The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-19 Draft Minutes �� MINUTES � PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION '�� , . . TUESDAY - FEBRUARY 19, 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * � * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * � * * ** * * * * * .� * * -�. I. CALL TO ORDER s��,-: �� Chairperson Tschopp called the meeting to ord `f 6 00� . ;; �>. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE �` `� . � Commissioner Campbell led in the pledge of;all�giance. :�_ , x� III. ROLL CALL g'�= �� Members Present: Dave Tschop air Van �nner, Vic,�hairY;��,,�.: Sonia Campbell ;�`�y onnor Limont ari Schmidt Members Absent: None :; "Staff Pr Lauri A��ran, Director of Communit Develo ment ��rau ° Y Y P �'- f# ; Bob Hargreaves, Deputy City Attorney �Tony Bagato, Principal Planner �.�, � Tortya Monroe, Administrative Secretary �_ �"� �;; � IV. APP OVA ` � F MINUTES �g..:, r , �., Request w��r�nsideration of the February 5, 2008 meeting minutes. Action: It wa��moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner T Yer, approving the February 19, 2008 meeting minutes. Motion carried �:,.` 5��. � V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Ayiaian summarized pertinent February 14, 2008 City Council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2008 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. TIM BARTLETT, 73-382 Salt Cedar Street, stated that he uses his golf cart a lot. He said he was coming back from EI Paseo and ran�ut of power and pulled along the side of Shadow Mountain and Par�view and went home to get a vehicle to tow it. When he got back, he ' und two officers impounding it and towing it away. That process gave hi?„ �e chance to look at the Municipal Code and he noticed that there are sort't F things that are ot�t of date. The passenger limit on golf carts is only,�wo, which would mean that the EI Paseo golf carts do not comply h the Municipal Code: -tt��['things to do iist, he thought they might wan � review the Municipaf�ode. There 5".. are four things that he wanted to bring up� fly that they might want to consider. One of them is the number of passe. ,, rs. It should be limited to whatever the golf cart was designe- o acco� ate and that would take into account the EI Paseo golf cart�ecause t��i clon't currently meet the Municipal Code regulations. T� ��r .�, Secondly is the speed lirt�it. A lot of�lectric�ar�today are designed to go faster than 15-20 mph. F'rom what he could; ff�from the California Vehicle Code, 35 mph is now the limit for electric ca`rs. By "electric cars", he meant golf carts and any' er electric vehicle. So that was something they might want to think abouf, increa�ing the s�eed limit from 25 to 35. In addition, there is a regulation right no.w that restricts travel during daylight hours and `� e thoug�t��#was 6:00 or�-' p�a.m. to sunset and that seemed to limit it to .�t�st the hi �� ffi�volume periods, which might not be in the best interests � f.the progr�tt �, �e �� He no` hat Palm>�sert was one of the first communities in the world to >:� ernki arts, bu°� he thought they've fallen behind timing wise. Another . quick � �nge,.;�nd something they should seriously consider, is the - requirement?fora"roof on golf carts. That they be enclosed. Recent incidents, and he was actually part of an accident where the roof actually became more or less a hatchet, and he almost decapitated a friend of his when their cart rolled.;aAnd he didn't know if they remembered the lady at PGA West two ye go who lost her life from almost decapitation from the roof. Not a � ng that a requirement might be something to consider. Roofs have no ��µ � ' ructural benefit, they are little spindly supports, they keep shade on the �� driver, but other than that, they've actually proven to be more dangerous then they are an asset. It was just something he wanted them to consider. He put that all into a letter. He thought it would be better if someone else other than himself authored it since he isn't well received at the City Council level, and asked the Planning Commission/staff to run with it. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19 2008 Ms. Aylaian asked him to submit his letter and she would share it with the appropriate departments. Mr. Bartlett thanked Commission and submitted his letter (see Exhibit A attached hereto). Chairperson Tschopp thanked him for his comments. � .�� VII. CONSENT CALENDAR .��rM : �� None. _.