Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-10-19 PC Adjourned Regular Meeting Minutes CITY OF PALM DESERT ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION • MINUTES WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2016 — 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair John Greenwood called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner Ron Gregory Commissioner Kathleen Kelly «.. Commissioner Joseph Pradetto Vice Chair Nancy DeLuna Chair John Greenwood Staff Present: Jill Tremblay, City Attorney Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development Mark Greenwood, Director of Public Works Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Monica O'Reilly, Administrative Secretary III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Greenwood led the Pledge of Allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION None MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016 V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS .rr None VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of October 4, 2016. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve as presented. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a one-year extension for Tentative Tract Map 36351 and Precise Plan 14-170 for the subdivide of 30+ acres into 111 single-family home lots, and one 8+ acres lot for a future multi-family development located on the southwest corner of Dinah Shore Drive and Dick Kelly Drive. Case Nos. PP 14-170 and TT 36351 (Jeffrey Schroeder, Ponderosa Homes, Pleasanton, California, Applicant). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the one-year extension (until December 2, 2017. An amendment to the minutes was proposed by Vice Chair DeLuna, substituting the words "to allow businesses to have balloons no more than 40 days a calendar year" for the words "to allow businesses to have balloons on a staggered basis for 40 days a year." Upon a motion by Commissioner Kelly, second by Commissioner Pradetto, and a 5-0 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was approved as amended. (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Kelly, and Pradetto; NOES: None). VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VIII. NEW BUSINESS None IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve Precise Plan and Conditional Use Permit No. 15-370 for The Living Desert's Master Plan consisting of a new entry plaza, a new ticketing building, a new retail building, a legacy garden, six new animal exhibits, a new banquet building, parking lot modifications, and approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Case No. PP/CUP WAN 15-370 (The Living Desert, Palm Desert, California, Applicant). 2 G.\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016 Chair Greenwood stated that he is an employee of Prest Vuksic Architects, the architect for the above-mentioned project; therefore, he recused himself. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented the staff report (staff report is available at www.cityofpalmdesert.org). Staff recommended approval and offered to answer any questions. Vice Chair DeLuna commented that the project would be completed in three phases. She asked if it is correct that the Planning Commission is being asked to approve the project in counterparts. Mr. Swartz responded that the Planning Commission is being asked to approve The Living Desert's Master Plan for Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3. Phase 2 and Phase 3 would still need approval by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). Vice Chair DeLuna clarified that the ARC would only consider the architecture. Mr. Swartz replied that is correct. Vice Chair DeLuna commented that The Living Desert would have a net loss of one parking space, with the parking lot modifications. She inquired if the Planning Commission would approve the parking lot modifications even though it would not happen until sometime in the future. Mr. Swartz replied that is correct. Vice Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. ALLEN MONROE, President/CEO of The Living Desert, Palm Desert, California, offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Ron Gregory wished there were more projects brought to the City similar to the one being proposed by The Living Desert. He stated the project is very impressive. Commissioner Kathleen Kelly asked what happened to the plan previously approved, which were not implemented. MR. MONROE responded that they used the previous plans as a basis for the design of the new proposed project. They took the initial ideas and refined them for their current operations and plans for the park's future. Commissioner Kelly agreed that the proposed project looks very exciting. 3 G TianningWonica ORei11yTianning Commission120161Minutes110-19-16.docx MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016 With no further testimony offered, Vice Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Pradetto pointed out that the draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2680, states "the parcel is located within the Service Industrial zoning district." However, in other areas of the resolution, it references being in a Public/Institution zoning district. Mr. Swartz remarked that the Service Industrial zoning district is an error, and he would correct the resolution. Commissioner Pradetto commented that there is a charm to the old entrance, but the proposed project would really bring The Living Desert to the next level. It would also set it apart for the tourists and other people that have not been exposed to The Living Desert. Vice Chair DeLuna understood that the tower is within the approved height range. She pointed to a picture in the presentation, and voiced her concern that the tower looks taller than Eisenhower Peak. She noted that the architect's renderings indicate the tower is taller than the peak. MR. MONROE answered from his seat in the audience that the tower is not taller than the peak and it is not Eisenhower Peak. Ms. Jill Tremblay interjected that the public hearing has been closed. If Vice Chair DeLuna has additional