Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0920 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Spiegel called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Whitlock led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Bob Spiegel, Chairperson Paul Beaty George Fernandez Sabby Jonathan Carol Whitlock Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ray Diaz Gregg Holtz Bob Hargreaves Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the September 6, 1994 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the September 6, 1994 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Fernandez abstained) . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent September 8, 1994 city council actions . VI . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 94-11 - ROBERT B. VARNER, ET AL, Applicants Request for approval of lot line adjustments for lots 18-24 to accommodate larger residential units `, within the Sunterrace development. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 Action: ri Moved by Commissioner Jonathan seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . VIII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. PP 94-4 - GEORGE BUONO, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a precise plan of design for a 13,239 square foot two story medical office building on a 36, 312 square foot lot at the southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and San Anselmo Avenue. Mr. Diaz explained that this item was continued from the last meeting to allow the applicant to be present. He noted that no one spoke in opposition at that time. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions . Chairperson Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. GEORGE BUONO, a Palm Desert resident, stated that he was present to answer any questions . Commissioner Whitlock asked if Mr. Buono had any concerns with the conditions of approval . Mr. Buono said no. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff had given Mr. Buono a choice of reducing the height or increasing the setbacks . Mr. Buono indicated his architect was working on it. Mr. Diaz indicated that 22 feet in height was within the city' s requirement. If it was approved at 22 feet in height, it had to be built at 22 feet high. Chairperson Spiegel asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Fernandez abstained) . �rrr 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 �+ Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1661, approving PP 94-4, subject to conditions . Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Fernandez abstained) . B. Continued Case Nos . C/Z 94-2 and PP 94-5 (Formerly CUP 94-11/VAR 94-1) - DRS. FRANK AND JANET KERRIGAN, Applicants Request for approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact, change of zone and precise plan to allow construction of a 5745 square foot one story office building and a 2567 square foot two story office/retail building in the R-3 zone at 42-575 Washington Street. Mr. Diaz indicated that this case was continued to allow staff to re-advertise for a change of zone and precise plan instead of a conditional use permit and variance. He noted that no letters had been received in opposition. He stated that the project met all the requirements except for site +� size and building setbacks and those were discussed in the analysis . He explained that exceptions were allowed under city provisions . Staff felt that the project should proceed and that planning commission should recommend approval to city council of the zone change from residential to commercial . Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on the number of parking spaces being required. Mr. Diaz stated that in terms of office and retail uses, more were at four parking spaces per 1000. For PC-2 zoning (retail commercial) the requirement was five parking spaces per 1000 and the entire area was five per 1000 . Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on the setbacks . Mr. Diaz stated that staff could look at it and the applicant could also address the issue. Commissioner Jonathan questioned if the setbacks were consistent with the Lucky center satellite pads . Chairperson Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. I.. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 MR. CHRIS MCFADDEN, 73-929 Larrea in Palm Desert, so informed commission that the setbacks met the city' s requirements . Commissioner Whitlock asked the applicant about the number of parking spaces being provided. Mr. McFadden stated that the parking met the requirement for the mixed uses . He noted there would be 5794 square feet of general office use and 2568 square feet of office retail use--they were providing 39 parking spaces including two handicapped spaces . Commissioner Jonathan asked for and received clarification that 39 parking spaces was the requirement and 39 spaces were being provided. Commissioner Jonathan asked why the reduction in setbacks was needed. Mr. McFadden stated that with the original zoning they would be within the requirements under the conditional use provisions . Staff and the city attorney recommended that a change of zone be done. He stated that this project was in compliance with site approval . He noted that they could have applied for approval under the county before annexation, but they chose to process it in the city and he complied with more provisions under the original zoning, but city staff felt this would be a simpler process . Mr. Diaz stated that under the PC zoning requirements, as part of the zone change application these recommendations could be waived or modified with the precise plan. The project could be considered to be part of the Lucky' s center for the five acre requirements for development in the R-3 standards . He indicated that the applicant was correct--they could have gone through the county for approval . Chairperson Spiegel asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one. Chairperson Spiegel closed the public testimony. Commissioner Jonathan expressed concern with the setbacks for the two story buildings . Mr. Diaz explained that the setback was 15 feet from the street and the project design was 30 feet from the curb. There was about a 15 foot parkway area. Commissioner Whitlock asked if the additional 15 feet was the greenbelt area shown on the plan. Mr. Diaz concurred. Commissioner Jonathan thanked staff for the clarification. Chairperson Spiegel felt it would have been beneficial for the commission to see a plan of the whole Lucky' s center. Mr Diaz concurred and said for future developments it would be 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 ••� provided. Commissioner Whitlock noted that Don O' s was an existing hotel that is two stories and 150 feet from single story elements . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1662, recommending approval of C/Z 94-2 and PP 94-5 to city council . Carried 5-0 . COMMISSION CALLED A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AT 7 : 24 P.M. THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 7 : 32 P.M. C. Continued Case No. 4341 SA - B-Y-J PARTNERS for BURGER KING, Applicant Request for approval of an exception to Section 25 . 68 . 310(A) of the zoning ordinance to allow an additional freestanding sign at 73-547 Highway 111 �+ (Jensen' s shopping center) . Mr. Diaz explained that the request was for a ground-mounted directional sign for Burger King. The architectural commission looked at the sign design and approved it. The matter before the commission was if the sign should be permitted. Staff was recommending approval because of the unusual entrance and exit into the Jensen' s center. The matter before commission was the issue of whether or not the additional ground-mounted sign should be given. He said that technically speaking because there was a variance involved in the request, commission could also look at the entire sign and its design. If there were concerns about it, that could be referred back to the architectural commission for comment or conditioned. Chairperson Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RICHARD AGIN, 18103 Kingsport Drive in Malibu, and MR. TOM YEAGER, a resident of Palm Desert, came forward. Mr. Agin said the question was asked why they needed this directional sign and he felt that traveling east on Highway 111, there was a building and landscaping that ftm 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 prevented people from seeing their business . He felt 20%-25% of all people that went into a fast food restaurant was from impulse. During the tourist season that would probably increase by half. If they couldn' t see them, they had lost those potential customers . He also felt it was a confusing center to get into because of their location in the center. That was why he felt they needed the additional sign. The total amount of signage, the one on the building and this one, would be far below of the amount allowable under the existing regulations . He noted that the Rose Company completely blocked their building, which was set back from it. He passed out pictures to the commission. He noted that at the last meeting the commission approved their conditional use permit and they had explained how they felt and how all the other tenants in the center felt that Burger King locating there would help the center. If people couldn' t see where they were, that would totally defeat the purpose. He said the architectural commission granted approval and wanted something that would be done tastefully and requested that they put the sign in a frame with stucco that matched the building. He felt the sign would be tasteful and would also not block the existing sign for the Jensen' s center which was farther east and approximately 180 square feet in ..� size and higher than the proposal . He said the landlord would like to retain the ability to place three small slats under the Jensen' s center verbiage and they would like to reserve those for the businesses in the center that were not visible at all from Highway 111 . He stated again that their' s was an impulse business . Commissioner Whitlock asked about the size of the letters; Mr. Agin replied that the whole sign without the stucco frame was three feet by three feet, which was about half the normal Burger King monument sign size. He noted that they had another store in Cathedral City and it was almost double the size of the proposed sign. Their competitor, which was also on Highway 111 opposite the Town Center, had a directional sign. From a competitive standpoint he felt it would be detrimental to them not to have one and that they were much more visible from the highway than Burger King. He said the letters, though they spelled out Burger King, were not real big. He felt the hamburger design gave instant recognition and that people would understand that it was Burger King without having to actually read the letters . 6 ..r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 ..