Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0917 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Finerty called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Cindy Finerty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell, Vice Chairperson Sabby Jonathan w.► Jim Lopez Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Dave Erwin, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the September 3, 2002 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the September 3, 2002 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent September 12, 2002 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 02-11 - SUNRISE COLONY COMPANY, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver for a lot line adjustment and lot merger at Indian Ridge Country Club to create two lots from three existing lots (Lots 133, 134 and 135 of Tract 28227-1 ; 591 Indian Ridge Drive and 601 Indian Ridge Drive). Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner " Campbell, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. TT 30706 -WESTRIDGE COMMUNITIES, LLC, Applicant Request for adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and tentative tract to subdivide five acres into 16 single-family lots (minimum size 9,600 square feet) located on the west side of Shepherd Lane, south of Gerald Ford Drive and north of Frank Sinatra Drive. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 Mr. Urbina explained that the property owner contacted staff advising that he had canceled escrow on the sale of this property to the applicant, Westridge Communities. The property owner faxed a letter yesterday to staff requesting that no action be taken by the Planning Commission on this tentative tract. The applicant had desired a 30-day continuance to try to work out issues and reopen escrow, but the property owner communicated to staff that he did not want action taken. Therefore, staff was now recommending that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, take testimony, and not take action on the item. Effectively the item would be tabled and for it to come back to the Planning Commission it would require re-advertisement of a new public hearing date and time. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and noted that Mr. James Grant was requesting to speak on this item. MR. JAMES GRANT, 78-217 Desert Mountain Circle in Bermuda Dunes, addressed the commission. He informed commission that he is a real estate broker and was representing Mr. Callahan in the ..r sale of his property and was requested to appear to confirm his wishes as stated in his written request. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no one. City Attorney Erwin recommended that the public hearing be closed. Chairperson Finerty closed the public hearing and asked for commission action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, tabling Case No. TT 30706 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. TT 30801 - COLLEGE VIEW ESTATES #3, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide five acres into 16 single-family lots (minimum size 8,000 square feet) located on the east side of Shepherd Lane, south of Gerald Ford Drive and north of Frank Sinatra Drive. � . 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 Mr. Urbina informed commission that the project site is a five-acre vacant piece on the west side of Portola Avenue. The minimum lot size proposed is 9,000 square feet. Access to the site would be through a cul-de-sac street east of Shepherd Lane. Surrounding property land uses included desert, vacant land to the north, to the east, to the south and to the west. The proposed tentative map would be comparable in lot size with established development patterns of recently constructed and under construction subdivisions in the area. For purposes of CEQA, the Community Development Director determined that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15.332 of CEQA Guidelines. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the findings and adopt the Planning Commission Resolution in the staff report approving Tentative Tract Map 30801 , subject to conditions. Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification about the condition placed by Public Works relative to creation of a homeowner's association to maintain perimeter landscaping for Shepherd Lane and Portola Avenue. He asked if that was consistent with all the other developments that had been before them. Mr. Urbina explained it was a recent development per direction from the City Council that homeowner's associations be established. There had been an issue with property owners protesting increases in their assessment districts. Mr. Drell said that was correct. The Council wanted to make sure that the level of landscaping was maintained and enforced by an association, no longer giving them the choice. Commissioner Lopez thought it had to be a gated community to have a homeowner's association. Mr. Drell said no. As long as there was a common area to maintain and enforcing CC&R's, there could be a homeowner's association. As a follow-up, Commissioner Jonathan asked who would maintain the other portions of the Shepherd Lane and Portola landscaping. Mr. Drell explained that the assessment districts that were all formed were still in place. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the condition was on the developer. Mr. Drell said no, the developer was gone and the homeowners were now in control of the properties and the assessment districts were in place. But there was a new law that there is to be a vote whenever the assessment is increased and although the cost for 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 maintaining the landscaping increased, they did not consent to increasing the assessment. Commissioner Jonathan thought that answered his question. The City is responsible but passes the cost along to the individual homeowner. Mr. Drell said that where there was an assessment district, that was correct. Mr. Drell clarified that they could only pass on those costs if they vote affirmatively for the increased assessment. That was the problem. With an association, the association members would still have to vote on a budget for their maintenance, but that would allow us to go back to the association if the landscaping was not being maintained adequately. Mr. Erwin explained that what has occurred is that associations have been an alternative in the past. The developers have preferred to use the landscaping and lighting district. When those have been established and they did exist on the other developments on Shepherd Lane, they exist at a certain dollar level of assessment that is already approved. What was suggested this year because of increased costs, the homeowners in those districts were asked to approve the increased cost to take care of what was felt to be an appropriate level of maintenance. In almost all instances that was not ., approved. There was still the existing level of assessment that would allow maintenance at a certain level, it was just that they couldn't pick up the additional costs or if they did, it came out of the City General Fund. The Council did not like the position they were put in. They would like the maintenance to be kept at a certain level and they didn't have the control of that. A homeowners association was at least a way to do that, placing it on the homeowners, and not impacting the City's general funds. On the other projects that have been approved for Shepherd Lane, Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a condition placed on the developer to maintain landscaping on Shepherd Lane and Portola. Mr. Drell said it was for as long as they control the property. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that condition was recorded or if it was passed along to subsequent homeowners. Mr. Erwin said it was in that they were required to do either a homeowners association or to form a landscaping and lighting district. In all instances they chose to form the district. Commissioner Jonathan indicated they were fixed at that level and it took their approval to increase it. Mr. Erwin said that was correct. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. TOM HALLECK, 67-980 Foothill Road in Cathedral City, stated that he was the developer for the project. He said they built College View I and College View II. They did an assessment district for College View ll. The homeowners there would rather have an assessment district. Not one of them balked at the fees and the fees could be as high as $40.00 per month per unit for the assessment on Portola and Shepherd. Multiply that by 32 units per month and that sounded to him like a sizeable amount to do 660 feet, but their response had been that they would not want a homeowner's association and that was why they weren't buying into a condominium. He thought that if they formed an association and after one year that association dismantled or no longer existed, he asked what happened and if the City would have to come in and take over the project again. He said he would be more in favor of having an assessment district that was already in place since he controlled all the lots, he could give an affirmative yes for the district. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the applicant was willing to accept the condition. Mr. Halleck said yes, he would. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the project. There was no one. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments. Noting that all the parcels were consistent, Commissioner Campbell moved for approval. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jonathan. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5- 0. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 �r. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2153, approving TT 30801 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case Nos. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438 and PP/CUP 02-03 - DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Applicant Request for a recommendation of approval to the City Council of: 1) A general plan amendment from Open Space and Hillside Planned Residential to Open Space for the entire 640 acres and a change of zone to prezone the entire 640 acres Open Space as it relates to Section 25, T5S R5E; 2) A general plan amendment from very low density residential to Hillside Planned Residential and a change of zone to prezone Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) for nine lots in the northeast corner of Section 36; 3) A tentative tract map and precise plan/conditional use permit for an 18-hole golf course, driving range, comfort station and open pavilion located on 221 +/- acres in the southeast corner of Section 25, T5S R5E ; and 4) Certification of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project. Commissioner Jonathan advised the commission and audience that he would be abstaining on this matter. He explained that he owns property adjacent to or possibly a part of the current application and therefore had a conflict of interest and he would abstain from discussion and voting on this matter. (Commissioner Jonathan left to sit in the audience.) Mr. Smith addressed the commission. He explained that the project is an exclusive, gate-guarded residential village and golf course comprising 44 single family lots to be located in the area generally west of the channel. It was an area located west of Highway 74. He said it would take access from a new access road that would have a bridge across the Palm Valley Channel and it would generally be opposite the Homestead Road to the east. The project involved 734 acres of land of which 675 acres were currently outside the city. The golf course would occupy some 221 acres 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 of the 640 acres in Section 25. That was the area in the southeast corner of Section 25. The residential village, clubhouse and maintenance facility would occupy some 69 acres located just west of the channel. There was an existing roadway that extends from the west side of the wash through the property. They would have access from the residential village up to the golf course area on this existing roadway that would be widened and improved with an acceptable all-weather surface. Part of the area was currently not in the city. As a general rule he said it was advisable or preferable to have all of the pieces of the project under one jurisdiction; hence, they were looking at annexation of the nine properties. The reason the nine properties were being looked at is because of an existing ravine which traverses northwest to southeast in the general location of the southerly limit of those parcels. That would seem to provide for a natural physical delineator for the city limit. He explained that they were basically looking at a two-step process. In j order to annex areas A and B or the areas in Section 25 and the identified nine lots, they had to amend the General Plan to be consistent with the project and with the topography and then prezone these areas consistent with the General Plan. Step two involved the approval of the tentative tract map and the precise plan and conditional use permit for the golf course, the clubhouse and the 44 residential lots. As background, Mr. Smith indicated that in 1992 the Planning Commission considered a previous Environmental Impact Report that supported 209 lots on the project site. That EIR was certified in November of 1992. An amended development plan was approved at that same time for 104 units. In 1995 there was another application for this property before them. At that point it was for 151 units. June 20, 1995 the Planning Commission recommended approval of that plan on a 4-0 vote. The plan included 137 estate lots in the upper bowl area where the golf course was currently being proposed. So by way of contrast, he said all of the residential construction at this point was in the area immediately west of the channel. The only thing happening in the upper 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 bowl area was the golf course and some comfort stations and an open-air pavilion area. Relative to the General Plan and the prezoning for the areas that would be subject to annexation into the city, Section 25 was currently general planned Hillside Planned Residential and Open Space. The applicant proposed to amend the general plan to all Open Space. That was the entire 640 acres. Consistent with that designation, the applicant proposed to prezone the entire area Open Space. The Open Space District was intended to provide areas reserved for parks, public and private recreation, open space and governmental public uses. The Open Space designation and prezoning would preclude residential development in perpetuity but would allow a private golf course subject to approval of the conditional use permit. The area identified as "B" in the staff report was currently general planned very low density residential which was one to three dwelling units per acre. Due to slope conditions it was proposed that the general rr plan and zoning be changed to HPR (Hillside Planned Residential) and that the nine lots be prezoned HPR. This would permit residential development of at least one unit per five-acre parcel. The proposed general plan amendments and prezoning to Open Space and Hillside Planned Residential were consistent with the City's goal to preserve to the greatest extent possible the hillside areas. The density of development on the nine lots in Section 36 would be consistent with the current County zoning in the area. Project access. Mr. Smith said the entry to the site was proposed at an intersection of Highway 74 opposite Homestead Road via a bridge over the Palm Valley Channel. He noted that there was a condition that required that the road that extends up from the residential village up into the golf course area be finished with a durable dust-free surface in a color to blend into the hillside. Project layout. Mr. Smith stated that the design showed a 221-acre 18- hole golf course in the lower east corner of Section 25. The golf course would be enclosed with a wrought-iron fence to keep the bighorn sheep in the natural open space area to the north and to the west. The remaining 420 plus acres in this section would be dedicated open space. rr..