�� ;�� , =�8' - � .:5, VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS _ ✓ " _�, � ��: Anyone who challenges any hearing m�tter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someon,e else�raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence`.delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. � •�; A. Case Nos. DA 02-01 i�fEND��NT #2 and MISC 08-15 - STONE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT,.l:LC, �� f'ljcant Request for a ��`comm�n�iation to�ity Council of approval of a second �`mendment to Development Agreement 02-01, Stone Eagle�Development, allowing a 25-foot 2-inch maximum roof height for a two-story detached garage/casita unit on 19 ` Iots;�it�in Stone agle Golf Course. �,. r. _ agato �i'tew�i the request and recommended that Planning ' Co`k� sion recoi��nd approval to the City Council. airper� =Tschopp asked about the area of the roof that would be above 20 feet:�llr � . on spoke from the audience and said probably an average of 300 f� s; ,�"�agato clarified that was less than 20%. ��;. Commissioner Limont asked if the request would grant approval to the entire 19 units, if it would be on a case-by-case basis, or only for those currently - under�onstruction. Mr. Bagato replied that the request is for all 19 lots, with =�ot 33 being the worst case scenario. Commissioner Limont asked when � ` ` they are all done if they would see clusters of houses all through there. Mr. -�' Bagato said yes and pointed out Lot 33 on the displayed picture. He stated that Lot 33 is actually a little bit higher than the one behind it. They would potentially see the top pitches of the first couple. There was a line-of-sight drawing that showed that only the top couple of units had visible rooftops. Beyond that, one portion was behind the wash behind the berm. Three other units would not have to have a height increase since they comply with the 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19. 2008 original approval. On the lots a little below Lot 33, they might see a couple of the rooftops for the other pitches, but didn't think they would see more than half or three quarters of them. Commissioner Limont asked how much higher the chimne�would be from the rooftop. Mr. Bagato replied it would be a total of 27.5': t. Commissioner Limont noted that now they were seven and a half fe igher than the original 20. '�. �� ,,. ,.; Commissioner Campbell reiterated tii��what.was before tF�em°were fi�e 19 lots. By the time everything is consf; ed,=�e thought everytf�ng would blend right in. The homes won't be noticed a;, r as the irregular height for this one. Mr. Bagato agreed. With the�rying; �' ts, it would make that one unit stand out less and they were using mat�rials that will blend into the hillside. He said it should blend in when iYs complete. Commissioner Schmidt ask��at�ow r�'i�ny more Southridge models are planned. Mr. Bagato said�there are�a tot2�i�ti#�2�4;,.19 are the ones asking for the 25-foot height Iimit. The other;five will b�;at-20 feet because those pads turned out to be low ,r tfian the main pads �o�"the homes. So there would be 24 total, but oniy 't �°vvith the 25-foot height from the approved pad height. Commissioner Sci�hidt asked for an��received confirmation that no where else on the property are more of the�e units. z��. ��:� ' Commiss'� er,Schmidt asked if Mr. Bagato knew when the utilities were � iI��fialled for s� -s :and roads. Mr. Lennon spoke from the audience and �a� ` o years a Commissioner Schmidt asked if there were engineering s i�°�done at the.tim�. Mr. Bagato said they did the engineering for the � ainage,. t wasn't sure about the actual home lots and deferred to the $ applicant: . missioner Schmidt asked for the approximate size of the lots. Mr. Len: '��tce from the audience and said 8,000 to 15,000 with an average ` f about 13,000. Commissioner Schmidt asked if the homes, "T includinc,�the garages and casitas, were about 3,200? Or 2,500? Mr. Bagato stated,fhat the Southridge units are about 1,800 for the main home and ��, 1,2�for the casita garage. Commissioner Schmidt noted those are stacked. " �� ..�Bagato concurred. Commissioner Schmidt reiterated that they are ��. �; " found 2,500 to 2,600 on each lot that ranges from 8,000 to 15,000 square fee. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Looking at the plans, Commissioner Schmidt asked for confirmation that the ceiling heights in the garage and the casitas are 9-feet 6-inches. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. There were no other questions and Chairperson Tschopp o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19. 2008 MR. TED LENNON, President of Stone Eagle Development, Silver Spur Trail in Palm Desert, stated that this turned out to be an oversight in the timing of how things went on. On the original plan most of these homes are on the hillside and they go uRp the hill and taper. Five or six of the homes are going to be built just like that. He said they were surprised because they know the 24-foot building was approved, but no one saw the language that said it��as from the pad height. : M�' Mr. Lennon noted that the bui��ing itself as currently d� ig ` d had been through the Architet�t�1 Commission, the� lanning Commission and the City Council, and was approved. All the construction drawings have been done. He explained that the lots are sold with a full set of construction drawings so��ieoretically, the owner just comes in and does thex;individual grading�d thaYs all they have to do. Mr. Kevin Knee w�,�Mthe first home ow�er to come forward