Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0316 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - MARCH 16, 1993 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE r.,, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * � * * �r * 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 Paul Beaty Diane Cox Sabby Jonathan Carol Whitlock Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ray Diaz Bob Hargreaves Phil Drell Jeff Winklepleck Joe Gaugush Tonya Monroe �`■' IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the March 2, 1993 meeting minutes . Commissioner Jonathan corrected the vote on page 5 to reflect his no vote on approval of the findings for Case No. 4060 SA. Action: Moved by Commissioner Cox, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the March 2 , 1993 meeting minutes as amended. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Beaty abstained} . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent March 11 city council actions . VI . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. TT 24866 - SOUTHWEST PARTNERS, Applicant Request for approval of an eighteen month time extension to allow four homesites and open space on 8 . 24 acres located on the west side of the Palm Valley Storm Channel across from � Sommerset Condominiums . MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1993 In accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, staff recommended � approval of a one year extension. B. Case No. PMW 93-2 - ROBERT B. VARNER, Applicant Request for approval of a lot line adjustment for lots 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 of Tract 23940-1, located on Harrison Drive. 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 Nos . GPA 92-1, C/Z 92-5, PP 92-8, PM 27634 - GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Applicant Request for approval of a general plan amendment from medium density residential to planned district commercial, change of zone from PR-7 to � PC-2, precise plan, parcel map, and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for a 304,422 square foot retail commercial center on 39 acres at the northeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive. Mr. Diaz noted that a letter to the commission had been ' received from Mr. Gatlin; there was some confusion regarding the Silkwood Homeowners Association voting in recommendation of the project that did not occur. He said that the letter from Mr. Gatlin should be removed and was not part of the record. Everyone who was involved in the letter was present and could address the matter. Mr. Drell noted that there was an extensive presentation and testimony at the last hearing. The main purpose of the continued hearing was to take any additional new testimony and for staff and the developer to respond to the comments and questions from the last hearing. He said that new correspondence and a petition had been received predominately in opposition to the project. Today, he received additional correspondence in opposition. At the meeting a petition was 2 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 `�"' received from residents of Suncrest Country Club with more signatures in opposition to the project. He noted that one letter was a request from the Friends of the Environment for a count of the correspondence. He said that staff did not provide the commission with the count; the correspondence was before them and the purpose of the correspondence was not an election or referendum process, but an information process . Commission received all the correspondence and petitions--if anyone wanted to count them, they were welcome to. He indicated that one of the primary issues brought up at the last meeting had to do with the environmental review process . He provided commission with a section of the CEQA guidelines relating to negative declarations . He read the one he felt pertained to this project: "The initial study identified potentially significant effects, but revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before proposed negative declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur and there was no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. " Then a negative declaration shall be prepared. He said the purpose of the environmental review process or an EIR was to provide the commission with information. The """ question in this case was whether the commission had sufficient information to make a decision. If commission did not feel there was sufficient information and more was needed, that request could be made as part of an order to have an environmental impact report prepared. Staff ' s position was that the traffic report for this project was equal to or in excess of any staff had seen for any EIR that had been prepared for any project in this valley. The noise study was a standard EIR noise study--those were the two principal impacts of this project. Regarding the biological impacts--this project happened to be in an area where there was already a mitigation program for the complete destruction of the natural habitat. He said the question was, what additional information or factual evidence was presented that led the commission to believe that there was not sufficient information to make a decision. If more information was needed, an EIR could be requested. In the correspondence received, one letter was from Mr. Vernon Baumgardener. The first point was that there could be no appreciable new taxes generated from the building of the Walmart center or any other facility until the time when the local population expanded to the point where there were enough new people to traffic the stores and create a stable buying base, otherwise no new taxes would result from business, it would simply be Wr.. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1993 siphoned off from existing businesses presently suffering � which included Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage and La Quinta merchants . Mr. Drell stated that staff would agree to a certain extent with this statement. Just the fact that a new store existed, did that mean people would go shopping when they would not normally go shopping. While this might argue for the impact of the center on the city's revenue base, it also argued that in essence, no new shopping trips would be created. People driving to La Quinta or Cathedral City to Walmart, Target, PACE or Price Club, a certain percentage would instead drive to this center. From a regional point of view, it was possible that the same number of trips would occur, but to a different location. That was good news for regional traffic and air quality. If trips, instead of going to La Quinta or Cathedral City which were ten miles away, went only two miles away it would result in the same number of trips, but a shorter distance. The overall impact on air quality would be negligible. Impact on air quality relative to PM10, which was the main area in which the valley was out of compliance with federal air quality standards, PM10 was the very fine dust particles . PM10 would be reduced by the project because the ground would be paved. This proposal could be divided into two issues : one was a general issue of was this site regardless of what went on it, regardless of the design or who the merchandisers were--Walmart, Niemann � Marcus, or Bullocks--was this site acceptable for a 304 , 000 square foot shopping center. That was a purely land use decision. There wouldn' t have to be volumes of technical data to make that decision. He said that what the majority of the public had spoken to was the simple concept of was the site appropriate for a project of this size. If the commission believed that given the right project, design, and mitigation that a 304,000 square foot shopping center was appropriate, then the commission could then go into the details of this particular project. He said that if the commission decided the information before them on traffic, noise, crime, lighting was sufficient, then they could make a decision and an environmental impact report was not necessary. Relative to the traffic and the traffic study, he sid the traffic consultant was present and would attempt to explain his methodology and what was used to reach the conclusions he reached. In summary, he felt there was some misunderstanding--the report acknowledged an increase in the volume of traffic both from this project and the 56 other projects reviewed. Some had environmental impacts done; some were in the city of Rancho Mirage. The traffic report proposed mitigations that would result in levels of service which meant the delay one would encounter when reaching a 4 '� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1.9 9 3 '"�' particular intersection--those delays after project completion with the traffic improvements would be less than they were presently. The traffic consultant could explain the methodology and the methodology used in the report was considered the most widely accepted, rigorous of inethod for predicting traffic for the future. Any future prediction was subject to question and all EIRs and traffic studies were a subject of controversy. People would always argue about the future. He said what was important was that this particular traffic study, whether part of an EIR or as presented, would be the same. The recommendations and mitigation measures would be the same. In terms of traffic, he added the following condition: "The developer/owner would submit for approval an employee trip reduction plan designed to meet the city' s ordinance goal of 1 . 3 persons per commuter trip. " In this case it cold be achieved through the encouragement of various ridesharing programs, use of transit, etc . In response to the questions about the impact of late night delivery trucks--the noise consultant looked at the situation of the noise being generated by idling semi-trailer combination truck with refrigeration units and based on the attenuation that the noise mitigation created by the berm in that noise was fairly lineal when it traveled and did not go around things easily, the noise barrier created behind the "''' supermarket and the Walmart--the berm exceeded the height of what the truck/trailer would be and the conclusion was that the impacts of the noises would be well within the residential standards or below. In terms of lighting, the city had a lighting ordinance which restricted spillover from project lighting to . 1 of a footcandle, which was something less than a full moon. Every project would have to include an engineered computer lightinq study which indicated how light would fall on the ground. The city also required as part of the dark sky ordinance the use of low pressure sodium which would further eliminate the halo or glow in the parking lot. He used Price Club/Home Base as an example of not seeing lighting around the buildings, but Zighting in the parking lot. He said that the traffic consultant could address any questions on his study. Commissioner Cox noted that at the last meeting when talking about the berm, Mr. Befeld from Suncrest Country Club said that the berm did not go all the way around the project. Mr. Drell indicated that there was a portion where it approached Monterey, the area was a CVWD well site. That was where the individual shops would be at a greater distance away. Commissioner Cox asked if there was a berm along that property even though there was an expanse of property that ... 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 was not Walmart on the east side of the development going r down Country Club before Suncrest. Mr. Drell replied no. The parking lot was depressed with a slope, providing a grade difference, as well as a line of oleanders 15 feet tall along the east property line. The oleanders provided the screening in that location. Chairman Spiegel noted that Mr. Drell indicated that with the proposed improvements at the corner of Monterey and Country Club Drive that the traffic would move in a better fashion than it did today with the addition of the shopping center. Mr. Drell sa.id that was correct. Chairman Spiegel asked if Palm Desert, along with Rancho Mirage since 50$ was their responsibility, if they were to do the identical improvements, would the traffic flow better. Mr. Drell replied yes . Chairman Spiegei reminded the commission and audience that a lot of testimony had already been heard and while the commission would listen to anyone and everyone that wanted to speak to them, if the comments had already been made, they did not need to be repeated. He asked that the testimony not be repetitious but they would be there as late as was needed. He o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to ; address the commission. ,� MR. FRANK GATLIN, Gatlin Development, asked permission to address the commission after public testimony was taken. Chairman Spiegel stated that would be acceptable. Chairman Spiegel asked if anyone wished to address the commission with additional testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. MR. KEN GLASSMAN, President of the Friends of the Environment, Palm Springs . He read a copy of letters sent to Mr. Bill Fields, President of Waimart, and to Mr. Dennis Eck, President of Von' s, which was from Friends of the Environment dated March 5, 1993 (see Exhibit A attachment) . He said that the discussion this evening was not really for the commission to decide between the economics of the project versus the environmental impacts of the project. He felt the issue was about people--people who wanted to protect and preserve their neighborhood and the issues of proper planning and land use within the spirit and intent of the guidelines of the General Plan of the City of Palm Desert. He said there were some skeptics that would ; F 6 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 '"' argue that if this corner was not developed commercial, it would never be developed residential . He felt that argument was not valid and noted there were numerous quality residential developments on major thoroughfares throughout the valley. Friends of the Environment suggested that it was difficult to present findings to support the zone change and general plan amendments : 1 ) the architectural review board gave its approval only on design and appearance to city s�andards--this was not a compelling reason for a zone change; 2 ) the economic commission gave its approval; however, any economic commission or chamber of commerce for almost any city in the valley would almost always support additional business--he did not feel this was a compelling reason for a zone change; 3) the developer proposed to correct current and future traffic impacts by increasing lanes