Loading...
2001 05 08 PC Minutes MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA May 8, 2001 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Robbins who asked Commissioner Butler to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Steve Robbins. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: A. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to reorganize the Agenda by taking Business Item "A" after Public Hearing Item "C". Unanimously approved. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of April 24, 2001. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. B. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Abels/Tyler to approve the Minutes of April 4, 2001 as submitted. Unanimously approved. C. Department Report: None. V. PRESENTATIONS: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC5-8-OI.wpd ]- Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Continued,- Environmental Assessment 94-287 Addendum, Specific Plan 94-025 Amendment//1, Conditional Use Permit 99-047, and Parcel Map 28610; a request of Agiotage Limited for Certification of an EIR Addendum for Specific Plan 94-025 allowing: 1) a new access road for an approved master planned residential community of 277 houses; 2) development of a private road on a hillside slope exceeding 20 percent; 3) amend the Green Specific Plan to allow a 3,000 foot long private access road along the north side of a 330.70 acre property to serve ten custom lots; and 4) a Tentative Parcel Map subdividing 330.70 acres into four parcels and other lettered street lots, for the property bisected by the future Jefferson Street, approximately a half mile south of Avenue 58 1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked if the City Attorney's office would like to respond to the latest letter received from the Center for Biological Diversity. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez responded to a letter received from the Center for Biological Diversity on May 7, 2001, raising a number of issues similar to the letter the Commission received at the last public hearing. The City Attorney's office has reviewed the letter and their comments remain the same as they were with respect to the last public hearing. He might point out that in Mr. Hogan's letter there is a discussion of the Gilroy case and Mr. Hogan's discussion of the facts in that case are correct. One of the challenges of a city attorney is responding to these types of letters when they are presented at the last moment. Again, their position is the same. There is no new information that was not fully studied in the prior EIR with respect to the impact on Big Horn Sheep. 2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if there were any changes in the staff report. Staff noted the Resolution dates were changed and staff was requesting two condition modifications. Condition //29 should be replaced by adding a sentence allowing the undeveloped natural open space to drain in its historical drainage course. Assistant City Attorney Ramirez asked that the words "Specific Plan" be added to Condition //1 following FEIR 94-287 .Addendum. 3. There being, no further questions of staff, Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Jim Schlecht, attorney for Agiotage Limited, stated he was present to aCknowledge the efforts they have made over the years to try and G:\WPDOCS\PC5-8-01 .wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 reach an agreement with The Quarry. He wrote a letter to staff stating he had written to Mr. Morrow requesting him to respond in writing to a previous offer they had made to him. In his letter to staff he informed them that he had not heard from Mr. Morrow; however after he wrote that letter Mr. Morrow did call him. He repeated his request that they would like him to respond in writing with whatever he had to provide them with and Mr. Morrow declined. They have made very extensive efforts over a period of three or four years to reach an agreement and Mr. Morrow has declined at every step to try and work this out in some way that they believe is reasonable. As they were unable to reach an agreement, they pursued this alternative to see if they can do something with this property. 4. Mr. David Hogan, Center for Biological Diversity, stated his comments would be brief as most of their concerns were raised at the prior public hearing. He would, however, like to respond to some other points made by Assistant City Attorney Ramirez at the -- last meeting. The concerns raised in their first letter are not time barred in this situation under CEQA. The best example of this is that Fish and Game back in 1995 requested that the applicant and/or City provide a detailed mitigation plan of how the project impacts on the Big Horn were going to be mitigated up front as part of the subsequent EIR for public review and analysis. That was never complete and that is certainly relevant today because the same mitigation, that is a future unknown mitigation plan is still relied on here for mitigation for impacts from this particular action, the Addendum. The rationale of the CEQA court decision, as pointed out by the attorney, in the case of Chaparral Greens vs. City of Chula Vista, also does not apply to the Green project. In that court case it only addressed new information that was provided the Council prior to certification of the EIR, not after. In this case they have provided significant new information in evidence of changed circumstances since approval of the original 1995 EIR. In contrast here, there is significant new information and changed circumstances now available for Big Horn in relation to the Green project and those include, just to reiterate, significant decline of the Martinez Canyon ewe group since 1995; Federal _ listing as Endangered Species in 1998; Expert Recovery Team Essential Habitat identification in the year 2000; the