► 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 Not all of the 220 acres in the golf course area would be disturbed. The golf course architect was committed to minimizing disturbance and making the artificial features indistinguishable from nature itself. The golf course would be served via the paved access road mentioned previously. The golf course facility would include a practice facility, equipment and cart storage, starter house, comfort stations and the open-air pavilion. On the lower 59-acre property, there would be a maintenance facility, a 15,000 square foot clubhouse and 44 single family dwelling lots. The residential lots would range in size from 6,760 square feet to 36,760 square feet. Homes on these lots would range from 1,500 square feet to 2,700 square feet. The clubhouse had been designed to blend into the desert hills with the use of natural stone, smooth sand, plaster and other natural materials. Residential units had been designed to blend into the canyons and ridges in a manner similar to the clubhouse. Staff felt a case could be made for upwards of 128 units including the 640 acres in Section 25 based on a previous slope analysis. In order to assure the City that the area would be open space in perpetuity, the applicant proposed the general plan and prezoning of the area to open space. Under those circumstances, the HPR zone allowed for the density to be transferred to cluster the development on the lower, less environmentally sensitive lands. He noted that the applicant was only requesting 44 lots at this time. That's all they ever expected to see. The plans had been reviewed by Architectural Review at its meeting of May 28 and they endorsed its general concept. ARC would review the actual building and landscape plans when they were available. Relative to parking on the site, the current plans provided for 141 spaces. The breakdown of the parking needs on the site for the golf course was 90 spaces based on code with a requirement for five spaces per hole and the number of employees the applicant expects. They could come up with a total requirement of 145 spaces. The applicant indicated that they were reviewing the parking lot layout and had a plan to provide 180 spaces. Given the private nature of the complex, staff was satisfied with 141 . Mr. Smith said that in the HPR zone all of the setbacks, heights and other standards of the zone would be set by the approval by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council. ,i i 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 The maintenance facility plan showed 28 spaces. The applicant advised that the golf course would employ 25. Mr. Smith noted that there had been some correspondence received on this matter. The correspondence received early enough was included in the packets and some of the issues were highlighted. As well, the commission received additional material as late as when they walked in this evening. Mr. Smith explained that Mr. Ricciardi, representing the interest of four of the nine property owners in Section 36, wrote requesting that a condition be imposed that the applicant honor all legal easements through its properties and prior agreements and work with the adjacent homeowner's association. Mr. Smith said Mr. Ricciardi was referring to an easement which was established in 1982 and an agreement negotiated in 1990 with Miller Richards Limited Partnership, the previous applicant, to bring power, sewer and water to the association lots. Mr. Smith said that generally the City was reluctant to become involved in civil matters between property owners. In this instance these lots have been provided with access easements along the perimeter of the lots southerly to the Cahuilla Hills neighborhood and out to Highway 74. The access easement documents might provide access for these lots through the Crest. In either case access would be provided. Relative to utilities, that matter was between the property owners and the various utilities. Other than requiring that the power lines be underground, the City would not be involved. Mr. Smith stated that a letter was received from the Lesters who own a unit at Sommerset. They expressed concern with the location of the maintenance facilities, the possibility of locating the golf course where the residential village was proposed, construction in the southerly end of the site, that the building blend in with the mountain, that the structures be no more than two stories high and that plants not obscure their views. Mr. Smith said that the applicant would make a full presentation and would outline where the buildings, village and structures would be located, but the maintenance facility was at the far north end of the site. It couldn't be any further away. The residential village was located on the lower, less environmentally sensitive areas. Construction in the southern end of the site was limited to dwellings. All buildings had been designed err 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 i to blend in with the natural environment. The residences were limited to two stories and 24 feet in height. The landscape palette would be a natural desert landscape and it would include native trees. Mr. Smith stated that Nanci De Santo of Painted Canyon Road expressed concern that there not be a fire access from the Crest through the Cahuilla Hills community. Mr. Smith said that had been part of previous plans; it was not part of this plan. She also had concern with the location of the maintenance facilities. As indicated, it was at the far north side of the site. Today a letter was received from Liann Chavez of Valley Crest Lane which the commission received a copy of. Her concerns were relative to open space and the possibility that it would block access to the main trail up to the hillside. There was a Condition No. 14 in the draft resolution which required the applicant to dedicate an easement through or around his property to assure that we do have connections to the Cahuilla Hills trail system. Mr. Smith said that she stated she has observed a lot of wildlife in the area. As part of the approval the applicant would be required to dedicate over 900 acres of nearby hillside area to offset the use of the hillside lands. The applicant and his consultant would discuss that issue at greater length. Ms. Chavez was also concerned with the noise of ripping and blasting. Mr. Smith was assured there would be no blasting. Relative to cultural aspects, Ms. Chavez asked if the appropriate tribes had been notified. Mr. Smith said they had and they were sent copies of the environmental documentation. Relative to water use, Ms. Chavez was concerned that this project would use three acre feet per day and that it would not be a very good use of water. Mr. Smith said that the applicant would be using water from a well site that was not in production due to problems with high nitrate levels, so the water they would be using on the golf course was not potable water for human consumption. Mr. Smith explained that there was a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report prepared on this project which the commission received a copy of a week ago. The SEIR identified impacts associated with the project and proposed mitigations. The SEIR concluded that all impacts could be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The most controversial issue to be identified involved impacts on the habitat of the peninsular bighorn sheep 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 and the desert tortoise. This would be mitigated through dedication of open space easements and a total of 910 acres would be dedicated. The consultant who prepared the SEIR responded to all the comments received as of the writing of the report. Late this afternoon staff received a letter from the Center for Biological Diversity and a response had not been prepared for that yet. When commission was ready to act on this matter, staff was recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval and certification of the SEIR to the City Council. With respect to the 33 acres in the northeast corner of Section 36, the nine lots, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was prepared. The prezoning and annexation to the city would not result in significant impacts to the environment since the proposed designations did not represent a significant change from the county zoning. In conclusion, Mr. Smith stated that the current project was superior to W any of the previous plans. The most recent plan had 137 dwellings in the area where the golf course was now proposed. The golf course architect was committed to blending the golf course into the natural environment. The residential village and the clubhouse would blend into the natural environment and the project would result in 910 acres of dedicated natural open space. Mr. Smith further stated that late last week staff received a draft of the proposed development agreement for this project. The development agreement was not included in the legal notice with the rest of the project which he just outlined. It did need to go through a legal notice procedure before the commission could act on it and it was not yet before them. Staff was prepared to notice the development agreement for the meeting of October 1 and, therefore, recommended that after the commission took public testimony on the general plan amendment, change of zone, the tentative tract map and the precise plan/conditional use permit, that those issues be continued to October 1 so that all of the issues could be acted upon together rather than on a piecemeal basis. He asked for any questions. +Lr 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 Commissioner Lopez asked about the lot size of 6,760. He asked if there was a minimum size of lot configuration and if it was sufficient. Mr. Smith said that for a 1 ,500 square foot home that would be sufficient. On the issue of annexation, Commissioner Tschopp noted there was a petition/letter from a group of homeowners around the project who claimed they didn't wish to be annexed into the city at this time and asked staff to further address that issue on how and why Palm Desert would be annexing neighbors not part of this project. In reading the letter, Mr. Smith said that they weren't opposed to the project in concept. He thought they wanted to be consulted and staff would urge the applicant take advantage of the next two weeks to see if some type of agreement could be reached with those parties. The City could initiate annexations, so technically it wasn't a request of the applicant for the annexation. On the front page of the staff report the applicants listed were Destination Development Corp. and the City of Palm Desert regarding property in Section 36. As indicated, Mr. Smith said it was preferable to have those properties in the city and have the project under one jurisdiction. Could the project go forward with just Section 25 being annexed into the city? Yes, it could. It was just that the connecting road would go through the county. Mr. Drell said that when they do annexations they want to create logical boundaries. Technically many annexations include certain property owners or homeowners that didn't want to be annexed and there was a process through LAFCO which would actually be the ruling body on the annexation itself which would allow for those property owners to voice their opinions one way or another on whether they should be included or not. But ultimately once a logical boundary was determined, it was a matter of 51 % of the property owners representing 51 % of the assessed valuation. So in essence unwilling property owners could be brought along by a majority property owner if it was determined by LAFCO that that is the most logical municipal boundary. As far as the possible annexation, Commissioner Tschopp asked if normal procedures for annexation would be followed and these individuals would be given an opportunity to voice their opinion. Mr. Drell said that was correct and it wasn't this body or the City that would ultimately rule on annexation, it would be LAFCO. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 tow Given some of the problems experienced at other developments similar to this with parking and stacking of workers on adjacent streets, Commissioner Tschopp asked if that had been taken into consideration here. This was different in that it didn't directly have a frontage/public road, but he assumed they had taken that into consideration. Mr. Smith said that there was a section in the development agreement that would take care of this issue. Commissioner Tschopp asked if that prohibited parking outside of the gates. Mr. Smith said that it required that they provide parking for service personnel, employees and contractors during the time of construction on the site and that they provide them with transponders. After construction was completed, Commissioner Tschopp asked how workers and individuals would access the site and if it was through the main gate. Mr. Smith said yes, there was only the one access point. Commissioner Tschopp asked if they would be allowed in 24 hours per day or whenever service is required so they would not be stacked up out front. Mr. Smith said it was staff's intent to provide for that in the development agreement. He urged the commission to get the developer to commit to that also. rr Commissioner Tschopp noted that it looked like nine of the units would be on septic tanks and asked if that was correct. Mr. Smith said that would be for the nine lots identified earlier. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the rest of the project would be on CVWD service. Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. TED LENNON, Senior Vice President at Destination Development Corporation, 74-426 Desert Tenaja in Indian Wells, addressed the commission. He informed commission that he had a power point presentation. He noted that Mr. Smith already covered the history of the site and the prior attempts to develop this private property. Mr. Lennon said he got excited about the project and came up with the concept that they could create a project without bringing housing up to the top of the hill and therefore lights, parking, barking dogs, etc., and they could just create a special place up there. The rest of the project they could do a good job of hiding as well. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 Mr. Lennon stated that he would start with the development concept. He wanted to create a very special world class golf course in a natural desert landscaped environment that would fit in with the terrain. They were taking a lot of land for a very small area of golf course. There were about 240 acres that would be fenced in of which only 100 acres would be turfed on the golf course. Besides the golf course, their intent was to create an architectural village. He said their entry would be located just south of the last church, St. Margaret's Church, on Highway 74. He said they would create a beautiful landscaped setting similar to the Reserve. The drainage canal and service road wasn't particularly attractive, so they would create a very attractive bridge to get people into the project and would use a combination of earth berming and low profile walls which would kind of encompass the project and hide most of that area. He said they would create an architectural village with all earthen colors. They would use the natural stone and plaster to blend in. Then they would use their development agreement to put long term obligations on the future owners and operators and on themselves to work things out. He said they would like to be able to go into this project and use the development agreement to be able to down zone without going back through the full process. They weren't asking to up zone, but to down zone and make slight adjustments to tweak the plan as*they go forward. Their intent was to save as many of the beautiful brown rocks. He thought they were one of the experts in the desert at salvaging desert plants. He showed a vignette of one of the holes of golf created at the Reserve where they hid the t-boxes in the rocks and minimized the grass and pointed out that it was all native desert landscaping. Mr. Lennon indicated that they saw some interesting projects in Costa Esmeralda in Sardinia, a famous resort development where the wealthiest people in the world congregated and then hired the best architects in the world to hide and build homes into the countryside into a rather barren desert-type island countryside. There were some wonderful architectural experiences and they hoped to duplicate it in the concept they came up with. It would 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 tow be used for the clubhouse, on the product, and it would be earthen colors. He showed pictures of the entry guard gate, a rendering of the clubhouse with stucco, stone and a roof of tumbled concrete tile. Very flat, low profile properties. He said it was a very small clubhouse. He showed a small putting green off the back of the clubhouse and indicated there were some interesting small waterscapes and fireplaces in the background. He said it would be a very beautiful, intimate building that would literally disappear into the hillside and mountainside. He showed a layout and pointed out the entry road, which would be hidden from everyone including the parking area which was sunken down. When someone comes up the road, they would pull into a cul-de-sac where they would drop their car off. He pointed out the main entry to the clubhouse, the golf course entry and locker rooms with a small fitness center. As they walk through the entry door there would be a vignette right across of a wonderful stone fire pit chimney area and a small water element. This area would generally be hidden all the way around and the small rock walls of the native rock from that area would basically hide cars from seeing homes in the lower area and the homes would see beautiful rocks that would blend in. He said that if the Sommerset homes could see right across, they would be looking into the oasis area of the lower cove and a small home to the right. He said the homes were on the small side. They were all detached. In this area all the homes would be one-story homes with tumbled stone roofs, latilla overhangs and they should have wonderful desert landscaping and this area should be very special. He showed some preliminary plans for the units. He described them as patio homes with inside/outside fireplaces. Small, wonderful little getaways. In their development agreement, which would be coming up at the next meeting, he said they would be looking for the flexibility to down zone within the approved guidelines. They were also looking for resolution on the easement issues, a club residential program, and would commit to additional mitigation commitments that weren't required in the Environmental Impact Report, and were 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 also trying to establish some design guidelines that might work especially for this project for something they might need an exception for, like a battered stone wall in the sides of houses, and they wanted to address that at that stage. And then subcontractor parking. He believed that a condition was also put in the staff document requiring onsite parking. He said they understood what caused the off-street parking and would solve that at their project. In addition in the development agreement, they were unaware that the City would be putting in a requirement for the trails, but they were going to commit to that and the trails. He showed a rendering of the corner section down below and showed where the entry would come in. He said that today a driving range was built just like a golf hole. It would be beautiful, undulated and they would leave some of the rock mountains in it. Then there was kind of a major ridge line and where probably anyone in Cahuilla down below who wasn't highly elevated, everything would kind of disappear from sight. The course was mostly in a bowl in that area and they went through and identified the rock outcroppings, the canyons, and the natural blue line flows. He said they purposely avoided building the golf course in those natural canyons. There were numerous little river areas. It wasn't a huge amount of water, just the one steep mountainside. It came down a multitude of small canyons. Almost all the canyons would be preserved. There was also a seep where the water comes up through the ground and that was going to be inside their area, but they recently negotiated at the request of Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife to keep that on the outside and fenced out of the project. And they were also obligating themselves to clean that area up and get it back in form. There was another seep up above they would probably commit to cleaning up also. He showed pictures of the location inside the bowl looking across and a simulation of what a golf hole could look like. He also showed pictures of the village area. He pointed out the location of their triangular piece of land at Highway 74 and pointed out the location of St. Margaret's and St. Margaret's playground, as well as the church below them. He said they have started some 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 w communication with the church about expanding. They have some additional land that wasn't being used in there and they could either create a desert park to tie into the Crest landscaping or advancing the cause and kind of beautifying the whole section. He said a wonderful thing that had been happening these last few months is that the City had been undergrounding the power lines along the street there and that would make that area very beautiful. He said they should be able to contribute to that area with a wonderful landscaped area, a very attractive bridge and then there would be a guard gate. Mr. Lennon stated that back in a canyon, the maintenance yard was hidden and couldn't be seen and there was a mountain kind of in front of it. He pointed out the location of some smaller lots for longer, narrower homes. He said there were about seven or eight homes in that area facing up into the rocks. Those were really the only smaller lots. He thought the lots averaged about 13,000 or 14,000 square feet when taking them all and dividing that by the current count of 44. i He explained that the intent is to create a wonderful desert setting with some creeks, the blue Palo Verde and the best of what we have here in native desert vegetation. The homes would all be high end. He pointed out where the residents would enter into the project. They would encourage the use of electric cars and they were trying to create an electric car space at every one of the residences. He said they hoped to encourage that. As part of their concept, they didn't want heavy construction equipment coming down from the golf course every day so they would be building bunkers hidden into the mountainside where the larger equipment would just stay at the top of the hill and wouldn't have to come down the hill every day and they could take electric vehicles up to the top, back and forth. He thought that was an important design detail. He said they were trying to keep only electric vehicles on that road if they could. It would be designed as a fire road and would meet the legal requirements for fire trucks, but their intent was to keep it for electric vehicles. rl... 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 Mr. Lennon explained that the golf experience was kind of a private enclave and it would be difficult to see the residential component. He noted that it was a very small residential project for a golf community. They knew that and had a concept for this project and thought that probably half of the residents and people that join this club would already be here and belong to another club. So they didn't expect to generate a lot of new bodies in town. As part of their environmental approach, they would be using electric cars and using native indigenous landscaping. He noted they have had a wonderful success with that at their last project and won many awards with it. He thought they knew more about salvaging desert landscaping and growing smoke trees from seed then maybe anyone else in the valley. They would be setting aside open space and encouraging electric car use. In the Environmental Impact Report they were very pleased that the responses from all the agencies were minimal. They have had a long-term relationship of working with the agencies, listening to them, and making adjustments to their plans. They made major adjustments to their golf course. They moved a couple of holes of golf because of sheep trails up above. They agreed to double the mitigation land and in general the only comment they got back on the Environmental Impact Report was from Fish and Game. They met with them that week and he thought they had worked out all of their issues with them. He said they have been working with the Sierra Club, the City, Fish & Game and Fish & Wildlife regarding trails. He noted there was controversy because there are wonderful hills to hike in and there are issues, but they need to protect the bighorn sheep so they had all been working together to try and work out some of these problems. In their development agreement, they were going to move to make further commitments to create some kind of special annuities and annuities for some of the local causes. He explained that when they have a golf course like this they were able to sometimes do charity events that raise for some of the environmental groups in the neighborhood of $100,000 per tournament. They have had a long-standing program to do that 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 ern type of thing at the Reserve. They put on an annual tournament for the Living Desert every year, the Mousetrap Tournament. That was one of the commitments he made. At the Reserve they take a percentage of every sale and half that money goes into the Living Desert, the other half goes to the University's Ecological Reserve. He said they take a fee out of every club membership sold and they dedicate that to a wildlife conservation fund. That also allowed donations to the Humane Society and their Board each year distributes that money depending on how much money comes in. He said it was a good amount of money and they were able to help some of the different agencies. They take a position of giving back and that was kind of the motto at the Reserve project and the members there were getting involved in it and they were committed to that. As a result of their last meeting, Mr. Lennon indicated that there would be trails and the City's trail system, the park and the parking lot down below there, and coming up the hill there was ow the cross that could be seen lit up at night. That was barely within their property and he thought the owners were keeping that out and they might be deeding it to St. Margaret's. Mr. Lennon noted that the current trails have been man made and they wander into this kind of critical sheep habitat area off to the side. It was that side of the hill where they originally had golf, but they moved it all down on the other side of the hill at the request of three of the agencies. What they were proposing, and it was a major joint operation, was to try to abandon a couple of the trails that lead off into an area that was hoped to be rejuvenated. He indicated that area was also on their property, but that would be dedicated open space. They could get rid of some of the trails, create new trails to tie into the other trails and then they designed a trail on their property that came through and followed some of the natural trails. He pointed out a little strip of land owned by the Bureau of Land Management that they could work with, so it made more sense to bring the trail out and they agreed to allow the trail to work up on their property wherever it was naturally going up to the end. *AW 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 He explained that they intended to commit to two