Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0220 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - FEBRUARY 20, 1996 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * i.. I . CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Beaty called the meeting to order at 7 : 03 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Fernandez led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Paul Beaty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell Jim Ferguson George Fernandez Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell Mark Greenwood Marshall Rudolph Tonya Monroe Steve Smith IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: iun. Consideration of the February 6, 1996 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, approving the February 6, 1996 meeting minutes by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: None. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII . CONSENT CALENDAR None. VIII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. TT 28287 - COLONY GATEWAY INC. , Applicant �" Request for approval of a subdivision of 25 lots into 41 within Bighorn Golf MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMZSSION FEBRUARY 20, 1996 Club, south of the planned Metate Drive and the "Cahuilla Hills" area. � Mr. Drell indicated that the applicant was requesting another continuance to March 5, 1996 . Commissioner Ferguson stated that he had a lot he owned which was within 500 feet Bighorn, and after confirmation by the city attorney, he was precluded from participating in this matter and would be abstaining. Chairperson Beaty assured the audience that they would be given an opportunity to be heard, and noted that it was unfortunate that they didn't know about the continuance before the meeting. Mr. Drell agreed that it was unfortunate, but staff couldn't guarantee that there would be a continuance. Typically if it became a habit, the commission could deny the request, or they could continue the item to a time uncertain and re-advertising the public hearing. Chairperson Beaty stated that the public hearing was still open and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION, although the item would probably be continued. MS. ANN CADY COOPER stated that she was disappointed +�/ that this item was going to be continued because she postponed a flight to Berlin to be here tonight to speak and she would be gone on the 5th of March. She said that she was the homeowner of two parcels of land in Cahuilla Hills . Both bordered directly on the property line with Bighorn. One was at 71-750 Cahuilla Way which was the homestead house that sits on top of the hill that her Aunt homesteaded in 1946 . The other lot was three acres on Buckhorn Trail . She has been a life-long resident of Cahuilla Hills and her parents built a house there and she grew up here. She said she believed in progress, but wanted to preserve the integrity of the desert. Cahuilla Hills had that and she believed that people had discovered that. She noted that there were multi-million dollar homes being built there because it was a gorgeous cove, natural setting. She felt Westinghouse and Bighorn seemed to have some sensitivity toward this and she was appreciative of that, but there was another issue she needed to deal with. She said she was never notified, nor were her parents, about the placement of the road that Bighorn has going in to service the homes under discussion. No notice came to her or her father. Bighorn had a temporary chain-link fence up now. Her driveway goes up and around and the � fence was on the other side of where her driveway was, 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 1996 and they had been using i� since 1946 . She was never ` served notice by Bighorn, since they bought the property, that she could not/would not be able to drive on that part of the driveway. The current chain link fence placement allowed her to continue to use that road and Westinghouse told her that she would have the right to use it and they were going to leave the road and the natural desert and they wouldn't cut the slope because it was quite steep there. She said she had openly and notoriously used that road since she bought it in the late 1960 ' s, as did her Aunt since 1946 . She believed her prescriptive rights came into play. She had not just acquired an easement for using that, but it was her belief that by adverse use that she had acquired that property by adverse position. This was a big issue that she wanted to deal with. She felt that Bighorn should build the road where it is now, with a solid wall on her side of it, but not disturbing this steep slope and blending it in with the natural desert. The solid wall would screen the noise, the pollution of the traffic, and preserve the integrity of the desert. They were told not long ago that slope would not be graded. They were also told they would never touch that big hill where that huge house was now being built. She said she wanted things in writing. As far as the density on the `+ Cahuilla Hills property line, she wanted to go on record as being against any increase in density from the variance that was there now and Cahuilla Hills had a rural feeling and should slowly transition