formal Critical Habitat designation by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2000; and the Big Horn Institute Urban Effects Study in 1999 or 2000. He also wanted to emphasize the Critical Habitat issue he did not G :\WPDOCS\PCS-8-01.wpd 3 Planning Commission Minutes -- May 8, 2001 point out in his last letter, which was that Critical Habitat was in fact, designated over a portion of this site. He did not have the detailed maps to identify this at the time and have since got those and the portion of the project site to be impacted by this new access road to access the back lots and the back lots are all within designated Critical Habitat. Critical Habitat being those areas identified by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be essential for the conservation of the species and that is survival and recovery of the species as required by the Endangered Species Act. All this information clearly illustrates the need for a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR. The last thing was that he wanted to clarify a comment made at the last meeting where he quoted Mr. Jim DeForge of the Big Horn Institute over sheep number in the Martinez Canyon ewe group, and in response Commissioner pointed out that there had been a quote in the newspaper previously talking about how sheep numbers had been up in both ranges. He spoke with Jim DeForge specifically and he wanted to clarify that what he meant by that quote was that the sheep numbers had been up and that is only lambs north of Highway 74 in both ranges meaning the northern Santa Rosa Mountains and San Jacinto Mountains. The sheep population numbers are down in the Santa Rosa Mountains south of Highway 74. It is an important distinction because the primary recovery unit of the species, how we will be able to judge whether or not the species is coming back from the brink of distinction, is whether or not ewe group population numbers are rising, not necessarily only populations of sheep in Anza Borrego State Park or Mexico. We need to know that all ewe groups are actually recovering and this is an important population in the southern Santa Rosa Mountains, Martinez Canyon ewe group. Thank you for your consideration. 5. Mr. Bill Morrow, representing the Quarry, stated that contrary to Mr. Schlecht's comments in his letter to the City, Mr. Morrow made a proposal in 1998, at which time they had meetings and turned down the proposal. Since that time he has met with Mr. Green, his wife and Mr. Anderholt, an attorney, on the site, in the last six weeks and made a proposal to them and has not had a response to that proposal. Since the last Commission meeting when it was suggested they get together, there has no request been made by Mr. Green or any of his people, to do so. They would be glad to do that if in fact they were asked to do, but were not. We have made a proposal and it has not been responded to. G :\WPDOCS\PCS-8-01.wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 6. Commissioner Butler stated that the attorney for Mr. Green has given the Commission verification .that he has corresponded with him and yet there is no written responses from Mr. Morrow. Mr. Morrow stated he did not accept the reimbursement agreement of 1998, and stated only verbally that he did not agree with it and there is no paper trail that states that. He has seen correspondence from the Green party trying to solve some of these problems and he does not see anything in writing stating that he disagrees with that. Why does it have to be verbal on his side and written on Mr. Greens' side if he so adamantly disagrees. . Mr. Morrow stated he is not an attorney and therefore does not get involved in that. The meetings they had after these letters, which occurred in Palm Desert with Mr. Green and sometimes Mr. Schlecht, they were very vocal as to the fact that they thought their offers were terribly unreasonable and did not justify a written response. To say that they were not responded to is totally incorrect. He never thought it was necessary to respond in writing. They met for an hour or so and it was pretty apparent --' when they left that meeting that they were not agreeing with anything. He is waiting for their offer, a rebuttal or counteroffer from the offer he made personally to Mr. Green six weeks ago. Commissioner Butler noted that is not in writing. Mr. Morrow stated he understood that, but that is the fact. 7. Commissioner Kirk asked for clarification as to what has happened between the two parties. Mr. Morrow stated he had initiated the phone calls to Mr. Schlect and had not received a response. He called back and they did talk and told him at that time they were available to meet. He had made an offer and there was no response. 8. Mr. Craig Bryant, Winchester Development, stated that as a point of clarification, his company represented both parties to obtain specific plan approval and the development of The Quarry. During the process of the Green Specific Plan, the Planning Commission and City Council at that time, went out to the site and viewed the' area with respect to the road alignment that was being considered at that time. Both entities agreed there would never be a road there because of the scaring of the earth and what it would take to put a road there. In lieu of that, they suggested both parties get togethe[ and solve the road in terms of a common entrance for both of them to use, that being through The Quarry. To him the G:\WPDOCS\PC5-8-OI.wpd 5 Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 relevancy of this meeting may or may not be within the purview of this body, but one thing is very clear, there was a promise made by both the Planning Commission and City Council that there would never be a road that goes in that direction on that course. How the two parties get together and work this out relative to a common access seems to be something they have to decide between themselves. 