major fund raisers a year for a couple of different entities. One was the Friends of Desert Mountains. He noted that he is the President of the Friends of Desert Mountains. He explained that the Friends of Desert Mountains started out as a fund raising group for the Coachella Valley Mountain Conservancy and they were now out on their own and go out as an independent entity that goes out and acquires land. They weren't a political entity and didn't go to city council meetings or planning commission meetings; they just go out and buy land. They option it and act as the conciliator for Fish & Game and Fish & Wildlife. He said this entity has put aside about 8,000 acres for open space in the last few years. This would be a recipient of the annuity and golf program. In addition to the current plan, they had talked to Fish & Game and Fish & Wildlife and had been advised that it made sense and they were going to start a foundation for the recovery of the bighorn sheep through the Community Foundation of Palm Desert and that would come out of annuities from club members. They would obligate them to pay every year. He said they hoped to get in the neighborhood of $50,000 a year going into that annuity. That annuity could be set up as a foundation. They would set it all up and if they could convince other developers to go into it, it would be a good starting program for part of this recovery. A committee would be set up to disperse the funds. He said the funds might be used to help buy a ranger to police the trails and maybe purchase other trails to get trails out of the bighorn area and into the right area, but it was a good program. Mr. Lennon noted that they were acquiring the land at the top. They acquired 640 acres in Section 25, 63 acres in Section 36, they would be acquiring 45 acres offsite desert dry woodland wash, and 480 acres of sheep habitat. Total sheep habitat would be 480 acres offsite and 400 onsite. They weren't counting the onsite 400-acre piece that they would be setting aside for open space, but if they added that to the 400 acres offsite, they were setting aside 880 acres in sheep habitat. As a deduction from that, he thought they would be using about 100 acres of turf on the golf course. He noted that 100 acres of 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 taw turf generated a lot of oxygen, but in the desert it wasn't considered the best kind. Ten acres would be for golf facilities at the top which included the starter facility, the bunkers hidden, the bathrooms, etc. Then they set the 60 homes, which really averaged about 2,500 feet and if they counted the patios and pools, they use up hardscape of about 4,500 feet, so that was about 270,000 square feet. That was about seven acres earth to ground they would be losing. Then the common areas and roads for real estate and up to the golf course, club and parking, about 10 acres. The maintenance building used six acres. He said they ended up doing a project where they take 1 ,228 acres and leave 1 ,083 open space, native vegetation, sky to ground in natural open space. He thought that made this a special project. He thought they had a chance to create the finest golf club in the valley. They were thinking world class beyond the valley as well. This would be a rare opportunity to be part of nature with no parking, no cars, no street lights, no traffic going by, no homes to look at, no noise, no stereos and it should be very special. Architecturally, they like to do really nice things, do them right and hide them. He noted that their golf course irrigation water, the bulk of the water use, would come from high nitrate water that's been unpotable. He thought that was a good use of it and it would filter back down and should be potable. He said that nitrate was often a fertilizer that was actually added, so it would eliminate fertilizer use on the golf course. For jobs and services, a project like this generates $3 million per year in payroll of staff and gardening people for this community. That was a huge number and would be a wonderful job source. If they could have a clean air industry coming in, this was it. Building this project, construction jobs would be $100 million. It would have its own policing system. The police would be there, but there would be minimal calls and use of the police. This particular project should have a minimal effect on the school system, but they did pay substantial school fees. He noted he already mentioned the natural space set aside, the trails and open 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 space. And they came up with a solution to the subcontractor parking which has been an irritant in the city most recently. He closed by saying that Lowe Enterprises, which he has been part of since the early 1970's, has been a presence in the valley since 1972. They have been property owners here, developers here, since 1972 and it was nice to be a local developer developing something here. He liked to think they had been leaders environmentally in doing good projects. Chairperson Finerty asked if there were any questions for Mr. Lennon. Commissioner Tschopp indicated that from the pictures it looked like there was an extensive use of water for lakes and so forth around the residences and golf course. He asked how much water would be used. Mr. Lennon said that for the main lake they added an island to it to reduce the amount of water, but that area was the energy dissipation for the water coming out the canyons, so he couldn't give an exact acre feet, but he could come back with that at the next meeting. The water coming down the canyons were in small creeks coming down. Commissioner Tschopp said he assumed that the areas shown in blue on the plans were filled lakes. Mr. Lennon said that was correct. He said they needed the storage for the golf course water. So mostly that was the nitrate water. Commissioner Tschopp noted that Mr. Lennon said he would take care of the subcontractor parking, but indicated there had been a lot of problems with service workers who couldn't get into a development and tied up surrounding streets or during golf tournaments. He asked if Mr. Lennon would be willing to mitigate that in the agreement down the road. Mr. Lennon said they have committed to solve that problem. They could do that by giving out a transponder to each vehicle. What was happening now was there was an individual fee for every person and the people who didn't want to pay it end up pooling 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 cars. If they were pooling far away, that was a nice thing for the world. If they have a contractor or service, they would have a program where they would all have a transponder as part of that. The head person has to give them that and they have to have that to come in and work. Commissioner Lopez noted that there was a comment made earlier about blasting and asked if there was any need for blasting during the construction phase. Mr. Lennon said they expect it to be minimal. They have had two or three of the grading people up there and they were told they have to go in about 20 feet and they expect to do minimal grading. Commissioner Lopez noted there were residents along the east side of the wash and asked Mr. Lennon to expound on what they would see when they look across that wash area. Mr. Lennon said they had one vignette up there looking in across dead on into the residential community, so it was low density, earthen colored homes, highly landscaped with Palo Verde trees. It should be a beautification. Right now there was heavy off-road vehicle use and night use of the properties. They would like to not look down on them, so they would be creating small walls. They wanted them to see up into the mountains beyond them and they should be a blur. Commissioner Lopez said that the clubhouse facility would have verandas and outdoor space and the ability to have some type of entertainment when they have parties or fund raisers. He said that created music and noise and in the desert noise travels a long distance. He asked for any thoughts on that issue. Mr. Lennon replied there were two thoughts. First of all, the first people it would effect would be their own residents who live right there in the valley. It was a small clubhouse and the whole concept of this club was not to be typical to other clubs. He didn't want to compete with the Reserve, the Vintage, Bighorn or Eldorado, so it was their current intention to only have meals and 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 barbecues after tournaments and to get away from the normal Friday and Saturday night dinner house. That was the current plan. He said they need good neighbors and they wouldn't ruin their own residential neighborhood which was right there. Mr. Drell stated that there was a city ordinance by a voters referendum that banned commercial use of the hillside. These facilities would not be open to the general public. This was not going to be a commercial restaurant that people could just go to. This was a private club that would not be open to the general public. Chairperson Finerty indicated that the commission would now accept testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. Referring to request to speak cards, she called Mr. Dickinson to the podium. MR. JOE DICKINSON, 72-346 Canyon Lane in the Sommerset development addressed the commission. He said they have been owners there for 25 years. He stated that he was not necessarily opposed to what was happening, he just wanted to make sure that what they have won't be injured by the development that would be across the wash from them. Sommerset has 193 units. It's on 33 acres and it was directly opposite their access area on the other side of the wash. He said that they knew that over the years kids go on that side, the developer's side, to play their music and drink their beer and he has had to call the police. That happened frequently. He asked what the noise would be like at the clubhouse. What the noise would be like even though it's down played. Because they're in a cove there and everything kind of bounced off those hillsides. He was also concerned about the lighting and parking lot. He said their property grades upward to the south and asked what the two-story units would look down into. If the parking lot lights were on, would they see them? Would they shine and interfere with their sleep because the master bedrooms were on the second floor? He said he would like to think that the council would have representatives with the development people that would come to Sommerset and test these different aspects of what might be infringing on their rights for sound and lighting. That could all be 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 rrr demonstrated by testing noise from the location of the clubhouse, etc. MS. LIANN CHAVEZ, 72-304 Valley Crest Lane in Sommerset, stated that she was in one of those two-story units that would look directly down on this new project. She said she has a lot of concerns. She wrote a letter and believed that all the commissioners received a copy. It had been mentioned a few times and she said she didn't want to go through the whole thing and would try not to repeat things that have already been brought up. They received a legal notice in early September and that was the first she had heard of the project. She came to the Planning Department and looked at the EIR. She assumed that was the most current. It said Subsequent EIR. What she found just looking at the EIR was what she put in her letter. Her biggest concern was that she felt it was really important to preserve the open space and these rocky hillsides. They are right below the Cahuilla Hills and it is knobby and rocky hills. She didn't know how anybody could build anything without blasting. She said she is also a geologist and she has seen folds and faults in the rocks. There are significant geologic formations. As the proponent said, he wanted to preserve the rocks, but once they are torn up, they wouldn't see dipping beds and folded beds and fault scarps. The EIR said that the fault that is clearly visible from the Sommerset side of the storm channel is not active. She supposed it is an old fault. She said she was home this morning and there was an earthquake. It is an active region and one of the big concerns in the EIR would be from severe ground shaking from an event on the San Andreas. She didn't know how all of the rock was proposed to be used. If it was just decorative and would not be effective or what, but the EIR mentioned that there would be unavoidable significant impacts. She said this was not a little project and they could hear from the proposal to trade off open space that this is going to disturb a habitat. She has lived in this residence for four or five years and she has noticed that they have a resident owl that lives along the channel. They have birds and has seen raptures. She said she wasn't a bird person, but has seen some type of eagle in the trees there. There were lots of birds in the migratory season that she didn't know what there were but couldn't see how if 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 i w.rlj another development comes in that brings in man, it's going to push all of this habitat out of there. There was going to be open space further up the hill or in the rocky part of the terrain, but she wasn't sure that would support the habitat that was there now. Obviously it would drive the sheep farther away. The other big concern she mentioned in her letter is that there is a planned park, the Homme Adams Park which she understood was being constructed right away and the plan was to connect the trails from the Cahuilla Hills Park down below up to the Homme Adams Park and up into the higher reaches of the mountains. The EIR said that the trail that would provide access would go right through where the proposed golf course was and there was no mitigation for it. She didn't know if all of that has already been changed since she saw it in the EIR. She just saw the EIR that was available in the Planning Department. But that seemed to be in opposition. They planned for open space and then allowed a development that's private and doesn't allow people to come in. There were a lot of people that hike up and down the storm channel and every day they see them out. It was not people in their off-road vehicles. She hadn't seen anyone in an off-road vehicle and she lives right there. The other big issue she felt has been misrepresented is the water use. In the EIR it states that there would be something like three acre feet of water per day used on the golf course and there would be lakes. She thought this was a tremendous amount of water. The mention about the high nitrate water; in the EIR it mentioned one well that's contaminated with nitrate. She didn't know