� Chairperson Spiegel asked if this was a monument sign; Mr. Again felt it was a directional sign--they would have an arrow and the importance was to show customers how to get into the center and for those customers to know that they were there. Chairperson Spiegel said that normally the commission did not comment on signs, but as Mr. Diaz indicated, the commission could because it was a variance to the existing signs . He stated that he objected to the red color of the sign right on Highway 111--the more signs approved that were red, yellow or other bright colors detracted from the look of the city. He asked if the applicant would be willing to look at other signs like at the Pizza Hut that was back lit and gold and bronze colors, or colors that were more adaptable to the desert. Mr. Agin said that if they had a business that had no national recognition and the logo didn't become in and of itself an identifying factor; he did not know if Burger King would even give them the right to put in anything that would be different. The corporation had very strict guidelines on what they allow because they had spent millions of dollars and were one of the top ten advertisers in the United States . He felt the colors were necessary to get the message across that they were there and how to get to the business . ••• Mr. Diaz asked how large the McDonald' s parking directional sign was compared to the proposal; Mr. Agin did not know. Mr. Yeager stated that he had a picture of the McDonald' s sign and noted that the architectural committee was fairly specific that they did not want a sign on a pole--that was how they arrived at the current sign design with the stucco frame. Chairperson Spiegel asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MS. CAROL HERRERA, a Torrance resident, stated that she was representing the landlord of the property. She said the shopping center supported Burger King going in and noted that the shopping center was almost 29 years old. Since they had never had Burger King in their center, the identity/directional sign to get into the shopping center was important. With the five trees on the corner, a sign identifying San Pablo and Highway 111 as well as a bus bench/stop area, additional signage was critical . Chairperson Spiegel closed the public testimony and asked for comments from the commission. "EW 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 Commissioner Beaty stated that he understood the need for the r.n sign and was in favor of the proposal . Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Agin pointed out the situation with his competitor (which was an existing situation) , problems with the location, visibility of the site, and stated that the applicant came in asking for this site. When the commission approved it there were problems with access and parking and the commission made concessions . Now they wanted a sign exception and for the city to make concessions . He was not persuaded that this was in the best interests of the city. It might be in the applicant ' s best interests and from a competitive standpoint, but he was not sure this was the best thing for the city. He shared concerns about the obtrusive red color and the effect that little by little these signs could have on the quality of the city. He was particularly concerned about the internally lit aspect of it. On the other hand, he wanted to find a way to make it work and could almost live with the colors during the day if they didn' t have the internally lit situation. Chairperson Spiegel said he had no objection to the sign; he objected to the colors . If there was a possibility of changing the colors and still making it an effective sign, he could be in favor of the sign. r.rr Commissioner Beaty noted that there was a sign on Cook Street for Palm Lakes that looked completely different in the daytime. He thought that would allow the yellow or red color to show up dark at night. Chairperson Spiegel reopened the public testimony. MR. DANE BUSH, a Palm Springs resident, stated that he has a Burger King in Palm Springs that has a large monument sign. They also had a Burger King in Cathedral City with a sign similar to this, but it was much larger and he did not think too many people saw that sign because it was lit inside, but was not obtrusive. It was red and gold and when it was new it looked great, but it faded out so there wasn't as much light going through it like a Mobil sign that was red, white and blue. He felt the sign was provided a softer look and was approximately four feet high from the ground up. The proposed sign was three feet by three feet and it was not that big. He stated that it was only a little larger than a bus stop sign. 8 `� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 r.r Mr. Diaz stated that in other cities he had been associated with, they had similar problems with internally lit signs and one solution was that the colors they were concerned with would have a second layer of the plexiglass, but in this case it would be plexiglass that would prevent light from going through it--opaque backing the letters and the burger bun so that at night the light that would be seen would be the white and they could read Burger King clearly, but it would not be as bright. The silhouette would be there, but not the brightness of light. He stated that the sign could be conditioned in that manner. Commissioner Jonathan recommended a continuance--the applicant heard their concerns . He suggested a softening of colors, a technique to reduce the impact of an internally lit sign, and that the applicant come back with something the commission was more comfortable with. Chairperson Spiegel noted that it could be continued to the first meeting in October. Commissioner Jonathan said that he did not feel they were hearing an objection to the concept of the sign, just a couple of aspects of it. Mr. Agin said the issue for them would be that they would be starting construction, but there would be �... enough time to come back by October 4 before their opening. He stated that for the opening it was important for them to have this matter resolved. He said they would try to accomplish something the commission could live with as well as something they were trying to achieve. He confirmed that he was in favor of the extension. He noted that they were part of a franchise and this was what they had to live with and there was a lot of money involved with it. If it could be toned down, they would try to figure out a way to do it and then submit the proposal on October 4 . Chairperson Spiegel asked for a motion of continuance. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, continuing 4341 SA to October 4, 1994 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . Mr. Diaz cautioned the applicant that if the sign was of core interest to this project, if the project were a "go or no go" if the sign were approved or denied, he suggested they not proceed with tenant improvements or spending money until they had the sign approved. He said that if the matter were 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 appealed to the city council or called up, they would not "W want to hear the argument that they had already spent a lot of money on the interior. Mr. Agin asked if they were supposed to go back through the architectural commission to present the new ideas . Chairperson Spiegel and Mr. Diaz stated that they would come back to the planning commission. D. Section 4 Preliminary Site Plan and Environmental Impact Report - PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Applicant Request for a recommendation to city council for approval of a proposed preliminary site plan and certifying an Environmental Impact Report for 515 . 5 acres bounded by Frank Sinatra Drive on the north, Cook Street on the east, Country Club Drive on the south, and Portola Avenue on the west. Mr. Diaz stated he wanted to clarify the purpose of the hearing because there had been a lot of discussion in the community regarding one specific part of this environmental impact report and that specifically dealt with the sports park. The issue before the commission was not the sports W" park. The sports park conditional use permit was approved by the commission and then was appealed to the city council . The hearing on that conditional use permit was then continued, based on objections raised and the threats of possible litigation that were raised that an environmental impact report was not done covering the entire project, of which this particular piece (the sports park specifically) was part. Before the commission this evening was the environmental impact report as it dealt entirely with Section 4 . The issue of the conditional use permit was before the city council and it was in abeyance because the council would not be able to act on that until the environmental impact report was certified. The issue before the commission was not that specific sports park. Some environmental impacts that specific part of the plan might generate were dealt with in the EIR, but the EIR covered the entire plan and he would go through that EIR and suggested mitigation measures later in the staff presentation. The issue tonight would not be decided by the planning commission. The certification of the environmental impact report, because ultimately the entire project involved general plan amendments, zone changes, development agreements, as well as development disposition agreements, those were all issues that had to be approved by 10 MW MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 w. the legislative body--the city council . Therefore the legislative body was the lead agency for this particular project. What they would be doing would be taking testimony and any concerns that might be raised that weren' t covered by the EIR, those comments and concerns would be addressed and then sent on to the city council . He stated that they would take all testimony. The main concern was to hear what the community' s concerns were so that they could be addressed. Whether they were addressed within the EIR or whether they were addressed at later hearings, the city would have to go through and decide. There would be additional public hearings on the site plan, on the zone changes, developments agreements, etc. Those hearings would take place before planning commission first, then city council . Mr. Diaz stated regarding notification: normally notification was sent to everyone within 300 feet of the particular project being analyzed. In this particular case, because there were property owners within Section 4 whose property was not yet owned by the redevelopment agency or by the respective developer who has the sole right to develop this particular plan at this time, staff notified all of the property owners within Section 4, or attempted to based on the latest equalized assessment rolls . Rather than going 300 feet from the curb line or property lines, staff went 300 feet from the �..• center line of Frank Sinatra, Country Club, Cook and Portola. This was beyond the legal requirement. Also, there had been articles in the newspaper on this . Mr. Diaz said he would introduce Mr. Ken Ryan of PBR and Associates who would briefly go through the proposed site plan. Mr. Diaz stated that they were not looking at it necessarily for specifics, but looking at it from a standpoint of the environmental impact report. He said he would then introduce the consultant that was retained by the city to do the environmental impact report; he indicated that in this particular case, the planners who did the plan were not the same consultants who did the environmental impact report. The planners doing the plan were retained by the redevelopment agency; an independent firm did the environmental impact report to assure that level of independence in terms of environmental analysis that this particular plan deserved. Chairperson Spiegel clarified that what staff was really looking for from the planning commission was a recommendation to the city council so that they could use that information to certify the environmental impact report. Mr. Diaz noted that after this hearing on the agenda there was a hearing on a tentative map that was also within this area; at that time to 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 there would be another procedure the planning commission would go through. While that tentative map was not shown on this plan, that plan was analyzed within the environmental impact report as an alternative, so the EIR also encompassed that tentative map if the project did not proceed. MR. KEN RYAN, PBR, stated that he was with the planning firm working closely with the city and Palm Desert Golf Partners in preparing what they felt was a show case resort development project for the Section 4 project area. He said that they envisioned