HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/19/2009MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY — MAY 1 % 2009
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Tanner called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Van Tanner, Chair
Connor Limont, Vice Chair
Sonia Campbell
Nancy DeLuna
Mari Schmidt
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development
Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney
Tony Bagato, Principal Planner
Renee Schrader, Associate Planner
Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner
Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner
Ryan Stendell, Senior Management Analyst
Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Tanner led in the pledge of allegiance.
IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION
Ms. Aylaian summarized pertinent May 7, 2009 City Council actions.
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Request for consideration of the May 5, 2009 meeting minutes.
Commissioner Schmidt requested that "Having said that," be removed
from the first line on page 9.
Action:
With that correction, it was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded
by Commissioner DeLuna, approving the May 5, 2009 minutes as
amended. Motion carried 5-0.
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Case No. PMW 09-153 — ROBERT DEL GAGNON, Applicant
Request for approval of Parcel Map Waiver 09-153 to allow
the merger of two lots identified as 73-648 and 73-636
Alessandro Drive.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Limont, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried
5-0.
Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to
raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public
hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the
Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
A. Case No. CUP 09-180 — LISA THEODORATUS, Applicant
(Closed Public Hearing continued from May 5, 2009)
Per direction from the Planning Commission, presentation of
a draft resolution denying a request for a conditional use
permit to allow the rental of a single-family residence in an
R-1 zone, for periods of less than 30 days, located at 77-040
Utah Circle.
Ms. Renee Schrader explained that staff prepared the resolution of denial
per the minutes and hoped it reflected their intentions. If not, it could be
revised.
Chairperson Tanner asked for a motion.
4
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner
Schmidt, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1
(Commissioner Campbell voted no).
It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner
Schmidt, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2500, denying
Case No. CUP 09-180. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Campbell voted
no).
B. Case Nos. PP 07-10, CUP 07-18, DA 07-03, and DA 07-04 — DAVIS
STREET LAND COMPANY, Applicant
Request for a recommendation to City Council of approval of
Amendment #1 to a Precise Plan of Design, including
Conditional Use Permit and Development Agreements, to
allow a 27,000 square foot addition to the existing Saks 5tn
Avenue at the existing Gardens on El Paseo, and
construction of a 42,539 square foot single -story retail and
restaurant development, with adoption of an addendum to
the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration as it relates to
the project thereto. Subject properties are located at 73-545
El Paseo (Gardens on El Paseo, APN: 627-261-006) and 73-
425 El Paseo (El Paseo Village, APN: 627-252-004, 005).
Mr. Ryan Stendell reviewed the staff report. He noted that the amendments
complied with all the standards of the General Commercial zone and the
two originally approved development agreements. Staff believed that the
revised project would be a top notch project for El Paseo and would bring a
nice new building to the currently empty block. He asked for any questions,
noting that the developers were present, as well as their architects, parking
analysis folks, and others to answer any questions.
Commissioner Schmidt noted that in looking at the elevations, and taking
the elevation differences for the overall height, that most of it falls under the
30 feet, but there were two dimensions on the drawings, and it might be just
the drawings that showed each at 32 feet high to the top of the parapet. Mr.
Stendell explained that they did go through a few revisions, but they are at
30 feet overall. Using the plan, he showed the 30-foot mark. What they were
seeing was a mechanical screen, and he pointed out the 30-foot high points,
and indicated that the bulk of the building was well beneath the 30-foot limit.
Commissioner Schmidt clarified that she was referring only to the parapet
3
across the drawings and the two vistas which said 32. Mr. Stendell
apologized and clarified that it would be 30-feet high maximum.
Commissioner DeLuna indicated that she would have a question for the
applicant.
Commissioner Limont asked staff if there was any discussion of solar
panels for this building. Mr. Stendell indicated that there wasn't a solar
component in the original project, and he wasn't prepared to say yes or no
to that. He explained that they had a study session on Thursday with the
City Council where a lot of different topics would be discussed. He didn't
know if there would be one with this project. Commissioner Limont asked if
they agreed to it, if it could be done. Mr. Stendell deferred that to the
developer.
Chairperson Tanner opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the Commission.
MR. STEVE DIVITO, with Davis Street Land Company in Evanston,
Illinois, thanked the Commission for considering their project which,
as Ryan mentioned, was a modification to the previously approved El
Paseo Village. They believed the revised project, while still focusing
on retail, which they thought was the important part of the El Paseo
District, was only one story in height and much more in keeping with
the other businesses or buildings in El Paseo Village. He said their
architects were present to provide much more detail about the
project, as well as all of their team members, to answer any specific
questions.
Commissioner DeLuna stated that it's an exciting project for our city in the
most prominent location and was an excellent opportunity to showcase
some of the energy standards. She asked what their intentions were for
green and sustainable design standards.
Mr. DiVito said they do have a number of green building construction
methods they were planning to incorporate into the project. Mr.
Dempster, their architect, had a list of what those were and he could
go into more detail.
Commissioner DeLuna asked if it was correct that originally it was
scheduled to be a gold standard Leed development.
Mr. DiVito said that silver was the standard.
0
11 F7i _3 ► I ► I I ► Rlelel 11 I 11 1 &*,1 [@1 1 Il
Commissioner DeLuna noted that she didn't see any reference to that and
questioned if that had been modified, or if it was still a silver Leeds certified
building.
Mr. DiVito replied that modification was in process and believed that
was the focus of Thursday's study session with City Council. They
would be focusing on doing certain construction methods that are
included in Leed, instead of pursuing an actual certification.
Commissioner DeLuna asked why they wouldn't pursue an actual
certification.
Mr. DiVito said that Mr. Dempster could speak to it in more detail, but
his understanding was that with the piece of the building that they are
not building as office, the piece of the building that previously allowed
them to pursue Leed certification, they didn't have control over what
the retail tenants on the ground floor could do as part of their
construction. It was their understanding that certification was
extremely unlikely, and, therefore, the reason for not pursuing it,
voluntarily they were including certain construction methods that are
part of a Leed program in the project.
Commissioner DeLuna explained that it was her experience that the Leed
certification process is holistic and encouraged ongoing, it wasn't something
that had to happen at the end of a project, so she didn't understand why
they wouldn't pursue a silver standard regardless of whether it was a one-
story or two-story building. They would have had office space on the second
story as well with tenants.
Mr. DiVito replied that with the office tenants above, they had a much
greater control of the build -out of that space.
MR. GARY DEMPSTER, Altoon and Porter Architects, 444 South
Flower in Los Angeles, said that one of the original intents was to
pursue the Leed certification. Since he has been studying for the
Leed AP (Accredited Professional) test, and would be taking it on
June 23, he had become ever more familiar with the requirements of
getting Leed certification on a building. As they probably knew, it was
predicated on certain prerequisites and credits that they achieve by
achieving certain things. The bulk of credits available for Leed have
to do with energy conservation and exceeding minimum standards.
The presumption was that the client or the owner of the building is
installing the systems. In the previous building, they were installing
the systems for the office space: doing their air-conditioning, doing
5
MINUTES
4_ 11 i \ ► ► _ 11 11 ► 11 ' J
their lighting and doing their electrical systems, which gave them an
opportunity to influence the energy efficiency to those systems.
With the new dynamic, that work was going to be on the part of the
tenant, so they didn't have an opportunity to influence that or apply
for a credit for that work because it wasn't in their purview. So the
one thing they had been discussing with the client is that they were
going to encourage the tenants to design their individual mechanical
systems, their lighting systems, and if they put in restrooms, the
water consumption to low flow fixtures in order to comply with the
intent of Leed, but they couldn't mandate it nor presume that they
were going to get credit for it. So what they had been doing with their
client is going through an analysis of all the Leed prerequisites and
points that, had they been pursuing this and been able to get a
certification, would have complied with. They have been advising
them of all the things they are still doing within the project, but where
they would fall short was because they didn't control their own
destiny. So that was why when Mr. DiVito said that they were not
assuming they would be applying for certification was because they
didn't believe they could get to the minimum level because they
weren't building enough of the building.
