PCMIN 03 28 1995 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Q, inta City Hall
78~195 Calle Tampico, La Qulnta, CA
MARCH 28, 1995 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planninl~ Commission was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by
Chairman Adolph. Commissioner Gardner led the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Chairman Adolph requested the roll call: Present~ Commissioners Abels, Anderson,
Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph.
B. Staff Present~ Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate
Planners Greg Trousdeli and Leslie Mourlquand-Cherry, and Department Secretary
Betty Sawyer.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT:
A. Mr. Norris Bernard, a resident of Cactus Flower, spoke regarding his concern about
the construction of a new detached garage being built in his neighborhood by Mr.
Jim Snellenberger
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Street Nf~me Chin~e 95*006: a request of the City for adoption of a Notice of
Intention to hold a public hearing.
1. Associate Planner Greg Tronsdeil presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
Commissioner Gardner asked if all the property owners would be notified.
Staff informed the Commis~sion of the process to notify all the adjoining
property owners.
Pc3-28 1
3. Commissioner Anderson asked if the 0Id 52nd Avenue deadended at the
Fire Station or if a new development would cause the road to be extended
easterly. Staff stated that at present there were no plans to develop a read
east of Fire Station #32.
4. Commissioner Abels asked staff to explain the purpose of this public
hearing. Staff stated this was for the purpose of setting a date to hold a
public hearing to discuss the street name change and to determine whether
or not the PIP~nnin(~ Commission wished to move forward with the request.
5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Adolph opened the
public headag. There being no public comment, Chairman Adolph closed
the public hearing and opened the request for Commission discussion.
6. There bein~ no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abels~Barrows adopt Resolution 95-005 setting the date of April 11, 1995, at
7:00 P.M. as the date and time to hold a public hearing for Street Name
Change 95-006 (0Id 52nd Avenue to Francis Hack Lane~
ROLL CALI~ AYES: Commissioners Abels, Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner,
Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph_ NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
B. General Plan ~mendment 95-048: a request of the City for certification of a
mitigated Negative Declaration and appreval of a General Plan Amendment for the
Jefferson Street Alignment south of 58th Avenue.
1. Senior Engineer Steve Speer presented the information contained in the
staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Commissioner Abels asked who would pay for the Bureau of Land
Management Environmental precess. Staff stated it would be funded by
developers seeking to have the read pass through BLM land~
3. Commissioner Anderson asked if the proposed street would have one or two
cross sections. Staff stated it was preposing only one cress section. An
increased traffic volnme would create a need for four lanes of traffic,
however, at the present time there was no need to divide the read. The
median was being preposed at the request of the landowners for aesthetic
purposes.
4. Commissioner Anderson asked if signalization would be required at
Madison Street and 62nd Avenue, at 58th Avenue, and along the alignment
west of Madison Street. Staff explained and showed the locations on the
map and stated they would only be installed if warranted~ Discussion
followed as to the possible signal locations.
PC3-28 2
5. Chairman Adolph asked if the ff. ontage roads to PGA West (at 58th Avenue)
would be part of the whole program in regards to the future street
construction project. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that the existing
pavement on 58th Avenue can be left in place to act as a frontage road to
the golf maintenance building. The connection between the new 58th
Avenue alignment and the south entrance gate will be constructed when the
new 58th Avenue street pavement is installed
6. Chairman Adolph discussed the letters that were received by staff in
reference to the land-locked properties (Aguilar properties, etc.~ Senior
Engineer Steve Speer explained that this issue was not part of the study but,
because of the study, staff has been made aware of the problem. He had
suggested that a separate study be undertaken to assess the problem. He
further stated that there would need to be some way of facilitating an
access to the properties.
7. Chairman Adolph asked staff what they would propose. Staff stated that
during the study session it was suggested that an assessment district be
formed and that this study become a part of the assessment district study
along with the construction of Jefferson Street.
8. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Adolph opened the
public hearing.
9. Mr. Mike Rowe, The Keith Companies, stated they had prepared the
documents for the study and the funding mechanism to pay for the study
would be paid for by property owners in the area. He went on to explain the
proposaL
10. Chairman Adolph asked if the BLM was in favor of the proposaL Mr. Rowe
stated they were present at the public workshops when the studies were
presented. They responded favorably at that time but formal applications
would have to be made. Based on this response, the City did not anticipate
any problem.
11. Commissioner Gardner asked that if BLM approves the project, when will
the project be built. Mr Rowe stated that construction is anticipated to go
forward as soon as possible. The complete road project is projected to be
flnaled by the year 2020.
12. Commissioner Gardner stated his concern that if the project would change
hands would it fall apart or would the new owners be responsible for
completing the project. Mr. Rowe stated there was no answer to this
question, but the funding mechanism would be put in place to ensure the
infrastructure improvements.
PC3-2S · 3
13. Mr. Tony Aguilar, business developer, expressed his concern regarding a
limited partnership such as this. He also expressed his concern about the
increased circulation and traffic flow as it would affect Madison Street.
14. Mr. Lloyd Nickerson, Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, stated they
were representing the La Qulnta Ranch property and were in support of the
alignment of Jefferson Street, and as adjacent property owners they would
like to be included in any assessment district project that is formed to
construct the Jefferson Street alignment.
