Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1201 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - DECEMBER 1, 1992 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Spiegel 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: Bob Spiegel, Chairman Diane Cox Sabby Jonathan Randy White Carol Whitlock Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ray Diaz Dick Folkers Doug Phillips Tonya Monroe Phil Joy IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the November 17, 1992 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the minutes as submitted. Motion Carried 5-0 . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz noted there had not been a council meeting since the last planning commission meeting. VI . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 92-19 - PETER SOLOMON, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to move north-south lines between lots 44 and 45, Tract 25445, west approximately one foot and adjust east- west lines between lots 43, 47 and 48 . MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1992 no Commissioner Jonathan asked why an applicant would request to move a lot line one foot, noting it was between homes . Mr. Diaz indicated that the lot line adjustment procedure did not allow an increase in the number of lots or make any lots smaller than allowed by code. Apparently what had happened was that it was necessary to either get an easement of some kind or something similar, but the applicant did not get more lots or homes--that was prohibited by code. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. CUP 92-11 - MR. SEAN SONTAG, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to expand the existing Louise' s Pantry restaurant by 600 square feet (enclose the existing east patio area) located in the 111 Town Center at Highway 111 and Town Center Way. Mr. Diaz noted the matter was continued from the last meeting to allow staff to stake out the area of the proposed addition and the commission was to examine the area the expansion would take place in and determine what impacts it would have. That had been done. He noted that a resolution of approval was attached to the staff report. If commission decided to deny the addition, staff should be instructed to prepare a resolution of denial . Chairman Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. SEAN SONTAG, the applicant, addressed the commission. He explained that the expansion area had been staked out and felt the rendering was fairly accurate and showed what they planned to do. He felt it was a good design and concept. Chairman Spiegel asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1 , 1992 U.r no one. Chairman Spiegel closed the public testimony and asked for comments by the commission. Commissioner Whitlock was pleased that Mr. Smith provided the staking of the site. She felt that her concerns had been alleviated and she also liked the rendering and hoped the landscaping plan would resemble the rendering. She stated that she would be prepared to move for approval . Commissioner Jonathan stated that his primary concerns were ones of aesthetics and he had been persuaded that this change would represent an improvement. He was prepared to second the motion. Commissioner White indicated that he had one remaining concern. Inasmuch as there was an ordinance requiring that the landscaping be maintained at a certain level, such as no more than 42 inches high, in his observation the landscaping at that corner was substantially more than 42 inches, which be believed was the reason there could be some blockage of view and if the landscaping was not maintained at that level or below, there could still be some blockage of view. Other than low that, he felt the renderings were nice and he liked the idea provided that the commission was assured that the landscaping would be maintained. Chairman Spiegel asked staff whose responsibility it was to maintain the landscaping. Mr. Diaz replied the applicant, but suggested that a condition be added to read, "In the event that the landscaping is not maintained as required, the additional portion of the facility would be closed. " Mr. Folkers informed commission that regarding the visibility, that was an aspect of the public works department. He said they could look at the situation and anything in the public right-of-way they had the responsibility to work with the property owners to ensure clear visibility. He noted that at this location there was a traffic signal so in most cases visibility was not as critical as it would be at a non- signalized location. He said they could review the situation to make sure the landscaping complied with the city ordinance. Chairman Spiegel asked if this would generally be the responsibility of the owner of the center, rather than each individual occupant. Mr. Folkers said that it depended on the situation. They would work with the responsible party for 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1992 fte maintaining the landscaping. Mr. Diaz concurred that ultimately the owner of the center was responsible; if the condition was added and the owner of the center signed a letter or some document satisfactory to the city attorney, that they recognize this requirement and will abide by the requirement, that should be signed and either recorded or to be to the satisfaction of the city attorney prior to the issuance of building permits . Commissioner Cox said that she understood the concerns at that intersection with the line of sight, but since seeing the staking that concern had been eliminated. She felt the applicant had done a good job in improving the aesthetics of the back of the building and wished that other occupants would also do something. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting the findings as presented by staff . Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1594 , approving CUP 92-11, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0 . B. Case No. PM 27666 - IW-8 and IW-9, Applicant Request for approval of a one lot parcel map to facilitate subdivision of existing building space on Springfield Lane, 525 feet east of Park Center Drive in the Country Club Business Park. Mr. Joy stated that this was a simple subdivision of building space so that the property owner could sell off the spaces to perspective and/or present tenants . As part of the application, staff also required that the property owner furnish staff with a list of tenants within the building so that everyone knew the hearing was taking place. He felt this provided good notification. Staff recommended approval of the parcel map. Commissioner Cox asked when a subdivision like this occurred, would any adjustment to parking be required; Mr. Joy replied too MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1992 low no, the type of use would not change only the type of ownership. Mr. Joy also clarified that the subdivision was still one lot, it would just create air space units . Commissioner White noted that this was equivalent to an apartment complex being subdivided into condominiums only in a commercial setting; Mr. Joy concurred and said that in a commercial situation, the number of units that would be critical in an apartment situation did not exist in this case. Chairman Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. LYDIA SHINOHARA, Pacific Engineering & Associates at 41-230 Carlotta Drive in Palm Desert, stated that she was present on behalf of the applicant. She concurred with the presentation and recommendation of staff and was present to answer any questions . Chairman Spiegel 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 White stated that it looked like a straight forward matter and moved for approval . Action: Moved by Commissioner White, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting the findings as presented by staff . Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner White, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1595, approving PM 27666, subject to conditions . Carried 5-0. C. Case No. DA 92-1/Preannexation Development Agreement - A.J. LOU aka ALYCE LAZAR, Applicant Request for adoption of a resolution recommending to city council approval of a preannexation development agreement as it pertains to the future development of a 75 acre site on the north side of Dinah Shore Drive, 1295 feet west of Monterey Avenue. 4W 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1 , 1992 Mr. Diaz stated that per the city attorney it was possible to simultaneously hold the public hearing for the four development agreements because they were interrelated. He said the city attorney assured staff that what was in the development agreement just distributed was the same as in the two agreements previously. He said that commission could hold separate hearings for each agreement or hear them at the same time. Commission determined that it would be acceptable to hear the four development agreement hearings simultaneously. The city attorney advised Chairman Spiegel to read all four items for the record, which he did. D. Case No. DA 92-2/Preannexation Development Agreement - MC PROPERTIES, A PARTNERSHIP, AND MACLEOD COUCH LAND COMPANY, A PARTNERSHIP, Applicants Request for adoption of a resolution recommending to city council approval of a preannexation development agreement as it pertains to the future development of a 70 . 67 acre site on the east side of Monterey Avenue, 2666 feet north of Gerald Ford Drive. E. Case No. DA 92-3 - RANCHO MIRAGE INDUSTRIAL PARK/RUYEN INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, HENRY MELBY/TRUSTEE OF THE B.H. FORTNER TESTAMENTARY TRUST, AND BERNARD AND JEANETT DEBONNE, Applicants Request for adoption of a resolution recommending to city council approval of a preannexation development agreement as it pertains to the future development of real property located within Annexation No. 30 . F. Case No. DA 92-4/Preannexation Development Agreement - MONTEREY PALMS, Applicant Request for adoption of a resolution recommending to city council approval of a preannexation development agreement between the City of Palm Desert and 00 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1992 Monterey Palms for future development of a 72 acre site within Annexation #30 . Mr. Diaz informed commission that the purpose of the development agreements was to solidify the development rights in terms of potential uses, as well as some of the public infrastructure and where the major access points might be and where signalization might occur in the future for the properties involved. All of the development agreements merely solidified what was already allowed as part of the preannexation zoning, which was done a couple of months ago for all of the parcels . In effect what was allowed under the development agreements was what was allowed under the present zoning. The one exception was the six story, 240 room hotel that was being requested by the MacLeod Couch development agreement, case no. DA 92-2 . Within that area the hotel would have to be developed in the same manner in terms of distance from the highway as the Marriott, which was seven stories and 972 rooms . All of the uses identified in every development agreement would have to go through the public hearing aspect of the precise plan process . At that time the design would be reviewed. The only thing the city could not do was say they could not have the use, which they could not do anyway because it was in the zoning. Access from Monterey Avenue and the signalization had been determined through the hearings that took place. In the case of DA 92-3, Rancho Mirage Industrial Park, it was determined after long, strenuous hearings with the County of Riverside, as well as the courts of Riverside County in litigation between the City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County and the property owner. The development agreements would simplify exactly where access would be off Monterey, where the signals would be off Monterey and they answered the questions as to whether flyovers off Monterey would be included. All the agreements set forth the fact that none of the property owners who did not abut Portola Avenue would be responsible for the extension of Portola Avenue. That was not a problem. He said the city' s policy has always been that properties that are adjacent to the street when they develop would provide that street. The major property owner on the west side of Portola Avenue north of the extension of Gerald Ford Drive was the City of Palm Desert, so when the city developed that property, it would have to install that street. He indicated that the city might be precluded from establishing an assessment district to extend Portola Avenue, but based on recent experiences with assessment districts for streets, he was not sure the city would want to do that. The 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1 , 1992 ow only time assessment districts had been done in Palm Desert was when the property owners had come together and agreed to pay for it. If these property owners changed their minds and decided to do an assessment district to extend Portola, it could be done. The agreements would give comfort to property owners that the city would not limit the uses of their land for a period of time and would not place conditions of