Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1107 r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING OCMTISSICN MEETING TUES DAY - NOVE BER 7, 1989 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC (ENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WMUIC DRIVE Now I. CALL Ta ORDER Vice Chairman Richards called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Downs led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL i Members Present: Jim Richards, Vice Chairman �. Bob Downs f Rick Erwood Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: Carol Whitlock Staff Present: Ray Diaz Gregg Holtz Steve Smith Dick Folkers Catherine Sass Seyed Safavian Phil Joy Kandy Allen vow Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1 Consideration for approval the October 17, 1989 meeting minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the minutes as submitted. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Erwood abstained). V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent October 26, 1989 city council actions. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR f' None. Ccomission suspended the order of the public hearing agenda items and indicated item E would be heard first. MarATI'FS PALM DESERT PIANNIM OCNNIISSIC N NWENBER 7, 1989 VII. PUBLIC BEA U24CS E. Case Nos. TT 25296 and C/Z 89-16 - BIGURN VM URES, Applicant Request for approval of master tentative map subdividing 362 acres into a 484 unit country club, a first phase of 108 units on 35 acres, a change of zone for 25 acres of drainageway frcm O.S. to PR-5 and H.P.R. , and a negative declaration of environmental impact located southeast of Portola Avenue and Highway 74. Mr. Diaz indicated a continuance to January 16, 1990 was being requested to enable staff to have prepared a focussed envir mental impact report to address several concerns: flora/fauna and the impact on the bighorn sheep in general and the Bighorn Institute and the issues of drainage. Staff indicated that if anyone in the audience wished to have other items examined as part of the focused EIR it could be included. Vice Chairman Richards stated that he would like a review of the proposal. Mr. Jim Hayhoe, developer of the project, indicated that the project ago would be called the Altamira Country Club and gave a description of the project. He indicated that the continuance to January 16 would allow them to do the focused environmental impact report. Mr. Diaz noted that staff would re-advertise the public hearing. Vice Chairman Richards opened the public testimony and asked if anyone present wished to address the ccctmission. MR. JIM DEFORGE, representing the Bighorn Institute, reviewed the history of the Bighorn Institute's involvement in the bighorn situation in the valley. He indicated the present site was chosen to simulate a similar captive state to produce survival offspring and what was needed to allow the sheep to lamb. Due to the bighorn sheep being a threatened species, he stressed the sensitivity of the environmental situation. He indicated that his concerns were based on the pen facility and the survival of the bighorn sheep in the Santa Rosa Mountains. Catmissioner Downs requested that Mr. DeForge review why it was important for the bighorn sheep to survive in this area. Mr. DeForge indicated there were people who were sensitive to survival of wild creatures. 2 .�I i M NUIM PRIM DESERT PLANE UC CCT4IISSIC N N90143ER 7, 1989 Ccamissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. DeForge had an objection to the project as a whole or if there were certain specific objectionable areas that could be mitigated. Mr. DeForge stated that they were looking for an environmental buffer that would allow for the sheep to produce and provide adequate research to continue; he felt the land use was appropriate, but their specific concern was with the northeast corner. Commissioner Erwood asked how certain the ocmmission could be that Mr. DeForge's interpretation of what was a sufficient mitigation measure would be sufficient. Mr. DeForge indicated that it would be wise to have other people involved in this. Vice Chairman Richards reviewed the history prior to when the Bighorn Institute was approved. He felt that it was understood that when the institute was approved it was clear that this flat land would be developed. MR. ERNIE HAHN, 47-015 El Dorado Drive in Indian Wells, stated that he was a director of the Bighorn Institute for sane time. He felt the development was a good one and had no objection to a country club development. He was pleased that there would be an �r environmental impact report. He noted there were C EQA rules as to endangered species and felt this could be mitigated without causing undue hardship. He indicated that the lambing area could not be changed or the contours and noted that they were ready to break ground on a $1 million research facility. He stated that Mr. Hayhoe tried to contact him and they were willing to sit down and work out a solution; he indicated that he was not happy about the letter he received that questioned the Bighorn's right to get a permit. He did not feel that sort of approach would serve the purpose and encouraged Mr. Hayhoe to meet with them so that they would not have to appear in opposition to the development. He felt that this was not an asset that could be replaced. He indicated that a buffer was needed and wanted staff, the developer and the Bighorn Institute to get together. MR. ARTHUR NERNESS, 72-565 Rolling Kroll, a resident of Indian Hills and representing the board of directors, stated that based upon the information they received, they had no major objection. He felt the development would enhance the immediate area and Palm Desert. He indicated that the present plans call for an emergency exit to be at the dead-end of Portola. He wanted it 3 "No j. i 1'11-irl/1 L"v PAIM DESERT PLANNING C 14-USSICN NWE1v1BER 7, 1989 �i investigated that it be moved to a more westerly portion of Portola because of security and noise. r 4 MS. DONNA STEFFY, manager of the Indian Hills Mobile Home Park, stated that on behalf of the owner, he was in favor of the development. MR. CAL HARDEN, 48-751 North View Drive in the Summit, expressed concern for line-of sight and views on North View and Spyglass. MR. ME, HOMES, 48-900 Shade View, did not have any ocmnents because he had not seen the plans and requested that they be i made available after the meeting to allow the residents who had not seen it to review it. MR. CLAY THYCE, 48-871 North View Drive, stated that he was in favor, but shared concerns as to line-of-sight and views. He noted that the northern section had a lake in the middle of it to handle part of the drainage. He indicated that they would prefer that the road be moved farther frcm their wall and the houses moved slightly back and the lake made smaller, they would have a better overview, less traffic and a greenbelt between their wall and the street. He appreciated the type of development that was being proposed. MR. JORGENSEN, 48-551 Valley View, spoke in favor of the project. He indicated that his only problem was the drainage in the northeast corner of the project. He noted there was a perimeter road that was starting on Highway 74 at their entrance area, running north, cutting across to the east and going north again and going to the northeast corner. He indicated there was a street-flow condition there and felt it should be checked to see how much water could be carried across the easement from the northeast point to the street north to the flood canal. He also questioned how much water would be put into the basin from the golf course. He also addressed the phases of construction: one would start with approximately 100 units and would have a club house and the golf course; at that time the barren land would be graded for the golf course and without the perimeter streets in there would be a flow problem. He noted that there was about three feet of water against the wall and the water came under the wall. He also indicated that the view angles and setbacks were all right. MR. KENT ROBERTS, board member of the Bighorn Institute, submitted a handout on their response to the negative 4 ..�► NIIAA7IES PALM DESERT PLANNIIC CO MSSIM NUMMER 7, 1989 declaration. He outlined the contact that had taken place between the developer and the institute. He indicated that this was the commission's opportunity to make a difference; he stated that he did not want to be here 30 years from now and have someone ask him what a bighorn sheep was. He informed commission that he was doing his part to make a difference. He felt there was a willingness on the part of the developer to work with them. Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Roberts for confirmation that when the present location was approved by the county it was understood that the institute would be compatible with the planned land uses for adjacent property. Mr. Roberts indicated that not only was the county aware of it, but since then the county sent a letter saying they had a problem with the Hayhoe development. By changing some of the golf course layout, changing some of the density on the remaining acreage giving a buffer could probably accomplish 80 percent of what they set out to do. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that when they went into their present location, were they aware of the planned use of adjacent property. Mr. DeForge answered yes, to some degree. He stated there was no other consideration but a negative declaration because the county looked at them enhancing the environment and asked to go framm R-1 to NA, which was looked at as open space. MS. ROBIN NEGAL, senior assistant to Patricia Larson, 46-209 Oasis Street, Roan 414 in Indio. She distributed a handout to the cannission (see attachment). She alluded to the attachments to her letter and City of Palm Desert comments to their proposal. She indicated that the NA zone is the county's most restrictive zone and did not perceive by that zoning that they would be creating any impact on the project next door. She stated that she assumed the city would have responded had they perceived that to be a problem. Mr. Diaz noted that this item was requested to be continued to January 16 to address concerns. He felt the appearance had been given that the Palm Desert City Staff was "asleep at the switch". He stated that the reason no camient had been made was because of the planning commssion staff report dated September 13 indicated no impact on adjoining property in terms of consistent development. He noted that the October 5 memo seems to contradict that particular finding. His point now was to continue this matter and the legal issues and ramifications of findings that had been brought out has nothing to do with the EIR. Whether the county had proper findings and evidence to make those findings was not at issue here. Staff agreed that the work of the bighorn institute was important; the 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLAWIDU 0a4IISSION NXEMBER 7, 1989 protection of the habitat of the bighorn sheep was important and that was why staff wanted to proceed. Staff did not know until the October 5 memo the importance of the buffer area that would be necessary; staff was told it would not make any difference. That was why staff was requesting a continuance to January 16 to allow these issues to be addressed. He noted that Palm Desert has catmitted itself to never adopting a statement of overriding considerations on any environmental impact report and staff did not intend to start reccmending that now. He noted that the consultant that will be hired will be under contract to the city and hoped the issue would be solved to everyone's satisfaction--that is staff's goal. MS. NBC-AL pointed out that the issue had been raised about the county's process. She felt the letter to the Bighorn Institute threatened legal action against the co nty's approval. She wondered if the agenda was to solely resolve the conflict between two approved uses, both of which had been there for some time, or merely to put together the best lawsuit possible to hold up the institute's project. Mr. Diaz indicated that he saw a copy of that letter which requested that the attorney's for the Bighorn Institute contact the applicant's attorney. He expressed the desire that everyone get together. It was up to the applicant as to why he sent that letter. MR. DOUG GRIFFITHS, 49-240 Sun Rose, representing Ironwood Country Club, expressed concern that the development will not create a problem with drainage at Ironwood or in other parts of the Coachella Valley. MR. DREW PALLET, 68-045 Monterico Road in Desert Hot Springs, stated that he was an archeologist and president of the Coachella Valley Archeological Society. He noted they have a monitoring program looking at development. He indicated that some members called expressing concern for the archeology in the area of this development. He did a site search at UCR and found that there were two existing sites recorded there and the area had not been fully surveyed. He stated that he spoke to staff about having an archeological assessment and survey as minimum. Staff wrote that into the conditions. He was not opposed to the development and requested that this go on for all the projects in Palm Desert. Mr. Diaz stated that it would also be made a part of the environmental impact report. 6 rr► n PALM DESERT PLANNING? COMMISSION I XEMBER 7, 1989 MS. JANET ABRAMS, 510 North Desert Falls Drive, was present because Palm Desert reccmnended a negative declaration for this project. She stated that she was proud to be a neighbor of the institute and felt its work was significant. She did not feel now was the time for anyone to turn their back on the institute and felt that Mr. Hayhoe should be a good neighbor and provide mitigation measures to alleviate the impact on the sheep. DR. ALAN MUTH, P.O. Box 1738 in Palm Desert, stated that he was concerned about the negative declaration; he shared the concerns of the Bighorn Institute. He stated that there was another endangered species problem that had not been raised and that was the desert tortoise. It is listed in California as threatened and by the Fish and Wildlife Service as endangered. The project is in the historic habitat. He felt this should be addressed in the EIR. He reocmnended a condition that prior to grading permits, permits from both resources agencies who have jurisdiction over endangered species. MR. F.M. STEPHENSON, 49-581 Canyon View in Ironwood, concurred with comtents by Mr. Griffiths. He wanted to add that while they were concerned with the quantity of water, they were also concerned with the velocity. He felt that if there was a ..�. problem, he would like to be assured that the developer would work with them. MR. STEVE NEGAL, 69-605 Carren Way in Rancho Mirage, thanked the commission for allowing the corments. He stated that members of the institute was present because they had heard that the institute did not belong where it is and should be moved and the institute was creating a negative impact on the developer. He felt the institute had been a good neighbor for over seven years. He also indicated that everyone seemed satisfied with the way things were proceed in this meeting and the developer would be a good neighbor by following state law and mitigating the development's impact on the institute. MR. JOHN BLASHEIM, chief ranger for BLM, supported the EIR and expressed two concerns: the habitat for any endangered species that might occur in the area and the cultural resources. He informed ccnudssion that their staff was available for any type of help or assistance that might be needed. MS. TONXA MULCH, 2563 E. Mesquite in Palm Springs, stated that she was raised in the desert and felt that the bighorn sheep were an important contribution to the valley. 7 law r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING CXt-MISSIC N NOVEMER 7, 1989 moo MR. MARIO PASCUC1iIE, resident near Highway 74, stated that he lived in the desert for 17 years. He was all for the bighorn sheep as well as the proposed development. He felt the proposal would be a good border for Highway 74. Vice Chairman Richards expressed concern for water flaw, drainage, and was concerned about the endangered species. He explained haw the water presently flows and wanted to make sure that Harold Housley was present at the next meeting to convince him that the water is going to flow the direction they say it will. He was also concerned about the existing residents at the Summit. He felt that the developer should seriously consider the design of the project. A golf course had a lot of roan for grass and not homes which could be used to mitigate problems. Vice Chairman Richards indicated that if there were no problems with the Indian Hills residents and mitigate the measures on the Summit residents and put the water where it should i go, and alleviate the concerns of the Bighorn Institute, the project should be able to proceed. He expressed the wish that the developer would bring in a world-class designer to design the golf course. He felt this was one of the finest pieces of property left in the valley. Action: Moved by Vice Chairman Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, continuing TT 25296 and CJZ 89-16 to January 16, 1990 to allow a focused environmental impact report to be prepared. Carried 4-0. Mr. Diaz indicated that people could go to the Canmunity Services Conference Roan to view the plans. A TEN MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED AT 8:29 P.M. A. Continued Case No. TT 25102 - CHAZAN DEVELOPMEKP CUAPANY, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative tract map subdividing 20 acres into 68 single family dwelling lots on the east side of Deep Canyon Road, 1325 feet north of Fred Waring Drive. Mr. Smith reviewed the background and explained that the matter had been continued to allow the traffic issues to be studied by the public works department. Mr. Safavian reviewed the findings of the public works department and discussed the traffic alternatives. 8 ..