to build this and staff saw the clause from the building height, not just 24 feet high. So the� were a little su: �� 'sed. But he thought staff did a terrific job in challenging pthem to - � at the different options to resolve this iss�e. He w�s pleased with the results reached, which was the sartte result that came out of the Architectural Commission, and they fe�t that if nothing else, it added more interest. �.;; °" One;of the key thir�s they were trying to accomplish is most of these :;= e�'` units all have these spectacular multi-color tiles which blend into the mountains, and to accomplish the height right now, they'd have to go � a � to a flat roofi:�iese units are not the highest units. He referred to a �"ture of the°�1�t with the story poles. He said it is the highest of the � �- 9nt� 'ts. He painted out the locations that would be higher and noted that:they would be looking down at flat roofs if that's what they had to do, but they were hoping to have tile. ti�- H.e indicated that the other thing that effects the units themselves is ey believed they had to lower the ceiling height of the studio unit for �� quality and for the impact. They would have to give up vertical height �x -�,� F�- and lessen the value of the unit. He said the garages were almost of °�� -�`' more concern with SUV heights. They would have to get the garage `�"`�a � down where they'd just be skimming coming in the door like the old tract houses. They wanted to try and avoid that. With the comhination of the aesthetics, he thought it was a small impact. Mr. Lennon thought the drawing of the Southridge units demonstrated how they would blend together. These homes would have a mountain 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19. 2008 backdrop everywhere versus the homes that are above this project. He thought the two-story homes on top of the hill kind of draw the eye to them. He said they spent a long time with the Architec ral Commission and they unanimously felt this was a reasonable��` „nce to request. He was present to answer any questions. � � Commissioner Limont asked for clarification--the origina! ��velopment agreement called for a 20-foot height limit. ;.�:. � ��_�, � Mr. Lennon said no, it was a 20-f@ �#aeight limit above the building pad of the main unit. The buildings�uld be taller than that, they just had to relate to their own building pad: lt did�'t matter, they could be 30 feet higher than the next building over;. t the way it was written out, they couldn't be more' ' t� 20 feet higtier#han the building pad of their unit. :�r, Commissioner Limont n�ted that the archif9 ,�Y esigned for 24 feet. Mr. Lennon�agreed that he designed a 24-foot unit. It went through all approvals, btit it kind of just got lost in the development agreement that it�had to be 20 feet above. Whether or not it was the architect s fault, M�::,.said it ulti�tely stopped with him. °�� . ,. Comcnission '�tont indicated she was just asking for clarification. �.: � -��x:: ` ic�ner St�'hmidt asked how many of the 19 units have been sold. �� - ��;a Mr. Lennon replied nine and explained that two of the nine don't have a problet�i� Commissioner Schmidt asked if this was out of the 19. - _�,;��Mr. Lennon said that was correct. �:� ,.;�:� ��Commissioner Schmidt asked if he was saying they do not have a height ' problem. Mr. Lennon said two of them don't have a height problem because the garages are being built below due to the way the lot sits. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19. 2008 Commissioner Schmidt asked if there was any other product that could sit on these lots other than Southridge. Mr. Lennon indicated that it is a planned unit development. He thought the answer was no, it really fills out th�lot, He said it was a good question. They would have moved their '� ��ridge units which are just one story and would bring�a higher pri i ,;:but they just didn,°� fit. If they looked at the site plan carefully v+rifl��lt the uildings I� out, everything was designed for privacy ou#�the windo � n�1 that;unit was designed just for that. � Commissioner Tanner asked if there wa F =Qxher way to put this Southridge together. In other words, they are talking about utilizing space of the lot, and he understood that, but he asked if they needie� �utilize it vertically on the garage or if the casita could be eG�inated on tt� . rage. Effectively what they were doing is bringing up it a�p to the requ�ecl�height as opposed to taking the casita up to 25.2. `��F " .�,d, � Mr. Lennon sai they wa�ild go tro �two-bedroom from a three- bedroom and would lose a huge amaunt of square footage. Commissioner T Rq `"er estimated abaut 600 square feet. r Mr. `� on concurred: He said that's 20% to 25% of the square �� . fo `A e ey would be giving up. �.e C � ' sioner , `�� r)� ked if they were utilizing that third bedroom in the ca ' `a sellin `oint: e ��. , � Mr �ennon said yes. ;��, Commission�r Schmidt thought it was difficult to see the setbacks and the building�'footprint, and if there might be more room on the lots. Her first �-�� thought"�Yas to eliminate the second story of the casita, but the applicant was ��:. saying that's not feasible. N `� :`� Y:�.; ' . . Mr. Lennon stated that it wasn't. He said they tried to design within aesthetic reason the maximum homes on these lots. He thought they had done that and met their requirements. Commissioner Schmidt asked what he would do if the request wasn't approved. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19. 2008 Mr. Lennon said he would have to go to the 20-foot flat roof and go back to the home owners who have already bought homes and do some explaining. �. Commissioner Tanner reiterated that Mr. Lennon would go to the home owners who've already purchased that are looking dow:�on the flat roofs, and then asked if Mr. Lennon had explored or talked tti'the home owners about the possibility that they'll be looking at a flat roof versus pitched roof. �� _. �;,, Mr. Lennon said no, this had j�st com p recently. He s�d itywasn't just these owners, iYs the othet 3d' es they've sold.vu'�h lots that look down on this as well. He said t :�e full construction drawings z��. were probably $150,000 to $175,0�0 a unit construction plans which were all done for these homes: They hav��een done and approved. They've been back now for the eart �iake code to meet City requirements that just happened in the last-year and they now have a local businessman trying to pull his permit right. ' -�. Commissioner Limont,�ked for and rec ived£confirmation that the home that look down on the;19 under`tiiscussion are all at the regulation height. -� Commissioner T��ner asked how many units had been sold that would look down at these 19. .� §� Mr: Lenno� pointed them out on the map. N�:' missioner Tanner,�iterated that they're all virtually sold except for the 1 tlMr. Lennon said that of the 19, seven or eight of them are sold. So it isn't just those. That was the last product they put on the market. Commis��oner Limont said they were in a bit of a valley, so just a little higher ''�=�� up if tFae�i grant a height exception. �,w�� "�F �' Mr. Lennon said yes, iYs in a valley. He showed the low point and � �� where the units were located. �,.. Besides the 19 they were looking at, Commissioner Campbell said all the other lots already sold will be a lot higher than the 19 lots and would be looking down. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19. 2008 Mr. Lennon showed the locations of the lots above the 19. He said the neighboring homes on the hillside also look down on them. Commissioner Campbell said when those are built, the 19 lots_�on't look as high because some of the other homes would be higher. �r��. Mr. Lennon concurred. He also not�that afl their hor�es are earthen colors to match the mountains and thought they w „ Id disapp�ar pretty well. `s� There were no other questions for the�ppli ` _� . Chairperson l�ch�pp asked for testimony in FAVOR of the height exe ' r�. There was no response. Chairperson Tschopp asked for testimony ,OSITION. .�„ �� : MR. TIM BARTLETT, 73-382�Salt Cedar , �et, stated that he wasn't entirely in opposition to the t�eight. Altho+� � he looks down, if they �„ looked at the site plan, he's rig�tt up that can�ron and will look down on those lots. Quite fr�nkly he wo�ald pr; y rather see tile roofs than flat ones. He was far enough awa 'e`,here iYs really not going to impact him. He said he was present once again to sincerely express his disappaintment, not only with staff, but with the developer. They were sold a bill of go�ds. The project had some great architecture. He just �v�anted to �a`�� this opportunity to express his sincere �, dis��, " ent. He sai�cl�he has a lot that is probably worthless now. Th��lp� ant turned a dry canyon into a swamp and staff has done " � � a�what the = � n for the last three years to basically allow that to � -"happen. �ap licants haven't met numerous regulations. He was re they v��re� ing to get this request approved. If they didn't get it - ��: from the Planning Commission, they'd get it from Council. They've gotten every concession they could ask for. He just wanted to express his di�taste in this whoie process. He was sorry to do that because he = has a lot of respect for Palm Desert and was sorry to say that. He tha�nked them. _ MR. GEORGE NICHOLAS, a resident of Palm Desert off of Pitahaya, ;� _.�-� said he was the owner of 40 acres right above this property and he ��` would much rather see the rooftops in tile form versus flat roofs. He informed Commission that he is putting together a plan that they hope to bring to the City soon which would show a minimal amount of density and very high value of estate-type lots. They have 20 acres that looks down on this property and they didn't want to look at flat roofs. Tile roofs that blend into the hillside would make a nice look from their standpoint in terms of sales. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19. 