Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCUP 91-9 NE Portola Ave Hwy 111, Portola and Alessandro INTEROFFICE MEMORANDU City of Palm Desert MEETING DATE - EtIONTINUED TO --�� ❑ PASSED TO 2ND READING b TO: CITY MANAGER AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: PHILIP DRELL, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION CERTIFYING COMPLIANCE WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TWO RESTAURANTS TOTALING 8,000 SQUARE FEET LOCATED WITHIN A COMMERCIAL COMPLEX AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PORTOLA AVENUE AND HIGHWAY 111, AND PORTOLA AND ALESSANDRO APPLICANT: OLIPHANT & LIZZA, 77-900 AVENUE OF THE STATES, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 ���-91- ErCONTINUEDMEETING DATE CASE NO: CUP 91-9 , (�_��TO ' DATE: MAY 8, 1997 I 0 PASSED TO 2ND READING CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion C. Draft Resolution/Ordinance No. D. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. E. Planning Commission Resolution No. F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated G. Related maps and/or exhibits * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 97-38 affirming Planning Commission decision certifying compliance with and adding conditions to Conditional Use Permit 91-9. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT RE: CUP 91-9 APPEAL B. DISCUSSION: On April 1, 1997, the Planning Commission held a public hearing reviewing compliance with the conditional use permit of approval for Ruth Chris and Tsing Tao restaurants. The main subject of controversy concerned whether noise generated by the restaurants violated the City's noise standards. After reviewing the results of the noise studies conducted in January and February, the Planning Commission unanimously determined the restaurants to be in compliance. The noise studies indicated that restaurant activities do not significantly increase noise levels above the ambient levels generated by the activity and Hwy 111 and Portola. In general,the noise environment experienced by residents on San Marino Circle was found to be at or below the levels specified in our ordinance for a residential area(see Planning Commission staff report,noise standards and meeting minutes). On April 15th the decision was appealed by Raymond Winner,an adjacent resident on San Marino Circle,and two frontage road businesses, Dash Golf Carts and Ace Hardware. Mr. Winner's complaint involved inadequate legal notice and CEQA violations involving the original approval. The Ace/Dash appeal cited use of the frontage road in front of their stores by restaurant employees. 1. Winner 's Appeal: A. Legal notice. Mr. Winner's attorney claimed that the CUP original notice in 1991 and the most recent notice of the compliance review did not identify the rear parking lot as part of the proposal. The 1991 original notice identified the project as"within a 40,000 sq.ft.retail/office complex". That 40,000 sq. ft. includes buildings on both sides of Alessandro. The staff report specifically identified the north side parking lot in the required parking analysis. Twenty-two residents on San Marino Circle,including Mr. Winner and Mr. Tryon, submitted a petition at the original hearing in which they clearly demonstrated an understanding that the project involved the entire superblock. The residents had concerns that parking would spill onto San Marino Circle. The petition did not object to the restaurants,but requested mitigation measures all of which were imposed by the CUP and subsequent Valet Parking Permits. Those conditions restricted lighting and use of the trash enclosures on the north lot. 2 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT RE: CUP 91-9 APPEAL The notice for the Planning Commission review on April 1st identified both sides of Alessandro as the project site. B. CEQA Challenge: The Public Resource Code Section 21167; requires a CEQA challenge to be filed within 180 days of the original approval which was June 8, 1991. 2. Ace/Dash Appeal. The valet parking permit prohibits restaurant employees from using the north lot. Employees are the last to leave and seemed to generate the most significant late night noise impacts. To further reduce impacts to San Marino Circle residents,portions of the north lot directly adjacent to the homes were put off-limits to the valet. The south lot was reserved for customer self-parking. Begining at 3:00 p.m., restaurant employees have been parking in the frontage road depriving Ace/Dash customers of convenient parking. Since the frontage road is public, it cannot be restricted other than through time limitations. In discussions with representatives from Ace and Dash, one hour parking restrictions were requested prior to 6:00 p.m. If enforced, a one hour restriction would prevent restaurant employees from using the frontage road prior to 5:01 p.m. Although staff believes this request to be reasonable, it will require restaurant employees to find alternative parking which does not simply shift the impact. PHILIP D LL DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/ BUSINESS LICENSE DIVISION 3 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 97-38 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AFFIRMING A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION CERTIFYING COMPLIANCE AND ADDING CONDITIONS TO AN APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TWO RESTAURANTS WITH LIQUOR LICENSE TOTALING 8,000 SQUARE FEET TO BE LOCATED IN THE HIGHWAY 111 FRONTING BUILDING OF A 40, 000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL/OFFICE COMPLEX AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PORTOLA AVENUE AND HIGHWAY 111 AND ALESSANDRO AND PORTOLA . CASE NO. 91-9 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 8th day of May, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an appeal of a Planning Commission decision certifying compliance with and adding conditions to an approved conditional use permit. 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 that the project in a Class 3 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 justify continuance of said conditional use permit with additional requirements: 1. As currently operating, the existing restaurants are in compliance with all applicable City ordinances and conditions of approval. 2. The addition of conditions regarding parking and related activities in the parking lots on both sides of Alessandro shall further insure compliance with City ordinances and policies concerning compatibility between commercial and residential uses. 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 commission in this case. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 97-38 2. That the subject restaurants are in compliance with Conditional Use Permit 91-9. 3. That the restaurants shall continue to be operated pursuant to Conditional Use Permit 91-9 subject to attached expanded conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD S. KELLY, MAYOR ATTEST: SHEILA GILLIGAN, CITY CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 97-38 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. CUP 91-9 Department of Community Development: 1. Applicant shall comply with all state, county and city regulations concerning restaurant use. 2. The applicant shall obtain all necessary architectural review commission and Department of Building & Safety permits required by any physical modification of the site. 3. Restaurant shall be limited to 8,000 square feet in area. 4. Restaurant shall participate in a commercial recycling program as approved by the Environmental Conservation Manager. 5. Proposal shall be subject to all applicable conditions of PP 89-19. 6. Restaurant garbage shall be restricted to south Alessandro parking lot trash dumpsters only. 7. Late night noise impacts on the San Marino Circle residential area caused by restaurant activity shall result in Planning Commission reexamination of this approval and the possible imposition of additional mitigating conditions. 8. Noise level shall be kept to a minimum in both parking lots. Valet attendants shall speak quietly and only when absolutely necessary, shall not operate radios, shall close doors quietly, avoid setting car alarms, revving of engines or excessive vehicle acceleration. 9. Deliveries to the restaurants or trash pickup shall be limited on weekdays to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.; weekends 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Trucks shall not sit idling any longer than is absolutely necessary to load or unload. 10. Parking lot sweeping shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. weekdays and 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. weekends. 11. Buses transporting groups to the restaurant shall not be parked in either lot or on Alessandro with their engines running. There shall be no bus pickups or drop offs on Alessandro or within the parking lots after 10:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 97-38 12. Valet parking will take place in the parking lot on the north side of Alessandro Drive excluding those areas north of Building B and along the north wall as shown on the attached map. 13. The parking lot adjacent to the restaurant will be for self parking. 14. Valet operators will begin at 9:00 p.m. to move cars from the valet lot, to the front lot adjacent to the restaurant, beginning with the cars in the northeast portion of the valet lot. 15. No restaurant employee parking is permitted in the north lot. 16. Should the valet parking services be terminated for Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, the City of Palm Desert must be notified in advance. 17. It is understood that in the event that any of the businesses located in Buildings A or B have an evening event requiring the need for parking,the valet parking service will accommodate their needs for those evenings. 18. The valet parking service is responsible for any damage to landscaping, parking lot lighting, or other related damage due to negligence or accidents occurring in the course of valet parking. 19. Valet parking shall not commence earlier than 5:00 p.m. every evening. At the beginning of the evening all cars must be parked at the northeast part of the parking lot so as not to interfere with the function of late closing offices, if any. 20. Condition of parking areas should be maintained and kept free of any debris. 21. Valet parking service shall make every effort to avoid interference with adjacent residential homeowners and shall respect their right to peacefulness and privacy. 22. Valet parking service shall make every effort to avoid interference with adjacent residential homeowners and shall respect their right to peacefulness and privacy. 23. Valet parking service shall immediately report any incidents or violations or these conditions to the City. • Y. ©NV ou PJJJUw o eser ', •�° 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. CUP 91-9 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an appeal of a Planning Commission decision certifying compliance with conditions of approval for a conditional use permit for two restaurants totaling 8,000 square feet located within a commercial complex at the northeast corner of Portola Avenue and Highway 1 1 1 and Portola and Alessandro. .: fit'• 1 I I A p ..", 44t0 , r IL _ . }-L---- fl ��an •• �o A I 1 i pi' ' PRI Z SAN MAR1k0 WAY .. i 0 la . z siort ____ .laiiii _ , ciRcLidi r' - 1 ...., l *1110411 47 i . ii UM 3 ] I 6, ,-- 1 . .hi EAT brilri.lilArii .••••..._ ill SITE Al JU 7, 8T ;5RtYJ_ KuT34. 'Jr � - 1 ,S, p � - i AR . .0 } iStPt ' , 4 P--... ., s . : 1 PASEO ..�` NORTH ----TAIL:, W - , I Ic{- i { 1 ! L _ 1 r I __ ■ g" r z 1 SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, May 8, 1997, 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 April 24, 1997 City of Palm Desert, California MI w '7 1' - \\ . ' ). i' , . ©U o P�U� D ese�� ,,, 40. 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. CUP 91-9 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an appeal of a Planning Commission decision certifying compliance with conditions of approval for a conditional use permit for two restaurants totaling 8,000 square feet located within a commercial complex at the northeast corner of Portola Avenue and Highway 1 1 1 and Portola and Alessandro. r - I II•ZIN $3.3 0.1 SAN SAM 1 .,;gip MAINO WAY. o isiP. ftat ft ISMII ci IR c Alii we � V:•: 1 in " eft • 77 .. 1 � �x � a • MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 E. Case No. CUP 91-9 Compliance Review - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for review of compliance with conditions of approval for a conditional use permit allowing 8,000 square feet of restaurant use (Ruth's Chris - 6,000 square feet and Tsing Tao - 2,000 square feet) at the northeast corner of Portola and Highway 1 1 1 . Mr. Drell stated that the project and the restaurants occurred within a commercial complex that includes the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Portola and the north side of Alessandro. This was approved as one project in 1989-1990. The project was approved with one common parking lot which is in two parts, one on the north side of Alessandro and one on the south side of Alessandro. In June of 1991 application was made for a conditional use permit for an 8,000 square foot restaurant at this complex. The complex totals 40,000 square feet of area and includes both office and retail uses. That CUP was granted based upon accessibility of both parking lots on the north side and south side of Alessandro. At the time of that hearing, a petition was received from residents on San Marino Circle discussing concerns with the restaurant application relative to availability of parking, night lighting of the parking lot on the north side of Alessandro, location of restaurant dumpsters, etc. They felt there was a potential that parking would be inadequate and parking would spill out onto San Marino Circle and they requested the closure of San Marino Circle to prevent this parking intrusion. Subsequently after the approval of the restaurant the City did block off San Marino Circle. From the outset two adjacent property owners, Ray Winner and Gary Tryon, expressed dissatisfaction and complained about noise emanating from the parking lot. The self parking for the restaurants was located in the south lot adjacent to the buildings and in an attempt to control the noise and limit uncontrolled behavior, the north lot was subject to a valet parking program which was processed and permitted through the City's Technical Traffic Committee. He noted that the Planning Commission received in their packet copies of various permit applications and minutes and conditions that were imposed through the Technical Traffic Committee process. In that the vast majority of the noise complaints related to the behavior and operation of the valet service, the City attempted to address the noise concerns through regulation of the valet parking permit process. With each succeeding year the list of conditions applied to the valet became longer and longer. He said that Mr. Winner and Mr. Tryon participated on some occasions in that Technical Traffic valet permit process. Despite the attempts of the Public Works Department to regulate the valet company, there were continuing complaints of noise which ultimately led to the cancellation of that particular valet's contract in 1996. Mr. Tryon also submitted to the City in January of 1996 a video tape on which he documented some of the loud and irresponsible behavior of the valet. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the tape was of the old valet company or the new valet company. Mr. Drell replied that it was the old valet. The tape was from 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 valet was finallycanceled in May, 1996 and the contract with that 1996. Chairperson Ferguson asked if that was relevant. Mr. Drell said that they met with the new valet and impressed upon him the seriousness of the problem which led to his predecessor's contract cancellation and the original conditional use permit contained a condition which specifically identified parking lot noise as being grounds for review of the conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. They impressed that upon the valet and upon the owners of the restaurant and the center that this was something that required a maximal effort to address. In essence the valet operator was being held responsible for how this would turn out. A short time after more correspondence was received from Mr. Tryon and Mr. Winner that in their view conditions had not significantly improved. The correspondence was forwarded to the City Council and as a result of that council initiated a review of the conditional use permit as specified in the conditions. To objectively assess the noise environment and noise conditions for this review, the City contracted with an acoustical engineer to conduct noise studies in Mr. Tryon's backyard. Initially they were planning it for November, but at their request it was delayed until January to assess the peak season impact. The first scheduled test was done on January 10, 11 and 12, 19g7 which was a Thursday, Friday and Saturday (the peak evenings of Ruth's Chris) and basically the acoustical engineer sat in Mr. Tryon's backyard with the noise monitoring equipment between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 11 :00 p.m. As shown in the report, the machine calculated via a recognized acoustical engineering method the noise level as specified in the noise ordinance. Also, it kept a running tape of the actual fluctuations on a minute by minute basis in the lot. The engineer or technician would attempt to annotate each of the fluctuations to identify whether the sounds came from parking lot activity or other noises in the general vicinity that he could identify. He said that they would see in looking at the printouts that there were a lot of fluctuations that were not identified, but basically the acoustical engineer felt he was able to identify all the ones that came from the parking lot. The result of that study was that the overall sound level as measured on those evenings was well within the levels specified in the City's noise ordinance. Basically the City requires or sets noise standards in both residential and commercial areas. In residential areas between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. the noise level is 55 decibels. After 10:00 p.m. the maximal level drops to 45 decibels. In commercial zones it is ten decibels higher; between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. it is 65 and between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. it is 55 decibels. At the boundary between a commercial and residential zone, the ordinance in Section 9.24.030 says that the limit between two zoning districts shall be measured at the higher allowable district. According to the noise ordinance, the commercial noise limit would apply. Staff, in doing this review and based upon the condition of the goal for compatibility between commercial and residential areas, recommended that they would attempt to apply the residential standard. When they examined the measured noise levels, between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. the noise levels met the strict residential standards. The other aspect of noise measurement dealt with the measurement of ambient noise levels, which was the noise being generated by sources other than the one they 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 were specifically trying to look at. In this case it would be noise generally being generated by traffic on Highway 1 1 1 , Portola, the surrounding neighborhoods, airplanes overhead, etc. Section 9.24.030 B states that if the measured ambient noise level exceeds the applicable noise limit as noted in Table 1 , the allowable average sound level shall be the ambient noise level. The ambient noise level shall be measured when the alleged noise violation source is not operating. Basically in a particular environment a user could not be accused of violating a noise standard where the ambient level is above that standard. In those cases the ambient level becomes the noise standard. Obviously he has no control over lowering that noise level. The conclusion of the noise engineer was that in that period between 10:00 p.m. and 11 :00 p.m. where for exarrple on January 11 the measured level was 49.7 decibels. Those levels were in fact the ambient level according to the engineer. That would have been the measurement and the result of measurement of the noise environment even when there was no noise coming from the restaurant operation. In essence the conclusion was that the noise that he measured was what one would have expected given the property's proximity to very noise generating facilities called Highway 111 and Portola. In the annotated tapes, there were things like automobiles and trucks on Highway 111 and cats fighting, and although there were noise events which occurred on the lot which were of comparable volume, the applicant would be just as likely or more likely to be disturbed as measured in terms of volume decibels from noise being generated throughout the area. When discussing the first noise study with Mr. Tryon and Mr. Winner, they concurred and felt that this was an especially quiet weekend and therefore was not a fair representation of the conditions. Therefore, the City agreed that maybe we should try it again. To further insure that there was no "tipping off" of the valet or the applicant or the restaurant, staff specifically contracted with the engineer who dealt directly with Mr. Tryon without informing staff or anyone else of the date of the test. Staff was not to be informed until after the test occurred. That test was redone on January 20, 21 and 22 with essentially the same results with noise levels in the 45 to 48 decibel range consistent with either the residential standard or the existing ambient noise level. The acoustical engineer went further in summarizing the events and there were events which occurred in the lot which were shown on the tape, but there were far more peaks resulting from noise sources other than the parking lot. All of those peaks went into calculating the ambient/average noise level and the character, volume, intensity, and duration of those noises being generated by the parking lot were of a similar character of those in the surrounding environment. Based upon the analysis the engineer concluded that there were no violations of the City's noise ordinance as a result of activities on those nights that were being measured, even using the more restrictive residential standard. Whether or not the results of these studies were caused by the valet operator impressing upon his employees to behave responsibly or not was hard to say. So whether the conditions in the past were significantly worse they were unable to say. The engineer could only speak for the six days or 18 hours on which he sat and listened to the noise and watched the meters. He said that the commission would hear from Mr. Tryon and felt he would give his up to date impression on 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 the current conditions. If in fact the conditions applied by the valet permit process have been effective in reducing what was a more severe problem, staff was recommending that all those conditions be raised in stature through inclusion as conditions of approval on the conditional use permit. That would make not only the valet operator responsible for those conditions, but would also apply to the property owner and owner of the restaurant as well. Mr. Drell said that the City Attorney received a letter late today from Attorney Lisa Garvn from the firm of Garvin, Eggebraaten, LLP, who specifically raised some objection to the original conditional use permit and the process before the Planning Commission tonight. The first objection dealt with due process. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the commission had a copy of that letter. Mr. Drell said he had not made a copy but he could get copies. He asked if they wanted them right now. Chairperson Ferguson said if they were to deal with this matter tonight they might as well take a look at it. He was wondering the same thing about imposing conditions that weren't really conditions and that were just now becoming conditions. Mr. Drell said the commission could impose conditions. The original CUP had a specific condition that said conditions could be Imposed to address night noises. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the conditions could be imposed by staff. Mr. Drell replied no, by the commission. Chairperson Ferguson requested clarification. He thought Mr. Drell said the conditions here were memorialized conditions that have been unofficially imposed over the last few years. Mr. Drell clarified that they have been imposed through a separate permit process to regulate valet parking through the Technical Traffic Committee. When that committee receives a valet parking application, they look at the situation and place rules for approval under this different permit process. Technically in that the applicant is the valet parking operator for something he is liable for, and staff tried their best to enforce them, this brought the conditions up a little higher. Chairperson Ferguson said this would bind the property owner as well as the valet parking operator. Mr. Drell concurred. Relative to due process, he explained that there was an ascertain that when the City originally approved the conditional use permit in 1991 that the City didn't inform people that the lot on Alessandro would be used as part of the restaurant parking. Before the meeting, when he looked through the file, based upon the petition received and signed by 25 residents on San Marino Circle, it was evident that they knew that entire property would be used for the restaurant purposes. They felt that the parking would be insufficient and would spill onto San Marino Circle. The staff report and minutes indicate significant discussion of the use of that north lot. A condition of approval specifically talks about not allowing night lighting of the north lot. The staff specifically recommended approval of the restaurant only because of the existence of those parking spaces. Otherwise, without question without those parking spaces it wouldn't have vaguely met the parking requirement. The legal notice identified the project as a 40,000 square foot retail office complex. That includes the office buildings on the north side of Alessandro. The notice sent out in connection with this review had a diagram and map that clearly showed it included both north and south of Alessandro. The project from its original • 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 conception and construction always has included both sides of the street. He said that if commission continued this item staff could prepare a written analysis in response to the letter. Chairperson Ferguson stated that if there was going to be litigation as a result of this, the commission should take a look at Ms. Gavin's letter. He didn't want to delay things unnecessarily, but he wanted to review a copy of the letter. Mr. Drell said that the second issue dealt with CEQA and the Negative Declaration. Ms. Gavin's letter said it was an inappropriate Negative Declaration. Mr. Drell stated that for better or worse under the Public Resources Code, Section 21167, an appellant has 180 days to challenge a Negative Declaration. That obviously expired a long time ago. It was clear from the file that both Mr. Tryon and Mr. Winner were signatories of that petition where upon reading it indicated that they clearly had an understanding of what the project was. Their participation in the valet parking permit process also indicated that they were active participants in the regulation of that north parking lot. The last issue had to do with measuring of noise levels. He said that the measurement of the noise level is described in the City's noise ordinance. He said that if the commission continued this item he could have the acoustical engineer present to provide some explanation. If the cori mission or others have questions about the noise study, those questions could be referred to him and he could be here at the next meeting to answer them. Mr. Drell said that the conclusion was that while the character of the noise in this area might be more disturbing than elsewhere in residential areas in Palm Desert, its proximity to the center of town, to a commercial area, to the most highly traveled highway in the Coachella Valley other than 1-10, to Portola which was another arterial in this location, given all those conditions, the noise environment is consistent with the standards for a residential area in the city and the noises being generated by the parking lot did not substantially contribute to that noise environment. The engineer did discuss that ultimately in many respects the perception of noise was very subjective. That it was very possible that the history associated with the operation of this property may have sensitized these residents to particular noises being generated by this lot, more so than noises being generated by the immediate environment. But the present time is what the commission was discussing. The conclusion was that the findings could be made that the subject restaurants are in compliance with all applicable City ordinances relative to this conditional use permit and the conditions of approval and that by continued vigilant enforcement of those conditions and expanded conditions as recommended, that the issue of compatibility between this commercial project and the adjacent residents could be maintained. That was not to say that this is an environment that everyone would find acceptable. One makes certain choices about where they choose to live, whether it's in a more protected insulated area or adjacent to a major commercial center. Those were choices that one has to make and to a certain degree there were impacts associated with those choices. Staff recommended adoption of the resolution and asked for questions. Commissioner Campbell asked who paid for the tests, the residents or the City. Mr. Drell replied the City. Commissioner Campbell asked if the City paid for the 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 second one without knowing when the test would be done; Mr. Drell concurred and explained that they contracted with the acoustical engineer with direction not to inform the City of the date of the test, but it was a City contract. Chairperson Ferguson said that to summarize what Mr. Drell was saying was that they have investigated compliance and they are complying. Mr. Drell agreed that currently they appear to be in compliance. During the 18 hours when the studies were done, they were in compliance. Chairperson Ferguson said that secondly, the conditions that the commission was being asked to approve were conditions that came through the valet parking permitting process and they were now extending them to the property owner through his conditional use permit. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Chairperson Ferguson said that lastly, Mr. Drell had reviewed the letter for its merits and considered all the items that were raised and asked if it was still Mr. Drell's opinion that the restaurants were still in compliance. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Chairperson Ferguson asked the City Attorney if all the exhibits referenced in the letter, Exhibits A through F, were in their packet. Ms. Jacobson said that some of them were and some were not. Mr. Drell said that they referenced the minutes of the original Planning Commission hearing and they did not have that or the original staff report. Chairperson Ferguson asked if they were included with the letter from Ms. Gavin as exhibits. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Ferguson said he would like to review them. He noted that Mr. Tryon was present and expected that the letter would reiterate those points that he expected Mr. Tryon to make. Chairperson Ferguson asked if there were questions for staff. Commissioner Beaty noted that they were again being presented with material at the last minute that they haven't had time to review, but they should still hea from the public. Chairperson Ferguson stated that most of the exhibits were already in their packet and he was trying to understand from staff if there was any need to continue the case based on Mr. Drell's review and the City Attorney's review of the letter since he had a chance to review it and asked if there was a need to continue it or if the points made there seemed to be reiterated elsewhere, except for some of the due process issues which he was sure the attorneys could work out. Mr. Drell stated that it was a measure of how comfortable the commission wanted to be. He said that he could provide the commission with all the minutes and staff reports and the petition that in staff's view, not to argue about what events had actually occurred during the last five years, they could only speak to what was measured by the acoustical engineer. Staff was confident that the surrounding neighborhood was well informed as to what the project proposal was, they made specific requests to the City in response to it, and the City responded to their request and tried to address their problems. Regarding the CEQA argument, it was far beyond the statute of limitations. He stated that they have a documented concerted effort through the valet permit process to try and address the problems knowing that there is a fundamental conflict where they had to weigh the rights of both property owners and staff felt that the neighborhood was well informed of this 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 hearing and he felt that the acoustical study was valid. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he wanted Commissioner Beaty to look at the letter as well. He noted that the commission was being asked to evaluate compliance with a CUP that is in effect and a large part of the letter challenged the validity of the CUP in the first instance, which the commission was not being asked to vote on tonight. He was not sure a continuance was necessitated, notwithstanding the late arrival of the letter. That was what he was trying to work out so that the commission could be comfortable moving forward with compliance issues and they could leave the legal issues to the lawyers. Chairperson Ferguson asked if there were any other questions for staff. There were none. Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and indicated that since the City of Palm Desert was the applicant and the commission just heard from staff, he asked to hear from the opponents first, the proponents would be invited to address the commission next, and then the complainant would be given an opportunity for a brief rebuttal. MR. GARY TRYON stated that he had copies of Ms. Gavin's letter for the commission. Chairperson Ferguson noted for the record that each commissioner was given an individual copy of the letter with the exhibits. Mr. Tryon said he didn't know where to begin--he would rather be any where in the world than before the commission since he wasn't a public speaker. As far as the noise went and as far as they were concerned, the results were as phony as the City's noise ordinance. The first year the lot was in existence, they complained repeatedly with phone calls and letters and they came down to City Hall continually and received no response. They found out recently that on October 22, 1992, a year after that lot opened, that the City solved the noise problem by rewriting the noise ordinance. He was given quite a bit of an education about the City's noise ordinance by the people who did the noise study and he said they got quite a laugh out of it when they read it. What it did was take an average over an hour. The man told him there could be a dozen horns an hour out in that parking lot and according to the new noise ordinance it meant nothing. There could be half a dozen car alarms and according to this new noise ordinance it meant nothing. On February 21 he happened to be out on his patio and it was 10:40 p.m. and he was talking to the man doing the study when a car alarm went off. It was right on the wall and directly behind his bedroom. The decibel level registered 65 decibels and lasted approximately one minute. The man told him it didn't mean a thing according to the new noise ordinance. It takes an average. It could be quiet for several minutes, a car alarm would go off, quiet for several minutes again and then it all averaged out. That was where they came up with no violation. The night before the study happened he was in bed at 11 :22 p.m. when a car alarm went off on the 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 wall directly behind his bed and it lasted about a minute. It was a Ruth's Chris employee car parked on the wall. He said he gets up at 4:00 a.m. and it got kind of annoying when this was a common occurrence. Last Thursday night an alarm went off right outside his bedroom window and it lasted approximately three minutes. According to the City's new noise ordinance that meant nothing. The man told him that there would almost have to be a full-blown rock concert in that lot before it would be a violation with the way they average out the sounds. They considered the new noise ordinance to be a total joke and felt it was passed simply to cover up things like this. It didn't help residents whatsoever, the only people it helped were the owners and operators of noise makers like that from complaints from people like him. He informed commission that Mr. Winner couldn't be at the meeting or he would be saying the same thing. He was out of the state on business. Mr. Tryon stated that this was an ongoing problem. To say that the last five years could be judged or the next five years could be judged from a three-night period he thought was ridiculous. As far as that being a valet parking lot, it was not now and never has been. When the Planning Commission allowed the Fitness Mart in last year, it just compounded the noise and made it worse. As far as he was concerned this Planning Commission had absolutely no respect for the residents of that area. They have been ignored and just dumped on for the last five or six years. They had been at City Hall continually trying to do something about it, but they get snowballed, whitewashed, swept under the rug, hidden and nothing ever happens. They had meetings and nothing ever happened. Last year when the valet service was replaced they were given another set of rules and regulations. The rules and regulations didn't get used by the valets. He said they were at their wit's end. It surprised him that one of them hadn't gone postal and went over there and shot someone at night because it gets so bad sometimes. He said they wouldn't do it, it was just a figure of speech, but he had no doubt that none of the commissioners would put up with the situation for more than five nights and they had been forced to live with it for the last five years. As far as moving into it, it wasn't there when they moved there. It was put in their backyards. The residents complained and tried to stop the zoning change in 1989 but they were ignored. They tried to stop the restaurants in 1991 and they were ignored. They had been ignored ever since. Every time they have tried to do anything they have been ignored. That lot took precedence. He felt it was like they had no rights over there. They do have rights and as far as he was concerned their rights were more important than the wants and desires of out of town developers and out of town business owners. They were residents of this City. He was always told and grew up thinking that elected pubic officials were supposed to look after the rights of their constituents, but in this case they haven't. The City had failed miserably as far as that neighborhood was concerned. He said he had hours of things to say, but he didn't know what else because he just gets so upset about it. He said 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 that his attorney said he should submit a video tape as evidence or whatever it needed to be. He asked if the commission wanted to hear it. Chairperson Ferguson concurred that the facilities were in place to allow the commission to see and hear the video and he wanted Mr. Tryon to submit everything he had that he felt was relevant to the compliance situation. Mr. Tryon explained that the tape was from a year ago, but the situation was on going and had not changed. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the City would be given a copy of the video tape to maintain it. Mr. Tryon said it was the commission's copy and it was the exact same copy that was given to the City Council last year. Mr. Tryon informed commission that the tape lasted one hour and 45 minutes and didn't think the commission would want to see the whole tape. A few minutes would show them what it amounted to. He said that he had newer tapes from 4'. newer incidents, but he just didn't have them transferred to VHS yet from his eight track. He said that the sound on the tape was not what they listened to at home. It was blasting at his home. He said it was probably 70 decibels in his back yard. After reviewing the beginning of the tape, Chairperson Ferguson asked if that particular car alarm continued for 15 minutes. Mr. Tryon said that the same alarm did and the tape was just a continuation of different alarms, different vehicles, all pretty much the same thing. Chairperson Ferguson asked if that was a good representative sample of what was on the tape. Mr. Tryon agreed that it was a representative example of a lot of what was on the tape. He said there were a couple of more examples within the last two weeks. A tour bus backed in about 9:00 p.m. for the full distance of the lot clear out into the far northeast corner. The bus backed all the way in there with his backup horn blasting. That was normal. A couple of nights ago a noise woke him up. There was a chauffeured limousine sitting outside his bedroom window. The motor was running, all the doors were open and the chauffeur was sitting in the back seat with the radio running. Mr. Tryon said he yelled at him to stop it and the chauffeur turned the radio full blast. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the commission had any questions for Mr. Tryon. Commissioner Fernandez asked how long Mr. Tryon had lived there. Mr. Tryon replied six and a half years. Commissioner Fernandez asked if there were any other neighbors complaining about the noise besides Mr. Tryon and Mr. Winner. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 Mr. Tryon said that George Buhl used to constantly and was the main one at it, but his wife left him about two years ago and he gave up on everything. He was hardly even home anymore. Mr. Tryon said that he and Mr. Winner were the ones mainly complaining because they were sitting on an island in the middle of this mess. Chairperson Ferguson said that Mr. Tryon's criticisms were noted about the City, Planning Commission and enforcement. He asked what Mr. Tryon wanted the City to do, practically speaking. He was sure that ideally he wouldn't want anyone within the 300-foot radius of his home that made noise. Mr. Tryon replied that they didn't mind the lot at all, as long as it was being used as it is zoned, Office Professional. Chairperson Ferguson asked if Mr. Tryon wanted the City to shut down the restaurants. Mr. Tryon said they would like to see the late night commercial parking out of that location. He said it was an office professional lot, not a commercial lot. Chairperson Ferguson asked if there was anything less than that that Mr. Tryon would be willing to accept to mitigate noise. As an example, if the north lot was restricted to valet only after 6:00 p.m. Mr. Tryon said that wouldn't make a difference. The valets were just as noisy as the rest of them. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the valets set car alarms. Mr. Tryon said yes, that it was quite common. Part of their rules was that they were not to set any more car alarms. They still did. Some of the newer cars were automatic, but they still set car alarms. Sunday night he went out and looked and there was a kid, the valet, in someone's new Cadillac and the northeast lot was pretty well empty and he thought the kid must have thought he was a race car driver because he was roaring around that lot and squalling tires. Mr. Tryon said he shined a flashlight at him and the valet stopped, looked at him, then floor boarded it. The valet parking was not an answer and never has been. Chairperson Ferguson said that as he read Mr. Tryon's attorney's letter and as he listened to Mr. Tryon tonight, his position was not that the use was out of compliance with the noise ordinance, but that the noise ordinance was so poorly drafted that it didn't meaningfully address his concerns. Mr. Tryon replied that according to the men that did the study, Christopher Dean specifically, the sound engineer that was there two of 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 those nights, said that when he and Mr. Bricken read the noise ordinance they laughed. It was a joke. Chairperson Ferguson asked if Mr. Tryon understood that what the Planning Commission was asked to review was whether they comply with the ordinance, irrespectively. Mr. Tryon stated that he realized that they were complying with the ordinance as it is written. That was stated right in the report. Mr. Trycn said he would like to know how Mr. Drell found a sympathetic councilman from another city to do the noise ordinance. • Chairperson Ferguson suggested that was an issue that Mr. Tryon could take up with Mr. Drell personally. They wouldn't take that up tonight and the City still wrote their own ordinances and assumed that the City wrote this one. Mr. Tryon said he would like to know why the City just ignored them for the first year. S Chairperson Ferguson said that what he would suggest to Mr. Tryon a little later during the meeting was that his concerns with respect to the ordinance probably belonged before the City Council. The Planning Commission did not make ordinances. The Planning Commission occasionally commented on them and reviewed them, but they hadn't been asked to do that tonight. While he was not saying that Mr. Tryon's concerns were illegitimate, he was just saying that they were misdirected at the Planning Commission because they were simply being asked to find what he essentially stipulated, which was that they are in compliance with the ordinance as stated. The points of Mr. Tryon and his attorney might be very well taken, but they were out of the Planning Commission's jurisdiction. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he wanted to clarify one other thing in a public forum. Businesses were residents of this city as well. He viewed their role as a Planning Commission to weigh competing uses. Businesses served the residents of the city and they generate sales tax figures to the city which are used to provide services to the residents' homes. It was the reasonableness of uses that they evaluate and that was a decision that the council would have to make if Mr. Tryon appealed this case to them n reviewing the noise ordinance, but to say that the commission cared more about developers who were out of town and don't care about residents was inaccurate and secondly, they cared about both of them and wanted to make sure there was a proper balance. What Mr. Tryon was telling the commission was that there wasn't a proper balance, although it complies with the ordinance. The commission was only being asked to see if it complies with the ordinance, so he wanted to make that clarification. Mr. Tryon restated that the only thing going on tonight was if it complies with the ordinance. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 Chairperson Ferguson said that was correct. Mr. Tryon asked if that was his only argument. Chairperson Ferguson said that the Planning Commission was asked to review if they were complying with their conditional use permit and there were many aspects to the conditional use permit, but the one that Mr. Tryon took issue with, as he understood it, was the noise. As a result of the studies and the ordinance as drafted, staff found that they were complying with the ordinance. When he asked Mr. Tryon the question, Mr. Tryon replied yes that the ordinance was a joke and though he didn't want to put words in Mr. Tryon's mouth, the Planning Commission couldn't amend the ordinance or even consider it. That was the proper role for the City Council. Chairperson Ferguson said he didn't want Mr. Tryon to take those comments as being "shined on" by the City again. Mr. Tryon said that he realized that there were different strokes for different parts of the city. He was saying it here because he was told to just say everything he had to say tonight for everything he could think of. Chairperson Ferguson said that he could tell from the frustration in Mr. Tryon's voice that it was a real problem for him. Mr. Tryon said that in order to get it into the record, he was told to voice everything he could think of. Chairperson Ferguson concurred and asked if there were any other questions for Mr. Tryon. Mr. Drell said that he had something to add. What Mr. Tryon was reporting, regardless of the noise study, was that some of the conditions that have been applied to the valet parking permit he observed were not being adhered to relative to parking along the back wall and the controllable behavior of the valet people. The City's attempt throughout the valet permit process was to try to eliminate all those causes of the noise which were in the direct control of the valet attendants themselves. There might be noise inherent when turning on a car which couldn't be avoided. Sometimes there might be inescapably some trigger of car alarms. The permit expressly prohibits employees from parking in that lot; it expressly prohibits the playing of loud radios. He said that he strengthened that by saying that while the valet permit said they shouldn't have the radio loud, he was saying that the radio shouldn't be on at all. There should be no radios of any sort. He said they would hear from the valet parking representative, but there still might be opportunities for improvement if a consistent behavior of the valet attendants could be strictly monitored and enforced. Staff was still committed and it was somewhat encouraging that to a certain degree that those evenings that the study was being done that it was relatively quiet which showed that whether it was just fluke luck or not, they were capable of doing better than they do some nights. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 Mr. Tryon said it wasn't that quiet. It seemed quiet to Mr. Drell because of the way the ordinance was written. He could show parts on the tape that were taken from the machine that showed it was not quiet. Mr. Drell said that they have those tapes, but it showed lots of noise and most noise was not coming from the lot. Chairperson Ferguson informed Mr. Tryon that there was one thing that the commission could address tonight which he wanted to ask him. He noted that • about a year ago they had the Fitness Center go in. He asked about the status of that since it was a temporary use. Mr. Drell confirmed that it was a temporary use and explained that Mr. Muro was attempting to try to find a permanent location. The City extended his temporary use until the whole issue was resolved. Mr. Muro was now being sent a notice to vacate the property in 30 days since his temporary use permit expired. Chairperson Ferguson noted that Mr. Drell mentioned that it only compounded the problem and he was aware of the fact that Mr. Muro's temporary use permit had expired. Mr. Tryon said that the last he knew the City Council said the Fitness Center was supposed to be out of there by October 1 , 1996 and they were still there. He said they could sit at night with the television on and hear those people screaming. Chairperson Ferguson said they would be leaving within 30 days time per Mr. Drell. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone else wished to speak on this matter. MR. RICHARD R. OLIPHANT, 77-900 Avenue of the States in Palm Desert, stated that he was the Oliphant of Oliphant, Lizza and Associates that owns the property in question. He said he was hoping for Mr. Tryon's sake, their sake and everyone's sake that they could bring this to some kind of a conclusion. This had been going on for quite some time. They have been working with Mr. Winner and Mr. Tryon to try and mitigate the problems they have had, but it was very difficult to run a successful commercial establishment and not have some impact, particularly in a situation where they were part of their parking lot because they surrounded the residences on three sides. He wanted to talk about why the circumstance exists. This was a corner in the city that was a hazard. At one time it was almost impossible to pull a long wheel-based car off of Highway 1 1 1 onto Portola without running into the curb. They had at one time attempted to develop that corner but couldn't make any economic sense out of it. The City came and asked them to reconsider that with financial aid from the City. They did that and found what their needs were and the City agreed to assist them. They even went to the extent of condemning the properties on that corner so that they could acquire them. When it came to the residential units, they were not willing to condemn the residential units, only the 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 business units. The rest of the residential units they were either able to acquire or they were owned by Ron Gregory and his brother. They were not able to buy out Ron Gregory and his brother, so they created a relationship with them. They did a design on that lot to find out what would economically work and it required about 40,000 square feet to economically develop that site. The City encouraged them to go forward and build a superblock. They built the building with approximately 20,000 square feet on the corner facing the highway and the reason that the 20,000 square feet was put there was because that was the engine that drove the whole thing, that one building. Obviously on the south side of Alessandro there wasn't nearly enough parking for 20,000 square feet, so they balanced it and parking was put on the north side of Alessandro. One of the conditions of approval was that they narrow Alessandro. Usually they widen streets, in this case they narrowed the street. The reason was that the City didn't want any overflow from the parking lots to become curbside parking on Alessandro and required them to put all of their parking in the parking lot on the north side of the street He stated that Oliphant Lizza owns two thirds of all the parking spaces on the north side of the street for the building located on the south side of the street. That was where the bulk of the parking was for the south side of the street. They built two office buildings for Mr. Gregory to complete the superblock and they have defined parking spaces which they do not use. Those two buildings have spaces assigned to them and they do not valet park in those spaces. They were not theirs and they did not use them. They only use the spaces that are owned by Oliphant Lizza and Associates. They have had complaints from the City for some time. As Mr. Drell outlined there was meeting after meeting to try and resolve that. They finally decided in working with Ruth's Chris and Tsing Tao that the valet service was not responding adequately to the City, to them or to anyone else so they let that valet service go and they hired another valet service that has done an outstanding job. They still receive complaints even after they had the valet service changed, so last summer he decided it was time to figure out how to bring this all to a head. They called a meeting here at City Hall which Mr. Drell and Steve Smith attended, as well as Ray Winner and Gary Tryon, the valet company, Mr. Lizza and himself and the manager of the Ruth's Chris restaurant. They all sat down and asked how to resolve these problems. Essentially the list of conditions with the exception of two of them tonight were the conditions they discussed at that particular meeting. There were some others and they have complied to date with all of those conditions, from that date to this one. Another one was that they put signage on the wall, all the way around the wall where they jut out into the parking lot that says no parking next to this wall after 6:00 p.m. Only the valets are supposed to park next to the wall, but there are some people who still drive in there and park their own car. They have had an occasion or two when they have had an alarm go off and found out that it was not a car parked by their valet and no one had a key or knew who it belonged to. 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 In that case that was when Mr. Tryon has had an alarm that has run longer than one minute or two. If it was an alarm that has been accidentally set because some cars have proximity alarms and when someone walks by the car it essentially triggers the alarm. If that was a valet car, they were on that immediately. They have someone in the lot during the season that is a valet all the time on the north side. As cars go out, that valet is moving the cars forward toward Alessandro to keep cars away from the wall. That is an extra service and cost, but that had been taken over by their valet and they had been doing that service. He didn't know what else they could do. They meet all the requirements sound wise, they have bent over backwards to assist Mr. Winner and Mr. Tryon with their problem and have even given them the pager number of their valet service so that if there is a problem they could page them. Don't call Mr. Drell, call them--they were the problem solvers. But they don't call them. They would rather run down the next day and complain to Mr. Drell. That continues to aggravate the matter and it needed to be brought to some kind of conclusion or this would go on for another ten years or however long Mr. Tryon and Mr. Winner live there. He said he y wanted to ask about a couple of conditions. Number 9 said should the valet parking services be terminated for Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, Ron Gregory and Associates must be notified in advance. He asked what Ron Gregory and Associates had to do with their parking lot. Chairperson Ferguson said he had that same question as well. Mr. Drell said it was taken from the valet permit regulations. Mr. Oliphant said that Mr. Tryon had found a sympathetic ear in Ron Gregory and he frequently called Ron Gregory to see if he would talk to one of them and do something. He said that they don't use Ron Gregory's lot and Ron Gregory doesn't use their lot. They just happen to have adjoining lots. That would be the same way with "valet parking service must obtain written permission from Ron Gregory and Associates to use the north parking lot". He said he owns the north parking lot, not Ron Gregory. Why would he have to ask for Mr. Gregory's permission. Mr. Drell stated that those were conditions that have been on the valet permit for many years. Mr. Oliphant stated that he wanted them removed because he didn't want to have to ask permission of some third party to use his own property. That wasn't right. Mr. Drell said it was within his rights to object, but those were conditions that have technically been in force to obviously no significant effect. Mr. Oliphant said they have never had Ron Gregory at a meeting. They have never consulted with Ron Gregory and the only time Ron Gregory 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 had entered into it was at the time the Fitness Mart asked if they could use ten parking spots of Ron Gregory's and Ron Gregory wrote a letter to the City giving permission to allow them to use those ten spaces after 6:00 p.m. The Fitness Mart closes at 6:00 p.m. so they were not creating the problem over there because the City Council required them to eliminate their evening dance class so they haven't been operating the evening dance class because they have to be out of there before Ruth's Chris business picks up. Chairperson Ferguson asked why wouldn't Mr. Gregory, whom he understood didn't operate business in the evening, allow them in some sort of an arrangement to valet park on his spaces and decrease the demand in the north lot. Mr. Oliphant replied it was because they haven't needed the space. Chairperson Ferguson said that if he heard Mr. Tryon correctly, they most certainly needed it and it would make his life nicer. Mr. Oliphant said that if they used Mr. Gregory's they would not just be behind Mr. Tryon's lot, but on both sides of it. They don't park on the sides of his lot now. Mr. Drell confirmed that Mr. Gregory's spaces were also part of that north lot. Chairperson Ferguson said he thought they were to the east. Mr. Oliphant explained that they were also on the north side where Mr. Gregory has two lots that flank their center lot and they were the entire center of that lot which was the rear of Mr. Winner's and Mr. Tryon's homes. If they parked in Ron Gregory's lots, then they would go down the sides as well and they were not doing that. That wasn't to say that someone doesn't pull in there that they have no control over. He said their valet was present tonight who could answer a lot of those questions. He also wanted to correct the record that he was not an out of town builder, developer or business owner. He was in his 35th year in Palm Desert and was certainly a resident of this area. MR. GREGORY FAIA, General Counsel for Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, stated that the actual mother company was located in New Orleans and the company that operates this particular business was a California corporation that employs 65 people in this local area. He said he wanted to make a couple of comments because he has lived with this problem over the last year and he discussed it with Mr. Drell and Doug Phillips a number of times. He said this was a franchise location that the mother company purchased back from the franchisee. He said that Paul Fleming was the one who operated the company as a franchisee prior to their acquisition. During that time when the previous valet company was in 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 place there seemed to be no movement and no ability to move them out. As soon as they could they put pressure to get that situation taken care of. He thought they had done it as best they could under the circumstances. No being from here himself, it was quite obvious to him that one of their simple problems was that there were no natural sound barriers in this area. There were no trees with heavy leaves or heavy foliage that would help break sound. There was no way they could plant heavy flowering or heavy foliage shrubs across the back that would in any way help Mr. Tryon. He didn't doubt that he has a serious problem with the noise and it obviously appeared to bother him, but he felt that Ruth's Chris Steakhouse was a victim. They have been a victim from the beginning. His problem was really with the fact of what happened six years ago when this was approved. It started with a petition before they were ever around and now it was just landing on them and they were the ones that had to deal with it. As to the changes and the additions they wanted to make to the conditional use permit, he had a problem. They are meeting the compliance of the current sound study, and he disagreed with Mr. Tryon and he thought the reports proved that they have not s violated those sound studies and he thought that if the commission looked at the sound studies it was clear that ambient noise levels, not averages, and sounds of cats and airplanes are much louder than they are. Those sounds were much higher than the ones he was talking about and those occur more often and both of those reports showed that. All they had to do was look at the January report and the February report, or the summary report at the end of February. It was the same thing. What they have here was they were taking the conditional use permit a step further. Now they were going to tell him that he could lose his business if valet attendants don't speak quietly and only when absolutely necessary. From a reasonable business standpoint, he asked how he could even implement that. "Only when absolutely necessary". He could understand not operating radios, but now they were not supposed to talk and that would create an impossibility and they were going to tell him that his business was now subject to all of these things. He was now up to 25 conditions that he has to worry about or he loses the right to have his business here. He thought that was a serious problem that they would have to consider if they were to keep a relationship with the City of Palm Desert. He was very confused. He received this on Friday and did not know that there was any attempt to change the conditional use permit. He came in from New Orleans just for this meeting and he had to admit that he was stunned when this came about. He said that Mr. Tryon might feel that he is not being fairly treated, but he also didn't think they were being treated fairly at all. He said he would be happy to answer any questions. He thought the noise study showed a lot different result than what Mr. Tryon felt it showed. He thought the two made it very clear that the highest sounds on there were motorcycles down Highway 1 1 1 and Portola and an airplane. They had nothing to do with them. An ambient noise level was different. In speaking to the sound 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 people that they have in New Orleans, the reason it an ambient noise level becomes the level was because it was like white noise. They have white noise of a certain level and anything up to that range just constituted that white noise. That was the reason for an ambient noise level. They didn't even come close, but it didn't seem to matter. He thought this problem was created a long time ago and now they were the ones dealing with it on a day to day basis. He thought that if this conditional use permit was amended to add these particular items, there was no way. It was a physical impossibility. What they were telling him was that his business was threatened here in Palm Desert. That is what they were telling him. He said they were happy to work with the City and they had been trying for the last year to get through this situation, but he didn't feel it was a situation they created and the reports showed that. Mr. Tryon asked to present rebuttal comments and noted that Mr. Oliphant said that he has called Ron Gregory. Mr. Tryon said that he has never talked to Ron Gregory in his life. He wouldn't know the man if he walked in here now and walked up to him. As far as the valet alarms not being the ones that go on, he could remember one alarm that wasn't a valet alarm that went for a significant length of time and that was the security guard who was supposed to be guarding the lot. That was on February 19 at 11 :22 p.m. He felt he should be smart enough to open his own car without setting off the alarm and then couldn't figure out how to turn it off. That was an employee from over there. He said that the Fitness Mart did not close at 6:00 p.m. It was open until at least 9:00 p.m. every night and sometimes until 10:00 p.m. Chairperson Ferguson closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Tryon if after all of these years of putting up with this if he thought about moving. Mr. Tryon said that he would like to say the same thing to Ruth's Chris that Phil Drell said to him the last time he was in his office, "why don't you, move". Mr. Tryon said that he was there first and his neighbors were there first. Commissioner Campbell asked if anyone ever approached him to sell his property. Mr. Tryon said that no one approached hin about buying his property at all. Last summer Tony Lizza finally asked what he would take to sell out and he and Mr. Winner came up with a ridiculous figure just to let him know that they weren't interested in moving. He said that all of her adult life his wife dreamed of having a home. She was 47 years old when that dream was realized and within six months the City turned it into a nightmare and it has been that way for the last five years. Commissioner Fernandez stated that he has been to Ruth's Chris a couple of times and he sympathized with Mr. Tryon because there was some noise by the 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 valet, by the traffic and by the cars and he never heard a cat or a plane fly by, but he heard plenty of noise from the parking lot. Commissioner Beaty said he didn't have any comments but was going to ask what the commission's options were. Chairperson Ferguson said that he would like to look at the two conditions that were pointed out by Mr. Oliphant. He said he put a note by condition number 9 asking why the City wasn't being notified as opposed to Ron Gregory and as he understood the testimony, why should Mr. Oliphant ask permission from a third party to use his own land. If there was no rationale for those conditions, he wanted to see them removed. Mr. Drell said that if the commission looked at the most current valet parking permit conditions for 1996, he just took those conditions from there. He had no problem with removing them from the resolution and the Public Works Department could enforce them any way they liked. Realistically they had no effect so he had no problem getting rid of them. Chairperson Ferguson said he had a couple of comments. It seemed to him that mush of what he said to Mr. Tryon was true. He thought that the study that they were asked to look at showed compliance with the ordinance. If the ordinance needed to be changed, it was not for the Planning Commission to decide, but the City Council. He didn't know how they did things in New Orleans, but down here they put conditions on a project, which was why they were called conditional use permits and the City maintains continuing jurisdiction to modify those conditions and he did not understand how the most successful restaurant in Palm Desert felt like it was a victim. It might be that Mr. Tryon made his nightmare their nightmare as well by his constant complaining, but that was his right as a citizen of the city. They welcomed Ruth's Chris here. It was a fine establishment. The conditions he saw imposed here basically told them to try and be a good neighbor. Mr. Faia asked if they would get their CUP revoked if someone spoke too loudly, one valet to another, but it would not be by him. If the valet service was present (although the commission didn't hear from them) he hoped they were taking note of the sensitivity this commission has for Mr. Tryon. He thought it was a competing interest for the reasonableness for the use and when he had two people standing in front of him both saying that were unhappy with the compromise, it was usually a very good compromise. He hoped they wouldn't take exception to that but his personal feeling was that they were in compliance with the conditions of their conditional use permit and the additional conditions they were adding basically asked Ruth's Chris and the center to be a good neighbor and they were not happy with the noise study. He was satisfied by the noise study and the methodology. He didn't know how much the City spent on it, but didn't think anyone was out to skew those figures and if the ordinance was as Mr. Tryon said it was, then his recourse was to the City Council. His personal concern was for the residents and businesses alike to try and strike a balance. He was not prepared to shut down two restaurants because there were spikes of noise. By the same token he understood how he feels in his own home when someone squeals around the 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 corner at 11 :00 p.m. and it was evident from his comments that Mr. Tryon was irritated. As far as whether they were in compliance with the ordinance or not, they are and the conditions for Ruth's Chris were reasonable and he was prepared to support them as drafted by staff and amended by Mr. Oliphant's concerns. Chairperson Ferguson asked if Commissioner Beaty wanted to discuss options. Commissioner Beaty said either approval or disapproval of the findings were the options and asked if Chairperson Ferguson was ready for a motion. Chairperson Ferguson said he would make a motion approving the findings as presented by staff, subject to the elimination of staff report condition number 10 and the modification of condition number 9 that the City be notified (the Planning Department) as opposed to Ron Gregory and Associates. Action: Moved by Chairperson Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Chairperson Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1801, adding conditions to CUP 91-9. Carried 4-0. Chairperson Ferguson notified Mr. Tryon that he had 15 days to appeal this matter to the City Council if he so chose. He asked if the Commission received everything he wanted to present tonight, the tape and handouts. Mr. Tryon concurred. F. Case No. CUP 95-11 Amendment - DENISE ROBERGE, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit increasing the net floor area of an approved restaurant from 2760 square feet to 5000 square feet located at the southeast corner of El Paseo and Prickly Pear Lane, 73-951 El Paseo. Mr. Drell indicated that on December 14, 1995 a conditional use permit was approved for a 2760 square foot restaurant with a 1300 square foot patio in conjunction with a 14,000 square foot retail/residential mixed use remodel of the former Security Pacific Bank building at Portola and El Paseo. As the commission would recall there was a considerable amount of discussion over parking when that project went through and due to the fact that the project took up a whole block, it had an unusual number of on street parking spaces. With 49 off street parking spaces and the 22 on street there was a total of 71 parking spaces. He noted that at one time they had up to 51 off street spaces, but with the City Council's desire to get better lot circulation, two spaces were deleted. Mr. Drell said that in June of 1996 the Commission approved a secondary 33 space lot on Portola at Shadow Mountain on the basis of it being 30 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1801 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING COMPLIANCE AND ADDING CONDITIONS TO AN APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TWO RESTAURANTS WITH LIQUOR LICENSE TOTALING 8,000 SQUARE FEET TO BE LOCATED IN THE HIGHWAY 111 FRONTING BUILDING OF A 40,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL/OFFICE COMPLEX AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PORTOLA AVENUE AND HIGHWAY 1 1 1 . CASE NO. CUP 91 -9 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 1st day of April, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing to review the compliance with existing conditions and consider additional conditions for an existing conditional use permit allowing two restaurants with liquor license totaling 8,000 square feet to be located in the Highway 111 fronting building of a 40,000 square foot retail/office complex at the northeast corner of Portola Avenue and Highway 1 1 1 ; 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 that the project is a Class 3 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 justify continuance of said conditional use permit with additional requirements: 1 . As currently operating, the existing restaurants are in compliance with all applicable City ordinances and conditions of approval. 