this project as a special project and saw it as a resort project featuring resort class golf, hotels, conference center, and time share units . The project itself featured two 18 hole golf courses; both would be returning nines and revolved and highlighted various land uses contained in the project area including a clubhouse, conference center, and luxury hotel . The city' s tournament course was located in the north half of the project. All uses in relationship to the course were maximized to get the best relationship between the golf course and land uses within the project area. The north course was envisioned as a desert landscape theme with oasis-type elements included and was designed to maximize its relationship with the heart of the project area, the conference center and clubhouse in particular. The south half of the project was a more traditional resort course which revolved around on the lower half and lower right of the timeshares . The south course was more of a lakes or water theme in terms of how it was being thought of in terms of layout. The focal point or heart of the project area involved three primary uses : 1) a shared clubhouse facility utilized by both the north and south half of the project in terms of the golf courses; 2) a conference center; and 3) a luxury hotel . The core area was accessed primarily by a prominent spine road directly across from the Marriott Desert Springs Resort off Country Club and would provide some spectacular opportunities to establish the theme for this resort property. It was bordered by golf on both the right and left sides and provided a great opportunity for the arrival to the three uses in the center. The grading concept was prepared so that the roadway undulated a little to allow a rise and fall to see vistas of golf and there could be some nice treatments in terms of landscape architecture. They were introducing bridge elements as part of the lakes and water concept for the south golf course. Special paving for certain entrance 12 low MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 vow locations would also be provided. A lot of fun things he felt would add to the showcase quality of the project. On the lower left and right was the Marriott timeshare expansion plan. Access to the left and right off of the main spine road would provide for guard gated opportunities in terms of accessing the timeshare units . They were very cognizant of incorporating the timeshare element from the golf cart access standpoint and that had been included. The location was in close proximity to the Marriott so there was a good relationship between the Marriott Desert Springs to the south of Country Club and within the project itself . They also provided for appropriate emergency access . For recreation criteria, they worked very close with the Marriott so that it would maximize resort and recreation opportunities . Directly across the street from the Marriott in the right portion of the project itself was the existing Desert Marketplace retail center. On the left side was an area designated theme retail . He felt this would provide an excellent opportunity to provide theme retail uses consistent with the architecture and landscape architecture for the entire project. The lower side of the project adjacent to Country Club was designated as office professional consistent and compatible with existing uses located there--the nursing home and church facility. They also had an area in the upper right-hand portion of the project designated as a hotel site at the corner of Frank Sinatra and Cook. That designation was something that responded to the access and visibility in terms of that location and in recognizing the future extension of Cook to the freeway. They saw that as an important design feature in the project. Appropriate landscape architecture he felt was something that needed to be included in terms of providing for appropriate setbacks and maximizing the image they wanted to portray for the project, which was a high-end resort special project. They also accommodated the sports park location along Portola and felt it was currently consistent with the plan. He stated he was present to answer any questions . Commissioner Whitlock noted that the entry off Country Club was emphasized and asked if there was other access to this project off of Portola for the timeshare units and/or golf course maintenance. Mr. Ryan replied yes, there was access from Portola for secondary access/timeshare purposes . The golf course 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 architects, Michael Hurdson and John Cook, had also suggested a golf learning center be part of the driving range and golf facility to provide for putting and a learning-type facility in conjunction with a golf course design. Chairperson Spiegel asked for and received clarification that the only road into the clubhouse was from Country Club. Mr. Diaz stated that Mr. Dick Smith, the head of the consultant firm that completed the EIR work, was present to address the commission. MR. RICHARD SMITH, a principal in the firm of Smith, Peroni & Fox, 960 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way in Palm Springs, stated that they did not have any relationship with the applicant or developer. He personally had no relationship, his partner had no relationship and all the sub-consultants had no relationship. It was their obligation under contract with the city to provide an environmental impact report that was objective--they were neither advocates for or against this particular project. It was their role under CEQA to look at all the issues involved in a development of this magnitude and to look at all the impacts that were possibly involved, to analyze the impacts, and see if any of them r/ were significant. If they were significant, it was their obligation to see whether there were mitigation measures that could be placed on the project to lead to insignificance of the impacts . He said the documents given to planning commission included the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the Final Environmental Impact Report (which included the comments they received as a result of sending out the draft environmental document to required agencies and individuals and in that final draft there were letters and comments and their response to those comments) , and the Technical Report. He noted that also present at the meeting were: Mr. Mike Peroni, his partner; Mr. Michael Berman, the project manager; Mr. Greg Indo of Indo Engineering, their noise and air quality expert; Mr. John Caine, their traffic expert; and Mr. Doug McCullough of Geographics, their expert on light and glare. He stated that they were ready to respond to any questions . Chairperson Spiegel asked Mr. Smith to review all the areas they went into in the environmental impact report. Mr. Smith indicated that Mr. Berman would do that very briefly. Chairperson Spiegel asked that Mr. Smith and his staff be 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 vow ready to answer any questions resulting from the public testimony. MR. MICHAEL BERMAN, of Smith, Peroni & Fox, stated that the they addressed a full range of environmental issues in the environmental impact report including the issues of hydrology, drainage, geology, biology, cultural resources, traffic, air quality, noise, light and glare, jobs, housing, energy use, public utilities and public services . During their review the key areas with issues to address were biology, traffic, air quality, and light and glare. Chairperson Spiegel noted that they also went into the public infrastructure, public utilities, water, waste water, solid waste, electricity, natural gas, law enforcement, fire, parks and recreation, schools, library facilities, and public transportation. Mr. Berman concurred and said that to be very thorough, they also covered issues that were required under the California Environmental Quality Act such as the relationship between long and short term uses of the land and the environment, irreversible and irretrievable .... commitment of resources and growth inducing impacts . Cumulative impacts were also considered in the EIR and he stated that he would be happy to answer any questions . Commissioner Jonathan questioned the conclusion under parks and recreation. He noted that the consultant indicated that the adverse impact on parks and recreation would not exist, that there would not be an adverse impact, yet later under schools, he indicated that the additional jobs created and the additional permanent households would result in 200 additional students to school district enrollment. He asked how, if 200 more children were being brought in, that could result in zero impact on parks and recreation. Mr. Berman replied that the project itself did not include any permanent housing. The way the students would be attracted to the project was that people working at the project, if they were from outside the area, would be allowed to bring their children into the area to go to school, which was required by California law. Commissioner Jonathan asked if a conclusion was being made under schools that there would be outside workers brought in that would increase student population by 200 . Mr. Berman said that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan felt that if there were 200 new students, those 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 students would place additional demand on parks and recreational services . Mr. Diaz clarified that the workers who came in, their children could not automatically come into the schools; they could request interdistrict transfers and if there was no overcrowding situation, then they could come into the schools . Secondly, all 200 would not be the same age and growing up at the same--there would be a natural split among the age groups of the students . Thirdly, in terms of the city' s parks, existing parks and recreation programs, through the recreation element of the general plan they could accommodate those 200 additional children within the parks and plans the city has . There would be an impact, but there would not be a significant adverse impact. He felt the existing programs could handle those 200 children. Commissioner Jonathan felt that the existing facilities, including the ones on the chalkboard that were planned, could not handle the present demand for children, much less an additional 200 students from new people moving into the area. Mr. Diaz noted for the record that a letter from Mary K. Stoltzman and Dr. David H. Stoltzman was received that indicated that they do not wish to give up their rights to object to the plan at a later date, that their property was included within the site plan and to date no one had contacted them about the plan, so they would reserve their right to make any comments concerning the plan at the appropriate time and hearing. Because they were not present did not mean they gave up those rights . Mr. Diaz explained that notices of hearing went out and Mrs . Stoltzman was concerned and called him and he told her that she should send in this letter to reserve her rights if at a later time she was concerned about the plan. Mr. Diaz stated that would conclude the staff report. Chairperson Spiegel requested that if a person' s comments were the same as someone that had already made the comment, it was not necessary for them to make the comment again. Chairperson Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . DR. JOHN DELLER, said he was a permanent resident in Palm Desert on Crest Lake Drive, which was part of Desert Falls off Cook Street. He stated that he had some reservations about this development. First, he felt Mr. Ryan did not say anything about the sports complex when he described the beauty of this project. He said he was concerned about the sports complex, but 16 aN/ MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 •.. understood that was another issue. From the list of things the environmental impact report has, it appeared that everything he had to say had been thoroughly looked into, but he was going to mention a few things anyway in case they weren't looked into. He was concerned about the density on Cook Street and Frank Sinatra. Living on Cook Street his entrance was off of Cook Street, he understood that there would be an overpass to I-10 in the near future and if that was designed better than the one on Monterey, it would be used much more than the other exit/entry into the valley. His concern was that Cook Street would be a major corridor into the valley to rival Highway 111 and at the one corner there would be two hotels with 300 rooms each. He did not know what kind of hotels they would be, who would put them up, or where the parking would be for the hotels . He said he also understood that across the street from this complex there were plans to put in a college campus . He felt there was a lot of development going on in that corridor which would alter the living quality of people who had purchased homes along this country club area. He also had secondary concerns about what this would do to the community, which had developed as a serene country club strip with one rather classy hotel, but even that hotel .