and installing lights, striping and internal signing-- any project was required to pay fees and additional exactions were required to mitigate concerns and was not a compelling reason for a zone change; 4) the proposed project was 302, 000 square feet with 1, 800 parking spaces which staff designated as a neighborhood convenience center--pursuant to the general plan this size exceeded both the intent and the spirit of the PC-2 ""' zone standards; in addition, there was no shortage of current or proposed commercial and retail facilities in the immediate area of Monterey and Country Club to serve the needs of the residents . He felt the following were compelling reasons to deny the zone change: 1) the project would attract 20, 000 additional car trips daily to the intersection of Monterey and Country Club and almost three times as many by the year 2000; 2 ) the proposed project would reduce residential property values in the neighborhood; 3) the project would cause an increase in crime, accidents, and vandalism simply by bringing more people to that area; 4 ) the project would increase noise levels to nearby residents that could not be mitigated to the satisfaction of all parties concerned; 5) the overwhelming majority of residents in the neighborhood did not want this project in their neighborhood and did not want the property rezoned. He said that yesterday a staff inember appeared on television and stated that "the developer had agreed to every request made by the city" . He indicated that the City of Palm Desert was the people sitting the audience today, the people living in their homes in Monterey Country Club and the one request they asked for had not been agreed to by the developer--that request was don ' t � 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1993 build this project in their neighborhood. He asked the ,� commission to listen to the people of Palm Desert. MR. RON WILCOX, 77 Lake Shore Drive, said that he addressed the commission at their last meeting and felt the comments just made represented the majority of the feelings in their community. He stated that he was the president of the Lake Mirage Homeowners Association. They had been taking a formal survey over the last month--there had been two homeowners association meetings and had yet to receive one negative comment or one comment in favor of this project from the entire homeowners association. That was approximately 500 people--there were 238 units . He noted that the chairman' s position at the last meeting was that with Cook Street coming in and that new project there, there was a number of office spaces available in Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage that were yet to be used. Mr. Wilcox requested that commission consider that in their deliberations . He asked commission to consider the emotional side of the issue. When the developers left after the project was done, the local people would live with the remains . He felt the project would be a problem for Lake Mirage because they had no golf course, limited tennis facilities, but what they had to sell was � a lake and ambiance. That ambiance was a quiet solitude and location. That would be erased and the project would greatly effect their property values . When someone came to their community they were looking for the ambiance of the lake and the solitude of the lake. The residents could already hear the traffic from Monterey and Country Club. He said he could not imagine that they would not hear 20,000 cars per day or in the evening when the facilities would be open. They would serve alcohol, be open late at night, some were restaurants, and there would be some problem domestically in that area as far as criminal activity, whether it was from disturbing the peace or vehicle problems . He said that the majority of the homeowners surveyed didn' t shop at Walmart--he said that only one or two percent at the meeting that he asked said they did. He asked the commission how often they had been to a Walmart and if they had been once or twice, would they be willing to go another five miles and drive out of the area so that it wouldn't be in Palm Desert . He said that for the residents of Lake Mirage, the answer to that question was yes . He said that planning commission ' s decision would effect Lake Mirage more than 8 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 """ any other community in the area because they were the only ones that had ambiance to sell . MS . ANN GOLDMAN, 40-355 Sugar Bush Court in Sagewood, said that she was speaking as an individual homeowner of Sagewood and not on behalf of the Silktree Homeowners Association Board. She said that she was at the meeting for many reasons : 1) she was concerned about the safety of her children and of the elderly that would be exposed to the increased traffic of cars and people in an already overly congested intersection at Monterey and Country Club Drive; 2) she was concerned as a homeowner about the future property value of her home that was her family' s number 1 investment; 3) she was concerned about the desert ' s environment from protecting the earth from further polluting it--from noise pollution to fuel pollution to the destruction of yet another desert landscape; 4 ) she was very concerned about the short and long term planning of Palm Desert as it directly and indirectly effected the quality of life that they had grown to enjoy in Palm Desert. She said she was present to voice her opposition to the re-zoning of the property on the northeast corner of Monterey and Country Club Drive. 5he stated that she was not alone--it was the ""' voice of many other Sagewood homeowners who needed to be heard. She indicated that she had a petition signed by 27 homeowners in Sagewood who also opposed the re-zoning applications and the commission may have already received letters from many of the homeowners . When she was getting signatures on the petition, some residents asked if what they felt really mattered and she told them yes it did. She hoped the commission would listen to them and hear their opposition to the re-zoning issue and noted there was an abundance of commercial property in Palm Desert and this project was not needed. While Gatlin Development ' s project looked and sounded nice, the reality was that it would be more noise, pollution, more traffic and no amount of money from Gatlin could mitigate the negative impact on their neighborhood and could not mitigate the quality of life. MR. PAUL MURPHY, First Vice President for the Foundation for the Retarded of the Desert, across the street from this project and a property owner in Sandpiper condominium project. He said that he also owned two large shopping centers in Portland, Oregon, and was a developer of commercial properties and was part of a family that had developed projects throughout the .r. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 northwest since 1916 . He indicated that he was not ,,� anti-growth, but was appearing before the commission representing the Foundation and himself as a property owner. He also served 4 1/2 years as a planning commissioner and understood proper zoning and planning and the proper method of amending or upholding a comprehensive plan. He was also aware of the time and energy that the commission donated to the city and the pressure put on them. In his opinion the proposal was not supportive in any way of the existing comprehensive plan. He believed this was an example of spot zoning and no matter how much money was spent, the traffic problem would not be able to be mitigated. They believed this project would create a serious and hazardous condition for the developmentally disabled clients of the Foundation. The proposal would take residential land and rezone it commercial in a city and � area that was considered to have enough commercial development at the present time to last into the next century. It was his opinion that this proposal would necessitate the increase to the present police staff and other services and even though the applicant would spend a considerable amount of up-front money to entice the City of Palm Desert to approve the proposal, it would be the tax payers in Palm Desert who in the long run would „r pay for the increased services . The applicant would tell the commission they would bring substantial revenue, however this had not proven to be the case in most areas of the country. He said they "chew up and spit out small local business, which was the back bone of any community and provided many good paying jobs with quality benefits" . He felt this had not been the history of this applicant. The end result in communities had been that the increased revenue had been offset by the reduction in already existing revenues from local businesses which ceased to exist. The approval of this project would be socially irresponsible and if approved would be very damaging to the Foundation for the Retarded, particularly since they were embarking on their assisted living program. He felt the only beneficiary to this proposal was the property owner. He urged that the commission deny the project . MR. ERNIE MIEHLE, 39-740 Tandika Trail in Avondale Golf Club, stated that in last Sunday' s L.A. Times under Policy entitled, "Dateline Sacramento - Laws Aimed to Halt City' s Use of Redevelopment Funds to Aid Big Firms" . He said that the reference specifically in the 10 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 '� item was to Walmart. Walmart offered an array of incentives, land write-downs, zoning concessions, and other municipal goodies to entice the Arkansas based company to pick one community over another. Today there were 43 Walmart stores in the state. "We really don' t try to play cities against each other, said Troy Baker, spokesman for the Bentonville Arkansas firm, but negotiating land costs, taxes and other things, the cities reduces the cost of inerchandise to our customers . " He did not buy that. He said that Superintendent of Education Marian Burgeson recently introduced SB 732 that would prohibit communities from using state funds to recruit retail companies that already planned to move to the state, but hadn' t decided where. The Burgeson Bill was also aimed at prohibiting cities from using redevelopment funds to help relocate firms from one part of a state to another in recruiting developers from neighboring communities . He asked the city attorney if there was a quid pro quo to entice the Walmart company through any means to locate in Palm Desert. If that was the case, he asked for the details . Mr. Diaz said that he would answer that question: not one cent of redevelopment money or city general fund money was "" being spent or being given to Walmart. The entire cost of this particular project was being born by the developer and property owner. Mr. Miehle stated that he heard tonight from Mr. Drell that more was less . More traffic, automobiles, and trips was less traffic congestion. He said they were led to believe that the addition of a Walmart store and revenues generated thereby would add substantially to the tax coffers of the City of Palm Desert, without affecting those revenues that the city has no effect at all because the retail businesses at the Town Center would not be effected by the addition of a Walmart store. He said they knew that Walmart ' s pricing was better and was well-known for private labelling house brands, which were not to be found at the Town Center. I f this was true and the prices were lower, then the taxes on the lower retail prices would result in a substantial reduction of revenues to the City of Palm Desert. The city would trade something for something the city already has--economically that would not make sense. He said that he has been to two Walmart stores-- the one in Cathedral City and the one in La Quinta, to satisfy his curiosity. He said that Walmart was not a ... 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 place he would do a lot of shopping at and lived in an � area that was relatively affluent and if they were attracted to the bargains offered at the Walmart store, they had a perfect vehicle through the College of the Desert Street Faire every Saturday and Sunday and got great prices without even paying sales taxes some of the time. If the merchants in Palm Desert took umbrage with the merchants at the College of the Desert Faire because it was depriving them of some of the business they might ordinarily have generated, the City of Palm Desert in their infinite wisdom compromised to make certain that the hours were shortened, that the type of inerchandise being offered at the College of the Desert Swap Meet was not competitive to that being offered by the merchants that might be adversely affected by low prices and no sales tax. He asked the commission in good conscience to consider what he mentioned. He did not feel that the city would get much for their dollars and the residents would not get anything at all . MS . SANDY ROBINSON, McLachlin Circle in Avondale. She said that she spoke at the last meeting on behalf of herself and some of her neighbors in support of this project because she believed more sources of tax revenue in the city were needed. She stated that: 1) a few days � ago the newspaper reported that because of that scam artist investment advisor Stephen Weimer, Palm Desert was facing a loss of $12 . 