Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1201 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - DECEMBER 1, 1998 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Fernandez led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chairperson Paul Beaty George Fernandez Cindy Finerty Sabby Jonathan ""' Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Assistant Planner Mark Greenwood, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the November 17, 1998 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the November 17, 1998 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 use VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairperson Campbell stated that per a request by Councilmember Jean Benson she would announce that the Marine Corps has started its Toys for Tots Drive and have placed boxes for donations of unwrapped toys, books and games in the Administration Building, North Wing, Community Services Building and Sheriff's Department. She encouraged that the boxes be filled to not only assist the community, but to show gratitude to the Marine Corps for all they do for the City. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 98-10 - DAVID AND LEISA AUSTIN, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to combine Lots 15 and 18 of Palm Desert Unit No. 3, M.B. 21/81-84 into one parcel to allow construction of an office building. B. Case No. PMW 98-19 - WALTER AND DEIDRA NEULS, Applicants ..r Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to combine remnants of Lots L and H of Tract 24530-1 . Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he/she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. CUP 98-4 - CHEVRON PRODUCTS COMPANY, Applicant (Continued from September 15, October 6, November 3 and November 17, 1998) 2 r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 2,900 square foot retail food mart at 72-801 Highway 111 . Mr. Alvarez asked if the Commission would like him to touch on the salient points of the project or move on to the remaining issues raised on September 15. Commission requested that he proceed with the remaining issues. Mr. Alvarez explained that the applicant wished to operate 24 hours per day with the proposed convenience store and fuel facility. Staff didn't object to the request. He pointed out that the project is located in the heart of the commercial district, is surrounded by general commercial uses on all sides and the closest residential area is more than 500 feet away. Staff recommended that the applicant be allowed to operate 24 hours per day and with the sale of alcohol time limit to be determined by the Alcohol & Beverage Control agency. He deferred the traffic issue to Mr. Greenwood of Public Works. Mr. Greenwood stated that staff prepared an analysis of the latest traffic evaluation which was provided by the applicant. Since Commission just received it today, he said he would go through it and highlight the major points. Public Works was concerned with the methodology that was used to determine the level of service (LOS) in the analysis Public Works received. Staff used the traffic volume numbers provided by the applicant and performed their own analysis which was included in the Commission's packets. Generally what the analysis found was that by completion of this project LOS on northbound Plaza Way could be expected to degrade from the existing LOS "C" to a future LOS of "Y. The project contributed to that change in LOS by increasing volume on that leg by 15%. Staff felt that these numbers did bear out the condition requiring the widening to provide the northbound right turn lane. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the 15% increase in traffic applied to the northbound Plaza Way leg only. Mr. Greenwood concurred and explained that the overall intersection, as indicated in the applicant's report, overall volume in the intersection would only increase by 1 .25%. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that that was where the difference was in terms of the percentage. The applicant was looking at it in relation to the overall traffic and Mr. Greenwood was looking at the northbound section of Plaza Way. Mr. Greenwood concurred and explained that when they were studying signalized intersections, especially with an existing signal, it was important to look at the taw 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 �.r overall operation of the intersection and any detailed locations or specific approaches that they were concerned with. In this case they have always been concerned with the northbound approach only. It had never been staff's concern that the overall volume would increase in any drastic way knowing that there are 5,000 cars per day through that intersection. The project traffic to the overall intersection would be a "drop in the bucket", but to that leg of the intersection it would be significant. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that it was the impact on that leg that would result in a deterioration from "C" level to a "D" level. Mr. Greenwood concurred that it would on that leg. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Greenwood in his memo indicated that he used an accepted methodology that is different from what the consultant used. The consultant used the Intersection Capacity Utilization Method and Mr. Greenwood used the Highway Capacity Manual Methodology. Mr. Greenwood explained that the Highway Capacity Manual was published by the Transportation Research Board, a federally funded or federally sponsored agency, a nationwide document used by many, many jurisdictions. The ICU methodology was used by relatively few agencies and even those agencies that used it tended not to use it when evaluating existing signals and impacts to those signals. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Greenwood happened to know what the result would be on the northbound section of Plaza Way using the ICU method and if that would have yielded a 15% increase as well. Mr. Greenwood stated that the ICU method was less detailed and it was harder to provide leg by leg impacts. It provided a pretty good picture of the overall impact, but wasn't as accurate leg by leg. Chairperson Campbell asked if the other lane was added if it would begin at the stop sign at the entrance into the present shopping center or at one of the Chevron Station entrances. Mr. Greenwood said the transition to start bending the curb into the widening would begin just shortly north of the stop sign and the full widening would occur somewhere along Chevron's frontage. Chairperson Campbell asked if the stop sign would remain. Mr. Greenwood concurred. Commissioner Jonathan asked if liquor sales would terminate at 2:00 a.m. Mr. Drell said it was his understanding that it was at 2:00 a.m. Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was still open and asked the applicant to address the commission. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 MR. ALAN NORRIS, Property Development Specialist for Chevron Products Company in La Habra, said he would like to briefly go over some of the background of this project before getting into the specific traffic issue. He felt it was important to look at this project in its overall scope. Chevron has operated a service station at this location for a little over ten years and during the entire time Chevron operated as a service bay operation. The station was currently not necessarily maintaining its volume primarily due to its antiquated appearance and also poor image of the existing facility. Chevron was moving into the food mart business nationwide and they have done enormous consumer research in terms of what customers want from a gasoline station and they have come away with three major findings. That one, where people have their car worked on no longer has any bearing on where they buy their gas. Customers also look for gasoline dispensing equipment that have the ability to accept a credit card. Should they so desire they look for the ability to buy convenient food items in a clean, well lit environment. With those three main premises, Chevron designed it newest retail outlet which they are proposing to build at this location. In terms of some of the benefits from the reconstruction, obviously they wanted to improve the appearance of their facility and move into the food mart business. They feel the improved appearance is something that would tie in with what is going on behind them in the new shopping center and also the change in their mode of operation would benefit everyone: Palm Desert residents, the city and the business owners in the adjacent shopping center. Their proposed facility would blend in with the architectural style and color of the improvements slated for the shopping center behind them. They have modified their standard building design dramatically to incorporate the elements that were recommended by the Architectural Review Commission in terms of bump outs on the columns, the tower entry statement, eaves along the back and side elevations, the accents along the bottom of the building, all to blend in with the community. Also, he felt that significant landscaping was being included with this project. A little over 20% or one-fifth of the whole property would be done in landscaping to provide an aesthetically pleasing environment. Chevron supported and agreed with all of those conditions identified in staff's report except one. That was Public Works Condition No. 6. He said he would like to go into a few things from Chevron's perspective and then he would let Mr. Kawamura have the floor to address the technical ... 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 issues and then he would like to close. He said that from Chevron's perspective they still feel that Public Works Condition No. 6 was imposed on them without merit. They have reviewed the matter in detail and felt the requirements prescribed in No. 6 were neither proportional nor necessary in connection with their planned redevelopment. A nexus didn't exist between their project and this request. There was little or no basis for concluding that from their converting a service bay operation to a food mart would constitute either an increase in traffic or a reduction in the level of service at the intersection. The City by law had the burden of proof to justify this condition and as of yet had been unable to do so. Chevron's traffic engineer studied the matter in depth and determined the current level of service at this intersection was a "C". The level of service was recognized as more than acceptable for urban traffic conditions at signalized intersections and taking into account a worst case scenario of an increase in peak PM drive hour traffic, the level of service rating for this intersection remained a "C". He also pointed out from the handout on page two that the level of service with the project would still remain a "C" as evidenced by this study. It was only the northbound lane that they disagree on where staff says it goes to a "D". n.rr He stated that Chevron was not insensitive to traffic congestion that can occur at this intersection. It is a problem they feel they did not create nor did they feel responsible to remedy. He pointed out that Plaza Way currently serves 28 different retail establishments and therefore the burden of any improvements to Plaza Way were not the responsibility of Chevron. He felt Chevron made a good faith effort in working with this project to work with staff. In particular he cited the Architectural Review Commission meetings where they acquiesced to all the architectural requirements of the community. It was unfortunate that they had been unable to remedy Condition No. 6 but they were certainly amenable to doing something other than what had been presented. They didn't feel that this entire burden should lie on Chevron. He said he would turn the podium over to Mr. Kawamura and he would address some of the specifics of the engineering studies and traffic studies in this regard. Commissioner Finerty said she had a question for Mr. Norris. In the letter the Commission received from Chevron's attorneys dated November 25, 1998, on page two it said, and they were talking about the traffic and what everything 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 was based upon here, paragraph number one said that "This condition erroneously