questions for the applicant, the public hearing would need to be reopened and ask the applicant to address the Planning Commission. Vice Chair DeLuna apologized for the confusion, and declared the public hearing open for additional testimony. Vice Chair DeLuna invited the architect to address the Planning Commission. MR. DAVID PREST, Prest Vuksic Architects, Palm Desert, California, offered to answer any questions. Vice Chair DeLuna said that the architecture is spectacular. She asked if the tower is taller than ridgeline behind it. MR. PREST responded that the tower is approximately 750 square feet from Portola Avenue, and believed it would not be seen from the road. He explained that the idea was to have a landmark for the entrance and when inside, have a landmark to find the exit. Mr. Prest said he is not sure how tall the mountain is behind the tower, but he believed it was more than 50 feet. He noted that the materials would be earthy colors to blend in with the area. He also noted that there would be date palm trees, which would be approximately 20 feet tall that 4 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016 line the walkway on both sides. The tower would be an element seen when MOO inside the plaza. Vice Chair DeLuna said she has heard concerns voiced in the community about preserving the ridgelines. MR. PREST explained that the rendering was taken from a bird's-eye perspective. Vice Chair DeLuna stated that the tower still looks taller than the ridgeline if you are looking down. Commissioner Gregory asked how tall the tower is. MR. PREST replied 50 feet tall. Commissioner Gregory remarked that the tower is also 750 feet from the road. He said that the problem inherent with perspectives is that you try to maximize something in the picture, which in this case the architect is trying to get as many elements of the architecture in the picture as possible. However, it creates an artificial feeling of height with the mountain behind the tower. Vice Chair DeLuna asked if the tower would be taller than the mountain. Commissioner Gregory said not at all. Vice Chair DeLuna stated that she knows the tower is within a permitted height so there is no basis for objection. She had a visual objection and a concern about preserving the City's ridgelines, and appreciated the additional information. With no additional testimony offered, Vice Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Kelly commented that if someone was standing at the foot of the tower looking up, the view would be blocked. She would have the same concern as Vice Chair DeLuna if it was a large continuous mass. However, as a tower, it is not disruptive. She said the tower is beautifully designed to be compatible with the environment. Commissioner Pradetto moved, by Minute Motion, to approve Case No. PP/CUP 15-370 and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2680, subject to conditions. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Gregory and carried by a 4-0-1 vote (AYES.- DeLuna, Gregory, Kelly, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Greenwood). ago GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commi55ion\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016 B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council to approve an update to the City's General Plan, the University Neighborhood W Specific Plan, the One Eleven Development Code, and recommending certification of the Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2015081020), Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Case Nos. GPA/EA 16-261, ZOA/CZ 16-262, ZOA/CZ 16-263 (City of Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Mr. Stendell thanked the Planning Commission for reading the General Plan Update documents. He provided a PowerPoint presentation, and briefly summarized key milestones of the General Plan Update (staff report is available at www.cityofpalmdesert.org). He stated that the process has been very exciting, and passed the presentation over to Mr. Burris. Mr. Matt Burris, Raimi & Associates, spoke of the Strategic Plan vision, which set the stage for the General Plan Update. He summarized key strategies, and the General Plan direction and vision. The input they received from the vision, they developed 11 General Plan Elements of goals and policies to help layout how new areas should be built in the City of Palm Desert. He mentioned there are two key documents to help implement the ideas that are in the General Plan: The One Eleven Development Code (111 Development Code) and the University Neighborhood Specific Plan (UNSP). He also spoke of the City Center Area Plan, which included Highway 111 and San Pablo Avenue. The 111 Development Code lays out four new districts and guidelines to help direct the architecture and �+ design of the districts. Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, continued to present the UNSP. He communicated that some of the goals of the General Plan are to take advantage and leverage the universities. There is a 400-acre area identified as the UNSP. They looked at how they could connect the neighborhood to the universities. The UNSP sets the framework to accomplish the connection of the neighborhood to the universities. City staff and university staff met extensively to discuss the plan, and the universities support the plan. Mr. Ceja discussed the four neighborhood designations and the development standards of the UNSP. He emphasized that the objective of the UNSP is to create a lively center that provides housing options and choices in close proximity to the university, and build on what the university would be. Lastly, Mr. Mark Teague, author of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), continued with the presentation. He informed the Planning Commission that the EIR is an information document and not a decision-making document. He explained that they compare what they think is going to happen against what they are willing to accept as a community to happen, which are called thresholds. He said there is a significant change in thresholds that are going through California in a variety of things. He