Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0614 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - JUNE 14, 1977 7:00 PM - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Berkey at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall . II. PLEDGE - Commissioner KRYDER III. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner KELLY Commissioner KRYDER Commissioner READING Commissioner SNYDER Chairman BERKEY Also Present: Paul A. Williams - Director of Environmental Services Hunter Cook - City Engineer Ralph Cipriani - Associate Planner Sam Freed - Assistant Planner Marcie Johnson - Planning Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of May 31, 1977. Commissioner Kelly requested that the following deletion be made: Page 10, 1st paragraph, 4th line, delete - "and up. ". A motion of Commissioner Reading, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to approve the minutes of the May 31, 1977 meeting, with the above-mentioned deletion, was unanimously carried. V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Williams noted that the only written communications were those dealing with the cases on tonight's agenda and would be discussed at the appropriate times. VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Berkey explained the Public Hearing procedures to those present. A. CONTINUED CASE NO. DP 07-77, PALM DESERT VENTURE, LTD. , APPLICANT Request for approval of a Development Plan Amendment to allow construction of 23 condominium units as a part of the Shadow Mountain Resort and Racquet Club, located east of San Luis Rey ... and south of Shadow Lake Drive. (Continued from the Planning Commission meeting of May 31, 1977. ) Mr. Williams explained that this case had been continued from the last meeting to allow for some discussion to occur between the adjacent pro- perty owners and the applicant with regards to the fencing and perimeter walls. Further, revised plans had been submitted which were the 4th re- vision to the 13 units off of Fairway Drive and the 10 units on the northerly boundary. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission June 14, 1977 Page Two Since the last meeting, the 13 units have been reduced to 12 units and additional covered parking spaces have been deleted. Mr. Williams showed the revised site plan to the Commissioners. He also explained the applicant's new proposal which includes the two-story units being approximately 22 foot in height, wrought iron fencing, 44 parking spaces (24 covered) , unlighted tennis courts, and a small maintenance building. ... Mr. Williams stated that staff was still suggesting that the tennis courts be re-located or modified to allow for 25 additional parking spaces; however, the parking did comply with the zoning requirements. Mr. Williams stated that it appears that the applicant has resolved the concerns of the Fairview Cottages to staff's satisfaction. Finally, he stated that staff was recommending that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 249 (Amendment of Planning Commission Resolution No. 151) with the following changes to the existing Conditions of Approval No. 1: 1. The development of this project shall conform substantially to all development plans submitted in behalf of this case, Case No. DP 07-77, Exhibits A-I , I-1, and H-4, and as revised according to Planning Commission action. Any minor changes require approval by the Director of Environmental Services. Any substantial change requires approval by the Planning Com- mission. Mr. Williams also reviewed the Conditions of Approval with the Commis- sioners and suggested that the Commissioners may want to consider an amendment to the condition regarding fencing in the southerly area. Further, he stated that since the last meeting, the Commission had received an additional letter from a property owner to the north, Mr. Philip Jefferson- listing his concerns with regards to the tennis courts and lights and the two-story building that was being contem- plated in front of his property. Chairman Berkey asked if the Commissioners had any questions at this time. There were none. Mr. Williams passed out copies of Planning Commission Resolution No. 151 to the Commissioners stating that they had been inadvertently left out of their packets. Chairman Berkey stated that before calling on the applicant to speak and opening the Public Hearing, he would like to note for the record that the Planning Commission had met in a Study Session prior to tonight's meeting for the purpose of clarifying staff reports. Fur- ther, he stated that no decisions were made at the session. Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing open on Case No. DP 07-77 and asked if the applicant was present. SKIP BEHRHORST, Vice-President of Destination Resort Corporation, Aspen, Colorado, spoke to the Commissioners and informed them that since the last meeting, he and Mr. Bizzell (President of Fairview Cottages) had reached a workable agreement regarding the re-design of the 13 units. Further, the one-story element next to Fairview Cottages satisfied the concerns that the Fairview Cottage Associa- ... tion had. Also, an extension of the masonry wall to the southeast would provide additional security and protection. Mr. Behrhorst then stated that he had discussed the new Condition of Approval No. 18 with staff regarding the concept of issuing building permits prior to installing a masonry wall and he was requesting that build- ing permits be changed to read certificate of occupancy. Chairman Berkey asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak in FAVOR of the project. Being no one, he then asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in OPPOSITION to the project. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission June 14, 1977 Page Three MR. PHILIP B. JEFFERSON, Del Mar, California, spoke to the Com- mission regarding the importance of the proposed wall . He also stated that he felt the tennis courts should be unlighted. Fur- ther, he was happy to see the re-design of the one-story building. HELEN HUNTINGTON, 73-820 Shadow Lake Drive, spoke to the Commis- sion and stated that she felt the wording should not be changed on Condition No. 18 regarding the issuance of building permits prior to the installation of the masonry wall . Further, she stated that originally it was agreed that the only two-story units were to be located around the pool area and she would like it to remain that way. She also stated that she was strongly against the tennis courts on the perimeter. Ms. Huntington also questioned the location of the air conditioning units on the roof. MARY JANE BEAN, 73-901 Shadow Lake Drive, spoke to the Commission and questioned the location of the maintenance building. Mr. Williams pointed out the location of the proposed maintenance building on the map. Ms. Bean then asked if there was to be any lighting on the tennis courts. Mr. Williams answered there would be no lighting. Ms. Bean questioned when the road improvements were going to be made around the perimeter. Mr. Williams stated that these improvements would have to go in at the same time as the wall construction. Chairman Berkey asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in OPPOSITION to the project. Being no one, he asked the applicant if he cared to make a brief rebuttal . Mr. Behrhorst stated that they would be building the wall during the time that the additional 67 units would be under construction. With regards to the tennis courts, they had been reduced from 3 to 2 in the area around the 10 units and from 4 courts to 3 courts north of the "Y" building. Mr. Williams pointed out these areas on the map. Mr. Behrhorst also stated that the road would be improved from a construction standpoint as soon as possible at the commencement of construction of the 12 units. He also spoke regarding their financial obligation for the undergrounding of the utility lines and the cost burden involved. Chairman Berkey asked the Commissioners if they had any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Reading asked if the units that Ms. Huntington had referred to on top of buildings were indeed air conditioning units. low Mr. Behrhorst stated that they were air conditioning units, that they were properly screened and that they had been approved by the Design Review Board. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission June 14, 1977 Page Four Commissioner Kryder asked about the timing for the construction of the wall . Mr. Behrhorst stated that the wall should be completed by October of this year. Commissioner Reading was concerned about golf ball protection for the northerly units. Mr. Behrhorst stated they would physically look at the area to see if it needed additional screening. Commissioner Reading then stated that he felt it would be best for the applicant to install the wall prior to construction to protect the construction workers from being hit by golf balls. Mr. Behrhorst stated that it would be difficult to get the equipment in if the wall was installed first and that there were other ways to protect the construction workers. There was a short discussion pertaining to wrought iron/mesh fencing. Commissioner Reading asked staff when the wrought iron fence was going in and if it would have to be approved through the Design Review Board process. Mr. Williams stated that this matter would be addressed as a part of the Design Review Board process. Commissioner Reading asked where the additional 25 parking spaces would be located. Mr. Behrhorst stated they would be to the northeast of the "Y" building along Circle Drive and that the tennis courts had been re-designed to accommodate the additional parking. Commissioner Reading and Mr. Behrhorst then discussed the James Franciscus Tennis Tournament and the impact it would have on the parking situation. Mr. Ted Lennon stated that there was the possibility that the Club would be purchasing a "shuttle bus" for the property and that this bus would be used during the Tournament. Further, this was a once-a-year charity event and that possibly an agreement could be worked out with the merchants/banks along E1 Paseo to use their parking facilities for this event. �4Q Chairman Berkey asked if there were any further questions. 