Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0919 M MUTES PALM DESERT PLAN ING, COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - SEPIENBER 19, 1989 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WART G DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Erwood called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Cotissioner Jonathan led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Rick Erwood, Chairman Bob Downs Sabby Jonathan Jim Richards Carol Whitlock (arrived after minutes approval) Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ray Diaz Bob Hargreaves Dick Folkers Phil Drell �r.. Tanya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Request for approval of the September 5, 1989 meeting minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Cannissioner Richards, approving the minutes as submitted. Carried 4-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized September 14, 1989 pertinent city council action. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PM 21915 - IOUSLEY ASSOCIATFS,INC., Applicant Request for approval of a one year time extension for a parcel map, located at 44-311 Monterey Avenue. N ENLnEs PALM DESERT PLANdIl� CCN4ISSICN SEP'IE BER 19, 1989 arl Staff noted that the project still met the intent and conformed to the set pattern for development in the area and recommended approval of the time extension. Commissioner Richards stated that the planning commission policy was to allow only one time extension and did not feel an additional time extension was warranted. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissicner Downs, denying approval of the consent calendar by minute motion. Commissioner Whitlock asked what action was required by the applicant if denied by the commission. Mr. Diaz explained that the denial could be appealed to the city oouncil, and if they erred with commission, another parcel map and precise plan would have to be filed. Upon questioning by Commissioner Richards, Mr. Diaz stated that the original approval of the parcel map was September 2, 1986. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Whitlock and Jonathan voted no). VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. PP 89-12 - GDDRGE MOISOVAS, Applicant Request for approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and a precise plan of design for a 17,000 square foot commercial building located on the north side of Highway 111 midway between Portola Avenue and San Luis Rey Avenue. Mr. Drell explained that the elevations had been updated and more detail added to the front. He informed commission that the applicant was maintaining the front parking because he felt it provided better access with the entrance on the frontage road, would allow all parking in one location, with the building setback the traffic and noise would not be as detrimental, and for security purposes. Mr. Drell stated that trash enclosures should comply with disposal company regulations and recommended approval. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. GEORGE METSOVAS, the applicant, stated that the front parking was a concern at the last meeting, but indicated that by 2 NBI X= PALM DESERT PLANNIM COMMISSION SEPTE BER 19, 1989 putting the building 35 feet away from Highway 111, it reduced noise and air pollution and at sane time in the future Highway 111 might need to be widened. He also stated that front parking was preferred because of security. Mr. Metsovas indicated he was considering a clock tower, which would not be possible if the parking was in the back. He stated that there would be problems with parking in the back because of access problems with cars backed up on Portola and Alessandro. He informed oc mission that he had contacted three architectural firms and they could not improve upon what was already drawn. He stated that he hired an engineer from Riverside and he was present to answer any questions. Commissioner Whitlock asked what the hours of operation would be and Mr. Metsovas replied that most businesses were open from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Whitlock felt that if businesses were open during daytime hours, security problems could be less. Mr. Metsovas stated that he did not know what the businesses would be or their hours, noting that sane businesses are open longer hours during the holiday season. Commissioner Richards stated that he did not have a problem with parking in the front. He informed the applicant that the drawing was inadequate and lacking in detail and that plans were supposed to be Now prepared by an architect to insure that what is approved is what will be built. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. FRED DIBA, 2250 W. Chestnut Street, #57 in San Bernardino, Mr. Metsovas' engineer, addressed the connission and indicated that Mr. Metsovas would also be buying the existing building to the right of the project. He stated that the proposal would fill a gap and look similar to the existing structures. Chairman Erwood closed the public testimony and asked for commission camients. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he did not like the parking in the front and would rather look at a nice building with landscaping than cars. He indicated he would not approve the project as designed. Cam issioner Whitlock concurred with Commissioner Jonathan. Chairman Erwood agreed with Commissicner Richards' comments and felt that the front parking could lessen the noise impact on the 3 f4NUES PALM DESERT PLANNIM CU414ISSICN SEPTFIBER 19, 1989 residential section on Alessandro. He noted that the development where the Rusty Pelican is had a hard time getting started with the backs facing Highway 111 and not having adequate signage until recently. Commissioner Downs had no comment. Commissioner Richards stated that he had no problem with the parking, but was concerned about the quality of the presentation and could not tell what the building would like. After further discussion with the applicant regarding a possible continuance to allow him to have an architect prepare a rendering, the commission nxwed for staff to prepare a resolution of denial. Commission noted that the presentation and parking concerns could be used as findings. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Richards, instructing staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at the next meeting. Carried 4-1 (Chairman avuod voted no). B. Continued Case Nos. (PA 89-1, C/Z 89-1 - AHKUEM OU44MCIAL a■i DFUECOREW, Applicant Request for approval of a development agreement between the city and Ahmanson Commercial Development Company. Mr. Drell reviewed the background. He noted that commission asked the applicant to draw up an alternative 3 that would provide for the bridge and also address adjacent residents' concerns. Mr. Drell stated that the proximity of the intersections with Highway 111 was not acceptable to the traffic engineer and discussed the features of the various options. He stated that an option 4 would make area 9, the original buffer zone, part of the Sandpiper development. It would be given to Sandpiper, developed, landscaped, walled and gated. Commission and staff also discussed traffic amounts (present and future) along Highway 111, E1 Paseo, and Painters Path, and potential impacts by this development. Commissioner Richards felt the Sandpiper residents should consider the 100 foot buffer, walled and gated, that would allow them to Provide more activities/amenities. He felt that a bridge should be 4 M TUrES PALM DESERT PLANNIM CC[M ISSIM SEPTTEMER 19, 1989 given consideration. Mr. Folkers stated that access for Painters Path to Edgehill was a concern, but it could be done. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. CIVCK BEFAHER, Vice President of Ahmanson, 3191 Temple in Pomona, stated that the development agreement would set the guidelines for the ultimate development of each site area, eliminate the uncertainty in planning, and secure the orderly development. He felt that by master planning the project they were in a unique position to coordinate the infrastructure, the design of the projects, the marketing of the projects and all the environmental concerns associated with each site, rather than having them caning before the commission on a piece meal basis. He stated that one item of the agreement involved the Sun Lodge Colony site and Ahmanson would provide a temporary parking easement to the city to allow for 200 additional temporary parking spaces along E1 Paseo; another feature of the agreement would provide for the dedication of the 55 acres of hillside which would remain in its current state without any development. Approval of the development agreement would allow them to provide the existing land use ordinance for their planning purposes. Alternative #2 was based upon the number of loop planning received on the EIR from Sandpiper and others and primarily involved the circulation aspect. He indicated that Mr. Greenspan was present to answer any circulation concerns. Mr. Beecher stated they were requesting approval of alternative 1 or 2, but felt that there were major problems with alternative 3, and in alternative 2 there would be a smaller developable area closer the Sandpiper. He requested they be allowed to move on to council and they would continue to work with staff to insure that the development agreement exhibits complied to whichever development land use plan was approved. Commission and the applicant discussed the various alternatives. Mr. Beecher clarified that alternative 1 provided for a site area 9, which was 56, 000 square feet to be dedicated to the city. Commissioner Jonathan asked if this would be given to the Sandpiper residents. Mr. Beecher said that they would prefer to dedicate it to the city and let the city decide what use would be appropriate. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITICJN to the proposal. 5 M+ M]21JPFS PALM DESERT PLAAIIdIlW_7 CU44ESSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1989 mf MR. JOHN HOOVER, 1715 Sandpiper, reiterated that there were 305 residents in Sandpiper and had been there a long time. He noted that a zone change was being requested which would increase traffic six to ten-fold. He said he spoke to a lot of people in the last two weeks and most were totally opposed to anything except a residential-type development. He indicated that he liked what Ahmanson was trying to do and wanted to encourage people in Sandpiper to cooperate as long as it was kept as quiet as possible with as little traffic as possible. He urged that commission consider plan 2 and was totally opposed to plan 1. He also noted how Edgehill and Painters Path meet and stated that there was a tendency for "hot shot" drivers to hit that point fast and water sits in