HomeMy WebLinkAboutA. Case Nos. TT 34943, DA 02-01 Amdt. #3, ZOA 09-494 Res of Denial PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENIYING A
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34943 WITH ASSOCIATED CEQA
ADDENDUM TO THE SEIR FOR THE STONE EAGLE
PROJECT, THIRD AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT 02-01, AND A ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT TO REVISE THE HILLSIDE PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL ZONE RIDGELINE MAP, WHICH ALLOWS 7.7-
ACRES TO BE SUBDIVIDED INTO SIX (6) RESIDENTIAL
LOTS.
CASE NOS. TT 34949, DA 02-01 AMENDMMENT #3 AND ZOA 09-494
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 15th of December, 2009, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to
January 19 and February 16, 2010, to consider the request of EAGLE 6.5, LLC; 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 denial of Tentative Tract Map
34943, Development Agreement 02-01 Amendment #3, and ZOA 09-494:
1. That the proposed project is not consistent with the Hillside Planned
Residential Zone development standard of one dwelling unit per five acres of
land area.
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 Tentative Tract Map 34943, Development Agreement 02-01 Amendment
#3, and ZOA 09-494 (Ridgeline Map Revision) are hereby denied.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 16th day of February, 2010, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CONNOR LIMONT, Chairperson
ATTEST:
LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
TRB
January 19, 2010
Planning Commissioners
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Re: Stone Eagle TT 34943, DA 0201 #3, ZOA 09-494
Dear Planning Commissioners:
Please forgive me for not addressing my concerns earlier, however, due to no fault but
my own; I did not receive the staff report until yesterday. I also regret not being able to
attend the study session due to scheduling conflicts. As an owner of property adjacent to
Stone Eagle I am however, intimately familiar with the project and the developer's
methods.
In the past thirty years of real estate development, I have made hundreds of applications,
and reviewed several hundred more. Without question this application is the most
disingenuous I have ever encountered. While staff made a gallant attempt to support
this project and should receive a commendation for creativity, the staff report is
inaccurate and misleading. Please allow me this opportunity to explain.
When the original project was approved under the zoning created for its purpose the
Hillside Planned Residential Zoning: Policy 1 was as follows: "In order to maintain the
natural contours of the hillsides, developments shall be designed as to require minimal
grading and avoid a padding or staircase effect as a result of extensive cut and fill
slopes" EIR III-2. The developer was conditioned to avoid ridgelines and outcroppings
and minimize grading. One only has to look at what the developer produced immediately
adjacent to this application site. Not only did he completely obliterate outcroppings but
the stair casing is so prominent it looks like rice patties. Staff accepted insufficient
ambiguous drawings, as they have with this application, and either were unable or
unwilling to enforce the conditions.
The ridgeline map depicting the sites is of such poor quality it is hard to discern if it was
an aerial photograph. The detailed plan then switches to a topo only format, since an
aerial at that scale would be too revealing. To state that none of the outcroppings will be
disturbed is ludicrous. Staff determined that two pad heights are too high; two driveway
entrance radii are too small, drainage is not shown, cut slopes are too steep and onsite
retention is not shown. When the proposed conditions are incorporated in the design,
the disturbance will be monumental.
Email: bartlettc@aol.com
73-382 Salt Cedar Street
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Phone: 760.773.3035
Cell: 760.534.7007
TRB
The density argument is also weak. While the developer tries to distance himself from
the golf course, since he has left us with an environmental disaster in foreclosure. The
very same golf course is feeding the density absurdity. Please remember that he
deeded 392 acres into conservation as a condition of the initial project.
The bike path condition need not be a part of this application since it was conditioned on
the original project. Staff's attempt to add it as a benefit is false.
The findings are also unfounded. Protecting natural and scenic recourses while limiting
grading are not accomplished by less overall units, since the original number of units are
already graded. Adding six more home sites is five more than allowed.
The CEQA analysis is also flawed since the lead agency was Fish and Game, not the
City of Palm Desert. Furthermore, the conditions outlined in the analysis (3) c and d are
conditions that occur as evidenced by the Maintenance Agreement.
The subject property should be the "poster child" for ridges and outcroppings, the very
thing we are trying to preserve. The developer has already shown his idea of minimal
grading avoiding outcroppings and staircase effects by the existing pads that have
obliterated all of the land features. Friend of the Desert Mountains...1 don't think so.
Please do not send a "no" to the City Council, send a "Hell No!"
Sincerely,
Timothy R. Bartlett
a Palm Desert resident
Email: bartlettc@aol.com
73-382 Salt Cedar Street
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Phone: 760.773.3035
Cell: 760.534.7007