Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 1213A - Location of Misc Uses (Add Ch. 25.130) ,..,._ —.....__ . ..�.-re^ �., >.::•_t .r�...',.,,. .. .. .. ..-. , ':_..��:t..: � , . ._ x. .. . . . ... . � . .'..F .� _. � � ?�� ��/�, , - ; ., .. : � �✓. . V ��� .�� �o!� � CITY OF PALM DESEF�T.,,. � ;, ; ,-:, � � .. . , .. ..,. �� � DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNIT"Sf'`��V�t�"PIC11Eh1T � # ' . . � . ==yN,. ...:__., .,..k STAFF REPORT REQUEST: THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ADDING CHAPTER 25.130, LOCATION OF MISCELLANEOUS USES, TO THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE. SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato Principal Planner APPILANT: City of Palm Desert CASE NO: ZOA 10-69 DATE: May 27, 2010 ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance 1213A Exhibit A, Chapter 25.130 City Council Staff Report, dated April 22, 2010 City Council Minutes, dated April 22, 2010 Recommendation Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No.1213A to second reading for approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment adding Chapter 25.130, Location of Miscellaneous Uses, to the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Discussion On April 22, 2010, the City Council re'�ciewed the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment, closed the public hearing, and referred the case back to staff to clarify the grandfathering of existing businesses allowing►'fhem to expand, reduce, or relocate. In response to City Council's direction, staff added the following section: Section 25.130.030 Applicability C. All miscellaneous uses existing on Highway 111 and/or EI Paseo on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall be allowed to expand, reduce, and/or relocate their business on Highway 111 or EI Paseo in accordance with the following provisions: Staff Report ZOA 10-69, Location of Miscellaneous Uses May 27, 2010 Page 2 of 2 1. Separation distance of 500 feet from the same miscellaneous use (i.e. a tattoo establishment must be 500 feet from another tattoo establishment); 2. No change in ownership occurs as part of the expansion, reduction, and/or relocation of the miscellaneous use. The modification to the ordinance will allow the grandfathered businesses to expand, reduce or relocate the existing business as long as it is 500 feet away from a similar use, and the ownership must remain the same. The proposed modification accommodates the existing businesses while addressing the concerns of having a high concentration of these businesses in one area in the city. In addition to the grandfathering modification, staff has added body branding and/or body scarring establishments to the list of miscellaneous uses that would be regulated by this ordinance. Currently, there are no body branding and/or body scarring establishments within the city. Other cities have addressed this type of business, and staff believes that it is appropriate to add this to the ordinance. Submitted By: Department Head: Tony Ba ato Lauri Aylaian Principal Planner Director Community Development Approval: '� 1. ----��--_---�- Jo . Wohlmuth, City Manager G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\StaH Reports�ZOA\10-69 Misc Uses\City Council Misc Uses Revised.doc ORDINANCE NO. 1213A AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVNG A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ADDING CHAPTER 25.130 LOCATION OF MISCELLANEOUS USES TO THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE. CASE NO. ZOA 10-69 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 16t" day of March, 2010, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request and by its Resolution No. 2524 has recommended approval of ZOA 10-69; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 22tn day of April, 2010, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by the City of Palm Desert for approval of the above noted matter; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act", Resolution No. 06-78, in that the Director of Community Development has determined that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment and is therefore not subject to CEQA, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of the said amendment: 1. The proposed Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the established goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan. 2. As described in the General Plan, the City of Palm Desert is the premier business, resort and residential community in the Coachella Valley, whose three core economic interests are: retait commercial, resorts and tourism, and educational institutions. 3. Highway 111 and EI Paseo are significant commercial corridors of the City, with viewsheds that require special land use provisions to promote a quality image of Palm Desert. 4. That the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the City of Palm Desert. 5. The purpose of this Zoning Ordinance is to establish standards and procedures to promote quality development along the city's commercial corridors and throughout the city in general, in support of the goals, ORDINANCE NO. 1213A programs, and policies established in the Economic & Fiscal and Community Design Elements of the General Plan. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That Section 25.130 is hereby approved as described in Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION 2: That the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 27th day of May, 2010, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CINDY FINERTY, Mayor ATTEST: RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk Palm Desert City Council 2 ORDINANCE NO. 1213A EXHIBIT A CHAPTER 25.130 LOCATION OF MISCELLANEOUS USES Sections: 25.130.010 Findings and Purpose 25.130.020 Definitions 25.130.030 Applicability 25.130.040 Location Section 25.130.010 Findings and Purpose A. This ordinance is based on the following findings: 1. The proposed Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the established goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan; 2. As described in the General Plan, the City of Palm Desert is the premier business, resort and residential community in the Coachella Valley, whose three core economic interests are: retail commercial, resorts and tourism, and educational institutions; 3. Highway 111 and EI Paseo are significant commercial corridors of the City, with viewsheds that require special land use provisions to promote a quality image of Palm Desert; 4. Miscellaneous uses, including body branding and/or body scarring establishment, tattoo and body piercing establishments, pawn shops, fortune teller or palm readers, independent massage establishments, smoke shops, billiards or pool halls, and bail bond establishments, do not contribute to the positive development or economic vitality of Highway 111 and EI Paseo and are antithetical to the core economic interests of the City, as defined by the Economic and Fiscal Element of the General Plan; 5. Eliminating miscellaneous uses within these commercial corridors will assist in preserving the quality of development along the City's primary entryways; B. The purpose of this chapter is to establish standards and procedures to promote quality development along the city's commercial corridors and throughout the city in general, in support of the goals, programs, and policies established in the Economic & Fiscal and Community Design Elements of the General Plan. Section 25.130.020 Definitions A. "Bail bond establishment" means any establishment where bail bonds can be purchased. B. "Body branding and/or body scarring establishment" means a business providing body branding, i.e. impressing or burning a mark or figure on the skin of a person with a 3 ORDINANCE NO. 1213A hot object or flame; and/or body scarring, i.e. any method by which a scar is applied to or left upon the skin of a person. C. "Body piercing establishment" means an establishment where, for commercial purposes, the act of penetrating the skin to make generally permanent in nature, a hole, mark, or scar. "Body piercing" does not include the use of inechanized, pre-sterilized ear-piercing system that penetrates the outer perimeter or lobe of the ear or both. D. "Fortune teller or palm reader" means someone who, for commercial purposes, claims to see the future and reads customers' fortunes. E. "Independent massage establishment" means a massage establishment as defined in Section 5.87.020 where the primary and predominant business service is the practice of massage as defined in Section 5.87.020. An independent massage establishment is not an establishment that is associated with or located on the premises of a resort, country club, hotel, or health club. F. "Miscellaneous uses" include tattoo establishments, body piercing establishments, pawn shops, fortune teller or palm readers, independent massage establishments, smoke shops, billiards or pool halls, and bail bond establishments. G. "Pawn shop" means a business that offers secured loans to people, with items of personal property used as collateral. H. "Smoke shop" means an establishment that primarily sells tobacco products (as defined in Section 8.34.010) and generates at least 50% of its gross revenue from the sale of tobacco paraphernalia (as defined in Section 8.34.010), including such paraphernalia that may be used with illegal drugs. A smoke shop is not a retail tobacco establishment. A retail tobacco establishment is an establishment that generates less than 50% of its gross revenue from the sale of tobacco paraphernalia and generates more than 80% of its gross revenue from the sale of tobacco products, excluding cigarettes. Retail tobacco establishments are exempt from this ordinance prohibition. I. "Tattoo establishment" means a business providing tattooing, i.e. marking of the skin of a person by insertion of permanent colors by introducing them through puncture of the skin. A tattoo establishment does not include beauty salons, health spas, and/or similar establishments that provide permanent makeup on the skin of the face, including, but not limited to, the permanent coloring of the eyebrows, lip line, and eye line. Section 25.130.030 Applicability A. All new miscellaneous uses shall be subject to these regulations and all other applicable regulations. B. All miscellaneous uses existing on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall be considered permitted uses, and allowed to continue their usage as they presentty exist. C. All miscellaneous uses existing on Highway 111 and/or EI Paseo on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall be allowed to expand, reduce, and/or relocate their business on Highway 111 or EI Paseo in accordance with the following provisions: 4 ORDINANCE NO. 1213A 1. Separation distance of 500 feet from the same miscellaneous use (i.e. a tattoo establishment must be 500 feet from another tattoo establishment); 2. No change in ownership occurs as part of the expansion, reduction, and/or relocation of the miscellaneous use. Section 25.130.040 Location A. No miscellaneous uses shall be established in the following locations: 1 . Along Highway 111 or within 300 feet of the right-of-way of Highway 111; 2. Along EI Paseo or within 300 feet of the right-of-way of EI Paseo. B. Miscellaneous uses are permitted in all areas of the City where not otherwise prohibited by code, except as provided in Section 25.130.030(A), but may not be within 1,000 feet from a same use (i.e. a pawn shop must be 1,000 feet from another pawn shop, not other miscellaneous uses listed in this section). C. The measure of reference distance in this section shall be a straight line from the nearest property line containing the miscellaneous use to the nearest property line of an affected use or other miscellaneous use, without regard to intervening structures. SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be invalid, unconstitutional, or unenforceable by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of the Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase would be declared invalid, unconstitutional or unenforceable. SECTION 3. COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Pursuant to state and local environmental regulations, it has been determined that the regulations encompassed in this ordinance are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. SECTION 4. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. 5 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: THAT THE CITY OF PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ADDING CHAPTER 25.130, LOCATION OF MISCELLANEOUS USES, TO THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE. SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner APPILANT: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 CASE NO: ZOA 10-69 DATE: April 22, 2010 ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance Exhibit A, Chapter 25.130 Planning Commission Minutes dated 16 March 2010 Legal Notice Recommendation Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No.1213 to second reading for approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment adding Chapter 25.130, Location of Miscellaneous Uses, to the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Planninq Commission Recommendation At its meeting of March 16, 2010,the Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council of ZOA 10-69 adding Chapter 25.130, Location of Miscellaneous Uses, to the Palm Desert Municipal Code by Resolution No. 2524 on a 3-2 vote, with Commissioners Campbell and Tanner voting no. Executive Summary Approval of staff's recommendation would approve a zoning ordinance amendment adding Chapter 25.130, Location of Miscellaneous Uses, to the Palm Desert Municipal Code. This change would prohibit certain new miscellaneous uses along Highway 111 Staff Report ZOA 10-69, Location of Miscellaneous Uses April 22, 2010 Page 2 of 4 and EI Paseo, including tattoo and body piercing establishments, pawn shops, fortune tellers or palm readers, smoke shops, billiards or pool halls, independent massage establishments, and bail bonds establishments. All existing miscellaneous uses will be considered legal non-conforming and will be allowed to continue business until such business is no longer in operation. The intent of the ordinance, which was prepared at the request of the Planning Commission, is to promote a better visual character of Palm Desert as a destination resort community along the main core commercial area of the city. Backqround Regulation of tattoo establishments has been discussed at several times in the City of Palm Desert, dating back to December of 1997 when the city had only two tattoo establishments on Highway 111. The City Council discussed regulating the location of tattoo establishments as part of an ordinance dealing with the location of adult businesses. After discussion, the City Councii chose not to identify tattoo establishments as adult entertainment businesses. At that time, the City Council determined that tattoo establishments were no differe.nt than barber or beauty shops offering personal services. Since the original discussion in 1997, there has been an increase in the number of tattoo establishments; there are currently six tattoo establishments, of which five are located on Highway 111 in the commercial core of the city. At the November 10, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner DeLuna asked staff to research potential regulations on the location of tattoo establishments because of the high number of them in one area of the city. On December 15, 2009, staff presented four possible approaches for regulation regarding tattoo establishments. After the discussion regarding the possible approaches for regulation and concerns regarding singling out tattoo establishments, the Commission discussed how other uses along Highway 111 and E! Paseo (such as smoke shops, independent massage establishments, pawn shops, and fortune tellers) could be included in this discussion. The Planning Commission's intent was to preserve a visual quality along the City's main commercial corridor in order to preserve the quality of development along the city's primary entryways. Staff also recommended that existing businesses be considered grandfathered in along Highway 111. At the March 16, 2010 Planning Commission meeting, staff proposed ZOA 10-69 identified as Chapter 25.130, Location of Miscellaneous Uses. The Commissioners had a long discussion and listened to testimony from tattoo business owners who would be potentially affected by this ordinance. The owners were worried about being landlocked, and not being able to relocate to a larger or sma�ler location on Highway 111. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word�Misceltaneous Ordlcc report misc ord(3).doc Staff Report ZOA 10-69, Location of Miscellaneous Uses April 22, 2010 Page 3 of 4 Discussion The miscellaneous uses identified in the ordinance were included under the belief that they do not contribute to the positive development or economic vitality of Highway 111 and EI Paseo. In fact, if they discourage high-end or premium retailers from locating in the area, they are antithetical to the core economic interests of the City, as defined by the Economic and Fiscal Element of the General Plan. Eliminating miscellaneous uses within these commercial corridors will assist in enhancing and preserving a higher quality of development along the city's primary entryways. Currently along Highway 111 and EI Paseo there are five tattoo establishments, eight independent massage establishments, one palm reader, and three smoke shops. Under the proposed ordinance, the existing uses will be grandfathered in as permitted uses, and wiN be allowed to continue their usage as they presently exist. All new miscellaneous uses would be subject to the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment regulations and all other applicable regulations. No new miscellaneous uses would be established along, or within 300 feet of, the rights-of-way for Highway 111 and EI Paseo. Miscellaneous uses would be permitted in all commercial or senrice industrial areas of the city where not otherwise prohibited by code, with a 1,000 foot separation requirement from a same use. For example, a tattoo establishment must be 1,000 feet from another tattoo establishment, but not from other miscellaneous uses listed in this section. In order