� when they were busy, parked cars on Country Club Drive and in the shopping center across the street. He could see how this would multiply with more hotels . There would be increased noise pollution from cars, people, and the outdoor games, increased air pollution from the increased traffic, increased light pollution from the hotels, parking lots, ballparks and fireworks . There would probably be increased crime because this would attract a spillover that would go into the residential community. Views of the mountains would be obstructed by five story hotels . He said he also wondered about revenues to the city. He heard some previous comments about the quality of the city and noted that the planning commission spent a lot of time on a little Burger King sign, and now they were talking about developing an entire block and he wondered how this would impact on the quality of the city. Also, he asked how the city' s revenues from the pay-for-play would play out and how much the city could really get from this prime community by charging people to play baseball, tennis and games . He asked where the people would come from to play those games . He felt that timeshare and public golf courses and pay-for-play games were not what he thought Country Club Drive was supposed to be about ew 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 and he was not sure that was a good new image for the .� city. He stated that he would like the image of Country Club Drive to stay as it is and be a primarily residential development. He was also concerned about opening the traffic corridors on Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive and how that would change the nature of the community in the future. Mr. Diaz requested that people addressing the commission spell their names to have them accurate for the record. MS. PEARL SHAPIRO, a Palm Desert resident, stated that in regard to the pay and play facility, permit no. 93 . 3 Section 4, she stated that she submitted over 200 signatures on a petition opposing the facility. She said she had another 62 signatures and stated she would present them to the commission. She felt this would be a detriment to the 55+ aged community, the convalescent hospital, and the new church because of all the added noise, traffic and congestion in the area. They purchased their home for the tranquility of the Palm Desert community five years ago and they felt this development would add too great an impact in this area with the added building structures serving alcohol, loud speakers, additional noise, lights ( 12-15 light standards 70-80 feet high) , criminal activity, fights that could arise from gangs and illegal drug use with the facility open to 11 : 00 p.m. every night. She hoped the planning commission would refuse to approve this proposed development and she stated she was speaking for many residents in the area. MR. BUZZ RADOLPH, General Manager at the Lakes Country Club, stated that he had an opportunity to read the environmental impact report and he wanted to quote from it. One of the paragraphs in the environmental report stated that, "The sports park is proposed as a multi-use facility where sporting groups would contract with the operator to use the various recreational facilities . However, special events at the facility where sports celebrities may attend are projected to attract as many as 5, 000 spectators . " Assuming that the average vehicle occupancy of 2 . 5 would require approximately 2 , 000 parking spaces, in this particular paragraph it stated that parking would have to be used at the high school for these particular events and the events would take place five or six times per year where there would be 5, 000 people attending. The word "mitigating" was used 18 ..r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 r. many times in the environmental report as it related to all the things and the conditions that arose in the way of lighting, law enforcement and parking as it related to the sports complex. He said the consultants recognized the problems of the sports complex, but they also stated they could be mitigated. He noted that the outdoor lighting of the sports complex was until 11 : 00 p.m. The environmental report indicated that there would be four possible alternatives . One alternative was to do nothing. He believed that the residents at the Lakes Country Club were not opposed to the overall plan--they were opposed to the sports complex. Alternative #1 suggested that there would be no problems if the city did nothing. Alternative #2 was everything but the sports complex. He noted that under noise, alternative 2 suggested since alternative 2 did not include a sports park, it would not generate the related motor vehicle noise and crowd noise, the lights or glare. It suggested that alternative 2 would have fewer impacts related to light and glare than would the proposed project because of the sports park. The primary light emitting use had been eliminated. It went on to suggest that in law enforcement, there would be less problems because of the elimination of the sports +r. park. Alternate 2 had all the conditions except for the sports complex and the city would not have to worry about mitigating any of the problems that came with lighting, with the use of alcoholic beverages, or any of the things suggested for water, schools, or public transportation. Alternate 2 seemed to be a very appropriate possibility to consider with the exclusion. He said that he would present to the planning commission a letter signed by 698 members of the Lakes Country Club (no list was submitted) which stated that it was not an appropriate facility and would mar the area creating expanded traffic flow, excessive noise and pollution. That was exactly what the environmental report said it would do. The Lakes Country Club asked that they consider an alternate site which had been discussed and suggested that planning commission approve alternate 2 within the environmental report to exclude the sports park. Commissioner Jonathan said that he was sincerely trying to relate to the concerns of the residents . He noted that between the project and the sports park there were two residential projects, 18 holes of golf, a conference center, a clubhouse and a driving range. He asked why they were so 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 worried about being effected by the sports park when there was so much between them. Mr. Radolph said he could not speak for each individual person, but the overall feeling in general was that the area picked was prime land. They were very interested in how the city of Palm Desert progresses in its expansion. Commissioner Jonathan asked where the concerns from the direct impact came from; if he were sitting in a backyard at the Lakes, how would he be directly impacted by the sports facility. Mr. Radolph thought the people felt directly effected by being residents of Palm Desert and having the feeling that it was not an appropriate facility to be in the area it was being put into. They would have to see the lights from their living rooms, hear the noise, or worry about the fact that there might be some fights going on because of what may or may not be going on over there. As residents, voting residents, members, and people who were concerned with the development of the city of Palm Desert, they felt as though that was not an appropriate facility, whether they could see it or not. ..ir Commissioner Jonathan said that by the absence of a direct detailed answer, what he thought Mr. Radolph was saying was they didn't sense there would be a direct impact to them. Mr. Radolph disagreed. He said that was one reason. They wouldn't know until those lights went up on 70 foot poles, until the traffic was such that they couldn't get in or out of their project. They had a right to think or imagine as the commission did on making a decision of what they felt was right. He felt it was obvious in the environmental report that Alternative 2 had a lot less mitigating circumstances to it without the sports park than it did with it. Mr. Diaz clarified that the merits and arguments occurred at two different locations at four different hearings regarding the sports park. The conditional use permit was before the city council . There would be another hearing on that. What was before the planning commission was the environmental impact report on the entire project. There were alternatives within the environmental impact report that was required by the guidelines under the California Environmental Quality Act 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 Now of 1970 as Amended. The alternatives showed alternatives to the project in that area. The planning commission' s role tonight was not to choose specific alternatives . They were to evaluate the plan before them and to look at other alternatives . The ultimate decision that had to be made was, could the potential significant adverse impacts to the environment of this particular project be mitigated. The report indicated that it could. Under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, even if they were evaluating alternatives, they were not required to choose the most environmentally acceptable alternative. They were required to mitigate the significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of the project to below the level of significance. They were not even required to do that--with a statement of overriding considerations if they could show that other socio-economic benefits outweighed the effects on the environment, they could proceed. He did not want to see all the hearing time being spent on one portion of the project. He stated that he realized that portion of the project that was causing the most concern and suggested that the entire report be looked at and the merits or demerits of the sports park and that conditional use permit would have to be decided at another hearing. Even if council certified the environmental impact report with the sports park there, it .r did not mean that part of the plan or any part of the plan necessarily had to be approved. It just said that if conditioned appropriately, it would not have an adverse impact on the environment. He said he did not want to see the merits of the entire plan and the discussion frozen on one section on issues that would have to be decided upon by council . MR. STAN GREENE, 362 Muirfield Drive in Desert Falls in Palm Desert. He said he had been following this project, specifically the sports complex issue, since the beginning. He noted that he read the EIR and all the public files on the sports complex. He