Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-10-04 PC Regular Meeting Agenda Packet CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2016 — 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER 11. ROLL CALL 111. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Any person wishing to discuss any item not scheduled for public hearing may address the Planning Commission at this point by stepping to the lectern and giving his/her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Planning Commission. Because the Brown Act does not allow the Planning Commission to take action on items not on the Agenda, Commissioners will not enter into discussion with speakers but may briefly respond or instead refer the matter to staff for report and recommendation at a future Planning Commission meeting. Reports and documents relating to each of the following items listed on the agenda, including those received following posting/distribution, are on file in the Office of the Department of Community Development and are available for public inspection during normal business hours, Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260, telephone (760) 346-0611, Extension 484. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR ALL MATTERS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE ROLL CALL VOTE. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR AUDIENCE REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND ACTION UNDER SECTION VII CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER, OF THE AGENDA. AGENDA PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2016 A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of September 6, 2016. Rec: Approve as presented. Action: VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER Vill. NEW BUSINESS None IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he or she raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Planning Commission. A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a new 5,280-square-foot industrial building within the Service Industrial zone located at 34-750 Sypder Circle, and adopt a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Case No. PP 16-76 (Robert Ricciardi Architects, Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2678, approving Case No, PP 16-76. Action: B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of recommendation to the City Council to approve a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Palm Desert Municipal Code Sections 25.56.040, 25.56.050, 25.56.080, and 25.34.080 to allow year-round pedestal signs and balloons on a temporary basis for businesses within the El Paseo Overlay District, and adopting a Notice of Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act. Case No. ZOA 16-265 (City of Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2679, approving Case No. ZOA 16-265. Action: 2 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Agenda\10-4-16 agn.docx AGENDA PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2016 X. MISCELLANEOUS A. INFORMATIONAL REPORT regarding the public hearing/approval process for the update to the City's General Plan including the University Neighborhood Specific Plan, Highway 111 Development Code, and associated environmental documents. Case Nos. GPA/EA 16-261, ZOA 16-262, ZOA 16-263 (City of Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Rec: Oral report and draft documents to be provided at the meeting. XI. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES B. PARKS & RECREATION XII. COMMENTS XIII. ADJOURNMENT I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing agenda for the Planning Commission was posted on the City Hall bulletin board not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Dated this 30`h day of September, 2016. Monica O'Reilly, Recording cretary Please contact the Planning Department, 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260, (760) 346-0611, for assistance with access to any of the agenda, materials, or participation at the meeting. 3 G\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Agenda\104-16 agn.docx CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REQUEST: CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE A NEW 5,280-SQUARE-FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING WITHIN THE SERVICE INDUSTRIAL ZONE LOCATED AT 34-750 SPYDER CIRCLE, AND ADOPT A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner APPLICANT: Robert Ricciardi Architects 75-400 Gerald Ford Drive, Suite 115 Palm Desert, CA 92211 CASE NO: PP 16-76 DATE: October 4, 2016 CONTENTS: 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2678 2. Legal Notice 3. Architectural Review Minutes dated July 26, 2016 4. Architectural Review Minutes dated July 12, 2016 5. Architectural Review Minutes dated June 14, 2016 6. Exhibits Recommendation Waive further reading and adopt draft Planning Commission Resolution No.2678, approving a notice of exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and approval of a new 5,280-square-foot industrial building. Architectural Review Commission The building architecture was presented and reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission(ARC) at three (3) separate meetings (June 14, July 12, and July 26, 2016). At all three meetings, the Commissioners commented that the architecture of the building does not meet the ARC findings of approval because the building design lacked articulation and design interest.The applicant disagreed and on July 26,2016,the ARC voted 6-1-0-1 to deny the project.The applicant appealed the decision to the City Council. Staff Report PP 16-76 Industrial Building Page 2 of 4 October 4, 2016 City Council Appeal At its September 8, 2016, City Council meeting, the City Council reviewed the proposed architecture and overturned the ARC's action of denial. The City Council stated that the design is in keeping with desert architecture in regards to materials and color and approved the building architecture with a 3-0 vote, with Council members Jonathan and Harnik abstaining. Executive Summary The applicant is requesting approval of a new 5,280-square-foot industrial building.The building will be divided into four (4) smaller suites to attract start up businesses. A Precise Plan application is required since the proposed building is new construction,and all Precise Plans require approval of the Planning Commission. Otherwise, the building conforms to all development standards including height, building setbacks, permitted uses, and parking of the Service Industrial zoning district. Background A. Property Description: The vacant 19,873-square-foot lot is located in the northern portion of Palm Desert within the S.I. zone. The property is located on the east side of Spyder Circle and south of Dinah Shore Drive. The vacant parcel is 119 feet in width and 167 feet in depth, rectangular in shape and flat. Two access points will be provided at the north and south side of the property off of Spyder Circle once developed. B. Zoning and General Plan Designation: Zone: S.I.—Service Industrial General Plan: I-BP— Industrial Business Park C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: S.I. —Vacant land and Industrial Buildings South: S.I. —Vacant land and Industrial Buildings East: S.I. —Vacant land and Industrial Buildings West: S.I. —Vacant land and Industrial Buildings Project Description The proposed industrial building will be divided into four(4)smaller suites to attract small businesses. The project will have two access points off of Spyder Circle that will lead into the parking area. The 5,280-square-foot building will be situated in the middle of the property approximately30 feet backfrom Spyder Circle,with additional parking located behind the building to the east. Each suite will be 1,320 square feet and consists of a reception area,office room, restroom,and warehouse area that includes a roll-up door. The roll-up doors are located at the rear of the building and will not be visible from a public street. GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Precise Plans\PP 16-76 Ricciardi Building\Staff Report Industrial Building.doc Staff Report PP 16-76 Industrial Building Page 3 of 4 October 4, 2016 The applicant currently does not have any signed leases with tenants, but the type of tenants will be industrial type businesses that operate during regular business hours. A. Architecture: The building's architecture maintains a desert theme.The design includes splitface concrete block for a textural appearance of tan and brown desert colors. The building is single-story with an overall height of 24 feet,and all roof top equipment will be concealed within the roof and screened from all public views. The applicant is also proposing a six-foot high block wall design around the site. B. Landscaping: The landscape design consists of a desert theme with species requiring minimal water usage.The proposed landscaping along Spyder Circle consists of Palo Brea trees, California Palm trees,and a variety of shrubs and decomposed granite as ground cover. The parking area and the east perimeter property line consist of Shoestring Acacia trees, California Palm trees, Caleput Trees, and shrubs. Overall, the landscape design is minimal, but provides for a good balance while maintaining low water usage.The applicant has provided a detailed landscape plan,which is attached to the staff report. Final landscape plans will be submitted to the City's Community Development Department and the Coachella Valley Water District for review and approval. Analysis The proposed building requires approval of a Precise Plan by the Planning Commission since it is a new building. The project as designed complies with all development standards for the S.I. zone including setbacks, building height, parking, lot coverage, and land use compatibility as conditioned. The property was legally created through a subdivision to accommodate the proposed type of building and future industrial businesses. Therefore, staff does not anticipate any future traffic concerns. A. Land Use Compatibility: The site is surrounded by existing industrial and office uses.Although the applicant does not have leased tenants at this time, all future tenants must be industrial type businesses that are compatible with the surrounding uses, and operate during similar hours. The future building and uses will not create negative impacts to the area,since they will be similar in use. Furthermore,the project does not physically divide an existing community,and does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation outlined in the General Plan. B. Parking: Chapter 25.46 Off-street Parking and Loading requires industrial uses to