what percentage of their water would be from that one well, but she had a feeling it wouldn't supply the whole project. So the fact that it is non-potable water, that didn't seem to be true just reading the EIR. To conclude, she questioned if we need another world class golf resort for the richest people in the world or could we preserve our open space which is why everyone wants to live here and also provide habitat for other animals and birds that also reside. DR. JERRY MEINTS, 71-450 Painted Canyon in the Cahuilla Hills of Palm Desert. He stated that he has been a resident of Palm Desert since 1965 and a resident of the Cahuilla Hills since 1972. For the past 30 years he has looked over the property. Moving there in 1972, he moved to the Cahuilla Hills to get away from the 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 tow, city. His home is several acres to the west of the nine properties. He built his own home, raised his four children, and for the last 30 years he's looked on the Miller property and wanted, as a militant naturalist, to never see that property change. It's beautiful; it's pristine. His wife and children have all hiked with him on that property for many many years. For years he opposed any sort of development. The problem he had was he couldn't write a check big enough to buy it and he said he has learned in his own edification that you can't stop people from developing their own property if they are doing it within reasonable guidelines. They dealt with the Miller people. In addition to owning over the years approximately 20 acres in that area to the left of the nine lots, he purchased one of the orange parcels (the one to the west of the cluster of nine) over ten years ago. Their plan at that time since they have all three older children in college and out on their own, was to build a small home for he and his wife and leave behind their three dwellings and kind of down size like most people do. Their goal was still that. Their current perspective on this project w.. was confusing. They would still love to see nothing happen. But the reality was that was not feasible. When he compared what was being proposed to what the Millers proposed, 180 plus houses, he was incredible relieved that there would be no houses. As he looked out at all of this property from his backyard, the possibility of hearing a lot of construction, a lot of dogs and a lot of neighbors was a sad picture. The project currently proposed was somewhat of a relief. Their concern as property owners in this orange cluster was that they have, because they are part of the County, they have certain rights that were guaranteed to them by County code that they would probably lose if this was annexed into the city. In addition, the Federal Land Tract of 1938 guaranteed that they have guaranteed access, ingress and egress to their homes and no one could ever stop them from developing their parcels in Section 36. For those that have been around a long time, all of Section 36, while it is million dollars residences and wonderful homes and ranches and equestrian paradises, really at one time was homesteaded. So all of those properties are protected including their nine. As a group they were not opposed to this project in concept, but they really felt that unless they had a better dialogue between them, the developers and the City, they 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 Aad might find themselves annexed, optioned, never purchased, blocked from building their homes, denied access they have been guaranteed through the Federal Land Tract of 1938 and through the easement the City blessed back in the 90's. So they asked that the Planning Commission give them a delay to have that dialogue before any decision is made that would effect their homes and their development. He said he would love to see the open space never change, but knew that wasn't realistic. He applauded the developer. He has seen the Reserve and they have done some awesome things. Looking at this from his home, it was probably going to be gorgeous and would probably affect their community in a very positive way. As a homeowner of one of the orange parcels, they needed the Planning Commission's help and needed some time to make sure their rights, their access, their ability to develop their homes they have planned or their right to be purchased at a reasonable fair market value was not lost. MR. DANIEL PATTERSON, a desert ecologist with the Center for Biological Diversity, P.O. Box 493 in Idyllwild. He said that his sister is a resident of Palm Desert and his parents are residents of Rancho Mirage. He said they sent in a letter today and wasn't sure if the members of the board had a copy. (Chairperson Finerty confirmed the commission received it.) He said the concerns they have here were in a large part outlined by the California Department of Fish & Game which to their knowledge remained in a position of serious concern with this project. He said that was based on a very recent communication with the department. Also, deep concerns with the fact that this habitat is designated critical habitat essential for the conservation, survival and recovery of peninsular bighorn sheep. They couldn't continue to have these types of hillside projects and at the same time try to recover the sheep. It didn't work like that. It was a death by a thousand cuts approach to continue to have these types of development in critical habitat and the more of these types of projects that get developed, despite the good intentions of the developer, the longer they are going to see delays in recovering that species. It was just as simple as that. Habitat loss has been identified as one of the main reasons for decline of this animal which is the very symbol of the Coachella Valley. They see it on banks, on street signs, 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 everywhere and it was one of the main reasons people want to live there is to see these animals which are disappearing. He said they found it in some ways ironic that the golf course especially had to be located in such prime sheep habitat. This was occupied habitat. This wasn't just habitat that may be used; it was being used. It's currently seeing sheep there right now and these were low elevation animals. They couldn't just go up to the top of mount San Jacinto. They were elevation sheep and need this habitat. He asked if we really need another golf course in critical habitat when right now there were more than 18-hole golf courses in the Coachella Valley than there are individual bighorn sheep. Each sheep could have its own course. There have been innovative golf course sharing ideas that have been successful in the past. He thought perhaps this could be another one. Their concern was that the commission and the council take a real hard look at this. They thought that approval of the EIR as it reads now will violate state and federal law and they have to consider what situation they might be getting into and if they were going to be approving what .r they think is a very flawed document in violating state and federal law. So they wanted to be in a position to support the City to make a decision to at the very least put this project back to the drawing board and avoid critical habitat for the bighorn sheep. That was the biggest concern of the Center and their 7,500 members, a significant amount of which live right here in this valley. MS. ELIZABETH VAN ZANDT, 48-255 Monroe Street #41 in Indio, addressed the commission. She stated that she is a professional naturalist and she was speaking tonight be she too was very concerned about this prospective golf course, mainly, that would be located on critical bighorn habitat. People that have studied ecology know that the single biggest cause of the loss of species, extinction of species and endangerment of species was loss of habitat. That was certainly the case here in the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains. That is the reason the bighorn were in danger today. She said she attended a meeting where they discussed the bighorn sheep problem, the endangerment, and what could be done about it. She said a lot of ideas came up and they have been implemented such as closing areas from January to i1r.r 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 June and beyond. Her hiking club, the Coachella Valley Hiking Club, has honored this, but questions asked at that meeting were if developers could continue to develop in critical habitat. She saw again another proposal to develop within critical habitat and she thought that for the recovery of the species, this was something they had to really look carefully at. She asked if we were going to care about the recovery of this species or care about yet another golf course. Her other concern was water. She said we are in a second year of a record drought. Our ground water, our aquifer, is being over drawn. It was not being replenished. There was not any water replenishing it. They were talking about pulling from a well. Whether or not this well has nitrates, that well was still pulling from ground water. That ground water is what fills the seeps that the bighorn drink from. When that ground water is over drawn from that well, there would not be water for the bighorn to drink from. They need the water; they need the habitat. She sincerely believed that we do not need another golf course here in the Coachella Valley. MR. JEFFREY MORGAN, 1485 Via Escuela in Palm Springs, said that the bulk of his comments was contained in a written text which he was submitting as part of the process. He said that he originally intended to get it to the commission earlier today, but circumstances didn't permit it, so he would read it (see attached letter identified as Exhibit A). He also said that there were many other problems with this project then he addressed in his letter because it was a very large project. Many other people have mentioned issues like water and the down draft of the aquifer and all those things need further consideration. MR. DAVID ROGERS stated that he lives in Rancho Mirage at 71- 521 San Gorgonio, but is one of the property owners identified in the orange area. He said that they already addressed one of his concerns on putting this off until October to make a decision regarding the development. They wanted more time to talk to the developer and resolve some of their differences and their questions because they were going to be affected by what is done. If this would allow them additional time, that was really his reason for 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 err being at the meeting. So they really satisfied that portion of it and he appreciated that. MR. SABBY JONATHAN, 42-620 Caroline Court in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He stated that he personally has a great deal of respect for Mr. Lennon and thought he has done some really good work here. That went for him and his entire design team. They were a proven quantity and he thought they could do great work and he didn't really know of anyone who could do something like this in a more environmentally sensitive manner. He didn't have a problem with the project, the Crest. Their issue was the City's proposed change to the general plan, the prezoning and the annexation of their nine parcels. He owns the property on the northeast corner and there was a roadway that goes from the lower portion of the Crest through to the golf portion of the Crest and it went through the middle of his five-acre parcel. He said that was okay. Historically the City has not initiated annexation proceedings. They have taken a neutral `W position. And he thought that has been good public policy. This exception to that public policy was ill advised and unwarranted. By staff's comments, it was not necessary to the Crest project. So it left him wondering, "why do it?" They have some negative impacts to their property as a result of that. On the other hand, by not annexing into the city that did not impact the property and leaves things status quo, so they don't see the point of the annexation proposal from the City. He stated that they purchased this five-acre parcel to build their dream home. It was not an investment per se. Their desire was not to sell it; it was not to see it become part of the Crest. They want to build their dream home up there and they knew where they want to build their home and have a general idea of what they want to build up there. They periodically go up that dirt road and just kind of sit there and enjoy and think to the future when they are in a position where they can do that. What the City is proposing would prevent them from realizing their dream. They were currently under the County. The County would let them build their home in the way they want. What they want 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 to build he thought they could build under HPR. It wasn't anything weird, or extravagant or big or multi-story, but it was more complicated under HPR. Their biggest concern is that where their homesite is would be allowed under County but it's on the ridge line and takes advantage of the view as other homes in Cahuilla Hills do. Under HPR they were pretty confident they would not be allowed to do that. That their right to develop their property in the way they are currently allowed to do, with the intent that they purchased their property, that right would be taken away from them as a result of the City's proposed annexation, change of general plan and prezoning. So they objective to that part of what was before the commission. Not to the Crest project as proposed by Mr. Lennon, but to the annexation, the change in the general plan and the prezoning that is being suggested which appeared to be unilaterally by the City. The annexation of their property is unnecessary and inappropriate and from staff's comments, unrelated to the project. Why do it? They respectfully requested that the Planning Commission deny the City's request for the change of general plan, prezoning and annexation as it relates to those nine lots. Speaking for himself and his wife, at least to their lot if they couldn't do the rest. He thanked the commission. MS. ASHLEY PATTERSON, 72-755 Cactus Court in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. She said that she was hoping to offer a unique perspective that wasn't really represented at the meeting. It was coming from the children that live in the Coachella Valley. She said she is a teacher and teaches at Amelia Earhart Elementary School in La Quinta. She shared with her students that she would be coming to the meeting tonight to speak to the commission about a development that was proposed to be going in Palm Desert and they had a little conversation about it. One of the things they studied about in fourth grade all across