2. The addition of conditions regarding parking and related activities in the parking lots on both sides of Alessandro shall further insure compliance with City ordinances and policies concerning compatibility between commercial and residential uses. 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 subject restaurants are in compliance with Conditional Use Permit 91- 9. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1801 3. That the restaurants shall continue to be operated pursuant to Conditional Use Permit 91 -9 subject to attached expanded conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 1st day of April, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BEATY, CAMPBELL, FERNANDEZ, FERGUSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: JONATHAN ABSTAIN: NONE AME C 0 FER USON, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1801 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. CUP 91-9 Department of Community Development: 1 . Applicant shall comply with all state, county, and city regulations ations concerning restaurant use. 2. The applicant shall obtain all necessary architectural review commission and Department of Building & Safety permits required by any physical modification of the site. fi. 3. Restaurant shall be limited to 8,000 square feet in area. 4. Restaurant shall participate in a commercial recycling program as approved by the Environmental Conservation Manager. 5. Proposal qshall be subject to all applicable conditions of PP 89-1 9. 6. Restaurant garbage shall be restricted to south Alessandro parking lot trash dumpsters only. 7. Late night noise impacts on the San Marino Circle residential area caused by restaurant activity shall result in Planning Commission reexamination of this approval and the possible imposition of additional mitigating conditions. 8. Noise level shall be kept to a minimum in both parking lots. Valet attendants shall speak quietly and only when absolutely necessary, shall not operate radios, shall close doors quietly, avoid setting car alarms, revving of engines or excessive vehicle acceleration. 9. Deliveries to the restaurants or trash pickup shall be limited on weekdays to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.; weekends 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Trucks shall not sit idling any longer than is absolutely necessary to load or unload. 10. Parking lot sweeping shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. weekdays and 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. weekends. 1 1 . Buses transporting groups to the restaurant shall not be parked in either lot or on Alessandro with their engines running. There shall be no bus pickups or drop offs on Alessandro or within the parking lots after 10:00 p.m. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1801 12. Valet parking will take place in the parking lot on the north side of Alessandro Drive excluding those areas north of Building B and along the north wall as shown on the attached map. 13. The parking lot adjacent to the restaurant will be for self parking. 14. Valet operators will begin at 9:00 p.m. to move cars from the valet lot, to the front lot adjacent to the restaurant, beginning with the cars in the northeast portion of the valet lot. 15. No restaurant employee parking is permitted in the north lot. 16. Should the valet parking services be terminated for Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, the City of Palm Desert must be notified in advance. 17. It is understood that in the event that any of the businesses located in Buildings A or B have an. evening event requiring the need for parking, the valet parking service will accommodate their needs for those evenings. 18. The valet parking service is responsible for any damage to landscaping, parking lot lighting, or other related damage due to negligence or accidents occurring in the course of valet parking. 19. Valet parking shall not commence earlier than 5:00 p.m. every evening. At the beginning of the evening all cars must be parked at the northeast part of the parking lot so as not to interfere with the function of late closing offices, if any. 20. Condition of parking areas should be maintained and kept free of any debris. 21 . Valet parking attendants shall not leave any barriers or store any equipment on the premises. 22. Valet parking service shall make every effort to avoid interference with adjacent residential homeowners and shall respect their right to peacefulness and privacy. 23. Valet parking service shall immediately report any incidents or violations of these conditions to the City. 4 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: April 1 , 1997 CASE NO: CUP 91 -9 Compliance Review SUBJECT: Review of compliance with conditions of approval for a conditional use permit allowing 8,000 square feet of restaurant use (Ruth's Chris - 6,000 square feet and Tsing Tao - 2,000 square feet) at the northeast corner of Portola and Highway 1 1 1 . BACKGROUND: The commercial complex at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Portola including the office building on the north side of Alessandro was approved as one project with common parking. In June 1991 CUP 91-9 was approved allowing 8,000 square feet of restaurant (20% of the 40,000 square foot project floor area) based on the entire parking lot capacity. The CUP contains a condition which provides for review by the Planning Commission if late night noise of the restaurant activity impacts San Marino Circle residents. Three San Marino Circle homes back onto the north side of the parking lot. We have received complaints from two homeowners, Ray Winner and Gary Tryon. Since most of the problems involved the valet parking service, staff attempted to address these complaints through our valet parking permit process. With each annual review, the Technical Traffic Committee and City Traffic Engineer attempted to respond to residents' complaints by creating permit requirements which would address the noise problems. Mr. Winner and Mr. Tryon participated in that process. As a result of video tape we received from Mr. Tryon in January 1996, staff met with the restaurant manager and the landlord to express our continuing dissatisfaction with the performance of the valet service. A letter was sent from the City Engineer to the valet operation February 9, 1996 threatening revocation of the valet permit if violations continued. Ultimately this meeting and letter led to the cancellation of the valet contract in May 1996. A new valet service was retained and a meeting was held with staff, the valet, the landlord, the manager of Ruth's Chris Steak House, Mr. Tryon and Mr. Winner. In this meeting we again attempted to isolate the specific behavior causing the problems which range from slamming doors, squealing tires, loud radios, loud talking, car alarms, idling trucks and buses. The goal was to determine if a maximum STAFF REPORT CUP 91-9 COMPLIANCE REVIEW APRIL 1, 1997 effort to eliminate all the controllable behavior and operational impacts could solve the problem. All parties agreed to give it one more try. (See attached Technical Traffic Committee reports). In a letter dated July 28, 1996 Mr. Winner reported that conditions had not improved to restaurant use. On August 22 the requested closing9 and the north Alessandro lot City Council reviewed this request and initiated the conditional use permit review process and directed staff to conduct a noise study to provide an objective measure of the problem. At the request of Mr. Winner and Mr. Tryon the study was delayed until January 1997 to assess the peak impact. The acoustical engineering firm of Gordon Bricken and Associates was retained to monitor noise in Mr. Tryon's backyard January 10, 11 and 12 between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 1 1 :00 p.m. The noise monitoring machine measures and calculates the overall noise levels and produces a continuous tape of each individual noise event. The restaurant operator was not informed of the date of the test. The engineer sat at the machine and annotated lot,noise event which emanated from the parking as well as identifiable events from the general Highway 111/Portola area. The result of that study is attached. Our City noise ordinance defines a violation as noise in excess of the standard for the zone or the ambient noise level if the ambient is higher. At the boundary of a residential and commercial zone, the higher level will apply. In this particular case staff believes that the lower level should be the goal. The January noise study concluded that the noise environment existing on the subject residential properties ranges from 45.6 to 49.7 decibels and that this level is indistinguishable from the ambient noise levels impacting the residential properties resulting from simple proximity to Highway 111 and Portola. There was no violation of City noise ordinances. For most of the test period, noise levels, including ambient levels, were below the residential standard. The residents felt that the test occurred during an exceptionally quiet weekend and requested a 6econd test at a time of their choice. A second test was conducted February 20, 21 and 22. The engineer was directed to schedule the dates as directed by Mr. Tryon without informing anyone including the City staff. The second study produced the same results as the first. There were no violations of the City noise ordinance. Noise from the restaurants was indistinguishable from the noises present in the general environment. In essence,the residents are more likely to be disturbed by motorcycles on Portola, trucks on Highway 1 1 1 , airplanes or cats fighting than noise associated with the restaurants as measured during that weekend in February. 2 STAFF REPORT CUP 91-9 COMPLIANCE REVIEW APRIL 1 , 1997 Whether this conclusion is a measurement of a reduced noise level resulting from a more responsible valet operation is hard to determine. The engineer also discusses sensitivity to certain types of noise emanating from the parking lot which due to past history may be more disturbing to the residents then similar noise associated with the ambient noise environment. II. SUMMARY: The acoustical engineer concluded that the noise environment experienced by residents on San Marino Circle is consistent with what one would normally expect given their proximity to Highway 1 1 1 and Portola. The restaurant and parking lot as currently operated are in compliance with the City's noise ordinance and the con ditional I use permit. That compliance liance may be the result of requirements of the valet parking permit and other operational improvements instituted after the original CUP approval. To memorialize those requirements, it is recommended that they be added to the CUP conditions of approval. They include: 1 . Noise level shall be kept to a minimum in both parking lots. 2. Valet attendants shall speak quietly and only when absolutely necessary, shall not operate radios, shall close doors quietly, avoid setting car alarms, revving of engines or excessive vehicle acceleration. Deliveries to the restaurants or trash pickup shall be limited on weekdays to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.; weekends 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Trucks shall not sit idling any longer than is absolutely necessary to load or unload. 3. Parking lot sweeping shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. weekdays and 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. weekends. 4. Buses transporting groups to the restaurant shall not be parked in either lot or on Alessandro with their engines running. There shall be no bus pickups or drop offs on Alessandro or within the parking lots after 10:00 p.m. 5. Valet parking will take place in the parking lot on the north side of Alessandro Drive excluding those areas north of Building B and along the north wall as shown--.on the attached map. 6. The parking lot adjacent to the restaurant will be for self parking. 3 STAFF REPORT CUP 91-9 COMPLIANCE REVIEW APRIL 1, 1997 7. Valet operators will begin at 9:00 p.m. to move cars from the valet lot, to the front lot adjacent to the restaurant, beginning with the cars in the northeast portion of the valet lot. 8. No restaurant employee parking is permitted in the north lot. 9. Should the valet parking services be terminated for Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, Ronald Gregory and Associates must be notified in advance. 10. Valet parking service must obtain written permission from Ronald Gregory and Associates to use the north parking lot. 11 . It is understood that in the event that any of the businesses located in Buildings A or B have an evening event requiring the need for parking, the valet parking service will accommodate their needs for those evenings. 12. The valet parking service is responsible for any damage to landscaping, parking lot lighting, or other related damage due to negligence or accidents occurring in the course of valet parking. 13. Valet parking shall not commence earlier than 5:00 p.m. every evening. At the beginning of the evening all cars must be parked at the northeast part of the parking lot so as not to interfere with the function of late closing offices, if any. 14. Condition of parking areas should be maintained and kept free of any debris. 15. Valet parking attendants shall not leave any barriers or store any equipment on the premises. 16. Valet parking service shall make every effort to avoid interference with adjacent residential homeowners and shall respect their right to peacefulness and privacy. 17. Valet parking service shall immediately report any incidents or violations of these conditions to the City. 4 STAFF REPORT CUP 91-9 COMPLIANCE REVIEW APRIL 1, 1997 III. RECOMMEN DATION: Approve findings and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. , adding conditions of approval to CUP 91-9. IV. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice C. Noise study Prepared by Phil Drell /tm 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING COMPLIANCE AND ADDING CONDITIONS TO AN APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TWO RESTAURANTS WITH LIQUOR LICENSE TOTALING 8,000 SQUARE FEET TO BE LOCATED IN THE HIGHWAY 111 FRONTING BUILDING OF A 40,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL/OFFICE COMPLEX AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PORTOLA AVENUE AND HIGHWAY 1 1 1 . CASE NO. CUP 91-9 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 1st day of April, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing to review the compliance with existing conditions and consider additional conditions for an existing conditional use permit allowing two restaurants with liquor license totaling 8,000 square feet to be located in the Highway 111 fronting building of a 40,000 square foot retail/office complex at the northeast corner of Portola Avenue and Highway 111 •, 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 that the project is a Class 3 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 justify continuance of said conditional use permit with additional requirements: 1 . As currently operating, the existing restaurants are in compliance with all applicable City ordinances and conditions of approval. 2. The addition of conditions regarding parking and related activities in the parking lots on both sides of Alessandro shall further insure compliance with City ordinances and policies concerning compatibility between commercial and residential uses. 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 subject restaurants are in compliance with Conditional Use Permit 91- 9. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3. That the restaurants shall continue to be operated pursuant to Conditional Use Permit 91-9 subject to attached expanded conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 1st day of April, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: • JAMES CATO FERGUSON, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. CUP 91-9 Department of Community Develooment: 1 . Applicant shall comply with all state, county, and city regulations concerning restaurant use. 2. The applicant shall obtain all necessary architectural review commission and Department of Building & Safety permits required by any physical modification of the site. 3. Restaurant shall be limited to 8,000 square feet in area. 4. Restaurant shall participate in a commercial recycling program as approved by the Environmental Conservation Manager. 5. Proposal shall be subject to all applicable conditions of PP 89-19. 6. Restaurant garbage shall be restricted to south Alessandro parking lot trash dumpsters only. 7. Late night noise impacts on the San Marino Circle residential area caused by restaurant activity shall result in Planning Commission reexamination of this approval and the possible imposition of additional mitigating conditions. 8. Noise level shall be kept to a minimum in both parking lots. Valet attendants shall speak quietly and only when absolutely necessary, shall not operate radios, shall close doors quietly, avoid setting car alarms, revving of engines or excessive vehicle acceleration. 9. Deliveries to the restaurants or trash pickup shall be limited on weekdays to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.; weekends 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Trucks shall not sit idling any longer than is absolutely necessary to load or unload. 10. Parking lot sweeping shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. weekdays and 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. weekends. 1 1 . Buses transporting groups to the restaurant shall not be parked in either lot or on Alessandro with their engines running. There shall be no bus pickups or drop offs on Alessandro or within the parking lots after 10:00 p.m. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12. Valet parking will take place in the parking lot on the north side of Alessandro Drive excluding those areas north of Building B and along the north wall as shown on the attached map. 13. The parking lot adjacent to the restaurant will be for self parking. 14. Valet operators will begin at 9:00 p.m. to move cars from the valet lot, to the front lot adjacent to the restaurant, beginning with the cars in the northeast portion of the valet lot. 15. No restaurant employee parking is permitted in the north lot. 16. Should the valet parking services be terminated for Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, Ronald Gregory and Associates must be notified in advance. 17. Valet parking service must obtain written permission from Ronald Gregory and Associates to use the north parking lot. 18. It is understood that in the event that any of the businesses located in Buildings A or B have an evening event requiring the need for parking, the valet parking service will accommodate their needs for those evenings. 19. The valet parking service is responsible for any damage to landscaping, parking lot lighting, or other related damage due to negligence or accidents occurring in the course of valet parking. 20. Valet parking shall not commence earlier than 5:00 p.m. every evening. At the beginning of the evening all cars must be parked at the northeast part of the parking lot so as not to interfere with the function of late closing offices, if any. 21 . Condition of parking areas should be maintained and kept free of any debris. 22. Valet parking attendants shall not leave any barriers or store any equipment on the premises. 23. Valet parking service shall make every effort to avoid interference with adjacent residential homeowners and shall respect their right to peacefulness and privacy. 24. Valet parking service shall immediately report any incidents or violations of these conditions to the City. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1517 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TWO RESTAURANTS WITH LIQUOR LICENSE TOTALING 8, 000 SQUARE FEET TO BE LOCATED IN THE HIGHWAY 111 FRONTING BUILDING OF A 40,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL/OFFICE COMPLEX AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PORTOLA AVENUE AND HIGHWAY 111 . CASE NO. CUP 91-9 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 4th day of June, 1991, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of OLIPHANT/LIZZA for approval of a conditional use permit for allowing two restaurants with liquor license totaling 8 ,000 square feet to be located in the Highway 111 fronting building of a 40,000 square foot retail/office complex at the northeast corner of Portola Avenue and Highway 111; 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. 80-89 , " in that the director of community development has determined that the project is a Class 3 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 justify the granting of said conditional use permit: 1 . The location of restaurants within retail commercial complexes are complimentary and beneficial to retail tenants in the vicinity. 2 . The mix of uses in the retail/office complex and the available parking supplies are such that the proposed restaurants will not create a parking shortage in the area. 3 . The proposed use is consistent with the goals and objectives of the general commercial zone, Commercial Core Area Specific Plan and the Palm Desert General Plan. 4 . The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION OLUTION NO. 1517 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That approval of Conditional Use Permit 91-9 is hereby granted, subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 4th day of June, 1991 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: DOWNS, ERWOOD, JONATHAN, WHITLOCK NOES : RICHARDS ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE i • WHITLOCK, Chairperson ATTEST: "Oefre007,X1. RAMON A. DIAZ, ec ary PD/tm • PLANNING COMMISSIO*SOLUTION NO. 1517 • CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. CUP 91-9 Department of Community Development: 1 . Applicant shall comply with all state, county, and city regulations concerning restaurant use. 2 . The applicant shall obtain all necessary architectural review commission and department of building and safety permits required by any physical modification of the site. 3 . Restaurant shall be limited to 8, 000 square feet in area. 4 . Restaurant shall participate in a commercial recycling program as approved by the Environmental Conservation Manager. 5 . Proposal shall be subject to all applicable conditions of PP 89- 19 . 6 . Restaurant garbage shall be restricted to south Alessandro parking lot trash dumpsters only. 7 . Late night noise impacts on the San Marino Circle residential area caused by restaurant activity shall result in Planning Commission reexamination of this approval and the possible imposition of additional mitigating conditions. 3 . This approval does not apply to parking lot overhead lighting on the north Alessandro parking lot. Any future proposal to provide and illuminate other than low four foot maximum height landscape lighting shall be subject to rehearing by Planning Commission. PD/tm 3 97/014 O GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS RECEIVED January 14 , 1997 JAN 1 7 1997 COMMUNRY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT RESTAURANT SITE NOISE MEASUREMENT SURVEY A T 7 4 - 0 4 7 S A N MARINO CIRCLE CITY O F PALM DESERT Prepared by: Prepared for: Christdtpher Jean MR. PHILIP DRELL Staff Engineer CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Reviewed b • Palm Desert , California 92260 i ik*-/kLN Gordon icken Presi nt 1621 East Seventeenth Street, Suite K Santa Ana, California 92705-8518 Phone(714)835-0249 FAX(714)835-1957 1 97/014 11) GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS SUMMARY This analysis has been completed to determine whether the existing operation of Ruth' s Chris Restaurant produces noise impacts on the residence at 74-047 San Marino Circle in the City of Palm Desert . It has been found that the existing operations, as observed on January 9, 10 , and 11, 1997, do not impact the residence at 74-047 San Marino according to the City' s Noise Ordinance . 1621 East Seventeenth Street, Suite K Santa Ana, California 92705-8518 Phone(714) 835-0249 FAX(714)835-1957 2 97/014 GORDON BRICKEN & ASS OCIATES ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS 1 . 0 INTRODUCTION At the request of the City of Palm Desert , and with the cooperation of Mr. Gary Tryon, a noise measurement survey was conducted at 74-047 San Marino Circle in the City of Palm Desert . The measurement survey was conducted on the evenings of January 9 , 10 , and 11, 1997, between the hours of 8 : 00 P .M. and 11 : 00 P.M. The measurements were conducted using a Bruel and Kjaer (B & K) Model 2218 Type 1 Sound Level Meter, a B & K Model 2317 Portable Level Recorder, and a Larson-Davis Model 700 Integrating Sound Level Meter. The measurement setup was positioned roughly in the center of the rear yard of 74-047 San Marino Circle . The position was acceptable to Mr. Gary Tryon. The resulting measure- ment charts are too lengthy to include with this report . They will be kept on file and made available at the City' s request . 2 . 0 MEASUREMENT CRITERIA Noise impacts across property lines from sources on private property must maintain the sound limits of the local ordinance . The Noise Ordinance of the City of Palm Desert is listed in Table 1 on the following page. 1621 East Seventeenth Street, Suite K Santa Ana, Cal fornia 92705-8518 Phone (714)835-0249 FAX(714)835-1957 / 3 / 97/014 TABLE 1 CITY OF PALM DESERT NOISE ORDINANCE APPLICABLE LIMIT ONE-HOUR AVERAGE SOUND LEVEL ZONE TIME DECIBELS Residential-all Zone 7 A.M. to 10 P.M. 55 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. 45 Commercial Zone 7 A.M. to 10 P.M. 65 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. 55 Manufacturing 7 A.M. to 10 P.M. 70 Industrial Agricultural Zone 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. 55 The basic ordinance also includes two clauses to help define and clarify the limits in Table 1. These are: "B . " " If the measured ambient noise level exceeds the applicable limit as noted in Table (1) , the allowable average sound level shall be the ambient noise level . The ambient noise level shall be measured when the alleged noise violation source is not operating. " "C . " "The sound level limit between two zoning districts shall be measured at the higher allowable district. " Paragraph "C" defines the allowed limit for this particular noise survey as 65 Leq between 8 : 00 P.M. and 10 : 00 P.M. and 55 Leq after 10 : 00 P.M. Additionally, Section 9 . 24 . 040 - General Prohibitions, reads as follows : "A. " "In the absence of an objective measurement, by use of a sound level meter, additionally, it shall be unlawful for any person to make, continue, or cause to be made or continued, within the=City, any disturbing, excessive or offensive noise which causes discomfort or annoyance to reasonable persons of normal sensitivity residing in the area. " "B . " "The characteristics and conditions which should be considered in the determining whether a violation of the provisions of this section exists, include, but not 4 97/014 limited to, the following: 1 . Th e level of noise; 2 . Whether the nature of the noise is used or unused; 3 . Whether the origin of the noise is natural or unatural ; 4 . The level of the background noise; 5 . The proximity of the noise to sleeping facilities; 6 . The nature and zoning of the areas within which the noise emanates; 7 . The density of the inhabitation of the area within which the noise emanates; 8 . The time of day or night the noise occurs ; 9 . The duration of the noise; 10 . Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent or constant; and 11 . Whether the noise is produced by a commerc ial or non-commercial activity. " It is the opinion of this firm that most of Section 9 . 24 . 040 is too subjective to be considered in this measurement survey, especially since this section is designed to be considered "in the absence of an objective measurement . " 3 . 0 NOISE SURVEY RESULTS The levels recorded during the noise measurement survey are listed and compared to the City' s Ordinance in Table 2 . TABLE 2 NOISE MEASUREMENT SURVEY RESULTS MEASURED ALLOWED DATE HOUR LEVEL LEVEL DIFFERENCE 1/ 9/97 8 P.M. to 9 P.M. 45 . 6 65 - 19 .4 9 P.M. to 10 P .M. 45 .5 65 - 19 .5 10 P.M. to 11 P .M. 45 .7 55 - 9 .3 1/10/97 8 P.M. to 9 P .M. = 47 . 9 65 - 17 .1 9 P.M. to 10 P.M. 48 .2 65 - 16 . 8 10 P.M. to 11 P.M. 46 .6 55 - 8 .4 1/11/97 8 P.M. to 9 P.M. 48 .0 65 - 17 . 0 9 P.M. to 10 P.M. 48 .6 65 - 16 .4 10 P.M. to 11 P .M. 49 . 7 55 - 5 .3 5 97/014 The results of Table 2 show that the existing noise environment at 74-047 San Marino Circle complies with the letter of the current Ordinance. No noise violations occurred during the measurement periods . Even if the residential zone limits were used at this location, all measured hours prior to 10 :00 P.M. complied with the basic ordinance. Measured noise levels after 10 : 00 P .M. exceeded the base limit of 45 Leg. However, the measured level actually represents the ambient noise of the area (set by Highway 111) and not the restaurant operations. Since the background ambient sets the allowed level when higher than the base limit, then no violation occurred. 