approval that were not connected with their development, which had always been the city' s policy. It would also give the city assurances that this was how the property would develop in terms of uses and in terms of access . If at any time there were changes, they could be discussed. Staff recommended approval of all the agreements . He indicated that Mr. Phillips would advise commission on how to adopt the resolutions to send them forth to city council . In terms of the overall annexation for the entire area, which included the Price Club and Home Base, this was the next step. He noted that the property had been prezoned and they had been before the Local Agency Formation Commission. He stated that there was litigation involved in the entire process--litigation that was challenging the preannexation zoning based on the California Environmental Quality Act. The approval of the development agreements would satisfy and settle that litigation. The next step would be for city council to approve the development agreements and they had reviewed them as part of the litigation. In terms of instruction given to staff by council, these agreements were consistent with those instructions in the past. If council approved the agreements and adopted appropriate resolutions, then the city would go back to the Local Agency Formation Commission for the last approval and the area would be in the city by the end of December. The reason that December was the critical time was that the County Assessor stipulated that if a property was not annexed into a city by December 31, then that city loses all of the property tax from that area for the next year. The sales tax would be gained because that was up to the Board of Equalization, which was up to the state. He said that staff was prepared to answer any questions and recommended approval . Commissioner White asked if the development agreement encompassed the cost of expanding the bridge over Monterey and putting in a bridge over the proposed Portola Avenue. Mr. Diaz replied that Riverside County had taken the lead on the Monterey interchange expansion and they were responsible for establishing that assessment district, so the agreements would not cover that. Under the present general plan, the current 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1 , 1992 v.� circulation element did not have a bridge across Interstate 10 at Portola. Portola ended at Dinah Shore and when the general plan was amended, the city could extend it. He said that the cost of those bridges were not included in the development agreements . He indicated that these properties were not precluded from building that bridge, but the appropriate hearings would have to done. He confirmed that the development agreements would not exclude these property owners from being part of that. Commissioner White asked if the usual fees for parks, art in public places, etc . , were included in the development agreements, or just understood under the city ordinances in effect. Mr. Diaz replied that it was his understanding that the fees in effect at the time the properties came in for development would be imposed. Mr. Phillips said that it was addressed in some degree in the development agreements; he informed commission that the city could not impose an impact fee on these property owners that were not imposed city-wide. Commissioner Jonathan asked what the commission' s options were in terms of moving this along to council . He noted that in the past they had passed along a case to city council without vow comment and asked if this was an option in this case. Mr. Phillips concurred that was an option; he said that commission could approve the development agreements, deny them, send them to council with comments or send them to council without comments . Chairman Spiegel indicated that they would go to city council whether or not the commission acted on them; Mr. Phillips replied that commission could continue the item, but staff and the city would be put in a difficult position. Mr. Diaz said that if there were concerns, the commission should raise them now--he felt that the concerns would come up when the precise plans actually came to the commission at a public hearing. Mr. Phillips requested that commission take some type of action so that the matter could proceed to meet the year-end deadline. Chairman Spiegel asked for clarification on the comment that the development agreements would alleviate the commission' s ability to limit the use of the land; Mr. Diaz said that the city knew what uses could be used on the land and basically every use spelled out in the agreements were within the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance and was consistent with the city' s policy in terms of the DA 92-3 area where the city stated in the past that they would abide by any county approvals for that length of time. From that standpoint the city was not .wr 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1992 rr/ limited. The property was prezoned for the most part regional commercial and planned industrial, which would allow everything but housing. He stressed that it did not limit the city and gave them comfort. He stated that the agreements solved the problem of future access and signalization on Monterey, which were tied-in with county approvals . Chairman Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked if any of the applicants wished to address the commission. MS . CYNTHIA LUDVIGSON, representing Rancho Mirage Industrial Park, said that under this agreement her client had an approved parcel map under Riverside County and under the agreement the city agreed to accept that parcel map with its terms and conditions as a valid parcel map. There would be no new fees or terms of conditions which could be added. She noted that the Fortner property also had a tract map approved by the County of Riverside and that map would also be accepted. One of the conditions in Rancho Mirage Industrial Park' s parcel map was a contribution for the bridge at Monterey. She informed commission that the contribution was over $1 million, which was to be made to fund the overpass and bridge reconstruction. Other fees and conditions related to traffic impacts and mitigation measures and parks were the ones to be accepted by the city. She stated that her clients wanted to be assured that the parcel map they have approved would not need to be repeated. There was extensive litigation on the parcel map with the County and they did not want to subject themselves to any more. She said she was present to answer any questions . Mr. Diaz clarified that even without the development agreements, the parcel maps and tentative