assumes that the remodeled station would generate more traffic than the existing facility. Chevron is confident this will not be the case. It has been Chevron's experience at prior facilities that convenience store conversions while increasing gasoline sales rarely resulted in greater vehicle traffic to the site." She contrasted that to the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting dated September 15, 1998. The minutes indicated that Mr. Norris said that "Chevron was moving into the convenience store business nationwide and they have done enormous consumer research regarding customer buying habits for petroleum products." He went on to say that this would be one of the first to be built in So. California and she was questioning exactly what that experience was at the prior facilities. Mr. Norris thanked Commissioner Finerty for bringing that up and apologized for not clarifying himself. When he said one of the first to be built, Chevron has done a lot of food mart conversions from service bay operations nationwide. That is what they called their grand entrance architecture and that was what he was referring to when he said one of the first to be built in So. California. It was that specific building design. Commissioner Jonathan asked what Mr. Norris thought the total remodel would cost - a ballpark figure. Mr. Norris said approximately $800,000. Commissioner Jonathan said he would round that off to about $1 million. Mr. Norris felt that was a big stretch of a round. Commissioner Jonathan asked with a cost $800,000 why Chevron would invest that kind of money if they didn't anticipate that it would bring in more customers than the repair bays. Mr. Norris said they were removing the repair bays. Commissioner Jonathan concurred and pointed out that they were removing the repair bays and were replacing them with a food mart at a cost of approximately $800,000. He asked why a profit motivated business would 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 No choose to do that if they didn't anticipate that more people would patronize their business. Mr. Norris said they were looking to have more people patronize the business, however, they felt that food was more of what the customer wanted as an ancillary business. Someone there today fueling would much rather have the ability to buy a convenient food item versus having a tire changed. Commissioner Jonathan said that now Mr. Norris was saying that they were anticipating more business. He said that on one hand the letter from his attorney stated that Chevron didn't anticipate that more traffic would be generated. On the other hand it appeared logical, and he felt Mr. Norris was in agreement, that the only reason a business would make an investment of $800,000 was because it would bring in more business, which meant more traffic. Mr. Norris said they were certainly looking to increase their fuel volume and he wouldn't deny that at all. What they were saying and what their experience has been, for not only Chevron but as an industry as a whole, that the service bay business by and of its own nature, created more traffic than a food mart does. Meaning that when someone has to have their car serviced, they drop it off in the morning, someone comes to pick them up, during the day people deliver parts, someone brings them back to pick up their car during the day and then they leave the station. That constituted much more traffic than someone coming in who may already be fueling and going in and then buying a convenient food item when they are already an existing fueling customer. The nature of the service bay business in large by itself created more trip traffic than a food mart. Commissioner Jonathan thought that was an interesting theory and asked if that was their actual experience. Mr. Norris said it was not only Chevron's experience, but it was also the industry's experience. Typically a service station has wreckers, people delivering parts, people dropping off cars, people picking up cars and the service bay operation outside of the fuel created a lot of traffic independent of itself. 8 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 Commissioner Jonathan imagined a food mart would as well. Mr. Norris stated that currently, right now, 85% of Chevron's food mart business came from people already there buying gasoline. The biggest increase they see in fuel sales happened not from a change of mode of operation from the service bay to a convenience store or food mart, but from changing gasoline pumps that don't accept a credit card to changing pumps that do accept a credit card. They realize a bigger increase in gasoline sales from that and this station already has gasoline dispensing equipment that accepts credit cards. The USA gasoline station that was studied, although they agreed with the validity of the research, he felt that USA station was an entirely different operation than Chevron. USA today was priced 10C a gallon less than Chevron have a direct access off Highway 1 1 1 . They felt that was not a true comparison of what would happen to this particular location in converting it to a Chevron food mart. They didn't feel the USA gasoline site was really relevant. Commissioner Finerty asked who chose that site for the site specific study. Mr. Norris said it was mutually agreed upon between Mr. Kawamura and Mr. Joe Gaugush. There was no Chevron food mart in the vicinity to use as a comparison and it was agreed that was a site that was on Highway 111 that was of a similar use that could be used as a benchmark. Commissioner Finerty asked Mr. Greenwood if he was aware that Mr. Gaugush agreed to that site. Mr. Greenwood said Mr. Gaugush did agree to having that site studied, but it was at the applicant's suggestion. Public Works Department had a site in mind that was the existing Chevron convenience store operation at Ramon and Varner. That was the site Public Works would have chosen. The applicant chose the site that was studied. Commissioner Finerty asked what the logic was in studying a site Chevron didn't feel was comparable. Mr. Norris said he would like to have Mr. Kawamura address that since he was not privy to those conversations. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 r.r Commissioner Jonathan asked if the theory behind the food mart was to bring in some level, perhaps 15% or so of independent customers that would just go there to buy food. Mr. Norris said it was also what current customers told them they want. Commissioner Jonathan noted it would result, which was probably the applicant's hope, in higher gasoline sales and would bring in more people to buy gasoline. The decrease to traffic as a result of not having service bays and the increase to traffic, whether it offset it, exceeded it, or whatever, would be from now having customers who would come to buy food and then whatever impact the food mart has on increasing customer usage of the gasoline pumps. They were really talking about whether the reduction would be more than offset by the increase in customers both for food and gasoline. He was sure they were hoping that it would but they didn't know. They were hoping for as much return on that investment as possible and as much business as possible if they were like most businesses, but they don't know that for a fact. Time would tell. Mr. Norris said they didn't know it for a fact at this location, but their experience has been that where they removed service bays at other locations and converted them to food marts, and this wasn't just Chevron but the industry as a whole, that the trip generation net result was actually less. Mr. Norris concurred that total trip generation to the site including both food and gasoline was actually less. MR. JIM KAWAMURA, addressed Commission and said he is President of KHR Associates, an engineering, planning and architectural consulting firm under commission to Chevron Products Company to review and provide input regarding the proposed service station at Plaza Way and Highway 1 1 1 . He prefaced his comments by indicating that they had no disagreement with City staff regarding methodologies, regarding the concerns, or regarding the intent. What they did question and have differences of opinion on was specifically the end result of all of the analyses. He said it got a little complicated in terms of talking about the Intersection Capacity Utilization Method, Highway Capacity Manual Method, etcetera, and there were a lot of technical terms and jargon that was used by traffic engineers and he found that in a lot of cases traffic seemed to be a very subjective issue and no one ever seemed to 10 No MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 agree on whether there was a traffic problem or not. He pointed out in this particular case that irrespective of the methodology, irrespective of what numbers they were assuming as far as existing traffic conditions, future traffic conditions, etcetera, that the bottom line was that when they take the worst case scenario under each of the series of steps they went through to analyze the situation on behalf of their client, Chevron, but as well with the City's input, they could not honestly in good faith conclude that there is a direct relationship between the Chevron proposed project and a measurable traffic problem on Plaza Way or at the intersection of Highway 1 1 1 and Plaza Way. The point here was that number one, they didn't disagree that there can be traffic congestion at that intersection and he had been out there on many occasions looking at traffic at all hours of the day: morning, midday, in the evening hours, and if anyone went out there and looked at the traffic conditions, there was a lot of traffic going through that intersection. There was no disagreement there. There was also a significant part of that traffic being generated on that northbound leg, the Plaza Way leg of the intersection. That traffic wasn't solely coming from Chevron. As Mr. Norris indicated there were at least 28 other businesses within the Von's shopping center and the shopping center directly behind them that contributed to that traffic, not to mention the traffic that comes from El Paseo over to Highway 1 1 1 that uses Plaza Way as a sort of shortcut. They didn't even count that traffic. So if they looked at the whole sum of the existing traffic total on Plaza Way, Chevron's portion of that existing problem, if they wanted to call it that, was a small fraction of the total volume of traffic going through that intersection. He asked if this project in itself required an improvement on Plaza Way that was 100% totally the responsibility of Chevron regardless of whether there was a measurable traffic impact or traffic increase or not, if the levels of service for the intersection as a whole remain the same, he thought it would be hard pressed on anyone's point of view to suggest that Chevron solely by converting its service bays to a convenience store operation or food mart operation was responsible for 100% of the improvement on Plaza Way. He realized that they couldn't build half a roadway and they were also saying that they realize that this additional lane for the northbound leg of Plaza Way and Highway 1 1 1 was something that was a necessity and would be needed because in the shopping center behind them there were a number of vacancies there and as those vacancies and the remodeling 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 No occurred in the center, there would be more traffic generated. If they looked back at these numbers and asked how they came up with the conclusion that this improvement was solely the responsibility of Chevron and Chevron should pay for it, it had to do with one figure or one point as Mr. Greenwood indicated and that was that the level of service for the northbound leg, through movement only and not even the left turn northbound, just the through movement goes from a level of service "C" to level of service "D". If they looked at the numbers in the six pages or so of output from the Highway Capacity Manual Methodology of determining intersection levels of service that staff prepared and they looked at each leg and each of the levels of service, they would realize that none of them change from existing to future with the Chevron project with the exception of that one northbound leg. It went from a "C" to a "Y. He asked how they got to that point