What he could tell them was that the Leed approach still had to do
with a site's sustainability and renewable materials, and they were
still pursuing a number of those initiatives as it relates to public
transportation and connectivity to the community as it has to do with
recycling construction waste, reducing pollution during the
construction process, water efficient landscaping, and reducing
consumption of potable water for non -potable uses. They were going
to shade 50% of the parking structure. They were also trying to select
recycled material, so they were very sensitive to the Leed idea, and if
with any kind of luck he passes and becomes a Leed certified AP
next month, they were very sensitive to that and so was their client.
They just wanted to be totally candid in that they didn't believe they
could get certified because they don't control their destiny on enough
issues.
Commissioner DeLuna noted that Commissioner Limont asked about solar
panels. She asked if that was something that would work into his idea for
the project.
Mr. Dempster replied that the challenge here is that it wasn't his
client consuming electricity, it was the tenants. They do a lot of retail
work, and pursuing Leed certification for a retail building is a bit of a
0
MINUTES
211
11 i\l l �I111 Q►
challenge, the USGBC (United States Green Building Counsel) is
presently studying it, and there's a pilot program to create a retail
certification. They only do shell, not tenant spaces. They explored it
previously, and quite honestly what they were advised is that the tax
credits for using solar power were grandfathering out under the
previous administration. The solar providers they contacted here in
the valley have said that they weren't sure what the implications were
of tax credits that will be under the new administration. So they were
in a bit of a "no man's land". It is extraordinarily expensive. It was
surprising to them the cost of providing those panels versus the rate
of return if they are not actually consuming the electricity; the tenants
are. So the short answer to the question was it was not presently
being considered.
Commissioner DeLuna indicated that he mentioned the expense, and she
believed that the City has commercial loans available for such energy
saving.
Mr. Dempster explained that went beyond his purview for this project.
He was only designing it. If they had any other questions, he
hopefully would have the answer.
Commissioner DeLuna thanked him for his thorough answers.
Mr. Dempster asked if they would like a dog and pony show, or if
they would just go with Mr. Stendell's.
Chairperson Tanner asked for his presentation.
Mr. Dempster said when they were last here over a year ago, some
of them reviewed it as Planning Commissioners and some were on
the Architectural Review Committee. They had an opportunity to get
the benefit of all of their advice and insight. They've been back
through the Architectural Review Committee last Tuesday and
received their approval, because they were smart enough to carry
forward the advice from last year to this year's redesign. But as they
all knew, the economic climate this year was very much different than
it was last year and the year before. Fortuitously for them, there was
an opportunity to still go forward with the project by minimizing some
of the spaces that were previously included which are presently in
this day and age not as economically feasible. It was still the design
intent to create a synergy between The Gardens as it is still owned
by the same client from the same side of the street on opposite sides
of the corners. So they were still envisioning that the use of the
7
' _ 11 � i ► ► l _ � Il ll � ► ll ' � � �
materials, the colors, the textures, and the design approach were
sympathetic across the street. The idea was that the corner elements
are still sympathetic on either side between the Gardens and El
Paseo Village. They made an error in the documentation that was
submitted, and he apologized because ultimately it was his fault; it
was going to remain under 30 feet. Ryan was very kind to point that
out immediately upon submission, so they submitted revised
drawings and would stay at the 30-foot maximum height.
Mr. Dempster said that the original composition and this composition
still very much considered shadow, the play of light, and changes in
planes to take advantage of the incredible light quality here in the
desert. They modified parapets because they really do want this to
look like a collection of buildings. It is a symphony and not just one
note and they really wanted it to have some variation so that when
driving down the street, it is experienced at different levels. The
interesting part about retail buildings is that they are experienced on
foot or from a windshield, so when they look at renderings and flat
drawings, it is a bit misleading because they never really experience
the building like that. For those that live here and have the sheer joy
of using El Paseo a lot, they really focus on the storefronts and
everything at eye level or when driving by and the stuff that happens
up top becomes very much subservient to that which happens at the
street level. So they tried to compose a back drop to the buildings
and really let the tenants sing, because that's what really happens on
that street. It's all about the tenants and not much about the
buildings. As an architect, that pained him to say that, but that's their
job.
He noted that Mr. Stendell mentioned that they had been working
with staff to try and increase landscape along the southern edge of
their neighbors. They might recall that one of the issues forefront in
everyone's discussion last year was the influence of the elevated
parking deck on their adjacent neighbors. Fortuitously, that issue had
now gone away and they were able to do what they had always
intended, which was create a landscape buffer which separates their
project, more importantly the light and noise, away from the adjacent
properties. Through staff's recommendation, and insistence, they
increased the landscape buffer that helps create a visual barrier
between the tennis court on the adjacent parcel and their property.
Mr. Dempster mentioned that one of the Leed initiatives has to do
with recognizing that there is a certain amount of solar heat gained
by the sun's rays heating up building materials and they let off heat in
�u�
W-1111 i AJ W-` \ ► \ . l! Il I'll,l 11 '
the evening; one of the initiatives they very much supported was
shaded parking. One of their credits is shading 50% of the parking
area, so this design between the use of trees and the parking
coverage would actually accommodate that. That was one of the
things that while they might not be getting accreditation, they were
very sensitive to implement as much of that information as they
could.
Commissioner DeLuna suggested putting solar panels on top of the parking
structure.
Mr. Dempster said that originally they had discussed that as well. He
wouldn't bore them with all the trials and tribulations of the analyses
they've gone through, but they are very heavy. The support
mechanism to support solar panels would take a pretty sturdy column
and one of the impacts of that is the impact of the column size on the
parking stalls and the intrusion in, but he wouldn't bore them with the
minutia, but it was something that they looked at. He wasn't going to
tell them no, but he would tell them he didn't think right so right now.
Regarding the breezeways, Commissioner DeLuna pointed out that they
have an opportunity, because unlike The Gardens which has Saks recessed
and has a nice courtyard in the front, this building does not have that and
she saw the opportunity with two breezeways, instead of just having
canyons going from the front of the building back to the parking, it was an
opportunity to create a passive courtyard situation.
Mr. Dempster showed a drawing and described it as a quiet respite
place with water and seating.
Commissioner DeLuna identified a curved path and what appeared to be
benches and asked if that was what he was showing them.
Mr. Dempster said they had a sketch of that particular area. To her
point, one of the things that these are supposed to be sort of was a
respite place between the parking and the street. Their client was
really saying that they need a place for the employees to go rest, or if
someone just wanted to get out of the heat, there just needed to be a
quiet, but probably not contemplative area, something similar to what
she was describing. So the idea was that they would put an art wall
or some sort of water feature within the paseo itself and the base of it
would be a seating off of the main circulation path. It would also
introduce some landscaping and some other ideas against that wall
to just soften that space, because while ultimately it is just a
P17
�-' H-4
1I i \ \ \ _ 1I 11 ► Il 1 1
connective tissue between the streets, it really needed to do more
than that. So they very much supported her suggestion.
Commissioner DeLuna asked if they intended at any future date to add a
second story to what's now just the retail space.
Mr. Dempster said they were not making any provisions structurally,
and he could tell them that from past experience one of the
challenges in trying to do that is unfortunately, every time there is
seismic activity in California, the codes change and their ability to
forecast what that requirement was going to be into the future, they
would build in redundancy that they might not be able to use. So they
very rarely found it to be a cost effective planning exercise. In the
event of an earthquake and the codes and requirements changing,
they might not be able to use that which they provided, so presently
the discussion was no.
Commissioner DeLuna thanked him.
Commissioner Schmidt asked if they had built in the possibility of retrofitting
solar and so forth on the building structure in the future.
Mr. Dempster said that certainly the roof design would support the
dead load of solar panels, yes.
Commissioner Schmidt asked if once the buildings were occupied and they
see who the tenants are and what they use, it could be done.
Mr. Dempster said it was possible, yes.
Commissioner Schmidt thought he should plan for that.