6 97/023 D�2h�T CORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS RECEIVED JAN 3 0 1997 January 27, 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT MR. PHILIP DRELL CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 SUBJECT: MEASUREMENT CHARTS AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS RUTH ' S CHRIS MEASUREMENTS -- PALM DESERT Dear Mr . Drell : At your request , we are forwarding the attached measurement charts for your review. The charts cover the three evening ' s measurements for Thursday, January 9, 1997, Friday, January 10 , 1997, and Saturday, January 11, 1997 . Please understand that the chart annotations cover only activities from Ruth' s Chris Restaurant or distinctive noise events from the surrounding area. All other segments of the charts represent the general background ambient . Examination of the charts shows that the background ambient noise levels generally range between 40 and 60 dBA, with infrequent events reaching 70 dBA. The charts also show that the restaurant parking lot activities produce noise levels generally ranging between 0 and 60 dBA, with infrequent events in the 60 to 70 dBA range . Thus, the measured parking lot activities produce noise levels which virtually match that of the background ambient . As explained in Report 97/014 , no noise limit violations occurred during the three evening measurement survey. However, this does not mean that the noise sources do not bother Mr. Tryon. You asked if we might -suggest some basis for the concern expressed by Mr. Tryon. We could only speculate on the basis for 1621 East Seventeenth Street, Suite K Santa Ana, California 92705-8518 Phone (714)835-0249 FAX(714)835-1957 1 97/023 DRAFT his particular concerns . Matters of this type often have overtones that are unique to the individual . We understand the primary concern is sleep disturbance . We can offer some guidance in the form of the prevailing views about sleep disturbance . Sleep disturbance occurs indoors . Therefore, the data we observed must be converted to an indoor equivalent . Assuming the windows are open, the minimum outside to inside reduction is 10 dBA. The conversion is as follows : 1 . Recorded outside restaurant individual events were 45 to 60 dBA. Inside equivalent is 35 to 50 dBA. 2 . Recorded outside ambient individual events were 45 to 70 dBA. Inside equivalent is 35 to 60 dBA. 3 . Minimum outside ambient level is 45 dBA. Indoor equivalent is 35 dBA. 4 . Individual events with distinguishable sound signatures might be audible as low as 40 dBA outside (30 dBA inside) , but could not be recorded due to ambient masking. The current thinking is that sleep stages can shift when short term levels are 35 dBA. Full awakening occurs when individual levels are 60 dBA. The longer the event the lower the level . However, because the restaurant levels are of a very short duration, the numbers above are how the current thinking would apply. The EPA has suggested the curves shown on Exhibit 1 for predicting the effects of noise on sleep. These suggest virtually no effect below 35 dBA and no awakening below 45 dBA. Some other research suggests that levels 10 dBA above the ambient are sufficient to trigger a disturbance. The research would suggest that there are some events from both the restaurant and the general area which exceed the levels necessary to create a statistically identifiable probability of some form of sleep disturbance. That probability is very low. There is no intrinsic evidence that would suggest a reaction unique to the restaurant source versus other sources at the same sound level and the same sound signatures as is the case here. This means that any reaction by Mr. Tryon would fall into the category of individual preferences and sensitivity. Certainly, any individual may possess or can develop a sensitivity to a particular noise or sound (e.g. a dripping faucet, the neighbor' s dog, etc . ) that is not shared by someone else. This type of reaction falls into the category of anomalous and unique reactions that require a more extensive investigation of the individual' s 2 97/023 DRAFT physical and psychological makeup before offering any concrete opinions on the validity of the severity of the alleged sleep disturbance. Beyond stating that, per the constraints of the City' s Noise Ordinance, no noise violations occurred during the measure- ment survey, nothing more definitive can be concluded as to why Mr . Tryon is bothered by the measured parking lot noise levels . However, it is possible that the measurement period just happened to occur during a period of unusually low noise levels . Thank you, and if you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call . Prepared by: Gordon ricken President /mmb 3 FREQUENCY OF AROUSAL T FREQUENCY OF P R OR IMMORAL AWAKENING (percent) I EQUE L� SLEEP DISRUPTION J � y� w �/ V p V p O o 8 O IS 3 O a O O P .-. h, W 1 01 v. v CO MO O l l l I l I l I I l .7.q. 'Pc P r rP ? r i CP s I in• • 3 0~-• • ' • •• r • �••• 01 • in +• • • • • • •A• - • o--- • M• • • • • • • • •• $ _. % s - •• �' ` • • rn • — " • • • • M. • . I i :. •• • • • $ �^ • •• • .o � r. • • • '" $ — - m a n .• • • • • • M O co v $ 1 N _ n o l l l 1 1 1 I l ' •J • URSOAY 1/0/97 1 /a. -I ... __ Sr0.1 a Kier _ .. .. -_----.7/E...-._-.___ . _s_F__ __.--_.--__,... ...0 _-_-----.-- --.- _- ..-- - . - - •&ON I Kier - _.. .. 8,110 a KN., ------ OP0102 OP0102 - -.- _ _.. -t �r0.1 I Kier- - - - er..t a Kt.. 1.,r".v1 .�1.M.,-- " `�,J 1 -._.-.._..__ -� ---___ '14":�t�ir -.l'!^!'iJ f"•.L.�iJVr,a...1.,,v�-t___.rvt..�:, OP0109 OP0103 1 IRSDAY 1/1/97 Mail a Nat 1j� _______- _- : ::.. ..: __ -... ... .: _. . ..... j\-- OP0102 MON a Kier g� Moe a Kist jij[II_ v OP010! OP 0102 Oral I Kt.! aPala! coIodo --- — sont owet .N*IN•'0 - — • • i01( C010dO .._._. . . ...... . .:LIA ..IM t i•ore • i010dD T �� ..II �Tg..:.:�y -tom N. ION t(•II. 10/0i1 AvG WTh 'AMWAY 2/12/1/7 . .. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ... _ _ _. _ _ .. - ._ . . . . . _ .. . . . • - . . - • • -- _ .. _ _ _ .__ . . •••• Will I Igor 8,001 a Koos .. . . _ .. . - .. . . .._ . ..-... - .. _. -- -- ._._ -.. . .-._-------.— _. - • -- -- •-• •- . . _. . . . . . - - - - .__ -....-.- ......-. .—. .. ....--.---.------ _._ _.._ .. . . . . . . .. .-. . - 0 . . .... . . . . ... . ___ . _.. ._ . . . __. -. .-.--._ ...- .----...-----._------._. -. . .. - . _ _ . ------_—.----....-.. ..._.-._... .. . . .- -.. -... _ . . - ' . • " " - • 41:........i,..... if _... _. .. ...........____. _ .......... j j...............: . .. . __.__.....-7-.. ...-.....,.._.:...L _.::. .. ..___________7„.....-..._...___-__...1...____ - •- • _ . .0-- ... )„...,".....) _.,....,,../ .,.,."%:._1...... ,,... -••./NM • --..•-: - • •,:-.:F•ILTjlti. • j'Ll..4 - „....,,,,,,AA,,k ,. . . \.fk r. , k--477-- -. . . . ........ ___---- . _ . . _ . - -• - -- ._ . _ _. . . . . _._. . .... CIP0103 OP0102 • .. _. ... . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ ._ _ - — - - - -- •• - - - - • .. LOW a Kim, . . _ _.. . _ ... . . ___ .. . -........... ._._ ... __ —._ ..... . . __._ •- • • . .. . • .. ._ ... .....- . -. 1 • - - -.-----•- . __ • ---- 3 . # •• • - - _ ...________.___________________ .__________. _.. .._. li k- .-- -.. • - - . _. . • _ . ... • . . . . _....__._ • _________ _._ ________________ .. . .____________-..._.__.... ........ ..... ..... .. ... .. . .... ___.___ ... a$ . .. .-—..-___..________________ ________---_---.............. _.. ._ .........-._. —.•. .___ - • . . .. . _ ._.—_.-- iie -Y, I • , . 4......i-..;;...,c7iii.,... "iy_._ ,ILie!s,111.1i.-.__pc...2.iii.:itt.j.I;;-..-A-.............-..a._-iL,... ...::—........_:-.,....1. ...,.... -1..j..:. ..:.:,. ,i,„.e..... . ,,,,........fr,..,,...., ,,,,!..... ._.-- . _ . , ..t.. •ripl.n._,.. ....a.„.... _ ....._ . ... .._ ________________ _________... .____.__.__________ -----Z.7--------:.7.7..7..:::=-.7=-.......1..:-:::=.17.==:::::::•.:2=7:--_------------. .. .-- .. - .. .....:-. ---- --.. .._.._------..----- — - • OP0102 _ - .. . ._ .. . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ — __ _ _ _ _ . ._ _ _ . - - - - - - .- -. - • -- - . .... .. - _ ...-___ . _ -- -•---• •- -- - _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _. .. _ _ . . nese 1122111 DION a Kier -- .. _ . • •• • • -•-•-- .. -. . . - - . • •• • . . . ••---- • - --. . . . .... r . . .. . • • • ,.... • .... .. ..... ________ ill - • •• • .•__ .__ • __ le . _--_—.. -.... __ ...... • --- ----- _.----- •-• -• --- . — .-.. . 0.- M' • - 1-L. • ti,- -- - • .' - . •••••! • ._324-!•(;,,-. 4 . - ..- _.. ____. __ __ . .411111.-.-----.....----------.. :...: . • --.... . . .. --_-------------- -- —-""Si-er-,-----k.--2-IVIt.- --......-------_----_ --- • -.-- • ---.-- .-_. --_ _ .. ... . -- •------ .. --_-.......---------. .— ---------..„-------.— _.__.-... . OP11101 OP 0101 ... ,- I • HUQSONI IH/O7 III - - - - - - — - - - — _ _ - - _ _ _. - -- - - - -- - -- -- - - -- e,sa Kivu -- e,u.I I K. 4 __ . _ .. . .- - _ . _. .__---- ---- —_ ___ ---- ------- - 4111-. 14-- ."4 . .",:.�'-�.. --.,— .-J'rV ,......�-.�r.arac____,.. pc:1 �7�—�: 1:1!. - --!�'� 1'� `"+..iv"ti WJo � ..r _ � - e�� --- ....... _.... ._ _...._ 0►0102 0P 0102 sow OKlee ---• --_— '+ram __ __—.—. -__ ---_---- ^� _..—._._... GP0/02 • e,tld$ K1.r _ ._. - .._- .. _ .--.. _. _ - „... ............ixlciiim rj__ .: 17.4- 1.4;!----5. _ _.. - �._.. _ GPOfO! OP010� IS • ►U SDAY 1/11/07 arm"'a Kidor r • KK• k..._ • in •. f` r-♦ .. � ." ti.J •..J �!�.:f .'ate 1.3"- . �~ -- a�V:�•/`.,r_.l^ Arl .0 -----\.'t / -✓ L-ti.._ice , `Aw, • OP01011 aP oto, it - . - WOO•Krr . ._ ... .. ... A _-.- — ` :a►-M!_ .�r.- --::::1..a!'� `.rra . yam`.star . 2��:i4 �.d._Mir.:ZY r�.....'P= Sd'rtz!`_."_ +tea-/ _._ ..-- - - --- -. . . CIP0/0! q_ ____ __ _ _ _ _ _._ 1/6*,f....1 ,, 1 tom`^� T�_T —__S Tri ef'r q� s t_�7i� ..r. � CF �- r ._. y— _� __ ...�� _ �- 0102 Or0101 0 rHURSOAY 1/9/97 IMI OP 010! _ ll anal 111. ----- OP 010! OP0109 • "' —.........."....._...- . ________._.-—_--_ ._ _ _i.-~ ,.�. -•+may•-.��_.. .... _.- _ ... -ram.-.drr'+�' :�,is1 .. ---------. . .. - -- OP0102 2 • • • 'IUR$DAY 1/1/97 ...1 I Km.,.. • 0,..1 a Kim, - 1 -.... . _....-- -- ---- ..._. ...—.. . ... : . . .—'NT ... •..,. t, . /4,..,f` ...s:r'.'1-'Y•v=/ . •••"Ii;jii,cl i._t:: X:.'.-:.:,••;.....:,_-.;ei 041:?,+t..i.id".7.1... :_:....- a.010: OP0fo: • mow a k. 8,4.1 a K1., • &MNallot - — .. . .)..kiNd......,i "P.".of.'34\P.41011/1111 ..'—'---. '..-..... .-..... .."--- ---..— A. ........., -- .......______ .. • .... . ________• _.• ... . • • . , _......,.......__...:.....................___. _..._. __ ... . , _..._ . . 011.0101 • r/UNSOAY 1/9/97 9rU�1 t km, 0,..1 II Nat a .. .. ___.. _ _.__•—.__---- . OP0102 - - - -- •- - -- - - - - - - - -. ._ .. -- Brest AI WON a K�.. OP010! OP 0102 lintel II Kier • ------- IL. — = i ....... 010102 IIDAY vioisi ti v 4. 0 - • -.-.1 : _ ilL.....A.....„..................16. . ....._. . . _ -_ _ __ . ___-_-_ _ -- _-- _ \.ki -__ �_.--- - -- OP Mt Mt 1 Woo I Kr. •.••I 0 Kr. _ _ __.____.--__.. _- --- -- -_ ----___ ----- ___ _ _ �r _- .. - _ _..._ ._ —� � 7"i �-z7t'►�1R'*1I .4'� OIH011 OP 0102 _ -.. -_ --- .. - - - - SP areal 0 _ -----_. -- Sw•_ It 4 . comic) 5010.11) - • • ----- ---- - __. _ ___ _ __ — --- - --- -•• --- .- • •. - - _ _ . __ . _____ __ __ ---- --- --- - -- .*.0 _ _ — —.__ _ _..... __ . __._ -_ .........1 — .- .013s V PM.. aiVIV V owe _ . wow dO gOiOd0 -- — — ________ ----- ------- ------ — - _ . .. .__.. - - — . _-__:_ _ — •-•:?..L.FN --- _ ---- _ __=-_1: ------ - ------- - - .--- .__ . ••- - •- -•---------------------- "- _. . .... . .._ . ..__._ _.. _ _ __ __ ___ .___________ ___- - -- • ---- ----"---------- - -' _ . . sox II psis mix t ima _ _ __ _ _ _ • 10.0410 . _.„.. ------------ ---- -- --- ---- • .— - ..... _ _. __ ---- — —---------- ------ _ - - - - -- -- _ __ - - - - __ --- — - -• __. , --- - ---------- ------- -— --- - - - ---- - - --- - -- . ______ -------- - . • --------- .._._ -• - ------------------: -- =--:"..-":7=7._7...-..:..: •_7:.7..-.."_-__-=7: :7.":...:7=_-.:7 . . 'Mx w wows . .••• . __ _ _ ._ .. _ _ __ . . . . _ _ . _ ._ _ _ . _. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _. _ - - - - •• - -- -- - 111/01/1Malb . . I ColodO • 11.01041 +_.=--T r - . ..-• • • - • -• - • • •-- -......--. ..-- - --- ••---- II iiimakarra _.• __. . . . = --Mt ti-tr . _.__ ___. . Or . -- AWN►I•Va oafs f plea • $010dO 1M0 f'gsY 1 1101040 g. 1 :)-) -.. _ : . ' •MOM /i "AV V 100,0 VI - - LS/O1/1 AVOW • • SATURDAY 1/11H1 _ - e rrt.KMr _. .. - Dior . .. ... . .____ . .___ _ ._ . . _ _ .._____ ..__________ . . • -. -- � •C• nrrirTIi____'_.— ..-— -_���:_' _. no ..•1��1-•... '��.t "' •-�.r.".w� --� .,"'.. -,w .♦�w •.T"•�'- .� wrr r.r q r—�'T,` I .. .. .. ..._..._. .___._..-__. _. •' •• __ _- _-._.._-..----_. -..... . ._-.___---- ._ .. .-__ OP 0102 OPO1OI I/ O,ed K Otos.O Not So IrT'-i '. :---T-TT1/A P. - -7�'- w" _'!_�•*� 1P "+'"r-- - „1r7'. 1•i� 7•• 1•�� ._� „_7...— ._ �- .� �T-'A/'T�1�'ff4rnT1. CPOt0! • GPM, • WIN I Igor O i-� III" •r•r•-...•u• _ -.a-w•�_ .-.r+;.•. ---qua•-. y. - . •i. rr• r irT=i�•r •wr •� �r Ir.-. 01,0101 1 • 1U DAY 1/11/107 a KM. ergot .. ._ . - -.. .. - .. . .. J(...• . ot • ,,,, --•-• - oiiii, _ I : . r..,i-4.-.11/4, _ _ __ . . --- ;:zikti 10. )101 OP01011 ' C1 r._.. --Lt -----� ---- L--- .-- - . ..: - _ .. ... ... _... . .- - -- ._ ----— -- - -'—_. — _.. ....-. -. .. -. . ..... • r 0 OP010f P0102 - - - - . - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - . II Not dsrrd a 1d.. u�- - -- - 1 - =------ • 11.77 .. ." . • ..�_.- v..."N.. i ,_ TT1. n• -w.•w=='r' �... .1':�i^..- _._ � ram __ OP010! , . • AT URDAY 1/11/97 .• __ . _ _ . _ - - -. - - - . _ • _ - - _ . _ . - - - -- • • - - - WOW I Kiser • I. _ __ . __..__._.-_-- __ _... ..._ . ........ . _..___ _ . ..... . ...._ _. _- -- -_-- _ .. _ _ .. _. _ ..__—_--.... ....-- -_ . ___-_-____ ...... ....._..._.._._ .—_- _ ..—_....--.. . .. .--_- . . -.- -.. -. _- _---- -. -.--.—.-...-..-_— . - -- - • - - - . ... __ ..- ._ — — . . __. ___ ---- ..._ - .. . . . _ _ _ . . _.... .- - .. . -- -- - - , '' !I' '"'-'•'T•-- ....... - .._ .----- -.... . . _...._ . _ ._ .. __________ --•— - — _..... ow---..---.- 13P0101 #1 .. &NI I Kist _ Sigel I Nor CI - -• ._. . ._ . . .... .____.....____ .__ ... . . .__ _ .•- . • . .. . . . ..._ .. . _ _ _ ... . .. . .. • • • • ...: . .. --•-•-- •- . ._.... . ___ _ - • • ••• - ......_ .. _ • • •• -• . _.. ..-. . . .... . . l'• • ••• • " - . • t • • • •- •• • •--•-•- •- • . - • , . . . ... ... _. . . •-• •• • . . - - .. • .41.... - • _ . _ --- - . _ . ..... _ .. .. • • - - r• r" "''''IF-".•411"T! ,"'71" ••• -- ' ' • ' .-- - -- -- - --- -- • . -.- • . ._ —.- —.. _ --- --. - .._-.. ... . - •• •.-• -•... - .—•-•--•-:--•:r.:. •.-.:::_:•_:- .-.-:-.-:7----=-----.= ---•.•-_=-_-_.:•=:-.=______ —::....=.7::::.-7...:' '........--. ..._...:-.:::-.-----.:=-::----...=:...7.=:7=7__"7.-_=_IL-::_-.7.7_-..7.7 ' _.... ...,........., ....... A._ 0P0107 • OP0101 • • , • 3 • 97/094 65-ZGORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERSRECEIVED MAR - 3 1997 February 28, 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT RESTAURANT SITE _ - - - - = = = = NOISE MEASUREMENT SURVEY _ _ = = = _ _ _ = = = = = _ A T 7 4 - 0 4 7 S A N MAR I N O CIRCLE FEBRUARY 2 0 - 2 2 , 1 9 9 7 CITY O F PALM DESERT = = = _ = _ Prepared by: Prepared for: 4;4;40 i:: / i17,14,... Gordo icken MR. PHILIP DRELL President CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive /mmb Palm Desert, California 92260 1621 East Seventeenth Street, Suite K Santa Ana, California 92705-8518 Phone(714)835-0249 FAX(714)835-1957 1 97/094 GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS SUMMARY On February 20, 21, and 22, 1997, measurements were conducted from 8 : 00 P.M. to 11 : 00 P.M. in the back yard of the residence at 74-047 San Marino Circle in the City of Palm Desert . This was the second set of measurements at that location. The first set of measurements was conducted January 9, 10 , and 11, 1997 , and the results were reported in Reports 97/014 and 97/023 . The source of noise being studied is a parking lot adjacent to the rear property line . It has been found that the existing operations observed on February 20, 21, and 22, 1997, do not impact the residence at 74-047 San Marino as interpreted by the provisions of the City' s Noise Ordinance . Average levels ranged from 44 . 6 to 48 . 8 dBA. The Noise Ordinance limits are an hourly average level of 50 dBA before 10 : 00 P.M. and 45 dBA after 10 : 00 P.M. While the level from 10 :00 P .M. to 11 : 00 P.M. was higher than 45 dBA, it was due to the ambient noise from sources other than those associated with the parking lot . The parking lot noise consists of brief individual events lasting about one (1) second each. The most frequently occurring events are car starts, door slams, talking, drive-bys, horns, and alarm arming . A11 these events fall in a range of 45 to 58 dBA maximum. A total of 161 identifiable events occurred in the nine sampling hours . Individual ambient events fell in the range 38 to 70 dBA and occurred more frequently. The highest events were aircraft and motorcycles . A comparison with the previous measurements in January showed the same pattern of events and slightly higher hourly average levels . There appeared to be no difference between the two sampling periods and no pattern bias by day of the week. 1621 East Seventeenth Street, Suite K Santa Ana, California 92705-8518 Phone(714) 835-0249 FAX(714)835-1957 2 97/094 )D GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS 1 . 0 INTRODUCTION At the request of the City of Palm Desert, and with the cooperation of Mr. Gary Tryon, a noise measurement survey was conducted at 74-047 San Marino Circle in the City of Palm Desert . The measurement survey was conducted on the evenings of February 20 , 21, and 22, 1997, between the hours of 8 : 00 P.M. and 11 : 00 P.M. This site was measured previously on January 9 , 10, and 11 . The measurement days for this second test were selected by Mr. Tryon and no notice was given to the City of the date or time of measurement . The measurements were conducted using a Bruel and Kjaer (B & K) Model 2218 Type 1 Sound Level Meter, a B & K Model 2317 Portable Level Recorder, and a Larson-Davis Model 700 Integrating Sound Level Meter. The measurement setup was positioned roughly in the center of the rear yard of 74-047 San Marino Circle . The position was acceptable to Mr. Gary Tryon. The measurements addressed the activities which could be associated with the parking lots and the two restaurants . The annotated measurement charts are contained in Appendix 1. The printouts are contained in Appendix 2 . 2 . 0 MEASUREMENT CRITERIA Noise impacts across property lines from sources on private property must maintain the sound limits of the local ordinance. The Noise Ordinance of the City of Palm Desert is given in Table 1 on the following page. T. 1621 East Seventeenth Street, Suite K Santa Ana, California 92705-8518 Phone(714)835-0249 FAX (714)835-1957 3 97/094 TABLE 1 CITY OF PALM DESERT NOISE ORDINANCE APPLICABLE LIMIT ONE-HOUR AVERAGE SOUND LEVEL ZONE TIME DECIBELS Residential-all Zone 7 A.M. to 10 P.M. 55 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. 45 Commercial Zone 7 A.M. to 10 P.M. 65 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. 55 Manufacturing 7 A.M. to 10 P.M. 70 Industrial • Agricultural Zone 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. 55 The basic ordinance also includes two clauses to help define and clarify the limits in Table 1 . These are : "B . " " If the measured ambient noise level exceeds the applicable limit as noted in Table (1) , the allowable average sound level shall be the ambient noise level . The ambient noise level shall be measured when the alleged noise violation source is not operating. " "C . " "The sound level limit between two zoning districts shall be measured at the higher allowable district. " Paragraph "C" defines the allowed limit for this particular noise survey as 65 Leq between 8 : 00 P.M. and 10 :00 P.M. and 55 Leq after 10 : 00 P.M. Additionally, Section 9 .24 . 040 - General Prohibitions, reads as follows : "A. " "In the absence of an objective measurement, by use of a sound level meter, additionally, it shall be unlawful for any person to make, continue, or cause to be made or continued, within the City, any disturbing, excessive or offensive noise which-causes discomfort or annoyance to reasonable persons of normal sensitivity residing in the area. " "B . " "The characteristics and conditions which should be considered in determining whether a violation of the 4 97/094 provisions of this section exists, include, but not limited to, the following: 1 . The level of noise, 2 . Whether the nature of the noise is used or unused, 3 . Whether the origin of the noise is natural or unnatural, 4 . The level of the background noise, 5 . The proximity of the noise to sleeping facilities, 6 . The nature and zoning of the areas within which the noise emanates, 7 . The density of the habitation of the area 1 within which the noise emanates, 8 . The time of day or night the noise occurs, 9 . - The duration of the noise, 10 . Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent or constant; and 11. Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or non-commercial activity. " 3 . 0 NOISE SURVEY RESULTS 3 .1 ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE The levels recorded during the noise measure- ment survey are listed and compared to the City' s Ordinance in Table 2. TABLE 2 ma SE MEASUREMENT SURVEY RESULTS 0. MEASURED ALLOWED _ DATE HOUR LEVEL LEVEL 9IFFERENCE 2/20/97 S P.M. to 9 P.M. 45 .4 65 - 19 .6 9 P.M. to 10 P.M. 44 .5 65 - 20 .5 10 P.M. to 11 P .M. 44 .8 55 - 20 .2 2/20/97 8 P.M. to 9 P.M._ 44.4 65 - 20 .6 9 P.M. to 10 P.M.- 44 .5 65 - 20 .5 10 P.M. to 11 P.M. 47.6 55 - 07 .4 2/21/97 8 P.M. to 9 P.M. 48 .8 65 - 16 .2 9 P.M. to 10 P.M. 44 .6 65 - 20 .4 10 P.M. to 11 P.M. 45 . 6 55 - 49 .4 5 97/094 Three Day Average 45 . 9 -- -- The results of Table 2 show that the existing noise environment at 74-047 San Marino Circle complies with the letter of the current Ordinance . No noise violations occurred during the measurement periods . Even if the residential zone limits were used at this location, all measured hours prior to 10 : 00 P .M. complied with the basic ordinance. The measured noise levels after 10 : 00 P.M. exceeded the base limit of 45 Leq. However, the measured level actually represents the ambient noise of the area (set by Highway 111) and not the restaurant operations . Since the background ambient sets the allowed level when higher than the base limit , no violation occurred. 3 . 2 INDIVIDUAL EVENTS The types of events that are the basis of the complaint are short term, usually under one (1) second in duration. Mr. Tryon does report longer term events such as prolonged talking and occasional car alarms . The number of events logged in each 15 minute period are listed in Table 3 on the following page. 6 97/094 TABLE 3 LOG OF INMIVIDUAL EVENTS CAR DOOR DRIVE- ALARM ARM ALARM KORN DATE TIME START VOICES BY 2/20 8 :00-8 :15 1 1 8 :15-8 :30 2 1 5 8 :30-8 :45 1 1 1 8 :45-9 :00 1 9 : 00-9 :15 9 :15-9 :30 9 :30-9 :45 6 1 2 1 9 :45-10 :00 1 2 10 : 00-10 :15 2 10 :15-10 :30 1 1 10 :30-10:45 1 10 :45-11: 00 Subtotal 5 4 8 9 4 2 2/21 8 :00-8 :15 2 3 1 2 1 8 :15-8 :30 1 1 2 1 8 :30-8 :45 1 8 :45-9 :00 2 2 1 9 :00-9 :15 3 1 9 :15-9 :30 1 9 :30-9 :45 4 3 1 1 9 :45-10 :00 3 1 1 1 10 :00-10 :15 6 5 1 10 :15-10 :30 2 2 10 :30-10 :45 3 1 10 :45-11:00 5 1 1 1 Subtotal 33 17 5 7 1 5 2/22 8 : 00-8 :15 a` 2 8 :15-8 :30 2 1 1 8 :30-8 :45 3 _ 2 8 :45-9 :00 3 2 9 :00-9 :15 2 1 1 9 :15-9 :30 1 1 1 9 :30-9 :45 3 1 5 1 9 :45-10 :00 3 2 3 10 :00-10 :15 2 _ 2 10 :15-10 :30 3 - 1 10 :30-10 :45 1 3 1 10 :45-11:00 2 2 1 1 1 Subtotal 22 10 20 2 4 0 3 TOTAL 60 31 33 18 8 1 10 7 97/094 There were a total of 161 events over three hours . These events fall into seven categories . The level ranges for the individual categories are given in Table 4 . TABLE 4 RANGE OF INDIVIDUAL EVENT LEVELS (1) EVENT RANGE (dBA) Car starts 48 - 56 Door slams 48 - 54 Talking 48 - 68 Drive-bys 45 - 50 Alarm arming 45 - 51 Alarms 51 - 64 Horn 52 - 63 Ambient 38 - 75 (1) Event duration one second or less The ambient noise consists of traffic on Highway 111 and Portola as well as occasional aircraft overflights . The highest single ambient events were aircraft in the range of 55 to 95 dBA and motorcycles in the range of 62 to 72 dBA. 3 .3 COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS MEASUREMENT The January measurements are compared to the February measurements on the basis of the average in Table 5 . TABLE 5 COMPARISON OF MEASUREMENT RESULTS DAY HOUR JAN. FFB . Thursday 8 P.M. tQ 9 P.M. 45 .6 45 .4 9 P .M. to 10 P.M. 45 . 5 44 . 5 10 P.M. to 11 P.M. 45 . 7 44 . 8 Friday 8 P.M. to 9 P.M. 47 . 9 44 .4 9 P.M. to 10 P.M. 48 .2 44 .5 10 P .M. to 11 P.M. 46 . 6 47 . 6 8 97/094 Saturday 8 P.M. to 9 P.M. 48 . 0 48 . 8 9 P.M. to 10 P.M. 48 . 6 44 . 6 10 P.M. to 11 P.M. 49 . 7 45 . 6 Three Day Average 47 .5 45 . 9 The individual event summary is given in Table 6 . TABLE 6 INDIVIDUAL EVENTS SUMMARY CAR DOOR DRIVE- ALARM DAY DATE START SLAM VOICES BY ARM ALARM HORN Thursday 1/9 32 18 13 30 1 2 2/20 5 4 8 9 4 2 Friday 1/10 19 4 3 8 3 3 2/21 33 17 5 7 1 4 Saturday 1/11* 3 3 1 1 2 2 1 2/22 22 10 20 2 4 1 3 TOTALS 1/11 54 25 17 39 5 2 6 2/22 60 31 33 18 8 2 9 * On Saturday 1/11, a party was in process next door to the Tryon residence that masked most of the car lot noise events The event totals are given in Table 7 . TABLE 7 TOTAL EVENTS DAY PATE TOTALS Thursday 1/9 96 2/20 32 Friday 1/10 40 _ 2/21 67 Saturday 1/11* 13 2/22 62 Totals 1/11 148 2/22 161 * On Saturday 1/11, a party was in process next door 9 97/094 to Tryon residence that masked most of the car lot noise events . Overall, the first measurement survey recorded 148 events and the second 161 for the nine hours . There was no pattern by day of the week. The hourly average levels were slightly higher during the first measurement set . However, this is due mainly to the ambient levels from Portola and Highway 111. 4 . 0 CONCLUSION Having now spent 18 hours, on three (3) successive days, for two separate periods, there is clearly no violation of the Noise Ordinance. Mr. Tryon noted that the present version of the Ordinance seemed less restrictive than the former version. However, with one exception out of 18 hours, the levels measured would not have exceeded the allowed terms of that Ordinance either. Mr . Tryon' s comments are mainly to the individual events and the frequency of their occurrence. The record does show that individual events occur often but the levels fall within the same decibel range as other events which are occurring even more frequently. 10 GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS APPENDIX 1 ANNOTATED MEASUREMENT CHARTS 1621 East Seventeenth Street, Suite K Santa Ma, California 92705-8518 Phone(714)835-0249 FAX(714)835-1957 . THURSDAY 2/20/*1 era.l a Kiser • 1: - • - - ... . ... . . . . ..__.. _ _ . ._ . _.---. —. —... _ . .. - . • . - --- -_ . -- -- -----.___-..._._ -- .M.---- - —- ---------- -- WOWS i l MOM a mot aKim, 1 _ _ _ ____ .. --_—_-_- —_—_— . tb - apo%02 oro11� 1l . - -- _ steel a war • _ ..... - -- -- — — - - - -- ._._. _ __. ao,ol THURSDAY 2/20/1Ij, brilill II a01 P. - •.,--_pi . .1 . • - - • - I - . _ _ . . -.-._.. . . ----------- --- ----• • ........., _.. _ 1 _ . , . . . . . .. ..__ ___.... , ,• •ir • -F w ME rill' - niffriffir , . 1, Itg 41w- A, '1 rill! • .11Prirpplir wr w • _ ••. . , . • _ . . .. . . ... . • .... . . . . ._ .._ . .. _ . . . _ . . . . .. . . .. . _....____. . _ _. _ ._ .._ .. .___••_. _. __ ______ ._ .__a__________.._. .... . !7- : ._ 7.:..':-:::._-_-:;_L-7..7....-.;:.=-_=7-7.--1.7:-.-.".- . ' .._. _7_-_-_--_.7.'_•:—___----_-_----------_—_:--. .717:_---- ---- --- — T.- -- 1 OP•101 rim•Neu • sfsa a stime ye .bo. ," II . .. _ ... . .$ __ _ _ • . _ • . _ . . _. .__ _.. . NV . . . ._ . . •k . . _ ___.__.. ._. ._. .. . ._ . .... . ... ...... .. _ _ - • _ __.._._ .. .. ... . ._. _ . .. . ....._. ._ _ ... .. .____. _ ._...._. . . It -_ • __.-_--:_--.::-....:.:-.• -7 -..:....-7.. 7.7:-'.7 •7._ " .. _ .. :--..._. . ___-- -..- _.__.. . ... _ - - -• ---------- - •--- • -- -- • ---•---- --- •--•-•- - - • - - ------- ••- • - --- - - -- -- -•• -------- _ .. . . __ . _ ..___.—. .... . _ .. . .._.__ . _ . - -- ---•--- • - . _ _ _ _ . • • -- - ---- -- _ - ' -:" ''' ...::=:-.'= :...:::. 27:_-_=-77111'..::1-..7. 7.::.-.:.-.7:::.".:7- ''...7:.-:. l'_-7..".7.2-_-:.2-7—.:.:7---:. -.. •' -• ----- 0.. . . .. . -•• --•—----•-- -- — ite ------------------ ------- ----- _____ P1101 OP01011 1111.0•1 II 1.401 WYO.a^WO P. ...-..... . . - . - . . . .._...::...._ ...2.........::-..........-—...-. .- ........ 1/43 ---....-- - • • . . le ..-.--i. ---.7 -1.-..-.-_..__-.:...01,4.. - - •--a•-------- -2.:.7.:7.: -_-.:::::.:. .-._- ___.—Lt. _ .. _._ . .. ... 7 .1,,,, . _ __ . . . .. .. . . .. .--_-_--- _• __--_-- _ ____ .._. _.. . ._. . .... . •• - . .... _ • . . ..._.____. __.. .....__________.__... ..._.__._.. .. . .. _ ___ ______- • •-• ____--_--_-------- -- _3.-- W. .. . . .. OPOW2 010102 2 . . • THUR$OAY 2/20/97 .. - ' .. n I. '� -- _ C' 4 • r°7-Alki .1114.44111•114A#44 41-4.-1411P. .y N OP9102 • H I.I� Kj�I NON I h �� 1T • . f ** - •. . - ., ..._. - . . _...._— _._ 4 j, • iO Winn OPoIO, N WOW•Pilot _ _ _ ._:.. .. ' --- ---____ --. -_ �'II y __— - - .__---__�. �•-�- — --.- - - - • OPOIO! $ 1 IP• ii 110111141113 - - . .- - -••• -- • --• -- - • • - ••• . . . - . . . a . . . 11/0Z/Z AVOSIIIIH1 oohs•Poe • • . • • POWAY 2/21/97 Beset r ipso 0 _ . . .i ----- -ii— _. V11 01 • -- b, i t a 1_7" . N,... 1. ar 3 4 - " - '` • . . I,1 t:• I - • __ . _._ j_I l• ifit ah_• I I-1 910•,1Wirrirs r_._.vv_ ne..wf ar- i __ w.. ........,- , / M •-....Mk.i..1.als•Ik.... ,'A • -- ..- .- -..-.- -- . ..--- -....- ............ ..-----...-..--- ... -- .................-.-.-..... ..- ......- ............... ..-..•-••••-..-•••••••••••-•-• .•-• • -- . .1.. -.. .........-.. .......... ..... ..... .. ..•. ..-•••,..... - .. ... ..... ....._--- ..-.-..-.......... elk OP0102 OP0102 .... - li. OM OS•mai - . .. . . ----- -- - - . ,,i, 1 • • _ _ lli ar _ . _ _ ._ __ _ . . . a • _ . =-••..----—.....---.......- . . -. - • -... . . -.......-. ....... -- _ -- •• •-• •'-•••••-•••• -• • • - • • •• • -• - .. . . . . - .---......... - - - . . ..----. .. . - -. -... ......».................. .... . . ..._ . •,c_ , . _ . a, - - .1 -r- - . .. , , ___ ,, .. , ____ • - •--- — • • • ----- ....._ . .. _____ . . , , .- . , •- A .. --•--..-•••• •••• .. ............ . ................... ........ ................-- ... ....-.........-.. .................- ......... ...-. ....-..... ... -----• . ....... ................. ....... ...... ...................-.....-..-.................... . ... ..........-.--....-.-.-... .-......... .... ... ................. -.................. ..... o. . ..... ...... .... ...........-.. ....-. .... ....... . OP0102 w1 A Klehr • drug•141111 1 - - - • - ---. -.--_ -_---—.—-----.. _ _ _ — -- . -.--_----...--- . ---_... .--.-. -..._-......- .. _ ....-----. - -------.- - -- . In . _ —. -.----.- .--.. •-- IC - --.- -.. ---.... •- • • ••- •• . ..•- ---• •- -- - . _ ..-. . -.....-. . _. . & 6- -• •• PIL _ . .. ' • -- r. .... __ .-- :I • _ _ - - - - • - - -• - -- ..,-— - __ - -' . " • ,.:14:1 11: •...,L,! • , :....... • -.- ... . ----- OPIUM 0P0102 1 • • FRIDAY 2/2VS1 •rr.i I K.t - ••r-. PO OP O I O2 o.o,e2 stoics Noe .N _. _-__--=rt t. :�.�.==fir: :-. -_ _ ----- - - =_-= __ _=___ --- _ __ - - :_..--- =---==_— -._—_-r=....—_------- -._.......... ....._•- . arose!• • tlrew a RBI = WNW • , _ ..... ..... . orolo2 2 . . • FRIDAY 2/21/91 09 . . . .. _ - •-• . . . .. . . Ile-- -1-• . .14— . .__... :__.- ....- ...77..:."..1...'.......7.7.___•:___7.._....._..—..__...__..: --_...•::...... .....-...-... - • • •- - - . ... ...... . ..... • • ••--- - • . .. ... . .. ... . - •• . . . .. . .: :1-•—• ) I . .. ..._. . .. ... . .. -11110-- . _ . ____ . .. . . . _ . . . .. . ._.__. ._.. - •- . ._.. . . . . ..._ _. ._. _. • - - • . ._ .. ._..... ..._ . .. . .. _.. .. . IV ' Avhdy.,-,.." - • _ .. . - •-- - —• . _ ... -- • Akyat.....4 ..... .. . . - - IN - • OP0103 • Ilri.elli a AM. WWII a 1•111 It 40 1. _. .-._ . • . . .. . .---..-.......--. . ... . . _ '•'_ • . .. .- ..-....--.--. . - .. .. . • _NV__I . ..----.... .- -. - • . ... .... . . -•- . . t I- .. • -• .. .. . ....... .... . . . 4. .. . . .. .. . . . .... — . . . _ _ • 1 • -• -•• •• .... ..-..-. .... P ' ... ...... .. ••....... •. ... . . ......... -.••-••-. .. ..-........ .............-....• ••••......... ...... .. ..... .. .• • . • . e• . . . , , .........•.... .. .-. .. . ..• ......... • . . ..... .. IL • * .-.- .- .. .... - ..--. - --- • - ... . ..- ... —.....-.....-..-..—....-.....--.-......-- __.......__ ___......__.__ = ... - ...- — ""1 _.--...-.., --.—......-...—.....- -..--------..--...-- . - —......- --....---- - -....- OP01011 0P0102 • WOO I ROI • 40 _ . ._ ..... . . . . . . .. . _ • . ... . ..... . ..._ .__.._ .___.._ tre_i_-___ .. . . • ... . . . . .. . . ...... . . . _ ... ...._ 44F--a; . • - 11 .:::...... .. -=7- _. eik jii . _ ._.. . ... __ . . . _ ... . • . . . •. . . . ..• _ .... • ••.... . . • .... • . . _ .. .....___. . _ ._ _._••._,.==,.___________ ______ °Poi 02 $ . , . . • SATURDAY 2/22/ST WS Not MIMI•Nal . . . - ..-.... . .. . .. ... . ... ........-----. -- . ......-.. -.---- ..-.._...-..-... . . . . ... -.. . . • ' - - --..-. . ........ ...---.... . -..... ---------...----.........- ... . . .. • - -•-------• . . . .-. ..-• --. - . .- ..- . • . - ..--.........- . •••. - • ......,... ...--. . .- -. - ---... . . . . -.. - . ._ . . .. ..-. . ____.•___..._ ---- - --.— .---- ..........- -- .. - ..-........ --.... .............-.....................---..... .. _ __._......._ . . -. .-.... -. ..... . -... .. . -- - ......-.--•—....----- ------- -- ..• --- - --• •• .. •.----... . --.......-....... ----.........----- --- .-- --.-.-- -- . - {. . • • • • ' ' - ...-..- . ._ _-..--..-- • .. . _.. .. - -...- .. . . . .. . , ..., . . - . . .. . .... ....... - 4114 •• • . _ • •-• .---..--..--....... - . _ . . ....- ... .... . . . ... .-.-. . .. ...... .--- _.. .....-..- ----.. -_......--....-- . ... .. _ ......-. ..--.---.--..--....-..—..... -. ..- ... .-.....----.. ... . - - ii.-• - .- ..... ---_ ... . . _-_-_. - —__.-_.. .-.--.. -.... ....--.-.- .... ... -------.---- ------•----- .____-_-.-----.-----.-----...--.- ---.-.--.-. .. -...---.-...--.. ....- __. . _ ..........._ . .. . . ..- - . . _-_. -.. -.-------.-.-..- ...---..-....-.........-----.--.. ..- ---......-..-.........----.-. e• __.... . . . . .._ _ _ _._____ ._. .__ °PIRO, OP0102 .? 1:144I•i • 14•41•4 4143 •••••4 4.4.4..••••••••• -........... . -......- ......-...-......- . .. .V t.•-.:•.••-.• -- ----- - 7--•-=-7---.:-----:---=•--...:.:1-.. .......... --....-.. ....--..-..-...........-... ........--........-- -.........-...--•?-1. . .... - --- - ....-.... . .. ... -.. .....-........-...--.. ....... .. .-... -• ••--........--- - . -. ...-.....4 . ---. .-.......... ..-. . .. . ......--- - -..•- .-.... . .....-...--- . .. ..-...-..............--- ....... .......... . ....--. . Avari....- ........- ..........- - . . . ... ..-4-........ .-... .... .• - . ..... . - . . • • • • . .. .. . .... .......... ....-..-.....--..-.----.....- -- ..... --...... ...-..-. ..-.--..•..-......-.......- . -...-..-.- ....-4......- -..• ••• 4.- ............-- .--........ .....- .... .44 -... ........................... ........................... ....... ME= .o....m..... .....-- ...-... ... ... ......- ..... .. ..... ....4... .......:41111111111111.11111111L ............ ...... ..............4444... ,.. ................. .......... ......1 4....... ...... ......... ...._ 40----- --------- OR0102 OP0102 144•1•RI•11 _ . - -• . . . .......-... ............ . . t . ... .. . .-. . . . . • •• ' - . . • • . _.__. .._ ._.. .. . .. ... :.. z.... -• - - -•- . ---- ---- .- - t. ‘`‘NrAIIIA° . . ' _ -•• 1 . ,...:...4.-----...--. •• ' --•- - . .. _ . -_._ _ _._ .......-....--.--. -•• • • • •• ' . _•—...-. • .. . a ... . .. . . --. . ....-- .. ... . .._. .---....-----.. . .--.. . . . .. .- . --. .. . . . . .... . ........- . ...- .. ..... .. . . , .... . _ , - --- -- • - • - - • .--......._______ . ._ - .--.. ---• IV - OP0102 I • 1 I 4010d0 4010d0 •4 —-------- ____ ------------•- — --• ,...4 __ _ • ---• • - . . -- ----- --- - • - . _ --•43,------ __ _. . . . . _...... .. .. ._ . _. _. — _ ..... _...___ _ . . "- " •-__Tia_A- ..___.._ ___ .. __ . ._. ......_. ..._ . . _. . ._. . . . . _ . . . . - - • • • — _ ____. -- ••- • -- . . .. _ . .... . . ..._. ...... . .__.----- ,.,_I._ _ _ ..-7-:-.::-.1-..:. 1. 7:7. •.7.==.-=: ==..-.-_-.:::...-74-1, - .• • _-_=•_:.:_-=-_-_- - - ---- ••- ._ -_---: ---=.7..:.... _.____._____ ----- -- 1 _t-----=-L174t-- — • t--- • —•--..--.7.-:_7.:. -_-_-:_=.•_-.:..-:As;:._ .- .:._- :-_-::-.:..-__:-.----- - - -- •--- - WI—F. _ ...._—.-__.-it.s.:7.7.:..:_:.7—:—.- _—...--.._--. .---...- .__._ ... . .... ._.— .. tht -.7.a . . solv v mem ..tiv•1.111.90 MIS __ ff --.---_—____— •7.-:..::===.--- ---- -• . _ ---- ------ —----• --Mac — .. ---- --- _____ _ -----=.".===ssr.A.--:= • -•- - • :-_-:::::----. ".--__ ... _ _ _ . . —..._.... ----- . . .... . . . 11110_111's1.77..7*.fl!_inl.:Nr.1..f. — • - - __:_-.. - . . ..:.: :_._.__...z.....—:___- _ _: s... .....::==-4:: :.-1' .7. . . Xri . _... ._ . . . . ..__... .......... .__._ _ .... _.._ . . .... . _ .__. _ . .__._ _. . .._. .... .. .... .__.. ._____... . trill! ______._.._. _._... .._._ . ._. .__ ' -- "• 10. . . . . - -• -.-- . .. ... ._. . -------------- ---• --•••.------ -7.=-_ _-=_•:._: ...::-..::_--- -.-.. :21_-_-__::_::.:-_:::::_-_-_-:-..:::..._:_-_:.: _:.-_::...•_.:1=.:41 .. __.___ . . _ ....... _ - ...pi.mini • 4010410 4010410 —------••••--• ••---- -• •- -••-•---- •--------------••- ------ --------•-••----- - - - ----- -------- - . .... .... .._---.......-.. ... .------ ..._ _ .-...... . - •• •• ---- • • • -44 •••---- --- •••---• -• • -- . _____ ._ . _. ._ ......_.. .. _ . . . • • . . .-- . _. ..-... -.---.... . .._.. ... . . . - ... .-.. . .- .—..- ._ - •- •--• • --- .- - .. ............ ..- . . .. ..._ ••• • .. ... ............ .. . . . .. . . . _...... . . In -WM . : ,_ Illai imam lir . ,--.weir, ... •__... . , _ .vi ..111.......„rerw ,• . " • • . • . .: \----.--1.1.. . .... ••• VI WIL . . . . .. . .... . . ... _._ . .