Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA 04-81 PARKING STANDARDS 1981 ORDINANCE N0. 264 ijr\l 7 0 1991 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF,N;,, OMIL;,;,AL SFfi•JJcrs PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENTCrY of PALM Dtsen TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT, RELATIVE TO CITY PARKING STANDARDS. CASE NO. ZOA 04-81 . WHEREAS, THE City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the llth day of June, 1981 , hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, to consider an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Zoning Ordinance Amendment 04-81 , relating to City Parking Standards; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by Resolution No. 714 has recommended approval ; and, WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality , Act, Resolution No. 80-89" , in that the Director of Environmental Services has determined that the proposed revisions constitute a minor revision in the Land; Use regulations and are therefore categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testi- mony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to approve a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment: 1 . That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan. 3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public health, safety, and general wel- fare, than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE City Council of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the considerations of the Council in this case. 2. That it does hereby approve a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, as provided in the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit "A" , to amend Municipal Code Section 25.58 by amending Sections 25.58.020, 25.58.030, 25.58.310 and adding Sections 25.58.030 and 25.58.311 . 3. The City Clerk .is directed to publish this Ordinance once in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, and shall certify to the passage of adop- tion of this Ordinance, and the same shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert ORDINANCE NO. 264 PAGE TWO City Council , held on this 25th day of June 1981 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: McPherson, Newbrander, Puluqi , Snyder & Wilson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None S. �WI � , Mayor ATTEST: r _ l SHEILA R. GILL , City ClVkj City of Palm Desert, Cali 101a /pa J ORDINANCE N0. 264 PAGE THREE EXHIBIT "A" 1 . Amend Section 25.58.020 by adding: "except as otherwise provided in this chapter". 2. Amend Section 25.58.030 to read: "When the use of any premises is changed, altered, enlarged, expanded or intensified so additional parking is required, the additional parking to meet the requirements of this chapter shall be provided for the changed, enlarged, expanded, altered or intensified portion of the occupancy or use, except as otherwise� Srpvided in this chapter" . .n35 „ 3. Add Section 25.58.0361 Paseo Area Changes in Use. Within the area bounded by Larkspur Lane on the west; by Portola Avenue on the east; by Palm Desert Drive on the north and E1 Paseo Drive on the south, retail commercial or office uses having a minimum required parking ratio of one stall per 250 square feet of gross floor area shall be permitted as replace- ment for any vacated use and the provisions of Sections 25.58.020 and 25.58.030 shall not apply" . 4. Amend portions of Sections 25.58.310 to read as follows: Food store, supermarket, or 1 for each 200 square feet of drugstore containing over gross floor area. 2000 square feet of gross floor area. Beauty Parlor 2 per station plus 2 Plant nursery with outdoor 1 for each 250 square feet of sales and display excluding gross building area, excluding greenhouses. greenhouses, and 1 for each 500 square feet of outdoor dis- play and greenhouse area. 5. Add "Section 25.58.311 - Conditional Use Permit Required: A. All uses within the C-1 zone requiring .a greater than 1 space per 250 square feet parking stall to floor area ratio shall be required to acquire a Conditional Use Permit as set forth in Section 25.72 of this title. B. As part of said Conditional Use Permit the Commission may modify the parking requirements for said use. In modifying such requirements the Commission shall consider: 1 . The parking demand generated by said use in relation to other uses in the area. 2. The hours of operation of said use in relation to the hours of operation of other uses in the area. 3. The relationship of the type of use to other uses in the area. 4. Any other factor the Commission might deem necessary in making its decision". J CITY OF PALM DESERT TRANSMITTAL LETTER I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Consideration of change in City parking requirements. III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert IV. CASE NO: ZOA 04-81 V. DATE: June 11 , 1981 . VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation. B. Discussion. C. Draft Ordinance No. D. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. ZOA 04-81 . E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 714. F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 20, 1981 . G. Related maps and/or exhibits. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive further reading anal pass to second reading. B. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission at its meeting of April 15, 1981 , considered a report on proposed parking regulation amendments and referred the matter back to Staff to investigate whether the current regulations discourage people from improving existing buildings. Also under consideration was the issue of whether the City should permit as a matter of right, Retail Commercial or Office Uses to replace any vacated use throughout the City. The Planning Commission at its May 20, 1981 meeting, concurred with the Staff position that the proposal requiring only additional parking for the expansion of an existing legal non-conforming was equitable. A property owner will be required to provide added parking only for the floor area added to the building, also the Planning Commission agreed that the provision allowing Retail Commercial and Offices to replace vacated uses, should only apply to the area between Larkspur Lane, Por- tola Avenue, Palm Desert Drive and E1 Paseo. It was felt that Parking problems in other areas of the City should have solutions designed specifically for their unique situation. The Planning Commission reviewed the Staff prepared Resolution which was contained in the April 15, 1981 staff report. There was no audience participation and following discussion by the Planning Commission members, the Commission moved to approve the amendments to the parking regulations. The motion was approved unanimously. (5-0). Attached is a draft Ordinance which is based upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission. r - lei 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 May 22, 1981 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE INITIATION BY THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATIVE TO PARK- ING STANDARDS. CASE NO. ZOA 04-81 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 25.58, regarding City Parking Standards initiated by the Palm Desert Planning Commission. SAID Public Hearing will be held on June 11, 1981, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall , 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California PUBLISH: Palm Desert Post May 28, 1981 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 20, 1981 Page Three VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont. ) Commissioner Kryder was concerned for a possible blowsand problem. Mr. Arbuckle assured him that it would be considered during development. Chairman Miller asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. MR. WILLIAM STEVENS, owner of Del Safari Country Club, stated that area "F" was across from him and asked that the residential density be kept to a maximum of 3 d.u./acre. MR. DONALD PAGLASEY, property owner, asked about the proposed flood control channel . Mr. McClellan stated there was no design for the channel but that the Master Drainage Plan showed a need for a regional flood control facility, which would drain from Rancho Mirage to the northwest. Mr. Eric Vogt, Fire Marshal , noted that this area was not within the 5 minute response time and asked that it be included to_ contribute to the new fire facility in that area. Chairman Miller closed the Public Hearing. Motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner McLachlan to recommend approval to .the City Council of this case as submitted by staff by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. . 713. Carried unanimously (5-0) . C. ontinued Case No. ZOA 04-81 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant, Request for consideration of parking regulations. Mr. Diaz presented this case stating that previously Commission had expressed concern of whether current regulations discouraged people from improving existing buildings. Staff recommended that any use vacated be allowed to be replaced by a retail commercial use in the President's Plaza area. He explained why this could not be allowed in other areas. He indicated another concern was expansion of a use. He pointed out that staff's recommendation would be to require additional parking only when the use in the building is intensified. He pointed out that the north side of Hwy 111 would have to have specific regulations for that area because of a number of legal nonconforming uses. Staff recommended approval . Commissioners Kryder and Richards asked why the north side would be treated differently. Mr. Diaz explained that there are many uses there that are legal nonconforming and that the opportunity was also there for acquiring parcels of land for parking. Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the Public Hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, to recommend approval to the City Council by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 714. Carried unanimously (5-0). D. Continued Case No. PM 17452 - ARLE CORPORATION (CHARLES GIBBS) and RON MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, Applicants Request for approval of a Tentative Parcel Map, to allow the creation of industrial lots within the S. I. , S.P. (service Industrial , Scenic Preservation Overlay) and O.S. (Open Space) zone, located at the southwest corner of Hovley Lane and Cook Street. Mr. Diaz presented this case stating that the applicant requested a continuance to June 2, 1981 , because of possible amendments to the map. Staff concurred with the requested continuance with consideration given to several concerns. CITY OF PALM DESERT STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission From: Department of Environmental Services Subject: Proposed Parking Regulation Amendments Case No: ZOA 04-81 Date: May 20, 1981 The Planning Commission at its meeting of April 15, 1981 , requested that Staff further investigate the question of whether current regulations discourage people from improving existing buildings. The staff indicated in that report, that they were not aware of any persons being discouraged from improving his property by the City' s parking regulations. The Commission pointed out to Staff instances where this had occurred. In further examining this issue, Staff believes that the proposal requiring only additional parking for the expansion of an existing legal non-conforming site is equitable. Under this provision a property owner would only be required to provide added parking to cover the added area to the building. To permit a person to expand their building area even if the expansion improves their building would be unfair, and in the long term would be counter-productive. The other issue the Commission wished examined was to allow "Retail Commercial , or Office Uses having a minimum parking ratio of one stall per 250 square feet of gross floor area" , to replace any vacated use as a matter of right through- out the City. In the present proposal , this would be permitted only in the area between Larkspur Lane, Portola Avenue, Palm Desert Drive and El Paseo. Staff would not recommend expanding this provision citywide. The reasons for this are: 1 . The area presently being proposed for this revision has certain unique characteristics not found in other Commercial areas. Among these are: a. A unified shared parking area. b. No method for an individual owner to provide added on-site parking. c. No land available to enable a parking district to create additional parking. 2. The problems in other areas should have solutions designed specifically for their unique situation. 3. Within the El Paseo area, expansion of existing buildings is not being permitted. 4. Lack of parking has not precluded replacement of existing tenants and has not been a problem in the past in other areas. STAFF: RECOMMENDATION: Staff would therefore recommend to the Planning Commission the Parking revisions as set forth in the Staff Report of April 15, 1981 :_ Attachment: Staff Report April 15, 1981 and Resolution. �r FINISHED AGENDA PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 15, 1981 PAGE TWO VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUED) C. Case Nos. C/Z 02-81 , DP 02-81 , DP 03-81 , TT 15633, and PM 17474 - SUNRISE COMPANY and ENGINEERING SERVICE CORPORATION, Applicants. Request for approval of (1 ) a Change of Zone from PC (2) S.P. and P (Public Institution) to PR-4 and PR-4 S.P. , (2) a Development Plan for a 17,500 sq.ft. office building, (3) a Development Plan for a 1 ,650 unit condominium project with recreational facilities, (4) and two Tentative Tract Maps for the 1 ,650 unit condominium project, and (5) a Parcel Map to create two (2) parcels. Staff Recommendation: Recommend approval of C/Z 02-81 , TT 15633 and TT 15640 to the City Council , and approve DP 03-81 and PM 17474, and DP 02-81 . Action: Recommended approval to the City Council of C/Z 02-81, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 697; of TT 15633, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 698; of TT 15640, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 699; and approved DP 02-81 by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 700; of DP 03-81, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 701; and, PM 17474, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 702, subject to conditions. UCase No. ZOA 04-81 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant. Request for .consideration of change in City parking requirements. Staff Recommendation: Recommend to the City Council approval of case No. ZOA 04-81 . Action: Referred back to staff for further study and continued to May 5, 1981. E. Case No. ZOA 05-81 - CITY OF PALM DESERT and RITTER and ASSOCIATES, Applicants. Request for consideration of a.Zoning Ordinance Amendment pertaining to trash bin enclosures. Staff Recommendation: Continue for six (6) months. Action: Continued for six months. F. Case No. ZOA 06-81 - CITY: OF PALM DESERT, Applicant. Request for modification of Time Extension Procedures. Staff Recommendation: Recommend to the City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 06-81 . Action: Recommended approval to the City Council by adoption of P anning Commission Resolution No. 703. CITY OF PALM DESERT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Director of Environmental Services SUBJECT: Amendment__ Z�0`-81, Change in City Parking Regulation DATE: April 15, 1981 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The Planning Commission at its regular meeting of February 3, 1981, received a proposed amendment to the City's parking regulations. The Commission at that time instructed staff to examine: 1. The proposed revisions to veterinary hospitals and clinics. 