to determine the distance, a straight line would be measured from the nearest property line containing the miscellaneous use to the nearest property line of an affected use or other miscellaneous use, without regard to intervening structures. Staff does not foresee significant adverse impacts to the existing businesses since they will be allowed to continue their usage. New businesses would not be impacted, since there will still be many areas of the city in which they are permitted. Environmental Review The proposed amendment is exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")(Cal. Pub. Res. Code, section 21000 et seq.) and its implementing regulations based on the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3). Staff has determined that no significant impacts will occur because miscellaneous uses would be permitted in all areas of the City where not otherwise prohibited by code. Conclusion Palm Desert is known for being a resort destination, and Highway 111 and El Paseo are important commercial corridors of the City. Preserving the commercial viewsheds requires unique land use provisions to promote a high quality visual character for Palm Desert. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word�Miscellaneous Orcnec report misc ord(3).doc Staff Report ZOA 10-69, Location of Miscelianeous Uses April 22, 2010 Page 4 of 4 The purpose of this ordinance is to establish standards and procedures to promote a higher quality of development along the city's commercial corridors, and throughout the city in general, in support of the goals, programs, and policies established in the Economic & Fiscal and Community Design Elements of the General Plan. Adding Chapter 25.130, Location of Miscellaneous Uses, to the Palm Desert Municipal Code helps achieve the General Plan vision, promoting and preserving a high quality of development along the city's primary entryways of Highway 111 and EI Paseo, while protecting the interests of the existing businesses. Fiscal Analvsis The fiscal impact to the City associated with adding Chapter 25.130, Location of Miscellaneous Uses, to the Palm Desert Municipal Code is negligible. It can be argued that the miscellaneous uses do not contribute to the economic vitality of Highway 111 and EI Paseo. The City of Palm Desert receives nominal sales tax from smoke shops and pawn shops, while the other uses provide services that do not generate sales tax. Submitted By: Department Head: � i'�� Kevin Swartz auri Aylaian Assistant Planner Director Community Development CiTY COUNC'II,qC'�IpM Ov . � APPROVED %_ '�__DEN(F� G� RECEIVED OTHER M. Wohlmuth, City Manager 1�'�EETI DATE a • ' C/C; AYES: 'y Sa -� E � �t ��-.t , NOES: ABSEN'1't ' )- ABSTAINr VERIFIED BYs / Ori�iiwl oa Ftk w�it6 City rk's Offics * By l�iinute Motion, refer the Case back to staff for clarification regarding the grandfathering of egisting businesses at this time as to what they can do in the future (i.e., expansion, downsizing, reloation) including an appropriate process for such consideration. 3-1 (Kelly N0, Ferguson ABSENT) G:\Planning\Kevin SwaAz\Word�Miscellaneous O�cc report misc ord(3).doc ORDINANCE NO. �2�3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVNG A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ADDING CHAPTER 25.130 LOCATION OF MISCELLANEOUS USES TO THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE. CASE NO. ZOA 10-69 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 16th day of March, 2010, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by the City of Palm Desert and recommended approval to the City Council of the above noted matter; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 22nd day Of Ap�ll, 2010, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by the City of Palm Desert for approval of the above noted matter; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act", Resolution No. 06-78, in that the Director of Community Development has determined that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment and is therefore not subject to CEQA, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of the said amendment: 1. The proposed Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the established goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan. 2. As described in the General Plan, the City of Palm Desert is the premier business, resort and residential community in the Coachella Valley, whose three core economic interests are: retail commercial, reso�ts and tourism, and educational institutions. 3. Highway 111 and EI Paseo are significant commercial corridors of the City, with viewsheds that require special land use provisions to promote a quality image of Palm Desert. 4. That the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the City of Palm Desert. 5. The purpose of this Zoning Ordinance is to establish standards and procedures to promote quality development along the city's commercial corridors and throughout the city in general, in support of the goals, ORDINANCE NO. 1213 programs, and policies established in the Economic & Fiscal and Community Design Elements of the General Plan. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council on this matter. SECTION 2: Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 25.130 is hereby amended and restated as described in Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION 3: That the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 22"d day of April, 2010, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CINDY FINERTY, Mayor ATTEST: RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk Palm Desert City Council 2 ORDINANCE NO. 1213 EXHIBIT A CHAPTER 25.130 LOCATION OF MISCELLANEOUS USES Sections: 25.130.010 Findings and Purpose 25.130.020 Definitions 25.130.030 � Applicability 25.130.040 Location Section 25.130.010 Findings and Purpose A. This ordinance is based on the following findings: 1. The proposed Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the established goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan; 2. As described in the General Plan, the City of Palm Desert is the premier business, resort and residential