Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1214 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY - DECEMBER 14 , 1977 7 : 00 PM - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I . CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Berkey at 7 : 00 p .m. in the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall. II . PLEDGE - Commissioner Kelly III . ROLL CALL Present : Commissioner KELLY Commissioner KRYDER Commissioner READING Commissioner SNYDER Chairman BERKEY Others Present : Paul A. Williams - Director of Environmental Services Ralph Cipriani - Associate Planner Clyde Beebe - Acting City Engineer Kathy Shorey - Planning Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. MINUTES of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of November 29, 1977. Mr . Williams asked that the following corrections be made : Page 1 , last paragraph, add "procedures" after Public Hearing. Page 3, 3rd paragraph from top , after JACK CONLON, add "President of Sunrise Corp . " B. MINUTES of the special meeting of the Planning Commission of December 6, 1977. Mr . Williams asked that the following correction be made : Page 4, last paragraph of the Public Hearing section , delete "closed" and add "continued to December 14, 1977 at 7 : 00 p.m. " On a motion by Commissioner Reading, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, the minutes of the November 29, 1977 and December 6 , 1977, were approved as amended by a unanimous vote (5-0) . V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Williams noted that all written communications received would be covered under the public hearings. VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Berkey announced that prior to this meeting, the Com- mission had met in a Study Session for the purpose of clarifying the staff recommendations. No decisions were reached. Chairman Berkey then explained the Public Hearing procedures to those present . Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission December 14, 1977 Page Two VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . ) A. Continued Case No. GPA 02-77 (EIR) - The City of Palm Desert , Applicant . Consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the College of the Desert Area Specific Plan . Mr. Williams reviewed the case and noted late correspondence1 received from Mainiero, Smith and Assoc . representing the Palm De- sert Community Services District (Exhibit A) and a letter from the Palm Desert Property Owners Association (Exhibit B) . He then noted that all the information received from outside sources , the draft , & input received at this Public Hearing and the previous one would be forwarded with the Commissions recommendations to the City Council for their approval . Chairman Berkey asked Mr. Williams to review the changes that have been recommended by the Staff and Commission so that the people are aware of the changes . Mr. Williams noted that the main issue is the water problem on the north side that Mr . Robert Mainiero is present to speak to the Commission regarding this issue . Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing open and asked Mr. Mainiero to speak to the Commission . ROBERT MAINIERO, representing Mainiero, Smith and Assoc. Civil & Environmental Engineering firm, spoke represent- ing the Palm Desert Community Services District . Commissioner Kryder asked for some comment on the water pres- sure problem on the north side which was the main issue brought out at the December 6th meeting. Mr . Mainiero stated that the District is installing a pump control on San Pablo and improving the pumps on Portola. Also a new pump station will be installed near San Pablo and Alessandro. He indicated that these improvements would improve the existing water pressure problem. Commissioner Snyder asked if the Water District had a plan for completion of these proposed projects to give the people some kind of assurance that they would be done. Mr. Mainiero stated that some of the projects have al- ready been completed and that the problem has been ex- aggerated. He mentioned some commercial developments that have had a problem but that the problems were solved after consulting the Water District . Chairman Berkey noted that a plan or forecast would be help- ful to the Commission and that they would appreciate receiving such a plan from the Water District . The Commission thanked Mr. Mainiero for his time . CHARLES TRITT asked if there were any immediate plans for drainage in the area. Chairman Berkey noted that was a budgetary issue and that the City Council would be considering this in the spring of 1978 and that it was at the top of the list of financial matters. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission December 14, 1977 Page Three VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . ) A. Case No . GPA 02-77 (EIR) (Cont . ) KIGER BARTON, 44519 San Anselmo, stated that some landscaping is needed around the water tank at San Pablo. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any questions by the Commissioners. Being none, he declared the, Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Kelly stated in reference to the supplemental report of the December 6th meeting regarding the date groves. She suggested that they be extended from 40 acres to 72 acres as a pre- serve as suggested by the naturalist from the Riverside County Parks Dept // ?g Williams indicated that this would be added to the Miti- / atin"ff section on Open Space, page VII-V-1 . On a motion by Commissioner Snyder, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, the Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No . 314 certifying the final EIR as complete with the addition as stated; carried unanimously (5-0) . B. Continued Case No. GPA 02-77 - The City of Palm Desert , Applicant . Consideration of an amendment to the Palm Desert General Plan to include the provisions of the College of the Desert Area Specific Plan . tow Mr . Williams reviewed the staff report and covered the various changes recommended by staff as a result of the Neighborhood meetings and the Public Hearing of December 6 , 1977. Main points were : Neigh- borhood #1 - medium density instead of high density; Neighborhood #2 - proposed site for a civic center and park; Neighborhood #4 - keep med- ium density and delete the tot lot ; Neighborhood #5 - remain the same ; and Neighborhood #3 - delete the tot lot and the two parks , right-of- way lowered to 126 ft . from 144 on Monterey & bicycle path deleted along Whitewater. In addition the Whitewater Storm Channel could be used as an equestrian trail site unless it would be used for private use; the City would provide $3 million of the $7. 5 million needed for the plan ,- new developments would pay for 50 to 60% of the improvements needed; drainage improvements are a number 1 item and the City has already applied for grants; and, the possibility of El Paseo extended to Fair- haven to be 66 ft . wide not 100 ft . wide. Chairman Berkey asked if the Commissioners had any questions for Mr. Williams. Commissioner Kelly asked for the reasoning behind the deletion of the bike path. Mr. Williams stated that it is a dup- lication of the path planned for Magnesia Falls and that the wash is closed into Rancho Mirage . Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing open and asked if anyone wished to speak on the General Plan Amendment at this time . JOYCE MCALLISTER, 44-544 Monterey, presented a summary of further objections to the proposed 10 acre park (Exhibit C) . Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission December 14, 1977 Page Four VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . ) B. Case No. GPA 02-77 (Cont . ) ROSE HELBING, 73-430 Royal Palm Dr. , addressed the Commission and told of her concern for the need for ��T ,%idewalks . Her reasoning being that they help child- sol'� ' L5e+n develop more fully, both brainwise and physically. j ? KIGER BARTON, 44519 San Anselmo, commended the Plan- ning Commission and the Planning Department for there good job and courteous service . He asked whether the City Council could still act on the park, and if the citizens should still worry about its implementation . Commissioner Snyder stated that the Planning Commission makes a recommendation and then the City Council acts on it . THOMAS POWERS, 44670 San Antonio Circle, thanked the Commission and Mr . Williams for thinking of the people . ROBIN BARRET, 44393 Lingo Lane , stated that "constant vigil will take care of all the ramifications, hang in tight kids and we ' ll all go together . " Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission . On a motion by Commissioner Reading, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, it was moved to approve the Case No. GPA 02-77 with the noted additions and corrections . Commis- sioner Kelly asked that it be noted that she accepted all the reasons for the deletion of the park but that she felt one of the main reasons people move to the area is because of the open space and we all should keep in mind that land should be preserved for open space in the +err future . The motion was carried unanimously (5-0) . THERE WAS A BRIEF RECESS AT 8:10 P.M. THE MEETING WAS REODNVENED AT 8:20 P.M. VII . OLD BUSINESS - None VIII . NEW BUSINESS - None IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS A. Review of Cases acted on by the Design Review Board at their meeting of December 6 , 1977. Mr. Cipriani reviewed Case No . 63C and noted that the DRB' s main concerns were stated in Special Conditions No. 6 through 10. He then noted the revised plans and noted the changes that had been made. Commissioner Kryder asked the builder how the water problem issue was being handled. TED SESKEY, builder, noted that a ground material pAIDEVand a sealant would be used to prevent the water w l �rom seaping. 78 ommission noted there approval of the revised plans and Mr. Cipriani noted that the revised plans would also show handicapped parking spaces. On a motion by Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, it was moved that the actions of the DRB on December 6, 1977 be approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 316 ; carried unani- mously (5-0) . Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission December 14, 1977 Page Five X. DISCUSSION ITEMS Mr . Williams noted that a list of proposed zone changes would be presented at the Study Session in January. XI . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None XII . COMMENTS A. City Staff - None B. City Attorney - Not present C. Planning Commissioners Commissioner Snyder complimented the Staff on the extra effort made to complete the COD Area Specific Plan report that made it so acceptable . Chairman Berkey referred to the December 6th meeting and the remarks regarding outlying park sites . He noted that there is 300 acres of land by the dike held by the Bureau of Land Management and possibly it could be considered for a park and open space. He also asked that the future of Highwaylll be discussed at a future Study Session and that the Commission give serious consideration to the traffic on Highway 111 as is Indian Wells. He then suggested that the Commission have a representative from the State Highway Department talk at a Study Session and invite Gary Weidle of CVAG and Commissioners from adjoining cities to ;.attend. XIII . ADJOURNMENT On a motion by Commissioner Reading, seconded by Commissioner Kryder the meeting was adjourned at 8 : 30 p .m. ; carried unanimously (5-0) . PAUL A. WILLIAMS , Secretary ATTEST: GEORGE ERKEY, Chairm n /ks EXHIBIT A Mainiero, _Smith and Associates, Inc. Civil d Environmental Engineering Professional Plaza•Suite 3 2225 East Tahquitz-McCallum Way,Palm Springs,California 92262 Telephone (714) 327-8544 December 13 , 1977 i Mr. Paul Williams , Director Department of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane - Palm Desert , California 9226+0- Re: Request for Comments College of the Desert Area Specific Plan Dear Mr. Williams : _ This letter is in response to your request for comments on the College of the Desert Specific Plan and related Environmental Impact Report . We have reviewed the documents as they relate to the Palm Desert Community Services District . Please note the following : 1. In the area within the limits of the Palm Desert Community Services District we see no adverse impact different from that which would result from development in accordance with the existing zoning. If anything there appears to be a decrease in overall density. 2 . The District is currently making improvements to the water supply and distribution system to meet the current requirements of the subject area as well as the rest of the District. 3 . Future requirements will be met concurrently with new development lrrimarily at the expense of the new development. 4. The District is currently updating its master plan for water supply and distribution and will take into account the changes proposed by the Specific Plan should the plan be approved. Mr. Paul Williams , Director December 13 , 1977 Page Two 5 . We acknowledge that large quantities of water -. will be required for a golf course or for green- belt areas , which might be available from the Coachella Valley County Water District Cook Street Water Reclamation Plant . 6 . In the Draft Environmental Impact Report under Part III , Number 11, Utility Impacts , the gene— ration factor for water is low at 275 gallons per day per dwelling unit . A figure of 600 gallons per day per dwelling until is recommended (225 gal/cap/day x 2 . 68 cap/dwelling unit) . If this figure is used for water the resulting sewage would be ap-7roximately 300 gallons per day per dwelling unit as stated. If you have any questions regarding the above please feel free to contact us . We will be available at the Public Hearing on December 14, 1977 to answer any questions which may arise relative to the Palm Desert Community Services- District Water System. _ Very truly yours , MAINIERO, SMITH AND ASSOCIATES , INC-. RM/is cc: Stanley Sayles , President Palm Desert Community Services District r Mainiero, Smith and Associates,Inc. sional Plaza• Suite 3• 2r225 East Tahquitz-McCallum Way• Palm Springs,California 92262• Telephone (714) 327-8544 EXHIBIT B PALM DESERT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION PALM DESERT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION 73-833 EL PASEO PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 +�r..► TELEPHONE 346-2804 A Non-Profit Corporation 9 December 1977 Marty Bouman City I-Tanager City of Palm Desert 45--275 Pricklev pear Palm Desert , Ca. 92260 Dear Marty : We annreciate the opportunity to review the COD Snecific plan and Environmental Impact Renort . Our Growth Manaement Committee spent considerable time studying the elan and after review by the Palm Desert Property Owners Association Board of Directors we wish to submit our comments as outlined in the attachment . The Board was una-miously concerned with the cost and time frame concernin7- the execution of this plan. to We will follow the develonment of the plan with interest and would annreciate being kert informed of its incremental nrogress . Sincerely , u (7"eor7 greet GS -ks Presi ent EVALUATION Or THE PAL71 DESERT COLLEGE OF THE DESERT SPECI^IC PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The Palm Desert Property Owners Association has liven careful study and consideration to the subject plan and makes the follow- inq comments : 1. Support the plan subject to relatively minor modifications . 