S . (Open Space - 411 . 5 acres ) and a zone change from HPR to PCD/HPR for 54 acres; for a project known as "The Crest" consisting of 151 homesites on 640 acres north of the "Cahuilla Hills area" and 54 acres opposite the Palm Valley Channel from the "Sommerset" condominiums . III . APPLICANT: Miller/Richards Partnership c/o The Geritz Group 5353 West Sopris Creek Road Basalt, CO 81621 IV. CASE NO: C/Z 90-12 Amendment #1 • V. DATE: July 13, 1995 VI . CONTENTS : A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion C . Draft Ordinance No . D. Planning Commission Minutes of June 20 , 1995 E . Planning Commission Resolution No. 1694 F. Planning Commission Staff Report of June 20 , 1995 G. PCD Text, Appendices and Legal Notice H. Conceptual Initial Grading Plan A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Adopt findings . 2 . Adopt Ordinance No . approving C/Z 90-12 Amendment #1 and pass to second reading, subject to inclusion of Option 3 language and open space dedication requirements specified in June 20, 1995 staff report. B . DISCUSSION: The applicant previously requested 209 units and later scaled the project back to 185 units for which an EIR was adopted. But since the majority of the land was unincorporated, consideration of what the county would allow was critical in determining what type of density increase was being requested. The county answered that STAFF REPORT C/Z 90-12 AMENDMENT #1 JULY 13, 1995 the maximum was 83 units on their portion and that was used as the basis for the city' s approval of only 104 units . The county later revealed they did not fully analyze the project as a general plan amendment and that a separate application with the county would have to be filed for the project to be analyzed as such. The applicant did this and the county then recommended 120 lots - plus or minus 10 - as the maximum on the county portion. The plus or minus margin was to be determined by other departments ( i .e. transportation and flood control) at the tentative map stage - as the city would do. The 130 lot figure that the county would recommend together with the 21 lots maximum in the present city portion comprise the 151 now requested. The number of units, however, is only one part of restrictions placed on hillside development. Grading restrictions also apply and staff required - with planning commission' s concurrence - that the city' s grading restrictions (based on slope studies done at the tentative map stage) also apply to the project which could also ultimately affect the lot count if the numbers are not there. This compares to the county' s letter which stated that the final lot count would be based on, for the most park engineering issues (which the city would be doing also) and not on a detailed slope analysis which the city' s planning department requires . Additional city restrictions such as location of homesites and re- naturalization, not required by the county, would assure that the project ' s development follow guidelines spelled out in the PCD text. The planning commission, besides requiring the additional grading restrictions, also heard positive testimony from adjoining property owners, and a concern from Sommerset residents that the entryway on Highway 74 not block their down-valley views . The commission approved the amendment 4-0 (Jonathan absent) , citing the project ' s environmental sensitivity and positive benefits to the surrounding area and to the commercial developments within the city. Prepared by: ,�&/ (7 PP by: /ft Reviewed and Approved / I PJ/tm 2 •iii it •• • Y ` .J/ t' ©NV@V ? lll[I De. eN '• r 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT • LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. C/Z 90-12 AMENDMENT #1 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by MILLER/ RICHARDS PARTNERSHIP for approval of: pre-annexation zoning of PCD/HPR (Planned Community Development, Hillside Planned Residential - 285.4 acres) O.S. (Open Space - 410.3 acres) and a zone change from HPR to PCD/HPR for 55 acres, and a development agreement for a project known as "The Crest" consisting of 151 homesites on 640 acres north of the "Cahuilla Hills area" and 55 acres opposite the Palm Valley Channel from the "Sommerset" condominiums. APN's 628-320-001, 631-020-001 thru 004 & 631-030-004 RANCHO �.; 11c�, „-, 4.1_0411.11arti:' --;- ---ram-=`li--� fermwt 1_4,jil 11. -til / • C=M•taTe i : ..44.7.1 ...........4, _ Am, OEM 10.,ww.„ r SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 20, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be • accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project is available for review in the department of community development/planning at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The project has been previously assessed for CEQA purposes. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post PHILIP DRELL, Secretary May 8, 1997 Palm Desert Planning Commission IF CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: October 6 1992 REQUEST: 1 ) General Plan land use designation for of unincorporated land from Mountainous (4140acacres res ) and R-4 (226 acres) to Open Space (394 Hillside Planned Residential (246 acres) ; d pre- annexation zoning from W-2 to O.S. ) � 2)(Planned Communityand HPR/PCD change for 54 acres Development) ; to recommendation HPR/PCD; Sand zone environmental impact report fto or aateness knownof ) an "The Crest" on 640 acres north of project las a Hills" and 54 acres opposite the Palm Valley Channel from "Sommerset" Y CASE NOS: : GPA 90-3, C/Z 90-12 APPLICANT: MILLER RICHARDS PARTNERSHIP c/o The Geritz Group 2505 Ardath Road La Jolla, California 92037 I . PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The subject property, as shown on the attached le a is predominantly 640 comprised ofg 1 notice, Y A) and 54 acres (Property B) unincorporatedrr acresy limits . Property "B" is characterized Channel b within relativelythe current clat terrain adjacent to the Palm ValleyY extending west near the topof a and rocky hillside mostly a desert wash which is ridge. The flat terrain is biological standpoint, but also from a hydrologortant, y justn the Palm Valleyfrom a thebow shaped area Channel.the ridge that Y JY standpoint to west Property A is characterized by a on top, and east of the first dramatic riser of currently ehSantacRosa Mountains . This bowl-shaped area contains many low ridges is bisected occasionallybyRosa is bisect cross-bearing very steep and ridge hides ropeertys � from The previouso the valley. One canyon shown on USGS maps yas Ramonmostr of provides a small window permitting a limited view into andeek, of the project. out Currently the entire site is vacant. west of Property re are scattered residences to the north and Y B, and south of Property A. STAFF REPORT CASE NOS . GPA 90-3 , C/Z 90-12 OCTOBER 6 , 1992 II . PROJECT ACCESS : Access to Property A is currently provided by a dirt road extending across Property B from the Palm Valley Channel . The dirt road currently ends south of "A" , 800 feet west of the easterly property line . The proposed access follows this same configuration with the dirt road being paved and widened. The steep grades and sharp corners are also proposed to be removed. The location of the road in a canyon eliminates visual impacts associated with its construction. The last sharp curve straightened out brings the road onto Property A so that it travels across only one unincorporated 5 acre parcel eliminating contact with a second 5 acre parcel where the road presently terminates . The entryway to the site is proposed to occur at an inter- section with Highway 74 opposite Homestead Road via a bridge over the Palm Valley Channel . The applicant worked with Caltrans studying alternative entrances such as sharing the entryway with Sommerset. The current proposal selected by Caltrans was the preferred choice. Secondary emergency access was determined to be most appropriate southerly into the Cahuilla Hills area. This would need to be provided prior to any map approval . III . PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. General: The 640 acre "A" property is subject to both a pre-zone and general plan amendment because it is outside the city limits but within the city' s sphere of influence. Property "B" meanwhile is subject to the addition of a PCD overlay zone only, since it currently already possesses an underlying HPR zone and HPR general plan land use designation. The PCD overlay is added to tie both properties together with an integrated land use plan. If The Crest PCD were approved, construction could not commence until a tentative tract map was approved in compliance with the PCD. The purpose of the PCD is to set a maximum number of units permissible on the 694 acre site and to show the distribution of the units along with the roadway locations . The PCD zoning was required by staff early during processing when it was thought that both city and county regulations permitted many more units than what was being proposed . B.:: 4010 • STAFF REPORT CASE NOS . GPA 90-3, C/Z 90-12 OCTOBER 6 , 1992 as described later, the unit count exceeds county regulations with it still being determined as to whether it meets city regulations . B. Details of Plan: The basic concept of the plan is to concentrate the development of "A" property to the bowl-shaped 246 acres and further restricted by open space easements . The 394 acre rise in the Santa Rosa Mountains is to be dedicated as open space . The development of Property "B" is shown to avoid the lower washes and shows the homesites scattered among the higher 80% of this property. The bowl-shaped area is referred to as the community area on the plan and is served by a looping roadway with numerous roads and driveways leading to homesites throughout the site . The same type driveways are shown on Property "B" extending from the main access road. The project is termed as being sensitive to the environment due to the type of homesites called for in the accompanying PCD text and a desert theme of landscaping. Lot sizes are a minimum 30, 000 square feet while the area allowed to be disturbed range from a minimum of 8, 000 square feet to 15 , 000 square feet. In calculating disturbed area, the proposed slope bank areas on the proposed PCD text lying outside the homesite boundaries would also be included as disturbed area and within these boundaries . Maximum building heights allowable are shown as 24 feet while the city' s hillside standards do not contain a maximum height - only that it be reviewed by the planning commission with development plan submittal . IV. COMPLIANCE WITH HILLSIDE CRITERIA: While the project shows sensitivity to the environment and, as later shown, is presently able to mitigate environmental impacts, the allowable number of units allowed is a major component of this project. As the E. I .R. points out, the maximum number of units allowed on "A" property, according to present county standards, is 84 . This was confirmed by the county' s planning department and by city staff . The current zoning of W-2 can accommodate as small as 1/2 acre parcels but the general plan designation is what limits this 640 acre parcel to 84 units . The current proposal calls for 183 units on "A" property. 3 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS . GPA 90-3 , C/Z 90-12 OCTOBER 6 , 1992 A breakdown of the allowable number of units allowed per city standards for property "A" per each option is as follows : Option 1 - Average Slope Method: There a three variables in determining this option. The first is whether to take the average slope of the entire 640 acre parcel "A" or just the "community area" . the applicant is willing to dedicate the open space ar aince and has in fact produced a parcel map subdividing this area, separation seems warranted. The result is that the average slope drops from 40 . 7% for 640 acres ( 128 units maximum) to 30 . 4% for the 246 acre community area. The 30 . 4% slope creates the next variable since it lies between the 26-30 and 31-35 percent slope categories . If one rounds down, the maximum number of units would be 148 while if one rounds up then the maximum number is 99 units . The same situation occurs on "Property B" where the average slope is also 30 . 4% permitting either 21 or 32 units . The different slope categories also affect the area to be left in its natural state. If one rounds down, this figure is 77 . 5% while if you round up it is 92 . 5% The third variable involves the transferring of density again from the open space area to the community area. The previous mentioned scenario simply translates the 40 . 