___.. . ._ __ ____v. .._ ... . ..• - - _ - • f! 1-...- - •-• -2 -- .. .. .. _ .... . .. ._. . . . . ... . _. . . 1 _ . •4 - .." • • __._ . ...._ _ .. . . . . _... ._. .-!.'-- - YO -'1 1- •-••---- •-•- • . . .._ . . _ . .. _'4..L._ • ...._. __._... ..._ - ••• • _ _ . . __._ • - • - - - . OM 111/gg/g MOVA.L1111 --•I v v 1111011111 - MN II 1001.111 • /�1 �.�«•war SAT( aAY-2422 49 _ _ : :_ -_ .: _ _--:_ -.-__- _ ce _:-_� _:__ :-- =_ o4iiita jiii. _ ____,,ittr4 . __ ___._ _ . ___._.__ _____ .., Sail I Kist T!. -- - ... ' -- - - - '-.— - ----- --_-_- ----..-_ ___=----__=7.-7- _:. -- _.-: ___-_. _ -_ ovo+o, WIWI II Nor woos•Ron _ . -- ‘14. - ._... 1 _ oPolo7 3 SATURDAY 2/22/91 maw a Kiwi OP 0102 • • 1l I (CDD')) GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS APPENDIX 2 COMPUTER PRINTOUTS 1621 East Seventeenth Street, Suite K Santa Ana, California 92705-8518 Phone (714) 835-0249 FAX(714)835-1957 DATA REPORT FRIDAY 2/21/97 LARSON-DAVIS LABS MODEL 700 02/22/97 00 :49 :39 SN 700B2199 PAGE 1 Dose 0 . 0 Proj 0 . 0 SEL 86 .4 LVL 46 . 1 Time 0003 : 00 :30 Lmin 30 . 5 Lmax 72 . 5 Lpk 90 . 0 OVLD 00 RMS Ex 0000 Pk Ex 0000 R/S 01 Memory 5618 . 0 L02 51 . 0 L08 47 . 0 L25 44 . 5 L50 43 . 5 SETUP DATA ********************************************************* Detc FAST Wght A Pk Unwgt =0 Crit 90 . 0 Thld 32 . 0 Exch 3 LDL =0 RMS Thld 115 . 0 Pk Thld 140 . 0 Hyst 0 Run date 02/21 Stop date 00/00 Run time 1 20 : 00 _ Stop time 1 99 : 00 Run time 2 99 : 00 Stop time 2 99 : 00 Excd =0 Intv =1 Time 00 : 15 Auto-Stop =0 Ln =1 Hist =0 FRIDAY 2/21/97 Save Pk =0 Per 60 . 0 Cal 28 . 0 Ver 1 .410 2 INTV REPORT FRIDAY 2/21/97 LARSON-DAVIS LABS -- MODEL 700 02/22/97 00 :49 :49 SN 700B2199 PAGE 2 Cnt LVL SEL Lmax Lpk Lmin Date Time Dur Ex Pk Ov 1 45 . 0 74 . 5 66 . 0 75 . 5 30 . 5 21 FEB 20 : 00 : 01 0 : 15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 50 . 0 L08 = 47 .5 L25 = 45 . 0 L50 = 43 . 5 2 44 . 0 74 . 0 57 . 0 72 . 0 40 . 5 21 FEB 20 : 15 : 01 0 :15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 48 . 0 L08 = 46 . 0 L25 = 44 . 5 L50 = 43 . 5 3 44 . 0 74 . 0 59 . 5 77 . 5 40 . 0 21 FEB 20 :30 :01 0 :15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 49 . 0 L08 = 46 .5 L25 = 44 .5 L50 = 43 . 0 4 44 . 5 74 . 0 59 . 0 75 . 0 40 . 5 21 FEB 20 :45 :01 0 :15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 49 . 5 LO8 = 47 . 0 L25 = 45 . 0 L50 = 43 . 5 5 44 . 5 74 . 0 61 . 5 75 . 0 40 . 5 21 FEB 21 : 00 : 01 0 :15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 50 . 0 L08 = 46 .5 L25 = 44 .5 L50 = 43 . 5 6 44 . 0 73 . 5 56 . 5 70 . 5 40 .5 21 FEB 21 :15 :01 0 :15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 48 .5 L08 = 46 . 0 L25 = 44 . 5 L50 = 43 . 0 7 44 . 5 74 . 0 59 . 5 74 . 0 40 . 5 21 FEB 21 :30 : 01 0 :15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 49 . 5 L08 = 47 . 0 L25 = 44 .5 L50 = 43 .5 8 45 . 0 74 . 5 58 . 0 72 . 5 40 . 5 21 FEB 21 :45 :01 0 :15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 52 . 5 L08 = 46 . 5 L25 = 44 . 5 L50 = 43 .5 9 45 . 0 74 . 5 58 . 5 70 . 0 40 . 5 21 FEB 22 : 00 : 01 0 :15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 54 . 0 L08 = 46 . 0 L25 = 44 . 0 L50 = 43 . 0 10 47 . 5 77 . 0 68 . 0 80 . 5 41 . 0 21 FEB 22 :15 :01 0 :15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 53 . 0 L08 = 48 . 5 L25 = 45 .5 L50 = 43 .5 11 50 . 5 80 . 0 67 . 0 76 . 5 41 . 0 21 FEB 22 :30 : 01 0 :15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 62 . 5 L08 = 50 . 0 L25 = 45 .5 L50 = 44 .0 12 45 . 0 75 . 0 56 . 5 69 . 0 40 .5 21 FEB 22 :45 :01 0 :15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 51 . 0 L08 = 48 . 0 L25 = 45 .5 L50 = 44 . 0 13 52 . 0 67 . 0 72 . 5 90 . 0 41 . 5 21 FEB 23 : 00 : 01 0 : 00 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 60 . 5 L08 = 52 . 5 L25 = 45 .5 L50 = 43 . 5 99999 3 THURSDAY 2/20/97 DATA REPORT LARSON-DAVIS LABS -- MODEL 700 FEB 2 U 1997 02/21/97 09 : 54 :23 SN 700B2199 PAGE 1 Dose 0 . 0 Proj 0 . 0 SEL 85 . 5 LVL 45 . 1 Time 0003 : 00 :34 Lmin 31 . 0 Lmax 64 . 0 Lpk 90 . 5 OVLD 00 RMS Ex 0000 Pk Ex 0000 R/S 03 Memory 5590 . 0 L02 51 . 5 L08 47 . 0 L25 44 . 5 L50 43 . 0 SETUP DATA **************************************************** r***• Detc SLOW Wght A Pk Unwgt =0 Crit 90 . 0 Thld 32 . 0 Exch 3 LDL =0 RMS Thld 115 . 0 Pk Thld 140 . 0 Hyst 0 Run date 02/20 Stop date 00/00 Run time 1 20 : 00 Stop time 1 99 : 00 : Run time 2 99 : 00 Stop time 2 99 : 00 Excd =0 Intv =1 Time 00 : 15 Auto-Stop =0 Ln =1 INTV REPORT THURSDAY 2/20/97 LARSON-DAVIS LABS -- MODEL 700 02/21/97 09 : 54 : 33 SN 700B2199 PAGE 2 Cnt LVL SEL Lmax Lpk Lmin Date Time Dur Ex Pk Ov 1 43 . 5 73 . 0 54 . 5 74 . 0 31 . 0 20 FEB 20 : 00 : 01 0 :15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 49 .5 L08 = 46 . 0 L25 = 43 .5 L50 = 42 .5 2 42 . 5 72 . 0 51 . 0 75 . 5 38 .5 20 FEB 20 :15 : 00 0 :15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 46 .5 L08 = 45 . 0 L25 = 43 . 0 L50 = 41 . 5 3 48 . 0 77 . 5 58 .5 77 . 5 40 . 0 20 FEB 20 :30 : 00 0 : 15 h:m 0- 0 0 L02 54 . 0 LOB = 52. 0 L25 - 48 . 5 L50 = 45 . 5 4 45 . 5 75 . 0 61 . 5 74 . 0 39 . 5 20 FEB 20 :45 : 00 0 : 15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 53 . 0 L08 = 47 . 5 L25 = 44 . 5 L50 = 43 . 0 5 46 . 0 75 . 5 60 . 0 81 . 0 39 . 5 20 FEB 21 : 00 :00 0 :15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 54 . 5 L08 = 49 . 0 L25 = 45 . 0 L50 = 43 . 0 6 44 . 0 73 . 5 52 . 5 74 . 5 40 . 0 20 FEB 21 :15 : 00 0 : 15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 50 . 0 L08 = 46 .5 L25 = 44 . 0 L50 = 42 . 5 7 43 . 0 72 . 5 57 . 0 84 . 0 39 . 5 20 FEB 21 :30 : 00 0 :15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 46 . 5 L08 = 45 .0 L25 = 43 .5 L50 = 42 . 0 8 44 . 5 72 . 5 55 . 5 72 . 5 40 . 5 20 FEB 21 :45 : 00 0 :11 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 49 . 5 L08 = 46 . 0 L25 = 44 . 5 L50 = 43 . 0 9 44 . 0 61 . 0 50 . 5 74 . 0 42 . 0 20 FEB 21 :57 :46 0 : 00 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 50 . 0 L08 = 46 . 0 L25 = 45 . 0 L50 = 43 .5 10 47 . 0 76 . 5 64 . 0 80 . 5 40 . 5 20 FEB 21 :58 :49 0 :15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 55 . 0 L08 = 48 . 0 L25 = 45 . 0 L50 = 44 . 0 11 44 . 0 73 . 5 53 . 0 72 . 0 40 . 0 20 FEB 22 :13 :48 0 :15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 48 . 0 L08 = 45 . 5 L25 = 44 .5 L50 = 43 .5 12 44 . 5 74 . 0 53 . 5 80 . 5 40 . 5 20 FEB 22 :28 :48 0 :15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 48 . 5 L08 =46 .5 L25 45 . 0 L50 = 44 . 0 13 43 . 0 73 . 0 52 . 0 78 . 0 39 . 0 20 FEB 22 :43 :48 0 : 15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 47 . 5 L08 = 45 . 0 L25 = 43 . 5 L50 = 42.5 14 45 . 5 69 . 0 62 . 0 90 . 5 40 . 0 20 FEB 22 :58 :48 0 :03 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 52 . 5 L08 = 48 . 0 L25 = 44 .5 L50 = 42 .5 99999 3 THURSDAY 2/20/97 Hist =" Save Pk =0 Per 60 . 0 Cal 28 . 0 Ver 1 .410 2 DATA REPORT SATURDA1F-9f22/97 LARSON-DAVIS LABS -- MODEL 700 02/23/97 01 : 00 :19 SN 700B2199 PAGE 1 Dose 0 . 0 FEB 2 2 1997 Proj 0 . 0 SEL 87 . 6 LVL 47 . 1 Time 0003 : 04 :45 Lmin 32 . 5 Lmax 75 . 5 Lpk 93 . 5 OVLD 00 RMS Ex 0000 Pk Ex 0000 R/S 01 Memory 5618 . 0 L02 50 . 5 L08 47 .5 L25 45 . 5 L50 44 . 0 • SETUP DATA ********************************************************* Detc FAST Wght A Pk Unwgt =0 Crit 90 . 0 Thld 32 . 0 Exch 3 LDL =0 RMS Thld 115 . 0 Pk Thld 140 . 0 Hyst 0 Run date 02/22 Stop date 00/00 Run time 1 20 : 00 Stop time 1 99 : 00 . Run time 2 99 : 00 Stop time 2 99 : 00 Excd =0 Intv =1 Time 00 : 15 Auto-Stop =0 Ln =1 1 SATURDAY 2/22/97 Hist =0 Save Pk =0 Per 60 . 0 Cal 28 . 0 Ver 1 .410 2 INTV REPORT SATURDAY 2/22/97 LARSON-DAVIS LABS MODEL 700 02/23/97 01 : 00 :29 SN 700B2199 PAGE 2 Cnt LVL SEL Lmax Lpk Lmin Date Time Dur Ex Pk Ov 1 44 . 5 74 . 0 56 . 0 73 . 5 32 . 5 22 FEB 20 : 00 : 01 0 : 15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 50 . 0 L08 = 47 . 0 L25 = 45 . 0 L50 = 44 . 0 2 53 . 5 83 . 0 73 . 0 85 . 5 41 . 5 22 FEB 20 :15 :00 0 : 15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 64 . 5 L08 = 53 . 0 L25 = 46 . 5 L50 = 44 . 0 3 44 . 5 74 . 0 63 . 0 73 . 0 41 . 0 2.2 FEB 20 :30 :00 0 :15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 47 . 5 L08 = 45 .5 L25 = 44 .5 L50 = 43 . 5 4 44 . 0 73 . 5 58 . 0 73 . 0 40 . 5 22 FEB 20 :45 :01 0 :15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 50 . 0 L08 = 45 . 0 L25 = 43 .5 L50 = 43 . 0 5 43 . 0 72 . 5 59 . 0 77 . 5 40 . 5 22 FEB 21 : 00 : 01 0 : 15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 46 . 0 L08 = 44 .5 L25 = 43 .5 L50 = 42 . 5 6 44 . 5 74 . 0 58 . 5 75 . 0 41 . 0 22 FEB 21 :15 : 01 0 :15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 49 . 5 L08 = 46 . 5 L25 = 44 . 5 L50 = 43 . 5 7 44 . 5 74 . 0 53 . 0 70 . 5 41 . 0 22 FEB 21:30 :01 0 :15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 49 . 5 L08 = 47 . 0 L25 = 45 . 0 L50 = 44 . 0 8 45 . 5 75 . 0 56 . 5 72 .5 42 . 0 22 FEB 21 :45 :01 0 :15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 50 . 0 L08 = 47 . 5 L25 = 45 .5 L50 = 44 .5 9 45 . 0 74 . 5 53 . 5 72 . 0 42 . 0 22 FEB 22 : 00 :01 0 :15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 48 . 5 L08 = 47 . 0 L25 = 45 .5 L50 = 44 . 5 10 47 . 0 76 . 5 59 . 0 70 . 0 42 . 5 22 FEB 22 : 15 :01 0 :15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 53 . 0 L08 = 49 . 5 L25 = 47 . 0 L50 = 45 .5 11 45 . 5 75 . 0 62 . 0 81 . 0 41 . 5 22 FEB 22 :30 :01 0 : 15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 49 . 0 L08 = 47 .5 L25 = 46 . 0 L50 = 45 .0 12 44 . 5 74 . 0 54 . 0 76 . 0 41 . 5 22 FEB 22 :45 :01 0 :15 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 48 . 5 LO8 = 46 . 5 L25 = 45 . 0 L50 = 44 . 0 13 50 . 0 74 . 5 75 . 5 93 . 5 41 . 5 22 FEB 23 : 00 :01 0 : 04 h:m 0 0 0 L02 = 52 . 0 L08 = 47 . 0 L25 = 45 .5 L50 = 44 . 0 99999 3 • CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Philip Drell, Director of Community Development DATE: August 22, 1996 SUBJECT: Review of CUP 91-9 , Conditional Use Permit for restaurants at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Portola (Ruth' s Chris Steak House and Tsing Tao) ***************************************************************** I . RECOMMENDATION: Initiate a formal review of CUP 91-9 by setting public hearing before Planning Commission November 5, 1996 . Authorize staff to retain an acoustical engineer to conduct a noise study (not to exceed $15,000) to objectively measure noise impacts on adjacent residences and recommend mitigation. Appropriate $15,000 from unobligated general fund reserved for said purpose. II . BACKGROUND: The conditional use permit for 8,000 square feet of restaurant (Ruth' s Chris - 6,000 square feet and Tsing Tao at 2,000 square feet) was approved June 4 , 1991. Since both sides of Alessandro were originally approved and developed as one project, the C.U.P. assumed availability of the parking spaces on the north side of the street. The C.U.P. contains a condition which provides for review by the Planning Commission if late night noise of the restaurant activity impact San Marino Circle residents . Three San Marino Circle homes back onto the north side of the parking lot. We have received complaints from two homeowners, Ray Winner and Gary Tryon. Since most of the problems involved the valet parking service, staff has attempted to address the impacts through our valet parking .permit process . With each annual review, the Technical Traffic Committee and City Traffic Engineer has attempted to respond to residents complaints by creating permit requirements which would address the noise problems . Mr. Winner and Mr. Tryon have participated in this process . STAFF REPORT REVIEW OF CUP 91-9 AUGUST 22 , 1996 As result of a video tape we received from Mr. Tryon in January 1996 , we met with the restaurant manager and the landlord to express our continuing dissatisfaction with the performance of the valet service. A letter was sent from the City Engineer to the valet operation February 9 , 1996 threatening revocation of the valet permit if violations continue. Ultimately this meeting and letter led to the cancellation of the valet contract in May. A new valet service was retained and a meeting was held with staff, the valet, the landlord, manager of Ruth' s Chris Steak House, Mr. Tryon and Mr. Winner. In this meeting we again attempted to isolate the specific behavior causing the problem which range from slamming doors, squealing tires, loud radios, loud talking, car alarms , idling trucks and buses . The goal was to determine if a maximum effort to eliminate all the controllable behavior and operational impacts could solve the problem. All parties agreed to give it one more try. On July 28th I received a letter from Mr. Winner reporting that conditions had not significantly improved and a video tape similar to the one previously viewed was sent to Councilman Crites by Mr. Tryon. The tape did not appear to contain footage of the new valet operations. It is clear that despite our efforts the situation remains unacceptable to the adjacent residents . Staff is recommending the Planning Commission hold a public hearing to review the conditional use permit. A noise study should be conducted to determine the exact nature of the problem and if any physical or operational mitigation will provide an acceptable solution. Concurrently with the acoustical study code enforcement shall monitor the lot to determine the specific causes of the noise. With this information the Planning Commission will have an objective basis to move towards an ultimate solution. �� PHILIP RELL • DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2 Ray Winner 74039 San Marino Circle Palm Desert, Ca . 92260 July 28 , 1996 RECEIVED Mr. Philip Drell , and Mr. Oliphant JUL 31 1996 City of Palm Desert Planning Department COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Dear Mr. Drell, and Mr. Oliphant: This is a letter to notify you as to the status of the situation with the parking lot located on 74-020 Alessandro Dr. , Palm Desert ( across from Ruth Chris ' Steak House) . After the recent meeting between the neighbors involved in the impacted area and the owner of the building (Mr. Oliphant ) and manager of Ruth Chris Steakhouse, the owner of the of the valet parking business, and the representative from the City Planning Commission-- I have found that there has been little or no change made in the disruptive patterns of the "public nuissance" parking area. In addition, when "the season"begins , I know that the problems will be tenfold! I am aware that originally, the said parking lot was zoned as "office/professional" and was to be used only for daytime parking only. However, that aggreement is being violated, as it is now being used for commercial evening restaurant parking . The fact that the parking lot is being leased does not make it legal for evening restaurant parking, as it is zoned as "office professional" . For over five years, my neighbors and I have met and written letters regarding the following ongoing situations: 1 . ) Intollerable noise resulting from car alarms routinely being set off in the late evening hours (which continually disrupt the neighborhood) , horns being honked, car doors being slammed, car tires "burning rubber" in the parking lot, restaurant delivery trucks idling in the parking lot late at night or in the early morning hours , drunken patrons emerging from the restaurant yelling and making noise when walking to their vehicles , and valet employees making unnecessary noise directly behind my property , and the employees of Ruth Chris partying drinking after hours in the parking lot. These situations impacted the neighborhood for more than five years . (Regarding the above, situations, I have gone to the Planning Commission, spoken to owners of the buildings , written letters, gone to meetings all to no avail . ) 2 . ) In addition, I have video tapes of employees smoking illegal substances, and drinking alcohol on the premises, and driving patron' s vehicles while under the influence of one or both, urinating on the wall behind my property, and changing into or out of their work clothes! 3 . ) Then, there is the issue of the persistent unfiltered scent of foul food odors permeating the night air every evening, thereby polluting the very air that we breathe. ( In addition, a letter of complaint--signed by six residents-- was written on February 27, 1992 detailing the cooking odors permeating our homes, necessitating the closure of all windows, doors, to avoid the smoke and offensive odors, recommending that a filtering system be installed to resolve the problem, however nothing was done to remedy the situation. There was absolutely no response whatsoever, nor were any phone calls returned. ) 4 . ) Finally, there is the suspected retaliation of T. & R. Parking employees against my neighbor after complaints were made, which resulted in his property being "egged" , and he was "set up" for destruction of vehicles in the parking lot by branches being hurled by T.& R. employees on cars, etc . 5 . ) Also, there is commercial cleaning of the parking area on Saturday mornings , (against city ordinances) and trash bin collections made and dumped at 5:00a.m. in the morning. Furthermore, since no one "polices" the above situation, after complaints were made, the above conditions soon return to ongoing noise and air pollution and disruptive sleep patterns of the entire neighborhood. What concerns me is that should I consider selling my property, I have been advised by several real estate agents that because of the existing "disclosure" laws, I am obligated to reveal the above existing conditions , thereby making my property unsalable as "residential" property. It is not currently zoned as "commercial" . The adjacent parking area is property that is illegally being used as "commmercial" . . . .yet it is only zoned as "office/professional" . Therefore, please be advised that in order to protect my property investment, I am suggesting an immediate closure of the parking lot listed above to resolve the above issues. Please respond to this letter as soon as possible. I must insure my investment and I await your reply. If I have not heard from you in a reasonable amount of time, I will be forced to resolve this in a legal manner. Sincerely, (Please call 619 568-1133 ) R Winner I TY OF PALM DEL RT F - ?7 APPLICATION FOR VALET PARKING PERMIT (THIS FORM, WHEN PROPERLY EXECUTED. IS A PERMIT FOR VALET PARKING) ADDRESS/LOCATION OF VALET PARKING: DATE OF APPLICATION: 9-/4‘ r y- o Y.) I40.7 /If I c,, 41.,.. - ,e. i CL..T rro4fr 4.,ar e NAME OF APPLICANT OR FIRM REQUESTING NAME OF THE PROPOSED VALET PARKING REQUESTING PERMIT: OPERATOR: j ✓/ r _ ADDRESS: ADDRESS: //3 4/` 6 Cr- 8 A- p +-les,Sz c li / L LJ r TELEPHONE NO. ( ) TELEPHONE NO. (i/V ) .7 z-r-Yc 54/ TYPE OF BUSINESS: STD fr H-r"'*-t LENGTH OF TIME FOR VALET SERVICE: Seasonal: YES NO Start Date: - (r End Date: Hours: From To cl,4--<-e TOTAL NUMBER OF AVAILABLE PARKING SPACES: - //Z IF TYPE OF BUSINESS IS RESTAURANT. WHAT I5 THE SEATING CAPACITY: NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES TO BE DESIGNATED FOR VALET PARKING: -CC) DOES APPLICANT OWN THE PARKING LOT TO BE USED FOR VALET SERVICE: /V0 (If not. letter of approval must accompany permit.) CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE FOR Name of Insurance Company: 14`147-""'fre C4 s-44 e3 VALET PARKING SERVICE Policy No: cL 'vyzfhf Exp. Date: /0 1 Pt q 404,‘ — cjbeA j a k agso-.7 SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Jet- Lk(T.- NOTE: Valet parking operator must comply with the attached Valet Parking Conditions. Failure to do so may result in the revocation of permit. PAID: Receipt #12032 - 04/01/96 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY SIGNATURE OF , DATE APPROVED: April 1, 1996 APPLICANT: \ r EXPIRATION March 3 _ 7 APPROVED �*Jf 4ECE!VED DI CTOR OFF UBLIC WORKS APR1 ApcgAgant YELLOW-Public Works PINK-Code Comp i i ance c -Sher i ff•s Dept. CITY OF PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Ruth's Chris Steakhouse Valet Parking Conditions • Keep noise level to a minimum in the north parking lot adjacent to the homes. • Valet parking will take place in the parking lot on the north side of Alessandro Drive. • The parking lot adjacent to the restaurant will be for self parking. • Valet operators will begin at 9:00 p.m_ to move cars from the valet lot, to the front lot adjacent to the restaurant, beginning with the cars in the northeast portion of the valet lot. • No employee parking is permitted in the north lot. • Valet attendants will not set car alarms, slam car doors, turn the volume up on radios. or yell across the parking lot. • Should the valet parking services be terminated for Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, Ronald Gregory and Associates must be notified in advance. • Valet parking service must obtain written permission from Ronald Gregory and Associates to use the north parking lot. • It is understood that in the event that any of the businesses located in buildings A or B have an evening event requiring the need for parking, the valet parking service will accommodate their needs for those evenings. • The valet parking service is responsible for any damage to landscaping, parking lot lighting, or other related damage due to negligence or accidents occurring in the course of valet parking. • Valet parking shall not commence earlier than 5:00 p.m. every evening. At the beginning of the evening all cars must be parked at the northeast part of the parking lot so as not to interfere with the function of late closing offices, if any. • Condition of parking area should be maintained and kept free of any debris. • Valet parking attendants shall not leave anybarriers or store any equipment on the premises. • Valet parking service shall make every effort to avoid interference with adjacent residential home owners and shall respect their right to peacefulness and privacy. • Valet parking service shall immediately report any incidents or violations of these conditions to the City. OLIPI . ' & LIZZA SUPERE 7CK AP .("7.. ,-. 1 fly ,t HIIW ! IH1HI1 le 1.10 JALET P P-413 V` \-5- cc= ce=3 — ogc oo a SLOG I 3.013 Si. e.700 S.F. m i.,.I ALLESSANDRO "" ,,,` CM M _ -,1ST /LOOR ›-g.. 21.100 S.F. ® �� BLOC A �_ -, __ 1 •OR x x T-TTGT WQY 111 — • .L.9 C i'i'.i:..47*•='!�.rb* ".v:ii a..•. . .4.• - ...4*1 �._ 1•yi ebb�MM++j I• .'.. i•ytig7�T•.i:. •`„•.•:•.. .=i'-• ,.. • ....T:i•.'•• s..•ti1i�.Y^..x .•• `it2... '.}ia' .�.'i ../9i .;�.�,•a• =•+t'`.. i'6:. ••- • .. 7. STATE - ",• -�` P.O.SOX 420807,SAN FRANCISCO,CA giu 94142-0807 COMPENSATION. _ . , •. • w . . :. _ . FUN D . CERTIFICATE-OF WORKERS'COMPENSATION INSURANCE.• TOVEHBE Z . 1995< , `RY :.. . •, - L" 't.t r4,j.tiiT1-. .s?.. .Es „ , �-c- CAuaisigpt4BER:,4� I 1722 - 95 r.- 5 . 4,..r...4• lW< - _ «. • • ' . .! .•. {i'.. "•-"y am This is to certify that we have issued a valid Workers' Compensation insurance policy in a form approved by the California _ Insurance Commissioner to the employer named below for the policy period indicated. This policy is not subject to cancellation by the Fund except upon ten days'advance written notice tothe employer. We will also give you TEN days'advance notice should this policy be cancelled prior to its normal expiration. This certificate of insurance is not an insurance policy and does not amend, extend or atter the coverage afforded by the policies listed herein. Notwithstanding any requirement. term, or condition of any contract or other document with respect to which this certificate of insurance may be issued.or may pertain,.the insurancec fvtr!!h,':`b r•r• y th,, rr•:.,Q described herein is subject to all the terms,exclusions and conditions of sect;,: ' "'r " „ . .•:. Y• r t .•e i C • PRESIDENT; '• '•''EMPLOYER 'S LIABILITY LIMIT INCL.iDIMM, .FER'S�': COST ,�. . s' a PER OCCCRRE!- ., -tip�.•. •M;''•i. ..t• ••.t;t.- T•. • , . •• • . • • • • • • . ... , -'.t'`'..a'•.�t r.•. :.'V.i-'74% :S"7''r ,4• r•S1•r.::rt• ...+71• ..: -. • .s•,� "`•'tits 1`.• t � • . , .... • -. ,.9.•r. '- - wa:.•i,• .r. — . ., .�...•f•- •."r:t• ...r`• ' .• •• _ •••w •. _ . •.^- .'� !'• •'1i� ••••'•'• �• 'f. 1 r .•• • �'•`.. +•_^• : ;•• .'.J �. .. -.. �'�-''▪ • i. •• I" ' •P. _. :t• • • ' . !I .�. ' ....... •_•.. any J." ri• 1:T•,•":•?•1. •ir. ..' ;,. "ii w..4.. �. . •�: �!••, • / ' t.�Y :~ :'�- �' w:,s... :le ��.. rr .:i•: Y .: . s ! . �•. ,. .• _ •.lf - T - y--�•:\ - �`,• . . ....: .•---i .as•••� .::•'r`t•}. 1.:•t� i•.:ljr''.�Y.. .h�s;,w.... - •. s•r�.•:,•: •-r••..••.t.•j.. ..w- . : f'••• C�• :47; . . •. . - i ; :,• • � tx •t . . • . Y 1••• • 'A - 7 1 • ... - . ••. ♦ • � .. •. • • r,ol• •�••. . ••••..; ,.•f i •TC'' :rl'•f. .:1 • � . ': , . i � ^- •: ri. .:t . : ,a ;•,- 1 �yUs , ,� i-.44t -.. 4' a. , .*.. -.t — w,�, • • ..t •. M•ue "w. 'YT � • • • . -.. • , •is - K7 t ,.. ' . • . $•» • • 1 . ' {.d'. �'.• f54•• • ttm..-; ,,,• • • Sr 1..1' •�..1 3R� c : .tr .. ap. .••'- ••• 4,= iS zr" Sr___, ••• ',Ayr, r,t- •�-�.y . �:• • . • ' .ti:�• . .•am ' • •'mil 3r R .. ^r'_•-,- 4 S �" 4�i �� '<•.`r`r� y'' `i. % �•• '•f,[!: •' •.••• . PALM SPRINGSrPARRING SERVICE., •INC `Y+�. ` 36-665 BANXSIDE DRIVE, OMIT E • • .. • •CATHEDRAL CITY CA • 92234 •RJG . COMMERCIAL UABIUTY E��- ����-�-���ti-�-��-�--�-���-�� ..msssw DECLARATIONS tiewo �`�-`�-�-�•��tt�����-��-�t����--c.E National Casualty Company Property/Casualty Division 6 CL027593 8877 North Gainey Center Drive, Scottsdale,Arizona 85258 ko,»wal of Nurrw.r 1-800-423-7675(outside Arizona) Policy Number 9 A STOCK COMPANY 042978 4 CL= 0 item 1. Named Insured and Mailing Address: ft-JRT YAIRK.LNG SERVICES, A OF PARC - _ 9 (A RISK PURCHASING GRCUP . 36-665 BANKSIi3£ DRIVE # CATHEDRAL CITY, CA 92234' • o Agent Name and Address: 0 I CREEP E&S OF CALIFORNIA 0 7700 IRVINE CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 660 f IRVINE, CA 92718 o Agent No: 04743-CA0001 6 Item 2. Policy Period From: To: 10 10-01-95 _ill-96 12:01 A.M.Standard Time at the address of the Named Insured as stated herein. ®J111J/1.11lJ11J�/fl./f11JJ _,_,/lf//f./,.11J.l1lJ� -1.11l1Jffl/ffflffff./.l./.lflfllll/l/l/lJff.�f 6 • Item 3. Retroactive Date: • • ' Item 4. Business Description: PARFCI717 ri-Tsrrc,RITINATAr ttem 5. In return for the payment of the premium, and subject to all the terms of this policy,we agree with you to provide the insurance as stated in this policy. This policy consists of the following coverage parts for which a premium is indicated.Where no premiut coverage. This premium may be subject to adjustment. - 1 Coverage Part(s) Form No.and Edttlon Date I t -SI?-1 E 2-92) r Professional Liability Coverage Part S t S i i i $ • $ • S S S Total S 100$ M NIM[M AND 100% DEPOSIT Item 6. Forms and endorsements applicable to all Coverage Parts: Cs,-3-2(11-931, IL0017(11-85 l . WON NITERS IL0021(11-85), :VT-119c7(8-94 ) Lac.....' countersigned By DATE A MS ocukotacua.ummury DECLARAT1oNs AND THE euRBrerrAL DECLARATIONS.Toernotwml TIE Cayman POuCr commas, COVERAGE rows)ADD ENDORES ENTE CdILETE THE ARCM NUMB=MUM • • • • • • • • • 1 TO BE POSTED IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE rit`' 's.9.i..x;:•r»'...,.rw'• .G ';*J�,-'«t3.. •' � iu= ' J� .. .1 ~ �(f) � ] j.'J•IC•—••l �.l������ l l` �..'._-' +••t� CITY OF PALM DESER' `::: :::. ,:,..;•- ` 3' 'X:.:w- q�t� �. - •.4�-?4.: ' _. '. a. .. V ...Iv, 73•510 Fred Wamq On e - Y6 �. ...• f: `. 104 .."r ,:S ,c --!1•hr.a•p-1 Palm OCsert.CA 92260 .73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,CA• 92260 819 346-0611 r s �. l'a (619)3s o611 1,'!�,`. . `�!F#1 • ,. .. , z.. = `'" ••: :r';.a RECEIPT OF r �..L+1\1'11'*1�....1"1.1�l IQ?' -:s•�: '. PAYMENT 0 5 9 5 4 ., ' ' A R E PARKING) ' .rr•;•,»•• ,. BUSINESS NAME: RESORT PARKING .SERV'1 `F,S „,, • 7`-' =``•`3r - AS73897 MISC SERVICE BUSINESSLOCATI& 705 EL PASEO #308, s.\ 0004363 rr . •r • • Airc,le.rnCnr:rarrlflrt*r1@T PAOVTRr. CFRVTCjPC / — �'f �s �:: ir:c.r:}1.5• 018G1:- _� _ RESORT PARKING SERVICES ExPIaATtoNOA IC 60 . 00 36665 BANKSIDE DR E . L 1/30/96 ; ER :Ss CATHEDRAL CITY CA 82234 ........-...:•.... I N T . 00 1-The party shown is gamed efts certificate pursuarrt'\ • - t �.' a,*. to license and Permit Provisions of the Mumma( Code.This es not an endorsement of ac7hrety,not 4 certification of compliance J') 60 . 00 t By -' tr,'+tiVtt t TOTAL 7 & 'i Z ?JDatet Service COMPLETE PARKING MANAGEMENT 73612 HWY. 111 SUITE 9 PALM DESERT.CA 92260 TEL:(619)340-5443 FAX: (619)340-4418 February 26, 1996 Richard J. Folkers, P.E. Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260-2578 • Subject: Valet Parking at Ruth's Chris Steakhouse Dear Mr. Folkers: In response to your letter dated 2/9/96, I understand that residents have registered complaints about the noise in the north parking lot adjacent to their homes, that is created by my valet attendants. I want to make you aware that everything possible is being done and has been done to keep the noise level to a minimum in the north lot. Please understand that we park and retreive 50 to 150 cars per evening between 5:00 and 10:30 P.M. from business created by Ruth's Chris and Tsing Tao. In addition to extra vehicles self parking from customers of the new Fitness Mart and Tsing Tao employees. That many vehicles in that short of a time span are going to crate some degree of noise. Noise is also generated from traffic speeding through Alessandro that perhaps the residents think the valet attendants cause. Alessandro is a very busy street. It's no secret that the residents are vehemently against the use of the north lot and have been since the development of that complex. The residents will say and do anything to put that lot out of use. Please do not make decisions concerning the parking permits based on these complaints. I will make every effort to respect the peacefulness and privacy of the residents. I am willing to listen to any suggestions and have some of my own. Please include me in any meetings that you may have concerning the issue. Thank you for your time and&merely, • Tomer Me ghnagi cc: Curt Wheeler, Ruth's Chris Steakhouse Phil Drell, Acting ACM/Director of Community Development and Planning Joseph S. Gaugush, Engineering Manager Mark Greenwood, Transportation Engineer Wayne Ramsey, Director of Code rienpiance and Reenact- f >.'. .'jtv- StVeYLA I i AZtAl €s �� 1C 11; C.O ®l Fa Desara ., 1� � �N:nz; 73.510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CAUFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 FAX (619) 340-0574 RECEIVED February 9 , 1996 FEB 12 1996 Mr. Tomer Meghanagi COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT T & R Valet CITY OF PALM DESERT 74-320 Erin Palm Desert, CA 92260 SUBJECT: VALET PARKING AT RUTH'S CHRIS STEAKHOUSE Dear Mr. Meghanagi : The Public Works Department has been made aware of a violation of your valet parking permit for Ruth' s Chris Steakhouse. Residents have registered complaints about the noise in the north parking lot adjacent to their homes, that is created by the valet attendants . This infraction not only violates a condition of your valet parking permit, but also Condition *9 as established by Ronald Gregory and Associates , in whose parking lot you have permission to valet park. You are hereby notified that if this condition is not corrected immediately, your valet parking permit for Ruth' s Chris Steakhouse will be revoked. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, • 1+ 2 `Richard J., Folkers, P .E. Assistant tity Manager/Public Works Director cc: Curt Wheeler, Ruth' s Chris Steakhouse Phil Drell, Acting ACM/Director of Community Dev. & Planning Joseph S. Gaugush, Engineering Manager Mark Greenwood, Transporation Engineer Wayne Ramsey, Director of Code Compliance & Licenses MG:SJ/cm Enclosure June 12, 199.. 7 Re: Valet parking for Ruth's Chris Steak House dro for Ruth's Chris is granted to T Permission for valet parking ont he north side of conditions: �� & R Valet Service with the following 1. Should the services of T & R Valet Service be terminated, we must be told in advance of the new firm selected so that we can coordinate the following concerns with them. areas between building A and B. The valet 2. Valet parking is beu restrictedderneath covered parking areas or areas north of buildings A parkinggttoo be provide and B. Associates with insurance certificate 3. Parking service shall provide Ronald Gregory andout of coverage to be minimum of naming them as additionally insured: $1,0000,000 personal liability, $100,000 property damage• located in buildings A or B 4. It is understood that in the event that any of the businessesthe valet parking service will have an evening occasion requiring the need for parking, accommodate their needs for those evenings. le for any damage to landscaping, parking lot lighting�� 5. Parking related ice is damage durespe to negligence or accidents firing in the course of other damage parking. Valetparking shall commence no earlier than 5:00 P.M. every evening. At the 6. be all cars must be parked the northeast part of the parking lot not too the fete eveningi function of late closing offices, if any. All cars must be so aso not from interfere with ott by after dosing of rat removed parking 7. Condition of parking area should be maintained and kept free of any debris. 8. Parking services should not leave any barriers or store any equipment on the premises. Parkingservices shall make every effort to avoid interference with adjacent residential 9. and privacy. home owners and shall respect their right to peacefulness at 9:00 P.M. to move cars from the north lot to the south lot 10. Parking service shall begin beginning with the back lot or cars closest to the residential area This will keep it quiet in the later hours of the evening. Oliphant & pizza Development Group Gregory and Associ .a' ;1r : l T Y OF PALM DE ' R T APPLICATION FOR VALET PARKING PERMIT PARKING) (THIS FORM. WHEN PROPERLY EXECUTED. IS A PERMIT FOR VALET ADDRESS/LOCATION OF VALET PARKING: DATE OF APPLICATION: L _ l�.�•1 i NAME OF APPLICANT OR FIRM REQUESTING NAME OF THE PROPOSED VALET PAFMC I Nf REQUESTING PERMIT: OPERATOR: 7 < �I. L _ r C ADDRESS: �� - r. r: N;,�', _// / r TELEPHONE !O rre > jc,C,-�"Diu, — TELEPHONE No. K%�• 77�, - �<, � I TYPE OF BUSI NESS: C.«->t,,l,r•.,-.,'I- LENGTH OF TIME FOR VALET SERVICE' Seasonal : YES NOStart Date: ' End Date: To Hours: From TOTAL NUMBER OF AVAILABLE PARING SPACES: IF TYPE OF BUSINESS IS RESTAURANT. WHAT IS THE SATING CAPACITY: NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES TO BE DESIGNATED FOR VALET PARKING: �� TO BE USED FOR VALET SERVICE:THE PARKING LOT i DOES APPLICANT OWN (If not. letter of approval oust accompany petmi t.) tj A 1u a Crk`J+•.-7'I Name of Insurance Company: ' =t- CERTIFiCATE OF INSURANCE FOR �• Policy No: C ls:22: L r- Exp• Date: ('" VALET PARKING SERVICE -- L /y. �� ' T �' ;� 'n M,M M .Jr on T ryc..', acl J'+•„M T ��� ,1 u t, r Ic.c'L r,•, +�.—. r., g. C CONDITIONS: Y:'Izt �c '�:!", ,N. f /� rl=sin.�,.,T ..y i�� {. �rr4 . SPECIAL O }•«`p '�. �� C� nl'�•' '� ��: I f i..✓- �,'—�:^r . afQr /O� ar.�� �• �,- r1...,� r� Tl•.. ,Z!`r_ W•11 brc ;, ei Q. . rio -re' M..JL i-a.(. i.. ff:/1" i� V .'m/� J • -r3/ C t comply with the attached Valet Parking Valet parking operator must revocation of permit. NOTE: result in the Condit ions. Failure to do so may — ,v rt AL_ Pik In-1 71,4:41CC117 INS66\-'-C Cam"-'1r 1C.A-Ti= }',") ?S �.`. �/?'/9 S I / r 7•S� FOR OFF ICI AL USE ONLY 7 DATE APPROVED: 1t ' SIGNATURE OF c- �� EXPIRATION DATE: ' ' ,.. '. APPL I CAlft: � ,. 0 APPROVED BY: . !/ ' • - _ �/ YELLOW-Public ,E DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS liante (LLD-Sheriff's Dept- WHITE-Applicant PINK-Code Ca Works me I \ , • /7-.' IIIIIv .-- d---r4 k:blla III I H i I 1 I 1-11-1 I � --- . I 1' . 47-7'i* I .111I — . .- WU ---wIfl ii rrnl u% • qi- x—' rnu �.