15. Mr. Joseph Brecher, attorney for Mr. & Mrs. Keck, property owners to the
east, spoke regarding all three projects. He stated that Mr. Keck was
concerned about the impacts to his property. In respect to the Jefferson
Street project a full EIR should be required as it is a necessary part of the
project. Certain deficiencies in the Negative Declaration rely on the fact
that there are no impacts on the wildlife but cite the Travertine EIR and it
does not cover the full alignment of the Jefferson Street which means the
area outside of Travertine would not be covered in the FEI]L
16. Commissioner Gardner asked Mr. Brecher to show the location of the Keck
property. Mr. Brecher showed the location on the map (i.e., south of 62nd
Avenue west of Madison Street)~
17. Chairman Adolph asked if the Keck *s property was in the City of La Qnlnta.
Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated it was not within the
City limits.
18. Mr. Charles Koller, attorney representing Mr. J. C. Bryan (Ranch of the 7th
Range~ Mr. Koller stated that a portion of Mr. Bryan*s property would be
taken or dissected due to the realignment. It is a significant impact. He
stated that to file a Negative Declaration for a road of this size was not
good. It is a significant impact. Further, according to Mr. Koller, Mr. Bryan
was never notified of the hearings and he is a property owner. The road
cuts right through the 58th Avenue entrance to his ranclL He stated the
road alignment exists solely for the two developments to be developed.
19. Commissioner Abels asked Mr. Koller to identify Mr. Bryan*s property on the
map. Mr. Koller pointed out the property and showed how the road was
proposed to go through Mr. Bryan*s equestrian business and he had never
~iven his permission.
20. Community Director Jerry Herman pointed out to the Commissioners that
the property Mr. Bryan was speaking of was owned by the Bureau of
Reclamation~ Mr. Koller pointed out that Mr. Bryan has a lease on the land
and it entitled him to property owner rights.
PC3-28 4
-- 21. Commissioner Barrows asked staff how they would accommodate Mr. Bryan
~ for the loss of the entrance to the Ranch of the 7th Range. Senior Engineer
Steve Speer stated Mr. Bryan*s driveway would tie in with the realignment
in the same fashion as the PGA West entrance reconstruction plan.
22. Chairman Adolph asked how much land would be taken. Staff stated that
they had been in contact with the Bureau of Reclamation and they had not
expressed any concern. CVWD has expressed interest in purchasing this
piece of property as a recharge area.
23. Mr. J. C. Bryan, Ranch of the 7th Range, stated his concern for a road going
through his property. He showed the original alignment of Jefferson Street
and his desire for future development in the area of the proposed road. The
entire parcel belonged to him due to his lease with the Bureau of
Reclamation.
24. Mrs. Janice Harrison, a resident to the southeast of the site, asked if the
road was constructed would the general public have access to the road.
Chairman Adolph stated it would be public road. Ms. Harrison asked that if
the road were to be constructed could a parking area be provided for those
who would like to continue hiking in the area.
25. Mr. Mike Rowe addressed the concerns of Mr. Agnilar, in that his land would
not be any more landlocked than it is now, and they would be happy to
include the property owners in the assessment district to get the
improvements in place to allow them access. In regard to Mr. Koller and Mr.
Bryan*s statement concerning notification, Mr. Rowe stated he had been in
contact with the Bureau and they were to contact Mr. Bryan. Mr. Rowe's
staff had also presented all the information to Mr. Bryan's staff. In
addition, allowances could be made to provide access to his property.
26. Mr. Roger Downing, 52-022 Navarro, property owner in the southwest corner
of the proposed area, asked where the applicant expects to access the
southwest portion of the property. Mr. Rowe stated it currently had access
to 62nd Avenue. Mr. Downing stated there was a large canyon on the south
side of the property and it would be expensive to fill and create an access.
27. There being no further public comment, Chairman Adolph closed the public
hearing portion of the meeting and opened the issue up for Commission
discussion. Commissioner Butler asked how the Commission would handle
the problem of property ownership. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated
that before the City can align and construct the street, they must own the
land- Therefore, the project could not go forward unless a satisfactory
solution was reached by all concerned- At present, the Commission is only
to determine whether or not this is the most desirable place for the
alignment to be in respect to the General Plan. The problems of ownership
will be worked out at a later date.
PC3-28 5
28. Commissioner Barrows expressed her concern that once the application had
been made to BLM the alignment might be changed. Senior Engineer Steve
Speer stated that the application the City submits will be in conformance
with what the Planing Commission and City Council approvals.
29. Chairman Adolph asked staff to explain why staff did not consider a EIB.
Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated an EIR was not
prepared due to the EIR prepared for the Green and Travertine projects. In
addition, the City has an existing right-of-way (Jefferson Street)through the
mountain but chose to go around it instead for environmental reasons.