2. Examine present provisions that might discourage persons from improving their property. Staff, at this time, would concur with the initial Commission recommendation that the parking requirements for veterinary clinics not be changed. Further examination has disclosed a tendency to have a quicker parking turnover than in most medical facilities, thus, warranting a lesser parking requirement. The second item of Commission concern is more complicated. Do current parking regu- lations discourage an owner from improving their building? Staff is not aware of any person discouraged from improving his property by the City's parking regulations. Current regulations require that a property owner expanding his building install sufficient parking to accommodate the area of expansion. A property owner may also intensify the uses within his building if he can provide additional parking to accommodate the intensification. , The only time that staff could envision a problem is in a situation similar to that discribed on pages four and five of the staff report of January 8, 1981. One way to avoid this situation is to amend the Code, Section 25.58.030, to require additional parking only when the use in the building is intensified; the section would read: "When the use of any premises is changed, altered, enlarged, expanded or intensified so additional parking is required, the additional parking to meet the requirements of this chapter shall be provided for the changed, enlarged, expanded, altered or intensified portion of the occupancy or use. " This change would permit the owner of a legal nonconforming building to replace the uses on his premises with uses of the same intensity without being required to provide additional parking. Staff would recommend that this alteration be implemented. Staff would not recommend, at this time, that property owners be permitted to intensify the usage of any premises without providing additional parking. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, recommending to the City Council adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 04-81 relating to City Parking Standards. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOP- TION OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO CITY PARKING STANDARDS. CASE NO. ZOA 04-81 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, III on the 15th day of April , 1981, hold a duly noticed public hearing on proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment 04-81, relating to City Parking Standards; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at said hearing did consider all relevant testimony on this matter; WHEREAS, studies and investigations, carried on behalf of the Planning Commission, disclosed that: 1. Current City parking regulations should be modified to reflect differences between specialty food stores and supermarkets; 2. The E1 Paseo area has unique problems identified in the staff report dated January 8, 1981. 3. These unique problems necessitate certain code revisions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. 4. Some method outside of the variance procedure must be established to examine those uses with parking demands greater than 1 space per 250 square feet of floor area ratio; and, WHEREAS, said Ordinance revision constitutes a minor alteration in land use regulation and is therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements of the Calif- ornia Environmental Quality Act. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert recommends to the City Council adoption of proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment 04-81 relating to City Parking Regulations and attached hereto as Exhibit "A" PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert at its meeting of the 15th day of April , 1981, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CHARLES MILLER, Chairman LATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /lr i i „ •uoLSL3ap s41 6uLIew uL FaeS583aU wasp 446Lw uoLSSLwwoO a44 ao4oe} aa44o Futl 'b •eaae a44 uL sasn aa44o og asn So adl4 ay4 So dLysuOL4eLaa ayl '£ 'eaae ay4 uL sasn aa44o So uOL4eaado So sanoy a44 04 uo14eLaa uL asn PCPs 30 uoL4eaado So sanoy a4l 'Z •eaae 944 uL sasn aa44o 04 uoLMaa uL asn ples !q pa4eaaua6 puewap 6uLjaed ayl 'i :aaVsuo3 LLe4s uoLssLwwoO a44 s4uaw -aaLnbaa 43ns 6uLkSIpow uI -asn pies JOS s4u8waaLnbaa 6uL)aed ay4 L';Lpow few uoLssLwwoO a44 4Lwaad asn LeuoL4Lpuo3 pies So 4aed stl •8 'aL464 SL4g do ZL'SZ uoL43aS uL 4gaoj ;as se 41waad asn LeuoLglpuo3 a aaLnboe og paaLnbaa aq LLeys oL4ea MAE? aooLJ 04 LLe4s 6uL�aed 4a94 aaenbs OSZ aad aoeds I ue4g aa4eaa6 a 6uLJLnbaa auoZ I-O a44 UL441M sasn LLtl tl :pawn ab 4Lwaad asn LeuoL4LpuoO - II£'85'9Z uoL43aS PPtl S eaae asnoquaaa6 pue XPLdsLp aooP4no So 4aaj aaenbs 009 43ea JOS i pup `sasno000a6 6ulpnLoxa `eaae 6uLpLLnq ssoa6 sasno4uaaa6 So 4aa} aaenbs OSZ 43ea JOS I 6uLpnL3xa RP LdsLp pup saLes aooP4no 44Lm Saasanu 4ueLd Z snld uoL4e4s aad Z aoLaed L'4neaq eaae aooLS ssoa6 40 eaae aooLj gaa3 aaenbs OOZ 43ea JOS I ssoa6 So 4aaj aaenbs OOOZ aano 6uLuLe4u03 aao4s6nap ao `4alaewaadns `aao4s poo3 :smOLLOJ se peaa 04 OI£'89 'SZ suoL43aS 10 SuoL4aod puawtl q „ •RLdde 4ou LLe4s 0£O'85'SZ pUe OZO'8S'SZ SuoL4oaS ;o SuoLSLnoad a44 pup asn p94e3en Sue JOS 4uawaoeLdaa se pa44Lwaad aq LLeys eaae ,aooL4 ssoa6 So 4aa} aaenbs OSZ aad LLe4s auo 10 oL4ea 6uLlaed paaLnbaa wnwLuLw a 6uLney sasn a3LJ40 JO LeL3aawwo3 LLe4aa `4gnos ayg uo anLaO oased L3 Pup 44aou a44 uo anLaO 4aasaO wLed fiq !4sea aq; uo anuanb eLogaod Rg !4sam a44 uo aueg ands�aeg Rq papunoq eaae ayg uLygLm -asn uL sa ue40 eaatl oased L3 i£O'85'SZ uoL43aS„ pptl £ „ •aa4deyo sL44 uL papLnoad BSLmaa440 se 4daoxa `asn ao X3uedn330 a44 3o uoL4aod p8LJLsu04uL ao pa.aa4Le `papuedxa `pa6aeLua `pa6ue43 a44 JOS papLnoad aq LLe4s aa4dego sL44 }o 1 S4uawaaLnbaa a44 4aaw og buLlaed LeuogLppe a44`paaLnbaa sL 6uL3aed LeuoL4Lppe os pat*LSua4uL Jo* papuadxa J `pa6aeLua `paaa4Le `pa6uey3 SL saSLwaad X'ue So asn a44 ua ft, :peaa 04 0£0'85'SZ uOL40aS puawtl z „aa4dey3 sLy4 uL papinoad asLmaa44o se 4da3xa„ :6uLppe Xq 0Z0•89•SZ uotg3aS puawtl •I ,,tl,, EMU Oml 06ed 'ON NOI MOS32 NOISSIWWOO 9NINNVId CITY OF PALM DESERT TO: CITY MANAGER AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUBJECT: PARK STUDY REPORT DATE: JANUARY 8, 1981 Purpose: The intent of this report is to analyze the parking situation between Larkspur and Portola, Palm Desert Drive and E1 Pasec, and suggest alternative approaches to the problem. The problem is resolving the issues of what uses should be permitted in vacant facilities and what expansion should be permitted in the area. The problem has come to light as a result of inquiries by property owners desiring to expand their existing buildings, and a request to replace a former dress shop with a delicatessen (see attached letter from Mr. Hammond) . Existing City code and policy requirements do not lend themselves to easy resolution of these issues. The above described area of E1 Paseo presently does not meet code required parking, but it should be pointed out that in looking at the entire area it never did. While individual property owners may have met our parking requirements as an entire commercial area, it has always been deficient by our standards. It should also be made clear that the City's redevelopment activity has reduced the shortage and improved the parking efficiency of that area. The required parking between Portola and Larkspur, north side of El Paseo and Palm Desert Drive, is about 1012 based on 253,000 square feet of commercial area with a general retail parking ratio of 1 space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. The amount of off-street parking (excluding the Frontage Road) provided is 606; the Frontage Road in that area is approximately 110 spaces. The report will first attempt to give a historical perspective; secondly, examine the City's parking and related codes; and finally, discuss alternative solutions and recommend a course of action designed to address the issues at hand. I. HISTORY In 1975 Palm Desert adopted a redevelopment project area generally bound by the City limits to the east and west; the properties south of E1 Paseo to the south; the properties north of Alessandro to Monterey; and, 44th Avenue, west of Monterey (see attach map) . Among the reasons for selection of the project area were: 1. "Portions of project area include lots fifty feet in width which do not provide sufficient area for adequate on-site, open space, landscaping, or parking availability (lots of inadequate size for proper usefulness)". 2. "Portions of the project area are characterized by a circulation system that is defective in design, and will require alteration to alleviate the present congestion problems and accident hazards (inadequate streets)". 3. "A considerable portion of the project area is characterized by inadequate parking facilities both in numbers of parking spaces available and in their arrangement and accessibility (disuse resulting from faulty planning)". The problems identified then were a shortage of parking, poor circulation access, and an inability to resolve these issues. These concerns, it was felt, would prevent El Paseo from fulfilling its full potential as a viable, well designed, integrated, high quality commercial area. One of the general objectives of the plan was: •OALaO oased L3 ;o aPls y;nos ay; uo papLAoad aq pLnom `oased L3 do y;aou sa6P;aoys Rue ;as;;o o; ° 6uLlaed ;ey; pasodoad upLd ayl '4aasa0 wLPd ;o S;Uaw -aaLnbaa 6ULlaed Ll24aa Lpaaua6 05Z o; I ay; ao eaae aooL; ;o ;;•bs OOOI aad SLLP;s ano; ;o ;uaLPALnba aq pLnom SLyl „•eaae aooL; ;o ;oo; aaenbs auo o; Paae 6UL3apd ;o ;aa; aaenbs g•I ;o (PaPPUe;S) oL;ea LLPaano ue ;aaw o; 6UL3apd 40 UOLSLAoad ayl.. Z •(Pa4SLLdw000P) wa;SRS SPM auo Uo 6uL3aed XlMgLSLA aa;;aq `aa;PS apLAoad pup `6uLIaed ;o ;unowe ay; OSPaaOUL o; speoa a6p4uoa; uo 6uL�apd LUU06PLP,, ;o uoLslnoad ayl L aaam upLd ;e43 ;o sLesodoad AoCew ay; buowy „•padoLanap XLLn; aq o; 4@9 aney g3LyM WON UL 6uLjaPd a;pnbapp aansse o; Sp Ham se 'pane 6ULV ed 6UL4sLxa ;o uoL;ezLLL;n aa4eaa6 apLAoad o; PaU6Ls9p„ aaam upLd 4p43 ;o sLesodoad 6ULIaed ayl '„saL;aadoad a;PALad PUP OLLgnd ;o ;uawdOLanaP ay; uL km ay; pup A'oua6e ;uawdOLanapaa ay; apLn6 o; spaepue;s ;uawdOLanaP LPaaua6 Puawwooab„ o; Pup 6UL)aed ;aaa;S ;;o pue uo ;o UOL;eZa4UL ay; sem ueLd SLy; ;o sasodand ay; 6uowy •eaaae3 o; y;nos PUP OLuo6ao0 UPS o; y;aoU 6ULPu04xa ;sea ay; Uo OLLLagPJ °;sam ay; uo A'aaa;uOW Pup qL A'MH uaam;aq `III RmH 10 sapls y;oq Uo MAP aaOP 911 ay; Uo 6uLsnoo; pa;;Lwgns sPm upLd aay;oue LL6I uI •pa;sLxa A'LsnOLAaad UPy; aauuew PaL;Lun PUP ;UaLOL;;a aaow a uL papLAoad SL 6uL�* aa;eaag 'PanaL402 uaaq aney SueLd ;uawdOLanapaa LL61 PUP 5L61 ay; ;o SOAL;OaCgo pup sLeo6 LLPaano ay; `Pane aooL; Ssoa6 10 •;;•bs 05Z aad LLP4s I ;o OL;Pa a ;e papLAoad uaaq ;ou seq 6UL3apd aLLyM ;ey; pa;ou aq pLnoys ;I •oL;Pa 6uL3aed OSZ o; I P 6ULPLAoad ;o 44Ln3L;;Lp a4; 6uL;Pa4snLLL saan6i; away; aaP ;uawnoop gL6L ay; uL aaaymoN 'FOUa6P ay; a0; PaySLLge;sa aanpaooad aOUPLaPA P seM aaay; ;Las;L wea6oad pa4so6bns ay; UL44LM 'OL;pa 6uLIaed AagbLy P ;e auoLP ;aL ;;•bs 09Z o; aopds I ;o oL;ea P ;P 6ULIapd apLAoad o; pueL ;UaLOL;;ns ;OU SL aaayl •40Paa o; @ M SSoawL SPM ;L ° Lpob aLgou P SPM PaPPUP;S SL4; aLLyM „*RouaSe ay; ;o LPAoadde ua;;LaM aoLad y;Lm pa;ona;suoo aq Sew sLaoaed yons ;o S;UawaaLnbaa pauLq -woo ay; ;aaw o; ;uaLOL;;nS azLS a ;o SLaOaed aaow ao om; ;o asn ;ULOC ay; ao; saL;LLLOe; 6UL�aed •aOUPULPao 6uLuoz S,A;LO ay; ;o SUOLSLAoad a4; y;Lm aouppa000p uL Laoaed yopa ao; spaou 6UL�.Apd LLe a;PPowooOe o; PaPLAoad aq LLeyS 6UL�a2d a;enbape„ :pappUP;S 6ULIaed 6utmOLLo; ay; pauLP4UO3 ;uawnoop SL6I a4l °aoLAaaS o;ne °6ULddoys aOUaLUanuoo 6ULpnLOUL sasn LeLOaaw -woo LLp;aa `s;upanp;saa `suoL;n;L;suL LeLOueUL; `SaOL;;o o; Pa;LwLL aq ;ou ;nq 'apnLOUL LLeys seaap asay; uLy;Lm ;uawdoLanaO„ • •pue LPLOaawwoo Paae aaoo aq o; sem anuany PLO;aod Pup `VL A'mH `oased L3 `LIL 4PMy6LH Sq paaapaoq Paae a41 ,;•A';LO ay; ;o eaaP LPLOaawwoo ay; 40 A';LLLgeLA ay; aouPyua o; pueL PazLLL;naapun ;o ;uawdOLanap pup ;uawdOLanapaa y6noay; eaae ;oaCoad ay; UL44LM uaa;;pd asn pueL ay; ;0 6utua446uaa4s ayl„ oml a6ed T861 `8 AbvnNvc IdOdD AGUS NbVd PARK STUDY REPORT JANUARY 8, 1981 Page Three Since 1977, development along the south side of E1 Paseo and the passage of Proposition 3.3 have seriously encumbered the opportunity to provide additional parking on vacant parcels on the north and south side of E1 Paseo. On the north side of El Paseo, the plan pinpointed a concern "Because of the extent of development in the block between San Luis Re and Portola only one opportunity remains to Y , Y PP Y provide access from E1 Paseo. This opportunity must be preserved as soon as possible to avoid a further and critical reduction of off-street parking within the block below 1 to 1.6 ratio established as the minimum standard for the study area." This opportunity was realized with the Bank of America development. Even if the agency or City were to acquire these existing vacant sites on both the north and south side of El Paseo the 1.6 to 1 parking to floor area ratio will not be met. The 1977 document also called for integrated parking for new construction on the south side of E1 Paseo, which is currently being implemented. The plan also saw an eventual need to expand already existing buildings along E1 Paseo. "The major limitation of current practice" (Where zoning and parking deed restrictions dictate buildable area) is that it has been difficult to achieve continuity in pedestrian walkways, landscaped areas and parking circulatior, .more importantly a continuation of current practice will make it virtually impossible to achieve proposals of the preliminary plans for midblock parking and related pedestrian circulation and landscape improvement". The 1977 plan then recommended the following method of implementation 1. "That the Redevelopment Agency develop all parking within a given block as a single project. 