7% slope to 128 units while the applicant points to another scenario where "Property A" is divided between the 394 acre open space area of 47% permitting 79 units and the 246 acre community area Permitting either 148 or 99 units depending upon whether you round up or down. This second scenario would add the 79 units from the open space area to either the 148 or 99 units . Option 2 - Toe of Slope: Thisoption tion would only apply to "B property" and allow increased density in the desert wash area adjacent to the Palm Valley Channel because it is less than 10% slope. This option was intended for areas zoned HPR which are not hillside and allows them to be developed similar to other property throughout the city. The applicant has not proposed units in the desert wash and development here would probably be very limited at a maximum due to the effects on the wash flows entering the Palm Valley Channel . The removal of the desert wash area from slope computations probablyresult in the number of units allowed for units per acre, but the 3 units per acre property B hillside to be 5 the desert wash area would probably not be oachiev d nsity for 4 '4410 4 rr STAFF REPORT CASE NOS . GPA 90-3, C/Z 90-12 OCTOBER 6 , 1992 Option 3 - Building Site Method: This option determines density on the basis of how many half acre sites of 20% slope or less , are present on the site with a one unit per acre maximum. Excess property may be developed via slope analysis . The applicant has prepared an alternative plan utilizing Option 3 which shows 139 sites within a community area expanded from 246 acres to 271 on "property A" . "Property B" plans show 14 sites on 20% slope or less, 1/2 acre sites and 6 others on 5 acre lots . The applicant also shows an additional 73 units in the open space area which would not meet the basic concept of the plan. Option 4 - Preferred Development Area: This option is similar to Option 2 as it allows increased density in lower lying areas and is applicable to "property B" only. Rather than limiting the increased density to the desert wash area only however, roughly half the 55 acre "property B" area would be allowed 3 d.u. /5 acres density or 75 units . The applicant again, as was the case of Option 2 , has not developed plans in accordance with this option. The planning commission and/or city council shall make the final determination as to which option to follow. The most restrictive option would allow 149 units on both "properties A and B" ( 128 and 21 respectively) with grading restrictions making it difficult even to construct this many. The least restrictive would permit 259 units or even more if Options 2 or 4 were utilized. V. EIR RESULTS: The E. I .R. shows that all significant impacts associated with the project can be mitigated and sufficient infrastructure exists in the area to handle the expansion necessary. The most controversial issue arisen during the E. I .R. process was impacts on the peninsula bighorn sheep. The Sierra Club asked that processing of the E. I .R. be delayed until a determination was made as to listing of this animal species under the federal endangered species act. The city council considered this request and instructed staff to continue processing with the understanding that this approval would no 5 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS . GPA 90-3, C/Z 90-12 11111111 OCTOBER 6 , 1992 actually be giving development approvals and that tract map approvals would still need to be given whereby compliance with the act could be required if the species were in fact listed . The entire project is located within two different bighorn habitat areas - zone of deficiency and secondary importance. The two classifications are ranked fourth and fifth respectively in terms of importance to the sheep with five being the least important. The plan has been drawn so that the community area is located in the zone of deficiency and the dedicated open space in the secondary importance area . The main mitigation of impacts to bighorn sheep are: the open space dedication, an informational display and brochure given to the home buyers explaining the sensitivity of the sheep; and fencing at appropriate locations to create a separation between human and sheep activity - which was endorsed by the respective resource agencies to the consultants . VI . DISCUSSION: The city council, upon acting on the Sierra Club' s request to discontinue processing of the project until a decision was made regarding listing of the bighorn sheep, not only stated they were in favor of continuing processing but also that since the project is within the city' s sphere of influence - the city should process the project. The PCD zoning requested is an overlay zone which would also have an underlying zone of HPR. This means that if development of the PCD had not commenced within two years from the date of approval without a development agreement, it would revert to HPR zoning which guarantees a minimum 128 units on "property A" compared to the 183 requested and maximum 84 allowed by the county. A requirement that the applicant enter into a development agreement would be the only way to hold the project to present county standards while bringing the property into the city. While bringing the property into the city, the number of units allowed would not be a mandatory requirement. A simple requirement that any potential project meet the city' s hillside requirements would meet legal requirements - but would lead to future confusion and now would be the most appropriate time to at least make a determination as to what options of the hillside ordinance would be followed and how it would be interpreted ( i . e . density, transfers and if 30 . 4% is rounded up or down) . Whatever figure was chosen for the maximum number of lots would need to be further substantiated by a tentative tract 6 (111 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS . GPA 90-3, C/Z 90-12 OCTOBER 6 , 1992 map prior to construction as well as proof of emergency access to the south. Also to be considered in determining allowable number of units are statements -made during the Altamira hearings by council members stating standards adopted in 1983 were not intended for large hillside projects but rather for the five acre parcels which comprised the majority of the hillside within city limits at that time. The present county land use designation for "property A" was adopted in 1985 . Alternatives for "Property A" : 1 . Based on the above statement and the general concern over intensity of development in hillside areas, limiting development to present county standards would yield a maximum number of 84 units and require a development . agreement. 2 . The strictest city hillside option (No. 1) and interpretation would net 128 units, though grading restrictions would make it difficult to actually construct this number. 3 . Considering the 246 acre community area a separate parcel, still utilizing Option No. 1, and rounding down the average slope (rounding up would be contained in the second alternative) yields 148 units and more workable grading restrictions requiring 77 .5% of the land to remain in it's natural state, compared to 95% if No. 2 above were utilized. 4 . Utilization of "Option 3" would probably be the most appropriate for the site (given the site topography) per city standards since it allows minimum 20,000 square foot lots on 20% or less slopes ( 164 units) . This compares to the minimum of 30,000 square feet proposed by Crest. The option also carries a 10,000 square foot maximum building site compared to 8,000 to 15,000 square foot building sites proposed by Crest. These grading restrictions are the only applicable restrictions to grading to Option 3 , so there would be no maximum figure for the entire parcel that would also account for the roads, driveways , etc . 5 . The project as proposed contains 183 units but needs liberal interpretations of the city' s hillside ordinance for option one and exceeds pad sizes and slope 7 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS . GPA 90-3, C/Z 90-12 OCTOBER 6 , 1992 requirements of option three. Due to the liberal interpretations needed, if the project were limited to 183 units, then a development agreement would be required or the site would be zoned for 259 units . 6 . The interpretations needed for 5 above without a development agreement permitting 259 units . Alternatives for "Property B" : The alternatives for Property B are similar to that of Property A ( 30 . 4% average slope) except that 1 ) the property is already in the city; and 2 ) the flatter portions of the site are in a floodplain. 1 . Option three resulting in 20 units maximum. 2 . Option one and round up permitting 21 units maximum with • strict grading requirements . 3 . Project as designed with 26 units . 4 . Option one rounding down permitting 32 units and less strict grading requirements . Summary: No matter which option is used all disturbed terrain is required to be re-naturalized whether or not it is within a plan being proposed. The same can be said for landscape themes, since the city has taken a policy whereby landscaping shall blend with surrounding terrain and shall be drought tolerant in nature. If a city development option i,g chosen it could be the- same for both properties, though it would not be mandatory. If alternatives are utilized that reduce the project density, development standards from the PCD text would still be utilized with main concerns being building height and the slope bank area shown on the homesite layout. 8 //iiiiiir STAFF REPORT L CASE NOS . GPA 90-3, C/Z 90-12 OCTOBER 6 , 1992 VII . RECOMMENDATION: Require Alternatives No. 1 shown on the staff report as the zoning for "Property A and B" with which The Crest plans should adhere to with the stipulation that a development agreement be entered into for pre-zoning to be effective; and certification of the environmental impact report by 1 . Adopt findings 2 . Adopt Resolution No. recommending to the city council approval of a pre-zone, general plan designation and E . I .R. certification. VIII .ATTACHMENTS : -- resolution -- legal notice -- hillside ordinance -- PCD text and map -- E. I .R. (previously delivered) -- letters from Riverside County and Rancho Mirage Prepared by: /g cr Reviewed and Approved by: PJ/db 9 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: October 20, 1992 SUBJECT: Case Nos . GPA 90-3/C-Z 90-12"The Crest" Staff has used the two week continuance of this project to develop a table similar to one prepared by the applicant summarizing the application of the different city hillside options to the project. The table expands the table given to the commission by the applicant at its October 6 , 1992 meeting by showing all scenarios listed in the staff report for the same meeting. The table also shows maximum grading possible. As a result of preparing the table, two errors were discovered to the original staff report 1 . ) Option 4 results in 18 units on "property B" rather than the 55 originally shown. The applicant referred to this option as his basis for zoning compliance but staff continues to recommend against a preferred development overlay (Option 4 ) for any of "property A" ; 2 . ) The strictest city hillside option is shown as Option One B - no density transfer on the table resulting in 99 units on "property A" ( 120 units total) and limiting grading to 18 . 45 ac on "A" (22 . 5 ac total ) . It should be noted that staff continues to recommend retention of present county standards, allowing 84 units maximum on "property A" ; together with Crest standards as amended in staff report. ATTACHMENT: . . . slope analysis Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by: ,\ • \--\ PJ/db CREST SLOPE ANALYS1S (City JL...• Maximum Number Dwelling Units/Maximum Acreage to be Disturbed Option 1B Option B Option 3 Option 3 Crest Plan Option 4 Acres Option 1 Option1 Option Option IA Op Up) Round Up) Density No Density One Lot One Lot (Round down) (Roundddown) (Round ( (Round (Round Density No Density Density No Density Transfer Transfer down) down) Transfer Transfer Transfer Transfer 1/2 & 5 1/2 & 5 acre lots acre lots Property A: *164 DU 183 DU 1 7 DU *164 DU 15,0003D7 D Community 148 DU i L U 99 DU 99 DU10,000 ---- 55.35 ac 55.35 ac 18.45 ac 18.45 ac 10,000sq. . sq. ft. sq. ft. Area 246 ac ---- max. pad max. pad max. pad I79 DU ---- 7 --- ---- ---- Open 79 DU --- -- 19.7 ac 19.7 ac -'-- 147 DU Space 394 ac ---- -- 164 DU 183 DU 148 DU 178 DU 99 DU 237 DU12,500 N/A Totalot 128. DU 128. DU 227. DU N/A-10,000 10,000 ft.0 55.35 ac 38.15 ac 18.45 ac sq ft. sq. ft. sq.640 ac 34.7 ac 34.7 ac 75.05 ac max. pad max. pad avg. pad Property B: 26 DU 18 DU 21 DU 20 DU 20 DU N/A Community 32. DU 21 DU 32. DU 3 DU 21 DU ft. Area 54 ac 12.5 ac 4.05 ac 12.5 ac 12.5 acac 4.05 ac 4.05 ac ft.000 sq. ft.000 sq.50 sq.max. pad max. pad max. pad 184 DU 209 DU 165 DU TOTAL 694 ac 160 DU 149 DU 259 DU 180 DU 199 DU 120 DU 257 DU N/A 67.85 ac 42.2 ac 22.5 ac N/A-10,000 N/A-10,000 12,500f 47.2 ac 38.75 ac 87.55 ac sq. ft. sq. ft. ad max. pad max. pad avg. P 82 ac. I * Expands Community Area to 271.5 Acres V MINUTES F PALM DESERT PLANNING Lu'i1ISSION OCTOBER 20 , 1992 Mr. Befeld stated that he considered the hillside areas to be very important and felt staff ' s recommendation of less units was good. He also requested that particular attention be paid to the grading. He felt that with the Bighorn Country Club there were a few items that slipped by in terms of the way the sides of the hills were being "knocked off" . He did not feel that had been presented to the Cahuilla Hills residents . When their presentation was originally made, they indicated they would stay quite a bit lower in the valley. Mr. Geritz indicated that as presented at the last meeting, if the current general plan designation was applied to Cahuilla Hills, which was applied to that area because it did have services, access, utilities , etc . , there would be an allowable density on this site of 276 dwelling units and they were not