Mr. Dempster said structurally they have planned for it.
Commissioner Schmidt asked about their construction timeframe, assuming
this project is approved. She referred to a sign that said 2010, but asked if
they are really funded and ready to proceed.
Mr. Dempster replied emphatically yes. They stood before them
ready to actually build the project.
Commissioner Schmidt asked about the timeframe on Saks and if it would
open at the same time.
[us
MINUTES
L _ 11 : \ \ \ 11 11 ► 11 _ 1 1 •
(Mr. Mike Radis of Davis Street Land Company spoke from the
audience and said it would be 2011.)
Commissioner Schmidt asked if there was any significant reason for that, or
if it was because of the economy.
(Mr. Radis confirmed that it was because of the economy.)
There were no other questions for the applicant. Chairperson Tanner asked
if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the public
hearing. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson
Tanner asked for Commission comments.
Commissioner Campbell stated that she was in favor of the project when it
came in front of them before with two stories, and she was now even more
in favor of it with one story. The neighbors to the south should be even
happier without the two-story parking. All the landscaping that would be
done on the outside was a lot more than the El Paseo Village had when
they were there. She was all in favor of the project and moved for approval.
Chairperson Tanner seconded the motion. He asked if there was any further
discussion.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Chairperson
Tanner, approving the findings as presented by staff.
Commissioner Schmidt asked if there were any conditions of approval. Mr.
Stendell explained that they were doing the first amendment to the precise
plan, conditional use permit, and also the two development agreements
that were approved by the City Council. All of the conditions from the
originally approved project were still in place with the way things were
written with some slight modifications to accommodate the new project.
He wanted to make sure he addressed this because he wanted the
Commission to have the most up-to-date information. The way they had
presented it this evening, because they were attempting to accommodate
the schedule and support El Paseo and try to move this through, the
original project had a condition for Leed. It was not to be Leed certified,
but to build the project to the standards of Leed Silver. Because of the
nature of Leed, they could not give a Certificate of Occupancy and know
whether they've achieved Leed or not, it comes after the fact. So in this
new project, with where they're at, and they were submitting
documentation to staff to review the type of Leed approval they could go
after, staff was not at a spot where they were comfortable saying yes they
can do it, or no they can't. But a lot of those issues were being dealt with
11
MINUTES
G _
and would be brought up at the study session with the City Council on
Thursday. So the way they teed this up for them today was they removed
all of the components to the two development agreements that were in the
first project in an attempt to look at the project as it is today, which was
definitely a project approvable by this Commission. And then they would
study the Leed aspect as they go forward, especially on Thursday, and
then by the time they got to City Council they would have it worked out.
They were trying to accommodate the project and move it forward in the
interest of serving El Paseo.
Based on that, Commissioner Limont said she agreed with both
Commissioners in that she thought it was a great project and liked it a
whole lot better. It was much more in keeping with El Paseo and was a
much classier design. Before she felt like they had five pounds of cement
in a one pound bag and they were just putting way too much in there. So
she applauded them. However, they are the City that took 811 up to
Sacramento; they are the City that is trying to be the beta for the State in
terms of energy consciousness and putting it into play. They have a very
active Council that's really moving that forward, so she encouraged them
when they sat down at study session, and she did not know engineering,
but thought they could put in whatever they needed into the structure so
that down the line, if they have the ability, or if the tenant had the ability to
put in solar or have better insulation, whatever the criteria might be, that
they are able to do it without too much redoing. But great project.
Commissioner Schmidt was also concerned about the project not being
Leed silver at least, because they have all sort of committed to that. She
knew that it was expensive and asked if the Commission was being asked
to simply move ahead with this so that Council could review it for final
approval, or if they needed to pass this with a condition that it should be
Leed certified in some sense, if they had that ability, or if they passed it
with a strong recommendation that every possible way be explored for
energy savings on the project. It's a big project and it just can't be ignored.
She was very pleased with this project. She thought it was wonderful and
they did an amazing job. And she was happy to hear that they were using
every conservation source that they possibly could, including recycled
material, etc., and that spoke volumes. But she really was concerned. She
wanted their project to proceed, but also wanted them to understand that
she would be looking for at least solar somewhere on those buildings in
the near future.
Commissioner DeLuna was in agreement with the other two
Commissioners who spoke. It was her understanding that in Leed certified
construction, that it's not one list of what they must do, it included all sorts
12
MINUTES
1/ : l\ \ 1 I ►1 ► 1 I
of parameters. So even though she understood that they have some
personalization that they were dealing with in terms of tenancy, it was very
possible, and she didn't know all of the standards at the moment, but it
was possible that they could incorporate a lot of the myriad of choices into
their part of the construction so that it could be certified on its own, rather
than waiting for a tenant to complete a process and have it be up in the air
about whether or not it would just be Leed standard construction or Leed
certified construction. Because of our energy conservation bill, AB811,
they have a real focus on that and have an obligation to carry through
what it is that they worked so hard to bring to Sacramento, and she
thought it was very important, particularly in a landmark project such as
they were proposing. She thought it was a wonderful project and
supported it wholeheartedly, but she would like to see more attention to
the standardization of the Leed certification process.
There were no other comments. Chairperson Tanner called for the vote.
Motion carried 5-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Chairperson
Tanner, adopting the findings and Planning Commission Resolution No.
2501, recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. PP 07-10,
CUP 07-18, DA 07-03, and DA 07-04 Amendment # 1, subject to the
attached conditions. Motion carried 5-0.
C. Case No. CUP 09-174 — GORDON L. BELMONT, Applicant
Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the
operation of a massage therapy service in a single room by an
individual certified therapist at the "Karl Vasquez Salon and Spa"
located on the northeast corner of Parkview Drive and Highway 111
at 72-180 Highway 111.
Ms. Renee Schrader reviewed the staff report. She noted that the applicant
came to staff to have a grand opening tent sale and to clear up exactly what
had been going on with the Department of Building & Safety. She had a
letter that was issued earlier that day and activated as of today, basically
with the understanding that they have a conditional occupancy right now.
What happened was that when this building was sold, somewhere along the
line the Certificate of Occupancy was not in the process, so when the owner
came to request a copy of the certificate, an inspector had to go out and it
was discovered that a few tenant improvements had happened without the
proper inspections, and those were still under review. A 30-day conditional
occupancy had been issued, which allowed staff to issue a Temporary Use
13
IJ � : \► \ _ �I111 �\ 11� � ���
Permit for the tent sale, since they were in operation. She had the letter if
they wanted to see it. Aside from that, as conditioned, there weren't any
additional issues on this project and staff recommended approval of Case
No. CUP 09-174.
Commissioner DeLuna asked if she was talking about Treatment Room No.
2. Ms. Schrader pointed it out on the map. She indicated that the smallest
one was No. 4, which would have been No. 2. Commissioner DeLuna noted
that Room No. 2 was highlighted and just wanted to make sure which one
she was referring to. She thanked her.
Commissioner Limont asked on the proposed hours of 9:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m., if that meant they would be gone at 8:00 p.m., or if the last
appointment was at 8:00 p.m. Ms. Schrader thought it meant close the
doors at 8:00 p.m. There could be some clientele still left over, but there
were no other appointments being taken. She thought the applicant was
better equipped to answer that question.
Chairperson Tanner opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the Commission.
MR. GORDON BELMONT, 76-245 Fairway Drive in Indian Wells,
stated that he is the owner of the property. He bought this a year ago
November and if any of them were familiar with the building, there
have been some vast changes. He has lived in the desert, in Palm
Desert and Indian Wells, since 1993. To his recollect, no business of
any kind in that building had ever been a success. That was probably
due to the condition of the exterior. They spent over $80,000 in
upgraded landscaping, and he just past $500,000 total in renovations
in and out of the building. They tried to make it a show piece. If they
have the opportunity to go into it, they would understand what he was
talking about. If they haven't, he welcomed them to do so.
