Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1105 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - NOVEMBER 5, 1991 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Whitlock called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Jonathan led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Carol Whitlock, Chairperson Bob Downs Sabby Jonathan Bob Spiegel Jim Richards Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ray Diaz Steve Smith Kandy Allen Dick Folkers Tonya Monroe """IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the October 15, 1991 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the October 15, 1991 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 5-0 . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz indicated there were no pertinent items from the October 24, 1991 city council meeting. VI . CONSENT CALENDAR Chairperson Whitlock presented former Planning Commissioner Rick Erwood with a plaque commending him for his service to the city. A. Case No. TT 25102 - DESERT COMMUNITY PROPERTIES, Applicant Request for approval of a first one year time extension for a tentative tract map subdividing 20 acres into 68 single MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 family dwelling lots on the east side of r/ Deep Canyon Road, 1325 feet north of Fred Waring Drive. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. PP/CUP 90-5 Amendment - FELIDAZ, INC. , Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to an approved precise plan and conditional use permit reducing the size of the parking lot for a 35,000 square foot commercial center on the east side of Monterey Avenue between Highway 111 and San Gorgonio Way. Mr. Diaz noted that staff was recommending continuance to December 3 to allow the city' s parking authority to make a rrd determination on the eminent domain situation. He stated that the parking authority hearing was scheduled for November 14 . He indicated that this was the planning commission' s direction so that the precise plan could be reviewed with the eminent domain question settled. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to address the commission on this project. MS. RUTH GUIBERSON, 44-875 San Antonio Circle, stated that she felt the opening statement was strange in view of the September 17 meeting and the conclusions . She stated that she did not understand why there was to be a continuance asked for and why the matter was being further pursued. Chairperson Whitlock stated the reason for the continuance was to allow this matter to go before the parking authority and until the planning commission received their determination, this public hearing was to be continued. She asked if Ms . Guiberson had anything new to add to the original testimony given. 2 "'� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 Mrs . Guiberson stated that her legal counsel was Mr. Holtz of Rohrer and Holtz in Bellflower, California, and he was not notified of the meeting. She stated the they would both appreciate it if when there were meetings concerning her lot, No. 137 in Palma Village, if they would be notified. Chairperson Whitlock asked if there was any reason why the city could not provide the information if staff had a name and address. Mr. Diaz noted that this was a continued hearing from the September 17 meeting to this date awaiting a resolution by the parking authority. The attorney did know it was continued to this date unless he failed to write it down. He indicated that the attorney could be notified. Chairperson Whitlock informed Ms . Guiberson that this hearing was being continued to December 3, 1991 and suggested that she write that date down and notify her attorney as well . Mrs . Guiberson concurred. Mrs . Guiberson reaffirmed her testimony given from before and stated that she was adamantly opposed to the project, especially the 35,000 square feet which encompassed her lot. She felt they should not have advertising for a project on property the applicant did not own. She did not feel it was in their best interest or the community's . She indicated that this was detrimental to the adjacent land owners and the community at large because of traffic. She felt this was a process whereby the City of Palm Desert was aiding and abetting a citizen, rather than the land owners. She stated that at the February 14, 1991 city council meeting, council concluded that she and her mother could retain their lot through perpetuity. She wondered why there was a meeting on September 17 after that decision was made by city council . She indicated that Felidaz advertised for a project on property they did not own. She stated that at the September 17 meeting she presented a rather long letter, nine pages, and she obtained the minutes of the meeting and while she enjoyed the comments of the planning commission, which were very intelligent, well thought out and valid and felt commission was aware of the potential problems, she felt her comments in the minutes could have been more extensive. Chairperson Whitlock informed Ms . Guiberson that the meetings are taped so the city had her complete testimony was on that tape. Ms. Guiberson asked if she could have a copy of the 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 tape. Mr. Diaz recommended that Ms . Guiberson have her �d1 attorney contact the community development department so that she could be assured of getting an authentic copy. Ms . Guiberson said that she would do that, otherwise she could re- read her letter again. Chairperson Whitlock stated that they had already heard it and did not feel that would be necessary. Ms . Guiberson stated that she would like to be given a few more paragraphs in the minutes. She indicated that a lot of her comments for this evening were repetitious from her opening statement about the project. Commissioner Richards concurred that these comments were repetitious and noted that this hearing was being continued and felt that Ms . Guiberson would be better served to come back at the next meeting. Commissioner Richards stated that he understood her opinion very well and he also had some questions and problems also. He requested that she keep her comments to issues that were germane, pertinent and new. Ms . Guiberson said that was a point well taken, but indicated that it was such a surprise that this was going on, and she was taken aback. She reiterated that this appeared to be a process whereby the City of Palm Desert was aiding and abetting for the advantage of one citizen and for education; she also corrected the spelling of her last name for the record. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone else wished to address the commission regarding this request. There was no one. It was moved by Commissioner Downs to continue this hearing. Commissioner Richards stated that he would like to speak to the motion. He did not feel commission had been informed by staff on what was happening with the parking issue. He wanted to know more about what was taking place, why this was being done, and also explain to the applicant what was going on with regard to the parking commission. Mr. Diaz indicated that the planning commission was as well informed as staff at this time. What had occurred was that the applicant acquired all the land he could, he came to the city and redevelopment agency and agreed to pay for any cost of acquiring additional land for the project through eminent domain. The redevelopment agency had the power to do this if they deemed it was appropriate. The applicant felt he had sufficient comfort to proceed; the hearings occurred on acquiring the entire Guiberson property before the city council; the city council rejected acquiring the property through eminent 4 rrn MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 �.. domain--the plan had already been approved by the planning commission some time before the eminent domain question came up. He explained that the property could not be acquired by the applicant since the redevelopment agency refused to acquire the property through eminent domain, so the project was dead. Subsequently the applicant began processing a project to only acquire a portion of the property. The matter was scheduled for hearing before the planning commission and apparently the applicant felt enough comfort to proceed. At that hearing before commission, based on what had occurred previously, commission wanted to know if eminent domain would be used to acquire that portion of the Guiberson property before making a decision on the proposed project. If the decision was made not to take the property, then the matter should not be before the commission at all . The matter was continued to get that direction and as stated in the staff report, it would be before the parking authority (city council) at their November 14 meeting. The issue to be decided on November 14 was whether or not eminent domain would be used to acquire a portion of the Guiberson property. He noted that Ms . Guiberson had an attorney and the rights of individuals through eminent domain and what they receive for their property would be decided by the courts and he felt the key issue was whether or not eminent domain would be utilized and that was a policy issue for the parking authority to decide (city council) . He apologized that the decision was not obtained before the matter came to the planning commission for precise plan approval, but the case was continued until the matter was decided. Commissioner Richards noted that at two meetings the applicant' s request was denied to obtain Ms . Guiberson' s property and questioned staff 's assessment that the applicant had reason to pursue this eminent domain question. Mr. Diaz indicated that the planning commission on the original project approved the project covering Ms . Guiberson' s property subject to the applicant obtaining the property. Commissioner Richards felt that when the project was approved with that condition, it was his understanding that the only possible way that property would be obtained was through some sort of a satisfactory agreement with the property owner and what was being lost was perhaps that the applicant had a reason to continue based on the fact the planning commission approved the project. He stated that he remembered that he did not like the original project at all for many reasons and did not approve taking someone's property under any circumstance. Mr. Diaz informed commission that the issue of eminent domain was not before the planning commission and had never been before 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 the commission; secondly, as far as being against the eminent a+1 domain, the council