3 million, over half the city' s reserve funds--she knew this alone was not a reason to approve this project, but it pointed out that the city needed long-term sources of revenue like this project to remain financially sound and for that reason she urged the commission to approve the zone change; 2 ) she believed there was a great majority of retired residents that could benefit from the affordable shopping and restaurants planned for this project. She could not afford to shop only at E1 Paseo and the Town Center Mall and did not like to have to drive miles outside of town to find consumer-oriented shopping. She urged that the commission consider the benefits to the residents at large and not be swayed by a few well-healed retailers who wanted to keep their monopoly by telling the commission that they liked the project, but someplace else. She did not want it someplace else--she was tired of driving someplace else and she and her neighbors were creating a lot of unnecessary traffic driving to someplace else and she urged the commission to ignore ; the someplace else arguments; 3) she could understand � 12 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 � that people could get emotionally upset about this project because she did when she first heard about it . When she calmed down and learned all the facts she became a supporter of the project. She urged the commission to consider that many Palm Desert residents if they would calm down and learn the details of this development would support the project and did not feel the city was betraying anyone by approving this project. She believed that this project was in favor of the great majority of Palm Desert citizens . MR. JACK HARRINGTON, speaking on behalf of the Sagewood Board of Directors . He said that the developer had made various presentations : one to the board in November and two were made available to all the Sagewood homeowners-- one at their January monthly meeting and one at the Marriott Desert Springs Hotel . He appreciated the developer's efforts in attempting to inform their homeowners . He said that an offer to the Sagewood homeowners was made which included a gate and fund for improvements and maintenance, among other things . While they acknowledged this offer, more neqotiations might be necessary. Because a new board was recently installed, they were unable to take a position at this time. Many "" parts of the proposal made by the developer would require a majority vote of the homeowners . The logistics and time constraints of this meeting and other meetings did not afford them the time for the board and homeowners to make a decision. He appreciated the developer' s offer and trusted that if the planning commission and/or city council approved this project, as a condition of the approval the developer would be required to live up to any promises or offers made that had been accepted. MR. B.F. WALLY, full-time resident of Suncrest Country Club, stated that he mailed a letter in on February 27 in support of the project. He wanted to add some comments and indicated that he had some concerns . As a citizen of the community, he was impressed with the presentation and hard work of the developer in trying to come up with a project that was attractive, aesthetically pleasing and through the change in the corner in terms of traffic patterns, mitigate the traffic hassle that presently existed. He also noted that it would increase. He was not convinced that the corner would ever be developed as residential unless it was with governmental subsidies. At some point, whether ..�. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 it was this project or something else, the planning ,� commission would have the task of looking at the general plan and updating it to make it a commercial corner. He said that he was impressed by the fact that the developer in presenting his plans to the planning department indicated a personal investment from that project of $1 .5 to $2 million on road improvements . He felt that was significant. The planning department supported the view that while there would be an increase in traffic, it would not impact their area as much as a project normally would. The engineers studied it and determined the impact would not be too great. They studied noise and it would not impact the surrounding area except by just a slight amount . He believed they had studied this and were not just saying it. He was under the assumption that this project when completed would provide tax dollars to the city. He was a citizen of a city or an area, not just Suncrest. He said he was interested in what happened in the whole city and his background had been in youth development. If additional tax dollars could be made available to improve recreational facilities or develop some drug abuse programs for youth and work with gangs that were springing up all over the valley, then it should be considered. He did not feel the commission was selling � out to anyone if the zoning was changed on a master plan. Master plans were to be used as a guidance, not law, and change in environment and in situations would change master plans . He again stated that he was impressed with the developer putting in money and had gone far beyond what was expected of him to mitigate many of the problems . He said that his letter had eight or nine issues in it. The developer came to their area, held a homeowners meeting, and was very open. The developer received the concerns that were available at that meeting and indicated that they would do all they could to mitiqate all the concerns and would come back to them with a plan, whether extending the berm or putting another berm up someplace, they gave every indication they would try to meet those needs . He did not feel a project of this nature would hurt his property values, noting that they were going down now and perhaps would increase in the future and hoped the tax dollars would grow in the future to provide greater and more effective community service, especially in line with the state funding of cities today. He wanted the commission to know that he was concerned about the objections for issues like noise, lighting, garbage 14 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 �"�' pickup, use of trucks in and out, and the berms--he said if the commission approved the project, he would like to see that a pre-agreement with the contractor in the redesign before they begin construction, that they do take into consideration and work with them on mitigating those problems . He said that he was basically for the project, but would not be for it if he did not feel there was some legal responsibility of the builder to carry through with his promises of listening to them and getting their individual problems and solving them. MR. BURT ENDRES, 81-835 Crown Way in Indio. He felt Walmart had already pitted city against city in the Coachella Valley and they won in two cases already. Cathedral City gave them a couple million dollars as incentives to build and La Quinta gave them a couple million dollars to build. Palm Desert said no free ride, Indio said no free ride and Indio had much worse economic conditions than Palm Desert and could use those extra revenues . The truth was that Walmart would not bring in any extra tax revenues--they would only divide the existing pie and with Walmart already on both sides of the valley they had lost that drawing power towards Palm Desert and would cut into the existing businesses . "�`" He cited a couple of studies that had been prepared on the effects on towns in Iowa that the Professor of Economics, Kenneth E. Stone, Iowa State University, and another one done by a student in Iowa, as well as several newspaper articles . All were on the negative effect Walmart has had on small towns across America . Chairman Spiegel noted that copies of those reports had been given to the commission. Mr. Endres said that he shared many of the concerns that the community had already presented and realized that the city and developer were working hard to mitigate the concerns, but his concern was economic impacts . He asked how the economic impact could be mitigated; how could the tax revenues be replaced that the small businesses would lose; and about the retail clerks whose hours would be cut and which he was one of--he said that he happened to earn a wage and had a benefit package they worked many years to achieve. He supported this local economy and paid his taxes, was a homeowner and paid property taxes and his benefits enabled him to support doctors, opticians, pharmacists, hospitals and what the city would replace that with in adding Walmart � 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 was basically low wage employees with no benefits and „� part-time hours . He hoped the commission would take those issues into consideration before approving the project and did not feel there was any benefit from the project for the residents of Palm Desert or the businesses of Palm Desert. The only ones who stood to gain were the developer and Walmart--he did not feel that if the project was denied that it would break the developer or Walmart. MS . ARLENE HONEYCUTT, 165 Lake Shore Drive in Rancho Mirage, reminded the commission that Gatlin Developments representative at the last meeting in his presentation stated that the reason that Walmart was choosing to ask the council to rezone the property from residential to commercial was that they did not want to locate on Highway 111 because the cost of commercial property was too high and the bottom line would not be good for their company--they did not want to go to I-10 because they would be too close to their store in Cathedral City. It was much more appropriate and income producing for them to go to Country Club Drive, ask for a rezone and purchase residential land at half price and go wholesale and charge retail to the customers . She felt that was a betrayal to the people paying commercial prices at the � Town Center and every other commercial area in Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage. She felt it was also a betrayal to the residents who bought residential property and were hoping to maintain residential values . She stated that the motive was not community service, was not to care about the community, but was the dollar. MS. MOLLY SCHECTER, 40-127 Sagewood Drive. She said that she did not want that corner commercially developed because she did not want that development in her neighborhood. She felt the sphere of influence was not just at the corner of Monterey and Country Club, but should exist throughout Palm Desert. She admitted that she shopped at Walmart, but was willing to drive eight miies to get there. She did not mind saving money and would go to Cathedral City or La Quinta to get a bargain, but did not want this project in her backyard because of the other things the project would bring with it. She said that she worked in Cathedral City and � drove by Walmart that day--she did not like the graffiti she saw outside of Walmart and knew that graffiti would be on their corner also. When looking at what was happening in the valley in the last couple of years, 16 '� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 26 , 1993 �' there was a big infiuence of gangs and violence and negative things . She moved to the valley 17 years ago from Los Angeles and moved here to get away from that kind of influence and saw all of that creeping into their community and the way they got those kinds of things here was in taking nice residential areas and turning them into money-making commercial developed areas . She did not want that on her corner or anywhere in their area, because they had one of the most beautiful places in the valley and did not want to see it ruined. She felt there was a big gang problem here and they would look for a place to hang out--they would hang out at that corner and would create a lot of violence in their area and would create an environment that she did not want her children influenced by. The residents of Sagewood had a lot of young children, as well as retired people. They prided themselves on being able to walk late at night throughout their neighborhood, letting their children play outside their homes and would hate to jeopardize their safety by developing that corner. MS . MARLENE PISOKOFF, 219 Vista Royale Circle West in Desert Falls . She said that she came to protest the "�' Walmart shopping center. She stated that she had watched many areas of this country become overly built and was originally from New York City and had watched cities grow and have economic difficulties throughout the years with high vacancies and buildings that just stood empty after a period time if they became over- built. Although this city could still be considered a half-sleepy town she wondered what the city would be awakened to and was concerned, especially with a company like Walmart. She said that not long ago there was an expose on 60 minutes in terms of the ethical and moral background of this company where they claimed to sell products that were totally American made when the reality was they were piece-mealing it out of the country. They tried to present an image, but she looked beyond the image to the reality and when a company wanted to build three huge warehouse-type operations within the mileage of La Quinta and Cathedral City, they were only going to be dividing up the pie. She said that because of her moral feelings she would never enter a Walmart and was not a wealthy person and did not frequent E1 Paseo and felt this applicant to many of the residents present. She had concerns as to what Palm Desert so�d and what they sold out to. ... 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI stated that he had an architectural � office in Palm Desert for the last 30 years . Some years ago they fought Kmart on the corner of Monterey and Highway 111 because they felt that was not what Palm Desert was about. Walmart was not what Palm Desert was about either. Palm Desert was a destination resort community and was founded on that principal and the regional shopping center that Ernest Hahn brought to Palm Desert reflected that image, and E1 Paseo, which was Palm Desert' s Rodeo Drive, reflected that image. He thought that when the city got away from what they were about, they would get themselves into serious trouble. He remembered several years ago when he had an architectural project on a five acre site at Hovley and Monterey next to Sagewood, it was turned down because it was not the proper thing to have close to Sagewood. He did not see how that thinking was changed. How could they approve a 39 acre site with 1800 cars with over 20, 000 trips per day compared to his little five-acre medical site that would not be used on weekends and would hardly produce the traffic that this project would and the planning commission turned down his project unanimously. He asked why the planning commission would approve this project--the logic behind it escaped him. He noted that in city planning, thoroughfares needed to � be left thoroughfares . Country Club was one of the unique streets that had very little commercial activity on it and it should be left that way so that people could get from Rancho Mirage through Palm Desert to get somewhere. He said that Highway 111 could not be used any more, so that only left the freeway if Country Club was not protected. He felt that Country Club was an interesting name and asked how it was given that name. When looking at Rancho Mirage, they had Thunderbird Country Club on this street, Morningside Country Club, The Springs Country Club, and Sunrise Country Club. Coming into Palm Desert, there was Palm Desert Greens, The Lakes, Desert Falls, Indian Springs, Avondale and Palm Valley Country Club, as well as the Marriott Hotel with two golf courses on it. That was what Country Club was and should remain. Putting in a neighborhood shopping center on it like the Lucky' s store, which was only a 12 acre site, was adequate because it provided the necessary