To answer Commissioner Limont's question, the salon would take its
last massage appointment at 8:00 p.m. Therefore, given the fact that
it's an hour massage and with clean-up, at the worst they were
talking 9:30 p.m. He asked them to please keep in mind that to the
north of him, it was at least 80-100 feet across the Magnesia storm
channel, which separates his property from the residences in Rancho
Mirage. That storm channel was vastly littered and he paid to have it
immaculately cleaned, and said he got rid of most of the homeless
that were living under the bridge. As well, he planted bougainvillea
with the Rancho Mirage residents' permission along the wall to the
south of their property. In other words, that wall abutting the storm
14
�� 11 � i �\\.► �I1.11 �\ ll1 � ���
channel so that it would pleasing to look at. He explained there is an
alley between the commercial establishment on the northeast corner
of the channel and Highway 111, and the alley is behind that
commercial building, between it and the first residence to the east. It
is a utility easement and was littered with anything from mattresses,
to tree trunks, and shopping carts, and the City of Rancho Mirage
cleaned that up. So they have been sticklers for cleaning it up.
They have 20 parking spaces, one of which is handicapped and four
which are tandem. The approval given to him on the site, grading and
site review permit, was that the tandem only be used by employees.
They didn't want to have to ask a client or customer to move their
car.
Mr. Belmont said he was just the owner of the property. Mr. Vasquez
was the owner of the salon, i.e. the main tenant, and to make it a true
salon, he came to him and said they needed something more than
just a salon. They have the four rooms along the front and the
southerly -most, he believed it was No. 4 on their diagram, would be
two additional hair stations. Something they probably knew much
more than he did about hair salons, the employees are not there from
opening to closing. They have a few appointments in the morning,
maybe a few in the afternoon, maybe one or two in the early evening.
He has witnessed salons along El Paseo where very few employees
are there throughout the entire day. Insofar as the massage is
concerned, he was told by his masseur that a maximum of six per
day could be given physically, and his masseur is a very fit 55-year
old licensed therapist. It is impossible to give a quality massage after
six. He stated that both he and Mr. Vasquez were present to answer
any questions.
There were no questions for the applicant. Chairperson Tanner asked if
anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the proposed
project.
MR. KARL VASQUEZ stated that he was in favor of this project. To
give them a little background, he was born here in 1963 and went to
Washington School, Lincoln School and Palm Desert Middle School.
His father came here in 1959 to teach at the College of the Desert
and taught there until the day he died. His mom has been a hair
dresser here locally her whole life, so he was second generation. She
started with Randy Ventura, who had the first salon on El Paseo
which was of any essence. He grew up around the family business,
two blocks away from the property site. He has a long history to that
15
11 i ;11_ 1 \ \ \ • 11 11 • 1 1
area and it made sense that he would operate a business within the
boundaries of where he grew up. He was available to answer any
questions.
There was no one else wishing to speak and Chairperson Tanner closed the
public hearing. He asked for Commission comments.
Commissioner Limont asked Ms. Aylaian if in the past, with regard to these
types of businesses, they asked that they be closed by 8:00 p.m. Ms.
Aylaian said that the idea behind a conditional use permit is to look at the
conditions appropriate to that specific location. If there was a particular
business surrounded by some other uses they thought would be
incompatible with a night use, then hours would be set appropriately. This
business was really isolated by the roads and by the wash from anything
adjacent to it, and at a staff level they didn't see any reason to condition it
upon an earlier closure.
Commissioner DeLuna said she would love to see that intersection be
successful. She has driven by it for years. She only saw one ingress and
egress for parking. Coming south on Parkview, she asked if a left turn could
be made safely because it intersects with vehicles stacking to make a right
turn. Ms. Schrader said she wasn't an expert and could only answer by
view, but it didn't look like a safe choice when looking at it. Mr. Bagato
referred to an aerial picture which showed a painted area which says cars
are not supposed to park there, although people might at some point. But
cars are supposed to be able to make a left -turn in. The only way is by
trying to keep people from taking up that entire space. So they could see the
two lines, those were supposed to keep people from moving in there so they
could do that, but it was just a condition of the site and there was really no
way to modify it. Commissioner DeLuna asked for confirmation that there
wasn't a center lane between the two where someone could hover to make
a left -turn. Mr. Bagato said no; he indicated there was no median there and
no possibility for an extra turn pocket. Commissioner DeLuna thanked him.
Commissioner Campbell noted that all the times she has been through
there, cars being stacked up there preventing a left -turn coming from
Highway 111 had never been a problem.
Commissioner Schmidt asked for clarification that Mr. Bagato said that
coming off of Highway 111 making either a right or left turn onto Parkview,
they couldn't make a legal left -turn into that parking lot. Mr. Bagato said they
could, they just didn't have a dedicated turn lane or median there, but they
could make a left. Ms. Schrader also confirmed that vehicles could come off
of Highway 111 and turn left into there, but it was true there was a short
16
11 � i � ► ► ► � 11 11 � \ (1 � � � � �
amount of time since there was no dedicated access lane at this point. But it
was possible to make that turn in from Highway 111.
There were no other comments. Chairperson Tanner asked for a motion.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Limont, approving the findings as presented by staff.
Commissioner Schmidt stated that she was there two or three times the
last week or so and there were cars in the parking lot. She asked if the
business was open now.
Mr. Belmont confirmed that the business was open. He said they
have a Temporary Occupancy Permit and the first three weeks
were for training: training to hire new people, painting the inside,
replacing air conditioners, that kind of thing. So they had a lot of
tradesmen in and out of the building. Primarily it was training and
weeding out those stylists that Mr. Vasquez did or did not want,
because just taking one's word of mouth he learned from him
doesn't do it. He brings them with a student or a victim and says
create this kind of hair do or this kind of style and they show him
what they can do.
Commissioner Schmidt also noticed that there was signage out in front
advertising for a stylist and massage therapist. It appeared there were six
employees that have made the cut, because there are three manicurists
and hair stylists.
Mr. Belmont said that was his fault. That should be a parenthesis
with a No. 1 in it, so it didn't look like 1, 2, 3. He blew it and he said
to them that these were parenthesis and by his instruction did it that
way.
Commissioner Schmidt asked with the massage therapist being on the
sign, it was an expectation of his.
Mr. Belmont said yes.
Chairperson Tanner asked if he'd hired a massage therapist at this point.
Mr. Vasquez said he has not hired a massage therapist.
17
MINUTES
EAL11 i \ \ \ _ 11 11 \ wi- MS__J
There were no other comments or discussion. Chairperson Tanner called
for the vote. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Schmidt voted no).
Commissioner Schmidt explained that she was not really happy that
construction was commenced and still ongoing before the proper permits.
She felt that this should be continued until things are properly done and is
are doted and T's are crossed. So her vote was no.
It was also moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by
Commissioner Limont, adopting the findings and Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2502, approving Case No. CUP 09-174, subject to
conditions. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Schmidt voted no).
D. Case No. ZOA 09-104 — CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
(Continued from May 5, 2009)
Request for a recommendation of approval to the City
Council of a zoning ordinance amendment updating and
revising Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.68, Signs.
Mr. Bagato noted that there was a study session on May 12. Basically, his
presentation would highlight those provisions, the changes since that
study session, as well as the previous discussion issues on May 5. He
noted that several pages indicated in red were included in the
Commission's packets. The red lettering indicated either new words or
strikethroughs for removals. They were modified words and sentences to
clarify portions of the code for better understanding and clearer purpose.
Secondly, they reviewed signage and proposed 16-inch high letters
maximum for freeway fronting signs, depending on the overall length of
the sign. He included a drawing demonstrating the difference between the
12-inch and 16-inch high letters. Staff felt that 16 inches would be
appropriate as a maximum, depending on the name size and could be
designed without clutter.
