Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0921 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jonathan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Lopez led in the pledge of allegiance. Ill. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Paul Beaty, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Jim Lopez Members Absent: None Staff Present: Philip Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Mark Greenwood, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the August 17, 1999 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the August 17, 1999 minutes. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Chairperson Jonathan abstained). V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell indicated there were no pertinent council items on August 26 and September 9, 1999. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. COREY BARBEAU, 74-052 Fred Waring Drive, said that this might be something the commission would discuss when they talk about Portola, but he lives on Fred Waring and they were commercializing all of that and planning to commercializing all of that. They commercialized Deep Canyon and it was impossible for him to get in and out of his driveway as it is. He wanted to know what he was supposed to do now that the city was making everything around him commercial and he was stuck in the middle of commercial and residential. He said it was impossible for him to get in and out of his driveway and had been an ongoing battle with the city 9, 10, 11 years now. And now they were making even harder for him to get out by making this commercial. If they were going to make this commercial, he was going to fight it tooth and nail if they weren't doing anything for them. Chairperson Jonathan said that if Mr. Barbeau was referring to the item on the agenda, that would be discussed later and he would be happy to hear from him then. Mr. Barbeau said his question was what the city was going to do for the people stuck on Fred Waring. They couldn't get in and out of their driveways now. Mr. Drell said that for the same reasons they were dealing with Portola, which is the ultimate widening of the street which would impact the houses physically on either side, Fred Waring would have to be widened as well between Portola and Deep Canyon and he suggested that Mr. Barbeau talk with the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Barbeau said he has talked to RDA but they haven't done anything. Mr. Drell asked if Mr. Barbeau did that recently. Mr. Barbeau said not within the last week. Mr. Drell suggested that Mr. Barbeau contact him and tell him the situation, tomorrow or next week, and they could talk to Redevelopment together. Mr. Barbeau said okay. Chairperson Jonathan said that if Mr. Barbeau didn't get satisfaction in direct discussions with the staff, and he thought Mr. Barbeau would and felt this staff was one of the finest he has ever seen, but if Mr. Barbeau didn't, he should feel free to come back to the commission and tell them that he gave it a try, but they still had a problem. Mr. Barbeau said he has been fighting with the city for 11 years and gotten nothing but a bunch of circles for 11 years. Chairperson Jonathan said that there was no reason to fight and that the city was here to serve him. He asked Mr. Barbeau to give it a shot and the commission would meet again on the first Tuesday in October and if he didn't have satisfaction between now and then, Mr. Barbeau should come back and tell the commission that and they would see what they could do. Mr. Barbeau thanked the commission. Wad 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 tow Vll. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 98-18 - MINISTRELLI DEVELOPMENT, INC., Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge lot 5 and lot G of Tract 27520-3 into one lot. B. Case No. PMW 99-12 - DEEP CANYON PROPERTIES, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver for a lot line adjustment involving lots 41 and 47 of Tract 25102. C. Case No. PMW 99-13 - BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, L.P., Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver for a lot line adjustment involving lots 4 and 5 of Tract 27520-4. D. Case No. PMW 99-15 - DESERT SPORTS GROUP, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust lot lines for future commercial development. (Approval of PMW 99-15 will be subject to review and approval by the Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works.) Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, 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. PM 29359 - BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT LLC, Applicant Request for approval to subdivide a .93 acre parcel into two lots southwest of Netas Court and Netas Drive. (APN 771-280-019) 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 i Mr. Drell noted that the applicant was asking to be removed from the calendar, so basically they were asking for the item to be tabled. Mr. Drell indicated that staff would renotice it if and when they were ready to come back. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, tabling PM 29359 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. CUP 99-9 - QI HONG YANG, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to operate a 562 square foot massage establishment (i.e., acupressure/ acupuncture facility) located at 73-925 Highway 1 1 1 , #D. Mr. Alvarez indicated that the application before commission consisted of 562 square foot acupressure/acupuncture facility on the south side of Highway 111 , 450 feet west of Portola Avenue. The proposed hours of operation were 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. seven days a week. He noted that the exhibit in the staff report showed the floor plan which indicated two treatment facility rooms. The applicant would have a maximum of two employees. As the massage establishment ordinance required, all massage establishments had to receive approval of a conditional use permit. They reviewed this and other applications based on its land use compatibility and impacts to parking. Based on the analysis conducted and from several onsite visits during the hours proposed and based on the limited size of the facility staff concluded that the use would be compatible with the surrounding properties. Staff recommended approval of the project, subject to conditions. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission and give her name and local address for the record. MS. QI HONG YANG, 73-925 Highway 1 1 1 , No. D. Commissioner Beaty asked if Ms. Yang was currently operating this type of establishment or if she had experience, if she was certified, and to give the commission a little background. ; 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 Ms. Yang stated that she has 500 hours for certification in acupuncture /acupressure. When she opened, she wanted her name to be No. 1 Hills Center, the Hills Physical Center for after work to relax. They would provide service like traditional chinese medicine, acupuncture, relax massage, deep tissue massage, swedish massage, head and facial point acupuncture. They had two treatments for impotence, by machine and chinese herbal. Before treatment for impotence, they would request the patient to sign an agreement to allow their employee to treat and touch the special body part. After the business was started, the office hours would be 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. seven days a week. Since it is in the early stage of operation, she, Qi Hong Yang, would operate this Hills Center alone. She would use all her medical knowledge and experience to satisfy her patients. That was her primary plan for the center. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments. �.. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1939, approving CUP 99-9, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. PM 29465 - PDH ASSOCIATES, Applicant Request for approval of a two (2) lot parcel map to separate a 26,920 square foot future restaurant pad from the 11 .3 acre hotel property at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive. Mr. Hargreaves informed commission, staff and the audience that he would be abstaining from this particular item because the firm Best, Best & Krieger represented a potential buyer of this site. tow 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 z y and Mr. Smith noted that the plan was on the wall to commission right and a copy of the map was given to commission in their packets. As indicated the proposal was to split off a 26,900 square foot parcel from the remaining 11 .3 acre site. Currently on the site there was a Residence Inn and Courtyard Hotel. He indicated that commission would recall when they processed the hotel development, they were assured that there would be a restaurant on the corner and this was the first step toward that. The commission would have the opportunity to review the conditional use permit on the actual restaurant user when that is received. They did not at this time have that application. Staff recommended approval of the parcel map. The findings were outlined on pages 1 and 2 of the staff report. The matter was reviewed as part of the environmental review for the hotel development and the North Sphere Specific Plan so staff's recommendation was that commission approve it, subject to the conditions in the report. Chairperson Jonathan asked if at this point Mr. Smith's opinion was that there was no indication from the applicant of any change in intended use for that property. Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. He asked if the applicant was present. There was no response. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1940, approving PM 29465, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. CUP 99-8 - CAESAR'S EMPEROR, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit for a 10,000 square foot restaurant and, after 9:00 p.m., a bar, lounge and J 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 nightclub with dancing including live music and disc jockeys in the building located at 72-600 Dinah Shore Drive. Mr. Smith stated that the existing building was most recently used by Caesar's Emperor. Prior to that it was Bubba Bear's Pizza Theater. The application for the Caesar's Emperor use, when they applied for their city business license, described their use in terms different than what it effectively became. As a result there had been some ongoing problems at the site and the city obtained a temporary injunction on the operation. As part of the settlement of that injunction the court required that the applicant obtain a conditional use permit on the actual use itself. Their task was to evaluate that situation. Staff's recommendation was that basically it was an appropriate location for this use if it is operated properly. As a result of the injunction settlement, the business has for some time been operating under conditions imposed in that settlement, which commission received a copy of in their packets. It required amongst other things that the applicant employ two off duty sheriff's deputies during the operation of the business between 9:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m., that they have uniformed security personnel on the site, and that they have a metal `.. detector at the entrance. Staff's recommendation was that commission approve the conditional use permit subject to all of the conditions imposed as part of the settlement agreement between the parties. He asked for questions. Commissioner Lopez noted that on item three of the conditions of approval, there was a time frame indicated for the parking lot "from and after 9:00 p.m." and asked if he was reading that right. Mr. Smith said that was right. In the past they had operated parties in the parking lot and offered car washes and that type of thing. The idea was that they wanted to keep the under age folks out of that area after 9:00 p.m. Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification on the age--if it was 18 or 21 . Mr. Smith said to enter the premises after 9:00 p.m. they had to be 21 . Commissioner Beaty said that wasn't clear on the court document. It looked like 28. Mr. Smith said it was 21 . Commissioner Beaty said it looked like someone changed it and initialed it and asked if Mr. Smith did that. Mr. Smith said no. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to obw address the commission. There was no response. Chairperson Jonathan 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Jonathan said that before the commission got into discussion, he had a question that impacted the litigation aspect of this item. He asked if it would be appropriate to convene into closed session briefly. Mr. Hargreaves requested that Chairperson Jonathan ask him the question in "side bar" and then they could decide if they needed to go into closed session. They did so. Chairperson Jonathan said that it appeared that the issue before the commission did in fact have a potential impact on the prior litigation that has occurred and, therefore, the commission would need to go into closed session. It would only take a brief time, but in consideration of the people present for other items, the commission would table this item until the end of the agenda if that was acceptable to the commission. Commission concurred. E. Case No. GPA 99-2 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a general plan amendment from medium density residential to office professional for 26 properties located along the Portola Avenue corridor as illustrated on Exhibit "A". Mr. Alvarez stated that on July 6, 1999 Planning Commission directed staff to initiate a general plan amendment along the Portola Corridor which initially ranged from Fred Waring to Alessandro, or near Alessandro to the south. There was a modification before the commission now as illustrated on Exhibit A. Staff analyzed impacts to the Portola Avenue Corridor based on anticipated widening and existing traffic levels. These properties were designated medium density residential in the city's general plan. The proposed modified general plan designation would modify these properties to an office professional designation in the general plan. Staff analyzed not only the roadway widening, which was described in detail in the staff report, but they've looked at the potential impacts to these properties which have become less desirable as residential uses based on noise, traffic, and now the anticipated widening of Portola Avenue. Specific impacts to these properties were illustrated in the staff report. He indicated he would talk about a couple of them. Reduction in setbacks due to the ultimate 100 foot right-of-way along Portola which includes a 50 foot half street right-of-way. Increase in noise and the 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 our undesirability for use as a residential use. Staff noticed property owners which were immediately impacted and those within 300 feet. Staff received numerous phone calls and some letters in opposition which had been distributed to commission with their staff report. He believed there were a couple of new letters which should be in front of the commission. Neighborhood concerns primarily focused on the noise impacts to Portola properties and future office use along this corridor. Staff responded to those concerns under section three, neighborhood concerns, primarily focusing on the future land use which would allow office professional use. They had experienced in the past that these types of properties along heavily traveled arterials were compatible, produced a buffer against the adjacent residential properties, and were acceptable uses. Regarding parking, security and privacy, those were issues that would come up when the public hearing was opened. Staff reviewed these issues and has experienced this along the Fred Waring corridor and along Monterey corridor where these office professional uses are compatible. Their primary use was Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and no use on the weekends. Based on those concerns, staff concluded that this would be a compatible land use plan and redesignations for these 'raw properties. He recommended approval to the Planning Commission which should then make a recommendation to the City Council for approval. For purposes of CEQA, staff determined that the project would not have a significant negative impact on the environment and a negative declaration was prepared. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked how come the corner on Portola and El Cortez Way was not included. Mr. Alvarez said that first staff looked at those properties immediately impacted by the widening. Secondly, that property did not front on Portola, so the setback reduction for that property would not be significant. It would still have a wide enough setback normally found in residential areas. Commissioner Campbell asked about the vacant lot on the north corner of El Cortez and Portola. Mr. Alvarez said those two properties were currently vacant and were owned by CVWD. Staff's view on those two lots was that once the widening occurred, 20 feet would be taken from the front property leaving a pretty reasonable sized lot for residential use and also it would front on El Cortez. It would also face a residential property which staff had not included across the street. Commissioner Campbell asked if that was no longer residential on El Cortez on the south side, they could go ahead and recommend to council to make that also office professional to make it a clean sweep because then they would have the wall that has the other project. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 I Mod This way if they had the office professional straight from De Anza. Mr. Alvarez said if commission wished to make that recommendation to the council, staff would be happy to look at that. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that they wouldn't have just the three buildings, then a grassy area, and then another grassy area on the other side. It would be a clean sweep. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was any reason in Mr. Alvarez's mind not to do that. Mr. Alvarez said no, then deferred the question to Mr. Drell. Mr. Drell said that there is an existing house on the south side of El Cortez in fairly good condition. The motivation for this is the widening of the street which would make houses that front on Portola physically impossible to continue to be residential because the property line would be right at their front door, or with such a short setback that it would be unacceptable for residential use. That didn't apply to those lots on El Cortez in that they don't front on Portola and all they were doing was shortening the side yard. The down side was that they would be kind of forcing the hand of the property owner on the south side of El Cortez if an office building was built across the street from them. Normally he would say it wouldn't matter and that they could designate it and let it be the property owners choice as to whether it stays residential or goes office professional. If they were to do that he was sure the property on the north side of El Cortez would go to office and then that kind of forced the hand of the guy on the south side. It diminished the residential value of his property and forces him to go office. That was staff's concern. Compelling reasons didn't exist on El Cortez that existed everywhere else. Commissioner Campbell indicated that on the last office building that would be built there, since they couldn't have any windows in the back looking into people's yards, this building couldn't have any windows on the north side. Mr. Drell clarified that they could have windows, it just couldn't be a two story building. If it was single story, they could have windows. If that was a constraint, most of the development on the small lots on the east side of Monterey had been single story because on the small lots they didn't have enough room for parking so they had been limited to the small buildings. They were also partially influenced by the property owner on the south side of Catalina who has invested in his property and has one of the nicer houses in the area. He didn't want to be forced into making that decision to become office. It was something they could decide later. Staff felt at this point in time that there were no compelling reasons to redesignate it like in the other instances. j 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 w.. Commissioner Beaty asked what the time frame was for widening Portola. Mr. Greenwood said the widening on Portola would be done in several different phases. They have a small project scheduled this year in the area of El Cortez. The overall widening of the entire length from Highway 1 1 1 to Fred Waring would be 3-5 years. Mr. Drell noted that the widening of Fred Waring was also on that 3-5 year schedule then suddenly council said it had to be done this year or as soon as possible, so depending on the level of traffic that starts being generated on these streets. The increase in traffic wasn't going to be generated from the small office buildings. They might contribute one percent. Basically these streets were being widened because of the general through traffic that was going on here and these were major arterials that were necessary to carry the traffic in the city. As traffic increases, it could be jumped up in priority very quickly. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and since the city was the applicant, asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. Chairperson Jonathan noted that generally there is a five minute limitation and he would address this in regard to this matter as well as +r subsequent matters. There were a lot of people present and the commission wanted to hear everything pertinent everyone wanted to say regarding the application, but he asked that they not be redundant with things that have been said before and to try and remain on point with regard to the application itself, rather than any peripheral type issues. MR. DON THOMPSON, 43-845 Portola, stated that he lived in a nice section of houses which was to be his retirement home. It was a little annoying to find out that his house was going to be torn down. Not to fight city hall or anything, he just wanted to know what happens if the time came that they started to build the street and he didn't move or several didn't move, if this would become an eminent domain problem. Would the city buy the property, how would they pay for it, because as of right now, his house was unsaleable. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Thompson's house was scheduled to be torn down. Mr. Thompson said that if they going to put a commercial building on top of it would have to go. He went to the map on display and pointed out the location of his house. He had no objection to moving, but he 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 would like to know how he was going to be paid for his property. He moved to Palm Desert because he feels it's a great city. If it came down to push and shove, he wanted to know who was going to pay for this property if he couldn't sell it. He wouldn't walk away from it without a fight. Mr. Drell explained what they were trying to accomplish here for those properties which after the widening would still be substantial in terms of area, they were trying to provide an alternative value other than residential. The problem was that as these properties on Portola were probably unsaleable as residential today, or very difficult to sell as residential today. If when the time comes, then properties would then have to be acquired and the city buys property and provides just compensation as the process dictates. What they were trying to do here was in advance of that so they didn't have to wait for the city to do something and the traffic got worse and worse, this gave them the opportunity to find a potential office user who could use the remainder parcel after the city buys that portion which is necessary. Now it might be that they have to buy all of it, it would depend upon how each individual case turns out. That's the problem when property fronts on a street that has to get widened. There was a real estate transaction which occurs. It was the city's preference to make it a voluntary negotiated real estate transaction. Mr. Thompson asked how a fair price would be determined. Mr. Drell said through a normal appraisal. Chairperson Jonathan pointed out that the sale of his home if that were to occur would not be forced upon him unless the city chose to take steps of eminent domain which historically has been an extreme rarity with regard to residential property. He could only think of one instance in the history of the city, so that was not a likely event and in fact, there were many areas within the city where what they were discussing tonight has already occurred. Namely, the transition of the Monterey Avenue Corridor between Fred Waring and Highway 111 and then Fred Waring. Those were all part of the Palma Village Plan where the idea was to buffer high traffic streets and residential by placing quiet use office professional between the high traffic street and the residential. Where that has occurred, some residents have chosen to keep their homes and not sell their homes, so it could be a very gradual process that property is converted on Portola from residential to office professional. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 too Mr. Thompson pointed out that they would have traffic closer to his front door. He wouldn't be able to pull his car in the driveway and stop and get the garage door open. Chairperson Jonathan indicated he wasn't saying that Mr. Thompson's wouldn't be as desirable as it was prior to the widening, he understood that, but Mr. Thompson would have a choice at that point to remain in the home or sell the home. If he chose to sell the home, then the city might wish to engage in negotiations with him or others. Then there was the whole question of if the change of zone from residential to office professional on such a busy street diminish the value of his home, or elevate the value. He wasn't a realtor so he didn't know the answer to that. But where the city acquires the property, it is at an arm's length negotiable type of transaction the same as Mr. Thompson would be doing it with an individual and he had an opportunity to determine if the price offered is fair or not. Mr. Thompson said he didn't want to be redundant, but again, no one was going to buy his house now and no one with business sense would buy his house knowing they have this thing two years ahead with property all torn up in front of their place. If he was a commercial purchaser, he would wait until the project was done and then buy the property. So right now he was stuck where he was. Commissioner Beaty pointed out what has happened on Deep Canyon which didn't have the traffic problem, but in the last couple of years that has been rezoned and a number of those residences have been converted to office professional. He asked if there had been any litigation associated with those transfers. Mr. Drell replied no, but pointed out that the conversion to office didn't generate any need to purchase property. When the city had to widen the street, the property would have to be acquired and if the acquisition of that right of way was so substantial as to make residential use of the property undesirable, then typically the whole property had to be acquired. Commissioner Beaty said his whole point was that those residents who lived right across from the proposed Lucky shopping center and didn't want to be there were all in favor of having it changed and he assumed they benefited financially when they sold their property. Mr. Drell said that was correct. That was an after street widening situation and they were then provided with a land use which was economical for them as opposed to having a residential use which they knew they couldn't market. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 3 Mr. Thompson said in conclusion that there were probably 26 families that would agree with him. They don't want to lose their money. Apparently they would lose their houses in the long run, but they didn't want to lose any money on it. He thanked the commission. DR. RODNEY MACDONALD, 73-973 Olive Court in Palm Desert, stated that he has written several letters and presumed they were in the commission's possession. Chairperson Jonathan confirmed they were. Dr. MacDonald said he wouldn't belabor some of the points he had already made, except that he was very, very concerned about the pollution from the construction trucks that fly up and down Portola. The fumes come into his yard. Also, they had three schools located off of Portola and those children must use the walkway along Portola, many of them, to get home and they too were being subjected to those noxious, toxic fumes and as a physician he felt very qualified to comment on the fact that he truly believed, and he cut out an article from the paper, that diesel exhaust fumes caused diseases. He believed that very strongly and he felt that more and more it would come out in the future. Furthermore, there were so many cars and trucks going up and down Portola already that it was just a matter of time before there was a major accident and he hoped it wouldn't happen, but the odds were very much in favor of it happening and so he was very concerned. He had spoken with some people who live on the south side of Highway 111 and they were telling him now that they have problems getting out of their side streets because of the traffic and a week ago yesterday he at 8:10 a.m. found himself backed up going south on Portola. The traffic was backed up all the way to Catalina. He had been told in the past that at one point there was no increase in traffic. At least he didn't have to hear anyone telling him now that it isn't so and, of course, it would increase in view of what is planned and he thought it was a very poor choice to widen Portola and take away the homes, including his perhaps, because his backyard wasn't far from the existing Portola Avenue. He said he would stop there and thanked the commission for their attention. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 MS. RAMONA FLETCHER, 73-969 Olive Court, informed commission that she wrote a letter and she was present to firmly oppose any granting of the negative impact report that she was given. She would keep her statement as brief as possible. She was a little bit perturbed by what she had heard here tonight because according to the negative impact report, they weren't going to have any impact on the aesthetics and she would list number 1 a, c, and d, all of which their own information would say that this is not so. Number 3 on air quality, they had heard tonight verbally. Also, a, d, b and a she would question the no impact. Somewhere along in the studies they said there would be 26,000 vehicles per day. She didn't understand how anybody could say that wasn't going to be an impact. That was stated in the initial study. Under number 4 biological resources she would say that "e" definitely had an impact. One of those was they were told that they would remove their greenbelt there at Portola Place in order to widen the street. That was in the staff report and that definitely would have an impact. Then under hazards and hazardous materials, number 7, a, b, and c. They heard tonight about the trucks and they didn't know +r•► what was in those trucks. They do get the noise and the emissions, but she knew there were also trash trucks that go down there. Many of them day after day. She didn't know what was in them and didn't think city staff knew either. Under number 8 she would cite d and a as definitely having an impact according to the city's own studies. The Fire Department response mentioned needing extra runoff and different kinds of works done in case they put in commercial buildings. Right now they have a terrible runoff. Her yard has been almost up to the doors of their houses been flooded, twice since she has lived there. Public Works was aware of the last one because they called them in. They knew there was a problem there already and that was with yards that have ground that was able to be used as runoff in itself. She asked what would happen when it was all phased over. She would say this was definitely not a no impact item. Under noise, the commission had heard a lot about. that tonight, so she wouldn't go into it. Under number 11 a, b, c and d all of those had impacts. The studies showed it and the commission heard it from their own staff tonight. They have a tremendous problem already and they weren't building anything or enlarging any streets. Transportation and traffic under number 15 a, d, and f. The city's own sheriff stated in their response that this could be .. a problem for the school children. She thought the commission had 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 already found that in many of the letters from the residents that they wholeheartedly agree. This was definitely not a "no impact" item. Utilities under number 16 "c" she would definitely say needed to really be looked at and the Fire Department responded already that this could be a real problem. Number 17 mandatory findings "c" was potentially significant. The reports, the letters of opposition and she was sure the testimony the commission was going to hear tonight all had substantial challenge to this and any other findings in the negative declaration. That wasn't even to mention the unknown hazards and the adverse effects this proposed project could have if it's okayed by this body and implemented. She thanked the commission for listening and hoped they would take seriously what was being said and at least give a chance for a report on an environmental impact for all of the residents. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Alvarez or Mr. Drell would comment on the environmental impact report. Mr. Drell said that all of the impacts that Ms. Fletcher referred to related to the widening of the street. That was no before the commission at this time, although the width of the street was something that was contained in the general plan. There has always been a circulation element that indicated Portola was always planned to be a four-lane street. That project was not before the commission. All they were talking about was the future land uses of the parcels which remain viable after, if an when that widening occurs. Chairperson Jonathan felt that was an important distinction. Tonight the commission was only voting on the change of zoning for those particular parcels. Mr. Drell said it was a change in general plan designation. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that at some point, if and when a widening project is considered, he asked if the public would be given an opportunity for input before that happened and if there was a public hearing process for the widening. Mr. Drell indicated that there had to be a environmental process to review it and he believed the public would be able to comment on that. He stated that Mr. Greenwood could comment on the process. Mr. Greenwood concurred that there would be an environmental process for that project because it would potentially impact private properties. Ms. Fletcher said that all the things she referred to were not strictly because of the widening. The flooding was happening now and if it was widened it would only get worse. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 Chairperson Jonathan pointed out that the point Mr. Drell was making was that the environmental impact report, the finding of negative declaration that she was referring to, was based on the environmental impact of changing the general land use designation from residential to office professional, not the impact of widening Portola. Ms. Fletcher said the lighting, flooding, the taking of their trees and the resulting noise was not happening because of the widening. What she was bringing out as a point was that when they do that building and do take these houses, when they do turn them into concrete, all of these problems would impact them. As is having them and the security and lighting and all of the rest of it that go along with it, in their backyard. That was her point. She would not like it to be dismissed as only the widening. MS. NORMA ROMINE, 74-015 San Marino Circle, said she was present to try and get more information and learn how this would effect the value of her property. She has lived there for 40 years and raised her �. family there. She clarified that she was on the corner of Portola and San Marino Circle. She was counting on her property to finance her retirement so she was interested in how this would effect the value of her property. She said she was going to mention the problem of noise, but as pointed out this doesn't have to do with the widening of Portola, however, she was sure the value of her property would be effected. She just wanted to ask that the city fathers be aware of how these plans are effecting so many people and hoped the commission would be fair and generous in dealing with them. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Ms. Romine was directly on Portola and San Marino Circle, or if her property was offset a little bit. Ms. Romine said she was right on the corner and the noise was pretty bad already. Chairperson Jonathan noted that Ms. Romine's parcel was not being indicated as part of the change of land use. Ms. Romine said she understood that. i� 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 Chairperson Jonathan said in terms of how the value is effected, they weren't real estate experts on the commission but he could tell her that they have witnessed in some of these areas where residential property experienced an increase in value and became more valuable as office professional. He didn't even know if that would impact her since there wasn't a change of use indicated there, but that wasn't to say that someone wouldn't come in and request a change of zone, which they had also seen, particularly on Deep Canyon. It was hard to tell, but he could tell her that this body and the city council as well as staff had no intent or desire to negatively impact her financial position or her ability to retire comfortably. Ms. Romine said she understood that and knew that the commission couldn't tell her how this would effect her property, but she was here trying to get a better idea. Chairperson Jonathan said that they hoped it would effect her in a positive way and thanked her for coming tonight. MS. BEE HOOVER, stated that she was present representing her 83 year old mother Emma Hall who lives at 44-250 San Jose. She indicated that with the map that was mailed to the property owners in the area, she had some questions because her mother lives at the end of the cul-de-sac of San Jose and there were two properties on Portola right behind that and if they were going to widen Portola, those lots now were very shallow to begin with and asked if they still planned to put professional offices on there. She pointed out that the map showed the piece of property on the north side of Catalina and Portola Avenue was not involved in this nor the other piece of property that kind of buffers in there. She asked if that would be taken over. Once the street is widened, she didn't think there would be enough room to put a professional building there of any kind and if it did, if it would be limited to single story because if it was double story, there was a whole block of houses there that would have their backyards invaded. She said this was one of her mother's concerns. She was speaking for her mother because her mother was very hard of hearing. Chairperson Jonathan said that with regards to privacy, there were severe restrictions with regard to office professional that abuts residential use, in particular two story. They look at that very critically. There were restrictions 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 about the ability to view from the second story into the residential, restrictions about how much window space could be allowed, whether there could be open corridor areas on the outside of that second story, how high the windows had to be, whether they could be opaque or see through, so that was an issue they deal with, with great care. As far as how shallow the lots were, they were here for a change of plan. If and when the city chose to widen Portola and it might need to acquire that property. If it took enough of that property away from the street, she was right that there wouldn't be enough for an office and it might end up being a greenbelt or something. He didn't know. He asked if staff knew the exact size. Mr. Drell asked Mr. Alvarez if he knew what the size of the remaining property would potentially be for that parcel. Ms. Hoover said there was a property not marked at the corner of Catalina and Portola. There were two pieces of property right in the middle of the block between Santa Rosa and Catalina that were marked for this. The properties on either side of those two lots were not marked. Mr. Alvarez stated that the property owners all along Portola were notified, although the plan has been modified to now include those properties because of further analysis and impacts on those properties she was questioning. Ms. Hoover r.., asked for clarification that the map she was given is outdated. Mr. Alvarez concurred that it had been modified. He showed the plan on display which showed those two pieces of property included. Ms. Hoover asked about the piece of property behind those two and pointed out the location on the display map. She noted that the parcel in question had another little parcel with it. Mr. Alvarez said that would not be included as part of this general plan amendment. Ms. Hoover said that originally those parcels were all owned by the same person. Mr. Alvarez said that anything indicated on the map in yellow on Portola would be included and was revised. Regarding the depth of these lots, particularly at this corner, the depth was approximately 121 feet with the taking of an additional 20, which left 100 feet. Mr. Drell said that 100 feet would probably still allow a professional building, but probably not two story because the city required a 65 foot setback in the rear for a two story building and a 15 foot 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 setback in the front which would only leave 20 feet left for a two story building, so it would have to be limited to a one story building. Ms. Hoover asked what the restrictions would be on a one story building and how far it would have to be setback from Portola Avenue after it was widened. Mr. Drell said it would have to be 15 feet from the street right-of-way and setback 20 feet from the rear property line, just like a single family home, and it would be basically the same development standards as would be applied to a single family home on the property. Ms. Hoover thanked commission. MRS. KATHLEEN KOPP, 44-870 Cabrillo, stated that she was speaking on behalf of herself and her husband, who was unable to attend. They objected to the approval of the proposal tonight for the following reasons: 1) the legal notice and the fact that they were separating the widening of Portola with this proposal. It all came together. It was tied together and widening Portola was an integral part of the proposal. That should have been in the legal notice. 2) The Negative Declaration for the Environmental Impact Report was not done and was not available for review on the 31 st of August. She knew that because she asked for it on the 2nd of September and it still wasn't done. She found that inexcusable and unacceptable. She called City Hall and was seeking information about this and she was told that the only thing staff had was a map. She pointed out that staff had declared a Negative Declaration. She was told it wasn't ready yet, they were working on it, and it would be finished in two or three days. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mrs. Kopp's ability to evaluate this matter was impaired in any way. Mrs. Kopp said the ability to get something done was because that was a long weekend and they might have been able to go to the various neighbors better because of that long weekend. They missed a week. Plus, that just wasn't the system and the way it works. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mrs. Kopp was able to evaluate the project to her satisfaction. Mrs. Kopp said no. She didn't think the project was evaluated. Chairperson Jonathan said he meant her ability to evaluate this project. Mrs. Kopp said no, she said there were a lot of questions. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the deficiencies Mrs. Kopp cited in some way caused her to be unable to evaluate this project. Mrs. Kopp said that the fact that this material was not ready led her to believe that it was done in great haste and after she did pick up the Negative Declaration, she concluded it was done in great haste. She said she could make further comments about that, but wouldn't at this time. All of those findings of no impact with one of less than insignificance was very alarming and she felt the people who had ... already spoken brought up those facts and she wouldn't go into them again, but she thought this whole neighborhood was easily being written off. This was a casual dismissal of the impacts on these neighborhoods and these people. She noticed in the Negative Declaration that there was no contact with Desert Sands Unified School District as one of the responsible agencies. Perhaps they wouldn't have any effect on the school site and their buildings, but the corridors leading into those schools, the main one was Portola. As the previous speaker said, the Sheriff's Department mentioned that also. She asked what mitigation measures were going to taken to provide safe routes to school for children. Especially when it was wider and busier. Housing was not addressed and she was wondering if they were to believe that the replacement of housing and the displacement of 28 homes was of no impact. Were they supposed to believe that? The less than significance on traffic was a great, too. She wondered if there were stats and facts that would back up what the traffic was like on Portola at the present time. What was it like now, was there anything to back it up to support the comment that it would be less than significant and how the 26,000 compared to what it is now. She asked if there was any information available. Another thing that wasn't addressed was the cumulative effects. Either direct or indirect cumulative effects. She f.. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 considered her street one of the cumulative effects. In fact, someone said something about a major accident and there was one yesterday at El Cortez and Portola. It had such an impact that the vehicle was turned over. They had bumper to bumper traffic on Cabrillo from people being diverted from that accident. She felt that cumulative effects should have been addressed also. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the traffic engineer was present and they could see if there was a response to some of those concerns. Mr. Greenwood said that having reviewed the traffic on Portola Avenue recently, traffic volumes on Portola have been at least 17,000 vehicles per day since at least 1994. Their latest count in January of 1999 was again 17,000 vehicles per day. The General Plan states that it is our performance objective for arterial streets, which Portola is, to maintain a level of service "C". The maximum volume that can be carried at a level of service "C" on a two lane road, which is Portola's configuration now, was 10,000 vehicles per day. They were 70% over the needed capacity on that street today. A four lane road could carry up to 26,000 vehicles per day at level of service "c", so it was pretty obvious that there is some latent need to improve this road. The current impacts that residents were experiencing were not surprising since they were well above the level of service performance goal. The future widening of that road should actually improve these conditions because the level of service would be brought back into our goal, which is what they tried to do city wide. Mrs. Kopp said that was another thing with the report. No reference was made to any documents that were used as sources and if they read that, there was nothing there. She felt the public had a right to know these things. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mrs. Kopp called the city. Mrs. Kopp said she did and she was at City Hall more than once. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mrs. Kopp requested references. Mrs. Kopp said she didn't, but felt they should be made part of the report. Did they have to dig out everything themselves or should it be made available? Especially something like this. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 Chairperson Jonathan thought she would find that information available. He would hope so. Mrs. Kopp said she was particularly interested in the zoning and the changing or whatever thereof. She was kind of confused after looking at the various maps and reading the report. She didn't even know what kind of zone she lives in now. She asked if she was LDR, LDM, or LDH? She didn't know any more. Chairperson Jonathan asked if her property was on Cabrillo. Mrs. Kopp said yes. Chairperson Jonathan said that was actually quite a ways off of Portola. Mrs. Kopp said it was one street over. She thought the legal notice said it was an LDR. Then some maps said LDM. The Palma Village Map said LDR. The staff report said something else. She asked what it was. In closing, she said that as thoughtful and responsible commissioners, she would hope that they would insist that the process be thorough and complete. She thought they had the right to know all of the ramifications and because the complete scope of this has been ignored, she would suggest that it needed to be renoticed for review and that compliance with CEQA needed to be observed. She thanked the commission for listening. MR. ED LOWELL, 44-525 San Jose, informed commission that he wanted to be on record to say that he opposed this for the future because he couldn't help but think that with offices along Portola, there were a certain amount of parking spaces that would have to be permitted for an office building, whether there was handicapped required and if there was bad traffic now for the people who live right on the street, there was going to be horrendous traffic for people trying to get in there for an appointment or to do whatever. It would be even i worse. He envisioned on his street people trying to find the address, not making it and having to turn around and go down a side street. His street right now was very quiet and he didn't want to see what 26,000 cars coming down San Jose to make a u-turn. There were other little streets there as well. San Marino Circle would be the same. There bow 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 were a lot of children and they already knew that from the schools. He wanted to be on record as opposed. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked the commission for comments. Commissioner Finerty stated that based on Mr. Greenwood's comments regarding the Level of Service we would like to keep at "C" and there being 17,000 vehicles on Portola each day, they were 70% over that and it seemed to her that the street definitely needed to be widened. It was her understanding that another public hearing would be held and another environmental impact report prepared which would specifically address the widening of the street. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Greenwood said there would be an environmental process. He was not certain it would involve a public hearing, but it would involve input from residents from the area. He said Mr. Drell could probably help with that. Mr. Drell said there wasn't a requirement for a public hearing on road widening. The contract to do it would probably be agendized before the council. As part of that contract would be the environmental process, but technically the specification for Portola as a four lane highway was contained in the General Plan which was subject to an EIR back when it was originally put together in 1980, so it was always envisioned that sooner or later and technically when the Circulation Element of the General Plan was approved back in 1980 and modified again in 1994, that arterial streets would be four lanes. The traffic and the impacts exist not because they are proposing a land use change and conversion of some houses to some small offices, but Portola was an arterial which people required to get from the north side of Palm Desert to the south side of Palm Desert. Nothing they did or didn't do was going to change the necessity to widen that highway. Commissioner Finerty said that tonight they were addressing a change in the general plan. Mr. Drell said it was relative to the land use on Portola. Commissioner Finerty agreed and that was to make it Office Professional. Then they had some speakers address the fact that they felt the report wasn't prepared adequately because of the number of no impacts. She asked at what point would the residents receive some sort of satisfaction or answers as to why it wasn't an impact or if his answer was that several years ago when it was proposed that Portola would become four lanes, that that had already taken place. Mr. Drell said that one could argue that when a circulation element was approved with Portola as an arterial which would be four lanes, then that approval as far as the General Plan was concerned had 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 NEW occurred. They've widened streets all over the city frequently. It didn't occur necessarily immediately when the General Plan designation called it to be an arterial, but when traffic impacts not created by the widening, but by the need to get from one part of the city to another, dictated that it had to be widened. That was part of what happened when the city changed and grew. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the commission could require public noticing of the widening as a condition of approval for the change in land use designation. Mr. Drell said a general plan amendment was not conditioned. What they could do was require an amendment to the Circulation Element to the General Plan text. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was a mechanism so that before they said yes to this application that they could mandate a public notice regarding the widening. Mr. Hargreaves pointed out that this was going to be a recommendation to the city council in any case and the recommendation could go forward to the city council with the recommendation that some process be put into place so that the neighbors would get noticed and be given an opportunity to have the whole process, including the buying of property and widening and total environmental review, put into place as part of this process. low He imagined that the City Council would look favorably on that kind of recommendation. Commissioner Finerty said that having addressed that, she would be in favor of the project in recommending it to the Council as long as the mechanism that the City Attorney described was in place. Mr. Greenwood asked if that condition could be for future projects. The Public Works Department did have a small project this year to do minor widening at El Cortez. It was already in the design process and the property owner there was not concerned and unaffected and he didn't want to hinder that project. Commissioner Finerty concurred. Commissioner Beaty didn't think that the intent of the city was to degrade the quality of life for those people who already live on Portola. He thought that was probably happening and he didn't know if there was much they could do about it. As they had heard, traffic was already beyond acceptable and it was probably going to get worse and instead of those diesel trucks driving past, they would be sitting there maybe impacting them more. He thought the intent was to give these property owners who are already impacted and who were probably going to be more impacted in the future an alternative or a way a.. to get out of their property, hopefully making it a desirable, saleable site if it 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 was office professional. He believed that was what they were trying to do. He didn't think there was anything they could do to stop the impact. It was going to get worse. Commissioner Campbell noted that on Monterey Avenue when they did the same thing and changed it from residential to office professional and widened that street, it seemed like they did have some say so from the neighbors behind those office professional buildings, but now it seemed like it was a smooth riding street on Monterey and the same thing could be done for Portola. It is needed. She also noted that it was also done on Deep Canyon. It was something that was needed in the city and in the way the city would be doing this and everyone had been very happy. Commissioner Lopez said he has lived here 20 years and watched how the community has grown, not just Palm Desert, but all the communities around us. He thought the process that they tried to go through was one where they can make the environment a better place to live, taking into consideration the traffic flow that we have going down Portola. He has watched these numbers grow and could appreciate what they were talking about, so he thought the end all was that they just want to make this a better place and positively impact how everyone gets around in their own community, whether it be in the middle of August or the middle of February. Chairperson Jonathan added that this was basically an application for a general plan amendment and it is intended to take another step forward with the Palma Village Plan. The Palma Village Plan had proven itself to be a very effective means of creating a buffer between high traffic streets and residential properties. Some of the problems they heard about tonight from the public testimony was the inconveniences and the negative aspects of living adjacent to a high traffic street. The Palma Village Plan by creating this buffer of light use office professional between high volume high traffic streets and residential uses has been a very effective method to ameliorate some of those problems, so he believed in the Palma Village Plan and this was yet another step in its implementation and he thought it was appropriate for the greater good of the city and of the residents in that area. He thought it was a proven, effective technique to solve the problems associated with high traffic streets next to residential areas. When he moved here 20 years ago he added to the traffic. 4 When his kid got a car he added to the traffic. When everyone moved here they added to the traffic. Unfortunately they couldn't propose gates on 1-10 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 tam saying no more allowed into the city of Palm Desert. They read the same newspaper articles and projections that he did and there were going to be more people coming here. They like what we've got and what we have is a good thing. Their struggle is to try and keep that a good thing and try in some cases make the best of tough situations. They only have three major north- south arteries in this city: Monterey, Portola and Cook Street. They have to accommodate greater traffic flow and eventually they would. Without that all of their qualities of lives would deteriorate. If they thought it was bad now on Portola, Monterey and Cook, wait ten years from now if they didn't widen those streets. If they had better solutions then people have already come up with, then they should step forward because there are various city committees, advisory committees and plenty of opportunity for public testimony that anyone that lives in this city wants to hear better ideas if they are out there for solving problems they were all struggling with. He felt that this was the most effective way they have come up with so far. He did hear them and felt they should have, particularly the residents near Portola, should have an opportunity to give input not just about the general plan amendment, but specifically about the widening of Portola and the environmental impact WA. that the widening would have. With the added recommendation to council, he would also be in favor. He asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1941 , recommending to City Council approval of GPA 99-2. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, recommending to City Council that the residents, particularly those on Portola, be given an opportunity to give input, not just on the general plan amendment, but specifically on the widening of Portola and the environmental impact that the widening would have. Motion carried 5-0. CHAIRPERSON JONATHAN CALLED A TWO MINUTE RECESS AT 8:32 P.M. 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 F. Case No. CUP 99-7 - TEMPLE SINAI, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a conditional use permit to allow: 1) the remodel and expansion of an existing sanctuary building located on Parcel A; 2) construction of a new religious school facility; and 3) the remodel and conversion of the existing temporary multi-purpose building into a permanent building located on Parcel B for property located at 73-251 Hovley Lane West. Mr. Alvarez pointed out the exhibits on display, the site plan for Parcel A which contained the existing sanctuary for Southwest Community Church, Parcel B, elevations for the religious school and the multipurpose building. He said he would touch on the key points of the proposal for both Parcel A and Parcel B, touch upon the differences of the existing use and the proposed use and then touch upon the main neighborhood concerns and issues. Southwest Community Church currently occupies the existing sanctuary facility and a temporary metal building approved by Planning Commission on a temporary basis. The church would be relocating to a new facility at Fred Waring and Washington. This was anticipated in January 2000. With the relocation of the Southwest Community Church, the proposal before commission was brought forth by Temple Sinai. Their proposal included remodel of the existing sanctuary, the addition of 1 ,000 square feet mainly in the north section, the addition of a new entrance on the west side and minor architectural improvements to that structure. The existing sanctuary seating would be reduced from the existing 1,200 to 338 seats. That was a reduction of almost 5,000 square feet. In terms of Parcel B, new proposals on that site include a 12,500 square foot religious school. As noted in the report, the proposed operational hours and intensities were described in Exhibit A attached to the staff report. The school buildings were located in three detached structures and he pointed out the location on the map. There was also a detached administration building. These four buildings were illustrated on the elevations. He said the maximum height for these structures was 15'6" oriented in a manner to create a playground area in the center. It would also have a 45 foot buffer adjacent to the residential area to the west. Access to the existing sanctuary and the new proposed school would remain off these two existing entry points leading to a drop off area in front of the school buildings. In terms of the metal building, the applicant at this time was requesting that it be converted and remodeled to be part of the permanent architecture on the 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 tow site. The improvements to the existing metal temporary building have been approved by the Architectural Review Commission at their August 24, 1999 meeting. Improvements to the building were given significant attention in that when converting an existing temporary structure or at least ask for the conversion, it had to meet the city's design standards. With that in mind, ARC focused its attention on creating a product, architectural design, compatible not only with the existing project, sanctuary and new school buildings, but along with the city's typical architectural design standards. As noted, the current use attendance averaged about 5,000 members or attendees. The proposed church, Temple Sinai, would have approximately 420 members or families. Youth activity currently consists of 1 ,500 students on a couple of week nights ranging from mid to late afternoon and into the early evening. Total number of students both in the school and members of the congregation for Temple Sinai included 150 students. The intensity of the use including the new school was substantially less in size in terms of seating and land use intensity. Three of the main neighborhood concerns that he was given in written form which the commission had in front of them. Number 1 was the removal of the existing temporary metal building by September 30, 1999. ... This was required by Resolution No. 1793, a copy of which was attached to the staff report. It was given a one-year extension until September 30, 1999. This was primarily the main issue which he has come into contact with the residents. Staff looked at it not only from the land use compatibility, but also from an aesthetic standpoint. This building was approved temporarily based on the fact that it did not meet the design standards, it's metal exterior and roof typically were not compatible architecturally. The number two issue was the fact that Southwest Community Church would relocate the building at the time of their new facility being completed. Temple Sinai was asking for approval to permanently utilize this facility and become part of its permanent architecture. Architecture was addressed by ARC and received preliminary approval. Another issue was the potential traffic impacts from the church school facility. As noted, anticipated traffic volumes, from information provided to staff and based on the information of the existing church to be less intensive than the proposed Temple Sinai, this could be confirmed with the reduction of 5,000 square feet for the sanctuary, reduction from 1,200 seats to 338 seats. The new school facility would have 150 students versus the 1 ,500 now. In terms of traffic, staff felt fairly comfortable that less impact would occur with this application. The next issue was the religious school itself. He responded to the issue in the staff report by looking at its land use compatibility. As mentioned, there would be a 45 foot buffer along 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 the residential streets. It's maximum height would be 15'6" and the multipurpose building would have a 19 foot height limit. That was not uncommon from residential building height in this area. Setbacks from Hovley Lane would not be an issue. The school buildings were setback to the interior of the property. Access would not be an issue in that parents would be able to come into the interior of the property to drop off and pick up students, minimizing any impact on Hovley Lane West. Staff recommended approval based on the findings required for a conditional use permit and for purposes of CEQA, staff prepared a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact which was before commission. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Campbell said that on Parcel A, there were 348 parking spaces. Mr. Alvarez concurred. Commissioner Campbell noted that on Parcel B which says the adjacent property to the west contains a temporary multipurpose structure totally 6,400 square feet along with 260 parking spaces. She asked if they would have adequate parking without additional parking. Mr. Alvarez said that was correct. At the time the temporary multipurpose building was approved, the request by Southwest Community Church was to include this 260 parking spaces in the lawn area as overflow parking. That would go away and there was sufficient parking to accommodate all uses on the site. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. BURT KAPLAN, a resident of Rancho Mirage and owner of a business located in Palm Desert, was the immediate past President of Temple Sinai, the applicant for the conditional use permit request. Their spiritual leader, Rabbi Paul Citron would like to say a few words at the conclusion of his brief presentation. Also in the audience to answer any questions was the Education Director Susan Kosdan and Larry Robbins, one of the leading church and temple architects in the country and the one who was the architect on this project. The zoning permits their proposed temple and religious school, including the multipurpose building and they were not contemplating anything that was not consistent with the zoning or the existing church. The Southwest Community Church was in place before most of the homes in the area were constructed. When they speak of their school, he asked that they note that it is similar to a Sunday School in other religions. They have always been good neighbors where their present temple has been for 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 the last 20 years and in an effort to show the homeowners what they were planning before they went to the city for their CUP, they mailed out 250 invitations to a meeting at their temple planned specifically for their input and to mitigate their concerns. Only 17 people showed up. They told the residents that the church's landscape architect, Ron Gregory, would work with each home backing on the lot where they planned to build the school to give them a say in that 45 foot landscape buffer between their yards and the school. The city's setback requirement was much less than that, not 45 feet. He also met on a one-to-one basis with one or two homeowners who appeared to represent the neighbors adjacent to the church on the west side. Their complaints were that the ugly metal building on site B looked like a warehouse and did not fit in their community. They agreed and that was why they addressed the issue and the ugly metal building was no longer to be seen as a facade and parapet wall as tall as the roof on the building consistent with the existing church buildings and the proposed school and approved by the architectural committee was all that would be seen. It would look the same as a structure they would have to build +` to replace the existing building. The building was there and it made no sense to tear it down and make them replace it with another one just about the same size that would look the same as their proposed design. The building had also been the scene for loud jam sessions and 1 ,500 children skateboarding and in line skating around and in it during some evenings and they understood the neighbors' frustrations. They would use it for the children to play in at times and they have seen the schedule. It would also be for educational programs for both young and old. There would be no deafening noise emanating from their building. Southwest Community Church now has 348 parking spaces and at their current location they have 78. They fill their parking lot on special occasions and on most Friday Sabbath nights of worship during the November through April season. In the off season they have a much smaller attendance. The new sanctuary would be made a great deal smaller than the church's with room as was said for 338 people in pews instead of the 1,200 currently. They would add extra seats to accommodate those wishing to spend their high holy days with them at their new home. The high holy days just finished yesterday and they occurred only two days each year. In conclusion, every effort had been made to be a good neighbor in the planning of their temple at the new site. They would continue to be aware of their responsibilities to the ir.. 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 neighborhood. They would not please everyone, but their goal was to live in harmony with their neighbors. He presented Rabbi Citron. RABBI CITRON addressed the commission and stated that Temple Sinai was almost as old as Palm Desert. They've been in existence since 1976 and at the present site since 1975. He said they are integral to the Palm Desert community. The majority of their members live in Palm Desert, and are involved as professional and business people. A synagogue normally, like a church, was a place for prayer and for study and community assembly. Temple Sinai was a little more than that. They provide a center for immunization for children, they were a collection point for food for the needy, they have inter faith activities and various concerts so they serve the community beyond their own immediate needs. They maintain a school. Right now the students come on Sunday morning, Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday evening. Their school was there to help them transmit their tradition and to maintain Jewish culture. One of the key values their tradition teaches , is that "the property of one's fellow must be as dear to you as your own." He thought that commission heard from the overview from Mr. Kaplan and the recommendation of the Architectural Commission that they were making every effort to comply with the sensitivities of the neighbors on the other side of the wall from them. The building that is under question, a prefabricated building, was meant to be a multi use unit. He could again envision the people who are their neighbors having the opportunity for their children at times to use their grassy field or for the community to be able to avail itself as well of that prefab building. Churches and synagogues were part of the neighborhood landscape throughout America. They go to the bedrock values that all of them cherish. They are places that enable them to build community and build real citizenship and Temple Sinai wanted to continue to do that with the facilities as they are on the property and with the remodeling of the prefab building to continue that contribution to the larger community. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the applicant would have the opportunity for rebuttal if they wished to use that opportunity following other comments. He asked for any questions for the applicant. Commissioner Campbell asked if they would be having buses transporting children to the school. 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 tow Mr. Kaplan said no. Commissioner Campbell asked if only the parents would be dropping off and picking them up. Mr. Kaplan said that was correct. Commissioner Campbell said that Mr. Kaplan stated that they would be using the play field or the temporary building. She asked what Mr. Kaplan meant by play field. Mr. Kaplan said that the area right on Hovley. The site to the right of that was a Coachella Valley Water site and it had a wall on Hovley and they wanted to continue that wall to the driveway and put a play field there for the children. With the side wall and the front wall, it really served two things. One, it would mitigate much of the noise that may happen there. Two, the wall continuance would not allow anyone to see that building, even though it would be very beautiful, the one in wr.. contention. The multipurpose building. He had a large car, a van, and taking his van as far on Hovley away from the wall as he could and going to the point of where that wall is, he could not see that building. He thought that area was going to be a great area for the children. It would be delineated also by some hedges. The play was not throughout the entire area. Commissioner Campbell asked if that would be used for the older children since they do have a play area right in the middle for the younger children. Mr. Kaplan said that was correct. Commissioner Campbell asked if they anticipated quite a bit of traffic from teenagers driving their own cars. Mr. Kaplan said he couldn't tell them that, but didn't believe they would have an inordinate number of cars. He noted that there was a sufficient area for all the cars if in fact they were to park. Rabbi Citron said that there were 25-40 teenagers. Ms. Kosdan indicated that some were 9th and 10th graders. 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 t a Commissioner Campbell noted that on Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday they would have religious school for 120 children ages 6 to 12 and on Tuesday only there would be having 104 children ages 13-17 so at one time they would have having about 225 children. She asked in how many years they would anticipate that number. Rabbi Citron said that part was afternoon and part was evening. Mr. Kaplan said they wouldn't be there at the same time. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that they would now take testimony in FAVOR and OPPOSITION. Referring to the request to speak cards, Chairperson Jonathan asked Mr. Rick Stein to address the commission. Mr. Stein said he would defer his comments until later in the meeting. Chairperson Jonathan called Leslie Surlow forward. MR. LESLIE SURLOW, 78-640 Autumn Lane in Palm Desert, said he was requested to read a letter from someone who was now in Chicago. It stated, "We are delighted to hear that Temple Sinai is planning to relocate on Hovley Lane where the church now stands. Our desert home is at 141 Courtside just a short distance east of the intended site. Although we are only part time residents of the desert, we feel strongly that the presence of the synagogue will enhance the neighborhood. Sincerely, Adeline and Bernard Cohen." Chairperson Jonathan invited Gail and Saul Jacobs to address the commission. Mr. Jacobs said they would like to defer their comments. Chairperson Jonathan invited Mr. James Mazoras to address the commission. MR. JAMES MAZORAS, 40-528 Clover Lane, stated that he only had a couple of small questions he would like to ask. He asked what would be done with the present large building, the present church/synagogue. He asked if it would be enlarged or redesigned in any way. Mr. Kaplan said that what they anticipated, as staff said, was enlarging it 500 feet on two sides in the front. A total of 1 ,000 feet. They would take the sanctuary which is much larger than their needs and they would make it much smaller and they would put in 338 pews and the rest would be made into a social area. 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 w Chairperson Jonathan asked if that would be an interior modification and the only exterior modification would be the addition of the 1 ,000 square feet. Mr. Kaplan said the only exterior would be the 500 feet on each side. In the interior they would put in some offices. Now the church was utilizing offices offsite, but they would be using the offices there. Mr. Mazoras said he would again like to emphasize, like he did not too long ago about another piece of property, why they wanted that particular area. It is a residential area. Before he answered that Mr. Mazoras wanted to ask the commission if that was still zoned for church area or whatever else, or if it was back to residential when Southwest moves out. Mr. Drell explained that conditional use permits, once approved, run with the land. Mr. Mazoras asked if it was continuous now to other people. low Mr. Drell said yes, conditional use permits run with the land, not with a particular tenant. Mr. Mazoras asked for what period of time. Mr. Drell replied for as long as the use complies with the conditions set forth when it is approved. It could be technically forever as long as the conditions imposed on the use when it is approved continue to be adhered to. If those conditions were violated, then there was a process for revocation. Conditional use permits, once approved and once the improvements are completed, there is in essence a vested right in those improvements and in that use. As long as the conditions imposed on the use, there is a whole list of restrictions that define what is being approved, as long as those restrictions are being adhered to, then the use can continue. When they approve a church, they don't approve a particular denomination, they approve the general use of the property as a religious institution or religious use. Mr. Mazoras asked if even in a residential area they were going to continue doing that. %BW 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 7 SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 t a Mr. Drell said yes and explained that the majority of churches probably throughout the United States were located in or adjacent to residential areas. Mr. Mazoras said he had no objections with that if that was the law. Chairperson Jonathan said if Mr. Mazoras had questions for the applicant, this would not be the venue for that. They weren't there for them to carry on a discussion. The commission was interested in Mr. Mazoras' comments about the application before them. Mr. Mazoras said he would like to know what effect this would have on their area right now as far as traffic was concerned and what days would be the heaviest for traffic. That was what he was concerned about. Chairperson Jonathan said that was a valid question. What they were hearing, both from the applicant and the staff, was that there would be a tremendous , reduction in the amount of traffic, noise and impact on the neighborhood. That was the position of the applicant and staff. The intensity of use of the temple compared to the church was a great reduction is what they were hearing. Mr. Mazoras said he knew what it was like right now with the Southwest Community Church and trying to get out of Clover Lane which he was two blocks in from Monterey and even when he makes a left turn from Monterey onto Hovley, if he was lucky enough to do that, was very difficult to get to his Clover Lane house on Sundays. He wondered what particular days would have the most traffic. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that the applicant said the most intensive use occurred on Friday nights, a lesser intense use on Tuesdays and Thursdays or Tuesday and Wednesday for some level of education and then two days a year there was a very intense use. Mr. Drell also noted Saturday mornings. Mr. Mazoras said a school was mentioned in the legal notice. He felt the school was what they were mostly concerned about. He asked if there would be a continuous class going on like a grade school and if it would be open to the public or only the Jewish faith. He asked what kind of school they were talking about. 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 Chairperson Jonathan asked if he was talking about a day school. Mr. Mazoras concurred. Mr. Drell said it was his understanding that it was specifically a religious school for the teaching of Jewish religious tradition as described. Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday evening and Sunday. It was analogous to a church Sunday school just like Southwest had different religious educational activities through the entire week, the schedule would be significantly less with this facility both in the scheduling on a daily basis and the total number of children involved. Mr. Mazoras said the other thing was the warehouse facing the church on the right had said. He asked if that would be torn down. Mr. Drell indicated that as described it would be completely remodeled and brought up to meet the city's architectural standards. ■. Mr. Mazoras thanked the commission. MR. AND MRS. SAUL JACOBS, 175 Winterhaven on Hovley Lane West, stated that they purchased that condo in 1986 and at the time they purchased the property, the only development on Hovley Lane West was Casablanca and their development and the church. Yes, there were a lot of residents came in, but they all came in knowing there was a church in effect at that time. What they were saying to the commission was it was going to same with less intensity and they were in favor of the application. MR. JAMES H. RICHARDS, 40-840 Avenida Estrada, said that he had been doing battle over this temporary building for 30 months now and he was here to do battle again. He said he welcomed Temple Sinai with open arms as a neighbor. He believed they would be a great neighbor and he had enjoyed his negotiations with them up until now. He thought they were honorable people and would be respectful of the residents' needs, as the residents would be of theirs. Although ' Southwest Community Church was in existence and the conditional use permit was in existence prior to their moving to Avenida Estrada on the west side of the property, the temporary steel building is a fairly new 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 s thing and was granted a temporary use permit because it didn't meet architectural requirements of the community. Although the roof height is 19 feet, he didn't know of many homes along Hovley that were 80 feet by 80 feet. It was like a large gymnasium. Now Temple Sinai has agreed to modify the building architecturally and the Architectural Committee at one of the meetings has passed on recommendations of approval for compliance with architectural guidelines for the neighborhood, but the issue he had with the Planning Commission, and this was not personal because many of the members were not on the Planning Commission when all of this started. The issue he had was they were told as a neighborhood that the building was temporary. And almost as blackmail they said they would not sue the city over the zoning issue because they knew it was coming down in a year. Then it didn't come down in a year. Southwest Community Church came back and applied for a year extension. At that point he, Phil Drell, and other neighbors sat down and worked on the conditions of this approval on the second go around. In his mind, the Planning Commission and the City of Palm Desert were making a pact and there were three parties involved and Temple Sinai was certainly not one of them. This is ancient history in many ways, but very recent. Southwest Community Church, the City of Palm Desert with the temporary use permit and the neighborhood surrounding this property having to do with this temporary building. Phil Drell mentioned to him that it would be a hardship for Temple Sinai to have to tear this building down and put a new building up in its place and it would be costly. He didn't believe the City of Palm Desert was in the real estate business nor in the granting of buildings business and he thought that someone somewhere might construe the giving of this building to Temple Sinai under a formal temporary use permit as being a conflict of interest or no separation of church and state, i.e., that the hardship financially for Temple Sinai to build a new building was fine, but it didn't address the hardship of the 30 months of hardship they went through with this building's use in the first place. That was never considered by this body.- What he was saying was that there was an ethical problem here. That ethical problem was that they agreed to all these extensions and all the conditions, none of which were ever enforced by the City, on the basis that this building would be gone. Now doctored up or not, dressed up or not, the City made a promise to this neighborhood and if it breaks that promise, that is an ethical problem. Legally the city attorney might 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 r.. tell them, the architectural committee may tell them that they can roll a temporary use permit into a conditional use permit, but he was saying that he has lost faith in this body if this happens. This wasn't anything directed at Temple Sinai and as he said, he thought they were good and honorable people, but this history existed long before they came along. What he was asking for the residents of Avenida Estrada, all of them that signed the petition, was that the temporary use permit be enforced, that the building be taken down as listed in item number six on the conditions of that temporary use permit and that if Temple Sinai wished to apply to the Planning Commission for another conditional use permit for a building on that site, that is architecturally in conformity with the height and design of the school, then he would be very much in favor of it. But right now they feel they have been lied to. Not once, not twice, but three times. He said that wasn't fair. He thanked the commission for their time. Commissioner Beaty asked Mr. Richards if he had any problem with the current proposed use of that building. Mr. Richards said he had no fears of their use of any of the buildings. Commissioner Beaty thanked Mr. Richards. Chairperson Jonathan said he had a question as well. He said he was having a hard time understanding exactly what his objection was to the temporary building. He understood the history and was there and would address that later, but looking at this as a new application, if they came in with this exact same design but it didn't have metal under the parapet, looked the same, functioned the same, if Mr. Richards would have an objection and if so, to what. Mr. Richards said he would wonder why the school building was 15 feet high and the parapet on the other building 19 feet high. Chairperson Jonathan reiterated that Mr. Richards had a problem with the height. Mr. Richards concurred. 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Richards would like it to be 15 feet. Mr. Richards said it couldn't be, that was the problem. Chairperson Jonathan asked Mr. Richards to tell the commission what he would like. A new application comes before him, there is a 15 foot school, a 19 foot general use building and what the objection was, if it was the 19 foot high building. Mr. Richards said yes. Chairperson Jonathan asked what would be appropriate, 17, 16, or 15 feet? Mr. Richards said he didn't know, but probably the same as the school. If they were talking hypothetical, if Temple Sinai's architect were designing this from scratch and there were no building there, if they would have come in with a 19 foot building or a 15 foot building. An 80 by 80 building? He didn't know. Chairperson Jonathan asked what would make Mr. Richards happy. Mr. Richards said what would make him happy was the steel building being taken down as per the commission's promise and another building being erected. Chairperson Jonathan said if they took the building down, what would be acceptable to be put up. Mr. Richards said something equivalent to the school. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that was 15 feet. Mr. Richards said yes. Chairperson Jonathan pointed out that architecturally it appeared very consistent if not identical to the school's, so the architectural aesthetics were acceptable and they were down to the height issue. Mr. Richards concurred. 