Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1119 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - NOVEMBER 19, 2002 taw 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Finerty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Jonathan led in the pledge of allegiance. Ill. ROLL CALL Members Present: Cindy Finerty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell, Vice Chairperson Sabby Jonathan Jim Lopez Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Tech Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the September 17 and October 1 , 2002 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the September 17 and October 1 , 2002 meeting `w minutes as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent actions from the October 10, October 24 and November 14, 2002 City Council meetings. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 02-18 - MARILYN REED / RIVER RUN ON, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to combine two parcels into one at 44-555 San Rafael Avenue. B. Case No. PMW 02-05 - DR. ROBERT McLACHLAN, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to reconfigure Lots 1-5 and 10-14 located on Cholla Drive and Park View Drive. C. Case No. PMW 02-19 - MR. JOHN LIESER for JOHN TIMPTE, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver for a lot line adjustment to add property to 38-401 Zanzibar Drive. D. Case No. PMW 02-22 - PONDEROSA HOMES 11, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow lot line adjustments that create the same number of parcels and also provide for the future alignment of Dinah Shore Drive. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. CUP 02-21 - SPRINT PCS, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 55-foot high monopalm wireless telecommunications tower with adjacent equipment enclosure within a 11 '3" x 24'4" area to include a 7' to 8' high split-face block perimeter wall and planting of four new palm trees at heights of 45 feet, 40 feet, and 35 feet near the northeast corner of Little Bend Trail and Chia Drive in Ironwood Park. Mr. Drell noted that in the middle of the agenda there were some rather lengthy public hearings and a couple of items after those. He didn't know if the commission considered any of them quicker and simpler and whether they wanted to move them up on the agenda and get them out of the way before the public hearings on the second units. Referring to the Request for Comment cards received, Chairperson Finerty noted that there were people present to speak regarding the Sprint item, as well as the amendment and church. Those were the first three. She knew Sprint was to be continued, but they would still allow people to speak and then proceed with the church. Mr. Drell said it was up to the commission. Chairperson Finerty asked if the commissioners agreed. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would rather go with the first public hearing because it was going to be continued and they should hear from the people. Commissioner Jonathan advised the commission that his home is located very close to the site and he would be abstaining from discussion and voting. �.r 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 .n Commissioner Tschopp stated that he would also be abstaining for the same reason. Chairperson Finerty asked for a staff report. Mr. Urbina recommended continuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 02- 21, a proposed 55-foot high monopalm at the southern end of Ironwood Park and a related equipment storage facility. Staff asked the applicant to provide additional information to justify why this site was the preferred site for the proposed facility. Staff asked for a list of alternative sites that Sprint PCS may have considered in south Palm Desert and for a written explanation as to why the other alternative sites were deemed unfeasible. Staff's recommendation was to continue the public hearing to December 17, 2002 to allow time for the applicant to submit the additional information requested by staff, as well as color propagation maps for the south Palm Desert area showing the coverage before the proposed tower and after. Mr. Drell asked Mr. Urbina to show the people in the audience an exhibit showing exactly where the proposed monopalm would be located. Mr. Urbina did so. He explained that the proposed monopalm would be located immediately east of an existing Coachella Valley Water District pump station presently enclosed by an eight foot high slump block wall. The applicant proposed planting four additional palm trees and there would be outdoor equipment storage area enclosed within an eight-foot high slump block wall. Little Bend Trail had a dead end at the southerly end Ironwood Park. However, people's back yards on Buckboard Trail would directly view the proposed monopalm. Staff recommended continuance to December 17, 2002 to allow for the applicant to submit additional information justifying why this project site was chosen for the proposed facility. Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification that there was no other written staff report other than what was given to the commission. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. we 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 tow MR. GARY CASSEL, 30802 S. Pacific Coast Highway in Laguna Beach, California, 92651 , addressed the commission. He explained that he works for Sprint PCS. He stated that he was happy with the continuance. He needed to be able to adjust a couple of things submitted previously. They were looking for the opportunity to listen to some of the people in the area and see what their objections are and qualify some of the issues that might arise at the next hearing. Chairperson Finerty opened up the floor for testimony in FAVOR and OPPOSITION. Referring to the Request to Speak cards submitted, Chairperson Finerty invited Terrie Correll to address the commission. MS. TERRIE CORRELL, 73-408 Buckboard Trail, stated that she had a couple of questions/concerns regarding the Sprint lease. She asked if there was development of this tower, how it would effect the park if it is used for commercial purposes. She noticed in the notice she received in the mail that it was still classified as R-1 for ... a residential area. It had never been reclassified as or rezoned as a park and it has now been a park for ten years. That raised a question in her mind if this development would open up the door for any future development or how it would effect the park status. She asked if it would effect Quimby. She said she also had questions, or in her mind suitable areas where the tower could be placed and she would like to hear those sites whenever they are available to them. Her main concern was how the lease by Sprint effected the status of the park. MR. RICK LOPEZ, 73-352 Buckboard Trail in Palm Desert, stated that his property is adjacent to the park and he has followed the park from its inception. He bought his property because it was called a park even though it hadn't been changed. He concurred with Ms. Correll's comments about the designation of a park. He said that although it had been carried as an R-1 zoning, he was here in 1991 when the City through Planning and City Council decided to develop it as a park and he remembered at that time the City Council directing staff to proceed with the rezoning of the property from R-1 to Park. Ten years later it is still R-1 . He asked if there was something going on or if there was a reason it was tow 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 still zoned that way and hadn't been changed. The crux of the issue today had to do with this monopalm. He said that in his letter to Phil Drell in response to that, he thought the whole idea was it's ugly, it's ludicrous, and it's not a good use for park property. He didn't believe that the lease of city park land which was for open space was a good planning use for park land and that it should not be leased for commercial purposes. He didn't believe that Sprint fell under the utility provision. It's a private company, a private use and not appropriate for park land. He thought it was ugly. The plans show not only the proposed yard for the equipment that showed several appendages to the outside of this yard, which he said would make it even more unsightly than the monopalm. The residents of Silver Spur voted over the past year to underground all the utilities, remove all the power poles, and now they were being asked to accept this even though everything would be undergrounded. According to a letter he received from the Silver Spur Ranch Homeowner's Association, of which he was a member, that undergrounding was to begin this coming year. They have only had one week. He received his notice on Tuesday, November 12, notifying him and other committee members that this meeting would be held tonight. He felt that one week was really not enough time. He said he thought 30 days was the norm for notification to the public. He thought this notice was so short that it almost made them think the City was trying to sneak something in. He said this was just his view point, in reviewing the plans there were a lot of written errors on it. They mentioned it would be at Arrow Terrace, not Arrow Trail. He has lived there since 1985 so he had a vested interest in making sure this property, the park, and their surrounding areas are to the benefit of the residents. Again, to reiterate, he said this wasn't a good use and should be denied and put someplace else. Let somebody else take issue with it. He thanked the commission. MR. HARRY LESSEOS stated that he and his wife were buying and reside at 73-166 Loma Vista Lane in Palm Desert, which was four houses from the proposed site/project. He wanted to read a letter stating "that on Thursday, November 14, my wife and I received i 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 a letter from your office referred to Conditional Permit Use Number 02-21 regarding a request by Sprint PCS to construct a 55-foot wireless telephone tower. We live four houses west from the proposed construction site. We would like to go on record strongly opposing any additional residential blight in our neighborhood. When we purchased our house new in 1994, the Edison transformer station was located at the dead end of Chia and Loma Vista. There was also the Bighorn pumping station located at Chia just south of Haystack. Subsequently a second water pumping station for Bighorn was erected at Chia and Loma Vista. We do not want any additional commercial construction of this nature in our upscale residential neighborhood where all of us are full time residents. Visiting our neighborhood, one will easily note that all the homes with no exception are maintained in pristine condition. Ironwood Park is a beautiful site and should be kept from any additional urban blight. My wife and I have seen the wireless tower located at the soccer field located at Hovley and Portola. We can in no way envision anything of this nature in our residential %M neighborhood. We will attend a meeting and intend to address the Planning Commission in strong opposition to the project." In conclusion, he said he thought this belonged as a studio prop from the next Godzilla film. He said it was horrible even thinking about it. He thanked the commission. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak against the project. MR. NEIL D. NEWMAN, 73-280 Buckboard Trail, stated that he has been there 24 years. He said if it sounded like he had anger in his voice, he said he didn't mean anything by it, but not anyone in this room was here when they put through this deal on this park area. The City of Palm Desert made a deal with Portola Avenue, with Ironwood Country Club, and they traded Ironwood Country Club/Portola Avenue for that park. In that agreement they agreed that it would be for a park only for women and children, dogs, cats, and that sort of thing. Nothing commercial. Somehow they snuck through with that water park. He was working out of town at the time and wished he had been here. As far as Sprint goes, he said they are against it. As far as Sprint itself goes, if this was 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 Sprint it was omni-directional antenna, not a microwave. Omni- directional didn't have to be there unless they could prove to him why it had to be in that location and not at the Living Desert or farther up the hill. He assumed it was being put in to supply Ironwood. He suggested that Ironwood put it on their golf course. It didn't have to be right where they are. Whoever came up with the idea really didn't live there. That's all he had to say. MRS. GAIL HEVRON, 73-320 Buckboard Trail, addressed the commission. As a resident of Palm Desert for the last 20 years and as owner along with her husband of 73-320 Buckboard Trail for the last three years, she was opposed to the proposed project of a Sprint monopalm tower and block wall enclosure at the intersection of Little Bend Trail and Chia. Their home is on the lot immediately east of the lot which backs up to this project. The wall and tower would block a good portion of their view which was the main reason they bought this home. They back up to the natural buffer area of Ironwood Park facing north and they greatly enjoy the many benefits of the buffer, including the view. She said she has known the Ironwood Park location and Silver Spur Rancho for the last 20 years. She and her husband lived in the Ranch in the late 1980's before the park existed when it was all natural desert. Her husband also lived in the Ranch in the early 1970's as a child, so they were both very happy to see a park developed that had a natural buffer zone around it. She applauded the City for this design and implementation. She said this was the reason they spent two years driving up and down Buckboard Trail on a weekly basis waiting for one of the five homes that back up to the park to become available. When theirs did, they snapped it up. She said there was already one project with a high block wall fence, the wells, which were constructed immediately west of this proposed wall. She didn't want to see another wall next to it. She wanted the natural buffer zone to be left in a current state without more construction. As the City knew, the Silver Spur Ranch Homeowners Association and homeowners have gone to great lengths to procure, and thanks to the generosity of the City, have been awarded a special grant to have underground utilities installed in lieu of the above ground utility poles now in place. If they had done so much work toward this goal of clearing their 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 tow views, she asked why they would want a block wall and monopalm tower obscuring a good portion of their views. These views added greatly to their quality of life here in Palm Desert. She stated that she was grateful for the wonderful city the city fathers have provided for the residents and asked the commission to consider her wish as a homeowner who would be left to view this project on a daily basis. She respectfully requested that the commission not approve the proposed Sprint tower and block wall project. She thanked the commission. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in OPPOSITION or if there was anyone who wished to speak in FAVOR of the project. There was no one. Chairperson Finerty left the public hearing open and asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, by minute motion continuing Case No. CUP 02-21 to December 17, 2002. Motion carried 3-0-2 (Commissioners Jonathan and Tschopp abstained). B. Case No. CUP 02-25 - UNITED CHURCH OF THE DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 3,500 square foot church located at 77-577 Mountain View. Mr. Bagato explained that it came to staff's attention that the legal notice addresses prepared to notify the neighbors was incorrect and not everyone within 300 feet of the property had been notified. Staff was requesting a continuance to December 3, 2002 to properly notify all the neighbors within 300 feet. Mr. Drell said that since a lot of people were at the meeting, they might as well give the report. Mr. Bagato informed commission that for the last 11 years United Church of the Desert has been operating at the Montessori School of the Valley. The 40-member congregation was proposing a 3,500 square foot church 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 to be located on an existing vacant lot just east of the school and adjacent to a single family home. He said the property is zoned RE 40,000 Residential Estates and per Section 25.14.030 churches are permitted in the Residential Estates District with a conditional use permit. All of the adjacent neighbors with the exception of the school are RE 40,000 with existing single family homes. The proposed floor plan for the facility would provide a 1 ,870 square foot sanctuary seating 61 people. The proposed church would provide 31 parking spaces. Code requirements for all the setbacks were met as outlined in the staff report. The church would operate Sunday services at 10:00 a.m. and once a week would be used by the Pastor for office work. Once a month they planned to have an afternoon meeting for an organized group. In the future they planned to expand some of their office work during the day to two or three days a week and having meetings on Wednesday night at 7:00 p.m. They didn't plan to expand any Sunday service time. Mr. Bagato explained that the architecture of the building would be contemporary with exterior split-face block walls and the windows would be designed with aluminum faces and glass. He indicated the proposed location was on the west side of the property and the majority of the parking was placed on the east. The adjacent property on the east was a single family home and historically since parking lots cause most problems with car alarms and door slamming and other noises affiliated with parking lots, staff was recommending that the applicant move the building to the other side of the property to place the majority of the parking on the west side adjacent to the school's parking lot. The Architectural Review Commission concurred with that recommendation. Mr. Bagato stated that the church is designed in a residential scale and complied with all the site design standards as well as parking standards for churches. The traffic was studied. The church was already existing at the Montessori School. They just wanted their own building and would provide their own parking. Staff didn't feel there would be an impact on traffic since the traffic from the church was already existing. This would place cars into their own parking lot instead of on the street where they currently park when they attend the Montessori School services on Sunday. Since the lot was next door, it wouldn't increase traffic all the way down Mountain View. There was a parking standard survey done by the City because there have been some questions about our parking standards for churches in general. Our current standard is one parking 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 r.. space for three fixed seats. Most other cities follow that same standard if not a lessor standard. This project was actually parked at two per one so they were over parked and had more parking than what was required. If the commission wanted to address the current parking standard, staff had the idea of maintaining the current one to three parking spaces and also require additional parking for any classroom spaces or meeting rooms not affiliated with the auditorium. The second conclusion was to use a one per two parking scenario since our average household population is 2.13 persons, though it indicates that on average only two people would travel to a church service. Under the Religious Land Institute Persons Act it required that any denial of the use needed to be justified by the compelling government argument such that it was not in character with the neighborhood uses and neighborhood scale. Based on staff's analysis, a small 40-member congregation would comply with the residential area and the traffic was already existing. For CEQA purposes, the proposed project was a Class 3 exemption, which was a ten day notification and as he indicated, not everyone had been notified around the property. Staff was ultimately recommending approval, but tonight recommended a continuance to December 3, 2002 to notify property owners within 300 feet around the property per CEQA guidelines and state regulations. Commissioner Jonathan noted that back in July the commission asked staff to re-evaluate the parking standards for churches and Mr. Bagato had done that. He wasn't sure why the results of that reevaluation were being linked with this particular application. Mr. Bagato said that since it wasn't addressed in July, staff felt that it should be brought up now to show that this project, which parked at two to one, it showed it over meets our standard. It could have been up separately, but staff felt this was the time to bring in the standard and also address that issue. Commissioner Jonathan said that he didn't want to see it getting buried or even directly related to an application. He saw them as independent issues and asked if they would have any problems with segregating those two. Mr. Drell said it would have to be segregated in that as a result of this report the commission could direct staff to initiate an amendment if they wanted with some direction on what direction that amendment w.. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 :g s 5 should take. Commissioner Jonathan said that back in July the commission discussed the matter briefly and directed staff to study it and come back with recommendations and he wanted for them to discuss the recommendations independently of this specific application. Mr. Drell said they could have it on the agenda for the next meeting to hear more detail on it. Commissioner Jonathan concurred and thanked staff. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. NANCY ADAMS, 76-755 Sandpiper Drive in Indian Wells, addressed the commission. She stated that they have been in that neighborhood for 40 years before it was part of the city. She said their entire congregation was present. They are small and they don't have children so the noise level was down. MR. DICK WEBBER, 76-711 New York Avenue in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said they weren't against children, it just worked out that way. He said this church, like Ms. Adams said, was built back in 1962. It was the first church that was built low in the Palm Desert Country Club area and they had a church on the corner. Ten or 11 years ago the church fell into a problem and decided to sell the property to the lady who operates the Montessori School. About a year ago they were in negotiations, but they decided that they really wanted their own church and didn't want to share with the school. He said they have had great relationships with her, but they had an opportunity to buy the property adjacent to the east of the school. So they did. This is what they came up with. Their constitution and bylaws said that the purpose of the church was to provide opportunity for public worship of God, Christian education, world outreach, implementation of the teachings of Christ Jesus and individuals, family and community life. That was the basic purpose of their church and they have tried to do that over the years. He said they have been there on the corner for a while, so they weren't really a new church. They weren't going to be putting a piece of property that was going to be any detriment to the neighborhood. In fact, he thought they would be improving it a lot and when they do have a church, they wanted everybody to come to the church. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 err. He said they welcomed all the people and were open to everybody. He said they liked to call themselves an interdenominational church. All types of people, whatever denomination, were open to come to their church. He was sure a lot of people would say they didn't want a church in the neighborhood because there would be traffic, there would be people and noise. He thought they had addressed the fact of the traffic. They would have no traffic on the street that some churches have had. With their size of congregation, their people would be in the parking lot and not on the street. He was hoping this would give them a little idea of what they are like because the commission didn't know them, but they have been a friendly neighborhood church for a long time there. He introduced their minister, Reverend Mark Molay. He said he has been with them almost a year and they were most happy and felt their whole congregation has a new feeling now, a real heart. They were looking ahead and he hoped they would get a chance. He thanked the commission. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the project. There was no one. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the project. MR. CARY BULLION, 77-645 Mountain View Avenue, addressed the commission. He said that this afternoon he turned in a petition to the Planning Department with many names against this. He said he wanted to read the statement attached to the petition. (See statement and petition attached hereto as Exhibit A.) MS. JANE HELLINDRUN, 74-074 San Marino Way, addressed the commission. She stated that she was actually here for another issue, but she owns a home on Mountain View at 77-680 Mountain View. She said this had been the first she heard of this and had not been notified in any way. She was opposed to this. She said they looked like wonderful people, but she was opposed to the idea of the church on the corner of Mountain View Way. She said she would like to have some information regarding this and she concurred with what her neighbor said. She said they were looking right now at loans and building their dream house on Mountain View and when they purchased that a year ago, that r.. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 5 i would have been taken into consideration if there was a church right on that corner. She didn't think it was an appropriate area for that and wanted a little more information on it. MRS. BRENDA SCARCELLA, 77-576 Delaware Place in Palm Desert, concurred with the last two speakers. Her concern was they fought the traffic on their street, Delaware and Mountain View, about two years ago and they had some public meetings in the Palm Desert Country Club area. They currently have temporary barriers between their street and Washington Street and they fought this and about a month ago they received a letter from the City that they were going to permanently block those off. Her concern was that these people seem like wonderful people and she knew that they currently use the Montessori building and all the traffic is already there, but as they heard, he was already inviting all of them to come on over. She would see someday the church expanding and if that site became too small for them, it would become something else. Possible uses permitted in the zoning code included a day care. She could see the Montessori School expanding. Letitia links up to Delaware and she could see cars coming down Mountain View to the church, going down Letitia and coming back up to Warner Trail. They already have too much traffic on Warner Trail. They have school buses coming down there. They have a school on down on the end of Warner Trail and she didn't think this was a good use for that piece of property. They moved there because they wanted the residential uses that they saw around them. If this came in, it would keep moving down. She wanted to see the church move somewhere else. She said that speaking in conjunction with the first gentleman that spoke, the church that is located on Robin Road was denied an expansion and referring to the resolution the Planning Commission adopted, she said one of the findings was that while churches are permitted as a conditional use in the RE zone district, this was contingent on the church being compatible and in harmony with the residential community. The proposed expansion and creation of an outdoor recreation area would create an intensity of use of the site and encourage future expanding beyond the current use. f 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 v.. She said she could see the same thing happening here. She didn't like to say it to these people, but she opposed this use. MS. COLEEN RITCHEY, 77-550 Mountain View, addressed the commission. She said it would be almost directly across the street from her. She noted that the property is zoned R-1 . She has lived there for 20 years and originally it was in the CC&R's called Lazy Acres and there were horses and it was a beautiful area. The houses that have come in through the years are fabulous. The houses are mini estates and probably $500,000 and up. She said they have the Ford School down the way and school buses. They have a Baptist church very close to this other church. They have the Montessori School right there and then this coming in would mean another church. She said they were all aware of the road blocks, the situations, the improvement to the road block, the traffic, etc., and she thought they had to keep it down in that particular area. She saw so much traffic on Warner Trail right now that if they were to put in a light, it could back up to Fred Waring and that was a 55 mile per hour road and wouldn't be very safe. And there was noise. She was pleased these people wanted to build their church and thought it was wonderful, but she didn't think this R-1 property in this particular area was suited for this. MR. LARRY REED addressed the commission. He said that he and Colleen were recently married, within the last six months, and he is a local educator at a local high school in the area. He said he has seen the impact a public institution such as a church could make. The traffic, the people coming in and out and everyone doing their thing. He said he felt for these people and the fact that they wanted to have a place to worship, but they live right across the street. Every Sunday morning they said, here we go again, even though it was at the Montessori School. There had been a reason the road had been blocked on the other end of the street. There's a reason why the speed limits were lowered. He hoped the commission would take that into consideration when they made their decision. MRS. DEBBIE McNICHOL, 77-665 Mountain View, stated that they were a couple of doors down from the proposed site. They 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 moved there four years ago knowing that this was a residential neighborhood with a small school on the corner. She thought it was great that they have their church and can worship there. She knew that it would expand with a new building. There was going to be a bigger congregation and hopefully a bigger congregation and on Sundays when they would primarily use it was when they would be home with their kids and riding their bikes and the kids were on the streets and that was also why it was closed off at the other end and they could let their kids do that. She was afraid that if the congregation got bigger with the parking and all of that, they would have to be afraid of their kids being on the street. She thought it should stay a residential neighborhood. There are residences all around it in every direction. She hoped they could keep it residential. No one else wished to speak and Chairperson Finerty left the public hearing open and asked the commission for a motion to continue this matter. Action: 'W It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, by minute motion continuing Case No. CUP 02-25 to December 3, 2002. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Drell asked if the commission was interested in moving up the other items. He indicated the amendment was next and the following four cases were related. If some of the other cases could be handled more quickly, he thought they might want to send those people home. Chairperson Finerty asked for the pleasure of the commission. Commissioner Campbell suggested taking the medical office first. Mr. Drell noted that there was the medical office, Canyon Bank and then the Miscellaneous Item. He said the other ordinance item could be left until the end since it just involved staff mostly. Action: It was moved Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, to rearrange the agenda order and consider Public Hearing Items H, I and J next. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Jonathan was out of the room). 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 H. Case No. CUP 02-30 - CHURCHILL MANAGEMENT GROUP, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 2,650 square foot medical office in an office professional zone at 74-020 Alessandro, Suite A. Mr. Joy explained that a conditional use permit was required for this application due to the differing parking standards for medical office versus a general office. It was a difference of six parking spaces per 1 ,000 square feet versus four parking spaces per 1 ,000 square feet. A letter from the applicant indicated that the current tenants of the site were moving, partly because they have outgrown their site and were already generating the same parking requirements a medical office would. Staff surveyed the lot and found between 37 and 69 empty spaces on the site and didn't see any impact at all from a medical office on this site. tow The applicant indicated that it was a surgeon moving in versus another type of medical office such as a clinic that might generate more parking in the future. So there was an added condition that if another use comes in here other than a surgeon, the Director will review that case for compatibility. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit. Mr. Joy noted a correction. He stated that it was actually Suites B and C of that building, Building A and Suites B and C. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Joy knew what the hours of operation would be for the medical office on a daily basis. Mr. Joy said he didn't know. He was presupposing normal business office hours. Commissioner Campbell asked if that was 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mr. Joy said the applicant was present and could answer that question. Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification on the conditions of approval. Any future medical office for this suite shall be reviewed by the Director of Community Development, versus what he just stated, which was anything other than a surgeon. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Drell said that it would be surgical or equivalent sort of a specialty that tow 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 �I generated the same sort of traffic. Or general office. If it was unclear, it could trigger the requirement to amend this approval and staff would bring it back before the commission. Commissioner Jonathan said it would be safer to have just generally any future medical office regardless of what it was. Mr. Drell concurred. If it was of a similar intensity as a surgeon, that would be fine. If not, staff would bring it back. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the City had any idea of the next tenant in the old Ruth's Chris space. Mr. Drell said yes, there was another tenant and they were waiting to get their liquor license. It was another steak house. Commissioner Campbell noted that there is a Chinese restaurant there and it is quite busy during lunch and they didn't know if the restaurant taking over the Ruth's Chris space would be open for lunch or dinner only. They didn't know that yet. Mr. Drell said that was correct and that was why they were concerned that the proposed use have no more impact than the existing office use. That was why they wanted to bring it back whether the Chop House wanted to open for lunch and that would determine if a more intensified use got approved or not. If it was a different sort of medical, it might generate more traffic. Commissioner Campbell asked if this application was approved and then another restaurant opened for lunch, what they could do with this application. Mr. Drell stated that staff's determination was that this use will be no more intensive than the existing office use. So the existing space was entitled to use that parking lot and based on the fact that it is a medical specialty that typically wouldn't generate the same level of traffic as a general practice doctor, dentist or clinics, staff's determination was that it was more compatible with the general office standard than a medical office standard and they would have to evaluate any future medical use to reaffirm that and that was why they were providing for the reexamination of any future tenants. Mr. Joy also noted that during the parking survey he performed, the most vacant spaces that occurred on the site was during the lunch time hours. At 12:45 p.m. was when 69 spaces were empty out of the 130 parking spaces available. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 v Commissioner Campbell noted that when she goes over there it is busy. Mr. Drell noted that at lunch, people in the offices go to lunch and either go to those restaurants, or leave and go somewhere else. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. DAVID FLETCHER, Senior Vice President of Churchill Management Group at 73-061 El Paseo, Suite 200 in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He explained that his company is a property management company. They own and manage buildings, mostly on El Paseo. He indicated that they took over the management of this property a number of years ago for Ron Gregory. He explained that they currently have two tenants currently in Suites B and C--a Farmers Insurance Agency and an architect, Prest/Vuksic Architects, which have both outgrown their spaces. He said they secured a lease with another tenant who was the subject of this hearing, a urologist's office, a specific medical tamp not a general practice. They thought it was an appropriate use for this property and would be a good use for the tenant and the landlord. The tenant was looking for a building that was in central Palm Desert that didn't experience parking problems such as what he would experience if he opened an office at the buildings like at Eisenhower Hospital. They felt this was a building which would give him that opportunity and it would be a good long-term tenant for Mr. Gregory. In their studies in looking into this situation, as he indicated in his letter to the commission, he said this wasn't a general practitioner office and would actually lower the parking requirements on the parking lots that service this building in conjunction with the building which the former Ruth's Chris location shared with it. He said they didn't have permission to use the spaces, but in the past they have worked with them to make sure that all of the buildings that share this property have proper parking. They weren't looking to impact that and thought this use would actually lower the parking demand on the parking lot. The existing uses have a number of existing personnel in the building. In contrast to the approximately 14 full-time employees or owners of these `.. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 businesses that currently occupy the space, they would be looking at a space that has five to seven employees with some patients. Both the insurance agency and the architect's office see clients on an ongoing basis, so that was no different than the medical use they were proposing. They were actually reducing the full-time load on the lot, probably increasing the transient load, but from their perspective it would be a wash. As Mr. Joy's study showed, there were substantial vacant spaces throughout the time during the day in this lot. They weren't experiencing a problem. As a friend of the applicant and as a friend of the landlord, he wouldn't be recommending this use to this location if he thought it would create a parking issue in the lot. He asked for any questions. He again noted that it would be a surgeon's office. The surgeon would be performing the surgeries at Eisenhower or JFK where he is currently on staff approximately half the time, so he would only see patients part of the time and could only see a certain number of patients in a day. Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification that Lots A, B and C were under a shared parking arrangement. Mr. Fletcher explained that the lot is a shared parking arrangement for the three buildings which use them. Building A on the corner of Alessandro and Portola, Building B a small office building with two tenants solely on Alessandro, and Building C which housed the former Ruth's Chris Steakhouse on the corner of Highway 111 and Portola. Those three buildings were developed as a whole with the shared parking and they shared the parking, but no one building had any more right to any one space than any other building and the parking was designed for the property as a whole. Two of the tenants currently in Building C, the Ruth's Chris Steakhouse which was currently vacant but would be occupied probably by a restaurant and the Chinese Restaurant have an increased demand during lunch if the Ruth's Chris location was open during lunch and during dinner. The rest of the time those parking spaces were open and free for the other uses that share these buildings. His experience on El Paseo, and they have a number of restaurants they own and manage such as Daily Grill, California Pizza Kitchen, and No Da Te, and those uses didn't i 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 low generate a lot of parking demand other than during lunch or dinner hours. During that time period the office uses were usually down because people are out for lunch and those offices are closed for lunch and during the time frame they are open for business and doing business, those parking spaces were available for those people. Although it was a shared situation, Ruth's Chris' location didn't have more rights to the parking per unit than any other use in these buildings. Given that it is a shared parking situation, Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was a plan for mitigating parking problems should they arise, such as staff parking offsite and mitigations of that nature. Mr. Fletcher said they would leave that to Mr. Oliphant, the owner of Building A on the corner of Highway 1 1 1 and El Paseo. He has rights to a certain number of parking spaces, both on his side of the street, which services Building A, as well as a particular number of spaces on the other side street for Buildings B and C. `. If he required additional spaces, they would work with him during off hours for that and during business hours if he needed more spaces and his restaurants were going to generate traffic at 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon, or 9:00 a.m. in the morning, it would be his responsibility to secure those spaces that were necessary for the uses he was doing to the Planning Commission's satisfaction, the City Council's satisfaction, and his satisfaction. He didn't manage Mr. Oliphant's building, Building A, he manages Buildings B and C which are owned by Mr. Gregory. As his representative, he would not allow Mr. Oliphant's uses to impact their parking to the detriment of his tenants without it being dealt with appropriately. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the shared parking agreement only took effect after a time, such as 5:00 p.m. at night. Mr. Drell said no. Mr. Fletcher also said no. He said the shared parking agreement was a certain number of spaces, period. He has rights to all the spaces to the north of Alessandro, 100% of those spaces, plus a particular number of spaces. %1W 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 l a� Mr. Drell said that they approved the project as one project with one parking lot and they parked it to meet all the needs of the various uses. The primary use of the north buildings were offices. If they didn't believe this use was appropriate, they shouldn't approve it. But all the evidence showed that during the times this use was at its peak there was plenty of parking and the specific intensity of this use was consistent with the standard for an office and he thought it was probably less than what the office was being used for now. If they had any doubts about it, then the application should be denied, but all the evidence pointed the other way, that it is consistent with the existing standard and the existing availability of spaces. If the Chop House was going to want to open for lunch, they would have to come back for an amendment. Right now their conditional use permit didn't permit them to be open for lunch. Probably if they were successful, there wasn't enough parking for them to be open for lunch unless that parking lot got expanded, which there was some discussion of to solve the long standing problem with their parking lot, but this was a narrowly defined issue of whether or not this was an appropriate office use for this space. i Commissioner Tschopp said his concern has been the amount of parking and there was a parking problem there. Mr. Drell said it wasn't a problem during the day. Commissioner Tschopp said that during the night when Ruth's Chris was open and if a new restaurant wanted to be open during the day, it would compound the problem throughout the day. Mr. Drell's statement was that if they wanted to be open for lunch, they would have to come back to get approval for that and they could address the parking again at that time. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Their conditional use permit didn't allow them to be open for lunch. Commissioner Campbell asked what the hours of operation would be for the surgeon's office. Mr. Fletcher said the surgeon's office would be open from 8:00 or 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Right now the person they were dealing with is a solo practitioner and he spends half his time at Eisenhower. So this particular office at this point in time should be used about half that time. The office was large enough for him to add a second surgeon should he find one he was willing to do 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 business with and in that case the hours would be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Campbell said that even if the surgeon was not actually in the office, his staff of five to seven people would be in the office daily even though he wasn't there. Mr. Fletcher confirmed they would be there. Commissioner Campbell asked for confirmation that the days of operation would be Monday through Friday. Mr. Fletcher thought it would be appropriate for the commission to plan on this office being open from 8:00 or 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. full time. However, right now they expected it to be used half that time, but the room was large enough to add a second surgeon should he feel that was appropriate. Even so, there was only enough room for two surgeons and they could only see so many people in a day. Those numbers were outlined in the letter submitted and the parking demand was based on that. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell stated that from reviewing the current application and knowing that something would be going into the Ruth's Chris location and would only be open in the evening for dinner and that was where most of the parking problem occurred, she would move for approval with Condition No. 4 that any future medical office in this suite shall be reviewed by the Director of Community Development for compatibility. Commissioner Lopez concurred and seconded the motion. Commissioner Tschopp said that he agreed. %W 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 Commissioner Jonathan said that he could be wrong, but he wasn't persuaded that a successful surgeon's office with one or two surgeons would produce less traffic than an office. He said he respected the survey, but he frequented those businesses pretty regularly and he always had a hard time finding a parking space. Not disputing staff's findings or necessarily the recommendation, but he was not in favor. Chairperson Finerty concurred with Commissioner Jonathan. She apparently went to that site at the wrong time as well. It was next to impossible to find a parking place. It was a parking nightmare at this time and any time they went to medical uses, they would complicate the parking problem. She noticed that there would be five exam rooms, plus a procedure room, which told her there could be a number of people both in the waiting area, in each exam room, and in the procedure room. She was opposed, but asked for a motion of approval. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner s Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-2 (Chairperson Finerty and Commissioner Jonathan voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2164, approving Case No. CUP 02-30, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-2 (Chairperson Finerty and Commissioner Jonathan voted no). I. Case No. PP 01-02 Amendment #1 - SANBORN AE, INC. for CANYON BANK, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a precise plan of design for two buildings (an office and a bank) on a 2.33 acre site on the north side of Country Club Drive 450 feet east of Portola, 74-150 Country Club Drive. Mr. Drell noted that the commission had plans in their packets. This was a project the commission had seen before and approved. The applicant had done some redesign both to the architecture and the site plan. The 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 architecture had become a bit more contemporary and had some elements that were a little more challenging. It had a tower element at 35 feet. It was within the ordinance standard for towers and could be approved and would go to the Council. As well, other elements were at 27 feet which was higher than the O.P. standard which would also be going to the Council. Pursuant to some interpretations they made in the past, the plan was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Architectural Review Commission. There was a site planning change. Originally the drive-through for the bank was along the north side of the building between the bank and the parking lot and that required people in the parking lot to cross through the drive-through to get to the front of the bank and they rotated it so that the drive through was now on the west side of the building. In rotating the building, it moved it a bit closer to the front on Country Club and reduced the front setback from 42 feet down to 30 and 32 feet from curb, which still met the O.P. standard. Based on the Architectural Commission's recommendation and approval of the architecture and the compliance with the O.P. standards, staff recommended approval with the height issues going to Council. %W Commissioner Campbell noted that they moved their drive-through on the west side so that people wouldn't have to walk through that area from the parking lot, but asked what they were going to do with the parking spaces on the west side of the drive-through. There are parking spaces right there and she asked if those would be used. Mr. Drell said they would still be used. Those spaces didn't back out onto the drive through, they would back out onto a shared driveway with the property to the west. Commissioner Campbell asked if people did park there, if they could still walk to the bank. Mr. Drell said for those parking spaces people would have to walk through it, but in the original plan, everyone had to walk through the drive-through. Commissioner Campbell noted that the only entrance to the bank was on the north side of the building. Mr. Drell said that was correct. He said it might have a service entrance somewhere else, but the primary access was on the north side and that was where most of the parking would be. Chairperson Finerty asked how far back the tower element was from Country Club and if the tower element backed up to Desert Willow. Mr. Drell said that it was on the back building, so it was 450 feet away. It was a long way. Chairperson Finerty asked why they would have a 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 tower in the corner in the dark. Mr. Drell said that it wouldn't be in the corner or in the dark when they were around that building. That building interacts with the park feature, so the buildings were designed to be viewed from the areas adjacent to them, not just from Country Club. Chairperson Finerty asked if the area most adjacent would be Desert Willow. Mr. Drell said yes. Chairperson Finerty asked if they were building the tower for the golfers. Mr. Drell said no and they could discuss it with the architect in terms of his motivation for the tower. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that the staff report indicated that the front setback on Country Club was comprised of 22 feet of landscape in front of the building plus eight feet of sidewalk. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Public Works was going to take 11 feet of that. Mr. Drell said no, that was after the 11 feet had been removed. It was his understanding that the plan as submitted was after the dedication. The section of road they were seeing on the plan included the dedication. The plans had been drawn with the assumption that the 11 feet were already gone. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the existing setback as it is right now is more like 41 feet, not 30. Mr. Drell said that if the road wasn't going to be widened, that would be the setback, but the road was going to be widened per the Public Works condition. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the 30 feet would be post street widening, so the sidewalk and landscaping would be as indicated on the plans after the widening. Mr. Drell said yes. The plans showed what would exist after the project was completed and the road widened. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ALAN SANBORN, Sanborn A/E representing Canyon National Bank, 1227 S. Gene Autry Trail in Palm Springs, addressed the commission. Regarding the parking spaces on the west side, he said that primarily those would probably be used by staff. There was a staff entrance on the southwest corner of the building. That parking was a little out of the way, but the only public entrance was to the north so the idea was that those people would park in that parking lot to the north, come in through the north and there was extra parking on the west side for some staff members. They 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 law could leave at night and go out there and get there early in the morning, so there wouldn't be a conflict with the drive-through. Regarding the tower, he said it was very difficult to have a two- story building to try to squeeze into the height in this particular zone. He said they worked with staff to try and come up with some different cross sections and showed them different construction methods to try to differentiate between eight-foot high ceilings in office spaces and nine or ten foot high ceilings and just the quality of an office space that has a ten foot ceiling. The tower was actually the lobby for the elevator area, so with the elevator that was required to stick up higher than the general parapet of the building, they thought it would be nice to generate a lobby with some light going in so when people were up on the second floor, it wasn't just an enclosed hallway. When they walk out to where the elevator is, they could look down into the first floor, look out through some glass to the east and generate an element that also allowed them when they drive into the site because it sits so far back, they could look down the driveway and see it and to him that said entrance or main kind of entrance lobby, especially if they were looking for someone who works on the second floor office space. So it was kind of like a directional element, an element to break up a long linear building, and also a functional element because it houses the elevator tower inside. He stated that he concurred with all the conditions and hoped for a favorable response. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell stated that even though they have adequate parking spaces, 110 parking spaces, she asked what use would be on the second floor of the building. She asked if it was going to be general offices, or medical, or if that would have to come back to the commission for a conditional use permit if it was going to be used for medical for additional parking spaces. Mr. Drell said that if any uses that 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 Sol come in exceed the parking supply, then they would have to come back for a conditional use permit. Commissioner Jonathan stated that it was a great project. He liked the design and thought the traffic flow made sense. All standards were met and he was ready to move for approval. Commissioner Campbell concurred and said she would second that if it was a motion. Commissioner Jonathan said he would make it a motion. Commissioner Tschopp said that the current plan took into consideration some of the concerns he had with the last building and the drive-up and addressed them. He thought it was a nice project. Commissioner Lopez concurred. Chairperson Finerty stated that she was opposed to the project, mainly because of the tower element. She didn't feel there should be an exception for the tower element right at the Desert Willow golf course. The view would be obstructed to a certain extent from Desert Willow and she knew the City spent a lot of time and effort trying to construct a beautiful golf course. She thought it was an inappropriate location for the tower element and for that reason she was opposed. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1 (Chairperson Finerty voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2165, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. PP 01-02 Amendment #1 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-1 (Chairperson Finerty voted no). J. Case No. ZOA 02-05 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to Chapter 25.56 General Provisions regulating the conversion of abandoned 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 public utility well sites to private water export irrigation well sites. Mr. Drell noted that the commission had the staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council. Chairperson Finerty oogened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2166, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 02-05. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. TT 30738 - GHA PALOMA GROUP, LLC, Applicant Referral by City Council to have Planning Commission reconsider applicant's appeal requesting an amendment to Planning Commission Resolution No. 2160 Condition of Approval No. 9 to amend the required side yard setbacks from 14 feet combined to 12 feet combined for 16 lots, amend the 20-foot front yard setback to a 20-foot average with a 16-foot minimum, and increase the maximum height from 18 feet to 20 feet. Mr. Drell noted that at the last hearing at the end of a very long night the Planning Commission denied the applicant's request for this exception. Subsequently, the applicant submitted actual architectural plans, siting, and plotting to the Architectural Commission. Also, on closer examination of our ordinance, staff recalled that the front yard exception was already 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 e permitted by the zone and the R-1 zone allowed the averaging he was already requesting. The second issue was the side yard exception from 14 feet combined to 12 feet. It turned out that it would only apply to 16 lots which were interspersed throughout the project. The result would be a variation of building separations between conceivably as little as 12, but ranging all the way up to 19 and then there were some exhibits which showed the worst case difference between a 12 foot and 14 foot setback. Based on the architecture which has steeply hipped roofs, the open spaces between the buildings would be adequate even if they do have some of those 12 foot separations. Thirdly, based on the steeply hipped roofs, a very small portion of those roofs would exceed the 18 feet. In that the zone allows 24 feet and two story units, staff felt that based on the Architectural Commission's determination that given the architecture and the footprints, that the extra two feet was acceptable. When this was taken to Council, upon hearing that the Planning Commission did not have the benefit of seeing those plans when making their decision, the Council wanted the commission to. see them and then conceivably reconsider their decision. The applicant was present and might have a power point presentation if the commission wanted to see it. He thought the power point pretty much duplicated the exhibits the commission had of the architecture. Chairperson Finerty asked the commission if they wanted the applicant to go through his presentation or if they were satisfied with the pictures they had been given. No one thought a presentation was necessary. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments. For clarification, Mr. Drell explained that the hearing was still kind of occurring at Council. What they said was that if the commission made a decision and it was affirmative, that would constitute their decision. If the commission had an adverse decision, then it would go back to them. Commissioner Campbell said that she would move for approval. Commissioner Tschopp said he would second that. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was probably one of the more vocal opponents in the initial pass through and he wasn't a big fan of even 14-foot side yard setbacks, but he tried to keep an open mind and had been persuaded. It was for 16 lots and they were talking about two 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 •w feet. He was hesitant to trust drawings because reality comes about and it was often very different than what they see, but he thought an exception was warranted given this new information and concurred with the motion and second. Chairperson Finerty also concurred. She thought it was a reasonable request and a picture was worth a thousand words and the commission appreciated the opportunity to review these pictures. It was only 16 homes out of 94. She also liked the quality of the homes. Commissioner Jonathan noted that they were also dispersed throughout the project. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2167, granting the applicant's appeal and amending Condition No. 9. Motion carried 5-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS C. Case No. ZOA 02-02 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant (Continued from July 16, September 3 and October 1 , 2002) Request for approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 25.21 Second Unit Senior Housing. Mr. Drell explained that this was a zoning ordinance amendment and then there were four cases which relate to the amendment. He suggested that they first go through the hearing on the amendment with discussion and comments, but not vote on it until they go through the individual discussion and comments on the individual cases, because how they review the cases might have a bearing on how they view the amendment and vice versa. Once they completed the discussion on all of the items, they would come back and the vote on the individual resolutions. 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 f Mr. Drell stated that the State of California back in 1983 determined that there was a shortage of housing, a shortage of a variety of affordable types of housing, and a strategy they seized on back in 1983 was to provide and to require cities to have a procedure to approve second units. It originally appeared to provide some guidance for which cities could adopt an ordinance and they adopted an ordinance in 1983 using the most restrictive standards the ordinance at that time allowed. Their motivation was based on the fact that individual communities showed a reluctance to approve multifamily housing. They said it was a great idea somewhere else. They saw this growing need to solve this problem. They had Prop 13 which restricted cities' ability to expand infrastructure and they saw second units as a way to expand housing resources in existing single family neighborhoods using existing streets, sewer lines, water lines and infrastructure. They saw it as a cost effective way to increase housing supply. They also required that cities and the Department of Housing and Community Development monitor the implementation of this law to see how effective it was in achieving their goal. What they found over the years was that the way they had written it and the restrictions which they allowed cities to institute in their ordinance didn't appear to effectively implement the law. For instance, he believed there were four or five approved second units in the 20 years since they have had the law. The legislature has been doing this in a number of housing areas in terms of the density bonus law. They had been doing the same thing with Housing Elements. Subsequent to their initial legislation, they have been coming back periodically and restraining cities more on what they can and can't do in controlling the supply of housing. The state law was amended in the 1990's after reviewing it and seeing a lack of implementation by the cities. A problem was when they periodically amend an ordinance, they didn't always do them in a logical fashion. There was some contradictory and confusing language in the law, but they did fairly articulate what the intent was of the law. It was the intent of the legislature that any second unit ordinances adopted by local agencies have the effect of providing for the creation of second units and was that provisions in these ordinances relate to matters including unit size, parking, fees, and other requirements so they are not so arbitrary, excessive or burdensome so as to unreasonably restrict the ability of homeowners to create second units in zones in which they are authorized by local ordinance. What the 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 r.. legislature had effectively done over the years was to change the definition of what a single family use was by including in the meaning one of these second units. The state law went on to say that for purposes of General Plan compliance and zoning compliance, these second units shall be deemed in compliance with the definition of a single family use. For better or for worse, that was the intent and the thrust of the state law. In the last legislative session, they amended it one more time. Again, upon finding that in addition to apparently some restrictive standards that cities were using, the requirement for a conditional use permit, meaning a hearing to determine acceptability of a second unit, they were finding that an obstacle to the approval. The public process was leading cities to deny most of these applications. Therefore, in the last legislative session, the legislature passed and the governor signed a provision removing the opportunity for cities to have hearings on these. They found that once a standard was established, it would be an ministerial act to determine if they are approved or not approved. A ministerial act was like a building permit. While there was limited discretion that a building official can employ in reviewing a plan, it has to be most closely approved or denied based on compliance with a rather specific set of standards. He said this was now the law in California. He said to respond to the change in the law and the applications now before them, the commission initiated an amendment to the current ordinance. The amendment differed from the current ordinance in two fundamental ways. Referring to page three, he explained that the current ordinance limited occupancy of these units to seniors. When they read through the state law, although there was a section that relates to seniors, there was a new section that didn't and when they read the language in terms of what things the city can regulate, age of occupants was not one of them. So they were removing that section that limits occupancy to a senior and would make it available to the general public. They were maintaining the goal that they would, since the state was now considering the combination of the initial home and the second unit as a single family residence, they were maintaining their review as if it is a single family residence. Therefore, it must comply to all single family standards and outwardly appear to be a single family residence. The current ordinance only allowed attached units. The new law defines second units as both attached and detached. So they were providing for detached units. Where they have detached units, they would fall under 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 ri the fairly recently enacted accessory structure ordinance which requires detached units to still fall within the building envelope, so it would be subject to the same setback standards as if the main house had been extended. The second unit could have an increase of not more than 30%. It was originally 10% of the existing area. What people were doing was doing a building addition, which they could do legally within their setbacks, then they would come in for their second unit within that addition. So to him staff was really forcing the property owner to go through a procedural hoop that really had no regulatory impact. What was important ultimately was the size of the unit regardless of whether it was detached or attached, whether it existed or not and the fact that it is still regulated by the parameters of what, in terms of size, a single family home could occupy on the lot. There they used the guide of the state law which was a size no greater than 1 ,200 square feet. With the issue of rental for occupancy by seniors, they had removed the age restrictions since it didn't appear to be one of the things they could now regulate. One of the more restrictive items in the current ordinance was regardless of the size of the unit, it required a new two-car garage or carport. Since very, very few single family homes were developed with room to build a second garage in the front yard and meet setbacks or with sufficient room to get behind the house if they produced a garage in the back yard, the current standard effectively eliminated the possibility for second units in 90% or 95% of the cases. In reviewing and talking to perspective applicants for this program over the years, typically once they understood the parking requirement, they realized they couldn't do it. The new law specified that they could require one parking space per bedroom. They also realized that requiring a second two-car garage was somewhat in conflict with the goal of maintaining the appearance of the property as a single family dwelling. Nothing shouted additional unit more than seeing two garages. Their goal was to provide a reasonable offsite parking requirement, but not making it too burdensome pursuant to the legislation's intent and still providing for a reasonable accommodation of the demand. 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 The use would still require adequate sewer, water and everything else to it. They would require that the second unit have independent air- conditioning and heating systems and have a separate, at least a sub meter, so there could be equitable sharing of utility costs. Mr. Drell said within the state law after July 1 , 2003, it would be a ministerial approval. The law still allowed them to perform architectural review which by its nature was somewhat subjective and somewhat discretionary, but the language still allowed them to do that; therefore, they were still providing that any project would be subject to review by the Architectural Commission. Section J related to after July 1 it would no longer have a public hearing. Up to July 1 it was still subject to a conditional use permit. That was the ordinance as staff was proposing. Mr. Drell said there was one other provision of the state law which they are allowed to consider, which staff was not recommending, and that was that they could require that the primary dwelling be owner occupied. The reason why staff was not recommending it was that would get them in the business of monitoring the occupancy of the units to determine who was living in them and whether one of them was the owner or not. And if for whatever reason at some point in time since they have no automatic way to monitor rentals, through deed restrictions they could trigger things when a sale occurs, but when something is rented, there was no obvious notification. He didn't believe that he wanted his staff being involved and necessarily monitoring the occupants of all these units to find out who they are. The potential goal of having the owner occupied is that somehow the owner occupant will manage the property better than an absentee landlord. Sometimes that was the case and sometimes it wasn't the case. His experience was that Code Enforcement people have as much of a problem in terms of public nuisances with owner occupied single family homes as with rented homes. He would rather, if the goal was bad management whether owner occupied or renter occupied, there would be an exterior manifestation of that bad management in terms of maintenance or behavior of the tenants, etc., and he thought they should just let the Code people deal with nuisances if there is a problem and not have to be monitoring the ownership status of the occupants. That was why staff wasn't recommending that section. He asked for any questions. 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 Chairperson Finerty said that it would have been nice to have had Assembly Bill 1866 to review. Mr. Drell indicated that the current law was in the back of the staff report and the new law was distributed to the commission. He said it was substantially similar with the exception of the provision for the ministerial approval requirement after July 1 . Chairperson Finerty noted that it was several pages longer. Mr. Drell explained that part of AB 1866 had to do with density bonuses. It didn't all deal with second units. Chairperson Finerty commented that it seemed like it was forced multifamily housing in a single family residential area. They were changing the density, changing the amount of traffic, they were going to increase the number of kids that attend the local schools. She said she would be interested to know how other cities are handling this. She understood the reluctance on the part of staff with regard to the primary unit being owner occupied. She understood it would be difficult to monitor, however, she thought the primary dwelling being owner occupied was a key point to the success because they would manage the property better and they would be a lot more careful of who it is they rent to if they live there. If they don't live there, it would be much more liberal. She wasn't thrilled with this amendment. Mr. Drell said that they didn't initiate this. They adopted it in 1983 and had kind of ignored it since then. It had become thrust back on them. It was a rather controversial bill before the legislature this year and there was some uncertainty as to whether the governor would sign it or not and he did sign it. He commented that they pass laws and ordinances and they assume that the people who are subject to them obey them and they don't have the discretion to choose which they approve and follow and which they don't. The legislature does the same thing and for better or for worse, they expect the people who are subject to these laws to implement them. Again, the law as written, since it has been written and evolved over years, has a lot of ambiguity and contradictory language in it which may or may not be ultimately settled in courts, but the intent of the legislature was pretty clear. They are redefining what single family means. Pursuant to the state law, they are in essence preempting and defining what single family is and that was just what they have done. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was any time line in which cities are required to act. Mr. Drell said that if they don't act, they have an rf 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 tr. ordinance but it was arguably in conflict with the state law. It could be a matter of a legal decision. If cities don't adopt an ordinance, then the state law provides in essence, and it didn't require cities to adopt anything, it specifically says we aren't required to adopt any ordinances, but in the absence of us adopting something, they produce their own standards. Section B (A, B, C, D) has a whole set of standards which immediately apply if they don't act. Chairperson Finerty asked if they don't act by when. Mr. Drell said it didn't matter. Once they got an application, they have 120 days from getting an application to adopt our own standards. If we don't, then the standards specified by the state legislature apply. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that we do have standards, arguably they are in compliance or out of compliance. It wasn't that we are completely exposed. He thought there was a legal issue here. He said that he wasn't in disagreement with the overall goals and objectives that were cited here, which was to create affordable housing. He just thought that creating commercial residential rental, enforcing essentially duplex rental situations in a single family neighborhood without the neighbors benefiting from a public hearing process, one day all of a sudden their next door home could turn into a rental duplex. He thought that was inappropriate and if the governor wanted to enforce it, he could come down here and do so if he thinks this is good legislation. What was right for the City of Los Angeles or Sacramento was not necessarily right for Palm Desert. He wasn't prepared to recommend approval of any of these amendments. He thought they were terrible. That brought up a legal issue. He didn't know if there was timing involved or whether the present ordinance was sufficient, he didn't know if the City was prepared to be challenged on it, he didn't know if this was a Council matter, so he was at a loss as to where to go with this if there were others on the commission who are not comfortable with these amendments. He didn't fault staff and could see they had made a very good and effective attempt to comply with their interpretation of the letter of the law. It was more the concept and whether they as a city have latitude. And that was his issue. Mr. Hargreaves said that with respect to the standards the City adopts, it has considerable latitude. But the latitude was constrained by the provision of the state statute that basically says they couldn't adopt a set 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 l i of restrictions that basically precludes these kinds of units within the city. That was the question. Whatever set of standards they end up with. If they have a set of standards that effectively preclude this, then they would be in violation of the statute. Exactly what that meant was subject to interpretation. Chairperson Finerty thought it would be interesting to know what other cities are doing because she couldn't believe that a number of cities were going to jump on the bandwagon here and as Mr. Drell said, allow the legislature to redefine single family housing and she thought that if the public had any clue as to what was going on here there would be a revolt because people treasure single family homes. Mr. Hargreaves said that basically this law has been on the books for 20 years. The only thing that was really new was this idea of not going through a CUP process. His sense was that most cities haven't done much. They have a network where they ask other city attorneys what is going on and they had some questions and didn't get many responses. So it was hard to tell how many cities actually have these things or how effective they are. Mr. Drell said they weren't effective and he presumed that was the motivation of the legislature. They have been monitoring through surveys the effectiveness of the past versions of this law and found it wasn't achieving their intent and purpose, which is why they have progressively ratcheted down the requirements. Again, they did the same thing with Housing Elements, etc. They have been seeing, and it was a fact, that cities have tended to try to defer these sorts of things to other communities. Whether their solution was the right one was arguable, but that was their perception. That housing is a regional statewide concern and that if left to the preferences of individual communities, they would not have any of these things. So as the regional body that represents all communities, they were saying they were going to make a law that forces every city to do their share. Even though it was a bitter pill, they have determined this is something of statewide concern and something that has to be addressed. Whether they