The last option was the Creative Sign Program. There was some
discussion about amending some of the wording so that they weren't
necessarily encouraging businesses to ask for exceptions or promoting it,
and instead looking at it more as just criteria to allow the process if
someone wanted to do it. There was also some discussion about
eliminating it, so staff had two proposed actions. The first was to amend
the more restrictive code, which again had limitations that Architectural
Commission could only approve a sign that would be no more than 20%
larger than what the code allows, and it also did not allow prohibited signs
to be approved, so no one could ask for a billboard, a pole sign, or a neon-
MINUTES
►� _: ► ► ► • 11 ll • ► ll
flashing sign as a creative sign because it was not allowed. But the new
wording was added to be stricter and make it clear that it is just a process
and was not encouraging it. Before them was his recommendation and
that was that the Planning Commission, by minute motion, do three
separate things in minute motion: approve the majority of the draft sign
ordinance including the standards for real estate signs; secondly, approve
the new standards for freeway signs with 16-inches being the maximum
height as long as it isn't cluttered along the building; and the last option
was approving the amended restrictive standards for creative signs or
remove it all together, and then adopt the resolution. Staff would revise the
ordinance to fit into the motion. He asked for any questions.
Commissioner Schmidt asked when Mr. Bagato said the Planning
Commission draft, if he was referring to the redlined version. Mr. Bagato
replied yes, the other pages that weren't included, plus the redlined
version.
Regarding non -illuminated signs facing the freeway, Commissioner
Campbell commented that when going by at night, they really couldn't see
whose business it is. She asked if all the letters were 16-inches and
everybody had the same size and the same font, if they could all be
illuminated the same. Instead of one blue, one red or one green, it if it was
all neutral, and every single one was the same. Mr. Bagato said that could
be a recommendation by the Planning Commission. The discussion of the
Signage Subcommittee was that they didn't want to continue what was
already happening, and the current illuminated signs were an issue. Staff's
recommendation in response to that was to propose non -illuminated signs.
Some of the Subcommittee members agreed, some didn't. The business
community didn't agree. He also mentioned that Dick Baxley of Baxley
Properties couldn't be at the meeting, but he did write a letter and
requested that there be some kind of illumination and he although he
preferred 16 over 12, he would like to see 20-inch high letters. Mr. Bagato
thought that 20-inches could look pretty big and cluttered, so he wouldn't
recommend 20. From staff's position in working with the Signage
Subcommittee, non -illuminated was proposed; he could request maybe
reverse channel, which appeared as a halo illumination and only back
lighting. It would provide some illumination. To give some consistency,
they could all be a white color. They could also potentially allow an
exterior light fixture to light the wall as a solution. He thought the concern
was having these different colored neon signs, and the problem when
having federally trademarked signs, if it is red, they couldn't control that
not lighting up red. Then the next one could be black with white
background and it could appear cluttered.
19
_ 11 � _ i ► \ ► � 11 11 � ► 11 � � �'
Commissioner Campbell noted that the attorney's wording was to modify
all signs facing the freeway and shall use a single color except for
federally trademarked signs. Mr. Bagato said that was correct, but if they
lit up, that color would light up differently, and that was their concern. As
well, the Subcommittee didn't want too many of these different colored
signs lighting up.
Commissioner Schmidt asked if the Subcommittee studied rear -lighted
signs. Mr. Bagato said no.
Chairperson Tanner noted that when driving down the freeway, most of
the back of the buildings are facing the interstate and are very well lit
because of where they are. If they have gone out at night, just the parking
lot illumination brings the signs out. Mr. Bagato noted that most buildings
have wall scones on them that light up; they have parking lot lighting, so
this isn't a pitch dark environment. Staff's position was if they have a sign
up, then it at least serves as identification for someone driving around the
back looking for deliveries or looking for the spot. It wasn't meant to
advertise to the freeway. It's not pitch dark out there, so there was some
illumination from parking lots as well as the building.
Commissioner Limont indicated that was one of the discussions in the
study group that signs are for identification, not for advertising. That was
the key issue. As long as they were identifying the building, because the
entrance is from Gerald Ford or Dinah Shore, that's where their signs are
located.
Regarding the difference in letter size from 12- to 16-inches,
Commissioner DeLuna asked how far these buildings were from the
freeway. Referring to his handout, Mr. Bagato said that was a general
drawing; buildings could be up to their property line, but there was an 80-
foot railroad easement. So there was 80 feet between any of these
property lines to the freeway because of the railroad, and there might be
other easements back there, but at least 80 feet away. Most have some
kind of driveway at least 24-feet wide and some have parking that would
be longer; so some of these buildings are 100 feet away. The drawing was
of a typical 30-foot tall building with 20-feet wide multi -tenant spaces,
which is what Closet Tailor was designed to. It is a 30-foot tall building
with 20-foot wide spaces, so he based that design on what 12 inches
would like. And that would be over 100 feet away from the freeway.
Commissioner Schmidt noted that at the study session they talked about
picking a font, or two or three, to recommend or require. She asked if
anyone had looked at that, other than for a trademark. Mr. Bagato
20
11 i \ ► ► 11 11 milli
explained that for code purposes, he was reluctant to identify a specific
font type. It would be subjective, but Architectural Review could look at it
and stated that it should be a clean, clear letter font style because to
identify one by code, if that one font ever disappeared or changed and it
was in the ordinance, they would have to go back to City Council to
change it. He thought it would be problematic in specifying specific font
types. He said it should be clean, clear and not cluttered so even though it
was subjective, it was still clear cut.
Commissioner Schmidt reiterated that Architectural Review Commission
would determine what they would like to see on the building, with those
criteria. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Because most of the cases for
the smaller businesses, these were multi -tenant buildings. If a building has
more than three tenants, they automatically have to do a sign program
and that has to go to Architectural Review. At that time they would be able
to piggy back off of the sign program to eliminate clutter and to look at
these signs and basically make them more uniform in a similar font style
for every tenant. So they basically have two ways of reviewing these multi -
tenant signs.
On page 36 on abandoned signs and removal, Commissioner Limont
noted that they took out the word "immediately" and put in "within 30
days." She knew that they discussed this, but if it was an abandoned sign
or non -conforming. Mr. Bagato indicated that with non -conforming, the
language was going to be to get rid of that immediately. On page 35 he
struck out that last sentence that was basically going to state that "...do
not comply with this requirement shall be deemed lawful non -conforming
signs." And then they get removed.
Commissioner Limont noted that was under lawful. Mr. Bagato said that
abandoned signs were a little more tricky because that meant they would
have to be able to take 30 days to identify that the business is out of
business and to notify the property owner that they have x amount of days
to get that sign off the wall. So it was kind of a different issue. They
needed time to investigate that the business is no longer there before
issuing a notice to the property owner that the sign is abandoned because
the business is gone. Commissioner Schmidt noted that it could be 120
days. Mr. Bagato confirmed that it would be 120 days on the abandoned
signs.
Commissioner Schmidt said she was happy with the draft ordinance as it
incorporated her proposed changes. Chairperson Tanner asked if there
were any more questions of staff. There were none.
21
MINUTES
I-ta.-A
PALM I DESEYT PL4,\► ► 1 I 1 I► 1_'
Chairperson Tanner noted that the public hearing was open and asked if
anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the proposed
amendments. There was no one and the public hearing was closed.
Chairperson Tanner stated for the record that Commissioner Schmidt had
some great suggestions and it appeared to him that she spent a great
amount of time on this and her changes were incorporated into the new
ordinance. They've had the same ordinance for quite some time and it
was necessary to make some changes and he thanked Commissioner
Schmidt for the time she spent on it and for coming to the study session
last week and presenting them; job well done. He asked for a motion.
Commissioner Schmidt asked about the Creative Sign program.
Commissioner Limont stated that she wanted it removed. Chairperson
Tanner asked if the proposed motions had to be done separately; Mr.
Bagato said no, not if they all agreed on the Creative Sign portion. Staff's
position was to keep the Creative Sign section, but two options were
presented.