30. Commissioner Barrows asked if staff knew the extent of the environmental
review required by BLM. Staff stated that at present that was unknown~
31. Commissioner Abels expressed his concern that it appeared the Ranch of
the 7th Range had not been notifled~
32. There being no further comment, Commissioners Abels! Newkirk moved to
adopt Resolution 95-006 recommending certification of the Negative
Declaration~
ROLL CALI~ AYES: Commissioners Abels, Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner,
Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
33. Commissioner Abels~Butler moved to adopt Resolution 95-007 recommending
approval of General Plan Amendment 95-048, as proposecL
ROLL C~£L_' AYES: Commissioners Abels, Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner,
Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
C. SDeciflc Plan 94-025. General Plan ,qmendment 94-047. Chan~e of ~one 94*077. anq
F4R 9~287 - Green SDeciflc Plan; a request of Winchester Asset Management for
certification of an EIR; approval of a General Plan Amendment from Open Space to
Open Space, Very Low Density Residential, Low Density Residential, and Medium
Density Residential; and approval of a change of zone from llillside Conservation
(H-C) to Single Family Residential (R-I~ Multiple Family Residential (R-2~ and
Hillside Conservation (H-C~
1. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry presented the information
confined in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community
Development Department.
2. Commissioner Anderson asked if the open space was the steep rock portion
of the project and whether there were any allowances for future
development in this area. Ms. Saundra Jacobs, with The Keith Companies,
PC3-2S 6
showed were the slope was in the western portion of the site and the portion
to be developed was in the eastern portlon~ Ms. Jacobs stated the hillside
would not be developed.
3. Chairman Adolph asked if there were any nnimstls that might migrate to the
lower portion Ms. Jacobs stated that from the studies completed, this was
not a wildlife corridor. The Green project would make an impact on the
habitat that would not be able to be replaced but, there was enough area
for the snimals to travel througlL Mitigation should not be a problen~
Chairman Adolph asked if staff had any comments regarding the recent
letters received from Mr. Nickerson and The Sierra Club. Associate Planner
Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry stated these questions were addressed. Their
was no way to avoid the impacts, but mitigation measures would be taken
to mitigate the impacts.
5. Commissioner Barrows questioned the public access to the BLM land; in
particular Section 32 to the south. She asked if some sort of trallhead
could be established. Staff stated it had not been addressed at this point,
but could be at a later date. It might be more appropriate to address the
issue during the Travertine Specific Plan~
6. Chairman Adolph stated that the Commission had set a precedent with The
Quarry project to maintain access to the trails and they would do the same
here.
7. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Adolph opened the
public hearing. Mr. Mike Rowe addressed the Commissioners regarding the
project.
8. Mr. Rowe addressed the Commission and questioned the Conditions of
Approval ~, ~ and ~ of the Specific Plan. They would like to request
variable bulldin~ heights up to 32 feet. He slso questioned Condition #32
and stated this is not fiat land but there is a slope and they would like to
retain the slope. On Condition ~8 regarding the Conservation Easement,
they would like to add a sentence that should the City reverse their decision
regarding development of the hillside, they would like to request that they
be allowed to develop it.
9. Commissioner Anderson asked what the pad differential would be. Mr.
Rowe stated they were nnknown at the present time but there could be up to
a 2&feet differential due to the existing slope of the land.
10. Chairman Adolph asked that the differential be handled by grading and not
by reteininLr walls. Mr. Rowe stated they would utilize slopes between the
lots not retsining wall As plans are brought forward, the Commission
would see their gradin~ details.
PC3-28 7
11. Commissioner Barrows asked the applicant about the existing water _
resources and the potential use of reclaimed water for landscaping and
golf course maintenance. Mr. Rowe stated reclaimed water is a problem. In
their discussions with CVWD it was indicated that the areas south and east
of Point Happy were seeing some reduction in ground water. CVWD is
setting up a program for recharging the water for landscaping and open
space purposes. The District would supply a recharge system to replenish
the area. If a system becomes available for the use of reclaimed water,
they will use that system. Commissioner Barrows stated she had
understood that reclaimed water was not available at the present and the
total water source for the project would be well water. Mr. Rowe stated this
was true.
13. Commissioner Barrows asked if Canal water was available. Mr. Rowe
stated that they would not be allowed to use Canal water because this area
is not in the service area for canal water.
14. Mr. Lloyd Nickerson, Robert Bein & Frost representing La Quinta Ranch
Partnership, asked for clarifications on issues he raised in his letter and for
clarification on the direction of the Boo Hoff Trail In addition, he stated the
EIR referred to other properties being involved in a fair-sharing of the cost
of the realignment of Jefferson Street and the installation of regional water -
facilities. His client asked for clarification on who would be included in the
fair-share and they would like to be contacted early enough to be involved
in the formula decisions.
15. Commissioner Barrows asked for clarification on the Boo Hoof Trail
location. Mr. Nickerson showed the location of the trail on the EIR Existing
Trail Map. He stated the location shown was incorrect. It did not cress the
La Q_ninta Ranch property as shown.
16. Mr. J. C. Bryan, Ranch ofthe 7th Range, referred to the Boo Hoof Trail and
showed the location of the trail as he understood it. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman clarified that when the property was
incorporated into the City, the City generally used the Riverside County
Master Trail System shown on their General Plan to identify the location of
the Boo Hoof TraiL The trail was adopted into the City*s General Plan based
on the County*s map.
17. Mr. Koller stated he would speak during the Travertine Specific Plan.
18. Mr. Keven Brennan, representing the BLM, stated he would like to address
the Commission when the Travertine Specific Plan came up for discussion.