provide two(2)parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. The industrial area totals 3,900 square feet,which totals eight(8) parking spaces. Additionally, the building has office space which totals 1,380 square feet. Office GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Precise Plans\PP 16-76 Ricciardi Building\Staff Report Industrial Building.doc Staff Report PP 16-76 Industrial Building Page 4 of 4 October 4, 2016 use requires four(4) parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, which totals six(6) parking spaces. The building requires 14 parking spaces and the project will provide 18 parking spaces. Staff does not anticipate any parking problems.The 18 parking spaces should provide sufficient parking for business owners, staff, and customers. C. Findings of Approval: Findings can be made in support of the project, and in accordance with the City's Municipal Code. Findings in support of this project are contained in the Planning Commission Resolution attached to this staff report. Environmental Review According to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff must determine whether a proposed activity is a project subject to CEQA. If the project is subject to CEQA, staff must conduct a preliminary assessment of the project to determine whether the project is exempt from CEQA review. If a project is not exempt,further environmental review is necessary.A review ofa non-exempt project would result in a Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an Environmental Impact Report(EIR). Generally, an EIR must be prepared if a project may have a significant impact on the environment. In this case, the City of Palm Desert, in its capacity as the Lead Agency for this project under the CEQA, has determined that the proposed project is categorically exempt under Article 19 Section 15332 In-Fill Development Projects (Class 32) of the CEQA; therefore, no further environmental review is necessary. Submitted By: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Department Head: Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Precise Plans\PP 16-76 Ricciardi Building\Staff Report Industrial Building.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2678 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APROVING A NEW 5,280-SQUARE-FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING WITHIN THE SERVICE INDUSTRIAL ZONE LOCATED AT 34-750 SPYDER CIRCLE, AND ADOPTING A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT CASE NO: PP 16-76 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm 6sert, California, did on the 4th day of October, 2016, hold a duly noticed public hearing to cohsider the request by Robert Ricciardi Architects for approval of the above noted; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 26th day of July, 2016, hold a duty noticed public hearing to consider the request by Robert Ricciardi Architects, and denied the architecture of the building because the design lacked articulation and design interest;and WHEREAS, the City Council of Palm Desert, California, did on the 8th day of September, 2016, hold a meeting to consider an appeal by the applicant of the Architectural Review Commissions action of denial; and overturned; their action and approved the architecture of the building; and WHEREAS, according to the Calif rnia Envirflhm ntal Quality Act (CEQA), the City must determine whether a proposed activity is. a project''"subject to CEQA. If the project is subject to CEQA, staff must conduct a prellriMary assessment of the project to determine whether the project is exempt from CEQ"view. If a project is not exempt, further environmental review is necessary. The applid aeon has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act," Res9JU No. 2015-75, the Director of Community Development has determined that the prof project„ is an Article 19 Class 32: In-Fill Development Projects (15332) Catego�l Exemption for purposes of CEQA and no further review is necessary; and WHEREAS, the prcaosed project conforms to the development standards, parking, permitted ,uses, and maxinm building height listed in the City's Zoning Ordinance for the Service Industal zoning district; and WHEREAS at skpublic hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and �,A arguments, if any, of ait.riiterested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons, which are outlined in the staff report reasons to approve the said request: 1. An industrial building is a permitted use outright and does not require any discretionary approvals. 2. The project complies with all development standards including setbacks, building height, parking, lot coverage, and permitted uses. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2678 3. The future building and uses will not create negative impacts to the area, since they will be similar in use. 4. The project does not physically divide an existing community, and does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation outlined in the General Plan. 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 for approval of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve PP 16-76, subject to conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 4day of October 2016, by the following vote, to wit: � AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN GREENWOOD, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION GAPlanning\Kevin SwartzMorcTrecise Plans\PP 16-76 Ricciardi Building\PC Reso 2678.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2678 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO: PP 16-76 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development/Planning, as modified by the following conditions. 2. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein, which are in addition to all, municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafterr be in force. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction any e,contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clea �ree from the following agencies: Building & Safety Department City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Coachella Valley Water District Evidence of said permit or clearance from the,above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building & Safety at the time ofsuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith, 4. Applicant shall defend, indemnify and h6l harmless the City against any third party legal challenge to these approvals, with ounsel chosen by the City at applicant's expense. 5. The applt shall submit a sign application to the City's Department of Community Deveoprr���for any building mounted or monument signs associated with the project. h� 6. RhAl landscape plant, including the water feature shall be submitted to the City's Department of Comrrtunty Development and the Coachella Valley Water District for review and approval. landscape plan shall conform to the preliminary landscape plans prepared as part ;of this application, and shall include dense plantings of landscape,material. All plants shall be a minimum of five gallons in size, and palm trees shall be a mm f Urn of 18 inches at the base. 7. Building mounted ' lighting fixtures shall conform to the City's Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. 8. All visible building exteriors shall be finished with paint and/or stucco. No visible building elevations or precision block shall be left unfinished. GAPlanning\Kemn Swartz\Word\Precise Plans\PP 16-76 Ricciardi Building\PC Reso 2678.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2678 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS: 9. The applicant shall submit a grading plan to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Any changes to the approved civil or landscape plans must be reviewed for approval prior to work commencing. 10.The grading plan shall identify all proposed and existing utilities. 11.The applicant shall submit a PM10 application for approval. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24 regarding Fugitive Dust Control. 12.The applicant shall abide by all provisions of City tQ Palm Desert Ordinance 843, Section 24.20 Stormwater Management and Discharge'Ordinanca. 13.The applicant shall submit a final Water Quality Management Plan (WOMP) for approval. The WQMP shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) than will be used on the site to control predictable pollutant runoff. The wash down and cleanup procedures for animal waste should be specifically addressed. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Operation and Maintenance Section of the approved final WQMP shall be recorded with the County's Recorder Office and a conformed copy shall be provided to the Public Works Department. 14.The applicant shall pay the appropriate signaiization fee in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55 and drahn fee in accordance with Section 26.49 of Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm'"Desertrd'inance Number 653. 15.The applicant shall enter into an agreement and post security, in a form and amount acceptable to the City Engineer,guaranteeing the construction of off-site improvements. 16.The applicant shall construct a six-foot curb adjacent ADA compliant sidewalk on Spyder Circle. 17.The applicant shall record a reciprocal access easement for the southernmost driveway to 13e shared with the adjacent parcel. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & SAFETY: 18.This project all comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes: A. 2013 California Building Code and its appendices and standards. B. 2013 California Plumbing Code and its appendices and standards. C. 2013 California Mechanical Code and its appendices and standards. D. 2013 California Electrical Code. E. 2013 California Energy Code. F. 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. G. Title 24, California Code of Regulations. H. 2013 California Fire Code and its appendices and standards. GAPlanning\Kemn Swartz\Word\Precise Plans\PP 16-76 Ricciardi Building\PC Reso 2678.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2678 19.An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed as required per the City of Palm Desert Code Adoption Ordinance 1265. 20.A disabled access overlay of the precise grading plan is required to be submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan review of the site accessibility requirements as per 2013 CBC Chapters 11A & B (as applicable) and Chapter 10. 21.All exits must provide an accessible path of travel to the public way. (CBC 1027.5 & 11 B-206). 