Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA 91-2 CITY OF PALM DESERT 1991 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRANSMITTAL LETTER I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Consideration of an amendment to the zoning ordinance as it relates to permitted conditional uses in the P Public/Institutional Zone. III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert IV. CASE NO: ZOA 91-2 hiEETIt7G DATE f 21 I n 1� V. DATE: October 10, 1991 k ❑ COiiTi;dUED TD ___ VI. CONTENTS: R _ —PASSED TJ 21.10 READING A. Staff Recommendation. B. Discussion. C. Draft Ordinance No. 656. D. Planning Commission staff report dated August 20, 1991. E. Related maps and/or exhibits. F. Planning Commission minutes of August 20, 1991. G. Written comments received. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A. . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 656 to second reading. B. BACKGROUND: This matter was continued from the August 22, 1991 city council meeting so that it could be processed concurrently with a similar amendment which would be applicable to the commercial zones. At the August 20, 1991 planning commission hearing numerous people spoke to both sides of the issue (see minutes attached) . Planning commission on a 5-0 vote recommended approval of the proposed amendment to the city council. C. DISCUSSION: The proposed code amendment, if adopted, will permit a "swap meet- street fair" type of activity as a conditional use in the P zone which College of the Desert is zoned. Adoption of this amendment will permit the city to process a conditional use permit for the ongoing street fair at the college. This CUP then can be fully STAFF REPORT ZOA 91-2 OCTOBER 10, 1991 assessed and denied or approved subject to conditions which would be imposed on the operation. Prepared by: / Ld i Reviewed and Approved by: SRS/tm 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1532 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AMENDING SECTION 38.030 PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. CASE NO. ZOA 91-2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of August, 1991, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance to insert subsection "Q" into section 25.38.030 (conditional uses in the public/institutional zone) ; and WHEREAS, said amendment has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89, " in that the director of community development has determined the amendment to be a class 21 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission 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 zoninc ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted general plan. 3. That the zoning ordinance amendment will better serve the public health, safety and general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That the planning commission does hereby recommend to the city council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 91-2 as provided in the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit "A" , subject to the addition of the amendment to the commercial zones. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1532 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission; held on this 20th day of August, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: DOWNS, ERWOCD, JONATHAN, RICHARDS, WHITLOCK NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary SRS/tm 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1532 EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 That section 25.38.030 of the municipal code be and the same is hereby amended by adding to said section the following subparagraph. "Q. Outdoor sales of arts, crafts, clothing, goods, wares and other merchandise. " 3 CITY OF. PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRANSMITTAL LETTER I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Consideration of an amendment to the zoning ordinance as it relates to permitted conditional uses in the P Public/Institutional Zone. III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert IV. CASE NO: ZOA 91-2 V. DATE: August 22, 1991 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation. B. Discussion. C. Draft Ordinance No. 656 D. Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 20, 1991. E. Related maps and/or exhibits. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 656 to second reading. B. DISCUSSION: The proposed code amendment, if adopted, will permit .a "swap meet- street fair" type of activity as a conditional use in the P zone which College of the Desert is zoned. Adoption of this amendment will permit the city to process a conditional use permit for the ongoing street fair at the college. This CUP then can be fully assessed and denied or approved subject to conditions which would be imposed on the operation. This proposed amendment was before planning commission at its August 20, 1991 meeting. If commission fails to recommend approval staff will so advise city council and this matter will be continued to a further date certain. Prepared by: L* Reviewed and Approved by: QGy,�I SRS/tm __.., ti �= - 3 ORDINANCE NO. 656 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 25.38 OF CODE OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RELATING TO THE P- PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT. CASE NO. ZOA 91-2 The City of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1 . That 25.38.030 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert, California, be, and the same hereby is, amended by adding to said section the following subparagraph. "Q. Outdoor sales of arts, crafts, clothing, goods, wares and other merchandise. " SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published once in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated within the City of Palm Desert, and the same shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this day of 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: WALTER H. SNYDER, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California SRS/tm CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: August 20, 1991 CASE NO: ZOA 91-2 REQUEST: Amendment to permitted conditional uses in the P, Public/Institutional District Zone. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND: As commission is probably aware there has been considerable discussion regarding the ongoing "swap meet"-"street fair" which operates at the College of the Desert. The city' s original position was that the city could not regulate activities on State owned property. This position has changed recently and the city attorney feels that the city can regulate functions on the college site if they are uses other than the primary operation of the junior college. In order that the ongoing swap meet-street fair. can be reviewed and regulated we must first insert the use as a permitted conditional use in the P zone which the entire college is zoned. This will then permit the college or the alumni association to apply for the necessary conditional use permit and will allow the community to make their feelings known at a future public hearing. II. DISCUSSION• The draft resolution attached hereto will insert swap meet-street fair as a permitted conditional use in the P public/institutional zone ( section 25. 68.030 Q) . III. ANALYSIS• A. FINDINGS: 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 will better serve the public health, safety and general welfare. STAFF REPORT ZOA 91-2 AUGUST 20, 1991 B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The director of community has determined that the proposed code amendment is a class 21 categorical exemption and no further review is necessary. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends: A. Adoption of the findings delineated in the staff report. B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending approval of ZOA 91-2 to the city council. Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by� SRS/tm 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AMENDING SECTION 38.030 PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. CASE NO. ZOA 91-2 WHEREAS, the. Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of August, 1991, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance to insert subsection "Q" into section 25.38.030 (conditional uses in the public/institutional zone) ; and WHEREAS, said amendment has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89, " in that the director of community development has determined the amendment to be a class 21 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission 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 will better serve the public health, safety and general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That the planning commission does hereby recommend to the city council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 91-2 as provided in the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit "A. " PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLiTPION NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 20th day of August, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary SRS/tm 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 That section 25.38.030 of the municipal code be and the same is hereby amended by adding to said section the following subparagraph. "Q. Outdoor sales of arts, crafts, clothing, goods, wares and other merchandise. " 3 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY - JULY 10, 1991 - 3:00 P.M. COMMUNITY SERVICES CONFERENCE ROOM 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. ROLL CALL Present : Absent: Dave Tschopp, Chairman George Berkey Diane Cox Don Hedlund Frank Goodman John Cariale Hank Stokes Others Present: Walt Snyder, Mayor Bruce Altman, City Manager Paul Shillcock, ACM/Economic Development Director Dave Erwin, City Attorney Bill Adams, Attorney Representative Jim Richards, Planning Commission Liaison Carol Whitlock, Planning Commission Chairperson Dan Ehrler, Chamber of Commerce Donna Gomez, Secretary II. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Colleae of the Desert Street Fair Mr. Tschopp indicated that this item was referred by the PZannina Commission for review and recommendation by the Economic Development Advisory Committee. Mr. Altman explained that there has been some controversy surrounding the COD street fair and that there are lawsuits currently pending. COD submitted a request to the City for a conditional use permit (CUP) and a zoning ordinance amendment (ZOA) to allow the use of their property for an open air street fair. Mr. Shillcock explained that Mr. Erwin was present in order to relate to the committee what points are appropriate for this committee to discuss. Any recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission in their entirety. MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE JULY 10, 1991 Mr. Erwin explained that it was important that the committee treat this item as a normal agenda item under the purview of this committee. it should be addressed from an economic standpoint. COD is currently zoned "P" (public) which permits public uses subject to a conditional use permit. The litigation that has been filed is designated as a request for a writ of mandate which would be an order from the court directing someone to do something. The question is whether an open air retail market of this type is allowed even with a CUP. The lawsuit was filed by a recently formed group called Concerned Citizens of the Coachella Valley, Inc. Mr. Erwin indicated they had requested the names of the people involved with the group but have not received any further information at this time. Mr. Adams noted that it includes approximately 30 members ranging from Palm Springs to Palm Desert. Mr. Richards asked about the fact that this is State property which he has been told the City has no right to regulate activities or building. Mr. Erwin noted that this was not the case. He explained that if the City wishes to impose its zoning ordinance on community college land, they must give notice to the college board. The board then either votes to accept this or determines that they be exempt. That determination is to be made only for the educational facilities. The challenge is whether this determination was correct. Mr. Altman indicated a letters was written by the college board requesting that we do this. Mr. Erwin explained that there is currently a case in. the 4th District court which handed down a final decision that basically stated that an open air retail market was not a public use. Mr. Ehrler explained that there had been an agreement discussed between Palm Desert merchants and COD in which the City acted as facilitator. It was his understanding that certain merchandise would no longer be sold at the street fair. Mr. Richards asked if there is a past case law does it automatically make any other same activity llleaal . 2 MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE JULY 10, 1991 Mr. Erwin noted that there are other elements that come into plav in this case that may allow it to be a separate issue (ie: COD pre-existed the City) . Mr. Stokes noted that the group is asking that the City be required to enforce their rules that would prevent outdoor sellina on that site. He asked if the City were to approve the rezoning of the site would that pull the rug out from under the groups case. Mr. Erwin stated that it would. He noted that another position they may take is that City Council has the authority to use its discretion to not require enforcement. Mr. Goodman felt the zonina amendment and the law suit are only parts of the legal proceedings and that the real question was whether they actually want the street fair in Palm Desert . Mr. Altman noted that was part of the issue at hand and explained that the City has received a lot of criticism for not taking a stand on this issue. He noted that the process this .item will go through will give the public an opportunity to tell us what they want. Mayor Snyder noted that he has received several arguments for the street fair and several arguments against it. He felt , that . it was about a 50/50 split. Mr. Goodman felt this should not be a decision for the people. He felt the City has a responsibility to maintain the property values and to provide a safe and healthy shcppin_a atmosphere. Ms. Cox noted that this is an issue that affects all of Palm Desert, not just the street fair. She indicated she had spoken to several people about the events taking place in Palm Springs. She felt it was very important to watch what happens there. Ms. Cox was opposed to the vendors only payina a S20. 00 fee as compared to the rents charged on El Paseo. Mr. Tschopp felt the committee should concentrate on specific areas such as if the street fair is in the best economic interest of the City and what type of benefits it provides to the citizens of the community. The funds COD are raising are being used for college programs and scholarships. 3 MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE JULY 10, 1991 Mayor Snyder mentioned that COD has conducted a survey which showed that people come from as far away as Fontana just to visit the street fair. Mr. Stokes felt that the community would be in favor of keeping the street fair on an 8-2 basis. He hoped to have a solution that would work for both COD and the business community. He suggested doubling the daily fee for selling at COD and using the additional money charged for promotion of retail business in Palm Desert. Mr. Ceriale felt swap meets and discount centers were offensive but indicated that 's what people are looking for. They are asking the concierge at the Marriott where to find these places. He noted that the demand is there and if Palm Desert doesn ' t provide it, someone else will . He felt the street fair went against the grain of what Palm Desert is trying to attract, high end shopping. He noted he was aware of several wealthy people that shop at the street fair including the residents of Morningside Country Club where he lives. Ms. Cox noted that most of the vendors are not Palm Desert residents and are not spending much money here either. She felt another big problem was the Cabazon and Barstow factory outlet centers. Mr. Goodman suggested the vendors be made to pay an equal share or their fair share. Mr. Stokes suggested that they pay a significant fee and that a board be created to govern the street fair. The board could include people from the City, COD and the business community. Mr. Ceriale noted that if he was creating a street fair he would not want anyone from the town center or El Paseo to be on the board. There was some concern expressed over the possibility of opening up any "P" zoned property for this type of use with the approval of a conditional use permit. This would demand additional regulation by the board that was created. 4 MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE JULY 10, 1991 Mr. Tschopp felt it was important to assess what benefits and impacts are being brought to the community/city that are not being reimbursed. He asked if they would allow the street fair to operate and the City keep providing services and not charge for them. Mr. Goodman noted that people like to come to Palm Desert where they feel comfortable and not afraid. Mr. Tschopp noted that people are coming here from out of the area and staying over night and using the facilities. He felt that retail companies wanting to locate in Palm Desert might be dissuaded when they see the street fair. It could have a negative impact on these organizations looking for locations. Mr. Ceriale noted that his wife would still shop the street fair if it moved but she will also continue to shop at the Town Center and on E1 Paseo. Mr. Altman indicated that the only fees the vendors currently pay the City are sales taxes and business license fees. Mayor Snyder indicated that business license fees are based on gross receipts and the City gets 14 of the gross .- sales if accuraterecords are kept. He noted that there are no restrooms at the street fair and that the bus can ' t even stop at the designated bus stop because of the traffic/parking. Mr. Richards noted it was a challenge to the retailers to figure out how to get some of that business. Mayor Snyder noted that the street fair started as a vegetable fair and has grown over the last several years to what it is today. Mr. Stokes suggested they also reinstitute the same restriction on the type of items being sold. Mr. Adams indicated that any condition can be placed on the project with the CUP process. He noted that, although vendors may have year-Iona contracts with COD, they would have to comply after their contract expires. 5 MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE JULY 10, 1991 Mayor Snyder felt they were heading in the right direction with the restriction of items sold and additional fees. He also suggested that additional conditions relating to restrooms, electrical hook ups and parking solutions be recommended. Mr. Richards felt that if COD knew they had an ongoing. thing they might be willing to make some capital improvements to better accommodate the street fair. Ms. Cox asked if other cities with this type of open air market had been contacted on how they monitor sales. Mr. Altman explained that there is very little they can do because most are cash sales. Mr. Goodman suggested customers be required to show a sales receipt at the exit. Mr. Richards asked whether it would be worth hiring someone for $20, 000 a year to enforce this. Mr. Altman noted that it is the State 's responsibility to enforce this and the City could not do it. Mr. Ceriale felt that the State should have some way of regulating these street fairs, especially with the budget problems their having. Mr. Stokes suggested they list the conditions that they would recommend be placed on any approval of a CUP. Mr. Altman suggested changing it to allow Sunday only which would provide sales when most other retail businesses are closed. Mayor Snyder suggested a list of conditions be imposed including proper signage, COD collecting additional fees, public safety, restrooms, etc. It was suggested that the City charge additional business license fees for open air sales. Mr. Stokes felt a street fair was suitable if it 's put under very rigorous conditions. Mr. Richards noted that the college provides a necessary asset to the community. He feels they have their back to a wall and this is their way of trying to raise some money. 6 MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE DULY 10, 1991 Mr. Goodman noted that there is nothing that states COD can ' t hold the street fair somewhere else. Mr. Richards suggested some type of recommendation that additional conditions be placed on the street fair that would include putting some money back into the affected parties and clean it up. Mr. Goodman indicated he would vote for a motion to that effect. Mr. Tschopp suggested that COD be reminded that all vendors must be in compliance with all sales tax laws, etc. Mr. Shillcock noted that this item will be before Planning Commission in September. Mr. Ehrler requested a copy of. today 's discussion and any final recommendations. He noted that the Chamber basically has taken the same stand as the City by not taking a position. He noted they have received a formal request from Chamber members to take a stand. He would be taking the information from this meeting to the Chamber Board for discussion. Mr. Stokes felt it was important for the City Council to not take the easy way out which would gain the bitterness of the business community. Ms. Whitlock agreed that the direction the EDAC was heading was the way to handle the situation. Mr. Richards felt it was important to place conditions on the project that would make it only allowed in this one location. Mr. Adams noted that the Santa Ana case required an EIR for their swap meet. Mr. Stokes felt it might be useful for staff and two City Council members to meet with the principals involved before the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Richards didn ' t feel the timing was right for this since it has been going on for a long time. He suggested they proceed with staff preparing the recommendation. 7 MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE JULY 10, 1991 It was MOVED by Mr. Stokes, seconded by Mr. Goodman to recommend that additional restrictions and conditions be placed on the COD street fair. Suggestions listed should not be limited to these but could include the following: o Open weekends only o Additional significant fees be charged to be used for promotion of all Palm Desert retail business o Support Facilities - restrooms,. electrical hook-ups, parking, etc. o Establish a board to oversee the street fair. To be made up of COD representatives, business community and City representatives o Reimbursement of any charges incurred by the City for services provided o Reinstitute limitations as previously agreed on the items for sale III. MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS None IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None V. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Mr. Goodman, seconded by Mr. Stokes to adjourn the meeting at 4:25 p.m. /dlg 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 moved for a continuance. The motion died due to a lack of a second. Commissioner Jonathan made a motion to approve the findings as presented by staff. Action• Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Chairperson Whitlock, approving the findings as presented by staff. Commissioner Richards asked for clarification on the 25 feet height. Mr. Drell stated that it would be measured from the average curb elevation; the height would be measured from that curb and he would have to have a very minimum grade of slightly subgrade back where the second story would be located to achieve the 25 feet in height. Motion carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Chairperson Whitlock, adopt'.ng Planning Commission Resolution No. 1531, recommending to city council approval of GPA 91-2, C/Z 91-2, PP 91-8, and denial of VAR 91-2 subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0. C. Case No. ZOA 91-2 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for an amendment to permitted conditional uses in the P, Public/Institutional District Zone. Mr. Diaz stated that this hearing was not to discuss the pros and cons of the College of the Desert street fair, but the purpose of the hearing was to discuss the pros and cons of whether or not the city should allow open air sales in the P zone with a conditional use permit. The net result of that would be that if the ordinance amendment was adopted ultimately by the city council and enacted, then an application for a conditional use permit could be made and a public hearing on the specific permit applied for would be held before the planning commission. He stated that the ordinance was fairly simple and would amend the conditional use provisions of the P or public zone and basically that zone encompasses all public institutions of education, as well as certain other publicly owned parcels. He stated that an application for a conditional use permit would have to be made by the agency that would hold that parcel and the hearing would be before the planning commission. He noted that 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 letters in opposition had been received from the E1 Paseo Business Association, Cameron' s of E1 Paseo, and there was a letter before commission from the Chamber of Commerce opposing the ordinance change as it was written and recommending that the ordinance change be extended to other commercial zones so that privately owned property could also apply for a conditional use permit. Staff did not have a problem with amending the wording of the ordinance to include other zones or having a hearing on those other zones. He clarified that the hearing was before the commission without the conditional use permit application because of the litigation filed against the city requesting that the city terminate the street fair at the college and in order to demonstrate to the courts that the city was proceeding, the city had to proceed with the zoning ordinance amendment. Staff had requested that the hearing be delayed so that the conditional use permit and the zoning ordinance amendment would be heard simultaneously, but those persons filing the writ did not wish to continue the matter. He requested that those present wishing to speak on the ordinance change limit their comments specifically to the issue of the ordinance change, not to the pluses and minuses of the street fair at the College of the Desert. He advised that the appropriate time for that testimony would be at the time the conditional use permit hearing was held on that specific application should this ordinance amendment be enacted. He stated that the ordinance amendment was also scheduled befur: .: the city council on August 22, 1991 because of the time cor:;'.:raints and if this hearing were continued, then the counci.. hearing would also be continued. He stated that the matter would go to the city council whether the commission recommended approval or denial because the ordinance change was requested at. the council level. He explained that the ordinance amendment would allow the city to discuss the issues specifically at a separate hearing. Staff recommended to the planning commission that it recommend to the city council approval of the amendment and incorporate the request of the Chamber of Commerce that the ordinance be revised to permit the use in other particular zones with a conditional use permit. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. DAN EHRLER, Executive Vice President for the Palm Desert ChE_nber of Commerce, informed commission that their board of directors met at a special meeting to 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 discuss arl form a position regarding the ordinance amendment . He read for the record the action by the board as `allows: "This communication is to inform you of the position the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors has taken on the proposed City of Palm Desert request for an amendment to permitted conditional uses in the P/Public Institutional District zone. Following thorough discussion the chamber' s board of directors voted to recommend to you, the planning commission, and city council its opposition to the proposed ordinance which is on your agenda for action tonight as it is written. Instead of the proposed ordinance, we respectfully offer an alternative ordinance or additional language to the proposed ordinance for your consideration. The Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors recommends its support for an ordinance which would allow open air sales to both public and commercially zoned locations in Palm Desert. With this suggested ordinance, we also have deep and very serious concerns -.girding the controls which should be included in the conditional use permit process. Thus we request to be included in any comprehensive review process during conditional use permit approval procedures for any open air selling applications which come to the city. We strongly believe this is a question of fairness and the implementation of very specific responsible and appropriate conditions to conditional use permits. While open air sales are less than advantageous if left uncontrolled, supporting an ordinance which would open the conditional use permit process to commercial and public zoned entities would at least put the process on an even playing field. The Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce believes that allowing the process to exist on an equal basis would ultimately be most beneficial to the city, our businesses and shoppers. " On behalf of the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, a very since*e word of appreciation for your consideration of. this : ujgestion and if you have any questions regarding :his process or the decision of the board, we can answer them. Commissioner Richards asked for an example of what the chamber had in mind ( i.e. Town Center parking lot sale on a regular basis or one time) . Mr. Ehrler stated that they were requesting the equal application of the process by any entity; right now the way the ordinance was written it was only being 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 offered to public institutional zoned areas to come to the city with an application for a use permit to hold such an event. He felt the same opportunity should be given to any commercially zoned entity as well. If a business or area where business is conducted wished to put on what would be considered open air selling, they would go through the same conditional use permit process. Mr. Diaz clarified that a one-time event could be approved in the present ordinance in the commercial zone with a special use permit approved by the director of community development. He stated that this ordinance was intended to be for on-going events. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Ehrler for an example of this use in the commercial zone; Mr. Ehrler replied that if there were an open air selling concept that came about by a section of town on Highway 111 ( i.e. Palms to Pines shopping area) and the merchants there collectively wanted to do something that was defined as open air selling, in the same concept now being applied to the street fair, if they wanted to have it on a regular of basis or even specific months during each year, they should have the same opportunity to come to the city and apply for that opportunity to hold such an event. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Diaz if the El Paseo merchants wanted to hold a Saturday or Monday event and wanted to hold it in the street or parking lot, would staff still have to comply with all parking and other regulations; Mr. Diaz responded that under the special use permit provisions a special permit could be granted for a one time event. What the chamber was asking for was the same right to request of the commission the opportunity the have an ongoing event so that they could also request a street fair (i.e. even on El Paseo) and there would be a public hearing on each specific request that the commission could approve, approve with conditions, or deny. He stated that the chamber was requesting that the same regulations apply to commercially zoned properties that is being granted to publicly zoned property. Mr. Ehrler concurred and indicated that at the same time they were expressing their concern about the conditions and wanted to take an active role in that process. Mr. Diaz clarified that the use would have to be done on privately owned property, not on public sidewalks. Commissioner Richards requested assurance that current ordinances regarding parking, etc. , would not be violated. Mr. Diaz concurred. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 Mr. Ehrler stated that an owner of a commercially zoned area would have the same opportunity to submit an application for a conditional uta permit which would be conditioned, was what they were asking for, which he felt would be equitable to both the commercially zoned property owner and the public institutional zoned properties. Commissioner Jonathan asked for confirmation that under this proposal the applicant would have to go through a conditional use permit process; Mr. Diaz concurred. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the applicant was on commercially zoned property, could he go through the same request today; Mr. Diaz replied no and it was clarified that the wording would have to be added to this ordinance to say that it should also be applicable to other commercial zones. Commissioner Erwood asked if there were any rational basis for distinguishing between public and commercial zones. Mr. Diaz stated that staff would accept the recommendations of the chamber, stressing that this would allow them the opportunity to ask for the conditional use permit. Commissioner Downs concurred. Mr. Ehrler stated that it was a question of fairness in applying to both entities the same process. Commissioner Richards indicated that the only way he could envision this in the commercial zone was for a developer to come in with a large vacant parcel with a lease on the land for a specific length of time and would segregate a portion for parking, provide public restrooms, etc. , and would mitigate any city requirements. Commissioner Jonathan suggested as an example the merchants in the Town Center coming to the city saying that their stores don' t open until 11:00 a.m. on Sundays and they would request an open air swap meet from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. , which he felt was a conceivable request, and he did not have a problem with the chamber' s request. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone else wished to address the commission. DR. PAUL CAMPBELL, President of the El Paseo Business Association, speaking on behalf of the business community and himself, congratulated the commission on their courage and wisdom in approving a controversial country club project. He did not feel the current request was a controversial problem and stated that what was really being considered was a law. He stated that previous city leaders set up an ordinance that prohibited open air 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMTSiION AUGUST 20, 1991 selling and they did that for reasons they thought were valid. He felt some of those reasons were that they did not want to change the image of Palm Desert to look more like Palm Springs and did not want shoddy goods or stolen items, counterfeit items or that sort of thing made available to the general public in such an easy way. He felt that perhaps the most important part of their decision was the fact they didn't feel the general tax payer should go through tax subsidies to support open air selling on public property. He asked why the city council and staff would minimize the value of the business community, which they tended to do, and the other question was why would they rather change the ordinance than to enforce the current one that was in effect. He felt the answer was quite simple; it was politically popular and that was the only reason it was before the commission. He mentioned that when a sample ballot was received from the State for an election, it gave an estimate of cost of what new laws changed would be brought to bear upon the tax payer. Since Mr. Diaz referred to the College of the Desert and street fair, he commented on the fact that they made in the neighborhood of $300, 000 per year to the alumni association. He said that they had no fight with that or with the use they put it, but nobody seemed to say anything about the loss of sales tax to the community and based on experts opinions of income around $15 million, that would mean the city would lose sales tax in the area of over $1 million per year at the current level, saying there was a cost involved which no one mentioned as far as what the tax payer had to come up with in addition to subsidizing, the street fair, or public selling. He hoped that the p:.a:ining commission would show the same courage and wisdom that the predecessors had when the law was established originally and commented that, "If it works, don't fix it. " MR. SHERMAN, of E1 Paseo, stated that he had a small suite at College of the Desert and informed commission that they sell new merchandise and pay their taxes, and they were not over priced, and he knew of retail businesses on E1 Paseo that bought merchandise at COD, then marked it up and sold it in their stores on E1 Paseo. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 Mr. Diaz reminded commission and the audience that the hearing before the commission was not on the pluses or minuses of the College of the Desert; that would be heard at a separate public hearing if the ordinance amendment proceeded. MR. TED GU ;TON informed commission that he had a booth at the col;.ege street fair. He had a question about the ordinance, the city council, and the planning commission. He asked who was to justify the fact that the street fair had been in existence on that property for the last eight years. Mr. Diaz stated that the issue of whether or not the COD street fair was the same as what occurred in Santa Ana; that issue had never been decided and was not being decided at the present time. To the specific issue of those individuals wishing to stop the street fair--the Santa Ana decision was not before the city. The college voluntarily requested to apply for a conditional use permit and go through the public hearing. As far as the pros and cons and merits of the street fair and conditional use permit, the planning commission would make that decision. He indicated that if the planning commission decision was appealed, the city council would make a determination.. He stated that the city would take all the testimony and :onsider the pros and cons and see if the application shc'.0 d be approved, and if approved with what conditions, or whether it should be denied. Mr. Guston stated that was not his question; he wanted to know under what conditions has the street fair been able to exist and maintain its position and be in business for the last eight years. Commissioner Richards clarified that there had been some recent court decisions relative to the city's ability to regulate non-educational uses on public property and the city attorney had directed the city to consider this ordinance amendment. Hither to this decision, it was understood by the city that it had no ability to regulate state-owned property activities. Mr. Guston stated that if that were the case, the city had no Justification to issue licenses for people at the street fail and that was in error also. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 Mr. Diaz states that business licenses were issued merely for the raising of revenue and the issuance of a business license had nothing to do with whether a particular act was legal by the zoning regulations. Mr. Guston stated that he hoped the commission would adopt the amendment and make the street fair legal in Palm Desert. MR. MEL JOHNS informed commission that his wife has a small business at the street fair and wanted to go on record as to comments by the E1 Paseo Merchants Association Chairman being allowed to make statements that were false. He stated that the businesses were licensed and paid taxes and through the city records it would show that the State reimburses a percentage to Palm Desert. He also indicated that he wanted to go on record that the street fair had some extra things such as fund raising, and events like that, that were good for the community and felt the public at large liked the street fair and wanted the street fair to continue. MR. DAVE GEORGE, President of the College of the Desert, informed commission that they had been working for the last year with the retail establishment in Palm Desert to fabricate some type of a rational, reasonable agreement. He stated that at some time in the future he would .like to respond to Dr. Campbell ' s aspersions as to the nature of the street fair merchandise. He supported the chamber' s position of leveling the field and adding the provision for open air selling on commercial. properties also. MS. JUNE TERAN, Executive Director of the Alumni Association, indicated that she was informed that at one of the last commission meetings through the minutes that there were some questions about some of the issues involving the street fair and asked if it would be appropriate to address them. She noted that one question was the majority of the vendors were from out of the area and brought to the commission' s attention that at least 66% of the vendors were from the college district and the majority from the Coachella Valley. She stated that all the vendors were licensed by Palm Desert and the State Board of Equalization. Parking was an issue that had been brought up and she stated that the college itself 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 was adding two additional parking lots and the alumni association had approved $84, 000 to put in two additional parking facilities at the campus. She said they had tried working with the local merchants and because Dr. George and the alumni association wanted to improve the image of the street fair, they had worked diligently to meet with the different merchant ' s groups, the vendors of their street fair, and college staff to come up with a new image that would enhance Palm Desert. She felt the street fair had a good image, but the new image would be of a country fair, or an old fashioned image, and they had recently invested several thousand dollars for new signs and had a $25,000 promotional budget to bring more tourists to the Palm Desert area and the PR firm hired to promote the street fair and Palm Desert. She stated they were willing to work with the local merchants and members of the community to route the buyers at the street fair up to their district. She reiterated that they were trying to improve it. She welcomed calls to her at the college for anyone wishing to hear solutions and plans that the college has for the street fair. MR. QUAKE, resident of Palm Desert for the last 15 years and business owner in Rancho Mirage. He informed commission that he was the one who started this whole issue at city council, some of the reasons for not having enormous participation of the bad people, the retailer of the community, he went on record that after appearing at council with another group of people who were with him, that evening two of the stores that appeared with him had their windows pelted and he had three threatening phone calls which he recorded with the City of. Palm Desert, and for this reason would not give his address for the record. He stated that he was reluctant to come before the commission, but the swap meet being conducted on the College of the Desert property was illegal and he felt that it had probably been illegal for the past eight years. He felt that the biggest statement he made originally was that he was not anti-swap meet or street fair. It was his pleasure for it to be done in an area that was competitive with the retail community where the rents run, not the same as a covered store, in an area that had parking, like at the Town Center or on E1 Paseo, in Cathedral City, down town Palm Springs, or in Indian Wells. As it was being conducted right now, he felt the illegality was what he had been speaking about and the 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, • 1991 fact that it was illegal and as a resident, he did not like what the chamber of commerce brought up because the next thing that would happen would be that Palm Desert would be known as "swap city" . He felt that ten acres mentioned by Commissioner Richards would be the perfect opening vehicle. He stated that the operation as enormous as it is had been running for eight years without an environmental impact report, which he felt was not to be believed. Commissioner Richards interrupted at this point and asked Mr. Quake to stick to the issue of the amendment to the ordinance. Mr. Quake said that he would like to go on record that he would like the planning commission to not vote in favor of t:.e amendment and open air selling. Mr. Diaz clarified that he did not say that the activity at the college was illegal for eight years, but the summary by Commissioner Richards was correct regarding new legal decisions, and the specific decision on the activities currently taking place in the city had not been decided and they were trying to avoid all of that, which was the reason for the amendment to the ordinance, and then they could sit down and discuss the merits or demerits on the specific activity taking place. The amendment would give the city the right to discuss it and try to resolve those issues in Palm Desert 's usual manner. MR. HENRY HOYLE, 73-440 Broken Arrow in Palm Desert, stated that he had two businesses in Palm Desert and had lived here and been in business since 1973. He said it was very difficult for him to quarrel with the position of the chamber, because he felt they had a unique in mind, which might be impossible to accomplish, but stated that as he observed in other cities, if Palm Desert does open up open air selling, as instituted by the College of the Desert, he was against the changes being made to allow the college to continue their swap meet and felt that Pandora's box was being opened and the city council and planning commissions in other cities would be deluged with continual problems taking up their time because of the different problems open air selling would create. MS. JULIE BORNSTEIN, resident of Palm Desert and member of the Chamber of Commerce, addressed the commission as 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 President of the Governing Board of the Desert Community College District. She said they were not present to debate the pros and cons of the street fair, though she wanted to make it clear that they were open to the community to do that in the appropriate forum and felt that Dr. George had attempted to deal with all the competing interests and interested groups and stated that she was also available to do that. She wanted to make their position clear that they had conducted the street fair for many years and it was a very crucial element to their funding, particularly in recent times of tight funding, and there was a new move to take more funding from education through the lottery. She said they had been conducting the use legally all these years and there was a new decision that came down regarding that affects of a street fair in another location under very different conditions, and it was their legal position that the street fair continues to remain legal even given that new court decision, irrespective of the feelings of the city attorney, which was what made lawsuits in that lawyers often have differing about the interpretation of lawsuits. She indicated she understood that the proposed ordinance was simply to give the city jurisdiction to now get involved in the street fair, because it had never had the jurisdiction to do that before, as advised by the city atto _ney. She indicated that the college voluntaril, submitted an application as a good neighbor, and stated that while they represent over 300,000 people in the community college district and three different counties, their home was in Palm Desert and they prize the good neighbor relationship the college has with the city council, government, and citizens of Palm Desert. She supported the ordinance as suggested by the chamber of commerce so that it would apply to any commercial property who might wish to submit to city jurisdiction in similar activities. She noted there had been a lot said about having a level playing field and treating business entities similarly, while she believed distinctions exist because they were a non-profit, educational institution, and not a commercial enterprise, but they did not have any objections to expanding the ordinance as suggested. She said they would be willing to submit to the jurisdiction of the city so that if the ordinance was invoked, they would come back at a future time to di::cuss the pros and cons of the street fair and have an opportunity to correct misinformation given to 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 the commis:,ion by members of the community. She noted that even t'.vs business community was divided; the chamber of commerce had one recommendation and the E1 Paseo merchants had another on the opposite side. While the community was divided, it was their goal to do what was best for the community and preserve for themselves the fund raising option that had become a crucial part of financing the activities that were being provided to the entire community. In closing she reiterated that they do support the ordinance, especially the original ordinance, but had no objection to the expansion proposed by the chamber. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony and asked for comments by the commission. Commissioner Downs stated that he had no objection, as long as commercial zones were also included. Commissioner Jc,rathan agreed. He noted there was a recommendation by the city attorney and felt the amendment would create jurisdiction for the city to get involved and did not pass comment on the advisability of the street fair; just a legal vehicle to get the city proper. He had no objection to the revision per the chamber of commerce recommendation. Commissioner Erwood felt it was important to note that this would give the public a chance to have a forum to litigate this issue before the commission and city council and have the right to have their voices heard, rather than a having a situation existing that the city would be incapable of doing anything about. He was in favor of the recommendation. Commissioner Richards stated that he wished to address some of Ms. Bornstein comments. He concurred that the college was not being in opposition to the city' s involvement and they had done what the city asked in submitting an application. He stated that he as also involved in the economic development advisory commit ee and noted that committee was made up of a number of citizens and at a meeting with the majority, city manager, staff, the city attorney, and a number of outside citizens including Dave Tschopp, Diane Cox, Frank Goodman, John Ceriale, Hank Stokes, George Berkey, and Don Hedlund. He wanted the audience and staff to know that there was comment in detail and suggestions that this committee had on the merits or non-merits of this issue and if anyone wished 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 to obtain copies of those comments, they were available. He felt that Ms. Bornstein' s comments were correct; they were trying to clear up some legal technicalities and attempting to get the issue before a public forum to allow discussion. Chairperson Whitlock stated that she had nothing further to add and concurred with the staff recommendation and recommendation of the chamber of commerce. She requested a motion. It was moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to approve the findings as amended. Ms. Allen advised the commission that with respect to Mr. Ehrler' s request to include amendment to the conditional uses in commercial zones, it was not legally noticed and recommended that the commission only make a recommendation relative to the use in the P zone. Mr. Diaz stated that if this was the case, the commission should instruct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment to allow the use in the commercial zones for hearing at the September 17, 1991 meeting and staff would so inform council. Chairperson Whitlock asked if this item should be continued to allow have both actions simultaneously; Mr. Diaz stated that he would inform the council in the staff report that this was the commission' s position, that if the commercial zone allowance with the conditional use permit was not included, then the recommenC:ation would be negative. He indicated that because the coianission had to proceed with the ordinance separately, tha x,mmission' s decision was approval of both the commercial and public zones to be allowed with a conditional use permit and if council were considering it only in public zones, the recommendation was no. He indicated that commission could recommend that the council continue the hearing on the P zone until the commercial zone could be heard simultaneously. Staff noted that the matter was probably going to be continued anyway due to the absence and abstentions of some council members. Mr. Diaz clarified that the commission would proceed with the P zone, he would advise the council that they would not concur without the commercial zone being included, and commission was instructing staff to prepare an amendment to the ordinance for public hearing on September 17. Commission concurred. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 Action: Moved by Coiw4.ssioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, apprcving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1532, recommending approval of ZOA 91-2 to city council subject to the addition of the amendment to the commercial zone. Commission also instructed staff to prepare that zoning ordinance amendment for public hearing on September 17, 1991 . Motion Carried 5-0. VIII. MISCELLANEOUS A. WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES An oral presentation was given by Environmental Conservation Manager John Wohlmuth on proposed water efficient landscape guidelines. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. DAN EHRLER, Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice President, spoke on the behalf of the Board of Directors regarding their Annual Planning Conference and encouraged the commission to participate on October 17 and 18, 1991. He felt the involvement of the planning commission would be beneficial in the process of planning their year, as they deal with many aspects of the city. Commissioner Jonathan volunteered his services. Mr. Ehrler indicated that the chamber was involved in Mr. Wohimuth' s project on water efficient landscape guidelines, and noted that Mr. Wohlmuth was involved in the chamber' s environmental affairs subcommittee on water. He stated that their subcommittee had done a lot of research and activity with the information Mr. Wohlmuth presented and the chamber gave its whole-hearted support to that effort and planned to be a distribution center through walk-ins, mailings to new residents, as well as utilizing their newsletter. Mr. Ehrler thanked -the commission for their time and efforts for Palm Desert. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMM?SSION AUGUST 20, 1991 X. COMMENTS None. XI . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, adjourning the meeting to September 17, 1991 . Carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9: 15 p.m. RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary ATTEST: CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 21 i RECEIVED '91 SEP to PIT] 2 C1 September 11, 1991 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE RECEIVED Palm Desert City Council City Hall SEP 17 1991 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert CA 92260 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY Of PALM DESERT Dear City Council Members: I have watched from a distance the growing conflict between the Palm Desert/Rancho Mirage businesses and the College of the Desert (COD) Street Fair. I am not a disinterested party as my wife owns a women's boutique on E1 Paseo in Palm Desert. The whole issue of the COD legal or illegal Street Fair because of zoning is totally immaterial if you look at all other parameters involved. I believe that the city would not allow the Street Fair to continue if .they weighed the true facts and not the emotional facts . The major fact being that COD is the operator of the Street Fair. If this was an individual or business, not COD, the zoning change would not be considered. Because of COD you are overlooking some major items: 1. The local shopping areas are vacant from 8:00 AM until 2 :00 - 3:00 PM on both Saturday and Sunday, when the Street Fair is operating. 2. Small businesses are being terminally damaged by the Street Fair, in particular: a) Hardware stores (tools) b) Silk plants and plant stores c) Restaurants (no Saturday or Sunday lunches) d) Art galleries e) Tee shirt shops f) Shoe stores g) Golf shops h) Furniture i) Accessories (lamps/rugs j ) Jewelry stores (watches) k) Clothing stores (handbags, costume jewelry) 3. Most vendors at the Street Fair are professional swap meet vendors that travel from location to location and are not local people. The products they are selling are bought wholesale in Los Angeles or Mexico. A number of these products are illegal copies of trademarked merchandise and there have been arrests at the Street Fair because of the illegal merchandise. 4 . Even the produce is trucked in from the Los Angeles produce market. 5 . The money raised by COD through the Street Fair is always listed at $300,000 but the net amount is never mentioned. The local stores and shops do hire local people and do pay their taxes locally. The small businesses in our local area are having a hard time during the current business slow down. To have Street Fairs that come to town on Saturday and Sunday and reap the best tourist days from local merchants and pay two day's rent and no property taxes, is ludicrous, and probably fatal to many small businesses. They don't operate through the summer at all because they only pay rent when they show up. You can do that if you operate on state property and don't pay local property taxes . I am sure most businesses are not against fair competition but this does not qualify as fair competition. These are important issues and I don't believe they have been address properly. One mistake that has been consistently made is to pit the little person at the swap meet against I Magnin's, Bullock's or E1 Paseo. Forget I . Magnin's, Bullock's and E1 Paseo and worry about the little stores and shops that are hurting. These same businesses are asking their attorneys and landlords if they can break their lease because of this zoning change so that they can join the Street Fair. If the Palm Desert City Council votes to approve this mis-use of state property by changing the zoning, you are sending an absolute message to small business that Palm Desert doesn't want you in town, get out, we don't need you111 The Street Fair will pay taxes and hire local people to sell illegal copies of Rolex watches, Ray-Ban glasses and Chanel purses . The council should consider these import facts before setting a damaging precedent of allowing a Street Fair to destroy your tax paying small businesses. Thank you for your consideration. Since rel Charles E. McEwan 34 Kavenish Drive Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 2 The issue of open air selling will have a tremendous impact on this community, and will require a great deal of time to ascertain the answers to a variety of related items which should be addressed before any final action is taken. I have a great deal of faith in you and your colleagues to thoroughly evaluate each one to determine what the long term effect will have on us . Unfortunately elected officials sometimes have to vote against a popular issue with the people to best serve the long term needs of a community. I shall eagerly await your response to my quires . Thank you very much. Sincerely, James x. Struck, Owner Eagle Art Galleries 73-199 E1 Paseo Palm Desert, CA 92260 cc: Jean Benson Buford Crites Richard Kelley S . Roy Wilson RECEIVED' '91 W 22 flM 9 5y V!i 1' CLERK'S OFFICE' 22 August 1991 Mayor Walter Snyder City of PAlm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert , CA 92260 RE: Case #ZOA 91-2 Dear Mayor Snyder: I would like to take a few minutes of your time to bring to your attention some issues which, I feel , relate to the proposed .zoning ordinance change on open air selling. 1 . You must look at what the potential long term effect of open air selling will have on the community. 2 . What is the potential environmental impact on the community? Would a prospective applicant be required to provide a full scale EIR prior to being granted a CUP? 3 . What is the anticipated cost of this zoning change to the city? How and where will the funding come from to the the costs? 4. If the zoning change is passed, would vendors then fall under the jurisdiction of all zoning laws? For example, would the vendors be required to follow the zoning regulation on signage? Are the current signage regulations applicable to open air selling, or would they need to be modified? How would open air selling be applied to other zoning regulations? 5 . Would the vendors Business License fee be based on their gross annual sales or would it be a flat fee? Would the fees generate sufficient revenue to cover the associated costs of enforcing the zoning regulations? 6 . The Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce has proposed that there be an element of control placed on open air selling. What are these controls? Are they feasible to enforced, considering the present City Staff? 7 . Usually open air selling is held only on the weekend. Is the City Staff prepared to work seven days a week enforcing the Code equally to all businesses? 8 . What would the penalties be for violation of the Code? Financial? Revocation of a Business License? RECEIVED SEP 41991 YF"- -. _ _ U COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OEPNRiMENf - _ CHAMBER OF COMMERCE LIIY OF PRIM DESERT 72.990 HIGHWAY I I I PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE: (619) 346-6111 August 23 , 1991 Mr. Ray Diaz Assistant City Manager - Community Development City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Ray: A very sincere word of appreciation to you for your consideration of and assistance with the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce position relative to the Open Air Selling Ordinance Amendment. We are, as you can probably deduce, (See! I do remember some of my 49'r debate lingo! ) , trying very hard to reach a "fair" solution to this dilemma which will also be beneficial to all concerned. In that spirit, I wanted to restate the Chamber Board's sincere request to take an active participatory role in the Conditional Use Permit approval process. We would hope that a selected small group of Chamber representatives could meet with you or your staff to provide its input to the C.U.P. applications as they are being prepared for Planning Commission and City Council approval. By doing things through this method, we hope it would avoid major confrontations and/or problems later. Perhaps there is another format which we could work out if this one needs modification. Our goal is that we want to be a participant in this process. We believe it would, again, prove the greatness of this community with business and government working together toward a common goal. Can we meet in the near future to discuss this proposal, so we could have this worked out by the September 17 Planning Commission meeting when the Open Air Selling Amendment is up for approval? I will call you to make the arrangements. Again, thank you very much. I look forward to us meeting soon. Very sincere yours, D iel L hrler Execu ive Vice-President 2 Pa /tc oaetge -__CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 72-990 HIGHWAY I I I PALM DESERT. CALIFORNIA 92260 August 20, 1991 TELEPHONE: (619) 346.6111 TO: Palm Desert Planning Commission FROM: Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce RE: Proposed Ordinance Relative to Open Air Selling Dear Friends: This communication is to inform you of the position the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors has taken on the proposed City of Palm Desert request for an amendment to per- mitted conditional uses in the P, Public/Institutional district zone. Following thorough discussion, the Chamber's Board of Direc- tors voted to recommend to the Planning Commission and City Coun- cil its opposition to the proposed ordinance which is on your agenda for action tonight as it is written. Instead of the proposed ordinance, we respectfully offer an alternative ordinance or additional language to the proposed or- dinance for your consideration. The Palm Desert Chamber of Com- merce Board of Directors recommends its support for an ordinance which would allow open air sales to both public and commercially zoned locations in Palm Desert. With this suggested ordinance, we also have deep and serious concerns regarding the controls which should be included in the conditional use permit process. Thus, we request to be included in any comprehensive review process during conditional use permit approval procedure for any open air selling applications which come to the City. We strongly believe this is a question of fairness and the implementation of very specific, responsible and appropriate con- ditions to conditional use permits. While open air sales are less than advantageous if left uncontrolled, supporting an or- dinance which would open the conditional use permit process to commercial and public zoned entities would at least put the process on an even playing field. The Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce believes that allowing the process to exist on an equal basis would, ultimately, be most beneficial to the City, our businesses and shoppers. 1 Page Two Open Air Selling On behalf of the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, a very sincere would of appreciation to you for your consideration of our recommendation. Vve erely yours, e. Ehrlr Executive Vice President i 2 .MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 'AUGUST 20, 1991 moved for a continuance. The motion died due to a lack of a second. Commissioner Jonathan made a motion to approve the findings as presented by staff. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Chairperson Whitlock, approving the findings as presented by staff. Commissioner Richards asked for clarification on the 25 feet height. Mr. Drell stated that it would be measured from the average curb elevation; the height would be measured from that curb and he would have to have a very minimum grade of slightly subgrade back where the second story would be located to achieve the 25 feet in height. Motion carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Chairperson Whitlock, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1531, recommending to city council approval of GPA 91-2, C/Z 91-2, PP 91-8, and denial of VAR 91-2 subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0. C. Case No. ZOA 91-2 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for an' amendment to permitted conditional uses in the P, Public/Institutional District Zone. Mr. Diaz stated that this hearing was not to discuss the pros and cons of the College of the Desert street fair, but the purpose of the hearing was to discuss the pros and cons of whether or not the city should allow open air sales in the P zone with a conditional use permit. The net result of that would be that if . the ordinance amendment was adopted ultimately by the city council and enacted, then an application for a conditional use permit could be made and a public hearing on the specific permit applied for would be held before the planning commission. He stated that the ordinance was fairly simple and would amend the conditional use provisions of the P or public zone and basically that zone encompasses all public institutions of education, as well as certain other publicly owned parcels. He stated that an application for a conditional use permit would have to be made by the agency that would hold that parcel and the hearing would be before the planning commission. He noted that 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 letters in opposition had been received from the E1 Paseo Business Association, Cameron' s of E1 Paseo, and there was a letter before commission from the Chamber of Commerce opposing the ordinance change as it was written and recommending that the ordinance change be extended to other commercial zones so that privately owned property could also apply for a conditional use permit. Staff did not have a problem with amending the wording of the ordinance to include other zones or having a hearing on those other zones. He clarified that the hearing was before the commission without the conditional use permit application because of the litigation filed against the city requesting that the city terminate the street fair at the college and in order to demonstrate to the courts that the city was proceeding, the city had to proceed with the zoning ordinance amendment. Staff had requested that the hearing be delayed so that the conditional use permit and the zoning ordinance amendment would be heard simultaneously, but those persons filing the writ did not wish to continue the matter. He requested that those present wishing to speak on the ordinance change limit their comments specifically to the issue of the ordinance change, not to the pluses and minuses of the street fair at the College of the Desert. He advised that the appropriate time for that testimony would be at the time the conditional use permit hearing was held on that specific application should this ordinance amendment be enacted. He stated that the ordinance amendment was also scheduled before the city council on August 22, 1991 because of the time constraints and if this hearing were continued, then the council hearing would also be continued. He stated that the matter would go to the city council whether the commission recommended approval or denial because the ordinance change was requested at the council level . He explained that the ordinance amendment would allow the city i to discuss the issues specifically at a separate hearing. Staff recommended to the planning commission that it recommend to the city council approval of the amendment and incorporate the request of the Chamber of Commerce that the ordinance be revised to permit the use in other particular zones with a conditional use permit. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . I MR. DAN EHRLER, Executive Vice President for the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce, informed commission that their board of directors met at a special meeting to I S I MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 discuss and form a position regarding the ordinance amendment. He read for the record the action by the board as follows: "This communication is to inform you of -the position the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors has taken on the proposed City of Palm Desert request for an amendment to permitted conditional uses in the P/Public Institutional District zone. Following thorough discussion the chamber' s board of directors voted to recommend to you, the planning commission, and city council its opposition to the proposed ordinance which is on your agenda for action tonight as it is written. Instead of the proposed ordinance, we respectfully offer an alternative ordinance or additional language to the proposed ordinance for your consideration. The Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors recommends its support for an ordinance which would allow open air sales to both public and commercially zoned locations in Palm Desert. With this suggested ordinance, we also have deep and very serious concerns regarding the controls which should be included in the conditional use permit process. Thus we request to be included in any comprehensive review process during conditional use permit approval procedures for any open air selling applications which come to the city. We strongly believe this is a question of fairness and the implementation of very specific responsible and appropriate conditions to conditional use permits. While open air sales are less than advantageous if left uncontrolled, supporting an ordinance which would open the conditional use permit process to commercial and public zoned entities would at least put the process on an even playing field. The Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce believes that allowing the process to exist on an equal basis would ultimately be most beneficial to the city, our businesses and shoppers. " On behalf of the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, a very sincere word of appreciation for your consideration of this suggestion and if you have any questions regarding this process or the decision of the board, we can answer them. Commissioner Richards asked for an example of what the chamber had in mind ( i. e. Town Center parking lot sale on a regular basis or one time ) . Mr. Ehrler stated that they were requesting the equal application of the process by any entity; right now the way the ordinance was written it was only being 9 MINUTES VK1104 it PO WV rI.n I I I I 11 duPIPl:Cg q:11 L1N AUGUST 20, 1991 offered to public institutional zoned areas to come to the City with an application for a use permit to hold such an event. He felt the same opportunity should be given to any commercially zoned entity as well . If a business or area where business is conducted wished to put on what would be considered open air selling, they would go through the same conditional use permit process. Mr. Diaz clarified that a one-time event could be approved in the present ordinance in the commercial zone with a special use permit approved by the director of community development. He stated that this ordinance was intended to be for on-going events. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Ehrler for an example of this use in the commercial zone; Mr. Ehrler replied that if there were an open air selling concept that came about by a section of town on Highway 111 ( i.e. Palms to Pines shopping area) and the merchants there collectively wanted to do something that was defined as open air selling, in the same concept now being applied to the street fair, if they wanted to have it on a regular of basis or even specific months during each year, they should have the same opportunity to come to the city and apply for that opportunity to hold such an event. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Diaz if the E1 Paseo merchants wanted to hold a Saturday or Monday event and wanted to hold it in the street or parking lot, would staff still have to comply with all parking and other regulations; Mr. Diaz responded that under the special use permit provisions a special permit could be granted for a one time event. What the chamber was asking for was the same right to request of the commission the opportunity the have an ongoing event so that they could also request a street fair ( i.e. even on E1 Paseo) and there would be a public hearing on each specific request that the commission could approve, approve with conditions, or deny. He stated that the chamber was requesting that the same regulations apply to commercially zoned properties that is being granted to publicly zoned property. Mr. Ehrler concurred and indicated that at the same time they were expressing their concern about the conditions and wanted to take an active role in that process. Mr. Diaz clarified that the use would have to be done on privately owned property, not on public sidewalks. Commissioner Richards requested assurance that current ordinances regarding parking, etc. , would not be violated. Mr. Diaz concurred. 10 / MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION / AUGUST 20, 1991 Mr. Ehrler stated that an owner of a commercially zoned area would have the same opportunity to submit an application for a conditional use permit which would be conditioned, was what they were asking for, which he felt would be equitable to both the commercially zoned property owner and the public institutional zoned properties. Commissioner Jonathan asked for confirmation that under this proposal the applicant would have to go through a conditional use permit process; Mr. Diaz concurred. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the applicant was on commercially zoned property, could he go through the same request today; Mr. Diaz replied no and it was clarified that the wording wnnld have to be added to this ordinance to say that it should also be applicable to other commercial zones. Commissioner Erwood asked if there were any rational basis for distinguishing between public and commercial zones. Mr. Diaz stated that staff would accept the recommendations of the chamber, stressing that this would allow them the opportunity to ask for the conditional use permit. Commissioner Downs concurred. Mr. Ehrler stated that it was a question of fairness in applying to both entities the same process. Commissioner Richards indicated that the only way he could envision this in the commercial zone was for a developer to come in with a large vacant parcel with a lease on the land for a specific length of time and would segregate a portion for parking, provide public restrooms, etc. , and would mitigate any city requirements. Commissioner Jonathan suggested as an example the merchants in the Town Center coming to the city saying that their stores don' t open until 11 :00 a.m. on Sundays and they would request an open air swap meet from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. , which he felt was a conceivable request, and he did not have a problem with the chamber' s request. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone else wished to address the commission. DR. PAUL CAMPBELL, President of the El Paseo Business Association, speaking on behalf of the business community and himself, congratulated the commission on their courage and wisdom in approving a controversial country club project. He did not feel the current request was a controversial problem and stated that what was really being considered was a law. He stated that previous city leaders set up an ordinance that prohibited open air 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 AUGUST 20, 1991 \ selling and they did that for reasons they thought were valid. He felt some of those reasons were that they did not want to change the image of Palm Desert to look more like Palm Springs and did not want shoddy goods or stolen items, counterfeit items or that sort of thing made available to the general public in such an easy way. He felt that perhaps the most important part of their decision was the fact they didn' t feel the general tax payer should go through tax subsidies to support open air selling on public property. He asked why the city council and staff would minimize the value of the business community, which they tended to do, and the other question was why would they rather change the ordinance than to enforce the current one that was in effect. He felt the answer was quite simple; it was politically popular and that was the only reason it was before the commission. He mentioned that when a sample ballot was received from the State for an election, it gave an estimate of cost of what new laws changed would be brought to bear upon the tax payer. Since Mr. Diaz referred to the College of the Desert and street fair, he commented on the fact that they made in the neighborhood of $300, 000 per year to the alumni association. He said that they had no fight with that or with the use they put it, but nobody seemed to say anything about the loss of sales tax to the community and based on experts opinions of income around $15 million, that would mean the city would lose sales tax in the area of over $1 million per year at the current level, saying there was a cost involved which no one mentioned as far as what the tax payer had to come up with in addition to subsidizing the street fair, or public selling. He hoped that the planning commission would show the same courage and wisdom that the predecessors had when the law was established originally and commented that, "I£ it works, don' t fix it. " MR. SHERMAN, of El Paseo, stated that he had a small suite at College of the Desert and informed commission that they sell new merchandise and pay their taxes, and they were not over priced, and he knew of retail businesses on E1 Paseo that bought merchandise at COD, then marked it up and sold it in their stores on El Paseo. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 Mr. Diaz reminded commission and the audience that the hearing before the commission was not on the pluses or minuses of the College of the Desert; that would be heard at a separate public hearing if the ordinance amendment proceeded. MR. TED GUSTON informed commission that he had a booth at the college street fair. He had a question about the ordinance, the city council, and the planning commission. He asked who was to justify the fact that the street fair had been in existence on that property for the last eight years. Mr. Diaz stated that the issue of whether or not the COD street fair was the same as what occurred in Santa -Ana; that issue had never been decided and was not being decided at the present time. To the specific issue of those individuals wishing to stop the street fair--the Santa Ana decision was not before the city. The college voluntarily requested to apply for a conditional use permit and go through the public hearing. As far as the pros and cons and merits of the street fair and conditional use permit, the planning commission would make that decision. He indicated that if the planning commission decision was appealed, the city council would make a determination. He stated that the city would take all the testimony and consider the pros and cons and see if the application should be approved, and if approved with what conditions, or whether it should be denied. Mr. Guston stated that was not his question; he wanted to know under what conditions has the street fair been able to exist and maintain its position and be in business for the last eight years. Commissioner Richards clarified that there had been some recent court decisions relative to the city' s ability to regulate non-educational uses on public property and the city attorney had directed the city to consider this ordinance amendment. Hither to this decision, it was understood by the city that it had no ability to regulate state-owned property activities. Mr. Guston stated that if that were the case, the city had no justification to issue licenses for people at the street fair and that was in error also. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 Mr. Diaz stated that business licenses were issued merely for the raising of revenue and the issuance of a business license had nothing to do with whether a particular act was legal by the zoning regulations. Mr. Guston stated that he hoped the commission would adopt the amendment and make the street fair legal in Palm Desert. MR. MEL JOHNS informed commission that his wife has a small business at the street fair and wanted to go on record as to comments by the El Paseo Merchants Association Chairman being allowed to make statements that were false. He stated that the businesses were licensed and paid taxes and through the city records it, would show that the State reimburses a percentage to Palm Desert. He also indicated that he wanted to go on record that the street fair had some extra things such as fund raising, and events like that, that were good for the community and felt the public at large liked the street fair and wanted the street fair to continue. MR. DAVE GEORGE, President of the College of the Desert, informed commission that they had been working for the last year with the retail establishment in Palm Desert to fabricate some type of a rational, reasonable agreement. He stated that at some time in the future he would like to respond to Dr. Campbell ' s aspersions as to the nature of the street fair merchandise. He supported the chamber' s position of leveling the field and adding the provision for open air selling on commercial properties also. MS. JUNE TERAN, Executive Director of the Alumni Association, indicated that she was informed that at one of the last commission meetings through the minutes that there were some questions about some of the issues involving the street fair and asked if it would be appropriate to address them. She noted that one question was the majority of the vendors were from out of the area and brought to the commission' s attention that at least 66% of the vendors were from the college district and the majority from the Coachella Valley. She stated that all the vendors were licensed by Palm Desert and the State Board of Equalization. Parking was an issue that had been brought up and she stated that the college itself 14 / MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION / AUGUST 20, 1991 was adding two additional parking lots and the alumni association had approved $84, 000 to put in two additional parking facilities at the campus. She said they had tried working with the local merchants and because Dr. George and the alumni association wanted to improve the image of the street fair, they had worked diligently to meet with the different merchant ' s groups, the vendors of their street fair, and college staff to come up with a new image that would enhance Palm Desert. She felt the street fair had a good image, but the new image would be of a country fair, or an old fashioned image, and they had recently invested several thousand dollars for new signs and had a $25, 000 promotional budget to bring more tourists to the Palm Desert area and the PR firm hired to promote the street fair and Palm Desert. She stated they were willing to work with the local merchants and members of the community to route the buyers at the street fair up to their district. She reiterated that they were trying to improve it. She welcomed calls to her at the college for anyone wishing to hear solutions and plans that the college has for the street fair. MR. QUAKE, resident of Palm Desert for the last 15 years and business owner in Rancho Mirage. He informed commission that he was the one who started this whole issue at city council, some of the reasons for not having enormous participation of the bad people, the retailer of the community, he went on record that after appearing at council with another group of people who were with him, that evening two of the stores that appeared with him had their windows pelted and he had three threatening phone calls which he recorded with the City of Palm Desert, and for this reason would not give his address for the record. He stated that he was reluctant to come before the commission, but the swap meet being conducted on the College of the Desert property was illegal and he felt that it had probably been illegal for the past eight years. He felt that the biggest statement he made originally was that he was not anti-swap meet or street fair. It was his pleasure for it to be done in an area that was competitive with the retail community where the rents run, not the same as a covered store, in an area that had parking, like at the Town Center or on E1 Paseo, in Cathedral City, down town Palm Springs, or in Indian Wells. As it was being conducted right now, he felt the illegality was what he had been speaking about and the 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 fact that it was illegal and as a resident, he did not like what the chamber of commerce brought up because the next thing that would happen would be that Palm Desert would be known as "swap city" . He felt that ten acres mentioned by Commissioner Richards would be the perfect opening vehicle. He stated that the operation as enormous as it is had been running for eight years without an environmental impact report, which he felt was not to be believed. Commissioner Richards interrupted at this point and asked Mr. Quake to stick to the issue of the amendment to the ordinance. Mr. Quake said that he would like to go on record that he would like the planning commission to not vote in favor of the amendment and open air selling. Mr. Diaz clarified that he did not say that the activity at the college was illegal for eight years, but the summary by Commissioner Richards was correct regarding new legal decisions, and the specific decision on the activities currently taking place in the city had not been decided and they were trying to avoid all of that, which was the reason for the amendment to the ordinance, and then they could sit down and discuss the merits or demerits on the specific activity taking place. The amendment would give the city the right to discuss it and try to resolve those issues in Palm Desert ' s usual manner. MR. HENRY HOYLE, 73-440 Broken Arrow in Palm Desert, stated that he had two businesses in Palm Desert and had lived here and been in business since 1973. He said it was very difficult for him to quarrel with the position of the chamber, because he felt they had a unique in mind, which might be impossible to accomplish, but stated that as he observed in other cities, if Palm Desert does open up open air selling, as instituted by the College of the Desert, he was against the changes being made to allow the college to continue their swap meet and felt that Pandora ' s box was being opened and the city council and planning commissions in other cities would be deluged with continual problems taking up their time because of the different problems open air selling would create. MS. JULIE BORNSTEIN, resident of Palm Desert and member of the Chamber of Commerce, addressed the commission as 16 / MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION / AUGUST 20, 1991 President of the Governing Board of the Desert Community College District. She said they were not present to debate the pros and cons of the street fair, though she wanted to make it clear that they were open to the community to do that in the appropriate forum and felt that Dr. George had attempted to deal with all the competing interests and interested groups and stated that she was also available to do that. She wanted to make their position clear that they had conducted the street fair for many years and it was a very crucial element to their funding, particularly in recent times of tight funding, and there was a new move to take more funding from education through the lottery. She said they had been conducting the use legally all these years and there was a new decision that came down regarding that affects of a street fair in another location under very different conditions, and it was their legal position that the street fair continues to remain legal even given that new court decision, irrespective of the feelings of the city attorney, which was what made lawsuits in that lawyers often have differing about the interpretation of lawsuits. She indicated she understood that the proposed ordinance was simply to give the city jurisdiction to now get involved in the street fair, because it had never had the jurisdiction to do that before, as advised by the city attorney. She indicated that the college voluntarily submitted an application as a good neighbor, and stated that while they represent over 300, 000 people in the community college district and three different counties, their home was in Palm Desert and they prize the good neighbor relationship the college has with the city council, government, and citizens of Palm Desert. She supported the ordinance as suggested by the chamber of commerce so that it would apply to any commercial property who might wish to submit to city jurisdiction in similar activities. She noted there had been a lot said about having a level playing field and treating business entities similarly, while she believed extinctions exist because they were a non-profit, educational institution, and not a commercial enterprise, but they did not have any objections to expanding the ordinance as suggested. She said they would be willing to submit to the jurisdiction of the city so that if the ordinance was invoked, they would come back at a future time to discuss the pros and cons of the street fair and have an opportunity to correct misinformation given to 17 • MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 the commission by members of the community. She noted that even the business community was divided; the chamber of commerce had one recommendation and the E1 Paseo merchants had another on the opposite side. While the community was divided, it was their goal to do what was best for the community and preserve for themselves the fund raising option that had become a crucial part of financing the activities that were being provided to the entire community. In closing she reiterated that they do support the ordinance, especially the original ordinance, but had no objection to the expansion proposed by the chamber. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony and asked for comments by the commission. Commissioner Downs stated that he had no objection, as long as commercial zones were also included. Commissioner Jonathan agreed. He noted there was a recommendation by the city attorney and felt the amendment would create jurisdiction for the city to get involved and did not pass comment on the advisability of the street fair; just a legal vehicle to get the city proper. He had no objection to the revision per the chamber of commerce recommendation. Commissioner Erwood felt it was important to note that this would give the public a chance to have a forum to litigate this issue before the commission and city council and have the right to have their voices heard, rather than a having a situation existing that the city would be incapable of doing anything about. He was in favor of the recommendation. Commissioner Richards stated that he wished to address some of Ms. Bornstein comments. He concurred that the college was not being in opposition to the city' s involvement and they had done what the city asked in submitting an application. He stated that he was also involved in the economic development advisory committee and noted that committee was made up of a number of citizens and at a meeting with the majority, city manager, staff, the city attorney, and a number of outside citizens including Dave Tschopp, Diane Cox, Frank Goodman, John Ceriale, Hank Stokes, George Berkey, and Don Hedlund. He wanted the audience and staff to know that there was comment in detail and suggestions that this committee had on the merits or non-merits of this issue and if anyone wished 18 MINUTES RA'LM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 to obtain copies of those comments, they were available. He felt that Ms. Bornstein' s comments were correct; they were trying to clear up some legal technicalities and attempting to get the issue before a public forum to allow discussion. Chairperson Whitlock stated that she had nothing further to add and concurred with the staff recommendation and recommendation of the chamber of commerce. She requested a motion. It was moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to approve the findings as amended. Ms. Allen advised the commission that with respect to Mr. Ehrler' s request to include amendment to the conditional uses in commercial zones, it was not legally noticed and recommended that the commission only make a recommendation relative to the use in the P zone. Mr. Diaz stated that if this was the case, the commission should instruct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment to allow the use in the commercial zones for hearing at the September 17, 1991 meeting and staff would so inform council . Chairperson Whitlock asked if this item should be continued to allow have both actions simultaneously; Mr. Diaz stated that he would inform the council in the staff report that this was the commission' s position, that if the commercial zone allowance with the conditional use permit was not included, then the recommendation would be negative. He indicated that because the commission had to proceed with the ordinance separately, the commission' s decision was approval of both the commercial and public zones to be allowed with a conditional use permit and if council were considering it only in public zones, the recommendation was no. He indicated that commission could recommend that the council continue the hearing on the P zone until the commercial zone could be heard simultaneously. Staff noted that the matter was probably going to be continued anyway due to the absence and abstentions of some council members. Mr. Diaz clarified that the commission would proceed with the P zone, he would advise the council that they would not concur without the commercial zone being included, and commission was instructing staff to prepare an amendment to the ordinance for public hearing on September 17. Commission concurred. 