� r- 1 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLArII1ING Oa4IISSION NOVEMER 7, 1989 Commissioner Jonathan indicated that 1) Traffic heading north on Phyllis Jackson for alternative A or B left increase would be allowed. Mr. Safavian stated that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan noted that in high peak traffic periods involving people going in and out using Phyllis Jackson, would there be any backup and a possible backflow to Fred Waring. Mr. Safavian indicated that it was a four-legged intersection on which you could go either right to the school or north to the sports canplex or left to this property-- it would depend on how the intersection was controlled and where the free flow was allowed; he indicated there was enough right-of-way on Phyllis Jackson now to provide a left-turn to separate the left turn; and the issue of peaking of school traffic will not necessarily be when other traffic from the neighborhood would be peaking. Commissioner Jonathan asked why Mr. Safavian was not recommending to connect Magnesia Falls to Phyllis Jackson. Mr. Safavian indicated that several problems exist: 1) we don't have the right-of-way, but belongs to the water district; 2) Phyllis Jackson by itself--property was recently purchased to allow additional parking and provide direct access to the sports canplex--he did not feel that was appropriate. Vice Chairman Richards noted that Magnesia Falls could be an east/west access from Portola to the high school. Mr. Folkers stated that the intent was to keep the traffic where the major street system exists--there was the problem of parallel parking, student vehicle 5.+ conflicts, and the cross activity; public works' feeling was to keep the system complete separate. The more predominant movement was to be kept on Magnesia Falls. Cannissioner Jonathan asked what the detrimental effect would be to actually connecting Magnesia Falls with Phyllis Jackson. Mr. Folkers stated that the way the school has it presently set up, there was parallel parking on each side of the extension of Phyllis Jackson which was not public property; there would be pedestrian and vehicular movement parallel to the traffic moving through there. Ccmmissioner Jonathan suggested opening access from the school to Magnesia Falls to eliminate shifting some of the Phyllis Jackson traffic to Magnesia Falls. Mr. Folkers stated that their position was that was not the proper way to handle the traffic. Vice Chairman Richards opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the catmission. MR. PAUL GILMORE, ASL Consulting Engineers, 960 E. Tahquitz Way in Palm Springs, stated that the traffic report supports their original application. He pointed out that tract 24287 was an approved tract and they did not want to oo-mingle the approval. He concurred with the conditions and stated that they prefer alternative A. 9 low 1 HINUrES PALM DESERT PLANNING CO VUSSION NWEMBER 7, 1989 Comm<mmissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Gilmore how he felt about connecting Magnesia Falls and Phyllis Jackson. Mr. Gilmore stated there were a number of difficulties in doing that--it would put in a thoroughfare f and change the character. Vice Chairman Richards asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. LYNN CRANDALL, 74-361 Highway 111, clarified that the applicant wanted to see the plan approved as originally submitted. Not alternative A or B. He indicated that the original ten acre parcel was approved and alternative A and B seek to change the approved tentative map. The development in the ten acres is ready to go and is currently in plan check. The application before the ccmmission is the 20 acre parcel and he urged that the plan as shown be approved. He noted that the Phyllis Jackson extension was not a public right-of-way and the planning commission did not have the power to say they would like the two street to connect. He felt the issue was mitigating traffic concerns to the lower part of Phyllis Jackson. He noted that it was possible to have the same traffic pattern and alternative B was exactly like the original plan as far as the Phyllis Jackson access is concerned. The only difference in the original plan and alternative A was the old treatment of the streets in the tract that has already been approved, namely the access points onto Deep Canyon. Mr. Crandall clarified that the original plan did not provide access to Phyllis Jackson because it is not the applicant's property. He stated that all of the concerns expressed on October 3 have been addressed. Commissioner Erwood noted that if the developer had presented the development as a whole project, the commission would have been able to see it at one time. He expressed concern that the developer was presenting this on a piece-meal basis. Mr. Crandall noted that this property was not +owned by the developer at the time the ten acre parcel was approved. After further traffic flow discussion, Commissioner Erwood asked if the bikepath was impacted by this development. Mr. Smith stated that he received a survey by the developer that stated it would not be impacted. 10 .,� MINUTES PAIM DESERT PLANNING OOVTBSSION NgOa4 ER 7, 1989 a. + MR. GERALD CHAZAN, 72-757 Fred Waring Drive, stated that his ` original purchase was for the ten acres and they proceeded with those ten acres. After the people came in with the retirement hone, they decided not to go ahead with the purchase of the 20 acres. The owner of the property contacted then contacted Mr. Chazan and wanted to know if he was interested in buying it. It was two separate deals. He felt the alternate plan B would create a lot of traffic. He noted that this would be a family oriented proj ect. He indicated that the property adjacent to him could connect to Phyllis Jackson. Creating more traffic on those streets would be a hazard. r MR. BILL EMUS stated that the entire 70 acres was to be studied for ingress and egress. He indicated that he read the public works report and had several items he took exception to. He tried to determine haw many people were cutting through and how many were actual residents. He noted that Deep Canyon was a i collector street and Magnesia Falls a secondary. The function of these roads were to deliver and carry traffic from residential neighborhoods and deliver it to major arterials. He felt there were 1200 cars cutting through the neighborhood. He wondered what would happen when the roads were four lanes connected to two lanes. He asked if these roads were being used as they were intended to be used. The functional classification in FHA Guidelines shows a collector street as having a street width of 40 feet, which is two lanes and two eight foot berms on the side, not as a four lane highway which is proposed. He felt it would cause problems. He did not understand how having this four-lane highway dead end into a two lane road could be safely done with the 90 degree intersection. He noted that school bus traffic was approximately ten in the morning, ten at lunch time and ten in the afternoon. It was his understanding that there were no people that lived or were picked up along Magnesia Falls and probably don't service this neighborhood because of the proximity to the school. He expressed concern with any connection to Phyllis Jackson. He suggested an intersection directly into Fred Waring might be in order. Ccmnissioner Jonathan asked what his recommendation would be; Mr. Enus proposed stop signs as mentioned in the FHA Guidelines and a speed limit of 20-30 mph to allow the roads to function as collector streets. He felt that the new development would worsen the situation. He felt the real problem was the through traffic, not the residents that live there. i..r 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING CLrT[ISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1989 aNt MRS. ALANA TOWNSEND, 43-082 Silktree, stated that her backyard sits on Magnesia Falls. She indicated that she did not have a problem with the Chazan development. She was in favor of the single family development. She had a problem with the city's requirement to widen the road--four lanes would dump into that one corner and there would be a big problem with that. Magnesia Falls runs parallel to Fred Waring and as the civic center expands Magnesia Falls will open up over the San Pascual Channel--then a parallel road runs from Monterey to Deep Canyon and there would be a problem created with the road being widened. She noted that when the houses were built, Magnesia Falls being a scenic route there is not a lot of property behind her house from the bedroom to the street itself. There would be no way to berm to mitigate the noise. The windows and floors shake when the buses pass by. She also noted that the bikepath was built up and also encroaches on her privacy. She indicated that speed was a problem at the corner. She felt that once Hovley goes through, Magnesia Falls would be redundant. Mrs. Townsend felt this was a golden opportunity to avoid headaches by using some foresight and good planning and this was an opportunity to look at this before it gets