compared the City's project to those n,,,* thresholds. The General Plan does not get developed in a vacuum, and they do 6 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016 not ignore the environmental process. City staff looked at what the environmental impacts are likely to be, how the impacts are going to affect the community, and how the city would deal with the impacts. So they built self-mitigation and policies in the plan to allow that to occur. He noted that the Draft EIR is circulated to the public to review and comment. He briefly went over the regulatory process, state and federal permits, and mitigation measures of the EIR. Finally, he listed the EIR impacts that are above significant levels; however, they may not be significant until two to three years from now because of the change of thresholds statewide. Mr. Stendell concluded that the City Council asked staff to return to them with a General Plan amendment that has the tools needed to hit the ground running, which is the reason the 111 Development Code and the UNSP are included with the General Plan. He noted that the goals and objectives of the General Plan are long-term. He asked if the Planning Commission had any questions. Chair Greenwood recommended that the Commission go in the order for approval of each report and to ask questions specific to that report. Commissioner Gregory commented that he did not have the benefit to be involved in the early studies of the General Plan and Specific Plans, so he reviewed the reports after the heavy lifting was done by others. Work on the documents was well done. He said that a lot of the questions he had as he read �... the documents made sense to him. From his perspective, the effort of trying to create vibrant communities is well reflected. He is not experienced in studying General Plans and Specific Plans; however, he felt it was just a plan. Although, anything that involves planning is taking a very educated guess at what is down the road 20 to 35 years. He could bet that it will not be what is being planned, but might be close. He stated that what he read made him very comfortable, and his concern with having a livable community was well addressed. Chair Greenwood agreed with Commissioner Gregory. He said it has been a very exciting process, and thought City staff and the consultants did a phenomenal job. He stated that El Paseo improvements were not discussed much. He asked Mr. Burris to speak on the El Paseo improvements and what they have gone through in the past two years. He questioned if the City should look at potential strategies to further build the successes of El Paseo such as shorting road widths, larger sidewalks, lower right-of-ways, and more patio space. Mr. Burris responded that one reason the plan does not talk a lot about El Paseo is because they kept hearing over and over that El Paseo is great and to not mess it up. Similarly, they also heard people say they want a place to go to with the family. In the end, they decided to let El Paseo continue to do what it is doing so well, then see if they could bring the same success to areas around El Paseo. If the downtown area becomes very successful and El Paseo seems it is beginning to lag and not be as special, Mr. Burris suggested that the City revisit 7 G\PlanningWonica OReilly\Planning Commission120161Minutes\10-19-16.docx MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016 strategies for El Paseo. He conveyed what they talk about today might be completely obsolete in 10 to 15 years. , Chair Greenwood asked Mr. Burris to talk about the catalysts and economics of moving forward with the zoning measures and improvements to Highway 111, and what would give developers the ability to make improvements to existing buildings. Mr. Burris replied that a big part of the Highway 111 corridor improvements is parking. The physical configuration of lots constrains what could be done on many of the lots, plus restrictions and the amount of potential development makes it uneasy economically to tear down a building and build something new. He stated that two-story buildings would not be economically feasible. However, by removing the on-site parking requirement the economics change greatly. He said that the General Plan lays out some initial framework concepts on how to move forward in the future for unbundling parking, which is removing the requirement to have on-site parking. Mr. Stendell added that economically a three-story building starts to make sense for a developer but not very profitable. A four-story building starts getting profitable, and a five-story building becomes lucrative enough that a developer could invest heavily in the public realm. Chair Greenwood inquired what the sequence in terms of the improvements to .. the public right-of-way is. How much does the City rely on a developer to provide the capital to make improvements, and how much is the City going to invest to jump-start making the improvements. Mr. Stendell replied that Chair Greenwood had a good question, but he would probably not get an answer at tonight's meeting. He encouraged the Planning Commission to look at the General Plan documents without dollars and cents as a consideration. The General Plan is intended to be a grand plan and a grand vision that states the City's true goals. City staff would figure out the mechanics and the City Council would be responsible for creating the capital improvements list.year after year, which is how the implementation of the plan would occur. Based on the way the General Plan is currently laid out, Chair Greenwood asked if the node of San Pablo Avenue and Highway 111 is where it all radiates from. Mr. Stendell replied yes. He expressed that the node for San Pablo Avenue and Highway 111 is ground zero for the General Plan. Commissioner Gregory inquired if there was discussion about the difference between the north side of Highway 111 versus the south side. He said that many buildings on the north side have been there 40 years or more. He imagined how little incentives there would be for developers to look with any glee towards 8 G\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\1 