9. Commissioner Abels stated he was on the Commission at that time and he does not remember any promise at that time. 10. Commissioner Kirk stated he remembers going to the site, but is not sure it is the same field trip. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that field trip was in reference to the Hillside Ordinance and boulder fields. He did not remember any other field trip. 1 1. Commissioner Butler stated he was on a field trip and did go into The Quarry to look at those ten lots. Staff stated yes, in regard to the Hillside Ordinance. 1 2. Chairman Robbins stated the initial discussions were in 1 994. 1 3. Commissioner Kirk stated that if this was the same field trip there was no promise made at that time in regard to a road. 14. Mr. Bryant stated the field trip he was referring to was several years ago and was thoroughly discussed at that time and should be referenced in the City Council minutes of that field trip. He would suggest the minutes be reviewed. 1 5. Mr. Schlecht, attorney for Mr. Green, stated he was involved with the project at that time and had many discussions with Mr. Bryant and there never was any discussions regarding the road. The issue of their having access through The Quarry came up when they discovered a public street was being abandoned. They made the issue before the City Council and perhaps the Planning Commission and the City then required The Quarry to supply them with an easement, which they did. They have an easement to go through The Quarry, but the problem is that the City, at that time, indicated that they would have to work out a reimbursement agreement with The Quarry to reimburse them for the cost of that road and that is where the issue is today. G:\WPDOCS\PC5-8-OI.wpd (~ -- Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 16. Commissioner Kirk asked what the difference was between the two offers made between the two. Mr. Schlecht stated they offered Mr. Morrow $800,000 and Mr. Morrow wanted $2.7 million. Mr. Morrow was correct, he made it very clear on the phone that his client was not interested in an oral offer. First of all in a real estate offer it is ordinarily done in writing. He did not make it in writing and we told him we were not interested in his two lots and would he be interested in talking about more than two lots and Mr. Morrow stated absolutely not. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated it is not the Commission's responsibility to resolve the issue between the two parties, but to address the applications before them. 17. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Robbin$ closed the public participation portion of the hearing. 1 8. Commissioner Butler stated he concurs with staff in regard to the issue between the two parties. However, based on what is before - them, he would grant the applicant's request because without the road he is landlocked and he should have the right to access his property. He. would, however, like a condition added that if they do resolve the issue, the road would not be developed. Assistant City Attorney Ramirez stated he would recommend against a condition that basically removes the approval pending an agreement being reached between the two parties. That would place the City in the position of being an arbitrator with respect to this agreement. Commissioner Butler stated his concern is that if they approve the road and then they reach a settlement, they could still build the road. Assistant City Attorney Ramirez stated he would review the condition and report back to the Commission. 19. CommissiOner Tyler stated his concern is that the conditional use permit is written in such a way that the developer has a blank check. In order for him to support it he would need more details in regard to where and how the road would be constructed. 20. Commissioner Abels stated he concurs with both Commissioners Butler and Tyler. -- 21. Commissioner Kirk stated there have been applicants before the Commission before where all parties were not in agreement and the Commission would like to find a way to please everyone, but maybe the best circumstance in this instance is to not please anyone. He believes Commissioners Butler and Tyler raised good G :\WPDO C S\PC 5-8-01. wpd Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2OO1 points. He would suggest that even though the City does not want to be a mediator, the City has put themselves in that position with the original approval. We made it clear that we wanted the access to go through The Quarry, so we inserted ourselves into this disCussion and into this debate. It would be nice if they could create a framework for some sort of an agreement. However, it appears there are two different styles here. One where the applicant prefers to work with his attorney who structures typical real estate deals and then Mr. Morrow who likes to sit down and work directly with the owner and find a common agreement. He agrees with Commissioner Butler that he would like to condition this to cause the parties to come up with an agreement. If this is not possible, he is leaning toward not approving the applicant's request. The precedent it could establish in develOping in our hillsides is real and could open up additional development opportunities. This road is not necessary for the development of the Green property; is necessary for the development of a very few lots on the Green property as compared to the entire project. In regard to Mr. Hogan's concerns he would side with him on some concerns, but does not feel it is necessary to open the EIR. However, the impacts are significant enough to reject the applicant's request. 