Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 97-50 thru 97-53 Ord 847 Revised Vesting TT 25296, TT 28575, CZ 96-7, GPA 96-1 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Approval of a 457 acre revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map, new 62 acre Vesting Tentative Tract Map, General Plan Amendment and Pre-Annexation Change of Zone and Second Addendum to Certified Final Environmental Impact to allow the development of a 395-lot residential country club with 18 hole golf course generally located on the east side of Highway 74 between Indian Hills Way and the southern City limits. III. APPLICANT: WINMAR PALM DESERT, L.L.C. 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2600 Seattle, WA 98104 IV. CASE NOS: Revised Vesting TT 25296, Vesting TT 28575, C/Z 96-7, GPA 96-1 V. DATE: June 26, 1997 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion C. Draft Resolution No. 97-50 for E.I.R. Second Addendum D. Draft Resolution No. 97-51 for Revised Vesting TT 25296 E. Draft Ordinance No. 847 for Change of Zone 96-7 F. Draft Resolution No. 97-52Tor GPA 96-1 G. Draft Resolution No. 97-53 for Vesting 28575 H. Planning Commission Minutes dated June 3, 1997 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1811 J. Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 3, 1997 K. Related maps, exhibits and addendum L. Legal notice M. Letters regarding project A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Adopt Resolution No. 97-50 finding that the Second Addendum prepared is complete and adequate to address environmental impacts of the project. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 97-51 approving Revised Vesting TT 25296. STAFF REPORT REVISED VESTING TT 25296, VESTING TT 28575, C/Z 96-7, GPA 96-1 JUNE 26, 1997 3. Adopt Resolution No. 97-52 approving GPA 96-1 . 4. Adopt Ordinance No. 4 passingC/Z 96-7 to second reading. p 8 7 9 5. Adopt Resolution No. 97-53 approving Vesting TT 28575 B. DISCUSSION: The project is referred to as "The Canyons of Bighorn" and was formerly known as "Altamira". The existing Bighorn Golf Club across Highway 74 will be known as "The Mountains at Bighorn" and the two clubs are proposed to be connected by a tunnel under Highway 74 so that a membership will enable one to play either course. The "Canyons" consists of 395 units on 519 acres compared to Altamira's 422 units on 352 acres. The additional acreage primarily consists of 123 acres across from Bighorn - five acres of which need to be annexed to the city and 57 acres southeast of the project - also outside the present city limits and proposed for annexation. Included in the 519 acres are 52 acres of buffer for the Bighorn Institute's lambing pens as recommended by the Department of Fish and Game. The 57-acre section requiring annexation described above was shown previously on the Altamira plan with a graded access road leading to a reservoir site, but not included in the project's overall acreage. The "Canyons" project proposes 20 homesites along this access road in conformance to the City's hillside ordinance. The 57-acre parcel is an extension of an elevated bench at the base of the mountains and is part of a larger 465-acre parcel owned by CVWD. Current County regulations for the area are one unit per 10-20 acres and golf course development including a clubhouse - with a conditional use permit. The pre-annexation zone change request only applies to the 57 acres, however, with the balance of the 465-acre parcel - where the steepest slopes of the parcel occur - remaining with the County zoning. The City discourages hillside development wherever possible and this 57-acre parcel was required to have a slope study to assure conformance to City hillside regulations. The study shows the project conforms to hillside regulations even when the reservoir access road was included in the study as disturbed area even though it needs to be constructed to serve the project regardless if the 20 homesites in this 57 acres were approved. 2 STAFF REPORT REVISED VESTING TT 25296, VESTING TT 28575, C/Z 96-7, GPA 96-1 JUNE 26, 1997 A Second Addendum to the E.I.R. for Altamira has been prepared by the City's environmental consultant and finds the project not to have changed that exposes new or more severe impacts than those in the Final E.I.R. The reservoir and access road were approved by CVWD with a Mitigated Negative Declaration and is included in the Addendum. For more detailed descriptions, refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report, Second Addendum to the E.I.R., hillside slope studies, or project information booklet supplied by the applicant - which contains the maps. At the commission meeting, the Planning Commission approved the project 4-0 (Commissioner Beaty was absent), after hearing from eight who spoke in favor with two in opposition. The Sierra Club - one of those in opposition - requested preparation of another E.I.R. rather than an Addendum (see response prepared by City's environmental consultant). Emily Hemphill - representing the Del Gagnon, Laliberte property - also spoke in opposition due to buffer impacts upon their property - which the City Attorney will be addressing. Prepared by: Phil JoyX2 Reviewed and Approved by: Philip Drell /tm CITY COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED___ DENIED RECEIVED OTHER..one Or.el "OEs'.— � . .=ABSENT ABSTAIN: • -A �, .. VEhIFIED BY: c Original on File with ity Clerk's Office 3 P RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA FINDING THAT AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED AND ADDENDED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE ALTAMIRA COUNTRY CLUB,TOGETHER WITH THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ISSUED BY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT,IS COMPLETE AND ADEQUATELY ADDRESSES THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF REVISED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25296 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28575 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 27501 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF CANYONS AT BIG HORN. WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Report for the Altamira Country Club was prepared to address the environmental effects,mitigation measures, and project alternatives associated with the construction of a 450 dwelling unit project with associated golf course on a 352 acre site; and WHEREAS, the Coachella Valley Water District ("CVWD") on May 27, 1997 adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND" - File No. 0421.2) for water storage, access, delivery and stormwater retention facilities on an approximately 57 acre parcel owned by CVWD; and WHEREAS, to assist in conducting the necessary CEQA review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162), the City has prepared an Expanded Initial Study and Addendum. It is on the basis of this document, incorporated herein by reference, that the City makes the relevant findings of CEQA compliance; and WHEREAS, the Expanded Initial Study was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines as an Addendum (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164) to address changes and additions to entitlements for the Canyons at Bighorn ("Project") including revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25296 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 28575 for the development of 395 dwelling units and an associated golf course on 514 acres in the City of Palm Desert; and WHEREAS, the City published a public notice in a newspaper of general circulation on May 22, 1997 and June 1Z, 1997; apprising the public of hearings on the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the City also mailed notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, this publication date and mailed notice exceeds state and local requirements for the notification of public hearings; and _ __ ..,��� i r.�.l-i -a�LJrIL I G LULdGK I JUIV / 14 5C I • WHEREAS, all such notices contained an advisement of the City's intent to find said previous Final EIR and Addendum adequate to document the environmental attributes of the revised project, and invited the public to examine said Expanded Initial Study and Addendum in support of such finding; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert conducted said public hearing to receive all testimony concerning the revised project and associated environmental documentation; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed all said environmental documentation and has found that the Expanded Initial Study and Addendum properly concludes that all environmental effects of the revised project are adequately documented within the aforementioned EIR; and WHEREAS, the City Council has examined with particular care the potential effects peculiar to this project and the adequacy of the performance of adopted mitigation measures, all as set forth in the Expanded Initial Study and Addendum, and finds that the Initial Study document is particularly responsive to the actual environmental effects, input from public agencies, and public comments to date; and WHEREAS, the City Council incorporates this Expanded Initial Study and Addendum into this Resolution by reference as facts in support of these findings; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted numerous conditions of approval to continue to carry out the objectives of the mitigation measures in the previous Final EIR; and WHEREAS, Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines provide that, where an EIR or a Negative Declaration has been prepared, no new EIR or Negative Declaration need be prepared unless there are changes in the project, its underlying circumstances, or new information,which result in new or more severe impacts than were originally documented in the EIR; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The Final EIR prepared for the Altamira Country Club, as addended, and together with the CVWD MND, completely and adequately documents the development of the proposed project. 2. On the basis of the Expanded Initial Study, most prominent impacts, such as biological resources and land uses, are reduced over that was anticipated in the Final EIR, either by a lower intensity on the site itself, or by additival mitigation measures. 3. The Initial Study contains substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that impacts are not new or more severe than those predicted in the Final EIR, and that such evidence has been carefully and independently reviewed by the technical divisions of the City responsible for the accuracy of such evidence and by appropriate resource agencies. 2 I.-u oc_ C I JUI V / 1 4 4. The impacts presented by this project are equal to or less severe overall than those realized by development consistent with the approved project, and that this fact has been documented in the Expanded Initial Study and Addendum. 5. The City Council has not been presented substantial and credible evidence disputing the conclusions contained in the Expanded Initial Study and Addendum. 6. The Expanded Initial Study serves a valuable continuing purpose in the planning process by presenting an even more current representation of impacts. Since none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for a new EIR have occurred, and since the information reported in the Expanded Initial Study and Addendum does not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment, the Council hereby finds that this Expanded Initial Study shall be approved as an Addendum to this previous Final EIR, pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, in order to assure that the most contemporary information is always available. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 26th day of June, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 3 RESOLUTION NO.97-51 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A 372 UNIT, 457 ACRE REVISED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR "THE CANYONS OF BIGHORN" GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 74 BETWEEN INDIAN HILLS WAY AND THE SOUTHERN CITY LIMITS. CASE NO. REVISED VESTING TT 25296 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 26th day of June, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by WINMAR PALM DESERT L.L.C. for above described project; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm of theCaliforniaEnvironmental QualityAct, Resolution Desert Procedure for Implementation Ca No. 97-18," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project has been properly analyzed in the Second Addendum to FEIR SCH #91012061 ; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of the tentative tract map: (a) That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; (c) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development; (d) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development; (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this case. 2. That it does herebyapprove the above described Revised VestingTentative Tract Map No. 25296, subject to the attached conditions. RESOLUTION NO. 97-51 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, 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 2 RESOLUTION NO. 97-51 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. REVISED VESTING TT 25296 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development as modified by the following conditions. 2. The approval of this vesting tentative map shall expire at the end of the same time period, and shall be subject to the same extensions, established by the Subdivision Ordinance for the expiration of the approval of a tentative map. 3. That the rights contained in the tentative vesting map shall expire if a final map is not approved prior to the expiration of the vesting tentative map as provided in condition 2 above. If the final map is approved then construction of a portion of said project shall commence within two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 4. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes as provided for vesting tentative tract maps pursuant to the California Subdivision Map Act. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Desert Sands Unified School District Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 6. That the setbacks for dwellings in this project shall be as shown on map exhibits. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 97-51 7. That the approval for Vesting Tentative Tract 28575 shall be null and void unless said property is annexed to the City of Palm Desert. 8. All mitigation measures contained within FEIR as amended by the Second Addendum are incorporated herein by reference as conditions of this approval. 9. Project landscaping shall emphasize drought tolerant plant materials and irrigation technology to the greatest extent feasible. 10. The project shall be subject to all currently applicable fees including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, TUMF, and school mitigation fees. 1 1 . Provisions shall be made for convenient project access and on-site parking for all construction, service workers and other employees associated with the project. 1 2. Provisions for solid waste disposal shall include residential and commercial recycling where applicable. 13. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801 ) and the approved landscape plan. Department of Public Works: 1 . Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map or issuance of grading permits. 2. Drainage facilities shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works. In addition, proposed drainage facilities/improvements shall be subject to review and approval by the Coachella Valley Water District. 3. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works and the Coachella Valley Water District. Said study will include, but not be 4 RESOLUTION NO. 97-51 limited to, the investigation of both upstream and downstream impacts with respect to existing and proposed conditions. 4. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map or issuance of precise grading permits. 5. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. All improvements within State Highway 74 right-of-way shall be in accordance with Caltrans standards. 6. Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the respective service districts with "as-built" plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to project final. 7. Improvement plans for all improvements, public and private, shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and Caltrans. The installation of such improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works Department/Caltrans and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. 8. Landscaping maintenance on State Highway 74 frontage and Indian Hills Way shall be provided through a property owners association. Applicant shall be responsible for executing a declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, which declaration shall be approved by the City of Palm Desert and recorded with the County Recorder. The declaration shall specify: (a) the applicant shall oversee the formation of a property owners association; (b) the property owners association shall be formed prior to the recordation of the final map; and © the aforementioned landscaping maintenance shall be the responsibility of the property owners association. 9. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans for all improvements within existing and proposed public rights-of-way to be approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior to recordation of final map. Such offsite improvements shall include, but not be limited to, curb and gutter, asphalt paving and concrete sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration and provisions for deceleration/acceleration lanes at the main project entry. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved 5 RESOLUTION NO, 97-51 by, the Director of Public Works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the City of Palm Desert. 10. Waiver of access to State Highway 74 and Indian Hills Way except at approved locations shall be granted on the Final Map. 11 . In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 12. As required by Sections 26.32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and in accordance with the Circulation Network of the City's General Plan, dedication of half-street right-of-way at 67 feet on State Highway 74 and right-of-way sufficient to provide for a full street right-of-way of 60 feet on Carriage Trail shall be provided on the final map. 13. As required under Section 12.16 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, any existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground per each respective utility districts recommendation. If such undergrounding is determined to be unfeasible by the City and the respective utility districts, applicant shall agree to participate in any future utility undergrounding district. 14. Traffic safety striping on State Highway 74 shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works and Caltrans prior to the placement of any pavement markings. 15. Improvement of interior streets shall be as shown on the tentative tract map and shall be designed in accordance with Section 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Those areas to be designated as "Emergency Access Road" shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall and the Director of Public Works. 16. Complete tract maps shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. Permits for mass grading may be issued prior to the tract map submittal subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works. 17. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works and Caltrans, as applicable. 6 RESOLUTION NO. 97-51 18. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 19. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 20. Prior to the start of construction/issuance of permits for offsite improvements applicant shall submit a construction phasing plan for review and approval by Director of Public Works for all required offsite improvements for this project. 21 . Site access, with respect to size, location and number, shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works and Caltrans. 22. Provision for the continuation of any existing access rights which may be affected by this project shall be included as a part of the final map process. 23. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 1 2.12, Fugitive Dust Control. 24. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 25. Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with current and subsequent National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permits (Permit # CAS000002) for storm water discharges associated with construction activity. Riverside County Fire Marshal: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, NFPA Standards, CFC, and CBC and/or recognized fire protection standards. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per California Fire Code Sec. 10.401 . 2. A fire flow of 1 500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site. 7 RESOLUTION NO. 97-51 3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential gallon per minute flow of: a) 1500 gpm for single family dwelling; and b) 3000 gpm for clubhouse and maintenance buildings. The actual fire flow available from any one hydrant connected to any given water main shall be 1 500 gpm for a two hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 2-1 /2" x 2-1 /2"), located not less than 25' nor more than: a) 200' from single family structure; and b) 150' from clubhouse and maintenance buildings. Distances shall cover all portions of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. Hydrants installed below 3000' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type. 5. Provide written certification from the appropriate water company having jurisdiction that hydrant(s) will be installed and will produce the required fire flow, or arrange for a field inspection by the Fire Department prior to scheduling for a final inspection. 6. The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separations, or built-in fire protection measures such as a fully fire sprinklered building. 7. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front of the building, not less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved Super hydrant. This applies to all buildings with 3000 square feet or more building area as measured by the building footprint, including overhangs which are sprinklered as per NFPA 13. The building area of additional floors is added in for a cumulative total square footage. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. Applies to clubhouse and maintenance buildings. 8. Install a fire alarm (water flow) as required by the Uniform Building Code Sec. 3803 for the fire sprinkler system(s). Install supervisory (tamper) alarms on all supply and control valves for sprinkler systems. 9. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes and shall be clearly marked by painting and/or signs as approved by the Fire Marshal. Painted fire lanes and/or signs shall be stenciled or posted every 30' with the following: a) No Parking Fire Lane - CFC 10.205 8 RESOLUTION NO. 97-51 10. Install a fire alarm as required by the California Building Code and/or California Fire Code. Minimum requirement is UL central station monitoring of sprinkler systems per NFPA 71 and 72. Alarm plans are required for all UL central station monitored systems and systems where any interior devices are required or used. (CFC Sec. 14.103(a)). 11 . Install portable fire extinguishes per NFPA 10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Fire extinguishes must not be over 75' walking distance and/or 3000 sq. ft. of floor area. In addition to the above, a 40BC fire extinguisher is required for commercial kitchens. 12. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system if operating a commercial kitchen including, but not limited to, deep fat fryers, grills, charbroilers or other appliances which produce grease laden vapors or smoke. (NFPA 96, 17, 17A). 13. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn around (55' in industrial developments). Fountains or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall not exceed a 5' radius or 10' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive. 14. Whenever access into private is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a Knox Box over-ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special key located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 16' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 15. A dead end single access over 500' in length will require a secondary access, sprinklers or other mitigative measure approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstances shall a single dead end access over 1300 feet be accepted. 16. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or an emergency gated access into an adjoining development. 17. Contact the fire department for a final inspection prior to occupancy. 9 RESOLUTION NO. 97-51 18. All new residences/dwellings are required to have illuminated addresses meeting both City and Fire Department approval. Shake shingle roofs are no longer permitted in the cities of Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage or Palm Desert. 1 9. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors should contact the Fire Marshal's office for submittal requirements. 20. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. 21 . Other: Provide for Fire Marshal approval the following items: a. Emergency vehicle access plan for connection of dead end cul-de-sacs. b. Emergency vehicle egress plan for private shared driveways. c. Detail of all non paved cleared areas that are to be used as part of emergency access. 10 RESOLUTION NO. 97-52 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO DESIGNATE 57 ACRES IN THE WESTERN PORTION OF APN 771 - 020-001 AND AS SHOWN ON TT 28575, AS HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL; AND DESIGNATING FIVE ACRES ON THE EAST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 74 SOUTH OF THE CITY LIMITS AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. CASE NO. GPA 96-1 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 26th day of June, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by WINMAR PALM DESERT L.L.C. for amendment 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 has been properly analyzed as part of the Second Addendum to FEIR SCH #91012061 . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this case. 2. That it does hereby approve the above described General Plan Amendment No. 96-1 , subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, 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 • .I l: jf -- ---ti 01 I! , ilii ° if ir 1-,.11;7.1.-- 1 •_i,i 1;ir'i...__M:_E-i•S.;i."—A..V-.I4.,1E.;•.:si.!_W 4-_1I I--.1•'.1 i\ — \\ • 1111 ,.„..—. .-C---:;i::ir- __,,-'_7'_:i-LC ` ,. i_ '1 1 �i 'i ?.-_-.Z;iii.i_.-/,:-„_-_j,/,-"..i..„ _•,,.i—!1.l_i .....Lr. —HNs-',LN-i-.N.__-_.1'I_t.--)$7-iIYr1- /l =z j / , i ii J J r, INDIAN HILLS WAY i_ 'ri , N` !,' I, / �l i li p r= ----.k),(1 ? n !i 1, ! !J II ml . —Ti ' it ,. ii ii // ii i1 II II '%fy 1:11 lip yi i{ ii;i 1 ii (21 1 VI,,, iu, SITE it , :, ti• y- J - r ,til e / `,_0 - / 1 u i,•CAMILLA W�i�f et ice` Si - \ \g 1,r 1,__....../ fInh gait h ii �/ • ir, _� /�J /r� ` r! It /i i Jr i ' i I� ;/ 4 To Low -DENS In/ To tt ILLS 1 v.R. 5 lb er l A L. T'LA N 1J E'D 1 ii TR E51 De Nxn At L. ii ii I �_7T..... CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No.(--'�'A %%-? CITY COUNCIL P2 GEN. PLAN AMEND. RESOLUTION NO- 97-52 Vsta� yo ~" 0. V 5 L. .A.. Date June 26, 1997 RESOLUTION NO. 97-53 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A 62 ACRE 23 UNIT VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR THE SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST PORTIONS OF THE CANYONS OF BIGHORN PROJECT. CASE NO. VESTING TT 28575 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 26th day of June, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by WINMAR PALM DESERT L.L.C. for above described project; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 97-18," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project has been properly analyzed as part of the Second Addendum to FEIR SCH #91012061 ; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of the tentative tract map: (a) That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; (c) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development; (d) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development; (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this case. 2. That it does hereby approve the above described Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 28575, subject to the attached conditions. RESOLUTION NO. 97-53 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, 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 2 RESOLUTION NO. 97-53 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. VESTING TT 28575 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development as modified by the following conditions. 2. The approval of this vesting tentative map shall expire at the end of the same time period, and shall be subject to the same extensions, established by the Subdivision Ordinance for the expiration of the approval of a tentative map. 3. That the rights contained in the tentative vesting map shall expire if a final map is not approved prior to the expiration of the vesting tentative map as provided in condition 2 above. If the final map is approved then construction of a portion of said project shall commence within two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 4. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes as provided for vesting tentative tract maps pursuant to the California Subdivision Map Act. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Desert Sands Unified School District Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 6. That the setbacks for dwellings in this project shall be as shown on map exhibits. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 97-53 7. That the approval for Vesting Tentative Tract 28575 shall be null and void unless said property is annexed to the City of Palm Desert. 8. All mitigation measures contained within FEIR as amended by the Second Addendum are incorporated herein by reference as conditions of this approval. 9. Project landscaping shall emphasize drought tolerant plant materials and irrigation technology to the greatest extent feasible. 10. The project shall be subject to all currently applicable fees including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, TUMF, and school mitigation fees. 1 1 . Provisions shall be made for convenient project access and on-site parking for all construction, service workers and other employees associated with the project. 12. Provisions for solid waste disposal shall include residential and commercial recycling where applicable. 13. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801 ) and the approved landscape plan. Department of Public Works: 1 . Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map or issuance of grading permits. 2. Drainage facilities shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works. In addition, proposed drainage facilities/improvements shall be subject to review and approval by the Coachella Valley Water District. 3. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works and the Coachella Valley Water District. Said study will include, but not be 4 RESOLUTION NO. 97-53 limited to, the investigation of both upstream and downstream impacts with respect to existing and proposed conditions. 4. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map or issuance of precise grading permits. 5. Full public improvements, by q as required Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm p Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. All improvements within State Highway 74 right-of-way shall be in accordance with Caltrans standards. 6. Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the respective service districts with "as-built" plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to project final. 7. Improvement plans for all improvements, public and private, shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and Caltrans. The installation of such improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works Department/Caltrans and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. 8. Landscaping maintenance on State Highway 74 frontage and Indian Hills Way shall be provided through a property owners association. Applicant shall be responsible for executing a declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, which declaration shall be approved by the City of Palm Desert and recorded with the County Recorder. The declaration shall specify: (a) the applicant shall oversee the formation of a property owners association; (b) the property owners association shall be formed prior to the recordation of the final map; and © the aforementioned landscaping maintenance shall be the responsibility of the property owners association. 9. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans for all improvements within existing and proposed public rights-of-way to be approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior to recordation of final map. Such offsite improvements shall include, but not be limited to, curb and gutter, asphalt paving and concrete sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration and provisions for deceleration/acceleration lanes at the main project entry. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved 5 RESOLUTION NO. 97-53 by, the Director of Public Works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the City of Palm Desert. 10. Waiver of access to State Highway 74 and Indian Hills Way except at approved locations shall be granted on the Final Map. 11 . In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 12. As required by Sections 26.32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and in accordance with the Circulation Network of the City's General Plan, dedication of half-street right-of-way at 67 feet on State Highway 74 and right-of-way sufficient to provide for a full street right-of-way of 60 feet on Carriage Trail shall be provided on the final map. 13. As required under Section 12.16 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, any existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground per each respective utility districts recommendation. If such undergrounding is determined to be unfeasible by the City and the respective utility districts, applicant shall agree to participate in any future utility undergrounding district. 