22.Detectable warnings shall be provided where required per CBC 11 B-705.1.2.5 and 11 B- 705.1.2.2. The designer is also required to meet all Americans with Disability Act (ADA) requirements. Where an ADA requirement is more restrictive than the State of California, the ADA requirement shall supersede the state requirement. 23.Provide an accessible path of travel to the,- enclosure. The trash enclosure is required to be accessible. Please obtain a detail from the Department of Building and Safety. 24.All contractors and subcontractors shall have a, current City of Palm Desert Business License prior to permit issuance per Palm desert Municipal Code, Title 5. 25.All contractors and/or owner-builders must submit `at valid Certificate of Workers' Compensation Insurance coverage prior to the issuance .of a building permit per California Labor Code, Section 3700. 26.Address numerals shall com �Q with Palm Desert Ordinance No. 1265 (Palm Desert Municipal Code 15.28. Comnce with Ordinance 1265 regarding street address location, dimension, stroke ©f line, distance from the street, height from grade, height from the street, etc shall be fln all architectural building elevations in detail. Any possible obstructions, meadows, lighting, landscaping, backgrounds or other reasons that may render the binding address unreadable shall be addressed during the plan review process. You may request a copy of Ordinance 1265 or Municipal Code Section 15.28 from the Department of Building and Safety counter staff. DEPARTMENT OF FIRE: 27. Fire Department Plan Review. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 28.The project may have a cumulative adverse impact on the Fire Department's ability to provide an acceptable level of service. These impacts include an increased number of emergency and public service calls due to the increased presence of structures, traffic, and population. The project proponents/developers will be expected to provide for a proportional mitigation to these impacts via capital improvements and/or impact fees. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Precise Plans\PP 16-76 Ricciardi Building\PC Reso 2678.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2678 29. Fire Department emergency vehicle apparatus access road locations and design shall be in accordance with the California Fire Code, City of Palm Desert Municipal Code, and Riverside County Fire Department Standards. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. 30. Fire Department water system(s) for fire protection shall be in accordance with the California Fire Code, City of Palm Desert Municipal Code, and Riverside County Fire Department Standards. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. 31.Addressing. New and existing buildings shall have approved atdress numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a pot4j'66 that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum of 12-inch numbers with suite numbers being a minimum of six inches in size. All suites shall have a minimum of six-inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single-family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four-inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC Chapter 5). G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Precise Plans\PP 16-76 Ricciardi Building\PC Reso 2678.doc CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. PP 16-76 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION OF A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL FOR A NEW 5,280-SQUARE-FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 34-750 SPYDER CIRCLE The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as the Lead Agency for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), completed an Initial Study to review the potential environmental impacts of the project and have determined that the proposed request will not have a negative impact on the environment. Project Location: 34-750 Spyder Circle Recommendation: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution supporting the project request. Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission on October 4, 2016 at 6:00 pm. Comment Period: Based on the time limits defined by CEQA, your response should be sent at the earliest possible date. The public comment period on this project is from September 23 to October 4, 2016. Public Review: The project plans are available for public review daily at City Hall. Please submit written comments to the Planning Department. If any group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, or prior to, the Planning Commission hearing. All comments and any questions should be directed to: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760)346-0611 kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org PUBLISH: DESERT SUN RYAN STENDELL, Secretary September 24, 2016 Palm Desert Planning Commission ARCHITECTURAL RL.TW COMMISSION MINUTES July 26, 2016 Commissioner Columbini moved to approve the June 14, 2016 meeting minutes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McAuliffe and carried by a 6-0-2 vote, with Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Van Wet voting YES and Clark and Vuksic absent. V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: PP 16-76 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: ROBERT RICCIARDI, 75400 Gerald Ford Drive, Suite 115, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of preliminary approval or denial of the architectural design of a new 5,280-square-foot warehouse building. This item was continued from the July 12, 2016, ARC meeting to allow the applicant to make architecture modifications. The applicant has made changes and will discuss the revised building design. LOCATION: 34751 Spyder Circle ZONE: S.I. Commissioner Vuksic recused himself from this project and left the conference room. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, said this project was continued from the June 14 and July 12, 2016 meetings. He reminded the Commission that this was a preliminary approval of architectural design for a new 5,280 square foot warehouse building. At the last meeting, the Commission suggested to the applicant to add different textures to give the building more articulation. The applicant is still proposing split faced block but has also added fluted concrete block to create different textures around the building. MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI, architect, said based on the comments received from the Commissioners at the July 12, 2016 meeting he has made the band larger and added more of the fluted block to create more interest especially on the front and sides of the building. He believes he has added quite a bit to the building based on their comments. Commissioner Lambell asked if the fluted concrete stands proud of the split face, and if so, by how much? G:TlanningUanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2016\160726min.docx Page 2 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVI. COMMISSION MINUTES July 26, 2016 MR. RICCIARDI responded it was approximately one inch giving it a nice rough texture. Commissioner Levin asked about the three different materials on the east elevation and MR. RICCIARDI said it was glass, the frame for the glass, and two different concrete block colors. He and the Commission discussed the color of the door and MR. RICCIARDI said that it was in the back and would not be seen. Chair Van Vliet said it might be seen and MR. RICCIARDI said the door would be open most of the time. Commissioner Lambell said what encourages this Commission is to see how the vision of Palm Desert is being forecast, which is very encouraging and exciting. It's about breaking the barrier and moving outside the lines with something that invokes a reason why people want to come and spend their money in Palm Desert. She is concerned that this project comes up short of their expectations. She stated that this new submittal is certainly better than the previous one, but does not meet a higher standard. She understands that it is an industrial building and the back end may not be seen but believes there is a possibility that it will. MR. RICCIARDI said he has designed in a lot of industrial parks and is told how nice his buildings look and how good they look in the desert. He came to the desert in 1960 and was told that the City of Palm Desert wanted buildings to look like they belong in the desert. Now the City wants the architectural style of San Fernando and Los Angeles, which is not what the City was originally looking for. Buildings that reflect the original architecture are being torn down based on wanting to set a higher standard. The City wants good looking buildings, but in industrial parks the buildings need to rent for under a $1.00 per square foot, therefore, a lot of money cannot be spent on the design. This is an industrial building on a street that very few people travel or ever will see that will serve start up businesses, which will be great for the City's economy. Buildings that have been approved by this Commission, in the past, are all rented out because they look good. He understands that it is a different body of Commissioner's but feels his project meets the bar. Commissioner Clark said he drove down Spider Circle to get a sense of what was already there and thought this design was similar to the two buildings to the south and east. He felt those two buildings had some definite architecture to the fronts and that the applicant's building would probably blend into those two buildings. MR. RICCIARDI said those two buildings are 40,000 to 50,000 G:\PlanninglJanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2016\160726min.docx Page 3 of 11 -r ARCHITECTURAL RL AW COMMISSION MINUTES July 26, 2016 square foot boxes and his building is only a 5,000 square foot box. Commissioner Clark said he was impressed by the design of those two buildings and how the materials were used. Chair Van Vliet said just because the building is an industrial building and is smaller it shouldn't lack architectural design. He doesn't feel there is enough differential between the split face and the fluted since it is only one inch and the two colors look the same. MR. RICCIARDI said it won't be similar because the shadow created by the fluted block will produce a totally different texture. Chair Van Wet pointed out that it is only one inch and MR. RICCIARDI said if it is made bigger, the cost will increase making it too expensive to build on the lot. In creating this lot, the City created the smallest industrial lot ever allowing only one driveway rather than two, making it unsalable and unbuildable. All because the City wants to see a Tajo Mahan here or something that is a lot nicer which doesn't lend itself to this lot. He has created a style, in