22. Chairman Robbins stated this was brought to th'em because the applicants were unable to resolve the problem. He agrees that putting the Commission in the middle of a dispute between two developers is not good. This is a small portion of the project and should not make or break the project. In regard to the environmental issues, he wants to make it clear that he finds the tactics of the Center for Biological Diversity deplorable to him. They are trying to blackmail an entire project over a relatively small change and if they truly feel that there is new evidence or changed conditions, then they should file a lawsuit and challenge the entire EIR. If there are going to be impacts to the sheep, the impacts are there whether or not the road is part of the project. Tying their reasons to the road is just a basic no growth issue. If'this was the only issue he would be voting for the amendment to the EIR. 23. Commissioner Butler stated he would not want to have the road approved just for purpose of developing the ten lots, but the project was originally approved with the ten lots and the assumption that those ten lots would be accessible. Now we have another issue being raised in that if they do not approve the ten lots, or access to them, are they opening themselves up to another G:\WPDOCS\PC5-8-O l'.wpd -- Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 problem by denying this project the value of those properties? If they deny the road and they land lock the developer are they denying something they have already approved. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the original Conditions of Approval allows them to develop the ten lots with access through The Quarry which does not land lock these lots, if they can work out a deal. They have an easement and it is an issue of how much they want to pay. If this is not approved the original approvals and conditions still govern this project. 24. Commissioner Kirk asked if this would be a "taking" if denied. Assistant City Attorney Ramirez stated no. The parcels have access. They have legal rights. They have an easement. The prior condition was worded in such a way that it was an agreement to agree. On an inverse condemnation claim, we do not have a denial of use, nor do we have any sort of land lock situation. What is being discussed here is the valuation of this cost sharing. Although he has not had the opportunity to analyze - the issue, his view is that there is no inverse liability for purposes of land lock issue. 25. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Assistant City Attorney had any concerns regarding Commissioner Butler's suggestion. Assistant City Attorney Ramirez stated he did, but unfortunately he would not be able to articulate on them in light of not being able to look at the original condition. His view is that there is an opportunity prior to the City Council hearing for staff to look at it as to whether or not we have a denial and appeal by the applicant or that condition is imposed and it goes to the City Council. 26. Commissioner Butler stated that based on what he has heard from staff, he would not even propose the condition. 27. Chairman Robbins asked if the Commission determined to not allow the road, would they then not approve the Amendment to the EIR, Conditional Use Permit, or Specific Plan. If the Parcel Map was a lettered lot they would have to deny all the applications. Staff stated the Parcel Map could be conditioned to remove the lettered lots which would remove the road. Discussion followed regarding the Parcel Map. 28. Commissioner Kirk stated he assumed the major motivation for the Parcel Map was to sell off the lots. G :\WPDOCS\PC 5-8-01.wpd ~} Planning Commission Minutes - May 8, 2001 29. Chairman Robbins stated the Parcel Map is motivated to sell lots off for development. 30. Commissioner Kirk stated that the circulation pattern had been changed to accommodate the road and he was not sure that was the best circulation pattern if the road was not approved. He asked if there was a parcel map presently on the project. Staff stated this Parcel. Map defines the toe of slope to divide the hillside area from the developable land and also includes the road. 31. Chairman Robbins stated it appears there is some benefit in approving the parcel map. 32. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Addendum was denied, could they approve the parcel map. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated,yes, if the road was removed the parcel map would comply with the original Specific Plan approvals. 33. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-058 denying certification of an Addendum to Environmental Impact Report 94-287. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 34. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-059, denying Conditional Use Permit 99-047. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 35. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-060, denying approval of Specific Plan 94-025, Amendment #1. a. Remove any conditions that pertain to the access road. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, TYler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC5-8-01 .wpd ! 0 -- Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 36. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-061, recommending approval of Parcel Map 28610, as amended. a. Lot "B" road shall be deleted. b. Condition //29: Stormwater falling on land developed for beneficial use, including common areas and roadways, during the peak 24-hour period of a 100 year storm shall be retained on site. The tributary area for which the developer is responsible shall extend to the centerline of the adjacent public streets. Storm water falling on undeveloped land dedicated as natural open space shall continue to drain into its historical drainage course. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. -- B. Conditional Use Permit 2001-059; a request of Sprint PCS Imperial Irrigation District for the installation of telecommunication apparatus to be located on an existing 100 foot high tower at 81-600 Avenue 58. 