community in the Coachella Valley, whose three core economic interests are: retail commercial, resorts and tourism, and educational institutions; 3. Highway 111 and EI Paseo are significant commercial corridors of the City, with viewsheds that require special land use provisions to promote a quality image of Palm Desert; 4. Miscellaneous uses, including tattoo and body piercing establishments, pawn shops, fortune teller or palm readers, independent massage establishments, smoke shops, billiards or pool halls, and bail bond establishments, do not contribute to the positive development or economic vitality of Highway 111 and EI Paseo and are antithetical to the core economic interests of the City, as defined by the Economic and Fiscal Element of the General Plan; 5. Eliminating miscellaneous uses within these commerciaf corridors will assist in preserving the quality of development along the City's primary entryways; B. The purpose of this chapter is to establish standards and procedures to promote quality development along the city's commercial corridors and throughout the city in general, in support of the goals, programs, and policies established in the Economic & Fiscal and Community Design Elements of the General Plan. Section 25.130.020 Definitions A. "Bail bond establishment" means any establishment where bail bonds can be purchased. B. "Body piercing establishment" means an establishment where, for commercial purposes, the act of penetrating the skin to make generally permanent in nature, a hole, mark, or scar. "Body piercing" does not include the use of inechanized, pre-sterilized ear-piercing system that penetrates the outer perimeter or lobe of the ear or both. 3 ORDINANCE NO. �213 C. "Fortune teller or palm reader" means someone who, for commercial purposes, claims to see the future and reads customers' fortunes. D. "Independent massage establishment" means a massage establishment as defined in Section 5.87.020 where the primary and predominant business service is the practice of massage as defined in Section 5.87.020. An independent massage establishment is not an establishment that is associated with or located on the premises of a resort, country club, hotel, or health club. E. "Miscellaneous uses" include tattoo establishments, body piercing establishments, pawn shops, fortune teller or palm readers, independent massage establishments, smoke shops, billiards or pool halls, and bail bond establishments. F. "Pawn shop" means a business that offers secured loans to people, with items of personal property used as collateral. G. "Smoke shop" means an establishment that primarily sells tobacco products (as defined in Section 8.34.010) and generates at least 50% of its gross revenue from the sale of tobacco paraphernalia (as defined in Section 8.34.010), including such paraphernalia that may be used with illegal drugs. A smoke shop is not a retail tobacco establishment. A retail tobacco establishment is an establishment that generates less than 50% of its gross revenue from the sale of tobacco paraphernalia and generates more than 80% of its gross revenue from the sale of tobacco products, excluding cigarettes. Retail tobacco establishments are exempt from this ordinance prohibition. H. "Tattoo establishmenY' means a business providing tattooing, i.e. marking of the skin of a person by insertion of permanent colors by introducing them through puncture of the skin. A tattoo establishment does not include beauty salons, health spas, and/or similar establishments that provide permanent makeup on the skin of the face, including, but not limited to, the permanent coloring of the eyebrows, lip line, and eye line. Section 25.130.030 Applicability A. All new miscellaneous uses shall be subject to these regulations and all other applicable regulations. B. All miscellaneous uses existing on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall be considered permitted uses, and allowed to continue their usage as they presently exist. Section 25.130.040 Location A. No miscellaneous uses shalt be established in the following {ocations: 1. Along Highway 111 or within 300 feet of the right-of-way of Highway 111; 2. Along EI Paseo or within 300 feet of the right-of-way of EI Paseo. B. Miscellaneous uses are permitted in all areas of the City where not otherwise prohibited by code, except as provided in Section 25.130.030(A), but may not be within 1,000 feet from a same use (i.e. a pawn shop must be 1,000 feet from another pawn shop, not other miscellaneous uses listed in this section). 4 ORDINANCE N0.1213 C. The measure of reference distance in this section shall be a straight line from the nearest property line containing the miscellaneous use to the nearest property line of an affected use or other miscellaneous use, without regard to intervening structures. SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be invalid, unconstitutional, or unenforceable by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of the Ordinance, The City Council declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase would be declared invalid, unconstitutional or unenforceable. SECTION 3. COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Pursuant to state and local environmental regulations, it has been determined that the regulations encompassed in this ordinance are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. SECTION 4. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE The City Clerk of the City of Pafm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 010 they would be approving, the resolution which defines outcroppings and indicates that destruction of the outcropping is prohibited. What he stated deletes from that resolution any reference to the ridgeline map. Chair Limont asked if there was a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the findings. The motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Campbell voted no). Mr. Erwin stated that the other item that they mentioned was the potential survey. He asked if they would want to convey to the Council a suggestion with regard to the ridgeline map. If they wished to do that, it would be a matter of inerely the Chairman of the Commission, if that was the wish of the Commission, conveying that information to the City Council. Chairperson Limont asked if they should do that as a Miscellaneous item or as part of this. Mr. Erwin said this. Basically that has been the discussion so far. He suggested a motion and second and a vote requesting the Chairperson to convey that information to the Council. It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, by minute motion, authorizing Chairperson Limont to convey to the City Council a request for a survey by a licensed professional engineer to identify ridgelines in the HPR zoned area. Commissioner Schmidt stated that she did not want to discount the work that Mr. Stendell and staff have done on this and encouraged them to have that as a starting point. Mr. Erwin said that could be included in the conveyance. Chairperson Limont called for the vote. The motion carried 5- 0. (*"See additional discussion on pages 18-19, items 1 and 3**) � D. Case No. ZOA 10-69 — CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for a recommendation to the City Council to approve a Zoning Ordinance Amendment adding Chapter 25.130, Location of Miscellaneous Uses, to the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Assistant Planner Kevin Swartz reviewed the staff report. He noted a change on Page 4 of the resolution under E, Miscellaneous Uses, where it listed thrift stores. The words "thrift stores" should be replaced with "independent massage establishments." Staff recommended that the 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNfNG COMMISSION MARCH 16 2010 Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment adding Chapter 25.130 Location of Miscellaneous Uses to the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Mr. Swart2 informed the Commission that staff also advertised this item to all the businesses mentioned in this ordinance. They also handed out copies to individuals at the counter, but only received one response in writing. That response was before the Commission from Bert Bruning of Palm Desert Tobacco. Mr. Bruning was recommending that the Commission add on Page 4 under G under smoke shops the wording to the sentence half way down the page that states, "A retail tobacco establishment is an establishment that generates less than 50% of its gross revenue from the sale of tobacco paraphernalia and generates more than 80% of its gross revenue from the sale of tobacco products." Mr. Bruning wanted to add at the end "excluding cigarettes." Mr. Swartz asked for any questions. Commissioner Schmidt asked why they would exclude cigarettes. Mr. Swartz said that in speaking with him on the phone, he sells higher end tobacco and he was worried about an influx of lower-end tobacco cigarette stores. Commissioner Campbell asked if he meant one like the establishment in the Palms to Pines center. Mr. Swartz said yes, he was worried about an influx of stores such as that. Commissioner DeLuna asked what it would take to add "excluding cigarettes". Did they just add it in to anything they approved? Mr. Erwin said they are permitted to add or delete anything that they wish when they finally make a decision with regard to this resolution. They were absolutely free to add it if they wished. Chairperson Limont opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment. MR. BUDDY HAYNES, 73338 Highway 111, Suite 5, asked if the existing tattoo shops on Highway 111 would be considered grandfathered in, but if they were to move a year from now down the road, would they still be permitted to stay on Highway 111 or would they have to locate off of Highway 111. Mr. Erwin said if he moved the location, it would have to be off of Highway 111. Mr. Haynes asked if that was off of Highway 111 permanentty. Mr. Erwin said yes. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNINC GOMMI�SION M H 16 2010 Mr. Haynes didn't agree with the change. He couldn't speak to the other Miscel�aneous Uses, but if he had a 99-year lease at his present location versus a two-year lease, he didn't see what the difference would be if he was to move two doors down or stay at the same spot. With the economy fluctuating, if business gets slower and he needs to downsize, he would still like to stay on Highway 111. Or if business got better, he would like to move to a bigger building. He recommended that those already on Highway 111 should be able to choose if they would like to leave where they're at and still stay there, but at just a different address. He wanted them to put in a compromise or addition to the ordinance. MR. TROY LAWRENCE, 73-640 Highway 111, said he wasn't there to dispute anything, he was there to commend them for hearing them out initially and letting them speak their piece when this came out. The City was able to listen to what they had to say and make recommendations, listen to their advice. He did agree with it and there was only one thing to add and it didn't have anything to do with his business. There was another business they might want to consider to try to monitor and it was right next to him and it had to do with adult toys and stuff like that. He knew that wasn't in there, but he was willing to bet that was something that might come up, so it something they might want to try to spearhead before they start having some of those start popping up down the street. Once they have this ordinance, and he wasn't sure there was anything to control that, but once they see they are set in stone where they're at, someone might get an idea to start working their way down Highway 111 and then they would be right back here with that issue. He commended them again for letting them take care of business and that's why they live and work in this city. Commissioner Tanner asked what type of business he was referring to next to his establishment. Mr. Lawrence said it is called Skitzo Kitty; it's adult things. Mr. Bagato indicated that there is an existing city ordinance that deals with adult entertainment. When that business was initially approved, it was supposed to be mainly a lingerie store. If they have expanded that beyond the realm of what they would define as lingerie, they could look into it. Adult book stores are currently not allowed on Highway 111. Mr. Lawrence said it seemed to be fairly decent; however, he just wanted to bring it up to make sure it didn't get out of control. 