2. As properties proposed for new construction, the Redevelopment Agency would assess the owner for his pro-rata share of development costs based on the percentage which the area of a given building envelope represents the total square feet of building envelope available within the block". This, of course, presents a problem again associated with the agency's ability or inability to secure revenue to initially acquire the site needed for additional parking. There are also serious questions relating to the ability of the agency to recoup funds expended for this activity. There is also the practical problem of assuring equity by preventing those in the area who have not contributed to the parking fund from utilizing it. This brings us to the second portion of this report and the analysis of current code requirements. II. PRESENT CODE Section 25.58.030 Changed Uses of the City's zoning ordinance,if strictly interpreted poses some serious problems city-wide, but particularly in the El Paseo Shopping area: „•pa6aPlua ao pappe sat;LLLoe; asoyg JOj ygLM paLldwoo uaaq aney aoeds 6ULpe0L pue 6ULped ;aaags-j;o aol sguaw -aaLnbaa ay; paptnoad `pappe satgLlLOe} ao papuedxa aq Sew al;t; SLyq }o UOLsLAoad ayq 04 waojUO3 goU op saL;tltOe; 6ULPPOL ao 6UL�aed gaaa;s-jjo asogm s6utpLpq 6ULgsLx3.. saL;tLtOPj buWPOI PUP 64VPd 4aaa4s-;30 6ULWJOIUODUON O50'9L'SZ uOLj3aS •xaldwo0 aaow sawooaq walgoad 6UL4sLxa ay; 'saL;LILOP} 6ULPPOL pue 6uLlaed ;aaa;s-jjo 6ULwao;Uo3uoU oq 6UL;elan apoo 6ULUOZ ay; ;0 UOLgOas ay; qP 6uL�OOL UI 'suoL;PLnbaa A';LO ;uasaad ay; UL 6ULlaed a;Ls-Sjo aol UOLSLAoad RLUO ay; sL ;L asneoaq 'OMq PUP aAL;PUaagLP UP se pa4sa66ns uaaq sPy qL asneoaq 'auo :plo3oM4 sL pauOL;Uaw sL uoL;oas apoo sLyg uoseaa ayl ;aodaa sLyg JO uoL;Oas saAL;PUaagIP ayq UL SLy; ;noge ptes aq ILLM aaOW •uoL;P;uawaldwL 30 k4g LeOL;oead ayq pue sa;Ls @' NPLLPAe 10 )oPL °way; 6UOwP 'Pane sLy; UL panlonUL swalgoad IPaa "P aaay; 'aanaMOH ';L 40alloo pue 'aa; ay; do qas 'gOLagstp P ysLLge;sa Og PaaU ;saLJ pinoM X4; 3 ayl „ sgoLa;sLp I-d PUP I-0 ayq UL s;o@foad 0; SLUO A'IddP lleys UOLSLAoad styl 'UOLgnlosaa LL0un00 k4q 3 Rq ygaoj qas ;unowe UP uL aq Lleys sguawked ayl •apew aaaM s;uawked nail UL yoLyM JOS sasLwaad ay; }O RgtULOLA leaaua6 ay; 04 algeoLgOPad se aPjosUL pa;twLL 'SaL;U0* 21 6uL3aed 409a4s-410 6ULdolanap pue BULaLnboe _�o asodand ay; ao3 SLaALsnloxa pasn aq LLPys 'aa;deyo sLy; 10 suoLSLAoad aq; o; guensand pun; 6ULIaed ;aaa;s-j�o ay; 04ut paOeld spun] ;3La4stp _6UL�aed paysLLgegsa UP ULygtM sL pagsLLgeqsa aq 04 sL asn ay; goLyM Ut gOLagsLp ay; ;ey; paptnoad `gpAad 6ULPLtnq P jo aouenssL oq JOLad 44L3 ay; jo punj 6uLlaed ;aaa4s-;3o ayg o; aoeds 6ULjaPd aad °aaa. a jo 4uaw4pd ay; 4q PaLJsLges aq Sew as;deyo sLyg }o suOLSLAoad ay; A'q paaLnbaa saoeds 6uLjaed 'sgOLa;sLp LeLOaawwoo UI s;uaw ed 6uWPd. naLj UI 00£'89.93 UOL43aS sL 6ULjaPd agts-;;o aol apoo ay; UL UOLSLAoad kLuo ayl sLyg kq paptnoad asLMaaygo se ;daoxa ages 6uL '..a L4 tq Pltnq awes ay; Uo pa;Pool aq lleys sa6eaP6 ao saoeds 6uLlaed paaLnbaa ayl,. 'b0'8s'sZ uoL;oaS Xq paaLnbaa sL 6ULpltnq ay; sP agts awes ay; Uo 6ULIaed aptnoad qou ueo saauMo 44aadoad UOLgoe quawdolanapaa ao 4IQ ;o adS4 awos ;noq;LM •pa;UPa6 saOUPLaPA ao paptnoad 6uLlaed IeuoL;Lppe gnoygLM pa6ueyo kDupdnno ao paOPldaa aq uPo 40UP02A ou ;Pyq saeaddP ;t 'apoo guosaad ;aaw ;ou S90P paptnoad sL geyg 6UL4aed ay; aoULs PUP sa;Ls LenptALpUL uo 6uL3aed ;UaLOLjjns aptnoad oasPd L3 }0 aPes ygaou ay; Uo PLO;aod PUP ands4aP3 uaaM;aq s6ULPltnq ay; SO auoU aouLS •walgoad LeoLgLao P squasaad uoL;oas apoo styg oased L3 se yons 6uL�aed pappP aptnoad og a Mssod you sL ;L aaagM seaae UL 'aaA0MOH •suoL;en;Ls 6UL�aed 6ULwao3Uo3UOU agPULwLIa 04 aLOLyaA P saptnoad UOLSLA -oad apoo sLy; '6uLlaed LPUOLgtppP ao3 algeltenP sL Paae aaayM suoL;en;ts UI 'Patdtsua;UL sL asn P uayM Fluo 6ULjaed IeuoL;Lppe aptnoad o; paau ayg pa;LwLL aneq pinoM 'Ua;4LJm UayM 'apoo ay; as.Maay;o ape16dn ;snw 'a6ueyo A'ay; dt 'buL'aed awes ay; 6ULaLnbaa sasn oMq Uana 'S'lae0L3 '6UL�aed LPUOL;Lppe JOS puewap a Aa66Lag Mm sgUPuag UL 06UP40 a 'apoo ;aaw 0; 6UL�aed 4uaL3L;3ns aptnoad ;ou saO'P yOLgA 6ULpltnq kuP UL ;Py; sueaw UOL40as sLy; gnoy6noay; .,ao„ paoM ay; 3o asn ayl „'asn ao A'0uedn3oo ayq jo uoL;aod paL3Lsua;UL ao 'paaagle 'papuedxa 'pa6aelua 'pa6uego ay; aoj paptnoad aq lleys aagdeyo sLy; So s;uawai mbaa ay; gaaw oq 6ULlaed LeuOLgLppe 'paL3Lsu8;UL ao papuedxa 'pa6Q LUa 'paaagle sL a0 'asn qua.LaijLp e 0; Pa6Ue40 sL sasLwaad SCUP 3o asn ao �Duedn000 ay; UayM., anoj abed 1961 `8 AbVnNvr lWdH Aaflls Nbtld PARK STUDY REPORT JANUARY 8, 1981 Page Five Alone it appears that this section is quite clear, but when coupled with Section 25.58.030 of the Parking section we have the following scenario possible: A 2500 sq.ft. sporting goods store would require 10 spaces (1 per 250 sq.ft. ) but is located on a parcel containing 6 spaces. Should the owner wish to expand to 3000 sq.ft. , he may do so if he can provide 2 more spaces (1 to 250) bringing his total to 8. This is consistent with both sections 25.58.030 and 25.76.050 since he is meeting code for the enlargement. However, should the 2500 sq.ft. sporting goods store become vacant and a jeweler wish to take over the building, he would be prohibited from starting his business until he added 4 more spaces to bring his total to IO, based on Section 25.58.030. Why? Because he has changed occupancy of the entire building and, therefore, the entire building must be brought up to code. There is nothing inherently wrong with this provision, because it provides existing tenants with the opportunity to expand without undue burdens; and, it informs new occupants that they will need to meet City parking regulations. As long as land is available to provide added parking there is no problem. In conclusion, based on current code requirements, without variances owners would not be permitted to replace tenants in the area between Larkspur and Portola, Highway 111 and E1 Paseo Drive. In addition, existing vacant parcels could not be easily developed and those buildings setback from pedestrian walkways could not be extended to join the walk as envisioned and recommended in previously adopted plans. The next section will contain various alternatives to resolve the issues mentioned. III. ALTERNATIVES There are various alternatives available; among them: A. continue the present procedure and practice B. establish a Parking District to collect in-lieu fees C. Transfer of Development Rights D. change present code requirements A. Continue Present Procedure and Practice This alternative would require variance hearings each time a change of occupancy or use occurs. This process is time consuming and, in the case of the E1 Paseo area, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to meet the required findings for variance. The difficulty in meeting .variance findings' stems from the fact that everty building or property in the area is faced with the same problem. There is no uniqueness. Secondly, each variance would be precedent for the next one. If required findings could be made for one, they would have to be made for all . Time consumed and delays is another problem. Staff time would be required to process each variance and because of the present code requirements each building in the area would be required to acquire a variance, until every square foot of commercial area is covered by a variance. Of greater concern is the time involved for the property owner and potential tenant. Each variance would take 60 to 90 days from the date of application to the date it becomes effective. •paajn000 44LO ay; Rq UOL;OP oU pey aLgtssod uaaq aney pLnom Uey; aauuew aAL;OaSIa pue ;UaLDL;}a aaOW a UL pue paptnoad mou sL 6UL�jed aaow •swaLgoad 8SO4; 6ULSsaappe UL sapLa;s snopuawaj; apew aney Soua6V ;uawdOLanapaa pue LLounoO 4;10 ay; So SUOL;oe ay; kLaeaLO pue eaae oased D ay; Ut swaLgoad ay; paZLU600aa UeLd LL6i PUe SL61 ayl •paZLLeaa ;ou SL Uanaa F;Lo papaaU ay; 'fiLLeuLA :paZLLeaa IOU osLe aje.6uLjq xay; sgoC ay; pue SaL;Lun;joddo ssautsn8 •;L;oad JLej e aptnoad pup sajn;ona;s 6uL;sLxa ULe;uLew 0; awooUL papaau Paptnoad IOU aae saaum0 •Saa;uao UL Seaae peap a;eaao Aay; '8uo4ue pte ;ou op s6uLPLtnq ;ueoeA •japa0 UL SL uoL;enLenaaa awns 'swaLgojd a;eaao spaepue;s 6uLUOZ o; aouaaaype ;oLa;s pup `waLgojd ;uaaayuL up ;uasaad ;ou Saop paptnoad 6uL�jed So ;unowe ay; dL 'puey jay;o ay; u0 •sanSSL ay; ssoappe ;ou pLnom ;nq '6ULjjed apoo So waLgojd ay; aALOS pLnom eaae LLe;aa jo •;j•bs OOOZ yoea JOS aoeds T So paepue;s 6UL�jed a 6ULySLLge;sa 'RLaeaL3 •aoUeLLdwOo o;UL SaALasway; aULjap pLnogs auo ;ey; UeaW IOU Saop SLyl •oased D PUe III SPM46LH 'eLo;aOd pup andsljeq uaam;aq eaae ay; o; UOL;nLos aLge;Lnba UP aptnojd 0; SaoueULpaO ;uaaano ano ;O S;LLLgeuL ay; SL 446LL 0; aa;;ew ajL;Ua SLy; 4y6noaq sey ;eyM apoo ;uajanO ay; 10 UOLSLAab •0 • LnSssaoons panoad IOU sey pup 'saauuew ;Uaaa;;Lp UL saL;Lo aay;o Xq paLa; uaaq sey S446La ;uawdOLanap So aa}sueal ;sLxa IOU Saop SLy; kLa;eun;ao;un 'paptnojd ;ey; pup paaLnbaj 6ULAjed uaam;aq R;Ljed ;ULod awos ;e aq pLnoys away; pup 'spjooaj a;eanooe 6uLdaa� aje aAL;euaa;Le SLy; y;Lm swaLgoad fiLuo ayl •saoeds pasnun aAL; ay; JOS s;46La •43•bs ay; aaLnboe pLnoo „8„ aaumo (oL;ea ,OsZ 0; 1) Oi JOS ;Lpaao sey jo paptnoad sey ay d6 ` (005 aad I) saoeds s sajLnbaj apoo ;uasaad aapun yoLyM •41•bs 009Z do ajo;s aan;Lujn; e sey „V„ aaumo '@Ldwexo joj •asLa auoaWOS 0; 6UL6uoLaq ;Lpajo Mjaed Ssaoxa•ay; allLnboe pLnoo 6ULlaed 6utpaau LenptALpUL up ueLd a yons aapu0 S;y6Lb ;uawdoLanaO So aajsueaj •3 •;aw 6uLaq UL 4403Ld4Lp aney uoL;en;Ls naLL UL ue JOS sa;tsLnbaaaad aajy; LLe ;ey; aeadde pLnom ;L ';joys UI •eaje ay; UL s;ueua; jo saaumo )�;aadoad Xq SL;Uasaad paALaoaad se 6uL4aed So a6egaoys e IOU SL ajay; aoULS :auo Leaa a osLe SL ;aoddns 6uLanoas SO wOLgojd ayl •6ULlaed apoo So a6e;aoys a aq LLt;s Mm 9aa44-=4LLnq aae S;OL ;UeD2A asay; uaym suaddey ;eym !jo;ngLj;uoo-uou a kq paZLLL;n aq ;ou Mm 6uLlaed ay; ;ey; aney LenptALpUL ay; Saop aa4uejen6 ;eym '6uL�jed JOS spun] naLL UL Saptnojd uosaad e dL 'UOL;Lppe UI •sLaOjed ;ueoen woa} do apew aq IOU ueo pue ;eaa6 00; SL 'paptnoad se '6uL)jed UL a6e;joys ayj •oased H So y;nos pup y;jou sLaojed ;ueoeA Uo paptAojd 6uLaq 6uL4aed Xq do apew aq o; sem LL61 UL paUOLSLAUa FouaLjap 6ULjjed ay; 'fiLsnOLAajd pa;e;s sV •6ULljed ay; aptnoad XLa;ewL;Ln Mm oym asoy; So UOL4ejado00 £ •6ULjjed pappe ay; dOLanap PUP aaLnboe o; fioua6e ay; ;Lwaad o; 6utpunj pua ;uojj •Z •6uL�jed aptnojd 0; UOL;Lstnboe ao; aLgeLLEAe pue; •t : Ln4ssaoons aq o; Swa;L aaay; Spaau UOL;nLOs a yonS saaj 6ULNaed naLL UI ;oaLLOO O1 -- ;oLa;SLO 6ULVRd •8 •papaaU SL 4e4M SL yoLym UOL400JLP XoLLod aeaLo a So ;joys SILed ;L 'bUL;;aS ;uapaoajd aq 4ew yoeoadde ;uasaad ay; aLLyM 'XLLeULJ XLS abed 1861 `8 AbVnNVP IHOE3l Aanis MVd PARK STUDY REPORT JANUARY 8, 1981 Page Seven A mechanism must be established to answer the requests of property owners like the Hammonds who have vacancies. Mechanisms must be established to allow those property owners whose buildings do not presently reach the pedestrian walk to expand and eliminate the problems identified in previously adopted plans. Also , how should the remaining vacant parcels be developed? Amending the City's parking and related regulations to specifically address this area is the recommended alternative. First, those buildings between Larkspur and Portola should be permitted occupancy by any use allowed as a matter of right with a parking require- ment of 1 space per 250 square feet. Secondly, all indoor general retail , with noted exceptions, should have the same parking requirement of 1 space per 250 square feet. There is very little justification, if any, to distinguish between small food stores and plant shops as opposed to dress shops and jewelry stores, for example. Thirdly, a distinction should be made between a supermarket and a small specialty food store such as a health food store, delicatessen, etc. The type, volume, and time spent by customers in a supermarket is not the same as that spent in a small specialty food store. In addition, the conditional use permit section should be modified to reflect the distinction. Fourthly, all uses requiring more than one space per 250 square feet in the C-1 area should require a conditional use permit and, if feasible, the parking requirements may be modified to 1 space per 250 sq.ft. if it can be demonstrated that the peak hours of said use would not conflict with the other merchants. Fifthly, as build out occurs and all buildings are occupied, the City should keep a careful view of the area to see if parking problems develop and what type of problems develop and what type of problems they are to make any changes to the code necessary to alleviate those problems. Finally, the City's subdivision regulations should be amended to specifically preclude the creation of parcels which are nonconforming, in terms of parking , and could not be corrected. This solution provides an equitable right to all those who presently own buildings in the E1 Paseo area. In addition, some of the changes affect other commercial areas of the City to avoid future problems. This alternative would enable the City to continue its close scrutiny on high parking uses such as restaurants, dental offices, barber and beauty salons. IV. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the City 'Council instruct staff to proceed with the amendments proposed in Alternative D. AIR ON A. DIAZ � J /lr I _�j.• y+��, ,?ems F n }y ..1rb.ww Y � , -, - . �• +r✓ � y"i'��'i'5..'Y•c•'a�'.,'�:j1`�}i�a �-`iCrw': '`.+; "`+r'G:'' Ki ,..P*i...h,�•YHti.�tr•�' ._,5.,...xn. xi .�r'9.Z'!vw;a..�.'. .....ai.�? ,9•s'}i:n�kn�i•»y.�.'fi '`, x .M'. �.. a .. k: r F4.. • % H iinae • � � s r�nwwwn q0 � ns s MN r w • ± 'ji � sAA i IME wall KH A it i:• M i r ;:v..• � �w ��: .ll Y•e a wv4 :;. �� �•• .'� � Ste• =:�iti :41:•'•n s! " han-d dell_veaed .2 79-331 61.j enhowen 4 a Bermuda Dun ea, eA 92201 vma /7e c emo ea '2j, 1980 na Yo coy: ni' City Council o� %a.Lm Qe,sent Re: Appaova.Z o� Deli. Food Stone gentlemen: . We neepeet�ully zequee.t youa a.44iz tance in having the above "pno4pec.tive tenant appnovad Pa a conditional uee permit Aom the City o4 PaZw beoeat. Ours pnopenty to known as the 111 Shopping ente¢, located between San Lu.i.a Rey and LaAhepun Lane in aim Deeeat, on the eoutA Aide o� llighuay 711, in the shape o4 a ia2ge 61, toe, onlylllopenty with ours own 0��-etneet panning on 7A� pnemi.eea loametly occuped by Sandra yonh Ladiee Wean, an izen Anne Hilton Caeuai Uiean, arse 7500 equate �eet in the middle o� oua shopping area and were vacated laet Fall. Since the middle coy Novembers, we have been aitempting to j get the ¢ppnova -j-nonz i'ae S�Xanning 0epapfinent to allow a new tenant to occupy the pnemi.seo a.s a deli Pod Atone. ,:.They w.LLC tequine leee panh.cng than the ioiumea tenant, ae roeli a.o have a �aate,% tuinovea in ueage o/ the panning Pcilitiee. We have iunned down othea &eque.eta by paoepective tenant-4 m we e.Lf we v ne undeei n bi e n a e vn h City. v aim De! e Ant ours others tenan.ta and evenyonr in t n hai aea. We arse not intea"ted in having a motoncyoie whop o2 such in that anea-= we don 't believe it would be an asset, eo when these Pne people came to ue with thei.a idea oA a deli �ood etoae, e thou w .4t would be bete i. 'c.crzi to eve n one the woul d act n y y atta �t. e people w.4v would no doubt eho in oihe2 .stoe in the anea me well, benefiting everyone, r ne .9n ortder to gain approvai �rom the City o laim Deeeat, the prospective tenant paid P5. 00 to have an e.nepectoa vi..eit the premises and advice whaf would be necessary, a{tea which time the tenant was in€onned iha,f it would be necessary to ge£ perm.ceeion rrom the Planning Department due to the paaniny, s.,zuation and then he would be able to apply p pp va a cvndc_tional uee p ermit< 1 1` i i 'rUDuar V-.ryr -6U7AO71ddD U7 67/aw vnof7 &pq 97Tnr;r ,woUODama V7 �Dy/ M071Y now-L7uau caau.rcno9°au uoirvapoo-6 'D -v�dnoh 'vaa-rwavd �oo� avanbv 00S1 aaa?/;r uo -,uaua7 fu.rRDd ou ?/r7m an 4o paa?/D ";ruow ;PIUDw r vD avaw �Dy7 vvDaddv 77 Ua uo72-DpuawwoJav TD7uap auma ayr or paraafgna aq fgc7avodpprnom �aa/r iaaarwavd ayr ruDl/ or van or awO7 PiDuax a7?/;' uD?/r va?//.'o auoauroa pTnmyv Y'DW par. a7pu7 vaag pD?/ G. •vn or pa7)r{anfun puD argDLoaDavun vwaaa arva/ .3wr7 n/Dd ar Dapa71T �o aanD7ac avorr Poo) -?7ap a72/3r voy ?gvadovd vno vo aaa7wavd ayr jo ac)Dan auk puawwoaav 7 u pTnOm 7Law?7/Ddao )LrUUDTu a?r, ;rD?/r aAaTTaq o7 paT uaag aAD?/ am •v;rg nvanuD ,P va7)D Tram T.r;run ;raa j avanSs ODs'1 ava- uo Vrd.raaav TDruav jo u187a ou ?/arm lrp.rDd aq or DA7?X�[. aauavnau-r p v uD axD� f7a&)?5 vow �dn aT7d TJ"''#a aTTYq f` a?11 • auow fo Tvap �Dav6 D 6u7rvoa vT r oTg -6u7Tgwnra vru//. Savo a poo rTap r7� arvvado or pamoTP ag 777m a V rvyr movy. am T.rrun a"aT v u 7a or aTgaun ava a.M ,�7/�Sl vagwano7y aaura paaaovd Or. a?-pun uaaq "V pua tpaaaovd ;rouuDa ruauap am aadvnvd a?/l .1p61 IS) nvanuD,/ Trrun paTSD;r ag Or aAD?/ pTnom varrVW a?/r favo�ava?