Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0617 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - JUNE 17, 1997 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER r.. - 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ferguson called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Beaty led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Ferguson, Chairperson Paul Beaty Sonia Campbell George Fernandez Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: None Staff Present: Steve Smith Martin Alvarez Dave Erwin Tonya Monroe Phil Joy IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the June 3, 1997 meeting minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the June 3, 1997 minutes as submitted. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Beaty abstained). V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the June 12, 1997 City Council meeting. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. r,. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 97-6 - THE COLONY AT MONTECITO, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a lot line adjustment to remove unused portion of Merill Drive west of Lucerne as shown on Tract 24530-2 and reconfiguration of Lots 1 1-14 to reflect the revised roadways necessitated by the construction of Desert Willow Golf Resort. B. Case No. PMW 97-12 - FOREMOST AIRPORT VEGAS, LTD., Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow lot line adjustments on property bounded by Country Club Drive, Washington Street and Harris Lane. C. Case No. PMW 97-13 - MAINIERO, SMITH AND ASSOCIATES, INC., Applicant Request for approval to reconfigure two existing parcels of record into two lots on Gerald Ford Drive, east of Cook Street - Planning Area #4 of the Development Plan for Wonder Palms Commercial Center. D. Case No. PMW 97-14 - M & H REALTY PARTNERS III L.P., Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust existing lot lines to accommodate expansion of "Best Buy" premises. Lot 10 will be eliminated and merged into Lot 11 . Lot 12 will be moved into Lot 11 . Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0. Vill. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. Continued Case No. C/Z 90-12 Amendment No. 1 Development Agreement - CREST PARTNERS (MILLER RICHARDS PARTNERSHIP), Applicants Request for approval of pre-annexation zoning of 640 acres north of the "Cahuilla Hills" area and 55 acres across the Palm Valley Channel from the "Sommerset" condominiums to Planned Community/Hillside Planned Residential with a development agreement for a project known as "The Crest" consisting of 151 homesites on 695 acres (410 acres to be dedicated as open space). 2 �wI MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 `.. Mr. Phil Joy noted that the last month had been spent revising the PCD text and the exhibits. He said the main change to the PCD was the preparation of the map (on display) that actually showed 151 homesites on it and showed rough grading for the road that would be part of the circulation for the plan. He outlined the changes to the text. He said the changes involved the Table of Contents and the List of Exhibits. He noted that they combined Exhibits 4, 7 A, B, C and 8 into one exhibit which was the Land Use Plan and a reduced version was in the text. They removed Exhibit 3 and changed the language to the emergency access drive which he would review later since there was a lengthy letter received about the emergency access drive. He noted that Exhibit 12 was removed due to redundancy and the lot clustering associated with the relocation of the eight units in the County was revised to clarify that the clustering would not occur within 300 feet of the southerly property line. The development agreement itself was revised most notably with a non-disturbance agreement which he thought would address the commission's concerns about the open space dedication and what would happen between the initial dedication and future phases. He said that the applicant gave staff an addition to Exhibit C which was distributed to commission. The Planning Department conditions of approval were the standard boiler plate conditions of Exhibit C and staff had language in there saying that any interpretation of the conditions should consider the low density nature of the project and he felt that the other exhibit prepared by the applicant's attorney more or less said the same thing. He noted that the City Engineer reviewed the rewording and approved it. Staff had no problem with the new wording replacing Planning Department condition #3 with the new language from the applicant. Regarding another letter distributed to commission from Mr. Paul Bowie, it concerned emergency access into the Cahuilla Hills area. Mr. Bowie still felt very strongly that he would prefer the emergency access road to go over the top of the ridge and go straight to the east, rather than going into the Cahuilla Hills. Mr. Joy demonstrated on a map the location of the emergency access road and the place where Mr. Bowie was requesting it, which would go over the top of the mountains and down the mountains to utilize the Thrush Road Bridge. Mr. Bowie felt that any kind of access could create a dust problem in the Cahuilla Hills area, even an emergency type of situation. He said the PCD text was revised after concerns from the last meeting and the revised text said that an emergency access drive would be provided in the southwesterly portion of the project as an extension of the project's community road network to allow for emergency ingress and egress. The emergency access road would not be used as a construction or service entry. The emergency access would be secured by a card gate or lock. The only through traffic to be allowed would be those three properties that the emergency access road actually crossed. Those three properties outside the project in the Cahuilla Hills area would be able to go into the Crest area for ingress and egress into their properties rather than going through the Cahuilla Hills and eventually out to Highway 74 at Cahuilla Way behind Bighorn. That would actually reduce the amount of dust in the area by reducing the number of cars that would now be going through the Crest and not Cahuilla Hills. He indicated that a condition was still placed by the Fire `"' 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 r.i Department that there be a gate there and eliminating the access to that site. He indicated that Chairperson Ferguson pointed out that there was still a typographical error on page 9 of the text and apologized for not catching that one and indicated he would continue reviewing it for any other problems. Mr. Joy stated that staff was comfortable with the project and recommended approval of the project. Commissioner Jonathan noted that he would be abstaining from discussion and voting on this matter. City Attorney Dave Erwin asked if Commissioner Beaty had an opportunity to listen to the tape of the last meeting since this was a public hearing item. Commissioner Beaty said he had not listened to the tape, although he was present for the first hearing and had reviewed the minutes. Mr. Erwin recommended that Commissioner Beaty abstain. Commissioner Beaty concurred. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he had several questions that he would direct to the applicant. He also welcomed City Attorney Dave Erwin to the meeting, noting that he was present due to Sandy Jacobson's relocation. Chairperson Ferguson ol2ened the discussion for public testimony and asked if the applicant would come forward to address the commission, then anyone in favor, then anyone opposed, and then he would give the applicant or his representative a brief rebuttal period. MR. PAUL SELZER, an attorney with the firm of Selzer, Healy, Hemphill and Blasdell, stated that he represented the applicant. He concurred with staff's recommendation and believed that they had addressed each and every issue that was raised by both the commission and the public at the last meeting. He said the one issue raised by the public at the last meeting was the issue of the emergency access and he wanted to dwell on that issue. Going back in history, he stated that the issue of emergency access had always been a major issue with the residents of Cahuilla Hills and having an additional way in and out, both for their project and for folks already up there. In order to secure that emergency access route, it was necessary for them to go to those property owners over whose land the emergency route would cross and they agreed early on with them that they would be given access; they and they alone and there were three properties involved, those three properties would have access through the gate by means of card keys or something similar. The concern that was raised at the meeting was that it not be used for construction and Mr. Selzer felt the documents clearly stated no construction vehicles and the documents had been modified to clearly state no service vehicles also. Then the issue became the three properties and a possibility of proliferation of keys or people learning the combination. He responded that the three people are the three people immediately adjacent to the gate, so if anything it would reduce the traffic through Cahuilla Hills. It would reduce the dust because those people might 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 choose to go over the paved roads within the Crest rather than go back through the unpaved roads in Cahuilla Hills. It would reduce the dust and they didn't feel there was any danger there. He said the entity most concerned about who would be using that gate was them. They intend to put together a first class