was against the eminent domain for the entire property and the issue now was would they take a portion of the property, which they would decide on November 14 . If they said no to taking a portion of the property, then the precise plan application would be a moot issue. Commissioner Richards stated that originally the planning commission approved the project subject to them acquiring the land. That did not occur. The second time they came through would take a portion of the parcel . Mr. Diaz confirmed the project would leave the single family residence and a large portion of the lot alone. Commissioner Downs felt that the intent was that the applicant would buy a portion of the lot, not use eminent domain to acquire it. Mr. Diaz disagreed. Commissioner Richards did not feel that the planning commission acted on any decision that they approved that said they would take any property from these property owners. Mr. Diaz clarified that the matter was continued--the issue of whether or not eminent domain would be utilized to acquire any site anywhere in the city was not an issue for the planning commission and the planning commission could not condition a project on the city not to utilize eminent domain to acquire it. He indicated that when the plan �■/ comes back to the commission, the planning commission could only act on the precise plan. Commissioner Richards did not recall the use of eminent domain being mentioned at the September 17 meeting and objected to the fact that it was being discussed now and was not part of the previous discussion. He indicated that if the applicant and property owner have not been able to reach a satisfactory agreement of what the property was worth then the developer would have to develop around the property. He said that now the parking commission was being discussed, which he did not know where they came into the scheme of things . Mr. Diaz explained that the parking authority (city council/ redevelopment agency) could use eminent domain to acquire the property. Commissioner Richards asked why the subject was never brought up that the city council/parking commission/ eminent domain commission could occur at the last session. He did not feel it was ever talked about what would happen if they could not reach a satisfactory compromise. He wanted to know why it was possible now for the city and the parking commission to perhaps buy Ms. Guiberson's land, pay her some money, and this would be part of the deal and felt that was never part of the overall discussion of this project. Mr. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 "r Diaz disagreed and stated that the reason the matter was continued from the last meeting was to secure a determination from the redevelopment agency/parking authority as to whether or not eminent domain would be utilized. He indicated that Ms . Guiberson in her nine pages of testimony reiterated again and again that she did not want her property condemned and did not want to sell her property and the issue of eminent domain and whether or not it would be utilized came up. Staff recommended that the matter be continued until that decision was made so that commission would know that the plan before them could be constructed if approved and if the agencies were willing to acquire the property. That was why the issue was continued--to determine if eminent domain would be utilized. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing PP/CUP 90-5 Amendment to December 3, 1991 . Carried 5-0. B. Case No. TT 27301 - WESTINGHOUSE DESERT COMMUNITIES, Applicant Request for approval of a four lot single family subdivision within Bighorn Golf Club southwest of Highway 74 and Cahuilla Way. Mr. Diaz outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval subject to conditions setforth in the resolution. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. CARL CARDINALLI, representing Westinghouse Desert Communities, stated that he was present to answer any questions . Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Downs stated that he would move for approval of the findings . Commissioner Richards said he would like to speak to the motion. He entered into the public testimony that this was a unique four-site parcel map, one of which had been a source of controversy in the past because it was within the hillside development area. He noted that the city council fam MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 had been very sensitive on that issue. He stated that he went No up to the site and asked the representatives from Westinghouse to place a 2x4 board at the highest level and in the worst possible place so that he could see the effect to travelers on Highway 74 . He felt that while this was a sensational location, any hillside development would have its detractions . He indicated that there were four pad sites that wandered around a natural rock outcropping. He wanted to make sure that the council understood that the commission had looked at the site; there would be a series of architectural approvals necessary regarding the color of the buildings, streets and tailings would occur in the cutting of the road, and in the setbacks required. He felt the city made a reasonable compromise to allow the developer to utilize this spot and indicated it would be wonderful for whoever bought it. He stated that when coming up and down the road houses would be seen, but they would be harder to see with the approximate 700 yards to 1,000 yards setback from Highway 74 . Chairperson Whitlock noted that there was a committee of city officials and citizens that prepared the hillside residential guidelines to prohibit anything that would be obtrusive. She indicated that should protect the city from having anything that the city would not want to visually see in that area. Commissioner Richards said that he thought that was correct ter/ until Mr. Olinger built a house on the side of the hill that violated many rules set up by the hillside ordinance, of which he was a member on that committee, and he felt it was too visible on the hill. He did not know how a certificate of occupancy was obtained and the house was against policies made by that committee. He felt it was necessary to really get involved this time and indicated that the Westinghouse Communities ' representatives were very cooperative. He felt confident that the ordinance would be upheld legally. Chairperson Whitlock called for a second on the motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1541, approving TT 27301, subject to conditions . Carried 5-0 . 8 .� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 ftw C. Case No. CUP 91-15 - OLIPHANT, LIZZA & ASSOCIATES, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a health food store and deli to occupy 4,000 square feet of space at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Portola. Mr. Diaz outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions . Commissioner Jonathan indicated that the project was approved on a basis of one space per 250 and stated that there was a different requirement for food stores . He asked what would be required for a take-out deli . Mr. Diaz said it would be the same; it would change if above 2,000 square feet. Commissioner Jonathan asked what the procedure would be for a new tenant and if they would also apply for a conditional use permit. Mr. Diaz stated that if a new tenant went in, before a permit was issued they would have to have a certificate of use approved by the community development department and if it did not match the conditional use approved, staff would be aware of it. ..r Chairperson Whitlock opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. TONY LIZZA informed commission that he agreed with the findings and hoped for approval . Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1542, approving CUP 91-15, subject to conditions . Carried 5-0 . 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 D. Case No. PP 91-9 - AVIS RENT-A-CAR, Applicant U0 Request for approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and a precise plan of design to allow construction of a 704 square foot office building and car rental facility (car wash and open car storage) at 74-881 Hovley Lane in the S. I . zone. Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval . He noted that preliminary approval had been granted by the architectural commission. Commissioner Downs asked if the necessary conditions were included to keep the water and dirt clean from the use of the car wash and chemicals they use; Mr. Smith replied that the applicant went through the conservation manager and there was a recycling plan. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JEFF SMITH, 22-850 Crenshaw in Torrance, informed commission that he was present to answer any questions . Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1543, approving PP 91-9, subject to conditions . Carried 5-0 . E. Case Nos . CUP 91-14 and VAR 91-5 - HOLDEN & JOHNSON ARCHITECTS, Applicant Request for consideration of a conditional use permit application and sideyard setback variance to permit construction of a 3055 square foot office building in the R-3 zone on the north 10 wo MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 %MW side of Alessandro Drive, 135 feet west of San Pascual Avenue. Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report. He felt the variance request was reasonable given the shape of the property and recommended approval . Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RICK HOLDEN, 44-267 Monterey Avenue, stated that he was present to answer any questions . Commissioner Spiegel noted that time extensions had been granted for office buildings recently because of economic reasons and asked if this project were approved now, would they be back in one year asking for an extension. Mr. Holden stated that he was the architect and couldn't answer that, but noted that the applicant planned to occupy approximately half of the space and he hoped it would proceed. Commissioner Richards asked if there were any windows on the law second story looking down on residential uses . Mr. Holden replied no, noting that windows only faced Alessandro. Chairperson Whitlock clarified that in the staff report it stated that no two story windows would face residential areas . Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1544, approving CUP 91-14 and VAR 91-5, subject to conditions . Carried 5-0. F. Case Nos . PP 91-11, VAR 91-6, PMW 91-10 - MR. JAMES SATTLEY, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan, rear setback variance and lot line 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 adjustment for a single story 13 unit r► apartment complex on three lots on the east side of San Rafael Avenue between Catalina Way and San Gorgonio Way. Mr. Diaz outlined the salient points of the staff report, noted that architectural commission approval had been received, and recommended approval subject to conditions . Chairperson Whitlock owed the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. BERNARD LEUNG, Architect, 73-550 Alessandro in Palm Desert, informed commission that the variance would allow further landscaping in the front area. He described the architecture and indicated that drought resistent plants and landscaping would be used. He felt the project would create an interesting architectural atmosphere. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MS. BEE STEWART, 44-476 San Rafael, stated that her property bordered the project and asked what the setbacks were proposed to be on the north side. rr Mr. Leung informed her they would be more than 20 feet and indicated there would be four units on that side: two bedrooms and two baths and one owners unit with three bedrooms and a full garage. He said that all of the front units would be three bedroom units with fully enclosed garages . Ms . Stewart asked what owners unit meant. Mr. Diaz clarified that it meant nothing; an owner could occupy that unit, but it was not in any way required. MR. W. KUDDLE, 44-525 San Carlos, informed commission that his property joined the rear of the project. He requested assurance that no windows faced the rear area. Mr. Leung did so and Mr. Kuddle said that was his main concern. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony. Commissioner Downs corrected community development department condition no. 8 to read six foot block wall . Staff concurred. 12 '� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 tow Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1545, approving PP 91-11, VAR 91-6, PMW 91-10, subject to conditions . Carried 5- 0 . G. Case No. CUP 91-13 - COLLEGE OF THE DESERT ALUMNI ASSOCIATION, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow continued operation of the College of the Desert Street Fair at the College of the Desert between the hours of 8: 00 a.m. and 2 : 00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays on a year-round basis and additional times around certain holidays . Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report, including the issues that had been raised in oral and written submissions as delineated in the staff report. Mr. Smith concluded by recommending that the street fair should operate on Sundays only between the hours of 8 : 00 a.m. and 6 : 00 p.m. He stated that Saturday operations should be eliminated due to the higher traffic volumes and the additional conflicts created by the street fair for traffic attempting to shop elsewhere in the city. Mr. Smith advised commission that he had surveyed the street fair--most recently on Saturday, November 2, 1991 . At this time the lot south of Park View was 80% full, the lot west of McCallum Theatre was 90% full, the lot east of McCallum Theatre 100% full, and the lot at the golf academy was 80% full . He indicated that these numbers were considerably higher than those observed October 5, 1991 . Chairperson Whitlock thanked Mr. Smith for such a complete and thorough report. Commissioner Downs asked if all the vendors had city business licenses; Mr. Smith stated that code compliance department regularly visited the site twice per month and checked for that and the code compliance director said he felt very comfortable that all the vendors had licenses . Mr. Smith added that on the public works condition it should say 30 days, not 80 days, for the submission of the traffic control plan. low 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 Commissioner Spiegel informed commission and the audience that he was a current member of the College of the Desert Foundation Board of Directors, which raises funds for the college, and because of that he would be abstaining from the discussion and voting. Commissioner Jonathan noted that in staffs conclusion it was stated that while the street fair attracts shoppers to the community it may negatively impact on some of the permanent businesses in the community. Mr. Smith clarified that he was referring specifically to the ability of shoppers entering the city to get to their destinations because of the volume of traffic and the conflicts created around COD on Saturdays . Commissioner Jonathan clarified that to mean that shoppers going to the Town Center or El Paseo were hindered by street fair congestion. Mr. Smith concurred and felt this was more so on Saturdays than if it were in operation only on Sundays . Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. DR. GEORGE addressed the commission and said that as he saw it, there were two main issues : 1) the strength of higher education in the valley; and 2) the impact of the street fair on the retail establishment in Palm Desert, „fir specifically as to the nature of the impact being either positive or negative. He said that higher education was not a technical part of the planning commission' s agenda, but indicated that it was part of the college' s agenda and part of society's agenda. He stated that the street fair had become an extremely important, vital part of the college' s financial strength and they were committed to pursuing the integrity of the street fair as long as that was prudent. He also added that when he said that he was not implying that the opponents were against education, they simply did not agree on the prospective of the street fair' s impact on the retail establishment. He indicated that if one believed that the street fair was a negative impact, you might come up with certain conditions and issues; if one believed that it was positive, another set of conditions would be arrived at. At the college they felt that the popular street fair activity was not only not having a negative impact on the retail environment, but was having an overall positive impact on the environment. Customer surveys indicated that individuals coming from all over the region shop at the street fair and continue on to the Town Center, E1 Paseo, gas stations and restaurants and other retail 14 WAO MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 establishments in the valley. He felt it was very difficult to prove the allegations or comments made by either side. He indicated that in terms of gross retail sales activities, Palm Desert had improved its position in the valley from 12% in 1982 to approximately 25% of all retail sales in the valley as of 1990 and Wheeler' s Desert Letter could support those figures . Palm Desert eclipsed every other city in the valley and was now generating about $50 million more than its nearest competitor and in the last year, three and five year periods had increased its retail sales more than any other city in the valley. He felt that these figures reflected a retail environment in excellent health. He suggested that his participation in a total retail environment, as they have grown in the last three years, was strongly indicated in the information that was found. He suggested looking at the number of street fair vendors, or swap meet vendors; those individuals positioning themselves around the valley to develop their own interpretation of the street fair should the college lose it. He indicated that if that occurred the city would see a substantial loss to the Palm Desert retail environment. He felt that Palm Springs and Cathedral City would love to have traffic jams people thought were occurring as people get to the retail establishments . He commented that the College of the Desert Alumni Association attempted to address every planning issue raised by anyone in this process, from providing parking guards to parking lots, which were built at no small cost even if they were not aesthetically pleasing and sited on areas of the college that would be new buildings that would open in the future. They could not afford and did not see the propriety of putting in new parking lots and then ripping them up in a short time. He accepted the fact that the street fair was not perfect but they had attempted to address the raised issues and accepted most of the recommendations by staff except the condition for Sundays only. He felt it came from the concept that the street fair was negative to retail establishments and Sunday only sales would drive the vendors out into the other street fairs that would come up rapidly once this street fair was gone, thereby killing the street fair. He felt this would be the perfect ploy if the city wanted the street fair dead. He said that if the college were unsuccessful in not having the street fair two days on the weekend, they would stop the street fair now, rather than seeing it die a slow, lingering death. He felt that rather than fighting within the retail establishment in 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 Palm Desert, why not have them join together in r developing a unique, whole retail shopping experience. They had made suggestions about sharing in the problems and sharing the opportunities, and sharing the cost of a marketing program and developing a unique, creative transportation system that would help alleviate some of the congestion problems staff brought up. They were prepared to work together with any and all merchants in Palm Desert to make this the strongest retail environment within the desert. He felt they had shown that they could draw individuals in, despite the bad economic times, and felt that they would continue to persevere with an active, strong street fair as a primary retail environment within the valley. He concluded that the society could not have it all ways . He denounced the condition of education and felt it was in deplorable condition and felt those that pleaded for assistance in terms of a competent work force were the very people trying to shut down the street fair and those would be the first ones to say that good employees were needed, and the college understood that and was trying to provide them in a society that was continually failing to provide adequate resources even though the college was a tax supported organization. He felt this was a local, social and in some cases a national issue. He asked for rr approval of the conditional use permit with the modifications suggested and felt that would be a vote for higher education and strong retail health in Palm Desert. MS. JULIE BORNSTEIN, President of the College of the Desert Board of Trustees, informed commission that the four areas she wanted to cover were the facts, funds, fairness and fun of the street fair as put forth