the industrial areas, that has been in the desert for a while and many people like his designs. Commissioner McIntosh said this Commission doesn't ever rely on good examples of bad architecture. He also felt that the applicant's comments on economics were not an argument for this Commission. MR. RICCIARDI said if economics are not a good argument for this Commission, then the Commissioners don't really belong here because they don't understand that industrial buildings are a lot different than commercial buildings. If buildings are over 25,000 square feet they use tilt-up which is not affordable to the tenants, which is why concrete block is used. MR. RICCIARDI referred to his design of the Rancho Mirage fire station that also has concrete fluting. Commissioner McIntosh said it has a lot more articulation and detail than the building being proposed. MR. RICCIARDI said it is a fire station and Commissioner McIntosh asked him why he was using the building as a comparison. MR. RICCIARDI said because the buildings have the same materials. Commissioner McIntosh pointed out that the two buildings have different geometry and mass. He explained to the applicant that the Commission does not want him to spend more money on this building; it just needs a little more creativity. Commissioner McAuliffe appreciates the effort made by the applicant by responding to the Commissioner's comments from the last meeting and understands that the applicant has extensive experience. However, the Commission is asking him to use his G:\PlanningUanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2016\160726min.docx Page 4 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVI. COMMISSION MINUTES July 26, 2016 professional design experience to elevate this project. There is an opportunity to simplify this and thinks the applicant could concentrate on the areas where the fluted block is. He appreciates that the applicant has added more fluted block to the project and said this Commission is appreciative and sensitive to financial constraints. He thinks the form of the building is not what's at stake, it's about presentation. The better this building presents itself the more rentable or salable it will be. The Commission wants this project to move forward while at the same time holding the standard that Palm Desert has established as a priority. He offered to have a sidebar with the applicant outside the context of the meeting. MR. RICCIARDI said he would be glad to talk with him but right now all he has received is rhetoric; rhetoric that doesn't tell him anything except that he hasn't met the Commission's goal. He feels the Commission's goal is indefinable and is all personal taste. Commissioner McAuliffe disagreed with that comment and said that is why this Commission is made up of professionals who are qualified by a governing body to sit on this Commission. MR. RICCIARDI said other cities are a lot easier to work with and this is the first time he has ever experienced this kind of rhetoric. Other cities tell him what needs to be done and then moves forward. With this Commission he doesn't receive a guide to go on other than he could do better. Commissioner McAuliffe said there is a fine line where they have to render their thoughts but at the same time... MR. RICCIARDI interrupted and said they were not professional thoughts. At this point, several people were talking at the same time making it difficult to understand the conversation. Mr. Swartz said there are two options. One is to continue this item and the applicant could meet with two of the Commissioners, or... MR. RICCIARDI interrupted and said, as an architect, you have to have something to go on; garbage in, garbage out. If all he gets is rhetoric, which is indefinable because it's such a high level of extraction, you can't define it. Commissioner Clark suggested meeting with staff and other Commissioners to... MR. RICCIARDI interrupted and said he has met with staff and they haven't told him whether this project is good, bad, or indifferent. Chair Van Vliet said this could either be continued to allow the applicant to improve the architecture or to deny it and the applicant could appeal it to the City Council, which may be the better direction if the applicant feels he has done the best he can with this project. MR. RICCIARDI agreed with that and said because right now it's just words. GAPIanningUanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2016\160726min.dxx Page 5 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 26, 2016 Commissioner McAuliffe said the fire station the applicant built in Rancho Mirage is a very fine building and asked him if the level of design quality, given that's its two different projects with two different budgets... MR. RICCIARDI interrupted and said one project had a very low budget. Commissioner McAuliffe said that is when architects go to work. MR. RICCIARDI said some architects understand budgets, but very few do. Commissioner McAuliffe said he presumed that the applicant understands the budget which is the primary challenge. As an architect you have to ask yourself how you can make this work within the constraints you are given. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to deny the architectural design of a new 5,280 square foot warehouse building as presented. Commission provided architectural comments to the applicant, who was unreceptive. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McIntosh and carried by a 6-1-0-1 vote. A Roll Call vote was called: COMMISSIONERS AYES NOES ABSTAINED Clark X Colombini X Lambell X Levin X McAuliffe X McIntosh X Vuksic X Chair,Van Vliet X B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP/CUP 16-178 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: MARLORKAND LLC, 72960 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of preliminary approval of a 20,000 square foot building, site plan, and landscape plans; Barkingham Palace. LOCATION: 73650 Dinah Shore Drive ZONE: S.I. Commissioner Vuksic recused himself from this project and left the conference room. GAPIanningUanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2016\160726min.docx Page 6 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL RL W COMMISSION MINUTES July 12, 2016 B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO.: PP 16-76 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROBERT RICCIARDI, 75400 Gerald Ford Drive #115, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of preliminarily approving or denying the architectural design of a new 5,280-square-foot warehouse building. This item was continued from the June 14, 2016, ARC meeting to allow the applicant to make architecture modifications. The applicant did not make any changes and wants to discuss the proposed building design. LOCATION: 34751 Spyder Circle ZONE: S.I., Service Industrial Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, reminded the Commission that this item was continued from the June 14, 2016 Architectural Review Commission (ARC) meeting for architectural modifications to a 5,280 square foot warehouse building. The Commissioner's comments were based on the proposed architectural style of a rectangular box building, and how they liked the split faced block, but suggested the applicant add more articulation. The architect was unable to attend the meeting on June 14, 2016 and staff notified the applicant after the meeting of the Commissioner's comments. The applicant met with staff and stated that he felt it was a good looking building and did not want to make the suggested modifications but wanted a chance to present the building plans to the Commission. Staff stated to the applicant that the Commission could approve it as presented today, the architect could make changes as suggested by the Commission, or the Commission could deny the proposed architectural design and the applicant could appeal to City Council. Commissioner Clark stated for the record that he was not present at the June 14, 2016 meeting, but since no action was taken on the item at that meeting, he asked if he would be able to participate in the discussion. Mr. Swartz responded that Commissioner Clark may participate in the discussion. Mr. Swartz stated that for today's meeting, the applicant has provided photos of other buildings similar to his building in and around the City. MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI, applicant, said he is GAPIanningWnineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2016\160712min.docx Page 7 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIL- COMMISSION MINUTES July 12, 2016 proposing building plans that is similar to his other buildings and approved by this Commission before with good architecture. It is an industrial building, therefore, you have to create something nice while at the same time keep costs down. He said tilt-up for a building of this size will be too expensive so he went with concrete split face block that has a nice look. He pointed out other existing buildings in the area and noted that all of the buildings, with the exception of three, were his. Those three buildings were approved by the City and all have higher heights and a lot more exposed building without any real articulation. He prefers his building design because it is all concrete block and looks like a desert building and regional in style. Therefore, he is asking the Commission to approve this project. He added that this type of building will be good for the City because start up businesses can go in at a lower cost. He pointed out that he is not asking the Commission to do something that they haven't done in the past. This building is in an area that isn't on the main street and most people won't see it from the street. Mr. Swartz pointed out that the large band on the building would be used for signage. Chair Van Wet referred to the elevation that is exposed and said the other elevation could also potentially be exposed. MR. RICCIARDI said the building is built to the property line and referred to the building across the street that is also built up on the property line with no articulation at all. Chair Van Vliet said his point was that it could be a fully exposed building depending on when the future building was constructed. MR. RICCIARDI said that is why they have a rich wall and is well done. Commissioner Lambell had concerns with the south elevation because it has no articulation except for the color change with the band. MR. RICCIARDI said it is on the property line so you wouldn't get much articulation. Chair Van Vliet stated again that it may be exposed depending on how the future building is constructed. MR. RICCIARDI referred back to one of the