/z fruawrvvda u-rvuarl ayr fq paruaaa?'d vDm uo.rrDUrYO UT rua7J7"7jnaU7 rvyr ,Dp -6iv7mo77oy ay;r _. paunDa-7 a�� •rUauar aA-r�aad✓aovd P7-g Jo JTjaq vo rvodav -- -- TDvn uD apDw ruaw;vDdag �u7uuaT1 aW puD noffii avoyag pra-u/ 6v'7raaw D 9Dm avavr `ng61 `�l vagwaaaq "$u.ruaAa fiDppavnu/1 7"T rn?/r;paa.rnpD vaaq DAD?/ 'a aauaSTnpvr vno71 -6aq fiTavaz)u7a and or p7d-ra,av Pruav 4U'rAa vnc, ' aw UV'vam vD?aurrO� 'na Tr un aapr rVpr aATa?/a Or aAo D?/panvjD nggeva7ua' &-rddi7 s�tc1 av7 ua a?/ o aaarwavd a?/x jo aJUD7/Daddv a?/ anovdw-r or xvvm T'TTDuovvad am 7--aA idw or 7waaag u7a� ° fir? ayr rvvm TTD am •vaay.rFng Mau aru/ voJ aavm"d a?/X aAovr'wr or v79ap vnou•r o -BU7777Mvn o-r rLD La r aA'. rDadvovd a7/7- 7avO�avavr puD �'va7u77Zb'wo, a rur ap D 7aS ouuDD am rnq `a�-avado o� paMOM 6U.rag wove avow 9 x UaAavd or uovaav 7-narboT ou ag pTnom avau/ fiTavna °9a7`/ 7TroD I&U7 vD� D?aT� a� uapraav� may a?/ ?/ �/1 'aTgDTrona aaaarla fur Dd vaav puD ruovy aV;r VrTM '*ar'UDuar ua7 v770 jo TTD voy arrnfS apa avam va.rr.rT.ra D� auT?�vDd aVr fr"d aVr uG om/ a�uac� O,P61 `FZ vagwa:)a �vaaa(7 u7Dc% �o .$ 73 ' f .t' •� .. . . .. .7 \ � �� .,.�f� Palm OedcAt �c m e2 23, 1980 Page Thaee I I i Peah.apo you know Au and At.4. tanie AcCleaz o€ Palm Deeent and ihei2 pa&tnere, Ok. and MAA. lwaa.nceh, w7to would like to e,a,tablieh .'AL4 dell Pod 4.toAe in Palm Deeeit.t. plea.ee don li di.acouaage them.': We 'all einceaeltl aejuea.t you2 appftoval of iAi..4 exce.Ueni idea �oa a new buoineen An Palm DeveU. Neaee alUow them .to teceLve a Condit_i.onal ll.oe %enmit. 7hanh you �oit any hindneaaea you can be.e.Eow on ih.i..a Zequedt, and we hope 1981 will be a pwzovpe4ou4 yeaa Piz all. Sinceaelou, - . William R. Hammond m' I I i i I MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION May 5, 1981 Page Four VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont. ) F. Case No. PM 17452 - ARLE CORPORATION (Charles Gibbs) and RON MARTIN AND ASSOCIATES, Applicants Request fo approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to allow the creation of industrial lots within the S. I. , S.P. (Service Industrial , Scenic Preservation Overlay) and O.S. (Open Space) zone, located at the southwest corner of Hovley Lane and Cook Street. Mr Diaz presented this case stating that due to the revised mpas not being submitted, staff recommended continuance to May 20, 1981. Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing. Motion was made by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, to continue the case to May 20, 1981. Carried unanimously (5-0) . G. Case Nos. DP 15-79 and 200 MF - MAYER GROUP, INC. , Applicant A request for a 12 month time extension for an approved residential Development Plan and related Design Review case, to allow construction of 264 condominium units and a 9 acre public park on 39.1 acres within the PR-7, S.P. (Planned Residential , maximum density 7 d.u./acre, Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone, located at the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Monterey Avenue. Mr. Diaz stated that a letter was received from Dan Salceda, Mayer Group, requesting a continuance to June 30, 1981. Staff concurred with the continuance. Chairman Miller opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There was none. Motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner McLachlan; to continue this case to June 30, 1981. Carried unanimously (5-0) . Case No. -ZOA 04-81 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant —� Request for consideration of change in City parking requirements. Mr. Diaz requested a continuance to May 20, 1981, for further study. Chairman Miller opened the hearing and motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to continue this matter to May 20, 1981. Carried unanimously (5-0). VII . OLD BUSINESS A. GENERAL PLAN - Resort Commercial Land Use Designation, CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Mr. Diaz stated that this matter was referred back to Planning Commission to -- -determine if Resort Commercial should be eliminated entirely; eliminated in some `^- areas; or, not eliminated at all . He indicated staff's recommendation, for the - - reasons outlined in the staff report, to eliminate all Resort Commercial uses. Mr. Diaz noted that if Resort Commercial is not deleted entirely that as much as possible should be, beginning with Sites that do not have Development Plans approved. Commissioner Richards asked if that would preclude Stein-Brief's development of a shopping center. Mr. Diaz replied that it would not affect that development nor Las Sombras; a proposed racquetball and motel ; :and a development plan at the easterly portion of Deep Canyon and Hwy 111. MINUTES • PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 1981 Page Four * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont. ) There was discussion regarding concerns over the gas station location and availability to the public as well as members. Mr. Diaz stated that since a Development Plan is required for the gas station details of the design and location could be reviewed then. Motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner McLachlan, to recommend approval to the City Council of Case Nos. C/Z 02-81, TT 15633, and TT 15640, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 697, 698 and 699; and approve Case Nos. DP 02-81, DP 03-81 and PM 17474 by Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 700, 701 and 702, subject to conditions. Carried unanimously (5-0). A FIVE MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED AT 4:00 P.M. - MEETING RECONVENED AT 4:05 P.M. COMMISSIONER MCLACHLAN WAS EXCUSED FROM THE MEETING. / D. J Case No. ZOA 04-81 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant �J' Request for consideration of change in City parking requirements. Mr. Diaz presented this case reviewing the staff report and recommending approval . This item was discussed by Commission and staff and because further study was necessary, it was decided to continue the matter to May 5, 1981. Motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, to continue this case to May 5, 1981, for further study. Carried unanimously (4-0). E. Case No. ZOA 05-81 - CITY OF PALM DESERT and RITTER AND ASSOCIATES, Applicants Mr. Sawa presented this case reviewing the request and stated that staff would like a six month trial period to see how it worked in the Presidents' Plaza parking lot. Commissioner Kryder asked if staff observed any problems so far. Mr. Sawa noted that trash was being put on the ground around the bins. Motion was made by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to continue this case for six months. Carried unanimously (4-0). F. Case No. ZOA 06-81 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for modification of Time Extension Procedures. Mr. Diaz reviewed the staff report stating that the amendment would delete the requirement of a Public Hearing for time extensions. He noted that public input in the past had been very minimal . Staff suggested that future time exten- sions be handled as part of the consent calendar. Motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, to approve this amendment by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 703. Carried unanimously (4-0). VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Case No. GPA 01-80 (continued) - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant This item was continued to the meeting of May 5, 1981. R CITY OF PALM DESERT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Director of Environmental Services SUBJECT: Amendment ZOA 04-81, Change in City Parking Regulation DATE: April 15, 1981 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The Planning Commission at its regular meeting of February 3, 1981, received a proposed amendment to the City's parking regulations. The Commission at that time instructed staff to examine: 1. The proposed revisions to veterinary hospitals and clinics. 2. Examine present provisions that might discourage persons from improving their property. Staff, at this time, would concur with the initial Commission recommendation that the parking requirements for veterinary clinics not be changed. Further examination has disclosed a tendency to have a quicker parking turnover than in most medical facilities, thus, warranting a lesser parking requirement. The second item of Commission concern is more complicated. Do current parking regu- lations discourage an owner from improving their building? Staff is not aware of any person discouraged from improving his property by the City's parking regulations. Current regulations require that a property owner expanding his building install sufficient parking to accommodate the area of expansion. A property owner may also intensify the uses within his building if he can provide additional parking to accommodate the intensification. The only time that staff could envision a problem is in a situation similar to that discribed on pages four and five of the staff report of January 8, 1981. One way to avoid this situation is to amend the Code, Section 25.58.030, to require additional parking only when the use in the building is intensified; the section would read: "When the use of any premises is changed, altered, enlarged, expanded or intensified so additional parking is required, the additional parking to meet the requirements of t is chapter shall be provided for the changed, enlarged, expanded, altered or intensified portion of the occupancy or use. " This change would permit the owner of a legal nonconforming building to replace the uses on his premises with uses of the same intensity without being required to provide additional parking. Staff would recommend that this alteration be implemented. Staff would not recommend, at this time, that property owners be permitted to intensify the usage of any premises without providing additional parking. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, recommending to the City Council adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 04-81 relating to City Parking Standards. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOP- TION OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO CITY PARKING STANDARDS. CASE NO. ZOA 04-81 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 15th day of April , 1981, hold a duly noticed public hearing on proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment 04-81, relating to City Parking Standards; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at said hearing did consider all relevant testimony on this matter; WHEREAS, studies and investigations, carried on behalf of the Planning Commission, disclosed that: 1. Current City parking regulations should be modified to reflect differences between specialty food stores and supermarkets; 2. The E1 Paseo area has unique problems identified in the staff report dated January 8, 1981. 3. These unique problems necessitate certain code revisions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. 4. Some method outside of the variance procedure must be established to examine those uses with parking demands greater than 1 space per 250 square feet of floor area ratio; and, WHEREAS, said Ordinance revision constitutes a minor alteration in land use regulation and is therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements of the Calif- ornia Environmental Quality Act. l NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert recommends to the City Council adoption of proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment 04-81 relating to City Parking Regulations and attached hereto as Exhibit "A" PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert at its meeting of the 15th day of April , 1981, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CHARLES MILLER, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /lr r PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Page Two EXHBIT "A" 1. Amend Section 25.58.020 by adding: "except as otherwise provided in this chapter" 2. Amend Section 25.58.030 to read: "When the use of any premises is changed, altered, enlarged, expanded or intensified so additional parking is required, the additional parking to meet the requirements of this chapter shall be provided for the changed, enlarged, expanded, altered or intensified portion of the occupancy or use, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. " 3. Add "Section 25.58.031 E1 Paseo Area Changes in Use. Within the area bounded by Larkspur ant e es o�rto a veil n� ue on the east; by Palm Desert Drive on the north and E1 Paseo Drive on the south, retail commercial or office uses having a minimum required parking ratio of one stall per 250 square feet of gross floor area shall be permitted as replacement for any vacated use and the provisions of Sections 25.58.020 and 25. 58.030 shall not apply. " 4. Amend portions of Sections 25. 58.310 to read as follows: Food store, supermarket, or drugstore containing over 2000 square feet of gross 1 for each 200 square feet floor area of gross floor area Beauty Parlor 2 per station plus 2 Plant nursery with outdoor sales and display excluding 1 for each 250 square feet of greenhouses gross building area, excluding greenhouses, and 1 for each 500 square feet of outdoor display and greenhouse area 5. Add"Section 25.58.311 - Conditional Use Permit Required: A. All uses within the C-1 zone requiring a greater than 1 space per 250 square feet parking stall to floor area ratio shall be required to acquire a conditional use permit as set forth in Section 25.72 of this title. B. As part of said conditional use permit the Commission may modify the parking requirements for said use. In modifying such require- ments the Commission shall consider: 1. The parking demand generated by said use in relation to other uses in the area. 2. The hours of operation of said use in relation to the hours of operation of other uses in the area. 3. The relationship of the type of use to other uses in the area. 4. Any other factor the Commission might deem necessary in making its decisiio/n. ' CITY OF PALM DESERT TO: CITY MANAGER AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUBJECT: PARK STUDY REPORT DATE: JANUARY 8, 1981 Purpose: The intent of this report is to analyze the parking situation between Larkspur and Portola, Palm Desert Drive and E1 Paseo, and suggest alternative approaches to the problem. The problem is resolving the issues of what uses should be permitted in vacant facilities and what expansion should be permitted in the area. The problem has come to light as a result of inquiries by property owners desiring to expand their existing buildings, and a request to replace a former dress shop with a delicatessen (see attached letter from Mr. Hammond). Existing City code and policy requirements do not lend themselves to easy resolution of these issues. The above described area of E1 Paseo presently does not meet code required parking, but it should be pointed out that in looking at the entire area it never did. While individual property owners may have met our parking requirements as an entire commercial area, it has always been deficient by our standards. It should also be made clear that the City's redevelopment activity has reduced the shortage and improved the parking efficiency of that area. The required parking between Portola and Larkspur, north side of El Paseo and Palm Desert Drive, is about 1012 based on 253,000 square feet of commercial area with a general retail parking ratio of 1 space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. The amount of off-street parking (excluding the Frontage Road) provided is 606; the Frontage Road in that area is approximately 110 spaces. The report will first attempt to give a historical perspective; secondly, examine the City's parking and related codes; and finally, discuss alternative solutions and recommend a course of action designed to address the issues at hand. I. HISTORY In 1975 Palm Desert adopted a redevelopment project area generally bound by the City limits to the east and west; the properties south of El Paseo to the south; the properties north of Alessandro to Monterey; and, 44th Avenue, west of Monterey (see attach map). Among the reasons for selection of the project area were: 1. "Portions of project area include lots fifty feet in width which do not provide sufficient area for adequate on-site, open space, landscaping, or parking availability (lots of inadequate size for proper usefulness)". 