and how they reached the conclusion that it goes from a "C" to a "D". There were several assumptions that would have to be made to reach that conclusion. One of them was that all of the traffic that would be generated, regardless of what the number is, whether it is 100 cars or 1 ,000 cars, all of that traffic had to come from Chevron entering and exiting using Plaza Way through Highway 1 1 1 to get that number for rrr the through movement to be high enough so that the level of service changed. The reality was, and he would list the percentages because he thought they were significant, that to get that assumption they would have to assume that all 40 cars that would be generated during the P.M. peak hour were going into the Chevron service station using Plaza Way and exiting the Chevron station using Plaza Way to get onto Highway 1 1 1 either going through to the shopping center or turning left or right. By their own count on an earlier study when they were just looking simply at where the traffic was coming from, and he said he would give Commission those numbers because they were remarkably consistent and they weren't trying to manipulate numbers to work in their favor, they had to realize that when they did the traffic counts with the driveways they weren't even talking about levels of service. They noticed that a lot of traffic that enters and exits the Chevron station didn't go out onto Highway 1 11 . They go into the shopping center, go back to El Paseo and elsewhere. They don't even go to Highway 111 . So when they extract the numbers for the shopping center traffic, the people that go to the Chevron station that either come to the station from the shopping center, or when they leave the 12 Wd MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 station and go into the shopping center directly without even going out onto Plaza Way or they make a movement into or out of the Chevron station using Plaza Way but heading toward El Paseo, not Highway 111 . They were looking at in the morning peak hour--38% of that traffic was not directed at Highway 1 1 1 . The PM peak was 38%. The noon hour was 41 %. If they wanted to say 100% of the traffic and if they wanted to make the argument that they were comparing apples to apples, he asked how an existing circulation pattern which says that anywhere between 38% to 41 % of the traffic didn't even go through the Highway 1 1 1 intersection, now in the after analysis saying that now they have the project 100% goes through the intersection. The other assumption they would have to make was that they have a 50% increase in traffic in order to get that number, the 40 cars they are talking about during the PM peak hour to even reach that number. They would have to assume a 50% increase in traffic because of the food mart and secondly, 100% of that 50% increase was going through the intersection of Highway 1 1 1 and Plaza Way. That was the only way they could get that level of service to budge from "C" to "D". He said it barely budged by fractions. The 50% came from the analysis of USA gas versus Chevron. He said he wanted to set the record straight because he thought this was very important. The reason they even began this discussion about possibly doing a case study of both the existing Chevron station and one other location, whether it was a USA gas or any other location, was because the City's original traffic report indicated that the existing Chevron station generated 4,048 vehicle trip ends per day and that using the assumption of 24 vehicle fueling positions (dispensers or pumps) that this new station would generate 13,022 trip ends--an increase of 9,000 trip ends and that was the City's contention. That Chevron would be generating 9,000 additional vehicle trip ends. Now they were talking about 40 trip ends during the PM peak hour. The reason they went and studied the USA gas station, and he discussed this personally with Joe Gaugush, he suggested to Joe that because standard methodology is to use the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip General Manual and if they used that manual and used that definition of service stations and convenience stores, etc., and came up with the calculations, they would come to the same conclusion that Mr. Norris indicated. That was if they took the trip generation rate for a service station with service bays and compared it with a service station with a convenience store, there would actually 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 be a decrease in the total trips generated. About seven or eight years ago he did a study commissioned by Mobil Oil Corporation called the Mobil National Traffic Study. His company did it and he was the principal investigator. They went and looked at 30 service stations nationwide in seven different states for Mobil Oil Corporation to determine once and for all the trip generation characteristics, what the parking characteristics of service stations of various types of configuration were. While this was a privately commissioned study, the report and the findings were remarkable and they were subsequently added as part of the ITE Trip Generation Manual and he worked with the ITE technical section in Washington D.C. to help develop these new standards so they were talking to the guy who came up with these standards for how service stations should be evaluated. To address Commissioner Jonathan's question regarding this whole issue, and it has come up time and time again, why would anyone invest $1 million when they weren't going to have any more customers and he felt that was a very simple and honest question. In fact, they were asked that by Mobil because when they originally did their study they used 20 stations and they came back with the result and Mobil said they didn't believe him. Their own client said they didn't believe him and told him to go look at ten more stations. They did and the results came back the same so they started looking at the actual transaction tickets and what was happening and why this phenomenon occurred was two reasons. Number one, service stations with service bays generate more traffic. They were talking traffic versus customers and he said that was the difference between the two numbers. Traffic is, as indicated by Mr. Norris, any time a car needs repaired at that station, they were bringing it in for service, a friend comes to pick them up, they bring them back in the afternoon and that meant four or five trip ends being generated by one customer. Compared to a convenience store or food mart, as Mr. Norris indicated, they have shown that 85% of the transactions that occur from all food mart sales are customers that are already there. The customers instead of spending $10 on gas were now spending $10 for gas plus $2 or $3 for something in the convenience store. That was what justified bottom line investment. They were making more money from the same customers. That was the whole idea behind shopping malls. They have a captive client and make them spend more money. They don't get more customer--they simply make them spend more money while they are there. Regarding the nexus for this whole issue 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 of whether the improvements were justified in this particular case, the bottom line was that in terms of the USA gas, they tried to use that as a case study location working with Joe Gaugush. He proposed originally to look for a station that Mr. Gaugush would feel comfortable with and looked at USA gas because he knew it was very busy, it is on the highway and even though it is not an apples to apples comparison at least it got them in the ballpark and not talking about 13,000 trip ends with a service station and convenience store or 24 vehicle fueling positions because that didn't exist. They picked that site merely as an example so they could at least get into the ballpark and ideally they would have picked a Chevron service station with a food mart and no, Mr. Gaugush never introduced or suggested another location to them and he had two discussions over this and Mr. Gaugush said let's go ahead and go with the USA gas with the full understanding and, unfortunately, it didn't turn out to be the case--that this was not to be used against them. If they told him that eventually the results of their USA gas analysis would be used as an argument against their project he never would have picked USA gas because obviously there was a huge difference between the two operations. For one thing, there was a 100 price difference and so the customers at USA gas in terms of the volume and the composition of that customer profile was significantly different than Chevron. They saw something today coming into town that was one step beyond--Costco and their gas operations. He asked if it would be fair to compare them to Costco. They saw cars lined up six deep over there on all fueling islands. They were probably talking 10,000 cars a day at a station like that. That was not an apples to apples comparison. They didn't count USA gas for the reason of comparing it with Chevron. What they tried to do was indicate that number one, they weren't talking about 13,000 trips per day for any type of station. Number two, they weren't talking about 24 vehicle fueling positions for Chevron, they were talking about 12 and he thought the City had acquiesced to those two points of contention they had. That was the only reason they used the USA gas as a case study site. He wanted to set that record straight because he now saw this document taking the assumption of saying that they would take USA's number and apply it to Chevron and therefore they have a 50% increase in traffic, which was erroneous. Then they would take that assumption one step further and say that of that 50% increase in traffic, 100% would go through Highway 1 1 1 and Plaza Way and that simply was not WAMW 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 the case either. He hadn't had a chance, because this information came to him this afternoon, to go back and redo the calculations to see if they took more realistic numbers and plugged them into the Highway Capacity Manual Method and said what the level of service was for that northbound direction because that was the sole nail that this whole hat of 100% of the improvement costs being attributable to Chevron was coming from and to see if that nail holds that hat up if they changed those numbers around to something more realistic. They haven't had the opportunity to do that but he was pretty sure that when they do come up with those calculations they would find that the level of service stayed the same. It was "C" now and would remain "C". There went the nexus. Commissioner Finerty noted that in the memo Commission had from Mr. Greenwood with regard to traffic counts, Mr. Kawamura used the 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. time as the worst case scenario for traffic and the Commission was being advised by staff that recent traffic studies in the area and our own observations have found that 11 :00 a.m. to 1 :00 p.m. weekday periods could experience higher traffic volumes. She was questioning why there wasn't communication between Mr. Kawamura and staff to agree on a peak time. Also, further reading it appeared that Mr. Kawamura independently had gone out with his own methods and procedures and there wasn't a lot of communication with Mr. Gaugush in preparing the evaluations. Mr. Kawamura said that if they had used the 1 1 :00 a.m. to 1 :00 p.m. count, they would have gladly done that because the result would have been less traffic. They actually took traffic counts at both the USA gas and Chevron and they counted that period of 1 1 :00 a.m. to 1 :00 p.m. as well as the morning peak and afternoon peak. In their correspondence dated November 24, 1998 when they looked at the counts they said "let's use the 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. because they are higher". Based on the counts they conducted at the location, and this was back when they were looking at both USA and Chevron, they would gladly do that but what it would end up showing was instead of the 40 cars they would have a smaller number. They took what they considered the worst case situation and they would be more than happy to say 1 1 :00 a.m. to 1 :00 p.m. That actually gave them less of an impact. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 Commissioner Finerty noted that they were being told that other recent traffic studies showed that 11 :00 a.m. to 1 :00 p.m. experiences higher traffic volumes and Mr. Kawamura was telling her no, that was not true. Mr. Kawamura said they had to look at, regardless of whether it was higher or not, the significance of whether it was higher or not. If they were to assume that 11 :00 a.m. to 1 :00 p.m. is higher, that number was probably insignificant with respect to the type of analysis they were talking about. In order to bump a level of service, they were talking about thousands of cars differential between those two periods of time. He said he would give the Commission numbers because he felt it was relevant and they were trying to do this because they were trying to look at this very objectively looking at the worst case situation. They would have gladly picked the 11 :00 a.m. to 1 :00 p.m. period because the results would have been more favorable to them. He wanted to give them proof of that in one of the numbers he sees as important to recognize where they came up with their 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. period because he felt that 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. was normally thought of as the commuting hours and those were the hours they felt would be more appropriate in terms of looking at these types of figures for analysis purposes. Using Chevron station as an example, they counted morning peak, afternoon peak and midday peak. The trip generation rate based on their correspondence dated October 29 when they were looking at strictly how much traffic USA gas was generating and what the Chevron station was generating. If they had used the morning peak hour as their peak hour at worst case situation, the trip generation rate for the Chevron service station would have been 11 .63 trip ends for a vehicle fueling position. If they had used the p.m. peak period, which was the afternoon time they used, the rate would have been 12.91 . If they had picked the midday 11 :00 a.m. to 1 :00 p.m. period, the rate would have been 12.27--lower than the 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. period. They took the worst case situation and looked at 12.27 and 12.91 and said 12.91 was higher. Commissioner Finerty asked if these numbers were based on figures taken on October 29, 1998. Mr. Kawamura said yes, well, that was the date of the report. He said the intent there was not to try to demonstrate what were the peak 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 hours as far as traffic on Highway 1 1 1 and Plaza Way, they were trying to determine at what time of day they generated the highest number of vehicles from the Chevron station and it happened to be the afternoon peak. The difference between 12.91 and 12.27 was pretty small; it was a fraction of a trip. They picked the higher number. If the Commission wanted them to take the middle number they would gladly do that but the results would have been less of an impact. Commissioner Finerty said she believed it was Mr. Kawamura's recommendation to use a split phased signal. Mr. Kawamura concurred. Commissioner Finerty said that was to solve what Mr. Kawamura thought was Chevron's part of the problem. Mr. Kawamura said no, that was certainly not the intent to say that it was Chevron's part of the problem. What they merely tried to do, and they couldn't look at a problem both ways and have an answer. They couldn't have their cake and eat it too. They either looked at the intersection of Plaza Way and Highway 111 as a whole and said that the most important thing was moving traffic through the intersection, period. They obviously couldn't have green lights for all directions at all times. Someone had to sacrifice. Where do they place the sacrifice? Do they sacrifice the traffic movement on Highway 11 1 to try to get Plaza Way moving or do they sacrifice the side streets to Plaza Way for the benefit of the Highway 1 1 1 traffic? If they wee saying what is important is not the individual movements but the intersections as a whole, then they have to analyze the intersection as a whole and with the ICU Method and Highway Capacity Manual Method they would get the same results under both scenarios for level of service for the intersection as a whole. They say it is "C" now and would be "C" in the future. The City's own staff using the Highway Capacity Manual Method said the intersection as a whole is level of service "C" now and will be "C" in the future. If they weren't concerned with the whole intersection and they were saying that the only thing they care about is Plaza Way, and going one step further, if they only care about northbound through movement on Plaza Way, they don't care even about the left turns because the left turn movement is "C" and would 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 remain "C" then they should just talk about northbound left--that their whole purpose in life is to make sure northbound Plaza Way traffic moves at an acceptable level of service. If that was their concern, then a split phase operation would obviously help because it would give them 100% of the green time for that leg for movement to go through. They didn't have a conflicting left turn to worry about. When the light is green they go through. That was contrary to the benefit of the intersection as a whole. The only reason they mentioned the split phase was because it seemed like there was this fixation on the part of the City's staff that the northbound or south leg of that intersection was the critical movement and they have to somehow solve this problem on Plaza Way that is happening in front of Chevron. He said fine, if the Commission wanted to do that and take that approach, they could split phase it and that would solve the problem immediately. Obviously he acknowledged, and he said so in his memo, but that doesn't solve the problems of the intersection and in fact might make it worse to the intersection as a whole because someone had to sacrifice. If they improve Plaza Way, Highway 111 suffers. They couldn't have their cake and eat it too. They either have to address it as an intersection as a whole or individual legs and he thought it was a far stretch to go from where they are today to where the situation would be in the future with Chevron rebuilding its station to conclude that Chevron is now creating a "traffic impact" as a result of the remodel. Commissioner Beaty asked, bottom line, if Chevron felt that in the future it would be a benefit to them and everyone in that shopping center, Von's and all of those businesses, that they have three northbound lanes coming up on Plaza Way. Mr. Kawamura said he didn't think there was any disagreement that a third lane would be beneficial. Commissioner Beaty said he thought that Mr. Kawamura did a good job of making his point and he thought he was probably starting to agree with him that it may not be the total responsibility of Chevron to shoulder the cost. He asked if that was the issue. Mr. Kawamura said he thought it was entirely. tow 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 Commissioner Beaty said that City staff, and obviously they have already heard discussions that the shopping center behind Chevron would be improved and the assumption had to be that it would change and increase more traffic also. He asked if there was any way to require those businesses to contribute to some of this improvement which he felt everyone would agree they need. Mr. Drell replied that in that project they actually saw the development reducing square footage so it was kind of hard when they are reducing square footage to require traffic improvements. Also, this was a traffic improvement that was not adjacent to their property so obviously they didn't require improvements. It was harder to make a nexus when actual square footage was being reduced, which was what happened in the shopping center remodel. Commissioner Beaty thought that if they were improving the shopping center they would increase traffic. Mr. Drell said they were remodeling the exteriors but they were actually reducing the square footage. Mr. Smith noted they were also adding an access. Mr. Drell concurred and explained they were adding an access on Highway 111 and if there was an increase it would probably be a wash with the new access on Highway 111 . The traffic engineer's handbook didn't take into account remodeling of exteriors. It was based on square footage of retail space and when they reduce retail space, all the things being equal, they would not make a hard case that they were v increasing traffic. Obviously they could get a better store in there at any time. Mr. Kawamura said that unfortunately that was the case, but if they take into consideration the vacancies they saw in the shopping center and say hypothetically that he wanted to go into that shopping center and rent one of those spaces and open up a bakery or whatever and if was required to go through the same type of detailed traffic analysis as Chevron was going to be required to, Chevron was an existing operation. They are in business and are generating traffic now. That traffic was accounted for in the existing traffic count. Those vacant shops back there were not included in those numbers. If they opened up a business in one of those vacant shops, they were generating new traffic. Right now that space is vacant and if he opened up a business people would come there. One might argue that a lot of his customers would be from those already in the shopping center just like Chevron was saying that a lot of their customers are already there, so the point is that they are talking about a situation that is a little bit different in comparison. If Chevron's station was shut down, if it was a vacant site and it was proposing to build this project, he would be on the City's r 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 side saying that here is the existing traffic and now they were adding all of this additional traffic because a new business going in. He could see the argument, but in this particular case what they have to concentrate and look at is the difference between what is existing and what is proposed. That differential was the impact and that differential was insignificant. Commissioner Jonathan said that with the shopping center in the rear, his basic point as he said earlier was that it was unlikely that someone would put in any kind of major investment in order to create smaller square footage which would result in less customers. That was not what it was about and they understood that. However, he wanted to leave the issue of nexus and responsibility for the additional traffic and there would be a lot, a little or none. Forgetting that for a moment and assuming that Plaza Way was not a good traffic situation as it exists, Mr. Kawamura mentioned that they couldn't have their cake and eat it too in terms of resolving the problems that are there. But wasn't the proposed improvement to Plaza Way a method of accomplishing that and wouldn't that result in the best improvement to traffic flow not just r for northbound and left turn and so forth, but also to the entire intersection? He asked if that was the best solution that Mr. Kawamura was aware of. Mr. Kawamura said yes, it was. Mr. Norris readdressed Commission and said that Chevron was asking for the Commission to approve their project removing Condition No. 6. They feel, again, that the condition was neither reasonable nor proportional in terms of what they were doing. They also felt that the new direct access that the shopping center behind them would have directly off Highway 1 1 1 would lessen the load on Plaza Way. Taking a worst case scenario with some unbelievable traffic counts, the level of service did not change the intersection. They also asked the Commission to recognize the benefits of their proposed project both from a customer service perspective of having something that the residents of Palm Desert want, but also the aesthetic benefit to the community to have that facility in place adjacent to the shopping center versus what was in place today. He said he would be more than happy to answer any further questions. low 21 MENNEN MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 Commissioner Finerty said that Mr. Kawamura alluded to the split phase signal and the