by the COD Alumni Association. She also congratulated staff on the thoroughness in presenting to commission the issues raised by some of the representatives of the local merchants . She indicated that there were many members of the chamber that were commercial residents of El Paseo and participants in the Town Center Association who support the continued success of the street fair and feel it enhances their business . She did not feel the position taken was the position of all since she also was a member of the chamber. She stated that the facts have been put before the commission and it was true that all their vendors have city business licenses, state sales tax numbers, 70% of their vendors were members of the community college district and many of those things had always been true. She stated that it was also true that 16 "'r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 low on their own they submitted to the jurisdiction of the city, while respectfully disagreeing with the implication of the staff report that previous case law had so required them to submit. She said there were very clear distinctions between the one case that came down governing this issue and the street fair, but as a continued good neighbor of the city they voluntarily submitted to the city' s jurisdiction so that they might work together to create a healthy, integrated retail environment. She felt the facts were out there. She noted that Dr. George stated how necessary the funds were to them and she felt that was a very important point. They were being criticized for being a non-profit entity that operates a street fair on the weekend, but if one looked at precedent set by most of the public schools, they would see that in order to supplement state funding they have bake sales, wrapping paper sales, book sales, and candy sales, which all compete with local merchants . She stated that the precedent was certainly there and they do it on a broader scale. She felt this was traditionally how public entities have supplemented state funds by going into the community and selling products and in this case they have had a street fair that had grown over the years and provided a sale of product. She low indicated that the sales generated were vital and necessary and would be more necessary next year because of the expected $8 billion state deficit, and she did not feel the governor would suggest another tax increase to close that deficit. There was a major portion of the staff recommendation that the college disagreed with; that being the recommendation that the operation be cut in half and not be there on Saturdays, only Sundays . She noted that as the suggestion did not work for Solomon in dividing the baby between two mothers, that solution would not work for the street fair. She said it was clear to them, and felt there were some people present willing to open street fairs and that have been present for previous meetings, to see exactly what would happen to them because they have their plans ready to go to provide a swap meet operation outside the city' s jurisdiction and the college vendors would go there. She did not feel the vendors could be expected to pay them twice as much money, which was being recommended by having one sale day only, because they would have to double their booth fee. If staff ' s recommendation was followed and the baby split in half, the baby would be dead. She felt it was crucial that the commission be persuaded that the street fair should be open the two ftw 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 days . In terms of fairness, aesthetics and traffic, she �■rl indicated that 289 vendors meant 289 additional businesses were paying for licenses and sales tax revenues to Palm Desert. With the closing of the street fair, 289 businesses would be lost. She said that 70% of those vendors reside within the community college district and in doing so they contribute not only like any other resident because they operate businesses at their street fair, they probably bank at our banks and spend the majority of their proceeds here because this is where they live and conduct their entertainment, as well as enhance the local community. She said that 30% of the vendors come from outside the area, which meant they generally come on Friday night and reside at local motels, paying the occupancy tax and eating at local restaurants which generated income for those businesses . They often purchase needed items in the area and purchase gasoline here, which benefited the overall commercial environment in the city. They stay over again Saturday night, generating income for hotels and restaurants, and leave on Sunday afternoon. As an overall comment, she indicated that the staff report assumed there was a negative impact to the local business environment. She said there was not a single bit of data indicating a lose of sales by anyone and the growth data indicated that in r1 spite of a weak retail economy Palm Desert had its retail sales growing and more revenue was generated here than for cities twice Palm Desert' s size, age, and national recognition. She felt the assumption of a negative impact on the commercial environment was false; no data had been presented and no findings could be made on any particular evidence or fact--it was only an assumption. When questioned, staff' s assumption was that people had trouble making it through traffic and assumed that everyone came down Monterey. She thought a lot of people used Highway 111 and did not even come near the college when traveling to other shopping areas in Palm Desert. She indicated that the concerns of staff on the environmental impact report were agreeable to them, but felt that traffic issue should not limit the street fair to Sunday and did not make sense. She used as examples the traffic from students to the college during the school week that were not present on the weekends, of which there were parking permits issued to approximately 4,806 students, 775 staff members, 52 motorcycle permits, for a total of 5,633 vehicles that visit the college Monday through Friday. In addition to that she pointed out the visitor parking area, special event parking areas 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 "" such as the foundation house that were not included in that count and indicated that those people were not there on the weekend. She felt that traffic was down on Saturday compared to the rest of the week and perhaps even lower on Sundays. She did not feel it was of such significant magnitude on Saturday to justify termination of the street fair and did not feel that the reason of traffic justified limiting the number of days for street fair operation. She stated that most of the conditions were supported by the college such as the materials and they supported staff ' s position on the annual review, cash registers, and reminded everyone that the reason why the college submitted to this process was at the request of the business community to have a level playing field, and suggested that it run level in both directions and that they should be treated the same as the business community. She felt this also applied to the sign approval to which they concurred. She stated that they have an on-campus recycling program and did not have any objection to belonging to the city' s program and felt there were adequate restroom facilities . In terms of the impact on public facilities, they would operate with the rest of the college and the McCallum Theatre to reduce any problems and felt that could be done internally. The impact to local streets she felt relied on past impacts and one issue at the college for students and staff was lack of parking. When she ran for office that was the biggest issue presented to her in her election campaign. She stated that they had never had the money to build those lots before and now the lots were there and they served the students during the week and noted that the amount of students since she had been in the valley had grown from 6,000 to 11,000 district-wide and they needed those lots. She also felt they really helped to mitigate the traffic problem. She pointed out that there was an inconsistency in the staff report where they said that traffic was a problem, but the new parking lots made the traffic go much better and that some of the lots were only 20% to 30% occupied. She felt that perhaps traffic might have been a problem in the past, but was not a problem now that the new lots had been provided. She stated that from time to time traffic was a problem in many commercial areas: the day after Thanksgiving the parking lot at the Town Center was inadequate and everyone knew there were cars parked up and down Monterey on both sides of the street and persons running across the street and that was not a situation unique to that day and occurred often during the high-peak vacation/ "aw 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 shopping time. Also, in front of the Board of Realtors .r when the board meets the parking lot was inadequate and cars were on the street and slowed down traffic on Monterey. She said these were things they attempt to anticipate and work out with the individuals or entities concerned and resolve them and that didn't justify throwing the baby out with the bath water. She suggested that commission was using a somehow perceived delay in traffic without any specifics and without any data concerning a negative impact would be an inappropriate conclusion. She said that she was very proud of Palm Desert 's image as a resident and was proud that the college was located here. She believed that they contributed strongly to that positive image. She also felt the positive image could be attributed to the variety of shopping. On the one hand the commercial establishment claimed that the street fair was contrary to a high-image Palm Desert wants to project and on the other hand they say their customers were being taken away. If the college was taking their customers away, then they must be consistent with the image they have-- and if they aren't their customers, because they are beneath the level of customers they are looking for, then she did not see how they were taking their customers away. She felt there was a variety of customers at the �.rr street fair and felt that was very positive. It was there for all economic segments and was a fun atmosphere. She did not feel an open air market detracted from a positive shopping interest and noted that in biblical times there were open markets on Mondays and Thursdays and now in every major city in the world there was an open air market: Petticoat Lane in London, the flea market in Paris and Moscow, the