6P� Commissioner Kelly felt that the wrought iron fence could pose an access problem if it were installed prior to construction. Chairman Berkey closed the Public Hearing on Case No. DP 07-77 and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. Commissioner Reading stated that he realized that it would provide a financial burden; however, he felt that the wall provisions should be as written in Conditions No. 18 and No. 19. Mr. Williams suggested a re-wording for Condition No. 19 as follows: 19. A masonry wall and a mesh/wrought iron fence shall be con- structed between the proposed units on the southeastern portion of the project and Fairview Cottages. The location, design, materials, and point of transition from masonry to wrought iron shall be approved by the Design Review Board. Said wall/fence shall be installed prior to issuance of building permits for the adjacent new units. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission June 14, 1977 Page Five Commissioner Kelly stated that she agreed with the condition as suggested by staff. Further, she commended the developer for working with the resi- dents and staff to resolve the problems that had been encountered. Commissioner Kryder felt that the building permits should not be held up as this would pose a financial burden on the applicant. Commissioner Snyder stated that he would abstain from the matter. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any additional questions. There were none. Commissioner Kelly moved that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 249, amending Planning Commission Resolution No. 151, with the amendments as suggested by staff pertaining to Condition No. 1 and Condition No. 19. Com- missioner Reading seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-1 with the following vote: AYES: KELLY, READING, BERKEY NOES: KRYDER ABSTAIN: SNYDER Chairman Berkey again commended the applicant for his cooperation during the hearing process. B. CONTINUED CASE NO. CUP 05-76, JOHNSON & BARBATTI, APPLICANTS Request for an Extension of Time for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a parking lot in an R-3(4) zone and a Variance for setback requirements. (Continued from the Planning Commission meeting of May 31, 1977. ) Mr. Williams explained that this case had been continued to allow staff time to look at a revised site plan for a proposed office building to be located westerly of Portola Avenue and Highway 111. Mr. Williams showed the revised site plan for the two-story, 3,800 square foot office building. He added that this site plan had not been through the Design Review Board process as yet. The applicant had submitted the plans to show what she intends to do with the property, showing the proposed off- site parking which would be located approximately 300 feet away from the proposed building. Finally, he stated that staff was recommending ap- proval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 250 for an extension of time of one year. Chairman Berkey asked if there were any questions of staff at this time. Being none, he opened the Public Hearing on Case No. CUP 05-76 and asked if the applicant was present. SHIRLEY JOHNSON, 73-960 Highway 111, spoke to the Commission and stated that she had just wanted to show the Commissioners her pro- posed plans for the property. Chairman Berkey asked if the Commissioners had any questions. Being none, he asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak either in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to the request. Being no one, he closed the Public Hearing and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission June 14, 1977 Page Six Commissioner Snyder moved that the Planning Commission approve Reso- lution No. 250, granting the extension of time for one year and the Variance for the setback requirements for said property. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried (5-0) . Mrs. Johnson asked if the extension would be for one year from today's date. Mr. Williams answered yes. VII. OLD BUSINESS None VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. DISCUSSION OF COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE CITY OF INDIO GENERAL PLAN. Mr. Williams stated that the City of Indio is .presently revising their general plan which was adopted in 1965. The document received by the City of Palm Desert is the draft EIR for the new Land Use Element. Further, the draft EIR provides a summary of the general land use im- pacts that would result from adoption of the new element, which is broken down into a short-range and a long-range plan. The staff's only comment regarding the EIR is that there is some confusion re- garding the goals and the impact of the land use plan. Therefore, staff was recommending that the Planning Commission, by Minute Motion, direct staff to forward its comments to the City of Indio for inclusion in the final EIR. Said draft letter containing the comments was in- cluded in the Commissioner's packets for this meeting. Commissioner Snyder commented that the draft letter was very well done. Commissioner Reading moved that the Commission direct staff to forward their comments to the City of Indio. Commissioner Kryder seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried (5-0) . B. COUNTY CASE NO. EIR-64 Consideration of Staff Comments on County Referral - Palm Isles Draft EIR Mr. Williams