that intersection. He felt it was a bad corner that needs something done. Ccamissicner Richards asked Mr. Hoover for his personal opinion of alternative #4 that they had been discussing and the possibility of dedicating to the homeowners association the 56,000 square foot buffer area and if that were accomplished with a wall or a gate and landscaping. Commissioner Richards felt that particular part of the alternative was appealing because the city was always trying to cane up with mitigation measures and Sandpiper might want to add some amenities or vehicle parking, as well as move the current Painters Path traffic 100 feet away. He noted that never before had a developer offered to donate the land (and within limitations) put up landscaping, a wall and gate to current Sandpiper standards. Mr. Hoover stated that plan 4 was new and whether or not the residents would want to maintain that property with sprinklers, planting, and possible taxes on the property he did not know. He indicated that he personally wanted to consider that option. Ccnmissicner Richards stated that he was concerned about the 11 residents on Painters Path, not the other 200 because they would not be affected. He also felt this development provided some pluses; he did not like the speed on El Paseo and this project could install a signal. Mr. Hoover noted that there were 18 units in 1700 and felt that traffic on Edgehill and Painters Path should be considered. Clow issioner Richards asked if Mr. Hoover agreed that if Edgehill were to go down to the proposed bridge, approximately 100 feet from that corner, that would also eliminate that curve where a problem with traffic amounts and speed exist. Mr. Hoover stated that Ccamissioner Richards could be right and felt this was a tough problem; he stated the people with the two units closest to E1 Paseo on Painters Path were the ones to really be effected. 6 FIFES PRIM DESERT PfANNIM OOrOMISSION SEP'IEMER 19, 1989 Commissioner Richards asked that Mr. Hoover seriously consider option 4 and felt that Ahmanson's offer of 56,000 square feet would be a hard option to turn down. Mr. Hoover stated that the proposal could be taken to the residents. MR. DON STAGE, 1313 Sandpiper, agreed Commissioner Richards's comments on the traffic. He noted that a great deal of money had just been spent to widen Highway 111 and did not see the need for a bridge that would get ten times more people to drop in on El Paseo at that location. He was opposed to the bridge. In regard to dedicating the land to Sandpiper, he noted that there were nine separate associations and did not know if it was dedicated to unit 17, those owners would have to pay taxes on that and did not imagine they would want to do that. He felt that plan 2 was a good alternative for them. He could not see a good trade off with ten times more traffic along Painters Path. Camu ssioner Richards asked if Mr. Stage heard the figures for the amount of traffic traveling 15 feet from the hones now (Mr. Stage concurred) and Commissioner Richards noted that Painters Path would be moved 100 feet and those homes on the corner at E1 Paseo are already getting the noise from El Paseo; that was not a good deal, but the commission was trying to make the best decision. The majority of the 18 homeowners would be given at least an average of 100 feet between them and a wall, plus a gate. He felt that 100 feet of green belt would make any kind of resale more palatable with a wall than the present oleanders. The Sandpiper residents could control their own destiny with this land and 100' was the largest mitigation measure the commission had considered. Mr. Stage stated that if he were living in unit 17 he would not be anxious to get that dedicated to him because of the taxes and maintenance required; they were already paying $430 per month for maintenance now. Commissioner Richards mentioned that distance and slowing traffic would help and if alternative 4 were in effect, they were not talking about installing a speedway, but 25-30 mph and maybe stopping every 100 feet. He felt it would make sense to take the regional concept that Ahmanson was proposing and tie it in with the Palms to Pines and installing a traffic light at the intersection that comes into the development where he works. He noted that it would not be perfect, but it might be a good solution. MRS. JOANNE STAGE, in Sandpiper, stated that she was a shopper and believed in E1 Paseo and knew there was a big investment to the city there and felt that road needed to go through to get to some good restaurants and she was in favor of all of this, but 7 ire. PENUMS PALM DESERT PLArNIlW7 OCNMISSICN SEME BER 19, 1989 stated that when people came dawn E1 Paseo with only half a block to the signal, and people zipping out of TGI Fridays and a lot of kids coming fast, there existed a serious problem on that corner. She stated that no matter how Sandpiper felt about it there would be more problems unless that corner situation was resolved, and would be more of a problem if Painters Path went through. She stated that she could do better time going down El Paseo than Highway Ill because of the traffic signals on Highway ill. Chairman Erwood closed the public testimony. Catmissioner Jonathan stated that while he shared the concerns of the Sandpiper residents, development was unavoidable. The question of to what degree that growth could be controlled