2008 He said he plans to build his residence here. He's lived here 31 years and from a personal standpoint, he would like to see it as proposed by the developer. He also felt the height would not be effected with what they are trying to do, especially from what they see�rom above, because they are probably a few hundred feet higher and then they go all the way up to the big home on the hi i¢e,which is a lot more intrusive that anything being propo�d. As<the adjacent landown�r � ;_. . and probably the one most effe�ted here, h ha`d no�bjection to th plan and thought it would be better than roof. Me��hanked tf�m. �M Commissioner Schmidt asked if Mr. �licholas' property, the 40��tcres, was within Palm Desert. ;#�a, x�,; Mr. Nicholas said 35 acres are�ivithin the r�yyof Palm Desert and five acres are near Paisano Roa '� the Co� � It is the Whitman Estate and he's owned it a few yea�s: ;�,� ��, There was no one else wishing to spe�k. Ch'�irperson Tschopp asked if Mr. Lennon had any rebuttal comments. He s�jd`no. Chairperson Tschopp closed the public h�aring and asked for Commission comments. � Commissioner Lim� t stated that everyone knows that she hates height, but she looked t the drawings with a flat`�oof versus a pitched roof and just from ;1an aesthe , , , dpoint, �he liked the pitched roof better. Having ssen the :quality of' fr.Lennon s group does at Stone Eagle and at The Reserve, - �ney,;.are re ea; tiful properties. They make a huge effort to use native lants,.there's pciva �and blending. She had a true leaning for one time to �it�t'down`: er baset��` at. But she did have a thought about the chimneys. �; She� ' 't w � w if it uld be done, and was just a suggestion, but in looking at so of�the`�pictures, she thought the roofs looked great, but all of a sudden th'ey have this chimney feature that goes up another 2.5 feet. She didn't knQ�nr ifzthey could come down or if it would architecturally destroy it, or if it could be done from a structural standpoint because then they have a �.�;;� chimney too close to a rooftop. But she liked the pitched roof better than the flat and thought if done properly, this type of architecture would look better �_,. � n��if they just did a block house and put them up on the hill that fell within � �� -°�ur regulation. �, Commissioner Campbell stated that after driving around up there, those homes blend so well with the mountains that they didn't notice they were there. She also agreed that the landscaping is excellent. She did not like the flat roof and would like to have the pitched roof and everything would blend in with the mountain. The eyesore she saw was not Mr. Lennon's 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19. 2008 development, but al! the other homes built up there in the mountains on county land that stand out like a sore thumb. She thought this was going to be a very nice development. As far as the chimney was concerned, she suggested if it was light colored, maybe they could paint it a littie bit darker to blend in more with the roof color so it wouldn't stand out as much. Otherwise, she was in favor of the project. , :;�,. �: : -z . Commissioner Tanner said he also had the opportunity �;go and visit t�he project and said that architecturally it is a�bsolutely gorgeous ara�tt does g�eat things for that mountainside. Talking ab ut looking further up t hi 400 or 500 yards away they see these huge co; °monstrosities, tha' at they look at. They weren't going to be looking a�`this particular project. His only concern, and it was a major concern;�iii'ras that anytime they extend the heights, it opens the door to future projects that come into Palm Desert and sets a precedent. They tell them they will be limited to:tl�e height they can go and then all of a sudden, because of en ineering isst�es and problems, five years after the start of the project the�x �. faced with a decision as to how # . to go forward because the applicant coli �live with, and neither could the City, the grades that ha�� to be a�hieved�� owering that casita and garage. They were in a positior�:=to set pr,ecedent evei'y time they allow a variance. He thought this was be�tiful prqject, a go�geous project, but what concerned him was that a }�'vote placed on this would set that precedent for future projects. He was�t't sure yet howM�i�:was going to vote. :Cammissioner Sc midt said the comments she heard this evening had been � =m a view aboi' looking down on this project. She has heard from a ` � ber of Some` residents who will be looking across at it, and when f�ey think�f one h ` with a two-story garage and casita, they should bear �'in mind� 'e would�be eight adjacent to the run-off area that Sommerset `i would "� he said who is she to say anything disparaging about Mr. Lennon'` :��pment, because it is beautiful, but the ordinance and the �'° Y agreeme�t t�t was charted in 2002 was very clear. They were now faced �� with lettiflg the horse out of the barn. Again. She had to vote no because of that. �e � E3< �� Chairperson Tschopp stated that he was disappointed because of the mis- °' ="�� '�" communication because it had caused a problem that, as Mr. Bartlett said, � `" has grown to be something a little more than what they originally planned on putting into the hills. But now that they're there, the alternative was unacceptable. The flat roof to him was terrible and not acceptable. They couldn't lower the pad because of the unacceptable grade it would create. If they raised the house, they pretty much created a larger area that's more visible in some ways. So the alternatives weren't very good. Looking across 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19. 