suggesting that many. That was simply to put it in perspective with the adjoining zoning that exists and that was placed by the county, knowing that the area was suitable for development and had the ability to be developed. Secondly, he wanted to remind the commission that there was a very specific plan of the upper site . What they proposed and what was before the commission was 162 dwelling units on the large section. As of this point in time, that was the number of homesites they had been able to determine were possible and appropriate for development in that area. They had not found more than that. They also identified 23 on the lower site that totally met the criteria of the HPR ordinance from that point of view. He reminded commission that representatives from both of the Cahuilla Hills property owner associations testified at the last meeting--they were strongly in favor of this approach, as well as all the neighbors on the adjoining property line. Chairman Spiegel closed the public testimony and asked for comments by the commission. Commissioner Downs stated that further clarification was needed as to the specific numbers . Commissioner White indicated that the site could be developed without impacting too greatly on the lower areas around Highway 74 and the residential developments . Although there might be a view point, a little window through the one canyon where it could be seen, it would not have that much of an impact . He was concerned about the density issue and did not 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20 , 1992 feel it was necessary to rely totally on the numbers , but on the qualitative answer, rather than a simply quantitative answer. He stated that he was not certain that it was appropriate to assume the county standards , since he was not familiar with the basis for the county standards . Some of the comments made by staff, in particular that there were some areas which though they may be developable at great cost, were probably going to detract from the remainder of the area if they were developed. Commissioner Whitlock stated that based on the presentation, the visual window from Highway 74 would be minimal and supported The Crest development as it had been presented to them. However, she expressed concern about the numbers and requested some clarification on the maximum units . She said that with that information she could move forward. Commissioner Downs said that in conjunction with Commissioner Whitlock' s comments, he was for the project, but the numbers game before the commission did not sound like the same project that was presented at the last meeting. Chairman Spiegel suggested a continuance to see if some agreement could be reached between staff and the applicant and then they could come back in with a specific number. He noted that there was approximately a 50 percent difference in staff ' s recommendation and the applicant ' s request and stressed that this was a sensitive area. Mr. Diaz stated that the problem from staff ' s standpoint was that the recommendation was based on the policy direction from the city council and for staff to recommend contrary to that would mean that staff would be recommending against council policy. Commissioner Whitlock noted that there was a big discrepancy between the numbers . She felt that the developer' s comments were very persuasive. Mr. Diaz said that the commission might want to say that if the developer could comply with certain conditions, that commission would be favorable towards the developer' s numbers ; if they couldn' t, then commission wouldn' t. The applicant indicated they would come in to show commission individual sites, but from the standpoint of numbers he did not see where staff could come in and recommend contrary to council policy. • 14 V MINUTES ' PALM DESERT PLANNING 'OMMISSION OCTOBER 20 , 1992 Chairman Spiegel asked if one of the main items they were discussing was whether to recommend to city council annexation of this land. Mr. Diaz said no; part of the land was in the county, but this was the same as preannexation zoning. He said it was an issue of zoning. Commissioner Downs said that he wanted to see part of this go through because he would like to see more roads for the existing residents who needed roads along the frontage of the wash. He said that after comments were done, he would make a motion. Commissioner White stated that it would be helpful to the commission to know what the foundation was for the 84 units that the county would recommend and the basic differences- without going into great detail between what the county would recommend and what the city might recommend. Also, one reason for the difficulty was that the land area, although not particularly large, was so varied in terrain. To generalize what the commission would do on the entire parcel with numbers would be extremely difficult to do. If dealing with a smaller portion, such as the 55 acre parcel, it would be much easier for commission to make an intelligent decision. When dealing with all the nooks and crannies in this area, it wasn ' t easy to generalize over the property. Commissioner Downs noted that there was a built in safety factor by having each area of the project coming back to the commission. Also, this would give the City of Palm Desert another 400 acres of open space they didn' t have now. He noted that the county could also change their zoning and that would eliminate the city' s control . He stated that he would rather act now and send it up to the council, but to add as many safeguards as necessary because the presentation made two weeks ago with a maximum of 209 units was an excellent presentation and was one of the finer presentations made in the ten years of his service. He said he was prepared to move for approval with the maximum number of 209 units with each individual parcel coming to commission for approval before it was started. Mr. Diaz suggested that commission recommend to council the 84 units unless it could be demonstrated to the council ' s satisfaction that the additional number of units as requested by the applicant met the goals, policies and objectives of the council as they felt were adopted when they adopted the hillside planned residential ordinance. That way, the project 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20 , 1992 would be proceeding with a minimal number of units to the council . Commissioner Downs felt the other side of the issue was just as valid . The project could proceed with the 209 units as proposed and if the council did not like it, they could lower the number of units . Chairman Spiegel commented that the presentation was one of the better ones he attended. He stated that he had mixed emotions because he was totally opposed to any building in the hillsides . He felt that anything done to corrupt the hillsides more than they were already corrupted would be wrong . He realized that this was really in the county and a developer that had land in the county could do whatever he wanted to as long as the county agreed to it . He viewed the site and it was like a bowl--the only houses that could be seen were the houses of other neighbors , but there would be a road going up the hill and the road would be visible . There would be one or two houses that at a point on Highway 74 would be visible . He said he had tremendous mixed emotions about the project . Commissioner Downs felt that this was a premier project with the way it would be developed and the city' s best bet was to go with it for the best protection and preservation of the hills . It was evident what the county had already allowed to be done to the hills . He said that the council could always reduce the number of units . Action : Moved by Commissioner Downs , seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting the findings with a maximum of 209 units . Motion failed on a 2-2-1 vote (Chairman Spiegel and Commissioner White voted no, Commissioner Jonathan abstained) . After discussion, commission determined that it would be appropriate to send this item to city council without a recommendation, but their view point as outlined in the minutes . Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner White, to send GPA 90-3 and C/Z 90-12 to city council without a recommendation by minute motion. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained) . 16 nr CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I . TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II . REQUEST: Approval of a general plan land use designation for 640 acres of unincorporated land from Mountainous (414 acres ) and R-4 ( 226 acres) to open space ( 394 acres ) and Hillside Planned Residential (246 acres ) , pre- annexation zoning from W-2 to O. S . and HPR to HPR/PCD, and the adequateness of an accompanying environmental impact report. The PCD is referred to as "The Crest" and consists of 209 single family homes on 640 acres north of the Cahuilla Hills area and 54 acres opposite the Palm Valley Channel from "The Somerset" condominiums . III . APPLICANT: MILLER/RICHARDS PARTNERSHIP c/o The Geritz Group 2505 Ardath Road La Jolla, California 92037 IV. CASE NOS . C/Z 90-12, GPA 90-3 V. DATE: November 12, 1992 VI . CONTENTS : A. Staff Recommendation 92-110 B. Discussion 92-111 C. Draft Resolution/Ordinance Nos . 693 D. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case Nos . C/Z 90-12 and GPA 90-3 E. Planning Commission Resolution No. F. Planning Commission Staff Reports dated October 6 , 1992 and October 20, 1992 G. Related maps and/or exhibits VII . RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Adopt findings of Environmental Impact Report 2 . Adopt Resolution No. 92-110 certifying Environmental Impact Report 3 . Adopt findings of general plan amendment 4 . Adopt Resolution No. 92-111approving general plan land use designation of HPR and O.S. for Property "A" 5 . Adopt findings of zone change 6 . Adopt Ordinance No. 693 approving a PCD/HPR pre-zoning for a maximum of 104 units and 394 acres of open space subject to a pre-annexation agreement being entered into prior to the second reading dedicating the open space area aENZEM ZAIE STAFF REPORT ES 'T `s j ( 419 CASE NOS . C/Z 90-12 , GPA 90-3 O 3 : - L C� NOVEMBER 12 , 1992 VIII . DISCUSSION: Or c�nai on File wi The project at this stage consists of pre-zoning 640 acres ( Property "A" ) of unincorporated land to Planned Community Development - along with 54 acres presently within the city limits - bringing the total project size to 694 acres . Simply pre-zoning Property "A" to HPR (hillside planned residential) guarantees a minimum of 99 units per city standards , compared to the present county general plan of 84 units and the 183 requested. Therefore PCD zoning overlay (planned community development) was added to the base HPR zone in order to integrate site specific data. There are also different city hillside development options when, with additional interpretation, would permit up to 227 units . Staff has given a conservative recommendation based on past council policy of restricting development in hillside areas, of not granting additional units than the current county general plan ( 84 units ) . At the planning commission level, considerable testimony was given by adjacent land owners pleased by the development and the infrastructure that will be brought to the area. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service commented that the project either be denied or scaled back significantly due to impacts to Bighorn Sheep - with this later clarified by telephone conversation to mean adherence to mitigation measures proposed in the E. I .R. and preservation of secondary habitat . The Bighorn Institute was contacted during the E. I .R. preparation and again at a late date (October 12, 1992 ) for comments but indicated more time was needed to fully analyze the project. At their second hearing on the project, Commissioner Downs made a motion to recommend approval of the project as designed and seconded by Commissioner Whitlock. However, Commissioners White and Spiegel voted no and the commission then voted unanimously to send the project on to city council without a recommendation. Prepared by: /f4 / Reviewed and Approved by: ,f PJ/db • CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO: City Manager, City Council REQUEST: Pre-annexation zoning of at least 394 acres to open space and 246 acres to HPR/PCD and zone change for 54 acres to HPR/PCD. The PCD is referred to as "The Crest" and consists of 185 maximum number of lots on 640 acres north of the unincorporated Cahuilla Hills area and 54 acres opposite the Sommerset condominiums APPLICANT: MILLER/RICHARDS PARTNERSHIP c/o The Geritz Group 2505 Ardath Road La Jolla, California 92037 CASE NO. : C/Z 90-12 DATE : February 11 , 1993 CONTENTS : A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion C. Draft Ordinance D. Planning Commission minutes including C/Z 90-12 E . Planning Commission staff report dated October 6 , 1992 F . City Council staff report dated November 12, 1992 G. Updated plans and exhibits A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve second reading of Ordinance No. setting a maximum number of units at 104 for "The Crest" P.C.D. zoning. B. DISCUSSION: The request is for the reconsideration of the pre-annexation zone change request that is presently between first and second readings - and that also set a 104 unit maximum on the project. Accompanying resolutions for the general plan amendment and e. i .r. are now effective and provide the framework/flexibility to determine an appropriate maximum of number of units . This is needed to provide certainty of development rights once the property is in the city. P Pr TRANSMITTAL LETTER CASE NO. : C/Z 90-12 FEBRUARY 11, 1993 The Council , on January 14 , 1993, approved a reconsideration request for hearing to allow for review of additional material . As of yet (January 27, 1993) staff has not received this material for review but has had conversations with the applicant to determine what the new material would entail . At staff ' s direction the applicant indicated a change would be made to the P .C.D. text which made the project conform to Option 3 of the hillside ordinance whereas previously the P.C.D. text took pieces from a variety of options which was not permissible. Briefly summarized, Option 3 allows 10 , 000 square foot pads on minimum 1/2 acre parcels of 20% slope or less - and any land remaining within the development bubble may be developed in accordance with option one, which determines density by the average slope. The previous plan called for 15, 000 square feet of disturbed area on 3/4 acre lots regardless of average slope. The applicant prepared a conceptual option 3 plan previously which showed 184 units . Staff feels final engineering would produce a plan with the similar number of units . The e. i .r. - which has been certified - analyzed the impact of 209 units so a reduction to 185 units would be deemed "previously assessed" . The main environmental issue dealt with the size of the development bubble/open space dedication, with it being determined that an additional 10 - 20 acres be added to the open space as determined by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Staff ' s recommendation of 104 units maximum is based on two factors . 1) Recent city policy towards restricting hillside development; and 2) Existing county land plan calling for 104 units maximum with no guarantee that additional units would be permissible with the arrival of proper infrastructure. It has also been past city policy that if benefits of a project ( i .e. jobs, prestige or open space dedication in this case) outweigh impacts, then attempts would be made to make the project feasible enough to construct. In this case the developer has said the 185 lots would be this critical number needed to make it feasible. /Fr TRANSMITTAL LETTER CASE NO. : C/Z 90-12 FEBRUARY 11 , 1993 A second ordinance has been written specifying 185 units maximum in addition to the pending second reading of the original ordinance for 104 units maximum. Staff would also draw your attention to the table developed by staff showing different densities according to options used and interpretations . it should be noted that the Crest Plan shown on this table is no longer applicable with the apparent change to the P.C.D. text. PJ/db 3 RECEIVED ,eiii-• MAR 2 2 1993 I- 444 • �1lW .Jf y: I,.�.r�r COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT b %'�'�' ©��M @� p`� 0 r D eselJ �y CITY OF PALM DESERT � \ ' ••. 9 3o° ''• 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 FAX(619)340-0574 March 17 , 1993 Miller/Richards Partnership c/o The Geritz Group 2505 Ardath Road La Jolla, California 92037 Gentlemen: Subject: Request for Approval of Preannexation Zoning of at Least 394 Acres to Open Space and 246 Acres to HPR/PCD and Zone Change for 54 Acres to HPR/PCD referred to as "The Crest" and Consisting of 185 Maximum Number of Lots on 640 Acres North of the Unincorporated Cahuilla Hills ' Area and 54 Acres Opposite the Sommerset Condominiums At its regular meeting of February 25, 1993, the Palm Desert City Council adopted Ordinance No. 693, approving a pre-zoning designation of open space, hillside planned residential and planned community development overlay for a 104 unit maximum planned community referred to as "The Crest" . Enclosed is a fully-executed copy of this Ordinance for your records . If you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us . rSrncerely, /r>k' :164-4 / ' ' SHEILA R. I IGAN CITY CLERK/P BLIC IN RMATION OFFICER SRG:mes Enclosure (as noted) RE: The Crest At Palm vesert raul Bowie May 1, 1997 71 774 Chuckawalla A Planned Community Development Palm Desert, CA 92260 Hillside Planned Residential (760) 346 8593 City of Palm Desert May 16, 1997 City of Palm Desert Planning Commission RECEIVED 73 510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 MAY 16 1997 Dear Commissioners: COMMUNITYDEVELOPME"'.`4'iaRii:_NT CITY OF PALM IDE E ST This letter is a formal request that your Commission, at its May 20, 1997 convened Hearing take action to abandon any recommendation or motions for approval regarding the matter of placing an emergency access to The Crest which would cross from the Development into Cahuilla Hills (Section 36). Cahuilla Hills is a residential community (R-1 zoning) of one square mile in area and situated in an unincorporated part of Riverside County. It is asked that the Planning Commission take binding action to require changing the physical location of an emergency access to have in ingress and egress on the east side of The Crest with linkage to State Highway 74. The substantative reasons for this request are as follows: 1. There is no current road from a proposed community street in The Crest to any road in Cahuilla Hills. 2. Placing an emergency access from The Crest into Cahuilla Hills would require a substantially huge investment considering the roughness of the terrain. And most possibly the construction of a bridge would be required to span a major water drainage pattern which lies in The Crest and north of Cahuilla Hills. 3. There is no guarantee that an emergency road from The Crest to the north side of Cahuilla Hills would lead to any automatic easement due to the private ownership of all the property in Cahuilla Hills. 4. An emergency access from The Crest through Cahuilla Hills would follow an unnecessarily longer traffic route than can otherwise be used by creating the emergency access out of The Crest directly east from the community and linking to Highway 74. 5. Installing an emergency access for The Crest directly east would permit use of an existing road. This road leads to an existing bridge over the storm channel at Thrush Road. 6. An emergency access with ingress and egress via Thrush Road substantially reduces the distance and time for emergency response. Such a route would also reduce heavy wear and tear especially on fire trucks by taking away the extra grade they would be required to mount by following the longer route up Highway 74. The issue of "emergency access" is self-defining. The premier mission being the health and welfare of citizens in the municipiality. The City of Palm Desert,historically enjoys the trust of its citizens in the wisdom demonstrated in emergency planning and response. The present emergency access proposal places greater risk on those who may seek expedient aid. ^,Respectfully submitted, Paul Bowie(' 05/19/1997 10:47 161932°"°9 MEXMILCO: PAGE 01 RECEIVED MAY 1 9 1997 To: Planning Commission �UMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PPAR1,d N? From: Mike Molus CM'OF PALM DESEPT .T 154 Wildl Place Palm Desert , California Date: May 19, 1997 Re: The Crest at Palm Desert I request your:continuance on The Crest at Palm Desert. We have not had adequate notice to assess the project. Thank you. pA FROM : PRONE NO. : JUL. 01 1996 10:16AM P1 RECEIVED MAY 19 1997 May 19, 1997 :;OMMUNIC DEVELOPMENT PALM DESER'ARTi�,aNl Dear Planning Commission: I just found out about the proposed project The Crest at Palm Desert. I haven't had adequate time to review the plans. I'm requesting a continuance so that I can review this project. Sincerely, ("" ) 014.4--'14.4M--) ave Zirkl 113 Natas Court Palm Desert, California 60- allb- oviy — RECEIVED . . • • • • • MAY 1 9 1997 Csi7 Phamikw. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DFPARTMLNT • •CITY OF PALM DESERT • • - . . tbvt...t 44frlic.ele NLO 1041,7 (>%e' 94 008 Pda‘t . P1 q. . att a44.44cAs. ,9-04.440„. . ; AloLoxsSe . • /Lac. am...Nriazgratd1/4.,),AS NX1/4sitteC . . a 6 .1..34..42244. . 6/9-777- &t'O, . , T'd A.348IJR HIIWS WIPP:40 L6, 6T AUW Pau )wie 71 774 Chuckawalla Way Palm Desert , CA 92260 June 23, 1997 Palm Desert City Council 73 510 Fred Waring Drive 97 , 23 FIEPalm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Council Members: CITY CLE, .. This letter is forwarded asking that you reivew the matter of an emergency gate which may be installed on the south side of The Crest and leading into Section 36. In its action at the Hearing of June 17th the Planning Commission set down as a condition of approval item #6 which states: "crash gate shall be relocated to the southern perimeter of the three properties referred to in text in emergency drive section of the PCD text ." On June 20th I reviewed, with the aid of the city planning staff, a possible siting of an exit leading from The Crest and into Section 36. The planning staff informed me that no road has been developed inside The';Crest leading to the north Section line of Section 36. Examination of a relief map held by the planning staff reveals an apparent road lying inside private property in Section 36 which might be connected to a developed road leading south out of The Crest. In the event an emergency gate is installed from The Crest into Section 36 it should be aligned in such a manner as to take advantage of an existing public easement with rights which can be enjoyed by the public at large. A public easement does exist on all parcels of Section 36 as established in the Federal Grant Deeds which are recorded with each parcel. Parcels in Section 36 were deeded from the Federal Government to private ownership follow- ing the provisions of the Small Tract Act. Please refer to the attached Department Of Interior letter dated November 17, 1975 (Exhibit #1) . The maps reviewed in your planning department show that the anticipated point of contact between The Crest and some private property outside of recorded easements is a point approximately 18 feet east of a 66 foot easement (33 feet per joining lot) as laid down by Federal Grant Deed. No specific need has been presented demonstrating a requirement to place an emergency exit from The Crest and directly into privately owned land in Section 36. Designing an emergency exit from The Crest directly into a public easement will permit placement of the gate directly on the common Section line separating The Crest and Section 36. This will remove the Planning Commission condition that an emergency gate be placed on the southern perimeter of the three properties which are inside Section 36. Both the Developer and the City would be relieved of as yet possible unspecified conditions or problems which might arise in entering an agreement with the owners of private property. placing an emergency gate leading into Section 36 could actually be moved west or east along the common Section line to enter a different public easement identical to the one discussed in the letter. Aligning an emergency exit from The Crest to a public easement preserves and protects the original specifications and intent of the Federal easements without unnecessarily crossing private property for a short distance of approx- imately 600 feet, or less, and thereafter returning to a public easement (Oasis Trail) . Please refer to the attached parcel diagrams of explanation (Exhibits #2 and #3) . espectfully submitted, E; } Paul Bowie / . , !NT OF r 1N REPLY REFER TO W'a 'y,,y, United States Department of the Interior 1120 (061 . 3) A BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMEN 14 T Riverside District Office 1695 Spruce Street Riverside, California 92507 iF Mr. Paul Bowie NOV 1 i 1975 x :_ 71 774 Chuckawalla ii Palm Desert, California 92260 :/ 1 Dear Mr. Bowie: 4 f , We received your October 10 letter requesting information on Section 4 36, T. 5S. , R. 5E. , S.B.M. /'. Bureau of Land Management order dated ., December 11 , 1943, classified this section for entry under the Small Tract Act. { .1 Our status records show patents were issued to individuals for 5 acre parcels within section 36 from 1949 through 1965. Enclosed are the federal regulation pertaining to the Small Tract Act giving the conditions to be met to receive patent to the land. The term "homestead" does not apply to the conditions required to obtain a patent. The Small Tract Act of 193 has no relationship to the Homestead Act of 1662. They are two separate i,cts. I 4yy� In the attached regulations, see 2731.6-2 Right-of-way, for the answer to your question concerning the 33 feet easement. Uses such as auto traffic, foot traffic and equestrian traffic are permitted on this ,1 roadway. The roads are to be available for public use without indi- . vidual restriction. At this time, there is no land available for sale or lease under the 'r Small Tract Act. 4 Sincerely yours,c:A..., LCi, L,u) & iFL c Gordon W. Flint Public Information Officer 1, Y Enclosures i EXHIBIT #1 ItCONSERVE AMERICA'S illai. ENERGY ef ( . l'IN Save Energy and You Serve America! ,. 2 �u, • 9 iY p,N fr. ro (. at ry y a n g. ^:-:��, m �'C co �' 0 .r-�0 ; ;o s-— y..,0 cn .. ,4 u.p r, i....; cy •n.., (+ ,n w q ] � P y n ra 0 Nro %. ?, .,,11_..r p• ..:-;.-, Fyn dra., 0 0 N p, z -bt - J c+ c+ �p m..� F i aahi .+O. 7-.Pin -arz..isrn i .� a..7CIc" r, Ce'4LTi 67, co • • 5ti cvatico .wc+ 'C pviD,7 ., a i --. . T . •• NORTH EXHIBIT #2 THE PORTION SHOWN IN RED IS AN APPARENT PORTION LYING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND WHICH COULD BE CONTACTED WITH AN EMERGENCY DRIVE LEADING FROM THE CREST. THE CREST DEVELOPMENT .;-• —_ 210.... 7 --, at.•• 1/1.•• 'I t" / • • 1 v / . 0; 7.501, 2304• •1 100 ir 213••• . Z.}0 Ar . I I I ,,0 7... . a o o o 1.00.10, 'yeas, 31.•; ; 3 "I -Si 44 2.ea• 1.0.1 K ! 0 (003r : ®anra,.• ! ,.. ....•. %\ ,..... z..11•,• - r• ••. ,.,, 0 . 0 w 0 0 500.1e 0 0 It Z.' ZJIAcr 1 OASIS TRAI 11.1 11 11111 111,1. 44•0/. 0,5,5 "' l , .'. I to,•• . •lI.I • .1••• I., . ....90 '. . • 4(.3... L a T ,... Le,.. 1.01 E. j • 7 . 400 Ac 0 Per J L. •••., .•••, _ 2 (2) , Lf. r 200,e 1 (a ,., .,.•,..4e A• .,, ,16 10 VI : (LTA-An . •00,e ,0 10.; • 0 , i 0 .4/ac• .. .„•a- ''1,f„,.. ...•. , 01.11 at••• S. ..ra.0 o0,1,00..; V.... • Z ... VERBENA 0 ,••..c. ,....., COURT ® • 0 !- •,.., ." I J.00 Ar .1.., 1 Ze Ac• f., I.l•Alc. 1 .100Jc .1 r SO K. 0 Z 1 4..•\‘' •.:111..• 11e l• 111.14 ::',1 A I l..',:'„°T R.'-, ^'-"-- 111 fa .42 or 'le.••• ..,r••• ..Ps.o.r. .•41,1I'42 SECTION 36 1 0 L 4 EXHIBIT #3 NORTH THE PORTION SHOWN IN BLUE IS AN EASEMENT AS MADE A PART BY THE FEDERAL GRANT DEED. USE OF THE EASEMENT WOULD PRESERVE PUBLIC RIGHT AND WOULD LEAD TO OASIS TRAIL AT THE SOUTHERN POINT. THE CREST DEVELOPMENT • ,cr KC 13 y i O2 ® © J/ 2 O , ZJO o c• t ZJOAe• n 100Jo ZI54 ZJ0or IJe• 25 2. O ^ ` O t004 ®allie' / •»K 0 •1'• O 1004 + e1J4 ®ZSa4.• •i O 1.J141 ASIS TRA O WO4 ..f♦ Poe J c ,ne Y' Poea Po11 • ` , e .a.. 1,, ,/9.+e.,r ' t 164 Me e3J4M ]� © .•�- n nc.n i •.z _ 0 " as..• •<n..• SOO4 VERBENA ,,,� ..of ••Je - . COURT Ilr " ...,-...t.-- ® ©f 1 laQ 1 2 J.... z re.4• Y 2/a4• a 5004 '1 ' N 8 Vt.. -'lisle' ,c,•r 11e_.. "Ye Or, 1Y.r 1a.... ,».n nl.•• .,JA I4`•'»TR,s! .......«. .•.... ...... Ar<r1r:. I36 SECTION 36 June 23, 1997 El V'.=C '97 JU 23 TO: Palm Desert City Council Ppi i (, CITY CLERK'S FROM: David A. Heveron P.O. Box 4105 Palm Desert, CA 92260 As a resident of Palm Desert since 1968 I feel it is important to share my views on the proposed Miller/Richards development with you, the City Council members. What gives Palm Desert and much of the Coachella Valley its distinct natural beauty is the sharp contrast of the gently rolling valley floor and the rugged brown mountains which surround it. By developing any part of these unique desert mountains we run the risk of ruining that beautiful landscape which is so attractive to both our visitors and residents. As the mountainsides fill up with homes, no matter how tastefully done, what will distinguish us from other areas of southern California? Areas such as Orange County or the San Fernando Valley, whose hillsides are overrun with houses, are hardly tourist destinations for their scenic beauty. The City of Palm Desert up to this point has done an admirable job of permitting quality home developments while leaving enough of the surrounding natural beauty to attract tourists and our annual "snowbirds." Also the many works of art throughout town make the city itself a work of art. The natural hillsides and mountains are an important part of that artwork. In any life, whether it be individual or a community, there are times of growth and progress and times of reflection. These times of reflection are important;to consider what has already been done and how to maintain or make it better. To ignore this is to run the risk of problems such as those being experienced by our neighboring cities of Palm Springs and La Quinta. The former struggles every year to rebuild its image as the quiet village it was when I was a young boy. But it's too urban now to recapture that idyllic image. And La Quinta, which is developing its own hillsides, is already much too crowded from rapid growth. The Miller/Richards project is simply inappropriate at this time. We have not yet realized the full impact of Bighorn Country Club and its second phase (formerly Alta Mira.) Highway 74 is getting busier every year and may soon require signals at intersections. When I and my fellow residents of Palm Desert look out of our windows at the sunset and marvel at the beautiful pinks and purples and browns across our hillsides, we know that we live in a special place. Let's leave the hillsides alone so that future generations will be rewarded with that same wonderful view. Let the work of art that is the City of Palm Desert reflect the good judgment of its citizens and their leaders. Thanks for the chance to be heard. Dave Heveron MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 97-6 - THE COLONY AT MONTECITO, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a lot line adjustment to remove unused portion of Merill Drive west of Lucerne as shown on Tract 24530-2 and reconfiguration of Lots 11-14 to reflect the revised roadways necessitated by the construction of Desert Willow Golf Resort. B. Case No. PMW 97-12 - FOREMOST AIRPORT VEGAS, LTD., Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow lot line adjustments on property bounded by Country Club Drive, Washington Street and Harris Lane. C. Case No. PMW 97-13 - MAINIERO, SMITH AND ASSOCIATES, INC., Applicant Request for approval to reconfigure two existing parcels of record into two lots on Gerald Ford Drive, east of Cook Street - Planning Area #4 of the Development Plan for Wonder Palms Commercial Center. D. Case No. PMW 97-14 - M & H REALTY PARTNERS III L.P., Applicant Az Request for approval of a parcel map waived 0 ju= existing lot lines to accommodate expansion of "Best Buy" i-�` . 10 will be eliminated and merged into Lot 11 . Lot 12 it .. d Lot 1 1 . Action: " w► S11,9�.,� Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beat the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0. J 04, VIII. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. Continued Case No. C/Z 90-12 Amendment No. 1 Development Agreement - CREST PARTNERS (MILLER RICHARDS PARTNERSHIP), Applicants Request for approval of pre-annexation zoning of 640 acres north of the "Cahuilla Hills" area and 55 acres across the Palm Valley Channel from the "Sommerset" condominiums to Planned Community/Hillside Planned Residential with a development agreement for a project known as "The Crest" consisting of 151 homesites on 695 acres (410 acres to be dedicated as open space). 2 MINUTES ,T SUBJECT TO PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REVISION JUNE 17, 1997 Mr. Phil Joy noted that the last month had been spent revising the PCD text and the exhibits. He said the main change to the PCD was the preparation of the map (on display) that actually showed 151 homesites on it and showed rough grading for the road that would be part of the circulation for the plan. He outlined the changes to the text. He said the changes involved the Table of Contents and the List of Exhibits. He noted that they combined Exhibits 4, 7 A, B, C and 8 into one exhibit which was the Land Use Plan and a reduced version was in the text. They removed Exhibit 3 and changed the language to the emergency access drive which he would review later since there was a lengthy letter received about the emergency access drive. He noted that Exhibit 12 was removed due to redundancy and the lot clustering associated with the relocation of the eight units in the County was revised to clarify that the clustering would not occur within 300 feet of the southerly property line. The development agreement itself was revised most notably with a non-disturbance agreement which he thought would address the commission's concerns about the open space dedication and what would happen between the initial dedication and future phases. He said that the applicant gave staff an addition to Exhibit C which was distributed to commission. The Planning Department conditions of approval were the standard broiler plate conditions of Exhibit C and staff had language in there saying that any interpretation of the conditions should consider the low density nature of the project and he felt that the other exhibit prepared by the applicant's attorney more or less said the same thing. He noted that the City Engineer reviewed the rewording and approved it. Staff had no problem with the new wording replacing Planning Department condition #3 with the new language from the applicant. Regarding another letter distributed to commission from Mr. Paul Bowie, it concerned emergency access into the Cahuilla Hills area. Mr. Bowie still felt very strongly that he would prefer the emergency access road to go over the top of the ridge and go straight to the east, rather than going into the Cahuilla Hills. Mr. Joy demonstrated on a map the location of the emergency access road and the place where Mr. Bowie was requesting it, which would go over the top of the mountains and down the mountains to utilize the Thrush Road Bridge. Mr. Bowie felt that any kind of access could create a dust problem in the Cahuilla Hills area, even an emergency type of situation. He said the PCD text was revised after concerns from the last meeting and the revised text said that an emergency access drive would be provided in the southwesterly portion of the project as an extension of the project's community road network to allow for emergency ingress and egress. The emergency access road would not be used as a construction or service entry. The emergency access would be secured by a card gate or lock. The only through traffic to be allowed would be those three properties that the emergency access road actually crossed. Those three properties outside the project in the Cahuilla Hills area would be able to go into the Crest area for ingress and egress into their properties rather than going through the Cahuilla Hills and eventually out to Highway 74 at Cahuilla Way behind Bighorn. That would actually reduce the amount of dust in the area by reducing the number of cars that would now be going through the Crest and not Cahuilla Hills. He indicated that a condition was still placed by the Fire 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 Department that there be a gate there and eliminating the access to that site. He indicated that Chairperson Ferguson pointed out that there was still a typographical error on page 9 of the text and apologized for not catching that one and indicated he would continue reviewing it for any other problems. Mr. Joy stated that staff was comfortable with the project and recommended approval of the project. Commissioner Jonathan noted that he would be abstaining from discussion and voting on this matter. City Attorney Dave Erwin asked if Commissioner Beaty had an opportunity to listen to the tape of the last meeting since this was a public hearing item. Commissioner Beaty said he had not listened to the tape, although he was present for the first hearing and had reviewed the minutes. Mr. Erwin recommended that Commissioner Beaty abstain. Commissioner Beaty concurred. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he had several questions that he would direct to the applicant. He also welcomed City Attorney Dave Erwin to the meeting, noting that he was present due to Sandy Jacobson's relocation. Chairperson Ferguson opened the discussion for public testimony and asked if the applicant would come forward to address the commission, then anyone in favor, then anyone opposed, and then he would give the applicant or his representative a brief rebuttal period. MR. PAUL SELZER, an attorney with the firm of Selzer, Healy, Hemphill and Blasdell, stated that he represented the applicant. He concurred with staff's recommendation and believed that they had addressed each and every issue that was raised by both the commission and the public at the last meeting. He said the one issue raised by the public at the last meeting was the issue of the emergency access and he wanted to dwell on that issue. Going back in history, he stated that the issue of emergency access had always been a major issue with the residents of Cahuilla Hills and having an additional way in and out, both for their project and for folks already up there. In order to secure that emergency access route, it was necessary for them to go to those property owners over whose land the emergency route would cross and they agreed early on with them that they would be given access; they and they alone and there were three properties involved, those three properties would have access through the gate by means of card keys or something similar. The concern that was raised at the meeting was that it not be used for construction and Mr. Selzer felt the documents clearly stated no construction vehicles and the documents had been modified to clearly state no service vehicles also. Then the issue became the three properties and a possibility of proliferation of keys or people learning the combination. He responded that the three people are the three people immediately adjacent to the gate, so if anything it would reduce the traffic through Cahuilla Hills. It would reduce the dust because those people might 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 choose to go over the paved roads within