street fair in Amsterdam, the Columbus Circle open air market in New York City, and felt that most people look for an open air market when in a major world capital because people know it' s fun and a variety of merchandise could be seen without making a major investment. She said that people were not expecting to buy designer dresses at the street fair, or sheets and towels, or pots and pans, or shoes, but they expected to go there for fun. If people were to buy a roll and coffee or a trinket on the spur of the moment, that money would not have been normally spent but now generated sales tax revenue for Palm Desert. She felt the street fair had a positive impact on Palm Desert and provided a full range of the shopping experience and felt some of the other speakers would be able to give the commission some very specific instances where it provides 20 "o MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 "" a full and complete shopping experience so that people could shop 'till they drop. Some of the merchants on E1 Paseo have creatively worked with the street fair and one local gift store recently advertised in the Desert Sun that if the street fair left you looking, you could go to their store--they were air conditioned. She felt that was a positive way to work with them. She said that in the past they have offered booths to the E1 Paseo Merchants Association and the Town Center merchants for free to help educate the street fair participants and shoppers to know what else was available in the city. They also provided a number of booths to non-profit organizations so that they would have a way to get their message out at no cost and to a wide variety of people. She said they had done and would continue to do what they could to make the street fair a first-class operation. She indicated that the street fair manager Betty Houston was also present, as well as Alumni Association Director June Teran, and they had developed a logo for the street fair and they had shopping bags, sweat shirts, t-shirts, and a brochure at the street fair telling how the money was spent. She noted that while in the past they have provided mostly scholarship money, it now generated funds to keep the child care facility open, to provide furniture on campus that they have no other funds to pay for them, and provided the parking lots that had been long needed, not only for street fair shoppers, but for their students who attend to complete their education. She said that if the commission adopted the resolution and cut the street fair down to one day, it would kill it. She noted also that there was a condition included requiring a full indemnification of actions brought against the city by the College of the Desert. She stated that it was her understanding that was not a usual condition and not normally done and the only precedent was the bighorn sheep development. She asked again for a level playing field and asked that the street fair be kept open for two days a week--it was good for the community and was supported by the entire Coachella Valley and was fun. That would be fair and it also generated funds . Mr. Diaz informed commission that the first time the condition for indemnification was imposed was on the Altamira project that involved the Bighorn Institute; this was the second time it was being imposed and commission would see it more and more--probably on every major conditional use permit or application. He said it was nothing new and the County of 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 Riverside had been doing that for a number of years; he noted that the County of Riverside imposed the same condition on the Bighorn Institute expansion, so it would be seen more and more. Staff recommended that the condition remain. Upon questioning by Commissioner Richards, Mr. Diaz clarified that the implications of the condition were that if the conditional use permit were approved and litigation was filed against the city, then the applicant would be required to pay and mount the defense for the city. He also indicated that if the condition was not in there, the city would not be required to defend either--they could throw in the towel and go home; he said this meant that even if the condition was not present the city would not necessarily defend the litigation. The condition meant that the applicant would have to pay for the defense. MR. DAN EHRLER, Executive Vice President for the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce, said that as communicated to commission recently, this had been an interesting experience and provided a lot of education and was an eye-opening experience and ultimately it could and should be more positive for the community as a whole. He said that the chamber of commerce was before the commission in support of the application with conditions. He stated that staff did have some 23 and more issues brought up r1 originally. He was pleased that there had been a very complete communication process in the decision making and to the best of their ability they had brought down those issues from 23 to 10 at the meeting that was held with the chamber of commerce' s board representatives subcommittee on this issue and through the communication with the college they were able to essentially agree upon seven of the items . There was agreement on those seven items that were being suggested as conditions and there were just three that remained at the end of that meeting that they disagreed upon. One of those was the item dealing with an advisory board which would include representatives from various geographical commercial areas in the city, the city itself, COD, the Alumni Association and so forth. It was believed by the committee and supported by the board that the advisory committee would be advantageous to the communication process between all facets of the business community and they felt the street fair was a very viable business and had proven such within the community. He said that after the meeting with COD representatives, the committee still made that recommendation to the board that they be included, which the board endorsed. The second area 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 Now still being recommended was that an environmental impact report be completed. The belief of the board and subcommittee was that an E. I .R. would provide solid empirical data that could specifically answer the kind of questions dealing with safety and traffic congestion that was well presented by city staff in the report. There were still concerns even with the additional parking lots and in reviewing staff 's report, there was still concern that cars were still on the streets and would continue to be there. He said that neither the board or the subcommittee had seen the staff report. He said that he would be reporting back to the board and to the subcommittee and felt the staff presentation might satisfy them regarding the continued recommendation for the E. I .R. being completed. Regarding the Sundays only recommendation, he said that came up from the economic development advisory board members and came up a number of times in meetings between various merchants from not only E1 Paseo, but also the Town Center. He reminded everyone that the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce was an organization that was formed by business people representing a cross section of the business community from all over the community. Those representatives were from the service, retail, and financial industries and IMP that board of directors reviewed and looked at the conditional use permit and in their vote to endorse the recommendation of the subcommittee, they were reflecting the constituents regarding these issues . He felt it was the board and subcommittee 's belief that the Sundays only operating hours would be advantageous to the total community and would still be successful for the college, their goals and the participating vendors . He said that the board and subcommittee shared the concerns that Dr. George said about education and appreciated that fact and felt they were sensitive to educational needs and knew that there were positive aspects of the street fair impacts, but it was also believed strongly by merchants and business people of various geographical areas within the community that it had negative impacts and it was that belief that was reflected in the recommendations that the chamber of commerce presented to commission that they felt should be adopted. He said that the chamber was strongly dedicated to an appropriate decision making process and responded to a request by a number of businesses for a position. They went through a deliberate process to best represent their members and how they felt about this issue. He indicated that their recommendations were not unanimous and there were some low 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 businesses in the community that disagreed with the �■r recommendations the chamber presented to the commission. Mr. Ehrler stated that it was not the chamber's intent or a ploy that the street fair be closed down. This only reflected what they received from their membership on what would be appropriate. In terms of competition, it was believed by community businesses that there was unfair competition going on at the street fair versus what the other businesses have to do to maintain their operations and businesses. He commended COD in proceeding very quickly, judiciously and positively to meet the concerns that had been received. It was believed by businesses that the chamber' s recommendation was still right and he hoped their recommendation would instill a more fair and competitive marketplace in this community. He noted that there was a disagreement and that was the way it was and both sides very strongly believed their courses were correct. He addressed comments by Ms . Bornstein regarding Solomon and recalled that the baby was saved because the real mother said, "Sacrifice me" . He was not saying that the chamber' s recommended solution was that mother saying let' s save that child, but that it was a very sincere, honest attempt at coming to a resolution of a very difficult situation. He appreciated the commission's consideration ..r of their request. Chairperson Whitlock asked what the criteria was that determined there was a negative impact on the existing businesses given the fact the street fair had been in operation for about seven years . She asked how it was determined by the merchants that it was a negative impact. Mr. Ehrler indicated that the street fair had been growing and maturing into a viable business operation. The board had been told that there was a marked decrease