shopping for the immediate neighborhood. Allowing one on Cook and Monterey was good wisdom when the city council decided not to allow the bowling alley or the theaters--it would be a neighborhood shopping center. He felt the Walmart center was not a 18 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 '�"' neighborhood shopping center or a neighborhood facility. They would not be approving a neiqhborhood shopping center, but a regional shopping center that would draw from a large area. The boundaries drawn by Walmart he felt were too short--they could be expanded to easily encompass Palm Desert. By putting the third store in, Walmart was saying they wanted all of the business, not just some of it. In doing so they would kill El Paseo, the Town Center and all the commercial around the Town Center and it was the city' s job to protect that. The Walmart store from a traffic standpoint was a disaster. He felt the Walmart store belonged out by the freeway where people could get to it easily and effortlessly and where other low price stores already were--that was where it belonged. They said they did not want to go there--he felt they wanted to be closer to where people live so they could be the first one someone would have to drive by in Palm Desert because Walmart wanted all the business . That was not fair, it was not good traffic flow, was spot zoning, and would totally destroy Country Club Drive. It would impact Palm Desert terribly and Rancho Mirage and did not belong on that site. The only place it belonged was on the freeway. He hoped the commission would see that and vote no. He """' said that good planning years ago would not allow Kmart and that same logical thinking applied today. MS . BARBARA PRUSINOWSKI , 40-311 Sagewood in Palm Desert . She stated that she was present because she was on the original board of directors when the Gatlin Company made their presentation to them. She was also present because she was a vocal opponent to the project Gatlin wanted to put in. Since that time after talking with them and reviewing the proposal and the development they wanted to build, she had changed her opinion about what they wanted to put in on that corner. She said that she found it the Iesser of two evils because if the zoning was not changed, that meant the zoning would be left residential . In the residential zoning it could be multi-purpose family units . Her fear was that the city would propose low income government subsidized housing that they would have no control over because they could not oppose what went in on a residential-zoned site. She said that she wanted people to think about that-- this project they had a voice over and an option to say yes or no, but might not have an option depending on the kind of residential property they wanted to put in. � 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 MR. CHARLES CARRONE, a resident of Desert Falls , stated ,� that he was against the project that was going to be built on Cook and Country Club. The majority of people assembled that night were against the re-zoning of the five acres besides the theater, but the Mayor and Council voted to rezone the five acres . He asked where the responsibility rested within Palm Desert . If they didn' t have the rezoning of the five acres , the developer could have had his commercial lot and would have kept the project on a small scale. They promised that a theater would not be built, but he did not believe that--he thought the whole thing was cut and dry and they got sold down the river. The project got in there and there would be stores . Chairman Spiegel asked Mr. Carrone to address the specific project that was before them. Mr. Carrone replied that he was--that this was the connection. He said that this "monstrosity" would take away the business that was going to be built at Country Club and Cook. There would be a lot of empty stores . He indicated that he retired in the city and wanted to enjoy his life and not the environment this project , would bring in and the criminal aspect of it . He felt ,�rj the newspapers were trying to squash this because they relied on the "snowbirds" and if this got out and they lost their business Palm Desert would be a ghost town. He said it was true that more and more people were coming into Palm Desert to retire and more people were staying all year, but the snowbirds were still needed that come in during the winter. He felt that was Palm Desert ' s bread and butter and by building these "monstrosities" the criminal element would be brought into Palm Desert and that would keep the visitors away. He said that he was sorry he moved here and was thinking of leaving and moving to Arizona. MR. LEONARD SILTANNEN, Unit No. 45 in Suncrest Country Club, stated that he lived in Palos Verdes near the top of the hill and had to move away because a commercial store came into the neighborhood about an eighth of a mile away. He couldn't stand the noise and kids would come in there and hang around, the police would chase them out, and they would come in with their radios and hang around and again the police would chase them out-- this would go on and on. He did not know what it was like now because they moved--they could not stand it. 20 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 '"" He said that he looked at the last staff report and the Endo Engineering Report, particularly as it regarded noise. He said the Endo Report needed some good going over by the engineering staff--the numbers in there and the way the data was presented did not take into account the human ear which did not hear in a linear fashion. Very law frequencies come in loudly as well as very high frequencies to an ear. The report mentioned exhaust noise from truck traffic and automobile traffic--it did not mention a truck being out in the middle of the night to pick up a dumpster and drop it. It talked about intermittent noise and brushed it off. It did not take much intermittent noise to wake up a neiqhborhood. That should be reviewed--the real practical facts of life. The repor� talked about unlikely perceived noise--trucks that were not dropping dumpsters, backing into things-- it also said there were no refrigeration trucks coming into the project. He called the Walmart in Cathedral City and asked them if they carried ice for sale--they said yes--it had to get there in a refrigerated truck. That was something that was not quite true. The report talked about deliveries being at a noise level of 70 db, which was equivalent to traffic 100 teet away or a vacuum sweeper ten feet away. He asked how the `""' commission would like to try and sleep with that kind of noise and asked that they consider all of these issues . MR. STEVE FLEISHMAN, resident of Rancho Mirage at 71-314 Halgar and was a businessman in Palm Desert, stated that he would like to lend a shopping center owner' s point of view and stated that his background was marketing and his business was center association marketing where he went to different business centers and proposed directories . What he had observed between La Quinta and Cathedral City was a massive amount of vacancies within each shopping center. In the center across the street from this area was approximately six vacancies--at the Indian Wells Center Village I about a dozen, and across the street the same thing. There was a new center going in at Cook and Country Club with lots of spaces . He did not feel another new center was needed at this time with all of the vacancies that were presently being seen. MR. JIM PARTAIN, 40-120 Sagewood, noted that a lot of things had been said, some true and some not, but the bottom line for them was that they were at a level of quality of life and for them that was the question they s.• 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMTSSION MARCH 16, 1993 would like the commission to vote on--would this project � improve the quality of their life in that area. MS . MARIE BEFELD, Suncrest Country Club, stated that the developer indicated that the project would only draw customers from within a three-mile radius, but 1800 parking spaces were enough for a regional center. She said that perhaps a reduction in the parking and/or the square footage of the center would result in a development more in scale with the neighborhood. The comment made earlier that no ane would want to live on the corner of a busy intersection was totally incorrect- -she could think of three communities located on busy intersections : one was The Springs at Bob Hope and Country Club, the other two were Desert Falls and The Lakes, both on the corners of Cook and Country Club. MS . MOLLY JACOBSON, 6 Lake Shore Drive in Lake Mirage, stated that she had Iived in the area four years full- time. At that time it was easy to go about the business of everyday errands . Since she had lived here there had been a stop sign placed in front of their development because of the increased traffic. Also, to get to Lucky' s which was across from the proposal, it was � almost impossible to get out of there in less than 15 ,��, minutes because of the barriers that were installed because of increased traffic on Country Club. Now they had to go aut to the Monterey exit which she feZt was a big inconvenience. Putting this shopping center across the street seemed ludicrous to her in a neighborhood where they were building $2 and $3 million homes . She felt it did not belong in this location and hoped the commission would deny the project. MRS . BEVERLY VORWALLER, 72-445 Cholla Drive, which was the neighborhood behind the DSL project . She said that after reviewing the Walmart project, she would personally love to see a store come in where she could take her children and not to have to load and unload them to go to several different stores to get all the things she needed at a reasonable price. There was nothing in Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage or Indian Wells where she could get diapers, formula, and aIl the necessities needed for little children at a reasonable price. Every can of formula had a 50 cent mark up at Von ' s and it went up from there at Thrifty' s or 5av-On. She said it was worth it to her to drive to La Quinta or Cathedral City, but would prefer to have something in ; 22 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 '�' town where she lives . Since living behind the DSL project, she knew that a developer could mitigate the damages--they had gone through the lighting, smells , noise, and just about everything that could be asked for and did not know how Gatlin DeveZopment was, but they had to be comparable if the city staff would approve it, and they sat down with city staff many times to make sure the residents were happy and a development could still be built. She did not think the price of homes were protected by the surrounding homes--when doing a comparable survey in real estate, they looked at the location and the homes around it, but did not think it was detracted as much from commercial developments surrounding the homes, especially if the commercial development was nicely done. The DSL project with the natural landscaping looked great on the artist renderings, but didn' t look nearly the same now--she wished it looked closer to the renderings . She said that she would like to be able to park in the shade. She noted that a lot of comments had been made as to the kind of people who shop at these kinds of stores; she was college educated and looked for the best value for her dollar like most people, and even though she wasn' t retired, she felt it was a put down to them that tried """ to get the best value for their money and on things other than real estate as major investments . She hoped to gain the money in the future to do that and even though it seemed the wrong place for others to shop, not everyone could shop on E1 Paseo and not everyone wanted to shop at the mall all the time. It was too expensive. She felt the project would create a lot of jobs in the community and a lot of different shopping ventures for residents who had to drive out of town to shop. She said it was ridiculous for a town of 20, 000 or more residents not to have a general merchandising store. MR. GERHARD BEFELD, owner of Suncrest Country Club, stated that while he was not totally opposed to the project, he still had major problems with the attempts at mitigation. All of the new data such as the Endo Engineering Sound Study and the Gatlin Responses acted as i f the berm was continuous . He said there was no reason the berm could not be continuous on the back because the water district property did not have to be located there--it had to be located somewhere on the property. If they wanted to, they could mitigate the entire back area in addition to the area along the driving range--they stopped half way down and the berm rn. 