2008 from Somerset, the 20 feet would be visible, and 25 would be, and he didn't think it would be that much of a detriment to the home owners at Somerset. Tonight they heard from a couple of the neighbors who were generally going to be impacted by this and both of them spoke in favor. An ; ommissioner Limont favored a height exception and he had to go a�ng with her and he was in favor of this project moving forward. He asked;�`"��a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by T� missioner Limont, adopting the findings as pres�rited by staff. Motio��carried 3-2 (Commissioners Schmidt and Tanner v�t?ed no). It was moved by Commissioner CaPnpbell, second,ed by Commissioner Limont, adopting Planning Commissio� Resolutiott No:��468 recommending to City Council approva! of Case Nos�L?A 02-01 Amendment #2 and MISC �� 08-15, subject to conditions. M�`fi�n ca�etl3-2 (Commissioners Schmidt and Tanner voted no). s�" IX. MISCELLANEOUS- `� r,� A. Status re rt on Housing Element Update as required by State of California� r��: `�� .. s. Ayla'ran irtd'tcated this was an informational item. Staff wanted the ; la�ning Commission to be aware that they are moving to the phase of fioldirtg several pu '� .meetings to gather input from the community at large. There°``ould be two ifferent meetings targeted to two different audiences. The fir � s.for service providers and people who work within the affordable i� housin , nue'a��d that would be, for instance, non-profit organizations that ` provide a ,`rdat�le housing to churches and other groups that provide services.y h�y would try to gather information from them in one setting and then the�have a separate meeting held during evening hours specifically �" targeted for residents at large who might have any interest at all in the a housing in Palm Desert and the attempt to provide both affordable and �-rrr�?�erate rate housing in the update of the Housing Element. Those <�-�: `rr�eetings would be taking place this week and next week and all that °`' �� information would be fed back into our update. She said the target was to have this submitted to the Department of Housing and Community Development and approved by the end of June of this year. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19,_2008 Action: None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES =� � A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES � �:; ;�� . Commissioner Campbell reported'fhat the meetin �woul�be Febru��y 20, 2008. "�?. � .�� °a. -Z B. LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATIt�I Commissioner Limont stated th�#fhe nezctmeeting would be February 20, 2008. ro� >�° C. PROJECT AREA 4 CQMMITTEE Commissioner Schmidt inform�dF-.that the next meeting would be in March 2008. D. PARKS 8� R�REATtON Commissioner Tanner�r�orted that there was no meeting. �g . XI. � . COMME „ �� : � � n XII. - �Gt�'RNMENT � It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner � Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The ' � meeting was adjourned at 6:52 p.m. ; � �::_ s� �� .�-�� LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary A ,� ST �� DAVID E. TSCHOPP, Chair Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 13 TRB February 19, 2008 EXHIBIT A Planning Commissioners City of Palm Desert Recetved ning Corrwniasbn meeting Hand Delivered � C.s� Re: Golf Cars F� �i►�. �a�r fl tt�" ____._ Dear Commissioners: I have discovered that the Golf Cart provisions in the Municipal Code are outdated and require mod�cation. The golf cars operated by the City for shuttling passengers on EI Paseo do not meet our current code requirements. If you would be so kind, please Iconsider making a recommendation to the City Council for modfication to the Code. There are four changes that I feel are warranted. The first is the number of passengers should not be limited to two but rather to the number of seats with seat belts. The second change is that travel be permitted on any street with 35 mph or less, consistent with the General Plan and the Vehicle Code Section 21260, not 25 mph and crossing a street with higher speed limits be permitted if street continues to be 35 mph or less and crossing is signalized. The third change would allow travel at anytime eliminating the restriction to travel during peak traffic times. Finally, the last change would be to eliminate the requirement for a roof structure. Recent accident history suggests that roof structures actually cause many injuries including decapitation. The woman at PGA West who lost her life in a golf car accident, a few years ago, was nearly decapitated. I have also been involved in a golf car accident where the roof nearly decapitated the passenger on a rollover. You may also wish to review the Golf Cart routes exhibit III-9 in the General Plan. Two charging stations are shown, one at Desert Crossing and the other at Civic Center Park, neither of which actualty exists. I believe charging stations would have a tremendous impact on usage since many people fear being stranded without power. I had the unfortunate experience, while returning from shopping on EI Paseo, of running out of power. I parked my golf car in a permitted parking space on Shadow Mountain Drive and walked home. I retumed to collect my golf car and discovered two deputies in the process of towing and impounding it. You may also wish to review the actual routes. For example Shadow Mountain Drive would make an excellent golf car route especially considering the new signal on Highway 74 could accommodate crossing and would open up usage on the west side. Furthermore you may wish to extend routes to existing country clubs other than Shadow Mountain Resort, since golf car usage is already prevalent. Following is my recommendation of changes to the Municipal Code, which I believe are consistent with the California Vehicle Code: , , � .�i i?--;Ii:'�1� t�:it. ;i:.�� . ,� : ., . , . .. °t ., . . . , . ., rti �. :� ,. . �i'. , . . ,. �.r; . � . , . � � � ... . '1 :` �c:f -- : 7 � Chapter 10.76 GOLF CARTS chanae to Neiahborhood Electric Vehicles 10.76.010 Purpose and intent. Assembly Bill No. 110 continues the authorization provided by Assembly Bill No. 1229 for the city to establish a golf cart transportation plan. It is the intent of this legislation and the city to continue a golf cart transportation system to accommodate the travel needs of commuters and other users. It is the further intent of the legislation to authorize the city to cany out a golf cart transportation program that extends the use of the golf cart beyond the existing law; provided that the city establish golf cart lanes, minimum golf cart standards, operation requirements, permit procedures and reporting practices as provided therein. (Ord. 895 � l, 1998: Ord. 703 § 1 (part), 1993) 10.76.020 Definitions. The following words and phrases when used in this chapter shall have the definitions respectfully ascribed to them in this section. Whenever any words or phrases used in this chapter are not defined but are defined in the California Vehicle Code and amendments thereto, such definitions shall apply. "City"means the city of Patm Desert. "Golf cart" means an electric powered motor vehicle having not less than three wheels in contact with the ground and an unladen weight of less than one thousand three hundred pounds which is designed to be and is operated at not more than twenty-five miles per hour and is Idesigned to carry golf equipment anc! not more than two persons, including tl�e driver. F,liminate "Golf cart lanes" is synonymous with"golf cart routes"and means all publicly owned facilities that provide for golf cart travel including roadways designated by signs or permanent markings which aze shazed with pedestrians, bicyclists, and other motorists in the plan area. There shall be three categories of golf cart lanes: 1. Class I golf cart lanes provide a right-of-way completely sepazated from any highway, with cross traffic by other motorists minimized, and designated for the exclusive use of golf carts, or, where feasibly safe and when no parallel improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists are available, designated for the shared use of golf carts, bicyclists and pedestrians. 2. Class II golf cart lanes provide a restricted right-of-way on a highway designated by striping and signage for the exclusive or semiexclusive use of golf carts, with through travei by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle pazking and cross traffic by pedestrians and other motorists permitted. 3. Class lIl golf cart lanes aze lanes on local streets with speed limits of forty-five miles per hour or less and are shared with pedestrians, bicyclists and other motorists. (Ord. 895 § 2, 1998: Ord. 703 � 1 (part), 1993) 10.76.100 Golf cart minimum design criteria. Change to NEV Requirements, (combinin4 minimum desiqn criteria with operator safety criteria) A. The city council finds that minimum golf cart design criteria for operation on golf cart lanes have been established by the city engineer and golf cart transportation committee._ eliminate B. The following elements aze minimum design requirements: eliminate 1. The golf cart, replace with NF.V must be electrically powered. 