quality community in that area and security was a major selling point to them and to the extent that the security is breached, they have a concern. As far as the City is concerned, if in fact it was abused and complaints were made, the City had the clear and easy ability to stop it. That was a condition of their project. Whether the complaints were from people in the Crest or people in Cahuilla Hills, if in fact despite their best efforts something happens, they could change the locks or combination to stop it. It would be a locked facility and the only entities outside of the residents of the Crest would be emergency vehicles and those three property owners. He hoped the commission understood that was the cost of getting the right of way to get them in and out. As far as the alternative of going over the mountain, he noted that was not addressed in the EIR. If there were endangered or threatened species that would be a problem and changing the project could have significant effects upon them, especially if it affected endangered species. He said that property would have to be surveyed and if endangered or threatened species were detected, they could end up having to re-circulate an EIR. He indicated that they have been working on this project for eight years and the EIR was certified four years ago. He didn't want to have to go back and recirculate %NW it and go through that again. He felt that would be incredibly unfair. He believed they can and have addressed the issue of emergency access to assure both the City and their residents that it would not be abused. He said they were open to any suggestions with respect to how they might better secure the area without denying access to the three people over whose property the emergency access road travels. Mr. Selzer said they dealt with the emergency access issue, the non-disturbance agreement, the standards for additional lots, their addition to Exhibit C, the discrepancies with the maps and all those were covered by staff. He asked if there were any questions for him or the developer. Chairperson Ferguson indicated he had a number of questions for Mr. Selzer. Regarding the emergency access, for the privilege of allowing the Crest to get fire trucks to their development in the event that their development catches on fire, the three property owners have unfettered access through, to and from the Crest development, on a daily basis. Mr. Selzer concurred. Chairperson Ferguson asked what kind of gate was being contemplated to limit them and no one else from going through that gate. Mr. Selzer said it would be locked, but didn't know the exact type and didn't know what difference that made. It would be a key, card or combination and if other people were using it, they would change it. Chairperson Ferguson asked if thought had been given to allowing those three property owners to elect to have their primary access through the Crest development and use the southern portion of their property as an "W 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 emergency crash gate. In other words, move the crash gate from the Crest perimeter to the outermost perimeter of the three properties involved. Mr. Selzer said they hadn't discussed that issue. Chairperson Ferguson said he would address that question to anyone present who owns property appurtenant to the emergency access road. Chairperson Ferguson noted that there was a parcel in the County on the southeastern section that has been denoted as "Desert Park" and in speaking with Mr. Selzer and Mr. Miller, he was repeatedly assured that this would be dedicated as open space privately held, yet it was still denoted as desert park with permitted benches, shade structures, etc. He asked which one it would be. Mr. Selzer asked if Chairperson Ferguson was talking about the portion within the city. Chairperson Ferguson replied no and clarified that it was the County parcel running along the ridge line. Mr. Selzer stated that area was desert park and would be owned by the homeowners association. Chairperson Ferguson noted that he and Mr. Selzer had discussed keeping it as open space, but as desert park it would permit hiking trails, shade structures and benches right along the ridge line. He asked if that was the proposal. MR. TYLER MILLER, the applicant, addressed the commission and explained that the desert park area had been proposed to be desert park for the last five years. The main issue was a title issue. It looked pretty much the same but they felt it was important for the security that it be owned by the development and not the City. Chairperson Ferguson clarified that he didn't have an issue with who owned the area and assumed it would be privately held open space. The issue was with the shade structures, particularly the shade structures and benches along the ridge line. It was his understanding that those would not be permitted. Mr. Miller stated that they have no intention of building them on any ridge line. Mr. Selzer said he frankly didn't recall that conversation, but they didn't disagree with that and it would be easily handled through the CC&Rs. They would covenant so that would not occur. The structures would be allowed within the desert park area, but they would provide for them in the CC&Rs for the City Attorney's review. Chairperson Ferguson asked if it was acceptable to them to add that as a condition of approval. Mr. Miller and Mr. Selzer concurred. Chairperson Ferguson noted that Mr. Selzer made reference to and there was some discussion at previous meetings about the "standard conditions of approval" in Exhibit C. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the City Attorney had a f chance to review them. Mr. Erwin stated that he had briefly reviewed them, but 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 tow the first time he saw them was today and he wanted to reserve the right to not necessarily change them in any substantive form, but to put them in a little different format. Chairperson Ferguson noted that he and Mr. Selzer spoke at some length regarding the discretion that would be afforded to the City. He asked where in either the development agreement or the current proposal where that discretion had been broadened. They specifically referenced paragraph five in the development agreement and his objections to that. Mr. Selzer stated that the development agreement had not changed in that respect. The place where it showed up where discretion would be granted to the City was in two places: 1 ) the conditions of approval; and 2) the Hillside Ordinance as discussed and that was why they added their reworded condition to Exhibit C, because the City would retain a great deal of discretion. He noted that before any development could proceed, they had to bring in tract maps for the commission's approval for every phase of development. The City could not add conditions other than those that are listed on Exhibit C. On the other hand, with respect to precise location, both the City and the applicant needed the discretion to move that because the plans before the commission, primarily in Exhibit 7, was conceptual in nature. It was not intended to show precise lot lines. Those would be established as a result of precise engineering done at the time that tract maps are submitted to the City. He said that he had some question about the kind of discretion the City wanted to retain. The City retained the discretion to make sure that the lot lines conform with the concepts that were set forth in the development agreement and the plan before the commission. Both the City and the applicant retain the discretion to modify those as necessary when precise engineering plans were completed. He asked if that answered his question. He said that he and the City Attorney had a brief discussion before the meeting; on the one hand they were being told the City wants everything in concrete and as precise as possible. On the other hand the City is saying they want some discretion to change it and he said he didn't know how to draft it both ways. Chairperson Ferguson requested a copy of the hillside ordinance and noted that condition number 2 said that the standards for development should follow options 1 and 3 of the City's Hillside Ordinance as clarified further by the PCD text. He indicated there was a paragraph that Mr. Drell had pointed out which Chairperson Ferguson and Mr. Selzer had discussed making applicable to both options and that was as follows: "Development standards shall be approved by the Planning Commission at a public hearing and shall be based on the following development options. The minimum density obtainable shall be one dwelling unit per five acres...The Planning Commission shall make a final determination concerning which option or combination of options..." Mr. Joy spoke up and said that he believed the section that Chairperson Ferguson was referring to dealt b" 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 with access to the parcels. Chairperson Ferguson noted the ordinance was right before him and continued to read: "The City may require any measure it feels necessary to mitigate adverse environmental or aesthetic impacts of grading or construction. Location and grades of access roads shall be as approved by the Fire Marshall and Planning Commission. If adverse aesthetic and environmental impacts of site and access grading cannot be adequately mitigated, then the designated location shall not qualify as a building site under this option." Chairperson Ferguson asked if under condition number 2 of Exhibit C of the development agreement if Mr. Selzer was incorporating that paragraph to this particular development. Mr. Selzer asked for clarification on the question. Chairperson Ferguson explained that under condition 2 of the conditions of approval in Exhibit C that says they will follow the City's Hillside Ordinance, he asked if they were incorporating that paragraph with the discretion that it would afford to the Planning Commission, to the future planning decisions that would need to be made with respect to the Crest development. Mr. Selzer stated that was why they added the amendment to Exhibit C as referred to by Mr. Joy. Chairperson Ferguson asked if that was a page the commission just received tonight. Staff concurred. Chairperson Ferguson indicated that he had not seen it before. Mr. Joy noted it was entitled: Proposed Omnibus Condition Dealing with the Unique Nature of the Physical Conditions at The Crest to be added to Exhibit C. Mr. Selzer stated that all that said was that the City would be fair. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he would take time to review it as they went through the public hearing and then if he had further questions, he would ask them during the rebuttal portion. Mr. Selzer concurred. Chairperson Ferguson noted that he also had not had a chance to review the map, although he received it at about 4:00 p.m. that afternoon. He explained that he and Mr. Miller had a discussion concerning sewage crossings and ravines. He asked if those were identified on the map and requested staff to point those out. Mr. Joy did so. Mr. Miller noted they were also identified on Exhibit 10 of the agreement and would only be viewed by people inside the development. He said this was primarily done as a response to the EIR because it was kinder to the land to bridge the drainage basins than to dam them up with any kind of a culvert. Mr. Joy indicated that staff did some research on this issue and initially in the PCD text it looked like there would be some sewer lines crossing some ravines 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 not associated with a bridge, but he felt that as long as the sewer lines were in conjunction with the bridge, it could be easily camouflaged by making the bridge deck itself a deeper depth to the bridge and thereby hiding the sewer lines. Chairperson Ferguson clarified that he would like the portions of the map highlighted where sewage lines would cross ravines when not mitigated by a bridge. Mr. Joy indicated that there would be no sewer lines that were not associated with a bridge. Every sewer line crossing a ravine would have a bridge over it. Mr. Miller concurred and explained that all the utilities, all the water lines and all sewer lines were contained within the loop roads--other than the four shown on Exhibit 10. Mr. Miller said that the only sewer crossings that were exposed were the ones shown on Exhibit 10. All others were covered by roads. Chairperson Ferguson asked for those four exposed locations to be shown on the display map for the public to see. Mr. Joy said he stood corrected and apologized. Chairperson Ferguson asked what the visual mitigation would be for the four areas if they were not going to be covered by a road. Mr. Miller said they would be painted sympathetic colors to the desert. Chairperson Ferguson asked if it would be a naked pipe running across the ravines. Mr. Miller said they would be encased and the casing was shown in the appendices exhibit under bridges and sewer crossings. Chairperson Ferguson asked if that was essentially the same as the previous proposal. Mr. Miller concurred. Chairperson Ferguson asked the commission if there were any other questions for the applicant. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR of this application. DR. JERRY MEINTS, 71-450 Painted Canyon, stated that he was one of the handful of property owners that would be able to view the Crest from Cahuilla Hills and he was one of the three property owners that would have access through the Crest itself. He said as he has mentioned before, he was opposed to this development for the last 20 or 30 years, however, in his militant, and referred to himself as a recovering NIMBY, he discovered �.. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 in his own education here in Palm Desert that they really couldn't tell other people that own property that they can't develop it because others like the view, or because of higher density. As a result he said he decided to work with the developer to mitigate some difficulties and to try and shift the direction of some of the original ideas for the project. He said he has been doing that for the past four or five years and as a result a lot of changes and considerations had been made for the residents of Cahuilla Hills and negotiations to enhance the natural area to limit density to a reasonable percentage (i.e., 10 percent of the 750 acres were going to be developed and the rest would be left in its natural state). For that he was very grateful. He stated that he was also in support of the project for the following reasons: 1 ) it was the most environmentally sound proposal to ever hit the Coachella Valley. This was a project similar to that of Desert Mountain and Troon in Scottsdale and what this project has over and above those developments was it had no golf course. The natural environment was duly respected and maintained. In addition, there was no hilltop construction. They have development that is compatible with the rustic, naturalistic sort of gentleman's ranch character of the Cahuilla Hills. He also stated that he fully respected Professor Bowie. He had been a teacher, a neighbor and friend and he had always been someone who was a watchdog of things going on in the Cahuilla Hills. He did, however, disagree with Mr. Bowie for the following reasons: 1 ) he believed that an emergency access route over the top of the hills was in direct contradiction to the idea of protecting the hillside vistas; 2) he was fully in favor of both ••� the folks at the Crest having an emergency crash gate that was accessed only when there was a tremendous emergency such as a fire that would not permit emergency vehicles to go through their main gate. Moreover, it was a two-way street. If those in the Cahuilla Hills had a tremendous disaster and had no way of exiting the only exit from the Cahuilla Hills, they would then be able to crash the gate and exit through the Crest and he felt that dramatically benefited the Cahuilla Hills residents who might at some point be hit with such a disaster. In addition, he agreed with Mr. Bowie that dust, PM 10, was a serious problem in the Cahuilla Hills. He mentioned that Roy Wilson came to inspect their roadways this month. They had been very disappointed with the County's performance. They bought soil cement with federal grant money that they have been negotiating on over a year and the County watered down the formula. The soil cement went down and it broke up a day later. What they were looking at now was the County tightening up their act and helping them with a soil cement project that could take care of PM 10 once and for all. He said he was Co-Chairman of the Road Committee along with Bill Infante and they have been negotiating and receiving bids from contractors, who would grade the roads, scarify them, lay them down and provide soil cement maintenance on a regular twice a year basis. The County was helping them negotiate with property owners so that they could access their neighbors and the cost of handling the dust problem in the Cahuilla Hills would be equally distributed 10 •� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 throughout the property owners. In the interim, all he could say was that they were repairing the roads as they could and they intended to solve that problem as a community. He also said he was one of the individuals who negotiated with the Crest to provide emergency access. He and two other parties negotiated in concert and all three parties were in agreement and all felt this was an important step for them to take. He commented on Chairperson Ferguson's suggestion about the gate being established on the southern boundaries of their properties so that it would also mitigate against any sort of intrusion by uninvited guests and he wanted to mention it because the question was asked if this had ever been discussed. Dr. Meints said that although Mr. Selzer was unaware of this dialogue, he and Mr. Miller discussed this on several occasions and it was Mr. Miller's suggestion that there be two gates to provide a double assurance that unwanted parties do not enter the Crest and vice versa. He believed that dialogue was leaning toward a card system. He also felt it was important that they recognize that they want security as well. They didn't want people passing in either direction unless they have legitimate access to that roadway. He believed this project would benefit the Cahuilla Hills residents who have been struggling without much support from either the County or the City and this project would benefit their property values and give them some long overdue attention. He also suggested that the residents in Cahuilla Hills who were not part of the County, but were part of the City, were also benefiting because they could cross the channel at the bridge and gain much more ready access to their properties which would benefit them tremendously. He felt the roads were in a wash board condition which could be changed with the benefit of the Crest and was really a neat thing. He also indicated that for the three property owners who were truly at the farthest reaches of the Cahuilla Hills, it took them no less than nine minutes to reach Highway 74. Exiting through the Crest would cut the time in half because it was a much shorter distance and made a lot more sense. He