Commissioner Limont stated that she was in favor of everything but the
Creative Sign section. Chairperson Tanner stated that he was also in favor
of everything but the Creative Sign section. He asked for a motion.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Commissioner
DeLuna, by minute motion, approving:
1. The majority of the Draft Signage Ordinance, including the
new standards for the Non -Residential Real Estate Signs;
and
2. The new standards for Freeway Signs allowing a maximum
of 16-inch letter height, depending on the overall length of a
sign, instead of 12 inches, so long as it does not appear
cluttered on the building as determined by the Director of
Community Development; and
3. Removal of Section 25.68.110 for Creative Signs from the
Draft Ordinance.
Commissioner Schmidt asked for clarification on the motion. There were
two options for Creative Signs. "A" was to approve the amended, more
restrictive standards; and "B" removed the Creative Signs. Chairperson
Tanner reiterated that the motion was to allow a maximum of 16-inch high,
W,
MINUTES
' � 11 � i � ► ► ► � ll 11 � \ ll � 1 1 '
non -illuminated signs and removal of the Creative Signs from the Draft
Ordinance.
Chairperson Tanner noted that there was a motion and a second.
Commissioner Schmidt asked for clarification that if they were in favor of
the Creative Sign section as amended, then they would be voting no; and
if they wanted the Creative Signs section totally removed, the vote would
be yes. Chairperson Tanner concurred.
He called for the vote. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Schmidt voted
no).
It was moved by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Commissioner
DeLuna, adopting the findings and Planning Commission Resolution No.
2503, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 09-104 as
amended by the minute motion. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner
Schmidt voted no).
Chairperson Tanner thanked staff and Commissioner Schmidt for all their
hard work.
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Discussion of Staff Report regarding Massage Establishments
within Palm Desert.
Mr. Swartz stated that per Commission's request, staff prepared a report
outlining the number of massage establishments. They were broken down
into two categories: independent stand-alone massage establishments,
and massage establishments as a secondary use. He asked for any
questions.
Commissioner DeLuna stated that it was her understanding that there are
19 stand alone massage parlors currently in the city of Palm Desert. Mr.
Swartz clarified that there are 19 approved massage establishments, 12 of
them are stand alone, and 7 are a secondary use. Commissioner DeLuna
explained that she was still concerned about the stand alone, not the ones
located in other facilities, but the stand alone massage facilities. She
indicated that per public record, there had been police activity in one
recently and that only increased her concern about the safety, not only of
the people who work in them, but the safety of the people who would
frequent them. She didn't think Palm Desert needed to have the number of
23
G 11 � i � ► ► ► � 11 11 � \ 11 � � � �
them that we have, and didn't think there was any reason to continue to
permit them. Once again she was requesting a temporary moratorium on
stand-alone massage therapy establishments.
Commissioner Limont asked staff to go through the steps, i.e. they have to
get a license from the State. Mr. Swartz said that was correct. Then the
applicant would come before the Planning Commission. Commissioner
Limont asked what they do beforehand. What did the State require this
person to do to get a license? Mr. Swartz said he didn't know all the steps,
but knew they went through a background check. Ms. Aylaian added that
they have to have a certain number of hours; there is a background check,
and a licensing check that is actually handled through the City's Business
Licensing Department. What they look at in Planning is typically the land
use, but there are requirements. There is a valley -wide model ordinance
developed through CVAG (Coachella Valley Association of Governments)
so that massage therapists could practice in more than one city at a time
because originally each of the different cities would have its own
requirements and a certain number of hours of practicing and certain
checks. So a number of years ago CVAG got the valley cities together and
they passed a model ordinance and most valley cities participate so they
go through their licensing and produce records of their training and
certifications in order to get their business license. With that in hand, then
they needed to get a conditional use permit for the establishment itself.
Commissioner Limont asked if they run into problems when "Person A"
gets a license, stays a certain amount of time, and then decides that
maybe they don't want to live here or whatever, and someone else comes
in and operates under their license. Ms. Aylaian asked if she was referring
to the individual license and not the conditional use permit. Commissioner
Limont said yes, she was just talking about someone that has an existing
business. Ms. Aylaian couldn't say that's never happened, but did know
that they do spot check massage establishments once a month and one of
the things they check for is for each therapist there practicing, they ask to
see a copy of their license and personal identification proving they are the
person to whom the license is issued. Commissioner Limont clarified that
we haven't run in that; Ms. Aylaian wasn't aware of that and reiterated
there are procedures in place to check for that.
Commissioner DeLuna said it was her understanding that the conditional
use permit stays with the property, so if "Applicant A" is approved for a
conditional use permit and say, three months later "Applicant A" doesn't
like the desert and wants to leave, another business can come in and
occupy the same facility under that conditional use permit and perhaps
have an entirely different business operation going on. Ms. Aylaian replied
24
11 i \ l \ 11 11 \ ll G
that as long as they operate within the strict parameters of the conditional
use permit, they can do that. Once a business is abandoned for one year,
the CUP would be invalidated and they would have to come in and go
through the process all over again. Commissioner DeLuna indicated she
was talking about someone who literally comes in on the heels of
someone else; one's out one day and another's in the next day. They
could do that. Mr. Bagato agreed that they could do that, but the original
conditions applied if it has a valid CUP, such as number of employees,
hours of operation, and the number of people at one time. They have a
case right now where someone wants to take over one and they are
limited to two employees and the new one has four. To do that, they have
to go back through the CUP process and amend it. So although someone
could operate within that facility if the CUP hasn't expired, they have to
operate under the same terms unless they come to the Planning
Commission to modify it. Again, those provisions were in place to keep a
two -employee business leaving and a ten -employee business showing up.
That could happen, and if the City finds out that they are in violation, the
CUP could be revoked or amended. Code Enforcement and the City
Attorney could get involved in shutting the business down if they are in
violation of the CUP. So those measures were there as well.
Mr. Hargreaves also informed them that a new business had to get its own
license. It doesn't just come in and start. They had to come in and go
through the whole process and get their own business license and if there
are new therapists, they have to get licenses also. Mr. Bagato noted that
Planning usually signs off on those business licenses, so if they see them,
they double check that they are going to comply with the existing CUP.
Commissioner Schmidt explained what was disturbing to her, and maybe
Mr. Hargreaves could clear it up, but when it says that the CUP runs with
the land, it made her think of covenants, like CC&R's. What she was
hearing them say was that it was not a permanent thing at all; it has a
beginning, middle and an end. She asked if that was correct. Mr.
Hargreaves said no, it does run with the land and is permanent as long as
the conditions are complied with and the use is continuous. Now if there
was a lapse for a year, or if there were violations, then they have the
ability to revoke the CUP. They had to go through the process. Assuming
that the business complies with the conditions and there aren't any
problems with the business. CUPs generally have a provision in them that
allows the City to reopen them if there are problems with the business. Mr.
Bagato recalled Augusta's Restaurant and the issue with noise. That was
a CUP that was revoked for noncompliance. It was the same thing. Since
CUPs are studied for each specific location and the conditions of the
adjacent land uses, as well as the operation of the business applying, it
25
' 11 � i � \ \ ► � Il ll � ► 11 � � �
has to run with that land. As long as the business stays in compliance, it
could be there forever. Most restaurants have CUPs, but if it stops
operating and the space goes for a year without that use, then it becomes
invalid. But as long as it operates under the same conditions and the City
doesn't revoke it, it can run as long as the business is in place on the
same property.
Commissioner Schmidt asked if it was the owner of the property who
applies for the CUP, not the tenant. Mr. Hargreaves explained that the
owner has to sign off on the application, because ultimately it becomes
part of the entitlements on their property. Chairperson Tanner said it was
usually the applicant who obtains the CUP. Ms. Aylaian said typically they
do, but the owner has to approve it. For instance, the applicant tonight
was the owner of the property. Mr. Hargreaves clarified that the CUP is an
attribute of the land, it's not an attribute of any particular person so if the
owner sells the property, the CUP goes with the property. Chairperson
Tanner noted that they've had applicants come before them who were
renting space and were requesting a CUP, not the owner of the building.