19. Ms. Bern Schween, Palm Desert (speaking for the Coachella Valley Natural
History Club, the Coachella Valley Hlidn~ Club, and the Sierra Club Hikers)
stated that when the City incorporated the County Trails map, the trails
PC3-28 8
were wrong. She stated this project covered trail easements that have been
used to access the Cactus Springs Trail the Lost Palm Oasis, and several
others for years. If the Commission did not protect these trail easements
they would be lost. She went on to state that there was not enough
protection for water, the habitat, nor the public. There were more
important recreation uses in the desert than Just golf courses. La Qulnta
had a strong hiking group as well as equestrian group and they needed to
have their recreation facilities protected. She showed the location of the
trail as it was originally used. Ms. Schween stated there needed to be a
condition in writing that required the project to use reclaimed water when
it was available.
20. Mr. Mike Rowe, addressed the concerns that had been expressed. He stated
the Boo Hoff Trail was misaligned on the maps and would be corrected. It
was their intention to maintain the trail and allow access to the trail as
well as the rest of the hikinl~ areas. I11 regard to the properties that were
contiguous to the site contributing to the improvements, they would
welcome project owners contacting them regarding participating in their
fair-share costs. They would be willing to work together to proceed on the
whole project.
21. Commissioner Barrows asked about Condition #16, and the applicants
request for a building height of 38-feet. She asked staff if this was
comparable to what had been approved for the other projects in the areas.
Community Development Director JetTy Herman stated that other projects in
the area had been restricted to 28-feet. Mr Rowe asked what PGA West had
been allowed. Chairman Adolph stated that under the PGA West
Homeowners' Association requirements, single family homes were
conditioned not to exceed 22-feet.
22. Commissioner Barrows asked for clarification on Condition ~. Mr. Rowe
stated it was a safeguard that should the City allow development on the
slopes, they wouldn*t be restricted from doing so.
23. There being no further comment, Chairman Adolph closed the public
hearing.
24~ Commissioner Abels asked if Condition ~ regarding time limits, Was
standard. Community Development Director JetTy Herman stated it was not.
It is whatever the Commission recommends and the Council accepts.
Commi~sioner Abels asked that if the project were to come back for a time
extension, could it be extended? Community Development Director Jerry
Herman stated it could but, the Commission could, through a public hearing,
modify the condition~ Commissioner Abels stated that he felt due to the
scope of the project, the project should be approved for four years and then
reviewed on an annual basis. Discussion followed as to approval time.
PC3-28 9
25. Commissioner Anderson stated he had no problem either way, but if there
were no changes it would be of no hinderance to come back in two years.
26. Staff clarified that the condition had been used on three prior specific plans
(two at PGA West and once for the Oak Tree Specific Plan~
27. Commissioner Abels stated that everyone was trying to streamline
government and to ask the developer to come back in two years was
nnnecessary for a project of this magnitude. He would like to see a four
year approvaL
28. Commissioner Gardner stated he agreed but, he did not feel that coming
back in two years was an unreasonable request and he would like to see the
project back in two years to continue to stimulate the project.
29. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell clarified that approval of a specific plan was
a legislative action and the City could bring the project back at any time in
the future for review and change.
30. Chairman Adolph asked for clarification on easements for horses, etc. He
felt that they had required an easement~right-of-way along Madison Street
from the developer to provide access to Lake Cahnilla for equestrian use.
Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated they had and
Condition #13 provides protection for the Boo Hoof Trail in the general
configuration of the Jefferson Street realignment to Lake Cahullla~ It was
up to BLM as to whether they want to shut the trail off.
31. Commissioner Barrows asked if the trail would occur next to the Jefferson
Street right-of-way, or somewhere else. Staff stated it would run adjacent
to Jefferson Street to the Lake.
32. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked the Commission to
clarify the Conditions they wish to amended:
a. ~ & ~- two or four year approval;
b. #16- the maximum heights would remain 28-feet in the R-1 zone;
c. ~9- building pad elevations on contiguous lots- Enginee~ had
no objection to the condition being eliminated as it will not
create any problems with adjacent property owners. The
Commission felt the condition could be deleted.
d. ~4- City Attorney Dawn Honeywell recommended that it be
revised to read **the City is contemplating adoption of a
major infrastructure and thoroughfare progranL ..... the
development or portions thereof shall be subject to the
provisions of the ordinance**.
PC3-2S 10
e. ~- an additional sentence would be added: **To the effect the
applicant shall pay any fees of any nature required by the
City at the time of recording of the final map or building
permit in accordance.with the fees in effect."
f. ~8. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated there need to be
clarification as to when the Easement should be recorded-
She felt it should be required to be recorded at the time of
final map for the recordation of the Conservation Easement.
Commissioner Barrows asked if there was a standard
format for this procedure. Staff stated not at this time. City
Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that the few the City had
approved had been on a case by case basis.
33. Commissioner Barrows asked if there was a mitigation for monitoring
progranL Staff stated it was recommended in the conditions.
There being no further discussion it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels! Butler to adopt Resolution 95-008, recommending
certification of the Environmental Review Report.
ROLL CALI~ AYES: Commissioners Abels, Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner,
Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
35. Commissioners Abels! Newkirk moved and seconded a motion to adopt
Resolution 95-009 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 94-
047, as proposed-
ROLL CALI~ AYES: Commi.qsioners Abels, Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner,
Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSENT: None.
36. Commissioners Abels/Butler moved and seconded a motion to adopt
Resolution 95-010 recommending Change of Zone 94-077.