in foot traffic during that time of the operation and given the understanding of the economic situation, during that period of operation they were negatively impacted and when customers or patrons of both or all of the shopping areas brought items into the stores, they noticed an item just bought for a different price. MR. BEN WATSON, 73-280 Santa Rosa, informed commission that he lived across the street from the street fair and indicated that in his surveys made every Saturday and Sunday morning when he woke up, he noticed a lot of noise right at daylight and while he also enjoyed the street fair, he felt there was still a big problem with the parking, which he observed every Saturday and Sunday. He 24 MW MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 felt one of the reasons the parking lot was not filled up was because people didn't know there was parking there and said he went to the college and even offered to help make signs to let people know there were parking lots on the college site. He also indicated there were safety problems and said he would like to see the parking problems/traffic cut down in their neighborhood. He stated that people crossing Fred Waring/Monterey against traffic presented a safety problem also. MS. MARY ANN HUTCHINS, owner of Kitchen Fancy located for 19 years at 73-930 El Paseo. She implored the commission to consider the permanent business community of Palm Desert and the amount of foot traffic generated by the street fair on the weekends directly affecting all merchants in Palm Desert: the Town Center, Cook Street, One Eleven Town Center and E1 Paseo. She said that 14 months ago she spent almost $100,000 on interior renovations for her store. That required numerous city permits, many fees were charged and she paid them to better her business in Palm Desert. She said that the college said they were not retailers, but they competed directly with the retail force in this small desert. She thanked commission for their consideration for the .., merchants who work six to seven days per week in buildings they rent and who pay payroll taxes and support the college. She said that she recently taught a class at the college and was currently involved in one of their annual fund raisers and she supports the community and recognized the importance of education, but felt the street fair was big retail. She supported the stand taken by the chamber of commerce and felt it would put all of them on equal ground. She also applauded staff for their Saturday support given to them. MR. DARRYL SPEACH, 78-655 Villeta Drive in La Quinta, stated that he represented the Director of Marking for VIP Coastal Transportation and they were the ones with the limousines, busses, and VIP express taxi-cab vans . He said that every weekend Thursday through Sunday they run a shuttle and that shuttle goes to E1 Paseo, the Town Center and the Desert Fashion area in Palm Springs . He said they also have a shuttle that stops off at the street fair that was done with a coach. He said they have 25 taxis on the road in the Coachella Valley and they would be adding 16 more within the next one or two months . The amount of Saturday and Sunday trips from major and small hotels throughout the whole valley to the �' 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 street fair was enormous and was growing consistently. He felt that had to do with the concierge at the hotels . He also felt that street fairs were fun and malls were everywhere and a shopping mall was a shopping mall . He felt a street fair was unique to each area. He said that he had visited street fairs in Rome and San Francisco and each one was unique and sold items unique to that area. Because of that the concierge and front desk people recommend the street fair as a unique opportunity to go out and see the palm trees, get some fresh air, get a sun tan and do some shopping at the same time. He indicated that he talked to his drivers and people seemed to buy things like t-shirts, fun things, southwestern cactus and things like that. He said that more interestingly is that after the street fair, they go on over to Sizzler for lunch and to the Town Center and shop or to E1 Paseo for lunch and shop there. The trips were not just to the street fair and back. He said they have pick ups at the Radisson, Hyatt, and Palm Springs Hilton. He noted that they were in the process of establishing discounted meter rates and for Hyatt Desert Champions, Marriott Desert Springs, and the new Weston they have established rates considerably less than what would be on the meter to go to these shopping areas . He said this promotes themselves and shopping in Palm Desert. He asked that ri the commission consider this and stated that he was willing to work with E1 Paseo and the Town Center and the street fair. He said they would like to take people to all of those locations. He felt that it would slit the throat college to only have it one day. MR. DALE HODGES, 73-373 Country Club Drive, stated that he was a Palm Desert resident and a general partner of Native Cycles and affiliated with the Tri-A-Bike store on San Pablo. He was in support of the college and because he was in the bicycle business he said that he would be before the commission again when bicycle paths and the CVAG proposal came before them. He said he was not present to talk about bicycles in general or that more bicycles would mean fewer automobiles, but was giving commission the response he got from the Alumni office staff when he approached them with an idea for a guided tour around the college campus itself and they took his idea and ran with it in a sincere way to encourage him to take his patrons up onto E1 Paseo for a guided tour and to point out the highlights and merchants along the route. He asked that commission consider the earnestness 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 of the Alumni in their outreach to the conventional, traditional marketers in the area. MR. TED GUSTON, a five year Palm Desert resident, felt that the chamber wanted to change the ordinance to help them and now they were turning around and deciding that as far as unfair competition was concerned that they should be open six days a week and on the one day they rest, the street fair operation should be in operation. He felt this was reverse unfair competition and people coming to Palm Desert on Saturdays to the street fairs would not have the entity to go to and would go to their stores . He felt the chamber of commerce was jealous and did not realize the business that was brought to the retail community. He felt the retail stores were doing less that before and also that street fair vendors were also doing less than before. Everyone was struggling as hard as they could and he felt the street fair was one of the biggest draws Palm Desert had and to curtail it to one day a week would reduce the tourist rate here. He said that he did not see the gasoline stations, restaurants, or the theaters or other vendors/merchants coming to the city saying they don't want the street fair here on Saturdays because they receive benefit from it. ... He felt the chamber did not get their way so they wanted the street fair closed down completely and to allow only certain items to be sold. When that did not work, they got the ordinance changed to their favor and now wanted to close the street fair on Saturdays . He said that they were dealing with people who only wanted to benefit their own operations and yet many merchants on E1 Paseo, in Rancho Mirage, and in Palm Desert were still closing three months per year and somehow they were still making enough money and their income was going up. He stated that this was all started by one merchant who opened a store three years ago in Rancho Mirage and took a look at the street fair and decided he wanted all the revenue at the street fair going to him so he started this process and the city was going along with it. MR. MICHAEL QUAKE, a resident of Palm Desert, informed commission that he had been involved in this issue since it started and felt that the previous speaker might have been talking about him. He stated that he opened his store four years ago and the gentleman who just spoke had the business ethics of a rattlesnake and that gentleman was a vendor who sold him merchandise at his store. He said that he was doing business in buying that "" 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 gentleman' s merchandise and again stated that he had no problems with the swap meet--he did not want it in Palm Desert. He said the reason it was brought up on legalities was down the road and it was in the courts and he indicated that with Mayor Snyder not being present the city council had not voted that ordinance through, and according to what was going to happen, he was going along with that and there would be a change in the ordinance and the city would decide what the conditions would be for a conditional use permit. He wanted to make clear his own position and said that he was buying merchandise to sell at what he felt was a fair mark-up price. Then he found out that the vendor opened a stand at the street fair/swap meet and while he was selling a ring for $5 . 00 and was it selling for $10 . 00, this business competitor was at the swap meet selling the ring for $5 . 