stated that he wanted to respond to previous comments . There was a reason the EIR was before the planning commission for the city--no matter what staff said. They were to review it, evaluate it and make a recommendation to the city council . Staff could not take that away from the commission. He said it was the commission' s responsibility tonight. The sports complex was a part of the entire project. There might be good parts and there might be bad parts . They were there to talk about both. He said with the exception of the sports complex, he had no opposition to the development of the project ""' 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 site as proposed in the EIR. He believed it was compatible with the general development of the area. The board of directors of their association at Desert Falls did not oppose the plan as presented to them by Palm Desert Golf Partners . He stated that he had not heard of any opposition to that development except for the sports complex and the first speaker. He said the EIR appeared to be adequate and mitigated the identified impacts with the exception of those relating to the sports complex. He stated that the first impact was parking. The EIR on page 5-25 stated that there would be a parking problem created for special events like rock concerts held at the sports complex. They were lacking some 1680 parking spaces . Of that 300 spaces could be found at Palm Desert High School, if there was no conflict on that date with something the high school had going on. That still left a shortage of almost 1400 parking spaces . The consultant attempted to mitigate this problem by having the developers of the sports complex enter into a joint powers agreement with adjacent land owners to provide this parking. He asked what adjacent land owners . Everything adjacent was either developed or would be developed in the near future and had to meet its own parking requirements . He did not feel that was a solution and ignored the impact. ,r He said that the city required all other developments to provide onsite parking for all proposed uses allowed on the property, whether it was a shopping center, a movie theater, a restaurant or an office building. He asked why they were ignoring this requirement for this development and use. He stated that the second impact was noise. The EIR stated on page 5-53 and 5-54 that, "Measures to reduce noise over the long term shall include: #4 an earthen berm shall be constructed around the sports park to provide noise shielding for adjacent uses . " He felt that what the consultant did not say was how high the berm would be--would it be one foot or 20 feet. High berms were generally opposed by the police because it interfered with their ability to view the site while on patrol . He asked how a berm would impact them and how that problem would be mitigated. He said the third impact was lighting. On page 5-54 and 5-56 it said they recognize that the state of the art can shield and direct light so that it wouldn't shine into neighboring development homes . He said that was required by the EIR. The impact the EIR did not address is what his wife called "the glow" . The glow that was created dissipated the beautiful night sky. They did 22 "'� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 �••► not want a glow over their neighborhood. They wanted to be able to step outside before 11 : 00 p.m. and be able to enjoy the beauty of the night sky. The fourth impact was the consumption of alcoholic beverages on the site on page 6-8 . It was his understanding that the consumption of alcohol in a park open to the general public would violate city Ordinance 11 . 01 . 010(A) . He asked if they were going to change the ordinance or ignore the violation. Other statements in the EIR he felt needed correction were on page 4-8 in the second paragraph where the consultant stated, "No apparent land use conflicts between the proposed project and surrounding existing or proposed land uses have been identified because the uses proposed were sufficiently similar to development that already exists or is planned. " He said he took exception to that statement. The sports complex was not only dissimilar, but it was in conflict with the land uses in the general area. There were no ballfields, soccer fields, batting cages, basketball and volleyball courts in the area. Why? Because there was no demand for them. Recreational needs were provided to the residents of the area by the residential development of the area. On page 7-1 the consultant said, "No significant unavoidable adverse �► impacts were anticipated from the development of this project. All identified impacts could feasibly be mitigated to below the level of significance. " He asked if staff did not inform the consultant of the objections from the residents of the area at previous meetings when the sports complex was proposed at Hovley and later when it was moved to Portola. In addition, he felt the consultant did not address the adverse social impacts created by the inclusion of the sports complex. The psychological impacts, well-being of the residents of the area, their sense of security, and neighborhood livability. He asked if the lack of parking for 1600 cars during a special event was a significant impact. He said he was not opposed to a sports complex being located in the city of Palm Desert, but the details of that complex, the pros, cons, and financing was another matter that should not be confused with the issue tonight. The issue was whether the sports complex should be part of this project. Should it be placed in this location. Was this the best place to serve the entire community. Was it compatible with the neighborhood. Six years ago they purchased their retirement home in the Coachella Valley. After some investigation they narrowed the decision to Palm Desert low 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 and Desert Falls . They selected Desert Falls after meeting with the Palm Desert planning staff and reviewing the general and specific plan for the area. They were satisfied that the city was well planned and that the city was conforming to that plan. They wanted to live in the environment that the north sphere provided. The general plan land use element ' s goals discussed the compatibility of land uses and included the objectives of minimizing conflicts between land uses, maintaining the character of the area, creating the best possible living environment for the residents, and creating a distinctive sense of place and identity for each community and neighborhood of the city. The objectives of the zoning ordinance and regulations were to foster a harmonious, convenient workable relationship between land uses . The placement of the sports complex in this area was contrary to the general plan. It was incompatible with established land use patterns . No land use conditions had changed since the adoption of the general plan and zoning ordinance and the development of the area had conformed to the existing regulations . He felt this project would adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood, increase traffic congestion, would adversely affect property values, would be a detriment to the improvement MW or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations and it granted a special privilege to an individual as contrasted to the general welfare. That project was not reasonable in that the property could be developed in accordance with existing zoning regulations and that there were other adequate sites in the community that could house the sports complex. Those of them that lived in the community looked to the members of the planning commission to protect the interests of the residents by ensuring that the development follows the plan that the commission and council adopted. When a sports complex was proposed on Hovley and the residents of the area protested, their interests were protected and it wasn't located there. He felt the same arguments held true for this location. He said that if the words and meaning of the general plan had any meaning at all, he asked that the commission not approve this project if it included the sports complex. He said there were a lot of people present and asked them to stand if they felt the same way so they wouldn't have to address the commission with the same comments . (A majority of those present stood. ) 24 `� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 Now MR. GEORGE KERMODE stated that there was probably no one in the room closer to the development than him. He said that he just sold a home in Connecticut and had traveled all over the country with his job and was able to see resorts and vacation areas, as well as retirement areas, and selected Palm Desert. He sold a home and just built a brand new one here. He said that when he would ultimately have to look at the development on the other side with the lights from the baseball fields and driving range and all the other developments there, if the consultants could still say there were no environmental impacts on his backyard, he would side with them. MR. WILLIAM SWANK, 55-550 Riviera Drive in La Quinta, stated that he represented the property on the north side of Frank Sinatra. He said he read the entire environmental impact report and he had some concerns with it. The EIR said that all the concerns could be mitigated. He felt that was wrong because the EIR was flawed. He did not know of any standard anywhere, any place in the United States or anywhere in California that would permit a development that would be supporting 5,000 people at an event where the parking would be so ... short. He said that 300 of those spaces would have to come from 3 . 7 miles away. Even with the most efficient layout, it would take at least 9 . 5 acres to provide for the 1300 parking space shortage, excluding the land at the high school . He also felt that would generate a lot of traf f is down Monterey Avenue, Hovley, Cook and to the high school . He did not know when the special events would occur, during the daytime or nighttime. He did not know of any vacant land or any possibilities where they could join in with someone to have some kind of cooperation with the parking arrangement. Most of the area was blow sand. They could not do anything with it unless there was soil stabilized and a hard surface. Regarding the lighting, that area in question just a few feet north of there was the highest point in the desert floor in the Coachella Valley. If the lights were permitted on the sports park, those illuminators would be at the highest level of any man-made structure in the Coachella Valley. That included every building including Stouffers . It could not be mitigated--while they might not be able to read a newspaper in their backyards, people went outside at night to see the stars and enjoy the peace and tranquility of the valley. If there was one issue that effected the entire Coachella "NO 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 Valley, it was the night sky issue. If someone tried to get a permit for one single tennis court most places would deny it. He concurred with Mr. Radolph in that he reviewed the entire plan and supported the plan except for the pay-for-play sports park. If the commission was going to be choosing between alternative 1, 2 , 3 or 4 , then he would support Alternative 2 and urged the commission to support it also. MRS. DEBBIE BYK, 57 Birdie Way in Palm Desert, congratulated Mr. Greene on presenting a succinct proposal to the commission. While the commission had heard of 600 signatures, and 300 signatures, there were many more than that in that area from people who were full time residents and voters in that district. They did not want the sports park where it was being proposed. She admired everything Palm Desert had done in development and the high standards, including the time they put in on the sign for Burger King. This was an