14. Traffic safety striping on State Highway 74 shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works and Caltrans prior to the placement of any pavement markings. 15. Improvement of interior streets shall be as shown on the tentative tract map and shall be designed in accordance with Section 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Those areas to be designated as "Emergency Access Road" shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall and the Director of Public Works. 1 6. Complete tract maps shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. Permits for mass grading may be issued prior to the tract map submittal subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works. 17. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works and Caltrans, as applicable. 6 RESOLUTION NO. 97-53 18. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 1 9. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 20. Prior to the start of construction/issuance of permits for offsite improvements inplan for review and approval applicant shall submit a construction phasing pp by Director of Public Works for all required offsite improvements for this project. 21 . Site access, with respect to size, location and number, shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works and Caltrans. 22. Provision for the continuation of any existing access rights which may be affected by this project shall be included as a part of the final map process. 23. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 1 2.1 2, Fugitive Dust Control. 24. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 25. Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with current and subsequent National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permits (Permit # CAS000002) for storm water discharges associated with construction activity. Riverside County Fire Marshal: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, NFPA Standards, CFC, and CBC and/or recognized fire protection standards. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per California Fire Code Sec. 10.401 . 2. A fire flow of 1 500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site. 7 RESOLUTION NO. 97-53 3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential gallon per minute flow of: a) 1500 gpm for single family dwelling; and b) 3000 gpm for clubhouse and maintenance buildings. The actual fire flow available from any one hydrant connected to any given water main shall be 1500 gpm for a two hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 2-1 /2" x 2-1 /2"), located not less than 25' nor more than: a) 200' from single family structure; and b) 150' from clubhouse and maintenance buildings. Distances shall cover all portions of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. Hydrants installed below 3000' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type. 5. Provide written certification from the appropriate water company having jurisdiction that hydrant(s) will be installed and will produce the required fire flow, or arrange for a field inspection by the Fire Department prior to scheduling for a final inspection. 6. The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separations, or built-in fire protection measures such as a fully fire sprinklered building. 7. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front of the building, not less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved Super hydrant. This applies to all buildings with 3000 square feet or more building area as measured by the building footprint, including overhangs which are sprinklered as per NFPA 1 3. The building area of additional floors is added in for a cumulative total square footage. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. Applies to clubhouse and maintenance buildings. 8. Install a fire alarm (water flow) as required by the Uniform Building Code Sec. 3803 for the fire sprinkler system(s). Install supervisory (tamper) alarms on all supply and control valves for sprinkler systems. 9. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes and shall be clearly marked by painting and/or signs as approved by the Fire Marshal. Painted fire lanes and/or signs shall be stenciled or posted every 30' with the following: a) No Parking Fire Lane - CFC 10.205 8 RESOLUTION NO. 97-53 10. Install a fire alarm as required by the California Building Code and/or California Fire Code. Minimum requirement is UL central station monitoring of sprinkler systems per NFPA 71 and 72. Alarm plans are required for all UL central station monitored systems and systems where any interior devices are required or used. (CFC Sec. 14.103(a)). 1 1 . Install portable fire extinguishes per NFPA 10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Fire extinguishes must not be over 75' walking distance and/or 3000 sq. ft. of floor area. In addition to the above, a 40BC fire extinguisher is required for commercial kitchens. 12. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system if operating a commercial kitchen including, but not limited to, deep fat fryers, grills, charbroilers or other appliances which produce grease laden vapors or smoke. (NFPA 96, 17, 17A). 13. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 1 50' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn around (55' in industrial developments). Fountains or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall not exceed a 5' radius or 10' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive. 14. Whenever access into private is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a Knox Box over-ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special key located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 16' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 15. A dead end single access over 500' in length will require a secondary access, sprinklers or other mitigative measure approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstances shall a single dead end access over 1300 feet be accepted. 16. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or an emergency gated access into an adjoining development. 17. Contact the fire department for a final inspection prior to occupancy. 9 RESOLUTION NO. 97-53 18. All new residences/dwellings are required to have illuminated addresses meeting both City and Fire Department approval. Shake shingle roofs are no longer permitted in the cities of Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage or Palm Desert. 19. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors should contact the Fire Marshal's office for submittal requirements. 20. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. 21 . Other: Provide for Fire Marshal approval the following items: a. Emergency vehicle access plan for connection of dead end cul-de-sacs. b. Emergency vehicle egress plan for private shared driveways. c. Detail of all non paved cleared areas that are to be used as part of emergency access. 10 RESOLUTION NO. 97-53 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A 62 ACRE 23 UNIT VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR THE SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST PORTIONS OF THE CANYONS OF BIGHORN PROJECT. CASE NO. VESTING TT 28575 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 26th day of June, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by WINMAR PALM DESERT L.L.C. for above described project; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 97-18," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project has been properly analyzed as part of the Second Addendum to FEIR SCH #91012061 ; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of the tentative tract map: (a) That the proposed mapis consistent with applicablegeneral and specific plans; P P PP P (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; (c) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development; (d) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development; (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this case. 2. That it does hereby approve the above described Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 28575, subject to the attached conditions. • RESOLUTION NO. 97-53 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 26th day of June, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: SNYDER, SPIEGEL, KELLY NOES: BENSON ABSENT: CRITES ABSTAIN: NONE RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 RESOLUTION NO. 97-53 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. VESTING TT 28575 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development as modified by the following conditions. 2. The approval of this vesting tentative map shall expire at the end of the same time period, and shall be subject to the same extensions, established by the Subdivision Ordinance for the expiration of the approval of a tentative map. 3. That the rights contained in the tentative vesting map shall expire if a final map is not approved prior to the expiration of the vesting tentative map as provided in condition 2 above. If the final map is approved then construction of a portion of said project shall commence within two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 4. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes as provided for vesting tentative tract maps pursuant to the California Subdivision Map Act. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following 9 agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Desert Sands Unified School District Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 6. That the setbacks for dwellings in this project shall be as shown on map exhibits. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 97-53 7. That the approval for Vesting Tentative Tract 28575 shall be null and void unless said property is annexed to the City of Palm Desert. 8. All mitigation measures contained within FEIR as amended by the Second Addendum are incorporated herein by reference as conditions of this approval. 9. Project landscaping shall emphasize drought tolerant plant materials and irrigation technology to the greatest extent feasible. 10. The project shall be subject to all currently applicable fees including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, TUMF, and school mitigation fees. 11 . Provisions shall be made for convenient project access and on-site parking for all construction, service workers and other employees associated with the project. 12. Provisions for solid waste disposal shall include residential and commercial recycling where applicable. 13. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801 ) and the approved landscape plan. 14. Winmar Palm Desert, an LLC, and Safeco Properties, Inc. (referred to in this paragraph as "Indemnitors") hereby jointly and severally agree to defend at their sole cost and expense, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Desert, its agents, officers and employees, from any claim, action or proceeding filed against the City of Palm Desert, its against, officers, attorneys and employees, as a result of the local agency's approval of GPA 96-1 , C/Z 96-7, vesting TT 25296 (revision), and vesting TT 28575, and/or the City certification of the Second Addendum to the EIR for this project, including but not limited to: 1 ) actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul such approvals; or 2) actions or proceedings that seek damage as a result of the finding, requirement or condition that a buffer area be established on Winmar property, including but not limited to any action for inverse condemnation. 4 • RESOLUTION NO. 97-53 The City of Palm Desert shall promptly notify Indemnitors of such claim, action or proceeding. Further, Indemnitors shall conduct the defense and control the defense. The City of Palm Desert shall cooperate fully in the defense of any such action or actions. Department of Public Works: 1 . Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map or issuance of grading permits. 2. Drainage facilities shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works. In addition, proposed drainage facilities/improvements shall be subject to review and approval by the Coachella Valley Water District. 3. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works and the Coachella Valley Water District. Said study will include, but not be limited to, the investigation of both upstream and downstream impacts with respect to existing and proposed conditions. 4. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map or issuance of precise grading permits. 5. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. All improvements within State Highway 74 right-of-way shall be in accordance with Caltrans standards. 6. Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the respective service districts with "as-built" plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to project final. 7. Improvement plans for all improvements, public and private, shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and Caltrans. The installation of such improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works Department/Caltrans and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. 8. Landscaping maintenance on State Highway 74 frontage and Indian Hills Way shall be provided through a property owners association. Applicant shall be responsible for executing a declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, which 5 • RESOLUTION NO. 97-53 declaration shall be approved by the City of Palm Desert and recorded with the County Recorder. The declaration shall specify: (a) the applicant shall oversee the formation of a property owners association; (b) the property owners association shall be formed prior to the recordation of the final map; and © the aforementioned landscaping maintenance shall be the responsibility of the property owners association. 9. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans for all improvements within existing and proposed public rights-of-way to be approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior to recordation of final map. Such offsite improvements shall include, but not be limited to, curb and gutter, asphalt paving and concrete sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration and provisions for deceleration/acceleration lanes at the main project entry. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the City of Palm Desert. 10. Waiver of access to State Highway 74 and Indian Hills Way except at approved locations shall be granted on the Final Map. 11 . In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 12. As required by Sections 26.32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and in accordance with the Circulation Network of the City's General Plan, dedication of half-street right-of-way at 67 feet on State Highway 74 and right-of-way sufficient to provide for a full street right-of-way of 60 feet on Carriage Trail shall be provided on the final map. 13. As required under Section 12.16 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, any existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground per each respective utility districts recommendation. If such undergrounding is determined to be unfeasible by the City and the respective utility districts, applicant shall agree to participate in any future utility undergrounding district. 14. Traffic safety striping on State Highway 74 shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans. A traffic control plan must be submitted 6 • RESOLUTION NO. 97-53 to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works and Caltrans prior to the placement of any pavement markings. 15. Improvement of interior streets shall be as shown on the tentative tract map and shall be designed in accordance with Section 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Those areas to be designated as "Emergency Access Road" shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall and the Director of Public Works. 16. Complete tract maps shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. Permits for mass grading may be issued prior to the tract map submittal subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works. 17. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works and Caltrans, as applicable. 18. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 19. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 20. Prior to the start of construction/issuance of permits for offsite improvements applicant shall submit a construction phasing plan for review and approval by Director of Public Works for all required offsite improvements for this project. 21 . Site access, with respect to size, location and number, shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works and Caltrans. 22. Provision for the continuation of any existing access rights which may be affected by this project shall be included as a part of the final map process. 23. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 12.12, Fugitive Dust Control. 24. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 25. Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with current and subsequent 7 RESOLUTION NO. 97-53 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permits (Permit # CAS000002) for storm water discharges associated with construction activity. Riverside County Fire Marshal: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, NFPA Standards, CFC, and CBC and/or recognized fire protection standards. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per California Fire Code Sec. 10.401 . 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site. 3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential gallon per minute flow of: a) 1500 gpm for single family dwelling; and b) 3000 gpm for clubhouse and maintenance buildings. The actual fire flow available from any one hydrant connected to any given water main shall be 1500 gpm for a two hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2-1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than: a) 200' from single family structure; and b) 150' from clubhouse and maintenance buildings. Distances shall cover all portions of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. Hydrants installed below 3000' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type. 5. Provide written certification from the appropriate water company having jurisdiction that hydrant(s) will be installed and will produce the required fire flow, or arrange for a field inspection by the Fire Department prior to scheduling for a final inspection. 6. The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separations, or built-in fire protection measures such as a fully fire sprinklered building. 7. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front of the building, not less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved Super hydrant. This applies to 8 RESOLUTION NO. 97-53 all buildings with 3000 square feet or more building area as measured by the building footprint, including overhangs which are sprinklered as per NFPA 13. The building area of additional floors is added in for a cumulative total square footage. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. Applies to clubhouse and maintenance buildings. 8. Install a fire alarm (water flow) as required by the Uniform Building Code Sec. 3803 for the fire sprinkler system(s). Install supervisory (tamper) alarms on all supply and control valves for sprinkler systems. 9. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes and shall be clearly marked by painting and/or signs as approved by the Fire Marshal. Painted fire lanes and/or signs shall be stenciled or posted every 30' with the following: a) No Parking Fire Lane - CFC 10.205 10. Install a fire alarm as required by the California Building Code and/or California Fire Code. Minimum requirement is UL central station monitoring of sprinkler systems per NFPA 71 and 72. Alarm plans are required for all UL central station monitored systems and systems where any interior devices are required or used. (CFC Sec. 14.103(a)). 11 . Install portable fire extinguishes per NFPA 10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Fire extinguishes must not be over 75' walking distance and/or 3000 sq. ft. of floor area. In addition to the above, a 40BC fire extinguisher is required for commercial kitchens. 12. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system if operating a commercial kitchen including, but not limited to, deep fat fryers, grills, charbroilers or other appliances which produce grease laden vapors or smoke. (NFPA 96, 17, 17A). 13. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn around (55' in industrial developments). Fountains or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall not exceed a 5' radius or 10' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive. 14. Whenever access into private is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices 9 • RESOLUTION NO. 97-53 that are power operated shall have a Knox Box over-ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special key located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 1 6' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 15. A dead end single access over 500' in length will require a secondary access, sprinklers or other mitigative measure approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstances shall a single dead end access over 1300 feet be accepted. 16. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or an emergency gated access into an adjoining development. 17. Contact the fire department for a final inspection prior to occupancy. 18. All new residences/dwellings are required to have illuminated addresses meeting both City and Fire Department approval. Shake shingle roofs are no longer permitted in the cities of Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage or Palm Desert. 19. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors should contact the Fire Marshal's office for submittal requirements. 20. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. 21 . Other: Provide for Fire Marshal approval the following items: a. Emergency vehicle access plan for connection of dead end cul-de-sacs. b. Emergency vehicle egress plan for private shared driveways. c. Detail of all non paved cleared areas that are to be used as part of emergency access. 10 RESOLUTION NO. 97-52 • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO DESIGNATE 57 ACRES IN THE WESTERN PORTION OF APN 771- 020-001 AND AS SHOWN ON TT 28575, AS HILLSIDE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL; AND DESIGNATING FIVE ACRES ON THE EAST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 74 SOUTH OF THE CITY LIMITS AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. CASE NO. GPA 96-1 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 26th day of June, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by WINMAR PALM DESERT L.L.C. for amendment 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 has been properly analyzed as part of the Second Addendum to FEIR SCH #91012061 . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this case. 2. That it does hereby approve the above described General Plan Amendment No. 96-1 , subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 26th day of June, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: SNYDER, SPIEGEL, KELLY NOES: BENSON ABSENT: CRITES ABSTAIN: NONE RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 1 y ;; 1 _ 11 ,i :I -7r ;l t ;i . - :) II , , :IL: ,t 1i it iMESA VIEW :LS:RNE--:;---.....tL---4---- --_,,. _-.-----•:-Ir... ------..4.-j ji ,! i„--" ,t; it: iiraCk> �____,.._;f:.._.__At'u.7 ... .,.. lir li ti i; 4 ir; I s/...._'--.'"'"- /\ --71 l•-'*--" ,?. A 7.---S -.Tir. 0 PA i 1/17/ Al .•-:11 t t040' ;, � 1 IN . INDIAN HILLS WAY �� ! ! 1 ���I� \ i 1 I N. 'l— / 1 ! r it �i! ;t i i t 11 ll it r / il N i li r- --•�r1 r=-1r• _ _.... -,---1?--- 11 if ��7 rt 't ii �Ji ii �ii li f j ti n , - C• 01 SITE11 I , 1 `� It jt a \t r: •• ;i r 1 r...-------4 I I )! �fII 1 4. -7 lf 4 f , a ; s ii ` f I -o4. t • ..r.�l.,1. '-----' i _ , - To Low "bE NS 1 -y To -k ILLS It-E 1 t� RESrbery I lA-L, T-C.A iJ.Je-D 1 '° ReSIDEN/7-1AIL ii il C1T^\ CITY OF PALM DESERT C‘--- ase No.v'''� ��-� CITY COUNCIL ', GEN. PLAN AMEND. RESOLUTION N0, 97-52 d,ei" 12:K-u-- p [I ` J „A„ Date June 26, 1997 RESOLUTION NO. 97-51 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A 372 UNIT, 457 ACRE REVISED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR "THE CANYONS OF BIGHORN" GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 74 BETWEEN INDIAN HILLS WAY AND THE SOUTHERN CITY LIMITS. CASE NO. REVISED VESTING TT 25296 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 26th day of June, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by WINMAR PALM DESERT L.L.C. for above described project; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 97-18," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project has been properly analyzed in the Second Addendum to FEIR SCH #91012061 ; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of the tentative tract map: (a) That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; (c) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development; (d) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development; (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this case. 2. That it does hereby approve the above described Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25296, subject to the attached conditions. RESOLUTION NO. 97-51 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 26th day of June, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: SNYDER, SPIEGEL, KELLY NOES: BENSON ABSENT: CRITES ABSTAIN: NONE RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 • RESOLUTION NO. 97-51 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. REVISED VESTING TT 25296 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development as modified by the following conditions. 2. The approval of this vesting tentative map shall expire at the end of the same time period, and shall be subject to the same extensions, established by the Subdivision Ordinance for the expiration of the approval of a tentative map. 3. That the rights contained in the tentative vesting map shall expire if a final map is not approved prior to the expiration of the vesting tentative map as provided in condition 2 above. If the final map is approved then construction of a portion of said project shall commence within two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 4. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes as provided for vesting tentative tract maps pursuant to the California Subdivision Map Act. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Desert Sands Unified School District Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 6. That the setbacks for dwellings in this project shall be as shown on map exhibits. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 97-51 7. That the approval for Vesting Tentative Tract 28575 shall be null and void unless said property is annexed to the City of Palm Desert. 8. All mitigation measures contained within FEIR as amended by the Second Addendum are incorporated herein by reference as conditions of this approval. 9. Project landscaping shall emphasize drought tolerant plant materials and irrigation technology to the greatest extent feasible. 10. The project shall be subject to all currently applicable fees including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, TUMF, and school mitigation fees. 11 . Provisions shall be made for convenient project access and on-site parking for all construction, service workers and other employees associated with the project. 12. Provisions for solid waste disposal shall include residential and commercial recycling where applicable. 13. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan. 14. Winmar Palm Desert, an LLC, and Safeco Properties, Inc. (referred to in this paragraph as "Indemnitors") hereby jointly and severally agree to defend at their sole cost and expense, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Desert, its agents, officers and employees, from any claim, action or proceeding filed against the City of Palm Desert, its against, officers, attorneys and employees, as a result of the local agency's approval of GPA 96-1 , C/Z 96-7, vesting TT 25296 (revision), and vesting TT 28575, and/or the City certification of the Second Addendum to the EIR for this project, including but not limited to: 1 ) actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul such approvals; or 2) actions or proceedings that seek damage as a result of the finding, requirement or condition that a buffer area be established on Winmar property, including but not limited to any action for inverse condemnation. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 97-51 I notifyIndemnitors of such claim, action or The City of Palm Desert shall promptly proceeding. Further, Indemnitors shall conduct the defense and control the defense. The City of Palm Desert shall cooperate fully in the defense of any such action or actions. Department of Public Works: 1 . Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map or issuance of grading permits. 2. Drainage facilities shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works. In addition, proposed drainage facilities/improvements shall be subject to review and approval by the Coachella Valley Water District. 3. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works and the Coachella Valley Water District. Said study will include, but not be limited to, the investigation of both upstream and downstream impacts with respect to existing and proposed conditions. 4. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map or issuance of precise grading permits. 5. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. All improvements within State Highway 74 right-of-way shall be in accordance with Caltrans standards. 6. Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the respective service districts with "as-built" plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to project final. 7. Improvement plans for all improvements, public and private, shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and Caltrans. The installation of such improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works Department/Caltrans and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. 8. Landscaping maintenance on State Highway 74 frontage and Indian Hills Way shall be provided through a property owners association. Applicant shall be responsible for executing a declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, which 5 RESOLUTION NO. 97-51 declaration shall be approved by the City of Palm Desert and recorded with the County Recorder. The declaration shall specify: (a) the applicant shall oversee the formation of a property owners association; (b) the property owners association shall be formed prior to the recordation of the final map; and © the aforementioned landscaping maintenance shall be the responsibility of the property owners association. 9. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans for all improvements within existing and proposed public rights-of-way to be approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior to recordation of final map. Such offsite improvements shall include, but not be limited to, curb and gutter, asphalt paving and concrete sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration and provisions for deceleration/acceleration lanes at the main project entry. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the City of Palm Desert. 10. Waiver of access to State Highway 74 and Indian Hills Way except at approved locations shall be granted on the Final Map. 11 . In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 12. As required by Sections 26.32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and in accordance with the Circulation Network of the City's General Plan, dedication of half-street right-of-way at 67 feet on State Highway 74 and right-of-way sufficient to provide for a full street right-of-way of 60 feet on Carriage Trail shall be provided on the final map. 13. As required under Section 12.16 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, any existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground per each respective utility districts recommendation. If such undergrounding is determined to be unfeasible by the City and the respective utility districts, applicant shall agree to participate in any future utility undergrounding district. 14. Traffic safety striping on State Highway 74 shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans. A traffic control plan must be submitted 6 RESOLUTION NO. 97-51 to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works and Caltrans prior to the placement of any pavement markings. 15. Improvement of interior streets shall be as shown on the tentative tract map and shall be designed in accordance with Section 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Those areas to be designated as "Emergency Access Road" shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall and the Director of Public Works. 16. Complete tract maps shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. Permits for mass grading may be issued prior to the tract map submittal subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works. 17. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works and Caltrans, as applicable. 18. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 19. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 20. Prior to the start of construction/issuance of permits for offsite improvements applicant shall submit a construction phasing plan for review and approval by Director of Public Works for all required offsite improvements for this project. 21 . Site access, with respect to size, location and number, shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works and Caltrans. 22. Provision for the continuation of any existing access rights which may be affected by this project shall be included as a part of the final map process. 23. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 12.12, Fugitive Dust Control. 24. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 25. Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with current and subsequent 7 RESOLUTION NO. 97-51 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permits (Permit # CAS000002) for storm water discharges associated with construction activity. Riverside County Fire Marshal: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, NFPA Standards, CFC, and CBC and/or recognized fire protection standards. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per California Fire Code Sec. 10.401 . 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site. 3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential gallon per minute flow of: a) 1500 gpm for single family dwelling; and b) 3000 gpm for clubhouse and maintenance buildings. The actual fire flow available from any one hydrant connected to any given water main shall be 1500 gpm for a two hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2-1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than: a) 200' from single family structure; and b) 150' from clubhouse and maintenance buildings. Distances shall cover all portions of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. Hydrants installed below 3000' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type. 5. Provide written certification from the appropriate water company having jurisdiction that hydrant(s) will be installed and will produce the required fire flow, or arrange for a field inspection by the Fire Department prior to scheduling for a final inspection. 6. The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separations, or built-in fire protection measures such as a fully fire sprinklered building. 7. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front of the building, not less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved Super hydrant. This applies to 8 RESOLUTION NO. 97-51 all buildings with 3000 square feet or more building area as measured by the building footprint, including overhangs which are sprinklered as per NFPA 13. The building area of additional floors is added in for a cumulative total square footage. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. Applies to clubhouse and maintenance buildings. 8. Install a fire alarm (water flow) as required by the Uniform Building Code Sec. 3803 for the fire sprinkler system(s). Install supervisory (tamper) alarms on all supply and control valves for sprinkler systems. 9. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes and shall be clearly marked by painting and/or signs as approved by the Fire Marshal. Painted fire lanes and/or signs shall be stenciled or posted every 30' with the following: a► No Parking Fire Lane - CFC 10.205 10. Install a fire alarm as required by the California Building Code and/or California Fire Code. Minimum requirement is UL central station monitoring of sprinkler systems per NFPA 71 and 72. Alarm plans are required for all UL central station monitored systems and systems where any interior devices are required or used. (CFC Sec. 14.103(a)). 11 . Install portable fire extinguishes per NFPA 10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Fire extinguishes must not be over 75' walking distance and/or 3000 sq. ft. of floor area. In addition to the above, a 40BC fire extinguisher is required for commercial kitchens. 12. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system if operating a commercial kitchen including, but not limited to, deep fat fryers, grills, charbroilers or other appliances which produce grease laden vapors or smoke. (NFPA 96, 17, 17A). 13. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn around (55' in industrial developments). Fountains or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall not exceed a 5' radius or 10' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive. 14. Whenever access into private is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices 9 RESOLUTION NO. 97-51 that are power operated shall have a Knox Box over-ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special key located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 1 6' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 15. A dead end single access over 500' in length will require a secondary access, sprinklers or other mitigative measure approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstances shall a single dead end access over 1300 feet be accepted. 16. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or an emergency gated access into an adjoining development. 17. Contact the fire department for a final inspection prior to occupancy. 18. All new residences/dwellings are required to have illuminated addresses meeting both City and Fire Department approval. Shake shingle roofs are no longer permitted in the cities of Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage or Palm Desert. 19. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors should contact the Fire Marshal's office for submittal requirements. 20. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. 21 . Other: Provide for Fire Marshal approval the following items: a. Emergency vehicle access plan for connection of dead end cul-de-sacs. b. Emergency vehicle egress plan for private shared driveways. c. Detail of all non paved cleared areas that are to be used as part of emergency access. 10 RESOLUTION NO. 97-50 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED AND ADDENDED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE ALTAMIRA COUNTRY CLUB, TOGETHER WITH THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ISSUED BY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, IS COMPLETE AND ADEQUATELY ADDRESSES THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF REVISED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25296 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28575 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 27501 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF CANYONS AT BIGHORN. WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Report for the Altamira Country Club was prepared to address the environmental effects, mitigation measures, and project alternatives associated with the construction of a 450 dwelling unit project with associated golf course on a 352 acre site; and WHEREAS, the Coachella Valley Water District ("CVWD") on May 27, 1997 adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND" - File No. 0421 .2) for water storage, access, delivery and stormwater retention facilities on an approximately 57 acre parcel owned by CVWD; and WHEREAS, to assist in conducting the necessary CEQA review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 166 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162), the City has prepared an Expanded Initial Study and Addendum. It is on the basis of this document, incorporated herein by reference, that the City makes the relevant findings of CEQA compliance; and WHEREAS, the Expanded Initial Study was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the CEQA Guidelines as an Addendum (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164) to address changes and additions to entitlements for the Canyons at Bighorn ("Project") including revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25296 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 28575 for the development of 395 dwelling units and an associated golf course on 514 acres in the City of Palm Desert; and WHEREAS, the City published a public notice in a newspaper of general circulation on May 22, 1997 and June 12, 1997; apprising the public of hearings on the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the City also mailed notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, this publication date and mailed notice exceeds state and local requirements for the notification of public hearings; and RESOLUTION NO. 97-50 WHEREAS, all such notices contained an advisement of the City's intent to find said previous Final EIR and Addendum adequate to document the environmental attributes of the revised project, and invited the public to examine said Expanded Initial Study and Addendum in support of such finding; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert conducted said public hearing to receive all testimony concerning the revised project and associated environmental documentation; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed all said environmental documentation and has found that the Expanded Initial Study and Addendum properly concludes that all environmental effects of the revised project are adequately documented within the aforementioned EIR; and WHEREAS, the City Council has examined with particular care the potential effects peculiar to this project and the adequacy of the performance of adopted mitigation measures, all as set forth in the Expanded Initial Study and Addendum, and finds that the Initial Study document is particularly responsive to the actual environmental effects, input from public agencies, and public comments to date; and WHEREAS, the City Council incorporates this Expanded Initial Study and Addendum into this Resolution by reference as facts in support of these findings; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted numerous conditions of approval to continue to carry out the objectives of the mitigation measures in the previous Final EIR; and WHEREAS, Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines provide that, where an EIR or a Negative Declaration has been prepared, no new EIR or Negative Declaration need be prepared unless there are changes in the project, its underlying circumstances, or new information, which result in new or more severe impacts than were originally documented in the EIR; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1 . The Final EIR prepared for the Altamira Country Club, as addended, and together with the CVWD MND, completely and adequately documents the development of the proposed project. 2. On the basis of the Expanded Initial Study, most prominent impacts, such as biological resources and land uses, are reduced over that was anticipated in the Final EIR, either by a lower intensity on the site itself, or by additional mitigation measures. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 97-50 3. The Initial Study contains substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that impacts are not new or more sever than those predicted in the Final EIR, and that such evidence has been carefully and independently reviewed by the technical divisions of the City responsible for the accuracy of such evidence and by appropriate resource agencies. 4. The impacts presented by this project are equal to or less severe overall than those realized by development consistent with the approved project, and that this fact has been documented in the Expanded Initial Study and Addendum. 5. The City Council has not been presented substantial and credible evidence disputing the conclusion contained in the Expanded initial Study and Addendum. 6. The Expanded Initial Study serves a valuable continuing purpose in the planning process by presenting an even more current representation of impacts. Since none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for a new EIR have occurred, and since the information reported in the Expanded Initial Study and Addendum does not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment, the Council hereby finds that this Expanded Initial Study shall be approved an as Addendum to this previous Final EIR, pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, in order to assure that the most contemporary information is always available. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 26th day of June, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: SNYDER, SPIEGEL, KELLY NOES: BENSON ABSENT: CRITES ABSTAIN: NONE RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 3 , ;?, hm ' City of 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 4, 1997 Winmar Palm Desert L.L.C., Inc. 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2600 Seattle, Washington 98104 Re: -VPA 96-1 , C/Z 96-7, Vesting TT 25296 Revision, Vesting TT 28575 and Second Addendum to Final EIR #91012061 as amended The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of June 3, 1997: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GPA 96-1 , C/Z 96-7, VESTING TT 25296 REVISION, AND VESTING TT 28575 AND SECOND ADDENDUM TO FEIR NO. 91012061 AS AMENDED BY ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1811 , SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. CARRIED 4-0 (COMMISSIONER BEATY WAS ABSENT). 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. • PHILIP DRELL, ECRETARY ° PALM DESERT LANNING COMMISSION PD/tm cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal Recycled Paper PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1811 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A 457 ACRE REVISED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, NEW 62 ACRE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND PRE-ANNEXATION CHANGE OF ZONE AND SECOND ADDENDUM TO CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 395-LOT RESIDENTIAL COUNTRY CLUB WITH 18 HOLE GOLF COURSE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 74 BETWEEN INDIAN HILLS WAY AND THE SOUTHERN CITY LIMITS. CASE NOS. GPA 96-1 , C/Z 96-7, VESTING TT 25296 REVISION AND VESTING TT 28575 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 3rd day of June, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of WINMAR PALM DESERT, L.L.C., for the above described project; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 97-18," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project has been previously assessed and a Second Addendum to FEIR SCH#91012061 has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone and Vesting Tentative Tract Maps: 1 . That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development; 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development; 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems; 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; PANNING COMMISSION ....SOLUTION NO. 1811 8. Proposed zone changes are consistent with general plan and amendments proposed; and 9. Land is physically suitable for proposed general plan amendments and has been analyzed as part of the subject addendum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That it hereby recommends approval of GPA 96-1 , C/Z 96-7, Vesting TT 25296 Revision, and Vesting TT 28575 to City Council, subject to conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 3rd day of June, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, FERNANDEZ, JONATHAN, FERGUSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: BEATY ABSTAIN: NONE itifili J k MES CAT" FERG VN, Chairperson ATTEST: ------\ . /Lc -0 PHILIP DRELL, S cretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1811 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. GPA 96-1 , C/Z 96-7, VESTING TT 25296 REVISION AND VESTING TT 28575 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development as modified by the following conditions. 2. The approval of this vesting tentative map shall expire at the end of the same time period, and shall be subject to the same extensions, established by the Subdivision Ordinance for the expiration of the approval of a tentative map. 3. That the rights contained in the tentative vesting map shall expire if a final map is not approved prior to the expiration of the vesting tentative map as provided in condition 2 above. If the final map is approved then construction of a portion of said project shall commence within two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 4. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes as provided for vesting tentative tract maps pursuant to the California Subdivision Map Act. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Desert Sands Unified School District Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 6. That the setbacks for dwellings in this project shall be as shown on map exhibits. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1811 7. That the approval for Vesting Tentative Tract 28575 shall be null and void unless said property is annexed to the City of Palm Desert. 8. All mitigation measures contained within FEIR as amended by the Second Addendum are incorporated herein by reference as conditions of this approval. 9. Project landscaping shall emphasize drought tolerant plant materials and irrigation technology to the greatest extent feasible. 10. The project shall be subject to all currently applicable fees including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, TUMF, and school mitigation fees. 11 . Provisions shall be made for convenient project access and on-site parking for all construction, service workers and other employees associated with the project. 12. Provisions for solid waste disposal shall include residential and commercial recycling where applicable. 13. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801 ) and the approved landscape plan. Department of Public Works: 1 . Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map or issuance of grading permits. 2. Drainage facilities shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works. In addition, proposed drainage facilities/improvements shall be subject to review and approval by the Coachella Valley Water District. 3. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1811 Works and the Coachella Valley Water District. Said study will include, but not be limited to, the investigation of both upstream and downstream impacts with respect to existing and proposed conditions. 4. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map or issuance of precise grading permits. 5. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. All improvements within State Highway 74 right-of-way shall be in accordance with Caltrans standards. 6. Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the respective service districts with "as-built" plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to project final. 7. Improvement plans for all improvements, public and private, shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and Caltrans. The installation of such improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works Department/Caltrans and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. 8. Landscaping maintenance on State Highway 74 frontage and Indian Hills Way shall be provided through a property owners association. Applicant shall be responsible for executing a declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, which declaration shall be approved by the City of Palm Desert and recorded with the County Recorder. The declaration shall specify: (a) the applicant shall oversee the formation of a property owners association; (b) the property owners association shall be formed prior to the recordation of the final map; and © the aforementioned landscaping maintenance shall be the responsibility of the property owners association. 9. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans for all improvements within existing and proposed public rights-of-way to be approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior to recordation of final map. Such offsite improvements shall include, but not be limited to, curb and gutter, asphalt paving and concrete sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration and provisions for deceleration/acceleration 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1811 lanes at the main project entry. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the City of Palm Desert. 10. Waiver of access to State Highway 74 and Indian Hills Way except at approved locations shall be granted on the Final Map. 11 . In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 12. As required by Sections 26.32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and in accordance with the Circulation Network of the City's General Plan, dedication of half-street right-of-way at 67 feet on State Highway 74 and right-of-way sufficient to provide for a full street right-of-way of 60 feet on Carriage Trail shall be provided on the final map. 13. As required under Section 12.16 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, any existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground per each respective utility districts recommendation. If such undergrounding is determined to be unfeasible by the City and the respective utility districts, applicant shall agree to participate in any future utility undergrounding district. 14. Traffic safety striping on State Highway 74 shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works and Caltrans prior to the placement of any pavement markings. 15. Improvement of interior streets shall be as shown on the tentative tract map and shall be designed in accordance with Section 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Those areas to be designated as "Emergency Access Road" shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall and the Director of Public Works. 16. Complete tract maps shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. Permits for mass grading may be issued prior to the tract map submittal subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works. 17. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works and Caltrans, as applicable. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1811 18. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 1 9. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 20. Prior to the start of construction/issuance of permits for offsite improvements applicant shall submit a construction phasing plan for review and approval by Director of Public Works for all required offsite improvements for this project. 21 . Site access, with respect to size, location and number, shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works and Caltrans. 22. Provision for the continuation of any existing access rights which may be affected by this project shall be included as a part of the final map process. 23. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 12.12, Fugitive Dust Control. 24. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 25. Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with current and subsequent National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permits (Permit # CAS000002) for storm water discharges associated with construction activity. Riverside County Fire Marshal: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, NFPA Standards, CFC, and CBC and/or recognized fire protection standards. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per California Fire Code Sec. 10.401 . 2. A fire flow of 1 500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1811 3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential gallon per minute flow of: a) 1500 gpm for single family dwelling; and b) 3000 gpm for clubhouse and maintenance buildings. The actual fire flow available from any one hydrant connected to any given water main shall be 1 500 gpm for a two hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 2-1 /2" x 2-1 /2"), located not less than 25' nor more than: a) 200' from single family structure; and b) 1 50' from clubhouse and maintenance buildings. Distances shall cover all portions of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. Hydrants installed below 3000' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type. 5. Provide written certification from the appropriate water company having jurisdiction that hydrant(s) will be installed and will produce the required fire flow, or arrange for a field inspection by the Fire Department prior to scheduling for a final inspection. 6. The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separations, or built-in fire protection measures such as a fully fire sprinklered building. 7. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front of the building, not less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved Super hydrant. This applies to all buildings with 3000 square feet or more building area as measured by the building footprint, including overhangs which are sprinklered as per NFPA 13. The building area of additional floors is added in for a cumulative total square footage. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. Applies to clubhouse and maintenance buildings. 8. Install a fire alarm (water flow) as required by the Uniform Building Code Sec. 3803 for the fire sprinkler system(s). Install supervisory (tamper) alarms on all supply and control valves for sprinkler systems. 9. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes and shall be clearly marked by painting and/or signs as approved by the Fire Marshal. Painted fire lanes and/or signs shall be stenciled or posted every 30' with the following: a) No Parking Fire Lane - CFC 10.205 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1811 10. Install a fire alarm as required by the California Building Code and/or California Fire Code. Minimum requirement is UL central station monitoring of sprinkler systems per NFPA 71 and 72. Alarm plans are required for all UL central station monitored systems and systems where any interior devices are required or used. (CFC Sec. 14.103(a)). 1 1 . Install portable fire extinguishes per NFPA 10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Fire extinguishes must not be over 75' walking distance and/or 3000 sq. ft. of floor area. In addition to the above, a 40BC fire extinguisher is required for commercial kitchens. 12. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system if operating a commercial kitchen including, but not limited to, deep fat fryers, grills, charbroilers or other appliances which produce grease laden vapors or smoke. (NFPA 96, 17, 17A). 13. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 1 50' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn around (55' in industrial developments). Fountains or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall not exceed a 5' radius or 10' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive. 14. Whenever access into private is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a Knox Box over-ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special key located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 16' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 15. A dead end single access over 500' in length will require a secondary access, sprinklers or other mitigative measure approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstances shall a single dead end access over 1 300 feet be accepted. 16. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or an emergency gated access into an adjoining development. 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1811 17. Contact the fire department for a final inspection prior to occupancy. 18. All new residences/dwellings are required to have illuminated addresses meeting both City and Fire Department approval. Shake shingle roofs are no longer permitted in the cities of Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage or Palm Desert. 19. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors should contact the Fire Marshal's office for submittal requirements. 20. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. 21 . Other: Provide for Fire Marshal approval the following items: a. Emergency vehicle access plan for connection of dead end cul-de-sacs. b. Emergency vehicle egress plan for private shared driveways. c. Detail of all non paved cleared areas that are to be used as part of emergency access. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1997 F. Case Nos. GPA 96-1, C/Z 96-7, Vesting TT 25296 Revision, and Vesting TT 28575 - WINMAR PALM DESERT, L.L.C., Applicant Request for approval of a revised vesting tentative tract map to allow development of a 372-unit country club (Canyons at Bighorn) on 457 acres east of Highway 74, extending 5,700 feet south from Indian Hills Way: a general plan amendment and pre-annexation change of zone for 57 acres east of the tract to hillside planned residential; a general plan amendment to low density residential 3-5 du/ac and pre-annexation zone change to PR-5 for five acres south of the project on Highway 74, a vesting tentative map for the later two parcels for 23 units and a Second Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for The Canyons at Bighorn (Altamira). Mr. Drell stated that this project involves the vacant property on the south side of the city extending from the Indian Hills condominiums, the Summit southward to the southerly city limits, bounded by the Bighorn Institute and a 12-acre parcel known as the Laliberte or Del Gagnon property. On the east it was bounded by some vacant land adjacent to Ironwood Country Club and the other properties within the gates of Ironwood Country Club. He indicated that since the original application approved in 1992, the applicant had submitted a new map adding 123 acres along Highway 74 across from the existing Bighorn Country Club entrance commonly known as the Sun Creek property which includes five acres directly south of that in the County. Also 57 acres had been added to the east which was presently in the County and was property owned by the Coachella Valley Water District. Of the more than 500 acres, 385 were zoned PR-5 to PR-7 and 137 were zoned hillside. In between the hillside properties and the flat alluvial plain was the remnant of Dead Indian Creek whose drainage was mostly intercepted by the construction of the Palm Valley Debris Basin Channel. Under the current zoning, more than 2,000 units would be permitted on this property. The original request was filed for this project in 1989. Upon the request of the Bighorn Institute a first focused EIR was prepared with the principal issue being the potential impacts of the project on bighorn sheep within pens on the Bighorn Institute property. The pens were used for captive breeding for release into the Santa Rosa Mountains and general research on the declining state of the herds in the area. Subsequently a full EIR was ordered. The project was ultimately approved August 1991 and a Final Environmental Impact Report was certified for a 422-unit project on 344 acres. That EIR recommended that a minimum 400-yard buffer be created between the lambing pen on the Bighorn Institute property and the closest development within the project. As drawn the buffer varied between 400 and 600 yards. This was a conclusion based on extensive testimony from experts on sheep 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1997 from all over the country and was supported by a recommendation from the California Department of Fish and Game who are the legal custodians for the sheep who are listed as an endangered species. This approval triggered a series of lawsuits involving the Bighorn Institute, County, Altamira (the applicant), the City and the owner of the Del Gagnon property. These lawsuits ultimately resulted in a settlement agreement by which the Bighorn Institute agreed to move their pen so that the 400-yard buffer would be created entirely on the Institute property, allowing development of the subject site brought up to its southerly boundary. An Addendum to the EIR was adopted consistent with the settlement agreement and a redesigned tract map was approved. In addition to the creation of the buffer on the Bighorn Institute property the applicant was to pay the Institute $2.1 million over a series of installments. After the first installment was made, a group called Winmar took over the project from the Altamira people and it was determined after extensive discussion and consultation with the Department of Fish and Game that the Institute and sheep experts felt that there were no alternative locations to move the pens as specified in the settlement agreement without potentially jeopardizing the breeding activities being carried on at the Institute. Given the steep declines of the sheep in the wild and the importance of the Institute's augmentation program, it was felt that the potential risk to that program which might result from moving the pens was deemed to be unacceptable. This conclusion triggered another series of negotiations between the City, the Department of Fish and Game, the Bighorn Institute and involving the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, it was decided that the pens would remain at the present location and that the 400-yard buffer would again extend into the project and now that it included the property along Highway 74 to the west, that 400-yard buffer would extend into that new expanded property. This area within the buffer would be dedicated in perpetuity to the Department of Fish and Game or another public agency designated by the Department of Fish and Game and would be for permanent undeveloped open space. He said he would leave it to the applicant to describe the design aspects of the project. The project was originally designed with an overall density of 1 .22 units per acre and now that has been reduced from the original approval of 422 to 395, the density has been reduced to .76 units per acre. An analysis has been done on those areas within the hillside and that analysis showed that the proposed units in that area conform with the requirements of our ordinance. In that two pieces of the plan are now outside the city, they would have to process preannexation zoning and change of zone for the five-acre parcel along Highway 74 and the 57-acre parcel east of the project now in the county owned by CVWD. Both of .those were within the sphere of the cityof Palm Desert and properties P were currently designated as open space. Basically those two open space conversions from O.P. to either Hillside Planned Residential in the case of the 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1997 hillside property east and PR-5 along Highway 74 were seen as partial compensation for the dedication of the 53 acres currently zoned PR-5 which would be dedicated. In addition, the Department of Fish and Game was requiring that a payment of $750,000 be provided by the applicant over a five-year period for sheep population augmentation in the Santa Rosa Mountains. He thought that gave the commission a brief history of the zoning issues which have never really been controversial in this project and the property was being developed as a second phase of the Bighorn Country Club and he had no doubt as to its quality. The issue was now and continued to be the potential environmental impacts on the sheep operations at the Institute and a Second Addendum to the EIR Initial Study had been prepared and the Environmental Consultant, Andi Culbertson, was present to discuss those issues. MS. M. ANDRIETTE CULBERTSON, President of Culbertson, Adams and Associates, stated that she has been the City's environmental consultant on this project beginning in 1990 through 1992 and she was retained last year to consider for the City the application of the California Environmental Quality Act and other state laws for resource protection on this project. She said she wanted to add very briefly to Mr. Drell's very complete presentation on the project by explaining to commission the nature of the environmental documents before them, what state law requires as CEQA documentation at this point, and she wanted to go on to explain the very special role of the State Department of Fish and Game and their advice to commission. To the environmental documents, she stated that this was a very straightforward process. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA for short) was very specific that once an environmental impact report has been prepared and certified by an agency, a very high threshold exists to require another one. There was a good reason for this. EIRs were designed to provide information to the decision makers and the public so that they could take intelligent account of the environmental consequences of the project. Clearly, if there was no seriously different environmental picture that was to be presented by any new data, then there was hardly any point in preparing another EIR. The state law therefore states that the City may not require another EIR on a project where an EIR has been previously certified if it finds that the changes to the project, the underlying circumstances, or new information do not show that impacts would be new from those previously considered in the EIR or more severe. To analyze this three-part test, they conducted an Expanded Initial Study and if that expanded initial study successfully passes the test, any necessary modifications to the EIR or its mitigation measures which are advisable in order to keep the document usable and accurate may be pursued through the addendum process. Therefore, an addendum becomes almost a correction to the draft EIR for minor technical changes. She believed that was the case here. An addendum need not be 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1997 circulated for public review. It need only be presented to the decision makers to consider in connection with their decision. However, the City of Palm Desert gave public notice on May 23 and mailed May 22 to property owners within 300 feet that it intended to rely on an addendum on the previous EIR and on the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Coachella Valley Water District to the extent of the additional acreage to the east and the public was invited to inspect that document at the City offices. As a result of that process there were some letters of comment received which she would be addressing. Ms. Culbertson explained that the California Department of Fish and Game is the resource agency in our state that is responsible for the protection of the bighorn sheep. They have not been listed by the Federal Government as of this date. The State Department of Fish and Game has listed them as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act and they were a fully protected species in California. She thought it could be said that the Department of Fish and Game is the public trustee for the bighorn sheep regardless of whether they are kept in a captive state or in a wild state. In her view they were the top source of information on the sheep in terms of regulating development around any bighorn sheep impacts. In 1990 and throughout the environmental impact report process, the Department of Fish and Game was consulted by the City and by her office to obtain their input and guidance as to the scope of the environmental studies and biological studies to be conducted and what their ultimate advice to the City was on the buffer. Through not one, but three, letters the Department of Fish and Game stated at that time that a buffer of a minimum of 400 yards as measured from the 30-acre pen on the Bighorn Institute, a private operation on private property, would be adequate for these captive sheep. The Department of Fish and Game has sent the City another letter in response to the Initial Study and it was part of the commission packet. They reiterated that the 400-yard buffer was adequate and in the consideration of the buffer, a payment of $750,000 to the City to be transferred to the Department of Fish and Game for the recovery and monitoring of bighorn sheep and various other mitigation measures that the Department of Fish and Game has provided to them for application to the project resulted in the 400-yard buffer and the project presented to the commission was adequate in mitigating all significant impacts in this area. She wanted to point out that the mitigation measures that the City was recommending should be applied tonight were more stringent than those that were applied in 1991 in many circumstances. The 400-yard buffer was the minimum buffer and that was not a big change from what was documented in the Environmental Impact Report as recommended by the Department of Fish and Game at the time. However, there were certain other mitigation measures for walls, fences, the restriction against domestic pets in the area southeast of Dead Indian Creek in the lower portion of the community, and many other measures that served to greatly restrict the operation of the property in an unusual way and in 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1997 recognition of the important captive breeding operations at the Bighorn Institute. There was a second issue raised throughout the process in 1991 and it was raised again here. It was what the status was of the free range or wild bighorn sheep use of this property, the property within this project. In the 1991 EIR there was great debate on this and in the EIR they simply said that in an abundance of caution, because it was an EIR, they would conclude that it could conceivably be free range habitat and that it was mitigated and overridden. The Department of Fish and Game was again consulted on this and some sheep had been sighted in a 1993 study on the ridge line overlooking the area at the easterly Coachella Valley Water District property that Mr. Drell introduced the commission to. She said that yes, sheep walk in many places in the Coachella Valley. The Department of Fish and Game concurs that the mitigation provided by the buffer and the cash payment was adequate compensation for any postulated or actual use by the wild bighorn in that area and because of that their habitat, they concurred with the Department Of Fish and Game, that it was an adequate treatment of this issue. Finally, between 1989 and 1991 there were substantial surveys of this property for desert tortoise. Desert tortoise was a state listed threatened and federally listed threatened species. Although there were burrows, there was no sign of tortoise except for a shell fragment. Even the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service opined that there was very little possibility since there were very low densities of tortoises ever known in this historic portion of the range. Notwithstanding that the City, in an abundance of caution, applied a 100% coverage survey that is at protocol for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct a particular kind of survey on the property before any alteration was done to it. That survey would be conducted prior to the onset of grading activities. However, it was reported to the City and to the Department of Fish and Game that a tortoise had been sighted and as a result the U.S. Geological Service National Biological Survey tortoise expert went out on the site with the Department of Fish and Game, herself, and another surveyor and examined select portions of the property. They did locate the tortoise and the tortoise that was found was inside of the 400-yard buffer. The 100% survey was still required as the U.S. Department of the Interior acknowledged and the City acknowledged that the mitigation stays in place and a construction fence would be erected inside the buffer in order to prevent the tortoise from traveling inadvertently into the construction area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would conduct a proceeding under the Federal Endangered Species Act with respect to this property and their determination results were unknown at this time by the City. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services has asked, and the City already had this mitigation measure from 1991 , that to the extent Federal or State.permits issued after this approval impose additional mitigation measures, that the City agrees to impose those mitigation measures on the project. This was in her view innocuous and actually inescapable. The federal agency has 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1997 jurisdiction over the tortoise as does the Department of Fish and Game because it was a listed species, however it was avoided at present the extent to which they know that there is a tortoise there is a void in the buffer zone. There was a dual reason for the buffer zone now and they would await the determination of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the actual disposition of the entire property. She said she couldn't speculate what that would be tonight, but she knew there were sufficient protections in the environmental documentation mitigation measures before the commission to insure that there is no irretrievable step taken with respect to this property until this determination is made. As Mr. Drell indicated, virtually all the attention on this project has focused on the bighorn, the size and nature of the buffer for the Bighorn Institute, the tortoise, and the identification of habitat for the wild bighorn. Under these circumstances the Department of Fish and Game was the public trustee for the sheep and their letter was extremely important and their recommendation and findings were extremely important because they above all are responsible for this species and she therefore didn't have any problem recommending to the commission that they accept the mitigation measures and the minor changes and suggestions that Fish and Game made, which had all been incorporated. That was the document before commission with the highlights and strikeouts. They were simply the mitigation measures presented to commission in the Expanded Initial Study Second Addendum as revised by the Department of Fish and Game letter. The Department representatives were present if the commission had any questions and on behalf of the City she stated that she and her company were very grateful for their assistance and said they had been indispensable. She said that concluded her presentation and asked for any questions. Chairperson Ferguson asked for confirmation that Ms. Culbertson was an independent environmental expert retained by the City and she didn't represent the developer or the opponents to the project if there were any. Ms. Culbertson stated that was correct. Chairperson Ferguson said he would be asking her the next question twice tonight. Based on Ms. Culbertson's review of the evidence as it stands right now, the documents before her, the various opinion letters received as recently as 5:00 p.m. tonight, if it was her opinion that the mitigation measures in place were sufficient to safeguard any potential threat to the bighorn sheep associated with the Canyons at Bighorn development. Ms. Culbertson replied that it was. Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and asked that the developer/applicant speak first to explain the nature of the development, then those in favor, then those in opposition, and then a short rebuttal period for the applicant to address any concerns raised by the opposition. 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1997 MS. KATHRYN THOMPSON, 19700 Fairchild Road, Suite 170, Irvine California, stated that they had a slide presentation. Ms. Thompson told commission that she really appreciated this opportunity to present this project to them and said that it was one of the finest projects she has been involved with and she has been in this business for about 30 years. She said that in addition to herself, the President of Winmar/Safeco Properties was present, Mr. Eddie Hendrickson; the Vice President, Mr. Larry Olson, from Safeco Properties; the President of Heartland, Mr. Warren Smith who is the General Manager of the current Mountains at Bighorn and who would be the Manager of the Canyons at Bighorn when the project is constructed was also present. She thought that most of the commissioners were probably familiar with Mr. Smith since he has been in the Coachella Valley for a long time and worked with the Sunrise Company. She indicated that they had a slide presentation and described the first slide as the location of the property which is at the southeast corner of Highway 74 across from the Mountains at Bighorn. She stated that this is a very important landholding and it would complete, as stated earlier by Mr. Drell, the other half of the mountains. When this is completed, it would be one continuous project with two golf courses and very high quality. There would be 519 acres. The next slide showed what was originally approved in 1991 to review the background. This was the property that was Altamira and adjacent to it was a project called Sun Creek which was submitted and it was her understanding that it was never approved, however the EIR for both projects was certified at that time. Altamira had 344 acres, a total of 422 residences, for a 1 .23 density. The Sun Creek property had 123 acres with nine holes of golf, 230 residences with a density of 2.83. The two communities allowed for 654 units on 467 acres. A new vision was formed in 1996 when Winmar, a division of Safeco Insurance acquired both properties, as well as became a part in the Mountains at Bighorn. Instead of moving ahead according to the existing development entitlements, they decided they should take a fresh look at the market conditions, at the environmental concerns, traffic and the infrastructure for the project. Based on what they learned about the market's preference to more environmentally sensitive and less overall density, they began a new planning process for the land holdings within the parameters of the current City's approved EIR. She showed slides that demonstrated some of the desert landscaping and rocks that would be part of the planning for this project. She stated that the proposal was for a much lower level of density on 519 acres. Ms. Thompson then showed commission a slide showing the former approval with the buffer area highlighted and the site with the buffer included. She explained that the current project with 519 acres would have only 350 residences or .68 density compared to the 654 on the original 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1997 approval. The core of the new community was an 18-hole golf course designed by Tom Fazio which is slated to be the premier course in the desert, both in terms of the golf experience and the environmental suitability. She thought that Mr. Fazio was probably America's most sought after golf course architect. He was very selective on which projects he would do and it took more than seven months for them to persuade them that this project was an opportunity to extend his design capabilities in a project with the high quality that he demands. He designed two other courses in the desert at the Vintage and the Quarry and he usually would take only one or two courses west of the Mississippi since he is from the East Coast and this would be his first in the city of Palm Desert. They were very excited that he has selected Palm Desert for his next course. The course featured 98 acres of irrigated fairway within a larger 175-acre golf envelope of desert landscape. The course formed an open space framework allowing views from the community to both the floor of the Coachella Valley and the surrounding layers of mountains. Surrounding the course was a series of individual neighborhoods with homesites and she stressed homesites because this would not be a grid layout of a subdivision. There would be 350 homesites with lots ranging from 7,000 square feet to more than one acre and in some cases several acres. Ms. Thompson showed slides of the concept view of the main entrance and a shot that was the inspiration for the main entry to the Canyons and an artist rendering of that concept. The entry would be opposite Cahuilla Drive and would lead through a desert canyon landscape to the central clubhouse and individual neighborhoods. The neighborhoods were linked to the club and each other by a network of private roads and trails. The emergency access was located at the north and south boundaries and a tunnel for a golf course connecting the Mountains at Bighorn was located on the southwest corner. The plan contributed to the surrounding community and created a finished entry to the city from the south as well as completed the mirror image sister of the Mountain at Bighorn. At the west along Highway 74 the canyon's edge was designed to contribute and be part of the most important scenic corridor. The project would build an earthen berm land form, a natural landscape element rather than a conventional block wall. It would obscure the views of the development but would also allow the public to keep open the views to the mountains beyond. The berm would run the entire long frontage with a width of 100 feet from Highway 74 to the interior roads and would contain rock outcroppings and native planting. At the north and east a plan had been worked out with the neighbors to insure the layout. MR. STEVE WALKER, 200 Fortieth Avenue East in Seattle Washington, pointed out the location of Highway 74, the north side of the property at 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1997 Cahuilla Hills Way, Bighorn the Bi horn Institute and 400 yard buffer, the main driveway going into the community which they were calling Canyon Drive, the location of the clubhouse and Ironwood and stated that they worked with their neighbors (Ironwood, Indian Hills Condominiums, the Summit and different neighborhoods) to make sure they would be a good neighbor to them and some of those neighbors were present today. He said they were working with Ironwood to make sure they were not obstructing their views and with the Indian Hills Way Association to try and determine how to vacate a street to make it a better situation since it was now a dead end street and people drive in there to party. 1 . Ms. Thompson stated that Mr. Walker was the President of Heartland and she said that there were several others present to answer technical questions. She noted that at the south, which there had been a lot of conversation about tonight and which has been a major controversy in the previous plan, additional protection had been incorporated with the 400-yard zone and no development has been established surrounding the northern boundary of the Bighorn Institute pens. The near quarter mile buffer of no development meant no golf, no roads, no homes and it resulted in an additional 57.3 acres of protection to the existing agreements with the Institute. She stressed that this was on top of over $900,000 that the applicant has already paid to the Institute and was not asking to be repaid because the pens were not being moved. On top of that, they were agreeing to pay the additional $750,000 payment to the City to help fund the Department of Fish and Game's ongoing research in recovery and continued augmentation of the bighorn sheep. The City in approving this new proposal has the opportunity to insure that this important landholding is finally built out as one single high quality very low density community in keeping with the well-established Bighorn community which the commission was very familiar with. Because the property was in the Redevelopment area of the city, the added benefit to the city would be the additional tax increment that would be available for the Agency. Heartland, Winmar, Safeco Properties as a single entity has both the financial strength and the corporate integrity to make this a reality. Approval of this plan would also end a long litigious land use chapter in the City's history by adopting a plan everyone in the city could be proud of. In the 30 years that she has developed projects in Southern California, she said she has never experienced a group of public agencies that have worked so hard to come up with a plan that all agree are within the best interests of the public and the environment. The plan was a model of cooperative "can 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1997 do" spirit on behalf of all the parties who worked out this plan, which included the City of Palm Desert and she congratulated the City Manager, Mr. Drell, and Mr. Joy for their long and exhaustive meetings that they have had over the last few months to get where they are; The Army Corps of Engineer; Mr. Smith; the California Department of Fish and Game and she didn't think they could say enough about how much they have been involved and their good advice on this project and Mr. Taucher and Mr. Brennen were present tonight; the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife had been consulted and was involved in their meetings and they met with the Bureau of Land Management and were in the process of helping them with some of the issues they have outside this project; the Coachella Valley Water District; and she really appreciated the input they have had from the Bighorn Institute. They might not agree 100 percent, but she believed they all had rolled up their sleeves and have tried to make this a project that everyone could be proud of. Each entity had worked diligently to make a plan that accomplished each agency's objectives. She said that sometimes they seemed to be at odds with each other. That assured a certainty about the future of the important part of the City of Palm Desert and it preserved the requested buffer and other mitigation for the Bighorn Institute to continue the work with the bighorn sheep, which she applauded. Tonight they were respectfully requesting approval of the project and their team was present and she asked that questions be directed to her and she would introduce the appropriate party to answer the technical questions. Commissioner Campbell asked Ms. Thompson about the $900,000 given to the Bighorn Institute. Ms. Thompson explained the check was the first installment and some interest payments and believed the total was around $930,000. Commissioner Campbell asked if the payment was for the Institute to move the sheep pens. Ms. Thompson agreed and explained that it was part of the settlement agreement, but in light of where they were today, the applicant said they would not ask for the money back, and they would be giving them more money and the 400-yard buffer. • Commissioner Campbell thought that was very generous. 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1997 Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR of the application. MR. FRANK TRANE, 72-840 Calle de la Silla in Ironwood Country Club, stated that he was delighted that the new development was going along in the first class and high class development style compared to what was approved in 1991 . He had been in touch with one of the principals of Winmar and they reached an agreement on their development next to the property that he and two other property owners in Ironwood own. They also reached agreement on what was to be done with the cul-de-sac at the end of Carriage Trail that goes through Ironwood. With those revisions that would no doubt come before staff in a form of a revised development plan, he was delighted that they were going ahead with the project. Chairperson Ferguson asked, as a former resident off of Carriage Trail, what the specific revisions were. Mr. Trane explained that they were twofold. One was that they have entered into an agreement to acquire the land under the turn around that was currently under Carriage Trail. What happened many years ago when the property at Ironwood was developed was that a turn around was put in, approved by the City, but the land under it was not made part of the subdivision, but the turn around was on the behalf of it. Consequently the land was sold to Altamira and the turn around still remains there and was of great value to the property values of those homes along Carriage Trail. Through no fault of the new developers, the Carriage Trail residents wanted the turn around back so they have entered into an agreement to acquire the turn around land that would be under the turn around that is already existing on Carriage Trail. That was the end of the old Portola Road that used to go all the way through and he believed it would now have a crash gate on it to allow safety services to go through there. The other three properties that were the westernmost part of Ironwood were in Tract 20960. He owned one and Mr. Russ Burkett who was also present at the meeting owned one and another man named Larry Gale owned the other. They were the contiguous property owners of the new development from Ironwood and they have reached an agreement today with Heartland and that agreement involved creating a view easement which is next to the wall that is the westernmost boundary of their property. He said the applicant could expand on that further if commission wished, but that was the only comment he had. 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1997 MR. GARY LYONS, 160 Menil Place in Bighorn, stated that he and his wife have been involved with Palm Desert for over 25 years and have been here in the valley for that amount of time and have come to realize that the best community in the desert is Palm Desert and when they looked to where they wanted to build their home to enjoy their later years, it was obvious that the most quality product they could find was in Bighorn. He thought it was the unanimous opinion of all the homeowners in Bighorn to see the continued development of this project to it's fullest. Bighorn was one of the few developments throughout the desert that has maintained the desert quality and the environmental protections that they all enjoy and it has brought to Palm Desert a national and international reputation which he felt was both beneficial to both and hoped that the Commission would vote to proceed with the proposal as it had been presented. MR. JIM LOPEZ, 25 Covington Drive in Palm Desert, stated that he has been a proud resident of Palm Desert for the last 17 years and has been active in the community on several committees and he was in favor of the project tonight. He said that he has been sensitive, as well as the City has been sensitive, as to the development of the community. Especially as it pertained not only to the environmental part, but to the aesthetics. He felt the project itself would hold a very positive nature in that it would be a great entrance to the city from the south. He was looking forward to the project being approved. MR. TIM SKOGGIN, 73-102 Skyward Way in Palm Desert stated that he has been a resident of Palm Desert for 18 years and has lived in the cove for 17 and through the years they have seen several projects come and go and this one seemed to be the most "balanced and appropriate" project to date. It seemed to keep all parties happy, it seemed to address the density issues and several of the issues that have been brought up and was the best use of the area and would conclude that part of the city. He thought it seemed to be the right approach to take and looked forward to a positive response. MR. CHUCK STROTHERS, 73-425 El Paseo, stated that his office has been in Palm Desert for 19 years and he has done subdivisions and commercial buildings, residences and developments throughout the valley. He said he didn't own property in Bighorn, he wasn't doing business at Bighorn, but he was present as a fellow developer and he understood the commitment to quality, planning, environmental issues and to quality of life that this team has put together for this project over a long period of time. They have a new enthusiasm up at Bighorn that they have all seen and there were new 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1997 ownership and new management and they have experienced great success over the last year. The development team was well funded, well motivated, and he thought one that could endure difficult times that may reappear like they have endured over the last six years and he encouraged the commission to pass this project on with a favorable vote to the City Council because he didn't know what else they could do to make a better development out of this piece of ground. MR. DAN POPPERS, publisher of Golf News Magazine, 73-280 El Paseo in Palm Desert, stated that he was in favor of the project and wanted to point out that the designer, Tom Fazio, has a world recognition and fame for what he does and it brought tremendous pride to this community to have someone like that, a designer with that reputation that comes here and wanted to let the commission know that from his perspective they have been publishing since 1984, that this is the finest project that he has seen in Palm Desert. MR. KEN SMITH, 45-751 Manzo Road in Indian Wells, stated that he also owns residential property in Palm Desert and has lived in this community for nine years. He felt this project was not only important for him and others in terms of what they were looking for within the next five or ten years and someone mentioned that it has not only brought recognition to the Palm Desert area, but also to the valley. He said it was so important to him that he brought his 13 year old son with him tonight so that he could hear what it was the Planning Commission was looking at, what it was they were doing, and his son would be entering high school next year and Mr. Smith was thinking in terms of what this would provide for his son and the community and his son would hopefully make his home here in 15, 20 or 30 years down the road when he finishes college. He was looking forward to the commission's approval of this project. He said his son's name was Bradley. Chairperson Ferguson welcomed Bradley to the meeting. MR. YOHAN PERSLOW, 71-850 Jaguar Way in Cahuilla Hills, stated that he has been involved in about 100 golf courses all over the country and this project was extraordinary. His company worked a lot with environmental corps engineers all over the country and felt this was an extraordinary project that the city should be very proud of. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the proposed project. 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1997 MS. EMILY HEMPHILL, an attorney with the law firm of Selzer, Ely, Hemphill, and Blaisdell, stated that their offices were in Rancho Mirage, California. She indicated that she was at the meeting representing Guy Laliberte and Mario Pascucci, two individuals who in partnership own a triangular piece of property within the buffer zone. She said they were opposing the project at this time and were requesting that the city give further consideration to the conditions of approval as it affects their property for several reasons. First, they recognize the quality of the development that Bighorn has engaged in to date and didn't doubt that the quality of development would continue in that regard. They also fully expected that they indeed have made appropriate arrangements with the neighbors to the northeast and northwest. They didn't believe, however, that the consideration that had been given to the property that was owned by Mr. Laliberte and Mr. Pascucci had been adequate and in order to assure that they too were able to recognize the full economic viability of their property. As the buffer zone was currently drawn, essentially the economic use of their property was gone and they were unable to sell that property to a reasonable buyer given its existence within the buffer zone. While putting a condition within the conditions of approval or a caveat within the conditions of approval saying that the City reserves the right to not impose that buffer zone on any third other than the folks from Bighorn, essentially no reasonable buyer would look at this, recognize the existence of the buffer zone and still proceed to purchase this property from her clients. Furthermore, the imposition of a condition within the conditions of approval that indicate that the applicant should negotiate within good faith to purchase this property which was formerly called the Del Gagnon property they believed was not adequate to protect the interests of the current owners, Mr. Laliberte and Mr. Pascucci. Essentially their ability to develop the property was futile at this point because it was clear that from the environmental documents available for this project that this buffer zone was viewed as critical to the captive breeding program at the Bighorn Institute. While they did not take an issue with the work that the Bighorn Institute is doing, nonetheless they believed that placing this property in the buffer zone without any sure way to assure adequate compensation of fair market value essentially placed the burden on private property owners to serve the larger public good in an excessive way. They further felt that the requirement that Mr. Laliberte and Mr. Pascucci essentially come to the City of Palm Desert so that they could be turned down because of the existence of the buffer zone was essentially requiring them to expend funds, expend time and expend energy on an effort that would be futile. They believed that the conditions of approval on this project must more stringently provide that this property should be acquired for its fair market value and that that be accomplished 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1997 prior to the project going forward. It was only in this way that they could assure that the fair market value and the adequate investment backed expectations that they had when they acquired this property in 1978, long before Bighorn came along, that it could be achieved. She therefore asked the commission to modify the conditions of approval to impose more stringent conditions that require the project applicants to purchase the property for not less than its fair market value and to provide to the City and to the current owners of the property proof of that the fair market value and their willingness to purchase it prior to the project moving forward. Chairperson Ferguson asked Ms. Hemphill how many acres her client had. Ms. Hemphill replied approximately 12 acres. Chairperson Ferguson asked when Ms. Hemphill said fair market value if she was referring to post approval of this application or preapproval of this application. Ms. Hemphill stated that obviously approval of the Bighorn project has caused significant damage to the property's value because of the existence of the buffer zone and she contended that her clients would be entitled to the preapproval value. Chairperson Ferguson asked if their property was landlocked in any way. Ms. Hemphill replied that she believed that there is an existing easement that goes into the Bighorn area. (She asked someone in the audience if that was correct and they concurred.) Chairperson Ferguson asked if that was affected in any by the buffer zone or if there was restriction as to automobile access. Ms. Hemphill stated that the easement extends outside the buffer zone north into the project. Chairperson Ferguson asked why Ms. Hemphill believed that the legal requirement of good faith negotiations was inadequate to protect her clients. Ms. Hemphill indicated that essentially the only statement in the existing conditions of approval was that they must negotiate in good faith. There was nothing that said the City would assist her client in assuring that a good faith effort would be made. Under the way the condition was approved at the 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1997 present time, any type of an offer could be made without proof of value being given in any way, shape or form and if that offer was not accepted by her client, the applicant could simply say they tried and it didn't work and that was too bad and they were free to move forward and in the meantime her client was stuck with property that essentially has lost all of its value. Chairperson Ferguson commented that by inserting the words "fair market value" she was simply providing a substitute for the words "good faith" which was equally ambiguous. Ms. Hemphill stated that they also believed that the commission should be inserting something into the conditions of approval that placed the onus on the applicant in order to prove to the City that in fact fair market value and good faith was utilized. By utilizing the conditions of approval as they are stated now, the burden of proof was on her client to do that and her client was doing nothing with his project that requires mitigation, therefore they believed that the burden should be placed on the applicant in order to prove that those efforts have been made. Chairperson Ferguson asked if Ms. Hemphill had specific language that she wanted the commission to consider. Ms. Hemphill replied that she didn't have it written up, but she would be happy to submit it to the commission in writing. Commissioner Jonathan said he would like to see if they could align responsibilities here. The restrictions that have been placed on the buffer zone were placed by various governmental agencies if he was correct. Federal agencies and state agencies. Ms. Hemphill said it was her understanding that the buffer zone is in response to comments provided by federal and state agencies and suggested that Mr. Drell could clarify that. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the application before commission was complying with those recommendations and what the commission was reviewing was in compliance with those recommendations. If Ms. Hemphill was seeking fair market value from the applicant, the development of that property was bound by the recommendations by those federal agencies. He asked what the fair market value was of undevelopable land and why Ms. Hemphill was attaching responsibility to the applicant in this application before commission. 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1997 Ms. Hemphill stated that with respect to government regulation there were several cases and much case law on record that indicates that if government regulation eliminates all economic viability and all reasonable investment backed expectations on private property, then that qualifies as a taking that requires just compensation which is essentially equal to fair market value. At this point it appeared to her client that the applicant is the appropriate party to provide that compensation because it is the applicant's project that is essentially imposing the buffer zone on this particular property. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Ms. Hemphill would be prepared to continue ownership of the property without restrictions and "cast their lot" with Fish and Game to see if they would allow them to put in houses or offices or hotels. Ms. Hemphill replied that they already knew that was futile. Commission Jonathan said that came back to his earlier question of why Ms. Hemphill was seeking redress from the applicant. The applicant would probably rather have a golf course there with multimillion dollar homes and homesites. He asked what the applicant had to do with Ms. Hemphill's problem. Ms. Hemphill stated that essentially the applicant has engaged in negotiations with these various different agencies and has settled on mitigation measures that are perfectly acceptable to them and in the process of all of this her client was essentially kept out in the cold as though his property rights were of no consequence. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the Bighorn Institute had honored their previous settlement agreement if Ms. Hemphill's client's property would be in a buffer zone. Ms. Hemphill replied no. Chairperson Ferguson asked if Ms. Hemphill had considered filing suit against the Bighorn Institute as a third party beneficiary of that agreement. Ms. Hemphill said they would certainly discuss that with the client. Mr. Drell stated that he agreed with Commissioner Jonathan's comments. The condition for the creation of the buffer was not the choice of the applicant and it was negotiated with "a gun to their head". Therefore, it would not be his obligation to provide whatever just compensation might be necessary at some time in the future. Along the same lines, if this property had filed for an application first 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1997 and the buffer was imposed, it would not have been their obligation to buy the balance of the property within the buffer from The Canyons. The timing of the application or who the applicants were had nothing to do with the creation or the requirement under CEQA for the creation of this buffer. Secondly, as he was sure counsel was aware, there was a lawsuit filed by Mr. Gagnon when the buffer was originally imposed and in the settlement of that lawsuit agreed to by the owner of this property was that until such time as a request for development was proposed, there could not be any taking or inverse condemnation since there had been no denial of development rights. There has been no CEQA process on this property, so the process by which those cases that Ms. Hemphill has cited determined that an inverse condemnation has occurred is a process of filing for development with the City going through whatever process was necessary to determine what building rights exist and then a decision. That process had not yet occurred. Chairperson Ferguson concluded that what Mr. Drell was saying was that they need to exhaust their administrative rights; Ms. Hemphill was saying that they could see the light at the end of the tunnel. Mr. Drell stated that whether she sees it or not, it was required to occur. Ms. Culbertson added to Mr. Drell's point that under CEQA there was only an authority to mitigate if they have discretionary authority over the property at the time you mitigate. To the best of her knowledge and as Mr. Drell told commission, there were no discretionary applications before the City nor has there been a discretionary approval on this property before, so the buffer didn't actually apply to this property at this time. Chairperson Ferguson noted that he was aware of the law in this area since he represented a client in a similar situation and he was not at all unsympathetic to the person who finds himself with no beneficial use of his property and was being told to sue the federal government. Ms. Hemphill stated that she would like to make a comment in reply to Mr. Drell. With all due respect, she begged to differ as to what exactly the settlement agreement said on the Del Gagnon litigation affecting this property. It merely said that her client would not be prejudiced in terms of future development; however, it was clear to any buyer in the marketplace if they looked at that property that they couldn't do anything with it. There is case law out there that says when it is clear that exhaustion of administrative remedies is a futile effort, it is not required. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone else wished to address the commission in opposition. 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1997 MS. JOAN TAYLOR, representing the Sierra Club, 1800 South Sunrise Way in Palm Springs, stated that as indicated in her fax to the commission yesterday, the Sierra Club is opposed to this project. She felt the environmental review warrant was inadequate and was requesting a continuance and the preparation of a subsequent EIR. She stated that the review time has been extremely short, less than ten days. Therefore their comments might not be totally complete and they would reserve the right to make more. She pointed out that an Addendum was only legally proper for minor technical changes to a project. In this case the project would be more than 50 percent bigger than the former project that was reviewed by an EIR. In addition, there would be hillside development proposed which was not proposed before. In view of the statements made tonight, in particular the one that said the mitigations proposed now are more stringent than before, they took exception to that and believed they were less stringent. Formerly in the EIR it called out a minimum 400, and as large as a 600, acre buffer. Now it was a maximum 400 acre buffer. That was the crux of the matter. In sum, the project's impacts to peninsular bighorn sheep were more significant than they were before at a time when the continued existence of the peninsular bighorn sheep was more tenuous than ever before. Ms. Taylor stated that Mr. Joy told her tonight that two pages of the fax did not get transmitted yesterday and with the commission's indulgence she wanted to read them tonight so that the commission would know what it said. She said: "The Canyons at Bighorn proposes to develop 20 homes on a hillside area of the project which has not been proposed for development before. Development on these hillsides, if not some of the development in a portion of the alluvium, constitutes a take of habitat for an endangered species. The project also has potential impacts to endangered desert tortoise. The Addendum discusses these potential impacts, asserting that the tortoise occur within the buffer. The Addendum fails to indicate where within the buffer these tortoise occur. Close to the edge near the development? They don't know. What assurance is there that these tortoise will not range onto the proposed development area, or that they do not occur in that portion already? The Addendum either fails to answer these critical questions or alludes to past studies without producing information on the protocols used, the dates of the studies or providing the studies themselves, as an EIR would. The bottom line is, the fact that the project may affect an endangered species immediately triggers the requirement for an EIR so there can be adequate review." Chairperson Ferguson interrupted to inform Ms. Taylor that the two pages referred to by Mr. Joy he believed began two pages farther down from where she was at. 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1997 Ms. Taylor said that her copy was from a reprint, not in a fax format, so she asked what the last paragraph was that they received. Chairperson Ferguson indicated it was the one that said the project mitigation is adequate. He believed it was second to the last page. Ms. Taylor said that she would just like to make a note about the tortoise. Promises to survey were not mitigation. That was legally inadequate as mitigation. She stated from the letter that: "Since the Addendum's information and analysis of impacts, particularly biological ones, is inadequate it is impossible to judge the adequacy of the mitigations proposed. As stated above, they vitiate even the ones proposed for Altamira. Another grave concern is the nature of the mitigation on page 17 for payment of $750,000 to California Department of Fish and Game. This mitigation is contingent on the development not being legally challenged in court. This is not real mitigation; it is improper; it is illusory." She indicated that additionally, it was evident from the testimony tonight that the buffer zone was incomplete and has holes in it. "Based on the above, it is clear that this is a substantially changed project occurring in a substantially changed circumstance with new information available that was not available before. All of which trigger the preparation of a new EIR. Moreover, the mitigation proposed in the former EIR is not being required. None of this has been adequately addressed in the current environmental review. As stated before, a subsequent EIR is needed to provide the public and the decision makers with enough information and sufficient opportunity to review and comment so the City can be able to make an informed judgment on this very serious matter." She added that the findings in the Addendum were based largely on opinion and not on substantial evidence in the record, so similarly the Planning Commission findings based on the Addendum would also be flawed. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he wasn't sure that Ms. Taylor could reserve her right to add additional evidence. The commission had to vote on this tonight unless they continued the matter. Ms. Taylor said that they were requesting a continuance because there hadn't been enough time for review and comment. Chairperson Ferguson stated that if the commission votes on this matter tonight, her reservation in a legal sense would be null and void. He noted that she has appeal rights and she could raise new issues on an appeal. 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1997 Ms. Taylor stated that was Chairperson Ferguson's opinion. Chairperson Ferguson concurred and asked where Ms. Taylor came up with the figure 50 percent larger than the previous project. If it was geographic or number of homesites. Ms. Taylor said it was number of acres. Chairperson Ferguson asked what it was in terms of residential units. Ms. Taylor said she basically hadn't broken it down that way, however, this was a greater than 50 percent larger project and was not a minor technical change. Chairperson Ferguson said that if they weren't physically putting homesites on the land, how it mattered what the difference in acreage was. Ms. Taylor said that now the development wrapped around the Bighorn Institute whose activities were more important than ever before and there were much greater impacts on the Institute. Chairperson Ferguson asked Ms. Taylor to submit a complete copy of her statement for the City's records. Ms. Taylor stated that she had the original and submitted it (attached hereto as Exhibit A). Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone else wished to speak in opposition to the application. There was no one. He asked if the applicant's representative would like to offer a brief rebuttal. Ms. Thompson stated that in regard to the Laliberte property, they were conditioned to make a good faith offer to buy the property. They did so last fall and that offer was turned down. She believed, based on the acquisition price for the Coachella Valley Water District property, that they made an offer that was substantially higher and she said they did try. Chairperson Ferguson closed the public hearing and invited comments from the commission. 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1997 Commissioner Jonathan said that the legal matters and the purchase of property was not an issue for Planning Commission and thought it would ultimately be resolved in another venue. With regards to the project and the application itself, he has been on the commission since the start of this project and has seen the presentations from day one by the various parties and he thought the project kept getting better. He was very pleased with it and he would be ready to accept it as presented. He thought it would make a great addition to the City and felt it was a wonderful use of land that at some point would be developed in some way and some things that have actually been approved previously were so much more disruptive to the city and our environment than what is before the commission. He thought it was a win-win situation. Commissioner Fernandez agreed with Commissioner Jonathan. He thought they could be very proud of a project like this. The applicants put forward a lot of effort and he welcomed this project with open arms. Commissioner Campbell stated that she was in agreement with the other commissioners. She felt that Winmar had done everything in their best power to satisfy all of their neighbors and this project has been going on for many years and she was in the audience when Mr. Hayhoe originally tried to solve the problems and she was in favor of the project. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he would like to address the question that he posed to Ms. Culbertson during staff comments. Based on any additional evidence that was presented tonight, most notably half of page 5 and page 6 of the Sierra Club's written objections, if she was still of the same opinion that she was at the beginning of the hearing that the mitigation measures currently in place in the application were sufficient to accommodate any potential hazard to the bighorn sheep associated with The Canyons at Bighorn project. Ms. Culbertson replied that she was. She hadn't had a chance to study this, but there were only three small paragraphs that were missing from what was faxed to the City. One of the paragraphs asked about the nature of the mitigation number 17 for the payment to be not owed if there is litigation. That is now litigation only by public agencies. The other part had been stricken in the conditions of approval. She pointed out that while it was absolutely true that under normal circumstances mitigation was not future studies, in this case there had been well over $60,000 of tortoise studies on this property plus a very recent survey by one of the leading, if not the leading, expert in desert tortoises and a federal government employee, in concert with theDepartment of Fish and Game, as purported in the record, and these were dispositive, while not dispositive for the federal government, they gave her a very comfortable feeling regarding the status of tortoise on the most likely areas of its 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1997 location in the property ownership. Without permission of other property owners, there was no right to trespass onto their property to do studies, although she wanted to assure the commission that the 100 percent tortoise survey assured that no grading would proceed without that being completed and a disposition of that made. She said that she also wanted to point out some things that were brought up that were not in the letter. Their findings were based on complete and substantial evidence. She didn't know how anyone could reach the conclusion that they were based on opinion unless they were referring to the very expert opinion of the California Department of Fish and Game, the public trustee for the sheep, and in that case they were guilty. They were the public trustees for the sheep and were an organization dedicated to resource protection and have a large number of bighorn experts on their staff. She couldn't think of better evidence than that. She had heard nothing and had no reason to change her opinion as recommended to the City or Commission. Chairperson Ferguson congratulated Ms. Thompson on a wonderful presentation. The material submitted to the City was thorough, complete and everything that he needed to look at to evaluate the project, together with her presentation tonight. With respect to the environmental impact or potential environmental impact of this project, he was of the view that more than adequate protections to the environment exist. He said that at the risk of sounding glib, he thought this piece of land had been EIR'd to death. But that was to take nothing away from Ms. Taylor's comments. He realized that she was making her record tonight and was preserving her rights and the rights of her interest group in that regard, however, he was entitled to his opinion. In regard to the 12-acre parcel, he believed that unfortunately the 12-acre parcel somehow got caught up in the middle of this and kind of concurred with Commissioner Jonathan that there was a host of remedies and he wasn't sure the applicant was one of them. He indicated his opinion as to others among the federal government, the Bighorn Institute, state government, and perhaps the City of Palm Desert. His only observation was that it was regrettable for the owner of land that has suddenly been stripped of its use for whatever reason and it was a difficult situation. However, he was not willing to entertain the condition that the applicant be required to acquire this property at fair market value. At some point they were required to make a good faith attempt and Ms. Hemphill knew the legal definition of good faith and if she was unsatisfied that the applicant made a good faith attempt, presumably she could come back to the city. He said he knew this particular area of land intimately since he lived in Ironwood just off of Carriage Trail for the first four years he was in Palm Desert and he walked that area with his son frequently, almost every evening on nice nights, and he couldn't be more pleased with the development that was being proposed. He thought it would add an excellent completion to the development of south Palm 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1997 Desert east of Highway 74 and he looked forward to watching it as it develops since he still lives in the cove area and he truly appreciated the time, attention, effort and detail that have gone into this application, not only from a planning standpoint, but by the comments of the residents of the city, both those that live appurtenant to the property and those that didn't. It was apparent that they did their homework and in his opinion they did a great job. Mr. Drell said that in that the City has some obligation to respond to specific criticisms of our environmental review process, for the record he wanted to have the environmental consultant respond to those specific issues raised by the representative of the Sierra Club. Chairperson Ferguson thought she had done that. Mr. Drell said she did it in a general sense, but he thought she needed to give a more expansive justification for her conclusion. Ms. Culbertson said that she knew the commission had taken this into consideration, but she wanted to call the commission's attention to the City prepared written response and the portions of the Sierra Club letter that they received yesterday afternoon. Again, she would not dwell on matters she already addressed such as the time to review and comment. There was no specific time; it was over ten days and she understood there was a meeting with the City to discuss the documentation, although she was not present. There was consultation that was referred to in there that was attempted--in some cases it was successful and some cases it was not with various groups. The City's use of an Addendum was completely proper. She felt that what was important to remember here was that there were two documents here. An Expanded Initial Study that conducts the rigorous analysis required under Section 21 166 of the California Environmental Quality Act to determine if the evidence is still fresh and accurate. That is one part. The other part is the Addendum which makes the minor revisions. The document before the commission both goes through the test and makes the updates in consultation with the public agencies and whoever else would agree to consult with them when they were approached, as to those mitigation measures. The decline in the bighorn sheep was important. However, it was not caused by this project and it was going on at the time that this project EIR was originally certified, it was going on before that EIR was certified, and it is still going on. In spite of the substantial decline in real estate development over that period of time and it was just starting up now, because of the economy that decline has continued. There were many good people working on that decline, but as the letter from the Department of Fish and Game states, that money payment in addition.to the buffer would go a long way to assisting them because everyone knew that money was the key impediment to bringing on any of these recovery programs. She felt the other points were covered in her presentation. 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1997 Chairperson Ferguson pointed out that the Commission was entitled to rely on expert opinion such as that of Ms. Culbertson, Dr. Johnson, Dr. Carruthers, certainly the Department of Fish and Game as a governmental body, and those were expert opinions that carried weight, they were evidence, and they were substantial findings. He said he was not an environmental expert. He could look at the reports and weigh them, listen to Ms. Taylor read her letter and read the response and come up with his own independent opinion, which he has done, but to say that they couldn't elicit expert opinion and rely on it he felt was incorrect. He asked if there was a motion. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would move to adopt the findings as modified by staff. Chairperson Ferguson asked how they were modified. Commissioner Jonathan said by testimony received, as well as Inventory of Applicable Revised Mitigation Measures. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1811 , recommending to City Council approval of GPA 96-1 , C/Z 96-7, Vesting TT 25296 Revision, Vesting TT 28575 and Second Addendum to FEIR SCH#91012061 as amended, subject to conditions. Carried 4-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES None. XI. COMMENTS Mr. Drell asked commission if at the July 1 meeting, Cal State San Bernardino could a presentation to the commission and asked if they wanted to have it before the regular meeting. Chairperson Ferguson said he would. Mr. Drell suggested a 5:30 p.m. dinner and study session in the Council Chamber at 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would be out of the country. Chairperson 46 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: June 3, 1997 CASE NOS: GPA 96-1 , C/Z 96-7, Vesting TT 25296 Revision, Vesting TT 28575 REQUEST: Approval of a 457 acre revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map, new 62 acre Vesting Tentative Tract Map, General Plan Amendment and Pre- Annexation Change of Zone and Second Addendum to Certified Final Environmental Impact to allow the development of a 395-lot residential country club with 18 hole golf course generally located on the east side of Highway 74 between Indian Hills Way and the southern City limits. APPLICANT: WINMAR PALM DESERT, L.L.C. 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2600 Seattle, WA 98104 BACKGROUND: A. SITE DESCRIPTION The site, located on the east side of Highway 74, extends south from Indian Hills condominiums and "The Summit" across the alluvial plain of Dead Indian Creek to the foothills and properties owned by the Bighorn Institute (BHI) and the 12-acre parcel known as the "Laliberte" or "Del Gagnon" property. The site is bordered on the east by subdivisions within the gates of Ironwood Country Club, a vacant ten-acre parcel zoned R-1 20,000 and hillside property within the County owned by Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). Since the original approval, 123 acres have been added along Highway 74 across from the existing Bighorn Country Club entrance "The Sun Creek property", including five acres which are presently in the County. Fifty-seven (57) hillside acres have been added on the east side (presently within the County owned by CVWD). Three hundred and eighty-five (385) acres of the site are currently zoned PR-5 and PR-7 (five to seven dwelling units per gross acre). One hundred thirty- seven (137) acres are zoned HPR Hillside Planned Residential. Separating the hillside property from the relatively flat balance of the site is the remnant of Dead Indian Creek drainage, most of which was diverted by the construction STAFF REPORT GPA 96-1 , C/Z 96-7, VESTING TT 25296 REVISION, VESTING TT 28575 JUNE 3, 1997 of the Palm Valley Storm Channel debris basin. The current zoning would permit over 2,000 units. B. PROJECT HISTORY The project previously known as Altamira was originally submitted to the City in 1989. Upon request by the Bighorn Institute (BHI) a focused EIR was prepared. The principal issue of controversy involved project impacts on bighorn sheep within pens located at BHI. These pens are used for breeding sheep for release into the Santa Rosa Mountains and research concerning the decline of the herds. After several hearings a full EIR was ordered. The project was approved in August 1991 and the FEIR certified for a 422-unit project on 344 acres including a 400-600 yard buffer between the sheep pens on the hillside and the project. This conclusion was based on extensive testimony and input from independent experts and from the California Department of Fish and Game who is legally responsible for the sheep. Most of the buffer area (in which no development was permitted) was located on Altamira property. Over 90% of the "Del Gagnon Property" was within 400 yards of the pens. After a series of lawsuits involving BHI, the County, Altamira, the City and Del Gagnon, a settlement agreement was reached in which BHI agreed to move the pens so that a 400-yard buffer would be created entirely on BHI property. In exchange, Altamira was to pay BHI $2,100,000 in specified installments. Since the Del Gagnon property was now outside the buffer, the applicant was required to make a good faith effort to buy the property or otherwise include it in the project. Based on the settlement agreement, the project was redesigned and expanded to 457 acres without a buffer area. Total units were reduced from 422 to 395. After the first installment payments were made to BHI by Winmar (who had taken over the project) pursuant to the agreement, it was determined after extensive consultation with the Department of Fish and Game, BHI and independent sheep experts, that there were no alternative locations to move the pens on BHI property without jeopardizing successful breeding operations. 2 STAFF REPORT GPA 96-1 , C/Z 96-7, VESTING TT 25296 REVISION, VESTING TT 28575 JUNE 3, 1997 Given the recent decline in sheep population and the importance of BHI's herd augmentation program, the potential risk of moving the pens was deemed to be unacceptable. After extensive negotiations involving the City, CDFG, BHI and ultimately the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services and U.S. Corps of Army Engineers, it was decided that the pens would remain at their present locations and the 400-yard buffer would again extend into the project. This 53-acre area would be irrevocably dedicated in perpetuity to the California Department of Fish and Game or its public agency designee to the U.-S. Burcau of Land as permanent undeveloped open space. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Canyons at Bighorn is a high-end, private, golf oriented community consisting of 372 units on the revised TT 25296 and an additional 23 units on vesting TT 28575 bringing the total unit count to 395 on 519 acres. TT 28575 includes 62 acres presently in the County. Overall density has been reduced from 1 .22 units per acre to .76 units per acre. The Canyons at Bighorn golf operations would be combined with the existing golf operations at The Mountains at Bighorn to create a 36-hole golf experience. The two courses are proposed to be connected via a golf cart tunnel which is planned for construction under Highway 74. The residential development will consist primarily of homesite sales for custom home construction. In addition, the land plan will be able to accommodate smaller high-end residences ranging from just over 2,000 square feet to 3,500 square feet. The larger custom homesites could support residences well over 10,000 square feet in size. While the market will dictate the selling price, it is currently anticipated that homesites will retail from $250,000 to over $1 million. In an effort to create greater side and front yard variation and to provide for a more natural placement of residences with complementary landscaping, the homesites ranging in size from 7,000 square feet to over one acre generally have been made substantially larger than those originally approved under the existing plan. In addition, the land use plan will define building envelopes for each custom homesite, which will be oriented so as to maintain optimum access and view for each individual residence. Construction practices, set forth in the project's design guidelines, will encourage the use of native materials in residential landscaping improvements. In the revised plans, street lengths have been shortened and cul-de-sacs have been incorporated, where practicable, in order to optimize the potential for creating unique and varied neighborhoods within the proposed community. 3 STAFF REPORT GPA 96-1, C/Z 96-7, VESTING TT 25296 REVISION, VESTING TT 28575 JUNE 3, 1997 Given the recent decline in sheep population and the importance of BHI's herd augmentation program, the potential risk of moving the pens was deemed to be unacceptable. After extensive negotiations involving the City, CDFG, BHI and ultimately the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services and U.S. Corps of Army Engineers, it was decided that the pens would remain at their present locations and the 400-yard buffer would again extend into the project. This 53-acre area would be irrevocably dedicated to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management as permanent undeveloped open space. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Canyons at Bighorn is a high-end, private, golf oriented community consisting of 372 units on the revised TT 25296 and an additional 23 units on vesting TT 28575 bringing the total unit count to 395 on 519 acres. TT 28575 includes 62 acres presently in the County. Overall density has been reduced from 1 .22 units per acre to .76 units per acre. The Canyons at Bighorn golf operations would be combined with the existing golf operations at The Mountains at Bighorn to create a 36-hole golf experience. The two courses are proposed to be connected via a golf cart tunnel which is planned for construction under Highway 74. The residential development will consist primarily of homesite sales for custom home construction. In addition, the land plan will be able to accommodate smaller high-end residences ranging from just over 2,000 square feet to 3,500 square feet. The larger custom homesites could support residences well over 10,000 square feet in size. While the market will dictate the selling price, it is currently anticipated that homesites will retail from $250,000 to over $1 million. In an effort to create greater side and front yard variation and to provide for a more natural placement of residences with complementary landscaping, the homesites ranging in size from 7,000 square feet to over one acre generally have been made substantially larger than those originally approved under the existing plan. In addition, the land use plan will define building envelopes for each custom homesite, which will be oriented so as to maintain optimum access and view for each individual residence. Construction practices, set forth in the project's design guidelines, will encourage the use of native materials in residential landscaping improvements. In the revised plans, street lengths have been shortened and cul-de-sacs have been incorporated, where practicable, in order to optimize the potential for creating unique and varied neighborhoods within the proposed community. 3 STAFF REPORT • GPA 96-1 , C/Z 96-7, VESTING TT 25296 REVISION, VESTING TT 28575 JUNE 3, 1997 Due to the late date which the buffer was placed back on the project, and the fact that the project was originally resubmitted without a buffer (in 11 -96), a conceptual design is available at this time which includes the buffer (shown as sheet 7 of 7). However the previous visual impact analysis is still applicable to any final design and must incorporate its findings and mitigation measures (especially crucial to residents of "The Summit" area). As demonstrated in the attached correspondence, the applicant did make a good faith effort to incorporate the "Del Gagnon" property into the project. That effort was unsuccessful. III. ZONE CHANGE, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: The area currently outside the city limits (five acres on the southwest corner and 57 acres on the east) require General Plan Amendment from the current Open Space designation to Low Density Residential, Hillside Planned Residential and pre- annexation zoning to (PR-5 and HPR). These properties comprising Vesting TT 28575 will be ultimately subject to approval of the annexation by LAFCO. The conversion of the 53 acres within the buffer area from PR-5 to open space is viewed as partial compensation for the redesignation of the 62 acres being redesignated from open space to residential development. In addition, the applicant will be required to pay CDF&G $750,000 over a five-year period for sheep population augmentation in the north Santa Rosa Mountains. These and other environmental issues are discussed more completely in the accompanying Second Addendum to the certified EIR. IV. SLOPE ANALYSIS: Eighty (80) acres of the original Altamira project now covered by VTT 25296 and 57 acres within the County area to be annexed (VTT 28575) will fall under the Hillside Planned Residential zone requiring an average slope study by a licensed civil engineer. That report has been completed (attached). Option One of the HPR zone was applied to calculate permitted number of units and area to be left in a natural or renaturalized state based on the average slope formula. The average slope of the 80 HPR acres in VTT 25296 falls within the 21 to 25% range requiring 1 .25 acres per unit (48 units maximum) with 62.5% to remain in a 4 STAFF REPORT GPA 96-1, C/Z 96-7, VESTING TT 25296 REVISION, VESTING TT 28575 JUNE 3, 1997 natural or renaturalized state. This area is proposed for 48 lots and 62.5% natural terrain and is therefore in compliance. The average slope of the 57-acre hillside area of VTT 28575 falls between 26-30% requiring 1 .66 acres per unit (34 unit maximum) and 77.5% natural. This area is proposed for 20 units and 77.5% natural and is therefore in compliance. V. HIGHWAY 74 FRONTAGE: A previous council condition required view openings so that a block wall would not run the entire mile long frontage. The applicant has addressed this concern by designing a frontage treatment reflected throughout the project which incorporates hillside elements. No perimeter wall is proposed. Fencing is proposed that will blend with an earthen berm that will have re-created rock outcroppings included as high as 15 feet along with native plantings. This area between an interior road and Highway 74 is shown to be a minimum of 100 feet and will include an eight foot meandering sidewalk. VI. FINDINGS: A. FINDINGS FOR A TRACT MAP 1 . That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. Justification: The proposed maps are consistent with the designated residential land uses and contain significantly fewer units than permitted by the General Plan designations. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. Justification: The project's improvements are conditioned to follow all city Subdivision, Zoning Ordinance and design requirements. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. 5 STAFF REPORT GPA 96-1, C/Z 96-7, VESTING TT 25296 REVISION, VESTING TT 28575 JUNE 3, 1997 Justification: The site is mostly gentle sloping land, which is very suitable for the development proposed. Hillside property is proposed to meet the City's hillside criteria. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. Justification: The density proposed is less than one unit per acre which is less than any adjacent project and easily fits the physical capabilities of the site. 5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Justification: The project has been conditioned to comply with all Certified EIR mitigation measures as amended by the Second Addendum and will satisfy federal and state requirements in regards to any damage to wildlife and/or their habitat. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. Justification: The subdivision will be developed in concert with all applicable federal, state and local regulations to protect against any possible public health problem. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. Justification: All public easements, particularly those for flood control are provided for on the map. 6 STAFF REPORT GPA 96-1, C/Z 96-7, VESTING TT 25296 REVISION, VESTING TT 28575 JUNE 3, 1997 B. FINDINGS FOR CHANGE OF ZONE 1 . Zone changes are consistent with general plan and amendments proposed. VII. ENVIRONMENTAL: A second addendum to the final EIR SCH#91012061 has been prepared to analyze the project and it has been found that "there is no evidence that the project or its underlying circumstances have changed in a way that exposes new or more severe impacts than those reported in the Final EIR #91012061 . VIII. RECOMMENDATION: • 1 . Adopt findings. 2. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending to the council approval of subject vesting tentative tract maps, general plan amendment, zone change and Second Addendum to the previously Certified FEIR. IX. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice C. Project notebook and second addendum previously delivered D. Slope studies E. Letter dated 5-28-97 concerning cul-de-sac Prepared by V A and Phil Drell Phil Joy /tm 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A 457 ACRE REVISED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, NEW 62 ACRE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND PRE-ANNEXATION CHANGE OF ZONE AND SECOND ADDENDUM TO CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 395-LOT RESIDENTIAL COUNTRY CLUB WITH 18 HOLE GOLF COURSE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 74 BETWEEN INDIAN HILLS WAY AND THE SOUTHERN CITY LIMITS. CASE NOS. GPA 96-1 , C/Z 96-7, VESTING TT 25296 REVISION AND VESTING TT 28575 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 3rd day of June, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of WINMAR PALM DESERT, L.L.C., for the above described project; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 97-18," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project has been previously assessed and a Second Addendum to FEIR SCH#91012061 has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone and Vesting Tentative Tract Maps: 1 . That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development; 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development; 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems; 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 8. Proposed zone changes are consistent with general plan and amendments proposed; and 9. Land is physically suitable for proposed general plan amendments and has been analyzed as part of the subject addendum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That it hereby recommends approval of GPA 96-1 , C/Z 96-7, Vesting TT 25296 Revision, and Vesting TT 28575 to City Council, subject to conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 3rd day of June, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JAMES CATO FERGUSON, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. GPA 96-1, C/Z 96-7, VESTING TT 25296 REVISION AND VESTING TT 28575 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development as modified by the following conditions. 2. The approval of this vesting tentative map shall expire at the end of the same time period, and shall be subject to the same extensions, established by the Subdivision Ordinance for the expiration of the approval of a tentative map. 3. That the rights contained in the tentative vesting map shall expire if a final map is not approved prior to the expiration of the vesting tentative map as provided in condition 2 above. If the final map is approved then construction of a portion of said project shall commence within two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 4. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes as provided for vesting tentative tract maps pursuant to the California Subdivision Map Act. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Desert Sands Unified School District Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 6. That the setbacks for dwellings in this project shall be as shown on map exhibits. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7. That the approval for Vesting Tentative Tract 28575 shall be null and void unless said property is annexed to the City of Palm Desert. 8. All mitigation measures contained within FEIR as amended by the Second Addendum are incorporated herein by reference as conditions of this approval. 9. Project landscaping shall emphasize drought tolerant plant materials and irrigation technology to the greatest extent feasible. 10. The project shall be subject to all currently applicable fees including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, TUMF, and school mitigation fees. 11 . Provisions shall be made for convenient project access and on-site parking for all construction, service workers and other employees associated with the project. 12. Provisions for solid waste disposal shall include residential and commercial recycling where applicable. 13. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801 ) and the approved landscape plan. Department of Public Works: 1 . Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map or issuance of grading permits. 2. Drainage facilities shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works. In addition, proposed drainage facilities/improvements shall be subject to review and approval by the Coachella Valley Water District. 3. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Works and the Coachella Valley Water District. Said study will include, but not be limited to, the investigation of both upstream and downstream impacts with respect to existing and proposed conditions. 4. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map or issuance of precise grading permits. 5. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. All improvements within State Highway 74 right-of-way shall be in accordance with Caltrans standards. 6. Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the respective service districts with "as-built" plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to project final. 7. Improvement plans for all improvements, public and private, shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and Caltrans. The installation of such improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works Department/Caltrans and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. 8. Landscaping maintenance on State Highway 74 frontage and Indian Hills Way shall be provided through a property owners association. Applicant shall be responsible for executing a declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, which declaration shall be approved by the City of Palm Desert and recorded with the County Recorder. The declaration shall specify: (a) the applicant shall oversee the formation of a property owners association; (b) the property owners association shall be formed prior to the recordation of the final map; and © the aforementioned landscaping maintenance shall be the responsibility of the property owners association. 9. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans for all improvements within existing and proposed public rights-of-way to be approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior to recordation of final map. Such offsite improvements shall include, but not be limited to, curb and gutter, asphalt paving and concrete sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration and provisions for deceleration/acceleration 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. lanes at the main project entry. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the City of Palm Desert. 10. Waiver of access to State Highway 74 and Indian Hills Way except at approved locations shall be granted on the Final Map. 11 . In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 12. As required by Sections 26.32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and in accordance with the Circulation Network of the City's General Plan, dedication of half-street right-of-way at 67 feet on State Highway 74 and right-of-way sufficient to provide for a full street right-of-way of 60 feet on Carriage Trail shall be provided on the final map. 13. As required under Section 12.16 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, any existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground per each respective utility districts recommendation. If such undergrounding is determined to be unfeasible by the City and the respective utility districts, applicant shall agree to participate in any future utility undergrounding district. 14. Traffic safety striping on State Highway 74 shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works and Caltrans prior to the placement of any pavement markings. 15. Improvement of interior streets shall be as shown on the tentative tract map and shall be designed in accordance with Section 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Those areas to be designated as "Emergency Access Road" shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall and the Director of Public Works. 16. Complete tract maps shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. Permits for mass grading may be issued prior to the tract map submittal subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works. 17. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works and Caltrans, as applicable. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 18. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 19. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 20. Prior to the start of construction/issuance of permits for offsite improvements applicant shall submit a construction phasing plan for review and approval by Director of Public Works for all required offsite improvements for this project. 21 . Site access, with respect to size, location and number, shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works and Caltrans. 22. Provision for the continuation of any existing access rights which may be affected by this project shall be included as a part of the final map process. 23. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 12.12, Fugitive Dust Control. 24. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 25. Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with current and subsequent National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permits (Permit # CAS000002) for storm water discharges associated with construction activity. Riverside County Fire Marshal: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, NFPA Standards, CFC, and CBC and/or recognized fire protection standards. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per California Fire Code Sec. 10.401 . 2. A fire flow of 1 500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site. 7 PLANN!NG COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential gallon per minute flow of: a) 1500 gpm for single family dwelling; and b) 3000 gpm for clubhouse and maintenance buildings. The actual fire flow available from any one hydrant connected to any given water main shall be 1500 gpm for a two hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 2-1 /2" x 2-1 /2"), located not less than 25' nor more than: a) 200' from single family structure; and b) 150' from clubhouse and maintenance buildings. Distances shall cover all portions of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. Hydrants installed below 3000' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type. 5. Provide written certification from the appropriate water company having jurisdiction that hydrant(s) will be installed and will produce the required fire flow, or arrange for a field inspection by the Fire Department prior to scheduling for a final inspection. 6. The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separations, or built-in fire protection measures such as a fully fire sprinklered building. 7. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front of the building, not less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved Super hydrant. This applies to all buildings with 3000 square feet or more building area as measured by the building footprint, including overhangs which are sprinklered as per NFPA 13. The building area of additional floors is added in for a cumulative total square footage. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. Applies to clubhouse and maintenance buildings. 8. Install a fire alarm (water flow) as required by the Uniform Building Code Sec. 3803 for the fire sprinkler system(s). Install supervisory (tamper) alarms on all supply and control valves for sprinkler systems. 9. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes and shall be clearly marked by painting and/or signs as approved by the Fire Marshal. Painted fire lanes and/or signs shall be stenciled or posted every 30' with the following: a) No Parking Fire Lane - CFC 10.205 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 10. Install a fire alarm as required by the California Building Code and/or California Fire Code. Minimum requirement is UL central station monitoring of sprinkler systems per NFPA 71 and 72. Alarm plans are required for all UL central station monitored systems and systems where any interior devices are required or used. (CFC Sec. 14.103(a)). 11 . Install portable fire extinguishes per NFPA 10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Fire extinguishes must not be over 75' walking distance and/or 3000 sq. ft. of floor area. In addition to the above, a 40BC fire extinguisher is required for commercial kitchens. 12. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system if operating a commercial kitchen including, but not limited to, deep fat fryers, grills, charbroilers or other appliances which produce grease laden vapors or smoke. (NFPA 96, 17, 17A). 13. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 1 50' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn around (55' in industrial developments). Fountains or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall not exceed a 5' radius or 10' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive. 14. Whenever access into private is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a Knox Box over-ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special key located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 16' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 15. A dead end single access over 500' in length will require a secondary access, sprinklers or other mitigative measure approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstances shall a single dead end access over 1300 feet be accepted. 1 6. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or an emergency gated access into an adjoining development. 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17. Contact the fire department for a final inspection prior to occupancy. 18. All new residences/dwellings are required to have illuminated addresses meeting both City and Fire Department approval. Shake shingle roofs are no longer permitted in the cities of Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage or Palm Desert. 19. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors should contact the Fire Marshal's office for submittal requirements. 20. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. 21 . Other: Provide for Fire Marshal approval the following items: a. Emergency vehicle access plan for connection of dead end cul-de-sacs. b. Emergency vehicle egress plan for private shared driveways. c. Detail of all non paved cleared areas that are to be used as part of emergency access. 10 tr \ 4. ,... . �; i City of Palm Desert I7J•510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2576 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 FAX(619)341.7096 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. GPA 96-1, C/Z 96-7, VESTING TT 25296 REVISION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by WINMAR PALM DESERT L.L.C. for approval of a revised vesting tentative tract map to allow development of a 372 unit country club (Canyons at Bighorn) on 457 acres east of Highway 74, extending 5,700 feet south from Indian Hills Way:a general plan amendment and pre-annexation change of zone for 57 acres east of the tract to hillside planned residential; a general plan amendment to low density residential 3-5 du/ac and pre-annexation zone change to PR-5 for five acres south of the project on Highway 74; and a vesting tentative map for the later two parcels for 23 units APN 771-020-001, 771-040-002 and 004. To address the environmental issues relating to the overall project,the City of Palm Desert has caused to be prepared an expanded initial study and second addendum to the final environmental impact report for the Canyons at Bighorn SCH#91012061 in compliance with Section 21 166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 150631c0), Section 15162, and Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. On the basis of this City staff intents to report and will recommend that the Commission find that (1)the project is within the scope of the impacts covered by FEIR #91012061; (2) FEIR #91012061 adequately describes and addresses the environmental effects and feasible mitigation measures associated with the project; and (3) FEIR #91012061 and the Expanded Initial Study and Addendum are adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for the project for purposes of CEQA. These documents may be reviewed by interested person(s) at the offices of the City of Palm Desert. uJ i: = r /1,5, { The Govoos ! ■t BIGHORN I _. ca.-.....,u. iro..nvmr...... A r Pre-Annexation Zoning Exhibit SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 3, 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 at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post PHILIP DRELL, Secretary May 22. 1997 Palm Desert Planning Commission KATHRYN G. THOMPSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY RECEIVED MAY 2 9 1997 May 28, 1997 COOUNTY DEVELOP4EN T DEPARTA2NT CITY OF PAUA DESERT Mr. Phil Drell Director of Community Development City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 RE; The Canyons at Bighorn Dear Phil: Please confirm that you have received the package of material which represented Winmar's "good faith" efforts to purchase the Laliberte property. If you have the material, do you need more information? Following are two other issues for your information: I. Ironwood HOA and three of their members asked for a line-of-sight easement and offered to purchase the cul-de-sac land adjacent to The Canyons at Bighorn. On May 27, 1997 the matter was resolved. Solution: Mr. Frank Trane, a member of Ironwood an interested party to the issue agreed to compensate Winmar for the cul-de-sac land and Winmar agreed to a line-of- sight easement for the property owners impacted by the development. 2. Indian Hills Way: Current Condition: Indian Hills Way has been improved and dedicated to the eastern boundary of Indian Hills Condominiums. See Alternative #I. Winmar's Proposal Vacate the section of Indian Hills Way east of the entry to Indian Hills Condominiums so it would no longer be used for dumping, etc., and so it would not become a paved alley to nowhere. Winmar proposed to oversee the vacation process and make the changes illustrated on Alternative #2 at their cost. The area of the vacated roadway east of the entry to Indian Hills Condominiums would be conveyed to The Canyons and landscaped and maintained by The Canyons. 19700 Fairchild Road • Suite 170 • Irvine. CA 92612 • (714) 225-4700 • (714) 475-4434 Fax Current Status The Homeowners Association for Indian Hills Condominiums liked the proposal and wanted their attorney to review the documents. Winmar agreed and offered to pay $300 toward their attorney fees for the review. Their attorney, Dave Peters, initially took the position that they are in a great bargaining position with Winmar. See the enclosed correspondence between Peters and Mike Grant. Mr. Peters first suggested that they owned the right-of-way. When Winmar told him that it was a public street, he changed his position saying that they would then vacate it and deny us access. As of last Friday, Marian Adkins of Desert Resort Management, who is the manager for the association, told Winmar that they had clarified their instructions to Mr. Peters and let him know that Winmar and the HOA had already reached a general agreement. •Marian is reviewing the changes that Mr. Peters has recommended to the agreement which Winmar presented to the Board. She is on vacation until May 30 and did not expect to have reviewed the agreement until June 2 or 3. She conveyed to Winmar that the Board wanted further assurance on the following issues: a. Confirm that Winmar would replace their southern entry as shown on Alternative #2. b. Additional view analysis study. c. Would Winmar act as an advocate with the City to resurface Indian Hills Way? Winmar's Current Position Winmar can live with the street being vacated or not vacated. It is in both parties' best interest to vacate it and to landscape it as Winmar proposed. It appears that Marian Adkins has asserted herself and is moving towards a resolution. Winmar will contact her office May 30th to see if she is willing to write Winmar a short letter confirming that they are working together to reach a mutually acceptable resolution. If you need more information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very tru yours, /44, K hryn . Thompson Enclosures Alternative #2 Proposed Vacated R.O.W. Legend Pt,*IOW ....... .. ... .. .... .. ,I'41 — Proposed 45 R Knuckle Turnaround P111.0•041+.0 -- - Ht r \\-................e.„ Propond 6' Privacy Wall Lem Wall . ". Project Road — Propossd 25 ktin Landscaped Duffer / Gate -',111 — Existing Wall and Landacape to Rantoul 4;44,1) 7 \ Indian Hil Indian ls Condominiums Idian ' Hills Condominiums .. . .4- s.... .. . ..--....., ..-- --......-- L.P....." . .• ......., Hi , wasit111 ; m ,..... Jib. AWL 4. alleloiminak an ... /lb .... A#"11, I. I. I - ••••• Itr. ••,,,,,teridtps.=1§,NagrilliVirtillt P k Highway 74 4 .. .. .; .4 4 . •7 A.:1k _ ...._ . . ,:e06,_ v. • iv/ ., ...esar`_- .,. • •aillf ; . ... A, _..., . &dila Ira?'ral,.::'-- i..U.P2 ,4;; ...1:1 -1.-.: 40" i 4 t•••.. ,..r •. . . ... ,. _ -,_ 4142, •—.._T•- WI_. . . .., ___,..,...4,.... . ..:444, , , . ......--\ ,- ...... % —... ... .. . .....* I r stirovemee.IL-At!.or... .-- .,i4<...-. • or. ..--0.W.-,4 0 •....177.. ,•..."' - ;.;...r g.•,_ ..„...- \..—..—..—..-- --• ,,,,,:.. ,., ..,.p• --.. -,....0. 1:... ,- ., — ..-- •,-4 --- :e.o.......:.--1—• _..- i \ .._ .._ - 0.i.4.0."-i-'.. ---- . • •.f-,, - -• 1;11'1/4.,,... it'''.....,''' ..?•c - • 11711.. /T\ •..; . -- - . Noah..1i...Nii.,....,,...- .,....... T . ;.,i...."..--...,.......". • SOMA Landscape Saga ide Indian Hills Way R.O.W. Vacating Plan NOVEMBER I,IBPS V/VMAX PALM DESERT UK ROBERT LAMB HART trilLasma AI THE CANYONS AT BIGHORN 01.01 ARLICA1rr PLOOM0•arciariocra BIGHORN PALM MISFIT.CALIFORNIA H7.ARTLAND GROUP,NC ASL RNLI OINZIP10.1.7 MAMMAS entimutrital INAnnEse MIIIIIIIIIIMIMMIIIIIMIMIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIMMIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIdll Alternative #1 Base Case: Non-Vacated R.O.W. Legend 1.....1 A.m.. Gate i Indian Hills Condominiums 1li ,;. Indian Hills Condominiums Il \ 7b a _ iii0L is J�'��T/ i J lJ Hi`IIraY 74 r�{. i a y�y - • s .� _ • Proposed . - _R :?' `'n • ia. •.. ! y.y .... :1. WIC`. 1qq)) 4..-a. .• , :r r -'a:a CrashGa4 i .iL^ — •—..—..• . r __ . _.T /.. • • '4• /-N Nerd,\ All Indian Hills Way R.O.W. Vacating Plan NOVMBR I,INS NDI MAR PALM DESERT,LLC ROBERT LAMB HAIR .,.,r„ THE CANYONS AT BIGHORN ,APFl,— o,.„,.a.•Aac1alRTt BIGHORN PALM Ducat CALIIORNG HEARTLAND GROUP.INC ASL RHOIN SIRS D[y113.1...ewr Masson COw.ULR oo Emus . SAFECO RECEIVED PROPERTIESINC MAY 3 0 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT May 29, 1997 Mr. Philip Drell VIA AIRBORNE EXPRESS Director of Community Development CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260-2578 Re: The Canyons at BIGHORN Dear Mr. Drell: It has been a long and tumultuous road for the City and Winmar Palm Desert, LLC (a subsidiary of SAFECO Properties) to reach the point where the development of The Canyons at BIGHORN may be able to commence in the near future. We strongly believe that this new community will be a very positive addition to the City and for the reputation of SAFECO Properties. We agree with the findings and mitigation measures of the City's expanded initial study and second amendment to the final environmental report that support the approval for development of The Canyons at BIGHORN while appropriately protecting a breadth of important environmental issues. We appreciate the leadership role the City has taken in bringing the range of agencies and special interest groups together to achieve solutions to the critical issues each group has been concerned with. Sincerely, SAFECO PROPERTIES, INC. - . Eddie L. Hendrikson President • ELH/sse cc: Larry L. Olson ww/files/IIo/altamira/drell-4.doc 7CC Fl=Th;AVENUE SUITE 2600 GATEWAY TOWER.SEATTLE.WA 98104-5026(206)223-4500 FAX 223-4565 REPLY TO PO.BOX 21545.SEATTLE.WA 98111-3545 ,. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONS��,ANTS 343 South Scott Avenue•Tucson,Arizona 85701 (520)325-9194•FAX(520)325-2033 RECEEVED MAY 3 0 1997 May 29, 1997 COMMuN;TYDEVE oaMEL--r PaF1r„"�? CTY 075.• Mr. Phil Drell, Director of Community Development CITY OF PALM DESERT Community Development Department 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: The Canyons at BIGHORN - Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Dear Mr. Drell: My name is Steven W. Carothers, I have a Ph.D. in zoology, and I have worked on bighorn sheep issues since 1981 (resume enclosed). I am President of SWCA, Inc., Environmental Consultants, a 16-year-old, established, professional services company with nine regional offices in Arizona, Nevada, Texas, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico. We also provide a variety of ecological and endangered species consultation and management services in the state of California, especially in the Palm Desert area. For eight years we have periodically worked with the development community (Altamira, Westinghouse, the Ritz Carlton and Canyons at BIGHORN) in their dealings with the Bighorn Institute and associated Peninsular bighorn sheep issues. I have reviewed the proposed inventory of applicable revised and added mitigation measures to the FEW for the Canyons at BIGHORN project, including VTT 28575. The focus of my review was specifically directed to the potential effects of the proposed development on Peninsular bighorn sheep, including how the development may impact the activities of the Bighorn Institute. It is important to highlight that one of our bighorn sheep specialists, Dr. Paul Krausman (who is out of the country and cannot respond personally), has in the past several months been very closely involved with these bighorn sheep issues, including site visits at the Bighorn Institute and surrounding development area, with Mr. Jim De Forge and scientists with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The SWCA conclusionary fmdings, for which Dr. Krausman was the principal scientist, were that with CDFG's decision to maintain the existing lambing and other facilities of the Bighorn Institute in their present location and continue the current propagation efforts the mitigation measures recommended by the City's environmental consultant are fully adequate to protect the Bighorn Institute and the Peninsular bighorn sheep from any potential adverse impacts resulting from the development of the Canyons at BIGHORN. A 400-yard buffer area between the lambing pen and development and restricting development activity during the lambing season, is more than adequate to protect a viable lambing program, especially when the intent of the lambing operation is to eventually release the lambs into the wild. In addition, the GD\wy60\adminW y rell.l: ALBUQUERQUE • AUSTIN • DENVER • DURANGO • FLAGSTAFF • PHOENIX • RENO • SALT LAKE CITY • TUCSON jJ� c.)