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 tow Chairperson Jonathan thanked Mr. Richards and asked if anyone else wished to address the commission. Mr. Mazoras asked if he could make point about that. Chairperson Jonathan said no. MR. JEFF BRANDT, a realtor with Prudential California Realty, said that he also resided across from the existing structure on Posada Court. He welcomed Temple Sinai and realized there would be less traffic, the building structure was acceptable and he hoped that any type of negative item that the commission heard today were also put in the right proportion to exactly what would be done here. He welcomed the synagogue and realized that as far as property values go, there was no negative impact so to speak and knew those were the items the commission looked for. He hoped the commission made the right decision in saying yes to this proposal. �,.. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the applicant wished to offer some rebuttal comments. Commissioner Beaty asked if the applicant would clarify the hours of operation of the school. He asked if it would operate every day from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. or if it was just a couple of days a week because that was what the report said. Mr. Kaplan said he would like their education director to answer that. MS. SUSAN KOSDAN, 44-650 San Clemente Circle in Palm Desert, stated that their religious school had two components meeting there. The religious school which begins at pre-kindergarten (3 year olds) through their tenth graders currently. Hopefully into the 12th grade a couple of years from now. They meet Sunday mornings from 9:30 a.m. until noon, Tuesday afternoons from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Tuesday evenings from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. and starting this year they had a small program that was meeting Thursday afternoons from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Their synagogue used to have a nursery school, a preschool for three and four year olds, and hoped they could do that again. That was what the other component was where they see 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 nursery school listed as a Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. through 3:00 p.m. Commissioner Finerty asked Mr. Kaplan if the metal had not been there if the temple would have had a need for that building. Mr. Kaplan said yes. Commissioner Finerty asked if that need would have been for about the same size, larger, or smaller. Mr. Kaplan said their intent originally was to have a building that was from 5,000 to 6,000 feet to use as a multipurpose building. As far as the height was concerned, it was difficult to have that large of a building and have it a free span without having a certain amount of height. He didn't think they would go higher that the current one, but certainly the building would be something similar to what they have. Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Kaplan had investigated the cost of a new building and what that cost would be. Mr. Kaplan said a new building would cost them between $600,000 to $700,000. Commissioner Finerty asked what the approximate cost was for remodeling the temporary structure. Mr. Kaplan said he could replace that building for Southwest Community Church for approximately $25,000 and have it delivered on their site and he had looked at that. He is in the mini storage business and he spoke to one of the people who builds that kind of building, a butler type, and that was the quote he had to have it delivered at the new site, if they were allowed to keep the existing building. Commissioner Finerty asked if they weren't allowed to keep the building, if Mr. Kaplan would be submitting an application to the city for another building similar to that. Mr. Kaplan said yes, they would have to do that. r� 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 ar.. Commissioner Finerty concluded that the only factor they saw would be a negative impact on the Temple's budget of half a million dollars, plus. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Kaplan said that was a pretty good negative impact. Commissioner Finerty thanked Mr. Kaplan. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked the commission for comments. Commissioner Lopez stated that he appreciated everyone's participation this evening and thought it was commendable that the applicant had involved input from the community and that they offered the ability for them to express opinions on the landscaping on that one side for the buffer that would be closest to the residential area. He thought the redo of the building as it looked in the architectural drawings was positive and the impact of the Temple as compared to Southwest Community Church was also positive to the �,. community. He thought it was moving in the right direction. Commissioner Finerty said she could understand very much what the community feels and could understand that when they all sat down a year ago and agreed to the temporary use permit, that was with the understanding of the condition that it would be removed. She thought it was very important to keep their word. Truth and honesty were critical in her mind. However, they did not anticipate Temple Sinai coming forward and wanting this building. It appeared that the Temple had worked very hard with the community, they worked with Architectural Review and gained their approval. She felt that Temple Sinai was really an innocent party to all of this and that it would not be fair to penalize them to the tune of a half a million dollars plus. Again, she wanted to say that keeping their word is important, but she had to draw the distinction that it was not fair and she was trying to be fair to all parties here. Temple Sinai, the innocent party, would be the one that really suffered financially and she didn't feel that would be right. She felt that when looking at the big picture, the Temple would be better than single family homes. It would certainly less intense than the current use. She agreed with Commissioner Lopez that they had been very gracious working with the landscape buffer and that it appeared that once this was complete they would 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 j .r+ be great neighbors and the neighbors on Avenida Estrada would have the best deal available and it should be a win-win for everyone. Commissioner Beaty said he was a party on this commission through all of the lies that was talked about and he was greatly offended. As Commissioner Finerty said, they had no anticipation of what might happen and this was a wonderful opportunity. He didn't know what would happen to that site if the building was torn down and they were looking at slab, but he fully expected to hear some negative testimony on the school and wasn't. That was very positive in his eyes and he was in favor of the project. Commissioner Campbell said she too felt like Commissioner Beaty and thought that they would hear testimony against the school because of the noise of the children. Instead it was all in regard to this building. She stated that she also lives on Hovley Lane West and was familiar with all of the traffic and at the beginning thinking that another church was coming she had mixed feelings about it, but after reading the report and hearing the testimony, except for a few, she thought the Temple would be very good neighbors. She had questions regarding the school, the parking and thought the Temple had done everything they could in regards to adjusting the warehouse. She thought it looked very presentable and any changes made to the sanctuary would not effect the appearance of that either. If the building was torn down and they came before the commission, they would probably approve it and if it was 19 feet now, a home could be 18 feet high so it would only make one foot of difference. She was very much in favor of the project. Chairperson Jonathan complimented the applicant. He thought they had done a great deal more than they had to in terms of making this particular facility aesthetically appealing and functionally appealing. If he were a resident any where near there he would be very, very grateful and he couldn't imagine anyone having an objection to the change taking place in the neighborhood. The only possible concern would be the height and he thought that was a valid concern, but considering the setback, he thought that was a non-issue. The 15 feet versus the 19 feet was negligible when the building was that deep set so he didn't think there was an issue there. He said he wouldn't be him if he let the comment about lies go unanswered. There were five very decent people on the commission who give their time and effort and heart and soul a to this city in doing this job and they don't lie, don't mislead, but try to do what they are supposed to do as well as they could. He remembered them all 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 being there with concerns about what Southwest Community Church was doing. He remembered going down their very good legitimate list and putting their feet to the fire and saying they would do this, this and that and they were initially unresponsive and the commission said they would lose their CUP if they didn't respond and they came back and did respond. He remembered nothing but thank you and expressions of appreciation. Where that changed he had no idea, but he felt the comments were undeserved and irresponsible. On a positive note, he was absolutely in favor of the application and would be willing to vote accordingly. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1942, approving CUP 99-7, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. v CHAIRPERSON JONATHAN CALLED A ONE MINUTE RECESS AT 9:33 P.M. G. Case Nos. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 and DA 99-3 - PEARL INDUSTRIES INC., Applicant Request for approval of a general plan amendment to add senior overlay, approval of a change of zone from PR-7 (planned residential 7 units per acre) to PR-7 S.O. (planned residential senior overlay), precise plan of design/conditional use permit (including a height exception for the three (3) story portion, development agreement and a negative declaration of environmental impact as it relates to a proposed 256 unit continuing care retirement community, a community center building and a 99 bed skilled nursing facility on 13.04 acres on the west side of Fairhaven Drive between Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive, 72-650 Fred Waring Drive and 72-755 Parkview Drive. Mr. Smith noted that plans were on display. He said that commission received the full set of the applicant's plans in their packets. They also received a significant amount of correspondence. As well, they received correspondence 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 received after the packets were delivered on Friday and it was faxed today. In addition, material received today was distributed before tonight's meeting. Mr. Smith explained that the property was an irregularly shaped 13 acre site on the west side of Fairhaven. It was generally flat and the site has never been developed. Adjacent to the site to the east and north were single family homes. To the south was the Trader Joe's center and to the west was One Quail Place. The site was currently zoned Planned Residential, seven units per acre and was designated medium density residential, five to seven units per acre in the general plan. He noted that the project includes a 99 bed skilled nursing facility and a 250 unit continuing care retirement community. He noted that it was 250, not 256. He explained that the applicant had revised the plan since the legal notice was sent. The skilled nursing facility was proposed to be located adjacent to Fred Waring Drive. It was a single story, 18 foot high structure and has access from Fred Waring Drive. It connects to the rest of the site via an on-site driveway system. The continuing care component of the project is a three story 28 foot high building. The south wing faces Fairhaven Drive to the east and the north wing faces Parkview Drive. These two buildings connect at the community center building. The community center building contains a tower element that goes to 42 feet in height above the curb line. The rest of the project includes what he would describe as secondary tower elements which were 36 feet in height. All of the continuing care structure was at least two stories in height and 17 feet above the curb height. There was a plan on display that was a site plan highlighted in red and green. The red portion showed the two story elements and the green portion showed the three story 28 foot high portion of the plan. The third story setback from Fairhaven Drive would be 120 feet and the setback from Parkview to the third story element would be 1 17% feet. Main access to the continuing care buildings would be from Parkview Drive at the east limit of the property. This access led to surface parking, to underground parking and a valet drop off at the community building. At the west end of the site on Parkview and on the north end of Fairhaven Drive, gated emergency vehicle only access points would be provided. The table at the bottom of page 2 of the report showed that all the units were considerably in excess of the minimum prescribed by code. The table on page 3 notes that the project meets or exceeds the setback requirements, coverage and parking. The table also noted that the project did not comply with the height limit. The PR zone and the Senior Overlay District limit maximum height to two story and 22 feet for flat roofed structures. The project as shown proposed a net height of 28 feet above the adjacent curb. The applicant was seeking an exception to the 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 height and the number of stories. Staff had a series of concerns with the proposal. First, the access. They initially had concerns with the access in that it was originally proposed off of Fairhaven Drive. The plan was amended and proposed access from Parkview Drive and that was acceptable and there was a traffic impact analysis that was provided by the applicant which indicates that access could be provided from Parkview Drive without negatively impacting the flow of traffic on Parkview. Secondly, staff was concerned with the building height, the number of stories and the mass. The PR zone and Senior Overlay limited height to two stories and 22 feet. The plan originally proposed three stories and 33 feet. In an effort to reduce the height, the applicant proposes to depress the structure five feet into the ground. That would put the first floor five feet below curb height, reducing building height to 28 feet above the curb. Additionally, the applicant eliminated several of the third story units to help break up the roof line and that was at the suggestion of the Architectural Review Commission. They also eliminated the third floor units closest to Fairhaven Drive and Parkview Drive. He indicated that when staff first received the proposal, it had 280 units and now they were at 250. Notwithstanding all the mitigation that the applicant has designed into the project, staff could not support an exception to the height of the building. As commission would recall, height exceptions have been granted in the PR zone: to the Marriott timeshare development at Monterey and Frank Sinatra, and for the Courtyard Hotel at Frank Sinatra and Cook Street. In both these instances they have hundreds of feet of separation between existing residences and the proposed buildings. In fact, both projects were located on golf courses. The extensive separation became the finding that supported the exception, both by this commission and by the City Council. In the case of the timeshare development, the exceptional separation resulted in the neighborhood eventually supporting the project. In this case they didn't have hundreds of feet of separation. The site was an infill situation in a developed neighborhood. Staff felt that the proposed 28 foot high structure did not warrant a height exception. Other concerns of staff with the proposal include the landscaping. There wasn't adequate landscaping on the east side of the building adjacent to Fairhaven Drive. There appeared to be a solution to that and the applicant was generally amenable to that were the project to proceed, but he pointed it out that there were concerns with the lack of landscaping there. August 24 the applicant obtained conceptual approval of the architecture from ARC with the direction to improve it. The applicant revised the plans and returned to ARC September 14. At that time ARC once again was not prepared to grant preliminary approval. ARC felt that while the 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 applicant had taken many steps to mitigate the building height, the architecture was not yet acceptable. Minutes of that meeting were included with the commission packets. ARC ultimately concluded that the plans could be made acceptable, but before the applicant spent additional funds addressing these architectural concerns, the issue of the building height needed to be resolved. Mr. Smith indicated that the applicant has held at least one meeting with the neighborhood and thought it had been more than that. On April 24, 1999, following that meeting, the city received 31 letters of objection. At the bottom of page 7 of the staff report the issues raised were delineated in those letters of objection. They ranged from excessive density, excessive traffic, building mass, view blockage, incompatible with the neighborhood, decrease in property values, noise, inconvenience during construction, noise of emergency vehicles, project is unneeded when others are available, and at that point the project included access from Fairhaven Drive. The revised project moved the access from Fairhaven to Parkview. The access from Fairhaven would be for emergency vehicles only. The traffic report concluded that the project would have a minimum impact at the studied intersections during the , peak hours. The traffic report also concluded that the traffic flow on Parkview would remain acceptable. The other areas of concern of the residents were grouped into two categories. One, that the density at 23 units per acre was incompatible with single family residential dwellings. Two, that the building height 28 feet above curb and the mass was incompatible with the neighborhood, would impair views and decrease property values. With respect to the density intensity issue, One Quail Place next door was 22 units per acre, so it could be done differently. In the matter of item two, staff concurred that the height exception to permit 28 feet was not warranted. In conclusion, staff felt that the applicant was proposing a high quality residential ownership project which is a combination of independent living, assisted living and skilled nursing. The project included 318 underground parking spaces plus surface spaces and provided 184 more parking spaces than required by code. The units ranged in size from 824 square feet to 1 ,655 square feet. Notwithstanding that, staff still came back to the fact that it is too high. At 28 feet it didn't meet code and staff couldn't come up with a reason that it should be granted an exception. If the Planning Commission felt this was a desirable project which should be approved, staff would request that the matter be continued to a date certain and refer the matter back to staff for preparation of the environmental documentation, resolution of approval and development agreement and processing of a zoning ordinance amendment to increase the permitted building height in the Senior Overlay. That building 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 height increase would apply to all such projects. Environmentally, staff was recommending that the project not be approved so staff had not given commission the environmental documentation in that without a project, they didn't need to assess it. If the commission wanted to proceed with the project, then staff would come back to them with appropriate environmental documentation at that time. Staff's recommendation was that commission adopt Resolution No. 1943 denying cases GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 and Development Agreement 99-3. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Smith of the 184 parking spaces they have that they didn't need, how much land that took up. Mr. Smith said it took up 29 spaces along Fairhaven Drive for sure and took up a small area at the entrance south of Parkview Drive and the rest of them were underground. Commissioner Campbell asked if it would be as long as a city block. Mr. Smith said it was 300 feet per parking space and he was being told about 30,000 square feet or two-thirds of an acre. Chairperson Jonathan asked why there would be an amendment to the zoning .. ordinance as opposed to just an exception to the ordinance. Mr. Smith said it was because staff could not find a reason to grant the exception to the height. They don't have the separation they had in the other instances. The commission could come up with another reason, but from a staff perspective they couldn't find a finding that would support the height exception. Chairperson Jonathan said he wasn't suggesting that they were going to do that, but if the commission determined that there was a finding for an exception, then they could grant an exception rather than an amendment to the zone. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Mr. Drell said that staff would recommend that the exception identify something unusual and specific to this project and this design because if they didn't then they were in fact creating a zoning ordinance amendment. Chairperson Jonathan said that one possible exception, and he wasn't sure it was, but he thought the applicant had made the point and it was there in the chart, that as a result of the greater setback, the line of site even including the three story was better than it would be being lower than it would be if the project were only two story but closer to the property border and still staying within ordinance. In other words, the i implication was that would be the findings. That the line of sight issue resulting from three stories was mitigated through proper and adequate setbacks. He asked if staff and considered that argument. Mr. Smith said he believed he had and they went through a similar discussion when they were 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 dealing with the Damone Group where they got the building down, but they were still dealing with the mass of the building. They were talking about a very long building without side yards. If these were single family homes across the street at 20 feet in height, this would have ten feet of side yard setback on each lot so there would be 20 foot view corridors. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. CHARLIE SWEET, 43-708 Virginia Avenue in Palm Desert, thanked the commission for visiting the site to view their balloon display. As pointed out by Steve Smith, they had the balloons 12 feet too close to the street so it would be setback even further, but they made that adjustment. He thanked Mr. Smith for the nice presentation and felt he hit all the important points. He said he wanted to take this time and opportunity to go through the history of why they selected this site. The continuing care retirement community was certainly well needed in the valley, as it is through most of the nation and the state of California. The site in question was selected primarily because of its great proximity to the local services. The users of the site, those residents, desire the proximity of those services. The facility functions the best and it yielded them a higher quality of life that they look for. And that was the bottom line. When they selected this site they had quite a few issues they had to contend with. They first anticipated the major ingress and egress on Fairhaven Drive and local neighbors certainly expressed their view point to him very clearly. He held a public forum for them at the Palm Desert Board of Realtors and he invited the 65 homes to the east of the subject site. Six of those out of the 65 that were invited appeared and about 70 residents from the city of Rancho Mirage appeared. It was quite obvious that they had many concerns. View was one of them and it was at that point that they decided to drop the grade of the subject site by five feet to mitigate that portion of the altitude concern. They also elected to keep Fairhaven Drive closed and have all the major ingress and egress on Parkview Drive. The traffic study they had completed by RFB as submitted to the City indicates average daily traffic on Parkview Drive of 5,400 cars per 24 hours. That was for both easterly and westerly directions. The study also indicated that at peak hours this project would add about 13 cars per hour from their Parkview driveway and about 11 cars per hour from 50 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 i... the skilled nursing facility over on Fred Waring. In regards to the altitude of the building, 17 feet from the curb height on the two story structures, 28 feet height from the three stories and as mentioned a little earlier, the architects designed these residential wings in the spirit and in consideration of the height and setbacks of the statutes. They tried to achieve several goals. Number one was to preserve or improve the line of sight, which he believed they did. Number two was economically to have sufficient amount of units so that the job penciled and was economically feasible. If they were to put more units on the surface, they would lose open space, it would degrade the community and would not function well because as they could see on the landscape plan they have numerous onsite drainage facilities. They couldn't go any deeper than five feet and maintain the drainage facilities. They had taken it to the limit there. In their review at Architectural Review, they had a very good idea which he believed they would adopt in regards to the landscaping on Fairhaven. They were so over parked that they could comfortably delete about 29 or 30 spaces on Fairhaven and remove that walled landscape treatment and instead berm that area it which would give it a much softer effect to the landscaping on Fairhaven. Fairhaven would remain closed and the berm effect should actually help the neighborhood quite a bit. They also bought a piece of land from the Baptist Church that was 72 feet wide at the northerly portion of their land which connects their skilled nursing facility with the residential buildings. Prior to this project commencing the church was going to go forward and improve their corner and relandscape and rebuild their church parking lot. That would improve that corner as well. They believed this to be the highest and best use of this land. It was very well located for a continuing care retirement community and they thought they had addressed all the issues as best as possible and they had certainly taken into account the community's concerns. In regard to the folks living in Rancho Mirage, he showed a couple of pictures. He showed the 28 foot level of their residential building which was on the north portion of the property and said that this photograph was taken out of the backyard of one of the homes at Ridgeview currently under construction. He said that the roof line would not exceed the existing tree line at One Quail. He showed a similar shot standing at the curb inside the subdivision at Ridgeview and the line was at the 28 foot level. It indicated that the view would not interrupt the tree line. He it noted that Mr. Alvarez had the photographs on file. He showed a photo 51 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 at the gate of the Estates in Rancho Mirage and said that it was about 525 feet from their exit gate to their property line. Once again the line delineated the 28 foot high level of the residential building and pointed out the One Quail apartments in the background. Once again, he said it couldn't deter their tree line view. He believed the main issue here was the four feet as they have it proposed, the 28 feet. They were working under the assumption that the maximum was 24 feet and they just learned about that ten days to two weeks ago that 24 feet was if the structure had a pitched roof and 22 for a flat roof. Regardless, they were at the 28 foot height and respectfully requested that it be passed. They have 60 units on the third floor and for the integrity of the project and the benefit of the future residents, they would like to go forward with that. He thanked the commission. Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Sweet had ever built a project similar to this. Mr. Sweet said no, he wasn't a builder. He was in the development business and had been involved in the financing and development of other projects like this. Commissioner Finerty asked for an example. Mr. Sweet said a continuing care retirement community in La Jolla, California. Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Sweet had an operator. Mr. Sweet said yes, that he was present at the meeting. Mr. Jim Kobika. MR. JIM KOBIKA, Home Place Retirement Communities of America located at 1135 Camino del Mar in Del Mar, respectfully wanted to thank the commission and everyone for staying this evening and hoped they were all present in support of the project. Mr. Kobika said he has been in the business for 15 years as of May of 2000. He has had several thousand residents live in his communities. He understood the client that they service very, very well. He said there were two reasons they decided on this location. One was location as mentioned by Mr. 52 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 Sweet. Their normal community when they first open it up the normal resident was in the age range of 75 years old. About 70% of them were married at the time. What they do is live pretty independently in the main building. Over time, and he has been in the business 15 years so some of the communities that are 15 years old he was still experiencing the residents that originally moved in. What happens to them is that they slow up a bit. When they originally move in they do lots of traveling, they are still going to Europe and enjoying the same things and conveniences that we do. As time marches on, they become slower and some get on a walker. They can't negotiate a step in the building and the elevators were very important. The hallway system was very important because they have a full service restaurant and they enjoy that convenience every day. In order to get there they had to basically walk there every day. In some instances it took them a while to get there because sometimes they were only walking six inches at a time. That is the reason why they wanted to make the building as compact as possible and to help staff along with reasons why they would like to have this in a four story environment and were suffering the consequences of putting it in the ground which frankly they didn't like to do because they believed their residents should have the same quality of life that we deserve. His house wasn't four feet in the ground and they were hoping they wouldn't have to go to that extent, but they have on this project. He understood that they were encroaching on the height, but they were doing it for a good reason. They were doing it because they wanted to keep the hallway systems as short as possible to provide for their residents to have the conveniences and the quality of life they deserve and that was the reason they were asking for some help on the height of this building so that they could reduce the length of the hallways. They loved the site and the demographics, loved the area and would be a good neighbor. They didn't have sound problems or traffic problems, they didn't have a demand on the public services, the Fire Department and had their own security service on site 24 hours around the clock. They had their own nursing station inside the independent building should their be an occurrence. There were no lights or sirens or ambulances running 70 mph down their street at 2:00 a.m. The individual would be stabilized by the 24 hour nursing staff and the ambulance would come without the lights and sirens on in a very respectful manner. They have several conveniences on site, libraries, work out spas, indoor pools, and it was basically a cruise boat 53 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 on land. That was what they believed this particular site demanded and that this area was in need of. They believed this project was exactly what was the correct use of this site. In closing, he wanted to tell a story. Over the weekend he was invited to a wedding. This gentleman had 55 years with a beautiful woman. She passed away and he got remarried over the weekend. He was invited. The man was 78 years old and he was the very same guy that climbed on a ship after Pearl Harbor was bombed and was asked to go to Japan and bomb it and he did that and he was very much like the guys that live in his communities. They are salt of the earth, they've done lots for our lives and his life, and they have actually given it to him for free. He loved him and had a heart for them. He wasn't here because of the financial part of the business. He didn't need to be here and didn't need any more communities. He didn't need any more residents but he loved the business and loved to develop good projects in good areas. That individual whose wedding he went to over the weekend was his Dad. He knew these people and knew them well and they deserved the best. He thanked the commission. *rr Chairperson Jonathan noted that the applicant would have an opportunity for rebuttal. He indicated that there were cards submitted to speak in FAVOR and OPPOSITION. The commission would entertain the comments in favor of the application first. He requested Ken Savage to address the commission. MR. KEN SAVAGE 72-897 Sierra Vista in Palm Desert, said they have lived there for 29 years and happened to live right next to the Town Center. He had been thinking that the buildings in the Town Center have never blocked their view. What blocks their view are the trees on the berm. As a matter of fact, if they looked at the site what blocked the view to the west were the trees that extend considerably above One Quail Place. He understood the height requirements for the buildings, but in reality that was kind of ridiculous because they were really dealing with trees. The thing that impressed him was the use and he couldn't imagine a better use for that property and also the fact that he appreciated about Palm Desert was its diversity. They don't live in an elite community like some of the other communities concede themselves to be. He was thankful that Palm Desert let him live here. He thought it could be open to this kind of a project. He wasn't aware of the conflict of the height and the previous conditions, but he pointed 54 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 um out that height of buildings was really insignificant if trees block views and if a view is to be blocked, that was what happened. MR. DOUG WOFFORD stated that he was present as a friend on behalf of Mr. Sweet's project. He said it was a project that was very near and dear to his heart. He informed commission that he has been a chiropractor here for 30 years. He wanted to take a moment to address the commission on what he considered to be the true purpose of the weight of the matter for their decision. In their golden years they have the least representation and were least able to change their lives. Those were the people that would be living here. In his years of practice, he said they were some of the finest people you could meet and most considerate, but they were very frail and couldn't speak for themselves. Mr. Sweet comes along, and he has known Charlie all his life or at least for the last 30 years, and he has always thought about the city of Palm Desert first. He was very concerned about, along with his father Roland. He said this seemed to be a good project. Mr. Wofford said he was concerned as well as the residents that live here how that would �•• effect his street. These were the weights of the commission's consideration tonight. However, from what he has seen on Country Club and other landscaping techniques used, they can overcome a lot of problems including the distance problems with unique architecture. He thought they could compromise and when they do compromise they would know they were doing it not for just a building developer that wants to make money, but for a sincere desire to improve our community and the commission as the government had the ability of making this a better place for our seniors and all concerned. He said his hopes were with the commission in this moment of their consideration. MR. AND MRS. JOHN MCCORMICK, 72-669 Eagle Road Apartment 2 in Palm Desert, stated that he was a friend of Mr. Sweet's and he brought this to him and talked to him about six months ago and what he really liked about it was that everything was really compact and everything was available within itself and they didn't have to go outside the area for any amenities, as well as being able to go across the street to Trader Joe's or to Michael's or the shopping mall. He thought this was a great project for older people and hoped the commission would approve the project. 55 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 MR. JOE WEIBLE, a resident of Silver Spur RV Park on Highway 74, stated that he was also a friend of Mr. Sweet's. He had seen the plans and had discussions of the makeup of the facility. The project appealed to him because he was getting to that age where he thinks about where he is going to end up for the rest of those golden years. He noted that he lives alone at the present time, but a few years down the road he would probably like to be surrounded by a nice place and the health facilities if he needed them. He liked the location very much and spent a lot of time at the library which is close by and the shopping would be convenient. He thought the project would be an asset to the community. MR. KENNY KATZ, 77-587 Ashberry Court in Palm Desert, said he was very new to the area and had been here about a year and a half. He thought it was like living in a paradise. He came out of London and was there for the last 33 years and although they get all the wonderful architecture and some great buildings and wonderful places to move around, it had become congested and ugly and it was undesirable and was happy to end up in a paradise like this one. Every time they drive and go someplace what they see around them is beauty. They were always flabbergasted by the picture postcard nature of the things they see around here. What disturbed him was when they drive along the street and there was a two story office building sitting along the edge and it blocked that view. He had come here to support this project because he has watched changes Charlie has made and coming out of resort development himself, he could appreciate what is going on. One of the most important aspects here, aside from density because that wasn't an issue he could concern himself with, was the view. If they could improve the view and even they go up a little in the middle, but everyone could appreciate what was around them because they haven't blocked it coming out and he thought the project deserved special attention and special consideration. MR. ROLAND SWEET, Charlie's father, stated that unfortunately he no longer lived in Palm Desert, but spent 28 years here. Last year his children prevailed upon him to not live by himself any more and he was living with one of his children. Before that he lived in the Carlotta, a , retirement facility in Palm Desert right in the middle of a residential section. One of the things that impressed him about it was that there 56 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 was absolutely no disturbance that he could see to the residents surrounding it because people his age, and he was 90 years old, don't do a lot of hollering, don't get drunk, don't drive fast and they were a very quiet neighborhood. He strongly recommended to the commission this project for three reasons. The first reason was that this was probably the best physical project with the most amenities of any project that he has ever seen and he has seen quite a few of them. He bought the first one of these in Las Vegas, Nevada. So he knew something about it. Since that time he had appraised some of them. This project was going to be extremely deluxe, would have underground parking, valet service, and more amenities than any of the existing facilities, even than the ones under construction. He thought it would be a great asset to the city. He knew there was some concern about the height, but as seen by the diagram, on the west side of the property the trees were higher than the 28 foot building. On the other side there were residential houses, but they were about 120 feet from the closest building on this project. The second reason why he thought this was a good thing was because it would put about $50 million on the tax roll. rr.. The third thing was that it would employ about 125 new people who would be an asset to the city. Among those people would be doctors, nurses and it would really be an asset to the city in every way he could think of. He said he was ready for one of these projects himself. MR. JAMES KEERAN, 44-795 San Jose Avenue, said he was a member of the University Baptist Church so they would be neighbors to this project and he listened to people say something about the views and everything else. He agreed that yes, when they first move in they have a view and then they plant a tree and do different things, get their umbrellas out by their pools and all of a sudden views are gone in about five years and he knew the people in Rancho Mirage were concerned about their view. Being an ex-engineer, he looked at it and noticed that most of their houses over there faced east and west. Really their view was the mountain on that side and on the east side they had a wall behind them. He knew they were concerned about views, but he was too. This was just one of those things. They lived down here, enjoyed it and everything else, but he did the same thing. Planted a tree and the next thing he knew his view was gone. His neighbors have all blocked his view but he enjoyed the area he was at and was really in favor of the project because he was getting up to that age and he might have to how 57 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 have something like this and he would really appreciate it being here in Palm Desert. Chairperson Jonathan said he would entertain testimony in opposition and asked Ms. Nancy Singer to address the commission. MS. NANCY SINGER, 6 Navato Terrace in The Estates at Rancho Mirage, thanked the commission for the opportunity to speak. She said that they in Rancho Mirage realize that they do not have the standing before the commission that Palm Desert residents might have, but they were Palm Desert's neighbors and were part of Palm Desert's community and Palm Desert was part of their community. There was mention made several times of a community meeting held back in April. They being directly across the street were notified about it. They were the ones who got together those 70 other people in about six hours notice because people were so concerned about this project and they came. They felt that senior housing was a great thing and they weren't opposed to this being senior housing. What they were opposed to was some of the parameters presented here. They were concerned that the project, the way it is presented would be a detriment to the community of both Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage and that immediate area. They agreed with the staff report on the height and felt the height was just too much. There seemed to be a lot said about the 28 feet for the residential part, but not a whole lot had been said about the 42 or 44 feet for the community center, which was a major part of this complex. That was much higher. That hadn't been addressed. They would very happy with a 19 foot high maximum like the steel building at Temple Sinai. They were concerned with the density. They knew that back in May the commission denied a 16 per acre project for senior living at Hovley and Monterey. This project being 23 was an even greater density so they were concerned with that. They were basically concerned with the incompatibility in the neighborhood and the traffic that would be generated. They knew there had been a traffic study done by the developer. She personally talked with the Planning Department for the city of Rancho Mirage, who have also done traffic studies on Parkview and the developers traffic study differs from the traffic study by Rancho Mirage. Rancho Mirage hadn't done one recently. Among things happening right now that they don't believe the developer took into account when he was considering the traffic was 58 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 W the fact that there were now two new complexes being built, Ridgeview and White Sun Estates, which comprised an additional 88 homes, the blocking of several streets in the Fairhaven area that the commission approved created more traffic on Parkview. There was a group of homes opposite, she wasn't sure what the area was called, but opposite the Outback Steakhouse on the other side of Parkview where because of a change in the way the street was configured in the Rancho Las Palmas shopping center people were all using Parkview a lot more than they did before. In addition to the residents of this