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 could be continued if they chose to do it. He believed � there were many valid concerns such as street people going through the dumpsters and living in the heaving landscaping in the berm, location of the loading docks and dumpsters, hours of truck access, and other issues had been glossed over. Some of the problems would not be truly visible until the project was built . He felt the only fair way to deal with such major unknowns was to stick with the original proposal of providing a residential buffer for existing residential areas . If the developer could not sell his lots, he would mitigate the problems until they did sell . In this way, people who thought their neighbors would be residential have that and those buying into a new situation would be aware of what was there. MR. MURDOCK JOHNSON, 168 Gran Via in Monterey Country Club, asked who needed this project. He said that the general consensus of opinion was that this project was not needed, certainly not now. There was a feeling throughout the group that this matter had already been settled by the commission and pointed out that they had a fiduciary responsibility to the citizens of the city ; and people expected that to be exercised in this regard. � Chairman Spiegel asked if Mr. Gatlin wished to address the commission. MR. FRANK GATLIN stated that the comments by Mr. Befeld were the type of comments he was hoping and expecting to hear from the neighborhood groups and those were things he could solve and he felt they had demonstrated to staff and the community that they had pretty well solved any possible concern they could put in front of them to the best they possibly could. They could berm the rest of the site if that was needed, or a masonry wall if it was preferred with landscaping. They could relocate loading areas if necessary, or trash bins . Those were issues they tried to get from the public to try and work with the community to solve those issues . So far, he felt they had solved 90 percent of them and attempted to address every possible concern that was put in front of them. He said that he had been involved with the construction of 12 or 13 Walmarts in California and had been in front of a lot of groups and listened to many communities and so far they had walked away with good support. If there had been a problem, it was always � that the city had to entice Walmart to get them in. He = 24 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 ""' said that he was not sure if Walmart was moved one mile in another direction that he would gain the support of the groups present, but it sounded like it was more than just the corner--it was Walmart in general . If he was wrong, he said he stoad to be corrected. To correct one comment made, they made the comment that they could not afford the Highway 111 price, and that was true--the property was priced completely out of the market so a development like this could not perform. Every other commercial site such as Price Club and along the I-10 freeway was just one mile and nine-tenths away from the site going north towards the freeway that was already zoned commercial was priced very fairly and could probably be done less than the proposed site, so it was not that the site was so attractive from a price standpoint, in some cases with the mitigation measures it was costing them more, because of all of the design and effort put into it. He asked the question that if this project were moved one mile and nine-tenths on the same road with the same amount of cars, 18,000-20, 000 cars per day, which was trips generated, that meant 9 , 000 cars going in and the same 9 , 000 cars going back out--not 20,000 cars coming into the center at one time. That was 9, 000 trips over an entire period from the time ""' they opened to the time they closed. He said they go in on intersections like this throughout California and had to answer their own question of could they mitigate the problems . A lot of times they found sites that were un- mitigatible, that did not have the proper access, setbacks, or land that would enable street widening and improvements--they had to walk away from those. This particular site was mitigatible. He felt that if the commission had confidence in its staff and the experts that had put in their time and effort, they would agree with him that they went to every effort to mitigate the concerns . He was led to believe that it would be a difficult task to accomplish resolution of the concerns, that they would have to aesthetically da something that had never been done, which they did, and in his opinion designed a masterpiece as far as a shopping center was concerned. He said he felt like he was trying to bring in a Caesar's Palace or a United Gambling Casino in, yet he was trying to bring in a neighborhood-oriented type development to the city with a lot of restaurants , retail users, small shops, dress shops, a grocery store market, and a Walmart store. He disagreed that if Walmart was intending to pull customers from great distances, that they would be putting in a $10 million � 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 investment in the two other stores if they did not feel � it was warranted to have that store there. He said that they built in areas near I-10--in Redlands, Colton, Fontana, San Bernardino and when leaving California and going back 20-30 years, Walmart had been putting in stores and it would be found that wherever there was a pocket to support a store, they would put one in it; sometimes that was two, three or four miles away, sometimes it was 20, 30, or 40 miles away. It depended on the demographics and that was what determined how close stores went, not necessarily distances . He said this project had been carefully studied and a lot of time was spent to determine that it did warrant a store in this spot. He asked if moving it a mile down the road would stop the traffic. The same amount of cars would be going somewhere to shop. They would have to leave Monterey/Country Club and were out there now, but to make it more convenient for the neighborhood and neighbors to come to their development, rather than traveling out. He had heard that Walmart would not generate any new sales tax for the city and disagreed with that--it had been proven in every city and he could submit hundreds of groups including chambers of commerce that would back this information up--that they had positive increases in sales, minimal loss in businesses, � this was no mystery and they could drive to Redlands or Colton; he asked where the stores were that closed. They had the same store that everyone was talking about closing in their centers and across the street from their centers and there had been no great experience of vacancies . He said that Walmart had sharpened the competition, they forced others to compete and that was true, but he asked who the winner was there. As far as sales tax was concerned, there were two sides to a football game--offense and defense. Even if the city wanted to accept that Walmart did not create new sales tax, and even if it did not bring in new jobs, but just displaced jobs, he asked about the defense. People stated that they didn't mind driving five miles, they would drive out of the city limits of Palm Desert to spend their money and they would drive to Walmart in La Quinta and Cathedral City. He said Walmart would not disappear from the Coachella Valley. This was an opportunity for Palm Desert to protect themselves and keep the base that had already been created. To be able to force it to neighboring cities was not the answer. The people told the commission that they go there now and would continue to go there and spend their money. 26 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 "�"' He strongly believed that there would be a negative sales tax increase next year, and that the commission would see it further declining because while not everyone were Walmart customers, a lot were and they would go to a Walmart or another competitor and buy those goods when they could get first class products at the lowest prices available. They would not be able to stop that, but could protect it in Palm Desert. They could produce a product that would produce $700, 000 to $1 million per year in sales tax that if not all new, would keep it in Palm Desert. That money would go to Palm Desert 's police and fire departments and staff, in addition to $300, 000-$400, 000 per year in mitigation fees that were taxes for streets . He felt there were a lot of benefits that Walmart brought into a community: the charity fund raisers where each store manager was in a position to determine where those dollars were spent in their local community. He said that he could supply many letters from different chambers of commerce from cities that had Walmarts that had been open more than one year in California and there would be an overwhelming 99� positive response for the Walmarts . They had relied on staff and the consultants and if the obstacles had been un-mitigatible, he would not have "" proposed a project here. He felt the area, while not zoned commercial, was also not residential--it was seven units per acre, which would be 280 units that could go there. That was not single family residential, it would be apartments or housing that could go in that location. By way of the Lucky' s development at this corner the area had changed--even if Walmart went in down the road, this would still be a commercial thoroughfare. Monterey was a street with heavy traffic and would continue to bring traffic from north and south from the freeway to Highway 111 and there was a mall at one end and Price Club and Home Depot at the other end--there would be traffic up and down that road and this would be an opportunity to keep that sales tax in Palm Desert; they would mitigate traffic problems to handle the traffic going through there in a professional, creative manner. They tried from the beginning to do everything humanly possible from a developer--this by far exceeded any project he had been involved with tenfold. He had never been asked to do some of the things they had been asked to do here--they accepted and agreed to do what they were asked and would continue that pledge if allowed to proceed and they were not saying they would be under construction within 30 days, but if voted for, they .�.. 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 k would pledge to continue to be front of every group that � had a desire to meet with them and work out every possible concern that they possibly could. He asked that commission vote in favor of the project and pledged that they would do their very best to deliver a quality project to the commission. Commissioner Whitlock noted that Mr. Gatlin had a couple of meetings with the residents of Suncrest and asked specifically what concerns they had asked him to mitigate that he had not been successful in mitigating. Mr. Gatlin replied that he had not had any that they had not been able to successfully mitigate, except for the few mentioned by Mr. Befeld about the berming and possibly moving the well site . He said they were willing to do that and any other thing that could possibly be asked for. Some of the remarks were that the restaurants were as close as 50 feet--he stated that they were football fields away; there was 300 feet minimum from any type of loading or restaurant and in some cases as far as 1200-1500 feet. He used a drawing showing every house in Suncrest and its proximity to any store, restaurant, or loading bin and felt it was a great distance. He was willing to buffer and continue to work with them. He said that sound was buffered with natural things like hills, mounds, and mountains and those type of things . This property was � located between 18 to 22 feet down and they were willing to work with Suncrest on berminq to satisfy that. The traffic noise they were concerned about came from passerby traffic moving at great speeds . Cars in a parking lot going at five miles or less was not what created sound. In some ways their consultants were telling them that with the proper berming, it would hopefully even buffer some of the sound that was already there. Commissioner Whitlock asked how many Suncrest residents surrounded his project immediately adjacent to his boundary; Mr. Gatlin replied that they were away from the golf course, but it appeared to be 15 to 30 units . Commissioner Whitlock asked how many residents there were in Suncrest--someone in the audience replied 300 . Mr. Gatlin stated that when looking at the first drawings, they did have the project buffered by a residential development. They were willing to put that in, but after meeting with staff and hearing the concerns, they eliminated that and the area was to be developed as landscaping, berming and setbacks with less than one percent additional retail . It was all just about given away just to enhance this project. If putting a row of residential homes would gain support, that was something they { 2$ '� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMTSSION MARCH 16 , 1993 ""� would work on. His professional opinion was that he would rather see the area done in berming, landscaping, and the same amount of shopping center that would have been there, but make it a green area. He thought they were making a concession in replacing those homes with green area, berms and landscaping. Commissioner Whitlock noted that Mr. Gatlin had stated that he would be willing to do just about anything to get the project off the ground--she asked if he was willing to scale the project down in size. Mr. Gatlin replied that they could look at that--there was a breaking point to any project and they were border-lining that now with their multi-million dollar commitments and he was concerned about how much more the project could bear, but if down- sizing the project somewhat would gain support, he would 1.00k into it. Commissioner Cox asked Mr. Gatlin to explain the build-out time from breaking ground on the development and include the time the intersection would be in disarray while being modified. Mr. Gatlin stated that for the entire project it was difficult to determine the length because they did not have users for all the restaurant uses, but the basic shopping center could be constructed within a 10 to 12 month time frame. The proposal was that all the traffic �"' mitigations, including the Sagewood work, would have to be done before they opened, but the offsite infrastructure and the mitigation work was probably a six month process time from start to finish of the offsite work. He clarified that it would all be within a one year time frame completely finished. Chairman Spiegel noted that Mr. Gatlin spoke earlier about the incremental tax dollars to the City of Palm Desert because of this development and if the development didn' t happen, the lack of those dollars . He asked if Mr. Gatlin was suggesting that Walmart was not interested in any other location in Palm Desert other than this space. Mr. Gatlin said no, he said that he did not work for Walmart and was not the only developer who did Walmart projects, but one that hopefully pleased them and did quite a few of them. He said that he and the real estate manager determined that as the project got too close to I-10, the location was too close to the Cathedral City store. The Highway 111 site could have worked if it wasn' t for the price, but it was so out of range that they didn't have a chance of making it work for this type of development. He said that if he was correct, the property had been before many developers and why it was still sitting there vacant right now was because it was too r... 