into density, not just suddenly have a road with traffic and dense housing. She wanted to discuss the prescriptive rights issue with the proper developing person to work things out. She could retain a lawyer and would retain a lawyer, but good neighbor relations should be important to Bighorn and she felt that she had cooperated with Westinghouse and would like to continue to do so and trusted that all prior representation would be in effect, but this time she wanted something in writing. She allowed trees to be planted by Bighorn in back of her house, with the stipulation that the wouldn' t cut out her mountain view. She allowed them to paint her house in their choice of color and cooperated to show good will . Now �here was a problem. She said that she would be gone to Berlin and it was necessary at this time for her to spend a fair amount of time in Europe. Cahuilla Hills was her home and when she came back she wanted things intact and justly dealt with. She gave notice that she was open for dialogue for working things out and requested to be notified about anything that ` goes on over there--a wall being built, or any change. She would be willing to stay down in the desert this 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 1996 'i week to work out the road issue with the proper person � and she had telephone numbers where she could be � reached, or the appropriate person could see her after the meeting. She said that she would type this out and give a copy to each commissioner and the city council . Chairperson Beaty asked if Ms . Cooper had talked to Bighorn about these issues . Ms . Cooper stated that she did not know who to talk with. She heard that Westinghouse no longer owned it, and didn't know who to contact. Chairperson Beaty felt that staff could put her in contact with someone, and if the issues couldn't be resolved, he didn't know if the commission could get involved at this point. Commissioner Jonathan said that with all due respect, he had yet to understand Ms . Cooper' s feelings about the proposed application, which was approval of a subdivision of 25 lots into 41 . He understood that there were other issues, but the planning commission was there to entertain an application for subdivision. He was interested in any comments that she had directly focused on the application. The other problems needed to be worked out through another arena. Mr. Rudolph stated that as far as adverse possession and other issues of that nature, the commission could not make ; those interprstations, that would have to be taken to court. ,� Ms . Cooper said she understood that and was willing to speak to Bighorn but did not know who else to talk to-- she did not know who their contact person was . Mr. Drell noted that there was a contact person present at the meeting (Mr. Carl Cardinalli) . Ms . Cooper said that she would be happy to speak with whoever that was . As far as the density was concerned, she was basically opposed to any variance change or any more density because they were zoned one house per acre. Commissioner Jonathan asked if on general principle and because of the abruptness, she was opposed to an increase from 21 to 45 lots . Ms . Cooper concurred, and said the more open space provided, the better. MR. J.W. CADY, 71-855 Jaguar, stated that he would like to talk about the philosophy of Cahuilla Hills and Bighorn. He said that they were proud to have Bighorn as neighbors, but the residents of Cahuilla Hills had a ` different environment and liked a more rural atmosphere. � They didn't want a bunch of row houses stuck up against � them without any buffer there. When the old Bella Vista 4 MINUTE5 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 1996 project was there, they agreed to a 200 foot setback, � but Bighorn hadn't. He felt it would be nice if they would consider Cahuilla Hills as having a little different philosophy. Cahuilla Hills was opposed to row houses against them in that way. If that was a way to achieve affordable housing, he didn't think it was a good idea to do that in a country club. They should try it somewhere else. He hoped the commission would consider some of these things, because mixing millionaires with row houses was not a good policy. Chairperson Beaty left the public hearing open and asked for a motion by the commission. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing TT 28287 to March 5, 1996 by minute motion. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Ferguson abstained) . B. Continued Case Nos . C/Z 95-6, TT 28295, and PP 95-10 - FOXX DEVELOPMENT CORPORATTON, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, '� tentative tract map, precise plan and change of zone from O.S. , N. (open space, natural factors) to PR-5 (planned residential five units per acre) to allow construction of a 93 lot single family subdivision on 19 .4 acres at the northeast corner of Deep Canyon Road and Fred Waring Drive. Mr. Drell indicated that the applicant was still in the process of completely redesigning/rethinking the subdivision. Due to the uncertainty as to when it would be ready, he was asking for an indefinite continuance so that residents would not have to come back until the proposal was ready. Staff would re-advertise the hearing when staff was convinced that there was something that could be approved or denied. That was the recommendation. Chairperson Beaty noted that the public hearing was open and asked if anyone wished to address the commission. MR. DAN SHILLITO asked the commission who would receive the notice. ` Mr. Drell said that anyone that received a notice before would receive one. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 1996 � � Mr. Shillito stated that he didn't get a notice � previously. � Mr. Drell said that anyone who wished to receive a notice should submit their names and addresses to the secretary and staff would notify them. Chairperson Beaty asked when the applicant submitted their first request for a continuance. He noted that the fax to a date uncertain was received today. Mr. Drell indicated that staff had just been having discussions with them and it was a question of whether they would have something in staff ' s hands to review in enough time to come back in a month. The unlimited continuance was the best solution. Commissioner Jonathan asked what the applicant meant in their letter where they said "in light of the reluctance of the planning commission to approve their continuance. . . " . He asked if the commission was reluctance to do that. Commissioner Ferguson noted that Commissioner Jonathan voted against the continuance. Chairperson Beaty confirmed that that was what he heard when he listened to the tape, that it was a 3-1 vote because Commissioner Jonathan voted no. Commissioner Ferguson noted that as he understood it, the applicant didn't want to keep requesting continuances when on ; the first try he received a 3-1 vote. Chairperson Beaty � asked if there was a motion for an indefinite continuance and indicated that the case would be re-advertised. Action: Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing C/Z 95-6, TT 28295 and PP 95-10 to a date uncertain by minute motion. Carried 4-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no) . C. Case No. CUP 96-3 - SAN PABLO MEAT MARKET, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to operate a meat market and convenience store with the off sale of beer and wine on the C-1 zoned property at 44-795 San Pablo, Unit #1 . Mr. Smith stated that Unit #1 was an existing vacant unit of approximately 1181 square feet. This was the building and unit immediately south of the existing Circle K on San Pablo. Other tenants in the center currently include a vacant unit immediately next door, Merry Maids, Valley Graphic Services, � Mrs . Bone' s Commissary, and a lawn mower shop. The building � was constructed in 1981 with 7100 square feet and 15 parking 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 1996 spaces in the front off of San Pablo, two driveway accesses '� and a row of 13 parking spaces off the rear. Grocery stores, or anyone requesting the sale of alcoholic beverages, were required to obtain a conditional use permit. In the staff report it was mentioned that the city attorney advised what issues the city could consider under the conditional use permit; in discussions with ABC it was determined that this census tract area was over concentrated with licensed facilities . Staff asked the police department if this would be a problem--they did not take a position. The typical conditional use permit concerns were then considered, i .e. parking, hours . Staff looked at parking in the front area and in those 15 spaces the highest occupancy was on a Friday at 11 :45 a.m. when ten cars were observed. Average parking there was 6 .5 cars in the 15 spaces . The applicant advised that the hours of operation would be 7 : 00 a.m. through 8 : 00 p.m. Next door Circle K operates 24 hours, seven days a week. The floor plan confirmed that the main use would be a meat market. In looking at the facility, the front counter was installed, as well as a reach-in refrigerator along the north wall--it was a very small operation with the meat market being the primary use. Staff felt that a recommendation of approval could be given, subject to the conditions . As well, the applicant and commission received a request from the Building Department to add a condition as ` an advance warning to the applicant that he wouldn't be able to sell food for onsite consumption. If he did, he would have to provide restroom facilities that were not a requirement of a meat market operation. Staff recommended that the condition be added as condition #10 under community development/planning. Commissioner Jonathan asked if liquor sales were permitted; it was not specifically listed in the conditions of approval, references were only made regarding the meat market. Condition #10 aZso only referred to retail sale of food and beverage, not liquor sales . Mr. Smith noted that the preamble to the resolution stated convenience store with offsale beer and wine license. Commissioner Jonathan said if that was adequate, then the permit would include the sale of beer and wine. Mr. Smith said that the city would also have to provide Alcoholic Beverage Control with a letter of necessity and that would be adequate. Mr. Rudolph indicated that ABC issued the license, but there was a "hook" put into the law now where, notwithstanding certain other issues, local jurisdictions had to find that there was a public convenience or necessity to justify issuing a license. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the planning commission resolution needed something other than the preamble that said � the CUP would allow liquor sales . Mr. Rudolph said that as it was regulated by the state, there was limited authority. 7 MINUTE5 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 1996 Commissioner Ferguson asked if this was accomplished in this resolution; Mr. Drell stated that it was defined in the � request and under the "whereas" section. Commissioner Ferguson asked if the commission was saying that it was necessary that beer and wine be served from this location; Mr. Drell said that the city had to make the finding of necessity or approve a conditional use permit. Mr. Rudolph said that the law said that it had to be a public convenience or necessity as referenced to the section of the law that was attached to the staff report. They were basically finding that it was a public convenience and in implementing that, the city council passed a resolution saying that the criteria to use in deciding whether there was a public convenience or necessity or whether a CUP had been issued for a business and whether there was a similar use exists within 1,000 feet of the subject premises . As far as the CUP was concerned, it said that the types of things the commission could consider in granting a CUP were the same types of basic concerns as discussed in the law, such as concentration. Commissioner Jonathan said that usually the CUP specifically stated the permitted activities and it didn't permit beer and wine or liquor sales, it permitted retail sales and prohibited consumption of the food, but didn't specifically permit it. Mr. Drell noted that the resolution said a resolution of the planning commission approving the use with offsale beer and wine. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was adequate ,� because in the conditions of approval there wasn' t anything specific that said it could be sold. Mr. Rudolph clarified that those were conditions of the approval . Mr. Smith said that under condition #3 the words could be added in to say meat market, convenience store and beer and wine sales shall be limited to the hours of 7 :00 a.m. through 8: 00 p.m. Commissioner Jonathan no�ed that Mr. Conley' s memo indicated that 1 .5 parking spaces would be lost because of the handicapped parking provision and improvements for a ramp, which meant two parking spaces, and asked staff to respond. Mr. Smith stated that the building department didn't indicate any necessity for handicapped parking. Mr. Drell said that could be conditioned, but didn't believe they were required to retrofit. Commissioner Jonathan noted that for a tenant improvement that he himself did, he was required to provide other handicapped requirements like ramps, door widths, and address issues like that. Mr. Drell said that could be conditioned, but the result of the parking study was that there was such an adequacy of parking that there wouldn't be a problem. Chairperson Beaty noted that he has two handicapped parking stalls at his office that have never been legally parked in. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that the issue was not whether the commission had the discretion to � require it, but if it would be a legal requirement and if two 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 1996 parking spaces would be lost. Mr. Smith noted that staff '�• asked the police department whether they wanted to make a statement that the proposal would tend to create a law enforcement problem and that issue was not specifically addressed in his response. If the Building Department wanted those changes, they would have gotten them. Permits have been taken out. Mr. Drell agreed that the building department was the agency that enforced handicapped parking. They would be enforced if they were applicable, whether or not the commission requirements specified it or not. Mr. Smith said that a lot of these improvements have already been made, so the permits had been taken out. Commissioner Campbell felt that even if two parking spaces were lost, there was still sufficient parking available. Commissioner Ferguson said that in the parking survey, if there were 15 spaces and the employees were strongly encouraged to park in the rear, at least between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2 :00 p.m. , there didn't appear to be a problem. Mr. Smith said that he tried to visit the site at 10:00 a.m. and 3 :00 p.m. and the occupancy was six and seven spaces, except the one occasion when it was �en on the first day. He thought that in quite a few of the counts, at least two of the cars were construction workers . Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Conley referred to hours after 6 : 00 p.m. as potential problems from an alcohol standpoint. Mr. Smith stated that '` assuming the proposed business was not open after 6 :00 p.m. and a customer wanted alcohol, they only needed to walk 30 feet to Circle K to buy it. Chairperson Beaty said that he noticed that some improvements have already been made and that the Chesapeake Bagel was up and running within two days after the commission approved their permit and asked if the applicants were just assuming the commission would approve their permits . Mr. Drell said that he guessed that they were taking the risk, which they were entitled to do. Commissioner Campbell asked if Circle K or Country Club Liquor II provided any comments on the proposal . Mr. Smith stated that Circle K was notified, but Country Club Liquor was not notified since they were outside the 300 foot area. No response was received from Circle K. Commissioner Ferguson noted that in one of the conditions of approval the property owner was to encourage other tenants in the center to have their employees park in the rear of the building. He asked if the owner had been called and if he agreed to so instruct his tenants. Mr. Smith said that the condition would require this applicant to certify that his � employees would be required to park in the rear and they were trying to get the building owner to get the other tenants to 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 1996 get their employees back there. The applicant was only ` responsible for his employees . Commissioner Ferguson � indicated that the owner has a vested interest in seeing his building occupied and asked if the suggestion had been made to him to give directive to the other tenants to park in the rear to alleviate any potential parking concerns or to address them. He asked if staff had even talked with the owner. Mr. Smith replied no. Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ALFONSO QUINTERO addressed the commission and stated that he thought when he received his permit from the health department that he was going to be able to open immediately. He knew he could open without a beer and wine license, which was not a primary issue for him, but secondary--he could open without it. He noted that he has never been in business before or attended any governmental meetings . Sometimes people were not educated to follow the steps of what they were supposed to be doing. Regarding the parking, the busiest days for his business would be Saturdays and Sundays and he thought the only other business that would be open on the weekends was the lawn mower shop. That would alleviate some of that problem. He would only have one � employee other than himself . He said that he did not intend to sell any food for onsite consumption, so the commission would not have to worry about that issue. He clarified that he could open his business, but could not sell beer and wine until he received his license. His main business would be the meat market. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one. Chairperson Beaty closed the public testimony. Commissioner Campbell noted that the applicant said that it wasn' t very important for him to have a beer and wine license and asked why it was important for the business to remain open until 8: 00 p.m. Mr. Quintero said that most people would probably shop after they got off from work, which was why they needed to remain open until 8 : 00 p.m. He said that he was not competing with Circle K and his main business was not beer and wine, it just went along with the other products . It would be detrimental to his business to close at 6 : 00 p.m. � � 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 1996 Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Quintero would mind if the �+ commission approved the use with just the food and not the beer and wine. Mr. Quintero replied that the beer and wine was secondary. Commissioner Jonathan said that he didn't want to deprive the applicant of the ability to sell beer and wine, but was not comfortable with this location selling beer and wine, only because there was a report from the ABC that said that the area this business would be located in was 50$ over licensed. Mr. Drell clarified that the whole census tract was 50� over licensed, which was almost all of the city, not just this particular area. Commissioner Jona�han noted that the commission has not had prior reports of this nature with previous liquor licenses . Mr. Drell said that this was a new law, or was finally being understood as to how it was being enforced. By the nature of this being a touris�. area, we have more restaurants, more grocery stores (and each one with a full liquor license) , so by our population, we are over- served when in reality a much larger market was being served, which was the tourist market. In essence this law was created to give local governments (in reaction to the L.A. riots) the "hook" to deny returning of the reconstruction of '� liquor stores . The census area was from the Whitewater Channel south. Mr. Smith noted that in talking to ABC they said that the whole desert from Banning to Coachella was over-licensed. Commissioner Jonathan asked what area the 21 licenses versus 14 applied to; Mr. Smith said that was the census tract that covered the city from the Whitewater Channel to Bighorn. Mr. Drell noted that this covered the commercial zone. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there were only 21 licenses in this area; Mr. Drell clarified that there were 21 offsale licenses--it was carry out service from liquor stores, supermarkets, and convenience stores . Commissioner Jonathan stated that alleviated his concerns and he no longer had a problem with the application. Commissioner Ferguson welcomed Mr. Quintero to Palm Desert and said that he really liked his application. He visited the site. He agreed with Commissioner Jonathan with respect to parking in that he liked to address problems befare they become problems . He was troubled to see a stipulation in the conditions of approval saying that the owner must do something since the owner was not involved in this process and staff had not contacted him. He asked staff to give the owner a phone call and simply ask him to encourage his other tenant employees to park in the rear. He felt that a phone `... call would go a long way. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 1996 Mr. Smith noted that the building owner was Rural Stores and � asked if anyone knew who the principal was; Mr. Quintero said �i that his contact was someone from Fred Sands Realty and he would give staff the information. Mr. Drell felt that given the history of that complex, if there was a full parking lot and people parking on the street, they would have done a good job. Commissioner Ferguson reiterated that he didn' t like obligating people without talking to them and with no legal authority to do so, so a simple phone call to the owner could go a long way. Commissioner Campbell recommended that the shrubbery be trimmed to allow better visibility to this store. She no�ed that Mr. Conley suggested that those trees be cut in his memo. Commissioner Fernandez also welcomed Mr. Quintero to Palm Desert and felt it was about time for Palm Desert to have a Carniceria. He hoped that he would do a great business and also felt that the business would be busiest on the weekends . Chairperson Beaty said for the record that he felt it was obvious to a business that it was to their benefit to provide parking for their customers and he didn't see the need for the commission to worry about them parking in back. If customers couldn't find a place to park, they wouldn't shop � there. He asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1721, approving CUP 96-3, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0 . IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Discussion of Planning Commission Liaison to Section 4 and Project Area 4 Committees Mr. Drell noted that this issue was raised at the last meeting by Commissioner Campbell . He stated that the Section 4 committee was the Redevelopment Agency working committee for the design and construction management of the public golf course and the resort course potentially for the timeshare � and for the hotels . That was a committee of the � Redevelopment Agency and he didn't recommend necessarily that � 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 1996 any member of the Planning Commission serve on that `• committee. The Redevelopment Agency' s role in that committee was not as a regulatory body, but as an applicant. Although they were city council members, they were there in their capacity as board members of the Redevelopment Agency. He didn't feel it was appropriate to have a planning commissioner determining what an application would look like and then sitting on the Planning Commission to decide if it would be a good idea. Commissioner Campbell said that she was requesting that a liaison to be there, just like for the EDAC. Mr. Drell indicated that theoretically she could sit and listen, and noted the Project Area 4 committee was a public meeting and if commission wanted to appoint someone to sit in, that one � was more reasonable because it functioned both as a project area committee for the Redevelopment Agency and out of it would come a specific plan, which was a city activity. He said that if the commission was interested in sitting in and wanted to appoint someone, it was a public meeting and they were entitled to attend. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was not convinced that formally appointing someone would be appropriate because he liked the idea of the Planning Commission taking a fresh look r•• at something and going through the process as an independent committee and having a fresh, unbiased review of the results . He felt there were exceptions to that which included committees that have a pro-active kind of process that didn't necessarily result in something coming before the commission for a decision, but did result in an overall planning impact for the city of Palm Desert. He noted that they were already formally part of several committees and that was okay, but didn't see a need for more. He clarified that he had no objection to anyone attending as a private citizen and then updating the commission if they wished. He didn' t see a need to formalize that. Mr. Rudolph felt that legally it was better not to have a liaison at the meetings; there wasn't a conflict of interest under state law, but the Planning Commission by the nature of it being a quasi-adjudicatory sort of body should be as unbiased as possible for purposes of giving a fair hearing. It wouldn't necessarily render something legally invalid, but it would be "cleaner" all around and commission should remain