new complex, there would be three shifts of workers. They would all have cars too and would be driving in and out. So there was a lot of traffic to be considered other than the residents who would also have visitors using these areas. They were very concerned with that. Sure they were concerned with their views, but that was not a major concern of theirs. They recognized all the issues that had been brought up on the views, but they were concerned with the compatibility in the neighborhood, with noise and while it was stated that there wouldn't be noise, they all knew there would be noise with that many additional people. They in.. were concerned with the environmental effects of commercial waste. This would be a commercial property, not a residential property. People would be served by staff members who are paid, they would buy into the units but wouldn't really own them because when they move out by whatever means, the units reverted to the owner of the property, they didn't pass them onto their own heirs. This was really more of a commercial project than a residential project. They too were concerned with the quality of life that has been mentioned with the aesthetics in the area. They were concerned with the landscaping along Parkview. Right now the developer of Ridgeview, John Kearney who is a Palm Desert resident, was doing a lot of landscaping on their side of Parkview and from what she saw, this didn't seem to be compatible landscaping so they would have one street with two sides that were incompatible. That didn't speak well for the community and didn't look good for people in the community. That would affect their aesthetics. It was all these issues built into it and while they weren't opposed to senior housing and thought that would be a good use of the property of the area, they were just opposed to some of these parameters that had been presented. She also wanted to add a thank you to the Planning Department and Steve Smith in particular because he had been most 1b... 59 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 ' cooperative in providing them with answers and information and they really appreciated his time and efforts. MS. JUDI ROGERS, 43-840 Fairhaven Drive, stated that she was obviously one of the closest residents to the area and everyone had brought up the tree issue at One Quail Place, which as she understood it and could be wrong, but the trees were diseased and were coming out and would no longer pose a view issue. For this to be allowed in their area, they were already being shut out by Trader Joe's and all of the office complexes, etc. She felt they have been somewhat helped along the way now that their streets were closed off. It had been a tremendous impact to their neighborhood and they no longer experience people parking on their side of the roads and drinking and having parties, etc. She knew that the main issue here was trying to do a new zone, residential Senior Overlay, and she felt that in their area it was just not warranted. All of the others being built, and there were several right now, were being built farther toward Eisenhower Hospital and they were out where there were no residential areas immediately backing into it. The amount of traffic that it would take to make this place work was inconceivable. When they moved in 14 years ago they had a little house on a third of an acre and they expanded the house to 3,000 square feet with a pool and they have a very nice area to live in right in the heart of Palm Desert. They never thought they would make a good real estate investment like that, that they came in too late for all of that, but they were very happy there and they wanted to stay even given the traffic increase on Fred Waring. They knew that was part of their noise problem, but to allow a project of this magnitude would completely disintegrate their property values. They have a wonderful view right now of the Banning Pass area and knew that would be somewhat disfigured and they couldn't stop development and knew that, however, they did really have an issue with the height. The three stories was bad enough, but the towers had to be considered. She didn't care if it wasn't any where near as wide as a three story building, it still was an element that would block their view and add to their noise factor. They weren't opposed to a senior citizen living area. She asked what could be better for their kids to grow up around people that are quiet and lawful. That had nothing to do with it. It had to do with the fact that it is a commercial enterprise and was bound to make quite a bit of money, increase the traffic flow. She felt that Parkview was much 60 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 better able to handle it than Fairhaven, however, neither one was slated for that kind of traffic. She appreciated the commission listening to everyone and they had stayed a long time tonight just to be able to voice their opinion. Some of the ladies with little ones left but there was major neighborhood concern that something like this would be approved with this density in the current proposal. MR. JOHN MARTINEZ stated that he was wearing two hats. One was because he owns the property directly east of the project, an apartment house on three acres of land at one story. He built those ten years ago. The other was as a resident of Palm Desert at 72-777 Fleetwood, directly across the street from the project. He said he didn't hear anything from staff about the 44 foot high towers. He was presented the site plan about three or four months ago and at that time the entrance was off of Fred Waring and Fairhaven. Now he understood that was changed to be off of Parkview. When he built the 26 units ten years ago, staff said to stay with the zone, don't change it. Seven units per acre was all he could get. He even tried a two story and staff `.. wouldn't let him do it. Now things have changed and he understood that, but he thought it should stay with the zone. The applicant said that there were 11 cars an hour on Parkview and he was going to have 120 employees. With all the closing of the existing R-1 property east of him, then Parkview would create more traffic. As to the three stories, he thought that was ridiculous. Here is Parkview with nothing but residents, apartments and housing and single family residents and the entrance to the college. He thought a commercial piece of property like this should not be in a residential area. This was a commercial project and the lady who spoke before him said this also. It is a business and there was no question about that. He thought it would create more noise and there was a lot of traffic on Fred Waring and was why they use Parkview. Again, when they get to the end of Parkview they had Monterey on one side and Highway 1 1 1 . People avoid Fred Waring by going down Parkview. He was against the project with that many units per acre. That was what he was basically against. The applicant said that in April he notified everyone in the immediate area. Unfortunately he was the only one from Fleetwood, 50 units, that was even here today. Most of the people he talked with today didn't even know there was a meeting tonight on this. He didn't know who he notified, but he didn't notify the people that live directly in the area. He 61 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 was against it; not against the project alone, but only against too many units and too high. MS. KATHLEEN HUDGINS, 72-799 Arboleda Drive in Palm Desert, said that she has been a registered nurse for 32 years and this was a business. It was not a residential thing. It was a business. This business was bigger than Eisenhower Medical Center, which was only 240 some beds. This gentleman was proposing 350 some residents. It was going to be a 24 hour a day, three shifts, people coming in, there would have to be lighting at night for the safety of the employees coming and going, which would also impact them. The line of sight and trees was not the issue. It was going to be 24 hours a day bright lights. There was going to be medical waste, needles, syringes, bandages, all of that stuff, and there would be food waste. They were all concerns. She said it was zoned for residential and she believed that the Planning Commission should keep it residential. MR. JERRY ROGERS, 48-840 Fairhaven Drive, said he found it perplexing that the majority of the supporters of this project didn't live in the area. The two that did kind of live in the area were the church, which was not really impacted because they go home and the project remains. There were two other projects in Palm Desert of this caliber and this stature as far as elevation and those were alluded to in the staff report. There was a staff report before commission that recommended denying this project. He concurred with that wholeheartedly. The other thing he wanted to make a point of was that this project area was surrounded by three residential communities. One in Rancho Mirage, One Quail Place and the neighborhood where he lives. There was another area that borders on Fred Waring that was a commercial zoned property where the church was located. Again, sticking this in an infill project right in the middle of a residential area made no sense. MR. ROD MURPHY, 72-764 Arboleda in Palm Desert, said his primary issue was the zone change from R-7 to the Senior Overlay which would allow 91 units versus 300 units, a 280% increase to the zoning as it is now. It was not consistent with the area. The area to the east of it , where he lives and where most of the people here that got up to speak tonight live, he wasn't quite sure what the zoning there was, but he 62 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 thought it was an R-3. The height of the building was simply out of the question. It was like sitting an aircraft carrier down along side his house. He has seen the side of an aircraft carrier and he didn't want to see them any more. Regarding the issue of the trees, he went to the Architectural Review and the issue of the trees came up in there and staff had mentioned that those trees would be trimmed or removed because they were the eucalyptus trees which grow very quickly and very tall. His other concern was that there was going to be a restaurant there. That restaurant would require a grease trap and that grease trap would have odors. There would be commercial waste from the restaurant and commercial waste from the hospital as one of the neighbors already mentioned. In essence, he had nothing against a senior home and he would end up there himself sometime, but not there. MR. PAGE QUILLING, 72-845 Arboleda, stated that he lived right down the street from Mr. Murphy. He too was at the Architectural Review process they had last week. He said the pictures were beautiful but `•• they didn't show the back of the buildings which was what they would be looking at. The developer did take him outside and whipped out the blueprints to show him since he was in the building industry also. He thought it looked an awful lot like the Hyatt Grand Champions, probably real effective, but not real good looking. The other thing was even if he thought they could justify doing the Senior Overlay and doing that many units, he didn't think it would be fair to their neighborhood when it was already done to One Quail Place. They would be sticking two projects of that density right next to each other. He thought they actually backed up to each other. That one had already been rezoned and was would be super dense if they did two lots next to each other. He couldn't see it happening. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there were any rebuttal comments. MR. DAVID MOREHEAD, representing Pearl Industries, 81-088 Highway 111 in Indio, stated that they were asking for an exception. They were asking for one unit per acre of an exception as far as density went more than Quail Place. There had been comments that this type of density would increase traffic and cause more noise to the neighborhood. Studies had shown, and he was pretty sure of the people ti.. 63 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 knowledgeable of this type of facility, that seniors have less impact density wise on a community than a single family residence. Plus there was usually only one or two people per unit versus a family with kids and the noise that comes happily with that. That was the entire purpose and reason for there being a Senior Overlay in the first place. The justification was that it mitigates somewhat the increased noise and traffic because this type of individual didn't use their home in the same manner. A typical situation would be where usage of this property for this project where a couple of different ages where perhaps a gentleman needs more care than his wife and they move into this facility, rather than being on the outskirts of town and having to catch a long shuttle ride, the spouse who may not be needing day to day care but could not drive. That was their purpose in picking this location versus on the outskirts of town where it would be less inconvenient for the people in the surrounding neighborhoods. They were hoping to put in a project that would give 200+ seniors the ability to maintain their dignity of life which he believed they deserved. They weren't asking for anything but were stepping forward with what they deserved. The reason they had the views they have and the city that was laid out the way it is was in , large part because of the seniors of which they were trying to design a facility where they could afford to stay in the action so to speak where things are happening downtown. This particular facility would have an immediate draw for what could be called the World War II generation. There was a lot said that could take the remainder of the night about that generation and what they deserve, but he didn't want to elaborate on that. He thought that if they were all lucky enough, they would be in the group that were asking to make the compromise for tonight. They were asking for a four foot compromise for a group of people that very rarely ask for anything from our society. It was a group of people that unlike most other groups that we make compromises for, and deservedly so, handicapped, low income and various other groups. This was a group that we all eventually will be a member of. Because of the fact that this group is not coming with hat in hand and they were coming with income and equity and would be able to add to the community and would not as previously said increase the noise factor. He didn't think it took much if they thought about the type of individual that would be using this they would not be out in the streets with bicycles or causing a lot of traffic via cars. There were some comments about the service side of this business and what that would do to the 64 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 residents. He said that the infrastructure of the building was designed to have the service entrance to be from Fred Waring along the back side of the property so the neighbors particularly on Fairhaven would not be impacted whatsoever from that. When they were talking with different neighbors about the issue trying to get them to take a look at the fact of the issue, they found very few people that were really interested in seeing the fact that if they designed the building the way they were proposing to design it, the line of sight was enhanced over what the city's normal setback would be designed for. So they weren't really cutting back on a view over what would be improved by regular city zoning. The fact that there was a third floor had brought a lot of misunderstanding to how high the third floor was. They had gone to great expense of lowering their property to make that just four feet and that four feet, they couldn't see from the curb on either side of either Parkview of Fairhaven. They could see the third floor of this property. Lowering it four feet would not make much difference. There was a comment made at the Architectural Review Committee meeting that it was possible that at some distance from the property they would be tow able to see the third floor and after taking a drive down the street it was hard to find that distance but the further they went from a project such as this the third floor or anything became visible, but it had a tendency as common sense would tell, that that particular aspect of what they were viewing was smaller relative to the background. The further they back up, they would actually see more of the view, more of the mountains, than they would at any other point. The critical point of view blockage would be across the street on either sides of this property. Both from measuring and putting up poles and balloons and that sort of thing, they have proved what the engineers and architects put together. The line of sight was not diminished. It kind of boiled the issue down. If the line of sight was not diminished, what was the issue of height really. The issue of density he believed was mitigated by the fact that the Senior Overlay took into account density and allowed a higher density because the people have less of an impact on the social lives of the surrounding people. He would hate to put this group of people on the outskirts of town and the precedence that would set, both from the standpoint of this city's future as well as the future of them and individuals that would come to need the facility at some point. 65 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Finerty thanked all the residents for coming out and participating in the process. This was what made it easier for them to make a decision. She appreciated all the talk about World War II and they couldn't be talking to a more patriotic person than herself, however, tonight it wasn't about appreciating what they did for our generation, it was about keeping the standards set forth in the city of Palm Desert to ensure our quality of life. She concurred with Nurse Hudgins with regard to this being more commercial than residential. It is a 24 hour a day operation. She has been in Manor Care and Hacienda de Monterey and was quite familiar with what takes place at these facilities. She also believed that a three story structure was out of place in this community that is surrounded by all residential uses and that 28 feet high for the building and the 42 foot parapet was not the direction she would like to see the city go in. She would really like to hold our standards to the 22 and 24 feet and that it was really important. Therefore, she was opposed to the project. Commissioner Campbell also thanked everyone for being present and thought it was a great project and was in a good location close to all the shopping areas and so forth for the residents that would be living there. As far as the traffic on Parkview, she didn't think there would be an impact in any way. She didn't feel there was a problem with the view for the residents at The Estates in Rancho Mirage, especially after seeing the picture of their gate coming out of their community, they weren't even fronting on the project. The only thing she did have a problem with was the change of zone. She would hate to go ahead and have approved this project for what it is because then they would have a precedent to have the same approval in other areas of the city. If the project could be scaled down, she would be the first one to go ahead and say yes, go ahead with it. This was why she was asking about the over parking the project has. They have 2.3 acres of land that would be available if they removed some of the extra parking. If there was any way that they could go ahead and remove the third story. That would really be her only problem, just really the change of zone and the height. Otherwise, it was a great project and she wouldn't have a problem with having it in that location. Commissioner Lopez said this was a very difficult one for him personally. He said he had driven around the area and walked the area in the last week 66 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 r.. looking at all the different aspects of this location. He appreciated everyone taking the time and was personally impressed that a 90 year old man could stay up later than he could. He walked in the back yards of the homes that are being built across the street and reviewed the views from the backs of those yards and it had been difficult. He too had a problem with the height and the mass as he walked about and envisioned what would be there. He thought the concept was great and knew that he would be in it someday and was looking for a place for his Mom, but he did have a problem with the overall height and the location as it currently exists. He would have to go along with staff on this situation. Commissioner Beaty shared Commissioner Lopez's struggle. He purchased his home right across the street from The Carlotta. The Carlotta was already there. He thought the concerns about traffic and so forth were unfounded. The only real impact they notice is the service vehicles and it sounded like that had been taken care of by relocating the service drive, but he would concur with his fellow commissioners on the density issue and height issue. `• Chairperson Jonathan said he was a little bit on the fence with this one. He could see the pros and cons and would start off saying that in general, he was very strongly opposed to anything that would have a detrimental impact on our views and our sense of open space in the desert. He thought that was an endearipg quality that brought many people to the desert and adds to our quality of life. The ability to just drive down the street. The thing we take for granted, when we drive down the street and we can see mountains and blue sky and not look at cement. There were a couple of projects that have occurred recently that kind of reminded him that they had to be very careful to guard this particular resource. One of them was the gallery on Highway 74 and he thought it would turn out okay, but it did have a strong impact initially and they were working on it, but it reminded him of that because it did take away some view. The other one was the building on Fred Waring that was two story, was within ordinance, but was very close to where we drive along on Fred Waring. Instead of seeing the open space, they were seeing cement. That kind of left him with mixed feelings because on the other hand he didn't want to have the view eliminated, but on the other hand the line of sight analysis to him was very persuasive because it told him that even though they have a third story, because of the setback they would actually see more of the mountains and sky. So he was a little bit torn as to which is best. One thing a.. for sure, and they all tended to be guilty of this, was they wouldn't just have 67 