worse. MRS. IRENE BORELLI, 74-471 Buttonwood, stated that she had no objection to Mr. Chazan's development, but objected to the emit traffic. She distributed a petition to install a crash gate across Buttonwood to eliminate traffic. She noted that they have a nice family neighborhood. She indicated there were 35 children in one block. MS. SALLY EAGLEMAN, 74-410 Buttonwood, teacher at Palm Desert Middle School. She indicated that the amount and speed of traffic was a concern. She felt that if the street were closed, any future traffic accidents would be avoided. MR. JIM PAYNE, 43-240 Silktree, questioned the traffic count and the timing the traffic count was done because of the work being done on Portola. He felt that some of the traffic had shifted to Cook Street. Once Portola is finished, another traffic count should be taken. He suggested that the commission go to the corner at watch school buses try to make the turn at Magnesia Falls and Deep Canyon. He indicated that the buses going through that intersection do not cane to a cc complete stop, but sound their horns to warn of their approach and cannot make the ' turn in only one lane of traffic. He noted that with the ' increased traffic if Deep Canyon is widened, the children in the new development would have to cross Deep Canyon to get to the 12 MINUI� PALM DESERT PLANNING C 10K-IISSIC N NNEMBER 7, 1989 elementary school and middle school, as well as the parochial school. He felt that the proposal was appropriate, but felt more work needed to be cone on the traffic. MR. MORRIS EAGLEMAN, 74-410 Buttonwood, advocated that the street be closed off at Deep Canyon because of the traffic and speeding. He expressed concern for the safety of the children in the area. MR. FRED GLASS, 43-255 Silktree, stated that he was glad to see a project instead of a date grove. He noted there was an increase of traffic throughout the valley, but wanted to see proper traffic control at Buttonwood and Deep Canyon. He did not want to see it closed off altogether, but it needed additional traffic control. MS. DIANE WARREN, 74-755 San Cristobel, stated that she was in the development at Phyllis Jackson Lane. She stated that the original plan did not affect them, but the alternates would. She had the same concerns about the alternates as the people on Magnesia Falls had about the original plan. MR. DAN DOWNING, . 43-041 Balsom, concurred with cannents about MO, the traffic. He also questioned the accuracy of the traffic count because of the Portola construction. He felt there was a tremendous amount of school buses and truck traffic going through the area. He felt the safety of children on those streets was in question. Vice Chairman Richards asked if it was within public works' jurisdiction to prohibit buses on Magnesia Falls and Deep Canyon. Mr. Folkers replied no; trucks yes, but as far a buses were concerned, the school district has the authority to run buses where they feel they are necessary. He indicated he could talk to them and try to make the issues discussed tonight better. Vice Chairman Richards closed the public testimony. He noted that most comments did not relate to the proposed development. Carmissioner Jonathan stated that he heard the concerns and shared the frustration of the greater traffic, but did not feel the proposed project was the direct issue. He stated he had not heard any objections to the original plan and moved for approval of the original plan. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING OCMISSICN NOVE MBE R 7, 1989 and Vice Chairman Richards concurred with Commissioner Jonathan's cannents and asked staff to work with public works to see what could be done to resolve the problem of Buttonwood, Magnesia Falls and Deep Canyon. He also requested a report fran the school district on the school buses and a report of the safety of the turn and closing Buttonwood. He stated that discussion would be continued. Mr. Smith noted that a copy of the October 3 staff report was included in the report with the appropriate resolution and findings. Action: Moved by Ccrnnissioner Jonathan, seconded by Vice Chairman Richards, approving the findings. Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Erwood voted no). Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Vice Chairman Richards, adopting Planning Cznrdssion Resolution No. 1391, approving TT 25102, subject to conditions. Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Erwood voted no). B. Case No. CUP 89-5 - NANCY CREEK, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to operate an animal hospital in the building at 74-320 Highway 111. ago Ms. Sass outlined the salient points of the staff report and recannended approval. Vice Chairman Richards opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITICN to the proposal. There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Downs, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Ccnudssioner Dooms, adopting Planning Cannission Resolution No. 1392, approving CUP 89- 5, subject to conditions. Carried 4-0. C. Case No. CUP 89-7 - OLIPHANT, LIZZA & ASSOCIATES, Applicant Request for approval of a 16, 892 square foot office building with a portion of parking in an 14 ,rt MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANN12U COMMISSION Nt7O BER 7, 1989 R-3 zone and negative declaration north of Eyed Waring between Acacia Drive and Monterey Avenue. Mr. Joy outlined the salient points of the staff report and recannended approval. Vice Chairman Richards opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the cccmussion. MR. RICHARD R. OLIPHANT, 77-900 Avenue of the States in Palm Desert, described the proposal and the various revisions that had taken place and felt that the end resulted in a better project and would benefit everyone. Vice Chairman Richards asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There being no one, the public testimony was closed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, adopting Planning Ccnu fission Resolution No. 1393, approving CUP 89- 7, subject to conditions. Carried 4-0. D. Case No. TT 25304 - KEN-MDR II,II'ERPRISES, Applicant Request for approval of a 16 lot single family subdivision northeast of Fred Waring Drive and Phyllis Jackson Lane. Mr. Joy outlined the salient points of the staff report. He explained that an issue that had been raised pertained to the drainage of the property and he indicated that there is an existing drainage easement through the Valley Palms Estates area. The applicant stated that he would create a sump to contain the nuisance water on site. Staff recommended approval. Vice Chairman Richards opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the ccmnission. MR. KEN STENDELL, representing the applicant, noted that the eight lots were approved in April and at that time it was disclosed that they might acquire the westerly property. He met 15 MIlV(AES PAIN DESERT PLANNIW,7 CCM EESSICN N97 3� 7, 1989 ark with the homeowners association on numerous occasions--one occasion prior to the approval of the original tentative map being approved; they had no negative comments in their testimony. He concurred with the conditions. He noted that the wall and lot configurations would mitigate the noise frcm the busses. Vice Chairman Richards asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MS. DIANE MOREN, 74-755 San Cristobel in Valley Palms, she stated that she welcomes the Ken-Mor development with open arms because the single family homes look good. There was no objection when they applied for the original tentative map because eight homes of the first tract map were at the end by the cul-de-sac and the Valley Palms sewer that they want to hook up to and the 15 foot easement on the Valley Palms side are right in line with the cul-de-sac. There wasn't a reason to call any experts on their behalf at that time. The entrance was off Fred Waring and everything looked fine for eight lots. She felt that this changes things. With the additional lots and the change in the entrance, they stretch across their entire development along the north boundary and the current tract map does not show enough information and according to an engineer they hired themselves, that report would be presented tonight. Their engineer felt there wasn't enough information on the plan submitted to the commission to show that there wouldn't be ramifications. She noted that her project was downstream and did not feel enough existing grades were shown to allow for a proper evaluation of the drainage. Another item was that the house pad grading would raise the ground elevation against their existing wall. They have a five foot masonry block wall there now and was not meant to be a retaining wall. She indicated that the homeowners association wanted the commission to consider that the proposed map be revised to show the proposed method of grading, providing adequate and positive draining for all surface water generated by rainfall or irrigation of the yards fran the new subdivision. Valley Palms has not had the opportunity to review all the impacts now that the other lots had been added. Commissioner Jonathan requested clarification fran staff on the drainage, grading and elevations to address her concerns. Mr. Joy stated that the applicant submitted some schematic drainage plans. He indicated that the natural area is higher than Valley Palms Estates and the pad heights would be higher in the new development. 