other buildings approved by the Commission and stated it has no articulation and it is a lot higher than the one he's presenting and it was approved. Chair Van Vliet pointed out that this Commission is only reviewing this building, not the others. MR. RICCIARDI said the wall will have rich landscaping that will add to it and will have split faced block that will compliment the landscaping. MR. RICCIARDI said this Commission needs to be consistent. Commissioner Levin said times have changed and this Commission doesn't have to be consistent with a decision that was GAPIanningUanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2016\160712min.docx Page 8 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL RLW COMMISSION MINUTES July 12, 2016 made in the past. We are looking at this building with today's standards and what we feel is architecturally appropriate. MR. RICCIARDI said if we have something that is rich and everybody likes it and it's been used before, then why wouldn't it be approved. Commissioner Levin said if everybody likes it we wouldn't be having this conversation. MR. RICCIARDI said the last thing he wants to do is go to the City Council, as he has done in the past and even though it was successful it created a lot of problems. Commissioner Lambell said this Commission is trying to raise the level of what is expected from every applicant in the City of Palm Desert and we are asking for something that makes this building stand out. MR. RICCIARDI felt he has done that with this building; it is nice, good looking, and stands out. He has done a tremendous amount of nice industrial buildings in the city and he's never had anyone tell him that his industrial buildings were not nice looking. Industrial buildings have to be brought in for a certain price, therefore, you have to get tenants to spend a little less. We have to do things that are nice, good looking, and within budget. That's what industrial buildings and industrial parks are all about and that is why they are located in specific locations. Commissioner McAuliffe asked what the horizontal band material was and how many courses high. MR. RICCIARDI said it was concrete block and fluted and was two courses high per band. It will stick out somewhat to create a shadow line. Commissioner McAuliffe asked the applicant if he felt this building has the same level of architectural articulation or expression as the other buildings. MR. RICCIARDI said the articulation is in the texture of the material with a lot of ins and outs and shadows that create a lot of texture. The other buildings have no texture except for paint color. He stated that all the new buildings in the city are modern steel and aluminum buildings and he wants to bring the richness back to the City by doing regional architecture. MR. RICCIARDI said if the Commission wants more articulation, he would add another band or make the bands deeper. He is open to suggestions. Commissioner McAuliffe said that is what they were trying to communicate. Commissioner McAuliffe said he understands that this is an industrial building and building a shoebox is by far the most efficient shape and makes sense for the price point. He believes there is an opportunity as an architect to add additional character to the building; joint work, larger regions of texture, and additional fluted texture. MR. RICCIARDI said the Commission is asking him to do GAPIanningUanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2016\160712min.docx Page 9 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIL-)COMMISSION MINUTES July 12, 2016 something that he didn't quite understand and if they could make a recommendation then he would have a better understanding. Commissioner McAuliffe said within the two textures there is a potential to make the band wider. He referred to a masonry building in Indio that is a rectangular box and they used two different tile colors. He is not proposing the applicant to do that, but they used very simple materials that added character to something that was entirely utilitarian. Again MR. RICCIARDI said that he is asking the Commission to make a suggestion and tell him exactly what they want and approve the project. Commissioner McAuliffe said that staff has given him suggestions several times. He said the band at the top makes sense. However, the band that runs around the middle has a lot more opportunity to do something there, possibly by extending portions of that band all the way to the ground to help define the entrance. Commissioner McAuliffe said what the applicant has done on the building is far more visually appealing than the other buildings; however, he needs to raise the bar. MR. RICCIARDI said the 50,000 square foot building and the 5,000 square foot building are two different things. Commissioner McAuliffe said if it doesn't look good it doesn't matter how big or small it is. As a Commission, this is a standard we are held to. Commissioner McAuliffe suggested taking the fluted texture and wrapping the corner so that it reaches all the way to the ground to create a mass. MR. RICCIARDI said he would be glad to do that on the ends and asked for them to put that in a motion and get this project approved today. Chair Van Vliet said the best thing for the applicant to do is to make the necessary changes and bring them back to the Commission. MR. RICCIARDI said he wants an approval today because his client wants to move forward. Mr. Swartz said it appears that the Commission is suggesting a continuance to allow the applicant to review the Commissioner's comments and bring a revision back to the next ARC meeting. Chair Van Wet concurred with Mr. Swartz and also stated that the project could be denied then the applicant could appeal it to the City Council. MR. RICCIARDI said an appeal would take a long time and preferred not to go in that direction. He said he would redraw the plans and bring it back to the next ARC meeting. Commissioner Clark encouraged the applicant to continue working with staff on the rough drawings. Mr. Swartz mentioned that if a couple of Commissioners were willing to meet with staff and the GAPIanningUanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2016\160712min.docx Page 10 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL RLW COMMISSION MINUTES July 12, 2016 applicant, it could be arranged. Chair Van Vliet agreed this could help move this project forward. ACTION: Commissioner Clark moved to continue Case PP 16-76 subject to applicant working with staff on the building design based on comments provided by the ARC Commissioners. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 6-0-2 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, and Van Vliet voting YES and McIntosh and Vuksic absent C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. COMMENTS VII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Lambell moved to adjourn the Architectural Review Commission meeting at 1:50 p.m. KEVIN SWARTZ ASSOCIATE PLANNER SECRETARY JANINE JUDY RECORDING SECRETARY GAPIanningUanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2016\160712min.docx Page 11 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 14, 2016 B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO.: PP 16-76 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROBERT RICCIARDI ARCHITECT, 75400 Gerald Ford Drive, Suite 115, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to review and make architectural comments for a new 5,280 square foot industrial building. LOCATION: 34-751 Spyder Circle (Vacant Lot) ZONE: S.I. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented a proposal to review and make architectural comments for a new 5,280 square foot industrial building The Commission reviewed and discussed the plans and continued this item to allow the applicant to made additional changes to the building based on their comments. ACTION: Commissioner Levin moved to continue Case PP-16-76 with comments from ARC that the applicant adds articulation to break up the massing of the building. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambell and carried by a 6-0-2 vote, with Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, and Van Vliet voting YES and Commissioners Clark and Vuksic absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented for discussion only a building paint color change along San Pablo Avenue for Silver Fox Lounge and Bar. The Commission reviewed and discussed the plans and thought that the color change would look out of place. They suggested the applicant either replace existing awnings or be creative with their signage to identify their business. ACTION: No Action taken. Discussion Only. GAPlanningUanineJudylARC\1Minutes\2016\160614min.docx Page 3 of 4 r U R: W u,Z < J o z " O H � U ,[�U °U r3 .ace Zc W "vyi ;_ ��s s• an tij s4 U L CC W ao p 8 W 5 tin 2 a i i I m it o. u u a a a r_ a rc n tt Q ceo ti� oa dUo 1M�� Joy Q <+ Ot ¢ O U p N LU F- co i Z 0 N > O i w U i' w O = N r + 3 + i - � a a ¢ !i Z ' m rco E e w m a � � J m .Y < 3'1�?J17?134AdS Cky o 0 0kjLu w Z Z U; ❑ �_❑ ` ❑ ❑ 0 0 > > w w Z w w < _ = J � � W O k ON O __ [/¢j0 o-oc V 1 I UIl E- o N$ Z J �Z �0 O 6 b E 344 p' s LL J 1 0 o 1 z a z C -p �,'8 a wnn z 5 �O �y�j � Q 3 m M Sj c 0 o oa` a m 0 OZ F— m u w N w w a .gQSr 335ta a dFj ipgj ! � C/) gig R CL Od AL.: Z I � — 1 Yf t 00 �� �m®�4),0� b * 1 1 1 1 I LL 3 N I I y fl d 0 0 d 0 • 1 1 I I O I d GG y 3 I tl I p I 1 �a I I I � 19 ------------- 'C } :� - _ ---- ------------ Li xx CL � lY9c a9ga �� a� 9a5 �g�: 310813 d30kd5 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 25.56.040, 25.56.050, 25.56.080, AND 25.34.080 TO ALLOW YEAR-ROUND PEDESTAL SIGNS AND BALLOONS ON A TEMPORARY BASIS FOR BUSINESSES WITHIN THE EL PASEO OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert CASE NO: ZOA 16-265 DATE: October 4, 2016 CONTENTS: 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2679 2. Exhibit A—Section 25.56.040 N. "Exempt Signs" 3. Exhibit B—Section 25.56.050 A. "Prohibited Signs" 4. Exhibit C—Section 25.56.080 G. "Pedestrian Oriented Signs" 5. Exhibit D —Section 25.34.080 C. "Temporary Uses" 6. Desert Sun Legal Notice Recommendation Waive further reading and adopt draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2679 approving a Notice of Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act and Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) 16-265. Executive Summary At its meeting on February 11, 2016, the City Council discussed the current Sign Ordinance regarding year-round signage for businesses on El Paseo, and directed staff to meet with the El Paseo Merchants Association (EPMA) and business owners along El Paseo to understand their requested direction regarding