extremely important issue to the area residents and they hoped if the commission had a choice, that they would go for the second proposal in the environmental impact report. JUDGE ARNOLD H. EINBINDER, 549 Desert Falls Drive in Desert Falls, stated that he could not improve upon the comments that had been made by various individuals who opposed the project to the extent of the sports complex. He differed with Mr. Diaz in the respect that the planning commission was the body which was initiating some action regarding this pay-for-play sports complex. Irrespective of how minute Mr. Diaz would say their job was or performance in regard to that was not the point. The point was that the commission did have an effect on that particular project. They were opposed to that project and they had to express their opposition to the commission with the hopes that the commission would act diligently and effectively in the interests of the public they were trying to represent. If they made a decision, he asked that they make a decision that would approve the project without the sports complex. MR. JULES MARKOWITZ, 28 Acapulco in Silver Sands, stated that he was responding directly to Commissioner Jonathan' s request as to how this sports bar impacted him. He said he lived less than one mile from the sports bar, just straight south on Portola, and if there were a big uprising or some type of problem there, 26 "r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 low whatever came out of this pay-for-play would have a direct impact on the people living in Silver Sands . He said that the whole project and he heard the comments that this was a high class, wonderful project, and he supported all that except for the sports bar. He did not think if fit. He suggested that if it were to be built, it should be by the freeway. In direct response to how it would impact him, he stated that he had a great deal of concern about cars being parked all along Portola down to his home. MR. CHARLES PERONE, a resident on Oakmont in Desert Falls, stated that he was opposed to two aspects of this plan. The hotel would block his view of the mountain and he had the understanding or hope when he purchased his home that they would build another country club there. He would never have bought a home there if he had known there would be a hotel across the street. Regarding the sports park, he felt that no one on the planning commission would live anywhere near that park. He said there was a lot opposition and asked them to consider how they would feel living next to it. He said that while he might not have the education or experience as planners that the commission did, if the city wanted low a sports park they should build it near the freeway. If they did not have that property, it could be annexed. He felt there would not be any opposition there and they could build the lights as high as they wanted. He noted it would be near the freeway entrance and there would be just as much wind there. He suggested building it lower or building some type of form so the wind would blow up like they used for jets . He stated that they did not need the traffic congestion from a hotel . There would be enough from being the main artery off the freeway. He hoped the commission would reconsider the sports park and put it near the freeway off Monterey. He said if it was located there it would not be near their homes and they could go around the area instead of going through it. Mr. Diaz asked Mr. Perone to clarify which hotel he was talking about for traffic generation; Mr. Perone said the one at Frank Sinatra and Cook. MR. BOB MARKS, a Silver Sands resident, stated that he moved there recently and had moved 2,000 miles west because he had been out to the desert 20 years ago and knew how beautiful it was with a unique climate and 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 unique environment like no other place in the world and mar he came here for peace and tranquility. He bought a nice house and they used their yard and it was nice and quiet and he understood that area was zoned residential . Mr. Diaz concurred that it was zoned residential . Mr. Marks said they retired here for peace and tranquility and the area was zoned residential . He asked why the city needed a zoning board if it was going to be changed. He suggested that they leave the zoning open and just let anyone do what they wanted, anytime-- that would give him a better understanding of what was going in there than what he had now. MR. KEMMON KENRIADES, a resident of the Lakes Country Club, said he wanted to reply to Commissioner Jonathan as to why they were opposed to the project. The next time the Marriott had an outside concert in a tent with a lot less than 5,000 people, he would invite the commission to the Lakes to listen to the noise and see the lights . He felt that would make them understand why they were opposed to having 5, 000 people at less than half a mile away. ri MR. RICHARD ODEKIRK, 43-670 Lisbon Way in Palm Desert, noted that Mrs . Byk said she knew of a lot of signatures and that there were more people out there that were interested in signing a petition. He said he had 3, 000 signatures including many residents of the Lakes, Desert Falls, Silver Sands, and Palm Desert Greens who had taken the time fill out cards and he had a computer list of all the people that filled out the cards from people that asked the city to approve the sports park in that location. He said he would submit that to the planning commission. Mr. Diaz suggested that Mr. Odekirk' s cards and/or list be submitted to the city council on the evening of the hearing for the conditional use permit. Mr. Odekirk said he would do that. Commissioner Jonathan asked if those signatures were in support of the sports complex or the overall proposal for Section 4 ; Mr. Odekirk replied the sports complex. MR. JACK KIBBEY, representing Regency Homes, said he was not here about the sports complex or anything, he just 28 r.r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 �•••� wanted to take the time to say that they have ten acres that got caught up in the environmental impact report which he felt did not belong in there. He said there were other properties that had developed with a negative declaration and he wanted to state their opposition that they had been denied their rights to build for many months . He said it would take two years to get this passed and he felt they would be stuck the same way. He stated that Mr. Diaz also had their feelings on this . Mr. Diaz explained that this involved the next hearing item concerning the tentative map and the ten acres along Country Club that were evaluated as part of this EIR. He said that project would be decided as part of the EIR and he would explain that to the commission when the tentative map hearing was discussed next on the agenda. MR. ED BYK, 57 Birdie Way in Palm Desert, stated he wanted to comment on the cards Mr. Odekirk showed them. He asked if the commission saw the brochure that Mr. Odekirk put out that included a card to be sent in to the city council . He assumed those were the cards Mr. Odekirk showed tonight. Those brochures were distributed indiscriminately; they gave a distorted +�• picture of this project and he felt the only way to use those cards would be to examine and compare them to voting rolls in the city to see how many were actually residents in the city. He said that Mr. Odekirk at a previous meeting had a supporter stand up from 1720 Country Club Drive and he did not know of anywhere on Country Club Drive with only four numbers in the address . He felt these things were all subject to question. MR. TIM CULLIN, 17 Taylor Avenue in Montecido, said that he had owned his property since 1992 and he had never received a notice of anything that related to development around him. He wanted the commission to know that if the notices went out, he did not receive one. Also, his main concern was the timeshare south of where he was located on Taylor and just north of where the Ralph' s and Payless shopping center was located. To his understanding when he bought his house it was a low density residential area with single level types of homes . The timeshare the Marriott had was two levels or multi-level type structures . He was opposed to the multi-level structure because it would ruin the view of the mountains to the south. Looking at the Ralph' s 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 shopping center, for a person directly behind it rr approximately 500 feet away, he saw the lights every day and every night. They came on at 8 : 00 p.m. and were on until 5 : 00 a.m. He had a swimming pool in the back and had guests over and there were about 25 lights going across with "mega" wattage that ruined his serenity and view to the south. He felt that coupled with two story structures going north and the development just south of his home would ruin his area and directly impacted him. Chairperson Spiegel asked Mr. Cullin to show him on the map where he was located. Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Diaz in response to Mr. Cullin' s comments, if Section 4 was approved, if there would be an opportunity for a precise plan presentation and public input so that residents with concerns about building height, view obstructions, etc. , would have an opportunity to have them addressed. Mr. Diaz replied yes, and recommended that the minute motion the commission would vote on be revised to not comment at this point in time on the site plan itself . They would ask city council to look at those items in the EIR and then when the site plan came back, those issues would be addressed. Mr. Diaz asked Mr. Cullin to give him a call and he would look into the light issue--he couldn' t promise anything, but staff would look into the issue. He felt with the distance involved, Mr. Cullin shouldn' t be seeing the lights . Chairperson Spiegel noted that there were also comments about the high noise levels when the Marriott had events with outside music. He felt that was not right and they were not approved to have that high a noise level . Mr. Diaz said the city did not approve high noise levels and staff had been trying to work on that and the Marriott had met with the homeowners in the Lakes area. He did not remember the last time fireworks were approved in there and noted that there had been complaints with regards to high noise levels from some of the concerts . He thought some of those problems had been worked out, but if they hadn' t staff could continue to look into that situation. Chairperson Spiegel asked if each area would come back before the planning commission and city council--the two hotels, the themed retail area, a conference center, a clubhouse--each one would come back. Mr. Diaz concurred and said that there would be a separate hearing on the entire plan itself where they would have the development criteria for each of those 30 %so MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 i areas spelled out and approved. That would be development criteria that would be identified and those areas would be required to be met. Then there would be a subsequent hearing when each of those areas came in. They would have a lot of public hearings on it, but they would not be going through environmental impact reports necessarily for each and every one of those areas because that was the purpose of the document before the commission now. When the commission received the plan, the commission might decide they would not recommend a certain use and that would be the time to make those recommendations . MR. DAVE SPRIGGS, No. 2 La Jolla in Silver Sands, stated that regarding the Marriott and their music, they heard the music all the time and he lived on the other side of the development away from them. Chairperson Spiegel asked if Mr. Spriggs had made any complaints to the city. Mr. Spriggs replied no. Chairperson Spiegel said