� rio ii HI j_u � rI F111 F1_1_1_11 co. . \ \WWII ' s . • • • June 12, 199) Re: Valet parking for Ruth's Chris Steak House Permission for valet parking ont he north side of Alrscandro for Ruth's Chris is granted to T & R Valet Service with the following conditions: terminated, we must be told in advance 1. Should the services of T & R Valet Service rdinate the following concerns with them. of the new firm selected so 2. Valet parking is to be restricted to parking areas between building A and B. The valet parking to be provided underneath covered parking areas or areas north of buildings A and B. provide Ronald Gregory and Associates with insurance certificate 3. Parking service shall naming them as additionally insured. Amount of coverage to be minimum of $1,0000,000 personal liability, $100,000 property damage. located in buildings A or B 4. It is understood that in the event that any of the businessesthe valet parkingservice will have an evening occasion requiring the need for parking, accommodate their needs for those evenings. responsible for any damage to landscaping, parking lot lighting, or 5. Parking service is negligence or accidents occurring in the course of valet other related damage due to neglig parking. 6. Valet parking chill commence no earlier than 5:00 P.M. every evening. At the beginning of the evening all parked at the northeast part of the parking lot cars must be so as not to interfere with the function of late closing offices, if any. All cars must be removed from parking lot by half hour after closing of restaurant. 7. Condition of parking area should be maintained and kept free of any debris. 8. Parking services should not leave any barriers or store any equipment on the premises. 9. Parking services shall make every effort to avoid interference with adjacent residential home owners and shall respect their right to peacefulness and privacy. 10. Parking service shall begin at 9:00 P.M. to move cars from the north lot to the south lot uie g:w beginninith the back lot or cars closest to the residential area. This will keep it q in the later hours of the evening. le Oliphant & Lizza Development Group d Gregory and ''•••• t OA7E 11/" Clfr"YT r•1 rRoouca, • THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATTDA'ONLT lfib CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERT-FICA? AMER I C AN PACIFIC DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR'ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY`M INSURANCE BROKERS, INC. POLICIES BELOW. P. O. BOX 5012 COMPANIES'AFFORDING COVERAGE THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91359 COMPANY A LETTER NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY COMPANY INSURED LETTER COMPANY C LETTERS T V R Valet Service 74320 Erin Street COMPANY D LETTER Palm Desert, CA 92260 COMPANY E LETTER COVERAGES • THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POUCIES OF1RSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POUCY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT,TEAM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN.THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POUCIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS. EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POUCIES.OMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. TYPE OF NISUIIANCE POLICY MUGGER b� EFFECTIVE POLICY E>OGIATION LIMITS LTR DATE(MM/DO/YY) DATE(MM/DDITY) CIENEAAL UAaum GENERAL AGGREGATE S-. . 000, OC PROOMCTSCOMPIOP A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LABILITY 'CL027392 9/20/94 9/20/95 AccuL M -1, 000, 00 CLAIMS MADE x OCCUR. PERSONAL l ADV.INJURY S 1, 000, OC OWNER'S i CONTRACTOR'S MOT. EACH OCCURRENCE S 1, OOO, OCR FIRE DAMAGE(ART NIN 50. OC MED.EXPENSE(AIM a 0.11111 S �/�_ AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMM=SINGLE LIMIT ANY AUTO ALL OWNED AUTOS GOoaLY INJURY f SCHEDULEDAUTOS (Per Moon) • HOLED AUTOS GODLY*WRY NON-OWNED AUTOS IPw.oeseonq GARAGE LIABILITY PROPERTY DAMAGE S ucrss LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ UMBRELLA FORM AGGREGATE $ OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM STATUTORY L.Dl'$ WOR1mS COMPENSATION __ _ BACK ACCfOBNT $ AND DISEASE—POUCY UNIT $ EGPLDYERs'LIABILITY DISEASE—EACH EMPLOYEE S OTHER A GAR AGEKEEP ER S CL327592 9/23/94 9/20/95 sl, 000, 000 AGG DESCRIPTION OF OPERAT1ONi/LOCA ITEMS CERTIFICIATE HOLDER IS NAMED AS ADDITIONAL INSURED WITH RESPECTS TO LIABILTY (EXCEPT WORK COMP: ARISING OUT OF T.JC NAME TNcLJRP'nc C2.13CRATT(1Nc a 7^[ 41 F IY 1 1 1 . PAI M 1F4F41'. rA CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION * EXCEPT 10 DAYS FOR NON—PAY -- SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF. THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO CAPTAIN COOKS MMLl-31:D(AYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE 72191 HWY 1 1 1 LEFT. BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL POSE NO OBLIGATION OR PALM DESERT, CA 9226C LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE COMPANY,ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES- - AYTMOIGiSD Rinalla fTATTYE, ( fc-tier ACORD 25-S (7/90) OACORD CORPORATION 19f : I T Y OF PALM D E " F R T WHENA PPLPR OI PECARLTIO N Y EXEFORCU TEVALE D•T ISP ARAK PER MIN( IJTRO I WEC CH 2 1S P 0AK 4Gl t4) I(THIS FORM. •: Y ci ropr s//.� ADDRESS/LOCATION OF VALET PARKING: DATE OF APPLICATION: .:/(T) thy \., /7/ NAME OF APPLICANT OR FIRM REQUESTING NAME OF THE PROPOSED VALET PARKING REOUESTING PERMIT: OPERATOR: ADDRESS: 7 -C>y/� yiv y /// ADDRESS: -/'("/ - 3 d7.7 r\- y t G. 1.2 ,2- 7C �,/..,- r' --- 2 �. /4 --�`?y 9‘./ 7 a TELEPHONE NO. (t�') TELEPHONE NO. � ) TYPE OF BUSINESS: �''J �'� r "" f LENGTH OF TIME FOR VALET SERVICE: Seasonal : YES _ NO 6( Start Date: End Date: Hours: From To TOTAL NUMBER OF AVAILABLE PARKING SPACES: '-�--�r- IF TYPE OF BUSINESS IS RESTAURANT, WHAT IS THE SEATING CAPACITY: NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES TO BE DESIGNATED FOR VALET PARKING: DOES APPLICANT OWN THE PARKING LOT TO BE USED FOR VALET SERVICE: (If not, letter of approval must accompany permit.) CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE FOR • Nave of Insurance Company: Pol icy No: C4- =-' .� E . pate: /2o! VALET PARKING SERVICE / SPECIAL CONDITIONS: KEEP NOISE LEVEL TO A :IINII1P 1 IN THE PARKING LOT ADJACQIT TO THE HaIFS. VALET PARKING WILL TAKE PLACE IN THE PARKING LOT ON 'III NORTH SIDE OF ALL55ANDRD DRIVE: THE PRIG LET AMACERT TO THE RESTAURANTWELL BE FOR SF'i F PARKIN OPERATORS WELL BEGIN AT 9:30 RI TO MOVE CARS FROM THE VALET LOT AND BRIM THEM TO MI FRONT LOT BEGINNING WITH THE BACK LOT FIRST. NO Ei IPLLDYEE PARKING IS PERI IITTED CU k i ngNOR NOTE: Valet parking operator mist Comp I Y with the attached Valet Conditions. Failure to do so may result In the revocation of permit. PAID: $25.00 RECEIPT #9842 12/23/94 (MS) FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 9/ , ,`, i5�% ` DATE APPROVED: Z(i si 9S SIGNATURE OF � , APPLICANT: EXPIRATION DATE: /. APPROVED BY: R TOR OF PUBLI WORKS WHITE-Applicant YELLOW-Public Works PINK-Code Compliance (OLD-Sheriff's Dept. • I I I I I U Hi _ ll _I - - AI iiiiiiiiiiii1 i 1 - A r • .1 ,,,-....„1,-,_..„, ,.......r..--A _____ _ a I •vo_cr+ L+Yfs a k — — -- •Ix—c edoa*b'r 1 • .1•=1..../• ‘c 1 1 =Jo . ion , / I 4 :?:h CITY OF PALM DESERT • VALET PARKING CONDITIONS The following conditions must be observed by the valet parking operator at all times . ( 1) All valet parking requests to be reviewed individually by the Public Works staff for approval by the City of Palm Desert ' s Technical Traffic Committee. ( 2 ) Permits issued to the requesting valet parking operator will be reviewed after a six-month trial for adjustment and overall evaluation. ( 3 ) Use of public right-of-way by the valet parking operator for drop-off or pick-up purposes is not permitted unless special ate circumstances, i.e. , unavailability of adequate parking, is documented and approved by the city. ( 4 ) For those establishments where more than one parking site is available/required, valet parking is to be limited to the remote site. ( 5 ) No fee will be collected by the valet parking operator (gratuities and tips are excluded) without permission from the City of Palm Desert. ( 6 ) Valet parking operations for establishments with single adjacent parking lots to be limited to no more than half the total designated capacity of the lot. ( 7 ) Valet parking operations shall not interfere with the traffic flow and general public access along, in, or out of dedicated right-of-way and private driveways. ( 8) Designated handicapped spaces cannot be used for valet parking. (9 ) Valet parking operations shall not be conducted which would interfere with Fire Department access and specific requirements . ( 10 ) Applicant shall comply with all traffic regulations and requirements of the City of Palm Desert. ( 11) No sign shall be installed on public right-of-way for the purpose of valet parking circulation. (Continued . . . ) sm/T6/170/TT •gTmzed wT ;o uoTlvoonaz aTgTssod pue uoT4enTQAaaz zo; papzoOaz eq VITA punO3 suoTgQToTA •szogwzado buTxzQd gaTvA og ATddv og -ggzO; qes suoTleTnbez aqg t4TM eOupTTdmoO eansuT og ;;vgs guemeazo;u3 0p03 zo/Pus sxzoM OTTqnd Aq pelonpuoo aq -mkt suoTquAiesgo pTeT; puv suoT4oedsuT euTgnog (9T ) •AlITTOv; buTxzvd emus eug buTzvus sassauTsnq zaglo moz; Tvnozddv/guemaezbv ;o zeggeT v sezTnbaz saTgTTTov; buTxzvd pezvt;s zo; sTvsodozd uoTgvzado buTxzvd gaTwA ( ST ) •sve1Q buTx1Qd-;Tes pemvubTsep aql og suozled TvTguegod 4OezTp og suoT1vooT egeTzdozdde le paowTd aq rums siozzv TvuoT4oe1Tp ggTM subTs a gTsTA ( 'T ) •s.uamazTnbaz puv saTOTTod Meu 10eT;ez og 'enogv peT3TOeds asouq buTpnTouT ' suoTgTPuoO uTQgzaO agaTep zo ppv 'abuwuo AQm A4T3 eqs ( ET ) •A4T0 eqg Aq gTmzad Meu Q ;o Tvnozddv puv luemssessvez azTnbaz TTvgs zogvzado buTxzvd 48TvA zo ssauTsnq 'dTuszaumo 'asn aqg uT abuvuO Auy ( ZT ) -L- MINUTES PAGE 10 PALM DESERT TECHNICAL TRAFFIC COMMITTEE JANUARY 21, 1994 spaces for drop off and pick up of valet parked vehicles with the provision that it is only applicable to the west side of the street because it is a minor issue as to where the cars are parked. Dick Barrera seconded the motion. (4 Yes, 1 No, 1 Abstain) After the vote was taken, it was reiterated that valet parking would be restricted to the parking lot; two spaces for drop off on the west side. Steve Smith told Mr. Meghanagi to try this approach for now with the two spaces and if it becomes an insurmountable problem to come back to the committee. • RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE Mr. Safavian reviewed the complaints from the residents reminding the committee at the last meeting Wendy Skarin stated she would make sure there would be no more problems. Mr. Safavian told the committee that Tony Lizza with Oliphant/Lizza had been invited to attend the meeting as he is the owner of the building thereby sharing in the responsibility of the valet operation. Mr. Tryon stated nothing had changed and, if anything, it was getting worse. When asked if any documentation had been made, Mr. Tryon began by stating that on Tuesday, November 30, an 18-wheeler pulled in at 4 :30 a.m. ; December 27 at 8:05 p.m. an 18-wheeler pulled in and stayed until 9 :50 p.m. , and parked in the middle of Alessandro Drive with the motor running; January 20 at 4 :05 a.m. an 18-wheeler pulled in and kept the motor running. Car alarms continually going off nightly; employees parking on the north side of the lot and at 11:30 pm and 12 a.m. their cars are idling and employee vehicle car alarms go off. At 11 : 15 pm one Saturday night on the north side of the street the car alarm went off and blew for five minutes . At 11:24 p.m. on January 13, a car alarm stopped and then went on/off for six to eight minutes; and it was felt the employees were playing games with the alarms and running around yelling. At the request of Mr. Sa$avian, Ms. Johnson read to the committee :the conditions of approval as stated on the valet parking permit. When asked to respond to the above-mentioned comments, Mr. Lizza stated he was not aware of the first meeting so he did not have a chance to respond or investigate the above-mentioned problems. Mr. Tryon reminded the committee it is a residential area but "no one seems to realize it" . MINUTES PAGE 11 PALM DESERT TECHNICAL TRAFFIC COMMITTEE JANUARY 21, 1994 After Mr. Safavian stated the violations were in respect to the operation of the restaurant and with respect to the valet operations, he asked Ms. Skarin to respond to the issues to which she stated she had letters from the trucking companies stating their understanding of the rules with respect to deliveries; she stated they understood and there are no deliveries being made to which Mr. Tryon stated the trucks were backed up to their door! Ms. Skarin stated there are people parking their cars/trucks in the lot and walking across the street to AM/PM and these trucks were not their delivery trucks; again she told the committee the companies were contacted and told not to come into the neighborhood between 5 p.m. and 7 :30 am. Mr. Tryon told Ms. Skarin that on December 27 he watched a delivery truck park on Alessandro Drive and unload a delivery at the restaurant from 8 : 05 pm until 9 :50 pm. , to which Ms. Skarin repeated she had letters stating they understood the rules and if they are coming in after those times they were asked not to they should be fined and/or ticketed for parking in the middle of the street as THEY DON'T ACCEPT DELIVERIES AFTER 5:00 PM. Ms. Skarin stated if the truckers were violating their delivery times they would stop doing business with them. After further discussion, Mr. Barrera told the committee Ms. Skarin does not have control on the street right-of-way and although she can ask the truckers to stay out of town they can drive anywhere they wants. Mr. Lizza told the committee they have rules and requested the deliveries be made before 9 :00 a.m. , and he comes down to the site twice a week and watches all the time and he can see where it happens occasionally and it is hard to control them but as a rule they are controlling it as much as possible. It was noted that when a new deliveryman comes to the site he is told where not to park and it is felt that many times if it is a violation it is someone new. At this point, Ms . Skarin asked the residents to contact them to which Mr. Tryon stated the activities happen late at night and she told them to call her the next morning and perhaps she can control it better. Mr. Safavian reminded the committee it is a residential street on one side and is a popular and busy spot. Wheg Mr. Safavian asked what the committee should do to resolve that part of the problem that has nothing to do with the valet service, Mr. Lizza suggested making a break in the street (curb cut) with two poles and a chain to prevent anyone from coming in late at night to drop off in front of the restaurant. Ms. Skarin stated she didn't want any cars parking and staying in the lot at night; however, during the day when there are deliveries it would MINUTES PAGE 12 PALM DESERT TECHNICAL TRAFFIC COMMITTEE JANUARY 21, 1994 greatly help the movements in the parking lot. Statements began from the committee, i.e. , Bob Smith stated flexibility may be needed about trucks parking; Lt. Conroy stated the residents may have to live with load/unloading; Steve Smith told the residents the committee could make modifications to the parking layout, i.e. , just a simple curb cut. Discussion ensued concerning the idea and the problems with motorists cutting the curb too close and having the curb cut would allow an exit. Mr. Lizza stated he felt it would be of benefit to everyone. Ms. Skarin told the committee they have had as many as three cars towed off because they didn't see the curb. Mr. Barrera then asked what the committee was reviewing to which Mr. Safavian reminded him the complaints received from the residents which were found `to be related to the valet parking and he wanted the matter brought back to receive assurance from Ms. Skarin they are complying with the plan. Once again the issues were briefly reviewed by Mr. Safavian as follows: a) employees parking on the north side of the lot (Ms. Skarin stated she didn't know the employees were parking in the lot and they were told they would be written up and terminated if they were caught violating that order) . When Mr. Lizza stated several of the employees were parking on the south parking lot, Mr. Safavian told him the employees were not to park in the north or south parking lots to which Ms. Skarin agreed stating they should park on the street "like everyone else" . Mr. Tryon stated with the lot being used after midnight there is absolutely no way it can be quiet and Mr. Lizza stated the cars should be parked in front of the restaurant with alarms . Mr. Tryon stated they are observing the permit but there is too much sound and activity for the parking and the north lot is not zoned for night time use. Mr. Lizza stated he felt the answer might be closer supervision and doing the best they can with the 18-wheeler situation. After a lengthy discussion, Mr. Barrera stated there were two incompatible zones and the residents are suffering because of that and the committee can try to come up with some controls and conditions to alleviate their suffering in this residential area. ( It was noted there were no restrictions placed buy the city for the parking lot) . MINUTES PAGE 13 PALM DESERT TECHNICAL TRAFFIC COMMITTEE JANUARY 21, 1994 Mr. Barrera then asked what staff's recommendation was to which Mr. Safavian stated no recommendations were made and mentioned one of the items for discussion was to reverse their position and shift the valet operations to the south side and leave the self parking to the north side; however, at least there is some kind of control on the north side presently and the residents would be at the mercy of the individuals who park in the north lot if the rules were reversed. Mr. Tryon stated he doesn't want self parking in that lot. Mr. Barrera motioned approval for maintaining the current valet parking arrangements subject to the same conditions . Wendy Skarin reminded the residents to call her immediately at night or if it happens after midnight call the police. Steve Smith seconded the motion. It was noted that if complaints were received from the neighborhood, this matter would be brought back to the next available meeting. Issues were reviewed with the following resolutions: * A pledge was received from the owner and operator they will take care of the employees and truck problems. * Mr. Safavian stated he will contact the companies in writing telling them this matter has been discussed and if it is their problem to solve it as far as the trucks. * Wendy Skarin will work on the employees and Mr. Tryon promised he will notify her immediately. * Mr. Meghanagi will not let any employees park in the lot and will do his best to resolve the car alarms and door slamming issue. (6-Yes; Caltrans Absent) . • PALOMINO (T & R VALET SERVICE) Mr. Safavian stated when observations were made for valet parking operations, it was noted a large sign was in the middle of the cul-de-sac making it impossible for motorists to use the public street including the parking spaces . When the valet attendant was approached about the sign, the attendant stated he was directed to operate the valet service in that manner. Mr. Safavian continued with discussion of the parking layout used for the area which included several restaurants and explained to the committee that he notified Mark Miller about the signs creating a problem and Mr. Miller had the sign removed and pushed it back complying with the requirements of : "r <�• -�� City of Palm Desert 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CAUFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE (619)346-0611 FAX(619) 340-0574 January 18, 1994 Curt Wheeler General Manager RUTH'S CHRIS STEAKHOUSE Palm Desert, CA 92260 Subject: VALET PARKING AT RUTH'S CHRIS STEAKHOUSE Dear Mr. Wheeler: At the November Technical Traffic Committee Meeting, a valet parking permit was issued to T&R Valet Service for the purpose of valet parking for Ruth's Chris Steakhouse. Present at the meeting were Wendy Skarin from Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, Tomer Meghanagi and Rafael Meghanagi from T&R Valet Service and two residents from San Marino Circle. After much discussion about the noise in the north lot, the decision by all parties was: (1) to have the valet operators start moving the cars from the north lot to the front lot beginning at 9:30 p.m.; (2) no employee parking would be permitted on the north lot; (3) the valet attendants were to: (a) control the car alarms; (b) control car doors slamming; (c) keep the yelling down between the parking attendants; (d) keep car radios turned down. (4) Large delivery trucks were to be told not to unload at night. Complaints have again been received from San Marino Circle residents. Residents are saying that circumstances have not changed since the discussion at the Technical Traffic Committee Meeting. Cars are not being moved to the south lot, employees are still parking in the north lot and large trucks are still unloading. The noise level has not decreased. They also claim that their attempts to contact management at Ruth's Chris Steakhouse to express dissatisfaction with the circumstances have been futile. In response to the citizens' complaints to the City, this letter is to notify you that the situation is unacceptable and is considered a violation of the City's Municipal Code Section 10.50.25. According to the,city code, both the operator of the valet service as well :as the owner/operator of the establishment are jointly responsible for the operation of the valet services and to make sure the City's permit conditions are met and adhered to at all times. Page 1 of 2 Curt Wheeler Ruth's Chris Steakhouse January 18, 1994 A Technical Traffic Committee Meeting has been scheduled for Friday, January 21. 1994 at 11:00 a.m. in the Public Works Conference Room. We are requesting your presence at the meeting as well as a representative from T&R Valet Service to discuss this situation. If these violations continue, the Public Works Department Will have no other choice than to void the valet parking permit and inform the Sheriff's Department to enforce the decision. If you have any questions, please call us. Your cooperation in resolving this problem immediately is appreciated. Very truly yours. IC ARD J. LKERS. P.E. Asst. City Manager/Public Works Director cc: Tomer Meghanagi, T&R Valet Service Tony Lizza Riverside County Sheriff's Department Code Enforcement Department Seyed Safavian, Transportation Engineer Sondra Sullivan, Senior Engineering Aide RJF:SJ/lw Page 2 of 2 rITY OF PALM DESERT APPLICATION FOR VALET I NG PERMIT (Ci) se) V Am. M PROPERLY EXECUTED. I FOR VALET PARKING) • ET PARKING) N OF VALET PARKING: DATE OF APPLICATION: September 22, 1993 1111 - d: September 22, 199: NT OR FIRM REQUESTING NAME OF THE PROPOSED VALET PARKING IT: OPERATOR: TEAK HOUSE T & R VALET SERVICE ;ED VALET PARKING .0 Hwy. 111 ADDRESS: 74-320 Erin Street :CE :A -922b0 Palm Desert, CA 922b0 :rin Street )14 ) 774-4479 TELEPHONE NO. (619) 140-444'3 9226u ;5: Restaurant 1 ) 140-5447 FOR VALET SERVICE: Seasonal : YES NO XX Start Date: Renewal End Date: 40 XX Hours: From 4:30 p.m.To 12:00 a.m. AVAILABLE PARKING SPACES: 122 To 12:00 a.m. MESS IS RESTAURANT. WHAT IS THE SEATING CAPACITY: 215 ING SPACES TO BE DESIGNATED FOR VALET PARKING: 60 Y: 215 OWN THE PARKING LOT TO BE USED FOR VALET SERVICE: No 60 - of approval must accompany permit.) E: No INSURANCE FOR Name of Insurance Company: American Pacific 3 SERVICE Policy No: CL027514 Exp. Date: 9/20/94 American Pacific . Date: 9/20/94 IONS: EL TO A MINIMUM IN THE PARKING LOT ADJACENT TO THE HOMES; VALET PARK- PLACE IN THE PARKING LOT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ALESSANDRO DRIVE; THE HESHOMVALET)JACENT TO RESTAURANT WILL BE FOR SELF PARKING; OPERATORS WILL BEGIN 'HE HOESES;D LE; THE PARK- MOVE CARS FROM THE VALET LOT AND BRING THEM TO THE FRONT LOT BEGINNING .ESSDR DIIV BEGIN t parking operator lust cooly with the attached Valet park i� A WIT 'HE FRONT LOT BEGINNING ttions. Failure to do so may result in the revocation of permit. BAC,RKING IS PERMITTED ON THE NORTH LOT. LOT FIRS" ched Valet Parking WI - cation of permit. BA( LOT FIRS" FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY DATE APPROVED: JANUARY 21, 1994 USE ONLY �, _ EXPIRATION DATE• 'N -i' 7 , 1995 )er 17, 1993 • gem r� 9 1994 , !�P7'' , ' APPROVED • •��-. ..�r 3 1D1 R eilT. BL I C WORKS - / - tiPUBL IC'wORKS YE -P b l 1 c Works PINK-Code Camp t i ance GOLD-Sheriff's Dept. i ILD-S riff's Dept. PLA' TE 4 i S I q H 1 2 c"r; x oaig mo5k 11I v..` ___ i .r. r ____ i! f I I Fj AA air ,1' ‘017-xii— tk\ RM1 I n�F'� ) 1 it ' 3 `� I I c0"`"- , Ce 614- L'1)11Q_ — — Ic -- DWD 00.. — __- I 43 I I I I I ( / Ir�//� �/1 �i11 ____ li ___ '772 • 1IIIIIIIIIII / - __. ____ 1 _____ 1 • ______ ____ _____ 1 _____ ___1 . 1 iiiii fl I I I l Lill u r r w ►. n u c. Q i ft , APPLICATION FOR VALET PARKA EMIT • (THIS FORM. WHEN PROPERLY EXECUTED. IS A PERMIT FOR VALET PARKING) SS LOCAT 1 ON OF VALET PARKING: DATE OF APPLICATION: " Q/� ?? ADORE /7y- O O hew ,f /// / NAME OF APPL I CANT OR FIRM REQUESTING NAME OF THE PROPOSED VALET PARKING REQUESTING PERMIT: OPERATOR: irti Ic s C A r/S S Ackiek h'o's 4- 7 1/Q/ei S9 r v,L c - AD//D��RE//r 11SS: 74' -D4/0 //wV /// ADDRESS: -7�-320 67,, S 74 4r/i- �J.'r-)e C/ 4 � . � / ,Co /'til,r a C4e-74 4.2Z/Q TELEPHONE NO. W?) 779 - 94/79' TELEPHOIE NO. Il/7') 3('0 -sa'/3 TYPE OF BUSINESS: ,'.J'T'z u r a s'S LENGTH OF TINE FOR VALET SERVICE: Seasonal: YES _ NO . Start Date: iN„tww / End Date: Hours: From 4')Ofl1 To i?-.00 q," TOTAL NUMBER OF AVAILABLE PAWING SPACES: /2.2-- IF TYPE OF BUSINESS IS RESTAURANT. WHAT 15 THE SEATING CAPACITY: .2/.5----- NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES TO BE DESIGNATED FOR VALET PAWING: DOES APPI.I CANT OHM THE PARKING LOT TO BE USED FOR VALET SERVICE: NO (If not. letter of approval must accompany permit.) CERT 1 F I CATE OF INSURANCE FOR Name of Insurance Company: Americo', P c,f;L VALET PARKING SERVICE Policy No:CL02-7SW Ezs. Dates /a/cr SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Al.eP n�,'.52_ kb./ a /71//l/!'nun1 //'1 u.., ,Dev--4,...-41 /C YLLL[.t �^� es a r c>r, + '►�-�• -,'- i na Li_ ��P ✓ n 1u,. n rr 4-i pa- w,i/ -L-a_C& �/n u /,, -r/u Aorr r,4 /afar -,ye '1 v17-+" .s'—z :a! A-L.eS S o r,d6.40 ,tin L. n d a (�,7 7- , 1._tc,L.h :r L.7 r/I S-pi-Mr- i cz-�si err// ILL. n al/4 4_ .Thu .��' 9 �" y NOTE: Valet parking operator must comply with the attached Valet Parking Conditions. Failure to do so rY /result in the revocation of permit. �1 -'Or' S, , [ Q/'t-1 el, ,� �/.9 n4 C . ,;- YQ LC' f .Seer / at -z,'?? r 4// 42c /./a LLm� p J m /cLr•SSa1-..1rC • 4:1 �.A L 'FOS,Ll.I i- n(r., Kr L✓.4_4/7 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY SIGNATURE OF /%% � ' DATE APPROVED: ql3 r/ APPLICANT: -/'� EXPIRATION OA �: /U _'�/� 1 6 " • • APPROVED BY: i,,, Adk �-C .. /<:1- . - ... , WHITE-Applicant YELLOW-Public Works PINK-Code Compliance COLD- -• iff's Dept. MINUTES PALM DESERT TECHNICAL TRAFFIC COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1993 9 :00 A.M. - PUBLIC WORKS CONFERENCE ROOM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMBERS PRESENT: Lt. George Conroy, Riverside County Sheriff's Department Sgt. Robert Kirby, Riverside County Sheriff' s Department Walt Brandes, Riverside County Fire Department Dick Barrera, Traffic Engineer, Riverside County Transp. Dept. Ray Diaz, Community Development Dir. , City of Palm Desert Frank Allen, Director, Code Compliance, City of Palm Desert Wayne Ramsey, Code Compliance Department, City of Palm Desert MEMBERS ABSENT: Ed Thulin, Department of Transportation, District 8 Leo Haynes, Department of Transportation, District 8 STAFF PRESENT: Seyed Safavian, Assoc. Transp. Engineer, City of Palm Desert Sondra Johnson, Engineering Aide, City of Palm Desert AGENDA 1) VALET PARKING PERMITS -- • RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE - T & R VALET SERVICE Seyed Safavian reviewed the location of the subject restaurant and reminded the committee this item was continued so the residents on San Marino Circle could be invited to attend this meeting to provide their input and discuss the problems that have been created by the valet parking operations. When Mr. Safavian asked for introductions , Mr. Gary Tryon introduced himself and stated his address as 74047 San Marino Circle (Mr. Ray Winner, an area resident, was also present) . Mr. Tryon told the committee the entire lot was being used until after midnight seven nights a week for commercial parking and it is very busy! He stated cars_were parked within 18 ' of his window and the. sound wall is only 4 ' 9" ; and even at 6' on their side it does not do any good as they hear car alarms going off at 11 p.m to 12 am which is very disturbing when 200 to 400 cars are parked per night. In fact, he felt it had become an intolerable situation with doors slamming, motors racing, people screaming and hollering, drunks partying in the parking lot, and people using the wall for a restroom. MINUTES PAGE 2 PALM DESERT TECHNICAL TRAFFIC COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 17, 1993 Mr. Tryon stated it was a very dangerous area as far as d Alessandro Drive was concerned on Fridays and Saturdays as traffic a is "jammed out onto Portola Avenue waiting to get in�� . He went on to say that cars run back and forth and 18-wheeler trucks are parked in the middle of Alessandro Drive unloading supplies from 1 : 00 a.m. to 4 : 00 a.m. Mr. Tryon stated the Sheriff' s Department shuts them down but they start up after they leave. Mr. Tryon stated he lived in a residential neighborhood and did not understand how the restaurant was allowed to begin with and he expected this activity during the day. He stated the 18 wheelers park in the back lot and let their engines run. When Lt. Conroy asked if they were unloading, Mr. Tryon stated they were waiting to unload. When Mr. Barrera asked how long Mr. Tryon owned his home, he replied that he purchased it in 1991 and he was assured the City would zone the area as office/professional for use during the daytime only. When Mr. Safavian asked Mr. Diaz what the issues for condition of use were at this site, Mr. Diaz replied that he would have to review the files but to his recollection that was not the case; however, Mr. Diaz stated the City can control the hours of operation on any use in the city. As far as the issue of trucks, no trucks should be in the parking lot nor should they be waiting there for four hours -- they should be delivering when someone is at the restaurant. Mr. Diaz did state the wall was supposed to be 6 ' high and normally the wall is measured from the lower side because if it is 6 ' high from the parking lot side that would raise it another 2 ' ; however, Mr. Diaz stated he did not feel it would stop the noise coming from the lot even if the wall were 15 ' high. Mr. Tryon also stated he had been trying to work these problems out with Tomer Meghanagi by asking him if he would park the cars with auto alarms on the other side of the street but Mr. Meghanagi refused to listen and told him to move! Mr. Tryon stated he got Mr. Meghanagi in trouble with Ruth' s Chris because of his complaints about the noise, so when they had a meeting to try to work the problems out, Mr. Tryon stated Mr. Meghanagi refused to park the cars anywhere else . Mr. Safavian quickly reviewed the problems discussed by Mr. Tryon as follows: * Waste management • Noise • Truck waiting + Truck loading + Car alarms * Door slamming, etc. MINUTES PAGE 3 PALM DESERT TECHNICAL TRAFFIC COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 17, 1993 re Representatives of Ruth's Chris and T & R Valet Service were then asked to join the meeting. Introductions were made as follows : Wendy Skarin representing Ruth' s Chris; Eric Feiler, owner of Historical Models, a business next to Ruth' s Chris; and Tomer and Rafael Meghanagi of T & R Valet Service. Mr. Safavian told the above-mentioned people of the letter of compliant received from the residents and reviewed the problems as mentioned above. Mr. Safavian stated that basically the area of concern of the neighborhood was the parking lot on the north side. It was noted that because the parking lot is lit at night it is used for more than Ruth's Chris parking at night. Ms. Skarin stated that as far as the semi-trucks were concerned she had already called the trucking company in Phoenix and told them they could not stay in the parking lot and if they did it again they would not be able to unload. Ms . Skarin stated that if there was ever a problem to call her directly at the restaurant after 7 :30 a.m. and that the issue of the trucks won't happen again. When Mr. Safavian asked as to the instructions that are given to the truckers as far as unloading, Ms . Skarin stated they were not to be on the street and she told them not to park on the street. Further, M.S . Skarin stated the landlord did not want the trucks in the parking lot and that has issue has been resolved. She did state they must be in the parking lot to accept deliveries, but there should not be any deliveries before 7 :30 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. Ms. Skarin stated the latest the last employee leaves is around 12:30 - 1:00 a.m. on Saturday nights; the last customer is usually out at 11:30 p.m. - 12 a.m. at the latest. When asked how late they operate, Mr. Meghanagi stated 12 a.m. is the very latest Sunday thru Thursday and 1 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. When it was noted that the employees park on the frontage road or Alessandro Drive, Mr. Tryon questioned this statement stating he could guarantee the same car was parked in the same location for the last two weeks and they turn the music on so loud they can hear it in his bedroom. It was noted the employees park on the frontage road or Alessandro Drive because the lot is needed for valet parking. Ms . Skarin stated she wants to work with the residents. Mr. Safavian then briefly reviewed the list of complaints once again beginning with * Waste Management (pick up usually occurs between 7 :30 a.m. and 8: 00 am) . There is daily pick up because of the other businesses in the building. Mr. Safavian asked Mr. Ramsey to contact Waste Management and make sure they adhere to these hours . Mr. Meghanagi stated the dumpster was used at night by the neighbors and they make noise. *Car Alarms - Mr. Meghanagi stated that maybe one car alarm goes off each night and they turn it off as soon as possible but sometimes they can't turn it off and stated many car alarms are self activated and it is their policy to never MINUTES PAGE 4 PALM DESERT TECHNICAL TRAFFIC COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 17 , 1993 set the alarm. There was discussion suggesting the valet operator should approach the driver and ask if there is a car alarm and how to turn it off. Ray Diaz told of an incident that proved car alarms are "very touchy" . Discussion turned to the idea of having a sign that asks not to have the alarm activated but everyone agreed that would be advertising for thefts; however, perhaps a small sign on the valet sign stating "if you have an alarm please tell the valet parker" could be utilized. When Mr. Diaz asked if the restaurant closed at 10: 00 p.m. how many cars are in the front lot (self parking" ) , it was noted the lot was half full next to the building. Ms. Skarin stated the issue of radios could be handled by asking the valet operator to turn off the radio before leaving the car and also do the same with the alarm at the same time. Ray Diaz suggested having the cars moved from the north parking lot to the lot closest to the building when the restaurant is closed or the last meal is served. Ray Diaz suggested they try bringing the cars over at 9 : 30 p.m. when the front lot starts clearing. It was noted no parking was allowed on the street when the issue arose for employee parking. Ms. Skarin stated the employees cars are broken into on the street and the idea was discussed for the employees to park on the frontage road which would leave more spaces for the customers. When Mr. Tryon brought up the issue of doors slamming, Rafael stated they definitely do not slam the doors . When Mr. Safavian suggested to Mr. Tryon that perhaps he should place a tape recorder on the wall, Mr. Tryon stated he had thought about that and would replay the tape for the city council to hear. Mr. Diaz again brought up the idea of bringing the cars from the far lot to the lot closest to the building. Mr. Diaz suggested theymoving start those cars along the back wall first and eventually close the north lot which might stop people from urinating on the wall. Ms. Skarin stated the restaurant does have restroom facilities and there is no reason for that to take place. Rafael discussed his concerns about losing the five spaces behind Mr. Tryon' s home and the neighbor then wanting spaces removed as Rafael expressed the need for those spaces as they are very important; however, it was agreed-those cars would be the first cars to be moved. Ray Diaz asked Mr. Meghanagi if he would try this suggestion. Mr. Safavian then summarized the items of concern once again stating that as far as the noise, code enforcement staff would contact Waste Management to get a better schedule; loading and unloading would not happen anymore; Mr. Meghanagi will take care of •ouTmoTsd pug . .ar s, TzvO 'suegogTg gzzTa- gTuso;TTg0 Aq asn aATgTgadmoo zo; seogds buTxzvd eqq ;o uoTluzTTTgn alp ;o sgogdmT aszenpg agq puv egTs uo dam Aegq uegM zegogeT3 aewa ggTM suoTgdo snoTivA passnosTp peAes 'zaneMoq :;TesWT buTpTTnq eqq oq gxau ATeggTpemmT saogds buTxzgd egg og pegoTalsaz svM buTxzgd gaTVA 'gTmzad aqq ;o eouvnssT ;o emTq eqq gY 'eoTAses zTegq egviado oq eoTAaes getgA g 3 y MoTTv oq penssT ueeq pvq Trmied 1Lzvzodmeq g gvgg aeggTmmoo aqq PTol pug 'sseuio gueae;;Tp eAT; squeseadea oq, 'Augdmo0 queme6guvWTTTgozng0 ggTM '=9404eT3 PT Awn peonposquT uatiq uWTAg;vs -am •weiv Agzgau aqq uT sassauTsnq eqq puv (s,pzvun0 gzegou Atzamzo; sgM sTgg buTgou) qugznggsez goecgns eqq ;o uoTggooT eqq peMeTAez uVTAW;vs peAes 3'JIAMZS 137YA Y 3 Z - ONIWO'IYd • •xsoM sbuTgl exym oq pzvq os sxsom A TO aqq Mog PeaTWPg eq gggq pequemmoo gsaszgg xoTQ (snomTugup) •uoTgom eqq papuooes Aiming); eudgM :lot q aou eqq uo peggTmzad sT buTxagd eaAotdme ou :gszT3 loT xogq aqq ggTM buTgzggs qoT quoz; eqq oq gg6nozq eq TtTM qoT getwA eqq max; sago •m•d OE:6 gg buTuuTbaq gggq 11194T eql dttv3T;Toads Pug uoTssnosTp eqq oq goacgns esnog xgelS sTagO s,ggng am; .Tmsed buTxsvd getvA eqq ;o Tgno.ddg peAom zgTQ Awl! •ATuo gTmaed Aigzodmaq a sT sTgg euoALzana papuTmei pug sxaol qT ;T aes oq Ail g passnosTp aaaM gggq suoTgvpuemmooaa agg eATb Aegl gggg eeglTmmoo eqq pug uoA.1y •zW oq pe .sabbns ugTAg;vS 'PeT3Tubgm os azv spunos agq pug zagveq.Tgdmg ug axTT sT gaag eqq esnvoaq esTou gonm os svm azagg qta; eq pegggs uodzy •zw •ou pTgs ugTAQ;gS •sW puv do buTxogq oT33gzq 3o esngoeq enuaAY gtogzod pug aAT.Q o.zpugsseTY uo peogtd eq ptnoo „pemottg susng g;aT out, buTgygs u6Ts g ;T pexsg T6guvg601 .1W •saguTM aqg uT -m-g 00 : L pug zammns eqq uT •m•v 00:9 qg buTuuTbaq sznoq buTxsot se amvs agq asv Aagg pagggs Aasmgg •zW goTgm oq smog buTpgoTun/buTpgoT aqg gnogv paxsv uTzvxs '01 •peuzaouoo azy suoTlvaado geTVA eqq sg iv; sg aTgTsuodsaz osty sT eqs segggs goTgM e3UQUTpzo gaTvA agg ;o uTag(S •gW Ptog uQTAg;vg '1W •dte gTPemmT qT 30 azgo axgg uvo eqs os maTgozd g sT eaagg eWTg Llama zeq govguoo Aegl buTlsenbaz squepTsea gazv pug aeggTmmoo eqq oq pavo zaq pegngTagsTP uTzv(S *ski •uoTggoot gggl moz; peAom asg sago sg dogs ptnogs TtgM aqg 6uTgguTan :misty ug engq Aagq 3T buTxsv uoaggd aqg buTgogozddg aoggaado getvA eqq ;o uoTlsebbns eqq buTsn Aq smzvTg zvo aqg £66T 'LT f3SIMAON 33.LLIWW00 0I.L YML 'IY3INH03y Dam W'IYd S3Jd'1NIW S 39Yd 49sa0 s,d3 I.aNS-009 aow! I calo0 03-)!I I d open 3! l c 'd- O113A S)4dOM 0 / 30 /' '�1 —' A8 alliMddll 36 £I El :31V0 NOI1VN I dX3 36/b I/ZO :03A0bddV 3111Q 30 f i I S A110 35f1 1V1011A0 2 -l!road 3o uo 13oAaJ aVl u I l I nsai Aare os op of a.u►1 I r13 -suo I l I Wo'J bu I)i. d la l QA Pa43,149ayl W! A l da= lsrms ao2Jado du I pad lam f A :310N 'SAVO (OE) A1NIH1 NI 03M3IA3N 38 11VHS 1IW 3d 9NIMVd 131VA '"113MNIV.S 3H1 01 1X3N 31IS 3H1 dO 213N1100 IS3MH1bON 3H1 IV 030Vld 38 YIVHS N9IS ONINNVd 1TIVA :910111 Q100 1V 133dS -c,)/ur d :a420 11(3 301 A2l3S JN I)W2iVd 131VA '-f . ,u/ ,- "yowl/ :IRuadtio3 a3.nsuI 3o arras d03 3ONVHEISMI30 31V31311833 ('l Iva'd AUDiN0030 lsrr l QAOJdde 3o Jalla 1 'lou 3 I) �y :33I Ad3S 13TIA BOA a35l 38 01 101 JN I)W2IVd 31{1 MAO 1Nr3 I lddV S300 :JN I)1tt11d 13111A BOA 0131VlA I S30 38 01 S30VdS JN 1)IaVd 30 d39Wf1N r / :A110VdV0 9N 11V3S 31.11 SI 1VHA '1NYdf1V1S3d S I S53N I Sf19 30 3dA1 31 Z/ :S30VdS JN I)RfVd 318V1 I VAV 3O d38WfN IV101 c' 7- 01 overt 3 :sanoH :alma pu3 • :alga I-11IS ON S3A : l etiosw5 :30 I Ad3S 131VA SOd 3W 11 3O H.10N31 :s 3N 1 Sl9 3O 3dA.l r,h,S -077 F ( '1) 'ON 3NOHd3131 L (;,i9) 'ON 3NOHd3131 C L ,tom'' Ci 7' c.C- f "_.