gave a brief background on this project. He explained that the City had been requested to comment on the draft EIR for a Change of Zone request to build a 960-unit residential condominium project which would be located in the blowsand area north of Palm Desert Greens. Fur- ther, staff felt that the EIR is technically deficient in many areas such r. as air quality degradation, protection of endangered wildlife, energy con- servation, access, and the impacts of blowsand mitigation measures. Mr. Williams then asked the Commission to direct staff, by Minute Motion, to forward the comments as contained in the staff report to the County. Commissioner Kelly was concerned about the only access being the extension of Frank Sinatra Drive. WNUTES AMENDE,L) Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission June 14, 1977 Page Seven There was a short discussion pertaining to endangered species of wild- life. Chairman Berkey asked that the following sentence be deleted from the staff comments: "#11, page 55 - An example of this phenomenon can be seen at Del Safari where Cook Street was constructed along the west side of the project in a manner similar to that being proposed for Palm Isles. " His reason for asking for the deletion was that it was an inaccurate statement in that Cook Street is not adjacent to Del Safari and that Cook Street was there long before the Del Safari pro- ject came into existence. Staff agreed with the deletion. Commissioner Reading moved that the Planning Commission, by Minute Motion, direct staff to forward their comments to the Riverside County Planning Commis- sion. Commissioner Snyder seconded the motion. Commissioner Kryder asked if he could abstain from the matter due to a possible conflict of interest. Chair- man Berkey stated that this would have to be Commissioner Kryder's own personal decision. The motion carried 4-0 with the following vote: AYES: KELLY, READING, SNYDER, BERKEY NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: KRYDER C. COUNTY CASE NO. C/Z 2208 Consideration of County Referred Change of Zone from R-1-1 (Single- Family-One Acre Lot Minimum) to R-T on property located approximately 1,300 feet northerly of the intersection of Monterey Road and Country ,,,► Club Drive. Mr. Williams presented a brief background pertaining to the request to the Commission. He then stated that staff was recommending that the Planning Commission direct staff to notify the Riverside County Planning Commission that the Change of Zone request is in conflict with the Palm Desert General Plan and that the proposed use may not be appropriate for the subject pro- perty. Staff's justification is based on the following: 1. Said site is within an area designated Open Space-County Park on the Palm Desert General Plan. 2. No specific park sites have been designated on the Cove Com- munities General Plan, while new development in this area is rapidly eliminating the most logical sites. Commissioner Reading moved that the Planning Commission, by Minute Motion , direct staff to notify the County that the change of zone request is in conflict with the Palm Desert General Plan. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried (5-0) . IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS A. Review of Cases Acted on by the Design Review Board at their meeting of June 7, 1977. Chairman Berkey asked staff if these items should be set back to the end of the Agenda or discussed at this time. Mr. Williams replied that due to the number of interested parties in the audience, it would be appropriate to discuss these items at this time. Further, due to the unique situation with regards to item No. 8 on the DRB agenda (Case No. 76MF) , this case should be discussed separately and there was a separate resolution drafted for said case. Mr. Williams then asked Mr. Cipriani to review the Design Review Board cases with the Commissioners. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission June 14, 1977 Page Eight The first case Mr. Cipriani presented to the Commission was Case No. 58SA - Sign for a Commercial Structure for ROY WILLIAM CARVER. Mr. Cipriani gave a background of the request and explained that the DRB had upheld their previous decision to approve the sign program as modified at their meeting of May 24, 1977. BERNARD LEUNG, 73-960 El Paseo, Architect for the project, spoke to the Commission regarding the modification of the approved sign program by reducing the length of the facia signs from 12 feet to 8 feet. There was a discussion between the Commissioners, staff, and Mr. Leung concerning the proposed reduction in the length of the facia, the original DRB approval , and conformance to the City's Sign Ordinance. It was de- cided to delete Condition No. 4 from the Conditions for this case. (Condition No. 4 reads as follows: "Each business shall be permitted one (1) four (4) square foot hanging tenant sign. Such signs may be two- sided. ") . CASE NO. 75MF - Preliminary Site, Floor, and Elevation Plans for a 217-Unit Condominium Project for SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES. Mr. Cipriani explained that this was the continuing development of Ironwood Country Club and contained the same layout and design as