\ (y inc.ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS provision of the developer to fund $750,000 to the CDFG to support additional research and propagation of the sheep could prove critical to the success of the effort. In conclusion, having full knowledge of the situation, including the many deliberate attempts the Canyons at BIGHORN and other property owners have made to cooperate with Mr. DeForge, I and other knowledgeable scientists at SWCA enthusiastically recommend enactment of the City's mitigation recommendations. Sincerely, ' Steven W. Carothers, Ph.D.. President cc: Dr. Chuck Douglas Dr. Paul Krausman Dr. Jack Turner Enclosures G D\wp60\admin\Drel I.Iv JOHNSON & HAIGHT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 3755 S. HUNTERS RUN TUCSON, AZ 85730 Phone & FAX:(520)298-8418 May 29, 1997 Mr. Phil Drell, Director of Community Development CITY OF PALM DESERT Community Development Department 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: The Canyons at BIGHORN - Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Dear Mr. Drell: I have been involved in aridland ecosystem research in the North American Southwest for 45 years, working with a variety of plants and animals. My training in mammology includes graduate study under Dr. E. Lyndell Cockrum at the University of Arizona (1960) and Dr. E. Raymund Hall at the University of Kansas (1960-62), America's leading mammalogist at that time. I have also worked closely with Dr. Charles L. Douglas, one of Dr. Hall's leading students and National Park Service Bighorn sheep expert, and have followed the Palm Desert Bighorn sheep issue through the 1990s. Attached is a minivita outlining my credentials. I have reviewed the proposed inventory of applicable revised and added mitigation measures to the FEIR for The Canyons at BIGHORN project, including VTT 25296 and VTT 28575. The focus of my review was the effect of the proposed development on Peninsular Bighorn sheep, including the potential effects of this development on the Bighorn Institute. If the decision is to maintain the existing lambing and other facilities of the Bighorn Institute in their present location and continue the current propagation efforts, then the mitigation measures recommended by the City's environmental consultant are fully adequate to protect the Bighorn Institute and the Peninsular Bighorn sheep from any potential adverse impacts resulting from the development of The Canyons at BIGHORN. • glAwp6O\admin'4reu.Iec A 400-yard buffer area between the lambing pen and development, restricting development activity during the lambing season, is more than adequate to protect a viable lambing program, when the intent of the lambing operation is to subsequently release the lambs in the wild. In addition, the provision to fund $750,000 by the developer for additional research and propagation of the Bighorn sheep could prove to be critical to the success of the effort, given the otherwise scarcity of funds. Sincerely, 1/1 R. Roy Jo on, h.D. Senior Ecologist cc: Dr. Chuck Douglas Enclosures GD\wp$O\adminkirell.let , , ... '''A,' '''''-'..: :.%).'";''''''::' '':'\\ . APR 831-270-015 -010 'r;' APR831-710 ,.. �i _ _ �O C.V.WD. UNDEVELOPED +h •!. '•. f'rF� A c r M A " 10. • STORM CNANNEl "+ ` 4 • TRACT N). 40d2 cTRACT ND. �)Od0 A` '� $A:°-p: : ''10 ••:'.; �� 1. MB. it3/38 41 MB. 15ENTIAL t,l C" e ; +• 9 RESIDENTIAL W RESIDENTIAL t xdlii t '� PROPOSED 840 RESE t ,( r I_- BURIEi .80 t,.';, Ai GOLF /(, RESERVOIR — RESE' *e.tii• ' • ® '- ORRIDOR , ti ri — i•��. ' ` fyTr`1i}`! ! i qd �' APN771-040-0OU p \ •,7W v 1tt:" UNDEVELOPED 1� '+� 'i I fig' '1 �-�TRACT No:1300 .+ ! t F y i.! PROPOSED 4�` r— —MB. tJ8/24- 08i '_ ti.,,,, i / GOLF 4 \siollOAMMIIMIII.- / 'O tr'�5 Ys Ci`�T#•t Jr.`i:14 ri J. r1 •JRESDEMIIAI� .! �rAr + ��4 CORRIDOR :'. i t OUS �� • O� /r1 0 i, f ar ,; o• yti,�? , Liii �s�r� ���s-r�,�i - -r� -rA No + 4 ` ` rF�Ac i- 1�J ` ',l �'+ a r r , ( f PROPOSED 0 APR 771-030-008 •-'' It 1 4 IN.I � CO O IDOR 'RACTICE r�rl ,Y; i r: UNDEVELOPED PART .�.�— GI .�r� t`T r5t �v.F t. AREA ".'4 ' 44e,,,i f r ^ y !•Ni may. 1 *r r • ► r, A . S S if si.,y. i' �a l iv, r r. i r it-- ' TRACT ND. 6057 �— f r 'fk ;lriii T f :; > tr r r 'AN r '�.? r I \ MB. 70l30 35 1 r Al ` ^r"S% t; + '� RESIDENTIAL • �I 'i's' r t•7It }1 r +tR , , 1Ito� `rJ r. t` ar O ` A r OEXISTING ORRipoR OAF` F , '41 c'. ,r 1 ;ii A;c§ {1 1 SHEEP PEN \ ` s� '4P1 1 \ 'i r x ' ' a Cr ` 400' YARD .� \ t C \C BUFFER /N �• 1' i, a t,, M O/B!C £S p R! �~ �Q SALES c i{ :' 1. S \ R S, a P A NOS CENTER u ( t r a��fRK Si, '�O R!L fR S p U �PR 4Y•�• PROpOS ` RS. 72/73 S, a 9M 4!N 3 a!G CORK��R O(F \ A.P.N. 771-04'J-008 11O R (� I UNDEVELOPED R _ �J r4/ac rcNoNrR `R \~\ 23 Y —__, \ j r� i7�2D1y� Vg \ ` -aft_ \�`\ �. 2 sr e! V MR4OTIOFrk - rl ' R A, SELZE. , EALY, HEMPHILL & Bt ;DEL LLP ;ik "' A REGISTERED LIMITED LIARDITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PAUL T.SELZER W.CURT EALY 69844 HIGHWAY 111,SUITE K EMILY PERRI HEMPHIIZ RANCHO MIRAGE,CALIFORNIA 92270 DIANE C.BLASDEL TELEPHONE(619)202-1290 FACSIMILE(619)202-1299 June 5, 1997 Douglas S. Phillips, Esq. Best, Best & Krieger 39-700 Bob Hope Drive, Suite 312 Rancho Mirage, California 92270 Re: City of Palm Desert's Approval of The Canyons at Bighorn Dear Doug: As you are aware, our office has been retained by Mr. Laliberte and Mr. Pascucci to represent and protect their rights and interests in the real property they own which is contiguous to the proposed development,by Winmar Palm Desert, LLC. As you are also aware, our clients' property is totally engulfed within the 400 yard Bighorn Institute buffer which has been imposed upon the project. Due to the imposition of this buffer, our clients are being deprived of all economically viable uses of their property; an action which constitutes a regulatory taking without compensation. So that we may advise our clients as to their options for recourse against the various entities and agencies involved in this project, and in light of the previous litigation by and between the parties in 1992 over this same issue, we would appreciate being advised, in writing, as to the administrative remedies within the City of Palm Desert which are available to our clients. Specifically, we are interested in ascertaining if there are any administrative procedures within the City of Palm Desert for appealing the imposition of the 400 yard buffer which must be exhausted prior to seeking judicial intervention. In addition, I would appreciate being provided with copies of the settlement agreements entered into by and between the City of Palm Desert and The Bighorn Institute, and by and between the City of Palm Desert and Jim Hayhoe's company, in connection with the lawsuits filed by the various parties back in 1992. If you require a Public Records Request, please advise and I will tender same in writing to the City Clerk. As always, I look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, trijit..C.. •\IP A Diane C. Blas el Selzer, Ealy, Hemphill & Blasdel, LLP DCB/ls cc: Guy Laliberte Del Gagnon DCB63694:6/V97 Ye'-(11 1"N - . . -� � OWoe Pam Deser �; 09`� 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346.0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. GPA 96-1, C/Z 96-7, REVISED VESTING TT 25296 AND VESTING TT 28575 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by WINMAR PALM DESERT L.L.C. for approval of a 457 acre revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map, new 62 acre Vesting Tentative Tract Map, General Plan Amendment and Pre-Annexation Change of Zone and Second Addendum to Certified Final Environmental Impact to allow the development of a 395-lot residential country club with 18 hole golf course generally located on the east side of Highway 74 between Indian 1 Hills Way and the southern City limits. APN 771-020-001, 771-040-002 and 004. To address the environmental issues relating to the overall project, the City of Palm Desert has caused to be prepared an expanded initial study and second addendum to the final environmental impact report for the Canyons at Bighorn SCH #91012061 in compliance with Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 15063(c)(7), Section 15162, and Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. On the basis of this City staff intends to report and will recommend that the Commission find that (1) the project is within the scope of the impacts covered by FEIR #91012061; (2) FEIR #91012061 adequately describes and addresses the environmental effects and feasible mitigation measures associated with the project; and (3) FEIR #91012061 and the Expanded Initial Study and Addendum are adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for the project for purposes of CEQA. These documents may be reviewed by interested person(s) at the offices of the City of Palm Desert. . . L. �j,n.wtrtit v ...j -... ,/, ..-\`'. i 1 `spy // ;. S,\,�• The cmnynnr P'f l it BIGHORN er.r ran:... T1 d is{'rt: rw. Arm*....»......, ;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 at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk I."... 1, 1 qq7 City of Palm Desert. Califnrnia 1:0ANT OF ryF /= == m United States Department of the Interior ortiriM FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ;p _ ygR a9 Ecological Services JI' 6 1997 " Carlsbad Field Office 2730 Loker Avenue West 60ibiLigrr �0+''���`�� '�•V;;::;N; Carlsbad, California 92008 Gil OF PA_I J;;;;_ ' June 3, 1997 Mr. Phil Drell Director of Community Development City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 FAX (760)341-7098 Subject: Expanded Initial Study and Second Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Canyons at Bighorn Project, Riverside County. Dr. Mr. Drell: This letter responds to your legal notice, dated May 22, 1997, and the above captioned documents. At issue are the effects of the proposed project on desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), listed as a threatened species by the Federal government, and Peninsular population for the big horn sheep (Ovis canadensis), proposed for Federal listing as an endangered species. Under the auspices of the Endangered Species Act (the ACT) of 1973, as amended, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) takes this opportunity to provide guidance to the City so that the take prohibitions under section 9 and authorization of incidental take under sections 7 or 10(a) of the Act are compiled with as they pertain the City's review of the proposed project. The Service understands that the biological information used in the Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project is now several years old especially as it relates to big horn sheep and desert tortoises. The project site occurs within the historic range of the desert tortoise and several incidental sightings over the years establish that a wild population occurs in the area. To gain current information for this area, a brief survey was conducted recently by Dr. Jeffrey Lovich on a portion of the project site. That includes the"buffer zone" established for big horn sheep. The brief survey focused on the wash area in the southern and easten portions of the property, which supports the highest quality habitat on-site. However, the western and northern portions of the site not surveyed also provide suitable, but somewhat lower quality habitat (A. Davenport, J. Lovich, per.comm.). Different sized, currently active burrows found in the recent study in the adjacent "buffer.zone" indicates that a small population inhabits the general area. Because there are several animals and they have relatively large territorial requirements, it is likely the desert tortoise could not persist in the"buffer zone" alone or in the wash farther south because habitat extent and quality declines upstream of the project site. Mr. Phil Drell -2- June 3, 1997 Though more thorough desert tortoise survey may shed light on the number of animals and extent of habitat use on the project site, available information indicates that loss of occupied habitat and the desert tortoise population could result from project construction. Accordingly, we recommended that the City adopt measures to mitigate adverse effects to a point of insignificance by requiring the developer to obtain incidental take authorization from the Service as a condition of any approval of the proposed project. Incidental take could be authorized under either section 7, through consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or through the Service under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. The Service has not been engaged in the on-going discussions on big horn sheep with the City, California Department of Fish and Game, Bighorn Institute, and the permit applicant and, because of the short time frame of this notice, has not had an opportunity to review all the available information. Once we have reviewed all the information, we might submit additional comments. However, the Service is concerned about effects of the proposed project on bighorn sheep and to the extent that additional time is necessary or allotted by the City to reach agreement with involved parties, we offer our assistance to help resolve any remaining issues. We are especially concerned that decisions not be based on outdated information concerning the use of habitat by sheep in the vicinity of the proposed project. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the project proposal and are available to provide additional assistance. Please, contact Ken Corey or Pete Sorensen, of my staff, if you have any questions on this matter. Sincerely, j&uid. Gail C. Kobetich Field Supervisor cc: Mr. Curt Tauscher CA Department of Fish& Game 330 Golden Shore Suite 50 FAX: (562)590-5871 Ms. Andi Culbertson cc: Mr. Jim DeForge Culbertson, Adams& Associates Bighorn Institute 85 Argonaut, Suite 220 P.O. Box 262 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Palm Desert, CA 92261 FAX: (714)581-3599 FAX: (619)340-3987 T1T p ���� DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY a ` RECEIVED LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.0 BOX 532711 LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90053-2325 .i UN _ 4 1997 June 2, 1997 REPLY TO `vUIt MUNITY DEVELAPMENT DEPART;e{EN1 ATTENTION OF: CITY OF PALM GE5_RT Office of the Chief Regulatory Branch Winmar Palm Desert, LLC Attn: Larry Olsen 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2600 Seattle, Washington 98104 Heartland 4650 Columbia Center 701 Fifth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Gentlemen: Reference is made to our letter dated December 10, 1996 regarding the Canyons at Bighorn project and the Corps' nationwide 26 permit that was extended until January 21, 1998 (Permit No. 97-00020-RRS). Reference is also made to a telephone conversation with Mrs. Kathryn Thompson, your consultant, and Mr. Robert Smith of our staff on May 30, 1997 and a subsequent telephone conversation between Mr. Mark Durham and Mr. Smith of the Corps and Mr. Pete Sorenson of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on May 30, 1997. Based on the above the Corps has been notified by Mr. Pete Sorenson and Mrs. Thompson that a desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), Federally-listed as threatened, was found in or near Dead Indian Creek within the project buffer area. In addition, Mrs. Thompson has requested that the Corps initiate a Section 7 consultation with the Service in order to obtain an Incidental Take Statement for the tortoise. Based on the above the Corps has determined that your request to start a Section 7 consultation is not applicable and you shall have to secure Section l0a authorization from the Service under the Endangered Species Act for the take of the desert tortoise. Currently, your nationwide permit extended until January 21, 1997 is valid, but the Corps may need to revise the special conditions due to project and mitigation changes negotiated with the California Department of Fish and Game under the 1601 agreement and the revised Initial Study with the City of Palm Desert. If you secure Section l0a authorization from the Service prior to January 21, 1998 please submit written evidence to our office and we will modify the special conditions to account for these changes mentioned above. If you believe that you cannot secure Section l0a authorization under the Endangered Species Act until after January 21, 1998 and/or you cannot complete the authorized work prior to January 21, 1998 then you would need to secure Individual Permit authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The currently proposed project may require that you apply for an Individual Permit application and we have enclosed an application package for your use if you decide to apply for an Individual Permit. If Individual Permit processing ensues, we would initiate Section 7 consultation with the Service. -2- If you have any questions, please contact Robert R. Smith of my staff at (213) 452-3419. Please refer to this letter and 97-00020-RRS in your reply. Sincerely, f ir? //, Richard J. Schubel Chief, Regulatory Branch Enclosure(s) Copy Furnished: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Attn: Pete Sorenson/Martin Kinney 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 Calif. Department of Fish and Game Attn: Curt Taucher/Kevin Brennan Marine Resources Division Southern Operations 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 Long Beach, CA 90802 City of Palm Desert Community Development Department Attn: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 VI. INVENTORY OF APPLICABLE REVISED MITIGATION MEASURES The resolution of findings for the 1991 FEIR listed all mitigation measures, and this resolution is included in its entirety in Appendix E. Some of these measures need to change in order to insure that the measure itself properly applies to the project as changed, and is still necessary. Additional mitigation measures are also imposed on this new project. Furthermore, in some cases, adopted 1991 mitigation measures needed to be updated. Only these added or revised mitigation measures are shown below. The resolution for the project will contain all mitigation measures. In order to distinguish the mitigation measures properly, added mitigation measures will b e given a sub-numbering system, i.e., Mitigation Measure 1.1. This will retain the measure in the appropriate topical area. Revised mitigation measures will be identified by their original number from the 1991 FEIR resolution. Again, only those added or changed measures are shown. These new measures and the 1991 measures completely supersede the 1992 approval. Earth Resources 2.1 (New) No parking, vehicle maintenance, or storage for construction related activities is permitted in the 400-yard buffer area under any circumstances. Drainage/Hydrology 5. (Revised) Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that increased runoff from development is either retained on site or adequately disposed of. Biological Resources 13. (Revised) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall deposit with the City an amount equal to the cost of a chain link or equivalent fence five feet high with two feet buried along the perimeter of the 400-yard buffer, as shown on VTT 25296. Within Dead Indian Creek, the fence shall be a rail type fence with screening or mesh installed at the lower part of the fence to prevent the travel of domestic animals towards the buffer without interfering with the drainage function of Dead Indian Creek. The fence shall be 25 installed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of use and occupancy. The fence shall have signs posted every 10 yards and drafted for easy reading which state: "This fence protects environmentally sensitive areas. No entry for any reason is permitted. For information, contact the City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development at (619) 346-0611" A minimum of three foot high perimeter block walls with two feet of metal grille or wrought iron shall replace the fence along any interface between a residential lot and the 400-yard buffer. Along the fence, except within Dead Indian Creek, the developer may install plantings from a DFG-approved plant list as presented in the 1603 agreement. These plantings shall be installed in developer's property and not within the 400-yard buffer. The fence will be maintained in good condition in perpetuity. 13.1 (New) Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of use and occupancy, the developer shal l submit to the City of Palm Desert a set of C,C&R's for the development which shall include the following provisions: a. That no domestic dogs shall be permitted south of Dead Indian Creek. This restriction shall inure to the benefit of the Bighorn Institute so long as it exists. b. That residents will be alerted to the presence of a sensitive environmental feature, the Bighorn Institute so long as it exists, and that its operations are essential to the bighorn sheep resources in the Santa Rosa Mountains. 13.2 (New) Prior to the issuance of the first building pan for development in these Y P subdivisions, the property owner shall deliver an offer of dedication to the California Department of Fish and Game or its public agency designee for the 400-yard buffer area within its ownership. The offer shall be in perpetuity. The designee will most likely be the Bureau of Land Management. 13.3 (New) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for VTT 25296 or any access to VTT 28575 for grading of the estate lots or golf course in VTT 28575, the developer agrees to enter into an agreement with the City of Palm Desert to pay to the City for transmittal to the California Department of Fish and Game $750,000 over a five year period to the Wildlife Preservation Account of the Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) to be specifically earmarked for recovery and monitoring of Peninsular Bighorn sheep. This fee shall be paid to the City for the benefit of DFG due to DFG's position as the agency for this public trust resource. The fees are to be allocated over a five year period and are payable annually. The City agrees to execute an agreemen t with the developer for the benefit of this DFG account setting forth the mechanism to 26 collect this fee and remit it to CDFG within 30 days of collection. The first payment is due prior to the issuance of the first grading permit for any part of the project. Subsequent payments will be due annually thereafter on the anniversary date of the first payment. No fees or agreement shall be owed if there is any litigation by any public agency et against the City of Palm Desert challenging this approval. 17. (Revised) This mitigation measure is being retained. A construction fence shall be installed inside the 50-foot grading disturbance area and the corner of the Laliberte property to prevent desert tortoise travel onto the site during construction. 18. (Revised) Portion(d) of this measure is deleted in favor of the more specific and restrictiv e language of new Mitigation Measure # 13.1. Subsection (h) is hereby revised: (h) Pond banks shall be concrete or lined to eliminate insect breeding habitat. Subsection (1) is hereby added: (1) A monitoring plan for City use in enforcing the provisions of this mitigation measure shall be generated by the developer and submitted prior to final construction of the golf course. 19. (Revised) This mitigation measure has been satisfied and is hereby deleted. 20. (Revised) A buffer measuring 400-yards from all existing pens at Bighorn Institute and as depicted on Revised VTT 25296 will be established. This buffer area shall be free of all development or alteration with the exception of a temporary grading disturbance zone of not greater than 50 feet as measured from the outer boundary of the 400-yard buffer for the purpose of harmonizing grades and providing adequate drainage (to prevent ponding), all as shown on VTT 25296. The buffer area may only be entered outside of the lambing season as identified by DFG (February 1 to June 30). No grading disturbance shall be permitted inside the buffer within Dead Indian Creek unless specifically authorized by the California Department of Fish and Game and the Army Corps of Engineers. This zone shall be restored to a natural condition within 90 days of grading completion or the City of Palm Desert shall be entitled to stop grading on any portion of the development. All restoration must occur outside of the lambing season of February 1 through June 30 annually. The developer shall provide a re-designed map showing the rearrangement of development accommodating this buffer with 90 days of initial approval. Following the grading disturbance and restoration period inside the buffer, the buffer shall 27 • remain free and clear of all development and development-related alteration for so long as the buffer exists. Prior to the commencement of any pre-saturation or grading activities, the applicant shall install temporary construction fencing at the south boundary of the 50-foot grading disturbance area for the prevention of entry into the buffer. Prior to the commencement of any pre-saturation or grading activities, and if permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the tortoise within the buffer shall be equipped with a radio telemetry transmitter to ascertain its whereabouts. Any sightings outside of the buffer shall be reported to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the USGS tortoise representative. 21. (Revised) This measure will be revised to replace the words "Reservation Area" with "Buffer Area". 33. (Revised) This mitigation measure is deleted. 44. (Revised) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a grading phasing plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. Said plan shall indicate that no grading or related activities will occur within 1,000 feet of the Bighorn Institute property during lambing season (February 1 to June 30). This restriction shall not apply to landscaping or planting activities, nor irrigation installation provided that it is performed with hand tools or muffled mechanical digging devices, and not with wheeled machinery. 28 ?OF �� United States Department of the Interior RECEWED 3 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE J al 3 1997 4RCH 3 O° Ecological Services Carlsbad Field Office 2730 Loker Avenue West COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Carlsbad,California 92008 CfTY OF PAU' DESERT June 3, 1997 Mr. Phil Drell Director of Community Development City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 FAX (760)341-7098 Subject: Expanded Initial Study and Second Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Canyons at Bighorn Project, Riverside County. Dr. Mr. Drell: This letter responds to your legal notice, dated May 22, 1997, and the above captioned documents. At issue are the effects of the proposed project on desert tortoise(Gopherus agassizii), listed as a threatened species by the Federal government, and Peninsular population for the big horn sheep(Ovis canadensis), proposed for Federal listing as an endangered species. Under the auspices of the Endangered Species Act(the ACT)of 1973, as amended, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(Service)takes this opportunity to provide guidance to the City so that the take prohibitions under section 9 and authorization of incidental take under sections 7 or 10(a) of the Act are compiled with as they pertain the City's review of the proposed project. The Service understands that the biological information used in the Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project is now several years old especially as it relates to big horn sheep and desert tortoises. The project site occurs within the historic range of the desert tortoise and several incidental sightings over the years establish that a wild population occurs in the area. To gain current information for this area, a brief survey was conducted recently by Dr. Jeffrey Lovich on a portion of the project site. That includes the"buffer zone" established for big horn sheep. The brief survey focused on the wash area in the southern and easten portions of the property, which supports the highest quality habitat on-site. However, the western and northern portions of the site not surveyed also provide suitable, but somewhat lower quality habitat(A. Davenport, J. Lovich, per.comm.). Different sized, currently active burrows found in the recent study in the adjacent"buffer zone" indicates that a small population inhabits the general area. Because there are several animals and they have relatively large territorial requirements, it is likely the desert tortoise could not persist in the"buffer zone" alone or in the wash farther south because habitat extent and quality declines upstream of the project site. Mr. Phil Drell -2- June 3, 1997 Though more thorough desert tortoise survey may shed light on the number of animals and extent of habitat use on the project site, available information indicates that loss of occupied habitat and e tortoise population could result from project construction. Accordingly, we the desert , P P 81Y recommended that the City adopt measures to mitigate adverse effects to a point of insignificance by requiring the developer to obtain incidental take authorization from the Service as a condition of any approval of the proposed project. Incidental take could be authorized under either section 7, through consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or through the Service under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. The Service has not been engaged in the on-going discussions on big horn sheep with the City, California Department of Fish and Game, Bighorn Institute, and the permit applicant and, because of the short time frame of this notice, has not had an opportunity to review all the available information. Once we have reviewed all the information, we might submit additional comments. However, the Service is concerned about effects of the proposed project on bighorn sheep and to the extent that additional time is necessary or allotted by the City to reach agreement with involved parties, we offer our assistance to help resolve any remaining issues. We are especially concerned that decisions not be based on outdated information concerning the use of habitat by sheep in the vicinity of the proposed project. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the project proposal and are available to provide additional assistance. Please, contact Ken Corey or Pete Sorensen, of my staff, if you have any questions on this matter. Sincerely, j&t<1(1' Gail C. Kobetich Field Supervisor cc: Mr. Curt Tauscher CA Department of Fish& Game 330 Golden Shore Suite 50 FAX: (562)590-5871 Ms. Andi Culbertson cc: Mr. Tim DeForge Culbertson, Adams& Associates Bighorn Institute 85 Argonaut, Suite 220 P.O. Box 262 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Palm Desert, CA 92261 FAX (714)581-3599 FAX: (619)340-3987 RESPONSE TO LETTER DATED JUNE 2, 1997 FROM SIERRA CLUB, TAHQUITZ GROUP, SAN GORGONIO CHAPTER (This letter is being provided a written response even though comments were due on May 30. The responses have been presented in a discussion addressing issues raised.) (INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS IN LETTER, P.1 ) The commentor alleges that there are unanalyzed and unmitigated environmental impacts, and requests preparation of a Subsequent EIR. The City responds that this assertion is not correct. The mitigation for this project was originally established in connection with a comprehensive EIR certified in 1991 . The revised mitigation measures are specifically tailored to changed conditions and superior approaches to Study/Addendum impacts, and are presented beginning at p.25 of the Expanded InitialSt y/ P (hereinafter "IS/A"). While it is true that the Tahquitz Group of the Sierra Club presented comments on the project analyzed in the 1991 EIR, it is not true that this was a smaller project. In fact, the 1991 project proposed more units and fewer mitigation measures than the project as now presented for approval. This is addressed in the IS/A at p.5. As is explained later in the IS/A and later in this response, the additional land area involved has either already been the subject of an entitlement process (i.e. Suncreek) and associated environmental documentation, or has been the subject of undisputed environmental documentation prepared by another agency. There is nothing in CEQA which prevents the City's reliance on this documentation so long as it meets the requirements of CEQA Sec. 21166. INADEQUATE TIME TO REVIEW AND COMMENT Adequate time was provided for the review and comment on the environmental documentation. It is noteworthy that no review period for an Addendum or an Initial Study concluding that previous environmental documentation is adequate is required at all by law. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(c) states that an Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in the Final EIR. The City of Palm Desert, however, gave public notice of the availability of the IS/A and invited the public to review a copy at City offices. This is in excess of state law requirements. The IS/A is only 29 pages long, and this letter of comment was presented 10 days after public notice was published in the newspaper. The City staff also met with a representative of the Sierra Club on the project at the request of that representative. The City environmental consultant also contacted Ms. Joan Taylor at the suggestion of the City to engage in informal consultation on the project consistent with Section 15163(g) of the CEQA Guidelines. During that call, the consultant was advised that the representative did not wish to consult with private environmental consultants, but offered a comment that an EIR was required. No specific request to review the environmental documentation was made at that time. "THE CITY'S REVIEW IS OUTDATED AND PIECEMEALED" CEQA does not concern itself with the age of an environmental document of the type certified in 1991 , a Final EIR. The only question, as presented in Section 21 166 of the statute, is whether the document remains adequate. Courts interpreting CEQA have indicated that the project must present a "seriously different environmental picture" in order to justify repeating the CEQA process. The City has done exactly this type of review, as called for in CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, in connection with the subject IS/A. In fact, if the City finds that the changes in the project, underlying circumstances, or new information do not present impacts that are new or more severe, the City may not require another EIR or Negative Declaration. Furthermore, this environmental determination is not "piecemealed". The term "piecemealing" comes originally out of case law and refers to the deliberate division of a project into smaller parts in an effort to obscure the true impact of a project. It is not meant to refer to situations where more than one environmental document is used to explain and provide evidence for the presence or absence of impacts. "THE CITY'S USE OF AN ADDENDUM IS IMPROPER" The IS/A clearly describes the standard against which an Addendum is to be judged, as well as the process which CEQA dictates to reach such a conclusion. The IS/A, in "Analytical Approach" clearly lays out the procedure called for by state law so that the public and the decision makers may be made aware of the regulatory landscape for these types of determinations. The commentor, while asserting that the analytical process is inadequate and an EIR must be prepared, provides little specific insight as to why the commentor believes that impacts breach the Section 21 166 standard. The City provides this response, therefore, to the best of its ability in trying to understand the gravamen of the commentor's concerns. With respect to the asserted inadequacy of the project description, the City disagrees. The project description clearly identifies all of the properties involved and conducts a painstaking comparison of the differences between previous approvals and the project at hand. While the project now assembled as "The Canyons at Bighorn" is larger than the Altamira project in land area, it is also true that it is an aggregation of several properties which have been proposed for some type of development or man-made alteration in the past, supported by environmental documentation. With respect to the issue of asserted free-range bighorn habitat, this was a consideration on all of this property in connection with the 1991 EIR (p.99). The recent (1994) sightings of the wild sheep were not specifically on the property in question, but on a ridgeline above it. The sheep, a state listed threatened and fully protected species under state law, are entitled to great consideration. However, the a prior project in 1992 considered man-made alterations on the rocky bench and this project does as well. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) does not use the term "critical habitat" but it stands to reason that any habitat which is essential to the continued existence of the species can be considered "critical". The Department of Fish and Game did not characterize the referenced area as "critical habitat". This does not mean it is umimportant, and there is no dispute, as the commentor suggests, that this habitat plays some role in the activities of free-range bighorn sheep. However, it is important to note that the 1991 EIR already addressed this, as did the CVWD Negative Declaration (which was not challenged in its hearing; pers. comm. John Criste). The Addendum does not dispute any of these observations, and in the consultation, CDFG recommended the specific mitigation included in the Addendum and the City is accepting this without resistance. The relationship between the development of alluvium and the "take of habitat for an endangered species" is not understood. There are no endangered species on the property. With respect to the desert tortoise, the reason that its location is not disclosed to the public is to protect it. The tortoise observed is some distance from the edge of the buffer. The fences called for in the mitigation measures will prevent the tortoise form wandering into the development, either during grading or after. If the USFWS concurs, a radio transmitter will be affixed to the tortoise so that it can be monitored. This cannot be done at this time without the USFWS permission. The Addendum describes this information in detail. Although the distinction is somewhat irrelevant for CEQA purposes, the tortoise is a federally and state listed threatened - not endangered - species. The next part of the letter's comments deals with a familiar issue, the declining population of the wild bighorn sheep in the Santa Rosa Mountains. The Bighorn Institute (BHI) is referred to as a successful augmentation effort, and the IS/A does not dispute this. However, even BHI's efforts cannot keep up with the decline of the bighorn, which is caused by several factors. The 1991 EIR spends considerable time addressing this issue and found it a significant individual and cumulative effect, which was both mitigated and overridden in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. The further decline of the bighorn, especially in a time of relative decline in real estate development during the same period, is neither new nor unexpected. This project does not cause that decline, and the decline has occurred through no fault of this project. It is reported that 4 lambs were born at BHI this year, and that one has since died from blunt force trauma, presumably from another sheep in its pen. Considerable monitoring and funding efforts have been undertaken by CDFG to supplement these herds, and CDFG has reported that the $750,000 contributed by this project to CDFG will help considerably in the recovery of this species. The IS/A states that all maps are available at the City (p.8) and a full scale map showing the buffer was available as one of the exhibits. With respect to the comment that the development "wraps around" BHI, this is not an impact. BHI entered into an agreement with the prior property owner for a 400-yard buffer on this property, and this fact was referenced in the 1991 EIR. The 400 yard buffer - and development outside of it - was always a feature. In fact, the environmental consultant was advised by BHI during the consultation process that the 400 yard buffer imposition was compensated for a by permitting uncontested development on the other side of Highway 74 (pers. comm., Jim DeForge, Craig Williams). Therefore, this development and buffer arrangement is not unexpected. The difference between a 400 and 600 yard buffer merits discussion. The city imposed a 400-600 yard buffer in 1991 was as a result of the recommendations of the CDFG. This is stated int he condition (Mitigation Measure 20). Similarly, the City is again following the input of the CDFG for a buffer of 400 yards. This buffer size is amply documented in the 1991 EIR. In fact, there is substantial evidence in the EIR and since that time that 400 yards is all that is necessary. The EIR also supports no buffer, and buffers that were so large that existing development outside of the project would have to be removed in order to implement them, but again the City is electing to comply with the recommendation of the CDFG. The CDFG recommendation is critically important because that agency is the guardian of the public trust resource - the sheep. It is the City's position that the CDFG input on this recommendation represents the best evidence. Even in 1991 CDFG stated "a minimum of 400 yards" for the buffer. Furthermore, there are numerous additional mitigation measures not previously imposed by the City that are more stringent than those in the 1991 EIR and act to impose even greater burdens on the development. As just one example, it cannot be disputed that a restriction against the ownership of domestic animals in the proximity of the buffer inuring to the benefit of a private organization - BHI - for enforcement - is an extraordinary measure. "PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS VAGUE AND INADEQUATE" This has been responded to elsewhere. The funding referred to is not for habitat acquisition in this area. The buffer is clearly shown on the maps. These maps were available to the commentor at the meeting with the City. The analysis of bighorn habitat is not "vague and inconclusive". The definition of "habitat" is one of varying degrees, and CDFG has never characterized this habitat as critical. In fact, as was documented in the 1991 EIR, this area was not considered habitat for bighorn sheep at all at the time BHI was established and if it had been, the BHI facility could not have been established. Nonetheless, the sheep can travel, and r - are not static. This has not been asserted as lambing habitat, and CDFG has reviewed the IS/A and the mitigation measures and concurs in the analysis. Insofar as habitat acquisition is concerned, there are no known efforts to acquire any of the project property. The City acknowledges the support of this Sierra Club group as to any future land acquisitions eldewhere. [AT THIS POINT THE LETTER ENDS. IT WAS TRANSMITTED BY FAX AND THESE ARE ALL THE PAGES THE CITY RECEIVED] SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION It is clear that CEQA places a very high threshold for repeating the EIR process once it has been completed. The very fact that CEQA anticipates that there will be changes in a project, its underlying circumstances or circumstances where new information may come to light which was not known at the time that the initial EIR was certified as ample evidence that the Legislature intended to repeat the process only is a seriously different environmental picture were presented. Impacts must be new, more severe, and caused by the project. None of those thresholds is breached here. The decline of the bighorn was well documented at the time that the EIR was initially certified, Similarly, although desert tortoise was to found nor expected (even by USFWS at the time) on the property, the City nonetheless applied protective survey mitigation in the event any tortoises were later seen. Therefore, even the new discovery of this tortoise (which if present when surveys were done would have been too small to detect), is not "new information disclosing that impacts are new or more severe" than anticipated int he 1991 EIR. It is precisely because the mitigation was applied that the tortoise can be dealt with in this way. Reliance on a public agency opinion - particularly when it is that agency that is vested with the responsibility under state law for protecting the sheep as well as supervising the operations of BHI under an executed Memorandum of Understanding - is particularly probative and valuable, and entitled to considerable weight. Therefore, for all of the above reasons, and in light of the extensive CEQA process already undertaken by the City and CVWD on these issues, the City respectfully disagrees with the commentor's assertions believes that there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion that impacts are not new or more severe. 29 199 7 FROM SWCA, Dr. Ste ven Carothers RESPONSE TO LETTER DATED MAY that of a consultant This letter is acknowledged. It represents the positionbiologist the mitigation is adequate with respect to the sheep. It is noted for the record that Dr. Carothers was a respondent to the bighorn sheep questionnaire which was distributed by the City opinions consultant in order to obtain o inions on characteristics of bighorn sheep and any recommendations regarding buffer size. RESPONSE TO LETTER DATED MAY 29,1997 FROM DR. ROY JOHNSON This letter is acknowledged and represents the opinion of the consultant biologist that the mitigation is adequate with respect to the sheep. RESPONSE TO LETTER DATED MAY 29, 1997 FROM EDDIE HENDRIKSON, SAFECO This letter is ackowledged. It represents the agreement of the applicant to accept all mitigation measures. RESPONSE TO LETTER DATED MAY 30, 1997 FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME This letter is acknowledged and the revisions to the mitigation measures are accepted. Of particular note is the CDFG conclusion as Responsible Agency that the impacts have been reduced to a level of less than significant. FAX COVER SHEET Monday, June 02, 1997 02:06:44 PM To; City of Palm Desert- Attention: Planning Commission Fax#: 340-0574 From. Fax: 6 pages and a cover page. ,C —Note: - Please deliver a copy of this to the Planning Commission immediately. Please deliver a copy to Buford Crites as well. . e//7 Sierra Club San Gorgonio Chapter Serving Riverside and San Bernardino Counties 568 N.Mountain View Ave., Suite 130 Tahquitz Group • Los Serranos Group San Bernardino, CA 92401 San Bernardino Mtns. Group • Mojave Group (909)381-5015 Moreno Valley Group Please reply to : 1800 S. Sunrise Way Palm Springs , CA 92264 June 1, 1997 Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Palm Desert, CA 92260 BY FAX TRANSMISSION TO 340-0574 ON 6/2/97 HAND DELIVERED 6/3/97 Re : Canyons at Bighorn Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: This is a slightly revised version of the letter that was faxed to the City yesterday. The sense of the letter is the same, but it is corrected for typographic and syntax errors . I am writing for the Tahquitz Group of the Sierra Club to request a continuance of the hearing for the above referenced project and to request that the City undertake the preparation of a Subsequent EIR to address the unanalyzed and unmitigated environmental effects of this project . The Tahquitz Group has submitted letters and testimony on a smaller version of this project, the Altimira development, in 1991 . Recently, when it became apparent that a new and changed project was on the horizon we wrote the City urging full environmental review of this matter. Ten days ago we were notified by City staff that the matter was going to hearing June 3 . We went to the City to pick up the environmental documentation which is woefully inadequate as is the time allowed to review it. INADEQUATE TIME FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT Clearly, the time allowed for review of this project has been inadequate. But, based on our brief review of documentation provided by the City, we have very serious concerns about the adequacy of the environmental review and mitigation of the project which is before you now. The City and the public do not have adequate information and analysis on this project and its pote, . (.41h)..t‘t, �.: Printed on Recycled Paper. ...To explore,enjoy and preserve the nation's forests,waters,wildlife, and wilderness... .` impacts to Peninsular bighorn sheep and other species . THE CITY ' S REVIEW IS OUTDATED AND PIECEMEALED The environmental review is also outdated and piecemealed because it has spanned 8 years and multiple documents , most of which have been negative declarations dealing with only a fraction of the project in question and which fail to address impacts of the project taken as a whole . Without adequate environmental review and adequate time IfW for the public and decision makers to review and comment , approval of this project would be inconsistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . THE CITY ' S USE OF AN ADDENDUM IS IMPROPER The initial study fails to justify the use of an addendum to the former EIR as a legally adequate process for reviewing the impacts of the Canyons at Bighorn. In our earlier communique to the City, Sierra Club asked for the preparation of a Supplemental EIR. At the time we did not realize the magnitude of the changes to the original Altimira project that were embodied in Canyons at Bighorn, and we now believe that the project merits preparation of a Subsequent EIR. An Addendum may only be used when there no substantial changes proposed to the project which require major revisions of an EIR or when no substantial changes to the environment have occurred or when no new information, not known or foreseeable at the time , has become available . The Canyons at the Bighorn meets none of these criteria . Although the project description is woefully inadequate as set forth below, it is now evident that the increase in project size alone would trigger the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. The only project for which the City undertook an in depth analysis of potential impacts to the bighorn sheep pens at the Bighorn Institute (BI ) was Altimira, at 334 acres . Now the Canyons at Bighorn proposes a project more than 50% bigger , wrapping around the BI and affecting more of the pens . This is a substantial change to the project requiring major revisions to the former EIR. Although the project description and biological analysis sidestep the issue , this project clearly takes in Peninsular bighorn sheep habitat . The fact that the site contains habitat has been asserted by California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) (comment letter from CDFG re the Coachella Valley Water District Mitigated Negative Declaration) and there are documented sightings of wild sheep on the hillsides adjacent to the site. Moreover , we understand that the City is actively engaged in promoting acquisition of immediately contiguous hillside areas with federal funds earmarked for acquisition of Peninsular bighorn habitat . Apparently there is no dispute that this area is bighorn habitat , yet the Addendum fails to call out this crucial fact . v1 In spite of this , the Canyons at Bighorn proposes to develop 20 homesites on a hillside area of the project which has not been proposed for development before . Development on these hillsides , notsome the development inportion of the alluvium, of op a constitutesa take of habitat for an endangered species . The project also has potential impacts to endangered desert tortoise . The Addendum dismisses these potential impacts , asserting that the tortoise occur within the buffer . It fails to indicate where within the buffer . Close to the edge near development? What assurance is there that these tortoise will not range onto the proposed development area, or that they do not occur in that portion already? The Addendum either fails to answer these critical questions or alludes to past studies , without producing information on the protocols used, the dates of the studies or providing the studies themselves , as an EIR would. The bottom line is , the fact that the project may affect an endangered species immediately triggers the requirement for an EIR so there can be adequate review. In addition to containing substantial changes and affecting an endangered species , the project merits preparation of a Subsequent EIR on the basis of substantial changes in the environment and new information not available before . Scant information has been provided by the City as regards the status of Peninsular bighorn as it relates the proposed buffer between the project and the Bighorn Institute . The crux of the matter is that the continued existence of Peninsular bighorn is so tenuous that the Bighorn Institute ' s work of research, rehabilitation and augmentation of the wild herds is critical to the survival of the species over the short term. Clearly, preservation of this augmentation facility is even more critical today than it was 7 years ago, since the population of wild sheep has plummeted from 400 to 280 , a disastrous decline of an already low count . The Addendum fails to address this . A 400 yard buffer between the present project and the Institute ' s lambing facility is proposed in the Addendum; however , no maps are provided to enable one to determine the shape and extent of this buffer. It is our recollection that when the former , Altimira, project was approved, the buffer was not just the minimum 400 yards , but it expanded to 600 yards at the eastern portion of the buffer . Why has this mitigation been eroded? The failure to require feasible mitigation is improper under CEQA. The failure to require the mitigation required under the prior EIR triggers the need to prepare a Subsequent one . The impact to the BI pens is greatly exacerbated by the fact that this newly proposed project wraps around the BI and creates new and/or greater impacts to their pen facilities which have not ever been adequately analyzed. The cumulative impacts of this larger , more pervasive project on the activities of the BI need to be addressed. 3 Moreover, the project ' s cumulative impacts to wild sheep habitat have not been addressed. With the current plight of the sheep, and over 7 resort developments proposing to take bighorn habitat, the cumulative impacts are considerable, and require analysis by way of an EIR. PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS VAGUE AND INADEQUATE The Addendum is nearly useless from the standpoint of someone reading it and trying to get a clear and understandable description of what the project entails . There are no maps showing the site and its relationship to its components . There are no maps of the former and currently proposed buffer to the BI . As outlined above, the Addendum ' s discussion about the value of the site and adjacent hillsides as habitat for Peninsular bighorn sheep is vague and inconclusive. It is our understanding that the City is actively engaged in promoting acquisition of the area to the south of the BI as sheep habitat and has solicited federal funding earmarked for Peninsular Bighorn habitat to be used for this purpose. We applaud that effort . Additionally, Fish & Game have asserted that the area constitutes bighorn habitat . Wild sheep have been documented in the area. PROJECT MITIGATION IS INADEQUATE Since the Addendum' s information and analysis of impacts , particularly biological ones , is inadequate it is impossible to judge the adequacy of the mitigations proposed. As stated above, they vitiate the ones proposed for Altimira. Another grave concern is the nature of the mitigation offered p 17 which is contingent on the development not being challenged in court. This is not real mitigation; it is improper and illusory. Based on the above, it is clear that this is a substantially changed project occurring in substantially changed circumstances with new information available. Moreover, the mitigation proposed in the former EIR is not being required. None of this has been adequately addressed in the current environmental review. As stated before, a Subsequent EIR is needed to provide the public and the decision makers with enough information and sufficient opportunity to review and comment so as to be able to make an informed judgment on this very serious matter. Very truly yours , Joan Taylor, Conservation Chairman Tahquitz Group 9 FROM : DFG—REG. MGR. REGION 5 PHONE NO. : 310 590 5871 Jun. 02 1997 04:09PM P2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY It WILSON,Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Region 5 -� 330 Golden Shore,Suite 50 a Long Beach, California 90802 (562) 590-5113 May 30, 1997 RECEIVED Mr. Phil Drell JUN — 3 1997 City of Palm Desert Community Development coM�eu,� oEVEi_aP•�E,�r;CEPAFr;;1c"lr 73-510 Freed Waring Drive C[TYOE PALM CESczr Palm Desert, California 92260 Dear Mr. Drell: Expanded Initial Study and Second Addendum Final Environmental Impact Report, SCH 91012061 Revised Tentative Tract Map No. 28576 for"The Canyons at Bighorn" The Department of Fish and Game (Department) has received the Expanded Initial Study and Addendum for the "Canyons at Bighorn', proposed development and concurs with the mitigation measures provided. The Department, as a responsible agency and the public trustee for wildlife, has determined that potential significant impacts to wildlife have been mitigated to a level of less than significant. This determination is based upon the following rationale: - A 400-yard buffer will be established between the development and the Bighom Institute (BHI). - Abandonment of the settlement agreement rights of Safeco/Winmar to insist that the BHI pens be moved. - Payment of$750,000 through the City to the Department for captive breeding and augmentation of peninsular bighom sheep. A couple of minor issues that need further clarification: #13 -at the end of this section add: "The fence will be maintained in good condition in perpetuity! #13.2- Note: the 'designee"will most likely be the Bureau of Land Management. #13.3 -After the final sentence of paragraph one, add, 'Subsequent payments will be due annually thereafter on the anniversary date of the first payment.' Also: In the second paragraph of this section, delete 'or environmental/public interest group.' The $750,000 is part of the mitigation package for the project and should not be subject or conditional to possible litigation by special interest groups. FROM : DFG-REG. MGR. REGION 5 PHONE NO. : 310 590 5871 Jun. 02 1997 04: 10PM P3 Mr. Phil Drell May 30, 1997 Page Two #45 -This section may need some revision with respect to non-restricted activities. In conclusion, we believe that the project proponent has substantially mitigated potential impacts to wildlife resources to a level of less than significant. The Department appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the project and if you should have any questions. please contact Mr. Kevin Barry Brennan, at (619) 659-2641. Sincerely, ROXii.6(-- 1441— • Patricia Wolf Acting Regional Manager cc: Mr. Curt Taucher Ms. Lilia Martinez Department of Fish and Game Long Beach, California • Mr. Kevin Barry Brennan Department of Fish and Game • Idyllwild, California Ms. Stephanie Tom Mr. Steve Torres Department of Fish and Game • Sacramento, California Ms. Dee Sudduth Department of Fish and Game Jamul, California Mr. Pete Sorrenson U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad, California Mr. Robert Smith U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles, California FROM : Panasonic TAD/FAX PHONE NO. : Jun. 03 1997 07:40PM P1 RECEIVED TO: Planning Commission J U i! - 3 1997 Palm Desert Civic Center 73510 Fred Warring Drive Plam Desert, CA 92260 Fax 760-340-0574 FROM: George E.Maas 142 Wanish Pl. Palm Desert, CA 92260 SUBJECT: Proposed Development Project at Bighorn-The Canyons I would like to voice my approval for the proposed new development- The Canyons at Bighorn, I have been a resident of Palm Desert for over 10 years and I am very proud of the community. The proposed new development at bighorn would be a wonderful addition for our City. It will be a high value, low density development that blends in with it natural surroundings. • I urge you to approve the proposed project. Sincerely, mo_�-� George E.Maas JUN-01-1997 13:45 FROM DriROTHY R. WESTLUND TO 3400574 P.01 RECEIVED dv...„..1.„.m.e.e. ..a.e..:_x.) ......626z,,,,,z,:w Jn - ? 1997 coM,auN;r ?E'r.__C,PMF.:17(EPARTMEPIT ---- 7J-S7.0%., LC/ CITY OF PALM CE.zwT -_. 7 _ .___ 9az.zG o 74o -35<6-D�i/ ..Q.1.0--,44.. ----- 7� loa - �, - Os7�! �iro. -(1 _.L ' L(/ _.. _ ....._ _.__. . . . /..ov . -. - �. 9.zz�o -- - TI & :i�y IL - . ---- -- ..--"Pr---Aike..e..2.,ez.4„.-,,,..d7 .- - - _ . ....e_chz.ai ..." . 1.4=-‘...-2.--,,,....) . ,..._42........i A74--e6-4./ teraci‘46/42, ! . ... ......,Z........,0 kfLoet,217<,./ .... ....0.9.0,........e...1C../) . - � � `. am- �� •-- G ,. -- - _ _ ._ --e--- -1./2-1.-/0-eezr7 -- ---e;el___ Ge.G.a. . ___....._____ZZontro±164e_____‘2 ZZ2.."1.-2:X(---75-..e. ______ TOTAL P.01 r I-- APN 831 270-015 ,, ' `�r s n ,G L- / �r / N\ APA1 831-270-0� C.V.ND. UNDEVELOPED / (- • 0 STORM CHANNEL =r; C-r J�JI 1J. ; TRACT ND. 14082 aTRAC7 N0. 20080 'I'll:. .�. — M.B. DCWr 41 MB. 1$5/d0 d2 �� r. L. 1 9 RESIDENTIAL RESIDEYffIAL :, r ,. RESE W t � , ?, PROPOSED 840 ER x- �; ``' " ki GOLF RESERVOIR l;i_ BURIE• •80 Ji RESER •• ® ` t CORRIDOR t s APN 771-040-000 ' i. ` f`1111111111 , v UNDEVELOPED TRACT ND 13006 I" t r ,' PROPOSED :•x + /�- I~�I I —— , M.B. 106/24-30 q.,;, , ) GOLF " t .� ;; t i a t FlEs�ENTIAl a;"'r'� ,i =}�Q CORRIDOR /% LU OUS 2��// Of ,v / I I " • �J o L {„ =tiI <3 (----. ^ " Fir. isF'J \��s-f'NG rrAl rA ►l f .8 w �. „ =i' PROPOSED 1 a p MI OLF / A.PN 771 OEJ 90S .' aj • *;�',, CO''IDOR 'RACTICE UNDEVLOPED _ liot\ \,_,.._,,,V.:ri fi, AREA /., NO f A FART _ r► t I IT Io I1 EXISTING I SHEEP PEN ��� a p \ 400' YARD /No ,A ��� \ '_,-C O a c' �. �� BUFFER °B L S P --- SALES -� \ R. S. £ P l.' CENTER G i Ig. 34/11— if S S/` \ "'°B/�£R f • . PR �/ R.s. 773 V • OppSED c�f • \ I A.P.N 771tJ lrJ0Oct° e/G CORRIDOR GOLF- I UNDEVELOPED T �N MB� T� N�NTR � - �' Y �=_ \ 2 D a/ r, 44. ; 7- A, N - *41144.1 Sierra Club San Gorgonio Chapter Serving Riverside and San Bernardino Counties Tahquitz Group • Los Serranos Group San Bernardino Mtns. Group • Mojave Group Moreno Valley Group 568 N. Mountain View Ave., Suite 130 San Bernardino, CA 92401 (714)381-5015 June 16 , 1997 City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr Palm Desert , CA 92260 HAND DELIVERED Re : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of the Canyons at Bighorn Ladies and Gentlemen: I am writing as Conservation Chairman for the Tahquitz Group of the Sierra Club. We hereby request an appeal of the June 3 , 1997 Planning Commission approval of the Canyons at Bighorn Revised and Vested Tract 25296 and the underlying Addendum to the FEIR for Altimira. We also appeal the Commission ' s other actions approving Vesting TT 28575 , GPA 96-1 , C/Z 96-7 if such an appeal is appropriate at this time. We are hand delivering applicable fees for this appeal herewith. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation herein. Ver truly yours , 1 Joan Taylor, Con Al, ation Chairman Tahquitz Group `. a." •,.._ CW-i. '�ti,,,„,..• .. .To explore, enjoy and preserve the nation's forests,waters,wildlife, and wilderness... •.: Printed on Recycled Paper. • 3/91 f L' \ CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA b oti = '97 JU 17 AM 8 `�9 Z%'* -- 4'"� APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE I Ca A ( )'lMYVl.(,S S (( (Name of Co mittee/Commission) 'dam vkU �}\Q,IJI2( !T Zs- -i wort oti n 2�S-7T Case No(A Gib - I C Z 6'1 Meeting Date: (g 1 Name of Appellant Sr t-rA ath - TcJ'o1 L 7 e„,, r, “,, ‘.0 Address e2n RI !, 2 2 K� .,Gc „ ,,, ,,a-- ,,,,, hidne: 0 - I ( C I escri tion of Application: • <,t A of Ly�t? 4 C P P PP riP111,ile-t,_� G P.* �o (Dt `A see" C0 -Thad- Z awed � Z r-7 4 ( /I do,ct Q,,_ �k Pte L� � A-4+ry vu tit. r t4 i 0o 1�y' Ct l��- 1 , L 77 q(o - 4 Reason for Appeal: 'QO< ado ' ' `-Lt/Ylp j crime-ti4C r.. ACC ( .:/0` 111 �, � iy--�,� - a, c r '��,�.u►-t , I().&2� C _ csv`/ 'AC tth A Eta . sr - r�,l,k d Cct "('��4 .(,(/Ulc`K.'t.in<v �4 (,u/L({ lr 01/(P oci�c^ c . l Signature of Appellan vl. Q:1./ CSC) Date gil/9 (- CO-e-tiaS gtaey'7—a6216 CO-6 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY �} Date Appeal Filed: r-(1--'4 Fee Received: `$ 50. 0(-- Treasurer's Receipt #: 5C) Received by: 1\P -/ ( ,1') C(L 55I) Public Hearing Set For: Action taken by the City Council: Date: Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk MAGAZINEFNEWS c- se June 22, 1997 Mayor Richard Kelly City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mayor Kelly: I had planned to attend the coming Palm Desert City Council Meeting, June 26, to speak in favor of the BIGHORN Golf Club and its Tom Fazio championship golf course addition; but at the invitation of the French Government, I am leaving for France on June 23 for five days to observe several of their golf courses. May this letter substitute on my behalf. In the fourteen years that I've been publishing GOLF NEWS Magazine, no finer golf course real estatePi development in the Coachella Valley has emerged than BIGHORN. Insistence on quality, consistency, and integrity has made BIGHORN one of the most reputable golf club communities in the United States and beyond. The Tom Fazio course will even add to BIGHORN's and the City of Palm Desert's national and international reputation. In my many years of knowing the BIGHORN management staff, I keenly believe that their commitment to the community and the environment is ever present. I wholeheartedly favor the start and completion of the next phase of the BIGHORN community. Sincer y yours, an Poppers Publisher Post Office Box 1040 Rancho Mirage, California 92270 • (619)836-3700 • Fax(619)836-3703 • E-mail GOLF NEWS@aoLcom R • D • HUBBARD ENTERPRISES, INC. 73-405 EL PASEO, SUITE 32D PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA • 92260 (760) 773-6644 ;or, 2 2 2 (760) 341-7808 FAX June 25, 1997 Honorable Richard S. Kelly,Mayor City of Palm Desert 75-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 RE: THE CANYONS AT BR3HOI&N Dear Mayor Kelly: I had planned to attend the City Council meeting scheduled for June 26, 1997 to request that you approve The Canyons at Bighorn; however, a business meeting will prevent me from attending. Please accept this letter in my absence as if I were present. My wife and I have made a large investment in the construction of our home at The Mountains at Bighorn, and we have made a substantial investment as an owner of Bighorn Development, L.P. My goal as both a homeowner and investor is to make Bighorn the #1 community and golf facility in the entire Coachella Valley, and this will happen with the completion of The Canyons at Bighorn. The community at large is highly enthusiastic about our new local ownership and the completion of the project with an additional 18 holes of golf, as is reflected in our recent surge of sales. The commitment from Tom Fazio to design the new golf course has been a vital part of our plan. We assure you that this will be a special community, and a proud gateway to the City of Palm Desert from the south. We believe our team of world-class land planners has taken the challenge to provide the most environmentally sensitive plan possible, enhancing the landscape without diminishing the natural beauty. Our financial commitment along with that of Winmar/Safeco assures that the project is adequately capitalized to fulfill the desire for the highest quality possible. However, a time delay that would cause us not to be able to complete the golf course by January, 1998 would be a severe setback to the proiect. We love the desert and believe our actions demonstrate our personal commitment to be a part of the arts as well as the Bighorn Institute and other important facets of the community. We urge you,respectfully, to allow us to move forward to complete "OUR DREAM" by approving The Canyons at Bighorn on June 26, 1997. Sincerely, R.D. Hubbard cc: Mr. Ramon Diaz, City Manager Mr. Walter H. Snyder, Councilmember Mr. Buford Crites, Councilmember Mr. Robert A. Spiegel, Councilmember Ms. Jean Benson, Councilmember