also heard Mr. Drell's comment that they would not be exiting through the Cahuilla Hills and therefore would not be causing further dust problems. They would be reducing that by three families and it could be significant since those three families own at least three vehicles. Chairperson Ferguson asked if that was true that they would only be exiting and entering through the Crest development. Dr. Meints said that was their plan. Chairperson Ferguson asked if that was the case, why they would have opposition to a crash gate on the southern perimeter on their property. Dr. Meints clarified that he had no opposition to that whatsoever. He mentioned that a crash gate was suggested on both sides. `' 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 Chairperson Ferguson noted that in reviewing Dr. Meints' easement agreement, he himself was allowed to use the access as well as any of his employees, any of his agents, any of his contractors, any of his customers, theoretically he could sell access, any of his visitors, invitees, licensees, tenants or guests could also use it. He noted that meant more than three property owners using this access. Chairperson Ferguson asked for clarification purposes if Dr. Meints had any problem with placing a crash gate on the southern perimeter so that all three of those parcels only enter and exit through the Crest development. Dr. Meints concurred and indicated that discussion had addressed two gates and there was no problem with that. His understanding and reading of the contract was that it was for their immediate families and he was not interested in having construction people or anyone else traveling through that area. Chairperson Ferguson said it was a little broader than that, but Dr. Meints may have solved the problem. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR. There was no one. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION. Mr. Paul Bowie, 71-774 Chuckwalla Way, addressed the commission and began his comments. Chairperson Ferguson asked Mr. Bowie if he was reading into the record the letter he submitted to the Planning Commission earlier that day. (See Exhibit A attached hereto). Mr. Bowie concurred. He said he wasn't aware that the commission had received it since it was submitted so late. Chairperson Ferguson asked the commissioners if they had reviewed the letter. Commission concurred. Mr. Bowie stated that he would like to read it. He pointed out that he has some very strong feelings about this matter. Chairperson Ferguson said that the commission had read the letter and asked if Mr. Bowie could sum up and be concise about his principal objections to the project. Mr. Bowie stated that his objections were all worthy and substantial. Certain things had been said tonight about the County doing things or not doing things and he didn't know how many people were involved in making deals, but he had not been contacted at any time. The matter of removing 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 three families and their vehicular traffic off the dirt roads was inconsequential because there were already over 200 vehicle trips per day out of Cahuilla Hills and he knew that because he did that study in 1991 when he was concerned about the dust problem and another matter. He said that if one could use the gate, why not everyone. He also felt the commission should consider that as time goes by a number of other places would be built, more people would move up into Section 36, there would be more traffic, and Cahuilla Way as stated in his letter was insane. He was sure that the commission didn't want to hear some of the instances that both he and his wife have encountered down there with the traffic at the intersection. As time goes by, the town would only get worse and worse and suggested that the road just be opened up and they should have a second route also. Chairperson Ferguson said he thought Mr. Bowie's principal objection was the PM10 dust and asked how opening it up would alleviate that. Mr. Bowie concurred that was his concern. He said that if they were going to open that gate for three, why not open it for 500. Chairperson Ferguson asked if that would compound by a factor of some 50 the amount of dust in the air. Mr. Bowie said he didn't know, but as he listened to people making deals so that they could use the gate, he asked why they all couldn't use it. They contribute their share to the community too. Just because they were in the County didn't make them another nation. In addition to comments made tonight, he wanted to address the issue of keys and cards. He felt that one key could turn into 100. One card would turn into 100. Regarding another route into the Crest leading onto Thrush Road, he didn't know if it had to go over the top of a ridge line or not. As far as he could tell someone was just making that assumption. On the issue of endangering threatened species, he thought that had turned into a joke across the country and they had already been compromised. He said that he stood firm behind his letter and believed that the suggestion of the Fire Marshal to have another access to the main road made complete sense. Chairperson Ferguson asked for clarification that Mr. Bowie either wanted access for everyone or access for no one. Mr. Bowie said it was either access for everyone or it was a crash gate, period. Chairperson Ferguson noted that during his discussion with Dr. Meints they were talking about making it a crash gate, period. He recognized that they were not �" 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 o. ri a country to themselves, but if they were, those three properties just opted out of it and went appurtenant to the Crest. Mr. Bowie asked why they should opt out and why he couldn't opt in. They were making gray lines now. Chairperson Ferguson said that lines had to be drawn somewhere and the commission was trying to draw one tonight. Mr. Bowie said he was also and indicated that the Fire Marshal was giving the City an option of having another exit onto the main street. Chairperson Ferguson asked where Mr. Bowie would draw that line because in his arguments against access, he raised the issue of dust control and in his argument against universal access, it undercut the dust control argument. Mr. Bowie agreed that it did, because he was now aware that there were deals being made for some people. He asked why there should be a deal since this was a democracy and they should have everything for everyone. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Bowie thought the developer would allow more residents from the Cahuilla Hills area to go through their gate and if they were closer to that gate. She asked if that would be a better route for Mr. Bowie. Mr. Bowie thought that the maximum distance that anyone travels up there from where they are to Highway 74 could be one mile if they were at the west end. But he couldn't speak for those people. Commissioner Campbell indicated that the developer could go to those people and ask them if they wanted to use the Crest gate and if they did they could receive a gate opener, otherwise people could use the other road. Mr. Bowie said he was now asking why it couldn't be opened completely because in time Cahuilla Way was going to become an impossibility and it was engineered wrong from the beginning. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone else wished to speak in OPPOSITION. MR. ANTOINE BABAI, 45-640 Highway 74 in Palm Desert, stated that he might be one of the three people, but he wasn't sure. They have the property adjacent to this property and no one had come to them to ask for a deal. No one had approached them. He believed that this project would be good for the city and the area. It was beautiful and unique and it would be nice to have the road going to the Crest area paved since St. Margaret's School was adjacent there and it would lower the dust for the kids playing 5 14 "� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 in the school area. He felt it was a good idea to have this project and would benefit the city. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the applicant if he wished to give a response to the comments given. Mr. Selzer said he wanted to address the emergency access issue. The question was asked why there was a deal with those three property owners. It was because emergency access was an important issue to all of the people who live in the Cahuilla Hills. As Dr. Meints pointed out, those streets go both ways. If there was an emergency in Cahuilla Hills and their primary access was cut off, the fire trucks could go through the Crest and vice versa. Why do those three people have access and no one else? Because there was a quid pro quo. They gave the Crest the right of way. With respect to the concern that it was not just the three families that would be using the gate, but their family, guests, invitees, etc. That would reduce the problem. If he heard Mr. Bowie correctly and dust was a problem, this would further reduce that problem. In the document, guests and invitees refer to people that normally go to a house. They were not talking about a business or a drive-in restaurant, but people who normally visit homes. With respect to putting in a second crash gate, they were not opposed to that although he didn't think a whole lot would be accomplished by doing that. As Dr. Meints indicated, those three families would undoubtedly use the Crest's paved roads and added that his guess was that if there was a fire in the Cahuilla Hills, the emergency vehicles would probably choose to go over the paved roads instead of the dirt roads, depending on where the fire was located. He was having some difficulty understanding Mr. Bowie's issue other than the fact that he was upset that he couldn't go through the Crest. Those were private streets and that was the way they were designed and they have the right to do that and many other developments within the city and all over the desert have them. Again, the second crash gate on the other side they would be willing to do, but didn't feel anything was being accomplished by doing that, but if it was a condition, they would do it. Chairperson Ferguson commented that the cumulative record to date spanning the first introduction of the application through and including the present had elicited comments and letters from people who said they bought in Cahuilla Hills primarily for its quiet and seclusion. There was concern about the service entrance aspects of Bighorn duplicating itself at the Crest which were primarily thought to be taken care of with the crash gate. They wanted to make sure it was an emergency access only to preserve their seclusion and he could appreciate the three property owners wanting to get better access to their property, but was not sure other residents shared their joy in opening that up to everyone at large. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION k JUNE 17, 1997 o. Mr. Selzer asked who everyone at large was. What he was saying, unless he was missing something, was that Dr. Meints and the other two property owners and their invitees would be using the Crest's access and that would reduce the impacts to the people in Cahuilla Hills because they would go the other way. He asked what he was missing. Chairperson Ferguson indicated that if Mr. Bowie approached Dr. Meints and told him he was tired of using Cahuilla Way and asked if he could be invited to use Dr. Meints' property to go through the Crest and if Dr. Meints said yes and Mr. Bowie was his invitee, with the liberal wording in the agreement he could be selective about whom he lets through his property. What he was suggesting was that since the crash gate was proposed and the property owner in question didn't oppose the crash gate, since the crash gate was always in the contemplation of the developer, why not put the crash gate there and preserve the essential integrity of the original application. Mr. Selzer said he would accept that, but thought they were taking the "what if" game a little too far. If in fact it was being abused, they could stop that or the City could stop that. Their intention, as stated by Dr. Meints, was for use by the immediate family. He had a hunch that if Dr. Meints was asked to remove casual invitees from the agreement, he would do that. The bottom line was that they were proposing a solution that in Mr. Selzer's mind didn't get them very far and worked exactly the opposite. Using Chairperson Ferguson's example, he would say that the folks in Cahuilla Hills should like that because that would mean a further reduction on the impact on Cahuilla Hills. Chairperson Ferguson closed the public testimony and asked for commission comments. Chairperson Ferguson noted that he asked Mr. Smith to review the proposed language by the applicant for Exhibit C and asked for his comments. Mr. Smith said he would have no problem, subject to the City Attorney's review and approval. City Attorney Erwin indicated that he was not in a position to comfortably comment on it at this time. Chairperson Ferguson asked Mr. Joy if the Fire Department indicated a preference on the emergency access location for the Crest development. Mr. Joy stated that the condition was only that an emergency access be provided and they didn't indicate a preference on the location. Chairperson Ferguson asked if there was a definition of "emergency" somewhere. Mr. Joy said he didn't know of any other than what was in the dictionary. Chairperson Ferguson asked for crash gate purposes if it could be limited to police and fire. Mr. Joy indicated that in this circumstance just as a general city policy they would define that as police, fire, ambulance and paramedic and that type of user. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 Commissioner Campbell indicated that due to some of the questions that the commission had two weeks ago the case was continued and she felt that the developer has answered some of the problems and that they were well answered. As far as the residents in the Cahuilla Hills area that have been to the public hearings, most of them have been in favor of the project, except for Mr. Bowie. From his testimony tonight, she felt it was somewhat contradictory to previous comments. Since the residents most impacted were in favor of the project and after listening to comments made by Dr. Meints that he moved there because of the desert atmosphere and the Crest was a good project that wouldn't have a golf course and proposed a very natural desert landscaping. She also wondered if the developer would allow any other persons to use that gate in that there were other residents in the Cahuilla Hills that might want access. She agreed that the Crest would be a good development to have in Palm Desert and felt it would help the retail community to have more year round residents. She stated that she was in favor. Commissioner Fernandez concurred with Commission Campbell that this was a great project. The applicant had worked hard on it for eight years and everything that the commission and planning staff asked for had been done. He stated that he was in favor of the project and wished the applicant good luck. Chairperson Ferguson noted that he has said from the outset that he was in favor of the project conceptually. His biggest struggle with the project was to try and take that which was conceptual and make it definitive and binding for the next 20 years. The work that had been done on redrafting the development agreement at first glance seemed to strike a fair balance between what the City wants, which was the discretion to evaluate the unique development on a lot by lot basis and home by home basis, while at the same time vesting certain rights with the developer so that he could be assured of orderly development over the next 20 years in exchange to his dedication to open space. His other problem with the application at the last meeting was the lack of specificity, at least in terms of its conceptual design, certain internal inconsistencies and conflicts, many of which seemed to have been resolved. The remaining issues were what constituted an emergency, where the crash gate would be located, whether there were benches and shade structures along the ridge line. He said that while that concern might seem picayune to some, they were not to the people who live there who look on the other side of the property line. He appreciated that it had taken the applicant eight years to work out their project, but noted that it had taken many thousands of years to develop those hills and he felt that merited some consideration as well. He felt that an appropriate balance had been reached, subject to the City Attorney's review of the applicant's Exhibit C language, which he would like to defer to him on, and the City Council's review. He stated that he would like to see a definition of emergency added to include police, fire and other appropriate vehicles, not the least of which were ambulances. He also wanted to see the crash gate relocated to the southern perimeter of the three properties and he thought those property owners had a 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 a right to do with their properties as they chose, but he wanted to see the essential character of Cahuilla Hills preserved and to him the best way to do that was with a crash gate. He also wanted a condition added that said there would be no benches or shade structures along the ridge line as previously discussed and he would define that as visible from a westerly perspective if standing to the east. He asked if those additional conditions were acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Miller asked for clarification of westerly perspective. Chairperson Ferguson indicated he meant standing east looking to the west. Mr. Miller stated he had no problem with the conditions. Chairperson Ferguson stated that with those conditions of approval that he had just added and with the City Attorney's reservation to review and modify Exhibit C, he also was in favor of the project. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he would move for approval of the Crest development as amended by the inclusion of the word emergency, the relocation of the crash gate and the benches and shade structures along the ridge line being visually mitigated from the rest of Palm Desert. Action: Moved by Chairperson Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-0-2 (Commissioners Beaty and Jonathan abstained). Moved by Chairperson Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1812, recommending to City Council approval of C/Z 90-12 Amendment No. 1 and Development Agreement, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 3-0-2 (Commissioners Beaty and Jonathan abstained). B. Continued Case No. PP 97-7 - ANDREW PIERCE CORPORATION/GARY LOHMAN, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan to allow the conversion of a 1 ,581 square foot residence into an office located at 44-835 Deep Canyon. Mr. Martin Alvarez noted that this case was before the Planning Commission on June 3, 1997 where both a change of zone and precise plan were reviewed. The change of zone from R-1 to Office Professional was recommended for approval to the City Council, but the precise plan was continued. He indicated that the applicant was requesting permission to convert a 1581 square foot residence into an office use. The project is located on the west side of Deep Canyon one parcel north of Alessandro. The office would be used by a developer/builder of k 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 custom homes and would have a total of three employees. The hours of operation would be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Because of concerns raised at the last commission meeting, the applicant submitted plans of exterior elevations indicating some modification to the exterior structure/garage along the Deep Canyon frontage. He noted that there were photographs on display as well as a rendering depicting the changes and a landscape plan. He noted the rendering showed the modifications which included furring out the garage surface and adding depth and length to the garage. Exterior paint would be similar to the office building to the south and they would add some signage to create more of an office look. The landscape plan was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission and the project met all the City's development standards. For purposes of CEQA the proposal was a Class 3 categorical exemption and no further documentation was necessary. Staff recommended approval of the change of zone and precise plan to the City Council, subject to the conditions. Chairperson Ferguson oogened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. GARY LOHMAN, 75-570 Mary Lane in Indian Wells, stated that he was present to answer any questions. He indicated that he consulted with an architectural firm and went over this plan with the Planning Director and staff. He said he would like to receive approval. Commissioner Campbell asked if the modifications to the garage were reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. Mr. Alvarez indicated that the Architectural Review Commission had not seen the changes yet, but it could be subject to their approval. Mr. Lohman noted that it was part of the conditions of approval that they receive ARC approval. Chairperson Ferguson asked if this had already been approved by the Architectural Review Commission without the architectural modification. Mr. Lohman concurred. He indicated that the landscaping was approved without a modification. Commissioner Campbell felt that the appearance was much better with the modifications. Chairperson Ferguson commented that he was sure that the applicant intended to have the building look like this the first time, but the plans the commission received the first time didn't reflect that. Mr. Lohman agreed that the submittal was not adequate. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Chairperson Ferguson asked for commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan said that the rendering before the commission indicated an office building that was not lavish or ostentatious, but it appeared to be more of an office building than a residence and that was all that his concern was. He didn't mean to place burdensome requirements on the development and he said that the proposal complied with his expectations. It looks like an office and that was all he wanted. He had no problem with the application. Commissioner Campbell stated that she was in favor. Commissioner Fernandez thought the project looked good with the modifications and was also in favor of the project. Chairperson Ferguson said that he agreed with Commissioner Jonathan and he had been concerned about the lack of detail in the last application and if they were going to go to an office professional use, it should look both like an office and professional. He asked if this would go to Architectural Review. Mr. Alvarez said it could be made a condition. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the applicant had a problem with that. j Mr. Lohman spoke from the audience and said it was already in the conditions of approval and he didn't have a problem with that. Chairperson Ferguson asked for a motion. Commissioner Beaty informed commission that he would be abstaining since he was absent from the last meeting's discussion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Beaty abstained). Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1813, recommending to City Council approval of PP 97-7 (in conjunction with C/Z 97-7), subject to conditions. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Beaty abstained). 20 "' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. PP 97-6 - GEORGE L. AVANS, DDS, Applicant Request for approval of a Precise Plan of Design to allow construction of a 1862 square foot dental office at 73-151 Fred Waring Drive. Mr. Steve Smith noted that the commission had the staff report and indicated they were looking at a single story dental office 1862 square feet in size on the south side of Fred Waring Drive opposite the College of the Desert. He indicated that the Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary architectural approval. When they did so they requested that the applicant amend the site plan to create a single wide driveway going to the rear parking. The property to the east was presently vacant. He said an effort has been made to try and get a mutual driveway situation. Without an application from that property, the City couldn't require them to participate. They were choosing not to participate at this time, so staff added a condition in the draft resolution as Condition No. 15 which would allow the City to obtain that joint driveway situation if and when the property next door comes forward with a request to proceed. He noted it was not without precedence in that Dr. Reed's dental office further to the west just opened about two months ago and he had not observed a problem with the single driveway and it was probably in for a longer term being a single drive situation in that the next door neighbor adjacent to the driveway was a single family home. Mr. Smith indicated that the requirements had been met and the building was a Class 3 categorical exemption due to the occupant load as specified. He indicated that in Condition No. 14 the minimum width of 24 feet for a minimum depth of 28 feet should say 22 feet to be consistent with Public Works Department Condition No. 8. With that, staff recommended approval of the request. Commissioner Campbell noted a letter was submitted from Ms. White asking if the building would be two stories or one. Mr. Smith stated that the applicant and/or his agent spoke with her and assured her that it would be single story. Chairperson Ferguson indicated that Condition 15 basically received preapproval to form a parking driveway situation and then presumably they would wait until there was adequate leverage for the City to require the adjoining land owner to match up the other end. Mr. Smith concurred and explained that it would also provide for the possible future connection of the parking lots themselves. Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. GABRIEL LUJAN, Garland Lujan Associates at 43-875 Washington Street, Suite G, in Palm Desert, stated that they read all the conditions and 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 0 had no problems with the conditions and would like to get started with the project. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Ferguson asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell said she didn't have any problems and was in favor of the project. Commissioner Jonathan stated that in his mind this was an ideal transition pursuant to the Palma Village Plan and it warranted the commission's approval. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1814, approving PP 97-6, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0. B. Case No. TPM 28451 - R.K. DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to resubdivide six existing parcels into two for property located on the north side of Sego Lane between State Street and Beacon Hill. Mr. Smith stated that they were looking at resubdividing six existing parcels on the north side of Sego between State Street on the west and Beacon Hill on the east. The zoning was Service Industrial and there were two warehouse buildings presently on the site. He noted that the Public Works Department indicated that this was the procedure to handle this request. Mr. Smith indicated that the lots would meet ordinance standards and the proposal was a Class 15 categorical exemption for CEQA purposes. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions. Commissioner Jonathan asked what differentiated this application from those that come before commission on the consent calendar for lot line adjustments. Mr. Smith explained that it was because they had to consolidate the parcels into one and then divide it into two so they were creating new lots. The consent calendar cases were just moving lot lines. Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing, noted there was no one present to offer testimony and closed the public hearing. Chairperson Ferguson asked for commission comments. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1815, approving TPM 28451 , subject to conditions. Carried 5-0. X. MISCELLANEOUS None. XI. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (June 17, 1997) Commissioner Beaty said he was a few minutes late for the meeting and they had already finished with dog park and water feature items. He asked Mr. Smith what happened with the dog park. Mr. Smith indicated that Mr. Winklepleck was the staff member that attended that meeting. Commissioner Beaty noted that the dog park was being moved and that area would be replaced with a skate park/roller hockey area and the expanded dog park would be a little farther north. He stated that there were elaborate plans for a $250,000 water feature that turned into a $400,000 water feature. Now they were considering two that cost a total of $20,000. The handball court was put on hold and the grade and returf of the community garden area was pulled from the agenda. He noted that he brought up some problems they have been having with the Civic Center lagoon water quality, a lot of which could be related to the duck and duck feeding. He said he provided some information to staff and he thought they were going to try and get an ordinance--he said it was bad for the ducks and bad for the pond. B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (June 10, 1997) Chairperson Ferguson said that a number of items were discussed, the most prominent being the size of the clubhouse. Redevelopment Agency staff passed that decision along to Kemper Sports Management, who would occupy the facility, for a recommendation. Kemper Sports Management was essentially recommending a 25,000 square foot clubhouse, approximately half of which would house the carts used for both the north and south course and there would be some greater refinement on that. He understood that members of the City Council would be viewing similar 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 clubhouses in Arizona in the near future. He noted that there was an update on the bidding for the south course; Commissioner Beaty had voiced his concern about local vendors who had been used on the development on the north course who had not been paid by the project developer, Park West. Commissioner Beaty indicated they still had not received their money. Chairperson Ferguson indicated that they made it a condition that before Park West could bid on the south course, every vendor would need to be paid and the nonpayment of the vendors would be considered as a factor on whether or not they could bid on the south course. He noted there was discussion on putting a snack station on the south course because of the distance from the clubhouse and there was a lot of discussion on the timing of going out to bid on the clubhouse, which was approximately $5 million and going to bid on the south course, which was approximately $9.5 million, as well as the attendant public works improvements which would be about $10 million and the proposed charter city and prevailing wage savings that might be attributed. It was estimated that they could save approximately 15% if they waited until after November if the charter should pass. When they were talking about an excess of $20 million that savings could be significant. Nothing was definitively decided except that they would take a look at prevailing wage and the timing of the contracts and whether or not they could comply with the contract with Intrawest for the delivery of the clubhouse and south golf course. C. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - No meeting) D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (June 5, 1997) Commissioner Campbell said that they discussed the Caltrans sign program and would be meeting again Friday. Mr. Smith indicated they would be discussing home occupations, so Chairperson Ferguson was invited to attend. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he would be there. Mr. Smith indicated that Fairway Outdoor provided a crane and some large logos and he felt that most people that viewed the signage realized that if they were going to get into freeway visible signage, it needed to be about 90 feet in the air and each logo needed to be about 160 square feet in order to be visible. When talking about six logos, that would be about 1 ,000 square feet. He indicated that matter was tabled at Council last week and they would re-look at it. i 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 XII. COMMENTS 1 . Mr. Smith noted that at the next meeting there would only be one public hearing on the Foundation for the Retarded. He indicated there was also a study session scheduled for that evening at 5:30 p.m. to hear from Cal State. Considering there was only one public hearing, he asked if the commission would prefer to hear the Cal State presentation as a miscellaneous item at the regular time at 7:00 p.m. Chairperson Ferguson asked how long the Cal State presentation would be. Mr. Smith didn't know. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that he would be out of the country on the 1 st. Chairperson Ferguson asked if Commissioner Jonathan would like them to postpone the presentation until after he returned. Commissioner Jonathan noted that he is on that board so he was familiar with the proposal. Commission decided to go ahead and have the study session early. Commissioner Fernandez indicated that 6:00 p.m. was a better time for him. Commissioner Campbell indicated that they had discussed eating at 5:30 p.m. and having the presentation from Cal State at 6:00 p.m. Commission concurred. 2. Commissioner Jonathan noted that he lives near Ironwood Park and indicated they were experiencing all sorts of doggy problems there, particularly doggy droppings. He wanted to bring to staff's attention that in Isla Vista adjacent to Santa Barbara, they have had tremendous success by having doggy bag dispensers. He felt that if other parks in the community were having these problems that maybe staff could discuss having something like this. He said they were provided free of charge to the public and apparently the public felt guilty enough when they see the bags that they go ahead and use them. He thought it wasn't expensive to install or maintain. Chairperson Ferguson concurred with Commissioner Jonathan and indicated that he also lives near that park. He pointed out that they were in the middle of doing a survey of neighborhood residents on ways to improve the park and they have $30,000 to do that this year. Commissioner Jonathan said he heard about that and he lives directly across the street from the park and he was not contacted to participate in that survey. He also indicated that many of his neighbors also didn't receive notice. Chairperson Ferguson said he could give Commissioner Jonathan a phone number to contact the lead person. 3. Chairperson Ferguson said he had a comment about the driving range on Cook Street along the wash. The last time the driving range was before the commission it was noted that they hadn't complied with their landscape requirements. He noted that they still have not complied with their landscape requirement. He indicated that Toys R Us was another facility that was brought to his attention, as well as Desert Crossing. He stated that he has received more than one comment from people, including council members, asking why the City isn't enforcing its landscaping requirements 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 a. on conditional use permits and if we could do an audit as to who is and who isn't in compliance to date. He said he talked to Phil Drell about this. Phil said that one of the worst offenders was the City itself, but if the city is violating that ordinance, commission needed to know that as well. He asked staff to give a progress report, may not at the next meeting, but at the meeting after that. Commissioner Beaty noted that he met with Tom Theobald today about similar issues. It was revealed to him that the City no longer has a landscape supervisor and that was dumped in Mr. Theobald's lap and he split it with another gentleman, but they were overwhelmed. Chairperson Ferguson said he wanted to include the trees in parking lots as well. Trees were apparently dying and the City has spent $100,000 on an arborist to make sure they don't die, but the CUPs were still not being monitored and enforced. He said that was the perception. Mr. Smith indicated that Desert Crossing was replacing quite a bit of the material, but somewhere they found five gallon mesquite trees. When it was originally approved, the size was a minimum 24-inch box material. Commissioner Jonathan asked what the recourse was. Chairperson Ferguson said that the recourse for Desert Crossing had been to force Lowe, the proposed developer of the Ahmanson lot on El Paseo, to go in and do the landscaping for Desert Crossing, which he thought was ridiculous. Mr. Erwin noted that Toys R Us was an interesting case because about five years ago the City took them to court and got a mandatory injunction t requiring them to put it in and thought that the injunction was probably still there and if they were letting it die again, he believed they were already in court. He said he could check on that. He indicated that was the ultimate recourse and they would rather not do that. Basically what they try to do is charge the expense of it back to the property owner. Some of them fight the city on it. Chairperson Ferguson asked if they could go through a CUP revocation process. Mr. Erwin said that was possible and as part of the conditions they always had the ability to go back through that process. He said he could take a look at that and get a schedule in conjunction with the audit and start with the worst offenders. Chairperson Ferguson said that the term "audit" might be a bit strong, but wanted a staff report on the status with the known offenders and the circumstances which might explain why the applicants have not complied. With the driving range case, the applicant told the commission that he would comply within 30 days and hasn't done anything. 3. Commissioner Campbell noted that a man at the last council meeting was asking about the Cam's Corner frontage road being closed. She said they all knew it would be permanently closed and asked why the man wasn't told that would never be reopened. Mr. Smith didn't think he lived within 300 feet of the property which was the notification area, but knew the man was at the council meeting the night they acted on the street vacation. d 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 1997 ` m XIII. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:46 p.m. !�TEPHEN Ik. SMITH, Acting Secretary AT EST: i JAM17S CA RGU ON, Chairperson Palm Desert PI ping ommission /tm i 27 G I PIN ) O 1 a U O G •r4 00 ?, a cn u 41 > G b0 >, a 0 4J O w G p .n x w a sa CO (n O a a) 'd >, z .a n 4J rq ro .n 0 1 cd o G a cn p ,c bo ro ro rq s4 4-J > N w •� G •�+ G G M'd cn 4J CO a v cn a s 4J 0 a u N 3 a 4J •H G •rl cd N 0 +� w ,� ro w G o a ro 13 m � a G a 'r-I W a b0 •r Jr ro a 3 o a 'd w r-4 4J G o co 4 M cd u r 3 0 0 P 4J 0 A a pG >, •ra El G � to a o V. Ir o O U rl w a 4J 4J •ri H ra w 4J d a G a cn G •ri o r-I a) co O G W qq r-+ G O G cn ro rod a Ej a o E a CIO P o G .[ E! 3 >, 4J G >, = s 4 ro x u 3 r-I ro (n 0 a) 3 U o..r >4 5 G row o 'd m m •� r� sJ .� d G c u o -44 o . o u 'd G d >, ro r- 4J o ri . a 0 >,•ri W ri a) 4J 0 -r-4cd a cd w a G G to w .c •9 ►4 'u w 'd a) r4 G ^a, ro ri rA 41 .0 U 4J 'v a uJ r-I ri G P• .n ^ a cd G 41 0 4J J~ (13 X. G u U) ro Ei a .o u G IJ m a .� G F w rn u v) 4JJ a a W (0 '0 4 a) � ,n 4' >0., 'Hd •v o cd a1) o a o � � > G r-1 0 �+ o (Ti G G r 1 Jr a a a o C o bo cn a U M w CO b CO 0 'd •r♦ cd a a) a 0 cn q >, 7 .0 s+ 4J 4J 3 U rn ^ c ny ri �, u o U a W a m rd G ri w w -2 0 ro G 0 4J r I . o 3 ro m ►+ .o 0 a r- 4J 4J ro ri >, S•+ W .n -r-I G >, cn rn 4J >, 0 0 a I-, a rC r i •ri u a cn 0 3 - r1 0 0 4.4 cn -T A r-4 a u � a) cd d o 41 )a 4J H w 4J ,n G 'd a G = 41 w ^ a J 0) —4) 41 :1 > G, D, u 'd )4 o r- G c a al u •v 4J 4J a -HG a) G cd -ri o -r-4o o cn 'd to .0 cd 0 n o 0a u Pa-4 -4 o 4J to 10 to •ra G M > O 4) G gp a W a U H u N }4 •ri 4J CO a ^ H u G G o G N 44 G •i H a 14 G r i p a) >,X rn a G U 0 3 'd r-i r-1 cd a) a 0. 4J , G Ej a p ,� o w C U G a a) ,C O a co —4 (o O a .0 4J u " �4s b0 a) U 0 -ri a a •r1 a ro a s cn O N rn U a' O 60 cn > 4J r4 a w ti -4 � 41 cd G a u G cn N cn 4J ,C 4J O cn CO N . Ej a m -r-I a G rn 4J b P 1.4 ro I d a rn o 10 bao cxn > � .� H a •qop v >, cd ,� G 4J r1 a G rn a 44 rJ •ri o .0 G a a o ), V. � G w N G >+ ►4 0 a 0. cd bo 14 4-1 a s P cd o � a a •• a .e q rr-d " r"-a ° a u u ,r o a cd cd a a a) ro %.o a }4 0 v) > $4 U) •d 4J 60 U rd a d cd rr 0 d r1 a a >, y Ir O a A r-4 M 4J of 4J rn O rxl .n rl a) 4J p .0 En C cd G t) rl v U) 0 a G a) co t) ,-1 ' b a•.G 4�J a 4J Pa G ►+ 41 4J w rn G 41 .G O a a U vi t a cr U •G •r4 a 00 Cd $4 + cd +) U) cd a " a) i+ to V. a a G •ri rn CO u 4J U •C •ri 3 En .G r 1 ro G w •r1 0 oo a t` co r-1 G a G o o 14 p 41 a) 4J bo cd r I m 41 G C 4J 0 4J a 0 00.0 ^ a W G 4J O bo 0 W G G cd O W ri 3 •ri 4J 3 'd C N cn a s 4J •d cn 3 H e I Q 1J a •ri G u 4J FJ O CT H G G CIJ c_' 0 4 0 cd G 0 G � 4J I-+ O 4J •ri A •ri P $4 � P.' W U) H O ro .0 41 •r1 •ri V) a) (u a) I u •,q G ri U >••, u ro G cn 4J 4J G co 41 cd o cd a o N a tJ u u Jr ro N k .>~ CC > rl 0 •ri 00 G o 41 �4 cd v v a•d a s ro 0 0 >, 4J b cn w w a a U) 3 a Gt G 41 P4 a) H 4J �- cn Xqq 0 W G w r i ,G U) a G 4J a 4J P G 'ri a 4J •d >, a y G G G > G cn •ri r-I ro o a oO 0 G W ` -� rl 3 •rl -H0 cd P4 4J A ro u a 4J P •r-4 'd 0 U) G G 4 a a) COJ 4J ri 0 x N "1 .n z7 w >4 cn 0 a to cn U r4 o a w ro rn p u a) U a 0 a o r+ .G •ri O X a v 4J 41 4J q o a u 4J .n N G U 4J Cl 4J M CO O W 0 a J~ N 41 Z 4J G riji u O dC rl ro H S 4 a p 1~ 4J a • w N 4J a rl a) I-, a bo i.) O G N bo >, u ro G d .G tJ G � u O LLIU a G —1 r i a v ri •ri G 4 >, rd a .� p a • = r-1 cd -r-I 44 ro •r1 41 0 'd co ^4J G bo x 0 —4 0 a d � 3 p a 4J 4J u a G 41 +) 60 0 0 ro U 0 1l ro w ro 0 00 0 ri a 'ri w 1 n z G N a•H O w 0 v u oo G' 'd -H 0 Q u •ri ro 0 ra u 4) y, ^ ^ cn b u X v G b u a s o :) 0 4J u v M P4 A v G ro •ri O G 'ri a •rl .0 'd u w u F4 a >, a W ri r-4 •r1 4J W a o a d ro a s 0 H ro —4 CO 4J G G w 0 4J G a H ^ CO a b0 4J P a G r-I 0 a r-i k r-i cn cn >, a -4 ►4 ro G d S 'd a v p 41 r-1 w 4J ro p ,� � �, •r+ 0 4J 0 0 a a CO � ro G " 4J G a H u cn w cn > H G p 0 • v r-i G ro p a4 8 •-H w o G o u a b0 a> ro G 0 m P U ►4 4J o (n o o G cd -ri rn ri a s cd 0 •ri v) u ro v a u u o a 0 %.O a >, a rC P 3 r-4 G CO N a C G .n >, cn a 0 3 a 4J a) $4 A 4J >,'d 4J 4J U P4 CO r•I �+ 0 CO U J 1 ri 0 'd >,co .O 41 a 4J a) 0 P cn a 'd o COG >-F4 ro ro c 00 cn rn p 0 0 rl U ro ,.i v o .n N ,.i •rl ri rn S x 0 0 •r1 4J a cn W r•I 3 A cn p '0 a w 0 4J G O 0 a 4J v $4 a cn (a a w y b'd G G a) G a o •d G .se 'd ro a >%-r-I a) ri p a U a rn •ri 4J 0 cn u G rC cd 4J a) 4J 4J N O G a p O v) C )•r 0 = w u a w 0 •a >, G cn � u .c .0 ri G .n a .0 G O 41 rd A u a W a H N •ri •,A O 0 >, 0 •r+ a u o o u C G H 4J o n cn bo >+ a CO W 0 U a bo ro (nO A a ,� El 4J � N w 0 N 4J 3 o r I 'r-4 >, 0 a 'd U +� o u >, > a 14 • 'd a u o G U ro 4J o ro + G a cd u G v r-I c� >, P a El a G G P a 4J cJ 0 CO a N G 41 41 u a w bo E b0-4 G P I~ a 41 r>(, G w a 60 1) O a rn > r-i •' U ro a u 11 x 0 cd cn H .0 4) r-4a 41 to a s to •ri cd p 0 I•, O P4 0 ro a 0 0 U r-4 G a ro x r1 •ri d u b cd G a .G G cd a•,4 o a) 41 f� O > p cd r i N v U r� U U � >, g v 0 41 cd > a 4J P., En m w ri COcO rl •rl 0 4J v N �J a) cn �) • IC 'ri • l a a w cd 'r-i G O rn El (n •r4 G ri u u r-I •H a � 0 r-4 0 4bo a) X. ro w CA o a 41 3 Xoo w r•4 e CO W >, >W , o P 4J 'O cd G a •ri 0 P4 P 0 a )-r 3 C .,1 'd F-4 •ri 00 �4 rG 4J N a W (n •rl a .s; U) G 4J a r-I co cd 1-4 G ro v G U a 4J A D co o 0 rn G G u -Hv 4J t 4 O 4J G CO N rr+� a ro cd 5 a 41 cd ^ 'd G r-4 >, o H u cd > >> co a u N •• 44 x 0 O cd .0 •r+ H � oo a s r I 3 r1 " :3 •rl •n a o 3 co w W wco ,J u o �p TJ a ,J H > k bo N UI H rn O 0 •r-4 4) 'd a 'U qq E4 '� O O 3 G o a p C w ^•r4 Xp u .ri 4J ri ^ a -r-I 0 ri a C rn k a w U u pO 'd X r. ri a 4J C U a u a u > •ri •r I >, G N )4 4J 0 bo•ri 4J U d ro 'U 4J >, U 4J 4J to •r1 a 4 4J cn r-I a a) N rd U G,' cd -0 (n G -ri •rl O hl 'd p �4 cd G Jr O a) .n W .� ro a C:4 ro CO-4 p d 4J a a G ro G 0 a a U ri cd 14 a) 4J U bo 4J -ri a) G J ro G .G ro 4 4J W ro Cl W 4-1J 4J a A ro U O O b0 ro x w 4J >,ro .0 x ro > a d W N 1J aJ X G a rA 'd W 'd O JJ d G W 4J 00 U CO G A p ••3 r- N H H 4J a co G 3 W W b0 CO 4J a P - a) 4-1 a G :J r•i .L' a O El ro a cd rl to O V ro O q -ri Pc b0 41 4J -r-I ^ cn >, 0. G r-4 �Fll cd O ro a a G .0 ro > cd P •ri 4.4 r-I U U a cn w a a k r•I 41 p Ir O b cd ri W rl 10 41 fn >, U >, 4J co 4 )•+ H G 4J r1 4J ri •rl cn O ,C ro •,i U �, a1 r 4 d (n 41 0 r 4 a W cd a ), ri cd G a .0 W 4J a Cl G 4J U 0 O 41 rn a r-i co 3 .0 G w 4J ,o b ro 0 .n cd G co cd �4 o r-I �D cd w w[14co bo H Cl) 30 Au 0 o u b cn u bo M H cn q cd 3 w a a >, ro o wu a d 7 Cl) G J a a) r. pp •r1 "A cd r-I -Hu pp P., r-I bo O -H 'o bO 4J ro -04 a 4J En >, U u 'd •ri CO4J U) G 0 w 14 a) O p cn u ri rn 4 J~ : a 4J a COcO •ri C m u [p G cn a 4J ,0 44 G M r-i a r-I 4J C >, G G ro C 0 0 Au O a O G a cn cn to ;Z; �Q- E-, 'd 0 >, }4 r i O N ri w r4 to 'd cd a � a w o O d h-I b0 r-I 0 cn 0 . I f3 N •ri 0 .0 4J •ri 14 y4 -ri 4J G 4J (n G a G 0 'd w b0 O U U •ri r-I -r-I rn -ri M >,1f1 >••, a q 41 U) 4J a p o cd 4J G G G rn 4-) �•�-! 4J >, a 4J r-4 u •ri ).4 3 •r-I rd rd 41 '0 44 4J A cd cd u rd o 'Lj a 41 a 41 W u Z o fd fd 'd G `17 4J 4J 4J :3 1.1 4J a a ,a W 4.1 14 ro u •ri M ro a H a a G 'd O •ri J~ O > a a 0 •ri r-i a G a r-I cd •rl C Y4 0 •r-q U a 4J O O O a s a cn >•4 O ro m 41 n a p', rn u u a •-4 cd 0 P. (i o u cd cd a r- 4J > rn 4J a I-, U) � I of an emergency exit. The simple assumption that a water truck will settle dust is not tenable given the unknown nature, magnitude, duration, availability of equipment and manpower resources in an emergency. The establishment of an emergency route through Section 36 onto Cahuilla Way and to Highway 74 adds another aspect to traffic flow. Conjestion is almot common place and sometines semi-insane on Cahuilla Way at the north gate of Bighorn development. Never mind that the city has attempted to maintain order by providing red curbs, signage and solid double yellow traffic lines. Numerous vehicle operators have the definite belief that such directives are for someone else. Riverside County Fire Department in their letter dated May 1, 1997 states a requirement for a second access to The Crest development. Implementing the Fire Department suggestion of two main access points from a main roadway offers the most sensible solution. A second main access will permit residents to enjoy additional separation of traffic between themselves and the myraid of service and logistic traffic through the community. Should the city wish to install the emergency gate which would lead through Section 36 it is right and proper to develop a plan for the gate, and the binding conditions under which it would be activated. A plan must include the exclusive type of traffic and an approved plan as set forth by the appropriate air quality district for continuous PM-10 dust control on all possible dirt roads which could conceivably be used by emergency traffic flow. Upon completion a plan explaining its elements and rational as to why a gate into Section 36 is perceived to be superior to another option is ;to be mailed to every property owner in Section 36 seeking comment. Every single property owner and resident in Section 36 will be impacted by emergency traffic either through additional PM-10 dust generation should the city elect to not honor that duty and through the added traffic conjestion which will happen in proximity of Cahuilla Way and Highway 74. Your Commission possesses the right to adopt a Develpment Agreement with The Crest developers however, including the "emergency gated access to an adjoining development" at this time is improper, defective and wanting due to insufficient planning and the failure to consider the impact to owners and residents of Section 36. "Respectfully submitted, Paul Bo ie -2-