2 . We conp:ratulate the Palm Desert Department of ,z Environmental Services on the thoroughness and careful nrenaration of the PlAn and its Impact Report . 3. That we urge the City Council continue to make the details broadly available to the public and publicize hearings on the sub -ect to nermit citizen imnut . In sunportin7 the general direction of the Plan the PDPOA reserves the right to—question certain provisions , ask for more information and make alternative sug7,estions . We believe the no action be taken to implement the Plan until : 1. The flood problem has been resolved. 2 . The final drainage plan has been adopted. 3. A specific time-table of steps to be taken shall be nrepared with cost projection for each step and a forecast of where the funds shall come from. At the Citv' s request the I?DPOA will be happy to discuss , in detail , certain questions and reservations we hold. Again, let the committee emphasize that we believe the r_lan to be in the right direction and that step by step implementation over an extended neriod would be highly desirable . r t EXHIBIT C SU iv412CY Or eUrtinan :;ec. 14, 157. I think ,:e can su-,laarize the entire discussion of the proposed 10 acre Park in a few either-or sentences: I. Either the existing facilities are sufficient or they are not. II. If they are not, then either the proposed site is a wise choice or it is not. III. In eith,-r case, either the residents for who-a the p�k is >>ntended and by whom the burden of purchase en6 maintenance will be born, will decide... or they will not. _ I. Now, concerning the first anoint, I mentioned at last week's _neetirir` that I felt that an additional 10 acre neighborhood park in the proposed area would be superflous, and I stated my reasons for my opposition to it. (Exhibit B in the urinates.) The existing recreational facilities Co not have maximum use even at tho present time. A3:parently there are = more lost beer cans to be found there than lost baseballs. And let me underline the fact that the bulk of the land and population of Palm Desert is on the southside of Iiij hway 111; is in much greater need of a park; and I believe that the city already o..ns approximately 29 acres that would awake an excellent location for a park# i.;: the people so desired. II. Now, for the sake of argu..ient, let us assume that I am varong, and that the existing facilities are not sufficient, neither on the northside:or on the southside. Is the proposed site a wise c:oiee? I say no, and for the following reasons:, first of all, because of the traffic problem. In the COD Specific i•lan Report, Section IV - 5, it was recom:aended that a neighborhood park in the Palm Dell-palm Vista Flock should be given a lo.v priority because of access proble::le cue to he_;vy traffic problems on :ilonterey Ave, and 44th. Now, what about access problems at the proposed 10 acre site, with only 300 feet of front "ge on yZQnterey? Consider also the fd6t that ,;rnterey is to be extended to Interstate 10, thus makinf; it a ve4z :major thorour;nfcre, Connecting 10 to-iighviay 74 a^ well, thus turning, a neiirhborhood park with a f�:.mily atmosphere into a city park used m inly for non-residents. If this were not discouraging enough, add the fact thc;t the pro,aerty across from the ;:ronosed site, west of :,onterey, is zoned co.miercinl... The effects of furtler develoT)mont there on the proposed -p:sk ought to be obvious enough. Add to this the feet that there is no buffer none between the existing residences and. the proposec perk; the 24 hour proble,l of vandU--. i= and other cruses in an area l:.rgely unsupervisable - in the COD Sp. flan Report it was also stated that v;nd)lism has been "an especially troublesome problem at the P.-1A. Te.ert C'omnunity Park ail► '��i :and it is reasonable to expect that the difficulties will be compounded S -by ,n increase in recreation facilities". If the people do want another park, let the planning com"ission at least find a -site that would not be a catalyst to crime. Per.iaps-adja:ieent to the new City .tall...... That location, for one, at least i,as none of the aforementi�ed defects. 4o�isNgoingc?'iiedeccis t11)s insu ' i q-in, nyt ieek °antP,epOor�;�nttis stated that standards for park facilities "should reflect economic costs and nei ­Y.orhood preferences and should be considered as flexible in their application". Now, what is the people's preference? The 1-. �w1U:3 v;on o a .ads Ml {�f :Z c t ! E � 0 rle rly c 1v* azlox. 0. tg2at lau "'Co-,10 2 ,r T, a .> �__.. et if.°.,u l .:c -? crr- . S't .^s u.xs•' c ems' �'' .s.t' �.+":� e"i., cct a d1 t ? r �,, —or m '� r 5 i~ t i♦ JV�.:EC9 s°^ S? f Csi` � ',r� � - �`..i E? {" , 77# f� � � y�.3 '` {; s cd e n of i.Y' . tY,k- .`1 i _ C e11 °� ti . �>�It 5 tl >C� Y. wF 1, tSa� £ 'L{^�wf T :e, - -� .':'% Wu .':.CJah Wtr{f �C7f t f a•"f3 ;C�+X "ii TC„ } '.:bi f3..♦ i t :G ' 7 CT is f to ♦ vl3 a c5 .f'+it a la �� 1"f 3 i:"T� < 1 r .sc ' �. -(� •+ r4 u C?Lz 9 E; S �t1 {'.� a'.e `41�i. Et<`',aE, '+C!Cc.,t :�iTL�. 3 sy': F ! £� }� . 'o Y a rlfq . i an el —��7C.'63 � U�.C`,t�{•t u � y�C3 :'::t`3a �.C_?t. +ail. #C$ it-l: "� t-,:V(, r i.':,:i '' e.Liy'Li':...t>.s+ .«.::.C?