2. "Portions of the project area are characterized by a circulation system that is defective in design, and will require alteration to alleviate the present congestion problems and accident hazards (inadequate streets)". 3. "A considerable portion of the project area is characterized by inadequate parking facilities both in numbers of parking spaces available and in their arrangement and accessibility (disuse resulting from faulty planning)". The problems identified then were a shortage of parking, poor circulation access, and an inability to resolve these issues. These concerns, it was felt, would prevent El Paseo from fulfilling its full potential as a viable, well designed, integrated, high quality commercial area. One of the general objectives of the plan was: PARK STUDY REPORT JANUARY 8, 1981 Page Two "The strengthening of the land use pattern within the project area through redevelopment and development of underutilized land to enhance the viability of the commercial area of the City. " The area bordered by Highway 111, E1 Paseo, Hwy 74, and Portola Avenue was to be core area commercial and. . "Development within these areas shall include, but not be limited to offices, financial institutions, restaurants, retail com- mercial uses including convenience shopping, auto service, The 1975 document contained the following parking standard: "adequate parking shall be provided to accomodate all parking needs for each parcel in accordance with the provisions of the City's zoning ordinance. Parking facilities for the joint use of two or more parcels of a size sufficient to meet the com- bined requirements of such parcels may be constructed with prior written approval of the agency. " While this standard was a noble goal , it was impossible to reach. There is not sufficient land to provide parking at a ratio of 1 space to 250 sq.ft. ; let alone at a higher parking ratio. Within the suggested program itself there was a variance procedure established for the agency. Nowhere in the 1975 document are there figures illustrating the difficulty of providing a 1 to 250 parking ratio. It should be noted that while parking has not been provided at a ratio of 1 stall per 250 sq.ft. of gross floor area, the overall goals and objectives of the 1975 and 1977 redevelopment plans have been achieved. Greater parking is provided in a more efficient and unified manner than previously existed. In 1977 another plan was submitted focusing on the 116 acre area on both sides of Hwy 111, between Hwy 74 and Monterey on the west, Cabrillo on the east, extending north to San Gorgonio and south to Larrea. Among the purposes of this plan was the integration of on and off street parking and to "Recommend general development standards to guide the redevelopment agency and the City in the development of public and private properties". The parking proposals of that plan were "designed to provide greater utilization of existing parking area, as well as to assure adequate parking in blocks which have yet to be fully developed. " Among the major proposals of that plan were 1. The provision of "diagonal parking on frontage roads to increase the amount of parking, and provide safer, better visibility parking on one way system (accomplished) . 2. "The provision of parking to meet an overall ratio (standard) of 1.6 square feet of parking area to one square foot of floor area. " This would be equivalent of four stalls per 1000 sq.ft. of floor area or the 1 to 250 general retail parking require- ments of Palm Desert. The plan proposed that parking , to offset any shortages north of E1 Paseo, would be provided on the south side of El Paseo Drive. ' 1 PARK STUDY REPORT JANUARY 8, 1981 Page Three Since�1977, development along the south side of E1 Paseo and the passage of Proposition 1.3 have seriously encumbered the opportunity to provide additional parking on vacant parcels on the north and south side of E1 Paseo. On the north side of El Paseo, the plan pinpointed a concern "Because of the extent of development in the block between San Luis Rey and Portola, only one opportunity remains to provide access from E1 Paseo. This opportunity must be preserved as soon as possible to avoid a further and critical reduction of off-street parking within the block below 1 to 1.6 ratio established as the minimum standard for the study area." This opportunity was realized with the Bank of America development. Even if the agency or City were to acquire these existing vacant sites on both the north and south side of E1 Paseo the 1.6 to 1 parking to floor area ratio will not be met. The 1977 document also called for integrated parking for new construction on the south side of E1 Paseo, which is currently being implemented. The plan also saw an eventual need to expand already existing buildings along E1 Paseo. "The major limitation of current practice" (Where zoning and parking deed restrictions dictate buildable area) is that it has been difficult to achieve continuity in pedestrian walkways, landscaped areas and parking circulation, moreimportantly a continuation of current practice will make it virtually impossible to achieve proposals of the preliminary plans for midblock parking and related pedestrian circulation and landscape improvement". The 1977 plan then recommended the following method of implementation 1. "That the Redevelopment Agency develop all parking within a given block as a single project. 2. As properties proposed for new construction, the Redevelopment Agency would assess the owner for his pro-rata share of development costs based on the percentage which the area of a given building envelope represents the total square feet of building envelope available within the block". This, of course, presents a problem , again associated with the agency's ability or inability to secure revenue to initially acquire the site needed for additional parking. There are also serious questions relating to the ability of the agency to recoup funds expended for this activity. There is also the practical problem of assuring equity by preventing those in the area who have not contributed to the parking fund from utilizing it. This brings us to the second portion of this report and the analysis of current code requirements. II. PRESENT CODE Section 25.58.030 Changed Uses of the City's zoning ordinance,if strictly interpreted poses some serious problems city-wide, but particularly in the E1 Paseo Shopping area- PARK STUDY REPORT JANUARY 8, 1981 Page Four "When the occupancy or use of any premises is changed to a different use, or is altered, enlarged, expanded or intensified, additional parking to meet the requirements of this chapter shall be provided for the changed, enlarged, expanded, altered, or intensified portion of the occupancy or use. " The use of the word "or" throughout this section means that in any building which does not provide sufficient parking to meet code, a change in tenants will trigger a demand for additional parking. Clearly, even two uses requiring the same parking, if they change, must upgrade otherwise the code, when written, would have limited the need to provide additional parking only when a use is intensified. In situations where area is available for additional parking, this code pro- vision provides a vehicle to eliminate nonconforming parking situations. However, in areas where it is not possible to provide added parking such as E1 Paseo this code section presents a critical problem. Since none of the buildings between Larkspur and Portola on the north side of E1 Paseo provide sufficient parking on individual sites and since the parking that is provided does not meet present code, it appears that no vacancy can be replaced or occupancy changed without additional parking provided or variances granted. Without some type of City or redevelopment action property owners can not provide parking on the same site as the building is required by Section 25.58.04. "The required parking spaces or garages shall be located on the same building site except as otherwise provided by this title". The only provision in the code for off-site parking is Section 25.58.300 In Lieu Parking Payments " In commercial districts, parking spaces required by the provisions of this chapter may be satisfied by the payment of a fee, per parking space to the off-street parking fund of the City prior to issuance of a building permit, provided that the district in which the use is to be established is within an established parking district. Funds placed into the off-street parking fund pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, shall be used exclusively for the purpose of acquiring and developing off-street parking facilities, limited insofar as practicable to the general vicinity of the premises for which in lieu payments were made. The payments shall be in an amount set forth by City Council Resolution. This provision shall apply only to projects in the C-1 and P-I districts. . . " The City would first need to establish a district, set up the fee, and collect it. However, there are real problems involved in this area, among them, lack of available sites and the practicality of implementation. More will be said about this in the alternatives section of this report. The reason this code section is mentioned is twofold; one, because it has been suggested as an alternative and two, because it is the only provision for off-site parking in the present City regulations. In looking at the section of the zoning code relating to nonconforming off-street parking and loading facilities, the existing problem becomes more complex. Section 25.76.050 Nonconforming Off-street Parking and Loading Facilities "Existing buildings whose off-street parking or loading facilities do not conform to the provision of this title may be expanded or facilities added, provided the require- ments for off-street parking and loading space have been complied with for those facilities added or enlarged. " PARK STUDY REPORT JANUARY 8, 1981 Page Five Alone it appears that this section is quite clear, but when coupled with Section 25.58.030 of the Parking section we have the following scenario possible: A 2500 sq.ft. sporting goods store would require 10 spaces (1 per 250 sq.ft. ) but is located on a parcel containing 6 spaces. Should the owner wish to expand to 3000 sq.ft. , he may do so if he can provide 2 more spaces (1 to 250) bringing his total to 8. This is consistent with both sections 25.58.030 and 25.76.050 since he is meeting code for the enlargement. However, should the 2500 sq.ft. sporting goods store become vacant and a jeweler wish to take over the building, he would be prohibited from starting his business until he added 4 more spaces to bring his total to 10, based on Section 25.58.030. Why? Because he has changed occupancy of the entire building and, therefore, the entire building must be brought up to code. There is nothing inherently wrong with this provision, because it provides existing tenants with the opportunity to expand without undue burdens; and, it informs new occupants that they will need to meet City parking regulations. As long as land is available to provide added parking there is no problem. In conclusion, based on current code requirements, without variances owners would not be permitted to replace tenants in the area between Larkspur and Portola, Highway 111 and E1 Paseo Drive. In addition, existing vacant parcels could not be easily developed and those buildings setback from pedestrian walkways could not be extended to join the walk as envisioned and recommended in previously adopted plans. The next section will contain various alternatives to resolve the issues mentioned. III. .ALTERNATIVES There are various alternatives available; among them: A. continue the present procedure and practice B. establish a Parking District to collect in-lieu fees C. Transfer of Development Rights D. change present code requirements A. Continue Present Procedure and Practice This alternative would require variance hearings each time a change of occupancy or use occurs. This process is time consuming and, in the case of the E1 Paseo area, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to meet the required findings for variance. The difficulty in meeting variance findings stems from the fact that everty building or property in the area is faced with the same problem. There is no uniqueness. Secondly, each variance would be precedent for the next one. If required findings could be made for one, they would have to be made for all . . Time consumed and delays is another problem. Staff time would be required to process each variance and because of the present code requirements each building in the area would be required to acquire a variance, until every square foot of commercial area is covered by a variance. Of greater concern is the time involved for the property owner and potential tenant. Each variance would take 60 to 90 days from the date of application to the date it becomes effective. PARK STUDY REPORT JANUARY 8, 1981 Page Six Finally, while the resent approach may be precedent setting, it falls Y P PP short of a clear policy direction which is what is needed. B. Parking District -- To Collect In Lieu Parking Fees Such a solution needs three items to be successful : 1. Land available for acquisition to provide parking. 2. Front end funding to permit the agency to acquire and develop the added parking. 