to make it the best for everyone needed to be considered. He felt that Ahmanson had provided a golden opportunity. In reviewing the project he stated that he had to consider everyone, not just Sandpiper residents, on whether or not Painters Path connects to E1 Paseo and a bridge over the channel. He felt that would benefit a lot of people, and though some residents were close to that part, the mitigation measures satisfied his concerns. Catmissioner Richards stated there were other benefits that Ahmanson would provide. He noted that in Palms Springs they have little shops, Indian leases, and can't do what they want right now. One concept here was that the Town Center was a viable place for the Coachella Valley and part of the growth around the Town Center happened to be the comparison shopping. He stated that this proposal was challenging. He also stated that one problem in the Coachella Valley now were the east/west roads. He noted the temporary parking that would be provided, the additional 200 parking spaces over code requirement that would be provided, the 56, 000 square foot dedication, and as large property owners in the city they have been good people. Chairman EYwood expressed a concern with the second alternative, noting that in 10 or 15 years, someone may come before the planning commission and request a connection of the road because it is a logical location for the parcel on the one side of the channel to connect to the other and just because it is not adopted at this time, who knows what could happen in the future. We would have given up the opportunity to install the buffer area and put a real burden on the Sandpiper owners. He felt it was logical that the bridge be built over the channel. Y 8 ' M924 ES PALM DESERT PLAMDG CU44ISSICN SEPPENBER 19, 1989 �... Action: Commissioner Jonathan agreed with comments and stated that he would move for approval of the development agreement with option 4 which would extend Edgehill down to as close a point as was safe on Painters Path near the bridge/storm channel and Ahmanson would dedicate the 56,000 square feet to the city with the intent that the city would then work with the Sandpiper homeowners to give the property to them. Camussioner Richards felt a caveat needed to added that it was the intention that the commission was talking about the following items: a wall to be determined by the residents, one or two gates, landscaping equivalent to what exists and/or paving. Cannissicaner Rims felt the development agreement started here and then work could be done within the framework of what had been discussed and what the residents expect. Mr. Diaz stated that the way this would be dome would be to recommend to the city council the development agreement that would create an option called option 1 modified whereby the park would became part of Sandpiper and Edgehill would be extended to Painters Path and the noise bearing wall, etc., were already called out in option 1. He indicated that the other thing that could be done was to go ahead and recommend option 1 and not build the bridge at this time and instruct staff and the applicant between now and the final approval of the development agreement by the city council that all details be worked out with the adjoining homeowners. He also asked the commission to give the %ow council an opinion on option 2. Commission felt it was unacceptable. Commissioner Richards suggested that he, or Commissioner Jonathan, or Chairman Erwood make an appearance at that council meeting. Commissioner Jonathan agreed and revised his motion to include what had been said. Mr. Beecher stated as clarification that the development agreement before the commission was based on alternative 2 and there were a number of exhibits attached and suggested the resolution be structured to allow staff and the developer could continue to work in the final format to council without having to cane back before the Planning commission. Mr. Diaz stated the commission was instructing modification of the development agreement to develop an option 1 modified as indicated. Mr. Beecher asked if the council hearing took a different direction as to the traffic problem, if it would be possible to proceed with the council on other alternatives without returning to the planning commission. Commissioner Richards explained that if the council did not like something, 99% of the time it was sent back; he said that one reason he requested alternative 3 and discussion was so that council would understand that the camassion had not taken any of this lightly, but if council had a 9 %MV NIIIV�TI'ES PALM DESERT PLANNIM CU44IISSICN SEP EMBE t 19, 1989 problem or came up with another alternative, it would probably come back to commission and staff would handle it in the most expedient manner possible. Commissioner Richards asked for Mr. Beecher's concurrence that the items discussed (i.e. the walls, gates, landscaping and moving of Edgehill) was not anything he objected to at this time. Mr. Beecher stated he discussed the matter with the traffic engineer regarding the Edgehill matter and the area was to be a matter of what was safe on making that maneuver at the intersection at the bridge, and with the understanding the dedication would be made to the city as opposed to Sandpiper. Mr. Diaz stated that could be worked out. Commissioner Richards stated that at this time staff could work that out, but in essence, what the co nnission had talked about, both parties understood what had been requested and could live with the general direction taken. Mr. Beecher concurred. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Richards, recommending to city council approval of the development agreement as modified. Carried 5-0. Mr. Diaz stated for the record that the planning commission at the last meeting recomTended approval of all other items, and this minor ri modification would not alter approval of the Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Drell stated that the analysis in the EIR specifically analyzed this option. C. Case No. CUP 89-5 - NANCY CREEK/ELDORADO ANIMAL HOSPITAL, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to operate an animal hospital in the building at 74-041 Highway 111. Action: Application withdrawn. No commission action needed. D. Case No. CUP 89-6 - T.L.C. INC., Applicant Request for approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and conditional use permit for an 11,255 square foot 164 capacity child care facility located on 1.19 acres within the R-2 10 M NUIS PALM DESERT PLANNIM COM IISSIM SEPIE43ER 19, 1989 S.O. zone at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Santa Rosa Way. Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. DALE DYER, 1500 So. Camino Real, Suite 208 A in Palm Springs, noted that the information data they received was from Riverside County on the health care centers that exist in the Coachella Valley and indicated there was a total of 30 facilities with a total capacity of 1453 children and the survey made by the county to these facilities show a total waiting list of 3000 children. He noted that five cities in the valley don't have child care centers, two of the areas have no infant care facilities, which was a high demand, and growth rates in October of 1988 was 11 percent. In the Desert Sun last week it stated that in the Unified School District they had experienced 10-11 percent this year and expect in the next five years the growth to be 49 percent. Their number on children between infant and four was around 11,900 children with working mothers. He indicated they had worked for finding a location in Palm Desert for putting in a child care center for a long time. They had law tried to find a location in Cook Corporate Center and Palm Desert Industrial Center on Cook Street, and also made offers on property in the industrial park at Washington and Country Club. He stated they had placed eight offers on property and none were successful until they found the subject site. He informed catmissican they were planning to purchase the adjacent property and would be back before the camussion to propose some senior housing. The alternate plan moved the building to the back of the property and the neighbors on San Jose were opposed to the facility so they tried to analyze the acoustical situation and the movement of the buildings to the back were based on design information and discussion with Officer Brent Conley, who informed the applicant there was a security problem in the area. After talking to him and feedback from neighbors, they determined that the wall might need to be increased in height in that specific area for security reasons and acoustics. He asked for approval of the alternate plan. He stated that out of the 50 properties in the 300 foot radius, they had 26 signatures on the list and only lacked the signature of the resident adjacent to the proposed project at the end of San Jose, owned by Mrs. Hall. He also indicated their study was based on the 24 hour operation with total occupancy of 164 children and working in 11 rr MINL)TES PALM DESERT PLANNM OCR-IISSIC N SEVIE BER 19, 1989 three shifts, with no delivery or pickups between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. with an average of two children per trip made to the site. Latch key children during the day would be handled through arrangements with the school bus, or with a vehicle to pick up and transfer children. He stated that per their traffic report, traffic impacts would be at a five percent increase per day. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVM of the project. MR. GORDEN BRICKEN, acoustical engineer for the project, 1621 E. 17th Suite K in Santa Ana, explained the details of the analysis and mitigation measures incorporated into the plan to shield noise. MR. DWIGHT SMITH, human resources manager at the Marriott, spoke in support of the proposal and stated that they felt there was an immediate and growing need for additional day care facilities in the valley in general and in Palm Desert particularly. He indicated they have 18M employees and 60$ have children and were in need of day care services. They felt TLC offered a good design and flexible shifts schedules and were open seven days a week, as well as providing infant care services. a MR. JOSE SEPARES informed commission that he lives across the street from the proposed project and wholeheartedly supported the project. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Separes if he realized the impact of the times of night cars would be coning across the street from him. Mr. Separes replied that he had lived there 15 years and understood the potential impacts. A Ritz Carlton employee addressed the commission and spoke in favor of the project for herself and 60-70 other parents and single parents who work and need a quality day care center. She stated that she sympathized with the area residents, but felt that having a healthy baby was more important. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in OPPOSITICN to the project. MR. JERRY ELLIOTT, 44 Columbia and owners of the property at 73- 875 Santa Rosa, felt the project had great merit for the ccnruuty, but the seven foot wall would be prison-like. He 12 M UIES PALM DESERT PLANNING C 414ISSICN SEPTEM3ER 19, 1989 recognized the security problem that exists, which they planned to offset with lighting during the evening hours. He suggested a limitation of a six foot wall and if necessary for sound to protect the west perimeter, it be between the parking lot and children's area, rather than against their property. MS. EMM HALL, 44-250 San Jose, stated that the north side of her property lies along the side of this proposal, which was where two bedroom were and she did not feel a seven or eight foot wall would keep the noise from the children out. She felt the main issue was the amount of traffic generated on Santa Rosa, Portola and Fred Waring with people caning and going. She also felt that lights all night should not be shining in their windows. MS. JEAN MARTIN, 44-276 San Jose, stated that she lived in Palm Desert since 1952. She reviewed the development with the applicants, but felt that the increase in traffic and noise was not appropriate for a residential area. Seven days a week, 24 hours a day was too much. She noted that the city was originally studying that area for R-2 zone with a senior overlay and she felt that was great. She indicated this project would not be just for Palm Desert residents, but people from all over the valley, as well as Banning and Beaumont. r.. MS. MAGGIE LEON, director of the Joslyn Cove Cammuni.ties Senior Center, stated that she was on the 2000 committee, and they voted that this property have a residential zoning with the intention of providing senior housing. She felt there would be deaths at the corner of Santa Rosa and Fred Waring if the project were approved and the traffic impacts were allowed. She felt there were more suitable places. She stated there were a cozen child care places in Palm Desert listed in the phone book, but she knew of only one area for senior housing. MR. CHARLES WHITINGPON, 44-281 San Jose, informed commission he lived there since 1963. He concurred with previous comments made on traffic, noise, the six foot wall would be inadequate, and felt the proposal was inappropriate for the area. MR. ROBERT BRENNING, 44-251 Portola, on the upper left hand corner of the back main building, stated that he was concerned with children waking up in the middle of the night, and being so close to his house and being 24 hours, 7 days a week was not a good idea. 13 ... N91A) ES PALM DESERT PIANND G CX244IISSICN SEP E BER 19, 1989 �i MR. FRED PLONSKI, 44-310 San Jose, stated that he had lived there seven years and though recognizing the need for child care facilities, he indicated he would prefer to see senior citizen housing. He also noted that the College of the Desert had a child care facility. Chairman Erwood closed the public testimony and asked for camtission comments. Commissioner Whitlock stated that she recognized the need, but did not feel this location was appropriate. Chairman Erwood concurred and felt that seven days a week, 24 hours a day would be too much of a burden on the area. Commissioner Richards agreed and informed the cannission that he was not opposed to the use, but reccmT ended that the applicant not cane back with a request in a residential area. Action: Moved by CamLissicner Richards, seconded by Ccmu.ssioner Whitlock, instructing staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at the next meeting. Carried 5-0. VIII. MISCE[,I.ANBWS Mr. Drell stated that a letter had been received fran Doris Davis, property owner adjacent to the Hacienda de Monterey project, expressing opposition to the wall height that had occurred because of the grading differential. Commission discussed these situations and recannended that the city take a lead in coming up with mitigating measures. IX. ORAL (X:NMAVIC ATIC NS Naze. X. QrRMENiPS Chairman Erwood requested nominations for the planning commission chairperson and vice chairperson. Commissioner Whitlock rmcminated Cammissioner Richards for chairperson. He declined. Chairman Erwood nominated Commissioner Whitlock. No other nominations were made and 14 M 24L)TES PALM DESERT PLAMIM CCMMIISSIC N SEPTE BER 19, 1989 r.. Chairman Erwood made a motion to elect 0cmuissioner Whitlock as chairperson by acclamation. Action: Moved by Chairman Enmd, seconded by OMMissioner Downs, electing Commissioner Whitlock as the new planning oommission chairperson, to be effective at the next meeting, October 3, 1989. Carried 5-0. C nu issicner Richards informed carmission that while he did not have enough time to devote as chairperson, he would like to retain the position of vice chairperson. Moved by Cattnissicner Whitlock, seconded by Chairman Erwood, electing Commissioner Richards as vice chairperson. Carried 5-0. XI. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Cam issioner Richards, adjourning the meeting. Carried 5-0. The meeting was ad ourned at 10:00 P.M.taw /) RAMDN A. DIAZ, Secrfata& ATTEST: CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson /tm 15 %Ur