+J '/'f/ (ref-/L : /// . M� ri/ -'4 :SS3a0av ", ,. bS 7 /4u/1 d11 Z�r1N ; �'a1� 1� s,yl1' :3 21011R13d0 :l 1 Wd3d ONI1S36b138 9N 1}itiYd 131VA 03SOdOdd 3H1 3O 3MVN `JN I lS3flb3d Wd I 3 dO 1NV3 I lddV 3O 3WVN 13 :,co��d3o u�� � :NO I lY3 I lddV 30 31V0 :ON I)W2I11d 131VA 30 M011V301/SS3di00V N?NJ,! y -'3C S)4 iOM :)fl9fld ,1 JN 1> Vd 131VA 633 1 I Wd3d V SI '031f133X3 Ald3dO d N3404 'Wd0d S I Hl) lb ' U u 3 11Mh3d ONI)W2iVd 131VA dad NOI1V311ddV ANV130dN31 O AI333 I S30 WIVd 30 Al MINUTES PAGE 3 PALM DESERT TECHNICAL TRAFFIC COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 14, 1992 C. RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE (T & R VALET SERVICE) An area map was presented to the committee showing the parking layout and buildings . After a brief discussion, a suggestion was presented to Seyed Safavian that perhaps he should ao out to the site with the valet operator to show the locations for the placement of signs . Discussion ensued regarding the parking lot layout, traffic circulation, and traffic being blocked on Alessandro Drive. It was noted that the video shoP and chinese restaurant will be opening at night at the subject location;• Further noted was 82 available parking spaces on the parkins lot south of Alessan dro Drive. Lt. Conroy motioned for a thirty-day permit to see how the operations work on the site. Seyed Safavian stated he would prefer a thirty-day permit also because of his concerns regarding the drop-off point and the short distances. Specifics of the motion are as follows: Walt Brandes stated his concerns about the flow of traffic crossing the street which brought up discussion regarding blocking the driveway closest to Portola Avenue by T & R Valet Service. Lt. Conroy then motioned for a 30-day permit. Walt Brande s stated the sign is to be placed by the stairwell as long as it does not obstruct foot traffic. Ed Thulin stated the sign should he placed with arrows pointing to the valet and self parking areas. George Conroy amended the motion for a 30-day permit leaving the valet sign where it is and reviewing the permit in thirty days. Warren Stallard seconded the motion (5-2: Public Works abstains) . D. ROBERT CUNARD'S RESTAURANT (T & R VALET SERVICE) Mr . Cunard was present at the meeting to discuss the subject permit. Seyed Safavian explained to Mr . Cunard there are violations taking place by the valet operator , i .e. , public right-of-way to he left for self parking and the location of the drop off and pick UP points . Further , he explained the policy regarding placement of signs in the right-of-way with no warning to the public . Mr . Cunard expressed his interest in having the street vacated and maintained by him = Also, Mr . Cunard discussed the traffic generated in the parking lot by the new pizza restaurant and reviewed the access to his restaurant. Mr. Cunard stated he had 154 parking spaces. Walt Brandes asked if the opening of the cul-de-sac was designed to have a turning radius without parking and he stated his concerns about on-street parking as he was not sure of having a complete radius for turning movements. Tomer Meghanagi stated there was plenty of room for equipment to maneuver in the parking lot but not in the cul-de-sac. When Mr. Cunard asked if the committee would make an exception to the rule PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT TECHNICAL TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MEETING FRIDAY , APRIL 3, 1992 9:00 A. M. - COMMUNITY SERVICES CONFERENCE ROOM • • • • • • • • • • • • * -• • • • • • • • • Members Present : Richard Barrera, Ri erside County Road Dept . Ed Thulin, Department of Transportation Lt. George Conroy, Riv . Co. Sheriff' s Dept . Sgt . Robert Kirby, Riv. Co. Sheriff' s Dept . Walt Brandes, Riverside County Fire Dept . Frank Allen, Director of Code Compliance Steve Smith, Associate Planner Seyed Safavian, Assoc . Transp. Engineer Staff Present: Sondra Johnson, Senior Engineering Aide Andrew Hartwell , Engineering Aide N E W BUSINESS ( 1 ) REVIEW OF VALET PARKING PERMITS A) Ruth' s Chris Steak House Seyed Safavian briefly reviewed the four permits on the agenda , and told the committee that Mr . Dan Barnes, a resident of Palm Desert, would like to discuss with the committee the problems he encountered when attempting to self park at the subject restaurant offering valet parking. Mr . Barnes then introduced himself and explained that he Frequents restaurants in Palm Desert often and particularly dislikes the Las Sombras Center not only because of the parking but because he felt the valet operators were using more than fifty percent of the parking for valet operations . Further , Mr . Barnes felt he should not have to sustain the indignities and arguments and intimidation from valet operators. Mr. Barnes then told the committee that on a Saturday night he went to Ruth' s Chris Steakhouse driving south— on Portola Avenue to Alessandro Drive; however , when he made a left turn onto Alessandro Drive, there was a traffic jam (three cars in the street) , so he drove on and didn't stop at this restaurant. MINUTES PAGE 2 PALM DESERT TECHNICAL TRAFFIC COMMITTEE APRIL 3 , 1992 Mr . Barnes then went back on a Friday night and when he attempted to use the north parking lot he found the west entrance was closed off by cones and half of the east entrance was closed by a "DO NOT PARK" sign. Mr . Barnes felt this could lead to an embarrassing and unpleasant situation. At this point , Dick Barrera said he shared the same concerns as Mr . Barnes and thought it was unfortunate that valet parking could be a sequestered situation. Lt. Conroy told Mr . Barnes he had the strongest voice and to use it by speaking with the owners of the restaurant, as the committee has control over the streets as far as traffic flow, but once problems occur on private parking lots , involvement by the committee is difficult. He stated once again the Mr. Barnes needs to address this problem with the owners of the restaurant. When Mr . Barnes asked if the Public Works Department would inform the managers of the restaurant about the problems with the valet operators, Seyed Safavian stated he had spoken with Dick Oliphant regarding this problem and the elimination of the traffic back up in the street. Seyed Safavian then reviewed the location and layout of the restaurant and the distance of the parking lots to Portola Avenue . A video was shown of the subject restaurant showing parking spaces in the south lot designated with 10-minute parking signs and 15-minute parking stenciled on the curb in front of the sign. it was noted that these signs and curb markings were placed in front of the video store, as well as those spaces in the middle of the parking lot. After deleting the previously- mentioned designated parking spaces from the total number of spaces in the south lot, it was noted only 21 spaces were left for use. Further, It was noted the video showed painted arrows in the parking lot, as well as a crossing bar with the stenciled with the word "STOP" , as the drop-off point, directly in front of Ruth' s Chris Steakhouse. Seyed Safavian then discussed the problems with delineation of the above-mentioned designated spaces in addition to the problems expressed by Mr . Barnes. At this time, Sondra Johnson, Senior Engineering Aide, stated that she observed four cars blocked on Alessandro Drive. Dick Barrera then recommended that with the various issues and problems, a 11st should be provided and then presented to the valet operators for their correction, as he objects to dealing with Tomer . Seyed Safavian stated that, as part of the condition, the applicant must retain a copy of the permit at 411 times on the site. Dick Barrera then told Seyed Safavian that the process should be gone through and all problems documented. Seyed Safavian then stated he wanted to amend the City code to give the committee authorization to enforce the problems . Steve Smith stated the committee should be referring MINUTES PAGE 3 PALM DESERT TECHNICAL TRAFFIC COMMITTEE APRIL 3 , 1992 the aspect of Mr . Barnes to the City Council to see if the committee is following what, in fact, the city council wants the committee to do. The committee needs the city council to provide direction on this issue . Seyed Safavian stated that staff is in the process of drafting a step-by-step policy and procedure and once it is completed it will be given to the city attorney for their review and approval so that it can be taken to the city council for approval . Steve Smith stated the need to have a very specific policy wherein the parking lot is not used exclusively for valet parking and felt it was important that 50 percent of the spaces should be available for self parking. Discussion returned to the permit for Ruth' s Chris Steakhouse and the fact that there are only 21 spaces remaining in the main parking lot; across the street the north parking lot is being blocked with signs , and it was noted that employees of the Chinese restaurant and Ruth' s Chris Steakhouse are parking in this lot . Closure of this north lot is forcing patrons and employees to park in adjacent parking lots, i . e. , Ace Hardware . Seyed Safavian offered the suggestion that perhaps all of the employees of these facilities not use the parking lot because of the shortage of parking. Dick Barrera then recommended that staff document all complaints and let the valet operators come up with a plan within thirty days. The question was asked as to whether the committee wants to extend this permit with certain stipulations . Steve Smith stated his Feelings that he would rather suspend the valet operations and see how it works without the valet operators . Seyed Safavian then reviewed the following options with the committee: shut the operator down, extend the permit, or give T 8 R Valet Service a chance to improve the situation. Dick Barrera motioned to extend the permit for thirty days; prepare a list of the issues to be corrected and within the thirty days the Public Works Department review the operation of the parking lot to insure that he has corrected those conditions that are traffic problems that result in confusion on Portola Avenue and any other traffic problems that occur and, finally, to bring this matter back to the committee; Ed Thulin seconded the motion. (6-2) Ed Thulin suggested that this committee has no power and a more extensive write-up is needed for regulations, which will be allowed under valet parking, in the code. Further, Ed Thulin stated either the committee wrrte these regulations or city staff writes it stating this code is given For them to comply with or the permit will be revoked. Seyed Safavian then stated that City staff is in the process of putting things together for review by the committee and reminded the committee of the current valet policies. MINUTES PAGE 2 PALM DESERT TECHNICAL TRAFFIC COMMITTEE JUNE 10, 1992 The parking layout was reviewed by Mr. Safavian, i .e. , the number of parking spaces designated for each level of the garage, and felt the committee should suggest the Marriott require self parking be available on the first or second levels . Mr. Safavian then stated his concern as to the valet and self parking signs as they are bronze with a dark brown background as well as the landscaping covering the signs, a portion of which has been removed. Bobby Karuzas from Mile Hi Valet Service was introduced to the committee and was then asked to discuss the parking structures and their uses. Bobby stated the second level has 330 spaces and is available for self parking (it was noted there are 600 covered spaces ) . When Mr. Safavian asked Mr. Karuzas if he would have any problem with switching the second and third levels for valet parking and leave the first floor for self parking, Mr. Karuzas stated that the second level is for self parking. Mr. Safavian then stated that as long as the second level is available for self parking and is conditioned on the permit, he would be willing to approve the permit. Mr. Safavian reviewed the location of the signs -- the ramp going down into the garage would have a sign indicating valet parking and the ramp going up would have a sign indicated self parking. Finally, Mr. Safavian reminded Mr. Karuzas that he must have his permit posted on the site and discussed his concerns about the signs being covered by the surrounding landscape, to which Mr. Karuzas assured him that the area is clear. Steve Smith motioned approval of the permit with the condition that the second level be available for self parking and the landscape below the signs is maintained in a fashion so that the sign is legible; Dick Barrera seconded the motion. (Unanimous) VALET PARKING REVIEW - RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE (T & R Valet Service) Seyed Safavian reviewed the location of the subject site and the number of units in the complex. It was noted that parking for the restaurant is on both sides of-Alessandro Drive, a street that parallel Highway 111. Mr. Safavian explained to the committee there were problems of the large demand for parking and not enough spaces to accommodate the patrons. A meeting took place with the owners of the complex to discuss the blocking of Alessandro Drive by stacking cars which indirectly affects Portola Avenue and Alessandro Drive. As a result, one of the conditions made was that the parking lot on the south side of Alessandro Drive would serve MINUTES PAGE 3 PALM DESERT TECHNICAL TRAFFIC COMMITTEE JUKE 10, 1992 as the valet parking area. A suggestion was made to make the first driveway a one-way operation as well as the other side . In addition, there have been problems with the signs denying access to the lot. Mr. Safavian stated there were no options for increasing parking spaces as there was no on-street parking because of the narrowness of the street; however, Mr. Safavian stated his feelings that the on-way operation will ease the problem. 2 ) FRED WARING DRIVE SPEED LIMIT Seyed Safavian stated that a speed study was conducted by Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates for the City of Indian Well for the area from Cook Street to California Avenue. The committee was reminded that when this matter was discussed earlier in the year, it was the recommendation of the committee to wait until the roadway improvements over the Whitewater Flood Control Channel were completed; however, at the insistence of the City of Indian Wells , Mr. Safavian told the committee that Public Works staff completed their own independent study as one of the problems the City had with the original study was that the consultant made a mistake as one of the stations was within the direct influence of Cook Street. Mr. Safavian mentioned that Indian Wells ' posted a 45 miles per hour speed sign on their side of Fred Waring Drive and no speed limit is posted on westbound Fred Waring Drive. Discussion began by Mr. Safavian stating that Fred Waring Drive would be closed as of August 1 and the project should be completed by November resulting in a four-lane roadway. Dick Barrera then asked if the committee should wait until the construction is completed and then do the study, to which Mr. Safavian asked what the legal requirements were as to doing the study after the improvements are completed. Sgt. Kirby stated it should be done as soon as the improvements are completed. Mr. Safavian then reviewed the study and the different stations which show speeds of 50 miles per hour to 52-53 miles per hour and the analyses and recommendation was based on the frequency of accidents over two to three years. The consultant stated that based upon the accidents and critical speed to be within five miles per hour they . recommended the 45 miles per hour speed limit. Discussion began as to the traffic signal installations, i.e. , the traffic signal on Fred Waring Drive and Warner Trail should be turned on by the end of the month. Mr. Safavian felt that the two jurisdictions should endorse a study with a consistency requirement so as not to create confusion with changed speed limits. It was the advantage is of valet parking in front of the restaurant and asked where the drop-off point was located, Tomer stated security reasons. Deputy Czajkowski stated his observations showed the lot was never full. Tomer stated there was plenty of valet parking on the street and in the parking lot or the RKR Center. Steve Smith asked Tomer if he was prepared to get a lease or the committee could apply the 50-50 rule and the committee could be consistent and make the sure the seven spaces on the site were maintained and any extra cars would be taken across the street into the lot which is not being used. Sgt. Kirby stated the area is dark and operators are crossing the street. Tomer stated he would use the Rusty Pelican area for valet parking. Steve Smith then motioned that the committee invoke the 50-50 rule on the site meaning no more than 7 spaces be reserved for valet parking on B.B. O'Brien' s lot and the excess valet parking be set up in the lot across the street contingent upon his having an agreement with the property owner; also that the City be satisfactorily provided with a letter from the property management firm confirming there is no problem with this arrangement. Dick Barrera seconded the motion (Unanimous) . Tomer asked for a permit for one month and he would come back if there are any problems. ol( A Ruth's Chris Steak Rouse Seyed reviewed the location of this restaurant and the parking layout and reminded the committee of previous discussions where the direction from the committee waS'that the south side of Alessandro Drive would be designated for self parking with some spaces to be used for the video store, the valet parking drop-off be maintained ci / az in front of Ruth' s Chris Steak House immediately north of Highway 111, and the cars be taken by the valet operators to the north side of Alessandro Drive with no restrictions placed on the parking. Seye d then discussed the changes es that had been made to the parking lot and stated as far as valet operations it would be one way. It was noted that there was an agreement to install signs to encourage motorists not to use the first driveway. Steve Smith asked how the arrangement was working and stated complaints were received from people who live behind the parking area used for valet parking. When Steve Smith asked if the one-way operation was working, Tomer replied that it was . Sgt. Kirby motioned approval of the permit as it stands ; Steve Smith seconded the motion with the condition that T & R Valet Service will do their utmost to control the nose level in the parking lot that is within his control. Tomer asked if he could sign the parking lot for valet parking only to which Steve Smith stated he had no objections to the signs BUT NO CONES ! . (Unanimous) . 2) Country Club Drive Speed Limit Between Oasis Club Drive and Washington Street Seyed stated staff ' s recommendation was to reduce the speed limit from the posted limit of 55 miles per hour to 50 miles per hour. It was noted that on Country Club Drive between Oasis Club Drive and Washington Street one-half of the street is in the County and the other half within the City. Dick Barrera asked why and Seyed stated the critical speed was between 50 - 58 miles per hour and it is within the authority of the local jurisdiction to look at C Tv:VI cif vf M o ? 1P) EktiEl D eLsert 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, HALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 FAX(619)340-0574 October 1, 1992 Mr. Tomer Meghanagi T & R VALET SERVICE 74-320 Erin Street Palm Desert, CA * 92270 SUBJECT: VALET PARKING PERMIT FOR RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE Dear Tomer: Please find enclosed the valet parking permit and conditions for Ruth's Chris Steak House as approved by the Technical Traffic Committee on September 30, 1992. These conditions are in addition to the standard conditions included with your valet parking permit application. Your valet parking permit is valid until September 30, 1993. Public Works staff will occasionally observe your valet parking operation to make certain that you are in compliance with all approved conditions. If problems are observed, you will be notified. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office. Ve ruly yours, RI J. FOLKERS, P.E. ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR RJF:SJ/ms Enclosure •3da0 s.331-+ 4S--flMOO aomplidgoo aP033-)N I d s14-10A 31 1'd-MOT13A 3+3 I t ddV-31 I HA S)IdOM 311=•• JO di01 tf I 0 — 1- A►�i‘rdirr A8 MAMMY £6 0£/6 •3iY0 NOI1Y2lIdX3 :1AVOIlddV Z6/0E/6 :O3A0eddY 31V0 7/..- A1O 3Sf1 1YI3I330 HOA _ • •4 I■uad 3o uo i leoowal aye u I ;t nsal Awi os op oz a.in l 1 e3 'suo l;I Pti+o3 6u 1'l1Qd l BA Pag3e442 aye lA 1 n Atom= 4sr12 104eJadO du 1 41ad 3a 1 eA :310)! 'Wf1WINIW V 0i 1dD 3S O1flOHS lU I JNflbbd 3H1 NI 13A31 3SION 'S1N30IS3 SNId0SH9I3N 3O NOI1d2i30ISN00 NI :91011 I 0NO3 1Y 133dS :also •dbc3 dd Q$1 :oll Ao 11 od 33I A2I3S 9N 1*IYd 131YA •� j ud C'J,-,c*w t/ :Auedwo0 a;ue-insu 13o ameN d03 33NY2S1SN I JO 31Y013 I 12i30 (-41111,tad AUWW03.1e 1$rr 1 ewoldde 30 Ja4.131 •4ou 3 I) O/l/ :30I AH3S 131VA 2lOd 03Sfl 38 01 101 9N I)9IYd 3{1 MAO 1AVO I iddY S300 :9N I)RJYd 131YA d03 031YAD I S30 38 01 S30YdS 9N I)RIYd JO 838Wf1N :Al10YdY0 9N I1Y3S 3H1 SI IYHA '1HYHf1Y1S321 SI SS3N I Sf19 3O 3dA1 JI / :S33YdS 9N I)I1:IYd 318Y1 I YAY JO 21381IfIN 1Y101 vs I d 0" / 01 aed dam:, anJ J :ave'0 Pu3 :a4e0 4-le;S A ON S3A : t BuosseS :33I Adi3S 131VA I03 3M I1 30 H190131 :SS3N I S(19 3O 3dAl z, fit`,s- D!'E ( z' •ON 3N0Hd3131 4 jZ.hd-64 L (b/9) •ON 3,40Hd3131 `Id9 647ivai 09 'elf) IS It, O�'-hL, :SS32WOOY ///4 in f' :SS32i00Y ' 1.3/n4 Y,-§1 ��.10H k'als :2101Vd3d0 :1 I M213d 9N 11S30032I JN I)i2iVd 131YA Q3S0d02ld 3H1 JO 3WYN 9N I1S3flb3d MIA 2JO 1NY0 11ddY JO 3MYN 77/ /6nf4 6/ `Z ,L a 4 :NO I1Y0 I iddY JO 31Y0 :9W I)ItlYd 131YA 30 M011Y301/SS32IUQY (9N I){2fYd 131YA M03 1 I M2i3d V SI '031f 133X3 112f3dO d M3HA S 11{1) 11 MM3d 9N I)i2IYd 131YA 2iO3 NO I1Y0 I iddY 183 - - 0 . M1Yd JO A110 TESTA JIDEO ® PLA►-TEAS 11STORIfAL NODELS AND r30ok5 SIIJG TAO . CHI►.IESE CuISI0 E \AMS sKo rl1...', C r.c S //J� a, }� • ' IIIiHHi1I P. 1C.LLlJ =2" 1 ,I . . S I I �- II I I a rrr-- - - I -- - -1 AI.ESUJ iDo3 Op,.— — — 1T � .J «�, 1 I 8 I i I l7 LIHHIIHIIIi N V 1 PUrkijJ I I 1 I r CITY OF PALM DESERT VALET PARK I N G CONDITIONS The following conditions must be observed by the valet parking operator at all times. ( 1 ) All valet parking requests to be reviewed individually by the Public Works staff for approval by the City of Palm Desert's Technical Traffic Committee. (2) Permits issued to the ruetitgialvalet for ad�ustment operator end overall reviewed after a six-month evaluation. (3) Use of public right-of-way by the valet parking operator for drop- off or pick-up purposes is not permitted unless special circumstances, i .e. , unavailability of adequate parking, is documented and approved by the city. (4) For those s�nts where et parking isreto bethan lone lmitedparking site the remote available/required, site. (5) . No fee wi11 be collected by the valet parking operator (gratuities and tips are excluded) without permission from the City of Palm Desert. (6) Valet parking operations for half the total designated adjacentl Parking lots to be limited to no more than capacity of the lot. (7) Valet parking operations shall not interfere with the traffic flow and general public access along, in, or out of dedicated right-of- way and private driveways. (8) Designated handicapped spaces cannot be used for valet parking. (9) Valet parking operatio all andbepecif�cted eduiwheich chts would interfere with Fire Department ( 10) Applicant shall comply with all traffic regulations and requirements of the City of Palm Desert. ( 11 ) No sign sha•11 be installed &n public right-of-way for the purpose of valet parking circulation. (12) Any change in the use, ownership, business ess a new permit r valet pabyrk ing toe r�r shall require reassessment and approval (Continued . . .) . e im-t.arl Y i/'19 7 GARVIN & EGGEBRAATEN,.LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LISA A.GARVIN 71-301 HIGHWAY 111,SUITE 1 TELEPHONE(760)341-7773 TONI EGGEBRAATEN RANCHO MIRAGE,CALIFORNIA 92270 FAX(760)341-3389 April 1, 1997 Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Public Hearing on Case No. CUP 91-9 Members of the Planning Commission: The purpose of this letter is to set forth objections of residents Gary Tryon, and Raymond Winner ("Residents") to the above referenced CUP and to provide a summary.cof evidence supporting the Residents' view that operations under CUP 91-9 constitute a public nuisance. Mr. Tryon resides at 74-047 San Marino Circle, Palm Desert and Mr. Winner at 74-039 San Marino Circle. Both the Tryon and Winner properties adjoin a parking lot located to the north of Alessandro at the corner of Portola which lot is used in conjunction with the operation of Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, the property covered by CUP 91-9. Due Process Objection Residents first object to CUP 91-9 on the basis that it was initially issued in violation of basic due process protections accorded to adjoining residents. In accordance with the case of Drum v. Fresno County Department of Public Works (1983) 144 Cal. App.3rd 777, 192 Cal. Rptr. 782, due process requires that residents and neighbors in the area of a proposed variance or conditional use permit be given adequate notice of the proposed change or variation in use so that they may raise appropriate objections. Both in 1991 when the CUP was initially granted,and again at the present time, the City has failed to provide the public with adequate notice of the fact that CUP 91-9 was to encompass the parking lot to the north of Alessandro at the corner of Portola zoned as "Office Professional". Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a copy of CUP 91-9 which describes its scope as the approval of a conditional use permit for "two restaurants with liquor license totaling 8,000 square feet to be located in the Highway 111 fronting building of a 40,000 square foot retail/office complex at the northeast corner of Portola Avenue and Highway 111." No mention was made within that description Palm Desert Plannini =mmission April 1, 1997 Page 2 or within the remaining body of the CUP of a usage of the parking lot located at the north side of Alessandro in the office professional area that adjoins Residents' properties, yet the applicant and City staff have proceeded to treat the CUP as including that usage within its authorization. Also attached hereto as Exhibit "B" are the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held on June 4, 1991 when CUP 91-9 was initially approved. As reflected on page 2 of Exhibit "B", Mr. Oliphant expressly described parking for the project as excluding the northerly parking lot, owned by Gregory. Quoting from the minutes, page 2 of Exhibit "B", Mr. Oliphant stated: "He stated that they were interested in working with their neighbors and had been working with them to assist with their concerns all along. He did not feel the project would impact them because it was only in the building that fronts Highway 111 and Alessandro's traffic separated the project from the residents as well as a deep parking lot and two additional commercial buildings on the back." The project applicant himself presented the CUP as though it did not include the "deep parking lot" of which they presently complain. Other comments within Exhibit "B" reflect that the applicant did not present the project to either the Planning Commission or to the public as including the parking lot north of Alessandro. Residents also request the Commission to note the serious concerns raised by Commissioner Richards, Chairperson Whitlock, and Commissioner Erwood in connection with the lack of available and appropriate parking for the two 8,000 square foot restaurants which were the subject of the CUP 91-9. The fact is that the parking has come to be primarily located on the lot north of Alessandro even though it was never approved, discussed or noticed for discussion in connection with the CUP. CUP 91-9 itself makes no mention of this parking lot usage. The failure by the City to comply with due process is further compounded by the legal notice issued in connection with this very hearing which again describes the CUP as "a conditional use permit for two restaurants totaling 8,000 square feet located within a commercial complex at the northeast corner of Portola Avenue and Highway 111." On the face of the notice, there is nothing to apprise neighbors that the parking lot at the north side of Alessandro is included within the scope of the CUP before the Planning Commission. Palm Desert Plannin mmission April 1, 1997 Page 3 The lack of notice for due process purposes also raises the issue of the City's failure to comply with CEQA in its approval of the CUP. This is an objection that continues at this stage in that the prior project description (and that before the Commission now) did not provide notice sufficient to allow project opponents to raise the issue of compliance with CEQA. The Planning Commission specifically reserved the power to revoke approval of CUP 91-9 under condition of approval #7 as reflected in Exhibit "A" which calls for "re-examination of this approval". Residents request that the Commission clarify that CUP 91-9 does not extend to the north parking lot and prohibit its use in conjunction with the restaurants. Alternatively, Residents believe that this hearing must be re-noticed with CEQA compliance observed in the process. It should be noted also that CUP condition #7 provides for possible imposition of additional mitigating conditions; however, as discussed later, no such mitigating conditions have been offered by staff or can resolve the nuisance that is created by use of the parking lot as to the Residents. Noise Levels Residents dispute the findings set forth in the Gordon, Bricken •& Associates noise studies commissioned by the City for several reasons. First, the noise studies are based on an average of decibel levels over a period of time and do not take a count of individual sound events in their methodology. This is a basic flaw within both the noise ordinance and with the conclusions reached by the Gordon Bricken studies. Mr. Tryon will be presenting evidence of car alarms and other noises that are frequently experienced in the residential area emanating from the Ruth's Chris operation. The Gordon Bricken studies refer to car alarm events as being of a duration of "one second or less, an assertion that is clearly refuted by the tape and by common experience in that a triggered car alarm does not disarm in one second or less. • The tape will show events of several minutes in duration which refute the Gordon Bricken studies. Residents request the Planning Commission to observe the decibel readings in the study dated February 28, 1997 which reflect that noise levels frequently exceed 55 decibels during any particular given period of time. The fact that they average out within the noise ordinance does not remove the fact that a nuisance is by the numerous short duration high decibel events that emanate from the parking lot. Palm Desert Planning mmission April 1, 1997 Page 4 In addition to the foregoing, Residents request the Planning Commission to receive as evidence the letter dated July 28, 1996 from Ray Winner to Phil Drell and Mr. Oliphant attached as Exhibit "D". The letter dated February 9, 1996 from Richard J. Folkers to Tomer Meghanagi. In addition, the present "parking regulations" are being violated by the valet service as well, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit "F". As reflected in the second page of Exhibit "F", the valet service continues to park in the three areas depicted as no valet parking on Exhibit "F". Residents also reserve the right to refer to other portions and details of the Bricken noise studies dated January 25, 1997, January 27, 1997 and February 28, 1997 at any future hearing in conjunction with this CUP. • In light of the foregoing and of the content of the tape presentation, Residents request the Planning Commission first, to clarify that CUP 91-9 does not extend to allow the use of the north Alessandro parking lot. If the Commission does not do so, Residents alternatively request that this matter be re-noticed for review and that compliance with CEQA be observed in that the scope of the project as initially presented does not comport with its actual use such that environmental impacts were ignored at the previous stages and must be observed at present. Third, if the Commission declines all of the foregoing, Residents request that a finding be made that the operation of the parking lot under the CUP is a nuisance and that the approval be revoked in its entirety or modified to prohibit parking in the north Alessandro lot. Very Truly Yours fro( Lisa A. Garvin LAG/ns Enclosures PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1517 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TWO RESTAURANTS WITH LIQUOR LICENSE TOTALING 8 , 000 SQUARE FEET TO BE LOCATED IN THE HIGHWAY 111 FRONTING BUILDING OF A 40 , 000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL/OFFICE COMPLEX AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PORTOLA AVENUE AND HIGHWAY 111 . CASE NO . CUP 91-9 WHEREAS , the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 4th day of June, 1991, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of OLIPHANT/LIZZA for approval of a conditional use permit for allowing two restaurants with liquor license totaling 8 ,000 square feet to be located in the Highway 111 fronting building of a 40 ,000 square foot retail/office complex at the northeast corner of Portola Avenue and Highway 111; 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 . 