3. Cooperation of those who will ultimately provide the parking. As stated previously, the parking defiency envisioned in 1977 was to be made up by parking being provided on vacant parcels north and south of E1 Paseo. The shortage in parking, as provided, is too great and can not be made up from vacant parcels. In addition, if a person provides in lieu funds for parking, what guarantee does the individual have that the parking will not be utilized by a non-contributor; what happens when these vacant lots are built--there will still be a shortage of code parking. The problem of securing support is also a real one; since there is not a shortage of parking as perceived presently by property owners or tenants in the area. In short, it would appear that all three prerequisites for an in lieu situation have difficulty in being met. C. Transfer of Development Rights Under such a plan an individual needing parking could acquire the excess parking credit belonging to someone else. For example, owner "A" has a furniture store of 2500 sq.ft. which under present code requires 5 spaces (1 per 500) , if he has provided or has credit for 10 (1 to 250' ratio) owner "B" could acquire the sq.ft, rights for the five unused spaces. The only problems with this alternative are keeping accurate records, and there should be at some point parity between parking required and that provided, unfortunately this does not exist. Transfer of development rights has been tried by other cities in different manners, and has not proved successful . D. Revision of the Current Code What has brought this entire matter to light is the inability of our current ordinances to provide an equitable solution to the area between Larkspur and Portola, Highway 111 and El Paseo. This does not mean that one should define themselves into compliance. Clearly,establishing a parking standard of 1 space for each 2000 sq.ft. of retail area would solve the problem of code parking, but would not address the issues. On the other hand, if the amount of parking provided does not present an inherent problem, and strict adherence to zoning standards create problems, some reevaluation is in order. Vacant buildings do not aid anyone, they create dead areas in centers. Owners are not provided needed income to maintain existing structures and provide a fair profit. Business opportunities and the jobs they bring are also not realized. Finally, the needed city reven is not realized. The 1975 and 1977 plan recognized the problems in the E1 Paseo area and clearly the actions of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency have made tremendous strides in addressing those problems. More parking is now provided and in a more efficient and effective manner than would have been possible had no action by the City occurred. PARK STUDY REPORT JANUARY 8, 1981 Page Seven A mechanism must be established to answer the requests of property owners like the Hammonds who have vacancies. Mechanisms must be established to allow those property owners whose buildings do not presently reach the pedestrian walk to expand and eliminate the problems identified in previously adopted plans. Also, how should the remaining vacant parcels be developed? Amending the City's parking and related regulations to specifically address this area is the recommended alternative. First, those buildings between Larkspur and Portola should be permitted occupancy by any use allowed as a matter of right with a parking require- ment of 1 space per 250 square feet. Secondly, all indoor general retail , with noted exceptions, should have the same parking requirement of 1 space per 250 square feet. There is very little justification, if any, to distinguish between small food stores and plant shops as opposed to dress shops and jewelry stores, for example. Thirdly, a distinction should be made between a supermarket and a small specialty food store such as a health food store, delicatessen, etc. The type, volume, and time spent by customers in a supermarket is not the same as that spent in a small specialty food store. In addition, the conditional use permit section should be modified to reflect the distinction. Fourthly, all uses requiring more than one space per 250 square feet in the C-1 area should require a conditional use permit and, if feasible, the parking requirements may be modified to 1 space per 250 sq.ft. if it can be demonstrated that the peak hours of said use would not conflict with the other merchants. Fifthly, as build out occurs and all buildings are occupied, the City should keep a careful view of the area to see if parking problems develop and what type of problems develop and what type of problems they are to make any changes to the code necessary to alleviate those problems. Finally, the City's subdivision regulations should be amended to specifically preclude the creation of parcels which are nonconforming, in terms of parking, and could not be corrected. This solution provides an equitable right to all those who presently own buildings in the E1 Paseo area. In addition, some of the changes affect other commercial areas of the City to avoid future problems. This alternative would enable the City to continue its close scrutiny on high parking uses such as restaurants, dental offices, barber and beauty salons. IV. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the City Council instruct staff to proceed with the amendments proposed in Alternative D. 4ON Z /lr nA4ya '.�•.+z'•' .:.•.;•.,. ,.-... . .'.i..xK;v.Jn,:li .. 1:it:',i.i.it,'•". .`i.,lkjJlyt'};F :H,iMiN!'Y I ago N W ON ® E 0 o — I 1 N I I .i • W ©; L }Q d C C Y o E E A N OE � '2 E � d d d E E E _ fill - c N a L) U •O 9 �30N3np. cc 0. 3, � J _ Z � a Q w J p > d Z w0 "`;�its .�"'.!"'iJ 7� Z w oC 2I W LU 00OwLU xZoo -j G� -- -- ' xawcca - �----� w -i oc a a f. �o 'StC °' henl 1eli.veael 79-jL1 Liaenhowea 4' �+ Be, a Dun e4, (A 92201 Chbftfte December. 23, 19 0 TO cuy CC•:...9 City Council o� Palm De4ert U Re. Appaova.l o� Deli. Food Stone gentlemen: We %eApect�ully aequeet youa a4AiA Lance in having the above "pro4pective tenant appaovad Pa a conditional u4e permit �aom the City o� %alm De4eA4 Oua paopeaty i4 hnorrwn a4 the Ill Shoppt.ng (11,entea, located between San Lui4 Rey and Larh4pua Lane In l'alm De4eat, on the 4ou.th 4ide o� 11Zg1way 711, in the 4hape o� a laage U, the only 111 opeaty with. oua own 0��-4taeei parking on The, P?em.i.ae4 €oamer.lyCoccuped by, Sandta Yozh�Ladie4 W'eaa, ¢nd lnen Anne #iltvn "ual lv'eaa are 1500 4 uaae Aeei in ,the muddle o� oua dAopp.Lng aaea and weae vacated ia4t Fall. Since the .middle o Aovember, we have been aitempt to get the appaciva1-j.aom i'lie anning Depa,tment to allow a new tenant to occupy .the pzemi4e4 a4 a deli flood 4toae. .: They Will nequin.e 1e44 parhing than .the €oiunea tenant, a4 well a4 have a �a4tea to znovea in u4age o the pa/thing �aci.li-ti.e4. We have turned down othea aeque4t4 by pao4pective tenant4 whom we �elt weae unde4iaa6le �oa the City of Palm De4eat, out othe.z tenant4 and eveayone in that aaea. We aae not intea"ted in having a mvto.zcylle 4hop va 4ue/t in that aaea- -we don 't believe it would be an a44et, 4o when these Ane people came to u4 with theia idea o� a deli �ood 4toae, we thought it would be bene�i.cial to eveayone. They .would attract 4ne people who would no doubt 4hop in othea 4toae4 Ln the aaea m4 well, benefiting evenyvne. A oadea to gain approval �aom the City o� Palm De4eat, the pao4pective tenant paid 515, 00 to have an cn4pector. visit the prem-"e4 and advise wha.l would Ge nece44aay, apex which time the tenant wa4 1niormed that it would be nece44aay to ge.t pezmc4.eion Paom the Planning Depaatment due to .the pparkins, 4ezuaaarz and then he would be aGle to apply �oa a conditional u4e peamit. rC ty o %aln /Je4en# December 23, 1980 Page Two 9n ,th.e poet, the paahing �acili.tied were adeqguate PA all o� out .ten tenants, with .the front and reaa. pa4Ain p 4 aced available. With .the new %ae-dident '4 Y'laja %aching ?aci.Li.tiez, 4utely L(em':.6wIng uld be no logical aea-don .to prevent tAid dtote allowed to operate, but we cannot get a de�in.i..te ment and there�oae, .the pa.oepective tenant id unwilling to incur debt4 to impnove .the paem.i.ded €ot hid new budine44. We all want the City o� %at% OedeAt to improve--we personally want to impaove the appearance o� the p2erttide4 o� .the entire 111 Shopping Centea., but also have to 4helve .that idea until 4uch time ae we can be a44uted o� having rental aeceipt4 to pay Pr the impaovemen.i4. We .d.i.nceieel beg, tyou2 indulgence.' We have been advided'that last Thu aay evening, December 18, 1980, there wad a meeting held bepte you and the Planning Department made an otai aepo.rt on be at v� tl ed pav4,peciZve tenant. We leaaned the €ollowing daJ that i.ndu�ricient inpluna.tion wad pae-dented by the Nanning. bepart'nent, there�or.e, the matter would have to be tabled until `anuary 8, 1981. . The pao.dpecti.ve .tenant cannot paoceed, and hav been unable to paoceed since November 15th.' We ate unable to 4igg.nrt a le"e until we know that he will be allowed to opeta.te 1u4 deli Pod store. Thi.d dtumbli.ng block ie co44ng a grew deal ol mvne The AIIA 4t.il/ pile up, moatyagee, .taxed and ineutance Kave to be paid, with no 4ign of rental receipte on tAe 1500 Square �eei until well a�tet January &A. We have been led to believe that the Planning Department would nqt aecomnend the ueare o� the paemieed on our paopertu PA 'In.d deli Aood etore tiecau4e o� inadec�gate paa/zi.ng. 7°n -d eeeme unrea4unable and unfu4tif.i.ed to u4. Jt has been 4ndi.cated that 4/wuld someone other than this tenant come to u4- to rent the paemided, .they would po44ibly be 4ubjected to the flame denial recommendation and it appeaa,d that there ace mans, month4 ahead or u4 with no paying tenant on there 1500 4quare Pot paemided. You p$e$ea yggnda4ntece`�46on;nevvene%a £1C �eeer#hazeahew�convmy guly beg your meacy in approving thi.a tenant. fit Palm Dee cat ec m8ea 23, 1980 Naq.e lhmee %eAAap4 you know MA. and Azz. tnnie AcCleaiu o� Palm De4ela and .thei:it paa.tne,-4, tyk. and MAZ Vaa.a<.eh, w7to would .Like to ee,taoli4A .thi.o deli Pod etoze in Palm Deeeiti. ple"e don 't di.ocouzage them.' We all 4inceaelcl teque4t you2 appn.oval o� #hie excellent idea P2 a new bu41ne44 .cn Palm Decent. %leaAe allow them to zeceive a Conditional (lee %eamii. Thank you �on any kindne44ee you can be4tow on thin %equeet, and we hope 1987 will be a pa.o4petou4 dean foa all. Sinc eit.elu, William R. Ilan mond m I ✓ Yi 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 March 26, 1981 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE INITIATION BY THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMEND- MENT RELATIVE TO PARKING STANDARDS. CASE NO. ZOA 04-81 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider an amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 25.58, regarding City Parking Standards initiated by the Palm Desert Planning Commission. r SAID Public Hearing will be held on April 15, 1981 , at 1 :00 p.m. , in the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall , 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission PUBLISH: Palm Desert Post April 2, 1981 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (20109 2015 .5 CCP) PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ZOA 04-81 1 am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of PALM DESERT POSTS a newpaper of general circulations printed and published daily in the CITY 4 1111LM s kT 1NITipTIor�16 NNI Etlpl:M cityof Riversides Count of MISSION 0FA�NNAI�NGICOM y ORDINANCE E�AMEND Riversides and which newspaper MENT»REL71TIV TO has been adjudged a newspaper Of PARKINNO.IZODARO CASE{{NO.�Z045gkA1 OTICEIISiHEREBV/. I general circulation by the Nlrhal'amPubliale1 rinq`wil Superior Court of the County of ael held(beforeeeeee}}}}}}rhe&Patmissil D �R° Planning mmi to s r 1ySS n amend Riversides State of Californian pa repardln Ciry Pacer ton under date of October 5s 1954s dordsYm4nar1r cy the aim Desert7Planninpp m s'ion. Case number 83658; that the Al D'Public He In illeld be notices of which the annexed is .M., I pr11615,�IIC�1(G,rr.100 .rs in tin•.rhgCpuncil[Chb Wall, a printed copy, has been published in}the POlm7De HiCirvlLam Palm Prickly Pear�0, in each regular and entire issue Palm Ixe, ea a�t It time• I eallliln er es persons are nvi of said newspaper and not in any rend•andyy A M1Ard RAMON l D supplement thereof on the following ecrerary almlDeserl P n dates, to—wit : commission P.OP 04/2 91981 I Certify ( or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated April 2s 1981 at Riversides California - - �� --- CITY OF PALM DESERT CITY OF PALM DESERT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Director of Environmental Services SUBJECT: Amendment ZOA 04-81, Change in City Parking Regulation DATE: April 15, 1981 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The Planning Commission at its regular meeting of February 3, 1981, received a proposed amendment to the City's parking regulations. The Commission at that time instructed staff to examine: 1. The proposed revisions to veterinary hospitals and clinics. 2. Examine present provisions that might discourage persons from improving their property. Staff, at this time, would concur with the initial Commission recommendation that the parking requirements for veterinary clinics not be changed. Further examination has disclosed a tendency to have a quicker parking turnover than in most medical facilities, thus, warranting a lesser parking requirement. The second item of Commission concern is more complicated. Do current parking regu- lations discourage an owner from improving their building? Staff is not aware of any person discouraged from improving his property by the City' s parking regulations. Current regulations require that a property owner expanding his building install sufficient parking to accommodate the area of expansion. A property owner may also intensify the uses within his building if he can provide additional parking to accommodate the intensification. The only time that staff could envision a problem is in a situation similar to that discribed on pages four and five of the staff report of January 8, 1981. One way to avoid this situation is to amend the Code, Section 25.58.030, to require additional parking only when the use in the building is intensified; the section would read: "When the use of any premises is changed, altered, enlarged, expanded or intensified so additional parkinq is required, the additional parking to meet the requirements of this chapter shall be provided for the changed, enlarged, expanded, altered or intensified portion of the occupancy or use. " This change would permit the owner of a legal nonconforming building to replace the uses on his premises with uses of the same intensity without being required to provide additional parking. Staff would recommend that this alteration be implemented. Staff would not recommend, at this time, that property owners be permitted to intensify the usage of any premises without providing additional parking. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, recommending to the City Council adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 04-81 relating to City Parking Standards. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOP- TION OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO CITY PARKING STANDARDS. CASE NO. ZOA 04-81 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, III on the 15th day of April , 1981, hold a duly noticed public hearing on proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment 04-81, relating to City Parking Standards; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at said hearing did consider all relevant testimony on this matter; WHEREAS, studies and investigations, carried on behalf of the Planning Commission, disclosed that: 1. Current City parking regulations should be modified to reflect differences between specialty food stores and supermarkets; 2. The E1 Paseo area has unique problems identified in the staff report dated January 8, 1981. 3. These unique problems necessitate certain code revisions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. 4. Some method outside of the variance procedure must be established to examine those uses with parking demands greater than 1 space per 250 square feet of floor area ratio; and, WHEREAS, said Ordinance revision constitutes a minor alteration in land use ' regulation and is therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements of the Calif- ornia Environmental Quality Act. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert recommends to the City Council adoption of proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment 04-81 relating to City Parking Regulations and attached hereto as Exhibit "A" PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert at its meeting of the 15th day of April , 1981, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CHARLES MILLER, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /lr PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Page Two EXHBIT "A" 1. Amend Section 25.58.020 by adding: "except as otherwise provided in this chapter" 2. Amend Section 25.58.030 to read: c"When the use of any premises is changed, altered, enlarged, expanded or intensified so additional parking is required, the additional parking to meet the requirements of this chapter shall be provided for the changed, enlarged, expanded, altered or intensified portion of the occupancy or use, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. " 3. Add "Section 25.58.031 E1 Paseo Area Ch�an�es in Ise_. Within the area bounded by Larkspure on P orto a Blue on the east; by Palm Desert Drive on the north and El Paseo Drive on the south, retail commercial or office uses having a minimum required parking ratio of one stall per 250 square feet of gross floor area shall be permitted as replacement for any vacated use and the provisions of Sections 25.58.020 and 25.58.030 shall not apply. " 4. Amend portions of Sections 25.58.310 to read as follows: Food store, supermarket, or drugstore containing over 2000 square feet of gross 1 for each 200 square feet floor area of gross floor area Beauty Parlor 2 per station plus 2 ' Plant nursery with outdoor sales and display excluding 1 for each 250 square feet of greenhouses gross building area, excluding greenhouses, and 1 for each 500 square feet of outdoor display and greenhouse area 5. Add"Section 25.58.311 - Conditional Use Permit Required: A. All uses within the C-1 zone requiring a greater than 1 space per 250 square feet parking stall to floor area ratio shall be required to acquire a conditional use permit as set forth in Section 25.72 of this title. B. As part of said conditional use permit the Commission may modify the parking requirements for said use. In modifying such require- ments the Commission shall consider: 1. The parking demand generated by said use in relation to other uses in the area. 2. The hours of operation of said use in relation to the hours of operation of other uses in the area. 3. The relationship of the type of use to other uses in the area. 4. Any other factor the Commission might deem necessary in making its decision. ' CITY OF PALM DESERT TO: CITY MANAGER AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUBJECT: PARK STUDY REPORT DATE: JANUARY 8, 1981 Purpose: The intent of this report is to analyze the parking situation between Larkspur and Portola, Palm Desert Drive and E1 Paseo, and suggest alternative approaches to the problem. The problem is resolving the issues of what uses should be permitted in vacant facilities and what expansion should be permitted in the area. The problem has come to light as a result of inquiries by property owners desiring to expand their existing buildings, and a request to replace a former dress shop with a delicatessen (see attached letter from Mr. Hammond). Existing City code and policy requirements do not lend themselves to easy resolution of these issues. The above described area of E1 Paseo presently does not meet code required parking, but it should be pointed out that in looking at the entire area it never did. While individual property owners may have met our parking requirements as an entire commercial area, it has always been deficient by our standards. It should also be made clear that the City's redevelopment activity has reduced the shortage and improved the parking efficiency of that area. The required parking between Portola and Larkspur, north side of E1 Paseo and Palm Desert Drive, is about 1012 based on 253,000 square feet of commercial area with a general retail parking ratio of 1 space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. The amount of off-street parking (excluding the Frontage Road) provided is 606; the Frontage Road in that area is approximately 110 spaces. The report will first attempt to give a historical perspective; secondly, examine the City's parking and related codes; and finally, discuss alternative solutions and recommend a course of action designed to address the issues at hand. I. HISTORY In 1975 Palm Desert adopted a redevelopment project area generally bound by the City limits to the east and west; the properties south of E1 Paseo to the south; .the .properties north of Alessandro to Monterey; and, 44th Avenue, west of Monterey (see attach map) . Among the reasons for selection of the project area were: 1. "Portions of project area include lots fifty feet in width which do not provide sufficient area for adequate on-site, open space, landscaping, or parking availability (lots of inadequate size for proper usefulness)". 2. "Portions of the project area are characterized by a circulation system that is defective in design, and will require alteration to alleviate the present congestion problems and accident hazards (inadequate streets)". 3. A considerable portion of the project area is characterized by inadequate parking facilities both in numbers of parking spaces available and in their arrangement and accessibility (disuse resulting from faulty planning)". The probl ems identified then were a shortage of parking, poor circulation access, and an inability to resolve these issues. These concerns, it was felt, would prevent E1 Paseo from fulfilling itsNfull potential as a viable, well des-igned, integrated, high quality commercial area. One of the general objectives of the plan was: PARK STUDY REPORT JANUARY 8, 1981 Page Two "The strengthening of the land use pattern within the project area through redevelopment and development of underutilized land to enhance the viability of the commercial area of the City.." The area bordered by Highway 111, E1 Paseo, Hwy 74, and Portola Avenue was to be core area commercial and. . "Development within these areas shall include, but not be limited to offices, financial institutions, restaurants, retail com- mercial uses including convenience shopping, auto service, The 1975 document contained the following parking standard: "adequate parking shall be provided to accomodate all parking needs for each parcel in accordance with the provisions of the City's zoning ordinance. Parking facilities for the joint use of two or more parcels of a size sufficient to meet the com- bined requirements of such parcels may be constructed with prior written approval of the agency. " While this standard was a noble goal , it was impossible to reach. There is not sufficient land to provide parking at a ratio of 1 space to 250 sq.ft. ; let alone at a higher parking ratio. Within the suggested program itself there was a variance procedure established for the agency. Nowhere in the 1975 document are there figures illustrating the difficulty of providing a 1 to 250 parking ratio. It should be noted that while parking has not been provided at a ratio of 1 stall per 250 sq.ft. of gross floor area, the overall goals and objectives of the 1975 and 1977 redevelopment plans have been achieved. Greater parking is provided in a more efficient and unified manner than previously existed. In 1977 another plan was submitted focusing 6n the 116 acre area on both sides of Hwy 111, between Hwy 74 and Monterey on the west, Cabrillo on the east, extending north to San Gorgonio and south to Larrea. Among the purposes of this plan was the integration of on and off street parking and to "Recommend general development standards to guide the redevelopment agency and the City in the development of public and private properties". The parking proposals of that plan were "designed to provide greater utilization of existing parking area, as well as to assure adequate parking in blocks which have yet to be fully developed. " Among the major proposals of that plan were 1. The provision of "diagonal parking on frontage roads to increase the amount of parking, and provide safer, better visibility parking on one way system (accomplished). 2. "The provision of parking to meet an overall ratio (standard) of 1.6 square feet of parking area to one square foot of floor area. " This would be equivalent of four stalls per 1000 sq.ft. of floor area or the 1 to 250 general retail parking require- ments of Palm Desert. The plan proposed that parking , to offset any shortages north of El Paseo, would be provided on the south side of El Paseo Drive. PARK STUDY REPORT JANUARY 8, 1981 Page Three . Since 1977, development along the south side of El Paseo and. the passage of Proposition 13 have seriously encumbered the opportunity to provide additional parking on vacant parcels on the north and south side of E1 Paseo. On the north side of E1 Paseo, the plan pinpointed a concern "Because of the extent of development in the block between San Luis Rey and Portola, only one opportunity remains to provide access from E1 Paseo. This opportunity must be preserved as soon as possible to avoid a further and critical reduction of off-street parking within the block below 1 to 1.6 ratio established as the minimum standard for the study area. " This opportunity was realized with the Bank of America development. Even if the agency or City were to acquire these existing vacant sites on both the north and south side of E1 Paseo the 1.6 to 1 parking to floor area ratio will not be met. The 1977 document also called for integrated parking for new construction on the south side of E1 Paseo, which is currently being implemented. The plan also saw an eventual need to expand already existing buildings along E1 Paseo. "The major limitation of current practice" (Where zoning and parking deed restrictions dictate buildable area) is that it has been difficult to achieve continuity in pedestrian walkways, landscaped areas and parking circul atior,,.more importantly a continuation of current practice will make it virtually impossible to achieve proposals of the preliminary plans for midblock parking and related pedestrian circulation and landscape improvement". The 1977 plan then recommended the following method of implementation 1. "That the Redevelopment Agency develop all parking within a given block as a single project. 2. As properties proposed for new construction, the Redevelopment Agency would assess the owner for his pro-rata share of development costs based on the percentage which the area of a given building envelope representsthe total square feet of building envelope available. within the block". This, of course, presents a problem. again associated with the agency's ability or inability to secure revenue to initially acquire the site . needed for additional parking. There are also serious questions relating to the ability of the agency to recoup funds expended for this activity. There is also the practical problem of assuring equity by preventing those in the area who have not contributed to the parking fund from utilizing it. This brings us to the second portion of this report and the analysis of current code requirements. II. PRESENT CODE Section 25.58.030 Changed Uses of the City's zoning ordinance,if strictly interpreted poses some serious problems city-wide, but particularly in the El Paseo Shopping area: PARK STUDY REPORT JANUARY 8, 1981 Page Four "When the occupancy or use of any premises is changed to a different use, or is altered, enlarged, expanded or intensified, additional parking to meet the requirements of this chapter shall be provided for the changed, enlarged, expanded, altered, or intensified portion of the occupancy or use. " The use of the word "or" throughout this section means that in any building which does not provide sufficient parking to meet code, a change in tenants will trigger a demand for additional parking. Clearly, even two uses requiring the same parking, if they change, must upgrade otherwise the code, when written, would have limited the need to provide additional parking only when a use is intensified. In situations where area is available for additional parking, this code pro- vision provides a vehicle to eliminate nonconforming parking situations. However, in areas where it is not possible to provide added parking such as E1 Paseo this code section presents a critical problem. Since none of the buildings between Larkspur and Portola on the north side of El Paseo provide sufficient parking on individual sites and since the parking that is provided does not meet present code, it appears that no vacancy can be replaced or occupancy changed without additional parking provided or variances granted. Without some type of City or redevelopment action property owners can not provide parking on the same site as the building is required by Section 25.58.04. "The required parking spaces or garages shall be located on the same building site except as otherwise provided by this title". The only provision in the code for off-site parking is Section 25.58.300 In Lieu Parking Payments " In commercial districts, parking spaces required by the provisions of this chapter may be satisfied by the payment of a fee, per parking space to the off-street parking fund of the City prior to issuance of a building permit, provided that the district in which the use is to be established is within an established parking district. Funds placed into the off-street parking fund pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, shall be used exclusively for the purpose of acquiring and developing off-street parking facilities, limited insofar as practicable to the general vicinity of the premises for which in lieu payments were made. The payments shall be in an amount set forth by City Council Resolution. This provision shall apply only to projects in the C-1 and P-I districts. . . " The City would first need to establish a district, set up the fee, and collect it. However, there are real problems involved in this area, among them, lack of available sites and the practicality of implementation. More will be said about this in the alternatives section of this report. The reason this code section is mentioned is twofold; one, because it has been suggested as an alternative and two, because it is the only provision for off-site parking in the present City regulations. In looking at the section of the zoning code relating to nonconforming off-street parking and loading facilities, the existing problem becomes more complex. Section 25.76.050 Nonconforming Off-street Parking and Loading Facilities "Existing buildings whose off-street parking or loading facilities do not conform to the provision of this title may be expanded or facilities added, provided the require- ments for off-street parking and loading space have been complied with for those facilities added or enlarged. " PARK STUDY REPORT JANUARY 8, 1981 Page Five Alone it appears that this section is quite clear, but when coupled with Section 25.58.030 of the Parking section we have the following scenario possible: A 2500 sq.ft. sporting goods store would require 10 spaces (1 per 250 sq.ft. ) but is located on a parcel containing 6 spaces. Should the owner wish to expand to 3000 sq.ft. , he may do so if he can provide 2 more spaces (1 to 250) bringing his total to 8. This is consistent with both sections 25.58.030 and 25.76.050 since he is meeting code for the enlargement. However, should the 2500 sq.ft. sporting goods store become vacant and a jeweler wish to take over the building, he would be prohibited from starting his business until he added 4 more spaces to bring his total to 10, based on Section 25.58.030. Why? Because he has changed occupancy of the entire building and, therefore, the entire building must be brought up to code. There is nothing inherently wrong with this provision, because it provides existing tenants with the opportunity to expand without undue burdens; and, it informs new occupants that they will need to meet City parking regulations. As long as land is available to provide added parking there is no problem. In conclusion, based on current code requirements, without variances owners would not be permitted to replace tenants in the area between Larkspur and Portola, Highway 111 and El Paseo Drive. In addition, existing vacant parcels could not be easily developed and those buildings setback from pedestrian walkways could not be extended to join the walk as envisioned and recommended in previously adopted plans. The next section will contain various alternatives to resolve the issues mentioned. III. ALTERNATIVES There are various alternatives available; among them: A. continue the present procedure and practice B. establish a Parking District to collect in-lieu fees C. Transfer of Development Rights D. change present code requirements A. Continue Present Procedure and Practice This alternative would require variance hearings each time a change of occupancy or use occurs. This process is time consuming and, in the case of the El Paseo area, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to meet the required findings for variance. The difficulty in meeting variance findings stems from the fact that everty building or property in the area is faced with the same problem. There is no uniqueness. Secondly, each variance would be precedent for the next one. If required findings could be made for one, they would have to be made for all . Time consumed and delays is another problem. Staff time would be required to process each variance and because of the present code requirements each building in the area would be required to acquire a variance, until every square foot of commercial area is covered by a variance. Of greater concern is the time involved for the property owner and potential tenant. Each variance would take 60 to 90 days from the date of application to the date it becomes effective. PARK STUDY REPORT JANUARY 8, 1981 Page Six Finally, while the present approach may be precedent setting, it falls short of a clear policy direction which is what is needed. B. Parking District -- To Collect In Lieu Parking Fees Such a solution needs three items to be successful : 1. Land available for acquisition to provide parking. 