the state, fourth graders study their state. They study the state of California and they are talking about natural resources right now and the things that California has to offer. Her coming to the meeting offered a really great teachable moment in her classroom and what became very clear to her was the very poignant comments that her students made to her when they had an "ah ha" moment of why would adults take land away from an animal or a plant when j 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 err they need it to survive. One of her students asked why they would do that if they knew it would hurt them and she didn't have an answer. She wanted to offer that perspective to the commission because often times some of the most important things that we tend to not recognize or not see come from kids. So they asked her to share some of those comments with the commission tonight and they were writing letters, drafting letters, to them. They weren't ready. She said they should expect them soon. They were very excited and were drawing pictures for them, too. But they wanted her to let the commission know that they very much wanted to see our bighorn sheep stay in our valley and our desert tortoise stay in our valley and prosper and that they'll find lots of other places to golf. MR. RUSSELL DAVIS, 45-660 Paseo Coronado in Indian Wells, addressed the commission. He said that he has been a resident of the desert for well over 20 years. He is a practicing attorney here. He stated that he has a five-acre property right next to Mr. V� r Jonathan's. He noted that it was something he bought well over ten years ago. It's been a wonderful place where they've looked forward to having a place to build a retirement home up in the hills and come out from down below. He said he echoed what Mr. Jonathan said in terms that it seems to be a taking of their property. He didn't hear a very good response as to why the nine parcels were being included. That was his only objection. He had absolutely no problem with the project that Mr. Lennon put forward. He thought Mr. Lennon had done a wonderful job over at the Reserve and from everything he has seen, he knew he would do a wonderful job here. Their concern was if they were incorporated into the city, if they were annexed in, they would have severe restrictions in building. He considered that a taking of his rights and those were his concerns. MS. LAURIE MASOTTO, with the law firm of Peters and Freedman at 74-075 El Paseo, Suite C-4 in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. She stated that she was at the meeting on behalf of the Sommerset Homeowners and their members. As the commission had heard from other homeowners who had already spoken, the Sommerset project would be directly effected by this r.r 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 1 development due to its location. As the commission knew, they look at a beautiful open space across the wash area right now and what was proposed were the clubhouse and maintenance facility and residences immediately across from the area where they are located. They have significant concerns and she would also concur with the homeowner who spoke earlier to ask that the applicant meet with the Sommerset homeowners directly to discuss mitigation measures if any could be implemented. They have serious concerns about the structures; how close they will be located to the wash area and therefore impact the views and visibility. They have concerns about the street lighting. She noticed that on the plan there was a street parallel to the wash area and the street lighting needed to be addressed. Lighting on the residences that will impact the Sommerset homes needed to be addressed and look at what is planned for that. She also saw some minimal what looked to be shrubs. She was trying to determine what screening, if any, has been offered along that area so as to provide some sort of buffer. They want to keep in mind that the Municipal Code and the intent of the zoning regulations was to foster a harmonious and workable relationship among land uses. The details didn't seem to have been worked out. They also wanted to make sure that private lands are used in the most appropriate and most beneficial way. From the details they had seen, it did not appear that any screening or any consideration of the Sommerset homeowners interests and their right to quietly enjoy their property has been taken into consideration. Also, in the residential districts there is specific language in the code about protecting residential properties from noise, illumination, unsightliness, odors, dust, dirt and other objectionable influences. A lot of those would be a concern during construction. The dust and noise associated with construction. But the long-term noise and illumination due to golf course lighting, use of the maintenance facilities in early morning hours and heavy equipment, lawn mowers, etc., those were very big concerns that homeowners have. Again, the homeowners would prefer that the open space remain and that this development be reconsidered; however, if the commission was intending to approve this, they would certainly call for a meeting with the homeowners to discuss Oil 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 appropriate screening and buffers and address the concerns she raised. MR. MARSHALL TENKEN, 72-312 Canyon Lane in Sommerset, addressed the commission. He said that so far this evening from his perspective he had not heard one thing where he as an individual could benefit from this. He heard how the developer could benefit and that was probably going to be the way it was going to happen, but from his perspective he didn't know how he benefited. He said they overlook the wash. They were the last homesite next to the wash and he really liked the lower view as opposed to the higher view and if there were any plans to change the homes to the higher view, that would be preferable from his perspective. The main question he had was how long the construction would take place. He asked if there was any way during the commission's consideration that they might be able to put a cap of a beginning time and an ending time so that this wouldn't be dragged out for a long period of time. At the golf *Ad course, nothing had been mentioned -- they talked about the number of parking places but he didn't know how many memberships were going to be sold. He thought there were 129 parking spaces and asked if that was correct. (Mr. Lennon said 180 from the audience.) Mr. Tenken said he didn't know how a $100 million investment would be translated to 180 parking spaces. It seemed like it would require a lot more parking for that kind of investment. MR. JIM RICHARDS, a property owner of 48-270 Verbena addressed the commission. He stated that he has no problems with the intent of Mr. Lennon and has seen what he could do. He thought Mr. Lennon would do what he says he will do. He stated that he was a little bit in sympathy with the folks in the orange section. He thought the City has selectively over the years cherry picked what they want in the city and left alone what they didn't want in the city. What was going to happen to the remaining section of 36 was they were surrounded by the city and yet the folks who live in Cahuilla Hills who pay the sales taxes and so forth have never been given the option to be involved with the .. city. In some cases many don't want that. They have just paid for 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 their roads. Now the City was going to say they want to take a little section because it suits their purpose. He didn't know when the LAFCO hearing would be and asked if Mr. Drell knew. Mr. Drell explained that it would occur after our process and the Council initiates the annexation application along with the applicant. That would occur after all of these other things happen. So it could be six or eight months from now. Mr. Richards pointed out that the LAFCO group would be the ultimate decider on whether that annexation or any part of the annexation will take place. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Their task was to determine logical boundaries at cities. If they can be shown compelling reasons why those nine parcels don't meet that definition, then they can delete them from the annexation. He didn't really believe that the City has any specific benefit one way or another. He thought the rational was based on the physical boundary of the wash, the most likely access to those parcels would be through the city. To get from one part of the project to another, they would have to drive through it. The general thought was they shouldn't have to drive from the city to the county to the city. He didn't think the City had a strong feeling about it either way. Mr. Richards said that if he was sitting LAFCO he would be of the opinion that if they were going to take some, they better take it all. He firmly believed that cities have been neglecting in the past a couple of areas. He stated that the people who have owned this land have owned it longer than anyone in the auditorium had been alive. That was 80 some odd years that the Tyler Richards people have owned this property. Long before environmentalists were even known to be existent. He said he has lived there in the area for over 30 years and sat on the Planning Commission for over 13 years. He hadn't seen any bighorn sheep there and he presumed that they might be there. He had never seen a development that came across their desk when he was on the commission that had the environmental concerns that this group had brought before the commission. They were talking about the most minimalist amount of activity that he has ever seen and he had been involved with 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 %W the bighorn and listened to months and months of testimony from the sheep people, so he urged the Planning Commission to consider the fact that this was probably the last best chance. If they didn't allow the owner of the property who has owned .it so long to develop, either buy him out or take this development and make the adjustments with the folks who have problems with it at Sommerset and the folks who have problems with it that own the nine lots in the orange section and at least consider what the City out to be doing by surrounding the folks in Section 36. MR. WILLIAM HARRIS, 40-640 Ventana Court, addressed the commission. He stated that he is the Parish Administrator for St. Margaret's Episcopal Church and was speaking on behalf of the church. He said that from their standpoint the project looks pretty favorable. The only portion of the property that came against them was the entrance way and the bridge. From the designs they had seen and in talking with the developers, that seemed to be good and they were in favor of this project. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone else wished to speak. There was no one. Chairperson Finerty asked Mr. Lennon if he had any rebuttal comments. Mr. Lennon said he would like to respond to three quick items and then he would like to have Mr. John Criste, the project's environmental consultant, to step forward to address a couple of the other issues. Mr. Lennon said that they would continue to talk with the annexed people on solutions to see if there is any other way to do that. It wasn't really their choice to include them. It was suggested that was the best way to do it, but they were willing to talk to them. Secondly, they would meet with the Sommerset people if someone would give him a phone number and who they would like him to contact. And finally, he said he would love the opportunity to address that fourth grade class if possible. He thought that would be an interesting political lesson for them and he would appreciate that opportunity and thought it would be interesting. lti.r 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 MR. JOHN CRISTE, Terra Nova Planning and Research at 400 South Farrell in Palm Springs, addressed the commission. He explained that his firm prepared the Environmental Impact Report on the project and he just wanted to clarify a couple of points that had been raised in the testimony that had been heard. First of all, concerns had been raised about the unavoidable significant impacts associated with the project. As represented in the Draft and Final EIR it had been determined that there no significant impacts that were unmitigated. So with the mitigation measures that were incorporated, they didn't have that issue. With regard to trails access, rather than hindering trails and their development and use, the project actually facilitates trails and resolves issues that have been raised by the resource agencies with regard to the access of people into sheep habitat, so the situation there was enhanced by the project. With regard to water use, if they read the Environmental Impact Report there was a careful discussion. The Water District required that they use a rather arcane sort of approach to quantifying the water. But the fact of the matter was that on a daily basis the project uses about 1 .8 acre feet per day and that was clearly cited in the environmental report. Mr. Criste noted that it was also mentioned that their site is occupied by bighorn sheep and that it is prime habitat and someone referenced one of the important resources that the resource agencies use to determine that and one of those was the Seitz Act for the Santa Rosa Mountains and it clearly defined this area as a zone of deficiency in this document which was still referenced in the recovery plan for the bighorn sheep. With regard to the use of the site by bighorn sheep, their biologist provided in the technical appendix in the EIR telemetry data which shows that the golf course area, the fenced in area, had not been occupied since at least 1982 any sightings whatsoever of sheep in that area. It was not to say that the sheep weren't an important issue or that they haven't tried to respond to the issues raised by the resource agencies. There was brief mention of seeps and drought conditions. The well site the developer was proposing to use is 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 %W located pretty far east of this site. It was not within an area of groundwater that feeds the seeps. The seeps were fed by groundwater and the Santa Rosa Mountains. He stated that the seeps were also pretty much determined to not having been used by sheep and unavailable for use by sheep and that they were heavily impacted by invasive plants, which this project would address by mitigation of the removal of invasive plants. The issues of the resource agencies that were raised primarily by Fish and Game were issues that have been worked with the resource agencies through several site visits with biologists from Fish and Game and the Fish