0-19-1 6.docx MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016 taking on new development on the north side of Highway 111 . Years ago the possibility of super blocks was discussed where the frontage road might be blocked in an opportunity to create more square footage for development and parking. He noted that he did not see that concern being addressed in the General Plan unless he didn't see it. Mr. Stendell responded there is not a specific designation for the north or south side of Highway 111. He said it was discussed by the Technical Working Group and at community meetings. He mentioned the north side has a significant amount of potential because it is seven feet lower than the south side so it has the ability to absorb more height. Commissioner Gregory remarked that the north side is more of a negative with respect to retail; there are pros and cons. Chair Greenwood referred to the university zoning map, he asked what type of university staff foresees this area catering to. Is the City providing the space needed to adequately attract and provide the commercial areas that students would be looking for? Mr. Ceja replied yes. He shared that City staff met with the president of the university. The president explained to staff that they envision the school growing to 10,000 to 12,000 students. He said the university has plans for educational and athletic facilities on campus; however, they are not providing dormitories or student housing on-site. The president mentioned it would also be great to have something in the community where university staff and students could live and feel more connected to the community. In addition, the president said it would be nice to have interesting places for the students to go, such as bars and restaurants. Chair Greenwood pointed to the area in red on the map (off of Frank Sinatra), and voiced his concern that the area caters more to residents and not so much to students. He questioned if the area should be more in the core. He said that for the residents near Gerald Ford Drive, from a bikeable and walkable circulation, it would be more of a core element to get maximum use. He wondered where the students would have space. Would it be off of Gerald Ford Drive, which is near the university? He asked if the university's master plan is going to incorporate commercial that will take that use. Mr. Ceja believed that the university is looking at commercial use along Cook Street north of University Drive. He noted that the concentrated area closer to Cook Street would be a denser housing mix so you could get students in close proximity to the university as well. He stated that commercial use currently exists along Cook Street, and they felt housing is needed closer to the university, so people are still within a half mile or a quarter mile to bike or walk to services in the area. 9 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016 Chair Greenwood commented that the Land Use Matrix is a useful tool for the developers early in the development process. He asked how staff sees the process moving forward so that there is a cohesive and a streamline approach to all the connecting spaces, especially from the public side. Mr. Ceja replied that the Land Use Matrix in the document helps City staff plan areas cohesively with a streamline approach. The document defines subdivision standards, block lengths, how to create walkable areas, how to provide amenities for the residents, and more. He stated that the document allows staff to meet with a developer or interested person from the public, and show them exactly what the City is looking for. Staff is also looking for street connectivity to make sure streets are designed well for biking, walking, and that there are adequate utilities. Chair Greenwood inquired if staff feels the language within the Specific Plan is strong enough in regard to walls and the separation of individual communities. Mr. Ceja answered that the Specific Plan has two items in the introductory chapter, which provides examples of housing types that are encouraged and discouraged. He stated that there is also a very detailed appendix (design guidelines) attached to the Specific Plan. Commissioner Kelly asked what it means for a building to turn its back to a street, green, park, paseo, or other open space. ..r Mr. Ceja explained that when you look at the main arteries of a street, typically it is the back of homes. It is a home that does not face a public street that is active or lively. Commissioner Kelly was confused because if a building has its back to a park or paseo, she sees it as creating an image of division. Such as the homes on Portola Avenue, the back of the homes creates a division between the homes and the street so there's no interaction. Mr. Stendell replied that if asked, staff could look at that section of the plan and rewrite it or provide a better explanation. Chair Greenwood inquired if there is a minimum square footage within the plan. Mr. Ceja replied there is not. Chair Greenwood commented that he sees the tiny home models on television, and he does not know if the tiny home trend would continue. He was not sure if the tiny home should be included in the plan. He said it should be something to look into, if ever proposed. .