Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1006 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - OCTOBER 6, 1992 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER j 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CALL TO ORDER I Chairperson Whitlock called the meeting to order at 7 : 03 p.m. I II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE I !, Commissioner Downs led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Carol Whitlock, Chairperson Bob Downs Bob Spiegel Randy White Members Absent: Sabby Jonathan Staff Present: Ray Diaz Phil Joy Doug Phillips Seyed Safavian Steve Smith Dick Folkers Jeff Winklepleck Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: "' Consideration of the September 15, 1992 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel , approving the September 15, 1992 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 4-0 . I V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz stated there were no planning commission items before the city council at their September 24, 1992 meeting. VI . CONSENT CALENDAR None. VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case Nos . C/Z 92-4, PP 92-6, PM 27400 - COOK PARTNERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Applicant Request for approval of a change of zone, precise plan of design, tentative parcel map and negative declaration of MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1992 I environmental impact to construction of a mmercial allow / law center at the northwest corner of Club Drive and Cook Street. Mr. Smith indicated this matter was before the commission on September 15 . At that time the traffic study had not been completed, so the matter was continued. In the interim the department of public works received the traffic study. They provided staff with their written conditions which were enclosed in the report. In addition, commission received several letters (i .e. from Marriott Corporation and a memo from Commissioner Jonathan indicating concerns with the parking and the proposed height of the Ralph's sign) . Mr. Smith stated that staff received a revised site plan and that the applicant also provided two models of the center: one of the center itself and a model depicting the corner at Country Club and Cook Street. He noted there was also a copy of the material sample board and indicated that one of the concerns from the last meeting was the actual colors that would be used. He stated that there were nine satellite pads : 4 would be restaurants, 4 retail and 1 at the corner of Desert Springs Drive would be an office building. Parking on the revised plan was increased to 1143 spaces, providing parking at a ratio of 5 . 04 spaces per 1000 square feet. As well, the to theater building that was formerly at 40,000 square feet was reduced to 36, 000. Mr. Smith stated that in the staff report he listed the concerns that commission had expressed at the last meeting and how the applicant responded to each one. Mr. Smith reviewed each item. Commissioner Spiegel felt that if color nos . 7-11 were used as major colors they would be too noticeable. Mr. Smith indicated that the applicant could respond to that to explain how those colors would be applied. He stated that the revised site plan showed a series of freestanding signs . At the present time the ordinance limits freestanding signs to the center identification signs which they proposed at Cook and Country Club and at Desert Springs Drive. The seven other freestanding signs for the tenants would need an amendment to the ordinance. Mr. Smith stated that staff was recommending approval of the application subject to a series of conditions, (i .e. including a revision to comply with the parking) . He felt that commission would probably want to see that revision since it would be a substantial change that would add approximately 100 parking spaces or reduce the buildings by a similar ratio or a combination of both. He indicated that the commission could continue the matter to review the new plan or leave it in the hands of staff. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6 , 1992 Commissioner Downs asked if the parking was left at 5 .5 and for the applicant to amend and staff handled it, would there ""' need to be a continuance. Mr. Diaz stated that he appreciated the confidence of the commission, but considering the importance of the corner recommended that the revised plan come back to the commission. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. KEN FEENSTRA, 74-947 Highway 111 in Indian Wells, informed commission that Larry Johnson was also present representing the applicant. He felt that staff had done an excellent job summarizing commission concerns and he stated that he would go through the items one by one. He said the item for design work focused on Cook and Country Club and they prepared a model depicting that corner. He stated that they also had an artist rendering. He indicated that the other model showed the entire theme of the center. The second item was for effective screening on the back of the center; as indicated by Mr. Smith, they spent quite some time with Eric Johnson and went over in detail the landscape plans . He said there was now extensive screening on 'A' Street. Mr. Feenstra indicated there would be some minor modification to the �.. plant material, but was no problem. On the requirement to control odors from the restaurant, the additional conditions were fine with them. The proposed center being too large was another issue; they were asking for additional acreage. He said they prepared an alternative plan that demonstrated how the center could be developed within the present zoning. The project would become a rectangle and he did not feel it was very imaginative, but it could be done. He said that in their proposal they were trying to make something that was special and exciting. The next item was the parking issue. He asked Mr. Johnson to address that issue. MR. LARRY JOHNSON distributed an analysis he had done. He noted that on the staff report on page 5 there was a compilation of various properties, their square footages, and the parking spaces provided. He said that of all the existing centers in Palm Desert, the highest parking ratio was Downey Savings at 5 . 1/1000 . Of all the existing and proposed centers, the highest was Desert Crossing at 5. 32/1000 . He indicated that for the Food 4 Less center, the city required a parking ratio of 5 . 14 and the developer chose to provide more parking. He said 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1992 that when they reduced the theater, they put more parking too there, which gave them a total of 1164 spaces and yielded 5 . 13 spaces/1000 . He said that all of the spaces were 9 1/2 feet wide, instead of the city' s standard 9 feet wide. If they were to go through and modify those to the city standards, they would pick up 44-48 spaces and if those were added in, with no compact parking and the city' s standard parking, they ended up with 1208 spaces, which gave them a ratio of over 5 . 32, and was the highest ratio required of any development in Palm Desert or Cathedral City in the staff report. He indicated that he also went through the code when he prepared that other statement. If they consider themselves a neighborhood center, or district commercial center, they would have to have between 5 and 15 acres; to be considered a regional center, the development would have to be at least 35 acres . At 25 acres he felt they were in a no man' s land in the code, and regarding the code section about the 5 .5 for each 1000 feet of gross leasable area, he said the code stated the standards may be reduced in the following ratio percentage per 1000 car parking area and could be reduced by 10% subject to justification of the findings as set forth. In the requirements, he felt it would be easy to justify a reduction, along with the fact that if commission decided they wanted the applicant to provide nine foot wide spaces to get more spaces, they could easily get 1208 spaces on the site, which would give them the highest parking ratio of any shopping center in Palm Desert. Mr. Smith stated that given his experience at the Food 4 Less/Cinemark Center, he did not feel the commission should consider one parking space less than a 5 .5/1000 ratio. Mr. Diaz indicated that the 5 .5 requirement was part of the analysis for CEQA, so although the ordinance may allow a lower one, that was a concern of staffs . He stated that the commission might wish to have the applicant address the findings . Commissioner Downs asked if the amount of parking being proposed by the applicant fell within the ten percent ratio. Mr. Diaz stated that it might do so, but noted what a huge success the parking at the Town Center has been. He said that staff was concerned about the parking and was bringing that issue up. The 21 spaces next to the theater were allowable, but in terms of the plan, if theater users would be using that, there would be a confusion in terms of cars going in and out of there. 4 no MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6 , 1992 Mr. Feenstra noted that the theater in Cathedral City was a tenplex theater and theirs would probably be a fourplex with approximately 1000 seats . He said that the fifth condition was that the Ralph's sign was too high. He showed the commission using the model the relativity of the sign to the sale of the center. He felt that by having the sign up higher, it was proportioned to the tower at Ralph's . He felt the proportions would look strange with the sign lower and was 700 feet away from Country Club Drive. He noted that the staff report said that it was similar to the situation with the Ralph's at Cook and Highway 111; he demonstrated on the model the difference in distance. Regarding item no. 6 about Sunline, he indicated there was just a lack of communication; the bus stop would be moved. He noted that on the color chart, the lighter colors would be the major colors; the Ralph' s tower would be a little darker; accent colors would be added and different accent combinations would be used. He stated that the use of colors would be going to the architectural commission for approval . He said that the next issue was traffic. Mr. Johnson addressed that issue and said that he attended the study session and heard Mr. Folkers ' presentation on traffic. He felt it was hard to determine how many cars would be in a specific point at a certain time in the future. The traffic study they had prepared analyzed three different situations : the existing situation today, what it would look like at build out, and what it would look like in the year 2010 . That was the time anticipated that the Cook Street Interchange would be completed and that traffic would be involved. He said that they modified the traffic study to include Walmart, which they had not done originally. The traffic engineer suggested mitigation measures that this project could do so that it would not make things worse than things would have been without the project, which was basically what