The owner of the building has to sign off on the space, so the applicant
comes for a CUP and they either grant it or don't grant it. Ms. Aylaian said
that was correct, but the owner of the building on those, when they
actually get an application from an operator, the owner has also signed off
on that application. Mr. Bagato said that most of those applicants sign a
contingent lease stating that they would lease contingent upon receiving
approval. So the property owner has to be involved in the sense that they
are authorizing that person to apply, but it wasn't always the property
owners appearing before the Commission, most of the time it was the
applicant.
Commissioner Schmidt asked if staff knew of any other massage
applications forthcoming. Mr. Bagato said no, there weren't any right now.
Chairperson Tanner indicated that he and Commissioner Campbell were
on the Planning Commission when this went through the Coachella Valley
and there were several of the massage establishments raided, and he
thought they might be painting each massage parlor with the same brush.
He was very vocal against the City of Palm Desert becoming a massage
therapy city; and still is. But he also noted that Commissioner Campbell
made mention last time that we have approved these before and he
thought they need to continue, but continue on a case by case basis. He
wasn't sure a moratorium was the answer to this. He thought just the
research on the individuals coming before them was what was called for.
That was his comment.
26
MINUTES
�� 11 � i �\\ \ �llll �\ ll� _11•
Commissioner Limont agreed that there was a fine line of perception that
they needed to at least be aware of. She went through a knee
replacement surgery and she had to say that having a massage therapist
was the key to her recovery and it was incredibly important. The person
she went to was also in a medical building and was a massage therapist,
etc. Her concern, and she was talking about perceptions here and where it
got difficult was because how do they say to one person that yes, they can
go have their business over here, because there wasn't a high
concentration. But if they looked at the map, there were 11 licensed
massage establishments right in the El Paseo area. Four of them are on
El Paseo and she would guess that they are somehow associated with
salons or something along those lines; five on Highway 111 right in that
area. So if they look at the map, they are concentrated in that area and
that's where they run into the possibility. It was no different than having a
line of tattoo parlors; there is a perception that comes with it and she was
happy to know that they didn't have issues legally with licensing and
issues along those lines. That was first and foremost. She didn't know how
to approach this, because she certainly didn't want to see a lot more
businesses in this general area. So how do they limit them? It was difficult
to say, no, they couldn't do it. Maybe a thought was to say this was
something they really needed to discuss and so in the interim, maybe they
needed a moratorium.
Chairperson Tanner thought the discussion should be whether they should
allow them or not. They have 19 establishments in Palm Desert and do
they want to allow any more or not. Commissioner Campbell asked if they
wanted to allow more restaurants, or any more tattoo parlors?
Commissioner DeLuna thought it was different. Chairperson Tanner asked
how much more discussion and how much deeper they needed to get into
whether it's right or not right.
Commissioner DeLuna explained that her recommendation never had
anything to do with massage therapy in connection with salons and other
establishments. It was specifically the stand alone ones. She was still
concerned with public safety and would like to examine it a little more
closely and that's why she was calling for a temporary moratorium on
stand along massage establishments for 90 days, or 60 days, or 12
months.
Commissioner Schmidt indicated her concern was similar to what
Commissioner Limont was talking about. What really disturbed her is that
the only vehicle they seem to have, and hoped Mr. Hargreaves was
listening, is the CUP which runs with the land. In her past history, that was
a very serious exception to the normal codes for zoning and business
27
11 _i 111,11IL11 �► ILA ' 11•
practices. She asked if there was anything else, or any other vehicle, or
ordinances, that could accommodate these establishments other than a
CUP. She asked if they had ever looked at that. Mr. Hargreaves explained
that a CUP is a pretty flexible instrument. A CUP gave them the ability
when a business comes forward to examine the type of the business, the
area, and they could incorporate in the disbursement requirements, they
could say there are too many massage establishments in this area, go
somewhere else. It was very discretionary as long as they could identify a
reason for denying it if that was what they wanted to do and they could
craft it and say they would grant it for a year and at that time come back
and show there haven't been any negative impacts. There were a lot of
different kinds of things they could do. It was really their most flexible
entitlement.
Commissioner Schmidt noted that the approval they granted this evening
was forever, unless they go out of business or it's abandoned. Mr.
Hargreaves said that in the land use arena, there really wasn't any
entitlement that wasn't forever, although CUPs were probably the one
thing where they could say they would grant it for a year and review the
situation after a year. They could do that.
Commissioner Schmidt honestly felt, for a number of reasons, that since
there were no forthcoming applications, it was a marvelous time to take six
months or a year off in a sense and redefine what they want; she also
agreed with Commissioner Limont regarding concentrations of any kind of
business that is an exception to what is normal, like a clothing store or a
restaurant. She quite honestly would find it difficult to turn down this
gentleman this evening. She was making a statement by voting no. He
just went in and started building a business and then got the permits. She
didn't like that, so she wasn't in favor of giving him any kind of a
conditional use permit until he had dotted I's and crossed T's himself. And
they are in operation at the moment and the sign in front of the business
said massage therapist wanted. The perception was that he knew they
weren't going to turn him down. Commissioner Limont thought they gave
him 30 days right now. Mr. Hargreaves explained that until the CUP was
issued, he couldn't operate his business. He couldn't have customers
there or serve customers. If he went through tenant improvements and
fixed it up, it was at his own risk. Ultimately, if the Planning Commission
had turned him down, he would have been out of luck. Mr. Bagato
explained that he could have operated as a beauty salon and did the
massage after the fact, because the beauty salon is not a conditional use
permit. Initially he was opening as a beauty salon. What was explained to
staff was that the massage was added on. Ms. Schrader noted that there
was a condition of approval in the resolution that said he couldn't activate
m
MINUTES
P4_11 i\► ► �1111 �► 11� 11'
his conditional use permit for the massage until all of his issues with
Building & Safety were resolved. In that regard, they were clear. He did
receive a conditional occupancy that would only give the business 30
days, because staff wanted to put a timeline on that as well. They didn't
want that to be dragging on.
Commissioner Schmidt reiterated that the applicant could operate the
salon part of the business without the CO (Certificate of Occupancy). Ms.
Schrader said that was correct. She thought he had been operating his
salon for a while. Commissioner Schmidt commented that was frightening
too. Mr. Bagato explained that with a temporary one, he could be open to
the public. Ms. Schrader noted that he couldn't operate the massage
portion of it. Commissioner Limont clarified that it wasn't until all the
conditions were met that the CUP would go into effect. Ms. Schrader
stated that once they voted to approve it, then Building & Safety would be
notified that Planning needs to be notified when he is all clear to then
allow the conditional use permit to be activated for the massage portion of
his business. Commissioner Limont asked if they could have put a
condition on that CUP this evening saying that it was good for one year.
Could they have put those kinds of conditions on it? Mr. Hargreaves
recalled they did that with Augusta's. The initial CUP said come back in a
year, and it was conditional, and as long as there weren't any complaints,
then it would go forward. It was a little aggressive to say that this
conditional use lapses after one year, although he thought they could
probably do that. Typically what they would do is identify specific concerns
and say they would review it in a year. If these concerns haven't been
satisfactorily addressed, the CUP is over. Chairperson Tanner noted it is a
conditional use and they have to establish the conditions part.
With a moratorium, Mr. Bagato indicated that Chairperson Tanner's point
was they have to look at changing the ordinance or not, and that would be
the reason for the moratorium. Part of the discussion would have to be,
Palm Desert's commercial core is El Paseo and Highway 111. He said
there were 12 Starbucks between Deep Canyon and Target on Highway
111. That's where the commercial is in Palm Desert, so any time they are
going to have competing businesses like laundry mats and restaurants,
the majority of the time they will be on El Paseo and Highway 111. He
asked them to keep that in mind that is the location of the majority of our
commercial area. Commissioner Campbell noted that the other ones are
on Country Club Drive. That is beginning to be commercial too.
Commissioner Schmidt asked for the definition of stand alone. Mr. Swartz
replied that the two cases before the Commission at the last meeting were
stand alone. He confirmed that they had no other associated uses.
29
-, H11
11 i \ ► l 1) 11 ► (1
Commissioner Schmidt stated that she was in favor of saying no for a
while, studying this, and coming up with a better way of doing it.