■r 10 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016 Mr. Ceja responded that the development standards as presented do not specifically identify a minimum home size; however, it would lend themselves to many housing type options, including small homes. Chair Greenwood referred to page 4-16 of the UNSP, and asked if there was a typo under the NM (Neighborhood Medium) zone. It states lot widths of 22 feet minimum and setbacks of 5 feet, which lends to a 12-foot wide house. Mr. Ceja said that staff could look into it. He did not believe it was a typo. He explained with a denser area in a NM, there could be smaller lot widths. Chair Greenwood understood that if the numbers were to be manipulated, it would affect the densities. He said that looking at the NL (Neighborhood Low) zone and the interior lot dimensions of 40 feet in width, there are creative ways to arrange homes and still create beautiful attractive communities. However, you start looking at models that are more linear in nature and that could also be done very well. He is concerned they are not setting themselves up to get models and development standards that are not going to cut the City's standard. He noted there is a need for start-up communities and first homes, and he would want to make sure that the quality and the architecture do not end up burying the brunt. Mr. Ceja mentioned that a development team approached the City about the university area, and their architectural staff took a look at the development standards. They were able to fit half a dozen prototypes into the development standards. They had everything from attached to detached units and units with courtyards. Chair Greenwood asked if the NM zone allows mixed-use. Are you able to have retail on the first floor in a NM zone? Mr. Ceja replied that there is limited mixed-use. He noted that they are not looking at grocery stores or bars in the NM zone. Chair Greenwood stated that the UNSP is very flexible. He looked at the height requirements. He asked what the process would be if a developer came in with a greater height and based on that height, the city would have a better building. Mr. Ceja agreed that the plan has a lot of flexibility built into it. He communicated that if there is a minor amendment, the plan had language that authorizes the director to make modifications. However, he is not sure if it would include heights. He mentioned that there is the Precise Plan process, which also allows flexibility in terms of design on the development standards without having to amend the UNSP. Commissioner Gregory mentioned that a lot of projects with higher density development are procuring in Palm Springs. He found that the requirements of 11 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016 meeting the standards of higher density actually encouraged more interesting architecture. Some of the city's concern of walled communities encouraged ..r developers to come up with backyards that have gates opening onto the streets so there is some interaction with other homeowners, streets, and community parks in an effort to open up what has been closed off. He felt that the higher density as structured in the plan is encouraging. Chair Greenwood declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. Chair Greenwood noted that prior to the meeting the Planning Commission received several emails pertaining to utility undergrounding. MS. MERILEE COLTON, Palm Desert, California, commented that she participated in the Envision Palm Desert process. She also participated in the ad- hoc committee for utility undergrounding. In April 2016, the City Council approved the recommendations made by the ad-hoc committee. Following are the recommendations: 1) Adopt the undergrounding of all utility lines in Palm Desert as a goal of the City; 2) Develop an undergrounding master plan that would have an element with a metric to measure progress towards the goal of community- wide utility undergrounding; 3) Implement the master plan; and 4) Create a line item in the budget dedicated to facilitating utility undergrounding. She hoped that the language in regard to utility undergrounding is included in the General Plan. .w With no further testimony offered, Chair Greenwood declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Kelly stated that she has specific refinements to the document. Due to the bulk of information and for efficiency, she suggested beginning by having a main motion to adopt the recommendations made by staff, with the motion seconded. Then progress to make specific amendments to the main motion, and deal with each of the subtopics with a yes or no vote. Vice Chair DeLuna voiced her concern that the process would get delayed over an amendment, without being considered or discussed in advance. Commissioner Pradetto remarked that Commissioner Kelly's suggestion is a great idea and motioned for approval. Therefore, Commissioner Pradetto moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 2681, 2682, 2683, and 2684, recommending to the City Council to approve an update to the City's General Plan, the UNSP, the One Eleven Development Code; certification of the EIR (SCH No. 2015081020); and adoption of the Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (Case Nos. GPA/EA 16-261, ZOA/CZ 16-262, ZOA/CZ 16-263). Motion was seconded by Commissioner Kelly, with the following amendments. VAN 12 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commis5ionk20l6\Minutes\10-19-16.docx MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016 Chair Greenwood clarified that a yes or no vote would be taken for each Ono amendment. Commissioner Kelly replied yes. For procedural purposes, Vice Chair DeLuna asked if they are voting. Commissioner Pradetto remarked that they are not voting, but going into discussion mode. Commissioner Kelly provided the Planning Commissioners with her proposed amendments. First amendment, she said the City Council addressed and embraced a specific goal on utility undergrounding. For that reason, it makes sense for the goal to be included in the General Plan. Commissioner Kelly moved to recommend the following proposed amendment to the General Plan: Chapter 9 (page 138), add Goal 8. Existing Utilities. Support undergrounding of existing utilities. Policies: 8.1 Utility delivery. Consider both ascetic and safety considerations when progressing toward full undergrounding of all utility lines. 8.2 Collaboration and innovation. Use community outreach, assistance with formation of assessment districts, and exploration of new funding mechanisms to achieve progress toward this goal. 8.3 Timetable. Periodically update a master plan on this topic to assure continued success. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Pradetto. Hypothetically speaking, Chair Greenwood asked what would be the process and requirements for utility undergrounding for a new commercial development plan based on the language proposed by Commissioner Kelly. Mr. Stendell responded that all new development and redevelopment is required to have utilities underground in accordance to an existing City of Palm Desert ordinance. He said that the goal proposed by Commissioner Kelly speaks largely in the areas of town that are built and already exist. Vice Chair DeLuna asked if the proposed amendment is worded as a goal rather than a requirement. 13 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016 Commissioner Kelly replied that is correct. .r Commissioner Pradetto commented that as he read it, there is no obligation, commitment, or a timetable. Commissioner Kelly communicated that the goal is an effort to capture the action taken by the City Council on April 14. Vice Chair DeLuna mentioned that she did not bring the General Plan documents to the meeting so she is a little at a lost for perspective and unable to look what the wording in the General Plan is. Chair Greenwood said there is no wording in the General Plan specific to the utility undergrounding goal. Commissioner Kelly is proposing to add the language. Mr. Stendell commented that the utility undergrounding was not caught during the process. As a result, it was not addressed in the General Plan. He said the amendment is to add the goals to reflect the City Council's desires. Staff supported the proposed amendment. After brief discussion on the voting process, Ms. Tremblay made clear that the Planning Commission would be voting on the proposed amendment at this time. Upon a motion by Commissioner Kelly, second by Commissioner Pradetto, and a 5-0 vote of the Planning Commission (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Kelly, and Pradetto; NOES: None), the amendment was approved. Commissioner Kelly pointed out that there is not an expressed policy about stormwater infrastructure for existing development. She said she has spoken with constituents that feel that their areas are lacking in the necessary stormwater infrastructure. However, this is not the time or place to figure out if they are right or wrong. If there is a need for stormwater infrastructure in an existing development, then those needs should be addressed. Commissioner Kelly motioned to recommend the following proposed amendment to the General Plan: Chapter 9, under Goal 1 (page 134), add a new Policy 1.14. 1.14 Stormwater infrastructure for existing development. Continually assess stormwater infrastructure needs for already developed property, explore impediments to addressing identified needs, and pursue financially sound solutions. No 14 G,\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016 Vice Chair DeLuna noted that she is at a disadvantage because she does not have the original General Plan documents to refer to. She asked Mr. Stendell if there was once a stormwater issue due to the developer, and the residents were looking for relief from the City and expected the City to correct the issue. Mr. Stendell said he does not recall the issue. However, the policy proposed by Commissioner Kelly is a reflection of what the staff does in the Department of Public Works on a daily basis. He stated that having it as a goal in the General Plan is a good thing because it supports what the staff already does. Mr. Mark Greenwood, Director of Public Works, asked for clarification that the amendment would not apply to private gated communities. He reported that there are several private communities in Palm Desert that have drainage issues and those are their private issues to solve. He would not want this effort to confuse the matter that the City would be involved in those private matters. Vice Chair DeLuna said that she is ill-equipped to respond because she did not expect the amendments. She stated that she would want to make sure that the City does not run into another situation as mentioned by Mr. Greenwood. She asked to tell her again that it is a goal and they are talking about a concept—that is one thing, but if they are talking any kind of requirements, then that is something else. Mr. Stendell remarked it is important to remember that requirements do not come out from the General Plan. Based on Mr. Greenwood's comments, he asked Commissioner Kelly if she would like to rephrase the amendment. Commissioner Kelly asked Mr. Greenwood if it would be adequate if it read "Continually assess public stormwater infrastructure needs. . ." Mr. Greenwood replied yes. Commissioner Pradetto seconded the motion. Commissioner Gregory mentioned that he is a little uncomfortable because he also was not expecting these concerns. Nonetheless, he agreed with what was being proposed. He said he is not familiar with the process of the General Plan and the Specific Plan preparation. He is not familiar with whether these things are expected to be as presented. He voiced his concern with unintended consequences, such as the one Mr. Greenwood brought up. He questioned if the amendments are appropriate for inclusion or amending the General Plan. Chair Greenwood asked if it is correct that the recommendations would go to the City Council for consideration, but not necessarily adopted in the plan. 15 G:%PlanningWonica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016 Mr. Stendell made clear that the Planning Commission is sending a recommendation for approval to the City Council. He reiterated that the Commission's motion is approval of staff's recommendation, subject to amendments. He stated that if the Commission has a concern, it is the staff's responsibility to let the Commission know if there is a liability. He also stated that he has not seen anything presented that would be a concern. Commissioner Pradetto shared that he supports the amendments because he looks at it as airing on the side of caution for the City and the residents. As a Planning Commissioner, he is going to air on caution of the residents. Setting a policy that the City and staff continue to look out for the best interest of the residents, even if it is not always something that the City would want to do; it is our government that was created to serve the residents. Vice Chair DeLuna wished she had more notice and time to consider the amendments. Commissioner Kelly remarked