cost would be $7,000. From what she understood Chevron agreed to pay that cost, but what she thought she just heard him say and what was quoted in their report was that would not exactly solve the problem and could make matters worse on Highway 1 1 1 . He just now said that the improvement on Plaza Way as proposed by staff for the $48,000 would be the best way to solve the problem. Given the fact that there is an existing condition where there is traffic and her belief was that an expanded use and convenience store for Chevron would exacerbate that condition, she asked if there was somewhere between the $7,000 and the $48,000 that they could agree on. Mr. Norris said they feel that there was not going to be this rash of traffic that would occur as a result of them changing this building. They feel that $7,000 was really their best good faith effort to try to acquiesce to staff. They felt that neither a condition exists today nor that a condition would exist in the future, but they were willing to do that. They felt they were being more than fair in doing that. Commissioner Finerty noted that the $7,000 was for the split phased signal which Mr. Kawamura basically said was not the best way to handle the �r situation and asked if he agreed. Mr. Norris said that again, there were 28 other businesses plus two direct streets that have service via Plaza Way. They didn't feel it was their responsibility and that they didn't create a problem there nor would they create one in the future and it was not their responsibility to remedy it as a developer. Looking at a worst case scenario of a 15% supposed increase in traffic they felt that $7,000 would be 15% or close thereto to the $48,000. If there was another remedy that needed to be taken, they felt this was more than adequate for Chevron's share of their responsibility for Plaza Way. Commissioner Finerty indicated she had a hard time understanding Chevron investing to what Mr. Norris alluded to in the September 15, 1998 minutes of a $900,000 rebuild and not anticipating an increase in traffic and at the same time if they were going to be spending $900,000 why they were quibbling over a few thousand to better the improvement for everyone. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 rr.. Mr. Norris said there were a couple of issues. They certainly hoped to get an increase in fuel sales and he wouldn't deny that; however, as he pointed out the change of operation from a service bay given the nature of that business and automobile repair constituted less traffic. Regarding the nature of the investment, if he said $900,000 he mis- spoke because it was closer to $800,000 but they feel whether it is $48.00 or $48,000 it wasn't right to make this their responsibility. He was a little surprised that staff and the City really felt that in the scope of their project that this was an insignificant amount of money to put against their project especially since they acquiesced to all the different architectural changes that were recommended by the Architectural Review Commission. He said he was somewhat at a loss as to the relevance that this $48,000 kept coming up that they should just do this for the betterment of the community. They wanted to be a good neighbor but this wasn't their responsibility. Commissioner Finerty agreed that there was a problem that needed to be taken care of and she wasn't going to say that Chevron was creating it all on their own or with changing their facility, but they also had to go on what staff told them and they have to trust their judgement and basically they were being told that the $48,000 was the best way to deal with this traffic problem. Mr. Norris replied, "and that Chevron should do this". Commissioner Finerty said she didn't know that and that was why she was asking if there was somewhere between the $7,000 that Chevron agreed to for the split phased signal and the $48,000 which was the best case scenario to solve this issue. Mr. Norris said that again the latest correspondence taking a worst case scenario as Mr. Kawamura said, realizing that all of the traffic would be going northbound on Plaza Way that they get the 15%. Again, $7,000 was 15% of $48,000. Mr. Greenwood said he would like to clarify staff's position. Right now today Plaza Way experienced a service level of "C" and that was an acceptable level of service in almost anyone's book. So if they took the no project scenario they don't have a problem. Now if they undertake the project they fully expect based on the project engineer's numbers, all of these numbers, every `w 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 Y last one of them, was developed by the engineer. Staff merely analyzed them in another methodology. That methodology said that the project's numbers say there will be a 15% increase in traffic and that increase in traffic will degrade the level of service on the northbound leg from "C" to "D". That would degrade that leg below the City's stated level of service goal which is level "C" and therefore there is a nexus on this project to make sure that impact does not occur. Mr. Norris said that still took into account no loss in trip generation for the loss of service bays. They were saying that strictly because they pump more gas that this traffic was going to go up. Mr. Greenwood replied no, they were saying that based on the project engineer's analysis of the similar site which, while the City didn't chose it, those were the best numbers they have and they have analyzed the numbers they have and tried to compare apples to apples as far as the trip generation and saying that 100% of the traffic had to go through the intersection, they used the exact same trip distribution that was used in the ICU analysis and those were comparing apples to apples as best could be done. Mr. Norris asked if he felt an apple to apple comparison was a location that has gasoline priced 100 per gallon less than Chevron. He asked if he felt that was true comparison of trip generation. Mr. Greenwood explained that as he said earlier, staff believed there was a better site to study but they did accept the site that was presented to them. Commissioner Jonathan felt that perhaps the Commission had heard the points and understood the points from all perspectives and suggested they could move on. Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was still open and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this matter. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan said he actually thought that staff was correct in its analysis and conclusions and he thought that the applicant was correct too. That might be odd but he thought they were talking about two different issues. The issue where staff is correct is in the net impact that this proposed project would have on traffic. His gut feeling and he has looked at the 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 r.. numbers and listened to testimony and understood and both arguments were compelling. He listened to one perspective and said okay, I believe that and then he listened to the next guy and if they looked at staff and their report he thought it was compelling and believed that so probably somewhere in between was the truth. His gut feeling said, and that they have to assume that this will be a successful project, and traffic would increase. Whatever the offset was he understood that service bays create a lot of traffic and that would all go away and be replaced to a lesser extent, same extent or higher extent by the success of the food mart and the increased gasoline sales that it generates, but his gut feeling said there would be some increase. On the other hand where he felt the applicant was right was not on the issue of traffic generation but on the issue of nexus. This proposed Chevron project may push the traffic over the top to go from "C" to "D", but it wasn't solely responsible in that they were near "D" to begin with. So he thought that Chevron had responsibility, but he felt the proposed project behind had responsibility and A.G. Edwards had responsibility and McDonald's, the movie theater and so on. He felt that it would be a good project and would improve the community but he didn't buy that entirely either because Chevron had no choice because the area is improving and if Chevron continued to deteriorate in appearance and so forth, it wasn't going to survive. He understood that the community was going to benefit, but he didn't want them to think that they completely bought it that Chevron was doing this magnanimously because it likes the city of Palm Desert and wanted to make this a charitable contribution and he understood the benefits both ways. It would be a good project, is right for the area and he would like to see it come about. He felt that Plaza Way needed to be improved no matter what happened so this was a good opportunity to make that come about. The real question was who would pay the $48,000 or so. He suggested that either the Chevron proposal for Condition 6 be approved, meaning they contribute $7,000 towards the cost of the staff recommendation for improving the area, or that alternately if that wasn't acceptable to Council, that some other cost sharing arrangement be devised. As a Planning Commissioner he thought the project stood on its own merits and the issue of who should pay for that improvement was one that he was comfortable with the Chevron proposal and if Council wasn't then fine, they could address that and come up with something else, but as a planning project, it sat well with him and he would like to see it happen. Mr. Drell noted that unless it was called up by Council or appealed by the applicant or someone else, it wouldn't go to Council. 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 Commissioner Jonathan said he would be prepared to accept it with the modification to Condition No. 6 that says any cost in excess of $7,000 shall be the responsibility of the City. He would just amend that final sentence and if Council felt that was inappropriate, then they would have the ability to call it up. Commissioner Beaty said he was in agreement with Commissioner Jonathan with the exception of changing the amendment that drastically and he would prefer to see it stay as it is stated and allow the applicant the opportunity to appeal it to Council and let Council and Chevron work out the financing. From a planning standpoint they needed the third lane and the intersection needed to be improved and they could fight it out how much Chevron should pay and how much the City would pay. Commissioner Jonathan said he would be okay with that but the only reason he was suggesting the modification is because if Council is okay with it there was no need to do a public notice and all that because no one would call it up. If not, they would call it up. Commissioner Beaty said that if it wasn't appealed they would get the intersection at a lower cost to the City. Then it would be Chevron's decision and not the Council's decision. Commissioner Finerty asked if the other commissioners were in concurrence with the hours of operation being 24 hours per day since that was staff's recommendation. Commissioner Beaty said he didn't have a problem with those hours in that location. Chairperson Campbell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan also agreed. Commissioner Finerty asked Mr. Norris if they planned to have a pay phone outside. Mr. Norris said he believed so, but would check the plan to verify that. Chairperson Campbell thought the City wanted to do away with outside phones, like at Walgreen's. Mr. Norris said there wasn't an outside telephone on the plans. Chairperson Campbell suggested adding that as a condition that there be no outside pay phones or loitering. If they had one inside that would be fine. Mr. Norris concurred. 