Commissioner Campbell noted that it was under Miscellaneous so they
weren't voting on anything this evening.
Commissioner Limont thought they needed to clarify it as they go forward,
because that was only fair to folks coming in. They are walking a fine line
where they don't want to discourage people that want to do business in
our city that are legitimate, or give the wrong perception that we're the
massage parlor of the valley. She agreed that they needed to take a look
at it.
Commissioner Campbell asked about cosmeticians and if they wanted to
not allow hair dressers to come in. Commissioner Limont said it was
simply perception. There is a perception about massage for some folks.
Chairperson Tanner noted there was also a perception about nail studios.
Commissioner Limont said absolutely, she didn't disagree. Commissioner
Campbell asked how many there are. Chairperson Tanner asked if that
was something they were going to start looking at putting a moratorium
on: nail salons. Commissioner DeLuna noted that for a massage
establishment, the perception is different. The one she was referring to
had recent police activity that had nothing to do with what might go on in a
nail salon.
Chairperson Tanner recalled that when they were talking about asking for
a little bit of help from staff, the question was asked how many police calls,
with the exception of the establishment on Monterey that was closed down
two years ago, how many complaints and how many licenses have been
pulled as a result of police activity. Mr. Hargreaves acknowledged that
there have been problems. Chairperson Tanner said that was what they
needed to look at. They didn't have that in front of them. Commissioner
Campbell pointed out they weren't allowed to have that in front of them if
the police were doing an investigation. Chairperson Tanner clarified after
the ongoing investigation is over. Commissioner Campbell noted that then
they were already out of business anyway. Commissioner Limont asked if
staff could come back with anything that is public. Mr. Hargreaves agreed
they could come back with a report as to violations, revocations, actions,
including criminal actions in some cases. Commissioner Limont thought
that would help.
Commissioner DeLuna said it was her understanding that there were
ongoing investigations, and those they would not be privy too, and those
would not be included.
30
MINUTES
G LLG 11'
Ms. Aylaian indicated that if they would like to direct staff to prepare a
resolution to pass on to the City Council recommending a moratorium,
they could bring it back at the next meeting, and with that they could
provide whatever information is public information and didn't involve any
ongoing investigations for discussion at that time. They could take a look
and see if there was a compelling reason to recommend a moratorium to
the City Council. At that time they would also have a resolution to
consider. Chairperson Tanner asked if it would be an agenda item at the
next meeting. Ms. Aylaian said yes. Commission agreed it should be on
the agenda. Commissioner DeLuna asked how they should direct staff.
Ms. Aylaian said they just did. Commissioner Schmidt felt the City
Attorney also needed to visit it. Mr. Bagato asked if they should have the
Planning Commission direct staff by minute motion to draft a moratorium.
Ms. Aylaian didn't know that they needed an official motion. It appeared
that there was enough interest and they requested that they put it on the
next agenda for their consideration.
Mr. Hargreaves asked for clarification that what they were looking for
would then be a recommendation by the City Attorney as to how to
address the civil and criminal issues that may arise with respect to this
business. Commissioner Schmidt said yes, and the exposure for denial of
some of these CUPs. Were they within their rights to say no to some
applications? Mr. Hargreaves said they were within their rights to not allow
them from here on out. They could decide they don't like them and so they
weren't going to allow them period. Commissioner Schmidt recalled that
last time he remembered that at one point there was a moratorium on all
of them. Mr. Hargreaves said it was his recollection that at one point the
only way a massage business could operate was in conjunction with a
resort hotel or something like that. And then a decision was made to open
it up, but they could close it back down, although the existing businesses
would become legal nonconforming and would have a right to exist. If they
were going to allow them, then with a conditional use process needed to
have standards and each business needed to be judged against those
objective standards which sometimes could be pretty subjective. But if
they denied it, they had to give reasons, they couldn't just say they didn't
like the way they looked. There had to be identifiable reasons and that's
why when they direct staff to come back with a resolution of denial, the
Planning Commission makes particular findings for denial. They did that
with the residential use this evening. They identified specific reasons they
would not allow it. Ultimately, they could get challenged and a court could
actually review that record and the court would accord due deference to
the decision of the Planning Commission and the City Council. It rarely
happens. Commissioner Schmidt thought it was important to hear the
legal side of it before they do a moratorium. Commission Limont noted
31
MINUTES
► MVAMS. A
that they could send it to Council. Commissioner Schmidt understood, but
even before they recommend it, she would prefer to receive this
information first. Ms. Aylaian said that what they do and what the Council
does by declaring a moratorium is essentially give the City Attorney and
staff time to investigate changing the ordinance. It freezes the issuance of
CUPs for massage establishments while the issue is further investigated.
They could come back then and look at ways to revise the ordinance to
reflect what the current appropriate use would be in Palm Desert for
massage establishments.
To clarify, Mr. Bagato thought he heard that the discussion was just for
stand-alone establishments. If someone was doing a salon and wanted to
request one, they weren't asking for a moratorium on those.
Commissioner DeLuna said that was correct.
Chairperson Tanner asked for the pleasure of the Commission. Did they
want this as an agenda item or miscellaneous conversation?
Commissioner Campbell noted that it should be under Miscellaneous
again. Ms. Aylaian said that it could an agenda item under Miscellaneous
without being a public hearing item. Commissioner Schmidt asked for
clarification that they couldn't really take an action tonight. They wanted to
be able to move on it next time. Ms. Aylaian said that was correct.
Mr. Bagato asked Mr. Hargreaves if the Planning Commission, by minute
motion, could move it to City Council, even under Miscellaneous.
Miscellaneous is an agenda item, because it wouldn't be a public hearing
item or a consent calendar item at the next meeting. Mr. Hargreaves
explained that the more formal way to do it would be to direct staff to come
back with a resolution requesting that the Council impose a moratorium. If
they wanted to do it by minute motion, they could go forward that way and
no one would care or object. It would be no harm, no foul. If they really
wanted to go forward, they could probably do it without running into any
problem, but someone could say look, there is nothing on the agenda that
alerted me to the fact that they were considering a moratorium. That was
his concern.
Commissioner Schmidt requested that it be an agenda item.
Commissioner Limont concurred. Ms. Aylaian said staff would do that.
Chairperson Tanner reiterated that the Planning Commission was asking
for this to be an agenda item for their June meeting. Mr. Bagato didn't
know when the next scheduled meeting would be and someone could
apply for a CUP within the three weeks for a massage parlor. They didn't
have a meeting scheduled for June 2, and they didn't have anything for
June 16 right now either. Commissioner Limont noted they wouldn't have
32
MINUTES
11 i ►\ \ _E, �1111 �► Il' 11'
to approve it. Mr. Bagato indicated that someone could still apply until it
gets on an agenda. Staff could let people know that a moratorium is being
pursued if they ask for it. Ms. Aylaian agreed that they could advise
applicants who might come in of potential change in direction coming at
the next meeting. Commissioner concurred. Ms. Aylaian stated that at the
next meeting where they have public hearing items scheduled for
consideration, and at this point there wasn't anything scheduled for June
2, but the next time they did, as a Miscellaneous item, staff would come
back with a resolution they could consider, and some additional
information, and they could actually take action on that Miscellaneous item
recommending that a moratorium be recommended to the City Council.
Action:
None.
X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES
A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
Commissioner Campbell stated that the next meeting would be May
20.
B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE
Commissioner Limont commented that May 20 was their next
meeting.
C. PARKS & RECREATION
Chairperson Tanner noted that the next meeting would be the first
Tuesday in June.
D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE
Commissioner Schmidt reported that the meeting was canceled.
XI. COMMENTS
None.
33
MINUTES
DESEBI
PALM PLANNING 11 11 ► 11 - 1 '
XII. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner
Schmidt, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. The motion carried 5-
0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:54 p.m.
M. CONNOR LIMONT, Vice Chai?k
Palm Desert Planning Commission
/tm
34
LAURI AYLAIAN, Secreta