1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of.which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if the tower was already 100 feet in height. Staff stated yes and it was setback on the site. 3. There being no further questions nor any other public comment, Chairman Robbins closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the issue for Commission discussion. 4. Commissioner Butler asked if the Imperial Irrigation District (liD) tower was available to be shared and if liD agreed. Staff clarified that liD was aware, signed the application, and approved of the use of the tower. -- 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-062 approving Conditional Use Permit 2001-059, as recommended. G:\WPDOCS\PC5-8-01 .wpd ]- ] Planning Commission Minutes - May 8, 2001 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. C. Site Development Permit 2001-701 - Eagles Bend; a request of CRV La Quinta 70, LLC, Peter Bilicki for review of architectural plans for two new prototype residential units with three facades each to be located at the northwest corner of Bellerive and Winged Foot within PGA West. 1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if the reference to a five foot sideyard setback was specified in the PGA West Specific Plan. Staff stated it was correct per the Specific Plan and the Zoning Code. Commissioner Tyler questioned Condition #2, as it appeared to be missing something. Should it not say it would expire unless the work is started before the expiration date. Staff stated they would reword the condition to be more clear. Commissioner Tyler questioned Condition #4 where staff has conditioned the project for less than what the applicant is proposing. If they are willing to provide more than required, it should be recognized. Staff would modify the condition to reflect the applicant's request. 3. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Peter Bilicki, the applicant, stated this would be in-fill project that would finish out this community. 4. Commissioner Kirk questioned the purpose of the recess for the garage door on Plan 2B & 2C. Mr. Bilicki stated it was to break up and relieve the facade instead of having a traditional flat wall. It creates a shadowing effect and undulates back and forth. 5. There being no further public comment, Chairman Robbins closed the public participation portion of the hearing and asked if there was any Commission discussion. 6. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-063 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-701, as submitted. G:\WPDOCS\PC5-8-01.wpd ! 2 Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 a. Condition #4A. and B deleted. b. Condition #2 add language regarding expiration. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VII. BUSINESS ITEM: A. Site Development Permit 2001-704- The Estates; a request of Estates 18 LLC, Peter Bilicki for review of an 18 lot development of two prototypes with three and two facade treatments, respectively, and landscape design plans for property located along Peninsula Lane within PGA West. 1. Chairman Robbins asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. There being no questions of staff, or the applicant, and no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Minute Motion 2001-010 approving Site Development Permit 2001-704 as recommended. Unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED: D. Tentative Tract Map 30136; a request of SRHI, LLC (Reilly Homes) for a for review of a subdivision of 18.94 acres into 62 single family and. other miscellaneous lots located on the east side of Madison Street, abutting both sides of Legends Way and west of Mountain View within PGA West. 1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. There were any questions of staff, Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Scott McCann, representing the developer, stated they accepted the conditions as proposed and was available for any questions. G:\WPDOCS\PC5-8-OI.wpd ] ~' Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 3. There being no questions of the applicant, nor any other public comment, Chairman Robbins closed the public participation portion of the hearing and asked if there was any Commission discussion. 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-064 recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 301 36, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES' Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. E. Site Development Permit 2001-693; a request of JR Properties for The 99¢ Stores, for review of architectural and landscaping plans for a shopping center to include a 23,00 square foot commercial store located at northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Highway 111. 1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa stated the applicant had requested a continuance to May 22, 2001. 2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to continue Site Development Permit 2001-696, to May 22, 2001. Unanimously approved. F. Addendum to Environmental Assessment //41, General Plan Amendment 2001-078, Zone Change 2001-101, Specific Plan 121-E Amendment//5, Site Development Permit 2001-703 and Tentative Tract Map 301 25; a request of KSL Land Development for, 1) certification of an Addendum to an Environmental Impact Report; 2) a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Change to change lands currently designated as Tourist Commercial to Low Density Residential; 3) a Specific Plan Amendment establishing development standards and design guidelines for the construction of 65 single family homes, a clubhouse, and amendment of the landscaping plant palette; and 4) development plans for the model hOmeS and subdivision of 17.82 acres into 65 single family and miscellaneous lots to be located on the southeast corner of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50. 