maps approved by the county would have to be honored by the city. Commissioner White asked if there were any differences between the fees recommended by the county and what the city would normally expect to receive from such a property. Mr. Diaz replied that the county fees covered virtually everything the city did, i .e. drainage and signalization; the only different fee might be art in public places, but when the precise plan of design came before commission for approval, it could be discussed then. He noted that the art fee was not a fee that would be placed on a subdivision map normally. Commissioner White asked if the fees the county expected to receive would No 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1 , 1992 be the same as the fees the city would expect to receive and if that had come directly into Palm Desert. Mr. Diaz answered that he did not know the exact differences in the amount of the fees . He said that it was the type of fees that were there and the amount of the fees would be Palm Desert ' s . Mr. Phillips concurred. Chairman Spiegel asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Jonathan stated that historically development agreements were Pandora 's boxes and what seemed innocuous often turned out not to be. He was not comfortable dealing with the detail presented to the commission, including a revised 26 page agreement that they were just handed and he had not had the opportunity to read. His feeling regarding development agreements was that if council wanted the commission to really get serious about them, then they should be handled properly with study sessions where they could hear from the attorneys in detail, they should know what' s going on and what each party was getting or not getting. If not, in I"" the interest in deferring to staff and to council, he suggested moving this item to the city council to let them deal with it. In that regard they could pass the agreement along without comment or recommendation. Mr. Diaz indicated that the agreement distributed to commission brought into account the two development agreements the commission had before the meeting and there were no changes to them. Council and staff was very interested in the commission' s comments and concerns with the agreements . He noted that timing was a problem, but if commission wanted, the meeting could be recessed for half an hour or so to allow the commission to read the larger agreement so that the commission could be comfortable with the fact that it contained what the city attorney said it did. If there were specific concerns and issues with each of the development agreements, staff and commission could go through them. He did not want to rush the judgement. Commissioner Jonathan stated that for him, that would not be sufficient. For him to be critical and give a meaningful opinion would require a far greater amount of time--a study session with give and take and possibly meeting jointly with the city council, staff and legal counsel . He knew how much v.. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1 , 1992 went into the agreements and there were other agendas being played out and he was not aware of what they were. He was not uncomfortable sending it to council because he felt they were aware of the other agendas . He said he could not give an affirmative recommendation that the agreements were appropriate. He noted that he did not even know what the goals and objectives of the city were with regard to the property, much less whether these agreements would accomplish those goals . He stated that he personally felt out of the loop, but because he did not want to hold the agreements up, he favored sending them on to city council without comment. Commissioner Whitlock felt that commission had to be able to rely upon legal counsel and staff in many instances and this was one of those instances where counsel and staff were the experts . They spent the time on the documents and if they felt the agreements were appropriate for the commission to move it forward, she felt the commission should do so. She concurred with Commissioner Jonathan in that she was not comfortable in making comments because she did not have the experience of staff and counsel . She noted that they only had a few days for reviewing the agreements and it was during a holiday. She favored moving the agreements forward without specific comments . Commissioner White said that he was not apart of the March 17 or April 21 discussions concerning the development agreements . He was uncomfortable also and although he was in the legal profession he did not deal with development agreements and they were very complicated. There were many times things which were done in agreements for reasons perhaps the people directly involved understood, but others didn' t and for that reason he felt it was a good idea for the commission to pass the agreements to council, who were more familiar with the specific details . Commissioner Cox echoed the concerns of the other commissioners and while she was new on the commission, she read the material that was in the packet, but had not had the opportunity to read the new agreements . She agreed with sending the item to city council without comment. Chairman Spiegel said that he assumed that the agreements were presented to the planning commission because that was the proper procedure. The comment on hidden agendas was appropriate and there was no way he or the other commissioners 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1992 could know what those agendas were. The only action that would be unacceptable to staff and counsel would be a continuance, which would allow the commission to obtain more information on the agreements . But because of the time frame, that was not feasible. He also felt it would be inappropriate for him to vote in favor or opposition to the agreements because he did not understand them. He agreed with Commissioner Jonathan that the commission was out of the loop. Commissioner Jonathan proposed a motion to send all the agreements to city council without comment. Mr. Phillips advised the commission to adopt a resolution to that effect for each separate agreement. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Cox, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1596, forwarding DA 92-1/Preannexation Development Agreement to city council without comment. Carried 5-0 . Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Cox, low adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1597, forwarding DA 92-2/Preannexation Development Agreement to city council without comment. Carried 5-0 . Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Cox, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1598, forwarding DA 92-3/Preannexation Development Agreement to city council without comment. Carried 5-0 . Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Cox, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1599, forwarding DA 92-4/Preannexation Development Agreement to city council without comment. Carried 5-0 . Chairman Spiegel felt it was important that city council know the feelings of the planning commission. If the state said an item had to come before them, it would, but they should let commission know what was going on. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1992 r VIII . MISCELLANEOUS None. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. X. COMMENTS Commissioner White commented that he concurred with the Chairman concerning the need to know exactly what was behind the development agreements and it was not that they needed a show and tell or a presentation as impressive as the one for The Crest development, but they needed some kind of direction and illustration that would help them understand the issues better. Mr. Diaz stated that what occurred in terms of this particular annexation was there had been agreements reached with the County of Riverside for the sales tax exchange and trading dollars with the redevelopment agency and the county would utilize that sales tax revenue for social, cultural and medical facilities within this portion of the Coachella Valley. Those agreements were reached and hammered out between the redevelopment agency and the County of Riverside. The next step was to annex the area in. As they were in the process of annexing the area in, the issue arose of preannexation and the numbers required by the Local Agency Formation Commission and the Municipal Reorganization Act in terms of annexations . They prezoned the property and the city' s policy in terms of prezoning any property had been that they would accept county approvals, not just tract map approvals . By state law the city was required to accept tentative tract maps and parcel maps as approved by the county. If they were approved, the city would have to go through the normal procedure and new conditions could not be added on the maps . That was state, legislative and judicial law. The property was preannexed and as part of the preannexation process and also had to go through the California Environmental Quality Act. The question was could they do it with a negative declaration of environmental impact, or a complete environmental impact report. Because of the timing involved and other considerations, they felt a negative declaration of environmental impact sufficed in terms of the prezoning for this particular area. As stated before No 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1992 the Local Agency Formation Commission in terms of an environmental impact report, this area had many environmental impact reports done on it through the courts and the planning process . Further environmental impact reports were not necessary. However, some of the property owners disagreed. Those properties that had an environmental impact report felt that an environmental impact report was necessary and therefore the judgement in terms of the preannexation zoning and the zoning when reading the staff report and the land uses called for in the development agreements were basically the same land uses allowed in Palm Desert ' s zoning. They litigated and in order to settle that litigation and in terms of Palm Desert ' s chances in the courts in terms of that litigation, they obviously felt their chances were very good. Staff felt Palm Desert' s chances were very good; however, in order to solve the problem, there was a situation where timing was important and the land uses discussed were not of concern. The issue of where the traffic signals were going to be the property owners fought out with the county and they wanted those assurances . He said that if there was a hidden agenda, the agenda was not well hidden--it was very clear. To bring the property into the city as quickly as possible and to give "" the people the development rights they had. Precise plan hearings would be held for every development going in. The uses there were similar to other development agreements with Ahmanson and in those instances, there were no joint meetings with city council, yet commission had more time to go through them. Commission made its recommendations and then they went through the development process with those properties . With the Wilmot proposal, which was the second one they went through, there were public hearings after the development agreements . He understood commission' s concern and if he was on their side of the microphone he would have questions . He appreciated the commission' s confidence in staff and staff would try not to have this happen again. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he appreciated the insight and it was the kind of thing he would want to discuss at a study session, but as far as those specific parcels and agreements, that had been voted on and was history. He felt Commissioner White' s comments and his personal comments under the comment section were of a generic nature and was simply that he felt the city' s desire was to work in harmony with council and staff . In the future the key phrase was direction. If council wanted commission to take an independent, critical, objective look at a development 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1 , 1992 rf agreement, they should let them know. If that wasn' t what they wanted and if they said it was a done deal and staff looked at it, counsel looked at it, and city council looked at it and it just needed to go through the process, just let the commission know. When it came to them at the last minute and was a complicated matter and they were on the outside, he did not know what the council wanted. He could not get involved to the point where he could say they were good agreements and he understood the goals and objectives and they were being accomplished. Mr. Diaz said that city council wanted commission' s comments, critical or otherwise. He apologized that commission did not have enough time for these agreements, but stated that all developments for this area would be back before the commission for public hearing. XI . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner White, adjourning the meeting to December 15, 1992 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0 . The meeting was adjour d at 8 : 04 p.m. RAM N A. DIAZ, ecotary ATTEST: ROBERT A. SPIEGE , n Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm wo 16