and Wildlife Service on site, at numerous meetings, detailed discussions, refinements to the plan in response to concerns raised, and the mitigation measures or the discussion in the Final EIR which was in the staff report and bound copies that the Planning Department had addressed all the issues and they believed to the satisfaction to the Department of Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife Service. Also with regard to the annexation issue, as Mr. Drell pointed out, it was one of access. `rr LAFCO doesn't like to see access to an area like this and in fact didn't want it to be through two jurisdictions. They like it to be contiguous. He said they could only be contiguous at a point if only Section 25 were annexed and that was undesirable from LAFCO's point of view. From a physical point of view, he thought that Mr. Jonathan was right in that it wasn't physically required, but LAFCO policy encouraged them to extend the area for their consideration of annexation because of the natural terrain and the wash to the south. They did feel, however, that access to these lots or to many of these lots was still available from the west side through the Cahuilla Hills community. He said that summarized his responses and said he would be glad to answer any questions. There were no questions and Chairperson Finerty closed the public hearing. Mr. Erwin advised that the public hearing be left open. Chairperson Finerty concurred and stated that the public hearing would be open. Chairperson Finerty asked if the commission would give any comments tonight or if there was a motion to continue the matter to October 1 . Mr. Drell said that was up to the commission as to whether they have questions or want to leave their comments for the next meeting when there would probably be more detailed responses. AW 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 Commissioner Campbell said she would vote to continue the meeting and defer her comments until after the review of everything at the next meeting. Commissioner Lopez concurred, but expressed his appreciation to everyone who came out to the meeting to speak, one way or the other. He told them their input is valuable. They would be going through another session on October 1 and they were more than welcome to come back and he would withhold his comments until that time. Commissioner Tschopp stated that he would withhold his comments also. He did state that there was a very diverse group out there and a lot of different issues. Some want to maintain what they have so they can build higher up on the hills and some who don't want any development, but he hadn't heard anyone who wanted to keep open space by tearing down their own house. He hoped that the developer would take the time to meet with some of the adjacent property owners and perhaps discussion some of the issues brought up tonight. Chairperson Finerty stated that she was also appreciative of everyone taking the time to come out this evening and thought that Mr. Lennon would be speaking with people from Sommerset and suggested that he speak with Ms. Massoto, the attorney, and she could give him the information. And for those homeowners in the orange section, see what they could do with annexation and that would give them two weeks to have that dialogue. She asked for a motion to continue the hearing. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, continuing this matter to October 1 , 2002 by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Per Planning Commission direction on September 3, 2002, presentation of a resolution denying a conditional use permit to allow short-term rental of a single-family dwelling located at 73- 426 Joshua Tree Street, Case No. CUP 02-13. 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 Chairperson Finerty noted that they have a resolution of denial before them. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2154, denying Case No. CUP 02-13. Motion carried 5-0. B. Discussion on banning commercial trucks parking on city streets. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was a staff report. Mr. Drell said that it was an informational item and they could talk to the representative from the Public Works Department. Chairperson Finerty noted that there low was a request to speak card filled out by Lucia Moran and she had also written a letter. Commissioner Jonathan informed the commission that he was the person who requested this item for the agenda. MS. LUCIA MORAN, P.O. Box 1305 in La Quinta, addressed the commission. She stated that she was at the meeting representing some of the people she does property management for and the owners; one who owns a building on Enfield where they have two tenants, Classic Marble. She said she just gave a letter that they wrote to the secretary to distribute with a copy of a picture she took last week. The comment was given to her that the truck had been parked there for three weeks. Ms. Moran said she went by there today and it was still there. It wasn't even a truck. The cab had been taken off so it was just a trailer sitting there. This was a situation they were coming up against on Enfield Lane. The Wheaton Trucks; any day they could go by there and there were from eight to 15 trucks, trailers and cabs all along that very small street. She guessed that it was only 2,000 lineal feet. She had some pictures to distribute and said they were the pictures that `.r 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 she took that she referred to in her letter of September 10 that was to the Code Enforcement Department. She said they were dealing with issues and she felt it was a land use issue because they are taking their trailers, putting them on the streets and they are using streets for storage. In the pictures she said there were trailers that have been there for over two months and there was an inoperative vehicle that has algae and tall grass in the gutter because the street sweepers can't get to the area. She strongly recommended that the commission put some kind of an ordinance in place that did not restrict truck drivers' rights, but did preserve this nice industrial area. Mr. Valsar, the owner of White Rock Investments, just made a major investment in the city of Palm Desert when he did White Rock Business Park which was right at the end of Grand and Enfield by the new Gold's Gym. So this was a gentleman who has made a significant investment in Palm Desert. He doesn't live here, but he spends his money here and she wanted to be able to see his investment preserved. Chairperson Finerty thanked Ms. Moran for her comments and asked staff where they go from here. Mr. Drell asked if Enfield was a public or private street. Mr. Diercks said it was a public street. Mr. Drell stated that he didn't understand why our Code Enforcement people weren't capable because they didn't need an ordinance since people could not store vehicles or merchandise out on a public street or even park a vehicle for more than 72 hours. And that one wasn't even an operable vehicle so he was at a loss. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he could speak to that. He has experienced this situation for the 12 years that he has had an office in the Cook Street area. He explained that his complex happens to be a mix of office warehouse use along with office professional use and by coincidence, because he hadn't talked to Ms. Moran and didn't know she was experiencing this problem, and by coincidence asked staff to include this item in the Miscellaneous section on the agenda because he had seen this article in the Desert Sun on the 10th of September that Coachella was likely to ban truck parking and believed the City Council did move forward with a new restrictive ordinance that prohibits overnight truck parking. The problem was that they have cement mixers, 18-wheelers, 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 moving vans and just the trailer rigs they leave on the street and for a week or more at a time where he was. He didn't have it quite to where there was plant material growing there. He stated that he has had mixed success advising Code Enforcement. The last time he called in was last week and spoke to a lady, he didn't get a name, and he was told that it wasn't a code issue and he would have to call the Sheriff's Department. He told her he has been calling the Code Compliance division for years and they have always gone out there, looked at the situation, put a ticket on the windshield and within a couple of days the rig was gone. So it just wasn't happening. It was a concept to implementation issue. If it is good enough for the city of Coachella, he thought it might be good enough for Palm Desert and they could follow their lead and just ban overnight truck parking on the public streets. He said the reason trucks do it is to save money. There are a lot of truck places along 1-10 where they pay to park their rigs overnight or for longer periods. They just figure if they do it on a public street and no one complains they'll save some money and it was at the expense of everyone else. In his area they park on Sheryl and Sheryl has a lot of on-street parking from the people who work at the car W wash, so when they park there they just filter into other parking lots wherever they can. So it created problems and that was just a small example of what was happening throughout the city. His suggestion to the commission was to move forward with a recommendation to council to review the possibility of a zoning ordinance similar to the City of Coachella which would ban overnight truck parking. Mr. Drell said it wouldn't be the zoning ordinance since the zoning ordinance didn't cover use on a public street. It would be a municipal code ordinance so it technically wouldn't be the purview of this commission, but as a recommendation to the council. Commissioner Jonathan concurred that it would be a recommendation to the City Council. He thought it was a planning issue. Mr. Drell said they just needed a minute motion. Commissioner Campbell asked what size of trucks they were talking about. Commissioner Jonathan thought they were talking about the commercial vehicles and noted that he hadn't seen the wording of the Coachella ordinance, but thought staff could use that as a starting point if Council directed them to move forward with this and then they could work out the details. He agreed that they weren't trying to prohibit regular pickup trucks. He was talking about commercial truck vehicles. 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 too Commissioner Campbell noted that they also have a problem off of Country Club from the We Haul Movers. Commissioner Lopez agreed that it needed some consideration. Another issue to consider were the bus companies, the tour companies, who park on the street over by 42nd Avenue by the soccer field. There was really nothing down there right now. There were other trucks parking there besides Wheaton's. He said he drove around that area several times and there were some trucks there that didn't have anything on them that were sitting there that weren't even hooked up to a rig. They were just sitting there empty and that was probably storage. Mr. Drell agreed it wasn't a matter of parking any more, it was using the public property to store material. Again, the current ordinance limits parking to 72 hours so obviously most of these things they were talking about were in excess of that so he wasn't sure why it couldn't be enforced. He said the commission might want to invite someone from Code Enforcement to the next meeting to explain what the problem is. Chairperson Finerty said she didn't think they needed to hear why, they didn't want 72 hours. They wanted no parking. Mr. Drell said that if they couldn't enforce 72 hours, how much better would they be at enforcing 24 hours? ISO Commissioner Jonathan said that when it costs someone money as part of the new ordinance, that's how it would be done. Mr. Drell explained that it seemed like we have an enforcement problem because we have the ability to cite at 72 hours and for some reason that wasn't happening. So he would try to find out at least why it isn't done, but if they weren't citing at 72, they wouldn't be cited at 24. So they have to figure out why there is an enforcement problem regardless of what ordinance we have. Mr. Diercks noted that there was a question of where they park. If it is a business in the city, they were telling them to leave the city because they couldn't park on the street. That was another issue that needed to be addressed. Chairperson Finerty said they could rent some space. Mr. Drell said they were supposed to rent spaces appropriate for their business and they weren't supposed to be using the public street. They didn't even let people do outside storage on their own property if it wasn't screened let alone using the public street for offsite storage. Chairperson Finerty noted that if every resident and every business owner used public streets to store their vehicles it would be a nightmare. Commissioner Campbell indicated that there were comments about the Crest project and about how we want parking for the workers j 6 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 and don't want them parking on the street and they were only there for an hour or so and yet they were allowing all of this and there were plants growing in the street. Chairperson Finerty asked if they should direct staff to obtain a copy of the Coachella ordinance for their review at the next meeting and start from there. Mr. Drell said they could also get some kind of report on enforcement and what mechanisms weren't available and a good reason why our current enforcement is ineffective. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they should do that or just move forward and recommend to Council that they adopt an appropriate ordinance similar to Coachella to prohibit overnight commercial parking. Mr. Diercks noted that there were other agencies involved like the PUC and the ICC. That was something they should look into. They didn't know if it was legal or not. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they should deal with those kinds of issues or just move this forward. Mr. Drell said it was his understanding that Council already read the article and they were discussing it. Public Works are the custodians of the public streets and our Code Enforcement people or whoever else was the appropriate agency for enforcing whatever we adopt to make sure what we adopt gets enforced. Commissioner Jonathan said that if Council was already dealing with the issue he would simply suggest that the Commission lend their voice to that effort and make a recommendation that they seriously review the feasibility of banning overnight truck parking on public streets. Chairperson Finerty asked if in the meantime the commission wanted Code to explain why they haven't gotten the job done. Commissioner Jonathan thought it was a good idea. Obviously there were situations that weren't being dealt with and it was a separate matter, so they should have them at the meeting. Mr. Diercks said he was very surprised because they tow cars all the time. Mr. Drell noted that sounded like abandoned vehicles. He was confused why there was a problem. Commissioner Jonathan said they would give them the benefit of a doubt because by and large he has had good experience with them, but there seems to be some mis-communication and that might be a separate matter, but with regard to this issue, his motion would be to make a `rrr 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 recommendation to Council to seriously consider the merits and feasibility of banning overnight commercial vehicle parking on public streets. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, by minute motion recommending to City Council that they seriously consider the merits and the feasibility of banning overnight commercial vehicle parking on public streets. Motion carried 5-0. Chairperson Finerty asked if they could have the report from Code at the next meeting. Mr. Drell said he would make that request. Commissioner Campbell agreed depending on how many public hearings were scheduled for the next meeting. Chairperson Finerty, suggested at least having something in writing. Mr. Drell said they would either have them here or a complete report of some sort and at least have a good explanation of what the complications might be. Commissioner Jonathan thanked staff. C. Update on parking spaces located adjacent to the car wash on Washington Street. Chairperson Finerty noted that this issue came up when the commission was reviewing the project proposed by Hugh Jorgensen and people backing out as people were entering. Mr. Drell said the determination was that those were existing stalls from the existing development. Those were technically an approved design by the County. He didn't think it was an advisable. Today we try to keep parking spaces out of entry aisles. He didn't know if we were in a position to force them to eliminate them. Chairperson Finerty asked if staff could chat with Jiffy Lube. Mr. Drell explained that those spaces pre-dated Jiffy Lube. Commissioner Campbell indicated they belonged to the whole development. Mr. Drell agreed and said they were developed as part of the original parking lot. Chairperson Finerty asked if they could talk to the owner of the center. Mr. Drell said they could. Commissioner Tschopp asked what they could do if the Planning Commission and City staff felt there was an unsafe and unsound situation there. The architect for the center already stated that he would be in favor of approaching the owners to have the spaces 5 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 NOW eliminated so the only concern would be if that had any impact on any future development in the center and he thought that if they could somehow discuss that with them and show that it wouldn't they could probably get rid of an unsafe situation there. Mr. Drell said that they could discuss it with them but he didn't know if the City wanted to take on that expense. As far as he knew, there was no history of accidents there and the center has been there 10 to 15 years. So they could ask them to do it, but he didn't think they had any way to compel them to do it. Commissioner Tschopp thought the architect said that if he was allowed, he would like to incorporate those spaces into his project and landscaping. The architect's concern was if they lost those spaces they might lose future development rights, so he didn't think they were giving up anything or would have to pay anything and might be able to eliminate the problem. Mr. Drell believed that was the last pad so there was no impact. Chairperson Finerty concurred. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that the owner might not object. Mr. Drell said if the development of the car wash would voluntarily eliminate the spaces and landscape them, then probably the owner wouldn't object. So they could encourage them to get together and we would consent to their elimination. Chairperson Finerty felt the city should pursue that. Just because there hasn't been a history of accidents, didn't mean one wouldn't happen in the future. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Finerty thought they all agreed it wasn't a great policy to have in a parking lot. Mr. Drell said that the good news was they were virtually never used since they weren't needed and were inconvenient. Action: None. D. Discussion of potential Planning Commission meeting on election night, November 5, 2002. Chairperson Finerty noted that two years ago the commission had a discussion about changing the date and they concluded that the commission would not have a meeting on election night. Commissioner Campbell said there was a very important election that time. Chairperson Finerty said this one was also important. She said last time she was willing to change it to another night of the week and they said no, there 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 j j was some opposition to that and they said they just wouldn't have a meeting. Mr. Drell said staff hadn't scheduled any hearings. Commissioner Campbell thought it was better to not have a meeting than change the date. Chairperson Finerty said that was what they said before. Commissioner Campbell thought it was fine to cancel the meeting. Mr. Drell said it would just turn out that there wouldn't be anything on the agenda for that date. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (No meeting) B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) F. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (September 16, 2002) Chairperson Finerty noted that they had an update on Freedom Park. The City now owns the property. They were saying that everything should be finalized and to City Council mid December. Then there would be construction documents, bids and they anticipated the earliest build out would be Spring of 2004. Mr. Drell said it might be a bit sooner. The developer told staff that his builder is soliciting bids for the mass grading of the site as we speak. The school needs the site graded and delivered by the end of January, so that kind of pushed us along. Once the grading occurred we'd be working to stabilize the site which means development of the park. Our anxiety was if the developer wasn't going to proceed, we would have to assume a lot of the things he was going to do for us which would be a lot more,cumbersome for us to do. But it looked like he would be proceeding and getting it started. i 50 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 G. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) H. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS None. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. PHIL DRELL, ecretary ATTEST: JAI CINDY FINEAVY, Chairpers6n Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm i 51 Sierra Club San Gorgonio Chapter Serving Riverside and San Bernardino Counties "Wow- Tahquitz Group • Los Serranoq Group +� San Bernardino Mtns. Group • NI(linve Group Moreno Valley Group September 17 , 2002 Reply to Jeff Morgan, 1485 Via Escuela, Palm Springs, CA 92262 Telephone # (760) 320-4610 Fax # (760) 322-3185. September 17 , 2002 Mr. Phil Drell, Community Development Director, and The City of Palm Desert Planning Commission. Palm Desert, CA 92260. Re: Crest Golf Club and Residential Village Project. Dean- Mr. Drell and members of the Planning Commission, Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I have reviewed the draft subsequent environmental impact report on the above referenced proposed development. I am making these comments regarding this DSEIR on behalf of the Tahquitz Group of the Sierra Club. As you know, the Sierra Ciub has serious concerns regarding continuing development and the impact of such development on Peninsular bighorn sheep throughout their range and particularly in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains and especially in critical habitat that has been designated as such by the USFWS. The definition of critical habitat is that it is essential for the conservation, recovery and survival of the species. The importance of habitat conservation cannot be understated and it is recognized that loss of habitat is a major factor in the continued decline of peninsular bighorn sheep. Reference: CDFG, USFWS, The Recovery Plan for Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, The Santa Rosa Mountains Wildlife Habitat Management Plan (Sikes Act) and other data published referencing The Bighorn Institute. The development of the golf course portion of the project, specifically in Section 25, would result in an immediate and direct loss of designated critical habitat. Additionally it would cause a further fragmentation and incremental incursion into critical habitat that would, in effect, move the sheep up the hill and further away from areas that are currently used by the sheep. Both recent and historical data indicates usage of the site by peninsular bighorn. Recent telemetry data and observations have confirmed this usage. ��F v� R L ®Printed on Recycled Paper. To explore, enjoy and preserve the nation's forests, walere,wildlife, and wddernea9.. . r, 1 • • .�� 6. FLOODING .r The geologic report indicates portions of the site (the lower alluvial fan) are within a designated FEN IA 500 year flood plain. The hazard of sheet flooding and erosion make this a poor location for residential development. 7. WATER USE Water resources are a critical concern in our desert environment. Approval of this project would demonstrate VERY POOR water stewardship by the City of Palm Desert. This project would allow a massive waste of our precious groundwater, greater than 3 acre-feet per DAY! This would total more than 686 acre-feet per year! Only a few Palm Desert citizens would enjoy this "private"recreational site, but we would all pay for the tremendous waste of our groundwater. If one acre-foot of water supplies an average family's water needs for one year, how can the City allow 3 acre-feet PER DAY to be wasted on one hillside development, which should remain as open space? CONCLUSION This proposed development would CLASH with existing open space uses for the hillside. When Homme-Adams Trailhead Park is built, let there continue to be open space with beautiful rocky terrain and mountain vistas. not another private golf resort that blocks access to the citizens of Palm Desert. Please preserve the open space for present and future generations. Keep our hillsides OPEN SPACE!!! Respectfully Submitted by Liann Chavez 72-304 Valley Crest Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 sir 3 Center for BiologicalDiversity ,�I Protecting and res coring endangered species and uild places of Numb America and Ali the the Pacific through science,policy,education,citizen activism and entsrunmental law. �eee► September 17,2002 Mr. Phil Drell, Community Development Director Palm Desert Planning Commission Palm Desert City Council 760.340.0574 fax Greetings Ivlr. Drell and Honorable City Council and Planning Commission members, On behalf of our over 7500 members, including many in the Coachella Valley, the Center for Biological Diversity urges the Council to reject the draft EIR for the proposed Crest Golf Club and Residential Village Project. As detailod by the State of Califomia-Department of Fish and Game, the Sierra Club and others, the draft EIR for this project is fatally flawed. By reference, we incorporate the comments of the State and Sierra Club. The Center feels strongly that approval of this draft EM will violate state and federal law. Approval of this or other big developments within critical habitat will further impede recovery of the endangered Peninsular Ranges bighorn sheep, and will force conservation and community groups to pursue relief in the courts. , We hope to be in a position to support a decision to conserve and recover bighorn sheep by denying this draft EIR for the Crest. Sinc erely, / Daniel R. Patterson RE C"E 1 V E D Desert Ecologist 2002 COMM NITl DEVELuPNtc.`;7 D__-PA FT: 'E\i iY .I. Tucson Idyllwild Silver City • Phoenix Berlteley • Bos,emsri San Diego Sitha DANIEL R. PATTERSON, DESERT ECOLOGIST POB 493 IDYLLWILD C,AI.IPOxMA 92549 909.659.6053 x 306 TEL/ 659.2484 FAX DPATTEMONOBIOLOGICALDIvERSITY.ORG • WWW.BIOLOGICALDIVERSITY.ORG Received Sep-17-02 04:32pm From- To-PALM DESERT CITY CLE Page O1 Both Bruce Creek and Ramon Creek will be severely impacted by the towdevelopment of the golf course. The document fails to adequately determine the impacts to these streambeds or offer any satisfactory mitigation measures. Additionally there are two seeps on the site, both of which are considered to be water sources for peninsular bighorn sheep and other wildlife. The fencing of the site would exclude sheep completely from one of these seeps and, due to proximity to the fence and other disturbances by humans such as noise, light, vehicles, maintenance operations etc. would effectively preclude use of the other. The document addresses mitigation in only a vague and inconclusive manner. References to past (undocumented) and future consultations with various agencies is completely inadequate. Additionally the conservation easement on 390 acres and the acquisition/conservation of a further 250 acres and again 15 acres of dry desert wash is also inadequate. There are no specific details of where these off site conservation lands are located and no discussion of the quality of these lands in relation to suitable habitat for peninsular bighorn sheep. It should be noted that conservation easements cannot be considered mitigation as they only limit disturbance. The golf course portion of the project is proposed to be fenced. What will be done to keep the sheep on the right side of the fence. Does the proposal also include fencing the whole area outside the project boundaries at the mountain/urban interface which is probably the only way to prevent sheep becoming trapped. The development of the site would be an adverse modification of critical habitat for peninsular bighorn sheep and the mitigation measures proposed for the construction of the project are inadequate (Ref. letter from Glenn Black, CDFG, August 28, 2002) and would in all likelihood result in a 'taking' due to increased disturbance and further loss of habitat. The Peninsular bighorn sheep is listed as endangered by the USFWS and as a fully protected threatened species by The State of California. State law prohibits the taking of a fully protected species. Sincerely, Jeffrey Morgan, Vice Chair, Conservation Committee, Tahquitz Group, Sierra Club. it