separate. Chairperson Beaty asked if any action was suggested. Commissioner Campbell stated that as a private citizen she could attend. Mr. Drell said that he was not sure about her � attending the Section 4 committee since it was primarily a staff committee. For the Project Area 4 Committee, she lived 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 1996 # in part of the project area so there was no question that she fl would be interested. He said that they were publicly noticed � agendized meetings . What happened in the Section 4 committee meetings was very technical and was a construction management type process . Commissioner Campbell asked if she could sit in on that meeting if she wanted to; Mr. Drell said that he would check into that and believed that it was a Brown Act advertised meeting. Commissioner Ferguson stated for the record that the Redevelopment Agency was unusual with its cross-over responsibilities, and having the council with their agency authority versus council authority, as well as staff crossing over, it almost seemed that the only people that didn't have something to do with the Redevelopment Agency was the Planning Commission, who often was handed a project that seemed to be done and it didn't seem appropriate for them to question what went into it. He felt it would be helpful for the commission to at least, on an informative basis be included, and he understood the proposal was to have a non- voting liaison. The single biggest developer in Palm Desert was the Redevelopment Agency and the commission would be seeing their projects now and in the future on a frequently reoccurring basis . That was the dichotomy of the tension he was feeling and that why he joined Commissioner Campbell in � wanting to know more about the Redevelopment Agency' s � projects . Mr. Drell suggested inviting periodically a representative of the Redevelopment Agency to give the Planning Commission updates on projects they are working on. Commissioner Ferguson felt that was a good idea. Commissioner Jonathan also felt that what was pointed out was significant and the solution was not necessarily to participate in the process, but to take a more aggressive role in critical analysis of what comes before the commission, whether it was from RDA or another applicant, and they should be treated equally and critically, and the commission should not be intimidated in any way in denying proposals or amending applications from RDA. Commissioner Ferguson clarified that he didn't mean to intimate that he would do that, and his desire was not to participate but to educate himself and that was why he felt the briefing idea was good because it reduced his time commitment and still gave him the benefit of the learning curve. Mr. Drell noted that this also applied to the next item, which was the joint meeting which has been moved to May 16 at 4 : 00 p.m. What would happen there is that the commission `� would get a presentation from the Redevelopment Agency to in � essence tell what their programs are and they would also 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 1996 receive a summary of what is being done in planning and what 'r has been done in the past in terms of specific plans that have been adopted, as well as an overview of all the adopted policies for the commission and the EDAC. If the commission would like to have those types of briefings, that would be the time to bring it up. It would put RDA on notice that the commission was expecting them to report on a somewhat regular basis on the progress of the various initiatives . Commissioner Ferguson asked how the commission could accomplish that; Mr. Drell replied that if the commission wanted RDA to start immediately, �hey could direct him to notify them by minute motion. Chairperson Beaty asked if agenda items had been requested for that meeting. Staff replied not yet, but they would. Commissioner Jonathan felt that a motion was needed to request a quarterly report, or maybe semi-annually. Commissioner Ferguson suggested having the first presentation and then deciding on the frequency. Commissioner Jonathan recommended starting in March. Commissioner Ferguson said they could ask RDA at their first presentation and at least get a dialogue started. Action: � Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, instructing staff to request that the Redevelopment Agency make a presentation on their projects to the Planning Commission on or before March 31, 1996 . Motion carried 5-0 . B. Joint Meeting for City Council/Planning Commission/ Economic Development Advisory Committee Change in Date Mr. Drell noted that the date of the joint meeting changed to May 16, 1996 at 4 :00 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room. Action: None. X. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE (None. ) XI . COMMENTS None. r 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 1996 z XII . ADJOURNMENT � � Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adjourning the meeting to March 5, 1996 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . The meeting adj urne at 8 : 02 p.m. PHILIP DRELL, Secretary..- - - � ATTEST: �� � PAUL BEATY, Chairpe son Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm i � i � 16