that she understood Vice Chair DeLuna's concern. However, she supplied all the amendments to Mr. Stendell so staff could assess them. She stated that the Brown Act foreclosed her from going to each person on the Planning Commission to inform them of the amendments. She felt it was a fairly expedited process to make specific word changes. This is their chance to make changes so they have to do their job to offer the best perspectives they can knowing that this is not the last word. She stated that the City Council would have an opportunity to fully study the amendments that she is putting forth. Chair Greenwood added that City staff would have time to review the amendments before they go to the City Council. Mr. Stendell commented that it is seldom City staff would propose something to the Council different from what the Planning Commission recommended. If there is a concern, staff would disclose it in the staff report to the City Council. Commissioner Gregory asked if any of the proposed amendments are redundant in the sense that they are already covered by other codes, ordinances, or provisions with the City. Mr. Stendell replied that the General Plan is the highest level document for the City, and he is okay with the potentially redundant amendments since it is the City's guiding document. Chair Greenwood called for the vote and the motion carried by a 5-0 vote. (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Kelly, and Pradetto; NOES: None), as amended. ..r 16 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016 Commissioner Kelly stated that the next amendment pertains to sidewalks. She Now explained residents have expressed concerns with very busy streets, and they desire a more pedestrian-friendly environment. Commissioner Kelly moved to add the following language (words underlined) in Chapter 4, Policy 3.2 (page 72): 3.2 Prioritizing improvements. Prioritize pedestrian improvements in areas of the city with community and/or educational facilities, supportive land use patterns, expressed community interest in better pedestrian infrastructure, and non-automotive connections such as multi-use trails and transit stops. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Pradetto. Vice Chair DeLuna inquired what "expressed community interest in better pedestrian infrastructure" means, and if it was already addressed in the General Plan. Commissioner Pradetto understood that it is consistent with the goal of the entire General Plan. Vice Chair DeLuna asked if the amendment is redundant. Commissioner Kelly replied that Policy 3.2 defines which location should get priority. She said the concerns made by the residents are not on the list of how they determine priority for pedestrian-friendly improvements. She felt that they should explicitly display their respect for that in assessing the prioritization on sidewalks. Vice Chair DeLuna communicated that they have been involved in the General Plan Update process for four years, and in the last hour the Planning Commission is being asked to make amendments. She repeated that she does not have her documents. She is not against any of the concepts, she voiced that she has not had the chance to process and research the amendments. She stated she was not prepared to amend the General Plan. Commissioner Kelly asserted that she wished she had more time too, but there has not been a prior opportunity for the Planning Commission to perform their function as commissioners. She claimed that it is the correct time to make amendments. Mr. Stendell affirmed that this is the appropriate time to make changes to the document as it would be for any other project that goes before the Planning Commission. He had the understanding by communication 15 days ago that the Commission understood they could come back to this meeting, with specific 17 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016 changes for the public hearing. He apologized to the Planning Commission if any other portrayal had been made. Vice Chair DeLuna commented that she wasn't prepared for specific amendments without the chance to think about it. However, if it is acceptable by the Commission and staff, then it is the policy they are going to adopt. Commissioner Kelly restated that the amendments were shared with staff, and they are simply refinements to assure that it could be the best it could be. Vice Chair DeLuna again said she is not against any of the specifics just caught off guard. Commissioner Gregory addressed Vice Chair DeLuna and said he shared her concern. Staff answered his question earlier, which they indicated there are no ramifications or unintended consequences with the amendments. He felt the changes are safe. Chair Greenwood called for the vote and the motion carried by a 5-0 vote. (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Kelly, and Pradetto; NOES: None). Commissioner Kelly continued with the next amendment, and mentioned she was appointed to the City's Parks and Recreation Taskforce for the Envision process. One major idea that came from the Taskforce was the inclusion of pervasive recreational opportunities in all new projects. She said that the Taskforce heard research showing that tourists routinely asked about recreational and exercise opportunities. The Taskforce felt that branding Palm Desert as a place where you don't have to ask because every place you turn there is an opportunity to exercise whether it is park equipment, stretching bars, or mile markers on the sidewalk. She noted that the idea is not featured in the General Plan. Commissioner Kelly believed if they make the following addition, it would be helpful to the Planning staff when working on projects. Commissioner Kelly motioned to add the following language (words underlined) in Chapter 3, Policy 5.5 (page 47): 5.5 Changing retail format. Provide incentives to transform existing, auto- oriented suburban centers into neighborhood destinations by adding a diversity of uses, adding pervasive opportunities for recreational, artistic and social engagement, providing new pedestrian connections. . . Motion was seconded by Commissioner Pradetto. He noticed that when he would hang out at the Civic Center Park and wanted to get food, he would have to get into his car and drive somewhere or go on a longer walk. If there was an easier connection, he thought you would feel the foot traffic Commissioner Kelly talked about. He stated he is in favor of creating public spaces with retail to urge foot traffic. 