that if the music bothered him to please make complaints because that was the only way the situation could be corrected. Mr. Spriggs said that when the sports parks and the other complex was discussed, it was talked about as two separate units . One was being built by one group and the other by someone else. He felt it was slipped into one environmental impact report which he felt the whole report went in and if the commission accepted it, they would accept the whole thing. He felt it should never have been put in together and should be kept separate. Mr. Diaz stated that when the issue came up, by law they could not piecemeal the project or project review process . That was why the sports park was included as part of this environmental impact report because it was part of an overall project. They could not take the EIR for the sports park separate from the whole project. One step further was that if they took the EIR for the sports park separately, it would show no significant adverse impacts on the environment that could not be mitigated. Again, in terms of the overall complex and the issue of the special events, those were addressed as part of the conditions of approval on the conditional use permit and addressed in the EIR. Outside of those, they were talking about 20 acres out of the 450 acres. They had to have the project as part of the entire project because they knew it was going to be part of it. At the council hearing, that was one of the items that the 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 opposition' s attorney brought up--that the city was piece Wo mealing it and the city should do an environmental impact report on the entire project. That was why it was being done that way. Mr. Spriggs said that this seemed like a situation when congress put in a bill and someone tacked something onto it just to get it through. He did not understand why there couldn't be two reports . MR. STAN GREENE asked for a point of clarification. Mr. Diaz stated that tonight the commission was just to make a recommendation for certification, but he just noticed that the recommendation made by staff to the commission was to approve the preliminary site plan. The preliminary site plan included the sports complex, so the commission did have the ability to make a recommendation to exclude the sports park. Mr. Diaz reiterated that the recommended course of action that staff would make would be different than what appeared on the agenda; they would just be sending forth the environmental impact report and not the site plan, it would go on with it automatically. The site plan and the whole plan would be coming back to the commission as a separate process . The reason it was here was to show something that the environmental impact report related to. MS. KATHLEEN HUDSON, 45-205 Portola, stated that she looked at the fabulous panorama of the desert on the wall behind the commission and said it hurt her to see the city building more. She worked at a major hotel and they have had during this year on a major 20%-25% occupancy. She wanted to know if it was valid to build more hotels here. She felt the desert should be kept natural as long as possible and thought they should see how the occupancy was doing in other hotels before building more hotels . She said the major hotel she worked for was struggling. Chairperson Spiegel asked if Mr. Smith wanted to respond to any of the concerns. Mr. Smith said he would do that in a general way. He felt that in listening to the comments there didn't seem to be any objection to the way they had identified the impacts . He would be concerned if people felt they did not do an honest job of identifying impacts . It made 32 "'� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 ... him feel good when the opposition used his report in aiding their discussion. He felt the impacts had been well covered. The question seemed to be the mitigation, which was the whole reason for environmental studies and reports . They had been involved in projects where the opposition had hired another planning firm to contest their mitigation measures and there was nothing wrong with that because an EIR was an information document. He noted that the council did not approve an EIR, they certified it. By that certification they said they felt the document had been prepared in accordance with state law and city codes and that it was adequate and covered all of the information they needed in order to make a decision. He pointed out that there was an impact in regard to the sports park as far as parking was concerned. They came up with a mitigation measure that they could maybe negotiate with adjacent property owners or maybe use the school grounds . That did not mean that someone could not object to that, and it did not mean that commission could say fine that was a way to mitigate this problem, but it was not satisfactory or compatible with the neighborhood. So even if it mitigated the impact, it might not be acceptable. He felt that if they wanted to pursue the matter further, �•• the experts were present that the commission could address questions to, although the experts would tell the commission that the impacts could be mitigated. The light and glare person would say, "sure, they could do whatever needed to be done to a light fixture so that there was no glow, no glare or lateral light. " He said that he posed a question to the light expert regarding light fixtures that had been installed in the community that currently existed and the expert looked at them and said that there was a glare from those fixtures, but it could be rectified. There were ways to rectify those types of things . The question was if that was satisfactory or if they wanted to do it. He said that if the commission wanted to proceed further, they could ask questions of the experts present regarding traffic, light and glare, and noise since those seemed to be the questionable issues . Chairperson Spiegel closed the public testimony and asked that Mr. Smith keep his experts available to answer any questions from the commission. Commissioner Jonathan felt Mr. Smith was right, that it would be counter-productive to get into the details of any specific ur 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 project within Section 4 because that was not what the commission was there to do. They weren' t going to get into the merits of whether there should be a sports park or not, contrary to some people' s opinions . He understood that this was an issue close to people ' s hearts and he felt the comments were sincere; they were all homeowners here also and were protective of what they have. On the other hand, when someone said an area should not be developed because it was beautiful desert, he had heard those comments when Silver Sands and the Lakes developments were being proposed. Development would occur and the commission' s mission was to try and control that development so that it had the least harmful effect. In looking at the environmental impact report, they were not looking over any specific components, whether it was hotels, timeshare, conference center, or sports park; they were not looking at that individual project to examine its specific impact because that project was not before them right now. They did not have anything to evaluate. They could not evaluate timeshares, the hotel or the sports park. The sports park came to the planning commission before the environmental impact report so they happened to know more about it. That did not change things . It has been to them, through them, and it was out of their hands and in the hands of the council . He encouraged the residents to appear before the council and let them know their concerns . For the environmental impact report, he felt Smith, Peroni & Fox did an admirable job; it was very comprehensive and with the exception of the park issue, the conclusions had a lot of merit. He stated that at the appropriate time he would be prepared to make the motion to pass it to council . Commissioner Whitlock concurred with the comments by Commissioner Jonathan. She noted a comment was made for all of them to review whether or not they would live anywhere near the sports park and she said she would. She was not concerned about that specific development. To evaluate what was before the commission she would recommend the certification of the EIR to the city council, but wanted to add that there wasn' t anywhere in the city of Palm Desert where they could have a special event that would accommodate parking onsite. She used the College of the Desert Street Fair as an example, as well as events at the McCallum Theatre. She noted that Indian Ridge would host the Bob Hope Classic. She felt there were ways of mitigating the parking problem and the EIR had given them valuable mitigation measures on the light glow and noise and felt that it was 34 "do MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 i compatible as part of the recreation complex. Overall, her recommendation would be to certify the EIR. Commissioner Beaty said that he felt the residents should have some concerns about the lighting of the sports complex and noise. He noted that he lived immediately east of the Lakes and when the prevailing wind was as it usually was and there was a concert at the Marriott, he heard that noise. He did not find it offensive, but it could be heard. The city constructed two lighting facilities : one at the baseball facilities at the College of the Desert, or at least funded 1 it, and the other at the Cook Street fields . Neither of those were shielded from glare and his question to the technical expert was if those were the lights that were looked at and if they could be shielded. He said he found them very offensive. He lived in one of the highest areas of the desert and hoped that one day the city would address that and fix that problem. He felt the other major problem in the city was that the city had no control over what the State Board of Education construction people could do. He felt the football lights at the high school were also very offensive. The lights were not on that often, but he could not see the big dipper. Right now there was a light at the Carlotta that shined right into his backyard, but he felt that was a minor •.