2. The golf cart, replace with NF:V must be the shape and size that conforms to the industry standards of manufactured golf carts. I3. The golf cart, replace with NEV must present an unobstructed view to the rear from the driver's seat. I4. The golf cart, replace with NEV must be equipped and safely operated with: a. Brake lights; b. Front and rear turn signal indicator lights; c. Either left side and right side minors, left side and reaz view minors, or a multidirectional cross bar rear minor; d. Head lamps; e. Rear lights; f. Reflectors that conform to CVC Section 24607; g. Pazking brake; h. Horn; i. Windshield; j. Seat belts; k. Safely eyuipped or properly loaded to conform with CVC Section 24002; 1. A golf cart locking device; m. A covered passenger compartment; eliminate, recent accident information su�ests that the roof structure is dan�erous, and actually� causes injuries including decapitation n. A backup buzzer. (Ord. 895 § 3, 1998; Ord. 703 § 1 (part), 1993) 10.76.110 Golf cart operator safety criteria. A. The city council finds that minimum golf cart operator safety criteria for golf cart use on golf cart lanes have been established by the city engineer, police captain and golf cart Itransportation committee. I:liminate. �olf cars are allowed on other streets without sepazate lanes. B. The following safety criteria for operators are the minimum criteria set and adopted by the city council: climinate 1. A golf cart, replace with N�:V operator must have a valid driver's license issued by the state of California or an acceptable foreign jurisdiction or be physically disabled and � determined to be able to operate an electric golf cart, replace with NF.V by their physician in writing and the city and to possess knowledge of traffic signals, signs, rules, laws, and safety sufficient to have obtained a driver's license in the absence of the disability. I2. Golf car. replace with NEV t operators must comply with ihe financial responsibility requirements of Vehicle Code Section 16020 et seq. 3. Golf cart operators must maintain golf cart in a safe condition a.nd ensure that an unobstructed view to the reaz is maintained at all times the cart is in operation on public streets._ F.liminate, alreadv covered above. 4. Golf cart operators may only operate golf carts on public streets only during the time period between one hour prior to sunrise and one hour after sunset. Eliminate, why limit usc durin � t�, he highest trattic times 5. A maximum of two persons may ride in the golf cart and may only ride in the main passenger compartment equipped with safety belts. Both the driver and passenger must wear safety belts at all times that the golf cart is being operated on public streets. Modif'v to "each passen �� must be in a seat with safety belts securelv fastened. 6. Except as otherwise provided by law, golf cart,NEV operators: a. Must have a valid city golf cart, replace with NEV permit for operation on public streets; b. May travel on residential or business district streets with speed limits of twenty-five Im.p.h. or less; Modifv to �5 mph c. May not travel on or along streets with speed limits in excess of twenty-five m.p.h. IModity to 35 mph except on designated golf cart, NI:V routes; and d. May not travel on, along or across state highways, except to cross at controlled � intersections as designated in the golf cart, NEV transportation plan and indicated on the golf cart route map. 7. Golf cart N_h�Vpermits issued by the city are valid only within, and designated golf cart N E Vroutes do not extend beyond, the geographic boundaries of the city. Possession of a valid city golf cart permit does not authorize travel on or along public streets outside the geographic boundaries of the city. (Ord. 895 § 4, 1998: Ord. 703 § 1 (part), 1993) � 10.76.120 City permit process. Replace with NEV A golf cart permit process has been established by the city council. Permitted golf carts must meet the minimum golf cart design criteria. Permitted golf cart operators must meet the minimum golf cart operator safety criteria. In addition, the city shall establish the following process for permitting golf carts: A. An inspection process completed by the city; B. A permit decal showing proof of compliance. The decal shall be visibly posted on the right rear fender of the permitted golf cart; C. A permit fee of ten dollars for a two-year period to allow the city to recover a portion of the cost of inspection, enforcement and golf cart Iane plan maintenance; D. An education and information package describing the requirements of the city golf cart transportation program. (Ord. 703 § 1 (part), 1993) 10.76.200 Enforcement of golf cart transportation plan. The city council finds and determines that the city shall provide law enforcement for the golf cart transportation plan and enforce the rules and regulations of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, the Streets and Highways Code(Chapter 6, Division 2.5, Sections 1950 through 1967), and Section 21716 of the California Vehicle Code. Any person operating a golf caR in violation of this chapter is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars. (Ord. 895 § 5, 1998: Ord. 703 § 1 (part), 1993) Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Timothy R. Bartlett