00 to the community. He said that he does not complain about the competition, he did what he had to do and was no longer buying rings and was still making a living and hoped to continue making a living. He noted the editorial in the Desert Sun of October 26 regarding, "Street Fairs, Tough Business for Valley Cities" and felt enormous decisions for planning committees and city councils were being made. He felt that whatever happened with Palm Desert in allowing this to go on and what had happened in the law WAO process in the last seven months was water under the bridge. He believed there would be more swap meets and these types of organizations going on and there was an article by Mr. Eichelberger who was running the Expo 111 in Coachella who had obligated himself through the paper that he would contribute $100,000 to the college. He thought that was wonderful and hoped that he was able to continue his own contribution because he was a firm believer of the College of the Desert in Palm Desert and was thrilled to have it here. His complaint and irritation was not on any emotional factor and was not a ploy of being against education or motherhood, it was strictly on a legal basis and he felt it was handled exactly that way. He felt the whole procedure came down to the bad guys, who were the legitimate business owners and residents of the city and anyone who opposed the swap meet was automatically against the College of the Desert. He felt that he could not beat that image and for the newspaper to pick up the type of report that the merchants on E1 Paseo or Town Center were robbers because they try to charge a legitimate mark-up to support their families and the city where they pay taxes and do the legitimate things they do to support their businesses-- 2 8 ..r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 low that makes them outrageous retailers . He did not believe that but was glad that he could have his opinion and could respect the opinion of the opposition. He said that was the balance of what he had to say, noting that he was not a member of the E1 Paseo Business Association but was welcomed by them because of his stand in trying to iron out the legalities of the street fair, and that his personal feeling was that whatever the planning commission felt was correct for Palm Desert was something the residents of Palm Desert and the people shopping in Palm Desert would have to live with. He hoped the commission would come to a decision based on the chamber' s recommendation and was sure there were many hours of contemplation toward what decision to be made. He said he was not against any free enterprise and anybody making a living and as far as any name calling and slinging was concerned, he felt he did not get involved with anything like that but wanted to get his position across and he congratulated staff on their wonderful understanding of the situation and wished the commission the best in making the correct decision for Palm Desert. Mr. Diaz noted that so far points were being argued but felt �., the last two speakers were getting down to personalities and did not feel that was Palm Desert and asked that the discussion be kept to the points . MS. EDA BRONOWITZ, a vendor at the street fair, said that she had been there for the past six or seven years . She said that the previous gentleman talked about legitimate businesses . She said that they were legitimate business people also and they had a license to operate. When they talked about competition, what happened to Marshall ' s, Labels for Less, Standard Shoes, what happened to Cabazon. She said that they did not put E1 Paseo out of business--El Paseo put themselves out of business . Cabazon came in with their factory stores and the same stores were on E1 Paseo today and she felt that they should be fighting Cabazon because they were the same company stores as what was on E1 Paseo. She said they were legitimate business owners trying to earn a living the same as anyone else that operate six days a week. She indicated that many of them were retired people and they were not looking for charity, but were trying to earn their own way the best they could on what they had. She felt it was very unfair for them to talk about putting them out to only one day per week. She stated ""' 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 that there was fair competition everywhere in the world and she had been to street fairs in Italy, Hong Kong, Spain, England and many other places and they had not effected the businesses over there at all and this would not effect these business either if they would concentrate on what they had to do instead of concentrating on what people were doing at the street fair. She informed commission that a lot of people from E1 Paseo came to the street fair to buy merchandise to sell in their stores. MR. KEN POLLARD, seller at the street fair, stated that he had two points he felt compelled to discuss. He said they heard the points about competition and how unfair they were and the way they compete and indicated that they were only trying to run a legitimate business and offer something to the public. The free enterprise system founded this country and that was why people live in the United States and why people love it here and many ancestors came here for that reason. If it wasn't religious freedom it was free enterprise so that they could start with nothing, like Marriott did selling A&W Rootbeer for only a nickel and now there was a Marriott Desert Springs in Palm Desert now. That was a free enterprise system that founded that type of thing. The v same as Bob' s Big Boy--he wondered if someone complained about Kraft when he had his cart and decided to cut cheese up and sell it in slices . He said he wondered if the stores tried to make him a second class citizen--he doubted it. He felt that was what was being done to them now. He wondered if the people offering the one day a week could take a 50% cut in their monthly salary and still make those house payments, charge accounts or second mortgages, put the kids through school and pay for those braces on a 50% cut in their wages . He did not think it would be that easy to just go somewhere else and replace that income. Chairperson Whitlock asked Ms . Bornstein if she wished to make a final statement. Ms . Bornstein felt that it was clear that there was a lot of emotion generated by this dispute and they regretted that. She believed that the community would be best served if they all worked together to enhance the community and make a wholesome and integrated retail environment. She said she was present to answer any questions. She indicated that the street fair in 30 ""� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 addition to the taxes it pays through sales tax or business licenses, also employs over 200 people every weekend including 11 students . She stated that this was not an illegitimate business . It was a major employer that just happened to exist only two days a week. In addition, the Alumni Association was the operator of the street fair. They were a non-profit organization and if a for-profit business enterprise took the street fair and moved it out of the city of Palm Desert as some of the speakers in opposition suggested might satisfy them, money made by the operator would leave the city as well . Many of those operators didn't even reside in Riverside County. The College of the Desert as a non-profit organization puts all of those proceeds back into the community by scholarships, allows students to attend the college and have money for living expenses spent in this community, and operates a child care center that provides child care, a recognized public need in the community, plus other items at the college they would not otherwise have the funds to provide, but which were essential to meet their educational purpose. No money generated by the operator of the street fair left the area. They stayed here. As a non-profit organization their goal was to provide a fun experience for those who participate and �.. to provide a fair operation for those in the city whether they be in city government, city tax payers or members of the city business community. They also believed that free enterprise was the key and were somewhat surprised and had discussed completely with the chamber a philosophy that seemed to be contrary to what most chambers of commerce would do in supporting free enterprise and they were able to discuss that fully because the controls they suggested seemed contrary to that philosophy. They recognized that many items they were already doing and many were suggestions that would enhance the street fair and those were welcomed. She felt the condition of limiting the street fair to Sundays only was intolerable and while Solomon ultimately did not kill the baby because in his wisdom he realized that was not the solution, but was simply to flush out or identify the real mother, he had logic to support his wisdom. She did not feel the commission had logic or fact to support the belief that the street fair was the cause of the disappointment of the merchants . She felt there were lots of reasons the merchants might be disappointed with their performance and they at the college would like to work with them to erase that disappointment and help them to recognize their goals and in the academic programs taw 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 they had the resources to help them do that. In terms of the street fair, she felt there was no data to show that they were the cause of their disappointment and felt the contrary was true. She asked that the commission let the status quo to continue and felt they ran a fair and fun operation and generated funds that stayed in the community and by limiting the street fair they would surely leave. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public hearing and asked for comments from the commissioners . Commissioner Jonathan said that he would address the question of competition head-on because that seemed to be the center of much of the discussion. He said that the planning commission was present to review an application for a conditional use permit and as planning commissioners would follow the question of competition to its logical conclusion. The question of whether there was competition caused by the street fair that created a detriment to other merchants either was there or not. If it did not create unfair competition, the question was moot. If it does cause competition to other merchants, then as planning commissioners they had no place restraining trade. In granting a CUP, they could not look at the issue of whether competition was created. He noted that earlier that night they granted conditional use permits for restaurants, health food stores/delis, office buildings, and have done it for dance studios and the list went on. Never had they asked themselves that if a dance studio were approved would it create unfair competition for another existing dance studio. He said that if competition was not created, the question was moot, and if it did that was not a question for the planning commission to consider and was still moot and not part of their discussion. He noted that some of the practical aspects of the conditional use permit was the effect on traffic and the safety of the public. From the testimony given, he did not feel there was a detriment in the traditional sense of the conditional use permit. He said that he lives here, he sees the traffic and did not think it was bad, especially compared to other traffic problems in the city. To say that the fair created a problem getting to the Town Center was literally a two-way street and it could be said that the mall created traffic jams getting to the street fair. He did not feel there was enough of a problem to restrain the operation and he was impressed by the work staff did and agreed with the conclusions except for the limiting of the operation to Sundays . He felt that Saturdays and Sundays from 8 : 00 a.m. to 2 : 00 p.m. and two additional days per year was reasonable. He 32 r■� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 .... noted that this was a conditional use permit and if future traffic problems were generated, it would come back to the planning commission for review and it could be terminated if the problem could not be worked out. He said he was ready to recommend approval. Commissioner Richards reported that he and Chairperson Whitlock were present at a session of the economic advisory committee and those minutes were included in the planning commission packet. He felt that this committee was a good cross section of people in the city. Among various members were Mr. Ceriale from the Marriott who had commented that that was what people wanted--they wanted to experience the area and that meant E1 Paseo, the Town Center and the street fair. He felt there were other benefits that had not been noted. He said he was a product of the community college system and was proud of it. He felt one of the side benefits was that people visit the college and that helped the college. When people understood that it was there and how nice it was and the cooperation they have extended to the business community was a benefit. He said this was a political and emotional issue. He felt that the benefit of what the foundation brought was very significant, and the negatives when weighed with a scale of justice, he would have a hard time leaning toward the other w side. He also agreed that the street fair had problems associated with any big business and that was what it had become. At the economic development advisory committee meeting it was looked at like a business and they discussed what was wrong and there were suggestions made, some of which the staff included. He felt staff ' s recommendation that came from the fire department, the sheriff 's department, and the traffic commission should be taken without any changes in their entirety. He felt the city' s traffic engineers were the finest and if they suggested closing streets or opening parking lots, or changing exits, that should be done to its absolute finite point. Likewise if the sheriff ' s department wanted someone there four hours a day, he did not feel there was any possibility of change from a planning standpoint. He said he was against any restriction of time for Saturdays or Sundays . He indicated that one issue discussed at the advisory committee was what the cost was to the city. He also wondered how many of the 289 vendors belonged to the chamber of commerce and suggested that the chamber think about getting them as members also. He felt that the city had many cost factors--one being that the sheriff' s department did not direct traffic for free. The city would receive the bill for that service. He also indicated that the business merchants in town had legitimate questions about whether sales tax was `w 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 being collected, whether things were being rung up on a cash register, but concurred it was not pertinent to talk about a cash register because it had not been done to anyone else and he agreed with that. When talking about the absolute cost factors, he felt there were some other things that staff did not bring up such as setting a fee structure that would put support back into the general advertising/promotional activities of the rest of the city. He felt that the street fair did not contribute to things like that and there were some legitimate costs and expenses they should share. He said he did not have a number, but felt that staff could probably come up with a cost for the sheriff 's department and felt the city should donate a lot of their time and expertise to handle the traffic issues and on an on-going basis there was probably some legitimate costs the college should take a good look at and some transferring of these costs back to the city should be imposed. He said they also talked about complaints such as condition of restrooms, safety of electrical outlets and things like that and felt that once the college knew they had an on-going business that would not be shut down, he felt they would undertake some capital improvements to handle that and felt the vendors would appreciate that and he would like to see that done. He said there was a condition regarding an advisory board; he felt that was a good deal but advisory boards with "no teeth" were not really any good and if they had no power nothing would happen. He felt that if the board was created it should be given some power; otherwise, don't create it. Commissioner Richards indicated that his recommendations were that started with condition no. 7 on page 4, which should be amended to read Saturday and Sunday 8:00 a.m. to 2 :00 p.m. (College of the Desert representatives concurred) . Commissioner Richards also felt that condition nos . 8 and 9 should be eliminated and public works department with their traffic engineers should work out a program with the college and the city being in a lead position to tell them how to run the parking lots and access points . Mr. Diaz suggested amending public work's condition to read that they submit a traffic and control plan for review and approval by the director of public works . Commission concurred. Dr. George concurred. Commissioner Jonathan felt that the condition that the parking lot be closed so the vendors would not park there should be kept in. Commissioner Richards said that he did not really like that because he did not know if that was the only way to solve the problem and was not sure that was the best thing. He felt that if there was a cooperative city staff and a college that wanted to do the right thing, this could be 34 ..� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 �... resolved without itemizing every single item. Commissioner Jonathan concurred that conditions 8 and 9 be eliminated and would be handled in a cooperative manner. It was clarified that if a satisfactory agreement could not be worked out between the city and college, then the planning commission would decide the issue. Commissioner Richards recalled the testimony given by Mr. Watson and felt the whole picture should be considered, not just one area. Commission determined that the signs were just like store signs and should be regulated. Commission also discussed condition no. 14 limiting the number of vendors to 340 . Commissioner Downs noted that if the number of spaces for rent wasn't limited, parking space would run out. Dr. George told the commission that they had no intention of increasing the size and felt it was as large as it was going to get. Commissioner Jonathan felt the condition should remain and if they wanted more in the future they could request it. Commissioner Richards concurred and felt the rest of the conditions by the fire department and sheriff ' s department should remain without change. Commissioner Jonathan concurred except for having an advisory board. Commissioner Richards ••• clarified that if an advisory board was approved, he felt it should be given some "teeth" ; otherwise there shouldn't be one. He felt the chamber, the Town Center and other retailers would like to see some sort of association to have a place to talk and express concerns and that was why it was one of their recommendations. Dr. George concurred with the chamber and agreed to work with the chamber and other merchants in town to address a variety of issues just on the street fair, but again looking at the overall retail environment they would be willing to participate in that; however in terms of giving the advisory committee "teeth" , the street fair would still have to be under the authority of the college and they could not submit to the authority of some other outside group, but would be willing to participate with those other merchants to work on issues about the street fair or retail in general for Palm Desert. Ms . Bornstein noted that the Board of Trustees was an elected body and was accountable and had publicly noticed meetings with public comment provisions on their agendas so that there was a mechanism to do that and supported comments by Dr. George that it would have to remain under the control and accountability of the body elected to do that. Commissioner Richards suggested facilitating their request by having one of the board members attend or speak to it or see if there was some common ground to create some sort of input �Nw 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 to their group. Ms . Bornstein assured the commission that the ..r College of the Desert Alumni Association was an association member of the chamber, like the Town Center and El Paseo Merchants Association, in addition to some of the board members being individual members of the chamber and many of the college faculty participated in the chamber functions . She felt she and Mr. Ehrler could assure the commission that they would continue to communicate and make sure they worked together on this . In terms of the legal accountability issue, they were a publicly elected body and they already had that accountability there. Commissioner Jonathan felt the details had been ironed out. Commissioner Richards concurred except for the issue of public works working with the college. Mr. Folkers assured commission that they could "rise to the challenge. " Chairperson Whitlock concurred with Commissioners Jonathan and Richards and added that she felt the decision made by the chamber of commerce was undoubtedly a painful one for them to make and congratulated them on being able to come forward and give their opinion and felt that they deliberated long and hard on the decision they arrived at. She also felt that staff did an excellent job in coming up with a compromise for a difficult decision. However, the arguments heard in the , public testimony persuaded her to understand the need for having the street fair open on Saturdays and Sundays and she supported the changes that had been made to the conditions . Commissioner Downs also concurred with the changes made to the conditions . Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Spiegel abstained) . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1546, approving CUP 91-13, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Spiegel abstained) . VIII. MISCELLANEOUS None. 36 r.r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 1991 ftwIX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. X. COMMENTS None. XI . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, adjourning the meeting. Carried 5-0 . The meeting was adjourned at 10 : 36 p.m. RAMON A. DIAZ, S&cr&lary ATTEST: (/k.6-C- Z,6t/� CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson /tm "" 37