signs. Staff sent out a survey to business owners and met with the EPMA at three (3) separate meetings. Based on the EPMA direction and results from the survey, staff is proposing. Staff Report ZOA 16-265: Pedestrian Signage for El Paseo Page 2 of 6 October 4, 2016 • Allow businesses on El Paseo within the El Paseo Overlay District to display year- round pedestal signs. • The use of balloons no more than 40 days a year, subject to a Temporary Use Permit (TUP). The proposed guidelines are outlined in more detail in the "Project Description/Analysis" section of this report, and staff believes the proposed modifications will preserve the upscale ambience of El Paseo. Background The current Sign Ordinance prohibits businesses along El Paseo to display pedestrian- oriented signs during non-summer months. Those types of signs are only allowed between June 1 and October 1. Over the years, local merchants have expressed concerns that the economy has still not recovered, and being able to have year-round pedestrian-oriented signage would help their businesses. Other business owners along El Paseo find them distracting and have stated that the signage ruins the upscale ambience of El Paseo. At its meeting on February 11, 2016, the City Council discussed the current Sign Ordinance, and the Council ended the discussion by directing staff to meet with the EPMA and business owners along El Paseo to find a common ground. On February 18, 2016, staff met with the EPMA and the business owner for Leeds and Sons regarding their stance on allowing year-round pedestrian-oriented signs. One member stated that he finds the signs distracting and they will diminish the upscale ambience of El Paseo. Two other members stated their business tenants would like to have the signs year- round. The owner of Leeds and Sons agreed with the year-round signs, and added the use of balloons as advertising devices. After additional discussion it was agreed upon to send a survey to all business owners requesting feedback regarding year-round signage and the use of balloons. On March 7, 2016, FG Creative distributed the survey, which City staff approved, to business owners along El Paseo via email and letter mail. The survey included a response deadline to FG Creative by March 25, 2016. On April 6, 2016, FG Creative and City staff compiled the results, which indicated that there were 74 businesses that completed the survey. The survey concluded that 85 percent of the businesses find the pedestrian-oriented signs valuable and 77 percent were in favor for signs year-round. Additionally, 81 percent of the businesses were in favor of allowing helium balloons on a limited basis, while 20 percent voted NO. At its meeting on May 19, 2016, staff met with the EPMA and presented the survey results. The EPMA agreed with the survey results, and requested staff provides photos of different types of signage. Staff Report ZOA 16-265: Pedestrian Signage for El Paseo Page 3 of 6 October 4, 2016 At its meeting on July 21, 2016, staff presented a PowerPoint to the EPMA depicting different types and sizes of signs from A-frame to pedestal signs. Staff also showed examples of pedestal signs that included a graphic insert and how advertising can be effective and done tastefully. The EPMA had a discussion regarding sign limitations and restrictions and agreed that A-frame signs are not appropriate for El Paseo. They also discussed balloons as advertising devices and agreed that no more than five balloons attached to the signs could be allowed on a temporary basis. The EPMA requested staff to draft an ordinance for their review. At its meeting on August 25, 2016, staff presented the draft ordinance to the EPMA. The EPMA discussed and approved the modifications and requested staff to propose an ordinance to the Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. Project Description/Analysis Based on the recommendation from the EPMA and from 63 business owners along El Paseo, staff is recommending modifications to allow businesses along El Paseo within the Overlay District year-round pedestal signs, and balloons no more than 40 days a year, subject to a TUP. Below are the modifications to each Section of the Zoning Ordinance. Below is the current code for Section 25.56.080 G. "Pedestrian oriented signs", with the proposed added language shown in "bold font" 1. Businesses in the commercial and industrial districts, excluding businesses within the El Paseo Overlay District, may place a pedestrian-oriented A-frame or pedestal mounted "open" sign in front of a business, subject to the following standards: a. Maximum sign area shall be three (3) square feet for pedestal signs on each side, and five (5) feet for A-frame signs on each side; b. Maximum sign height shall be 54 inches; c. Signs shall be placed on private property in a location that does not impede pedestrian traffic flow; d. Signs shall be designed and located so as to not distract from the appearance of the building or violate the intent of this chapter; e. Signs shall not include extraneous verbiage advertising the business, specials, or sales events; and f. Signs shall be removed when the business is not open for business. 2. For businesses within the El Paseo Overlay District between Portola Avenue and Highway 74, the following standards apply: Staff Report ZOA 16-265: Pedestrian Signage for El Paseo Page 4 of 6 October 4, 2016 a. Pedestal signs are allowed year-round during the business's operating hours; b. A-Frame signs are not permitted; c. Businesses with less than 24 lineal feet of building frontage are allowed one (1) pedestal sign up to a maximum of three (3) square feet and a maximum sign height of 54"; d. Businesses in excess of 25 lineal feet of building frontage are allowed one (1) pedestal sign up to a maximum of 22" w x 14" h or 22" w x 28" h, and a maximum sign height of 54"; e. Signs may include the word "open", advertising the business with artwork such as a model, product, and logo, business name, and promotional text; f. Signs shall not include the word "sale" or"sales"; g. No decorative elements are allowed on the pedestal frame; h. Signs shall be placed on private property in a location that does not impede the sidewalk and pedestrian traffic flow; i. City approval of the sign is required by the Community Development/Planning Department. A City approval identity sticker will be issued and must be placed on the sign; j. Signs shall be professionally designed, fabricated, and well- maintained at all times; and k. Helium balloons are allowed subject to the following standards: a. The business must obtain approval of a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) from the Community Development/Planning Department; b. Each business is allowed no more than 40 days a calendar year, and no extensions will be granted; c. The dates must be identified on the TUP application; d. No more than five (5) helium balloons are allowed; e. Each helium balloon must be a solid color with no wording and shall not exceed 36" in size; Staff Report ZOA 16-265: Pedestrian Signage for El Paseo Page 5 of 6 October 4, 2016 f. Each helium balloon must be attached to the pedestal sign and floating to a maximum height of six (6) feet above the sign at all times; g. Each helium balloon must not impede into the sidewalk or blow into pedestrians; and h. If the City receives more than two (2) complaints about the business's helium balloons then the Director of Community Development may revoke the TUP. Section 25.56.040 — Exempt Signs An amendment to Section 25.56.040 N. "Open" is proposed to correlate with the modifications to Section 25.56.080 G. "Pedestrian-oriented signs". Below is the current language with the modifications in "bold font". "Open" signs, not within the El Paseo Overlay District per Section 25.56.080 G. "Pedestrian-oriented signs" are allowed the following, mounted on the inside of a window or on a pedestal near the main entrance if a window sign is not used. Maximum sign area shall be three (3) square feet. Signs may be double-sided. Pedestal signs shall be located on private property and shall not interfere with pedestrian movement. Signs shall not flash, move, blink, rotate, or appear to do any of the foregoing. Section 25.56.050 — Prohibited Signs An amendment to Section 25.56.050 A. "Advertising devices"is proposed to also correlate with modifications to Section 25.56.080 G. "Pedestrian-oriented signs"in regards to the use of balloons as advertising devices. Below is the current language with the modifications in "bold font". The following signs, displays, and devices, as defined in Chapter 25.99 are prohibited in the City: A. Advertising devices, unless otherwise specified in another section within Chapter 25.56 Signs. Section 25.34.080 Temporary Uses An amendment to this section is proposed to add the use of balloons subject to a TUP to correlate with Section 25.56.080 G. "Pedestrian-oriented signs" Below is the current language with the modifications in "bold font". C. Allowed temporary uses. The temporary uses listed below are permitted with approval of a temporary use permit in compliance with the provisions and limitations listed herein. Staff Report ZOA 16-265: Pedestrian Signage for El Paseo Page 6 of 6 October 4, 2016 8. Helium Balloons — The use of helium balloons are allowed for businesses along El Paseo within the El Paseo Overlay District per Section 25.56.080 G. "Pedestrian- oriented signs". Conclusion Over the years, local merchants have expressed concerns that the economy has still not recovered, and being able to have year-round pedestrian-oriented signage would help their business. The proposed modifications recommended by the EPMA, business owners, and staff to only allow businesses on El Paseo special signage standards and the use of helium balloons may cause other businesses in other areas of the City to complain. El Paseo maintains an Overlay District, which allows for different development standards to be applied. Therefore, staff believes that the above recommendations strike a good balance between the merchants, and City, while preserving the upscale shopping experience along El Paseo. Fiscal Impact It is not yet known what the fiscal impact the amendments will have on the City. Staff is hopeful that the amendments will help assist businesses along El Paseo by generating more foot traffic. Environmental Review According to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff must determine whether a proposed activity is a project subject to CEQA. In this case, the City of Palm Desert, in its capacity as the Lead Agency for this project under the CEQA, has determined that the proposed project is categorically exempt under Article 19 