ROLL CALI~ AYES: Commissioners Abels, Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner,
Newklrk, and Chairman Adolph. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
37. Commissioners Abels/Anderson moved and seconded a motion to adopt
Resolution 95-011, recommending approval of Specific Plan 94-025, to the
City Council with the correction to Condition ~ approving the project for
four years and as corrected beloF.
#16- the maximum heights would remain 28-feet in'the R-1 zone;
b. ~9- bnildin~ pad elevations on contiguous lots- Engineerin~ had
PC3-28 1 1
no objection to the condition being eliminated as it will not
create any problems with adjacent property owners. The
Commission felt the condition could be deleted.
c. ~1- City Attorney Dawn Honeywell recommended that it be
revised to read **the City is contemplating adoption of a
major infrastructure and thoroughfare program ...... the
development or portions thereof shall be subject to the
provisions of the ordinance**.
d. ~q~2- an additional sentence would be adde~ **To the effect the
applicant shall pay any fees of any nature required by the
City at the time of recording of the final map or bni]ding
permit in accordance with the fees in effect."
City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated there need to be
clarification as to when the Easement should be recorded.
She felt it should be required to be recorded at the time of
final map for the recordation of the Conservation Easement.
Commissioner Barrows asked if there was a standard
format for this procedure. Staff stated not at this time. City
Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that the few the City had
approved had been on a case by case basis.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner,
Newklrk, and Chairman Adolph_ NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The Planning Commission recessed at 9:23 P.M. and reconvened at 9:35 P.M.
D. SDeciflc Plan ~mendment 9~049. General Plan ,~mendment 94~049. snd
l~nvironmental InlDact ReDort 94-287: a request of Travertine Corporation for
certification of an Initial Study and EIR; approval of a General Plan Amendment
from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Golf Course Open Space (G~ Low Density
Residential (LDR~ Neighborhood Commercial (NC~ and Tourist Commercial (TC); and
approval of a specific Plan for a 2,300 resort homes, two golf courses, resort hotel
and commercial 909.2 acres.
1. Associate Planner Leslie Mourlquand-Cherry presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community
Development Department. Staff noted that faxed letters had been received
from the Sierra Club and the Coachella Valley Unified School District and
read the condition recommended to mitigate the concerns of CVUSD.
2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Adolph opened the public
hearing. Mr. Mike Rowe representing the applicant addressed the project.
He requested changes to the following conditions:
PC3-28 12
-- a. /~' & #8- expiration date for 10 years.
b. #18- bufldin~ heights up to 35-feel
c. ~22- would like to keep the height varying for the entire
development- a project mix of homes
d. ~26- the buffer zone revised to read **building structures to be a
minimum of 300-feet away**.
e. ~29- street improvements Item C- the right-of-way north of 62nd
Avenue be 60-feet soutlL
f. gJ5- the Conservation Easement be changed to read **that covers
the buffer ".
g. ~16- grading issue, it doesn*t apply to this type of project- would like
it to be eliminated.
IL ~A)- off-site streets, Section 1 phasing plan to be to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. They would like to phase the
development and develop the streets as development occurs.
i. #100- add a sentence that should the City of La Quinta allow
development on the hillside, they be allowed to do so.
3. Chairman Adolph asked where the base of the Martinez Slide joins the
project. Mr. Rowe showed the location on the map.
Commissioner Barrows asked if the buffer area referred to in the final ElS,
allowed pedestrian access to the slide or was access restricted to
professionals only. Ms. Jacobs stated that the restriction to the access to
the Martinez rock Slide was, for the most part, a resource agency
requirement they had agreed with. They had expanded it to include Native
Americans.
5. Commissioner Barrows asked how the access would be regulated. Ms.
Jacobs stated it would not be guarded and there would not be any specific
implementation put in place to monitor the access except for signage.
Discussion followed regarding possible areas of access .to the Slide.
6. Mr. Mike Rowe addressed the water resources for the project. He stated
that CVWD had set up an ordinance for the amount of water a project of this
size would be required to have and the project would have to follow that
ordinance. There would be approximately 15 well sites in a location that
would not be closer than 1,000 feet to each other. The District would
determine the locations of the wells.
7. Mr. Tony Aguilar, was called to speak and was no longer present*
8. Mr. Lloyd Nickerson, was called to speak and was no longer present
9. Mr. Keven Brennan, representing the California Department of Fish and
Game, provided details in their letter to the Commission and staff. He
stated the need for a supplemental EIR and the Department is requesting
PC3-28 13
one. The description of the 300-foot buffer was not substantial in the -
responses. They request a supplemental EIR be prepared to include a
mitigation agreement with the Department of Fish and Game addressing
the wildlife issues in their letter. He recommended that the EIR not be
ce~fled until these issues were resolved.
10. Commissioner Anderson asked what Mr. Brennan considered an adequate
buffer zone. Mr. Brennan stated it should be a mlninlum of 184-meters or
twice the shown buffer width, suggested in the Ell?, It depended upon the
type of activity that would be next to the buffer zone.
11. Chairman Adolph asked if the Big Horn Sheep come down to the flatland to
feed. Mr. Brennan stated they do come down to the fiat lands and the
ai]uvial f~n~ area.