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 ; � , expensive. Someone would have to take a huge economic "hit" ,� to make this type or any retail project of this type work there. He couldn't say they were not interested in another site, but didn ' t know of any other. It was his understanding that this site, or the Highway 111 one, would be the only two that could have a chance of working. Chairman Spiegel closed the public testimony and asked for comments from the commission. Mr. Diaz informed the commission that Commissioner Beaty would be abstaining from this--he did not have an opportunity to go through all the testimony that appeared at the last meeting; it was staff ' s recommendation, not his . Commissioner Whitlock stated that this was probably one of the most difficult decisions she had been confronted with as a planning commissioner for six years . Primarily due in part to the number of phone calls she had received in the last two weeks . She asked herself what other alternatives there were for this particular corner that would be feasible--the operative word being feasible. She said that she truly believed that this corner was destined to be commercial at some point in time; however, due to the magnitude of this project she in good conscience could not approve it. She was � not opposed to Walmart--she felt the developer and architect did an exemplary job in mitigating all of staff ' s concerns as well as many of hers . She stated that she would be willing to listen to a future proposal, but on a much smaller scale. Commissioner Jonathan noted that he would again be abstaining--not because of any financial conflict, but to avoid a potential appearance since he was a resident within Sagewood. Commissioner Cox commended the applicant on the design but did not feel it was right for the area or right for Palm Desert . Chairman Spiegel stated that as he mentioned at the last meeting, he had serious concerns--not about Walmart, he would have the same concerns if it was a Nordstrom' s, Saks Fifth Avenue or Niemann Marcus--caming inta that location. He indicated there were severe traffic problems now that needed to be corrected and he wanted to address that after this was resolved. He did not feel the correction was to develop the corner commercially. He felt Palm Desert was over-stored, but that was not really the commission's decision to make. � , 30 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 `� There was commercial land available in the city that would be and needed to be developed in time. He said that Palm Desert was very fortunate to have the largest retail saies of any other city in the valley. Palm Desert was financially in good shape and some of the sister cities could not say that . Palm Desert has an excess of $20 million in the bank because of retail sales, the taxes were not higher than any other city out there and the money was there because of the retail sales generated in the city. He said he would love to see a Walmart in the appropriate location in Palm Desert, in particular the Walmart that had been shown to them and was the finest Walmart he had ever seen and one Palm Desert would be proud to have, but not in that location. Because of that he would also vote against the project. He asked for a motion. Mr. Diaz stated that the motion would be to instruct staff to prepare a resolution denying the requested change of zone with the findings as outlined during commission comments . Action: Moved by Commissioner Cox, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, instructing staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at the April 6 , 1993 meeting. Carried 3-0-Z ""' (Commissioners Jonathan and Beaty abstained) . Chairman Spiegel stated that he wanted to go on record for the people in that area that if the council went along with the planning commission and this project was denied, he would like to ask the council to work with the City of Rancho Mirage to address the traffic problem at Country Club and Monterey Avenue. B. Case No. CUP 01-82 (Amendment No. 2) - FOUNDATION FOR THE RETARDED OF THE DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to a conditional use permit to allow three duplex units to be located onsite and granting site approval of a 15, 000 square foot workshop at 73-255 Country Club Drive in the P zone. Mr. Winklepleck stated that this project had been before the planning commission on two different occasions . The first was the original approval of the conditional use permit which allowed an 11,600 square foot building to be placed on the � 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMIS5ION MARCH 16 , 1993 s ; northern section of the property. Amendment #1 was to � approve a 3,000 square foot storage/training building. He reviewed the history of the units to be placed on the site and explained that at the August 4 , 1992 planning commission meeting the planning commission granted Sacred Heart Church approval to expand and relocate their school facilities . As part of the expansion, the six units before the commission were to be removed or demolitioned. Instead of being demolitioned, the units were offered to the Foundation. The duplex units would be located near the center of the property with the 15,000 square foot workshop to be located directly north of the units . Access to the units would be through the existing parking lot and the units would be occupied by individuals capable of independent living. The future workshop would be used for vocational rehabilitation classes and according to the applicant would be low in scale, approximately 18 to 20 feet in height and if approved by planning commission, the design would have to go back through the architectural review commission. At the architectural review commission meeting on March 9, 1993, they granted the project approval for the architecture and landscaping on the six units . He said that code did not provide specific development standards for the P zone; he included the R-2 g zone which was the zone directly to the west . The project { met or exceeded all of the requirements of that zone. Staff � recommended approval . He said that pictures of the units were being distributed to the commission for review. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the original conditional use permit was granted on February 16--he asked if that was 1982 . Mr. Winklepleck replied yes and the existing facility was 11 , 600 square feet. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the total of everything that was being proposed was an additional 15, 000 square feet. Mr. Winklepleck replied 15, 000 square feet in addition to the six units . Commissioner Jonathan asked what the public notice requirements were for this kind of application. Mr. Winklepleck replied a 300 foot radius around the subject property, which was the same for all public hearing notices . Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was a resident of Sagewood and was not aware of any of his neighbors receiving notice and he was not noticed. He asked if there was a problem or if he was just out of the loop. Mr. Winklepleck indicated that he was probably out of the 300 foot area. He noted that staff received labels from the applicant and staff could check to see if there was any kind of mix-up. Commissioner Jonathan noted there were other representatives from Sagewood present and would hear from ; � them. � 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 """ Chairman Spiegel o ened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI, President of the Foundation for the Retarded of the Desert, stated that this property was zoned back in 1972 by the County of Riverside before Sagewood was ever in existence and before there was any shopping center on the corner of Country Club and Monterey. They went before Riverside County and Kay Olsen said that if anyone was dumb enough to build way out in the blow sand, they would be dumb enough to give them the zoning. They had their zoning before any residential property at all developed in that area on any side of the street. When Palm Desert became a city it was suggested by staff at that time that the Foundation go under the zoning of PR-5; he noted that Mr. Diaz was not the planning director at that time. At the public hearing they said no they did not want that zoning because PR reflected residential and they wanted everyone to know what they were so that no one would ever buy property next to them and say that they never knew what the facility was . The city council agreed to place a P zoning on the property and it would be institutional so that anyone in the area would know what """ they were about because they were there first. It was their hope that from the residential on back the remaining part of their seven and a half acres would be built residential . He said that the Foundation for the Retarded was a training center for people with developmental disabilities . They basically focused on the retarded which by state law meant someone with an I- Q of 70 or below. He said that was the technical definition of someone that was retarded by law. He noted that I-Q tests were not always a fair way to measure someone' s intelligence. He stated that in the state of California today, it was illegal to give a black person an intelligence test, which he felt was a unique law. He said they did not want to do any more of their workshop--it would stop with the 15, 000 square feet planned for the future. The reason they needed the 15, 000 square feet was because they take care of the severely retarded people who really couldn' t do much and was more of a babysitting situation and they had been allowed to go to 48 of those types of clients, whereas before they were only allowed up to eight. In order to accommodate those 48 in the future, they would have to expand into the existing workshop area. They would build a new work-training facility and it was their hope � 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 ; a � because of the special education classes which the � schools in California were now required to do, that children were coming out better educated, they could come to their facility where they could be trained to go out into enclaves and they already had quite a few in enclaves . There were some doing laundry at the La Quinta Hotel, working at the Esmeralda Hotel and they were trying to get them working at the Ritz Carlton Hotel as well as striving to get them into a situation where they had a normal job in a normal setting so that they could live a quality life. Their job was to train and develop those types of people so that they could have a quality life. That was what the Foundation for the Retarded was about. They were not open on weekends and very few of their clients came to the facility by car. Those who could not take a fixed route bus were bussed to them by their generic bus company in the desert and so they did not have a lot of cars coming and going, but because of the workshop they assembled a lot of things--mailers for the City of Palm Desert and other cities as well as the water district. They also put things together and made breathing machines that could be seen in the hospitals, and were getting into a new product called the DAP product that was wood putty, but � this inventor instead of squeezing putty out onto a ,� knife and using two tools, got an applicator on the end of the wood putty so that when squeezed it went through the applicator. He said that these were selling like "hot cakes" and they had been selected by that manufacturer to assemble them and mail them. He informed commission that this particular manufacturer had their offices within their facility so that meant they would have good rapport with that company and in the future hoped they could put out one million per month of that product. That would be meaningful employment for their people as they train them so that they could go out into private industry and gave them the financial base to be successful so they did not have to be 100� dependent on the State of California, which was having less and less revenue and they had to find other ways to raise money to produce meaningful environments so that their DDS clients could have a meaningful life. He said they received the apartments from the Roman Catholic Church for nothing, so they could reuse these units instead of throwing them away. He indicated that the remaining part of their property would be residential, which would be compatible with what was between them and Sagewood. He did not know 3 34 � _ __ . _ - MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 '� what the retirement community' s density was per acre, but felt it was probably around five and he felt they would end up being around five per acre--if they stayed with the duplexes . Mr. Ricciardi said in their congregate care, they trained their people how to be independent in a living situation. He hoped the commission would approve their request. Commissioner Cox asked if the people staying in the units would be 24 hour care or if it was only during the day. Mr. Ricciardi stated that at this time they did not plan on 24 hour care. They would like to use those people who could support and take care of themselves to use the units . He said they have one client who drove his own car, so there were those people who were borderline retarded and he hoped to use those type of people for the most part in these units to begin with. That did not mean in the future that as the need arose they wouldn' t go to that type of care where someone would be there 24 hours per day, but the intent of the duplexes was for independent living. He said that they would rent them out to anyone they could in the interim who did not mind living in that environment, possibly employees . He said they could not rely 100� on their clients and would rent to the public in the meantime. .... Mr. Diaz stated that having been a victim of an I-Q test himself, and now having a masters degree, he could not let the comment pass . He said that the reason the State of California did not recognize I-Q tests was because they were economicaliy and racially biased. Mr. Ricciardi stated that was a good point. Chairman Spiegel asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MS. BRIDGETTE JOHNSON, President of the Silktree Homeowners Association at Sagewood for the past two years, stated that she had no problem with the Foundation for the Retarded--the problem was that these homes were moved onto the property before the permits were given and it was her understanding that they started grading on a Saturday and Sunday morning at 5 : 00 a.m. and 6 : 00 a.m. She said that she had a call from Mr. Folkers that was half-way an apology for the noise they made and was told that the manager or director of the Foundation would be in contact with her. She had not heard from them. The problem with that was that it looked like the buildings were very close to their �..