the previous phases. Mr. Williams informed the Commission that they would be seeing this project as a Tentative Tract at their next meeting scheduled for July 5, 1977. CASE NO. 23SA - Sign Program for Palms to Pines for ROY WILLIAM CARVER Mr. Cipriani reviewed the applicant's proposal and the Design Review Board's decision regarding this case. He also explained that the existing signs would be removed. Further, the new signs would read "Palms to Pines East" and "Palms to Pines West". Finally, the project would end up with 6 directory signs and 4 welcome signs. Mr. Williams explained that these would be map-type signs and they would not be visible from passing vehicles. CASE NO. 53C - New Elevations and Revised Site Plan for an Existing Restaurant for CARL COX Mr. Cipriani explained that this was a remodel of an existing structure formerly known as the Tortilla Flats Restaurant. There were no major changes to the structure itself, just changes to the exterior. Mr. Cipriani showed pictures of the structure to the Commissioners. Finally, he explained that a six (6) foot masonry wall would be installed at the rear of the property adjacent to Garden Square. Commissioner Reading moved that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 251, with the deletion of Condition No. 4 for Case No. 58SA. Commissioner Snyder seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried (5-0) . CASE NO. 76MF - Preliminary and Final Site, Floor, and Elevation Plans for a 193-Unit Condominium Project for BIDDLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. Mr. Williams explained that there was a unique situation with regards to this case which required the preparation of a separate resolution. He explained that the Design Review Board abstained from any decision on this case and referred the matter to the Planning Commission. Further, the DRB had sympathized with the applicant and felt that it would prove a hardship to require the applicant to provide for single-story units along Highway 74 at this stage of the process. Also, the Planning Commission had already ap- proved the two-story units. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission June 14, 1977 Page Nine Mr. Williams then stated that staff felt the Planning Commission would be within their rights to place a single-story limitation for the 7 units pro- posed along Highway 74 and that the draft Resolution No. 252 indicated same. At this time, Mr. Cipriani addressed the Commission and informed them that the applicant had, just prior to tonight's meeting, submitted new plans two eliminating all two-story units to be located within 150 feet of Highway 74 and that the applicant had been extremely cooperative and helpful . Mr. Cipriani then gave a brief background of the project including size, loca- tion, number of units, square footage, etc. Chairman Berkey asked if the plans had been reviewed by the Design Review Board. Mr. Cipriani answered yes and that the DRB was agreeable. He then showed the color/material sample boards for all the units. MARSHALL FANT, Executive Vice President of BIDDLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, spoke to the Commission regarding the feasibility of solar heating for the pools. He stated that they had previously received a report on this matter and hoped to work it out. He also stated that the easement situation had been resolved. Mr. Cipriani then informed the Commission that DRB member Eric Johnson, landscape architect, had not had an opportunity to review the landscaping plan for this project and that #3 on page 1 of Resolution No. 252 allowed for this review. Commissioner Snyder moved that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 252 as presented by staff. Commissioner Reading seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried (5-0) . THERE WAS A BRIEF RECESS AT 8:50 P.M. THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 9:00 P.M. X. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Discussion of Mandatory State Guidelines for Preparation of the Housing Element for General Plans. Mr. Williams told the Commission that this item had been presented for informational purposes and that it was the third draft of the State Housing Element Guidelines. Further, this housing element must be up- dated at least once every five years. The housing element in the adopted Palm Desert General Plan appears to be in conformance to the new guide- lines in terms of housing goals and objectives. Chairman Berkey asked if we would have to revise our Housing Element entirely. Mr. Williams answered that if these proposed guidelines were adopted, r there would be some minor revisions to our housing element. There was a brief discussion pertaining to the above between the Com- missioners and staff. Commissioner Kryder commented that staff's pre- sentation was very clear and concise. Commissioner Kelly agreed with Commissioner Kryder. MINUTES AMENDED _441 ---- Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission June 14, 1977 Page Ten B. DISCUSSION OF THE DRAFT REGIONAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN PREPARED BY THE COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS. A discussion period ensued and the consensus of the Commission seemed to be that this document really doesn 't apply to Palm Desert. The Com- mission did have the following comments with regards to said document: `w 1. The proposed document should be condensed. 