agree that second units was an effective way to do that, it was one of the things they have seized on to address the need. Chairperson Finerty noted that this seems redundant because the state regulates cities with regard to affordable housing and the need to provide it. They get the numbers on how much affordable housing to provide and 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 iftw if it has to be multifamily affordable housing and they couldn't just have it for seniors, they needed to provide multifamily housing for everyone. So they were already under the gun to do that. Every city in California. Mr. Drell said that not every city in California was. We were under the particular gun because we lost a lawsuit relative to our Redevelopment Agency that created specific quotas. Chairperson Finerty asked Mr. Drell if we are meeting our goals for affordable housing. Mr. Drell said it was a long story that he would tell them another time. Technically not. Again, he said this state law didn't exempt any particular city. It didn't provide for that and that was something that could be determined if in fact we ever go to court on this. He noted that there were some applications before them and depending on how the commission decided, they might provide that opportunity. Regarding the housing situation, Mr. Hargreaves indicated that there was a real concern statewide that we don't have an adequate supply of affordable housing. It was somewhere in the neighborhood of 150,000 units on a yearly basis that we are lacking. The legislature has tried a %W number of different ways to up the supply and with progressively more stringent measures including the Housing Element. Every community has a certain objective with respect to affordable housing and the reality was that no matter what they have done, they haven't achieved their goal, which was to provide a sufficient amount of affordable housing probably because it was ultimately an issue of money and they weren't willing to put a sufficient amount of money into it. But that was where this was coming from. They want affordable housing and they don't want to pay for it and were looking for ways to get communities to accept it. Commissioner Lopez said that he could only speak from experience, but in Hawaii they would allow people to build a mother-in-law's house or room, but it was actually a second unit on the house. When they go there they can see homes and residential areas that have an abundance of cars. They couldn't figure out what all the cars were doing there. It was because the house had been chopped up into not just one, but three livable units. This evolved because there was no conformance of a well defined criteria. In this case here, even though this legislation had gone through and he could see the light at the end of the tunnel, they also have the opportunity to develop a very, very well-defined criteria that could even be more cumbersome if they wished based on how they feel 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 .ni in the city of Palm Desert. Even though it was a ministerial process, in the architectural review they could take a look at this and set up a well defined criteria that could be difficult or more difficult based on how they wish to have this criteria defined. Mr. Drell said that they were still constrained by that legislative specific intent. If the effect of the criteria was to make it nearly impossible to do it, then they would probably lose the challenge. The clear intent in the legislation was that in most cases there should be a mechanism for people to be able to do this. That's what the words said. Commissioner Lopez said he didn't disagree with that, but he thought they should be able to create this definition. Mr. Drell said that was no question, but they were constrained. They should be careful in terms of justifying any restriction they place, that the purpose of the restriction was not to preclude the development of the second unit. Because by definition, if that was the purpose of the restriction, then they were probably in violation of the statute. Commissioner Jonathan thought this might need to be addressed by Council initially in terms of conceptually giving the commission direction to determine if one, they do want to make an attempt to come into compliance because there might be others that feel like him that they too would rather not and he would like to take their chances in court with what we have. It wasn't that they have rules prohibiting this, it's that the rules are arguably in compliance or not in compliance. He personally would rather let it go and let it happen and if it goes to court, the court could tell them they needed to do x, y and z. That was his personal feeling. If Council agreed, the matter was moot. If Council said no, they want to amend the ordinance, then he needed further direction because his objective would be to make it as restrictive as possible, but be in compliance. If Council said that wasn't what they wanted, they were all wasting their time. He didn't want to spend a lot of the commission's time, a lot of staff time, a lot of public time going in a direction that was just going to be irrelevant to what the Council would want to do with this and where this would ultimately end up. Mr. Drell asked if his suggestion was to continue this, refer it to Council and they could discuss it in whatever form they so chose as recommended by the City Attorney and get some direction back to the commission. Commissioner Jonathan thought they should see it at least conceptually. If they viewed this as a serious enough issue, and he did, then maybe they needed to meet jointly and maybe that needed to be a closed session because there are legal 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 implications. But he felt that if they tried to act now based on their convictions, they could be wasting a lot of time and effort because it wasn't the direction the Council sees as appropriate for the city. Or it might be. That was what they needed to find out. Chairperson Finerty asked if the other commissioners had comments. Commissioner Campbell thought there was enough affordable housing. Mr. Drell said that the units the City controls has a long waiting list. Some as long as two years. Chairperson Finerty said she would like to get the direction of the commission in general with where they want to head. Commissioner Tschopp thought the intent of the law was good and there were examples of this type of housing working very well. If they looked at some of the new houses going up in different areas, there was an detached unit and with a microwave oven, etc., it became a self- taw sufficient unit. So he thought it could be done if it was done in a way that it fits into the neighborhood and done properly architecturally, etc. The concern he had was that they truly want to maintain the single family residential feel of the neighborhoods and the only way they do that is by maintaining or having the primary residence owner occupied. They don't want rental duplexes scattered throughout the city. The only way to maintain a single family residential feel is by having a primary unit owner occupied. In other areas like Laguna Beach and Hawaii, there was a profusion of cars on the street, on a residential street, and he thought they had to take that into consideration and he would like to see them require at least one space or as many spaces as necessary to park the cars of the occupants on the site, in their driveways or so forth. That was fine, but he thought they needed to make a provision to keep them off the street. That would be what he would like to do. He also didn't think they wanted to have a maximum size of 1 ,200 square feet because if they looked around the city, there are a lot of homes that are 1 ,200 to 1 ,500 square feet and they were putting a huge home right next to another home. He would still like to see them maintain some size of proportion percentage-wise. A maximum of 1,200 square feet with a maximum of 30% of the existing home, or something of that nature. He v. 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 wasn't opposed to it, but he thought they needed to tighten it up to make sure it works and fits with the community. Chairperson Finerty noted that it didn't sound like the commission was prepared to approve the amendment. Mr. Drell indicated that there were four public hearings and the public was here to talk about it. He thought they should go through those hearings so they could see what was being applied for and hear the public testimony. Chairperson Finerty asked if they wanted to open the public hearing on the amendment and take testimony on this as well. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they could act on the other applications based on the current ordinance. Mr. Drell said yes, they could. They might want to wait. He thought they would probably all be denied in that he didn't think they have occupants over 60 years of age in them. Or they could condition them or they could approve them with conditions consistent with the current ordinance, saying that all the occupants must be over the age of 60. Chairperson Finerty pointed out that the staff reports were prepared to coincide with suggested amendment. Mr. Drell concurred that they hadn't done an analysis on the existing ordinance. Chairperson Finerty said that in that case they would need to direct staff to prepare a staff report based on the current ordinance, because these situations already exist. Mr. Drell said that two of the units exist and two don't. He wasn't sure the commission would want to act on them until they know exactly where they are headed. They didn't want to trigger a potential challenge before they had to by potentially denying it. That would force the issue which he wasn't sure they wanted to do yet. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked for testimony in FAVOR of this amendment. MR. JERRY BEAUVAIS, 74-060 San Marino Circle, addressed the commission. He stated that he has lived at that address for 20 years. Chairperson Finerty asked for confirmation that Mr. Beauvais was the applicant in the other cases. 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 Mr. Beauvais concurred. He said he understood the commission's feelings. He also understood the feelings of his neighbors who were in opposition. They are real concerns and he appreciated that fact. He said he got where they were coming from. Having said that, he hoped that as fervently as he believes in what he has accomplished in the last 20 years, that they would at least try to understand his side of it. He stated that 20 years ago he purchased his home in Palma Village. Like all the homes in that neighborhood it had been through the raising of three generations of children and grandchildren. Inevitably, as in any city, the first neighborhoods built were the first to decline and Palma Village was no exception. Beautiful homes became neglected houses and once turned into rentals they attracted a type of element deadly to any neighborhood. He watched as his quiet neighborhood became a place to come if someone needed to buy drugs. The police tried unsuccessfully to stop these activities. He watched on more than one occasion as undercover teams with guns drawn closed in on houses known to be dealing drugs. At the same time he saw the children of their neighborhood watching these dramas from behind living room windows. Parents decided it was time to move to safer, newer areas. This exact same thing happened to his mid western neighborhood where parents typically spent the evening on the front porch watching their children play hide and go seek and now their houses were burned out, boarded up and drug addiction and crime ruled the streets. That was his beautiful Victorian mid western neighborhood today. He couldn't drive down that street. People moved out then as they were moving out now. Although there were people who cared and laws to prevent such things, he knew that in fact he was watching the death of his neighborhood. He decided he'd had it. Giving the matter considerable thought, he came to a very important conclusion. It was up to the people in the neighborhood to protect it. Not by vigilantism, but by stopping the decline and by rebuilding. He saw this as a basic truth and became involved in starting a program to save his part of Palma Village. The police were not involved, nor did they go to City Hall. They rolled up their sleeves and began to rebuild. He was proud to say they have succeeded. He has tow 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 E V restored several of the worst houses and rented them out to the finest tenants they could imagine. Their neighborhood was now nicely on the mend. His homes, all with secondary living units, as they were when he purchased them, these homes were built in the 1940's, well before there were restrictions and zoning laws. Palma Village was a different thing back then. It has grown into a metropolis now. It wasn't then, it was a tiny village. In his neighborhood there are a good number of secondary units that were not recorded on the City books that were being used. His were among those. His homes, all with secondary living units, now shelter people seriously involved in the care and growth of our Palm Desert community. He said that was a fact. It was important that the commission, as well as those in opposition, know first hand the type of individuals that require the kind of residential setting he has provided. He wanted to put a face on the decision they would make. A tenant and long time resident, Gina Galindo, was a very important part of the adult education program at the College of the Desert. Though she wouldn't be the one to tell them, she has traveled to the border towns of Mexico to physically help build child care facilities. Seven year old children were caring for their younger brothers and sisters while their parents worked in local factories was more than Gina could bear. He said that Gina lives quietly with her dog Callie in the back secondary unit on El Cortez. The same house when purchased eight years ago was a shooting gallery. The stench of urine soaked carpets, hypodermic needles and entire rooms were painted dark purple with random splashes of red. He couldn't imagine the activities that might occur in that type of setting. The front and back unit were doing a lively trade with the drug house next door, as well as the duplex across the street behind the old water tower. He said Fran and Gilbert Espinoza, fine, long-time residents on El Cortez living beside that duplex, were constantly in fear knowing their young children were exposed to this activity. He said he wanted to make it clear that the quality of day to day life and the safety and well being of his neighborhood and its children has always been at the core of his decisions made 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 regarding his properties. He said he drives a Volvo with 500,000 miles on it and he lives in a 20-foot trailer. He said he doesn't make money on these properties. His goal was to restore his neighborhood and have good people living there. It wasn't to fit as many people in there as he could. It was his belief that secondary units with careful oversight from the Departments of Planning, Building & Safety and Code Enforcement could be used as a tool to upgrade neglected housing in a residential setting and provide a quality environment whose needs require more than an apartment with a sliding glass door. Most importantly, one that prevents the vacuum that invites and leads to the breakdown of neighborhoods like Palma Village. All of his tenants are a class act. They are quiet, they were seriously functioning people in our community. They want to be part of the community and the growth. They chat with the rest of the neighbors and they are the neighborhood. These were drug houses and a problem was solved. Here tonight were his tenants and also %1W the neighbors who chat with them and enjoy having them in the neighborhood. There are no loud parties, there was no loud music. These were primarily single females, middle aged, who just wanted to be protected. They come home, they open the gate and they close the gate. Either their six year old child or maybe their pet dog is glad to see them. They turn on music, they might have a glass of wine and they are at home. They weren't coming home to an apartment where people are coming and going. He thought it was important for the commission to realize that there is a serious lack of housing for quality people who really have no desire to live in an apartment or any setting like that. He created a place for these people to feel safe. He thanked the commission for their time. Referring to the Request to Speak cards, Chairperson Finerty asked Dean Gray to address the commission. MR. DEAN GRAY, 74-060 San Marino Circle, addressed the commission. He said that when he listened to the commission's objections and thought about what they said about challenging the laws created in Sacramento, it made him wonder if they would not 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 li �qq 7 like him as their neighbor. Because that was what it made him feel like. He would like them to be his neighbor. He said he has some great neighbors. He stated that Mr. Beauvais has done a great job in the neighborhood. He changed it. It might not be their neighborhood, but he has done something really valuable there. He worked really hard. That was what could happen when these ordinances are put into effect. They could create a home for him. He likes living where he is. He hasn't lived here very long. He's lived in Palm Desert for three months. Did that mean he was less valuable than somebody who has lived here all their lives? He wasn't a homeowner. Did that mean he wasn't important? When he thought that they might delay making a decision, put it off to the City Council, litigate this, draw it out for months, and he didn't know how much it would cost to litigate this issue because the law was created in Sacramento and he liked to think that law was created for him. He likes living in a house rather than an apartment. He likes living in a neighborhood. It's quiet and residential. He didn't have anything to do with the law that was created in Sacramento, but it sounded pretty good to him and he hoped they would think about that. MS. JACQUELYN POWELL, 74-060 San Marino Circle, addressed the commission. She stated that she moved there two years ago and it was not owner occupied and she treats it like her own. She said she has owned several homes before. She described her living space as an enchanted cottage. She invited all of them to come and look at it. She said it was beautiful. She said she has a beautiful enclosed front yard with mature fruit trees and a lovely side courtyard as well. Mr. Beauvais spent a lot of time putting this home together and she said it was very beautiful. It was a safe space for her and her small dog. They also have a very close, tight-knit community so when she walks her dog she talks to all the neighbors and they got to know each other. One of the things about living in this home, a lot of the people in the neighborhood watch out for each other and keep an eye on each other. There were people who watch her dog for her if she has to leave town. Until recently, she said she was a full-time interior designer. She was injured on the job and was facing two knee surgeries. Now her home was her sanctuary. Her life consists of physical therapy i ud 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 w.r right now daily and her enclosed front area gave her peace of mind and her dog was safe and she's safe. On her journey to healing and recovery, she would look forward to getting out into the community again and doing what she used to do, helping other people put their homes together and eventually owning her own home. She said that Mr. Beauvais has been an excellent landlord and he has a very gifted, wonderful vision for his property and she hoped that they all had an opportunity to come and visit them where they live and see how beautiful it actually is. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone else wished to speak. MR. KEN RATTNER, 74-041 San Marino Circle, addressed the commission. He said that he has been a contractor and developer since the mid 1960's. He's in town building a home at the El Dorado Country Club for a family. After this job was done he would be moving onto wherever the next job took him. After listening to the commission's resistance, and rightfully so, he thought they were missing a couple of things. He disagreed with what the State said. He believed there should be a beauty contest for any home that wishes to subdivide into a duplex where points are given for the best effort, that would let the staff administer it, and they encourage blighted neighborhoods that now have an economic viability that wasn't there with a single family home just going into disrepair. What Mr. Beauvais had done was take some truly blighted homes and he fixed them up and they were really nice. He said they needed to see them. They could see he was almost a poster boy for this type of action. The houses maintain the character of the neighborhood and if anything, improve the neighborhood. If they looked at the pictures that Mr. Beauvais has of what he has improved, they would say wow, this is really something. He thought staff had seen that too. He said it was a difficult thing to accept what the State has said, but they have said it. If they chose not to go along with the ordinance, he could see a vacuum occurring. The vacuum occurs in July. They don't act, no one acts, and then all of a sudden they would have grandfather questions, who has done what and when, and there were going to be problems. He thought that they should adopt something, they could always amend it, and that was what the 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 commission was for and what the council was for. They can amend code. But they should adopt something that gives them some control. As far as the owner occupied portion of the statement, he could appreciate that but asked what happens here in these homes is that there has to be some economic reason for somebody to act. Otherwise the houses sit in disrepair. This wasn't going to be a widespread activity. Not everyone was going to do it. It took someone like Jerry, the small entrepreneur, who puts a lot of sweat equity into it, puts what capital he has into it and out comes a nice unit. They couldn't even tell they're duplexes. When he first went in them he didn't know he was in a duplex. Mr. Beauvais had to point it out to him. But it was important to realize what Jerry has done and what his effort has done and he was hoping the commission would approve what Jerry has done. He maintained the character of the neighborhood. He maintained or improved the architecture of the neighborhood. The safety of the neighborhood was there. What was happening was that the people who rent are paying more than they would for an apartment, less than they would for a home. He was not interested in buying a home because he would be moving on. He didn't think the market always goes up. With that knowledge he just wanted to rent and when he has finished his project he wanted to move on. But it gave him a place for his dog and himself and he said he was pretty typical of the user of this unit. It maintains a certain amount of low density. They were going to look for apartment houses, they were going to look for low cost housing, and if they have met the criteria and it was difficult to meet those things whether they do tax credit units, or bond financing, there were all sorts of things but they were almost all difficult to achieve. They have an infrastructure now that would allow for additional housing that would forestall some of these higher density projects that people were going to be forced to live in. He didn't think that was necessarily undesirable for some people, but it was for him. If they could just take a broad sweep and give people different types of housing, let them choose what they want to choose, and let the economics drive it. As far as having an owner occupied requirement, that really became self- defeating because they would have to monitor it. What happens 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 when someone dies? Do they tear it out? Do they replace it? What do the heirs do? What happens when someone moves up north for a job, goes to L.A. for a job? He didn't know how they would administer it. He understood what the commission was saying and it sounded like a good idea, but if they looked at Jerry's work and drive by to see what he has done, it was the economics that would drive it. He wasn't going to make a lot of money off the monthly rents. What he was looking to was in another 20 years these might be paid for, and good, he has earned his retirement and let him have it. But the owner occupied thing wouldn't work. MR. GARY WRIGHT, 44-829 Cabrillo Avenue in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He stated that he has been in that house since 1971 . He said that when they moved they were in a smaller neighborhood that was getting run down and his parents wanted to move out to a nicer neighborhood, which was the old Palma Village of Palm Desert in 1971 . He was a kid and things were great. People started moving out. He didn't know how they two defined single family home, but when there was a house next to them selling for $40,000, they would have a family move into it with three families right behind them and then they have one house, three families, ten cars and that's what he grew up in. The neighbors down the street, there were gun fights and someone dies. He saw all of that as a kid growing up. The neighborhood kind of fell apart and he drove home and drove out and did his own business. He was a kid back in those days and now he lives in the house he grew up in. He didn't know Jerry 20 years ago and he didn't know he was there for 20 years. He's been at his house for 30. In the last ten years the neighborhood all of a sudden started coming around. He saw people talking to people. Jerry comes by. They talk and he sees what Jerry is doing. His end of the neighborhood is looking nice and he was at the other neighborhood. So he asked some questions. He's got a house and no one would really want to live in it. He was in a run down house that he couldn't afford, he wasn't rich and was just a kid and sub leasing rooms to his friends, so he had a house with three guys living in it, but as he got older, he wanted the house to look nice and wanted to take pride in his house. So he went through and asked Jerry what he could do to make his house look nice. He just 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 got married and his front yard looked like a parking lot. Jerry started giving him suggestions and not only did Jerry take care of his houses, but through the neighborhood he looked around and gave advice. He would stop by and help. His house was improving and the next thing they know the neighbor's house is looking good. It was like a virus, like a cancer that just took over the whole neighborhood and the next thing they knew they were talking to the neighbors and seeing the neighbors out on Saturday instead of parking their cars, drinking beer, and rebuilding motors in their front yards. They see little lawn mowers and tractors and all of a sudden it's a neighborhood again. He didn't think that would have happened without Jerry really taking pride in his neighborhood and it kind of brought them all together. He thought the whole neighborhood took pride in the whole area. He thought that for what was going on in his neighborhood, it was really great. Jerry was a big cause for all of that and he was in agreement with what Jerry was doing and would like the commission to think about that as well. MR. MIKE DAVIS, 74-060 San Marino Circle, addressed the commission. He introduced Megan Fouch who lives right next door at one of the properties. He said her mom wasn't able to be at the meeting and was working, so he brought Megan to the meeting. He said Jerry rented to her about four years ago and four years ago she had just come into the neighborhood and didn't have a job and Jerry took a big chance and he hasn't regretted it. She was a manager at the Marriott Desert Springs. He said it was really neat because he has gotten to know Megan and Kristina. He said Jerry has been caring for a younger family like this, a single mom and her daughter Megan. There is a fence around the yard that is safe. The neighborhood is great. He said he just moved in recently and was getting to know the people who spoke. They were neat and it was a wonderful area. He said it is a quiet neighborhood. There were one or two people in each of the units. He said Jerry does some unbelievable work taking care of the neighborhood and houses. He hoped they would come by and see what he has done. He said they feel very safe there. The neighborhood had really improved. He had talked to a lot of people about how it used to be and they could see the care he had taken to put the quality of time 50 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 bog into the area. He said it was a great place to raise kids. It was a nice environment neighborhood versus being in an apartment. Also, regarding the codes and trying to oversee and have the owners live in the units, he didn't think that was a good idea either like Ken brought up. He thought that Palm Desert already has a city ordinance in place and a lot of things regarding regulations on how the landscaping should look, noise and all of that and he didn't know why they couldn't follow the same regulations for whether it was a single person house or a duplex if they just follow the same ordinance already in place, that would be the way to answer that question. MS. FRAN ESPINOZA addressed the commission and said she doesn't live in their neighborhood, she lives at El Cortez and Portola. She said the three homes Jerry described earlier was where she lived and she has two adopted children and she was a foster parent and her children were being raised surrounded by drug addicts. Even recently two houses down from them, the taw family that moved out rented. They rented to several teenagers and she would wake up many mornings and many nights and she would be taking her kids to school and the police would pull up, seven or eight police cars, with their guns drawn with flap jackets. It wasn't even safe for her to leave her home. She wasn't talking about a multi-dwelling family. She was talking about a single family home where a bunch of teenagers moved in. She said she didn't know what was going on there, but heard there was a prostitution ring and that was two doors from her. To the other side was an empty lot which used to be the water company and it was knocked down. Across the street was owned by Don and Trish Mohr and Jerry had been very implemental in cleaning up that house. The duplex on the corner, she didn't know why it wasn't a duplex. She didn't know about zoning, but has lived in her home 16, almost 17 years, and there has always been two families living in there or two groups of people. She said she has the best neighbors she has ever had in 16 years. Jerry brought some of the greatest people to the neighborhood. They don't necessarily see each other a lot. She said she has known Gina for years, they have older sons the same age. She felt safe in her neighborhood and her kids could play out front again and they 51 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 couldn't for a very long time. Her home is nice. She said she has kept her home up and watched her neighborhood go up and down, up and down, and it was kind of on an up swing. They have other homes being completely refurbished. They were talking about homes that range in age from ten to 50 or 60 years old. By having an ordinance that these houses have to be owner occupied was going to be an injustice to her neighborhood. She thought that maybe they needed to take these cases one by one and look at them on an individual basis. Jerry lives in the neighborhood. He couldn't live in every one of his properties. She said that Sara and her husband recently moved in from Oregon and Jerry made sure they all get to know each other so if she needed her neighbors, she could go get them. They weren't hanging out, but she knew they were there and knew that they were safe. This was very important to her as a mom. She has two small children and one in college, so she wasn't done being a mom. She didn't know what the redevelopment plan was exactly for Portola. It would very much effect her because it's an empty lot. She said that when they took the water company down, it happened to be someone they knew and she knew transients were living in the empty apartments. She was the one who called the city because when they broke down the doors there were all kinds of drug paraphernalia. Her small children could have wandered over there very easily. She didn't know what was in the dirt over there. Her boys thought it was a great empty lot for riding bmx. She loves her neighborhood and loves her area and said they weren't going anywhere. Jerry hasn't done anything to her home, they have done everything themselves, but it was nice to have this nice home and have Jerry have them fixing up the neighborhood. This was her neighborhood and she was there to stay. She wished that they would come see Jerry's properties, but she wished more of them could have seen them ten years ago. MS. ROBERTA MURPHY, 74-084 San Marino Way, addressed the commission. She stated that she has lived there for 18 years. She raised three sons there. When they first moved in the neighborhood was nothing but rentals, dilapidated houses, weeds growing everywhere, cars parked, multiple families living in one home. Across the street they had a rental that had teenagers living wi 52 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 there. It was not safe for her to have her three sons play out there because there were drugs. She had to call the police department several times. She wanted to move and they put their house on the market twice. She didn't want to invest the money to fix up her house because the neighborhood was so run down. Jerry then started buying these homes and making them duplexes. She said they had no idea they were duplexes because they were beautiful. The neighborhood started picking up then, so they started investing the money into their home and fixed it up. She said she has no plans of leaving there now. She plans to retire there. Jerry has done a beautiful job for the neighborhood. She encouraged them to come look at his homes. They would have no idea they were duplexes. The renters he has are wonderful renters. It was a great neighborhood now. It was a safe neighborhood. Everyone looks out for everyone. When they go on vacation they tell their neighbors and they look out for each other. It was a wonderful place to live now and she encouraged them to support what he was doing. MS. SUMMER ELLENS, 74-081 San Marino Way, addressed the commission. She said that they have been homeowners for two years. This was their first home with the help from her parents. She was very happy there. She said that Jerry was the first one who came over and introduced himself and had great plans for their front yard, which she apologized and said it was still not landscaped, but they have made sufficient improvements in the property and believed that Jerry has made that neighborhood what it is. There was a sense of community there. It wasn't like they didn't know their neighbors. Whereas she goes to her family and friends' neighborhoods, and they don't know their names. She said that here everyone knows each other. Like everyone said previously, until she got the notice she didn't know they were duplexes. It was very quiet. She didn't have a problem with the parking or traffic. She had zero problems with noise. She said these weren't young party goers in the homes. Whatever Jerry does, he was very passionate about it and this was more to him than income. This was his passion and he takes these homes that were so awful and turns them into great curb appeal. It made the neighborhood more livable and beautiful. 53 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 MRS. TRISH MOHR, 74-874 Leslie Avenue in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. She stated that she owns the property at 74-041 El Cortez Way. She said that she has lived in the desert for just over ten years now. Her husband was born and raised out here and it became her home ten years ago when she passed through that Banning Pass and this was where she planned to be for the rest of her years. She has raised two daughters in this valley. She said she has a grandson and she was now involved heavily in his life. She said she has a lot of hopes and dreams for herself in Palm Desert. Ten years ago they moved into a house that is owned by her in-laws. About six years ago one of her daughter's girlfriend's mother, who owned the property she purchased on El Cortez, through a series of events decided to move to Oregon. She and her husband became friends with her and knew her situation and chose to save her from foreclosure and took out a five-year lease option on that house. They don't know anything about fixing up homes. They had never been homeowners before and have never been landlords before, so they took over the home in essence to keep Lori from having to go into foreclosure on her property and lose everything she invested through the years. The house was very run down and dilapidated. The house had an absolute history of drug abuse and she still hears stories of people knocking on the door up until last year. She purchased the home a year ago this month and it was in her name. She said she spent the better part of the last two years with her husband and Jerry refurbishing that entire house. She changed everything right down to the floor plan. If they had driven by the house five or six years ago, they would have had no question as to what was going on in that house and the activity taking place in that house. The people who were coming and going. She wouldn't have wanted any part of it. She had no idea of how to make that any different and through the course of time Jerry would see them there as they would be working on the property because he has the property right next door to it and he would come over and they would get friendly with one another. They'd talk and shake hands. He introduced them to what it was like to want to have some pride in their home. She knew that he had a tenant in one of his properties that was very frightened of the people who lived on her property. The only tenants she could 54 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 attract were that type of element that they were all opposed to. She said it was kind of hard to get somebody with any kind of pride in their home that was going to maintain any pride in their home when it was a run down unit. With no tenants living in the house, they spent an entire year refurbishing that entire property. They put their heart and soul, blood, sweat and tears into that home and she said it was absolutely beautiful. Today she has a tenant in there who is a very respectable member of our community. He is also a businessman as well. She said she has definitely had her share of bad tenants. Because that was what the property would attract. She had a single man living in the home who rented out the second bedroom to another young couple. The man himself owned a corvette, an expedition, two Harley Davidson and a speed boat. She could understood how those could be problems in the neighborhood. No one ever addressed to her that those were ever issues in terms of parking and those kinds of things. The occasional complaint she would get with previous tenants that had been in the house were very �.n legitimate complaints and as soon as they came to her attention she did everything within her power to correct them. She had a tenant in there at one time who refused to take the trash to the curb. That created quite a nuisance. That same tenant had the utilities shut off and was going to the neighbor's yard to use their hose to fill up five gallon buckets and bringing it into the home to be able to do what they had to do with water. Those were not the types of tenants she was attracting today and those were not the types of tenants she was renting to today. In the two years she has actively been rehabbing this house, everything