12 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16. 201 Q Commissioner Tanner asked for confirmation that it is addressed in an existing ordinance. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Locations are . supposed to be in industrial areas like Cook Street or off of Dinah Shore. Staff would look into it. Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Lawrence if he was happy to be grandfathered in. Mr. Lawrence replied extremely happy. Commissioner Campbell asked if he owned the building or if he was renting or leasing. Mr. Lawrence said he was leasing right now. Commissioner Campbell asked if his landlord knew he couldn't move anywhere else because it wouldn't be allowed on Highway 111 and his rent went up, what he would do then. Mr. Lawrence said it was controlled by a management company and he knew there were stipulations and laws that they aren't allowed to do that. He has known the gentleman, Mr. Otto Lupia, for 15 years and he didn't think he would take advantage. Commissioner Campbell said that was just him. What about the other tattoo owners? They may have that possibility where they are caught like that and can't move anywhere else. Mr. Lawrence couldn't speak for the others, but concurred. MR. JAMES LIVINGSTON, 73338 Highway 111, Suite 5, said he is co-owner of Inksanity Tattoo. He wanted to address what Mr. Haynes said earlier as far this being grandfathered in. If his lease is up within two years, he would like the option to move two doors down or a street down on Highway 111. Another issue was they were excluding permanent cosmetics. Permanent cosmetics were no different from what he does. It's the same thing. They break the surface of the skin just as much as he does. They use the same needles; the machines might be different. By excluding them, the tattoo industry, they needed to involve permanent cosmetics also with them. He wanted to bring that to everybody's attention; it had not been mentioned. To move them and not letting him be able to open a business within five years down the road if his lease is up, that should apply to them too. He said about 38% to 40% is tourist 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16. 2010 business from out of town. They come from Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, and Orange County. There was no one else wishing to speak and Chairperson Limont closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tanner knew they talked about tattoos and permanent makeup; he asked if there was any distinction befinreen them. It clearly was similar. Mr. Bagato stated that according to the State and Riverside County Health and Safety there is no difference. They talked about from a Health Department view there is no difference. But staff was asked to look at the impact in terms of a resort community in the commercial core and a concentration of them in one area. They didn't treat them with beauty salons because they weren't looking at them from a health and safety standpoint, but from land uses that are compatible in a resort community for visual character along the commercial core when the concern was first brought up. That's why they separated the two. But by the Health and Safery Code, they are completely the same. Commissioner Campbell's recommendation was that they leave everything as is. She didn't think by removing the tattoo parlors and the tobacco shops on Highway 111 that it was going to make Highway 111 look any better. It needed a complete revamp and to leave them as it is, and when they have other applications, go ahead and have a conditional use permit that would come in front of the Planning Commission to approve or not approve them. Commissioner Tanner asked if that was a motion. Commissioner Campbell said yes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, to keep the current ordinance and have the applications come before the Planning Commission with a conditional use permit. Commissioner DeLuna asked if there was anything they had talked about that would limit their vicinity to schools, parks, or churches. Commissioner Campbell explained that would come with the conditional use permit when it comes before them. Commissioner DeLuna thought they decided at the last meeting that requiring a CUP for this type of business was not the best solution. They already decided that. Commissioner Campbell explained that it hadn't been voted on yet. Commissioner DeLuna indicated that it was in the staff report. And they asked staff to analyze other land use compatibility requirements. Commissioner Campbell said that was true. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16� 2010 Commissioner Schmidt asked for clarification. Commissioner Campbell said her motion was to leave everything as it is and have any application come before the Planning Commission for consideration where they could approve a conditional use permit or deny it. Commissioner DeLuna asked if she was asking them to deny what staff was recommending. Commissioner Campbell concurred. Commissioner Schmidt reiterated that she was requesting them to do nothing. In relation to how they would vote, Commissioner DeLuna asked if that meant they vote no for staff's recommendation. Mr. Erwin pointed out that they were talking about conditional use permits and there were no existing conditional use permit requirements for these businesses. Commissioner Campbell said they could go ahead and require a conditional use permit for these services. Mr. Erwin said if that was the desire of the Commission, staff would need to bring back to them an additional recommendation to include these as conditional use permit requirements in other zones. Chairperson Limont requested clarification that Commissioner Campbell was recommending that they deny staff's recommendation to change the current ordinance and direct them to come back with a conditional use permit requirement. Commissioner Campbell concurred. Commissioner DeLuna