80-89 , " in that the director of community development has determined that the project is a Class 3 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 justify the granting of said conditional use permit: 1 . ' The location of restaurants within retail commercial complexes are complimentary and beneficial to retail tenants in the vicinity. 2 . The mix of uses in the retail/office complex and the available parking supplies are such that the proposed restaurants will not create a parking shortage in the area. 3 . The proposed use is consistent with the goals and objectives of the general commercial zone, Commercial Core Area Specific Plan and the Palm Desert General Plan. 4 . The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety orgeneral welfare, or be materially injurious to properties r improvements in the vicinity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows : EMI!'ATA, PLANNING COMMISSION S ^r `JTION NO . 1517 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and const_ . ..te the findings of the commission in this case . 2 . That approval of Conditional Use Permit 91-9 is hereby granted, subject to the attached conditions . PASSED , APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm • Desert Planning Commission, held on this 4th day of June, 1991 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES : DOWNS , ERWCOD , JONATHAN, WHITLOCK NOES : RICHARDS ABSENT : NONE ,ABSTAIN: NONE WHITLOCK, Chairperson ,Arre'frt ATTEST y. RAMON A. DIAZ , ecary PD/tm 2 • CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO . CUP 91-9 Department of Community Development : 1 . Applicant shall comply with all state, county, and city regula_icns concerning restaurant use . 2 . The applicant shall obtain all necessary architectural -eN commission and department of building and safety permits by any physical modification of the site . 3 . Restaurant shall be limited to 8 , CCO square feet in area. 4 . Restaurant shall participate in a commercial recycling program- rc ram as approved by the Environmental Conservation Manager. 5 . Proposal shall be subject to all applicable conditions of PP 8:- 19 . 6 . Restaurant garbage shall be restricted to south Alessandro parking lot tras dumpsters only. 7 . Late night noise impacts on the San Marino Circle residential area caused by restaurant activity shall result in Planning Commission reexamination of this approval and the possible imposition of additional mitigating conditions . Thisapply parkinglotoverhead lightingon approval does not acpl � to 3 . _ the ;� future r 1 to provide T ..0 emu.. _ proposal Alessandro parking lot . on north p g Any P and illuminate other than low four foot maximum height landscape lighting shall be subject to rehearing by Planning Commission. PO/tin 3 1.71 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 I PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: June 5, 1991 Oliphant/Lizza 77-900 Avenue of the States Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: CUP 91- The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of June 4, 1991 . PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED CUP 91-9 BY ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1517, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AS AMENDED. CARRIED 4-1 (RICHARDS VOTED NO) . 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. )4* RAM N A. DIAZ, S Cl,•E1 ARY 4ARYPALM DESERT PLANNI COMMISSION RAD/tm cc: Coachella Valley Water District • Public Works pepartment Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal JLIIHX 3 ;oT pEau.=ano ;nogE susaouo0 'w'd 00 : 0T so 'w'd 00 : 6 4E 401 ;Eu; buTso-o LTQTssod pup uoT;nlos aTgTssod E sE 5up{spd ;aTEn pe.r nba.z pa;sab5ns 33p;s :sesn asag4 Iq pasnso s4oT 5u-plaed uT SasTou ;u5Tu e4e1 a.zaM anssT up osTy - oYs-ep-Tno E 4T 6UT}jpw pus. a1o.ITD OUT,ZEN ups buTsoTo pa;sabbns s;uepTsas au; 4E144 pa4ou 33E4s -qusanE;sas au; o; eATgETa.I pass o'lpupssaTy au4 o.uT MoT3 0. oT3gea4 au4 4oadxa 4ou pTp 33E4s :5UT3{spd SEM puooas -peuoT;Tpuoo aq FT1E0T3T0ads pTnoo uOTtM ';upsnE;s's au; so3 pasn aq P-noM oapuEssaTy go u4.=ou sasnsoToua eq4 3o auou pup TIT LEMu5TH uo 401 au; uT aq PInoM ;uEsnn;sas auk. Fq pasn sasnsoToua use.z; FTuo auq pue ITT LEM145TH uo a.iaM squE,InE;sas pasodoad aul pa.EoTpUT -ureic -sw :s.zauTEquoD usps4 3o uoTlEooT o4 BAT4ETe.I su.zaouo0 1.14Tm S;uapTsa.i Pei? OZ fq pau5Ts panTaoa.I uaaq peq sa;;aT E ;pu; pa;ou eH -;sodas 33E4s au; 3o squTod quaTTEs au; PauTTgno TTe1Q '11,4 ' ITT FEM- 5TH pue enuany ETO;sod 3o .Iau.Ioo ;ssau;sou auq 4E xaldwoo aoT33o/TTe4e1 4003 exenbs 000 '0, p 3o 5uTpTTnq SuT4uo.13 TIT AeMubTH aul uT pe;EooT aq o; ;aa3 eaenbs OOo 's 5uTTE;04 esueoTT sonbTT ugTM s;usane;sa.I oM; MoTTE o; ;TU.Iad asn TeuoT.Tpuoo E 3o TEnosdde so3 ;.senbau 41.1p0TTddlr 'KZZI'I/SNKHdI1O - 6-T6 dn0 'ON as •g '0-S paT.I.=EO 'pepuawe se SuoT4Tpuoo o. qoa Cgns '0L69Z II 5UTnosddE '9CST '0N uoT;nTosaE uoTSSTwwoo 5UTuueTd 5UT;dope 'ueq;Euor .zeuoTssTunuo3 fq papuooas 'spspuoTE .IauoTsS-p tuo 2q panow 0-S PeT.I.IEO -33E;s nq pa;uasasd sE s5uTpuT3 auq 5uTnosdde 'ueu;Euor sauoTssTunuop papuooas 'spiegoTE .IeuoTssTwwop fq panow :uoT4oy 'ss900p peq eAEu P-noM 4E144 slaoaed asOE aAT3 9144 3o ;g6Ta 3o eaeo aje; P1nom sTu; ;Euq pagou pue su.iaouoo s ,ueq;euor sauoTssTwuwop paspus spsBuDTE .IauoTssTwwoo -Mou qT so3 ueTd PTnogs .KgTo auq 'Ease au; uT 0T33Es; 3o 4unowp auq ugTM pue gnTO 2 ;unop uo squTod ssa.i5a/ssas5uT nupw o04 5uTneu e;EuTwTTa oq L4TnT4Easo awns pa;se55ns aH ' TEnoadde ;oeCosd go 2eM 9144 uT puEYs qou P1noi Sus90U00 sTu YEu; pa;E;s ueu;Euor seuoTssTwwoo T66T 'V 3Nnr • NOISs: '"• oNIMN' 'Id 112s3a LWT'IVd S31,nNIW MINUTES PALM .DESERT PLANNING Cul, ;SION 'JUNE 4, 1991 lighting; no specific parking lot lighting other than landscape lighting was proposed. The residents did not have objections to the restaurants themselves, but overflow from commercial operations into their neighborhood. Staff stated that it was not their intent to allow any uses to have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Commissioner Downs suggested that rather than closing the back lot, make provisions that the front part of it would be left open and the back part near the neighborhood be blocked off. Mr. Drell felt this could be done . Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. • MR. RICHARD OLIPHANT, 77-900 Avenue of the States, and MR. TONY LIZZA were present. Mr. Oliphant felt that staff had covered the issue of restaurants in these kinds of centers thoroughly. He stated that they were interested in working with their neighbors and had been working with them to assist with their concerns all 4ong. He did not feel the project would impact them because it was only in the building that fronts Highway 111 and Alessandro ' s traffic separated the project from the residents as well as a deep parking lot and two additional commercial buildings on the back. He stated that the trash containers for the restaurant were associated with the building in the front on Highway 111 and that building was a multiple tenant building with other tenants, including the upstairs portion that would be high-end office. He stated that they would maintain those containers because they were literally at the front door of the other commercial uses in that building. Regarding the parking lot in the back and blocking it off, he stated that Oliphant/Lizza owned only a portion of that lot; the other portion was owned by Ron Gregory and Associates and they would have two buildings on the corner and another 4, 000 square foot building. They couldn' t deny them access to their buildings after hours and those uses would be office uses . He did not feel they would be impacting the parking situation and they had reviewed it with staff . He indicated that as far as blocking San Marino Circle, that had been discussed since the project was approved. The city put up a barricade and eliminated the street being a thoroughfare and the residents liked that and felt the city should make it a 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING ESSION • JUNE 4, 1991 permanent closure . He did not feel it was their responsibility and their project was not the one impacting them, but already existing traffic problems. Chairperson Whitlock asked how many parking spaces were in the block containing the two restaurants . Mr. Oliphant replied that there were 49 spaces in the same lot and six spaces in the frontage road on the side. Commission Richards stated that if the two projects were isolated and the back project was owned by someone else and the parking was someone else ' s responsibility, how many deficient parking spaces were there in the front lot. Mr. Drell stated that Mr. Gregory was a signatory to the application and as a co-signor of the application the whole project was a part of this proposal . Mr. Oliphant clarified that the corner buildings and the 4,000 square foot building pads were owned by Mr. Gregory and all the parking was co- owned. They have a certain number of allotted parking spaces for their uses that Mr. Oliphant could not deny them the use of. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Richards noted that he was opposed to the original project and felt this was too much building for this area and did not like the idea of going across the street for parking and putting in a restaurant in an area that would be too much. He felt that the developer did an excellent job working with staff and the neighborhood, but was still opposed to the intrusion down Portola with commercial into the residential area and potential lack of sufficient parking. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he shared some of the concerns, but felt the applicant made good use of the location and the proposed restaurant use was not inconsistent with that area. He felt the concerns of the residents were valid and would be worked out, particularly the trash, parking, late night noise and lighting. He did not have a problem with the g request. Chairperson Whitlock noted that some conditions needed to be added. After further discussion, Mr. Drell noted that only trash enclosures used adjacent to the Highway 111 building 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING - ESSION • JUNE 4, 1991 would be used by the restaurant. Also, based upon recommendations from Palm Desert Disposal, an additional trash enclosure might be needed for the restaurants in that sometimes the health department required special design for wet garbage, so the condition could be based on Palm Desert Disposal ' s and/or Health Department ' s recommendations. Relative to the parking and closure of San Marino, staff felt it should be referred to the technical traffic committee and not be made an imposition on this development. Commissioner Erwood asked for clarification that if the use became a nuisance, with the conditional use permit process it could be brought back to the planning commission. Mr. Drell responded that as a nuisance abatement issue, hours could be regulated for operation and from that obtain compliance relative to noise, and a condition could be added for future noise and/or traffic impacting that neighborhood and call for review of the conditional use permit and the addition of more conditions to address those issues at that time. Commissioner Erwood asked if there was a reason why the hours of operation were not being imposed now. Mr. Drell felt that most restai{.rants close about 10:00 p.m. and had not been a problem and if a problem developed, conditions would be imposed. Commission concurred. Commissioner Richards asked about valet parking being a condition. Mr. Drell stated that it was a suggestion by the neighborhood and felt that the larger restaurant would provide valet parking at night. Chairperson Whitlock felt that any problem could be solved by having a re- hearing if one occurred and Commissioner Downs wanted the cul- de-sac issue referred to technical traffic committee. Commissioner Jonathan also indicated that the overhead parking lot lighting issue should be addressed. Mr. Drell stated that a condition could be added that only low landscaping lighting be allowed on the rear lot. Mr. Diaz felt that the city' s parking lot lighting standards would assure that there wouldn' t be spillage into the residential area and would not recommend that it not be allowed in case they wish to request it a some time in the future. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was in favor of the project ,with the addition of the conditions and moved for approval . 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING ISSION • JUNE 4, 1991 Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Downs, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-1 ( Commissioner Richards voted no ) . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1517, approving CUP 91-9, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-1 ( Commissioner Richards voted no ) . Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, referring the possible closure of San Marino Circle to the technical traffic committee. Carried 5-0. C. Case No. PP/CUP 86-50 Amendment - JAMES LAIER, JR. , Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to a precise plan and conditional use permit to convert 232 vacant mobile home spaces cithin an existing mixed mobile home/recreational vehicle park to 695 RV spaces. With the amendment, the 83 acre facility on the north side of Frank Sinatra 3400 feet east of Cook Street will include 893 RV spaces, 9 mobile home lots and a 9 hole golf course. Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report, showed a video presentation, and read a letter that was attached to the staff report in opposition to the request. Staff recommended approval of the project. Mr. Drell clarified that the specific sites could not be sold at this time because there was no subdivision map. He stated that there would be additional landscaping provided because in terms of square footage of the building, each space being turned into three RV spaces, those three RV' s were probably no larger than a single mobile home and the area of landscaping around the RV would exceed the amount on an individual mobile home . Commissioner Downs noted that in an RV park, they have a pad and grass around it; in a mobile home park they have a pad and rock around it. • . , City of Palm Desert `� .411t, � �� �.,�� �, I— 73-510 Ff1ED Y�AfiING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2570 TELEPHONE(619)34G-0611 FAX(G19)341.7090 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. CUP 91-9 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to review compliance with conditions of approval for a conditional use permit for two restaurants totaling 8,000 square feet located within a commercial complex at the northeast corner of Portola Avenue and Highway 1 1 1. . '. AM , ! r - 'or '� �� ♦� � 1 lIj , 4 MN �i, + ���� Z S A N Y A R I N O M�A T .� �� ��T�• � '� r IIM a A _, !trip • 1 0 am : 0 • • • a en ..... .1 ,..,..,,:.: R- 3 ( 41-- ,_,4 6 • Li .„... _ :z �. 1 � s , p . . _ 1 1 SITE 41 i:lf :e p:loii_ vTnt" it , . I- • _ / 44 C - 1IS' py , ,,, s . .4 _ p El PASEO NORTH wi, i ll 1I1LW _ I I _ 1 ,, I , SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 1, 1997, 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 Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post PHILIP DRELL, Secretary March 20, 1997 Palm Desert Planning Commission EXH1!NIL Ray Winner 74039 San Marino Circle Palm Desert, Ca . 92260 July 28 , 1996 RECEIVED Mr. Philip Drell , and Mr. Oliphant JUL 3 1 1996 City of Palm Desert Planning Department COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Dear Mr. Drell, and Mr. Oliphant: This is a letter to notify you as to the status of the situation with the parking lot located on 74-020 Alessandro Dr. , Palm Desert (across from Ruth Chris ' Steak House) . After the recent meeting between the neighbors involved in the impacted area and the owner of the building (Mr. Oliphant) and manager oaf Ruth Chris Steakhouse, the owner of the of the valet parking business , and the representative from the City Planning Commission-- I have found that there has been little or no change made in the disruptive patterns of the "public nuissance" parking area. In addition, when "the season" begins , I know that the problems will be tenfold! I am aware that originally, the said parking lot was zoned as "office/professional" and was to be used only for daytime parking only. However, that aggreement is being violated, as it is now being used for commercial evening restaurant parking. The fact that the parking lot is being leased does not make it legal for evening restaurant parking, as it is zoned as "office professional" . For over five years , my neighbors and I have met and written letters regarding the following ongoing situations : 1 . ) Intollerable noise resulting from car alarms routinely being set off in the late evening hours (which continually disrupt the neighborhood) , horns being honked, car doors being slammed, car tires "burning rubber" in the parking EXHIBIT'Q lot, restaurant delivery trucks idling in the parking lot late at night or in the early morning hours , drunken patrons emerging from the restaurant yelling and making noise when walking to their vehicles , and valet employees making unnecessary noise directly behind my property, and the employees of Ruth Chris partying drinking after hours in the parking lot. These situations impacted the neighborhood for more than five years . (Regarding the above, situations , I have gone to the Planning Commission, spoken to owners of the buildings , written letters , gone to meetings all to no avail . ) • 2 . ) In addition, I have video tapes of employees smoking illegal substances, and drinking alcohol on the premises, and driving patron' s vehicles while under the influence of one or both, urinating on the wall behind my property, and changing into or out of their work clothes! 3 . ) Then, there is the issue of the persistent unfiltered scent of foul food odors permeating the night air every evening, thereby polluting the very air that we breathe. ( In addition, a letter of complaint--signed by six residents-- was written on February 27, 1992 detailing the cooking odors permeating our homes , necessitating the closure of all windows , doors , to avoid the smoke and offensive odors , recommending that a filtering system be installed to resolve the problem, however nothing was done to remedy the situation. There was absolutely no response whatsoever, nor were any phone calls returned. ) 4 . ) Finally, there is the suspected retaliation of T. & R. Parking employees against my neighbor after complaints were made, which resulted in his property being "egged" , and he was "set up" for destruction of vehicles in the parking lot by branches being hurled by T.& R. employees on cars , etc . 5 . ) Also, there is commercial cleaning of the parking area on Saturday mornings , (against city ordinances ) and trash bin collections made and dumped at 5 : 00a.m. in the morning. Furthermore, since no one "polices" the above situation, after complaints were made, the above conditions soon return to ongoing noise and air pollution and disruptive sleep patterns of the entire neighborhood. What concerns me is that should I consider selling my property, I have been advised by several real estate agents that because of the existing "disclosure" laws, I am obligated to reveal the above existing conditions , thereby making my property unsalable as "residential" property. It is not currently zoned as "commercial" . The adjacent parking area ..is property that is illegally being used as "commmercial" . . . .yet it is only zoned as "office/professional" . Therefore, please be advised that in order to protect my property investment, I am suggesting an immediate closure of the parking lot listed above to resolve the above issues. Please respond to this letter as soon as possible. I must insure my investment and I await your reply. If I have not heard from you in a reasonable amount of time, I will be forced to resolve this in a legal manner. Sincerely, (Please call 619 568-1133 ) R Winner d)//7/11' wart \:•��� 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 FAX (619) 340-0574 February 9 , 1996 Mr. Tomer Meghanagi T & R Valet 74-320 Erin Palm Desert, CA 92260 SUBJECT: VALET PARKING AT RUTH' S CHRIS STEAKHOUSE Dear Mr. Meghanagi : The Public Works Department has been made aware of a violation of your valet packing permit for Ruth' s Chris Steakhouse. Residents have registered complaints about the noise in the north parking lot adjacent to their homes , that is created by the valet attendants . This infraction not only violates a condition of your valet parking permit, but also Condition #9 as established by Ronald Gregory and Associates , in whose parking lot you have permission to valet park. You are hereby notified that if this condition is not corrected immediately, your valet parking permit for Ruth' s Chris Steakhouse will be revoked. • If you have any questions , please contact me. Sincerely, '�._: , Fo Cell-(-.— Richard J. lkers , P.E. Assistant 'ity Manager/Public Works Director cc: Curt Wheeler, Ruth' s Chris Steakhouse Phil Drell, Acting ACM/Director of Community Dev. & Planning Joseph S . Gaugush, Engineering Manager Mark Greenwood, Transporation Engineer Wayne Ramsey, Director of Code Compliance & Licenses MG:SJ/cm Enclosure 40. EXHIB2T R.cyc+.0 Papr June 12, 1995 Re: Valet parking for Ruth's Chris Srk House Permission for valet parking ont he north side of Alessandro for Ruth's Chris is granted to T & R Valet Service with the following conditions: 1. Should the services of T & R Valet Service be terminated, we must be told in advance of the new firm selected so that we can coordinate the following concerns with them. 2. Valet parking is to be restricted to parting areas between building A and B. The valet parking to be provided underneath covered parking areas or areas north of buildings A and B. o and Associates with insurance certificate 3. Parking service Shall provide Ronald Gregory e to be minimum of naming them as additionally insured: Amount of coverag S 1,0000,000 personas liability, S100,000 property damage. 4. It is understood that in the event that any of the businesses located in buildings A or B have an evening occasion requiring the need for parking, the valet parking service will accommodate their needs for those evenings. damage to landscaping, parking lot lighting, or 5. Parking service is responsible for any in the course of valet other related dam r-i age due to fiigence or accidents occurring parking. shall commence no earlier than 5:00 P.M. every evening. At the 6. Valet parking be at the northeast part of the parking lot of the evening all cars must be parked o��, if any. All cars must be so as not to interfere with the function of late closing removed from parking lot by half hour after closing of restaurant. 7. Condition of parking area should be maintained and kept free of any debris. 8. Parking services should not leave any barriers or store any equipment on the premises. 9. Parking services Shall make every effort to avoid interference with adjacent residential home owners and shall respect their right to peacefulness and privacy. 10. Parking service shall begin at 9:00 P.M. to move cars from the north lot to the south lot beginning with the back lot or cars closest to the residential area. This will keep it quiet in the later hours of the evening. Oliphant & Development Group Ronald Gregory and Associa r :ITY OF PALM DESERT • r %� PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 7 rt .",</_-;2,-7, 7/ .`,',/ /ram AiL9,5`- Ruth's Chris Steakhouse Valet Parking Conditions ,V .:)Gl/ ( /A ,571c.P • Keep noise level to a minimum in the north parking lot adjacent to the homes. • Valet parking will take place in the parking lot on the north side of Alessandro Drive. - • The parking lot adjacent to the restaurant will be for self parking_ • Valet operators will begin at 9:00 p.m_ to move cars from the valet lot,to the front lot 9.<,i e A7- adjacent to the restaurant,beginning with the cars in the northeast portion of the valet lot. Hu --/ • No employee parking is permitted in the north lot. _ STi// d0 • Valet attendants will not set car alarms, slam car doors, turn the volume up on radios, or yell across the parking lot. • Should the valet parking services be terminated for Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, Ronald Gregory and As4sociates must be notified in advance. • Valet parking service must obtain written permission from Ronald Gregory and Associates to use the north parking lot. • It is understood that in the event that any of the businesses located in buildings A or B have an evening event requiring the need for parking, the valet parking service will accommodate their needs for those evenings. • The valet parking service is responsible for any damage to landscaping, parking lot lighting, or other related damage due to negligence or accidents occurring in the course of valet parking. • Valet parking shall not commence earlier than 5:00 p.m. every evening. At the beginning of the evening all cars must be parked at the northeast part of the parking lot so as not to interfere with the function of late closing offices, if any. • Condition of parking area should be maintained and kept free of any debris. • Valet parking attendants shall not leave any barriers or store any equipment on the premises. • Valet parking service shall make every effort to avoid interference with adjacent residential home owners and shall respect their right to peacefulness and privacy. • Valet parking service shall immediately report any incidents or violations of these conditions to the Cry. . - • Via,/f6 _.. ; (fltitir_v . 7.4_1 jo..1234.. ‘ r lie' t14 Er rillKrti6 C lu0(i L A ; t rxo F ♦ lI . WW1 ____ - .Yi3c _ -. • \ i . ca /. . • 11BLDG 3 r BLDG C V • le( 3.013 S.F. 1.700 S.F. ® . ®l 1 01•1 ALLESSANDRO v : (.4 I e I - �~-- __. _ _.., I/ 1ST FLOOR r-- _. / r _1 › 21.100 S.F. W I BLDG A .4-__ ram � III � L � II .1�i I --� I .OR - .,,.. 1 ` S.F. , - "- --",. - i c\ ..... • HIGHWAY 111 4 - -.� 1 June 1991 City of Palm Desert Plannng Commission We , the property owners and residents of San Marino Circle , are very concerned about aspects of the two restaurant conditional use permit requested in Case No . CUP91-9 . First , location of trash containers in the complex is of concern . Dry trash from office/retail operations is one thing. Restaurant garbage is quite different . Varmints , insects and odors on the other side of a block wall from a residental back yard is not , in our minds , in keeping with Scenic Preservation zoning requirements . Trash that the Arco AM-PM Mini Mart generates along Allesandro , Portola and San Marino Circle is not very scenic to anyone on foot . Second, parking . The Staff Report states the code for required parking is compromised . Based on El Paseo and Hiway 111 data , this has not been a long term problem but it is a commercial area . Parking needed and not available in the lots provided will surely bleed over with resultant traffic to San Marino Circle . The favorable solution to our concerns would be to permanently close off south San Marino Circle and make it a cul-de-sac . It has been closed since the City Council approved it June 28 , 1990 (11 months) without adverse effects to local traffic . The road is still under construction due to Portola lane addition to the east that ends at south San Marino Circle . We are also concerned about late night noise and disturbances that take place in parking lots used by these type of establishments with liquor licenses . Required valet parking could be an answer . We understand there are City codes against overhead parking lot lighting near residential areas . Will they be in force? Does parking lot liability require ball park lighting? iv Pr ar� . 7 n,b, ,vys £S0> 4 i S? C.G u' ' ' ' ' Y : 'n3 . /crN r --)vc -Q -1 _x,i, ''...'1-)204 -P 7 / ( f P -( 4 -'-7-Z - :, -r-7) A5 -'-f„._v 1 7 ,. .„, „A' --r-laW4 -7-2---}-r a- ipi/66T__,43r ,/7.7 `7---Ic>" 0.--,,..0-kiz, �' 01� 4. ' J l lei ��. � J a":71.) VLp fi t. -"A'4C2(7 ' 0 4-11-nr5jkAA \'''' S7,0-)-)Z -7---0-66 -ck la2171111Vir 4.71-'-gOhil /77Jmyy-ir-iTi)447T 7(77 ' ' ' / ' ;i4iii" I- of"i Ott'1 zrj 1J ), C/S° h l s'` A/r/ J 1.11(8�-tfr Uri} M :"°Y%4V5 1)7 17 --------A-017\ `J ,?„,-3,-,,,(, L tir) ---‘) //-73/-7/-7 - . ^L,_(/)?//)--)f)(A,C/0-740 i 'riff) ovimro\A \Tr 5 10).x i --erp--3?---) - �i Q f, oh L e(/!4 . (1. . . . --,--,------,727 c,-----.,-, ,---,- , .)...., „,,z. --7.„ ----D, _:2----,--- ..... 7z-cCr7 —7-71—g?' 7'. ', --.. ,-,—,/, c-,,,/,-FvAw /3/- 5— uoTTrulosaI ati; go t wa }I lapun ajgPTgzgsnC qou sT puP quawqopol:pua sa4ngT suoo poogloguiTau /no o }uT -loojg /adns atiq go suoTaado jPToaawwoo wo1; MoUU1ano atiq. ' qnq sanlaswau, uT s4uPanP+sal atiq oq suoT43e !go EAP4 'ou op am r ti4,71,-7/ .1/A7 0 7 7 6 / J--0 7 iar�q 7 fi aT2 '�,D (.,,y), £4 �� [,r) o - cvi"-f) T L �?'z 6 ;lop 's;v2/as, a 4-'74y . L a") 0 --v5 L e-zr"-->o (47,..a,"; City of Palm Desert I73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 FAX(619)341-7098 CITY OF PALM DESERT . LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. CUP 91-9 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to review compliance with conditions of approval for a conditional use permit for two restaurants totaling 8,000 square feet located within a commercial complex at the northeast corner of Portola Avenue and Highway 1 1 1. 1 ••� ~' o � •., 1 . -� iii:f ir -*it 41114 z SAN 4 ! I I-- 1 1.- . _. • , ap atat. 44,,,,434 z S N MARIMO WAY IRS ea' ,� 4�i `I�� �. . , 017 _ •.Ire* CIRCL �_� � �f alai r g Mir tUM .G�3�aMIR }.•1•::- 1R- 3 r 41--. vii - . -llig IS 111 l 1 1 I mi. et M R TLi v.:11 ......... 1 is F L Ju f $T Nlvf, - l y C - 1 ,S, p . 4 L� + S v ' E l PASEO °� NORTH W • \ 1C 1I I� — I z � /Y ._. 1 SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 1, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments.concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post PHILIP DRELL, Secretary March 20, 1997 Palm Desert Planning Commission -t . '�,.' ©EIRW (DV Pdll D e$ert 4 '• ,.�'` 73.510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. CUP 91-9 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an appeal of a Planning Commission decision certifying compliance with conditions of approval for a conditional use permit for two restaurants totaling 8,000 square feet located within a commercial complex at the northeast corner of Portola Avenue and Highway 111 and Portola and Alessandro. 4; 1 I --___I iris\ ..silr !.•4wei c:' ,. Illi „Sir „4 I I 1 pa p it ra f,4 :47, ' ��,� 2 $AM YAIIIWO WAY .• , Ow z *4 .4b. gs 1 , , . WI .‘ , _, la On g c . . .. .. : •1,115'•:•:;:•: FR - 3( 4---y-4 4 sla 1 , lit , sip . , • s s Imaiminimal illSITE W n _ _ / ill) ei C r- . . _ _ _ _ _ ...4 ..p--_ ,1.11,-/ di.- , s• l PASEO NORTH - 1 C�- 1 1 1LJ 0% Al 1 SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, May 8, 1997, 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 April 24, 1997 City of Palm Desert, California „so T ••~'• 3/9i . fJ ll 31, = CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORmiC EC_ ,_' , 'S7 � 5 p 1 3 APR 15 1997 ~j APPLICATION TO APPEAL �Js;i�iu�J�T” ' b�O:,pe GRYOF?AL'..DE3ERT . DECISION OF THEVALyn Dee- t ptigivkiN6 \ o m m(SS lbtJ (Name of Committee/Commission) Case No. n I-g Meeting Date: Apt < I t99 c Name of Appellant YV1(Jyt a L. LA) I Ks ti e-R.. Address 74 6 Sil4d ylnA - LIA0 CI Phone: (4(q) sz,e -rIE3 Description of Application: REVIEW., of C 13 AT r W ieQv & MtNDr�h E-A5 ��� Cor rr Q #,o rt�L-K� t 1r Reason for Appeal: A10 ^ &L 1 C& SSUF:T), 01 et, -tm C'o l �v u C', r� jiu t,. o - C',U.j4. n rv5s ,u-tieis dins pAlic VI iv& Lai- Signature of Appellant �igti /V/17 Date4 1-4-4 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY • / Date Appeal Filed: —/ /i �/� Fee Received: �� c7 �� " Treasurer's Receipt #: / Received by: Public Hearing Set For. 1 Action taken by the City Council: . i rai.::.- 1- — Sheila R. Gilligan, Citti clerk i . T 3/91 k ‘' _ = CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORN CEUVED �It*li __,*h. : :'? 15 1997 ',, _ APPLICATION TO APPEAL .v ...�� r a„..„ ‘,„,HM: fiTY DE ath,M NT "AtTiZia °=9 �..•• 3 CITY OF PALM DE6E°r DECISION OF THE ?iLx..--- y1 yi t vy ( .. MA/I S_.)-10 vL (Name of Coe/Commission) • Case No. a p g / - Meeting Date: . , r 1 I 1� ;; t r ---D Name of Appellant -pr 1 wl u_. 4',,r—t- G P .14 „,,1 I.c,c a ,, Address t j k u...,v L. 1 ( 1 V,D Phone: (76,c ) .7-5- ---J Si;'47 f Description of Appli 'on: C- � 9 1 — c ^ �-, _F -1,c>v-V✓� t-1" ..( - i_- r.iir1C Reason for —i 4 Appeal- .mil } <�, -k. 0 c�-t� (.) r--�`='4'uv c-Z vc'- - 1 C_� YL-c11 C4" CljH YL --A—lii J2 _ r_ik cf+Ct AR Cal `kL1 l/\ ry ,---c-- cD U'.\ Lk. 11,t `, Signature of Appellant ,i i ,` `'�1 ._ Date 14- /S 7 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Date Appeal Filed: a ��� Fee Received: ' Treasurer's Receipt #: Received by: Public Hearing Set For: v Action taken by the City Council: Date: Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk 77 6 -83/00