� thing. He said that he had authored an EIR himself and he found this one extremely well done and concurred with the certification. Regarding the lighting they currently saw at Olsan Field at Palm Desert High School and the Cook Street Sports Complex, College of the Desert driving range, football fields and baseball fields, which he felt were offensive, he asked if those had been looked at and if those were the kinds of lights they would see in the north sphere. He noted that the report said no. MR. DOUG MCCULLOUGH, Geographics, 4178 Chestnut in Riverside, stated that he worked on the light and glare aspect of the EIR. He said he spent a great deal of time tracking down specific information that was available on the sports park and specifically the sports park lighting and those were not the same fixtures . He had not examined all of those places, but had seen some of them cursorily. The specific fixtures that were proposed were the latest design to be put in a situation where they wanted specific shielded lights and where they wanted very focused lighting downward. In addition, they recommended and included in the EIR very stringent mitigation measures that required both a detailed lighting plan when it came back before the 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 commission and an independent expert to evaluate that detailed lighting plan, in addition to an examination after they were installed and adjustment and additional shielding if it was required. They identified that there was a potential for those impacts, but the lighting fixtures were quite different and the layers of examination and mitigation would eliminate any significant adverse impacts . He said that there were two basic potential types of impact associated with these lights : one was spill light that scattered beyond the field that might cast a shadow or be able to read something by. Computer analysis was done to determine that it would not be an impact, that light levels of that spill sort would be below the threshold of a medium range moon within 500 feet of the edge of a lit field. He noted that the nearest existing residence was more than four times that distance from the closest edge of the field. The other type of light impact was glare impact from the view of a specific light source, and that was what the shielding and focused nature of these light fixtures aimed at alleviating and mitigating. Mr. Diaz stated that the baseball and football lights at COD were being retrofitted to provide the additional shields and screens . That was a result of the baseball lights the city placed at the civic center to mitigate the existing lighting. He said that the materials had been ordered and MUSCO would be doing the baseball lights and north start of the football lights . Chairperson Spiegel explained that when the city built the little league baseball fields in the back of the civic center park, the lighting was directed so as not to interfere with residents within Monterey Country Club. Monterey said they had a real problem with the College of the Desert and their baseball and football fields . College of the Desert was a state college and did not have anything to do with the City of Palm Desert except that it happened to be on land adjacent to the civic center, but the city agreed with the people in Monterey Country Club to retrofit the lights and the city to pay for it because the college did not have the money. The City of Palm Desert agreed to retrofit their football field and baseball field lights so that the little league fields could have lights in the back of our park. He felt the city G would cooperate with the people who live here. R Commissioner Beaty said that regarding noise, and they could hear it from the high school and from the Marriott, all of it E 36 ..r � 4 F P pF k MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 �... related to a PA system and that had been eliminated from the sports park. They would not be allowed to have one. Chairperson Spiegel stated that his feeling was that they were talking about things that were not appropriate to what the commission was supposed to do. If they changed the wording of the recommendation to a recommendation to city council to approve the certification of an environmental impact report for 515 . 5 acres, all they would be saying was that the EIR was right. If the sports park wanted to have a 5,000 person event, they would cause certain kinds of problems, lighting would cause certain kinds of problems, a hotel would cause certain kinds of problem, timeshares would cause a certain kind of problems--all those things were involved with this report. He wanted to see the motion changed to reflect that. Mr. Diaz suggested that the motion be to recommend to the city council that it certify the environmental impact report with particular attention given to the areas of lighting, noise, traffic, and special event parking. Chairperson Spiegel asked if they could also recommend that the council address the sports complex and the environmental impact on the same evening. Mr. Diaz stated that was very possible; •w that way that night the conditional use permit which was before the council could be heard. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he did not have a problem with that, but he felt the motion for the EIR should be for it alone. Chairperson Spiegel clarified that it would be a separate recommendation. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, recommending to city council certification of the Section Four Environmental Impact Report by minute motion, with special attention being paid to lighting, noise, traffic and special event parking for the sports complex. Carried 5- 0 . Commission recommended that the city council hold the Section 4 EIR hearing and the conditional use permit hearing for the sports complex at the same council meeting. E. Case No. TT 27964 - REGENCY HOMES, Applicant Request for approval of 46 condominium units on 9 . 67 acres on the north side of Country Club Drive approximately 2600 %NW 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 feet west of Cook Street, also particularly described as : APN 620-200- 021 and 620-200-029 . Mr. Diaz stated that this was the matter that Mr. Kibbey approached the commission and commented on earlier in the meeting. He explained that the ten acres that were involved were located just to the west of the Manor Care homes and were two 5 acre parcels north and south that abutted Country Club Drive. This matter was part of the environmental impact review procedure and was evaluated as part of Alternative 2 so that they could go ahead with the hearings on this particular item. Because it was part of that environmental impact report, until the environmental impact report was certified, which he anticipated occurring on October 13, 1994, until it was certified by the city council, the planning commission could not approve tentative tract map 27964 . Staff was recommending that after taking public testimony, the commission terminate the hearing for TT 27964 and continue the map, or continue the public hearing because they would then have the resolution of approval with the appropriate conditions, some of which would be mitigation measures set forth in the environmental impact report imposed on this project after the environmental impact report was certified. The design of the project had been through the architectural commission and received approval . In terms of all of the required findings for a tentative tract map, those could be met except for the fact that under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as Amended, they could not take a course of action until the environmental impact report was certified, and that had to be done by the city council . Chairperson Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JACK KIBBEY, applicant, asked how long this procedure would take because he felt they had been here for quite a while to get it processed. He said that it had impacted on his business considerably since they bought the land to build on it. Mr. Diaz said he would review some history for the commission since Mr. Kibbey and Mr. Solomon did own the property. When the issue first arose, because this was part of the project area and the development of this particular ten acre project could have, in terms of cumulative impacts on the environment when coupled with the project and site plan before the commission, it might have a significant adverse impact on the 38 "� .._....._... MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 ... environment. There were two alternatives offered to them. One was to do a separate environmental impact report concentrating on the cumulative impact issue and going through the entire process . The other was to allow this particular project to be evaluated as part of the environmental review process . They chose the latter. They did not have to pay for the environmental impact report whereas they would have had to for a separate one. Staff recommended that they choose this route. Later on, once the draft environmental impact report was completed, Mr. Diaz communicated to their attorney, Mr. Kranz, the opportunity because he indicated again that he was held up and wanted to move faster, he said at that point in time they could, because they had the draft environmental impact report completed, pull them out and have a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact. It was a mitigated negative declaration because the conditions would be imposed that were set forth in the draft environmental impact report on the tentative map. He asked if they wished to go through that process or wait. Staff gave them three weeks to respond to that alternative because staff would have processed it quicker and this hearing would have been conducted on September 6 , 1994 . For various reasons they chose not to take that particular process so that was where it stood now. ..� He noted that staff, if they had really wanted to delay them as Mr. Kibbey said, could have waited to hold this public hearing until after the environmental impact report was certified. In other words, this first hearing would have been in October. With the environmental impact report certified on October 13 or even at the second meeting in October by the city council, this tentative tract map would have been approved well within the allowable time of the permit streamlining act as adopted by the State of California which allowed them six months for a negative declaration, or one year for an environmental impact report. It was not staff ' s intention to hold anyone up and that was why it was here tonight. He said he had some correspondence from the attorney indicating that he felt the city had held them up, but those were issues that should be argued by the council . The issue before the commission now was the tentative tract map. Staff was saying that since in actuality it could not be denied because it met all the required findings of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California except for the environmental CEQA process, and that would be resolved on October 13, 1994, so that on the 18th of October, the resolution would be before the commission with the conditions of approval for the tentative map if the council certified 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 the environmental impact report on October 13 . He noted that .rr he would not be present at that meeting. Mr. Kibbey said that what they were referring to was that other projects had been approved with a negative declaration. Mr. Diaz said that he had communicated with Mr. Kibbey' s attorney and the city' s attorney had communicated with Mr. Kibbey' s attorney on that issue. He recommended that Mr. Kibbey call Mr. Kranz to review the correspondence. Mr. Diaz stated that those issues and the answers he could give Mr. Kibbey this evening 1) had nothing to do with the tentative map, and 2 ) were not going to be satisfactory to him. Mr. Diaz said he was willing to give them to Mr. Kibbey and if Mr. Kibbey would give him a call, he could do that. Mr. Kibbey asked if the commission had a report for approval from staff . Mr. Diaz said that yes, they had the staff report there and staff was saying that they could not approve the tentative map because the EIR had not been certified, but would want to continue this case until the commission' s meeting of October 18, 1994 . At that time the commission would have before it �rri the resolution for approval . (A copy of the staff report was given to Mr. Kibbey. ) Chairperson Spiegel asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. Chairperson Spiegel asked for a motion to continue TT 27964 to October 18, 1994 . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, continuing TT 27964 to October 18, 1994 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B None. 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 r.. XI . ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE There was no meeting since the last Planning Commission meeting. XII . COMMENTS It was noted that the elections for chairperson, vice chairperson, economic development advisory commission liaison and civic center steering committee liaison would be on the next planning commission agenda. XIII . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adjourning the meeting to October 4, 1994 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . The meeting was adjourned at 10 : 00 p.m. RAMON A. DIAZ , c ary ATTEST: ROBERT A. SPI hairperson Palm Desert Plan ding Commission /tm low 41