16 �/ PALM DESERT PLAMIW, COMMIISSICN NC7O BER 7, 1989 The drainage easement was required by Valley Palms Estates because of the stream going through there. MS. MOREN indicated they did not have a problem with that with the first eight lots because the alternative as stated by the developer was that if they were to hook up to the Fred Waring sewers the pad would be even higher. Vice Chairman Richards reviewed how the city normally handles situations of this nature. Mr. Diaz indicated the developer could answer specific questions as drainage and noted there were regulations as to adjoining pad heights. MR. DAVID PETERS, 44-227 Monterey, Suite 2, representing Valley Palms Homeowners Association, stated that he was present to object to grading the map at this time because in his opinion, the proposed map does not consider many negative impacts that would result and does not comply with the city's ordinance title 26.20.040 sections 11, 17, 19 and 27. He distributed copies. He stated that it was not the intention of the Valley Palms Homeowners Association to prevent the development, but to make sure the issues of drainage, elevation, and sewer considerations were adequately addressed prior to approval. After further outlining the concerns under each section he requested a continuance to allow further input and clarification by the developer. Mr. Stendell stated that he has been before the commission on several similar items. 1 ) They were alluding to information that is skeptical, there is a sewer easement and lateral which they will take and carry through an easement along that property line and take care of it--the sewer line belongs to Coachella Valley Water District; 2) The easement for the storm drain was there and was currently being used--all the water flowing off Fred Waring, Deep Canyon, Portola and flows towards the channel at Cook Street and comes across this property and presently drains through that property from a whole in the fence (misaligned from the recorded easement) and it has been draining through there since the inception and completion of that project; 3) pad elevations--he was very aware of the public works department criteria and the ordinance would be adhered to; the storm drain problems were mitigated by the creation of a dry well in line in the system to take care of nuisance water. The only alternative would be to raise the pad elevation in such a manner as to drain out to Fred Waring. He could not see any reason to continue the project. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING O"USSICN NWE BER 7, 1989 Vice Chairman Richards asked that Mr. Folkers address the basic nature of the Valley Palms concerns. Mr. Folkers informed commission that these were items that public works would handle at a later date. MR. VICTOR VILLENEUVE, 72-757 Fred Waring, representing the engineering firm and outlined how they would handle the final improvement plans. Vice Chairman Richards closed the public testimony. Commissioner Jonathan noted the concerns and had staffs assurance that these concerns would be addressed in normal due course; he also noted this was not a change of zone and eight units had already been approved. He felt it looked like a good project and indicated he would move for approval. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Downs, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Comtissioner Downs, adopting Planning Connission Resolution No. 1394, approving TT 25304, subject to conditions. Carried 4-0. VIII. 11,1ISCELIANEDUS None. IX. ORAL CNNiJNICATIONS None. X. 0CF14EdM Vice Chairman Richards indicated further study should be conducted to resolve the existing Magnesia Falls Drive problem. Mr. Folkers stated that he understood what the commission was requesting and should have something by the end of February. Mr. Folkers also indicated that he and/or Mr. Diaz would contact the school district to try and solve some of the school bus traffic problems. 18 +s Y MINUTES . PAIM DESERT PLANNING CU4IISSION NOVIIMBER 7, 1989 %moo Action: Moved by Vice Chairman Richards, seconded by Commissioner Down, directing staff to proceed with the traffic study. XI. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Vice Chairman Richards, adjourning the meeting. Carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. „"PY $ t � b ✓fir D RAMON A. DIAZ, Sec tqxW ATTEST: I,M RI S, VICE CHAIRMAN tm +ir.r 19 err t�.. CO fFNT Y7•L.,,i P�1'CI.�UA (CORKY) LAQ60N _ •- 6upervi;car. F'oudh Diblricl. �.,.�.�_ :ttt ! R$1 :YA►, ,}� COUNTY or Qivt,,1�snx November 8 , 1989 Chairman Richard Erwood Members, Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 RE: CZ 89-16 ; TT 25296 ( Bighorn Ventures ) Dear Chairman Erwood and Commissioners : Before you for your consideration is the above-referenced project, which proposes 484 dwelling units and an 18-hole golf course. It has been brought to my attention that there is serious concern as to the proposed project ' s impact on and compatibility with the Bighorn Institute , which is located immediately adjacent to the project site. The Bighorn Institute is an important regional resource, dedicated to the preservation of a threatened sub-species of Bighorn sheep. The importance of this effort is widely recognized, as demonstrated by the cooperation of the Bureau of Land Managemer ' s with the Institute in the establishment of the existing facility, as well as the Institute ' s subsequent acquisition of the property outright from BLM. Riverside County continued this spirit of cooperation by expediting the processing of the Institute ' s land use applications ( CZ 5552 and PP 11393 ) . Given the delicate environment required for the Institute ' s ongoing work, I am asking that you ensure that all environmental factors be considered , and that adequate mitigation be required of the developer. County staff , in correspondence to the City of Palm Desert dated October 5th, 1989 , raised the concern about the need for an adequate buffer zone between the Institute and the proposed project. In addition, I would request that the City also examine the possibility of redesigning the project, to provide an adequate open space buffer . In short, I would suggest that a project of this magnitude, in this location, merits an Environmental Impact Report, to ensure that all impacts are identified and adequate mitigation provided for. Respectfully submitted, PATRICIA A. LARSON PAL:RN:vc �7ixlrinl (lllirr• Ak,7nQ C)..i.A.1. _i Il i MII FES OF THE BOARD OF SUPER ,ORSOf COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA �: l o e { I 11 I _'l : 3r rn r :_t Frli t, l ink-, et; for- he.iring on the adoptio:: of two ! neg a t i ve cj-.?.. . at : nr f a 1 l` 11r 1 '-r3 and on the 3 p p i i c: w. k i r.n c f : gho,rn I it'ut,- I _J_ic: I'ir_ J'.52 . fQ1_ changi „y the oil _e_, ta'in hroi)c?i icc.: , .ed In he U—) -dral Ci ty/Palm 1)esert. ar faa urn R an i lit. Pla. , l l -i93 for a noncommer,- iai r,er:agnrir_ 7+'uj accessory aild research buildings , the !_ha 1 rnwn tiled the ,Matters nearing . .The matters woo ever ed by Paul Clark of the Pianninci ff It acipeari :,g that no Une r !se present wished to spew: tho m._fttei- , the Chair-rr,an r.,er._ lar-e 1 the hearing closed . I I On motion of Su�_:er isai ! .icso n, seconded by Super visul- t-c',riceros and duly car tied by ui-animous vate. 11 WAS ORDERED !.hat ti:e Negative Declar., , ,.on for E,-, ironmental (assessment i,'lo . D414:31 i � adop tUd , and a IF WAS FURTHEP '7 DERED r;: r, the zone change and ;. lc t U l an, •„ e approved as rer_u;nmen(ie=d h , thin Planning C:ornmis� ion, ar ; L'Junty COUnsel is 1nntructec_i k.) ur epare an ord ,. rlartce to of feel, the change for adoption b'. the F(,ard . --------------- 71 I� hereby certify that the foreyrriny is it full, true and correct copy of an order made and entered on October 17 1989 _ of Supervisors Minutes. WI f NESS my hand and the seal of the Board of Supervisors Dated: October_17 , 1989_ Gerald A. Maloney, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, in and (seal) for ncc County of Riverside. State of California. Bv. �� ;1_,_[_>� _ _ _ :.�� -r _ _ Deputy AGENDA NO. 10 . 2a&b xc: Planning, Land Use, Applicant, Survey, Co.Co. I r,ft�t I I U rh X it ' , HEARING DATE �_ �------ Zoning District : Cathedral City-Palm Desert CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5552 Supervisorial District : Fourth PLOT PLAN NO. 11393 Regional Team III E. A. No . 34143 Planning Commission: 9/ 13/89 Agenda Item:. 