about it had changed. She had boxes of before and after pictures that she would love to share with them as to what this property had been and what they turned it into. Jerry spent countless hours and weekends working on their property with them to be able to turn it into what it is today. They hadn't paid Jerry one penny. This was all out of the goodness of his heart because that is who he is and what he believes. He believed in it strongly enough to be able to take them by the hand and guide them into doing the same type of renovation. She said she has met the neighbors in the neighborhood and they are wonderful people and that was some place she would like to retire to. She was not in a position to 55 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 i k move from the house she was in now to the new house, so she too opposed the owner occupied issue. She understood it from the standpoint that the theory is that they would take better care of it. She said that couldn't be further from the truth. Like a car mechanic whose car doesn't run, she could see the same situation with an owner occupied unit. If they were out doing what they do, by the time they get home they aren't going to want to take care of that property. As it is now, they were doing everything in their power to maintain that property to the highest standards because that is who she wanted to attract. That was the condition she wanted her home in. She thanked them for their time and hoped they would give this due consideration. MS. JANE HELENDRON, 74-074 San Marino, addressed the commission. She stated that she has been there since February 1 , 1993. Her house was the biggest blight in the neighborhood. It was a VA repo they bought ten years ago. She says that she has seen a major change in this neighborhood in ten years and it had been the people in the neighborhood who had reclaimed the neighborhood. When she moved into that neighborhood, they had refrigerators, they had stoves, they had dilapidated cars and the City wasn't doing anything about it. They made the complaints and came in and didn't really know if they wanted to be in that neighborhood but had the American dream that they wanted a house. They wanted their own house out here in the desert. A lot of things had changed in ten years in their lives and the look of San Marino Way. She said she has seen Jerry's tenants five times in ten years. She said she lives directly next door to him. She said she has never heard them and had never seen them. She had never had a complaint with them. She said that Jerry has made a silk purse out of a sow's ear out of many homes, out of these four homes in what is original Palm Desert. If they didn't get some good quality people who were willing to do this type of work in these neighborhoods, they were just going to go by the wayside. That was what they had going here. She said she has no problem whatsoever with what Jerry has done to the houses. She didn't think owner occupancy should be an issue. She owns a legal duplex. She said a lot of things have happened in ten years when she didn't have any money and moved into this neighborhood. She a� 56 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 top could move out of this neighborhood but she would rather be on San Marino Way than in a more upscale place. Her work takes her into all areas of Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage and many homes have casitas that are built into them. They were just a higher end home. Maybe they felt that those people wouldn't be renting them, but maybe they were. She felt that what was going on in this neighborhood was a wonderful thing and should be looked at. There was not enough affordable housing for people to get a chance in this valley. They have huge economic differences between what a person in this neighborhood and what a person makes in the Reserve. The back bone of this community were the people who could go into the Reserve and provide the service to build that home and these people had to start somewhere. She didn't think that having a beautiful duplex with quiet neighbors was a problem. She thought that they as a government entity had the ability to police these things to see what element was coming in and to look at the floor plan of the duplex and to say yes or no. They were for it and were happy to be in that neighborhood. ~ MR. MARK NICHOLS, 44-536 Portola Avenue, addressed the commission. He said they heard a lot of great things about Jerry tonight. He believed there were a lot of other great people who could do the same thing. He said his point was that ten years ago Jerry started breaking the present rules. What he felt from the commission tonight was that they wanted to stay with the present rules. He thought everyone had proved that those present rules can have faults and by breaking them, it could work, so they shouldn't be so judgeful about it. MR. DAN MURPHY, 74-084 San Marino Way, addressed the commission. He stated that he has been there for 16 years. Maybe much to Jerry's surprise, he didn't want him over at his house telling his wife what to do because every time they get together they have new ideas for him to do to fix up his house. He said he has seen nothing but improvements and Jerry had done a great job on the houses he's done. He said he didn't need another duplex. He's been there 16 years and it has been a great place. He had seen one of the people in opposition sitting there, he had seen the former owner of that house helping Jerry do the work on the r� 57 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 ark houses that she was complaining about, but that was besides the point. He said that it's been a great little neighborhood and he was glad he was there and that he was staying. They weren't moving. MR. JOE BARON, 74-074 San Marino Way, addressed the commission. He stated that he has lived next door to Jerry as close neighbors, just a few feet apart, for ten years since they bought what should have been a knock down repo HUD home. They had since renovated it. They bought it for a great deal and spent twice the amount of money from the purchase price rehabbing the pool. All he could say was the Jerry was a real man's man. He's helped them all and they could see how this whole thing has evolved. If they were all to want to go start over again, if they were going to get married for the first time, they would want to have Jerry for their best man. So he hoped the commission would back up their neighborhood and all of their people here. MRS. SARA NICHOLS, 44-536 Portola Avenue, addressed the commission. She stated that she and her husband recently relocated from Oregon. She moved down here specifically to manage the new Norwalk Furniture idea store. Her husband had recently gone to work for Orr Construction. She said they own a home in Oregon and they were not in a position to be able to purchase a home here at this time, but they still wanted to live in a home-like setting. Jerry provided them with that. They have dogs and not very many places would accept a dog. If they live in an apartment, they couldn't let them out the back door. She said it was a wonderful neighborhood. Their next door neighbor, Gina, was the nicest neighbor they could ever hope to have and they take care of each other's dogs when they aren't home, they water each other's flowers. There was a great desire and a need for this type of living. They wanted a home-like setting. They have a home setting. Jerry provided them with that. It didn't feel like a duplex. It was very private. She couldn't imagine living in an apartment. She hadn't had to live in an apartment since she left home. She would never choose to live in an apartment and without Jerry's housing situation, that wouldn't be possible for them. s 58 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 MS. GINA GALINDO, 44-536 Portola Avenue, addressed the commission. She stated that she has lived in the desert for 24 years. She worked for College of the Desert for 19 of those years. She raised her son here in the desert, who was now off at Cal Poly going to school. For over five years she has lived in one of these secondary units and she hated to call it that because as some people mentioned, if they were to see them, they looked like little cottages. They were beautiful. They were quality work and not apartments by any means. It was the only way she could live in the place she wanted to live near where she works, here in Palm Desert, and not have to live in an apartment. She couldn't on her own live in a big house right here in the center of town, but in one of these cottages she could live in a place that feels and looks like a house. She goes home, walks through her gate, locks her gate, and her little dog was there. She has privacy and feels safe. She lives alone besides her little dog. Her place looked like a little beach house, until Jerry started some more work on it. She wasn't worried because she knows his work and knew she would be %W really happy with it when he was done. She said she had some wonderful neighbors and was really happy with her neighbors. Mark and Sara just moved in next door and as they mentioned, they help each other out and Fran and Gil have lived across the street since she moved in and as Fran mentioned, their sons grew up together playing soccer and baseball together. Until just recently, a couple of years ago, until Trish and Don started to fix up their house on the other side, she was pretty afraid at times when she heard fire crackers going off in the middle of the night and loud music and there were some pretty bad neighbors on that side and since Jerry had done the work over there, Trish and Don were able to get some quality people in there and as they mentioned, Frank, her new respectable neighbor, lives there now and she felt very safe at home now. All around her she had great people. She said that Jerry does work that is incredible. She invited them to come and see them before making a decision on this. She understood their concern regarding parking and well defined criteria on secondary housing, but Jerry had always provided adequate parking right on the site. There was always parking for all the tenants that live there. They look like houses and if they could see the before and after pictures of these places, 59 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 they would be amazed. She hoped they would get that opportunity. She hoped that Jerry could continue improving the neighborhood as he has and the other people who would live up to these standards. She hoped they would have the opportunity to continue providing this kind of affordable housing in a place they wanted to live. MR. DON MOHR, 74-874 Leslie Avenue in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He stated that he and his wife own a house on 74-041 El Cortez Way. They took the house over five years ago and he said the bottom line was he took it over for purely selfish reasons; hopefully to be able to rent it and be able to make some money and get out of the deal over a period of time. He is a small independent business owner and he was always looking for avenues to look out for his future. Not being a real property owner and not knowing anything about rental property, he made a lot of mistakes. Bottom line was he got to know Jerry and he bailed him out and spent an entire year of his time like his wife said, a year t plus of his time, never asking for a penny. He spent countless hundreds of hours over there helping, and not even helping but doing stuff for him to help him refurbish this property to make it a nice, presentable upscale home. It wasn't a piece of junk like it was. It was a little two bedroom, one bath 1962 built ranch house that had never had a thing done to it. To look at it now they would be amazed. It has a mother-in-law suite in the back that they were in the process of renovating with the possibility in the future of having it be a secondary unit. These homes that Jerry has done and the one he was doing were not some slapstick thing just trying to shove as many people into it to get as much money out of it slum lord type deal. They were trying to make something that was presentable and would help the neighborhood, not hinder it. MR. FRANK GONZANTE, 74-041 El Cortez, a tenant of the Mohr's, addressed the commission. He said it was clear that there are good things going on in this neighborhood and these people were turning the general, dilapidated places that were falling apart and were putting some shine on them and doing some good stuff there. He said he is a small business owner himself and where he resides is very conducive to him doing that and he wanted to voice 60 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 `w that he didn't think one could take issue with how this was benefiting the neighborhood. He knew there were greater issues here, but on a real down to earth level it was a very beneficial place and what they were doing was clearly a good thing. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone else wished to speak. There was no response. Chairperson Finerty asked if they should leave the public hearing open or close it. Mr. Drell said that unless they were prepared to act, they should leave it open. He noted that in the testimony they heard a lot of general information on the ordinance and indirectly on the specific cases that were an example of what would be permitted by the ordinance. He thought they might want to continue all of them to think about it and maybe go on a tour to see what these units are like. He didn't know if that would be meaningful or not. The trick would be on how to devise an ordinance that insures that we get what the people in the audience were talking about and whether they were clever enough to do that and insure that they could also control, regulate and monitor. One thing they heard was that what makes a home isn't the size of the lot or the size of the house. What made a home was the character of it and the %W character of the property and how it is designed. In San Francisco there are very expensive homes on 12-foot wide lots and in Orange County all over the place they were building on 1 ,500 square foot lots, single family detached homes, so what made a single family home didn't have to be 4,000 square feet or on an 8,000 square foot lot. Depending on people's needs and what they are capable of living in and what their desires were, they could have a home and it could be a single family home. It might not meet everyone's definition, but it served for a lot of people in that capacity. The question was how to devise an ordinance that insures the best of this sort of activity that to the best of our ability protects against what we see as the down side. Maybe the commission could think about it and staff would think about it and come back in probably a month and at the same time the City Attorney could discuss it with the City Council to kind of appraise them of where they were going with it. On the other hand, in discussing the issue in the abstract with the City Council, they wouldn't have heard what the commission just heard. It wasn't a black and white question necessarily, so it was something he thought the commission got a rounder story on than what the City Council would probably get in the absence of going through this whole process themselves and maybe it was appropriate for them, after getting the %Nr 61 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 whole story, to make a recommendation to them. Their job wasn't to figure out what the City Council wants and give it back to them; their job was to take all the testimony, get all the facts and take the best shot at it they could. Commissioner Jonathan said that the stuff they heard about today, that was ideal and it was wonderful. If they could be assured that this ordinance, the amendment to this ordinance, would result in that and strictly that there would be no discussion. Hands down they would do everything they could to support that. He said he would like to find a way to support the specific things that had been done and they would get to the specific applications at a later time. But they took some time to listen to all of them and he hoped they heard what he had to say. Their concerns were 100% valid. But so were the concerns of those that weren't here. They had to think of the broader community and he wanted them to envision a neighborhood that wasn't like theirs but that had the cookie cutter homes, single family residences and people buy into that expecting that was how it would stay. They heard testimony earlier from people who objected to a church next to them, so any slight variation from their expectation of homes next to homes sends them wild and they would have 1 ,000 people here if all of a sudden rental duplexes started popping up next to them. Their challenge as he saw it was to devise a way so that the very, very, very good things that were happening in their neighborhood could be enabled and encouraged to occur while at the same time preventing the negative possibilities. That was their challenge. He didn't think anyone there was against the good stuff they were hearing was going on there. He wished it could happen 100-fold in this city because we need that. We need bad neighborhoods to improve and we need affordable housing to occur. We want that and share that goal and he would like to see that happen 100 fold. Their concern with the ordinance was how to make that happen without creating negative impacts at the same time. That was what the commission needed to address. Chairperson Finerty concurred and also noted that not everyone was in favor. There was some correspondence about when and where the encroachment into the R-1 zone by multi-use units, large lived-in motor homes and smaller camper residences end. Shall all Palm Desert residents do as they please regardless of zoning and codes and then after the fact j 62 �) MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 ire be given the blessings of the City? So there was this other side that they as a commission needed to take into consideration as well. For people that saved and finally got their dream home in a single family neighborhood, which is what they desired, and then to have their area redesigned to accommodate what they have all found so successful, although it works and was successful for them, for people wanting to live in a single family residential neighborhood, that was not going to work for them. So they had a very difficult balancing act in order to stay within the law and to try and continue with the success they have enjoyed and shared with the commission this evening and then to take into consideration the other points of view as well. That was why she would not be at all prepared at this time, this was too complex of an issue and she thought this was something they wanted to try to make the right decision the first time. Staff noted that testimony specifically in opposition of the ordinance amendment had not been solicited. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION. MR. TODD ESTINSEN, 74-043 El Cortez Way, addressed the commission. He said he lives in a single family unit home and he did appreciate that that is what it is. He, as others who had spoken mentioned, on their street they have had particular problems with units and homes. He didn't see how with those problems, and Jerry was a wonderful man, the thing was he couldn't see how he could fix the parking problem. The fact that he was on a corner and his influence was quite catching and the neighbor next to Jerry, which was the neighbor right next to him, has this idea of creating these units on their property as well. That was great if they were all into making some money on this street and if they were all just going to cash it in and just rent it out, then he would have a unit in the back of his property and would be asking to do the same thing and he would go ahead and move out of that neighborhood and rent his home out too. He would jump on the band wagon. What he recommended was that they not allow this. That this would be a problem and it would just create a big problem on that street. There was too much parking, there were too many people living in a single home now, and he didn't see how allowing others, a unit behind the original f•.r 63 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 t residence, was going to fix the problem. He didn't really think that Jerry had the answers. He said he himself didn't and hoped the commission did and hoped that they could keep it from his neighborhood from turning into a complex of mini dwellings when he didn't believe the street was set up for all these amounts of cars. He found it hard to have the street sweeper just sweep the street. They go down the middle of the street and didn't catch the curb because there were so many cars parked. And yes, it was in front of Jerry's house. There was a car right across the street from Jerry's house right now that used to be in the driveway that they conveniently pushed into the street for the City to tow away. So he didn't know how good that was for his street and for his neighborhood. So he just wanted to let them know that Jerry is a good guy, but the problem was that a lot of people aren't good guys. A lot of people are into it to just get rich. He just put in a pool in the back of his home and was expecting to stay for some time. He could show the commission pictures that he has taken of a crack house and turned it into a very beautiful home and he thought others would agree. So it wasn't a magical one man, Jerry, that has the answers to create wonderful villas. That was great and he was doing a great job. He said he helped Jerry work on his first home that he turned into a duplex that he was sure it was a single home and was now a duplex just like all these other ones that apparently turned into duplexes and he didn't know why Jerry was before the commission today when he was already doing it. He found that kind of ludicrous or crazy. He hoped the commission would not let this continue and maybe freeze what has happened and maybe make some good guidelines. Parking was incredible. He wasn't worried about the gun shots, he was just worried about getting into his driveway or having a place for a person to come and visit and be able to park without having to go quite a few doors down to park. That was all he wanted to say. He thanked the commission for their time. MR. DOUGLAS KOPP, 44-870 Cabrillo, addressed the commission. He stated that they have lived there 34 years and his main concern was the encroachment into the R-1 zone. He asked where they were going to draw the line in the sand. They thought they bought this place and that was the way it was going to be. He said he 64 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 knew Jerry, he was a nice man and had done a good job, but if they were going to have laws, they should stick by them. Jerry has had rentals there for years and now he wanted to get it approved. Jerry lives in a trailer. And all of those things were illegal. If they were going to have laws they should enforce them and he was against this encroachment into the R-1 and he was really against these units that were so close to them on San Marino Circle. MS. KIM HOUSKA, 73-237 Somera, stated that she was at the meeting regarding the mono pole being built in Ironwood Park, but she did grow up in this neighborhood and was very familiar with the whole neighborhood and she felt compelled to stay because of the things that had been going on. She said she had been taking copious notes. She took exception to the fact that the applicant was requesting these conditional use permits after having already built or remodeled several of the units. She was wondering why the procedures weren't followed initially. All the neighbors speak highly of him, but why didn't he follow the procedures? She noticed, and she may have heard wrong, but it seemed that at least four different people gave the address of 74-060 San Marino and she was wondering how many people live at that site. That was also where Mr. Beauvais mentioned living in a 20-foot trailer. She lives in south Palm Desert by Ironwood Park and knew for a fact that their next door neighbors couldn't even have a trailer parked in their driveway let alone someone living in a trailer. She wondered where Code Enforcement was. She said that initially their next door neighbors had a citation from Code Enforcement regarding a boat. Just a boat parked for two days and they received a citation on their driveway. She asked how it was that Code Enforcement has missed through the years all these units being remodeled and people living in trailers. She wondered if there was a double standard. Was there a rule applied to south Palm Desert and a separate standard applied to north Palm Desert? She noted that Commissioners Tschopp and Jonathan didn't want to vote on the mono pole and asked if they could imagine these units being up in their neighborhood and trailers with people living in them in south Palm Desert? It wouldn't have happened. She was sympathetic to the idea of a mother-in-law unit, but again that 65 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 would be owner occupied and they would have a relative living there, so she wasn't opposed to these ideas, but when they begin renting out to multiple families on a very small site, parking was a problem. She has driven down San Marino Circle, San Marino Way, and there were cars all over the street. She could look all the way down Somera and there wasn't a car on the street. They go to north Palm Desert and had to literally jog in and out of the cars on some of those streets. Again, she had seen the houses that have been renovated and they look great, but she asked why they couldn't be rented to just a single family. There was nothing wrong with improving the houses and renting to a single family and perhaps Mr. Beauvais would move out of the trailer and into one of his units and then the secondary unit would be owner occupied and he could have a secondary unit. So she didn't think people were totally against him improving the neighborhood, but certainly against the idea of just multiple families moving into these different units. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was anyone else. There was no one. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was a motion to continue. Commissioner Jonathan said he would move for a continuance. Mr. Drell suggested 30 days to December 17. He said the question was if there was any member or two members of the commission who would want to be on a subcommittee to work with staff or if they just wanted staff to put together a whole group of options to bring back to them on the 17th. Commissioner Jonathan said that if he needed their involvement, he was happy to participate. Commissioner Lopez said he was also. Mr. Drell said he would give them a call. Commissioner Jonathan said that if others wanted to participate, he would bow out. Mr. Drell said it was up to the commission if they wanted to appoint two people. Chairperson Finerty said she didn't know if it was appropriate to do a study session and to find out what other cities are doing and try to educate themselves as best they could. Mr. Drell thought that other cities were doing what they were doing. Chairperson Finerty wanted to look at other ordinances to seek out their ideas as well. Mr. Drell said he thought they were scratching their heads. He wasn't sure there was any magic out there, but they would try to find it, but they should read the law carefully and see if they could find something. There was the fundamental issue, and 66 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 %W one of the five they approved was in south Palm Desert on a very fancy street and the reason they were able to do it was because they built the whole property from scratch. That was the only way they were able to physically comply with our standards. Commissioner Jonathan recalled that it was on an acre. Mr. Drell didn't think it was that big and noted that it was built by an executive of the Water District. But the fundamental problem was that the law said they have to find a way to do this so the simple answer of "stop this from happening" could not be a motivation of the standards. So staff would try the best they could to find out but apparently at the last League of California Cities Conference this was the whole buzz. What they were going to do. He said they were all sitting around doing the same thing. Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't think the objective was to stop it from happening, the objective was to stop bad situations from happening and facilitate and enable good situations to happen, but given that, he didn't know if there were just two of them that wanted to participate with staff, that was fine. If there were more, maybe a study session, and it might have to be a closed session because there were some legal issues involved and maybe that should be the way. Chairperson Finerty thought they really needed beyond December 17. With the holidays and people's schedules it would be next to impossible to do a good job in this relatively short amount of time. She suggested two months to the second meeting in January. Commissioner Jonathan thought that if they were going to have just closed session, they could do that at the next meeting or by the 17th to keep the process moving. Chairperson Finerty concurred. She thought they needed to brainstorm in order to give staff direction. Commissioner Jonathan agreed and that would give staff better direction and then they would have time as well. Commissioner Lopez also wanted to echo the comments that they had all done a great job. He was proud to live in Palm Desert listening to what they had accomplished in their neighborhood. They were role models, but this was going to be a controversial subject. He admired what they had all accomplished. Having driven around the area, it was a pretty neat area. But there were issues in other areas that perhaps wouldn't work and there would be people who would dramatically oppose the concept. But if it was exactly like they were doing and if it was perfect in every way the way that they were doing it, there would be no issue, but a.� 67 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 9 i 4 unfortunately it wasn't that way and they had to look at the much bigger picture and he said he didn't want to stop what they were all doing. They just wanted to be able to develop a criteria that they all could at least come up with some type of a win-win situation across the board that they could at least enforce. That was their goal. Chairperson Finerty noted that the second meeting in January would be January 21 . Commissioner Jonathan asked when they could have that closed study session. Mr. Drell suggested in December. Chairperson Finerty suggested either the first or second meeting depending on which agenda night was a little shorter. Commissioner Jonathan felt that would give staff a little better direction as to how to proceed as well and adequate time. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they needed to continue this item to a closed session in December. Mr. Hargreaves said no. They would just agendize the issue and it would not be a public hearing. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the other cases before them and asked if they should just continue those. Mr. Drell said that they should go through the process of opening those public hearings and then hopefully everyone had spoken as much as they wanted to speak on those as well so they could open them and continue them to January 21 , as well. Mr. Drell said they could open all the public hearings consecutively and ask for public testimony and then continue all of them. Commissioner Lopez asked if that would include the ordinance. Mr. Drell said it could include the ordinance as well. But they wanted to go through the process of opening the public hearings for each case. D. Case No. CUP 02-14 - JEROME M. BEAUVAIS, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 930 square foot, one-bedroom detached second unit with a carport for two parking spaces located at 44-574 Portola Avenue. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was left open. Mr. Beauvais asked if he should give a presentation. y fi 68 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 Mr. Drell said he could, but he didn't think anyone was at issue as to the quality of his particular projects. They needed to figure out a mechanism for approving them that worked. Chairperson Finerty noted that the public hearing was left open. E. Case Nos. CUP 02-15 and VAR 02-04 - JEROME M. BEAUVAIS, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 522 square foot attached second unit and variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 15 feet to 8 feet to allow a carport for two parking spaces for property at 44-536 Portola Avenue. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked for testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. tam MR. TODD ESTINSEN, 74-043 El Cortez Way in Palm Desert, stated that he just wanted to let them know that if they are encroaching on the property lines, obviously there was not enough room to do their major plan on these properties. If they could keep it within the proper limits, then there probably wouldn't be as much trouble as what is going on. When they start stretching these limits out, and right now he could almost touch this house, and this garage would become one of these units if this went through. It made his back yard now have a home right there and when he speaks they could hear him and when they speak he could hear them. He was highly against it. Chairperson Finerty left the public hearing open. F. Case No. CUP 02-16 - JEROME M. BEAUVAIS, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 945 square foot attached two-bedroom second unit at 74- 041 San Marino Circle. 69 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 i Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no testimony. Chairperson Finerty left the public hearing open. G. Case No. CUP 02-17 - JEROME M. BEAUVAIS, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 920 square foot attached second unit at 74-060 San Marino Circle. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MS. ANGELA SCOTT, 74-570 San Marino Circle, addressed the commission. She said she sent in a petition with her name and several others and thought the commission must have it in front of them. She said that is her statement. She was very unhappy about this whole thing and she wished they wouldn't allow this to continue. r■rl Chairperson Finerty left the public hearing open and asked for the commission to vote on a motion of continuance. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Chairperson Finerty, continuing Case Nos. ZOA 02-02, CUP 02-14, CUP 02-15, CUP 02-16, and CUP 02-17 to January 21 , 2003 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Chairperson Finerty noted that it was suggested that she explain that basically that meant they would be doing their homework up until January 21 . She asked staff if it would be re-advertised. Mr. Drell said no. Chairperson Finerty explained that the next meeting on this matter would be January 21 , 2003. 70 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 r.r X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (October 16, 2002) Commissioner Campbell stated that the meeting was informational only. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (October 3, 2002) Chairperson Finerty said that the General Plan Advisory Committee had a lack of a quorum so they were meeting this Thursday. E. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) F. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) rr. G. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) H. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS Chairperson Finerty noted that the next meeting was December 3. Commissioner Lopez commented that under two cases this evening there was conversation brought up about the lack of notification for this particular meeting and asked for clarification. Mr. Drell said that someone made that comment and he wasn't sure why. Our process required the applicant to provide us with the legal notice names and he has considered eliminating that requirement in that for them to know it is correct they have to check it over and for them to check it over took as much time for them to produce the names themselves. Commissioner Jonathan noted that there was a service that provides that. Mr. Drell %W 71 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 arl explained that there are services that provide it, but they are highly unreliable. Commissioner Jonathan said that is where the applicants go. Mr. Drell said that was what he meant and 19 times out of 20 it was okay, but it was that 20th time and for that 20th time to never occur, they had to check over all 20 and the time it took for them to check all 20 it was just as easy for them to do it. So what they would be doing was staff was going to start doing it and the City was also doing a study of our fees. So they would be doing it from now on since it didn't save them any time not to do it and when we redo our fees, we would probably include that in the cost of the application. Every once in a while it pops up and ultimately that was the solution. Then if it was our fault, it was our fault, but it burns us when we think we have this convenience and it blows up in our faces. Commissioner Campbell asked how far in advance they should have their notice. People were saying they just received them. Mr. Drell said that for a case that doesn't require a special CEQA compliance, it was ten days. It wasn't supposed to be longer than two weeks because there was also a fear that if they send a notice out too much ahead of time people forget. So it was ten days on a lot of the ones and the ones with �■� a Negative Declaration require a 21-day notice. Commissioner Campbell said that even if they send them out on time, it wasn't staff's fault because of the mail. Mr. Drell said that if staff sends it out in 10 days and they get it seven days in advance, it was odd how many people show up complaining they didn't get noticed. The purpose of the noticing requirement, and they also publish it in the newspaper, was to get it generally known that hopefully even those that didn't get the notice, word would get out. The word got out or they wouldn't be able to complain about not getting a notice. In any case, to insure that they would staff was going to be doing it themselves. Then if there was someone to blame, it was them. Commissioner Lopez said that the comment made tonight really struck home, and perception was everything, and to those folks the perception was that they were trying to sneak something through and he didn't ever want to have that type of a stigma on something they were trying to do. Mr. Drell pointed out that Mr. Lopez did get a notice and for him to say that after they explained to him all our own concerns and because of those concerns we were continuing it, it was a cheap shot for him to say 4 72 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2002 iow they were trying to run it through when he knew earlier that they were partially in agreement with him and were continuing it. He didn't know why he said that. Commissioner Lopez noted that it was timing and how much time from when he got it to how much time he had to respond and send letters. Mr. Drell said he got in letters a week ago. Commissioner Lopez said that they get a ton of stuff when they walk in the room and most of the time it was from folks who had written letters. They were getting the word to them. Commissioner Jonathan agreed that perception was everything and he had a personal experience where he got noticed on a matter at Planning Commission but didn't get noticed on two Council meetings and in fact missed the first one because he didn't know it was on the agenda and he only attended the second one because someone he talked to asked him if he was going to the meeting that day. Those kinds of perceptions were not good. Mr. Drell noted that was a fairly large notice and it was time consuming for staff to check every one and as long as they were going to check every one, it was just as easy for them to do them themselves. �... XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. The motion carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 10:5 PHILIP DRELL, ecretary ATTEST: r SONIA CAMPBELL, Vice Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm r.. 73