2. Said document should emphasize reducing "red-tape" to allow for development of additional housing units. 3. Said document should emphasize greater citizen involvement at the neighborhood level . C. REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1977/78 Mr. Williams explained that this discussion item had been reviewed by the City Manager during the Study Session prior to tonight's meeting. He also stated that staff was recommending approval of Planning Commis- sion Resolution No. 253, which recommends approval of said Budget to the City Council . A brief discussion period ensued between the Commissioners , staff, and the City Entineer. They discussed the cleanup of previous projects and the sprinkler system at the Community Park. Commissioner Kelly moved, by Minute Motion, that the Planning Commission believes that the City Council should consider developing a program to get the Community Park on a watering system that would allow for watering during off hours of usage and that the Council should give this matter high priority. Com- missioner Snyder seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried (5-0) . Commissioner Kelly moved that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 253. Commissioner Kryder seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried (5-0) . D. REVIEW OF THE MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PALM DESERT Mr. Williams explained that this item was really presented as an informal item because once the City Council is satisfied with it, the Planning Commission will be reviewing it as a possible amendment to the General Plan. City Engineer Cook told the Commissioners that additional copies of the Master Drainage Plan would be available within the next year, printed " in color with meaningful exhibits. The Commission decided to table the matter until the additional copies , r.. were made available. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission June 14, 1977 Page Eleven E. DISCUSSION OF THE PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE COLLEGE OF THE DESERT SPECIFIC PLAN AREA. Mr. Williams explained that this item was passed out at the last Plan- ning Commission meeting on May 31, 1977; however, there was not sufficient time to discuss the matter. He asked the Commission to consider a special meeting in July to finalize the discussion due to the fact that there was additional work needed regarding the Circulation Element. Mr. Williams told the Commissioners that at the time that the Planning Schedule was passed out at the July 5th meeting, staff would ask the Commission to establish a special meeting for either the second or third week in July for the final discussion on this matter. Further, staff would try to get everything finalized regarding the "S" (Study) zones and initiate meetings with the public for their input. Mr. Williams stated that Mr. Meisterlin and Mr. Arnold had submitted their proposal for Parcel A, which is zoned "S" at this time. Further, this area has been discussed on a number of occasions. CARL MEISTERLIN, 73-261 Highway 111, spoke to the Commission and told them that the street system which had been recommended by staff was agreeable to him. He then showed the proposed plans for the parcel . There was a brief discussion pertaining to the unique characteristics of the entire area, i .e. historical sites, etc. ; improvements needed in the entire area; the three "S" zones; the proposed golf course; and whether or not the staff had been in contact with the property owners in the area. Mr. Williams told the Commissioners that staff would get together with Mr. Meisterlin and Mr. Arnold to resolve their differences between now and the meeting of July 5th. It was decided that Public Hearing procedures should be initiated at the next meeting for the three "S" zoned parcels. XI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None XII . COMMENTS A. City Staff Mr. Williams informed the Commission that staff had discussed with the City Council at their last study session the matter of changing the meeting times for the Planning Commission meetings. The Council had agreed that Wednesday afternoon at 1:00 p.m. would be an appro- priate time for the "study session" meeting of the Planning Commission and that this matter would be on the next scheduled Council meeting of .r June 23, 1977. Further, if adopted by the Council , the new meeting time and day would become effective the second Planning Commission meeting in July. Mr. Williams then told the Commission that the City Council had established a new Undergrounding Utility District No. 4 for the area between E1 Paseo and Highway 111, east of Portola Avenue. Further, that the City Council would go 50/50 on the cost for the existing buildings. Also, the owners would be responsible for any overhead service lines to be undergrounded. Finally, according to Rule 20B, the three participants in the cost would be the property owners, the City, and the utility companies. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission June 14, 1977 Page Twelve Mr. Williams also informed the Commission that Mr. Carver had withdrawn his appeal regarding the signage for El Paseo Square. B. City Attorney None err+ C. Planning Commissioners None XIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Snyder moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Reading seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY 60 ATTEST: GEORGE BERKEY, CHAIRMAN PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMI SION July 3, 1977 To: City Council, City cf Palm Desert Re: Coachella Valley Association of Governments Regional Housing Assistance Plan. As you know, the Planning Commission was asked to review the above plan, and did so at some length in our meeting of June 14th. The minutes of this meeting have been distributed, and I find that they do not convey the tone nor content of the remarks made at the meeting, especially those made by myself. Consequently, I am taking the oppor- tunity to restate and amplify my remarks by this letter. My ifii.tial comment at the meeting related to the written report as a whole, which I found cumbersome and difficult to read. A random example of what I mean can be found on page 10 of the report under "Regional Perspective" Admittedly, the subject matter is complicated, but I see no reason to compound the problem with verbal overkill. . .This is par- ticularly important in view of the amount of reading material that alrea burdens our elected and appointed officials. A second comment relates to my long time impression that CVAi� was, among other things, an information gathering agency on behalf of the cities it serves. On this basis, one would assume that a comprehensive housing report would outline -the problems, review the possibilities and alterna- tives for solving these problems and make recommendations on the basis of the information given. Unfortunately, this is not the case with the report in question. - -- Page 2 cc Planning Commission While there is a good presentation of certain data, and there has ob- viously been much time devoted to research of specific areas, the report remains incomplete. That is to say, there is not sufficient workable information for the formation of any sort of plan or policy with regard to housing. Recognizing that there are certain State and Federal requirements that must be met by a city such as Palm Desert, these should be clearly out- lined by the report, but they are not. The City sould be made aware of what is required for minimum compliance with existing laws. It would then rest with the "City Fathers" to determine whether or not to go beyond that point, and if so, how far. As it stands, the CVAG proposal appears to favor maximum effort in all cases and gives no guidelines for a less stringent approach. Another factor that remains unex?lored is -the relationship of the CVAG proposals to existing housing and income-benefit programs in the Valley. For example, we are told in the section dealing with migrant farm workers, that the current County and Federal programs are not adequate, although it is not explained why. Yet the recommendation is for a third layer of government at State level. The plan makes much of involving the private sector, but there is nothing substantial in the report that shows how such support is to be gained, short of resorting to the passage of additional regulation. A most important deficiency is the lack of information on budgets and/or costs, which ad,iittedly could be only preliminary at this time. Nonetheless, some sort of cost guidelines should be provided in order that reason- able decisions can be made. Likewise, there is no provision made for a cost/effeciveness review of any of the proposed projects. Where monies are limited, and where certain projects are funded at the expense of others, -the plans should provide for a review of each project at specified intervals. I would like to see this become a requirement for any plan relating to expenditures on housing assistance. Without dwelling further on the details of the report, I will state a strong and over-riding feeling that, except for the charts and other researched data, we have a report that is essentially useless to those involved in th,,: clan ing and formation of a housing policy. We see problems stated, and each seems to be followed by the same solution---- more regulation, more government spending, and the further intrusion of government into the lives of the people involved. Areas of self-help, involvement of the private sector and private capitol are virtually ig- nored as is the possibility that people often find solutions to their problems if left to their own devices. Lastly, if this report is at all typical of what we have been, and will be receiving from the CVAG staff, I would question the wisdom of our City 's continued investment in the program, and suggest that we might be better served by our own City Staff. I will close by saying that I do not disagree with the stated goal that J � there should be adequate housing for all. I do disagree with some of the proposals for reaching that goal--hence this letter. n George D. Kryder, Comm* ioner Palm Desert Planning Commission