12. Commi~sioner Barrows stated that in the Department*s letter in the
Responses it referred to a letter of February 10th letter in which a
mitigation measure was being pursued. Commissioner Barrows asked if
this meeting took place and were any of the issues resolved. Mr. Brennan
stated they invited Ms. Jacobs to met with them to solve some of these
problems.
13. Commi~sioner Newkirk asked what would need to be done to adequately
buffer the zone. Mr. Brennan stated the buffer area needed to be increased
another 30(~feet. Commissioner Newkirk asked if the golf course offered a
buffer. Mr. Brennan stated it would not because people were using it and
the sheep will not come down.
14. Chairman Adolph asked if it was a man-made buffer at the end of the Slide
or was it going to blend in together. Mr. Brennan stated none has been
proposed at this time for the Sheep. There were plans to build berms and
landscaping to aid with the buffering.
15. Commi~sioner Barrows asked if the issues could be resolved. Mr. Brennan
stated they could be resolved but, since that meeting this was the first
contact and it would take further discussion.
16. Mr. Henry Randazzo, resident at 60th Avenue and Madison Street, stated his
opposition to the project because he prefers his privacy. He asked why the
City would want to leap-frog development so far back into the Cove when so
much land was available to be developed. Development in this area was not
needed. The development will create traffic and eventually the City will
have to widen Madison Street and the impact it will bring is not necessary
at this ~me.
17. Mr. James Koller, attorney representing Mr. J. C. Bryan,, Ranch of the 7th
Range, stated his purpose for being at the hearing was to insure any future
14
rights Mr. Bryan might have. He further stated he had not received a copy
of the EIR until last week and was not prepared to address the project at
this time. He had problems with the EIR in that some of the areas need to
be addressed. In addition, he did not receive a copy of the Final Response to
Comments until Friday. Mr. Bryan did not know about the project until it
appeared in the Desert Sun one month ago. His concern was with areas
that could not be mitigated and Whether or not the City was trading off
permanent destruction for sometMng that may or may not be good for the
City. He asked if there had been any consideration given to address how
Mr. Bryan*s horses would cross the street and the medians.
18. Commissioner Barrows asked Mr. Koller what impacts the Ranch would
experience and how his business would be affected by the project. Mr.
Koller stated it was an equestrian center that is utilized by many people in
the Valley, and the biggest impact was that the Ranch uses a large part of
the BLM land for trail riding. The Jefferson Street alignment would cut
those trails in half. He displayed the trails on the map and showed how
Jefferson Street cut off his access to a major portion of the trails.
19. Chairman Adolph stated the Commission had established a trail system
from 50th Avenue and felt it necessary to maintain the equestrian trails but
this would be better addressed when the applicant comes back with more
detail plans regarding the development.
20. Mr. J. C. Bryan, Ranch of the 7th Range, stated his biggest concern was the
blockage of access to the wilderness area for everyone. The street
alignment needs to be chan~ed to maintain the recreational area of the
Valley. He went on to discuss several of the wildlife that come into the
Ranch. Putting a parking area would not guarantee access to an area of
this size.
21. Ms. Bernadett Schween, Palm Desert resident, stated her concern as to
where the City of La Quinta was going. Public services would need to be
provided in this area. The City had promised access to the land when they
purchased it from the BLM, as well as this entire area. In addition to the
Martinez Slide there was the lagoon and other features that could not be
protected by a golf course buffer zone. The area to the west of the Jefferson
Street alignment should remain open space and not be a golf course. A golf
course was not a buffer zone. This area has traditionally been a hikinj~
area and an access to the Toro Canyon for hikers. This development would
block that entrance. The area of the Conservation Easement needed to be
widened and left naturaL He felt that a Supplemental EIR was needed and
more time allowed for the public to comment. There was no mention of
PC3-28 15
flood protection in the EIB. There would need to be a dike of some type to __
protect the development from flooding. Jefferson Street alignment was
aligned badly and interfered with the access to the mountains. The
commercial would increase the population density in the area and it was
not necessary.
Mr. Ron Zweber, representing the American Bank of St. Paul Minnesota,
asked if staff new who the officers of the project were and if any
investigation had been done into the boardmembers. He wanted to know at
what point would the City get involved with who the developer was. City
Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that since it was not a City project utilizing
City funds, it would not be typical for the City to be involved with a project
regarding the land use aspect of a project. The City does not concern itself
with the financial responsibility of the developer except to see that all
improvements involving City infrastructures be bonded. Mr. Zweber stated
his concern that the City would not get involved as long as the project was
bonded. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell clarified that as long as City funds
were not being used, the City had no cause to do any investigation. Mr.
Zweber stated that the bank who employed him held a Judgement against
Mr. James Lennon, the president of Travertine Corporation and there was a
Contempt Order issued for Mr. Lennon in Minneapolis and would be arrested
for violations on behalf of the State of IMInnesota if he returned. He
challenge Mr. Lennon to attend the public hearing. He further stated the
City of La Quina should research the developers of the project to see that
the project would go forward.
23. Ms. Mary Belardo, representing the Torres Martinez Indian Tribe stated that
the only thing that was separating their tribe from the southeast corner of
the project was the dike. She further stated that the tribe was concerned
about additional housing developments on 64th Avenue and that the water
table would be impacted. She stated they would like to challenge the
company who did the archaeological report. Their access to this land that
they have traveled over for years was being blocked off. They too would
like to support that a Supplemental EIR be completed for the project.