Section 15311 Accessory Structures (a) On-premise signs (Class 11) of the CEQA; therefore, no further environmental review is necessary. Submitted By: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Department Head: Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2679 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 25.56.040, 25.56.050, 25.56.080, AND 25.34.080 TO ALLOW YEAR-ROUND PEDESTAL SIGNS AND BALLOONS ON A TEMPORARY BASIS FOR BUSINESSES WITHIN THE EL PASEO OVERLAY DISTRICT, ADOPTING A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRON VITAL QUALITY ACT CASE NO: ZOA 16-265 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City oPalm Dom, California, did on the 4th day of October, 2016, hold a duly noticed public hearing to considerthe request by the City of Palm Desert and recommended approval to the City Council of the above noted; and WHEREAS, the El Paseo Merchants Association of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 251h day of August, 2016, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by the City of Palm Desert and recommended approval of the above noted; and WHEREAS, establishing an Ordinance to allow year-round pedestal signs for businesses along El Paseo within the El Paste Overlay District, the use of helium balloons no more than 40 days a year, subject to a Temporary Use Permit, and other code modifications for signage will help the businesses along:El Paseo and could increase the City's sales tax; and WHEREAS, according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City must determine whether a proposed activity is a project subject to CEQA. If the project is subject to CEQA, staff must conduct a preliminary assessment of the project to determine whether the project is exempt from CEQA review. If a project is not exempt, further environmorltal review. is necessary. The application has complied with the requirements of the "City,of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, resolution No. 2015-75, the Director of Community Development has determined that the A,..: pased project is under Article 19 Section 15311 Accessory Structures (a) On- premise s!""ps (Class 11) tf the CEQA; therefore, no further environmental review is J,.. necessary, WHEREAS" the Cify of Palm Desert believes that the recommendations strike a good balance between the merchants and the City, while preserving the upscale shopping experience along El Paseo. WHEREAS, the proposed project conforms to the development standards listed in the City's Zoning Ordinance for the El Paseo Overlay District; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2679 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, which are outlined in the staff report reasons to recommend approval of the said request: 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 for approval of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of ZOA 16-265. - PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the :Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 4th day of October 2016, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: r JOHN GREENWOOD, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION GAPlanningXemn Swartz\Word\City Ordinances\Pedestal Signs El Paseo\PC Reso 2679.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2679 Exhibit "A" Section 25.56.040 — Exempt Signs An amendment to Section 25.56.040 N. "Open" is proposed to correlate with the modifications to Section 25.56.080 G. "Pedestrian-oriented signs." Below is the current language with the modifications in "bold font." "Open" signs, not within the El Paseo Overlay District per Section 25.56.080 G. "Pedestrian-oriented signs" are allowed the following: Mounted on the inside of a window or on a pedestal near the main entrance, if a window,sign is not used. Maximum sign area shall be three (3) square feet. Signs may be doubie-tided. Pedestal signs shall be located on private property and shall not interfere with pedestrian movement. Signs shall not flash, move, blink, rotate, or appear to do any of the foregoing. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\City Ordinances\Pedestal Signs El Paseo\PC Reso 2679.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2679 Exhibit "B" Section 25.56.050 — Prohibited Signs An amendment to Section 25.56.050 A. "Advertising devices"is proposed to also correlate with modifications to Section 25.56.080 G. "Pedestrian-oriented signs"in regards to the use of balloons as advertising devices. Below is the current language with the modifications in "bold font." The following signs, displays, and devices, as defined in Chapter 2599 are prohibited in the City: A. Advertising devices, unless otherwise specified in,andther section within Chapter 25.56 Signs. \ GAPlanning\KeNn Swartz\Word\City Ordinances\Pedestal Signs El Paseo\PC Reso 2679.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2679 Exhibit "C" Section 25.56.080 G. — Pedestrian oriented signs Below is the current code for Section 25.56.080 G. "Pedestrian oriented signs," with the proposed added language shown in "bold font." 1. Businesses in the commercial and industrial districts, excluding businesses within the El Paseo Overlay District, may place a pedestrian-oriented A-frame or pedestal mounted `open" sign in front of a business, subject to the following standards: a. Maximum sign area shall be three (3) square feet for pedestal signs on each side, and five (5)feet for A-frame signs on each side; b. Maximum sign height shall be 54 inches;: k,mwg c. Signs shall be placed on private erty in a location that does not impede pedestrian traffic flow; d. Signs shall be designed and located so as to riot distract from the appearance of the building or violate the intent of this chapter;' e. Signs shall not include extraneous verbiage adverfis ng the business, specials, or sales events, and,-_-, 2 f. Signs shall beemoved when the business is not open for business. 2. For businesses within the El Paseo Overlay District between Portola Avenue and Highways the followWtandards apply: a. Pedestal signs'are allowed year-round during the business's operating hours; b. A-Frame signs are not permitted; c. Businesses with less than 24 lineal feet of building frontage are allowed one (1) pedestal sign up to a maximum of three (3) square feet and a maximum sign height of 54 inches; d. Businesses°in excess of 25 lineal feet of building frontage are allowed one (1) pedestal sign up to a maximum of 22" w x 14" h or 22" w x 28" h, and a maximum sign height of 54 inches; e. Signs may include the word "open" advertising the business with artwork such as a model, product, and logo, business name, and promotional text; f. Signs shall not include the word "sale" or "sales"; g. No decorative elements are allowed on the pedestal frame; G:\Planning\Keen Swartz\Word\City Ordinances\Pedestal Signs El Paseo\PC Reso 2679.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2679 h. Signs shall be placed on private property in a location that does not impede the sidewalk and pedestrian traffic flow; i. City approval of the sign is required by the Department of Community Development/Planning. A City approval identity sticker will be issued and must be placed on the sign; j. Signs shall be professionally designed, fabricated, and well-maintained at all times; and k. Helium balloons are allowed subject to the following standards: a) The business must obtain approval of a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) from the Department of Community Development/Planning; b) Each business is allowed no more than 40 days a calendar year, and no extensions will be granted; c) The dates must be identified on the TUP application; d) No more than five (5) helium balloons are allowed; e) Each helium balloon mush a solid color with no wording and shall not exceed 36" in size; f) Each helium balloon must be attached � the pedestal sign and floating to a maximum of six (6) feet ao#" the sign'et all times; g) Each helium balloon must not;:;impede into the sidewalk or blow into pedestrians; and h) :lf the City receives more than two (2) complaints about the business's fielium,balloons, then the Director of Community Development may revoke the TUP. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\City Ordinances\Pedestal Signs El Paseo\PC Reso 2679.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2679 Exhibit "D" Section 25.34.080 Temporary Uses An amendment to this section is proposed to add the use of balloons subject to a TUP to correlate with Section 25.56.080 G. "Pedestrian-oriented signs" Below is the current language with the modifications in "bold font." C. Allowed temporary uses. The temporary uses listed below are,permitted with approval of a temporary use permit in compliance with the provisions and lir "ta� tons listed herein. 8. Helium Balloons — The use of helium balloons are allowed for businesses along El Paseo within the El Paseo Overlay District per Section 25.56.080 G. "Pedestrian- oriented signs." G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\City Ordinances\Pedestal Signs El Paseo\PC Reso 2679.doc CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 16-265 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION OF A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND CHAPTER 25.56 SIGNS FOR BUSINESSES WITHIN THE EL PASEO OVERLAY DISTRICT AND SECTION 25.34.080 TEMPORARY USES. The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as the Lead Agency for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), completed an Initial Study to review the potential environmental impacts of the project and have determined that the proposed request will not have a negative impact on the environment. Project Location: City of Palm Desert, El Paseo Overlay District Recommendation: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution supporting the project request. Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission on October 4, 2016 at 6:00 pm. Comment Period: Based on the time limits defined by CEQA, your response should be sent at the earliest possible date. The public comment period on this project is from September 23 to October 4, 2016. Public Review: The project plans are available for public review daily at City Hall. Please submit written comments to the Planning Department. If any group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, or prior to, the Planning Commission hearing. All comments and any questions should be directed to: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760) 346-0611 kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org PUBLISH: DESERT SUN RYAN STENDELL, Secretary September 24, 2016 Palm Desert Planning Commission CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: INFORMATIONAL REPORT REGARDING THE PUBLIC HEARING/APPROVAL PROCESS FOR THE UPDATE TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN INCLUDING THE UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN, HIGHWAY 111 DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY: Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development APPLICANTS: City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 CASE NOS: GPA/EA 16-261, ZOA 16-262, ZOA 16-263 DATE: October 4, 2016 CONTENTS: Draft Documents (Delivered at Meeting) Recommendation No action is necessary at this time. Executive Summary In anticipation of the Public Hearing tentatively scheduled for October 18, 2016, it is staff's goal to provide the Planning Commission with a basic overview of general plan law and related background information. Staff will deliver the physical documents to the Planning Commission at its October 4 meeting and will meet with commissioners, as requested, to address questions, comments, or concerns. Background Requirements of a General Plan For local governments, the day-to-day planning work is accomplished through two main documents: The general plan (guiding principles) and the zoning ordinance (often referred to as the development code). A general plan is required by California Government Code (Section 65300) and is intended to layout the future of a city's development in general terms through a series of policy statements. Conversely, the zoning ordinance, required by California Government Code (Section 65850), is intended to implement the general plan by translating its broad policy statements into specific requirements for landowners. The zoning ordinance divides all lands in a city into zones and specifies the permitted uses and Staff Report GPA/EA 16-261; ZOA 16-262, ZOA 16-263 (General Plan Update) Page 2 of 5 October 4, 2016 required standards for each zone. Generally speaking, these two documents are intended to work together to ensure orderly and thoughtful development within a jurisdiction. Under state law, every local general plan must include seven elements or sections, which are listed below: 1. Land Use Element 2. Circulation Element 3. Housing Element 4. Conservation Element 5. Open Space Element 6. Noise Element 7. Safety Element These seven elements are not etched in stone and it is permissible to combine elements when they have strong correlations. The most important legal principle is that the elements of the general plan must be consistent and not overly contradictory. A general plan must be internally consistent and also be consistent with the zoning ordinance. The majority of legal challenges to general plans arises from inconsistency issues. The legal process of adopting a new general plan appears simple. In practice, however, the crafting of a general plan is anything but simple as growth and development within a community can be contentious. State law requires the plan to be adopted through a series of public hearings at the Planning Commission and City Council. In staff's opinion, the success of a general plan process is predicated on communication with and participation by the community itself. Envision Palm Desert: Forward Together Sensing the need to update the City's long term vision in 2013, the Council directed staff to embark on a strategic plan process. More than 100 interested residents, business owners, and policy makers worked together to develop a 20-year vision for the City. The year-long process laid the groundwork for this general plan update. Participating community members developed an overall community vision, priorities, strategies, action steps, and measures of success, many which directly pertain to the City's built environment. The Envision PD document was finalized with nine strategic result areas which are listed below: 1. Arts and Culture 2. Economic Development 3. Education 4. Energy and Sustainability 5. Land Use, Housing and Open Space 6. Parks and Recreation 7. Public Safety and Emergency Services 8. Tourism and Marketing 9. Transportation Staff Report GPA/EA 16-261; ZOA 16-262, ZOA 16-263 (General Plan Update) Page 3of5 October 4, 2016 When reviewing all of nine strategic result areas, it is easy to see that many topics overlapped, especially with regards to creating a human scaled city center area (heavy emphasis on Highway 111). Many strategic results areas also included language emphasizing the need to strengthen Palm Desert's sense of community identity and unique character, and remain strong on economic development. Participating staff members were encouraged by the Envision process as it included the most engaged group of citizens we have seen. General Plan Update 2014 Following the success of the Envision Palm Desert process, the Council was interested in the question, "where do we go from here?" Then Director of Community Development Lauri Aylaian identified the City's General Plan as an appropriate tool for implementation of the strategic plan's vision. As stated previously the intent of a general plan is to ensure thoughtful development that matches the community vision. Staff was directed to release a request for proposals seeking an update to the General Plan in January of 2014. Four responses were received to the RFP. They included details of each firm's history, key staff, details and copies of similar work, and cost proposals. A seven-member ad-hoc committee reviewed the four written proposals and evaluated them based on experience, qualifications, work samples, cost, methodology, and firm location. The ad-hoc committee was comprised of two councilmembers, one planning commissioner, and four staff members. After reviewing the written proposals, three firms were interviewed. At the conclusion of the interviews, the selection committee identified Raimi + Associates (R+A) as the top ranked firm and cited the following as reasons: 1. R+A brings an energetic and fresh approach to the City, which is appropriate at a time when demographics and lifestyle of Palm Desert's residents are changing. 2. Sargent Town Planning (STP), an urban planning consultant to R+A, has both creative vision and solid experience of developing an attractive and achievable corridor plan for the Highway 111 area. STP showed the committee in detail graphic designs, images, and actual outcomes to demonstrate their realistic approach to projects. 3. R+A supplemented their team with Metropolitan Research + Economics (MR+E), a firm that will provide market and fiscal analysis in support of the General Plan update. This was proposed in a way that would help the City adopt a plan that could be achieved by private development. No other firm proposed to use an economic consultant in their work. 4. Finally, that the cost proposed by R+A was reasonable for the scope of services to be provided. Their hourly rates were similar to other proposals and, although their cost was slightly higher than the other two finalists, the proposal provided added value through the addition of an economic consultant. Staff Report GPA/EA 16-261; ZOA 16-262, ZOA 16-263 (General Plan Update) Page 4of5 October 4, 2016 At its meeting of April 24, 2014, the City Council approved a contract with R+A for an update to the City's General Plan. Typically a general plan consultant would host a series of public forums to gain knowledge of the community. Because of the recent Envision Palm Desert process, R+A recommended that we forgo the upfront community input, but host three workshops related to Highway 111 as strategies were developed. The ongoing management of the update has been handled through staff and overseen by the Technical Working Group (TWG) which is comprised of two councilmembers, two planning commissioners, and various staff members. The initial schedule was anticipated to be an 18-month process as shown below: w is 1 r , � � rd � � y9r, .'j tiE x � � �; "PS Project initiation, Community Engagement, Background Reporting, 10 - 12 Months Highway 111 Corridor, General Plan Development Prepare Draft Environmental Impact 4 - 6 Months Report Public Review and Adoption 2 - 3 Months Using the Envision Palm Desert document, R+A was able to quickly develop concepts and bring items to the TWG for consideration. The TWG met regularly through the first 12-14 months to provide feedback and input on the concepts that R+A proposed as part of the draft General Plan. Areas of emphasis defined by the Council and supported by the Envision Palm Desert process were the Highway 111 corridor and the University Area. During this time, R+A hosted three community workshops focusing on development strategies for Highway 111. Each workshop further refined ideas and concepts, which led to the development of the City Center Area Plan (Chapter 10) as well as the draft Highway 111 Development Code (copy attached). As the project progressed, an Administrative Draft General Plan was created and reviewed by the TWG. The schedule successfully reached the project's environmental review phase. This phase, during which our consultant reviews and creates the necessary documentation needed to support the General Plan, generally does not involve staff or community input. This allowed staff ample time to roll out numerous community presentations showcasing the City's grand vision. The Draft Environmental Impact Report was completed and released to the public in the middle of August of this year, with a 45-day review period as required by law. Approval/Public Hearing Process Staff has tentatively scheduled the public hearing for the General Plan at the Planning Commission meeting of October 18, 2016. The Planning Commission will be asked to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the following items: 1. Draft General Plan & Technical Background Report 2. University Neighborhood Specific Plan Staff Report GPA/EA 16-261; ZOA 16-262, ZOA 16-263 (General Plan Update) Page 5 of 5 October 4, 2016 3. Highway 111 Development Code 4. CEQA Required Environmental Impact Report (supporting all above) Final comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report are due no later than October 3, 2016. Staff will be preparing responses to comments prior to the October 18 public hearing. As of Friday, September 30, staff has received two comments related to the General Plan, neither of which present any concerns. Staff has also received 14 comments through our Open Town Hall website which have primarily been positive in nature. Staff would like to offer our assistance in any way leading up to the Public Hearing scheduled for October 18'h in an attempt to facilitate a smooth public hearing process. Submitted By: Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development r