26 r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 r.. Chairperson Campbell said that after hearing all of the testimony this evening she would concur with the other commissioners in regard to the money and if Chevron wanted to go ahead and donate that much money toward the $48,000 and leave it up to Council as to if the new shopping center should add something to that too because they would be responsible for generating more traffic as well as the other shopping centers. Mr. Norris asked for clarification that Chairperson Campbell was saying the condition would be amended to reflect the $7,000. Chairperson Campbell said they were just discussing this and Commissioner Beaty noted there wasn't a motion yet. Commissioner Jonathan said he could see it both ways, but he tended to maybe get that $7,000 "offer" for lack of a better term onto the books by incorporating that in Condition No. 6 with the hopes that Council would find that to be equitable and they would go ahead and do it. The way Condition No. 6 reads he thought it would be inappropriate and wouldn't be an equitable sharing of costs and for the applicant to pay $7,000 was approaching equity. He was more comfortable with that than just leaving No. 6 as is. Whether the motion lived or died, he was prepared to put forth a motion for approval with the exception of modifying the last sentence in Condition No. 6 of the Department of Public Works to read "...any costs in excess of $7,000 shall be the responsibility of the City." Commissioner Finerty noted that the staff report dated December 1 talked about any costs in excess of $48,000 would be the responsibility of the City and that Public Works staff was estimating the construction cost to be $48,000. She didn't know how firm of a figure that was and if they were talking about an increase of 15% traffic, then perhaps they would want to say 15% of the cost. Commissioner Jonathan said he wouldn't have a problem with that if she felt that was more appropriate. Commissioner Finerty noted that she just didn't know how good of a number the $48,000 figure was and if it could grow. Mr. Drell thought it was a pretty good number, but if they were going with the $7,000 logic, then it made sense that the project at some point in time would go out to bid and they would know exactly how much it would cost and then it would be 15% of that. If it was less it would be less and if more, it would be more than $7,000. Chairperson Campbell asked if Commissioner Jonathan wanted to make that one of the conditions. Commissioner Jonathan concurred and said he would amend the motion to indicate that any costs in excess of 15% of the Vamw 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 total improvement costs shall be the responsibility of the City. Commissioner Finerty noted that would also include the addition of the pay phone condition. Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't know if they needed to say anything about the pay phone because it wasn't on the plan and they would have to come to commission to get it. Mr. Drell noted that often phones get added by the phone company and it was probably a good idea to specifically call it out so they understand that is their intent. Commissioner Jonathan said he would be in agreement to adding the condition of no outside/public pay phones. Commissioner Finerty said she would second the motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Fernandez abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1905 approving CUP 98-4, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Fernandez abstained). B. Case No. PP/CUP 98-18 - LEWIS BISHOP ARCHITECTS for PALM DESERT COMMUNITY CHURCH, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan/conditional use permit for a 12,629 square foot church facility on 4.6 acres on the west side of Portola Avenue, 1600 feet north of Frank Sinatra Drive. Mr. Smith noted that the plans were on display and that Commission also received the plans in their packets. He explained that the property is a 4.6 acre site on the west side of Portola. It is the sixth lot north of Frank Sinatra Drive some 1600 feet north of Frank Sinatra. The property is zoned Planned Residential, five units to the acre. The PR zone permitted churches as a conditional use. They have the request for a multi-phased church. The applicant at this point had shown five possible phases, the first phase being a 1,952 square foot multipurpose building which would provide for seating up to 138 persons during Sunday church services. Phase 2 was the addition of another quadrant of 1 ,952 square feet for Sunday School classrooms. Phase 3 another Sunday School classroom facility. Phase 4 would be the s 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 administrative offices and library space. Phase 5 would complete the sanctuary between the two wings and that would eventually create a total seating capacity for 488 persons. Plans as currently drawn showed all the buildings to be single story with the buildings in the first four phases being in the range of 14 feet in height while the sanctuary building was currently shown at 30 feet in height. As noted later in the report, the zone maximum was 24 feet in height. Other churches have typically been afforded the opportunity to exceed the height limit for their sanctuaries; however, they included the condition requiring them in that portion of the plan since it was not anticipated until phase five so it gave them lots of time to consider their architectural changes. Public Works Departments noted that along the north, south and west property lines they have easements in place to assure access to the properties to the west in that as Commission was aware, they have a double row of five acre lots on the west side of Portola and this building as currently located was 22% feet from that southerly property line. In order that they wouldn't impinge on that easement they were suggesting that the buildings be moved northerly by 7'/2 feet. At this point in time staff didn't anticipate the construction of streets to the rear, but it could happen and he „r, felt they shouldn't infringe on that capability. He wanted to correct on page three of the report where they were discussing Architectural Review Commission and its meeting of November 10. The approval granted at that point was conceptual, not preliminary. That level of approval was granted with the understanding that the applicant would be coming back to ARC as each phase proceeded. In conclusion, he noted that the location of a church fronting on a major secondary street was in accord with the Planned Residential zone. The proposed location and conditions under which it would operate would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Traffic was not an issue since this was the first lot to develop in this area. The project would comply with all provisions of the PR zone and it would comply with the General Plan. The staff recommendation was for approval. The level of drawings, the degree of specificity at this point relative to the architecture was somewhat lacking. He thought the Commission might want to discuss whether they want to see this back again before actually taking action on it or as part of the phasing when it happened. There were various options available to the Commission in that respect. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions noted in the report. He asked for any questions. low 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 Chairperson Campbell asked Mr. Smith to point out on the plan which section would be the first phase. Mr. Smith said the first phase was shown as the multipurpose room and pointed out the location. Chairperson Campbell asked if staff knew how long that would be the only building there. Mr. Smith indicated that they hope to accomplish this in a five-year build out. Whether everything would happen in one year sequences he didn't know but suggested they ask the applicant what type of confidence they have with being able to have that type of schedule. Chairperson Campbell said she was also in agreement with Mr. Smith because they didn't have any landscaping plans for any particular phase or elevations. She felt they should see some landscaping design or plans before anything was approved and this was only a conceptual approval from ARC and ARC would like to see some additional plans. Mr. Smith said that ARC knew this would be back many times and that was discussed. The applicant's purpose in going to ARC at that point was to find out if there were any major concerns with having a church in this area and if the basic site planning issues were acceptable. The location of the parking, the location of the biblical garden and the location of the building. Chairperson Campbell said they still want all these plans going back to ARC for the design and landscaping before any of the phases are approved. Mr. Smith concurred and noted that was covered under condition no. 4. Chairperson Campbell noted that Commission could give them a conditional use permit to indicate that a church could locate there. Mr. Smith explained that there was also an option to have that matter referred back to the Planning Commission after ARC at each phase. Chairperson Campbell asked if after each phase or after the whole project is completed that there would be any increase in traffic or if there would be any deceleration or acceleration lanes. Mr. Smith said that absolutely there would be an increase in traffic. When there is no existing traffic they knew it would increase. Chairperson Campbell asked if there would be any additional traffic signals. Mr. Smith deferred that question to Mr. Greenwood. Mr. Greenwood explained that right now Portola Avenue in that area is a five lane section with a two-way left turn lane. This would be the first development along that mile of road so they believed that traffic would increase but didn't expect any problems from it. He didn't believe an acceleration or deceleration lane was proposed. He didn't expect there to be any problem. Commissioner Jonathan asked what happened if in the unlikely possibility that the multipurpose phase one was built with 39 parking spaces or whatever and then the church was unable to complete the rest of the project and they were 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 left with this five acre site with a small building on it. He asked if there was a mechanism for bonding for completion of the project so that at some point it was assured that they would start off with a phased type of situation and that in fact the entire project would be completed. Mr. Smith said no, not to his knowledge but the City Attorney might be aware of some capability they have. Commissioner Jonathan said he remembered they dealt with this issue of assuring that something was completed when it gets started and he recalled it was the parking lot for the Foundation on Cook and Sheryl and they were prepared to put up some kind of a security bond. Mr. Drell explained that they were completing the entire project and they would complete a portion of the parking if there was a need, but they were going to complete 95% of the project. Here the better solution was to require that each phase to a certain degree stand on its own architecturally. He used as an example the temporary building at Southwest Community Church with the landscaping, etc., that was required to satisfy the design requirements and he felt they should require the same thing for this permanent building and let each phase architecturally be treated as if it is the last phase and maybe not go 100%, but the landscaping plan could deal with the vacant areas and have some sort of time period that if phase two didn't happen, they should go to plan B which meant implementing whatever a permanent landscaping plan would entail. That should also relate to the building architecture. If that was the only building that got built, then it should be a building the City was willing to live with architecturally. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. LEWIS BISHOP, a Trustee with the Palm Desert Community Church of Christ and also the architect for the project, stated that they have worked with Architectural Review and staff in the preparation of this and as an architect, approaching any project of this nature was always a little difficult when they know the people trying to attempt to settle a church in a area do not have all of the funds on day one to start building the church like some of the other churches in the area who have money in their pockets. That was why they proposed a phased structure. He totally agreed with staff's approach that each phase should stand on its own merit and when they went to Architectural Review that was one of the considerations they discussed. If they were only able to build phase one and phase one's parking lot and 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 landscaping, it should look like it was a permanent structure that was appropriate to its intended use. It was their goal to finish the structures out in their appropriate manner. There were a couple of issues which he felt were imperative on the development of their church. Some of the conditions that were typical of any development project in the city posed some horrendous costs upon them and he wanted to think the Commission would have it in its purview to help them mitigate some of those costs. One of the conditions required them to build 1500 to 1600 lineal feet of six foot high block wall, which he thought had to be done prior to building permit. If that was a condition, he would walk out and the Commission wouldn't have to consider this any more because they couldn't afford to do it. At a cost of $25 per running foot of that wall, they could imagine what that cost would be and they didn't have the funds in their budget to build it initially. It was their intention, however, to comply fully as their project built out and there might be some conditions they could agree to that would allow them to make each phase stand on its own merits architecturally and functionally. He said most of the other conditions were certainly appropriate and acceptable and didn't impose any grievous hardships on them. They originally for phase one intended to build one driveway rf because that was all they were required to do to handle 39 or 40 cars. They were going to do their studies as to how many car spaces they actually need to have and when they come back for Architectural Review for their first phase and if the Planning Commission wished they would come back before them with a plan which had the accurate number of cars and buildings standing alone on its own. He asked for any questions. Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Bishop wanted the condition for the wall removed. Mr. Bishop said not to remove it in total, but he knew the cost of the entire wall was a lot of money and it would eliminate their project and they would not be able to move forward. Chairperson Campbell asked if they could build a portion of the wall and have landscaping. 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 Mr. Bishop clarified that if phase one had 40 cars in the parking lot, then they would be required to build a wall on the north property line to enclose that portion of the parking lot as a condition. He felt that would be appropriate and he didn't have any difficulty with that. Again, it was the demand of the whole improvement because there were a lot of other conditions there that were included in the whole improvements relative to water system, sprinklers, fire hydrants, etc., that had to be funded early on because they had to be in and those infrastructure items had to be in place early and they knew those were costs they had to incur. Chairperson Campbell asked if after each phase was built they would complete more of the wall. Mr. Bishop concurred. Mr. Drell said that for their own protection they would probably need to, along the north and west sides, to put in some snow fencing. �... Mr. Bishop liked the methodology used with the Memorial Park on Ramon Road in Cathedral City where there was a landscape methodology devised to eliminate the snow fencing problem. Mr. Drell said that in staff's experience that has never succeeded or succeeded only in about 15 to 20 years and what they needed to do was something that would provide them some protection immediately. Palm Desert had that same standard in its General Plan and projects that were first put in around 1980 were now probably being effective to a certain degree. He suggested a partial block wall with the rest being a chain link fence with slats in it like around Desert Willow to stop the sand. He thought they could talk to the people around Kaufman and Broad about what would have happened to their backyards if they didn't have a six foot block wall. Mr. Bishop said he understood. Commissioner Jonathan thought that at $25 per foot for 1600 feet would amount to approximately $40,000 or so. He asked if that sum would put the church out of business. 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 Mr. Bishop said their first phase budget was $100,000 and to increase the budget by almost 50% would be a huge burden on the first phase. Commissioner Jonathan asked if a certain amount of infrastructure costs were required before they could even proceed with phase one. In other words, if the civil engineering study, drainage study, mass grading of the entire lot, if all that had to be dealt with for the entire site just to move forward with phase one. Mr. Bishop said if it was he would fold his papers and go away because they couldn't deal with the entire five acres to grade and improve initially. Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't know how they could create proper drainage and retention walls if they were required without looking ahead to the entire project. Mr. Bishop said they would design it initially and they proposed to do the infrastructure design initially but for them to go out and grade five acres to build 1900 square feet wasn't possible. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff concurred that it was possible to create a phased 1 ,900 square foot facility without addressing the overall drainage, grading, retention and all of those issues. Mr. Greenwood said those questions were outside of his particular area of expertise, but he did believe that the studies would have to include the entire site but that it might be possible to design the improvements to only disturb a minimal amount of area so that the physical construction could be limited; however, the study needed to cover the entire site. Mr. Bishop said that was his understanding. That they would design and accommodate all of the infrastructure design initially as part of their initial work but that the actual physical construction would be integrated so that it could be added on. He said it would be similar to what is done in large scale subdivisions where they might only address the first 19 lots in the first phase and then move on from there. Mr. Drell said staff would probably prefer that they not disturb the whole site initially. 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 r.. Mr. Bishop stated that it was his understanding that the conditional use permit, as far as he was concerned, was initially a use and zoning issue and the issues of specific design and specific plan were to come with increased level of detail on each part of the building as proposed. They weren't expecting a blanket approval to do everything at this juncture. Commissioner Jonathan said that the application before Commission was for both a precise plan and conditional use permit. If they were to address only the conditional use permit tonight, he asked if that was enough for the applicant to move forward. Mr. Bishop replied absolutely. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Finerty said she had real concerns with this. She wasn't r.. opposed to a church and felt a church was a fine use and she liked the idea of the biblical garden concept. However, they talked about every phase standing on its own and she wouldn't be in favor of phase one and wasn't in favor of the design of the project in its entirety and didn't feel it met the City's standards or her personal preference for architecture. She felt it looked a lot like the library. They talked about there not being a landscape plan and she wondered about the possibility of referring it back to Architectural Review to see what could be done from an architectural standpoint so that each phase could stand on its own and perhaps it wouldn't be so plain and then try to address the landscape issues as well. Chairperson Campbell said that was her point to Mr. Smith. To approve a conditional use permit and require new plans for the building and landscaping to go to Architectural Review. Commissioner Finerty asked if Chairperson Campbell was not pleased with the architecture. Chairperson Campbell said it should be worked on, but Mr. Bishop said he would be happy with the approval of a conditional use permit and he was aware that he needed to take his plans back to Architectural Review. 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 Commissioner Jonathan said he was in general agreement with what had been said. He would like to bifurcate the approval between the precise plan and conditional use permit. He was fully prepared to approve the conditional use permit because he felt it was a wonderful use of the site and he would like to help the applicant move forward with the project. However, as far as the design, he didn't really know what he was looking at and thought the drawings and elevations lacked detail so it was difficult to see. The overall concept was maybe workable and he thought it was funny that Commissioner Finerty used the library as an example because he happened to adore that building and thought it was wonderful, however, he didn't know what they would end up with based on the drawings and elevations before them. So when they came in with the precise plan, he would really like detailed drawings, something that would look like what would be built. One other item he wanted to address was Community Development Condition No. 12 requiring the maximum height to be reduced from 30 feet to 24 feet. If it was appropriate for part of the building, the way he thought it was being presented, he thought there might be a nice architectural feature that would warrant an exception to the 24 foot height requirement. He said that when they did design it and come back to the Commission, and he wasn't encouraging the applicant to build something 70 feet high, but he was also �rr1 saying that in the past they have granted exceptions where the exception was justified. Six feet in this case might improve the overall appearance rather than detract from it so he personally would not be closed to an exception in that particular regard. With regard to the phasing and stand alone aspects, that would be an issue on his mind. He knew the applicant was hoping to gain all the funding to complete the project in a reasonable time, but he had been involved in fund raising in the desert for 20 years and most of them succeed eventually, but some don't and if this should be one of the unfortunate few that didn't not proceed, they sure didn't want an albatross on a very busy street, so he would be concerned in the overall design concept that the phases truly stood alone. He also felt that the parking exception was fine and would rather they keep nine seats than eliminate three spaces. If they could find a place to add them, great, but he wouldn't want to see them kick nine people out. Chairperson Campbell asked if Commissioner Jonathan would like to see this come back to Commission after each phase. Commissioner Jonathan agreed and explained that he wasn't prepared to give approval tonight for a precise plan. Mr. Drell said staff would simplify the conditions of approval to basically 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 describe physical parameters of the project in terms of square footage, number of seats, etc., and then a simple statement that to proceed beyond that would require submission and approval of a precise plan. He said staff would probably eliminate most of the conditions of approval that deal with the actual design and would just basically say it is for a church, the size, on this property and to go any further they would have to have a precise plan to define all the physical design elements. Commissioner Fernandez concurred with the other commissioners. He thought once the conditional use permit was obtained they could go ahead toward their goals and come back to the Planning Commission as explained by Commissioner Jonathan. He was in favor of the project. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1906 approving CUP 98-18, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. ZOA 98-7 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to Chapter 5.88 and Section 25.34.020 (M) and to add Chapter 25.110 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code regarding the location of Adult Entertainment Establishments. Mr. Smith said staff distributed a second adult entertainment site map to commission this evening. One prescribed a 500 foot buffer; the other assumed a 300 foot buffer. As indicated in the staff report, under current interpretations of the First Amendment the City didn't have the ability to preclude or prohibit these uses. When they had a potential applicant come to staff and say he was having difficulty finding a location staff looked at the map and noted there were about six lots currently meeting the separation requirements. The lots were delineated in a checked fashion on the map and were basically around Mediterranean and St. Charles Place. Staff discussed this with the City Attorney's office and they had some concern so they started low 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 ri looking at the existing ordinance and how they could continue to only allow these uses in the service industrial area, but also get back to providing a sufficient number of available lots that would result in our ordinance being declared valid. Currently they have the separation requirement from various other zones: R-1 , R-2, R-3, PR, PC, PI and C-1 . Also, the ordinance provided a buffer around churches, governmental buildings, schools, public parks, recreation, other adult entertainment establishments and businesses offering ABC licensed products. When they first created the ordinance, Mr. Smith thought there was only one ABC licensed facility in this area. Since then they have added more ABC licensed facilities and two churches, one of which is still there. The one at Joni Drive and Cook Street was no longer in operation. They took at look at how they could expand the area and came up with the first map retaining the 500 feet buffer, but most of those lots were still on Cook Street and in discussing this the last few days they thought that maybe the goal should be to get them off of Cook Street, but still create enough space and that was what the 300 foot map showed them, a 300 foot buffer and all of the lots fronting on Cook Street being eliminated from consideration. The recommendation before Commission was based on the 500 foot buffer, but if it was Commission's desire to accept the 300 foot buffer and eliminate those properties on Cook Street, then they could do that by amending the draft resolution accordingly. He said staff was open for discussion on this issue to see which direction they should be heading. Commissioner Jonathan asked why they couldn't do both. Why couldn't they have 500 feet and eliminate the parcels on Cook Street. Mr. Drell asked the City Attorney if that would allow the city to have sufficient spaces to meet court requirements. Commissioner Jonathan thought it was a fairly big area. Mr. Hargreaves informed Commission that the courts have said that cities have to allow a sufficient number of spaces but the courts have not elaborated on exactly what that amounts to. He said the city should have enough spaces to reasonably accommodate the uses because that would make the city less likely to be susceptible to a constitutional challenge. He explained the potential legal ramifications of not providing a sufficient number of spaces and felt the city should be as reasonably accommodating as possible while not necessarily degrading our neighborhoods and still trying to accommodate the community desires to not have these uses in inappropriate places. Chairperson Campbell asked Mr. Hargreaves if he felt someone would challenge the ordinance with a 500 foot buffer or 300 foot buffer. Mr. Hargreaves thought the 300 foot buffer was better. Taking out the lots along Cook Street could create some 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 v.. problems but they might be able to open up more lots in another area. They also measured distances from the lot on which the use is located. If they measured the distance from the actual building, that could open up some more sites so those were the kinds of things they could do to open up as many areas as possible. He thought there was a reasonable area to accommodate the first one that comes in and once that one comes in they could reevaluate it. Commissioner Jonathan expressed concern about possibly having this type of use around the church and Chapman College area. He asked if it was possible with a 300 foot buffer to eliminate that area as well. Mr. Drell suggested maintaining 500 feet around the church and having 300 feet from residential uses. Also, if they created a minimum depth of the lot outside the buffer and made them eligible, then that would probably compensate for the loss of 500 feet around the church. Mr. Hargreaves said they weren't actually required to use the 300 feet or 500 feet distances. Based roughly on these distance standards they could determine what the appropriate areas would be and just designate them on the map, although they should reference some approximate 300 feet and 500 feet distances so people would understand how the locations were determined. Mr. Drell said that based on some proportionality of impacted parcels, if a parcel was 80% outside of the buffer then it was considered to be out. Mr. Hargreaves added that based on the City's desire to protect sensitive uses, they have come up with this kind of a zoning map and could delineate the appropriate areas. He noted that many lots were eliminated because the buffer zone at this point is within ten feet of the lot. Chairperson Campbell also noted that once they get one business, that could eliminate others because of the 500 foot buffer from it. Mr. Drell agreed and reiterated that once they receive some applications the City could reevaluate that particular restriction. Mr. Hargreaves said they might actually want to use the 300 foot separation from the different businesses initially. Commissioner Fernandez asked if there were any adult entertainment sites in the city. Staff replied no. Commissioner Finerty asked if it was possible since there was another service industrial area at Country Club and Washington to look at moving these potential businesses to that location. Mr. Drell said that they applied the same standards to them but there were churches and residential uses around it. Mr. Smith said with the current ordinance taking 500 feet from the east, 500 feet from the south, and 500 feet from the west they were left with one lot, but there was a church in there. If they went to a 300 foot buffer they might open up a lot or two in there. Mr. Drell said that the 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 ordinance would apply to any S.I. zone so they would have to apply it to that area as well. He noted that there were S.I. zoned properties in the city which have yet to be developed to the north. Chairperson Campbell asked about the freeway area around Cook. Mr. Drell said that area wasn't a service industrial zone, but overlaying planned commercial zones. In the area between Monterey and Portola against the freeway there were hundreds of areas of service industrial zoned property that had yet to be developed. Having a generalized geometry criteria that applies to all S.I. zones is one thing, but the other option was to physically designate on the map spaces based on some sort of system as long as there are enough areas in the entire city. Commissioner Finerty asked how many they felt would be enough. She thought it looked like they were jumping from the existing six to quite a few and she obviously agreed that no sexually oriented business should front on Cook. She felt that would be a horrible image for our city and was pretty surprised to see it proposed. Commissioner Finerty asked if they needed that big of an area. She didn't know how many lots there were in the existing section on the map legend. Mr. Drell said that if they eliminated lots along the boundary streets like Sheryl near the church and then included several more lots around Lennon, as well as partial lots, probably in terms of area they could probably make up for the lots being excluded around the church/Sheryl area. Commissioner Finerty agreed with Commissioner Jonathan that the distance from a church should be 500 feet. Mr. Drell asked for direction to either come up with some more iterations of this map or a motion to approve "a" map. Chairperson Campbell asked if the ordinance could be left as is until the first application is received and then review it. Mr. Drell replied no. Mr. Hargreaves explained why the ordinance should be amended and made current. Commissioner Finerty asked if staff could come back to Commission with the map removing the lots around Sheryl with the 500 foot buffer around the church and increasing the areas available on Lennon if it was necessary, removing all the frontage off of Cook but in addition to that providing a colored rendition of the other service industrial area at Country Club and Washington so that she could see why it wasn't feasible. Mr. Drell said yes and felt that a 300 foot buffer from residential zones would open up some parcels over there. Commissioner Finerty asked how many parcels the City Attorney felt were necessary. He felt the city should provide as many as possible. He explained the possible court process that could result from a challenge. Commissioner Finerty noted that right now there were six available parcels and if they look at the 300 foot buffer map asked how many parcel were there. Mr. Hargreaves guessed there were over 50 parcels and if they took the buffer down to 250 feet they would open up more lots because 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 the residential areas would be buffered by at least one service industrial parcel and they wouldn't be fronting on the same street, so the residential area would be pretty well buffered and they could still protect the church with a 500 foot separation. Commissioner Finerty noted there were at least 50 parcels on that map and asked if going from six to 50 was enough. Mr. Hargreaves said it was more acceptable. Commissioner Finerty asked how many parcels were on the first map with the 500 foot buffer. Mr. Drell noted that the 500 foot map included all the parcels on Cook Street. Commissioner Finerty said she was just trying to obtain numbers. Mr. Drell thought there were more on the 300 foot map, probably around 80, and if they eliminated the area around the church/Sheryl Avenue, there would still be more. He said that if they have agreed that the Cook Street frontage should be eliminated, providing the 500 feet around the church, and that large partial lots could go back in, then they could redraw it and see what they ended up with. He said they would also look at the area on Country Club and come back to the commission in two weeks. Commissioner Finerty asked if staff could also tell the commission how many parcels were in each one. Mr. Drell also noted that some parcels had multiple buildings on them and actually had many opportunities for siting. He thought they might even be able to isolate numbers of addresses and show that some of the big parcels had ten or 15 opportunities within that one parcel. Mr. Drell thought that with the same computer program that produced the map they could identify all the addresses on each one of the parcels. He suggested a two-week continuance. (There was no one in the audience to address the public hearing.) Commission concurred with the continuance. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, to continue ZOA 98-7 to December 15, 1998 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 goo B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (November 24, 1998) Commissioner Finerty noted that they had a meeting that basically reviewed the proposed interior design of the Desert Willow clubhouse and she felt it was most impressive. There were primarily golden tones used and they saw fabrics, carpet, laminates and the wood would be mahogany. She thought it was beautiful. It noted that it was dark, but as pointed out there would be a number of windows and a lot of light that would be coming in and it blended very well. She felt the entire committee was very impressed with the quality and color theme. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) E. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS None. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Chairperson Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:17 p.m. MR. PHILIP+DELLy,, Secretar ATTE SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson City of Palm Desert, California /tm 42