1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked if there was any public comment. G:\WPDOCS\PC5-8-01 .wpd ] 4 Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 2. Mr. David Erwin, representing the La Quinta Country Club, stated he has read the staff report and it appears that most of his concerns are addressed. Their concerns are that the minimum standards for lot size are met. He sees no reason to reduce the lot size. He also requests that they ensure that all traffic concerns are addressed and the walls along Avenue 50 be compatible with the adjacent wall that it is in effect extending. He spoke with Mr. Hobbs, the developer of the houses, and it is his understanding that the size of the houses will be'a minimum of 2,500 square feet, which is relatively compatible with the existing homes and he would like to have this included in the conditions. 3. Commissioner Butler asked for clarification on a question raised by the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee in regard to the wall. Staff stated they were referencing a power wall used for interior courtyards. 4. Commissioner Tyler questioned the ten foot wall between the '- homes. 5. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio informed the Commission that a request had been received to continue this item to May 22, 2001, and these questions could be addressed at that time. 6. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to continue the applications to May 22, 2001, as requested by the applicant. G. Environmental Assessment 2001-421. General Plan Amendment 2000- 073, Specific Plan 84-004 Amendment//4, Tentative Parcel Map 20469 Amendment, and Tentative Tract Map Amendments to 25154. 27835, 27840, 27952, 28343, 28640, 28912, 29043, 29283, and 29457; a request of Watson and Watson Engineering and Forrest Haag, ASLA, Incorporated for 1) Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; 2) General Plan Amendment to modify Chapter 7, Policy. 7-1.4.3 of the Infrastructure and Public Services Element to allow an exemption to the undergrouding of utility lines that are attached to joint-use 92 KV transmission lines; 3) Amendment//4 to Specific Plan 84-004 to establish new guidelines and standards for overhead utility lines, undergounding, and adding five acres to the 718 acre master planned community of 1,300 residential units oriented around two 18- hole golf courses; 4) a request to amend the Conditions of Approval for Parcel Maps and Tract Maps to eliminate the undergrounding of overhead G:\WPDOCS\PC5-8-01 .wpd ] 5 Planning Commission Minutes - May 8, 2001 utility lines on 92 KV transmission lines and; and 5) amending Tract 29457 to subdivide 283 acres into 265 residential and other common lots to be located south of Avenue 48, north of Avenue 50, west of Jefferson Street, and east of Washington Street within Rancho La Quinta Country Club. 1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. 2. Commissioner Tyler asked if this request had been approved by Council and this was "clean up" work. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the City Council had approved a request by Lundin to not underground their utilities at the corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50. At that time Council stated others could apply for the same relief and this developer is doing so. This allows staff to clean up the General Plan and development regulations to allow this to happen. Commissioner Tyler asked if the First School of the Desert received the same approval. Staff stated that was correct. A precedent was set but these tracts have not been approved. 3. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 4. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler questioned the different numbers used for kilovolts and where did they come from. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated Edison uses 66 KV and Imperial Irrigation District (liD) uses 92 KV. In staff's discussions with liD several years ago, they indicated they had capabilities of undergrounding anything below 34.5 KV, so staff used that number. Although they have nothing approaching that range, staff still used that number in case things changed. Commissioner Tyler stated that if the General Plan is to be changed, the 34.5 KV number should be used for consistency. 5. Commissioner Butler asked how the cost for undergrounding was determined. Staff stated ventilation would be required and lid did not have the equipment to maintain that type facility as it is extremely expensive. Commissioner Butler stated the cost would be passed onto the developer of each project until it. was all G:\WPDOCS\PC5-8-OI.wpd ! 6 Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 completed, so that from a practical standpoint, he does not see it ever happening anyway. Staff stated this is what they understood for a long time until they learned it could be done but it is very expensive and in addition to the developer paying those costs, liD would then need to upgrade their equipment to maintain it. 6. Commissioner Abels asked staff to explain the uses on the poles. Staff explained that these are joint use poles that have cable TV, telephone lines, 22.5 KV and the top line is 92 KV. What this condition allows is that since all the poles could not come down, staff is agreeing to leave everything on the pole. 7. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Forrest Haag, representing the applicant, stated he had questions on the conditions for the Specific Plan. Condition//53 is asking for a five foot lawn setback and should be 18 inches and Condition #68 in regard to the Fringe-Toed Lizard fee. As this property is within the Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat Mitigation area it is already required to pay its fee. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that due to the State Fish and Game Department not agreeing to the Agreement, the applicant is now required to do a 1603 Permit which calls for the biological study in addition to paying the fee. Discussion followed regarding the fee and study. 8. Commissioner Tyler asked what was proposed on the new five acre acquisition where it shows a 30-foot strip of land running down to Avenue 50. Mr. Haag stated it was an access easement that he understood was being abandoned and was being negotiated and may go away. 9. Commissioner Kirk stated the Fish and Game issue is a concern to him and asked if the City has to enforce the condition. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the applicant is the one responsible and ultimately would be paying the fine. Staff could remove the condition and it would be up to the applicant to comply with Fish and Game requirements. 10. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Robbins closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the issue for discussion. 11. · Commissioner Tyler stated the requirement to underground all the perimeter wires has been a condition since 1984, and obviously the developer has bonded for it and passed that. cost on to the G:\WPDOCS\PC5-8-O 1.wpd ]'7 Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 home buyers and now it becomes a profit windfall to the developer. If the Council wants it done later an assessment would be placed on the home buyer a second time. It seems intuitively wrong to grant this condition without some mitigation on the part of the developer. As far as the technology available, you just have to go to the City of Indian Wells and you do not see any power lines anywhere. It can be done even if it is costly. Discussion followed as to the history of undergrouding of lines. 12. Chairman Robbins noted some errors in the conditions and he wasn't sure whether they were relevant or not. Throughout most of the conditions there are requirements that are contrary to where the City has been trying to go in regard to the use of turf grass. Community Development Director Jerry Herman pointed out that all the tracts have been developed except for the new five acre tract before them. Chairman Robbins went over the conditions that needed to be corrected or changed. He pointed out that this project has the ability to use canal water for irrigation purposes but has chosen over the years to use very minimal amount of canal water. This may be an opportunity to require them to use additional canal water in lieu of ground water since this is back before the Commission for review. 13. Commissioner Tyler stated it was his understanding that the Commission was only to address the conditions on the new five acre site and the power lines. 14. Chairman Robbins stated that if it comes back to the Commission, they can reopen any part of the tract. Assistant City Attorney Ramirez stated he did not have all the background on these tracts, but as these tracts have been built they are vested and therefore, not all the conditions can be opened up. 15. Commissioner Kirk asked that if they are opening up the conditions, can't the Commission require changes in any area such as the landscaping. Assistant City Attorney Ramirez stated they could deal with specific conditions item by item. He asked what condition specifically would deal with the canal water. 16. Chairman Robbins stated the condition should be the same as what is being required of new golf courses which is that the primary source of irrigation water for the golf courses shall be canal water. The project has the ability to take canal water and G:\WPDOCS\PC5-8-01 .wpd ] ~ Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 has chosen not to do this. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified that the golf courses are built. Chairman Robbins stated they have the ability to use canal water right now without requiring any construction. This would only require a change in the way they operate the golf course: 1 7. Mr. Lloyd Watson, engineer for project, stated they do take canal water into the project for irrigating the golf course and they are in the process of upgrading that delivery. CVWD is installing a new water line in to Jefferson Street which will allow them to use even more, , 18. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant was willing to have a condition imposed that the primary source of irrigation water for the golf course shall be canal water. This would be at least 51% of the water use for irrigating the golf course would be water from the canal system and not the ground water. Mr. Watson stated they are currently taking whatever water CVWD can deliver to them. 19. Commissioner Kirk suggested the condition read 51% or the maximum amount CVWD can deliver. 20. Mr. Grady Sparks, representing Rancho La Quinta, stated he would like to explore this option, but it is his understanding that they were themselves moving toward this. Years back they were asked to mix their water usage which they have been doing. There are one or two months out of the year that you need to mix the water. It is more economical to use the canal water, but not having all the details or his agreement with CVWD before him at this meeting, he would like to take this under advisement to review the economics of this requirement. There has been problems with water delivery due to the street widening project on Jefferson Street. It is not that CVWD does not have it, it is just that during the construction and CVWD making their changes during the Jefferson Street construction. They have canal water as a primary source to their irrigation lakes on both golf courses. He would have no problem doing this on a voluntary basis, but would like to have time to address this. If there is a problem, they could raise it at the City Council. G:\WPDOCS\PCS-8-OI.wpd ] ~) Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 21. Commissioner Kirk asked if a blanket condition could be used that wherever applicable to all the tracts, a condition would be added requiring the primary source of water be canal, water. Staff suggested this be added to the Specific Plan which would address the entire site. 22. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-065 recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-421, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 23. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-066, recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 2000-073, as amended. a. General Plan Policy 7-1.4.3 amended as follows: The City shall require the undergrounding of all existing and proposed overhead electric lines, less than 34.5 kilovolts, to enhance the visual quality of the City. All existing utility lines attached and parallel to joint-use 92 Kv transmission power poles are exempt from undergrounding requirement. Should undergrounding costs become economically feasible in the future for high voltage transmission lines, the City, in conjunction with other public and private property owners, shall explore ways to remove the overhead lines from Image Corridors through such methods as an assessment district, etc. Until removal can take place vertical landscaping shall be installed outside the utility easement corridor to screen the power poles and guyed wires pursuant to the policies prescribed in Chapter 2 (Circulation Element) of the General Plan. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: Commissioner Tyler. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 24. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-067, recommending approval of Specific Plan 84-004, Amendment #4, as amended. G :\WPDOC S\PC 5-8-01. wpd 20 Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 b. Add Condition relative to 51% of the pr!mary water source, or whatever CVWD can deliver, shall be canal water for the golf course. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 25. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-068, recommending approval of an Amendment to Tract Map 29457, as recommended. a. Condition #13: The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to Avenue 48 and Jefferson Street entryway aligned with Avenue 49. Vacation of abutter's rights do not apply to CVWD for well sites. b. Condition #32: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the maximum pad elevation for the following lots shall be: Lot 259 45.6 feet Lot 260 46.4 feet Lot 261 47.1 feet Lot 262 48.0 feet Lot 263 48.7 feet Lot 264 49.2 feet Lot 265 49.8 feet ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 26. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-069, recommending approval of an Amendment to Tract Map 27952 and Tract 27952 Amendment #1, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. G :\WPDOCS\PC 5-8-01.wpd 2 ] Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 27. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-070, recommending approval of an Amendment to Parcel Map 20469 as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 28. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-071, recommending approval of an Amendment to Tract Map 27840, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 29. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-072, recommending approval of an Amendment to Tract Map 28343, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 30. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-073, recommending approval of an Amendment to Tract Map 28640, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 31. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-074, recommending approval of an Amendment to Tract Map 28912, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. ~\WPDOCS\PC5-8-01 .wpd 22 Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 32. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-075, recommending approval of an Amendment to Tract Map 27835, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 33. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-076, recommending approval of an Amendment to Tract Map 29306, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 34. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-077, recommending approval of an Amendment to Tract Map 25154, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 35. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-078, recommending approval of an Amendment to Tract Map 29283, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. - VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of May 1 2001. Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 32. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-075, recommending approval of an Amendment to Tract Map 27835, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 33. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-076, recommending approval of an Amendment to Tract Map 29306, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 34. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt - Planning Commission Resolution 2001-077, recommending approval of an Amendment to Tract Map 25154, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins.. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 35. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-078, recommending approval of an Amendment to Tract Map 29283, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. . Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of May 1 2001. G L~ _W.P D O C_ S\PC 5._-_8- 01. w pd 2 3 Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2001 IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held May 22, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. on May 8, 2001. Respectfully submitted, .. / e' B~4~ty~wyer, xecu ' Secretary City of la Quinta, California G;\WPDOCS\PCS-8-O 1.wpd 24