2-3 t RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT J-(f'FACTS: ' 1 . Applicant : Bighorn Institute 2. Type of Request : Change of Zone from R-1 to N-A; plot plan for a noncommercial menagerie and accessory caretakers and research buildings 3. Location: Easterly of Highway 741 southerly of Cahuilla Way 4 . Parcel Size: 290 acres 5. Existing Roads: Highway 74 6. Existing Land Use: Mobilehome , pens 7. Surrounding Land Use: Residence , vacant , mountainous 8. Existing Zoning : R-1 9. Surrounding Zoning : R-1 , N-A ; and PR-5 within the City of Palm Desert 10. General Plan Elements: LAND USE : Wildlife/Vegetation (Western Coachella OPEN SPACE : Wildlife/Vegetation Valley Plan) CIRCULATION: Highway 74 (Variable) 11 . Agency Recommendations : ROAD: See transmittal dated 8/23/89 FLOOD: See RCFC transmittal dated HEALTH: See transmittal dated 8/17/89 WATER: See CVWD transmittal dated 8/ 16/89 FIRE : See transmittal dated 8/23/89 12. Sphere of Influence: City of Palm Desert 13. Letters: No letters received as of 8/28/69 ANALYSIS: The applicant for Change of Zone Case No . 5552 requests approval of a change of zone from R-1 (One Family Dwelling ) to N-A (Natural Assets ) on 290 acres. The site is located easterly of Highway 74 , southerly of the City of Palm Desert . The applicant concurrently filed Plot Plan No. 11393 for a noncommercial menagerie and accessory caretakers and research buildings . The site is predominately vacant with natural mountainous vegetation, sheep pens , and a caretakers mobilehome . Immediately west of the site is a large residence where the headquarters of the Bighorn Institute ( BHI ) currently exist . The BHI began operations of the 290 acre site in 1985 through a lease by the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) . In February 1989, the LM granted a patent to the BHI for the 290 acre site. The BHI -)riginated in order to breed and study the rare Peninsular Bighorn Sheep . There are approximately 50 sheep in this area , the north end of the Santa Rosa Mountains , of which 23 have been released into the wild by the BHI . I " ` BLOT PLAN NO. 11393 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5552 ,,,,,,S t a f f Report Page 2 Plot Plan No. 11393 proposes a 6 ,800 square foot disease laboratory/ administration building , a 2,800 square foot residential structure with four bedrooms and common kitchen/living facilities, and accessory grain and maintenance structures . The plot plan also includes provisions for a seven acre pen and a 30 acre pen which will house the current stock of 19 lambs and sheep , a figure which usually ranges between 15 and 25. Surrounding . land uses are vacant and mountainous with scattered mountain cottages . Immediately northerly and northwesterly of the site, within the City of Palm Desert , is a large 675 acre site on which a conceptual specific plan ( Bella Vista ) has been approved for 350 acres of open space, 1000 low density dwellings on approximately 300 acres and a 13 acr e hotel site with amenities . Farther northeasterly Des ert Reserve a zoo i s the Living r of the site along Po rtola Avenue 9 taw env ironment .. for the viewing and showing of desert animals and vegetation. :• The Living Desert Reserve assisted in the commencement of the BHI in 1985. The Living Desert has a small population of Peninsula Bighorn Sheep for public viewing but is unable to conduct breeding procedures because such a process needs isolation. The two facilities are different but yet compliment each other due to their caring for and research of the Bighorn Sheep . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE55MENT : The Initia Study performed pursuant to Environmental Assessment No . l 34143 identified environmental concerns associated with project development as including : Slopes Wildlife Scenic Highway Public Facilities Cultural Resources Circulation (a co of which is attached ) determined that initial stud pY The in Y uld not have a significant effect on approval of the proposed project wo the environment . All environmental impacts would be clearly mitigated to a level of insignificance. A monitoring program was incorporated into the initial study . PLOT PLAN NO. 11393 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5552 =( .Staff Report Page 3 - f i GENERAL. PLAN CONSISTENCY : The site is designated "Wildlife/Vegetation" on the Western Coachella Valley Plan (WCVP) _� The Open Space and Conservation Policies of the Comprehensive General Plan specify that areas that are mapped "Wildlife/Vegetation" on the open space map are for the conservation of critical wildlife and vegetation. The policies also specify that only the following uses are permitted in wildlife/vegetation designations : open space, limited recreation, and research or educational uses. The applicant ' s intention to use the land for research and educational uses for the nurturing and breeding of the state rare Peninsular Bighorn Sheep is compatible with the "Wildlife/Vegetation" designation and the open space policy requiring careful control and management of the utilization of natural resources including wildlife. The Open Space and Conservation policies also specify that open space designated parcels shall be appropriately zoned . The proposed N-A zone has been applied within the Coachella Valley Preserve, for the threatened Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard , and in other wildlife/vegetation designated areas within the Western Coachella Valley Plan. DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE R-1 AND N-A ZQNES: The existing R-1 zone primarily permits one-family dwellings and requires a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet . The R-1 zone allows growing of field crops and tree crops along with such recreational facilities as golf courses , country clubs, and public parks and playgrounds. Planned residential developments are permitted through the land division process . Plot plan approval is required for beauty shops, horticultural nurseries , kennels and catteries, and temporary real estates offices, while mobilehome parks require a conditional use permit . The proposed N-A zone also permits one-family dwellings , field and tree crops, apiaries, and grazing of cattle, horses, sheep or goats not exceeding two animals per acre. Subject to plot plan approval the following uses are permitted : public utility substations, museums , menageries, water wells, and agricultural worker mobilehomes. Fishing lakes, golf courses, riding academies , well water extraction, mining , RV and mobilehome parks , and resort hotels are all permitted uses subject to the granting of a conditional use permit . The applicant proposes a noncommercial menagerie for Peninsular Bighorn Sheep , a herd which in the past five years has not exceeded 25 sheep . Since the BHI ' s origination, approximately 50 percent of the current stock of sheep located in this area of the Santa Rosa Mountains have been released from the BHI ; had these sheep not been released the stock would be next to extinction. } i k III PLOT PLAN NO. 11393 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5552 Staff Report Page 4 PLOT PLAN CONSIDERATIONS : i The applicant is proposing a noncommercial menagerie that for the most part is a veterinary hospital and research center for sheep . The following are a list of uses that staff is recommending approval of pursuant to Plot Plan No . 11393 and a list of future uses that would require additional permits: RECOMMENDED FUTURE Disease laboratory/ Future Museum Administration Building Concrete Helicopter Pad Existing Pens Future Site New Residence Guard House Grain Storage r... Car Storage 23 parking spaces The applicant submitted the change of zone and plot plan on July 28 1989 and the cases were expedited to hearing due to the need for approval and construction of the facility before winter . menagerie proposed b the applicant is not open to The noncommercial g p p Y PP the public , however , on occasion an educational class will field trip The 8HI according to the applicant has long range pl ans to to the HHI . T g PP 9 9 P include a museum and education center in the future which will be open to the public . These uses would require additional permits prior to construction. The proposed project is not expected to generate II! traffic , it is however subject to the TUMF fee as adopted by the Board of Supervisors in January, 1989. CITY SPHERE OF INFLUENCE: The site is within the sphere of influence of the City of Palm Desert . The city staff participated in the review of the project plan. The city responded with "No Comment" - on a transmittal dated August 3, 1989. The staff of the City of Rancho Mirage also reviewed the project and their comments are attached in a transmittal dated August 8, 19B9. +fir • r r PLOT PLAN NO. 11393 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5552 Staff Report Page 5 EINDINGS: 1 . The applicant requests approval of a change of zone from R-1 to N-A on 290 acres located easterly of Highway 74. 2. The applicant concurrently filed Plot Plan No . 11393 which is an application for a noncommercial menagerie and accessory caretakers and research buildings . 3. The applicant , The Bighorn Institute (BHI ) , has been in existence since 1985 and has recently received a patent for the 290 acre site from the U. S. Bureau of Land Management . 4. Surrounding parcels are zoned R-1 , N-A; and PR-5 within the City of Palm Desert . err 5. Surrounding land uses are predominately vacant with mountainous vegetation , and scattered mountain cottages . , 6. The findings of Environmental Assessment No . 34143 (a copy of which is attached ) are incorporated herein by reference. 7. The Western Coachella Valley Plan designates the site "Wildlife/Vegetation. " 8. The Open Space and Conservation Policies of the Comprehensive General Plan specify that research and educational uses are permitted in the "Wildlife/Vegetation" designation. 9. The Comprehensive General Plan lists the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep as a "Rare" species . 10. The BHI has been responsible for increasing the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep herd at the north end of the Santa Rosa Mountains by approximately 50 percent . 11 . The site is within the sphere of influence of the City of Palm Desert . PLOT PLAN .NO. 11393 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5552 Staff Report Page 6 RECOMMENDATION : ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No . 34143. The planning Department has found that approval of the proposed project will. not have a significant effect on the environment and has completed a Negative Declaration; AND: APPROVAL of Change of Zone Case No . 5552 from R-1 to N-A in accordance with Exhibit 2, based on the above findings and the following conclusions : AND: APPROVAL of Plot Plan No . 11393 subject to the attached conditions , based on the findings listed above, and on the following conclusions: 1 . The project is consistent with all the elements of the Comprehensive General Plan and the Western Coachella Valley Plan. 2. The project ' s overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health , _safety and welfare. 3. The project will conform to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future uses of the surrounding property. LAM:csa 8/31 /89 r. RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 (AGENDA ITEM 2-3 - Tape 1B) CHANGE OF ZONE CASE 5552 - EA 34143 - Big Horn Institute - Cathedral City/Palm Desert District - Fourth Supervisorial District - 290± acres, easterly of Highway 74 - R-1 to N-A, etc. with PLOT PLAN 11393 - PROJECT: Noncommercial Menagerie and accessory Caretakers and Research Buildings Hearing was opened at 10:56 a.m. and was closed at 11:14 a.m. F r STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the Negative Declaration for EA 34143, r approval of Change of Zone 5552 and approval of Plot Plan 11393 based on the findings and conclusions listed in the staff report. The applicant requested to change the zone on 290 acres from R-1 to N-A on property located easterly of Highway 74 and southerly of the City of Palm Desert. The applicant also proposes to construct a noncommercial menagerie, with accessory caretakers and research buildings, for the breeding and study of the rare Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. The site is currently vacant, with a mountainous area, a caretaker's mobilehome and pens for the Bighorn Sheep. West of the site is a large residence, the headquarters of the existing Bighorn Institute (BHI) , which began operations in 1985 through a lease from the BLM in order to begin the study and research of the Bighorn Sheep. A patent was received from the BLM in February of 1989 for the 290 acre site. The surrounding area is predominantly vacant and mountainous. Immediately north of the site is the City of Palm Desert. There has been an approved Specific Plan which covers the area north of the site on both sides of Highway 74 and within the city limits. The specific plan proposes a thousand low-density residential units, 350 acres of open space, and a hotel with amenities on 5.13 acres. Northeasterly of the site, on Portola Avenue, is the Living Desert reserve, a zoo type environment which also has a small population of the Bighorn Sheep, but the sheep are only to show to the public and are not for breeding. Surrounding zoning is R-1 and N-A, with PR-5 within the City of Palm Desert. The Western Coachella Valley Plan designates the site Wildlife/Vegetation, which is for areas for the conservation of critical wildlife or vegetation according to the policies of the Western Coachella Valley Plan. The Open Space designation is also Wildlife/Vegetation which requires that property is appropriately zoned. The proposed N-A zone has been applied to several other areas in the WCVP area, which is designated Wildlife/Vegetation, specifically in the Coachella Valley Preserve area near Thousand Palms Canyon. Staff advised that the site is set back off of Highway 74, and the proposed plot plan identifies a laboratory/research/office area and a residential structure for the housing of scientists doing research on the habitat of the Bighorn Sheep. Future plans of the Institute include a museum, perhaps a helicopter pad, and future pen areas which would require additional permits. 13 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 tow TESTIMONY OF PROPONENTS: Jim DeForge (Executive Director, Bighorn Institute, 5100 Highway 74, Palm Desert) said that he was there to answer any questions. Commissioner Beadling '', asked where the main entrance was going to be. Mr. DeForge said that they have a main easement going into the middle of the g g property, and the rest of the F , roads are all dirt, just for the use of their own vehicles. The entrance road will not be paved. Commissioner Beadling asked whether the parking lot was existing, and Mr. DeForge said that it was not, but was proposed for the future when there is a museum education center. Commissioner Beadling asked about the area where there appears to be a series of steps. Mr. DeForge said that that was the entrance into the facility. He indicated the site of the future museum on the map as well as the other structures planned for the future. Harvey Mescala (Altoon & Porter Architects , 3275 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles) , architect, showed the location of the administration, care facility, and the wash. He said that there would be steps, with minimum paving, provided to reach the building. He said that there is a gravel walk to the residential structure. Mr. DeForge said that they have 40 of the 50 animals monitored and are still losing lambs, with about a 90% lamb mortality. They keep the animal for a year, then release it into the wilds. They have developed a vaccine for the animals, and are the only facility in North America which is working with the tow Bighorn Sheep. Mr. DeForge said that the most successful way to breed sheep in a captive state has been to have minimal contact between people and the animals. They put the sheep in research pens in a hill type habitat. He said that they have had success in restocking the animal in the wild. They continue to have as the number one priority the better care of those animals as well as expanded research. He felt that theirs was a unique facility. Commissioner Beadling asked about the thousand houses which will be going in north of their site. Mr. DeForge said that he talked to the developer and understood that it will not necessarily be a high density project, but that is an issue that they will have to address when it happens. It was it was their intent to wall off people to keep then from walking onto their property because of the nature of the work they do. He said that Westinghouse has been very much interested in their operation in trying to make it something that will E. work for everyone. He said that the Living Desert has the same subspecies that they have, but has had problems trying to reintroduce those animals into the wild. The reason their program works is because they minimize contact with people, and use the hillside environment with the animals. Mr. Mescala advised that the residential structures will be constructed with E the Type R nonrated material . The administration/animal care facility will be ow 14 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 Type 5, 1 hour. They have an agreement with the Fire Department regarding some "'o 2 hour separation walls within the facility in order to give greater protection , in case of fire. Commissioner Beadling asked about the local water supply. Mr. Mescala advised that there is an active well adjacent to one of the pens at this time and they have agreed to create a reservoir or an automatic sprinkler system in the administrative/animal care facility. Mr. Mescala said with the advent of the Westinghouse development, there is a possibility of bringing water up for that facility. If so, they may wish to deal with the storage facility on a temporary basis, then tie into the water system once it arrives. Mr. DeForge said that Westinghouse intends to put very nice homes on the k, property to the west and north. There was no one else who wished to speak on this matter. The hearing was closed at 11: 13 am. . Commissioner Beadling said that she felt that they were lucky to have this project here and wished them success. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The applicant requests approval of a change of zone from R-1 to N-A on 290 acres located easterly of Highway 74; the applicant concurrently filed Plot Plan No. 11393 which is an application for a noncommercial menagerie and accessory caretakers and research buildings ; the applicant, Bighorn Institute (BHI) , has been in existence since 1985 and has recently received a patent for the 290 acre site from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management; surrounding parcels are zoned R-1, N-A, with PR-5 within the City of Palm Desert; surrounding land uses are predominately vacant with mountainous vegetation, and scattered mountain cottages ; the findings of Environmental Assessment No. 34143 are incorporated herein by reference; the Western Coachella Valley Plan designates the site "Wildlife/Vegetation"; the Open Space and Conservation Policies of the Comprehensive General Plan specify that research and educational uses are permitted in the "Wildlife/Vegetation" designation; the Comprehensive General Plan lists the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep as a "Rare" species ; the BHI has been responsible for increasing the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep herd at the north end of the Santa Rosa Mountains by approximately 50 percent; and, the site is within the sphere of influence of the City of Palm Desert. The project is consistent with all the elements of the Comprehensive General Plan and the Western Coachella Valley Plan; the project's overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare; the project will conform to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future uses of the surrounding property; and, will not have a significant effect on the envi rorment. MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner-Beadling, seconded by Commissioner t. Donahoe, and unanimously carried the Commission recommend to the Board adoption of the Negative Declaration for EA 34143, approval of Change of Zone 5552 from R-1 to N-A, in accordance with Exhibit 2, and approval of Plot Plan No. 11393, subject to the conditions of approval and based on the above findings and conclusions. 15 M �I RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 ROLL CALL VOTE RESULTED AS FOLLOWS: s AYES: Commissioners Turner, Donahoe, Beadling, and Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Purviance (AGENDA ITEM 3-1 - Tapes 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B) CHANGE OF ZONE 5310 - EIR 220 - U. S. Windpower - Whitewater Area - Third Supervisorial District - 26t acres, southerly of I-10 and westerly of Hwy 62 - R-R to W-2 h WE CS ECS PERMIT N0. 75 - PROJECT: Operate and Maintain an Arra y of 281 WECS y Hearing was opened at 1 :33 p.m. and was continued to 2:00 p.m. on October 11, 1989. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Certification of EIR 220, approval of Change of Zone 5310 and approval of WECS Permit No. 75 based on the findings and conclusions listed in the staff report. The applicant proposed to change the zone from R-R to W-E on approximately 22 acres of a 635 acre site located southerly of I-10 % o and westerly of Highway 62. The applicant filed a WECS Permit No. 75 concurrently with the change of zone which proposes to construct, operate and maintain an array of 277 horizontal axis downwind turbines of up to 110 feet in height with accessory structures. The zoning of the site is currently W-E and R-R. Surrounding zoning is R-R, W-1 and W-2. Existing on the site is a gravel extraction area, utility easements and vacant property. Surrounding land uses are windfarms and vacant property. There are several nearby communities, the closest of which is the Whitewater community located about a half mile northeast of the site. Staff noted that WECS No. 75 is a reapplication of WECS No. 48 which was denied by the Planning Commission in April of 1985. The related Change of Zone No. 4302, which applied the W-E zone on the 690 acre parcel , was approved through an appeal of the Planning Commission decision by the Board of Supervisors in September of 1985. The Board, at that sane hearing, referred WECS No. 48 back to staff level for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report due to such concerns as noise and visual constraints. Staff issued a Notice of Preparation in February of 1986 for WECS No. 48. The applicant did not prepare the EIR in time and WECS No. 48 was deemed abandoned. The applicant then made a technical resubmi ttal under WECS No. 75 to staff. The initial study for EA 33239 identified the following as insignificant because mitigation will be clearly provided through conditions of approval for future development permits and compliance with existing codes and ordinances : Geotechnical , safety, cultural resources, biological , air quality, public facilities and traffic. There were two biological studies done on site, and 16 -?i Annim <<i'' :n DATE : July 31 1989 46-209 OASIS ST. , ROOM `. G 1 (619) 342-3277 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92204��1..��..��..i11 TO: Assessor's RE: CZ 5552 3 1989 Building and Safety Road and Survey Dept. General , , y 74; Health Department Section 6, T6S, R6E. Fire Protection. Flood Control :-Rl_I[C0/CV1ID/EBL Applicant: 8IG HORN INSTITUTE CTfyWhere`.-z PalmrDeser`t Zoning District: C.C.- P.D. N1 School District D.S.U.S. Zoning: R-1 Super of School . . . .Mrs.Beadling Supervisorial District: B.L.M. P.S. . . .Sup.Larson 4th. . Regional Water Schedule: N/A Waiver: N/A APN: 771-040-009 b 012 C. V. Ecological P.D. State F b G.U.S.F. b W. Indio Proposal : Noncommercial Menagery SCE. . . .SCG. . . .GTE Cal .Trans. N8 Sheriff Please review the case described above and the attached map/exhibit(s). Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to Aug 18 1989 or as soon as possible in order to include them in the staff report or t s tem. Should you have any questions regarding this item, please contact Lori Moss at (619) 342-8277. RELATED CASE FILED: PP 11393 COMMENTS: i D E10-1EID � A U G 101989 RNERSM Coin PLM#"DEPAMM r fM aFM 1 DATE: 8'—J 1 SIGNATURE , PLEASE PRINT NAME AND TITLE: /?.A. ,�,A &7 7� C fZ 1,W RETURN TO: COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 46-209 OASIS ST. , ROOM 304, INDIO, CA. 92201 RlvDwMe�� � ��L . PLanninci imp4inmanL pf:C 2 1 031 4 DO October 5, 1999 City of Palm Desert Community Development Department 73-510 Fred d WaringDrive e Palm Desert , CA 92c60 Attention: Phil Joy Re , TT25296 , C299- 16 (,Bighorn Ventures ) 00ar Mr . Joy, Thank you for thQ? opportunity to let our agency comment on the above project , The Western Coa►Chella Volley Plan land use dosignation for the area to the South of the project site is"Wildlife/Vegetation" , The the pace and Conservation Policies aw of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan 5pescify that areas that ar-V mapped "wildlife/Vegetation" on Cher open space map are for the Coneervation of critical 'wildlifa . and vegetation . The policies also specify that only the following uses are permitted in wildlife/vegetation resodric*s, open space , limited recreation , and rcpsaarcn ar)d taducational uses . On September 13, 1999 , than Riverside County Planning Commission approved Change of Zone No . 5552 to rezone 290 acres south of your project site from R- 1 ( singla family residential ) to N--A (Natural Assets ) . A copy of the staff report is enclosed . A related came that was <appro�,ed concurrently was Plot Plan No . 11393 to allow then Bighorn Institute to -construct a noncommercial menageries , a caretakers ' dwellings, and accessary research buildings . In light of this approved sensitive land use to the south of your project sit® , our deapsrtmer.t feels that considoration should be given to having an open space buffer zone between the southern most property line of your project site and future homes . You Should contact Jim DePorge of the Big Morn Institute at 346-•7334 fcr comments on your proposed project . Section 15206 of the State CEDA Guidelines indicat®s that r.r proposed residential developments of more than 500 dwelling units shall be considered to be of regional or area widw significance . 4080 LEMON STREET, 91" pLOOR 46•20P C)AS1.4 gTr4PPT anniu 13AA City of R& I(In D&Vert Attention: Phil Joy October 5 , 1989 Page 2 I f { Since tie bighorn Ventures is proposing 464 dwelling units , tonsid9!ration should be giver by your Staff as to whether or not . this is a oru ]act of reg :Qnal significance . State Highway 74 is listed 01 the We3tern Coachella Val ; ey Plan as a Scenic. e:orrioor . rnerefore , Connidsra,tion Should Ds Qiven to having generojs perirrete- landscaping and decorative fencing along the project ' a Wi7nway 74 boundary , The proposed golf courza adjacent to Highway 74 is a positive de-sign element . Very truly yours, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANIN:NG DEPARTMENT Roger S , Streeter , Planning Director low Paul F . Clark , Principal planner PFCIJmp Enclosuresc Staff Report for Cates CZ 5552 PP N-A Zone requirements tow