- 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1993 project and there was a street called Silktree that ,� bordered right against it and she did not know if the setbacks had been investigated. A1so, in regard to the 300 foot notification, to her knowledge no one was notified of the change. She said that the Sagewood homeowners were very conscientious of their children and at one point with the busses coming down Monterey they changed the bus stop. One of the alternatives to accommodate the children was to have the children go over onto Country Club. The biggest opposition to that was that the Foundation had many busses coming in which included Sunline Taxis and one morning spent between 15 and 20 minutes just standing there watching the goings on. There was a lot of traffic and that was one reason their children could not pick up the bus at Country Club. Parents were afraid that their children would be run over by the busses coming across that driveway. She said that while their operation was noble for handicapped children, she wanted the commission to consider the increased traffic with more children coming there. They were there before Sagewood, but Sagewood had been good neighbors and wanted them to be good neighbors also. She pointed out that when Sagewood was opposing the medical facility they did not receive the support of the Foundation, and the medical facility was � going to have emergency services there. The planning department told the Stoltzman' s to take their project somewhere else. She said that she would like to support the Foundation but would like some consideration. MR. PAUL MURPHY, First Vice President for the Foundation for the Retarded, apologized to the Sagewood neighborhood. He was not one of the guilty people but the mover put the units in before he had any idea they would be moved. He assured everyone that Dick Folkers , who was the Second Vice President, about had a heart attack. He said they scurried around and tried to contact everyone that they possibly could and personally went over and talked to Sheryl Facella and when he looked out the back window of her home, the first thing he saw was a wall . He stated that he would be very unhappy himself with that situation. He indicated that was not in any way, shape or form where the units would be put and would not be any where near the property line of Sagewood. He assured the president of the homeowners association that there would be no traffic generated by these duplexes at all because the people who would live in those units did not drive cars . He also commented � 36 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 � that in regards to the traffic situation at the Foundation, they had a very serious problem with the transportation situation in the valley for the developmentally disabled. With assistance of Dick Kelly, Dick Oliphant, Alan Nyman who was his vice chairman of the transportation committee, and Sunline, they had solved their problem. He was proud to say that they had become the leader in the State of California in solving this problem. The 17 passenger busses circulating the community with lifts were not owned by Sunline, but by the Foundation and they leased them to Sunline. They were now able with modern convenient vehicles to pick up all their clients safely and conveniently and not leave them in busses that would break down in 115 degree heat and have taxi cabs go and pick them up. They had greatly reduced the amount of vehicles to take care of their clients . He noted that was considering the fact that there had been an increase in clients of almost 100� in the last 15 months . He felt there was a great need to take care of the developmentally disabled in the valley and was proud to say they were meeting that need. He apologized for any errors that they had in moving the units and wanted to be good neighbors and felt this would be an attractive `� addition when completed. MS . GRACE NEWMANN, 40064 Silktree Court, stated that the Foundation was moving the units at midnight and had tractors and trucks going and she did not sleep for four days . As a good neighbor she went over and talked to the director and told him what was happening. All she had was a wooden fence and they had a driveway. She asked them to come over and see what she was looking at from her yard. The director came over and was horrified. She said that the houses were there and her church donated them and were doing a great job, but the Foundation was getting big and had a lot of busses . She stated that the director told her they would be extending their driveway and felt they should replace the wall . Chairman Spiegel asked if the wall she was requesting was where the wooden fence was now. Ms . Newmann replied yes and felt it should be along the whole area. She said there would be cars and trucks going along there and right now they had a big warehouse � 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 there. There was a lot of activity that backed up to � her yard. MS. LINDA RHODES, resident in Thousand Palms, stated that she was a single parent of a mentally disabled daughter and they had resided in the valley for the past ten years . She said that her daughter attended the workshop at the Foundation and had been there for five years . It gave her self-gratification to be a productive citizen. Her desire was to have an established residential place for her daughter and other mentally challenged individuals in the Coachella Valley. She said at this time there was one residential group home in the valley. When their sons and daughters strived for independent living or when the time came when the parents were no longer living, they were forced to ieave their homes, jobs and friends and move outside of their comfort zone of the valley. She felt it was hard enough for their children to deal with the emo�ional side when their parents pass away, without having to be up-routed and placed in a new living environment. Her goal was to see her daughter reach her full potential as a human being living and working as a productive citizen in the valley. Mr. Ricciardi stated that it was unfortunate that there � was a restriction put on them to qet those units as soon as possible, otherwise no one would have gotten them. He felt the problems had been mitigated--the units had only been next to the homes one week before they were moved. Regarding the block wall, he didn' t think that would be a problem in the long run. The Sagewood developer built wooden fences . He said they put in a brick wall in the front part for various reasons, but now that they were developing that side, he would not have an objection to a block wall . He felt the block wall would be better for noise than a wooden wall . Chairman Spiegel asked how long the wall would be; Mr. Ricciardi replied that their property was 1200 feet long. He felt the point was that the city had a 20 foot easement there and they controlled that and would have to get approval from the city because the easement was a flood control easement that might be put in some day. He said that if that was going to be a condition of approval, it needed to be addressed through the public works department to see how j feasible that would be at this time. ' 3 8 '� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 �• Mr. Diaz said he was disturbed when the issue first came up to move the units over there but there was a problem involved and the matter went to the council . Council approved a temporary movement. He felt the developer should have talked to adjoining residents . Mr. Carver was chided for this; the city told Mr. Gatlin to talk to adjoining residents; he felt there was an obligation on the part of a developer. He noted that he has a cousin who is develapmentally disabled and staff was recommending approval of this and would continue to recommend approval of this and recommended approval of the original conditional use permit; however, he felt that with the issues that had been raised, that the item should be continued for two weeks to allow the Foundation to meet with the Silktree Homeowners Association and work out those concerns and to have a plan that was drawn to show the entire facility from Country Club back to see how this fit with the total project and to get the total picture. In the meantime, staf f would look into the issue of drainage and that easement and where the wall could be placed. Mr. Ricciardi said that they could not be in favor of a continuance because they were "under the gun" to the movers, which would cost them $200 per day for that kind of wait. He felt that would be unfair to put this on '�' their type of non-profit organization. They had moved the units back farther than the R-2 zone allowed and tried to keep the units as far away as possible from Sagewood and they would be glad to put in a wall if the public works director said it was feasible. As far as what would happen with the rest of the property, he did not have any idea how it would develop, so they could not come in with a general plan. Mr. Diaz clarified that he wanted to see a plan that showed what was already developed with the current proposal so staff and commission could see exactly what was there now and proposed. He said that what was happening now was what he thought would happen when those units were moved there. Mr. Ricciardi said that he was sorry for how this happened and apologized for that, but they had the total development on the drawing. Chairman Spiegel asked for clarification on the $200 cost; Mr. Ricciardi replied that it was a part of moving the units- -when they found out the units were available they were under time constraints . He said that they received a city permit to move them. � 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 Mr. Diaz said that the issue was that the city did not know � what the final location of the bui�dings would be because that was the purpose of the conditional use permit public hearing process . Mr. Ricciardi said that they received city approval to move the units and city approval to store them. Now what they wanted was approval to finally locate them and the quicker they located them, the quicker they could mitigate some of the problems that Sagewood residents had. Ili Chairman Spiegel again asked for clarification on the $200 , fee. Mr. Ricciardi replied that it was a condition of moving the units; the units had to stay up on blocks and the blocks costed the Foundation $200 per day, so they wanted to locate the units as quickly as possibly and felt it was best for the community to do that. He said they were 40 to 50 feet away from the property lines because on the Sagewood side they were very conscious of staying away from them to protect their property values . Commissioner Jonathan stated that the rendering by Mr. Gregory did not extend northward to Country Club. Mr. Ricciardi said that no it didn't because there were trees there already and it was already heavily landscaped to Country Club. Commissioner Jonathan said that in terms of ; providing perspective of the project inclusive of what was � already there, they did not show the entire existing development. Mr. Ricciardi replied that was correct, but he trusted that the commission had driven by that area many times . Commissioner Jonathan said that was not the issue, he just wanted to clarify the question that Mr. Diaz had. Mr. Ricciardi stated that he was before the commission asking for mercy. They made a mistake and were sorry but needed to move on so that the issue didn't become such a huge cost factor to them and at the same time it was well landscaped and was one of the nicer facilities around for what they were trying to do. He said that it was considered one of the finest facilities of this type in the state. They were not trying to do something of less value, but were upholding the land values in the area and were now trying to get the three duplexes located and in the future would be back with the 7500 square foot workshop in the back so that they could expand their program to help the severely retarded. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they had a grading permit; Mr. Ricciardi replied no, but they had a plan into public works . Commissioner Jonathan noted that someone said there had been grading on the site; Mr. Ricciardi replied that some grading was done to store the units flat, but very little was done. 40 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 +� He said that to move dirt it had to be kept wet so they had a water mitigation program going out there so that the wind wouldn' t blow the sand into someone elses yard. He said that the city gave them permission to place the units there and they had kept water on that property in order to keep the dust down and they continued to do that. He felt that to hold them up two weeks was a hardship on them. Commissioner Whitlock asked if they were willing to build the wall . Mr. Ricciardi said that yes, they were willing to build the wall if the public works department didn' t have a problem with the wall . Then the Sagewood residents could take down their wooden fences . Commissioner Cox clarified that the major issue of contention seemed to be the wall--someone from the audience said that she had her wooden fence and once a year because the area was desert she had to clean up the debris and tumbleweeds . Mr. Ricciardi said that they have open desert property back there where tumbleweeds grow. He said that the city had never cited them for having a piece of property that was detrimental to anyone. The city had not told them to clean it up. If they did, they would clean it up right away. He felt that what happened was that Sagewood had wood fences ''�*"' that weren't the best and did not last forever and when strong winds came it had a tendency to blow them over. He said that the Sagewood property was built higher than the Foundation property and those fences would eventually lean over from the shear weight of the elevation difference. He stated that he would be glad to put the wall in so that in time the residents would not have that problem and as they built the property over a ten year period, they would probably be built out. MR. ALAN NYMAN, Director at the Foundation, stated that he was not aware of the problems they had caused some of the Sagewood homeowners but he assured the commission that as long as he was on the board they would mitigate and correct those problems . If it took a wall, they would build a wall . If it was clean up, they would make sure it was cleaned up. What they were trying to do, and he was proud of what they had accomplished, three or four years ago they only had about 50 clients and were now up to 100 . He said that it was all volunteer work on their behalf and were not compensated, but to see the progress they had made in the young adults did the heart good and whatever it took, they were willing to do it to continue the work of the Foundation. •.. 