24. Mr. Joe Brecher, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. John Keck, Jr., stated there were
a number of problem~ with the EIR. The Government Code required four
criteria that must be set forth and covered in detail within a specific plan
and they are not. The distribution and location of the streets must be
described and spelled out specifically and the they weren't. Water serviced
needed to be addressed in greater detail as well as the sewer and waste
disposaL In addition, the EIR could not address the effects of construction
on the areL These regulations are mentioned in detail and in light of Mr.
PC3-2S 16
Zweber*s statements, it would behoove the City to research the financial
background of the developers. What happens to the City if the flood
improvements are not completed. He further stated that the cost to
purchase a copy of the EIR from the Keith Companies was outrageous.
The EIR with respect to noise on Jefferson Street and the related streets,
only deals with the first five years of construction. The second phase is
lumped in with other adjacent projects and there was no way of
determining the number of cars, air pollution, etc. that would be present
upon bulldout. This should be addressed in the EIR as well as the impact on
the water. All the water was to be provided by the wells that will tap into
the aquifer and there was already a drawdown of the aquifer with no way
to replenish it. The EIR does not address how the aquifers would be
replenished and therefore was not complete. Mr. Brecher asked why anyone
would want to build a four lane street to have it end in a berm* Wouldn't it
eventually connect with 62nd Avenue and if so why dldn*t the EIR address
the impact on that area.
25. Mr. George Berkey, Jr., realtor, stated he had been involved in the
acquisition of the subject property and the exchange of the property in
Section 4 with the BLM. He has met with all the environmental groups and
--
an EIR was done at that time. At that time they were informed of the wrath
of Mr. KeclL Mr. Brecher had informed them that they would be attacked
with every means available to them. The BLM went ahead and the State
Commissioner felt the EIR was adequate. It was then appealed to a
Washington 3-Judge panel and they ruled the EIR was done appropriately.
It was then taken to the Federal District Court and again the same
argument and again, the Judge ruled everything had been completed
according to procedure. Finally it was taken to the Circuit Court and that
Judge ruled it to be a valid EIIL Mr. Berkey stated that Mr. Keck himself
had processed a golf course and development that was approved.
26. Mrs. Janice Harrison, resident residinl~ on 65th Avenue, asked if the
company who did the EIR was in conflict of interest with the developer. She
felt it was strange that the two work together. Her family had enjoyed
this area all her life and she would like to have the same opportunity for
her children Her greatest concern was not being allowed to access to the
area. Her family had utilized this area for generations and she would not
like to be denied access.
27. Mr. Ray Garza, Monroe and 61st Avenue, wanted to go on record as being
--
opposed to all three projects. He could not see a need for 300+ homes when
even PGA West couldn*t sell their homes. In addition, services weren*t even
PC3-2S 17
supplied to this area. Roads would be torn up, access for the horse riders
--
would be denied, as well as all those who enjoy the area. They needed to
develop the empty desert land to the north first. They don*t need to be
building out in the middle of nowhere. His property is only one mile from
this area and his well was 127 feet deep and he was already pulling up air.
To put in additional wells would only deplete the water table even more.
28. Mike Rowe addressed the concern that had been expressed:
a. The hiking and equestrian uses would be protected They would
work with the different groups to secure a trail system. They would
make sure that an access was kept for the Martinez Slide. They had
no objection to allow a staging area to accommodate those who
wanted to get into the area.
Mr. Rowe expressed his hope that the Commission would look at the project
as it was designed as being a valid project.
29. Commissioner Barrows stated her concern for the responses presented
during the meeting. Regarding the question of access for the Ranch of the
7th Range, she hoped that an access could be accommodated. Mr. Rowe
stated it could be worked out. He had tried to meet with Mr. Bryan for a
month as well as the Kecks and neither would sit down and work with them
to solve the problems. He went on to state that Jefferson Street right-of-way
exists even without the realignment*
30. Chairman Adolph asked about a buffer zone at the end of the Martinez Slide
area. As the project was laid out there were houses on both side of the golf
course. If they reversed the golf course with the houses to create a buffer
zone, they would eliminate some homes. Would there be a possibility of
increasing the buffer zone? Would they double up on the houses to regain
the losses. Mr Rowe stated they had no objection to the buffer zone. The
Boo Hoff Trail could also be routed through here to add to the buffer. The
house configurations would be figured as the golf course was laid out*
31. Commissioner Butler stated his concern for the drawing down of the water
table due to the number of wells required for the projects. He did not feel
comfortable with the replenishment. Commtlnity Development Director
Jerry Herman explained that the wells CVWD drills are deeper than the
property owners so they would not interfere with the local property owners.
32. Commissioner Butler expressed his concern for replenishing the aquifers
due to the condition of the soils. Mr. Rowe stated that the District designs
their plans this way.
PC3-2S 18
33. Chairman Adolph asked if the applicant had any intention of doing a
Supplemental EIR. Mr. Rowe stated they felt the EIR was sufficient to cover
all the problems raised and a Supplemental EIR was not needed. Chairman
Adolph asked if they would do one if requested. Ms. Jacobs stated they had
meet the requirements of CEQA and she did not feel a supplemental was
needed. Chairman Adolph asked about the validity of the statements made
by Mr. and Mrs. Keck*s attorney of not meeting all the issues addressed in
the EIR. Mr. Rowe stated the information in the specific plan is all that is
required at this time.