19 �r 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 t Action• Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1532, recommending approval of ZOA 91-2 to city council subject to the addition of the amendment to the commercial zone. Commission also instructed staff to prepare that zoning ordinance amendment for public hearing on September 17, 1991. Motion Carried 5-0. VIII. MISCELLANEOUS A. WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES An oral presentation was given by Environmental Conservation Manager John Wohlmuth on proposed water efficient landscape guidelines. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. DAN EHRLER, Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice President, spoke on the behalf of the Hoard of Directors regarding their Annual Planning Conference and encouraged the commission to participate on October 17 and 18, 1991 . He felt the involvement of the planning commission would be beneficial in the process of planning their year, as they deal with many aspects of the city. Commissioner Jonathan volunteered his services. Mr. Ehrler indicated that the chamber was involved in Mr. Wohlmuth' s project on water efficient landscape guidelines, and noted that Mr. Wohlmuth was involved in the chamber' s environmental affairs subcommittee on water. He stated that their subcommittee had done a lot of research and activity with the information Mr. Wohlmuth presented and the chamber gave its whole-hearted support to that effort and planned to be a distribution center through walk-ins, mailings to new residents, as well as utilizing their newsletter. Mr. Ehrler thanked the commission for their time and efforts for Palm Desert. 20 CITY OF PALM DESERT COUNCIL AGENDA REQUEST MEETING OF _ nr- ) r, Zq/ I . TO BE CONSIDERED AS : Consent Calendar Item r _Public Nearing Item Regular Item 2 . REQUEST : Consideration of an amendment to the zoning ordinance as it relates to permitted conditional uses in the P Public/Institutional Zone_, rvyiNu =-J -- Z c Aug tz /q( 3 . FINANCIAL : ( Complete If Necessary ) (a ) Acct/Proj , y (b) Amount Requested ( c ) Current Budget ? (d) Appropriation? Apprvd • Finance Director 4 . SUBMITTED BY : / APPROVAL : Department Head City Man er 6/ 13/88 r I I CITY OF PALM DESERT DEE PMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELO._.ENT TRANSMITTAL LETTER I . TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II . REQUEST: Consideration of an amendment to the zoning ordinance as it relates to permitted conditional uses in the P Public/Institutional Zone. III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert IV. CASE NO: ZOA 91-2 V. DATE: October 10, 1991 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation. B. Discussion. C. Draft Ordinance No. 656. D. Planning Commission staff report dated August 20, 1991 . E. Related maps and/or exhibits. F. Planning Commission minutes of August 20, 1991 . G. Written comments received. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 656 to second reading. B. BACKGROUND: This matter was continued from the August 22, 1991 city council meeting so that it could be processed concurrently with a similar amendment which would be applicable to the commercial zones. At the August 20, 1991 planning commission hearing numerous people spoke to both sides of the issue (see minutes attached) . Planning commission on a 5-0 vote recommended approval of the proposed amendment to the city council . C. DISCUSSION: The proposed code amendment, if adopted, will permit a "swap meet- street fair" type of activity as a conditional use in the P zone which College of the Desert is zoned. Adoption of this amendment will permit the city to process a conditional use permit for the ongoing street fair at the college. This CUP then can be fully STAFF REPORT ZOA 91-2 OCTOBER 10, 1991 assessed and denied or approved subject to conditions which would be imposed on the operation. Prepared by: / Reviewed and Approved by: l SRS/tm 2 ORDINANCE NO. 656 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 25 .38 OF CODE OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RELATING TO THE P- PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT. CASE NO. ZOA 91-2 The City of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1 . That 25 . 38. 030 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert, California, be, and the same hereby is, amended by adding to said section the following subparagraph. "Q. Outdoor sales of arts, crafts, clothing, goods, wares and other merchandise. " SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published once in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated within the City of Palm Desert, and the same shall be in full force and effect thirty (30 ) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this day of 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES : NOES : ABSENT: ABSTAIN: WALTER H. SNYDER, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California SRS/tm CET oV NIH a o o a N 73510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260.2578 OFFICE OF TELEPHONE(619) 346-0611 FAX (619) 340-0574 THE MAYOR September 17, 1991 RECEIVED SEP 18 1991 COMMDNDY DEVEWMENT DEPORFMENT CITY OF PALM,DESERT Mr. James H. Struck Eagle Art Galleries 73-199 E1 Paseo Palm Desert, California 92260 Dear Mr. Struck: Thank you for your letter of August 22, 1991, relative to . the College of the Desert Street Fair. The matter of a Conditional Use Permit (C. U. P. ) will be heard by the Planning Commission this evening and by the City Council in a public hearing at 7:00 p. m. on Thursday, October 10, 1991. Once the matter has been decided on the C. U. P. , the Commission and the Council can begin public hearings relative to specific applications, i. e. , the College of the Desert Street Fair. Those public hearings will probably be scheduled for November and December of this year. Your letter will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in the deliberation of this issue. In the meantime, thank you for taking the time to write us. Your opinions and concerns are of importance to us. Sincerely, WALTER H. SNYDER MAYOR WHS: phs RECEIVED' '91 RUG 22 fin 9 5� i 17Y CLERK'S OFFICE 22 August 1991 Mayor Walter Snyder City of PAlm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert , CA 92260 RE: Case #ZOA 91-2 Dear Mayor Snyder: I would like to take a few minutes of your time to bring to your attention some issues which, I feel , relate to the proposed zoning ordinance change on open air selling. 1 . You must look at what the potential long term effect of open air selling will have on the community. 2 . What is the potential environmental impact on the community? Would a prospective applicant be required to provide a full scale EIR prior to being granted a CUP? 3. What is the anticipated cost of this zoning change to the city? How and where will the funding come from to the the costs? 4. If the zoning change is passed, would vendors then fall under the jurisdiction of all zoning laws? For example, would the vendors be required to follow the zoning regulation on signage? Are the current signage regulations applicable to open air selling, or would they need to be modified? How would open air selling be applied to other zoning regulations? 5 . Would the vendors.Business License fee be based on their gross annual sales or would it be a flat fee? Would the fees generate sufficient revenue to cover the associated costs of enforcing the zoning regulations? 6. The Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce has proposed that there be an element of control placed on open air selling. What are these controls? Are they feasible to enforced, considering the present City Staff? 7 . Usually open air selling is held only on the weekend. Is the City Staff prepared to work seven days a week enforcing the Code equally to all businesses? 8 . What would the penalties be for violation of the Code? Financial? Revocation of a Business License? The issue of open air selling will have a tremendous impact on this community, and will require a great deal of time to ascertain the answers to a variety of related items which should be addressed before any final action is taken. I have a great deal of faith in you and your colleagues to thoroughly evaluate each one to determine what the long term effect will have on us . Unfortunately elected officials sometimes have to vote against a popular issue with the people to best serve the long term needs of a community. I shall eagerly await your response to my quires. Thank you very much. Sincerely, James A. Struck, Owner Eagle Art Galleries 73-199 E1 Paseo Palm Desert, CA 92260 cc: Jean Benson Buford Crites Richard Kelley S. Roy Wilson 1 ' RECEIVED '91 SEP to Pil 2 C1 September 11, 1991 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE RECEIVED Palm Desert City Council City Hall SEP 17 1991 73-510 Fred Waring Drive VOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAPTMENT Palm Desert, CA 92260 CITY Of PALM PESEP7 Dear City Council Members: I have watched from a distance the growing conflict between the Palm Desert/Rancho Mirage businesses and the College of the Desert (COD) Street Fair. I am not a disinterested party as my wife owns a women's boutique on E1 Paseo in Palm Desert. The whole issue of the COD legal or illegal Street Fair because of zoning is totally immaterial if you look at all other parameters involved. I believe that the city would not allow the Street Fair to continue if they weighed the true facts and not the emotional facts. The major fact being that COD is the operator of the Street Fair. If this was an individual or business, not COD, the zoning change would not be considered. Because of COD you are overlooking some major items: 1. The local shopping areas are vacant from 8:00 AM until 2:00 - 3:00 PM on both Saturday and Sunday, when the Street Fair is operating. 2 . Small businesses are being terminally damaged by the Street Fair, in particular: a) Hardware stores (tools) b) Silk plants and plant stores c) Restaurants (no Saturday or Sunday lunches) d) Art galleries e) Tee shirt shops f) Shoe stores g) Golf shops h) Furniture i) Accessories (lamps/rugs j ) Jewelry stores (watches) k) Clothing stores (handbags, costume jewelry) 3. Most vendors at the Street Fair are professional swap meet vendors that travel from location to location and are not local people. The products they are selling are bought wholesale in Los Angeles or Mexico. A number of these products are illegal copies of trademarked merchandise and there have been arrests at the Street Fair because of the illegal merchandise. _:,e 4 . Even the produce is trucked in from the Los Angeles produce market. 5. The money raised by COD through the Street Fair is always listed at $300,000 but the net amount is never mentioned. The local stores and shops do hire local people and do pay their taxes locally. The small businesses in our local area are having a hard time during the current business slow down. To have Street Fairs that come to town on Saturday and Sunday and reap the best tourist days from local merchants and pay two day's rent and no property taxes, is ludicrous, and probably. fatal to many small businesses . They don't operate through the summer at all because they only pay rent when they show up. You can do that if you operate on state property and don't pay local property taxes . I am sure most businesses are not against fair competition but this does not qualify as fair competition. These are important issues and I don't believe they have been address properly. One mistake that has been consistently made is to pit the little person at the swap meet against I Magnin's, Bullock's or El Paseo. Forget I. Magnin's, Bullock's and El Paseo and worry about the little stores and shops that are hurting. These same businesses are asking their attorneys and landlords if they can break their lease because of this zoning change so that they can join the Street Fair. If the Palm Desert City Council votes to approve this mis-use of state property by changing the zoning, you are sending an absolute message to small business that Palm Desert doesn't want you in town, get out, we don't need you111 The Street Fair will pay taxes and hire local people to sell illegal copies of Rolex watches, Ray-Ban glasses and Chanel purses. The council should consider these import facts before setting a damaging precedent of allowing a Street Fair to destroy your tax paying small businesses . Thank you for your consideration. Since relv Charles E. McEwan 34 Kavenish Drive Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 2 - =:CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 72-990 HIGHWAY 111 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 August 20, 1991 TELEPHONE: (619) 346-6111 TO: Palm Desert Planning Commission FROM: Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce RE: Proposed Ordinance Relative to Open Air Selling Dear Friends: This communication is to inform you of the position the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors has taken on the proposed City of Palm Desert request for an amendment to per- mitted conditional uses in the P, Public/Institutional district zone. Following thorough discussion, the Chamber's Board of Direc- tors voted to recommend to the Planning Commission and City Coun- cil its opposition to the proposed ordinance which is on your agenda for action tonight as it is written. Instead of the proposed ordinance, we respectfully offer an alternative ordinance or additional language to the proposed or- dinance for your consideration. The Palm Desert Chamber of Com- merce Board of Directors recommends its support for an ordinance which would allow open air sales to both public and commercially zoned locations in Palm Desert. With this suggested ordinance, we also have deep and serious concerns regarding the controls which should be included in the conditional use permit process. Thus, we request to be included in any comprehensive review process during conditional use permit approval procedure for any open air selling applications which' come to the City. We strongly believe this is a question of fairness and the implementation of very specific, responsible and appropriate con- ditions to conditional use permits. While open air sales are less than advantageous if left uncontrolled, supporting an or- dinance which would open the conditional use permit process to commercial and public zoned entities would at least put the process on an even playing field. The Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce believes that allowing the process to exist on an equal basis would, ultimately, be most beneficial to the City, our businesses and shoppers. 1 Page Two Open Air Selling On behalf of the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, a very sincere would of appreciation to you for your consideration of our recommendation. si ely yours, Daniel L. Ehrler Executive Vice President i 2 Ar ORECEIVE® I/�n��/ SEP 41991 Vt 19P el ee DDMMONIIY DEVELOPMENT DEPAVKKi _ —CHAMBER OF COMMERCE COY Of PALM DESERT 72-990 HIGHWAY 111 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE: (619) 346-6111 August 23, 1991 Mr. Ray Diaz Assistant City Manager - Community Development City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Ray: A very sincere word of appreciation to you for your consideration of and assistance with the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce position relative to the Open Air Selling Ordinance Amendment. We are, as you can probably deduce, (See! I do remember some of my 49'r debate lingo! ) , trying very hard to reach a "fair" solution to this dilemma which will also be beneficial to all concerned. In that spirit, I wanted to restate the Chamber Board's sincere request to take an active participatory role in the Conditional Use Permit approval process. We would hope that a selected small group of Chamber representatives could meet with you or your staff to provide its input to the C.U.P. applications as they are being prepared for Planning Commission and City Council approval. By doing things through this method, we hope it would avoid major confrontations and/or problems later. Perhaps there is another format which we could work out if this one needs modification. Our goal is that we want to be a participant in this process. We believe it would, again, prove the greatness of this community with business and government working together toward a common goal. Can we meet in the near future to discuss this proposal, so we could have this worked out by the September 17 Planning Commission meeting when the Open Air Selling Amendment is up for approval? I will call you to make the arrangements. Again, thank you very much. I look forward to us meeting soon. Very sincere yours, D iel L hrler Execu ive Vice-President 2 CITY OF PALM DESERT D 1RTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVE. 'MENT 1 TRANSMITTAL LETTER I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Consideration of an amendment to the zoning ordinance as it relates to permitted conditional uses in the P Public/Institutional Zone. III . APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert IV. CASE NO: ZOA 91-2 V. DATE: August 22, 1991 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation. B. Discussion. C. Draft Ordinance No. 656 D. Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 20, 1991 . E. Related maps and/or exhibits. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 656 to second reading. B. DISCUSSION: The proposed code amendment, if adopted, will permit a "swap meet- street fair" type of activity as a conditional use in the P zone which College of the Desert is zoned. Adoption of this amendment will permit the city to process a conditional use permit for the ongoing street fair at the college. This CUP then can be fully assessed and denied or approved subject to conditions which would be imposed on the operation. This proposed amendment was before planning commission at its August 20, 1991 meeting. If commission fails to recommend approval staff will so advise city council and this matter will be continued to a further date certain. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by: ,�/ SRS/tm ORDINANCE NO . if AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 25.38 OF CODE OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RELATING TO THE P- PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT. CASE NO. ZOA 91-2 The City of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. That 25 . 38.030 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert, California, be, and the same hereby is, amended by adding to said section the following subparagraph. "Q. Outdoor sales of arts, crafts, clothing, goods, wares and other merchandise. " SECTION 2 . The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published once in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published. and circulated within the City of Palm Desert, and the same shall be in full force and effect thirty ( 30 ) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this day of 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES : NOES : ABSENT: ABSTAIN: WALTER H. SNYDER, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California SRS/tm / CITY OF PALM DESERT DF -RTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVET 'MENT STAFF REPORT f TO: Planning Commission DATE: August 20, 1991 CASE NO: ZOA 91-2 REQUEST: Amendment to permitted conditional uses in the P, Public/Institutional District Zone. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND• As commission is probably aware there has been considerable discussion regarding the ongoing "swap meet"-"street fair" which operates at the College of the Desert. The city' s original position was that the city could not regulate activities on State owned property. This position has changed recently and the city attorney feels that the city can regulate functions on the college site if they are uses other than the primary operation of the junior college. In order that the ongoing swap meet-street fair can be reviewed and regulated we must first insert the use as a permitted conditional use in the P zone which the entire college is zoned. This will then permit the college or the alumni association to apply for the necessary conditional use permit and will allow the community to make their feelings known at a future public hearing. II . DISCUSSION• The draft resolution attached hereto will insert swap meet-street fair as a permitted conditional use in the P public/institutional zone ( section 25. 68.030 Q) . III. ANALYSIS: A. FINDINGS: 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 will better serve the public health, safety and general welfare. STAFF REPORT ZOA 91-2 AUGUST 20, 1991 B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The director of community has determined that the proposed code amendment is a class 21 categorical exemption and no further review is necessary. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends: A. Adoption of the findings delineated in the staff report. B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending approval of ZOA 91-2 to the city council . Prepared by _ i Reviewed and ,Approved b}V SRS/tm 2 j PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AMENDING SECTION 38. 030 PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. CASE NO. ZOA 91-2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of August, 1991, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance to insert subsection "Q" into section 25.38 .030 (conditional uses in the public/institutional zone ) ; and WHEREAS, said amendment has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89, " in that the director of community development has determined the amendment to be a class 21 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission 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 will better serve the public health, safety and general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2 . That the planning commission does hereby recommend to the city council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 91-2 as provided in the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit "A. " PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO . PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 20th day of August, 1991 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES : ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary SRS/tm 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ,j EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 That section 25.38.030 of the municipal code be and the same is hereby amended by adding to said section the following subparagraph. "Q. Outdoor sales of arts, crafts, clothing, goods, wares and other merchandise. " 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING .,OMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 moved for a continuance. The motion died due to a lack of a second. Commissioner Jonathan made a motion to approve the findings as presented by staff. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Chairperson Whitlock, approving the findings as presented by staff. Commissioner Richards asked for clarification on the 25 feet height. Mr. Drell stated that it would be measured from the average curb elevation; the height would be measured from that curb and he would have to have a very minimum grade of slightly subgrade back where the second story would be located to achieve the 25 feet in height. Motion carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Chairperson Whitlock, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1531, recommending to city council approval of GPA 91-2, C/Z 91-2, PP 91-8, and denial of VAR 91-2 subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0. C. Case No. ZOA 91- CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for an amendment to permitted conditional uses in the P, Public/Institutional District Zone. Mr. Diaz stated that this hearing was not to discuss the pros and cons of the College of the Desert street fair, but the purpose of the hearing was to discuss the pros and cons of whether or not the city should allow open air sales in the P zone with a conditional use permit. The net result of that would be that if the ordinance amendment was adopted ultimately by the city council and enacted, then an application for a conditional use permit could be made and a public hearing on the specific permit applied for would be held before the planning commission. He stated that the ordinance was fairly simple and would amend the conditional use provisions of the P or public zone and basically that zone encompasses all public institutions of education, as well as certain other publicly owned parcels. He stated that an application for a conditional use permit would have to be made by the agency that would hold that parcel and the hearing would be before the planning commission. He noted that 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING u, MMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 letters in opposition had been received from the E1 Paseo Business Association, Cameron' s of E1 Paseo, and there was a letter before commission from the Chamber of Commerce opposing the ordinance change as it was written and recommending that the ordinance change be extended to other commercial zones so that privately owned property could also apply for a conditional use permit. Staff did not have a problem with amending the wording of the ordinance to include other zones or having a hearing on those other zones. He clarified that the hearing was before the commission without the conditional use permit application because of the litigation filed against the city requesting that the city terminate the street fair at the college and in order to demonstrate to the courts that the city was proceeding, the city had to proceed with the zoning ordinance amendment. Staff had requested that the hearing be delayed so that the conditional use permit and the zoning ordinance amendment would be heard simultaneously, but those persons filing the writ did not wish to continue the matter. He requested that those present wishing to speak on the ordinance change limit their comments specifically to the issue of the ordinance change, not to the pluses and minuses of the street fair at the College of the Desert. He advised that the appropriate time for that testimony would be at the time the conditional use permit hearing was held on that specific application should this ordinance amendment be enacted. He stated that the ordinance amendment was also scheduled before the city council on August 22, 1991 because of the time constraints and if this hearing were continued, then the council hearing would also be continued. He stated that the matter would go to the city council whether the commission recommended approval or denial because the ordinance change was requested at the council level . He explained that the ordinance amendment would allow the city to discuss the issues specifically at a separate hearing. Staff recommended to the planning commission that it recommend to the city council approval of the amendment and incorporate the request of the Chamber of Commerce that the ordinance be revised to permit the use in other particular zones with a conditional use permit. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. DAN .EHRLER, Executive Vice President for the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce, informed commission that their board of directors met at a special meeting to 8 1 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING -JMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 discuss and form a position regarding the ordinance amendment. He read for the record the action by the board as follows: "This communication is to inform you of the position the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors has taken on the proposed City of Palm Desert request for an amendment to permitted conditional uses in the P/Public Institutional District zone. Following thorough discussion the chamber' s board of directors voted to recommend to you, the planning commission, and city council its opposition to the proposed ordinance which is on your agenda for action tonight as it is written. Instead of the proposed ordinance, we respectfully offer an alternative ordinance or additional language to the proposed ordinance for your consideration. The Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors recommends its support for an ordinance which would allow open air sales to both public and commercially zoned locations in Palm Desert. With this suggested ordinance, we also have deep and very serious concerns regarding the controls which should be included in the conditional use permit process. Thus we request to be included in any comprehensive review process during conditional use permit approval procedures for any open air selling applications which come to the city. We strongly believe this is a question of fairness and the implementation of very specific responsible and appropriate conditions to conditional use permits. While open air sales are less than advantageous if left uncontrolled, supporting an ordinance which would open the conditional use permit process to commercial and public zoned entities would at least put the process on an even playing field. The Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce believes that allowing the process to exist on an equal basis would ultimately be most beneficial to the city, our businesses and shoppers. " On behalf of the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, a very sincere word of appreciation for your consideration of this suggestion and if , you have any questions regarding this process or the decision of the board, we can answer them. Commissioner Richards asked for an example of what the chamber had in mind (i.e. Town Center parking lot sale on a regular basis or one time) . Mr. Ehrler stated that they were requesting the equal application of the process by any entity; right now the way the ordinance was written it was only being 9 MINUTES ' PALM DESERT PLANNING uoMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 offered to public institutional zoned areas to come to the city with an application for a use permit to hold such an event. He felt the same opportunity should be given to any commercially zoned entity as well . If a business or area where business is conducted wished to put on what would be considered open air selling, they would go through the same conditional use permit process. Mr. Diaz clarified that a one-time event could be approved in the present ordinance in the commercial zone with a special use permit approved by the director of community development. He stated that this ordinance was intended to be for on-going events. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Ehrler for an example of this use in the commercial zone; Mr. Ehrler replied that if there were an open air selling concept that came about by a section of town on Highway 111 ( i.e. Palms to Pines shopping area) and the merchants there collectively wanted to do something that was defined as open air selling, in the same concept now being applied to the street fair, if they wanted to have it on a regular of basis or even specific months during each year, they should have the same opportunity to come to the city and apply for that opportunity to hold such an event. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Diaz if the E1 Paseo merchants wanted to hold a Saturday or Monday event and wanted to hold it in the street or parking lot, would staff still have to comply with all parking and other regulations; Mr. Diaz responded that under the special use permit provisions a special permit could be granted for a one time event. What the chamber was asking for was the same right to request of the commission the opportunity the have an ongoing event so that they could also request a street fair ( i.e. even on E1 Paseo) and there would be a public hearing on each specific request that the commission could approve, approve with conditions, or deny. He stated that the chamber was requesting that the same regulations apply to commercially zoned properties that is being granted to publicly zoned property. Mr. Ehrler concurred and indicated that at the same time they were expressing their concern about the conditions and wanted to take an active role in that process. Mr. Diaz clarified that the use would have to be done on privately owned property, not on public sidewalks. Commissioner Richards requested assurance that current ordinances regarding parking, etc. , would not be violated. Mr. Diaz concurred. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING .,OMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 Mr. Ehrler stated that an owner of a commercially zoned area would have the same opportunity to submit an application for a conditional use permit which would be conditioned, was what they were asking for, which he felt would be equitable to both the commercially zoned property owner and the public institutional zoned properties. Commissioner Jonathan asked for confirmation that under this proposal the applicant would have to go through a conditional use permit process; Mr. Diaz concurred. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the applicant was on commercially zoned property, could he go through the same request today; Mr. Diaz replied no and it was clarified that the wording would have to be added to this ordinance to say that it should also be applicable to other commercial zones. Commissioner Erwood asked if there were any rational basis for distinguishing between public and commercial zones. Mr. Diaz stated that staff would accept the recommendations of the chamber, stressing that this would allow them the opportunity to ask for the conditional use permit. Commissioner Downs concurred. Mr. Ehrler stated that it was a question of fairness in applying to both entities the same process. Commissioner Richards indicated that the only way he could envision this in the commercial zone was for a developer to come in with a large vacant parcel with a lease on the land for a specific length of time and would segregate a portion for parking, provide public restrooms, etc. , and would mitigate any city requirements. Commissioner Jonathan suggested as an example the merchants in the Town Center coming to the city saying that their stores don't open until 11:00 a.m. on Sundays and they would request an open air swap meet from 6:00. a.m. to 10:00 a.m. , which he felt was a conceivable request, and he did not have a problem with the chamber' s request. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone else wished to address the commission. DR. PAUL CAMPBELL, President of the El Paseo Business Association, speaking on behalf of the business community and himself, congratulated the commission on their courage and wisdom in approving a controversial country club project. He did not feel the current request was a controversial problem and stated that what was really being considered was a law. He stated that previous city leaders set up an ordinance that prohibited open air 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING _jMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 ; selling and they did that for reasons they thought were valid. He felt some of those reasons were that they did not want to change the image of Palm Desert to look more like Palm Springs and did not want shoddy goods or stolen items, counterfeit items or that sort of thing made available to the general public in such an easy way. He felt that perhaps the most important part of their decision was the fact they didn' t feel the general tax payer should go through tax subsidies to support open air selling on public property. He asked why the city council and staff would minimize the value of the business community, which they tended to do, and the other question was why would they rather change the ordinance than to enforce the current one that was in effect. He felt the answer was quite simple; it was politically popular and that was the only reason it was before the commission. He mentioned that when a sample ballot was received from the State for an election, it gave an estimate of cost of what new laws changed would be brought to bear upon the tax payer. Since Mr. Diaz referred to the College of the Desert and street fair, he commented on the fact that they made in the neighborhood of $300, 000 per year to the alumni association. He said that they had no fight with that or with the use they put it, but nobody seemed to say anything about the loss of sales tax to the community and based on experts opinions of income around $15 million, that would mean the city would lose sales tax in the area of over $1 million per year at the current level, saying there was a cost involved which no one mentioned as far as what the tax payer had to come up with in addition to subsidizing the street fair, or public selling. He hoped that the planning commission would show the same courage and wisdom that the predecessors had when the law was established originally and commented that, "If it works, don' t fix it. " MR. SHERMAN, of E1 Paseo, stated that he had a small suite at College of the Desert and informed commission that they sell new merchandise and pay their taxes, and they were not over priced, and he knew of retail businesses on E1 Paseo that bought merchandise at COD, then marked it up and sold it in their stores on E1 Paseo. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING jMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 Mr. Diaz reminded commission and the audience that the hearing before the commission was not on the pluses or minuses of the College of the Desert; that would be heard at a separate public hearing if the ordinance amendment proceeded. MR. TED GUSTON informed commission that he had a booth at the college street fair. He had a question about the ordinance, the city council, and the planning commission. He asked who was to justify the fact that the street fair had been in existence on that property for the last eight years. Mr. Diaz stated that the issue of whether or not the COD street fair was the same as what occurred in Santa Ana; that issue had never been decided and was not being decided at the present time. To the specific issue of those individuals wishing to stop the street fair--the Santa Ana decision was not before the city. The college voluntarily requested to apply for a conditional use permit and go through the public hearing. As far as the pros and cons and merits of the street fair and conditional use permit, the planning commission would make that decision. He indicated that if the planning commission decision was appealed, the city council would make a determination. He stated that the city would take all the testimony and consider the pros and cons and see if the application should be approved, and if approved with what conditions, or whether it should be denied. Mr. Guston stated that was not his question; he wanted to know under what conditions has the street fair been able to exist and maintain its position and be in business for the last eight years. Commissioner Richards clarified that there had been some recent court decisions relative to the city's ability to regulate non-educational uses on public property and the city attorney had directed the city to consider this ordinance amendment. Hither to this decision, it was understood by the city that it had no ability to regulate state-owned property activities. Mr. Guston stated that if that were the case, the city had no justification to issue licenses for people at the street fair and that was in error also. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING . iMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 ; Mr. Diaz stated that business licenses were issued merely for the raising of revenue and the issuance of a business license had nothing to do with whether a particular act was legal by the zoning regulations. Mr. Guston stated that he hoped the commission would adopt the amendment and make the street fair legal in Palm Desert. MR. MEL JOHNS informed commission that his wife has a small business at the street fair and wanted to go on record as to comments by the E1 Paseo Merchants Association Chairman being allowed to make statements that were false. He stated that the businesses were licensed and paid taxes and through the city records it would show that the State reimburses a percentage to Palm Desert. He also indicated that he wanted to go on record that the street fair had some extra things such as fund raising, and events like that, that were good for the community and felt the public at large liked the street fair and wanted the street fair to continue. MR. DAVE GEORGE, President of the College of the Desert, informed commission that they had been working for the last year with the retail establishment in Palm Desert to fabricate some type of a rational, reasonable agreement. He stated that at some time in the future he would like to respond to Dr. Campbell ' s aspersions as to the nature of the street fair merchandise. He supported the chamber' s position of leveling the field and adding the provision for open air selling on commercial properties also. MS. JUNE TERAN, Executive Director of the Alumni Association, indicated that she was informed that at one of the last commission meetings through the minutes that there were some questions about some of the issues involving the street fair and asked if it would be appropriate to address them. She noted that one question was the majority of the vendors were from out of the area and brought to the commission' s attention that at least 66% of the vendors were from the college district and the majority from the Coachella Valley. She stated that all the vendors were licensed by Palm Desert and the State Board of Equalization. Parking was an issue that had been brought up and she stated that the college itself 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING JMMISSION z AUGUST 20, 1991 was adding two additional parking lots and the alumni association had approved $84, 000 to put in two additional parking facilities at the campus. She said they had tried working with the local merchants and because Dr. George and the alumni association wanted to improve the image of the street fair, they had worked diligently to meet with the different merchant ' s groups, the vendors of their street fair, and college staff to come up with a new image that would enhance Palm Desert. She felt the street fair had a good image, but the new image would be of a country fair, or an old fashioned image, and they had recently invested several thousand dollars for new signs and had a $25, 000 promotional budget to bring more tourists to the Palm Desert area and the PR firm hired to promote the street fair and Palm Desert. She stated they were willing to work with the local merchants and members of the community to route the buyers at the street fair up to their district. She reiterated that they were trying to improve it. She welcomed calls to her at the college for anyone wishing to hear solutions and plans that the college has for the street fair. MR. QUAKE, resident of Palm Desert for the last 15 years and business owner in Rancho Mirage. He informed commission that he was the one who started this whole issue at city council, some of the reasons for not having enormous participation of the bad people, the retailer of the community, he went on record that after appearing at council with another group of people who were with him, that evening two of the stores that appeared with him had their windows pelted and he had three threatening phone calls which he recorded with the City of Palm Desert, and for this reason would not give his address for the record. He stated that he was reluctant to come before the commission, but the swap meet being conducted on the College of the Desert property was illegal and he felt that it had probably been illegal for the past eight years. He felt that the biggest statement he made originally was that he was not anti-swap meet or street fair. It was his pleasure for it to be done in an area that was competitive with the retail community where the rents run, not the same as a covered store, in an area that had parking, like at the Town Center or on E1 Paseo, in Cathedral City, down town Palm Springs, or in Indian Wells. As it was being conducted right now, he felt the illegality was what he had been speaking about and the 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING . jMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 fact that it was illegal and as a resident, he did not like what the chamber of commerce brought up because the next thing that would happen would be that Palm Desert would be known as "swap city" . He felt that ten acres mentioned by Commissioner Richards would be the perfect opening vehicle. He stated that the operation as enormous as it is had been running for eight years without an environmental impact report, which he felt was not to be believed. Commissioner Richards interrupted at this point and asked Mr. Quake to stick to the issue of the amendment to the ordinance. Mr. Quake said that he would like to go on record that he would like the planning commission to not vote in favor of the amendment and open air selling. Mr. Diaz clarified that he did not say that the activity at the college was illegal for eight years, but the summary by Commissioner Richards was correct regarding new legal decisions, and the specific decision on the activities currently taking place in the city had not been decided and they were trying to avoid all of that, which was the reason for the amendment to the ordinance, and then they could sit down and discuss the merits or demerits on the specific activity taking place. The amendment would give the city the right to discuss it and try to resolve those issues in Palm Desert' s usual manner. MR. HENRY HOYLE, 73-440 Broken Arrow in Palm Desert, stated that he had two businesses in Palm Desert and had lived here and been in business since 1973. He said it was very difficult for him to quarrel with the position of the chamber, because he felt they had a unique in mind, which might be impossible to accomplish, but stated that as he observed in other cities, if Palm Desert does open up open air selling, as instituted by the College of the Desert, he was against the changes being made to allow the college to continue their swap meet and felt that Pandora' s box was being opened and the city council and planning commissions in other cities would be deluged with continual problems taking up their time because of the different problems open air selling would create. MS. JULIE BORNSTEIN, resident of Palm Desert and member of the Chamber of Commerce, addressed the commission as 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING JMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 President of the Governing Board of the Desert Community College District. She said they were not present to debate the pros and cons of the street fair, though she wanted to make it clear that they were open to the community to do that in the appropriate forum and felt that Dr. George had attempted to deal with all the competing interests and interested groups and stated that she was also available to do that. She wanted to make their position clear that they had conducted the street fair for many years and it was a very crucial element to their funding, particularly in recent times of tight funding, and there was a new move to take more funding from education through the lottery. She said they had been conducting the use legally all these years and there was a new decision that came down regarding that affects of a street fair in another location under very different conditions, and it was their legal position that the street fair continues to remain legal even given that new court decision, irrespective of the feelings of the city attorney, which was what made lawsuits in that lawyers often have differing about the interpretation of lawsuits. She indicated she understood that the proposed ordinance was simply to give the city jurisdiction to now get involved in the street fair, because it had never had the jurisdiction to do that before, as advised by the city attorney. She indicated that the college voluntarily submitted an application as a good neighbor, and stated that while they represent over 300,000 people in the community college district and three different counties, their home was in Palm Desert and they prize the good neighbor relationship the college has with the city council, government, and citizens of Palm Desert. She supported the ordinance as suggested by the chamber of commerce so that it would apply to any commercial property who might wish to submit to city jurisdiction in similar activities. She noted there had been a lot said about having a level playing field and treating business entities similarly, while she believed distinctions exist because they were a non-profit, educational institution, and not a commercial enterprise, but they did not have any objections to expanding the ordinance as suggested. She said they would be willing to submit to the jurisdiction of the city so that if the ordinance was invoked, they would come back at a future time to discuss the pros and cons of the street fair and have an opportunity to correct misinformation given to 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING _�MMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 the commission by members of the community. She noted that even the business community was divided; the chamber of commerce had one recommendation and the E1 Paseo merchants had another on the opposite side. While the community was divided, it was their goal to do what was best for the community and preserve for themselves the fund raising option that had become a crucial part of financing the activities that were being provided to the entire community. In closing she reiterated that they do support the ordinance, especially the original ordinance, but had no objection to the expansion proposed by the chamber. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony and asked for comments by the commission. Commissioner Downs stated that he had no objection, as long as commercial zones were also included. Commissioner Jonathan agreed. He noted there was a recommendation by the city attorney and felt the amendment would create jurisdiction for the city to get involved and did not pass comment on the advisability of the street fair; just a legal vehicle to get the city proper. He had no objection to the revision per the chamber of commerce recommendation. Commissioner Erwood felt it was important to note that this would give the public a chance to have a forum to litigate this issue before the commission and city council and have the right to have their voices heard, rather than a having a situation existing that the city would be incapable of doing anything about. He was in favor of the recommendation. Commissioner Richards stated that he wished to address some of Ms. Bornstein comments. He concurred that the college was not being in opposition to the city' s involvement and they had done what the city asked in submitting an application. He stated that he was also involved in the economic development advisory committee and noted that committee was made up of a number of citizens and at a meeting with the majority, city manager, staff, the city attorney, and a number of outside citizens including Dave Tschopp, Diane Cox, Frank Goodman, John Ceriale, Hank Stokes, George Berkey, and Don Hedlund. He wanted the audience and staff to know that there was comment in detail and suggestions that this committee had on the merits or non-merits of this issue and if anyone wished 18 t MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING JMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 to obtain copies of those comments, they were available. He felt that Ms. Bornstein' s comments were correct; they were trying to clear up some legal technicalities and attempting to get the issue before a public forum to allow discussion. Chairperson Whitlock stated that she had nothing further to add and concurred with the staff recommendation and recommendation of the chamber of commerce. She requested a motion. It was moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to approve the findings as amended. Ms. Allen advised the commission that with respect to Mr. Ehrler' s request to include amendment to the conditional uses in commercial zones, it was not legally noticed and recommended that the commission only make a recommendation relative to the use in the P zone. Mr. Diaz stated that if this was the case, the commission should instruct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment to allow the use in the commercial zones for hearing at the September 17, 1991 meeting and staff would so inform council . Chairperson Whitlock asked if this item should be continued to allow have both actions simultaneously; Mr. Diaz stated that he would inform the council in the staff report that this was the commission' s position, that if the commercial zone allowance with the conditional use permit was not included, then the recommendation would be negative. He indicated that because the commission had to proceed with the ordinance separately, the commission' s decision was approval of both the commercial and public zones to be allowed with a conditional use permit and if council were considering it only in public zones, the recommendation was no. He indicated that commission could recommend that the council continue the hearing on the P zone until the commercial zone could be heard simultaneously. Staff noted that the matter was probably going to be continued anyway due to the absence and abstentions of some council members. Mr. Diaz clarified that the commission would proceed with the P zone, he would advise the council that they would not concur without the commercial zone being included, and commission was instructing staff to prepare an amendment to the ordinance for public hearing on September 17. Commission concurred. 19 MINUTES S PALM DESERT PLANNING _ .MMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1532, recommending approval of ZOA 91-2 to city council subject to the addition of the amendment to the commercial zone. Commission also instructed staff to prepare that zoning ordinance amendment for public hearing on September 17, 1991 . Motion Carried 5-0. VIII . MISCELLANEOUS A. WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES An oral presentation was given by Environmental Conservation Manager John Wohlmuth on proposed water efficient landscape guidelines. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. DAN EHRLER, Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice President, spoke on the behalf of the Hoard of Directors regarding their Annual Planning Conference and encouraged the commission to participate on October 17 and 18, 1991 . He felt the involvement of the planning commission would be beneficial in the process of planning their year, as they deal with many aspects of the city. Commissioner Jonathan volunteered his services. Mr. Ehrler indicated that the chamber was involved in Mr. Wohlmuth' s project on water efficient landscape guidelines, and noted that Mr. Wohlmuth was involved in the chamber' s environmental affairs subcommittee on water. He stated that their subcommittee had done a lot of research and activity with the information Mr. Wohlmuth presented and the chamber gave its whole-hearted support to that effort and planned to be a distribution center through walk-ins, mailings to new residents, as well as utilizing their newsletter. Mr. Ehrler thanked the commission for their time and efforts for Palm Desert. 20 PLA_..(ING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1532 i A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AMENDING SECTION 38.030 PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. CASE N0./ZOA 91-2 � WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of August, 1991, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance to insert subsection "Q" into section 25.38.030 (conditional uses in the public/institutional zone) ; and WHEREAS, said amendment has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89, " in that the director Of community development has determined the amendment to be a class 21 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission 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 will better serve the public health, safety and general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That the planning commission does hereby recommend to the city council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 91-2 as provided in the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit "A", subject to the addition of the amendment to the commercial zones. PLANNING COMMISSION 'SOLUTION NO. 1532 t PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 20th day of August,the following vote, to wit: 1991, by AYES: DOWNS, ERWOOD, JONATHAN, RICHARDS, WHITLOCK NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson ATTEST: RAM N A. DIAZ, e9ary SRS/tm 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1532 t — EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 That section 25 .38.030 of the municipal code be and the same is hereby amended by adding to said section the following subparagraph. "Q. Outdoor sales of arts, crafts, clothing, goods, wares and other merchandise. " 3 73.510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 -T- TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 July 12, 1991 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 91-2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance to add to Section 25.04 a definition for a "street fair - swap meet" and to add to Section 25.38.030, Subsection "street fair - swap meet" as a conditional use in the Public (P) zone and a negative declaration of environmental impact as related thereto. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, August 22, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall , 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed protect and/or negative declaration is available for review in the department of community development/planning at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. if you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues your or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission (or city council ) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post SHEILA GILLIGAN, City Clerk July 17, 1991 City of Palm Desert, California RECEIVED E T AUG 14 1991 CDMMDXIIY DEVELOPMEDESNT ERT DEDEPARTMENTDEPARTMENT CITY DF PRLM vt PASEO- August 12, 1991 Palm Desert Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Commission Members; The E1 Paseo Business Association Board of Directors was legislated by the City of Palm Desert to act as an advisory committee to the City Council . At the appropriate time, this Board will advise the City Council of its position in regard to allowing open air selling on public property, or changing the zoning to where it would be possible, on a permit basis . The position of this Board is one of OPPOSITION to an ordinance that would make open air selling on public property legal. The basis of this position is very simple : Tax-payers should not be required to subsidize vendors by permiting their use of public property on which to conduct their business. At your public hearings on this matter, we would suggest you obtain positive identification of those addressing the Commission. It is a fact that, almost all of the vocal support for this ordinance will be coming from vendors who live outside Palm Desert. This City does not have to provide a platform for near-by and transient charlatans ! Yours truly, el , r � PBA Boa of Direct rc5 s EL PASEO BUSINESS ASSOCIATION • P.O. BOX 6000 STE. 305 o PALM DESERT,CA 92261 FROM EXECUTIVE SUITE R pal Cantcmn's of EI Paseo 73425 El Pasco, Suite C Palm Desert, CA 92260 August 14, 1991 Mayor Walt Snyder City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mayor Snyder: As you will recall, 1 spent many months as a representative for El Pasco businesses participating in negotiations with C.O.D.,Town Center and the City of Palm Desert to come up with an amicable solution to the controversial Street Fair issue. Last January, we all came up with what we considered a fair compromise with the Street Fair planning to return to an Arts and Crafts theme on May 31. During the above-mentioned negotiations,I spent hours convincing skeptical retail merchants that the City of Palm Desert was genuinely concerned for their well-being and was actively pursuing a compromise solution for all. We are now told, however, that after waiting four months, those changes have been postponed pending the city's decision on issuing a Conditional Use Permit for C.O.D. to open-air sell. I have also been made aware that the existing ordinance must be rewritten before any property can even apply for a Conditional Use Permit. I was astounded to find out that in the instructions for this "ordinance rewrite" it calls for only "P" properties to be eligible to apply for the permit. Although I was a strong supporter of the compromise agreement at C.O.D., 1, along with countless other retail businesses all over Palm Desert (including other participants in the negotiating group) am adamantly opposed to this new alternative. If this ordinance rewrite is supported by the City Council, you will not only be allowing the Street Fair to continue, but opening the door for other 7' properties to enter the retail arena as well. Considering the financial status of the public education system, how long will it be before the remaining educational facilities in Palm Desert take advantage of this new prospect for financial gain? After the devastating effects the C.O.D. Street Fair has had on our weekend retail economy, how can you consider expanding your invitation to open-air sell to all 71 properties (which are public properties intended for public service, education, government, etc. and not for retail competition) while continuing to bind and restrict the hand of the private sector (which is set up and intended for retail)? That is blatant discrimination!!! FROM EXECUTIVE SUITE P , 002 Mayor Snyder -2- August 14, 1991 Although I am not a participant in the lawsuit against the City of Palm Desert, their points are valid and I strongly concur with the majority of business owners who feel that if this ordinance is passed, the City Council will be turning their backs on the needs of the retail community just to save $300,000 a year for C.O.D. Unfortunately, the revenue loss to the legitimate, full-tune businesses far exceeds that amount and many people are interested to know just how much sales tax revenue is actually generated to Palm Desert from the estimated millions of dollars in sales going out of the city to vendors who come in from other areas to take advantage of our lucrative weekend business. It is up to the city now to decide if it wants "open-air" selling within its boundaries or not. For many reasons (loss of sales tax revenue, traffic, environmental impact, stolen and counterfeit merchandise, threat to the health of the local retail economy,etc.) I would rather see no open-air selling in Palm Desert at all. (This was obviously the intent when the original ordinance was written!) But, if the City Council examines all of the possible ramifications (such as swap meets or street vendors on every corner) and still feels that it wishes to condone this type of selling, then open it up to everyone without discrimination. If you're not willing to accept those consequences, then have the courage to stand behind the ordinance already on your books and enforce it to everyone without exception. You at least owe your retail community a fighting chance to compete with the Palm Desert public properties since, after all, free enterprise and fair competition are when all parties play by the same rules. I've recently seen that numerous businesses on El Paseo are closing permanently and many have also left Highway 111 and Town Center. Before making a decision on this issue, do your homework and check into why these businesses are closing. Although many Street Fair advocates are blaming the loss of retail revenue on the recession, I can't remember any recession in history that hit on the weekend alone. Please also take time to look into how other cities handle local college swap meets. I have personally researched this information and came up with the following examples: 1. Some cities allow open-air selling to everyone. 2. Many cities do not allow open-air selling to anyone, including colleges. 3. One city had the courage to sue their local college for violation of a "no.open-air" selling ordinance and won. 4. One college closed their swap meet voluntarily because of conflict with the local retail community. 5. In some cities, even when "open-air" selling is allowed, local colleges choose to hold their swap meets on one Sunday per month or Sundays only. FROM EXECUTIVE 3 U I T E P , 003 Mayor Snyder -3- August 14, 1991 In all my research, however, I have not come across one single city that willingly changed their existing ordinance to accommodate a college swap meet while maintaining that same ordinance to the legitimate, full-time retail businesses. Mayor Snyder, the retail business owners of Palm Desert support this city with volunteer time, energy and money on a year-round basis and generate the sales tax dollars which support this city. Through contributions of time and money, El Paseo businesses have provided Palm Desert with the most elegant and beautiful street in the Coachella Valley, a street the city can be proud to host. 1 resent the negative media exposure we have had to suffer because we had the audacity to stand up for what we believe in. It is truly time for the City Council to stand up for the retail merchants since, if this controversial issue is not resolved soon, in a fair and equitable manner, the long-range effects could be crucial to the city. Don't wait until it's too late! I am aiuuously awaiting a response to my concerns. Most Sincerely, Xo� ale Koch, Owner Cameron's of El Paseo P.S.: The El Paseo Board was advised that this ordinance change would not be addressed until Fall, which we passed on to other business. Be prepared to face the resentment of the retail community if this is rushed through while most merchants are out of town, and unable to express their concerns. ' cc: City Council Planning Commission Mr. Bruce Alteman Mr. Ray Diaz CITY OF PALM DESERT r DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: August 20, 1991 CASE NO: ZOA 91-2 REQUEST: Amendment to permitted conditional uses in the P, Public/Institutional District Zone. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND• As commission is probably aware there has been considerable discussion regarding the ongoing "swap meet"-"street fair" which operates at the College of the Desert. The city' s original position was that the city could not regulate activities on State owned property. This position has changed recently and the city attorney feels that the city can regulate functions on the college site if they are uses other than the primary operation of the junior college. In order that the ongoing swap meet-street fair can be reviewed and regulated we must first insert the use as a permitted conditional use in the P zone which the entire college is zoned. This will then permit the college or the alumni association to apply for the necessary conditional use permit and will allow the community to make their feelings known at a future public hearing. II. DISCUSSION• The draft resolution attached hereto will insert swap meet-street fair as a permitted conditional use in the P public/institutional zone (section 25. 68.030 Q) . III. ANALYSIS: A. FINDINGS: 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 will better serve the public health, safety and general welfare. STAFF REPORT ZOA 91-2 AUGUST 20, 1991 B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The director of community has determined that the proposed code amendment is a class 21 categorical exemption and no further review is necessary. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends: A. Adoption of the findings delineated in the staff report. B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending approval of ZOA 91-2 to the city council . Prepared by ? Reviewed and Approved by� SRS/tm 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AMENDING SECTION 38.030 PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. CASE NO. ZOA 91-2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of August, 1991, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance to insert subsection "Q" into section 25.38.030 (conditional uses in the public/institutional zone) ; and WHEREAS, said amendment has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89, " in that the director of community development has determined the amendment to be a class 21 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission 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 will better serve the public health, safety and general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That the planning commission does hereby recommend to the city council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 91-2 as provided in the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit "A. " PLANNING COMMISSION R. JLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 20th day of August, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary SRS/tm 2 PLANNING COMMISSION R JLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 That section 25.38.030 of the municipal code be and the same is hereby amended by adding to said section the following subparagraph. "Q. Outdoor sales of arts, crafts, clothing, goods, wares and other merchandise. " 3 MINUTES PALM N ERT PLANNING COMMISSION MnETING TUESDAY - MAY 21, 1991 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Whitlock called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Downs led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Carol Whitlock, Chairperson Bob Downs Rick Erwood Sabby Jonathan Jim Richards Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ray Diaz Dave Yrigoyen Phil Joy Dick Folkers Carlos Ortega Tonya Monroe Kandy Allen IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the May 7, 1991 meeting minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving the May 7, 1991 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 3-0-2 (Commissioners Downs and Erwood abstained) . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION ✓ Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent council action from the May 9 meeting. He indicated that street fairs had become an issue and would be coming to the planning commission to determine if they should be processed by conditional use permit. it was the unanimous consensus of the commission that the matter be referred to the economic development committee. SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY - JULY 10, 1991 - 3:00 P.M. COMMUNITY SERVICES CONFERENCE ROOM 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x I. ROLL CALL Present: Absent_ Dave Tschopp, Chairman George Berkey Diane Cox Don Hedlund Frank Goodman John Ceriale Hank Stokes Others Present: Walt Snyder, Mayor Bruce Altman, City Manager Paul Shillcock, ACM/Economic Development Director Dave Erwin, City Attorney Bill Adams, Attorney Representative Jim Richards, Planning Commission Liaison Carol Whitlock, Planning Commission Chairperson Dan Ehrler, Chamber of Commerce Donna Gomez, Secretary II. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Colleoe of the Desert Street Fair Mr. Tschopp indicated that this item was referred by the Plannina Commission for review and recommendation by the Economic Development Advisory Committee. Mr. Altman explained that there has been some controversy surrounding the COD street fair and that there are lawsuits currently pending. COD submitted a request to the City for a conditional use permit (CUP) and a zoning ordinance amendment (ZOA) to allow the use of their property for an open air street fair. Mr. Shillcock explained that Mr. Erwin was present in order to relate to the committee what points are appropriate for this committee to discuss. Any recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission in their entirety. MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE JULY 10, 1991 Mr. Erwin explained that it was important that the committee treat this item as a normal agenda item under the purview of this committee. It should be addressed from an economic standpoint. COD is currently zoned "P" (public) which permits public uses subject to a conditional use permit. The litigation that has been filed is designated as a request for a writ of mandate which would be an order from the court directing someone to do something. The question is whether an open air retail market of this type is allowed even with a CUP. The lawsuit was filed by a recently formed group called Concerned Citizens of the Coachella Valley, Inc. Mr. Erwin indicated they had requested the names of the people involved with the group but have not received any further information at this time. Mr. Adams noted that it includes approximately 30 members ranging from Palm Sprinas to Palm Desert. Mr. Richards asked about the fact that this is State property which he has been told the City has no right to regulate activities or building. Mr. Erwin noted that this was not the case. He explained that if the City wishes to impose its zoning ordinance on community college land, they must give notice to the _ college board. The board then either votes to accept this -- or determines that they be exempt. That determination is to be made only for the educational facilities. The challenge is whether this determination was correct. Mr. Altman indicated a letters was written by the college board requesting that we do this. Mr. Erwin explained that there is currently a case in the 4th District court which handed down a final decision that basically stated that an open air retail market was not a public use. Mr. Ehrler explained that there had been an agreement discussed between Palm Desert merchants and COD in which the City acted as facilitator. It was his understanding that certain merchandise would no longer be sold at the street fair. Mr. Richards asked if there is a past case law does it automatically make any other same activity illegal . 2 MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE JULY 10, 1991 Mr. Erwin noted that there are other elements that come into plav in this case that may allow it to be a separate issue (ie: COD pre-existed the City) . Mr. Stokes noted that the group is asking that the City be required to enforce their rules that would prevent outdoor selling on that site. He asked if the City were to approve the rezoning of the site would that pull the rug out from under the groups case. Mr. Erwin stated that it would. He noted that another position they may take is that City Council has the authority to use its discretion to not require enforcement. Mr. Goodman felt the zoning amendment and the law suit are only parts of the legal proceedings and that the real question was whether they actually want the street fair in Palm Desert. Mr. Altman noted that was part of the issue at hand and explained that the City has received a lot of criticism for not taking a stand on this issue. He noted that the process this item will go through will give the public an opportunity to tell us what they want. Mayor Snyder noted that he has received several arguments for the street fair and several arguments against it. He fel.t.:that-it was about a 50150 split. Mr. Goodman felt this should not be a decision for the people. He felt the City has a responsibility to maintain the property values and to provide a safe and healthy shopping atmosphere. Ms. Cox noted that this is an issue that affects all of Palm Desert, not just the street fair. She indicated she had spoken to several people about the events taking place in Palm Springs. She felt it was very important to watch what happens there. Ms. Cox was opposed to the vendors only paying a $20. 00 fee as compared to the rents charged on El Paseo. Mr. Tschopp felt the committee should concentrate on specific areas such as if the street fair is in the best economic interest of the City and what type of benefits it provides to the citizens of the community. The funds COD are raising are being used for college programs and scholarships . 3 MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE JULY 10, 1991 Mayor Snyder mentioned that COD has conducted a survey which showed that people come from as far away as Fontana just to visit the street fair. Mr. Stokes felt that the community would be in favor of keeping the street fair on an 8-2 basis. He hoped to have a solution that would work for both COD and the business community. He suggested doubling the daily fee for sellina at COD and using the additional money charged for promotion of retail business in Palm Desert. Mr. Ceriale felt swap meets and discount centers were offensive but indicated that 's what people are looking for. They are asking the concierge at the Marriott where to find these places. He noted that the demand is there and if Palm Desert doesn ' t provide it, someone else will . He felt the street fair went against the grain of what Palm Desert is trying to attract, high end shopping. He noted he was aware of several wealthy people that shop at the street fair including the residents of Morningside Country Club where he lives. Ms. Cox noted that most of the vendors are not Palm Desert residents and are not spending much money here either. She felt another big problem was the Cabazon and Barstow factory outlet centers. Mr. Goodman suggested the vendors be made to pay an equal share or their fair share. Mr. Stokes suggested that they pay a significant fee and that a board be created to govern the street fair. The board could include people from the City, COD and the business community. Mr. Ceriale noted that if he was creating a street fair he would not want anyone from the town center or El Paseo to be on the board. There was some concern expressed over the possibility of opening up any "P" zoned property for this type of use with the approval of a conditional use permit. This would demand additional regulation by the board that was created. 4 MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE JULY 10, 1991 Mr. Tschopp felt it was important to assess what benefits and impacts are being brought to the community/city that are not being reimbursed. He asked if they would allow the street fair to operate and the City keep providing services and not charge for them. Mr. Goodman noted that people like to come to Palm Desert where they feel comfortable and not afraid. Mr. Tschopp noted that people are coming here from out of the area and staying over night and using the facilities. He felt that retail companies wanting to locate in Palm Desert might be dissuaded when they see the street fair. It could have a negative impact on these organizations looking for locations. Mr. Ceriale noted that his wife would still shop the street fair if it moved but she will also continue to shop at the Town Center and on El Paseo. Mr. Altman indicated that the only fees the vendors currently pay the City are sales taxes and business license fees. Mayor Snyder indicated that business license fees are based on gross receipts and the City gets 1t of the gross sales�if.ra.ccurate records are kept. He noted that there Are no-Yestrooms at the street fair and that the bus can ' t even stop at the designated bus stop because of the traffic/parking. Mr. Richards noted it was a challenge to the retailers to figure out how to get some of that business. Mayor Snyder noted that the street fair started as a vegetable fair and has grown over the last several years to what it is today. Mr. Stokes suggested they also reinstitute the same restriction on the type of items being sold. Mr. Adams indicated that any condition can be placed on the project with the CUP process. He noted that, although vendors may have year-Iona contracts with COD, they would have to comply after their contract expires. 5 MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE JULY 10, 1991 Mayor Snyder felt they were heading in the right direction with the restriction of items sold and additional fees. He also suggested that additional conditions relating to restrooms, electrical hook ups and parking solutions be recommended. Mr. Richards felt that if COD knew they had an ongoing thing they might be willing to make some capital improvements to better accommodate the street fair. Ms. Cox asked if other cities with this type of open air market had been contacted on how they monitor sales. Mr. Altman explained that there is very little they can do because most are cash sales. Mr. Goodman suggested customers be required to show a sales receipt at the exit. Mr. Richards asked whether it would be worth hiring someone for $20, 000 a year to enforce this. Mr. Altman noted that it is the State 's responsibility to enforce this and the City could not do it. Mr. Ceriale felt that the State should have some way of regulating these street fairs, especially with the budget problems their having. Mr. Stokes suggested they list the conditions that they would recommend be placed on any approval of a CUP. Mr. Altman suggested changing it to allow Sunday only which would provide sales when most other retail businesses are closed. Mayor Snyder suggested a list of conditions be imposed including proper signage, COD collecting additional fees, public safety, restrooms, etc. It was suggested that the City charge additional business license fees for open air sales. Mr. Stokes felt a street fair was suitable if it 's put under very rigorous conditions. Mr. Richards noted that the college provides a necessary asset to the community. He feels they have their back to a wall and this is their way of trying to raise some money. 6 MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE JULY 10, 1991 Mr. Goodman noted that there is nothing that states COD can ' t hold the street fair somewhere else. Mr. Richards suggested some type of recommendation that additional conditions be placed on the street fair that would include putting some money back into the affected parties and clean it up. Mr. Goodman indicated he would vote for a motion to that effect. Mr. Tschopp suggested that COD be reminded that all vendors must be in compliance with all sales tax laws, etc. Mr. Shillcock noted that this item will be before Planning Commission in September. Mr. Ehrler requested a copy of. today 's discussion and any final recommendations. He noted that the Chamber basically has taken the same stand as the City by not taking a position. He noted they have received a formal request from Chamber members to take a stand. He would be taking the information from this meeting to the Chamber Board for discussion. Mr. Stokes felt it was important for the City Council to not take the easy way out which would gain the bitterness of the. business community. Ms. Whitlock agreed that the direction the EDAC was heading was the way to handle the situation. Mr. Richards felt it was important to place conditions on the project that would make it only allowed in this one location. Mr. Adams noted that the Santa Ana case required an EIR for their swap meet. Mr. Stokes felt it might be useful for staff and two City Council members to meet with the principals involved before the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Richards didn ' t feel the timing was right for this since it has been going on for a long time. He suggested they proceed with staff preparing the recommendation. 7 MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE JULY 10, 1991 It was MOVED by Mr. Stokes, seconded by Mr. Goodman to recommend that additional restrictions and conditions be placed on the COD street fair. Suggestions listed should not be limited to these but could include the following: o Open weekends only o Additional significant fees be charged to be used for promotion of all Palm Desert retail business o Support Facilities - restrooms,. electrical hook-ups, parking, etc. o Establish a board to oversee the street fair. To be made up of COD representatives, business community and City representatives o Reimbursement of any charges incurred by the City for services provided o Reinstitute limitations as previously agreed on the items for sale III. MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS None IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None V. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Mr. Goodman, seconded by Mr. Stokes to adjourn the meeting at 4:25 p.m. /dlg 8 } PD 3 ad2 01 01 99 PROOF OF PUBLICATION pmss CCP) Proof Of Publication Of- This Mau is for the Cowry Clerk's f,Lng Sump A 7 11301 STATE OF CALIFORNIA,County of River side,I am a citizen of the United States and s resi dent of the County aforesaid;I am over the age of eight=yeas•and rot a parry to or interested in the above-entitled manor.1 sun the principal clerk of the printer of the Palm Desert Post a news. paper of general cbculation,printed and pubb shed weeklyin the Cityo(Paim Desen Coun}of River side, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State oeCa9cr. CITY OF PALM DESERT cos, under the date of 10/3. 1964, Caw Number LEGAL NOTICE 83658;that the notice,of which the annexed is a CASE NO. YOA 91d NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be printed copy(set in type not smaller than nonpa. held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to toil),has been published in esch regular and entire consider an amendment to the zoning Ordinance to add to issue of said newspaper and not in any,,s__a,,PPPPkment Section 25.04 a definition for a-street fair-swap meePand rhereofon the following date,to-wit; r/ / to add to Section 25.38.030,Subsection-street fair-swap 8 r meet as a condlsonei use In tie Public(P)zone and a all in the year 1991.I Canty(z del ) negative declaraton of environmemai Impact es related wider penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true therelo. and correct. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday,August 20, 1991 at 7:00 pzn. In the Coundl Chamber at the Plains Datedat Palm Desert California,this Desert Cry Han,73-510 Fred Waring Drive,Palm Desert �� J U I Cantomla.at whaihme ti aid plane ell imerestad persons m Invited as attend and be heard. Written sommenta concerning all Items covered by this public hearing notice snail be accepted up to the date of the hearing.Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration Is available for review In the department of community do"Icipmentrplenning at it* abate address between the hours of ado a.m. and 4:30 P.M. Monday through Friday.If you challenge the proposed actions In court,you may be limited to raising only those Issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described In this (Signed) notice, or In written correspondence delivered to ire planning commission (w city council) at Or prior o, the public hearing. (f1AMON A. DVS, Secraory Palm Desert Planning Commission (PUB. D.P.JULY 17. 1991) CITY OF PALM DESERT DEP; MENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELO NT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: August 20, 1991 CASE NO: ZOA 91-2 REQUEST: Amendment to permitted conditional uses in the P, Public/Institutional District Zone. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND• As commission is probably aware there has been considerable discussion regarding the ongoing "swap meet"-"street fair" which operates at the College of the Desert. The city' s original position was that the city could not regulate activities on State owned property. This position has changed recently and the city attorney feels that the city can regulate functions on the college site if they are uses other than the primary operation of the junior college. In order that the ongoing swap meet-street fair can be reviewed and regulated we must first insert the use as a permitted conditional use in the P zone which the entire college is zoned. This will then permit the college or the alumni association to apply for the necessary conditional use permit and will allow the community to make their feelings known at a future public hearing. II. DISCUSSION• The draft resolution attached hereto will insert swap meet-street fair as a permitted conditional use in the P public/institutional zone ( section 25. 68.030 Q) . III. ANALYSIS: A. FINDINGS: 1 . Thaf 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 will better serve the public health, safety and general welfare. ST4FF REPORT r ZOA 91-2 AUGUST 20, 1991 B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The director of community has determined that the proposed code amendment is a class 21 categorical exemption and no further review is necessary. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends: A. Adoption of the findings delineated in the staff report. B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending approval of ZOA 91-2 to the city council . Prepared by / Reviewed and Approved by� L % SRS/tm 2 PLANNINLi COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AMENDING SECTION 38.030 PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. CASE NO. ZOA 91-2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of August, 1991, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance to insert subsection "Q" into section 25.38.030 (conditional uses in the public/institutional zone) ; and WHEREAS, said amendment has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89, " in that the director of community development has determined the amendment to be a class 21 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission 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 will better serve the public health, safety and general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That the planning commission does hereby recommend to the city council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 91-2 as provided in the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit "A. " PLANNING COMMISSION RPROLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 20th day of August, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary SRS/tm 2 . PLANNING COMMISSION RFcOLUTION NO. " EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 That section 25.38 . 030 of the municipal code be and the same is hereby amended by adding to said section the following subparagraph. "Q. Outdoor sales of arts, crafts, clothing, goods, wares and other merchandise. " t 3 SENT 6Y:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 7-15-91 ; 2:37P61 6193406M9 6193400574;# 3 DRAFT ORDINANCE Nos AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERTO CALIFORNZAp AMENDING CHAPTER 23.38 OF CODE OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIPORNIAj RELATING TO THE P- PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT. The City of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. That 25.38.030 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert, California, be, and the same hereby is, amended by adding to said section the following subparagraph. "Q. Outdoor sales of arts, crafts, clothing, goods, wares and other merchandise. ° SECTION 2 . The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published once in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated within the City of Palm Desert, and the same shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of , 1991, by the City Counci oche CCity of Palm Desert* California, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: WALTER SNYDER, Mayor City of Palm Desert, California ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, C y Cler City of Palm Desert, California JE13S11 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ..: _ :. PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AMENDING SECTIONS 25.28.030 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) AND 25.26.020 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. CASE NO- ZOA 86-6 WHEREAS, the City Council of the •City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 26th day of February 1987 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance to delete subsection "B" of section 25.28.020 (permitted uses) and insert said subsection into section 25.28.030 (conditional uses) . . WHEREAS, the planning commission did adopt its Resolution No. 1200 recommending approval of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment. WHEREAS, said amendment has compiled with the requirements of the "City of: Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental quality Act, . Resolution No. 80-89"9 in that the director of community development has determined .the amendment to be categorically exempt. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 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: 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 welfare... NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the council in this case. 2. , That the city council does hereby approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment 86-6 as provided In the attached exhibit, .labeled Exhibit "A". l ORDINANCE NO. s` PASSED,'.APPROVED and ADOPTED' at., a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City..Councll held on .this day of , 1987, by the following vote, to wit: . . lq AYES. ' NOES ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD KELLY, Mayor -ATTEST: . _ _.. SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City. of.,Palm Desert, California /dig — SENT BY;Xerox Telecopier 7020 : 7-15-91 ; 2:36PM 6193406696� 6193400574;# 2 M E M O R A N D U M TO: RAY DIAZ STEVE SMITH CITY OF PALM DESERT FROM: DOUG PHILLIPS qD WSP DATE: July 150 1991 RE: CITY OF PALM DESERT/COD SWAP MEET Pursuant to my Conversation with Ray on July 150 1991, enclosed is a proposed ordinance amending Section 25.38.030 to add the category of outdoor sales as a potential conditional use under the P-Public/Institutional Zane. If you have any questions, please call Dave, Mike or myself. O P1353 —2— SENT B'9!Xerox Teleoopier 7020 ; 7-15-91 : 2:37PM 6193406698y 6193400574;# 3 DRAFT ORDINANCN 310. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TEE CITY OF PALM DESERTi CALIFORNIAg AMENDING CHAPTER 23.38 OF COON OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIAl RELATING TO TEE P- PUBLIC/INBTITUTIONAL DISTRICT. The City of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. That 25.38.030 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert, California, be, and the same hereby is, amended by adding to said section the following subparagraph. "Q. Outdoor sales of arts, crafts, clothing, goods, wares and other merchandise. " SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published once in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated within the City of Palm Desert, and the same shall be in full force and affect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of , 1991, by the City Council of the City- of Palm Desert, California, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: WALTER SNYDER, Mayor City of Palm Desert, California ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN; CIty Cler City of Palm Desert, California GJE13S11 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 July 12, 1991 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 91-2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance to add to Section 25.04 a definition for a "street fair - swap meet" and to add to Section 25.38.030, Subsection "street fair - swap meet" as a conditional use in the Public (P) zone and a negative declaration of environmental impact as related thereto. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, August 20, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall , 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the department of community development/planning at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues your or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission (or city council ) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary July 17, 1991 Palm Desert Planning Commission