the Crest rather than go back through the unpaved roads in Cahuilla Hills. It would reduce the dust and they didn't feel there was any danger there. He said the entity most concerned about who would be using that gate was them. They intend to put together a first class quality community in that area and security was a major selling point to them and to the extent that the security is breached, they have a concern. As far as the City is concerned, if in fact it was abused and complaints were made, the City had the clear and easy ability to stop it. That was a condition of their project. Whether the complaints were from people in the Crest or people in Cahuilla Hills, if in fact despite their best efforts something happens, they could change the locks or combination to stop it. It would be a locked facility and the only entities outside of the residents of the Crest would be emergency vehicles and those three property owners. He hoped the commission understood that was the cost of getting the right of way to get them in and out. As far as the alternative of going over the mountain, he noted that was not addressed in the EIR. If there were endangered or threatened species that would be a problem and changing the project could have significant effects upon them, especially if it affected endangered species. He said that property would have to be surveyed and if endangered or threatened species were detected, they could end up having to re-circulate an EIR. He indicated that they have been working on this project for eight years and the EIR was certified four years ago. He didn't want to have to go back and recirculate it and go through that again. He felt that would be incredibly unfair. He believed they can and have addressed the issue of emergency access to assure both the City and their residents that it would not be abused. He said they were open to any suggestions with respect to how they might better secure the area without denying access to the three people over whose property the emergency access road travels. Mr. Selzer said they dealt with the emergency access issue, the non-disturbance agreement, the standards for additional lots, their addition to Exhibit C, the discrepancies with the maps and all those were covered by staff. He asked if there were any questions for him or the developer. Chairperson Ferguson indicated he had a number of questions for Mr. Selzer. Regarding the emergency access, for the privilege of allowing the Crest to get fire trucks to their development in the event that their development catches on fire, the three property owners have unfettered access through, to and from the Crest development, on a daily basis. Mr. Selzer concurred. Chairperson Ferguson asked what kind of gate was being contemplated to limit them and no one else from going through that gate. Mr. Selzer said it would be locked, but didn't know the exact type and didn't know what difference that made. It would be a key, card or combination and if other people were using it, they would change it. Chairperson Ferguson asked if thought had been given to allowing those three property owners to elect to have their primary access through the Crest development and use the southern portion of their property as an 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 emergency crash gate. In other words, move the crash gate from the Crest perimeter to the outermost perimeter of the three properties involved. Mr. Selzer said they hadn't discussed that issue. Chairperson Ferguson said he would address that question to anyone present who owns property appurtenant to the emergency access road. Chairperson Ferguson noted that there was a parcel in the County on the southeastern section that has been denoted as "Desert Park" and in speaking with Mr. Selzer and Mr. Miller, he was repeatedly assured that this would be dedicated as open space privately held, yet it was still denoted as desert park with permitted benches, shade structures, etc. He asked which one it would be. Mr. Selzer asked if Chairperson Ferguson was talking about the portion within the city. Chairperson Ferguson replied no and clarified that it was the County parcel running along the ridge line. Mr. Selzer stated that area was desert park and would be owned by the homeowners association. Chairperson Ferguson noted that he and Mr. Selzer had discussed keeping it as open space, but as desert park it would permit hiking trails, shade structures and benches right along the ridge line. He asked if that was the proposal. MR. TYLER MILLER, the applicant, addressed the commission and explained that the desert park area had been proposed to be desert park for the last five years. The main issue was a title issue. It looked pretty much the same but they felt it was important for the security that it be owned by the development and not the City. Chairperson Ferguson clarified that he didn't have an issue with who owned the area and assumed it would be privately held open space. The issue was with the shade structures, particularly the shade structures and benches along the ridge line. It was his understanding that those would not be permitted. Mr. Miller stated that they have no intention of building them on any ridge line. Mr. Selzer said he frankly didn't recall that conversation, but they didn't disagree with that and it would be easily handled through the CC&Rs. They would covenant so that would not occur. The structures would be allowed within the desert park area, but they would provide for them in the CC&Rs for the City Attorney's review. Chairperson Ferguson asked if it was acceptable to them to add that as a condition of approval. Mr. Miller and Mr. Selzer concurred. Chairperson Ferguson noted that Mr. Selzer made reference to and there was some discussion at previous meetings about the "standard conditions of approval" in Exhibit C. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the City Attorney had a chance to review them. Mr. Erwin stated that he had briefly reviewed them, but 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 the first time he saw them was today and he wanted to reserve the right to not necessarily change them in any substantive form, but to put them in a little different format. Chairperson Ferguson noted that he and Mr. Selzer spoke at some length regarding the discretion that would be afforded to the City. He asked where in either the development agreement or the current proposal where that discretion had been broadened. They specifically referenced paragraph five in the development agreement and his objections to that. Mr. Selzer stated that the development agreement had not changed in that respect. The place where it showed up where discretion would be granted to the City was in two places: 1 ) the conditions of approval; and 2) the Hillside Ordinance as discussed and that was why they added their reworded condition to Exhibit C, because the City would retain a great deal of discretion. He noted that before any development could proceed, they had to bring in tract maps for the commission's approval for every phase of development. The City could not add conditions other than those that are listed on Exhibit C. On the other hand, with respect to precise location, both the City and the applicant needed the discretion to move that because the plans before the commission, primarily in Exhibit 7, was conceptual in nature. It was not intended to show precise lot lines. Those would be established as a result of precise engineering done at the time that tract maps are submitted to the City. He said that he had some question about the kind of discretion the City wanted to retain. The City retained the discretion to make sure that the lot lines conform with the concepts that were set forth in the development agreement and the plan before the commission. Both the City and the applicant retain the discretion to modify those as necessary when precise engineering plans were completed. He asked if that answered his question. He said that he and the City Attorney had a brief discussion before the meeting; on the one hand they were being told the City wants everything in concrete and as precise as possible. On the other hand the City is saying they want some discretion to change it and he said he didn't know how to draft it both ways. Chairperson Ferguson requested a copy of the hillside ordinance and noted that condition number 2 said that the standards for development should follow options 1 and 3 of the City's Hillside Ordinance as clarified further by the PCD text. He indicated there was a paragraph that Mr. Drell had pointed out which Chairperson Ferguson and Mr. Selzer had discussed making applicable to both options and that was as follows: "Development standards shall be approved by the Planning Commission at a public hearing and shall be based on the following development options. The minimum density obtainable shall be one dwelling unit per five acres...The Planning Commission shall make a final determination concerning which option or combination of options..." Mr. Joy spoke up and said that he believed the section that Chairperson Ferguson was referring to dealt 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 with access to the parcels. Chairperson Ferguson noted the ordinance was right before him and continued to read: "The City may require any measure it feels necessary to mitigate adverse environmental or aesthetic impacts of grading or construction. Location and grades of access roads shall be as approved by the Fire Marshall and Planning Commission. If adverse aesthetic and environmental impacts of site and access grading cannot be adequately mitigated, then the designated location shall not qualify as a building site under this option." Chairperson Ferguson asked if under condition number 2 of Exhibit C of the development agreement if Mr. Selzer was incorporating that paragraph to this particular development. Mr. Selzer asked for clarification on the question. Chairperson Ferguson explained that under condition 2 of the conditions of approval in Exhibit C that says they will follow the City's Hillside Ordinance, he asked if they were incorporating that paragraph with the discretion that it would afford to the Planning Commission, to the future planning decisions that would need to be made with respect to the Crest development. Mr. Selzer stated that was why they added the amendment to Exhibit C as referred to by Mr. Joy. Chairperson Ferguson asked if that was a page the commission just received tonight. Staff concurred. Chairperson Ferguson indicated that he had not seen it before. Mr. Joy noted it was entitled: Proposed Omnibus Condition Dealing with the Unique Nature of the Physical Conditions at The Crest to be added to Exhibit C. Mr. Selzer stated that all that said was that the City would be fair. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he would take time to review it as they went through the public hearing and then if he had further questions, he would ask them during the rebuttal portion. Mr. Selzer concurred. Chairperson Ferguson noted that he also had not had a chance to review the map, although he received it at about 4:00 p.m. that afternoon. He explained that he and Mr. Miller had a discussion concerning sewage crossings and ravines. He asked if those were identified on the map and requested staff to point those out. Mr. Joy did so. Mr. Miller noted they were also identified on Exhibit 10 of the agreement and would only be viewed by people inside the development. He said this was primarily done as a response to the EIR because it was kinder to the land to bridge the drainage basins than to dam them up with any kind of a culvert. Mr. Joy indicated that staff did some research on this issue and initially in the PCD text it looked like there would be some sewer lines crossing some ravines 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 not associated with a bridge, but he felt that as long as the sewer lines were in conjunction with the bridge, it could be easily camouflaged by making the bridge deck itself a deeper depth to the bridge and thereby hiding the sewer lines. Chairperson Ferguson clarified that he would like the portions of the map highlighted where sewage lines would cross ravines when not mitigated by a bridge. Mr. Joy indicated that there would be no sewer lines that were not associated with a bridge. Every sewer line crossing a ravine would have a bridge over it. Mr. Miller concurred and explained that all the utilities, all the water lines and all sewer lines were contained within the loop roads--other than the four shown on Exhibit 10. Mr. Miller said that the only sewer crossings that were exposed were the ones shown on Exhibit 10. All others were covered by roads. Chairperson Ferguson asked for those four exposed locations to be shown on the display map for the public to see. Mr. Joy said he stood corrected and apologized. Chairperson Ferguson asked what the visual mitigation would be for the four areas if they were not going to be covered by a road. Mr. Miller said they would be painted sympathetic colors to the desert. Chairperson Ferguson asked if it would be a naked pipe running across the ravines. Mr. Miller said they would be encased and the casing was shown in the appendices exhibit under bridges and sewer crossings. Chairperson Ferguson asked if that was essentially the same as the previous proposal. Mr. Miller concurred. Chairperson Ferguson asked the commission if there were any other questions for the applicant. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR of this application. DR. JERRY MEINTS, 71 -450 Painted Canyon, stated that he was one of the handful of property owners that would be able to view the Crest from Cahuilla Hills and he was one of the three property owners that would have access through the Crest itself. He said as he has mentioned before, he was opposed to this development for the last 20 or 30 years, however, in his militant, and referred to himself as a recovering NIMBY, he discovered 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 in his own education here in Palm Desert that they really couldn't tell other people that own property that they can't develop it because others like the view, or because of higher density. As a result he said he decided to work with the developer to mitigate some difficulties and to try and shift the direction of some of the original ideas for the project. He said he has been doing that for the past four or five years and as a result a lot of changes and considerations had been made for the residents of Cahuilla Hills and negotiations to enhance the natural area to limit density to a reasonable percentage (i.e., 10 percent of the 750 acres were going to be developed and the rest would be left in its natural state). For that he was very grateful. He stated that he was also in support of the project for the following reasons: 1 ) it was the most environmentally sound proposal to ever hit the Coachella Valley. This was a project similar to that of Desert Mountain and Troon in Scottsdale and what this project has over and above those developments was it had no golf course. The natural environment was duly respected and maintained. In addition, there was no hilltop construction. They have development that is compatible with the rustic, naturalistic sort of gentleman's ranch character of the Cahuilla Hills. He also stated that he fully respected Professor Bowie. He had been a teacher, a neighbor and friend and he had always been someone who was a watchdog of things going on in the Cahuilla Hills. He did, however, disagree with Mr. Bowie for the following reasons: 1 ) he believed that an emergency access route over the top of the hills was in direct contradiction to the idea of protecting the hillside vistas; 2) he was fully in favor of both the folks at the Crest having an emergency crash gate that was accessed only when there was a tremendous emergency such as a fire that would not permit emergency vehicles to go through their main gate. Moreover, it was a two-way street. If those in the Cahuilla Hills had a tremendous disaster and had no way of exiting the only exit from the Cahuilla Hills, they would then be able to crash the gate and exit through the Crest and he felt that dramatically benefited the Cahuilla Hills residents who might at some point be hit with such a disaster. In addition, he agreed with Mr. Bowie that dust, PM10, was a serious problem in the Cahuilla Hills. He mentioned that Roy Wilson came to inspect their roadways this month. They had been very disappointed with the County's performance. They bought soil cement with federal grant money that they have been negotiating on over a year and the County watered down the formula. The soil cement went down and it broke up a day later. What they were looking at now was the County tightening up their act and helping them with a soil cement project that could take care of PM10 once and for all. He said he was Co-Chairman of the Road Committee along with Bill Infante and they have been negotiating and receiving bids from contractors, who would grade the roads, scarify them, lay them down and provide soil cement maintenance on a regular twice a year basis. The County was helping them negotiate with property owners so that they could access their neighbors and the cost of handling the dust problem in the Cahuilla Hills would be equally distributed 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 throughout the property owners. In the interim, all he could say was that they were repairing the roads as they could and they intended to solve that problem as a community. He also said he was one of the individuals who negotiated with the Crest to provide emergency access. He and two other parties negotiated in concert and all three parties were in agreement and all felt this was an important step for them to take. He commented on Chairperson Ferguson's suggestion about the gate being established on the southern boundaries of their properties so that it would also mitigate against any sort of intrusion by uninvited guests and he wanted to mention it because the question was asked if this had ever been discussed. Dr. Meints said that although Mr. Selzer was unaware of this dialogue, he and Mr. Miller discussed this on several occasions and it was Mr. Miller's suggestion that there be two gates to provide a double assurance that unwanted parties do not enter the Crest and vice versa. He believed that dialogue was leaning toward a card system. He also felt it was important that they recognize that they want security as well. They didn't want people passing in either direction unless they have legitimate access to that roadway. He believed this project would benefit the Cahuilla Hills residents who have been struggling without much support from either the County or the City and this project would benefit their property values and give them some long overdue attention. He also suggested that the residents in Cahuilla Hills who were not part of the County, but were part of the City, were also benefiting because they could cross the channel at the bridge and gain much more ready access to their properties which would benefit them tremendously. He felt the roads were in a wash board condition which could be changed with the benefit of the Crest and was really a neat thing. He also indicated that for the three property owners who were truly at the farthest reaches of the Cahuilla Hills, it took them no less than nine minutes to reach Highway 74. Exiting through the Crest would cut the time in half because it was a much shorter distance and made a lot more sense. He also heard Mr. Drell's comment that they would not be exiting through the Cahuilla Hills and therefore would not be causing further dust problems. They would be reducing that by three families and it could be significant since those three families own at least three vehicles. Chairperson Ferguson asked if that was true that they would only be exiting and entering through the Crest development. Dr. Meints said that was their plan. Chairperson Ferguson asked if that was the case, why they would have opposition to a crash gate on the southern perimeter on their property. Dr. Meints clarified that he had no opposition to that whatsoever. He mentioned that a crash gate was suggested on both sides. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 Chairperson Ferguson noted that in reviewing Dr. Meints' easement agreement, he himself was allowed to use the access as well as any of his employees, any of his agents, any of his contractors, any of his customers, theoretically he could sell access, any of his visitors, invitees, licensees, tenants or guests could also use it. He noted that meant more than three property owners using this access. Chairperson Ferguson asked for clarification purposes if Dr. Meints had any problem with placing a crash gate on the southern perimeter so that all three of those parcels only enter and exit through the Crest development. Dr. Meints concurred and indicated that discussion had addressed two gates and there was no problem with that. His understanding and reading of the contract was that it was for their immediate families and he was not interested in having construction people or anyone else traveling through that area. Chairperson Ferguson said it was a little broader than that, but Dr. Meints may have solved the problem. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR. There was no one. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION. Mr. Paul Bowie, 71-774 Chuckwalla Way, addressed the commission and began his comments. Chairperson Ferguson asked Mr. Bowie if he was reading into the record the letter he submitted to the Planning Commission earlier that day. (See Exhibit A attached hereto). Mr. Bowie concurred. He said he wasn't aware that the commission had received it since it was submitted so late. Chairperson Ferguson asked the commissioners if they had reviewed the letter. Commission concurred. Mr. Bowie stated that he would like to read it. He pointed out that he has some very strong feelings about this matter. Chairperson Ferguson said that the commission had read the letter and asked if Mr. Bowie could sum up and be concise about his principal objections to the project. Mr. Bowie stated that his objections were all worthy and substantial. Certain things had been said tonight about the County doing things or not doing things and he didn't know how many people were involved in making deals, but he had not been contacted at any time. The matter of removing 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 three families and their vehicular traffic off the dirt roads was inconsequential because there were already over 200 vehicle trips per day out of Cahuilla Hills and he knew that because he did that study in 1991 when he was concerned about the dust problem and another matter. He said that if one could use the gate, why not everyone. He also felt the commission should consider that as time goes by a number of other places would be built, more people would move up into Section 36, there would be more traffic, and Cahuilla Way as stated in his letter was insane. He was sure that the commission didn't want to hear some of the instances that both he and his wife have encountered down there with the traffic at the intersection. As time goes by, the town would only get worse and worse and suggested that the road just be opened up and they should have a second route also. Chairperson Ferguson said he thought Mr. Bowie's principal objection was the PM 10 dust and asked how opening it up would alleviate that. Mr. Bowie concurred that was his concern. He said that if they were going to open that gate for three, why not open it for 500. Chairperson Ferguson asked if that would compound by a factor of some 50 the amount of dust in the air. Mr. Bowie said he didn't know, but as he listened to people making deals so that they could use the gate, he asked why they all couldn't use it. They contribute their share to the community too. Just because they were in the County didn't make them another nation. In addition to comments made tonight, he wanted to address the issue of keys and cards. He felt that one key could turn into 100. One card would turn into 100. Regarding another route into the Crest leading onto Thrush Road, he didn't know if it had to go over the top of a ridge line or not. As far as he could tell someone was just making that assumption. On the issue of endangering threatened species, he thought that had turned into a joke across the country and they had already been compromised. He said that he stood firm behind his letter and believed that the suggestion of the Fire Marshal to have another access to the main road made complete sense. Chairperson Ferguson asked for clarification that Mr. Bowie either wanted access for everyone or access for no one. Mr. Bowie said it was either access for everyone or it was a crash gate, period. Chairperson Ferguson noted that during his discussion with Dr. Meints they were talking about making it a crash gate, period. He recognized that they were not 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 a country to themselves, but if they were, those three properties just opted out of it and went appurtenant to the Crest. Mr. Bowie asked why they should opt out and why he couldn't opt in. They were making gray lines now. Chairperson Ferguson said that lines had to be drawn somewhere and the commission was trying to draw one tonight. Mr. Bowie said he was also and indicated that the Fire Marshal was giving the City an option of having another exit onto the main street. Chairperson Ferguson asked where Mr. Bowie would draw that line because in his arguments against access, he raised the issue of dust control and in his argument against universal access, it undercut the dust control argument. Mr. Bowie agreed that it did, because he was now aware that there were deals being made for some people. He asked why there should be a deal since this was a democracy and they should have everything for everyone. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Bowie thought the developer would allow more residents from the Cahuilla Hills area to go through their gate and if they were closer to that gate. She asked if that would be a better route for Mr. Bowie. Mr. Bowie thought that the maximum distance that anyone travels up there from where they are to Highway 74 could be one mile if they were at the west end. But he couldn't speak for those people. Commissioner Campbell indicated that the developer could go to those people and ask them if they wanted to use the Crest gate and if they did they could receive a gate opener, otherwise people could use the other road. Mr. Bowie said he was now asking why it couldn't be opened completely because in time Cahuilla Way was going to become an impossibility and it was engineered wrong from the beginning. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone else wished to speak in OPPOSITION. MR. ANTOINE BABAI, 45-640 Highway 74 in Palm Desert, stated that he might be one of the three people, but he wasn't sure. They have the property adjacent to this property and no one had come to them to ask for a deal. No one had approached them. He believed that this project would be good for the city and the area. It was beautiful and unique and it would be nice to have the road going to the Crest area paved since St. Margaret's School was adjacent there and it would lower the dust for the kids playing 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 in the school area. He felt it was a good idea to have this project and would benefit the city. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the applicant if he wished to give a response to the comments given. Mr. Selzer said he wanted to address the emergency access issue. The question was asked why there was a deal with those three property owners. It was because emergency access was an important issue to all of the people who live in the Cahuilla Hills. As Dr. Meints pointed out, those streets go both ways. If there was an emergency in Cahuilla Hills and their primary access was cut off, the fire trucks could go through the Crest and vice versa. Why do those three people have access and no one else? Because there was a quid pro quo. They gave the Crest the right of way. With respect to the concern that it was not just the three families that would be using the gate, but their family, guests, invitees, etc. That would reduce the problem. If he heard Mr. Bowie correctly and dust was a problem, this would further reduce that problem. In the document, guests and invitees refer to people that normally go to a house. They were not talking about a business or a drive-in restaurant, but people who normally visit homes. With respect to putting in a second crash gate, they were not opposed to that although he didn't think a whole lot would be accomplished by doing that. As Dr. Meints indicated, those three families would undoubtedly use the Crest's paved roads and added that his guess was that if there was a fire in the Cahuilla Hills, the emergency vehicles would probably choose to go over the paved roads instead of the dirt roads, depending on where the fire was located. He was having some difficulty understanding Mr. Bowie's issue other than the fact that he was upset that he couldn't go through the Crest. Those were private streets and that was the way they were designed and they have the right to do that and many other developments within the city and all over the desert have them. Again, the second crash gate on the other side they would be willing to do, but didn't feel anything was being accomplished by doing that, but if it was a condition, they would do it. Chairperson Ferguson commented that the cumulative record to date spanning the first introduction of the application through and including the present had elicited comments and letters from people who said they bought in Cahuilla Hills primarily for its quiet and seclusion. There was concern about the service entrance aspects of Bighorn duplicating itself at the Crest which were primarily thought to be taken care of with the crash gate. They wanted to make sure it was an emergency access only to preserve their seclusion and he could appreciate the three property owners wanting to get better access to their property, but was not sure other residents shared their joy in opening that up to everyone at large. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 Mr. Selzer asked who everyone at large was. What he was saying, unless he was missing something, was that Dr. Meints and the other two property owners and their invitees would be using the Crest's access and that would reduce the impacts to the people in Cahuilla Hills because they would go the other way. He asked what he was missing. Chairperson Ferguson indicated that if Mr. Bowie approached Dr. Meints and told him he was tired of using Cahuilla Way and asked if he could be invited to use Dr. Meints' property to go through the Crest and if Dr. Meints said yes and Mr. Bowie was his invitee, with the liberal wording in the agreement he could be selective about whom he lets through his property. What he was suggesting was that since the crash gate was proposed and the property owner in question didn't oppose the crash gate, since the crash gate was always in the contemplation of the developer, why not put the crash gate there and preserve the essential integrity of the original application. Mr. Selzer said he would accept that, but thought they were taking the "what if" game a little too far. If in fact it was being abused, they could stop that or the City could stop that. Their intention, as stated by Dr. Meints, was for use by the immediate family. He had a hunch that if Dr. Meints was asked to remove casual invitees from the agreement, he would do that. The bottom line was that they were proposing a solution that in Mr. Selzer's mind didn't get them very far and worked exactly the opposite. Using Chairperson Ferguson's example, he would say that the folks in Cahuilla Hills should like that because that would mean a further reduction on the impact on Cahuilla Hills. Chairperson Ferguson closed the public testimony and asked for commission comments. Chairperson Ferguson noted that he asked Mr. Smith to review the proposed language by the applicant for Exhibit C and asked for his comments. Mr. Smith said he would have no problem, subject to the City Attorney's review and approval. City Attorney Erwin indicated that he was not in a position to comfortably comment on it at this time. Chairperson Ferguson asked Mr. Joy if the Fire Department indicated a preference on the emergency access location for the Crest development. Mr. Joy stated that the condition was only that an emergency access be provided and they didn't indicate a preference on the location. Chairperson Ferguson asked if there was a definition of "emergency" somewhere. Mr. Joy said he didn't know of any other than what was in the dictionary. Chairperson Ferguson asked for crash gate purposes if it could be limited to police and fire. Mr. Joy indicated that in this circumstance just as a general city policy they would define that as police, fire, ambulance and paramedic and that type of user. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 Commissioner Campbell indicated that due to some of the questions that the commission had two weeks ago the case was continued and she felt that the developer has answered some of the problems and that they were well answered. As far as the residents in the Cahuilla Hills area that have been to the public hearings, most of them have been in favor of the project, except for Mr. Bowie. From his testimony tonight, she felt it was somewhat contradictory to previous comments. Since the residents most impacted were in favor of the project and after listening to comments made by Dr. Meints that he moved there because of the desert atmosphere and the Crest was a good project that wouldn't have a golf course and proposed a very natural desert landscaping. She also wondered if the developer would allow any other persons to use that gate in that there were other residents in the Cahuilla Hills that might want access. She agreed that the Crest would be a good development to have in Palm Desert and felt it would help the retail community to have more year round residents. She stated that she was in favor. Commissioner Fernandez concurred with Commission Campbell that this was a great project. The applicant had worked hard on it for eight years and everything that the commission and planning staff asked for had been done. He stated that he was in favor of the project and wished the applicant good luck. Chairperson Ferguson noted that he has said from the outset that he was in favor of the project conceptually. His biggest struggle with the project was to try and take that which was conceptual and make it definitive and binding for the next 20 years. The work that had been done on redrafting the development agreement at first glance seemed to strike a fair balance between what the City wants, which was the discretion to evaluate the unique development on a lot by lot basis and home by home basis, while at the same time vesting certain rights with the developer so that he could be assured of orderly development over the next 20 years in exchange to his dedication to open space. His other problem with the application at the last meeting was the lack of specificity, at least in terms of its conceptual design, certain internal inconsistencies and conflicts, many of which seemed to have been resolved. The remaining issues were what constituted an emergency, where the crash gate would be located, whether there were benches and shade structures along the ridge line. He said that while that concern might seem picayune to some, they were not to the people who live there who look on the other side of the property line. He appreciated that it had taken the applicant eight years to work out their project, but noted that it had taken many thousands of years to develop those hills and he felt that merited some consideration as well. He felt that an appropriate balance had been reached, subject to the City Attorney's review of the applicant's Exhibit C language, which he would like to defer to him on, and the City Council's review. He stated that he would like to see a definition of emergency added to include police, fire and other appropriate vehicles, not the least of which were ambulances. He also wanted to see the crash gate relocated to the southern perimeter of the three properties and he thought those property owners had a 17 a� SUBJECT TO MINUTES 171A< ; 4 f EVbON PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION t. JUNE 17, 1997 right to do with their properties as they chose, but he wanted to see the essential character of Cahuilla Hills preserved and to him the best way to do that was with a crash gate. He also wanted a condition added that said there would be no benches or shade structures along the ridge line as previously discussed and he would define that as visible from a westerly perspective if standing to the east. He asked if those additional conditions were acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Miller asked for clarification of westerly perspective. Chairperson Ferguson indicated he meant standing east looking to the west. Mr. Miller stated he had no problem with the conditions. Chairperson Ferguson stated that with those conditions of approval that he had just added and with the City Attorney's reservation to review and modify Exhibit C, he also was in favor of the project. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he would move for approval of the Crest development as amended by the inclusion of the word emergency, the relocation of the crash gate and the benches and shade structures along the ridge line being visually mitigated from the rest of Palm Desert. Action: Moved by Chairperson Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-0-2 (Commissioners Beaty and Jonathan abstained). Moved by Chairperson Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1812, recommending to City Council approval of C/Z 90-12 Amendment No. 1 and Development Agreement, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 3-0-2 (Commissioners Beaty and Jonathan abstained). B. Continued Case No. PP 97-7 - ANDREW PIERCE CORPORATION/GARY LOHMAN, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan to allow the conversion of a 1 ,581 square foot residence into an office located at 44-835 Deep Canyon. Mr. Martin Alvarez noted that this case was before the Planning Commission on June 3, 1997 where both a change of zone and precise plan were reviewed. The change of zone from R-1 to Office Professional was recommended for approval to the City Council, but the precise plan was continued. He indicated that the applicant was requesting permission to convert a 1581 square foot residence into an office use. The project is located on the west side of Deep Canyon one parcel north of Alessandro. The office would be used by a developer/builder of 18 Palm Desert City Council 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California re : Case No. C/Z 90-12 Amendment #1 and Development Agreement We would like to address two primary concerns ; 1) The location of these homesites on ridge lines. Will they be located below the ridges so as to leave the view of the mountains unobstructed or on the ridge lines to break up the natural view? 2 ) The location and function of the emergency exit to the south. Where will it cross the gultch and where will it connect to the road or roads presently in place? Will this road be strictly for emergency use or will it place additional pressure on the poorly improved roads to the south? d \ Robert H. Cockcr ft Eliza eth J. Cockcroft 7" 73-426 Sunny Trail cv Palm Desert, CA 92260 c v' 4J ',: C.D 4.i Cat i