2. Front end funding to permit the agency to acquire and develop the added parking. 3. Cooperation of those who will ultimately provide the parking. As stated previously, the parking defiency envisioned in 1977 was to be made up by parking being provided on vacant parcels north and south of E1 Paseo. The shortage in parking, as provided, is too great and can not be made up from vacant pareels. In addition, if a person provides in lieu funds for parking, what guarantee does the individual have that the parking will not be utilized by a non-contributor; what happens when these vacant lots are built;-there will still be a shortage of code parking. The problem of securing support is also a real one; since there is not a shortage of parking as perceived presently by property owners or tenants in the area. In short, it would appear that all three prerequisites for an in lieu situation have difficulty in being met. C. Transfer of Development Rights Under such a plan an individual needing parking could acquire the excess parking credit belonging to someone else. For example, owner "A" has a furniture store of 2500 sq.ft. which under present code requires 5 spaces (1 per 500) , if he has provided or has credit for 10 (1 to 250' ratio) owner "B" could acquire the sq.ft. rights for the five unused spaces. The only problems with this alternative are keeping accurate records, and there should be at some point parity between parking required and that provided, unfortunately this does not exist. Transfer of development rights has been tried by other cities in different manners, and has not proved successful . D. Revision of the Current Code What has brought this entire matter to light is the inability of our current ordinances to provide an equitable solution to the area between Larkspur and Portola, Highway 111 and E1 Paseo. This does not mean that one should define themselves into compliance. Clearly, establishing a parking standard of 1 space for each 2000 sq.ft. of retail area would solve the problem of code parking, but would not address the issues. On the other hand, if the amount of parking provided does not present an inherent problem, and strict adherence to zoning standards create problems, some reevaluation is in order. Vacant buildings do not aid anyone, they create dead areas in centers. Owners are not provided needed income to maintain existing structures and provide a fair profit. Business opportunities and the jobs they bring-are also not realized Finally, the needed city reven is not realized. The 1975 and 1977 plan recognized the problems in the El Paseo area and clearly the actions of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency have made tremendous strides in addressing those problems. More parking is now provided and in a more efficient and effective manner than would have been possible had no action by the City occurred. PARK STUDY REPORT JANUARY 8, 1981 Page Seven A mechanism must be established to answer the requests of property owners like the Hammonds who have vacancies. Mechanisms must be established to allow those property owners whose buildings do not presently reach the pedestrian walk to expand and eliminate the problems identified in previously adopted plans. Also , how should the remaining vacant parcels be developed? Amending the City's parking and related regulations to specifically address this area is the recommended alternative. First, those buildings between Larkspur and Portola should be permitted occupancy by any use allowed as a matter of right with a parking require- ment of 1 space per 250 square feet. Secondly, all indoor general retail , with noted exceptions, should have the same parking requirement of 1 space per 250 square feet. There is very little justification, if any, to distinguish between small food stores and plant shops as opposed to dress shops and jewelry stores, for example. Thirdly, a distinction should be made between a supermarket and a small specialty food store such as a health food store, delicatessen, etc. The type, volume, and time spent by customers in a supermarket is not the same as that spent in a small specialty food store. In addition, the conditional use permit section should be modified to reflect the distinction. Fourthly, all uses requiring more than one space per 250 square feet in the C-1 area should require a conditional use permit and, if feasible, the parking requirements may be modified to 1 space per 250 sq.ft. if it can be demonstrated that the peak hours of said use would not conflict with the other merchants. Fifthly, as build out occurs and all buildings are occupied, the City should keep a careful view of the area to see if parking problems develop and what type of problems develop and what type of problems they are to make any changes to the code necessary to alleviate those problems. Finally, the City's subdivision regulations should be amended to specifically preclude the creation of parcels which are nonconforming, in terms of parking , and could not be corrected. This solution provides an equitable right to all those who presently own buildings in the El Paseo area. In addition, some of the changes affect other commercial areas of the City to avoid future problems. This alternative would enable the City to continue its close scrutiny on high parking uses such as restaurants, dental offices, barber and beauty salons. IV. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the City Council instruct staff to proceed with the amendments proposed in Alternative D. Fjp1 N.A. .DIAZ /lr IN C ice" � C = s�Ea 4 :'a• ` �i p p I gm emu t'� �x nqd1 ■ �� p�;��p. in ..■q -- -- = . hdial dellveaed —` 79-331 �;u enhowea W ay BeAm a Uunee, A 92201 oheftftd Decembea 23, 1960 1 To City CO-1r!f-.I City Council o� Palm Oe.4e&t Re: Appaova.L o� Deli, Food Stone gentlemen: We xezpect�ully nequeet yours "4iAtance in having, the above pnoapecti.ve tenant appnovad Pa a conditional u"ee peRmi.t �aom the City o� Palm Deoeat. Ours pnopeaty i,e known ae the 111 Shopping {,,enitelt, Located between .San Lui4 Rey and Lanhepua. Lane in Talm Oedent, on ,the eouth .aide of N.cghway 111, in .the ehape o� a Lange U, the only pnopeaty with ouz own o��-.etaeet paining on gi.ghway 111. 7hed p?emi.eee �oameetiy occuped by Sandna yoah Ladies I4ean, an .inen Anne #ilton Ca4ual Weaa, ate 1500 dquane �eet in the middle of oua ehoppAna area and wene vacated laet Fall. Since the middle at Novembers, we have been attempting "to get the app¢ovaZ- rsom ie anning Department to allow a new tenant to occupy the paemiee.o as a deli_ Pod .etone. .They will aequiae leeo panhing .than the jormen .tenant, ae well a4 have a tasters turnovers in ueage o� the parking tacilitiee. We have .funned down others tequeate by pro.epective tenant4 whom we Celt weae undevirsable toa the City. o€ Palm De.aeat, ouz others tenant.a and everyonr Ln that aaea. We arse not intersected in having a motoacyole chop oa eucA in that arsea-- we don 't believe it would be an aacet, co when theee tine people cane to ue with the La idea of a deli Pod hose, we thought it would be beneifiei.al to eveayone. They would attn.ac.t Ane people who would no doubt chop in othea dtoaed in the aaea ae well, beneAting eveayone. -In orders to gain appnovaL �aom the City o� Palm Deeerst, the pnoepective tenant paid 15. 00 to have an Lnepectoa vieit the paem.i.aee and advice what would be neceeeaay, attea which time the tenant was infoamed that it would be neceeeaay to get peamieeion Pam the Planning Department due to the anhing ei.tuaiian and then he would be able to apply ors a condpitevnaL use mi. e peat. .cty of Palm Desert Uecembea 23, 1980 /Page Two -in ,the past, .the paahing facilities weae adequate f02 all of our ten tenants, with t e . ont and rear paxhin s aces avac.lab.le. With .the new Aaeeideni 's %Caba /Parhing facilI-Uep e, eurefy heae would be no Logical xeaeon to prevent .thi.e store tom being allowed to operate, but we cannot get a definite commitment and thexeAoxe, the proepecti.ve tenant i-d unwilling to incur debts to i.mrxove the prem.idee for hie new bueine.es. We all want the City of /Palm Decent to cmp?ove--we pexaonalCy want to improve the appearance of the premises of the entice 111 Shopping. Centex, but abo have to shelve. that idea until such time as we can be aesuxed o� having rental receipts to pay Pa the .improvements. We eincexelyy beg, you& indulgence.' We have been advised%that last Thursday evening,, December 78, 7980, there wax a ri.eetin held bepae you and the Nanning Department made an oral g -_- repot# on 'oehalf of ;Mix prvs ective tenant. We Learned the �o Llowing da that ineu4ci ent information wad presented b the Planning �epa&iment, there ore, ,the matter would have to be ta6led until %anuary 8, 198�. The prospective tenant cannot proceed, and han been unable to proceed since Aovembex 15tV We axe unable to sign a lease until we hnow that he will 6e allowed to operate lsia deli food store. This etumbfing bloch ie costing a great deal of money. The g411-a std—1 pile up, mortga ges, taxes and insurance have to e paid, with no sign of rental zeceZptj on the 1900 Square feet until well after eanuary 8th. We have been led io believe that the Nanning Depantmen.t would nqi recommend the ueare of the rem"e.6 on ourJpn.opertu for ,th.z..s deli flood store tecauee 0t inadequate paiuzing. TL.6 seems unae"gnable and un fustif i.ed to us. 9t has been indicated .that d ouJd someone other than this ,tenant come to u.6. to rent the premises, they would ossibLy be su6�ecied to the same denial recommendation and itappea" that there are many months ahead of us with no paying tenant on these 1500 square foot premises. YoupqEseen ygQndaszece sbon;nevene�a ae n_tOeer ha2e¢heWeconomy Viuly beg your mercy in approving this tenant. dii m`� Palm DeA eat e c ea 23, 1980 Page Thtee %eahap4 you know MA. and Atd. tznie AcCleaa,l{ o� Palm Deeea.t and fheia paatnea.d, AA. and A". faaacah who would .Like to edtablieh .th.i.a deli �ood dtoae in Palm &.oeat. plea,ee don '# d.i..acouaage them.'.' We all dIncezely aequeet youa appaoval o� .thie excellent idea Pa a new buoine•en .cn PaGn De.aeat. Pleaae allow .them .to zeceive a Conditional Uee %eamit. Thank you �o,% any h Odne.a.ae.e you can be.e.tow on ihu aequedt, and we hope 1951 will be a pao.apea.ouv yeaa Pa all. Sinceaelry, William R. Han mond m INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUBJECT: PARKING REQUIREMENTS DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 1981 On January 8, 1981, the City Council instructed Staff to proceed with a series of amendments to the City of Palm Desert Parking regulations to resolve some of the problems occurring in the E1 Paseo area. The attached amendments are those that were recommended on January 2, 1981. Attached is also a copy of that staff report to familiarize the Commission with the problem and suggested solutions. 430N DIAZ PROPOSED CHANGES EFFECTING PALM DESERT PARKING REGULATIONS 1. Amend Section 25.58.020 and 25.58.030 by adding: "except as otherwise provided in this chapter" 2. Add the following section: Section 25.58.031 E1 Paseo Area Chan es in Use. "Within the area bounded by Larkspur Lane on the west; by Portola venue on the east; by Palm Desert Drive on the north and E1 Paseo Drive on the south, retail commercial or office uses having a minimum required parking ratio of one stall per 250 square feet of gross floor area shall be permitted as replacement for any vacated use and the provisions of sections 25.58.020 and 25.58.030 shall not apply". 3. Amend portions of Section 25.58.310 to read as follows: Food store, supermarket, or drugstore containing over 2000 square feet of gross floor area 1 for each 200 square feet of gross floor area Beauty Parlor 2 per station plus 2 Plant nursery with outdoor sales and display excluding 1 for each 250 square feet of greenhouses gross building area, excluding greenhouses, and 1 for each 500 square feet of outdoor display and greenhouse area Veterinary hospitals and clinics 1 for each 200 square feet of office area, plus 1 for each operating room or table. NOTE: The differences between this proposal and existing ordinance are: 1. The provision differing between food stores having less than and more than 2000 square feet of floor area. 2. The parking requirement for Beauty Parlor was 3 per station. 3. The requirement for a nursery was 5 plus 1 additional space for each 500 square feet of outdoor area. 4. Veterinary hospitals and clinics are currently required to have I stall for each 300 square feet of gross floor area. J Parking Requirements February 3, 1981 Page Two 4. Add Section 25.58.311 Conditional Use Permit Required: A. All uses within the C-1 zone requiring a greater than 1 space per 250 square feet parking stall to floor area ratio shall be required to acquire a conditional use permit as set forth in section 25.72 of this title. B. As part of said conditional use permit the Commission may modify the parking requirements for said use. In modifying such requirements the Commission shall consider: 1. The parking demand generated by said use in relation to other uses in the area. 2. The hours of operation of said use in relation to the hours of operation of other uses in the area. 3. The relationship of the type of use to other uses in the area. 4. Any other factor the Commission might deem necessary in making its decision. .