18 G\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016 Chair Greenwood called for the vote and the motion carried by a 5-0 vote. ftm (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Kelly, and Pradetto; NOES: None). Lastly, Commissioner Kelly stated that the last amendment is a matter of making something explicit. She said one of the themes of the General Plan is to create an environment, which is more attractive to those who love to walk places. To show balance and attentiveness to all of the residents, you have to stay mindful of those who either cannot walk a great distance, or have difficulty doing so. She mentioned her regular route home takes her past the Daily Grill. Every time she passes by, there is a car stopped illegally to let someone out of the car. They are stopping illegally due to a physical need or because they want to. Therefore, Commissioner Kelly moved to add the following language (words underlined) at the end of Chapter 3, Policy 6.5 (page 48): ". . . with attention to the needs of the disabled and senior residents." Mr. Stendell made a recommendation for this amendment to possibly stand alone. He said after reviewing the amendment with the consultants and City staff, they felt the goal was well stated, but may not be completely applicable to unbundled parking. They are considering making a new policy (Policy 6.6), with the language Commissioner Kelly proposed. am Commissioner Pradetto said he would second the motion. Commissioner Kelly stated that she is comfortable with staff's recommendation. Chair Greenwood asked how the amendment would read. Commissioner Pradetto suggested the following amendment for new Policy 6.6: "Disabled and senior residents. Find ways to improve the mobility of the immobile. Commissioner Kelly moved to add Policy 6.6, and language that recognizes the importance of planning for the needs of the disabled and senior residents in parking design. Commissioner Pradetto seconded the motion and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Kelly, and Pradetto; NOES: None). Commissioner Gregory commented that his office is located above the Daily Grill. The entire stretch along Ocotillo Drive is set aside for dropping off disabled people. However, people like to stop right at the corner. During season, it is extraordinary disruptive, very annoying, and has caused a lot of friction. r� 19 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016 Commissioner Kelly also commented that they should not make criminals out of perfectly nice people. The City should try to understand what people's wants and woo needs are in a design to accommodate them. Commissioner Gregory remarked that a design to accommodate the disabled and senior residents was done at the Daily Grill. He is concerned that in the zeal to help would create more problems. He pointed out that there is also signage that says "Please Do Not Stop on the Corner." Commissioner Kelly noted that the motion does not specifically address the Daily Grill. Commissioner Pradetto said that he is comfortable in voting. If there are commissioners that are not comfortable, there is nothing preventing the Commission from tabling the motion for further discussion before the final vote. Vice Chair DeLuna asked Commissioner Pradetto which motion he was referring to. Commissioner Pradetto answered that they are on the master motion of approving the staff's recommendation with the amendments. Chair Greenwood asked the commissioners if they had any other amendments or changes to any of the plans presented. The Commission replied no. Commissioner Pradetto commended and thanked City staff and the consultants for work done to complete the General Plan Update. He is a big fan of the plan. They are taking the first step, which will be slow and then it would be all at once. Vice Chair DeLuna commented that she has been involved in the General Plan Update process for approximately four years. She expressed her excitement and regret. Her excitement for what they produced and her regret for the fact that the process is over. She thanked staff and the consultants for their outstanding effort over the last few years in producing a process culminating in a document that will guide the City of Palm Desert for decades to come. The result is comprehensive, thorough, well thought out, and can serve as a guideline for development of the northern sphere and the educational corridor as it literally comes out of the ground. It would refine existing corridors, current residential neighborhoods, and commercial and outstanding retail corridors. The addition of the City Center concept is innovative and could utilize existing locations, particularly along San Pablo Avenue with opportunities to include healthy pedestrian and bicycle options. It's been an exciting process and an exciting time to be associated with the City so committed to the future and future generations of Palm Desert residents. She ended by saying that the City has an outstanding staff. ..r 20 G\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016 Chair Greenwood called for the main vote and the motion carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Kelly, and Pradetto; NOES: None). X. MISCELLANEOUS None XI. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None B. PARKS & RECREATION None XII. COMMENTS Mr. Stendell commended City staff and the consultants. It has been a pleasure and an enjoyment, and thanked everyone for being part of the General Plan Update process. XIII. ADJOURNMENT With the Planning Commission concurrence, Chair Greenwood adjourned the meeting at 8:26 p.m. a HN qREE wbOD, --GHAIRPERSON ATTEST: RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION �Y1 MONICA O'REILLY, REC03DING SECRETARY 21 'I G\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx I