The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZOA 98-3 MIXED RESIDENTIAL/SRVC INDUSTRIAL 1998 ORDINANCE NO. 880 v AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO PERMIT MIXED RESIDENTIAL/ SERVICE INDUSTRIAL USE IN THE S.I. ZONE CASE NO. ZOA 98-3 - WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 11th day of June, 1998, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the above noted zoning ordinance amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has recommended approval pursuant to its Resolution No. 1863; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 97-18" in that the Director of Community Development has determined the amendment to be a class 5 categorical exemption for the 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 City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of said 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 and applicable specific plans. 3. That the zoning ordinance amendment would better serve the public health, . safety, and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That Zoning Ordinance Amendment 98-3 attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is hereby approved. ORDINANCE NO. san PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 25TB day of JUNE , 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: FERGUSON, KELLY, SPIEGEL, BENSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: CRITES ABSTAIN: NONE JEAN M. BENSON, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R.�GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, C jifornia 2 ORDINANCE NO. 880 EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 That Section 25.34.030 Conditional Uses in the Service Industrial be amended to add the following: "25.34.030.C. Residential dwelling units located above the first floor designed and maintained to be compatible with the permitted or approved conditional uses on the first floor or in the vicinity." e 3 y / CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT r I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Consideration of approval of a zoning ordinance amendment to permit mixed residential/service industrial use in the S.I. (service industrial) zone. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: III. APPLICANT: City of Palm DesefTPROVED y DENIED. ECEIVED OTHER IV. CASE NO: ZOA 98-347,j ETIN +YES: TE V. DATE: June 11 , 1998 ;oEs :BSENT:,� VI. CONTENTS: '�BSTAIN:� /ERIFIED BY: A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion C. Draft Resolution No. Ordinance No. 880 D. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. ZOA 98-3 E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1863 F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 19, 1998 G. Related maps and/or exhibits ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 880 to second reading. B. DISCUSSION: In 1995 the City processed a zoning ordinance amendment permitting mixed residential/commercial uses in the C-1 , PC and OP zones. We now have a request from Rutherford Investments to establish an "Artists in Residence" program in the service industrial (S.I.) zone. 1. ANALYSIS: a. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT The main issues involved in a mixed use ordinance include: i. Is residential use compatible with service industrial uses? STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 98-3 MAY 19, 1998 ii. Are there specific advantages of the close proximity of residential and light industrial uses? iii. Should the residential use be a permitted or conditional use? Should there be a requirement that the residents be either the owner or employee of the associated light industrial uses? i. COMPATIBILITY Zoning laws were originally conceived to separate uses which were obviously incompatible (i.e. residential and heavy industrial uses). The emphasis was to eliminate industrial and commercial uses from residential areas. The result was the creation of single use zoning and the elimination of second floor residential use in commercial zones which had been a common feature of cities for thousands of years. Shopkeepers often lived above their stores. While it can easily be demonstrated that high intensity commercial or industrial uses can disturb residential neighborhoods, there is little evidence that second floor residential conflicts with light industrial activity. Due to their off- set peak hours, second floor residential probably creates less conflicts then professional offices which typically locate in second floor space in the S.I. zone. ii. POSITIVE IMPACTS Second floor residences provide an obvious convenience, land use and economic efficiency for an industrial tenant who wishes to live above his/her place of work. It eliminates two commute trips. By repopulating light industrial zones which are often ghost towns at night, mixed uses can promote evening activity resulting in positive economic impacts, increased vitality and security. iii. RESTRICTIONS The positive aspects of second floor residential use are maximized where the resident is an owner or -employee of the industrial use. There will also be less of a likelihood of conflicts where the resident has a direct interest in the industrial activity. Conversely, to place an employee occupancy restriction on the 2 t STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 98-3 MAY 19, 1998 unit might economically preclude the use altogether. Mixed use properties could only be marketed to industrial tenants who also wanted to occupy the residential unit. If the building owner could not find that unique tenant, the residential unit would have to stay vacant. Such a restriction would so limit the available tenant pool to make the investment in the apartment extremely risky. Neither of the Cities of San Diego or Palo Alto have occupancy restrictions in their mixed use projects. Neither of these cities reported any specific problems with these projects. Staff does believe that there may be some locations or commercial situations which may not be conducive to mixed uses. Until we have more experience with the mixed use concept, staff would recommend that it be listed as a conditional use, but without any specific residential occupancy requirements as it was in the commercial zones. b. CONCLUSION: A watchman's or caretakers living quarters is a permitted accessory use in the S.I. zone. The request by Rutherford Investments would be beyond that scope. The request would be similar to that proposed by Denise Roberge with her artists in residence concept. This proposed ordinance amendment was presented to Zoning Ordinance Review Committee and that group endorsed the proposed amendment. Planning Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval on a 5-0 vote. Prepared by: Ste a Smith Reviewed and Approved by-:�. Philip Drell /tm 3 ORDINANCE NO. 880 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO PERMIT MIXED RESIDENTIAL/ SERVICE INDUSTRIAL USE IN THE S.I. ZONE CASE NO. ZOA 98-3 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 11th day of June, 1998, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the above noted zoning ordinance amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has recommended approval pursuant to its Resolution No. 1863; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 97-18" in that the Director of Community Development has determined the amendment to be a class 5 categorical exemption for the 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 City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of said 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 and applicable specific plans. 3. That the zoning ordinance amendment would better serve the public health, safety, and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That Zoning Ordinance Amendment 98-3 attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is hereby approved. ORDINANCE NO. ssn PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JEAN M. BENSON, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 ORDINANCE NO. 880 EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 That Section 25.34.030 Conditional Uses in the Service Industrial be amended to add the following: "25.34.030.C. Residential dwelling units located above the first floor designed and maintained to be compatible with the permitted or approved conditional uses on the first floor or in the vicinity." 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1998 �.. sF T SUR SECT TO y '- s REVISAV Y E. Case No. ZOA 98-3 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a Zoning Ordinance amendment to permit mixed residential/service industrial uses in the S.I. (Service Industrial) zone. Mr. Smith indicated that in 1995 staff processed a similar amendment that was applicable in the C-1 , PC and OP zones. In March 1998 they received a request for the Service Industrial zone. Staff saw the issues as being substantially similar and didn't have a problem with processing a mixed use as part of a conditional use permit and recommended that appropriate amendments be done to permit mixed use residential/service industrial uses in the Service Industrial zone. Mr. Smith recommended that Commission adopt Resolution 1863 recommending same to the City Council. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1863, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 98-3. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. CUP 98-6 - LOUIS LASSABATERE/CITY LITES, Applicant Consideration of a resolution denying a conditional use permit request to allow a two foot by four foot outdoor clothing display of women's apparel in front of the City Lites business at 42-335 Washington Street #J. 19 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1863 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL-APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO PERMIT MIXED RESIDENTIAL/ SERVICE INDUSTRIAL USE IN THE S.I. ZONE CASE NO. ZOA 98-3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 19th day of May, 1998, hold a duly noticed public hearing ta.consider the above noted zoning ordinance amendment; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 97-18" in that the Director of Community Development has determined the amendment to be a class 5 categorical exemption for the 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 justify recommending approval of said amendment: `T 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 and applicable specific plans. 3. That the zoning ordinance amendment would better serve the public health, safety, and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That Zoning Ordinance Amendment 98-3 attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is hereby recommended to City Council for approval. I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1863 PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 19th day of May, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BEATY, FERNANDEZ, FINERTY, JONATHAN, CAMPBELL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson ATTEST: PHI LIP DRELL Secret_arv__ Palm Desert P anning Commission 4 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1863 EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 That Section 25.34.030'Conditional Uses in the Service Industrial be amended to add the following: "25.34.030.C. Residential dwelling units located above the first floor designed and . maintained to be compatible with the permitted or approved conditional uses on the first floor or in the vicinity." 3 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: May 19, 1998 CASE NO: ZOA 98-3 REQUEST: Approval of a zoning ordinance amendment to permit mixed residential/service industrial use in the S.I. (service industrial) zone. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert . I. BACKGROUND: In 1995 the City processed a zoning ordinance amendment permitting mixed residential/commercial uses in the C1 , PC and OP zones. We now have a request from Rutherford Investments to establish an "Artists'in•-Residence" program in the service industrial (S.I.) zone. II. ANALYSIS: A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT The main issues involved in a mixed use ordinance include: 1 . Is residential use compatible with service industrial uses? 2. Are there specific advantages of the close proximity of residential and light industrial uses? 3. Should the residential use be a permitted or conditional use? Should there be a requirement that the residents be either the owner or employee of the associated light industrial uses? 1. COMPATIBILITY Zoning laws were originally conceived to separate uses which were obviously incompatible (i.e. residential and heavy industrial uses). The emphasis was to eliminate industrial and commercial uses from residential areas. The result was the creation of single use zoning and STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 98-3 MAY 19, 1998 the elimination of second floor residential use in commercial zones which had been a common feature of cities for thousands of years. . Shopkeepers often lived above their stores. While it can easily be demonstrated that high intensity commercial or industrial uses can disturb residential neighborhoods, there is little evidence that second floor residential conflicts with light.industrial activity. Due to their off- set peak hours, second floor residential probably creates less conflicts then professional offices which typically locate in second floor space in the S.I. zone. 2. POSITIVE IMPACTS Second floor residences provide an obvious convenience, land use and economic efficiency for an industrial tenant who wishes to live above his/her place of work. It eliminates two commute trips. By repopulating light industrial zones-which are often ghost towns at night, mixed uses can promote evening activity resulting in positive economic impacts, increased vitality and security. 3. RESTRICTIONS The positive aspects of second floor residential use are maximized where the resident is an owner or employee of the industrial use. There will also be less of a likelihood of conflicts where the resident has a direct interest in the industrial activity. Conversely, to place an employee occupancy restriction on the unit might economically preclude the use altogether. Mixed use properties could only be marketed to industrial tenants who also wanted to occupy the residential unit. If the building owner could not find that unique tenant, the residential unit would have to stay vacant. Such a restriction would so limit the available tenant pool to make the investment in the apartment extremely risky. Neither of the Cities of San Diego or Palo Alto have occupancy restrictions in their mixed use projects. r4either of these cities reported any specific problems with these projects. Staff does believe that there may be some locations or commercial situations which may not be conducive to mixed uses. Until we have more experience with the mixed use concept, staff would recommend 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 98-3 MAY 19, 1998 that it be listed as a conditional use, but without any specific residential occupancy requirements as it was in the commercial zones. III. CONCLUSION: A watchman's or caretakers living quarters is a permitted accessory use in the S.I. zone. The request by Rutherford Investments would be beyond that scope. The request would be similar to that proposed by Denise Roberge with her artists in residence concept. This proposed ordinance amendment was presented to Zoning Ordinance Review Committee and that group endorsed the proposed amendment. IV. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of a zoning ordinance amendment to permit mixed residential/service industrial use in the S.I. (serviee•jud.pstrial) zone. V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice t Prepared by e Smith Am 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO PERMIT MIXED RESIDENTIAL/ SERVICE INDUSTRIAL USE IN THE S.I. ZONE CASE NO. ZOA 98-3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 19th day of May, 1998, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the above noted zoning ordinance amendment; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 97-18" in that the Director of Community Development has determined the amendment to be a class 5 categorical exemption for the 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 justify recommending approval of said 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 and applicable specific plans. 3. That the zoning ordinance amendment would better serve the public health, safety, and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That Zoning Ordinance Amendment 98-3 attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is hereby recommended to City Council for approval. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 19th day of May, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 That Section 25.34.030 Conditional Uses in the Service Industrial be amended to add the following: 25.34.030.C. Residential dwelling units located above the first floor designed and maintained to be compatible with the permitted or approved conditional uses on the first floor or in the vicinity." 3 RUTHERFORD INVESTMENTS March 5, 1998 Mr. Phil Drell Director of Community Development City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert CA 92260 Re: Zoning Ordinance 791 Dear Mr. Drell; I am writing to respectfully regilt,st that the Planning Commission consider including the Service Industrial Zone (S. I. ) under the ambit of Ordinance 791. AS you know, this ordinance permits residential units to be located above the first floor of a business establishment as long as they are designed and maintained in a manner compatible with the permitted use. Rutherford Investments owns (and is in acquisition) buildings comprised of art studios in the SI zone and we would like to establish an Y Artists in Residence" program. Inasmuch as Ordinance 791 permits residential units such as this in planned commercial zone, it is my feeling that there should be no inconsistency with allowing the same standards to apply in the SI zone. Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Ted Rutherford 45.275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE,SUITE 1, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 (619)779.1771 FAX(619)779-0673 City of Palm Desert 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE(760)346-0611 FAX(760)340-0574 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO.: ZOA 98-3 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a zoning ordinance amendment to allow by conditional use permit second floor residential uses within the Service Industrial(SI)zone. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday,May 19, 1998,before the Palm Desert Planning Commission 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 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 am.and 5:00 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 notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission(or City Council)at,or prior to,the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post PHILIP DRELL,Secretary May 7, 1998 Palm Desert Planning Commission CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I. 'TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council 11. REQUEST: Consideration of approval of a zoning ordinance amendment to permit mixed residential/service industrial use in the S.I. (service industrial) zone. Ill. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert IV. CASE NO: ZOA 98-3 V. DATE: June 11 , 1998 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion C. Draft Resolution No. Ordinance No. D. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. ZOA 98-3 E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1863 F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 19, 1998 G. Related maps and/or exhibits ----------------------------------------------------------------------------==-------------------------------------------------- A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. to second reading. B. DISCUSSION: In 1995 the City processed a zoning ordinance amendment permitting mixed residential/commercial uses in the C-1 , PC and OP zones. We now have a request from Rutherford Investments to establish an "Artists in Residence" program in the service industrial (S.I.) zone. 1. ANALYSIS: a. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT The main issues involved in a mixed use ordinance include: i. Is residential use compatible with service industrial uses? STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 98-3 MAY 19, 1998 ii. Are there specific advantages of the close proximity of residential and light industrial uses? iii. Should the residential use be a permitted or conditional use? Should there be a requirement that the residents be either the owner or employee of the associated light industrial uses? L COMPATIBILITY Zoning laws were originally conceived to separate uses which were obviously incompatible (i.e. residential and heavy industrial uses). The emphasis was to eliminate industrial and commercial uses from residential areas. The result was the creation of single use zoning and the elimination of second floor residential use in commercial zones which had been a common feature of cities for thousands of years. Shopkeepers often lived above their stores. While it can easily be demonstrated that high intensity commercial or industrial uses can disturb residential neighborhoods, there is little evidence that second floor residential conflicts with light industrial activity. Due to their off- set peak hours, second floor residential probably creates less conflicts then professional offices which typically locate in second floor space in the S.I. zone. ii. POSITIVE IMPACTS Second floor residences provide an obvious convenience, land use and economic efficiency for an industrial tenant who wishes to live above his/her place of work. It eliminates two commute trips. By repopulating light industrial zones which are often ghost towns at night, mixed uses can promote evening activity resulting in positive economic impacts, increased vitality and security. iii. RESTRICTIONS The positive aspects of second floor residential use are maximized where the resident is an owner or employee of the industrial use. There will also be less of a likelihood of conflicts where the resident has a direct interest in the industrial activity. Conversely, to place an employee occupancy restriction on the 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 98-3 MAY 19, 1998 unit might economically preclude the use altogether. Mixed use properties could only be marketed to industrial tenants who also wanted• to occupy the residential unit. If the building owner could not find that unique tenant, the residential unit would have to stay vacant. Such a restriction would so limit the available tenant pool to make the investment in the apartment extremely risky. Neither of the Cities of San Diego or Palo Alto have occupancy restrictions in their mixed use projects. Neither of these cities reported any specific problems with these projects. Staff does believe that there may be some locations or commercial situations which may not be conducive to mixed uses. Until we have more experience with the mixed use concept, staff would recommend that it be listed as a conditional use, but without any specific residential occupancy requirements as it was in the commercial zones. b. CONCLUSION: A watchman's or caretakers living quarters is a permitted accessory use in the S.I. zone. The request by Rutherford Investments would be beyond that scope. 'The request would be similar to that proposed by Denise Roberge with her artists in residence concept. This proposed ordinance amendment was presented to Zoning Ordinance Review Committee and that group endorsed the proposed amendment. Planning Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval on a 5-0 vote.. Prepared by: 4 —�7 G Ste a Smith Reviewed and Approved by Philip Drell Am 3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT-TO PERMIT MIXED RESIDENTIAL/ SERVICE INDUSTRIAL USE IN THE S.I. ZONE CASE NO. ZOA 98-3 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 11th day of June, 1998, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the above noted zoning ordinance amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has recommended approval pursuant to its Resolution No. 1863; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 97-18" in that the Director of Community Development has determined the amendment to be a class 5 categorical exemption for the 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 City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of said 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 and applicable specific plans. 3. That the zoning ordinance amendment would better serve the public health, safety, and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That Zoning Ordinance Amendment 98-3 attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is hereby approved. ORDINANCE NO. PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JEAN M. BENSON, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 That Section 25.34.030 Conditional Uses in the Service Industrial be amended to add the following: "25.34.030.C. Residential dwelling units located above the first floor designed and maintained to be compatible with the permitted or approved conditional uses on the first floor or in the vicinity." 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1998 SUBJECT TO x m REVIS -N E. Case No. ZOA 98-3 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a Zoning Ordinance amendment to permit mixed residential/service industrial uses in the S.I. {Service Industrial) zone. Mr. Smith indicated that in 1995 staff processed a similar amendment that was applicable in the C-1 , PC and OP zones. In March 1998 they received a request for the Service Industrial zone. Staff saw the issues as being substantially similar and didn't have a problem with processing a mixed use as part of a conditional use permit and recommended that appropriate amendments be done to permit mixed use residential/service industrial uses in the Service Industrial zone. Mr. Smith recommended that Commission adopt Resolution 1863 recommending same to the City Council. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1863, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 98-3. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. CUP 98-6 - LOUIS LASSABATERE/CITY LITES, Applicant Consideration of a resolution denying a conditional use permit request to allow a two foot by four foot outdoor clothing display of women's apparel in front of the City Lites business at 42-335 Washington Street #J. 19 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1863 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL-APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO PERMIT MIXED RESIDENTIAL/ SERVICE INDUSTRIAL USE IN THE S.I. ZONE CASE NO. ZOA 98-3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 19th day of May, 1998, hold a duly noticed public hearing ta.consider the above noted zoning ordinance amendment; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 97-18" in that the Director of Community Development has determined the amendment to be a class 5 categorical exemption for the 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 justify recommending approval of said 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 and applicable specific plans. 3. That the zoning ordinance amendment would better serve the public health, safety, and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That Zoning Ordinance Amendment 98-3 attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is hereby recommended to City Council for approval. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1863 E PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning i Commission, held on this 19th day of May, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BEATY, FERNANDEZ, FINERTY, JONATHAN, CAMPBELL NOES: NONE a ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE /ASONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL Secreta,�_ Palm Desert P anning Commission Y 1 2 'PLANNING COMMISSION _ XESOLUTION NO. 1863 EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 That Section 25.34.030'`Conditional Uses in the Service Industrial be amended to add the following: "25.34.030.C. Residential dwelling units located above the first floor designed and maintained to be compatible with the permitted or approved conditional uses on the first floor or in the vicinity." 3 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: May 19, 1998. CASE NO: ZOA 98-3 REQUEST: Approval of a zoning ordinance amendment to permit mixed residential/service industrial use in the S.I. (service industrial) zone. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND: In 1995 the City processed a zoning ordinance amendment permitting mixed residential/commercial uses in the C1 , PC and OP zones. We now have a request from Rutherford Investments to establish an "Art'ists'in• Residence" program in the service industrial (S.I.) zone. II. ANALYSIS: A. ZONING''ORDJNANCE AMENDMENT The main issues involved in a mixed use ordinance include: 1 . Is residential use compatible with service industrial uses? 2. Are there specific advantages of the close proximity of residential and light industrial uses? 3. Should the residential use be a permitted or conditional use? Should there be a requirement that the residents be either the owner or employee of the associated light industrial uses? 1 . COMPATIBILITY Zoning laws were originally conceived to separate uses which were obviously incompatible (i.e. residential and heavy industrial uses). The emphasis was to eliminate industrial and commercial uses from residential areas. The result was the creation of single use zoning and STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 98-3 MAY 19, 1998 the elimination of second floor residential use in commercial zones which had been a common feature of cities for thousands of years. Shopkeepers often lived above their stores. While it can easily be demonstrated that high intensity commercial or industrial uses can disturb residential neighborhoods, there is little evidence that second floor residential conflicts with light,industrial activity. Due to their off- set peak hours, second floor residential probably creates less conflicts then professional offices which typically locate in second floor space in the S.I. zone. 2. POSITIVE IMPACTS Second floor residences provide an obvious convenience, land use and economic efficiency for an industrial tenant who wishes to live above his/her place of work. It eliminates two commute trips. By repopulating light industrial zones Which are often ghost towns at night, mixed uses can promote evening activity resulting in positive economic impacts, increased vitality and security. 3. RESTRICTIONS The positive aspects of second floor residential use are maximized where the resident is an owner or employee of the industrial use. There will also be less of a likelihood of conflicts where the resident has a direct interest in the industrial activity. Conversely, to place an employee occupancy restriction on the unit might economically preclude the use altogether. Mixed use properties could only be marketed to industrial tenants who also wanted to occupy the residential unit. If the building owner could not find that unique tenant, the residential unit would have to stay vacant. Such a restriction would so limit the available tenant pool to make the investment in the apartment extremely risky. Neither of the Cities of San Diego or Palo Alto have occupancy restrictions in their mixed use projects. ,Neither of these cities reported any specific problems with these projects. Staff does believe that there may be some locations or commercial situations which may not be conducive to mixed uses. Until we have more experience with the mixed use concept, staff would recommend 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 98-3 MAY 19, 1998 that it be listed as a conditional use, but without any specific residential occupancy requirements as it was in the commercial zones. III. CONCLUSION: A watchman's or caretakers living quarters is a permitted accessory use in the S.I. zone. The request by Rutherford Investments would be beyond that scope. The request would be similar to that proposed by Denise Roberge with her artists in residence concept. This proposed ordinance amendment was presented to Zoning Ordinance Review Committee and that group endorsed the proposed amendment. IV. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of a zoning ordinance amendment to permit mixed residential/service industrial use in the S.I. (service-iLidustrial) zone. V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice Prepared by e Smith Am 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL-APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE-AMENDMENT TO PERMIT MIXED RESIDENTIAL/ SERVICE INDUSTRIAL qSE IN THE S.I. ZONE CASE NO. ZOA 98-3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 19th day of May, 1998, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the above noted zoning ordinance amendment; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 97-18" in that the Director of Community Development has determined the amendment to be a class 5 categorical exemption for the 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 justify recommending approval of said 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 and applicable specific plans. 3. That the zoning ordinance amendment would better serve the public health, safety, and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That Zoning Ordinance Amendment 98-3 attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is hereby recommended to City Council for approval. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. _ PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 19th day of May, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ` ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 That Section 25.34.030 Conditional Uses in the Service Industrial be amended to add the following: "25.34.030.C. Residential dwelling units located above the first floor designed and maintained to be compatible with the permitted or approved conditional uses on the first floor or in the vicinity." 3 RUTHERFORD INVESTMENTS March 5, 1998 Mr. Phil Drell Director of Community Development City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert CA 92260 Re: Zoning Ordinance 791 Dear Mr. Drell; I am writing to respectfully re§iYzs-t that the Planning Commission consider including the Service Industrial zone (S . I. ) under the ambit of Ordinance 791. As you know, this ordinance permits residential units to be located above the first floor of a business establishment as long as they are designed and maintained in a manne='compatible with the permitted use. Rutherford Investments owns (and is in acquisition) buildings comprised of art studios in the Si zone and we would like to establish an x Artists in Residence- program. Inasmuch as Ordinance 791 permits residential units such as this in planned commercial zone, it is my feeling that there should be no inconsistency with allowing the same standards to apply in the SI zone. Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Ted Rutherford 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE,SUITE 1, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 (619)779-1771 FAX(619)779-0673 City of Palm Desert 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 9226D-2578 TELEPHONE(760)346-0611 FAX(760)340-0574 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO.:ZOA 98-3 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a zoning ordinance amendment to allow by conditional use permit second floor residential uses within the Service Industrial(SI)zone. �. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday,May 19,1998,before the Palm Desert Planning Commission 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 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 am.and 5:00 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 notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission(or City Council)at,or prior to,the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post PHILIP DRELL,Secretary May 7, 1998 Palm Desert Planning Commission City of Palm Desert Council Agenda Request Meeting of iw, I I 1. To be considered under: Consent Calendar_ Resolutions_ Ordinances_ New Business_ Old Business_ Informational Items_ Public Hearings z Other_ 2. Item Title: Consideration of approval of a zoning ordinance amendment to permit mixed residential/service industrial use in the S.I. (service industrial) zone. 3. Financial: (Complete if applicable) (a) Account/Project# (b) Amount Requested (c) In the Current Budget? (c) Appropriation Required? Approved by Director of Finance: 4. Submitted by: 5. Approvals: Departmen d City Manager I CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: May 19, 1998 CASE NO: ZOA 98-3 REQUEST: Approval of a zoning ordinance amendment to permit mixed residential/service industrial use in the S.I. (service industrial) zone. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND: In 1995 the City processed a zoning ordinance amendment permitting mixed residential/commercial uses in the C1 , PC and OP zones. We now have a request from Rutherford Investments to establish an "Artists in Residence" program in the service industrial (S.I.) zone. II. ANALYSIS: A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT The main issues involved in a mixed use ordinance include: 1 . Is residential use compatible with service industrial uses? 2. Are there specific advantages of the close proximity of residential and light industrial uses? 3. Should the residential use be a permitted or conditional use? Should there be a requirement .that the residents be either the owner or employee of the associated light industrial uses? 1. COMPATIBILITY Zoning laws were originally conceived to separate uses which were obviously incompatible (i.e. residential and heavy industrial uses). The emphasis was to eliminate industrial and commercial uses from residential areas. The result was the creation of single use zoning and F STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 98-3 MAY 19, 1998 the elimination of second floor residential use in commercial zones which had been a common feature of cities for thousands of years. Shopkeepers often lived above their stores. While it can easily be demonstrated that high intensity commercial or industrial uses can disturb residential neighborhoods, there is little evidence that second floor residential conflicts with light,industrial activity. Due to their off- set peak hours, second floor residential probably creates less conflicts then professional offices which typically locate in second floor space in the S.I. zone. 2. POSITIVE IMPACTS Second floor residences provide an obvious convenience, land use and economic efficiency for an industrial tenant who wishes to live above his/her place of work. It eliminates two commute trips. By repopulating light industrial zones which are often ghost towns at night, mixed uses can promote evening activity resulting in positive economic impacts, increased vitality and security. 3. RESTRICTIONS The positive aspects of second floor residential use are maximized where the resident is an owner or employee of the industrial use. There will also be less of a likelihood of conflicts where the resident has a direct interest in the industrial activity. Conversely, to place an employee occupancy restriction on the unit might economically preclude the use altogether. Mixed use properties could only be marketed to industrial tenants who also wanted to occupy the residential unit. If the building owner could not find that unique tenant, the residential unit would have to stay vacant. Such a restriction would so limit the available tenant pool to make the investment in the apartment extremely risky. Neither of the Cities of San Diego or Palo Alto have occupancy restrictions in their mixed use projects. Neither of these cities reported any specific problems with these projects. Staff does believe that there may be some locations or commercial situations which may not be conducive to mixed uses. Until we have more experience with the mixed use concept, staff would recommend 2 r STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 98-3 MAY 19, 1998 that it be listed as a conditional use, but without any specific residential occupancy requirements as it was in the commercial zones. III. CONCLUSION: A watchman's or caretakers living quarters is a permitted accessory use in the S.I. zone. The request by Rutherford Investments would be beyond that scope. The request would be similar to that proposed by Denise Roberge with her artists in residence concept. This proposed ordinance amendment was presented to Zoning Ordinance Review Committee and that group endorsed the proposed amendment. IV. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of a zoning ordinance amendment to permit mixed residential/service industrial use in the S.I. (service industrial) zone. V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice Prepared by gfii(je Smith AM 3 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO PERMIT MIXED RESIDENTIAL/ SERVICE INDUSTRIAL USE IN THE S.I. ZONE CASE NO. ZOA 98=3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 19th day of May, 1998, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the above noted zoning ordinance amendment; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 97-18" in that the Director of Community Development has determined the amendment to be a class 5 categorical exemption for the 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 justify recommending approval of said 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 and applicable specific plans. 3. That the zoning ordinance amendment would better serve the public health, safety, and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That Zoning Ordinance Amendment 98-3 attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is hereby recommended to City Council for approval. r { PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. _ PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 19th day of May, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. _ r EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 That Section 25.34.030 Conditional Uses in the Service Industrial be amended to add the following: "25.34.030.C. Residential dwelling units located above the first floor designed and maintained to be compatible with the permitted or approved conditional uses on the first floor or in the vicinity." 3 RUTHERFORD INVESTMENTS March 5, 1998 Mr. Phil Drell Director of Community Development City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert CA 92260 Re: zoning Ordinance 791 Dear Mr. Drell; I am writing to respectfully request that the Planning Commission consider including the Service Industrial zone (S .I. ) under the ambit of Ordinance 791. As you know, this ordinance permits residential units to be located above the first floor of a business establishment as long as they are designed and maintained in a manner compatible with the permitted use. Rutherford Investments owns (and is in acquisition) buildings comprised of art studios in the SI zone and we would like to establish an ^ Artists in Residence" program. Inasmuch as Ordinance 791 permits residential units such as this in planned commercial zone, it is my feeling that there should be no inconsistency with allowing the same standards to apply in the SI zone. Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Ted Rutherford 45,275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, SUITE 1, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 (619)779-1771 FAX(619)77"673 t City of Palm Desert 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260.25" TELEPHONE(760)346-0611 FAX(/60)340-0574 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE 'CASE NO.:ZOA 983 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a zoning ordinance amendment to allow by conditional use permit second floor residential uses within the Service Industrial(SI)zone. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday,May 19, 1998,before the Palm Desert Planning Commission 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 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]tours of 8:00 am.and 5:00 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 notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission(or City Council)at,or prior to,the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post PHILIP DRELL,Secretary May 7, 1998 Palm Desert Planning Commission 73.510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 98-3 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a zoning ordinance amendment to allow, by conditional use permit, second floor residential uses within the Service Industrial (S.I.) zone. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, June 11 , 1998, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 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 at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 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 notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk May 28, 1998 City of Palm Desert, California City of Palm Desert 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE(760)346-0611 a FAX(760)340-0574 a http:ltwww.paim-desert.org PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: May 20, 1998 CITY OF PALM DESERT Re: ZOA 98-3 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of May 19, 1998: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZOA 98-3 BY ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1863. CARRIED 5-0. Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. PHILIP DREL I SECRETAR`PK PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION PD/tm cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal Rec)cleE Paper PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1863 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO PERMIT MIXED RESIDENTIAL/ SERVICE INDUSTRIAL USE IN THE S.I. ZONE CASE NO. ZOA 98-3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 19th day of May, 1998, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the above noted zoning ordinance amendment; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 97-18" in that the Director of Community Development has determined the amendment to be a class 5 categorical exemption for the 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 justify recommending approval of said 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 and applicable specific plans. 3. That the zoning ordinance amendment would better serve the public health, safety, and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That Zoning Ordinance Amendment 98-3 attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is hereby recommended to City Council for approval. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1863 r PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 19th day of May, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BEATY, FERNANDEZ, FINERTY, JONATHAN, CAMPBELL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL Secret. Palm Desert P anning Commission i 2 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1863 EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 That Section 25.34.030 Conditional Uses in the Service Industrial be amended to add the following: "25.34.030.C. Residential dwelling units located above the first floor designed and maintained to be compatible with the permitted or approved conditional uses on the first floor or in the vicinity." 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1998 I E. ) Case No. ZOA 98-3 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a Zoning Ordinance amendment to permit mixed residential/service industrial uses in the S.I. (Service Industrial) zone. Mr. Smith indicated that in 1995 staff processed a similar amendment that was applicable in the C-1 , PC and OP zones. In March 1998 they received a request for the Service Industrial zone. Staff saw the issues as being substantially similar and didn't have a problem with processing a mixed use as part of a conditional use permit and recommended that appropriate amendments be done to permit mixed use residential/service industrial uses in the Service Industrial zone. Mr. Smith recommended that Commission adopt Resolution 1863 recommending same to the City Council. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1863, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 98-3. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. CUP 98-6 - LOUIS LASSABATERE/CITY LITES, Applicant Consideration of a resolution denying a conditional use permit - request to allow a two foot by four foot outdoor clothing display of women's apparel in front of the City Lites business at 42-335 Washington Street #J. 19 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: May 19, 1998 CASE NO: ZOA 98-3 REQUEST: Approval of a zoning ordinance amendment to permit mixed residential/service industrial use in the S.I. (service industrial) zone. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND: In 1995 the City processed a zoning ordinance amendment permitting mixed residential/commercial uses in the C1 , PC and OP zones. We now have a request from Rutherford Investments to establish an "Artists in Residence" program in the service industrial (S.I.) zone. II. ANALYSIS: A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT The main issues involved in a mixed use ordinance include: 1 . Is residential use compatible with service industrial uses? 2. Are there specific advantages of the close proximity of residential and light industrial uses? 3. Should the residential-use be a permitted or conditional use? Should there be a requirement that the residents be either the owner or 9 employee of the associated light industrial uses? 1 . COMPATIBILITY Zoning laws were originally conceived to separate uses which were obviously incompatible (i.e. residential and heavy industrial uses). The emphasis was to eliminate industrial and commercial uses from residential areas. The result was the creation of single use zoning and STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 98-3 MAY 19, 1998 the elimination of second floor residential use in commercial zones which had been a common feature of cities for thousands of years. Shopkeepers often lived above their stores. While it can easily be demonstrated that high intensity commercial or industrial uses can disturb residential neighborhoods, there is little evidence that second floor residential conflicts with light,industrial activity. Due to their off- set peak hours, second floor residential probably creates less conflicts then professional offices which typically locate in second floor space in the S.I. zone. 2. POSITIVE IMPACTS Second floor residences provide an obvious convenience, land use and economic efficiency for an industrial tenant who wishes to live above his/her place of work. It eliminates two commute trips. By repopulating light industrial zones which are often ghost towns at night, mixed uses can promote evening activity resulting in positive economic impacts, increased vitality and security. 3. RESTRICTIONS The positive aspects of second floor residential use are maximized where the resident is an owner or employee of the industrial use. There will also be less of a likelihood of conflicts where the resident has a direct interest in the industrial activity. Conversely, to place an employee occupancy restriction on the unit might economically preclude the use altogether. Mixed use properties could only be marketed to industrial tenants who also wanted to occupy the residential unit. If the building owner could not find that unique tenant, the residential unit would have to stay vacant. Such a restriction would so limit the available tenant pool to make the investment in the apartment extremely risky. Neither of the Cities of San Diego or Palo Alto have occupancy restrictions in their mixed use projects. Neither of these cities reported any.specific .problems with these projects. Staff does believe that there may be some locations or commercial situations which may not be conducive to mixed uses. Until we have more experience with the mixed use concept, staff would recommend 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 98-3 MAY 19, 1998 that it be listed as a conditional use, but without any specific residential occupancy requirements as it was in the commercial zones. III. CONCLUSION: A watchman's or caretakers living quarters is a permitted accessory use in the S.I. zone. The request by Rutherford Investments would be beyond that scope. The request would be similar to that proposed by Denise Roberge with her artists in residence concept. This proposed ordinance amendment was presented to Zoning Ordinance Review Committee and that group endorsed the proposed amendment. IV. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of a zoning ordinance amendment to permit mixed residential/service industrial use in the S.I. (service industrial) zone. V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice Prepared by _ e Smith /tm 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO PERMIT MIXED RESIDENTIAL/ SERVICE INDUSTRIAL USE IN THE S.I. ZONE CASE NO. ZOA 98-3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 19th day of May, 1998, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the above noted zoning ordinance amendment; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 97-18" in that the Director of Community Development has determined the amendment to be a class 5 categorical exemption for the 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 justify recommending approval of said 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 and applicable specific plans. 3. That the zoning ordinance amendment would better serve the public health, safety, and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That Zoning Ordinance Amendment 98-3 attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is hereby recommended to City Council for approval. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 19th day of May, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 That Section 25.34.030 Conditional Uses in the Service Industrial be amended to add the following: "25.34.030.C. Residential dwelling units located above the first floor designed and maintained to be compatible with the permitted or approved conditional uses on the first floor or in the vicinity." 3 RUTHERFORD INVESTMENTS March 5, 1998 Mr. Phil Drell Director of Community Development City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert CA 92260 Re: Zoning Ordinance 791 Dear Mr. Drell; I am writing to respectfully request that the Planning Commission consider including the Service Industrial Zone (S . I . ) under the ambit of Ordinance 791. As you know, this ordinance permits residential units to be located above the first floor of a business establishment as long as they are designed and maintained in a manner compatible with the permitted use. Rutherford Investments owns (and is in acquisition) buildings comprised of art studios in the SI zone and we would like to establish an w Artists in Residence" program. Inasmuch as Ordinance 791 permits residential units such as this in planned commercial zone, it is my feeling that there should be no inconsistency with allowing the same standards to apply in the SI zone. Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Ted Rutherford 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE,SUITE 1, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 (619)779-1771 FAX(619)779-0673 City of Palm Desert 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE(760)346-0611 FAX(760)340-0574 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO.:ZOA 98-3 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a zoning ordinance amendment to allow by conditional use permit second floor residential uses within the Service Industrial(SI)zone. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday,May 19, 1998,before the Palm Desert Planning Commission 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 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 5:00 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 notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission(or City Council)at,or prior to,the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post PHILIP DRELL,Secretary May 7, 1998 Palm Desert Planning Commission PROOF OF PUBLICATION County Clerk ' s Filing Stamp (2015.5 C.C.P) RECEIVED FtF-CEEVFID 98 (CRY 11 FM 5 01 MAY 12 1998 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE COMMUNITY CEYELO PMENT DEP ARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Riverside , --------------------------------------- I am a citizen of the United States Proof of Publication of and a resident of the County afore- said; I am over the age of eighteen LEGAL NOTICE years , and not a party to or inter- ested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the PALM DESERT POST CRY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE a newspaper of general circulation , CASE NO.: ZOA 90-3 NOTICE a HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will printed and published weekly in the 6ehebbetoremep8lm DosertPlanning Commission[o City of Palm Desert , Cathedral City, consider a zoning ordina5eeame� rentto allow by cons and Rancho Mirage, Count of will, the use permit y within the Service Industrial (SD zone. Riverside, and which newspaper has SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday,May 19, 1998,before me Paim Desert Planning Commission at been adjudged a newspaper of general 7.00 Fm.in me Council Chamber at the Palm Desert I circulation by the Superior Court of City Haii,73-510 Fred waring Drive,Palm Desert,Call, tornla,atwhkho eantl piaceaRinterwuodpefsonsare I the County of Riverside , State of Irvitetl toattend and be In written ornnentscon- cerning all Items crieretl by this public hearing notice I California , under the date of shelf all Ito auptomeda[eofinehearing.lntoma- October 5 , 1964 , Case Number 83658 , bons°ncernm thepoposedpr°Int e^N°r ?anttof . that the notice, of which the declaration lsaveNaN01 evnni In the Depa Community DevelopmanVPien: at me above P.M. annexed is a printed copy dress De wean the hours of 8:00 a.m.aM 5:00 p.m. Monday mrough Friday.If you challenge me proposed 1 (set in type not smaller than nonpareil ) , I aglonsin courl,you may be iim, toralsing only hose ' has been published in each regular and sues youo som�oneese misedot me pubHcheering ce entire issue of said newspaper and not in described m this notice,or in written (onespondunil) delivered to the Planning Commission(or Ciry Coundp any supplement thereof on the following at, °, prior to, me public hearing. dates to—wit : sort Planning DRELL, Secretary , Palm Desert Planning Commission (Pub. D.P. May 7. 1998) MAY 7. 1998 - "- I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Palm Desert, California this 7TH DAY OF MA 1998 --- -- --- ------- Signet e City of Pala Desert 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE(760)346-0611 FAX(760)340-0674 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO.: ZOA 98-3 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a zoning ordinance amendment to allow by conditional use permit second floor residential uses within the Service Industrial (SI) zone. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday,May 19, 1998, before the Palm Desert Planning Commission 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 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 5:00 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 notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission(or City Council) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post PHILIP DRELL, Secretary May 7, 1998 Palm Desert Planning Commission RUTHERFORD INVESTMENTS March 5 , 1998 Mr. Phil Drell Director of Community Development City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert CA 92260 Re: Zoning Ordinance 791 Dear Mr. Drell; I am writing to respectfully request that the Planning Commission consider including the Service Industrial Zone (S. I . ) under the ambit 'of Ordinance 791 . As you know, this ordinance permits residential units to be located above the first floor of a business establishment as long as they are designed and maintained in a manner compatible with the permitted use. Rutherford Investments owns (and is in acquisition) buildings comprised of art studios in the Si zone and we would like to establish an " Artists in Residence" program. Inasmuch as Ordinance 791 permits residential units such as this in planned commercial zone, it is my feeling that there should be no inconsistency with allowing the same standards to apply in the SI zone. Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Ted Rutherford 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE,SUITE 1, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 (619) 779.1771 FAX(619)779-0673 ORDINANCE NO. 791 months of the date of the ordinance codified in this subsection, or reduce the number of said games to four. 2 . If the applicant is refused a conditional use permit, the individual shall reduce the number of games to four within sixty days of denial of permit request. As a conditional use residential dwelling units located above the first floor designed and maintained to be compatible with the permitted or approved conditional uses on the first floor or in the vicinity. C. Resort center (PC4) : Hotels, restaurants, except drive-in or drive-through, entertainment facilities and related commercial uses . Outdoor sales of arts, crafts, clothing, goods, wares and other merchandise. As a conditional use residential dwelling units located above the first floor designed and maintained to be compatible with the permitted or approved conditional uses on the first floor or in the vicinity. D. Specialty commercial center (PC1) : Medical related offices and research facilities, hotel facilities, and ancillary convenience commercial uses. As a conditional use residential dwelling units located above the first floor designed and maintained to be compatible with the permitted or approved conditional uses on the first floor or in the vicinity. OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ZONE 25 .25.014 Permitted uses subject to conditional use permit. H. Residential dwelling units located above the first floor designed and maintained to be compatible with the permitted or approved conditional uses on the first floor or in the vicinity. 5 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT r, STAFF REPORT ` I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II . REQUEST: Approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Zoning Ordinance Amendment to permit mixed residential/commercial use in the C-1, PC and OP commercial zones, precise plan for the remodel and 6114 square foot addition including two residential apartments to an existing 8100 square foot building, sculpture garden and conditional use permit for a 2760 square foot restaurant with liquor license and 1380 square foot outdoor patio on 1.8 acres located on the south side of El Paseo between Portola Avenue at Prickly Pear Lane. III . APPLICANT: Denise Roberge 73-520 El Paseo Palm Desert, CA 92260 IV. CASE NOS : ZOA 95-2, PP 95-7, CUP 95-11 V. DATE: December 14, 1995 VI . CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion C. Draft Ordinance No. 791 and Draft Resolution No. 95-113 D. Planning Commission Minutes dated November 21, 1995 E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1715 F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 21, 1995 G. Related maps and/or exhibits ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waiver further reading and pass Case No. ZOA 95-2 Ordinance No. 791 to second reading. Waiver further reading and adopt Resolution No. 95-11$ approving PP 95-7 and CUP 95-11, subject to conditions . STAFF REPORT ZOA 95-2, PP 95-7, CUP 95-11 DECEMBER 14, 1995 B. BACKGROUND: 1 . ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT In response to a proposed office/second floor residential project on Highway 111, the City Council initiated a mixed use zoning ordinance amendment to permit second floor residential in all commercial and office professional zones . Staff was waiting for that applicant to submit his precise plan for processing along with the zoning ordinance amendment. Financing problems have delayed that application. Since the subject precise plan also includes residential use, the amendment is being processed at this time. 2 . PRECISE PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE. PERMIT The proposed project involves the former Security Pacific Bank building, parking lot and adjacent vacant parcels . The applicant proposes to remodel and expand the existing 8100 square foot building by adding 2968 square feet to the first floor and a 2697 square foot second story including a 448 square foot office and two penthouse apartments . The ground floor will have a jewelry store and art gallery. A small 2760 square foot restaurant and 1380 square foot patio would be constructed where the existing parking lot is located. The restaurant patio will face onto a 32, 000 square foot (three-quarter acre) walled sculpture garden extending back to Larrea. The restaurant will be setback from El Paseo 45 feet allowing. . for a five space parking lot and one-way . driveway with entrance at the existing curb cut on El Paseo circulating west to Prickly Pear Lane and south to a 44 space parking lot in the southeast corner of the property. The parking lot would have access to Portola and Larrea at the existing curb cuts . The rear lot will include four covered spaces for use by the two apartments . The applicant has indicated that the apartments will be occupied by a caretaker and provide temporary accommodation for visiting artists . The El Paseo parking area would be surfaced with decorative pavers and softened with ten foot wide landscaped planter adjacent to the sidewalk sculpture and a combination of large trees and shrub adjacent the building. The sidewalk on El Paseo, Prickly Pear and Larrea would be reconstructed in contrasting colored concrete creating a undulating effect. An 8 foot perimeter wall around the sculpture garden required for security would also undulate between 8 and 18 feet from 2 ORDINANCE NO. 791 ONO" AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW, BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SECOND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL USES WITHIN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-1) , PLANNED COMMERCIAL (PC) AND OFFICE PROFESSIONAL (OP) ZONES. CASE NO. ZOA 95-2 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 14th day of December, 1995, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow, by conditional use permit, second floor residential uses within the General Commercial (C-1) , Planned Commercial (PC) and Office Professional (OP) zones; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by adoption of its Resolution No. 1715, has recommended approval; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 95-105, " in that the director of community development has determined the project will not have a significant adverse impact and a negative declaration of environmental impact has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said city council did find the following facts to justify its action as described below: 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 and applicable specific plans . 3 . That the zoning ordinance amendment would better serve the public health, safety, and general welfare than the current regulations . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, as follows : 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the consideration of the council in this case. 2 . That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 95-2 , attached hereto as Exhibit "B" , are hereby approved. � _ OR NO. 791 r 3 . The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this llth day of January, 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BENSON, CRITES, KELLY, SNYDER NOES: NONE ABSENT: SPIEGEL ABSTAIN: NONE 1 WALTER fh SNYDER, May _ ATT . SAEILA R. ILLIGAN ity Clerk City of Palm Deser , California 2