Commissioner Barrows stated her concerns for the water table, and she
was curious about the letter submitted by CVWD in the Final EIR. A water
plan did not appear in the landscaping. She asked if they had been to CVWD
with those figures. Mr Rowe stated he had given CVWD the figures they
requested and expressed his concern that a plan had been put into place to
meet these concern He stated the 1500 homes would not be built tomorrow.
This was a 15 to 25 year plan and the District had addressed the problem
before it was critical and the programs would be in place before the need
was there.
35. Commissioner Barrows asked about the preparation agreement with the
Fish and Game. Mr. Rowe stated it would be an on-going process to resolve
the problems. Commissioner Barrows asked about the Conservation
Easement and stated she was not f~tmillar with it and appreciated the use
of creative landscapinl~ to meet the need. She asked if a Conservation
Easement could be used with a golf course. Mr. Rowe stated that sheep
tend to be more active at nighttime and the golf course was planned to be a
natural course utilizing much of the natural habitat. Commissioner
Barrows asked who was going to be the recipient of the Easement. Mr.
Rowe stated it would go to the City.
36. Chairman Adolph asked what percentage of the residents they expected to
be full times. Mr. Rowe stated that based on PGA West residents being
approximately 20%, they were estimating 30*40% would be full time
residents because of the type of homes to be provided.
37. There being no further public comment, Chairman Adolph closed the public
hearing.
38. Commissioner Butler asked if this was the time to add an additional
condition relative to trails and access. Commnnity Development Jerry
Herman stated that this was the time to add policy and later fine tune it as
further applications are submitted. Any additional conditions relative to
tr~_il~ would need to be added to Condition ~26. Commissioner Butler stated
he felt the area should be enlarged and open to the public. The area should
PC3-28 19
not be restricted to those who had been using it. Community Development
Director Jerry Herman stated they could enhance the condition to provide
access to the public for hiking and equestrian uses..
39. Commissioner Anderson stated he was not comfortable with the Statement
of Overriding Circunlstances. Areas of concern were being overridden in
favor of the building of the homes. Too many of the statements were made
based on this thought. The project is necessary to enhance the quality of
life and the City*s economic base but he was concerned that when an
unavoidable impact was reached the City would Justify it with a Statement
of Overriding Concerns, a development is better than no development. He
was concerned that the degree of detail in the EIR may not have been
addressed. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that if
the Commission did not adopt the Statement they could not certify the EIR.
40. Commissioner Barrows stated she had the same concerns regarding the
statements contained in the Statement. She was not convinced that a
Supplemental EIR was needed but there was a need to address the water
problems and the responses contained the Responses to the EIR. She was
not prepared to make a decision as to whether this project should go. The
Planning Commi~sion needed to have more information first.
41. Commi~sioner Anderson stated they could Justify any project with a
Statement of Overriding Concerns, but he was not comfortable with the
overall project to make a decision~ He wanted to give the City the best
development possible. The comments made by CVWD and other comments
needed to be addressed further addressed to make him more comfortable.
42. Commi~sioner Barrows stated her concern that she was unable to give an
answer on this project based on all the comments presented and she did not
feel enough time had been given to the project. Chairman Adolph agreed.
43. Commi~sioner Anderson stated he would like to have moro public comment.
Chairman Adolph stated his concern about the nnmber of people who stated
they did not receive any information regarding the project.
44. Commi~sioner Abels stated the Commi~sion had not been given enough time
to review this size of a project and they should give it more time.
45. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell informed the Commission they could continue
the hearing to a date certain and allow staff to bring more information
back-
PC3-2S 20
46. Mr. Craig Bryant, Winchester Development, stated they would rather have
the Planing Commt.qsion deny the project so they can move on to the City
CounciL Commissioner Barrows stated she was not comfortable with
making a decision and she wanted more time to consider the project. Mr.
Bryant asked staff if the project was continued could they still make the
May 2nd date before the CounciL In order to get the financial funding in
place, they have to meet a time schedule. Community Development Director
Jerry Herman stated they could still make the City Council meetin~ on the
7th of May. He informed the Commissioners that the notices advertising the
heating for the Council would reach the paper before the Plnnninl~
Commi.qsion made a decision.
47. Commissioner Abels, stated that in view of the discussion that were made,
he would move to continue the hearing to April 11, 1995. Commissioner
Anderson seconded the motion and asked if public comment would still be
taken. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the public comment portion of
the heating was closed and the only was the public could addressed the
issue was during the public comment period of the meeting. Further public
comment would be taken when it was heard before the City CounciL
Discussion followed between the Commission and staff. The motion was
carried unanimously.
BUSINESS ITEMS- NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR-
There being no corrections to the minutes, Commissioners Abels/Gardner moved and
seconded a motion to approve the minutes of March 14, 1995, as submitted. They were
unantmons]y approved.
OTHER
Commissioner Anderson stated his belief in staff to notify all property owners and
commended them on their work.
There being no further businesses this meeting of the p]~mnit~g Commls~sion was moved and
seconded by Commissioner Barrows/G~er to adjourn this meeting of the Plannin~ Commission
to a regular meeting on April 11, 1994. This meeting of the Pl~mnin(~ Commission was adjourned at
11.49. The motion was approved unanimously
PC3-28 21