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 � Chairman Spiegel closed the public testimony and asked for � comments by the commission. Commissioner Whitlock stated that she wanted to make sure the only concern that Sagewood had was the wall--that they were not objecting to the units . Commissioner Jonathan said that one of the issues they could not get away from was that they did not know what Sagewood thought because it did not appear that proper notification was done. He personally felt it would be totally irresponsible to move forward without proper notification. He said that he had two brothers-in-law that were mentally handicapped so that was not the issue. What the Foundation was accomplishing was wonderful--the issue was land use and proper process . He did not feel proper notification had been done. Another issue was zoning. Zoning did not provide a right to develop any specific development--that was why there was a conditional use permit process so that a proposed development could be reviewed in light of what was out there. That was part of the reason for proper notification. He indicated that the concerns raised were the significant amount of bussing, taxis bringing people in and out, there was some type of assembly being done of breathing devices , ; assembly of wood putty stuff, offices for an independent � business, and lodging for clients and others who would be available to rent space, they were at 50 clients and now had 100, they were hoping to grow some more, and they were in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Murphy had said that he was opposed to a Walmart because this was a residential neighborhood and the commission couldn' t be sensitive to those needs for one project and then close their eyes to another project simply because they happened to agree with the general philosophy. He was letting them know that he had concerns . Because he believed that notification had not been done properly he would move for a continuance and in the interest of not holding the applicant up too long, he asked Mr. Diaz how long the continuance needed to be for proper notification. Mr. Diaz stated that one of the things that could be done was to approve the residential units only with a condition that staff would meet with the Silktree Homeowners Association and the applicant to sit down and work out an agreement satisfactory to the director of community development. He said that the agreement that would be satisfactory to him would be the one that would be satisfactory to the Silktree Homeowners Association. If that could be reached in 15 days, -' 42 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 •+ then they could proceed. The reason for the 15 days was that any decision made today was not final for 15 days because anyone could appeal that decision. This would allow staff to proceed and if everyone was satisfied that would be great and the meeting could be set up right then and have as many Sagewood residents at that meeting the same as when they met with Walmart. In that way the residential portion of the project and the units being moved couZd proceed and they then they would discuss the offices later. Chairman Spiegel said that it sounded to him that the moving of the three units had opened a "bag of worms" , but if there were concerns from the neighbors, the applicant should know about them and they should be addressed. On the other hand he did not think it was right to charge the Foundation $4, 000 which was the approximate cost if the commission continued the item to the next meeting. He felt staff ' s recommendation was a good one because they could go ahead and locate the three pieces of property, because that did not affect what was being discussed. Mr. Diaz stated that the 15 days started from when the decision was made and if this was continued for two weeks and a decision made, then there would still be a 15 day appeal period--they could proceed ahead now and begin in 15 days and do some of the grading and other """ things . Commissioner Jonathan felt that this was irresponsible and did not know of a time when the commission had said they did not want to be responsible for costing a developer $200 per day, and therefore did a piecemeal approval . He stated that it was improper and he could not evaluate financial considerations for anyone. He noted that getting that type of housing for $3, 000 was still a bargain and it was not the commission' s fault that this process was messed up to begin with. He did not think they twisted anyone's arm to put the units out there before there was a conditional use permit. That was not the commission' s problem and as sympathetic as the commission might be to the general philosophy to the plight of the applicant, that was not their issue. The commission' s concern was one of planning and he didn' t think it was appropriate or responsible to give piecemeaZ approval, particularly because of financial concerns for the applicant. Chairman Spiegel noted that the piecemeal already happened and they got the approval to move the units there. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that they got approval to store units there temporarily. Chairman Spiegel stated that +... 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 ,� the units were now there and wouid end up there. � Commissioner Jonathan said that had not been decided. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they were to do a proper public notice, would the continuance have to be for 15 or 30 days . Mr. Diaz replied that for a re-noticing, it would another 15 days . That was pre-disposing that the first notification was not legally proper. Another noticing would be at least 15 days . Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would move for continuance for 15 days . Mr. Winklepleck noted that the next meeting was three weeks away so there would be sufficient time. Commissioner Cox asked if staff could determine what the mailing list was and if it went to Sagewood. She said that this was not the first time this problem came up when people said they did not receive notification. Mr. Winklepleck informed commission that he had the list and 300 foot radius map in his office and would go over each and every site to see which properties received notification. Mr. Diaz said that the point he was making was that the people affected were present--the board was present and they could notify the people beyond the legal requirement of 300 feet. This was why he suggested that staff be allowed to work this out . The � only approval they were making was for the units and would �, work out the concerns . Commissioner Cox stated that she had a problem penalizing someone if the proper notification was done . That was her concern. If they found that there was proper notification and they had to go through another 15 or more days wait, these people would be paying money they could not afford. Mr. Diaz suggested a five minute recess to look into that matter. Commission concurred and Chairman Spiegel called a five minute recess . (The recess was called at 9 :58 p.m. per the chamber clock. ) Chairman Spiegel called the meeting to order at 10 : 08 p.m. Mr. Winklepleck verified the mailing list and radius map and stated that the required noticing was completed per state requirements . Mr. Diaz reiterated his recommendation of placing the three units and having a meeting between the homeowners association and the Foundation to work out concerns satisfactory to the director of community development. Mr. Hargreaves stated that he had a problem with staff being delegated with that � 44 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1993 � type of authority. It was noted that the decision could be appealed to the city council . Commissioner Jonathan stated that he did not believe proper notification had taken place. He recommended a continuance to the next meeting. Chairman Spiegel asked how many people in the audience had received notices . Two people raised their hands . Mr. Diaz suggested that a special meeting be called for Friday, which would allow staff, the applicant and the Sagewood residents to meet. Chairman Spiegel noted that they learned from the hearing process with Walmart that the Sagewood residents did communicate with each other. Mr. Ricciardi said that he did not have a problem with meeting with the group and could come back later with the 15, 000 square foot workshop and anything that Sagewood requested they would try their utmost to do. He recommended that the issue of placing the three duplexes be separated from the workshop and they would come back with the 15, d00 square foot facility and would work with Sagewood over the next two or three weeks to show them what type of building they were proposing. �.+ Commissioner Jonathan still felt that this was being done in a piecemeal fashion with too many questions left unanswered as to location of the duplexes and possible fire marshal review. He felt it would be irresponsible to move forward at this time and made a motion to continue the matter for two weeks . Commissioner Whitlock stated that she would second the motion. Commissioner Beaty stated that he felt the $200 cost was because there were high-beams placed through the sides of the units and the Foundation was probably leasing them. They were up on wheels and could be moved at this point. He said that the developer might need that equipment--he indicated that if they took it out now and came back later to put it back in would incur a significant cost. He felt that they were talking about taking advantage of a wonderful opportunity, but leqal issues got involved. He stated that he was the "new kid on the block" and was inexperienced, but he had to say what he felt. If there was a 15 day period where conditions could be met and the residents could still stop it, he did not have a problem. Or if the Foundation wanted to roll the dice farther and talked to the fire marshall and whomever else was involved and wanted to go � 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCN 16 , 1993 ahead and set them down at the risk of having to pick them �, back up, that would cost a lot more than $200 per day. He said he did not have a problem with the proposal . Chairman Spiegel called for a vote on the motion to continue this matter to April 6 . Motion died on a 2-3 vote (Chairman Spiegel and Commissioners Beaty and Cox voted no) . Commissioner Whitlock recommended that the issues be separated as had been suggested to approve the conditional use permit for the three duplex units and pull out the site approval of the 15, 000 square foot workshop. She stated that she would make that motion. Commissioner Beaty seconded the motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting the findings . Carried 4-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no) . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1613, approving CUP O1-82 (Amendment No. 2) as amended, subject to conditions . Carried 4-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no) . Chairman Spiegel clarified that the commission was allowing � the Foundation to place the houses off the block and recommended that this not be done at 5 :00 a.m. and also recommended that at the earliest convenience the Foundation meet with their neighbors because it sounded like they had good neighbors . Mr. Ricciardi said they would do that right away and were working with the fire marshal that would take care of Commissioner Jonathan' s concern. Mr. Diaz stated that this decision was final unless appealed to the city council . Chairman Spiegel suggested that after everything was decided that they come back with the 15,000 square foot facility. C. Case Nos . PP 93-2, C/Z 93-2 , GPA 93-2 - FRANK MILLER, Applicant Request for approval of a Neqative Declaration of Environmental Impact, change of zone from R-1 to O.P. , a general plan amendment from low density residential to office profession, a precise plan, and a setback variance for 46 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 '�► a 4600 square foot one story office building at the southeast corner of Fred Waring Drive and San Luis Drive. Mr. Winklepleck noted that staff received a letter from the applicant asking for a continuance to April 6 , 1993 . He informed commission that the case would be re-noticed. Action: Commission determined that a motion was not necessary because staff was re-noticing the public hearing. VIII . MISCELLANEOUS None. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. X. COMMENTS ..�-�r.. Commissioner Jonathan said that the issue of graffiti and gangs had come up and he was personally affected by this problem. He said that he had property on Monterey that had been hit with graffiti twice since the last meeting. He indicated that as projects were built, this was an on-qoing concern. He asked for a report from the sheriff ' s department or the appropriate agency on what pro-active measures were being taken by the City of Palm Desert, since there was such a high rate of building vacancies . Mr. Diaz stated that staff would try to have that report to the commission by April 6 . Commissioner Jonathan said that in two or three meetings would be in sufficient time. Commissioner Cox noted that it was very unsightly on Highway 111 . Chairman Spiegel noted there were a tremendous number of temporary signs in Palm Desert that say "open" . Red signs with white lettering on oil cloth and were hanging from places like Redondo Don' s, the Bagel Factory, and even the new bookstore. He asked if there was any kind of control . Mr. Diaz informed commission that grand opening signs were allowed for 30 days . Commissioner Cox noted that Ross still had their sign up. Mr. Winklepleck said he would mention it to code. �... 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 , 1993 Chairman Spiegel said that one of the tYiings discussed at the ,r planning commissioners ' conference was th� gEneral p]_an. He requested that staff pu� together a study session to review the Palm Desert General Plan and go over the hat�sing situation for the cit�,r and zoning so that he would be more knowledgeable. Mr. �iaz stated that staff cou?.d c3o that and suggested the meeting of April 20 . Commission concurred. Chairman Spiegel ncYte�ci that one city in Northern California had put together a gas�shlet that they distribute to peaple attending meetings tc� tell them what their role was and how to address the group. F�e requested that staff look at that and adopt it to fit � City of Palm Desert and show it to the planning commiss�.c3a. Mr. Diaz noted that staff had a pamphlet and would d�t i� off and update it with the new names and would bring it to commission for their comment . XI . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Cox, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adjourning the meeting to April 6 , 1993 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . The �teeting was adjourned at 10 : 30 m. ,� ' �w�"ti. RAMON A. DIAZ, c ary ATTEST: � . ROBERT A. SPIEGEL C Palm Desert Planning C mmission /tm 4 8 �'