he felt had been done. In the traffic report it was noted that the city hired J.F. Davidson to do it, and in that report it stated that there would probably be a level D or worse in certain intersections because physical restraints were such that level C could not be achieved. The traffic report for Indian Ridge stated the same thing. The proposed project' s traffic report indicated that certain intersections would be a level of service D and at some times during the day at some intersections there might even be an E level. He said that the point was that low 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6 , 1992 based on the projections used to try to guess how many cars would come through the intersection in the year 2010, it could not be mitigated any more than that proposed. He said that he had discussed this with Mr. Folkers and the condition of approval was that they would mitigate it the best they could per the director of public works ' approval . Mr. Folkers stated that as discussed in study session, in many areas of the city there were some problems being foreseen. If this development did not go in, this corner would still have problems . He felt it behooved everyone to try and mitigate the problems now. He said that staff had its work cut out for them trying to make this development the first phase of that whole section 4 development so that it would not cause a lot of chaos or congestion at the various intersections . The applicant worked into their study the situation with Walmart and traffic over at the Indian Ridge project. He said they were not totally enthralled with the study they received, because there were some items of concern. For this particular project, there were traffic concerns and they did not have all the answers to them. He said there would have to be some reanalysis and in depth review with the traffic volumes that would have to be handled in this area. In general, public works intended to work with the developer and if the situation was such that they could not go any further, they would have to go to city council, because there would be some problems in that area. Commissioner Downs asked if Mr. Folkers had a problem with this development; Mr. Folkers replied no, and indicated that there was a good working rapport with the applicant and his staff . He said that sometimes there were situations when dealing with the financial aspects and limited resources that affected both parties . He noted that sometimes the mutual goals could not be met. Commissioner Downs asked about the issue of getting enough land for the future; Mr. Folkers did not feel the applicant had a problem with the land because there was 55 feet of right-of-way and 110 on each street--it was a matter of them moving the utilities and there were some high power lines along the south side and there was a lot of expensive features out there in order to do what they need to do. Commissioner Downs asked if the applicant was cooperating with staff; Mr. Folkers replied that this point in time, yes . Mr. Johnson clarified that they would feel kind of put upon if because of Mr. Bone' s project to the east and Mr. Walton' s project to the west, if they were stuck with rl 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1992 widening the street all at their own expense. He stated Y.r that they would want to see some type of sharing involved. Mr. Feenstra stated that item no. 9 had to do with building heights. The zoning ordinance addressed that and the Planned Commercial Districts section of the code was created for these types of public hearings to take things differently other than the straight forward code. He read, "It is the purpose of the planned commercial district to provide the flexibility in development, creative and imaginative design in the development of parcels of land as coordinated projects to provide a range of commercial centers in the city. These range from the specially center designed to serve developments which have unique commercial needs to regional centers which cater to the regional retail needs in the city. " He said the point was that they felt a little flexibility in the building height like with Ralph's tower would fit within that type of context. He also noted the relativity of the height of this project with the height of the Marriott hotel . He demonstrated the height using the models . On page 7, he said there were other staff items he wished to address . He stated they were trying to create a center patterned from the architecture of ". Luis Barragon and in his architecture there were rooms he created, which they tried to re-create in the parking lot and landscaped area, as well as in front of the main building where in the corners of the enhanced paving areas there were major palm trees that created the other corners . There was also enhanced paving in the centers where the two streets crossed and at the entrances . The importance to them was that the enhanced paving needed to be a colored concrete rather than a stamped concrete. He said that it was a Barragon, as well as a safety issue. They were not looking forward to wheelchairs going across that kind of stamped paving or shopping carts going across it. They wanted it to be a fairly smooth surface concrete with different significant colors within the concrete to create the "rooms" . He said that in the second paragraph, the DSL satellite pads were initially laid out in a similar fashion along the street frontages . Following many meetings it was determined that the pads be clustered to create more of a village atmosphere. They had been back and forth with their architects and staff. They tried to cluster the corner of Cook and Country Club, but in general when clustering, it created a more difficult situation with parking. As pads were 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6 , 1992 clustered, there was a longer distance to walk to the parking from the pads and he felt that was a problem. He said they were proposing just what they had before and would like to stick with that. In the conditions of approval , he referred to the art in public places fee. He stated that they would like to create art on their project such as the obelisks, fountains and credit those features against the fee. He felt they would far exceed the fee with those kinds of artworks . He said they would also have the major architectural elements spilling water into pools . Commissioner Spiegel informed the applicant that would have to be decided by the Civic Arts Committee. Mr. Feenstra stated that on item no. 12 they had no problem with turning the day care center building. He felt that was a wise idea to shield the play area from the wind. On item no. 15, he had already addressed the parking requirement. Item no. 16, they would like to go back to the architectural commission and deal with this whole sign issue. Under item no. 17, they would like the building height to be allowed in these instances, which he felt were minor. He said that concluded their presentation and were available for questions . Chairperson Whitlock asked if there was anyone who wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. DAVE ROLSTON, General Manager of Marriott' s Desert Springs Resort, stated that he was present to introduce himself to the commission. He said that he was a relative newcomer to the valley. He indicated his company was concerned about the portion of the project that had to do with Country Club and how their guests would perceive the community as they arrive at the hotel . He said that Mr. Carver and Mr. Feenstra had been good friends and kept them informed throughout the entire process and he appreciated that. He was concerned that the initial proposal was for a gas station and automobile dealership. He was pleased that was no longer part of the project. Mr. Rolston stated that any concern he might have would be from a businessman's standpoint, rather than a community situation. He felt that four restaurants added to the community at this time would be quite an addition. He indicated that most of the hospitality businesses were not doing well right now and the short term forecast was not a rosy one. He noted 8 'o MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1992 that Commissioner Down' s restaurant was one of the few �•�► that could stay open in the summer and make a living. He questioned the need to add this to the community at this time and even while he did not oppose that this was a good use for Country Club and compatible with the already existing purpose, but in his mind he wondered if this was in keeping with the spirit of the other persons who came to this town in recent years and invested their time, energy and money on E1 Paseo only to find out that there was another series of restaurants being proposed. That was his only observation. He said there was nothing about this project that Marriott would find significant to oppose. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony and asked for comments from the commission. Commissioner White said that he agreed with staff that the parking issue was very significant. He also felt it was important that this corner be treated as a special corner and that the city not delete some of the landscaping or architectural elements which were appealing simply in favor of adding more parking. He liked the idea of Carver Development' s to make this something special and if that was the idea, then making the parking spaces narrower than +� proposed or deleting some of the trees in the parking area would be inconsistent with that. Another thing that occurred to him when looking at the architectural design, particularly the Ralph' s sign which he did not feel was an architectural design, was that differing elevations were interesting and appealing. If those differing elevations had something that was unappealing like a sign it would detract from the center. He suggested to the commission that the sign not be allowed to remain at the proposed height and asked that the additional parking spaces be included on a plan and presented to the commission so that they could review how the plan would change. He did not want to see this as another strip development. Chairperson Whitlock asked for clarification that Commissioner White did not want to see the applicant reduce the width of the parking spaces; Commissioner White confirmed that he wished them to retain the size proposed at 9 1/2 feet wide. Commissioner Spiegel said that his feelings were the same. He did not feel a large Ralph's sign was too creative and was not necessary at that corner adjacent to the Marriott hotel . He also felt that because mistakes were made in the past %RW 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1992 regarding parking which was totally inadequate ( i .e. at the Town Center during certain times of the year) he felt the city should stay with the proposal of 5 . 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. He stated that he would like a better understanding of how the colors would be used. He felt the design element in the center was wonderful and very exciting, but some of the colors he was not sure about and how and where they would be used was a concern. Chairperson Whitlock thanked the applicant for being so well prepared in answering concerns and appreciated the models . She stated that she could not add any further comments to those made by Commissioners Spiegel and White, because she concurred with them. Commissioner Downs also indicated that he had nothing further to add. Chairperson Whitlock reopened the public testimony and asked for a motion for continuance to allow the applicant to come back with a revised parking plan. Mr. Feenstra asked if they could receive approval with conditions on colors, the sign, and parking. He said that they would like to get to the city council and keep the project moving. Mr. Diaz felt that the commission approved the concept of the project and it was only a matter of working out those details . The colors were going to the architectural commission and that would give planning commission an opportunity be more comfortable with it. He realized that time meant money to the developer, but felt this corner was significant and the continuance justified. Chairperson Whitlock asked for clarification as to the art in public places condition. Mr. Diaz stated that civic arts would determine if the art onsite was in lieu of the fee. Commissioner White indicated that if staff was talking about the obelisks, spillways and fountains, he felt it would be more likely to be considered art if the decoration on them were something other than stucco; some material that was more unusual like rock or metal . Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, continuing C1Z 92-4, PP 92-6 and PM 27400 to October 20, 1992 by minute motion. Carried 4-0. 10 '0 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6 , 1992 �... B. Case No. PP/CUP 92-7 - COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan/conditional use permit to allow construction of an 82,868 square foot Coachella Valley Water District satellite office on the existing Palm Desert Water Reclamation property on Hovley Lane approximately 1400 feet west of Cook Street. Mr. Diaz explained that there were two letters received by the applicant which indicated that the applicant was a public agency and they were exempt from the city' s zoning requirements, but they voluntarily sought the approval of the conditional use permit. He also indicated there was a letter requesting a waiver of fees; he said that decision could not be made by planning commission, but had to be done by the city council . Mr. Winklepleck stated that the project would consist of three main units : a 55,763 square foot office building, a 25, 000 square foot warehouse, and a 2, 105 square foot service station .. with a gas pump island. The office building would be a split level with the one story element facing Hovley Lane and the two story element facing the rear of the subject property, which was south. He explained that there would be two access points to the site: the main one towards the middle of the site which would allow ingress and egress, and the other access would be an egress only off Hovley for service vehicles at the western edge of the site. The architectural commission approved the architecture and landscaping for this project on August 11 subject to deletion of three or four parking spaces in the main entrance areas to allow provision for some colored or stamped paving to enhance the main entrance. The public institutional zone did not have any specific requirements for development, but any requirements were as approved. For purposes of comparison, staff used the service industrial zone requirements . He said that the proposal met or exceeded all the requirements for the S. I . zone. The architecture and site plan would be set back on Hovley and there was an existing row of Tamarisk trees that would screen most of the project. In regard to the conditions of approval from the fire marshal on item no. 1 under other, they had some problems with the access, however, that had been worked out per Mr. Chittenden. There was also some concerns from the water district regarding fire sprinklering of all the buildings; they suggested that it i` 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1992 be left up to the fire marshal for a determination. Also, `r under public works item no. 2, the applicant and/or water district had been in contact with Mr. Folkers and worked out what needed to be done. Mr. Folkers confirmed that it had been worked out. Mr. Winklepleck recommended approval of the project for the conditional use permit, subject to the conditions of approval . Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. GARY NOGLE, architect for the Coachella Valley Water District, stated that he would like to make a brief presentation. He noted that Mr. Levy was also present to answer questions . Mr. Nogle stated that the reason for this facility was because of all the growth in the valley that had taken place to the north of the valley and with the existing Coachella Valley District facility being located in the southern portion of the valley, that created an operation problem for distribution of service vehicles. This facility was intended to rectify that situation and locate a service facility in better proximity to the center of the domestic water service area. He indicated the project was located on the same property as the existing disposal site along Cook. He stated that part of the property would remain vacant for holding ponds and to allow room for expansion. The initial phase of the project would be office space approximately 33,000 square feet and a 2,000 square foot service station with islands . He indicated they had allocated space on the site for the main entry off Hovley with customer and visitor parking. He stated that the whole frontage of their site and immediate area at the entry was intended to be a positive asset to the valley; there would be a demonstration garden, zero scape landscaping and would be used as an educational tool to demonstrate proper landscaping for this region. He indicated to the side would be employee parking and at the rear of the site would be the service vehicle parking. He said they planned to signalize the intersection. He also indicated there would be a secondary egress point to accommodate employee circulation and egress from the site. The property was presently well buffered with tamarisk trees all around the perimeter and they planned to retain that tamarisk tree landscaping. He felt it would act as a very good 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6 , 1992 backdrop for the zero scape landscape treatment, as well as buffer their use from the neighbors . He stated that VOW he appreciated the positive comments from the architectural commission and their intent was to have a conservative architecture that still represented civic pride and the quality of Palm Desert. Commissioner Spiegel asked if they would close the existing facility. Mr. Nogle replied no, it would supplement the facility in Coachella, which was 100, 000 square feet and they would retain the irrigation department, administrative function and board room. He stated that the home office would always be Coachella. The proposed project was intended to be a satellite facility. Commissioner Spiegel asked how many people would be employed; Mr. Nogle stated there would be a relocation of 190 existing employees . Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone else wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Spiegel asked for further clarification on the signal . Mr. Nogle stated that they prepared a traffic report that indicated that a traffic signal was justified in subsequent phases, perhaps in phase 2 or 3 of the project. He said that it was not absolutely necessary right now, but the `� traffic report stipulated that any additional use of the property would require a traffic signal eventually. Given that eventuality, it was Coachella Valley's preference to provide the traffic signal at this time, rather than later. He felt it would enhance the circulation on Hovley and reduce any conflicts . Mr. Folkers stated that he knew his staff had been discussing this, but did not know if there had been a solid commitment to providing the signal . He said that his department would be working with the district on this, and there was no problem with the signal being eventually provided. Mr. Diaz noted that they were asking a waiver of all the fees and if they put the signal in, in effect the city would be receiving signal fees they were asking a waiver on from council so it would not cost the city anything if it met warrants. Commissioner Spiegel indicated that whether or not there was a signal did not effect the commission' s approval of the project; Mr. Diaz stated that was correct. 13 %EW MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1992 Action: Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Downs, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0 . Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1588, approving PP/CUP 92-7 , subject to conditions . Carried 4-0. C. Case No. CUP 92-11 - MR. SEAN SUNTAG, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to expand the existing Louise' s Pantry restaurant by 600 square feet (enclose the existing east patio area) located in the 111 Town Center at Highway 111 and Town Center Way. Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report and reviewed the history of the case. He stated that the one area that staff was concerned about was the setback. Enclosing the patio area would replace the existing three to four foot high perimeter wall with a building wall that would be approximately 14 feet in height. He said that revised plans were distributed to commission and the matter was before the architectural commission on September 22 . They did not approve the proposal at that time; they felt if it was going to be acceptable, then the addition would have to be stepped in away from the corner to allow for more landscaping or a greater setback. The plan staff received showed a four to five foot step back from the north wall of the restaurant. He said it was his intention to take the revised plan back to architectural review on October 13 to see if this would meet their criteria. He was not sure stepping it in four feet was enough in their minds . He said there would be a reduction in the setback for this part of the building from Town Center Way from the existing 25 feet which was the zone requirement down to ten feet of setback. There would still be 20 feet between the curb and the wall of the building. Staff recommended a continuance until the architectural commission decided if the revised plan was satisfactory. If the commission felt the reduction in the setback from 25 feet to 10 feet regardless of the design was unacceptable, then staff should be directed to prepare a resolution of denial . If the variance for the reduction in setback was acceptable if designed right, then staff would request a continuance until architectural commission had a chance to review the change. Staff recommended a continuance to October 20, 1992 . 14 we MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1992 Commissioner Downs asked what was there now; Mr. Smith +�+ distributed some pictures of the site and described the distance between the existing wall and the proposal . After further discussion, Mr. Diaz indicated that the existing wall was similar to those allowed in the residential zones . He said that in this case instead of the low wall, there would be the entire 14 foot building ten feet away, instead of the open space. Mr. Folkers indicated that the city had been approached by Sunline and some concerned residents with regard to the crossing south of the bus stops . He noted there were bus shelters on both sides and there was pedestrian traffic crossing Town Center Way in a way that caused concerns . He said they had been talking with Sunline about shifting bus stops . The one on the west side in the project' s area and the one on the east area up to the corner or by the car wash. At this time the applicant had not been approached, so he was unaware of those discussions . He stated that at one time the bus stop was by the corner, but the fumes from the buses caused some problems to the patrons and it was decided to shift everything south. He felt this needed to be discussed because of the safety situation. He said that the public works department would like to meet with the owner to discuss the situation because if he intended to wall it off and not `ow have anything open where the diesel fumes could cause problems, then there might be some noise or loitering problems . Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. SEAN SUNTAG, owner and applicant, stated they were trying to enclose that patio to offer better service for their mature clientele. He said that 50-70 percent of the clientele were mature and it was hard because they did not have a waiting area inside the restaurant. He indicated that enclosing the patio would enhance the look on each side of pad five on Town Center Way. Their revised drawings matched the look of the building and the enclosure would allow them to employ more people full time. He stated that the main reason for the enclosure was for the comfort of his mature clientele. He indicated that he was not aware of the bus stop situation, but to move it closer to the corner at Town Center Way might cause greater congestion and problems at the intersection. He said it was not desirable and they have delivery door entrances and lots of walls with some `,,, 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1992 shrubbery and they already had some loitering going on alsi back there. He felt that by enclosing the patio it would make the corner more attractive. He indicated that right now they can only use the patio 50-60 days per year. He said that his architect was able to take all the recommendations of the architectural committee and incorporated them into the plan. Mr. Suntag indicated that based on the commission' s findings, if the four feet step back was not sufficient, they would contact Ron Gregory who did the original landscaping on the project and he could revise and enhance the landscaping. Commissioner Spiegel asked what the seating capacity of the patio was; Mr. Suntag replied maximum seating was 44 seats and they did not plan to add any additional ones . Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony and asked for commission comments . Commissioner Downs stated that based on staff ' s recommendation he was in favor of a continuance. Chairperson Whitlock and Commissioner White concurred. Chairperson Whitlock reopened the public testimony and asked for a motion of continuance. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, continuing CUP 92-11 to October 20, 1992 by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . CHAIRPERSON WHITLOCK CALLED A TWO MINUTE RECESS AT 8 : 35 P.M. D. Case Nos . GPA 90-3 AND C/Z 90-12 - MILLER RICHARDS PARTNERSHIP, Applicant Request for approval of a general plan land use designation for 640 acres of unincorporated land from Mountainous (414 acres) and R-4 (226 acres) to Open Space ( 394 acres) and Hillside Planned Residential (246 acres) ; pre-annexation zoning from W-2 to O.S. and HPR/PCD (planned community development) ; zone change for 54 acres from HPR to HPR/PCD; and recommendation as to adequateness of an environmental impact report for a project known as "The Crest" on 640 acres north of the "Cahuilla Hills" and 54 16 I MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6 , 1992 acres opposite the Palm Valley Channel from "Sommerset" . Mr. Joy outlined the salient points of the staff report. He informed commission that the Ogden Environmental Group was present and would review the environmental impact report for commission. Mr. Joy stated that the main environmental impact was to the Bighorn Sheep since the area to be developed was within the least significant bighorn sheep habitat area, while the dedicated area was classified as the next higher bighorn sheep area as far as levels of importance, with there being five different levels . He said the sheep were proposed for endangered species listing by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and they commented at a late date that the project should be denied or scaled back significantly. Mr. Joy said that this was something they worked with the consultants on trying to solicit Fish and Wildlife Service comments and staff sent several copies of the environmental impact report to them going back to February and staff had a difficult time getting them to respond. They finally did, but it was four or five days ago and their letter raised various questions and when staff tried to contact them, was instructed that Mr. Art Davenport was the only person who could answer the questions, but was gone until October 19 . Mr. Joy noted that the consultant did have previous discussions with Mr. ..+ Davenport. Staff indicated that the hillside ordinance was not intended for large parcels of hillside, only the five acre parcels that predominately make up the present city limits . Based on a general concern over hillside development and supported by a letter from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, staff prepared a resolution denying the proposed 183 units on the 640 acre unincorporated area and instead recommended retaining the current county designation of 84 units . If the commission was inclined to approve another option which would allow this project to be approved, then two of the issues to be decided included the average slope of the parcel because in two different instances on the 55 acre portion and on the 246 acre community area the average slope was calculated by the applicant 's engineer to be 30 .4 percent. The hillside ordinance provided two different classifications for both the number of units allowed to be built and for the amount of land to be graded. Thirty percent was the breaking point. He said that in the ordinance between 26 and 30 percent a certain number of units were allowed, and between 31 and 35 percent, a certain number of units were allowed. In this case it was 30 .4 percent and there was no precedence to use. He said that in order to approve the project as designed, the commission would have to round the figure down 17 I r.•► MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6 , 1992 to 30 percent. He said the other issue was the transfer of �11 density, which was also required for the project to be constructed. He indicated that the 246 acre community area and dedicated hillside space and what they would be doing was whether or not commission would calculate the average slope for the entire 640 acre parcel which would come to 40 . 7 , or if it was broken up and average slope calculated just for the community area and then calculate the average slope for the dedicated open space area and if this was the case, this was how the applicant was interpreting the hillside ordinance, which meant allowance of so many units in the community area and then transfer density from the open space area back down to the community area, so that would mean concentration of the development into the community area and the actual development in the area would exceed the city' s hillside standards and this would be because the density was being transferred down into that area. Commission would have to determine if that determination was acceptable. Mr. Joy introduced Shawna Anderson of Ogden. Ms . Anderson stated that the environmental impact report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act to identify the environmental impacts resulting from the approval of The Crest general plan amendment and prezone and the implementation of the project as proposed. �r/1 The EIR was an information document to guide city staff, decision makers and the public in making an informed decision on the project. The EIR analyzed The Crest project and concluded that it would result in significant effects to eight major issues . The project as proposed was not consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan which called for preservation of habitats and ecosystems in existing natural areas. The proposed project was incompatible with the onsite and adjacent Bighorn Sheep habitat. Mitigation measures included in the EIR included redesign of the project in two canyon areas to pull the development away from the secondary sheep use habitat. Other mitigation measures were also required. She indicated that a geotechnical study of the site was done by GeoCon based on site recognizance and review of pertinent literature. Various geotechnical constraints exist on the site including slope instability and difficulty in soil excavation. Mitigation measures in the EIR included several grading and construction techniques recommended in the GeoCon study. A preliminary hydrologic study was also performed on the site to study the storm water flows through the project site. Flood velocity on site would be high during a major storm, subjecting people to potential flooding danger. Mitigation measures included in 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1992 the EIR would be education to keep residents informed about flood hazards and to conduct detailed hydrologic studies of flows in the two major creeks onsite and implement the measures to control flows and minimize erosion as recommended in those studies . The project would result in local short term air quality impacts from construction equipment and grading activities . Mitigation measures included implementing appropriate techniques to minimize pollution emissions from construction equipment and increase energy efficiency and reduce direct emissions . Based on a circulation study performed by BDI the traffic generated by the project would add to the over-capacity operation of State Route 74 and State Route 111 during the mid-day peak hour period, which was 5: 30- 6 : 30 p.m. The developer would be required to construct a right-turn lane on westbound State Route 111 to mitigate this problem. Other mitigation measures in the EIR were included, but were not the responsibility of the development but the city. She indicated that the project would result in significant biological resource impacts and that conclusion was based on biological resource field surveys conducted by Ogden biologists, literature review and consultation with the resource agencies and other experts in the field. The project would impact Desert Tortoise habitat onsite and the Desert Tortoise was currently listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and was subject to protection under the Endangered Species Act. The project would result in a loss of habitat and habitat degradation. The project would also impact Peninsular Bighorn Sheep habitat onsite through habitat encroachment, loss of habitat, noise, light and glare, presence of domestic pets and an increase in disease vectors from use of irrigation. The project would also impact desert dry wash woodland from road construction and this was considered a sensitive habitat by the California Department of Fish and Game. She indicated that some mitigation measures included in the EIR were general in nature relating to construction practices . Mitigation measures for specific species included for the Desert Tortoise the developer obtaining a Section A permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and provide offsite habitat at a ratio determined acceptable by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a qualified biologist would have to be on call during the construction phase. For the Bighorn Sheep, the EIR included prohibition of pedestrian and vehicular traffic in the dedicated open space area. The project would be required to pull away from two of the western most canyons on the site as shown in the EIR to pull away development from the secondary use habitat and from the one sign of sheep use found on the site. The project would also be required to construct 19 ... MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6 , 1992 barriers in selected locations between the development and dedicated open space area and mandatory use of landscaping would be required to minimize irrigation. Construction restrictions would be placed to minimize noise levels and use of non-glare materials and low intensity lighting onsite. Other mitigation measures addressing other habitats included obtaining a stream bed alteration permit for wetland impacts and enhancement and replacement of desert dry wash woodland that would be destroyed. Ms . Anderson stated that Ogden archaeologists performed an archeological site investigation and identified 22 archaeologic sites on the project site. The developer would be required to perform a testing and mitigation program to determine the significance of each site and then to identify appropriate mitigation for each archaeologic site which could include avoiding the site, capping the site or data recovery. Two public services would be impacted significantly by the project including impacts to schools and police. The school district was operating above capacity and the police staffing levels were slightly under the county's target officers per 1, 000 population for the area at the time the EIR was written. Mitigation measures included the requirement to pay impact fees and bring police staffing levels to county standards. Adverse but not significant impacts included visual quality from the alteration of natural land forms . Because most of the project would not be visible from State Route 74, this was considered to be an adverse impact, but not significant. Mitigation measures were included in the EIR to address this issue. Other impacts included impacts to barrel cactus and sonoran creosote bush shrub. All of the significant effects identified in the EIR could be mitigated to below a level of insignificance by adopting the mitigation measures described in the EIR. She stated that the city solicited comments from the responsible agencies, the public, surrounding jurisdictions and other interested parties through the distribution of the notice of preparation. Ms . Anderson indicated that the NOP comments were included as an appendix to the EIR and had been addressed. The Draft EIR went out for public review on February 21 and was granted a 45 day extension. The public review ended on May 22, 1992 . Comments on the DEIR were received from two State agencies : the Department of Transportation and the California Department of Fish and Game; one Federal agency: the Bureau of Land Management; in Riverside County: the Coachella Valley Water District, the Sierra Club, the Coachella Valley Mountain Conservancy, and two members of the public. She stated that the Final EIR addressed the responses to those comments . 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6 , 1992 Commissioner White asked Mr. Joy which portion of the hillside f..r planned residential district ordinance referred to that the applicant had applied, if it was option 4 . Mr. Joy replied no, the applicant was referring to option 1 within some of his text which would allow him 259 units for the entire project and he was coming in with 209 units . Commissioner White asked if this was considering the entire 690 acres; Mr. Joy replied yes, that would be rounding the 30 .4 average slope down to 30 percent and transferring the density. Commissioner White stated that under those circumstances 77 . 5% of the remaining property would remain in its natural state and the development would be 1 . 66 acres per unit. Mr. Joy stated that would be the overall on the entire 640 acre parcel and he believed the applicant was transferring the allowable gradeable area down to this community area also. Commissioner Downs asked if this area was between the Desert Sands Unified School District and the Palm Springs Unified School District; Mr. Joy stated that the part that was in the city was Desert Sands and the part in the county was in Palm Springs . Mr. Diaz indicated it had not been worked out in the past, but noted there had been two school board administrative changes since the last time he tried to work with them. He stated that city-wise, staff would prefer the two school districts to work this out, but staff would get involved if it New needed to. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. EUGENE GERITZ, the Geritz Group, 2505 Ardath Road in La Jolla, stated that he was present on behalf of the Miller and Richards family, who were the owners of The Crest project. The families had owned the property for approximately 60 years . He said they had been pursuing approval of the project for two years and appreciated staff ' s efforts to develop a plan that he felt was an excellent project. He divided his presentation up into several sections : a slide presentation that gave a overview of the site and the vistas of the site from the city and included the planning proposal itself and some examples of implementation of the standards they established as implemented on similar projects in the Scottsdale/Phoenix area. He stated when they started this project they were told that it was a special site and one that would take an extraordinary plan in order to obtain the city's approval . He indicated they went to the council at a study session at the beginning of the 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6 , 1992 planning process to get a relatively clear statement of what the city' s major concerns might be. He felt they had addressed those concerns and it was up to the commission to determine whether they felt they had been addressed or not. He stated that they were only holding 81 acres out of the 695 acres for development and asked that the commission look at this project from a qualitative, not quantitative point of view and give them the ability to prove that the sites they wanted to put homes on were really appropriate and proper. He said that one issue raised was the potential relationship of the site and the primary habitat of the bighorn sheep and the lambing area. He indicated that the EIR diagrams clearly showed where those areas were and he stated that there was a ridge between his project and the lambing area to the west, approximately one mile away. He felt that with this type of terrain there would not be any transmission of light or sound from the project area to the bighorn area. Mr. Geritz told commission that when standing on his site right now, he could not hear anything, not even traffic from Highway 74 . Mr. Geritz distributed a report of the two different slope analyses, the city versus the county zoning, and how many units would be allowed under each. Mr. Geritz reviewed Palm Desert' s designation: HPR was to encourage minimal aw grading, retain natural vegetation, retain natural landmarks and features including vistas and natural skyline. He agreed with all of those things, which was why they applied under this zone. He said there were four options offered in the HPR zone. Mr. Geritz informed commission that they analyzed and presented the site as it would be under all four options, but they were proposing the project' s development under option 3 and 4 . He indicated that option 1 was a parcel average slope method and was never intended to be utilized on a massive piece of ground. Option 2 was toe of slope and they have a toe of slope, but it did not quite fit the category. Option 3 said to go out and find dwelling unit building sites and propose those to the city for use and Option 4 was a preferred development area. He said they were using both of those. He said the PCD zone allowed the city to require the developer to do everything they said they would do and he agreed with that. He indicated that he was asking the planning commission to take all of their planning studies and determine if the project was qualitative with the standards established and that the procedure for approval made sense, and if the 185 sites were acceptable. He felt this would allow them to come 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1992 up with a development that would be a credit to the city and meet all of the objections raised previously relative to how the project should be developed. He commented that the proposal said they would not develop on any of the ridges, they would not develop the hillsides, they had no development in any of the washes, and they concurred with all the mitigation measures proposed within the EIR. He understood that they were significant and was willing to meet them. Also, the issue as to whether or not the development was compatible with the Bighorn Sheep would ultimately be made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. If the city approved their project from a conceptual point of view, they would continue to pursue a preapplication permit to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to permit the development as proposed. They would make a determination as to whether or not the mitigation measures proposed were adequate, or they might want additional mitigation measures . The environmental consultant said that right now there were sufficient mitigation measures to protect the Bighorn Sheep, but the final decision would be made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided that the endangered species designation went forward, which he felt it would. Commissioner Spiegel stated that he had a copy of the September 13 Desert Sun Newspaper and they talked about hillside development and the Mountain Conservancy Group, the Sierra Club and Friends of Indian Canyon, and it said that the owner of the Palm Desert site Time Miller of San Diego had already offered to bargain with these groups and would sell his land for the right price and drop plans to build The Crest. He asked if there was any validity to the story. Mr. Geritz replied that there were two steps to that story and noted there had been two different articles . He stated that when they went to the first study session with city council, the question was asked if they were prepared to sell the site in the event the city wished to purchase it either alone or in conjunction with another agency. They answered yes, and if that was an eventuality that occurred they were asked to name a price range which they did at that time and further stipulated that the number would be verified by independent appraisal . That offer was made approximately two years ago. To date, they had never been approached by anyone relative to a potential purchase of the site. From the point of view of good faith, they made an offer to the Mountain Conservancy in April of 1992 to give to them an 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6 , 1992 open space easement in perpetuity with no strings attached and was not contingent upon them receiving any approvals from the city over the area they designated as open space. They did not hear anything from the Conservancy, but he did have a meeting scheduled before them for November 4 and they would continue to make that offer. He said it was his desire to have the area of the site preserved. Mr. Diaz asked what the price today would be; Mr. Geritz stated that the price would be the same as two years ago which was quoted at between $15 and $18 million and would be accompanied by information relative to acquisition prices associated with similar properties within the valley that did not have development approvals in place. He said they had not changed their position, but they would like to continue with the approval process. He felt their proposal would essentially maintain the area in its natural state and this area was not considered prime habitat. Commissioner White asked for clarification on the number of acres within the development area; Mr. Geritz replied that the total amount of area to be improved within the project was 81 acres, which was less than 12 percent. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MS. JOAN TAYLOR, 1800 South Sunrise in Palm Springs, stated that she was Conservation Chairman for the San Gorgonio Chapter of the Sierra Club. She informed commission that the Sierra Club considers this project a direct intrusion into Bighorn habitat and was opposing the project as proposed. She felt it was apparent there was considerable confusion about classification of Bighorn habitat. She stated that she drafted the petition for the listing of the sheep, so she was somewhat conversant with the terms . The classifications given in the Draft EIR came from a 12 year old plan called the Santa Rosa Mountains Habitat Management Plan and those classifications had little if any bearing on what would be considered critical habitat at the time the sheep were listed. It was proposed for listing and the service would have to make a ruling by May. Dividing the project site artificially into areas of importance she did not feel was valid. Since the sheep were listed as proposed for Federal listing, impacts to them had to be considered as significant adverse impacts in the Draft 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1992 EIR which they were not. She also stated that one of the mitigations read, "prohibiting free roaming dogs through appropriately placed signage" and felt those types of mitigations did not qualify as tangible/feasible mitigations that had been questioned by biologists on several projects . She stated that the letter indicated that it was highly unlikely that the service would permit the project as proposed. Regarding flood hazards, the Draft EIR was proposing for further study to determine flood control measures and failed to qualify as a tangible mitigation as required by law. Because there were no preliminary flood control designs there was no opportunity by the public or the decision-making bodies to review potential impacts of any flood control measures . She stated that in addition to the deficiencies in the project and the Draft EIR outlined in their earlier correspondence, she added that this project and the proposed general plan amendment would double the densities and were both inherently inconsistent with the underlying goals and policies of the city's general plan. For various reasons, she felt that approval of the project would violate the California Environmental Quality Act, State planning and zoning law, and in the near future the Federal Endangered Species Act. She also stated that the applicant was asking for a conceptual vow blessing; she felt that was not the case, but that he was asking for approval of certain, very definite entitlements . She urged the commission to deny the project or defer consideration until the listing of the sheep. Chairperson Whitlock asked if Mr. Joy had any comment. Mr. Joy stated that most of the comments the Sierra Club made had been previously done in a letter to the city and a response was prepared and in the EIR. He did not feel any Federal rules were being broken. Mr. Joy clarified that this approval did not mean that the applicant could go out and start bulldozing tomorrow. This would lead to the filing of a tentative tract map which would give the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ample time to list the species at that time. MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI, 75-090 St. Charles Place, Suite A in Palm Desert, stated that he represented the homeowners association of the 20 acres to the south in Section 36 known as Cahuilla Hills, that the present dirt road was on, and they were the original developers of that road back in 1979 . He felt that the development as proposed was one of the better developments in the area, but how 25 r.. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6 , 1992 it impacted the sheep was debatable, because the Bighorn Country Club probably had a bigger one and that project was approved. He indicated that what the project did for the Cahuilla Hills Section 36, the only way to get into it now was behind the trailer park, that someday this road could be a vehicle that would give complete access all around. Mr. Ricciardi stated that he met with the applicant and what they planned to do would do a lot for them: they would put in a road, a bridge which would be used by people from using Thrush Road, which he said bangs up his car. He also hoped in time the road that parallels the wash would be a paved road so that everyone who has property on the west side of the wash would have reasonable paved access . He thought the bridge would be a plus to the city because the properties south in Section 36 along the wash would have better access and in the long run could only be good. He said they were not opposed to project and felt the project was good, and good protection of the hills and no one would see the development from below. When driving into Section 36 now, Section 36 was growing and wasn't what it used to be. He stated that when the city incorporated, he was on the incorporation team and Section 36 was purposely left out of the original Palm Desert incorporation because no one thought anyone in Section 36 would vote for Palm r.r Desert' s incorporation. At that time Palm Desert was the city that no one wanted because Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert and Indian Wells at one time were going to become one city, until Indian Wells felt they were too good for Palm Desert and they walked out and LAFCO let them form their own city. Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage voted, Palm Desert voted 55% for one city, but Rancho Mirage voted over 90% against the two being one city. Subsequently, Rancho Mirage formed their own city, so Palm Desert was the city no one wanted and today it was probably the best financial city of all three. He stated that Section 36 was an area Palm Desert did not want, but today there were expensive homes being built in that section which showed that money well spent could do very nice things . He felt this developer' s money would be well spent and would be something everyone in Palm Desert would have great pride in; it would protect the open space and protect the hillsides . In terms of the Bighorn sheep, he said that at Thunderbird Heights the residents complained about the sheep eating their plants, so they were producing food for the wildlife. He indicated that there could be mitigating measures that would allow for the sheep to come and drink or get the food they need. 26 r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1992 i �1 He felt co-existence was possible. He stated that he hoped the commission would approve the project and felt it would be a good one for Palm Desert. I MR. ROSS DOW, 48-215 Painted Canyon in Cahuilla Hills, stated that he had seen the Bighorn development which was proceeded by a proposal they fought because they knew what was coming. He said when looking at Bighorn Country Club, it made him want to cry because of what it was doing to the desert. He felt that if people wanted to live with green grass, golf courses, lakes, or running j streams, Florida and the gulf coast or parts of Texas would be good, but not for the desert. He stated that i the proposal as put forward for the area was one of the best he had seen since living in the desert. He said that he came here in 1971 and bought a house at the intersection of Velardo and Desert Star, without the consent or knowledge of his wife, and she had never forgiven him. It took them a couple of years to find the place they were living in now and they love it. He stated that he went out to round up his cats before the coyotes got them and there was a rabbit out there in the middle of his acreage and there had been 50-75 quail running around out there prior to roosting in their trees . He said that occasionally they got a few coyotes and they loved it. He felt that was what the developer was trying retain. He stated that if he was going to invest in property in this area right now, he would invest in property in this development. He felt this development would put people who love the desert in the desert, not into a green grass golf course development. He informed commission that his experience with Bighorn Sheep was that a few years ago they used to drive into Dead Indian Canyon and he took some people in his photography class up there and in the south branch there were two sheep above them. He said that everyone knew that Bighorn Sheep were very timid and will run, and j these ran so fast that his students were able to get about 15 frames and had someone been up there posing them, they couldn't have done any better. There were lots of shots and these were the same sheep people were saying would run away because the area would develop. He said that he didn't think this was the case. He felt the only thing that would chase the Bighorn Sheep away were i loose dogs or something like that and noted there were i leash laws that could take care of that. 27 I MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1992 MR. LOREN R. HOMME stated that he was representing the Cahuilla Hills Section 30 property owners association. He said the area seen in the slides was adjacent to the flood control channel directly across from the construction bridge on up past and across from the Palm Desert Community Church and Episcopal Church. He indicated that the property owners had owned their property for many years and had watched development come and they wholeheartedly supported the proposed project. He said they were concerned and hopeful that the commission would consider the proposed bridge. He stated that the proposed bridge would be the extension of Homestead and that site was always a potential bridge for two reasons : one for the area he represented for future development and secondly, the two churches in the past had different ideas of potential small parochial school situations . All of which would be very helpful . He stated that he hoped the developer and commission would consider that if there was a bridge, he felt it should not be for private use only, but would be a benefit for the community. DR. JERRY MEINTZ, 71-450 Painted Canyon in Cahuilla Hills, stated that he was wearing a number of hats . First, as a homeowner, he owned 16 acres adjacent to the proposed project and had for some time real concerns about what would happen to the Miller property. In addition, he was also the co-chair to the road committee for Cahuilla Hills and the road committee invited the Miller people to come and provide their community with a presentation of the project several months ago. Also, he was chairman of the bus stop committee and some issues had been raised about the school district and he mentioned that he was working in conjunction with Sunline, the City of Palm Desert, and Desert Sands Unified School District, as well as Westinghouse to install a covered, safe, telephone, bus stop for their children in the Cahuilla Hills . He said that those in Section 36 were trying to achieve some of the amenities that the residents in the low lands take for granted. In addition, he spear-headed the school re-districting effort and was working with the folks in Pinyon and presented a presentation to the Desert Sands Unified School District and they unanimously supported this change and he had a commitment from three Palm Springs Unified School District board members to support that change and the only road block to that was figuring out who gets what money in terms of their budgets . He said 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6 , 1992 that he was a member of the Coachella Valley Mountain Conservancy and was on the land acquisition committee. When he first became aware of the project, he took the city documents under Mr. Diaz 's guidance to that committee to try to get them to look at the proposal as a potential land acquisition through the $6 million he anticipated getting through the State of California. As mentioned earlier, this property was well down on the list in terms of dollars garnered to spend to purchase the property. He said that he had been known as a militant naturalist over the last 27 years he has lived in Palm Desert and had been in Cahuilla Hills for 20 of those years and remembered stopping with his neighbors and colleagues the Rancho Bella Vista project. He stated that he has realized that black and white militant thinking just wouldn't work in today's economy and in the reality of a developing, growing city and learned in his dealings with Bighorn Country Club that they might not be able to stop them, but they could shape their behavior. He said there were some issues and hopes that the city would help the residents shape the development. He indicated that he sent a letter to Mr. Diaz approximately a year and a half ago raising some serious concerns about this project. After numerous meetings their feelings about the project had become more focused. The number low one issue for them was that there be no hilltop construction. He felt Palm Desert' s hillside overlay was one of the most courageous in the state and felt the need to preserve hilltop development was important. He stated that what this project proposed would minimize and element the disasters that have happened in the Cahuilla Hills . He said that their community felt a need to help enhance the development of their neighbors and in turn their progress would help become part of the residents ' progress . He indicated a resolution by the road committee was adopted to ask the City of Palm Desert to ask these developers to pave Painted Canyon from the place they plan to achieve access from the edge of their property into Section 36 all the way down to where the current paving stops, which was approximately one-half to three quarters of a mile. The committee hoped that staff and the commission would hear that request. Also, they felt the project was one of the most ecologically protective developments to ever be seen in the desert and during his 27 year tenure here, he was appalled that of the 98 or so clubs in the valley, there was really only one that attempted to approximate a truly naturalist stance. He said that Vintage was a good close and 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1992 Bighorn got even closer, but this project had no golf course and cordoned off property that would prevent people from putting in their creative solutions to agriculture and would in fact focus on protecting the natural desert terrain and that was something their community respected. He felt this project was truly compatible with the rustic nature of the Cahuilla Hills and while the Bighorn Sheep do cross their property, there were three at his garage two days ago and they were not that afraid and he did not feel the residents posed a threat to them and they did not pose a threat to his children. He informed commission that he traveled to Scottsdale and visited some of the developments that the applicant used as examples of what they were attempting to accomplish. He said that the slides did not do justice to the beautiful, natural surroundings those homeowners had. He felt that Arizona was ahead of Palm Desert in terms of its naturalist emphasis in the desert and because Johnson was in this desert, Palm Desert was becoming the leading city in this valley. He noted what was being done outside city hall : it was turning from golf course green into more of a natural desert landscaping. He applauded this . He said that they were enthralled with the aspect that 77% of this project was left in its natural state and 81 acres out of 695 were left for open lands. He indicated their real concern was not the project as proposed, but had to do with the city. He said that the city in principal, in a step by step basis, validated in principle the first natural desert protective country club in the history of the Coachella Valley and that the city hold the developers to the original promised plan. When Mr. Ross commented that when looking at Bighorn Country Club it made him sick, he was alluding to the fact that Bighorn Country Club originally promised not to make any drastic cuts and the natural hills and elevations beyond what staff suggested was appropriate for development had been scarred dramatically in the last months. That property was not to be touched as proposed to the residents in that community. Promises were made to them and they heard that they would have the opportunity to oppose any changes if they deviated from their naturalistic orientation. He challenged the city to hold these developers accountable and keep them to the promises they made this evening and continued to make. 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1992 �.. Mr. Diaz stated that all of the actions taken by Bighorn Country Club had been approved through the process virtually every step of the way. Dr. Meintz stated that their only shortcoming as a community was that when they started to notice when the bulldozers cut the hills it was too late. They were never given notice that there would be changes beyond the original proposals . He said that he was not casting aspersions on the city, just using that as an example of what they did not want to happen again. Mr. Diaz indicated that with Bighorn Country Club it was over a long, seven year fight to get the channel and agreements were made and the ultimate density was reduced from 1299 and a 300 unit hotel to a lot less . Dr. Meintz indicated they applauded that reduction in density. He felt this proposal ' s density was much lower and their ability to guard and protect was much better. He said that real desert naturalists don' t want to see the desert leveled and don't want to see golf courses . They wanted to see it just the way it is . He hoped the commission gave this project consideration on its own Taw merits, as well as the merits of the benefits it would provide for the residents in Section 30 and 36 and for the cause of naturalism in the desert. MR. MARK GLASSMAN stated that he owned two and a half acres in the Cahuilla Hills adjacent to the Miller Family property which he purchased about four and a half years ago. It was his intention to build his dream home on this site and had since hired an architect to design a nice home he intended to build in the next five to six years . He said that he had a nice relationship with this anonymous family. He knew they had the property and envisioned having about 600 acres as his backyard. When the property came up for development, he met with the Miller Family and realized that what they proposed was a very responsible way to develop the land and felt they had the right to build property and use the land for its best interest. He believed they were environmentally conscientious and he was very concerned about hillside development, Bighorn Sheep and other issues, but felt they took a lot into consideration and had convinced him that this was a good usage of land and as a property owner and neighbor he supported the project. 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1992 MR. JIM RICHARDS addressed the commission. He stated that he had been following this project since its conception. He reminded commission that he was on the hillside ordinance committee that drafted the existing ordinance. He indicated that he had property that sits between Mr. Dow and Dr. Meintz and intended to build a house there. He questioned what was hillside. He perceived it to be mostly with the visual impact to the folks living in the flatlands and to the people driving up Highway 74 . It did have something to do with the environmental concerns, but the most driving issue of the ordinance was to stop the scarring and development. He felt it was ridiculous to call the proposed project a hillside project in the true sense of the word. He noted that the city and the developer was quibbling over whether which option to use and felt it was stupid to say now that the city could only give him half of what he wanted because there was a city councilman who probably shouldn't be allowed to vote because he was effected by this and who had a real problem with it. The hillside ordinance really did not apply to this property in a number of different ways . The city had neglected for years to address a number of items for this type of area. They don' t have a road ordinance and he had asked for a clarification on how they could build roads to handle the current Section 30 residents in Palm Desert. He noted they have a nonconforming road that no one could live with. He felt that if the project was constrained in a way that the city had the ability to do, the project would probably never get built. Assuming it could be done, he felt this project was much better than anything the city had ever done. It had much tougher constraints than any project the commission had ever approved and to quibble on a 690 acre parcel that he should have 180 or 185 was not logical. He felt it would be difficult for anyone to say that this project did not meet the city' s standard of quality. He urged the commission to take a close look at what was a hillside and what was hillside development and look at the standards the city was trying to apply and question if they were appropriate here. Also, access was highlighted by Mr. Homme and Dr. Meintz . He stated that he worked with the county for a lot split and had to work very hard to get a simple lot split and part of the problem was an access road. He was supposed to put in a whole new road clear to Highway 74 just to split a lot. He stated that he finally got Bighorn Country Club to allow them to use their access and also got the water district to allow them to use their access we 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5 , 1992 from the north. That access was flawed and was a road �•• that needed to be paved. He said that the county would require the developer to link-up to Painted Canyon to provide at least an emergency access for the folks in the area. He did not feel it was allowable or legal to suggest that the developer pave someone else' s property. The developer had indicated to him that the private gate could be accessible for residents where he would be living with some sort of a pass arrangement. He said that Cahuilla Hills was separated in times of bad weather because Pizano Road sometimes becomes impassible, which was one reason Corky Larson required him to obtain assurances that he could cross another project and link- up with the channel road. He felt a road going to Highway 74 was needed and if the developer wanted to build one and could make it compatible with the folks in Section 30 that would be good. He asked if the bridge would connect with the west channel road; Mr. Geritz stated that it would connect. Mr. Richards felt that if this project was approved, the city should do something with the west channel road which was a problem that needed attention. He summarized by asking if the project was a hillside development; what was the real limitation on how many units could be built; and link up the road to provide a secondary access for area neighbors. w. Mr. Geritz stated that with respect to the comments on the Bighorn Sheep, the commission had a copy of the letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife and they recommended denial of the project. They also recommended some mitigation measures in the event that the project was approved. With respect to the designation of the area, the only official document existing today as to Bighorn habitat was in the Santa Rosa Mountain Plan. There was a lot of discussion that something else should be done, but nothing had been published. That was still the official document that was adopted by BLM and State Fish and Game. He said they have agreements with the county and property holders to provide emergency access south out of the project into Cahuilla Hills which would provide emergency service to them in the event that their single access went out of service and vice versa and that would be formalized. Relative to the bridge coming in from Homestead, they have an agreement in principle and in concept with CVWD on the bridge. Part of that agreement was that anyone who currently had access to the CVWD maintenance road was to have access to the bridge. They agreed to that and it would be by way of gates �, 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1992 because CVWD has to prevent casual public access to the maintenance road. He said they had a problem with how long the gates would last, but this would provide a much improved access to the Cahuilla Hills area adjacent to the east and to the city projects to the south that currently obtain access from the maintenance road. He felt the mechanics could be worked out. He said their gate was to the west of that access point and they would control access on the other side of the bridge and had no intention to control access to the bridge and he felt it was necessary to those areas and was more than happy to provide it, although he wouldn' t mind some of the users paying a share. As outlined, the process before the commission was a deliberate step by step process and agreed with various comments that had come up. It would have to be handled that way to insure that they do perform as they said they would. He said that in regards to paving, part of it came down to the issue that they were informed by the county fire marshall 's office that more than likely they would have to pave the access road, and if they created any traffic on those roads, that is what they would end up doing. Mr. Joy noted that any requirements such as the access road would be required to be shown on the tentative tract map before it was approved and the details could be worked out at that time. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public hearing. Commissioner Downs stated that it was the best possible presentation that had ever been made and he felt the problems had been addressed, except for the sheep issue. He recommended approval of the project. Commissioner Spiegel stated that he was personally opposed to any hillside development in Palm Desert and did not like what was in the hillside right now; however, if as Mr. Richards suggested that this project was not really a hillside development, and you can't see it from Highway 74 and would not impact the Bighorn sheep to any great degree, then he would not be opposed to it. He indicated that he wanted to go see the site and look at it and apologized for not doing that prior to the meeting. He suggested that if any other members wanted to go up there, Mr. Diaz could arrange something and they could go up there together, prior to voting. 34 +r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6 , 1992 Commissioner White agreed with Commissioner Spiegel . One thing that disturbed him was the calculations made concerning the density, however it appeared that the density was rather minimal as an issue and they were talking about limited homesites in the area. He felt it looked like a very good project, but also wanted to visit the site. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony to allow for a two week continuance. Mr. Diaz suggested a joint study session with council and since this issue would involve annexation, it might be a good time to meet. He clarified that staff and the city in saying that it might approve the project was not saying it was in favor of hillside development. He suggested a joint, open study session with city council and perhaps everyone could visit the site at the same time. Commissioner Downs stated that he had already seen the site. Mr. Diaz felt that this would allow the commission to know the concerns of the city council . He stated that during the interim they could find out an answer to what exactly BLM would be doing and to the Bighorn Sheep issue. He suggested low a continuance of five to six weeks . Mr. Geritz felt that five to six weeks seemed long and stated that several council members had already been to the site. He indicated that going to the site was an excellent idea and would be happy to help because there was limited vehicular access and the rest would have to be done by foot. He requested a continuance to the earliest possible date. Mr. Diaz stated that commission could request two members of the council to go with the group as another alternative as a fall-back position if a joint session was not arranged. He indicated that he could bring that issue up at the next council meeting if commission so instructed. Mr. Joy recommended a continuance of two weeks to October 20 . Commission concurred. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, continuing GPA 90-3 and C/Z 90-12 by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . "' 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6 , 1992 VIII . MISCELLANEOUS A. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE CHAIRPERSON Chairperson Whitlock asked for nominations for the next Planning Commission Chairperson. Commissioner Downs nominated Bob Spiegel . There were no other nominations and Chairperson Whitlock closed nominations and asked for a motion electing Commissioner Spiegel as Chairperson by acclamation. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Chairperson Whitlock, electing Bob Spiegel as the new Chairperson of the Planning Commission by minute motion. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Chairperson Spiegel, electing Commissioner Jonathan as Vice Chairperson to the Planning Commission by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0 . B. APPOINTMENT OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Chairperson Spiegel, appointing Commissioner Whitlock to represent the Planning Sri Commission on the Economic Development Advisory Committee by minute motion. Carried 4-0. C. APPOINTMENT OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER TO THE CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Chairperson Spiegel, electing Commissioner Whitlock to the Civic Center Steering Committee by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. X. COMMENTS None. 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1992 XI . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Chairperson Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Downs , adjourning the meeting to October 20, 1992 by minute m ion. Carried 4-0 . The meeting was adjourned at 11 : 10 p.m. RAMON A. DIAZ, ec ary ATTEST: ROBERT SPIEGE , an /tm w 37