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMSER 21, 1999 an empty vacant lot there forever. Something would go there and that something would mean they weren't just looking at the trees by One Quail Place and weren't just looking at the mountains. They were going to see some form of cement. He tried to evaluate what they were getting as opposed to what they might get down the line. He thought what they were being presented with was a little bit too much, but not a whole lot off and he thought this project was right for the area for the reasons that were enumerated by the applicant, but he thought there was a little bit too much and there were certain mitigations that could take place if the applicant wanted to that might make this a livable compromise for everyone. The kinds of things that would make it livable for him would be one, a greater setback of the three story portion, which mean the elimination of some of the units. That may then still justify the project or not, he didn't know that and that was up to the applicant, but basically what he was saying was less green on the map. If the green, which represented the three story portion was to be pushed back sufficiently then they would have an even better line of sight because the three story was even further back and it also meant less units because there were less units on the third story. The two very valid concerns that resonated with him which was density and height would be accommodated by J eliminating some of the third story units and pushing the third story back some amount. He didn't know where that green line should end, but thought it was part of the mitigation that could take place. That was number one. Number two, he agreed that the aesthetic features, the cupolas--the round thing above the dining area and the towers that go up to 42 feet with some 36 foot ancillary towers, he would like to find some other architectural feature that kept everything at no higher than 28 feet. He could almost be made to live with the 28 feet, but 42 feet was way too much in his opinion. Since those features were there for visual and aesthetic purposes, he thought they could be eliminated and maybe made up for in some other way that didn't exceed 28 feet. Thirdly, he would suggest additional landscaping on top of the second story so that the third story, what they were looking at when they did see the third story from wherever, was not cement but actually green stuff. They could put some trees and pots on the second story roof or have something hanging vines from the third story, but at least if he was going to look at third story, he would rather be looking at green stuff than cement. He thought if they combined all three of these, they might have a situation that accommodates from his standpoint the desire to have a project like this in that area while at the same time accommodating the needs and very legitimate concerns of the surrounding residents. He didn't know if that was doable or 68 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 tor economically feasible, but from a Planning standpoint he thought he would need to see that before he could give approval. In its present state he too could not support it, but on the other hand he would be in favor of a continuance to give the applicant an opportunity to answer some of the very legitimate concerns that have been brought up, at least to examine if it's feasible or to make a determination that no, it isn't and then go from there. He didn't know if that was in order or if he was in the minority, but that was his opinion. Commissioner Finerty stated that it was her understanding that the applicant wanted the commission to move this project forward to deal with the height issue so that they could go ahead and appeal or get it to the city council for their approval. Chairperson Jonathan said that either way, it could either be denied or even if it was approved, the continuance would give staff time to prepare the appropriate documents. He didn't see approval here tonight and saw either denial or continuance. Mr. Smith thought the question should be directed to �• the applicant to see if he would like a continuance to address the issues which commission raised. Mr. Sweet said their preference was not a continuance, but a denial. Commissioner Finerty said she would move to approve the findings as presented by staff. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1 (Chairperson Jonathan voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1943, denying GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 and DA 99-3. Motion carried 4-1 (Chairperson Jonathan voted no). Chairperson Jonathan wished the applicant luck and thanked everyone for being at the meeting at such a late hour. 69 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 Chairperson Jonathan asked if the commission would like to continue this matter. Commissioner Finerty stated that she would like to know what his issues were. Chairperson Jonathan said they would have to go into closed session to address it. Mr. Hargreaves said he wasn't terribly concerned if Chairperson Jonathan wanted to bring up his concern, but he needed to talk with Mr. Phillips about any ramification to the litigation. D. Continued Case No. CUP 99-8 - CAESAR'S EMPEROR, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit for a 10,000 square foot restaurant and, after 9:00 p.m., a bar, lounge and nightclub with dancing including live music and disc jockeys in the building located at 72-600 Dinah Shore Drive. Chairperson Jonathan formally moved back to Public Hearing Item No. D, Caesar's Emperor. He wanted to express his concern before listening to any other input. He said he was inclined to decline the application for a CUP on the basis of the historical experience that has occurred there and the fact that from his standpoint it was undesirable to have a facility that has armed guards and metal detectors in our city. He understood that if it ended up in a denial of the CUP because it was part of a settlement, it might jeopardize the City's legal position with regards to this litigation. He didn't want to do that if it was inappropriate. Commissioner Finerty said she said the same thing to Mr. Smith on the phone. She didn't understand why they even agreed to this because they certainly didn't want this element in our city and if what it took was having to get an injunction to set up all of these restrictions in order to make this successful, she wondered what they were doing this for and asked why they would even want it in the city. She certainly did not. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they were committed. Mr. Drell said his recollection of the process was they went into court to keep them closed. He thought the sense of the City Attorney was that we might not be successful. When shutting down a business or preventing someone from operating a business, there was a great burden placed on the city and he thought the City Attorney's sense was that that request to the judge was going to be denied. Therefore, in lieu of that the City said if we were going to approve this, which we were not in favor of and our position was to keep them closed, then we want all these conditions imposed. That was what was approved by the court and subsequent to all those conditions being imposed, there hasn't been a problem there. He thought that was kind of how it happened. When shutting down 70 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 a business, there was a due process of what the business could do to correct the problem. The Sheriff made a recommendation as to what was necessary to correct the problem and that was implemented and had been successful. To a certain degree, he wasn't sure how successful the business was going to be. The business called Club Aftershock, which was the source of the problem, was a subcontract. It was an outside group that had an arrangement with Caesar's Emperor to use their facility one day a week and that relationship was terminated as part of the deal. Club Aftershock, which was where all the violence occurred, was no longer associated with the restaurant any more and didn't have those dance contests that they used to run. The direct offending organization was no longer associated with the property. Commissioner Finerty asked if the owners remained the same. Mr. Drell said the owner of the restaurant remained the same, but Club AfterShock was a different organization which arranged with the owner to stage this event once a week. Chairperson Jonathan asked what would happen if staff wasn't successful in persuading commission that a CUP was appropriate and they denied it. Mr. Drell said that it would require a finding based on land use, that this was an inappropriate location for a nightclub. Chairperson Jonathan suggested doing that. Commissioner Campbell asked where the appropriate location would be for a nightclub. She thought for a nightclub that would be the best location. Mr. Drell said if this wasn't one, he couldn't imagine a more appropriate location given its isolation. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the commission as a body determined that it wasn't appropriate, what would happen. Mr. Drell indicated that the decision could be appealed to the City Council and the Council would then review it. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Drell was telling him that if he voted against the CUP, based on whatever rationale he had, that he wasn't putting the City in jeopardy. Mr. Hargreaves said that in terms of the possibility of further litigation, what happened in the litigation was they went in for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction and at that status of the litigation, the idea of the court was to maintain the status quo as long as the status quo was somewhat reasonable. That was why the commission received the agreement to impose the conditions. It was kind of the least onerous thing they could do to the property and still bring it within some kind of reasonable compliance. It wasn't intended to set the status of that particular business forever and that was why part of the process was to come back for a CUP where they could actually address all of the land use issues and make some kind of definitive decision. He talked briefly to Mr. Phillips today about it and his assumption was that �.. there wouldn't be any problem with the CUP and so they didn't really address 71 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 what would happen if the CUP was an issue. He needed to talk with Mr. Phillips before this decision was made, so he was going to request that the matter be continued so that he could talk to him, but his sense was that it would come back to the commission for a land use decision. What happened before was obviously part of the evidence that would be before the commission, the problems that the business had and the way the problems were addressed, but it needed to be addressed as any other CUP application would be. There needed to be findings within a land use context and there very well could be an appeal and there could be a legal challenge as to the sufficiency of the findings. That didn't necessarily have to impact the current litigation. Commissioner Lopez said that the issue he had, the perception he had, was that these owners felt like they had a slam dunk because of the legal aspects of this so they didn't show up. Right or wrong or whatever, for him he really needed to have these people in front of him and look them in the eye and understand what they were saying and what their whole aspect of this club would be because it just bothered him that they could just assume that this was a slam dunk because of the legal part of it and he was having a real problem with that. It bothered him that the applicant wasn't here. As a member of this body, he didn't approve of a business that has that type of an led organization associated with it or metal detectors and he has been to a lot of places around town and didn't think he'd been to one that had them. He thought about all the theaters across the street and all those people over there. Chairperson Jonathan said he wasn't assuming that they had a majority vote to deny, but he asked why they would need to continue it. Why didn't they just open up the public testimony, have some discussion, and see what the commission wanted to do. Commissioner Finerty stated that she would be in favor of denying it. She just thought that they were stuck because of the court order. Mr. Drell said that commission would have to tell staff what the findings were as to a land use position as to why this use was inappropriate. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the very purpose of the conditional use permit was so that if there was some kind of egregious violation or problem that the permit could be revoked. He asked if this was what this was all about. They didn't have some God given right to operate a nightclub there. They were operating under a CUP and there have been extreme problems and to him that justified a revocation of the CUP. Mr. Hargreaves said that typically what happened was they would call the owner in and discuss the problems, come up with conditions to alleviate the problems and find out what kind of response they got. Chairperson Jonathan said they gave the applicant the opportunity. The meeting was publicly noticed and he had been invited to the 72 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 meeting. Mr. Drell said that typically there was a cure provision in any sort of a violation. He thought they had to give the applicant an opportunity to correct the situation and that was what they have done. What the commission was saying was that the conditions themselves were outrageous. If those conditions were actually necessary to regulate the use, then somehow there was something inherently wrong with this use. The applicant was saying that he didn't really need those things. They were imposed by the court. Chairperson Jonathan pointed out that history had proven that he did need those conditions. Commissioner Finerty noted that the applicant lied to them in the beginning. He wasn't truthful about what it was that he was going to use this facility for. Chairperson Jonathan pointed out that the applicant could appeal the decision and go to the City Council. Mr. Drell said staff could prepare a resolution of denial for the next meeting. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. The applicant wasn't present and Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was r.. closed. Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell said she Mr. Hargreaves said he wanted some time. Mr. Hargreaves clarified that he would prefer to have some time and thought it would be helpful to have the applicant here and actually develop the record more fully. He wasn't particularly concerned about going forward, particularly if the Planning Commission felt they had sufficient evidence at this time to make the determination that needed to be made. If the commission felt that they have seen enough of this from the record before them, that was fine. Commissioner Finerty noted that Mr. Hargreaves would have the chance to develop it if the applicant appealed the decision to City Council. Mr. Hargreaves concurred. Commission pointed out that it was the applicant's choice not to be here. Mr. Hargreaves said that before the commission made a decision, the commission should feel comfortable that the record before them was developed as fully as it could be to aid them in making a decision. If that was the way the commission felt tonight, he wasn't going to insist that they take more evidence, but he would not make the decision tonight with the thought in mind that they could go to the city council to develop the evidence. If the commission felt they have seen enough based on what was before them now to make a decision on this particular use, particularly given the fact that low 73 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 the applicant wasn't present, he didn't have any particular problem with moving forward. Commissioner Campbell said that the commission could still go ahead and revoke the CUP at the next meeting, even if the applicant was present. To her, she didn't have any problem. Chairperson Jonathan asked for a motion. He noted that the reasons for denying the CUP as stated earlier was the mitigations required were egregious and unacceptable and make the case that the real problem was incurable or unacceptable. That use has proven itself to be inappropriate for that location. Mr. Drell said it was the particular nature of the nightclub use. Commissioner Campbell felt that was still the best location for a nightclub. Chairperson Jonathan said they were just speaking to this application. He thought that reasoning was sufficient and if the city attorney looked it over and thought otherwise, then he could modify the wording. Commissioner Campbell asked about a previous case that was on El Paseo. Mr. Smith said the use was closed because the operator didn't have a permit. Mr. Smith asked if the commission would like staff to urge the applicant to be here before they act mod on the resolution at the next meeting. Chairperson Jonathan and Commissioner Finerty said no. Chairperson Jonathan felt they were ready to deny it and asked if staff or the City Attorney wanted to word it in a more appropriate way. He thought the mitigations called for under the settlement were unacceptable. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, directing staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at the next meeting, October 5, 1999. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS Chairperson Jonathan noted that the commission was requested to participate in a city tour. There was a choice of November 5, 12, or 19 which were all Fridays. The time would be approximately 1 1 :00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., including lunch. All commissioners were available for all dates, so the date would be up to the council. q 74 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 low X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (September 15, 1999) Commissioner Campbell stated that at the last meeting they decided for the Desert Willow clubhouse to approve the Chihuly chandelier at the entrance and they also approved portraits of Arnold Palmer and John Cook to be done by Richard Marks which would be located by the pro shop. It would go to Council for approval. They approved the placement of the Levi Man sculpture on Washington. They would be working on a master plan so before they purchase any more sculptures, they wanted to know where they would be placed before any purchases. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (September 21 , 1999) Commissioner Finerty said that the Desert Willow Committee also approved the Chihuly chandelier, which was made out of glass, 14 feet long, and will be light desert colors. She said the meeting was basically informational. They selected someone who would put together their signs. Commissioner Lopez noted that on Market Street, there was a tremendous amount of sand that had built up and covered the sidewalks and wondered if there were plans to do something. Commissioner Finerty didn't think there were plans right now, but they were talking about putting a wildflower mixture down or talking to the owner to see if he might put something down, but nothing had been scheduled to be developed. Commissioner Lopez said that the sand went all the way into the south course. The berm was probably 15 feet high. Commissioner Finerty didn't know what was going there, but what they did in another area was plant a wildflower mixture. Mr. Drell said that long term the city contracted for the irrigation of all the undeveloped areas and planting of flowers. For some reason there was a problem with putting in the irrigation. It had done tremendous damage to our golf course, as well as being an irritation to the project to the south of us. The Intrawest pads directly adjacent to that were slated to be vacant probably for five or ten years before they execute their option. 75 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (September 20, 1999) Commissioner Finerty stated that the discussion was all informational. Anyone who had been on Hovley would see that the walls were coming down and there had been a lot of positive feedback so they really appreciated the council backing them up with that. Commissioner Lopez asked when it would be done. Commissioner Finerty said it should be done by November 1 and then they would start the landscaping. E. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting). Chairperson Jonathan noted that this committee was getting closer. They had a meeting to agree to have a pre-meeting with Rancho Mirage. Mr. Drell thought that Rancho Mirage was selecting someone at their council meeting to represent them. F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (September 7, 1999) Commissioner Campbell said that they received a request to amend the O.P. ordinance to allow catering kitchens. One of the members suggested that the caterer look for a location in the Service Industrial zone off Cook Street where mixed uses were allowed. The consensus of the committee was that catering uses were not approved uses in the O.P. zone. They also talked about amendment to sign exception sections and had discussions of signs for office buildings versus retail buildings. They suggested that staff draft language for the committee to consider what the need to do, especially for the One El Paseo building at Highway 111 and El Paseo. They reviewed the planning commercial zone standards and actually it was suggested that the CUP should not run with the land and that CUPs be granted on a probationary status until the new operator could prove themselves reliable. Another issue coming before commission under miscellaneous would be a discussion of allowable grade changes to an approved project. They had approved a project on Hovley Lane West for a certain height and then they found out that the developer changed the height of those pads, so one member suggested that a change up to six inches be allowed, but anything more than that would require consideration by 76 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 the Planning Commission. Mr. Smith was going to prepare a resolution for adoption by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Campbell said this was right next door to where she lives and it was going to be three and a half feet higher than what was approved. XI. COMMENTS None. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 1 1 :37 p.m. ,r < PHILIP DRELL, ecretary ATTEST: SABBY JONATHA C airperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 77