asked if that was the motion that has been seconded. Commissioner Tanner said that would be his second. Commissioner DeLuna requested that they clarify one more time what they were voting on. Mr. Erwin understood the motion to be made to deny the staff recommendation; to instruct staff to bring it back to the Planning Commission with the additional requirement of conditional use permits for these businesses in other locations. Commissioner Campbell said that was correct. Commissioner Schmidt clarified that a yes vote would be in favor of denial. Mr. Erwin concurred that a yes vote would be in favor of denying the staff recommendation and instructing that they come back with something additional to this ordinance that would impose conditional use permit requirements on these businesses in other locations other than Highway 111 and EI Paseo. Commissioner DeLuna reiterated that a no vote supports the staff recommendation. Mr. Erwin confirmed that a no vote would support the City staff recommendation. Commissioner Schmidt said they would have to take a separate action again on the resolution if Commissioner Campbell's motion fails. Chairperson Limont concurred. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16� 201 Q Commissioner Tanner asked if there was still room for discussion. Chairperson Limont said yes. Commissioner Tanner said his concern has been aired twice here and that it is for local estabtishments on Highway 111 currently. The Iong-term leases or ownership property secures that presence on Highway 111. His concern was for a short-term lease or an owner just deciding at the conclusion of that lease that they no longer want to have this particular establishment in their building. They could say � no, they are not going to extend the lease. This denied an already established performing business in the city of Palm Desert the opportunity to continue that endeavor on Highway 111; that's where they want to be. At the same time, he wanted it understood when adopting the requirement for a new CUP that they suggest that there is no more room for these particular types of establishments and that they not eliminate the opportuniry for established businesses to continue, either in a smaller place or a larger place on Highway 111. Because the way he understood it, once they are out of that one particular spot, they are no longer going to be able to lease, even if they come to the Planning Commission because a conditional use permit will say no more establishments of this type. Mr. Erwin clarified that a conditional use permit wouldn't say that, this ordinance says that regardless of a conditional use permit. If they wished to put in the ordinance that they could move, then they would have to talk in terms of same location, similar location and determine if they then are required to comply with the other distance restrictions from other operations; can they expand their business, etc.; a number of things. Commissioner Tanner said he had a difficult time taking the ability of one to make money away at the whim of a building owner or what have you. Commissioner Campbell stated that her motion still stood to come to the Planning Commission with a conditional use permit and Commissioner Tanner had seconded the motion. Commissioner DeLuna asked if in the worst case scenario what they were talking about occurs, they are not precluded from doing business in another Iocation in the ciry, they are just precluded from being on Highway 111; Service Industrial zones or such other designated zones could still accommodate the business, just not the location. Mr. Erwin said that was correct. Mr. Erwin asked for clarification that the conditional use permit as he understood it would not apply on Highway 111 or EI Paseo, but would apply in other zones within the city off of EI Paseo. He had the feeling that perhaps they were talking about a relocation of one existing on Highway 111 and EI Paseo requiring a conditional use permit. He asked if that was what he was hearing. Commissioner Campbell said that was correct. Mr. 16 MINUTES ESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 201 Erwin said that if an existing business on Highway 111 wants to relocate to Highway 111, they go through a conditional use permit process. Both Commissioners Campbell and Tanner concurred. Mr. Erwin said that anyone who wished to locate on Cook Street or a place like that also required a conditiona{ use permit. Commissioners Campbell and Tanner both concurred. Commissioner Schmidt noted that her tear in requiring a conditional use permit is that it runs with the land. It doesn't terminate when the end of a lease terminates. Mr. Erwin said that was correct. Commissioner Schmidt said that if the ownership changes, iYs still allowed. Mr. Erwin said that was correct, unless they restrict that in their granting of the conditional use permit. They do have the ability to do that, if they specify that it is for a particular operator so that they make it so that it does not run with the land. Without some restriction on it, it would run with the land and be available for that location. Commissioner DeLuna said that in that case, it could conceivably allow someone to stay in that location with the same use and allow someone relocating to start the same business in another location, so in effect they would have two businesses? Mr. Erwin said no, it would not expand into two businesses; it would still be just one business. Chairperson Limont noted it would be comparable to how we treat stand alone massage parlors. The CUP is to the owner, to the person operating the business. Mr. Erwin said that was correct. Commissioner DeLuna asked if it would then affect the owner of property, not the lessee. Mr. Erwin said it may, he didn't know. Chairperson Limont said they could condition it to the person leasing and it could go with their business license. Mr. Erwin said that was correct. Chairperson Limont noted there was a motion on the floor and called for the vote. The motion failed 2-3 (Chairperson Limont, Commissioner DeLuna and Commissioner Schmidt voted no). Mr. Erwin advised Chairperson Limont to see if there was any other motion the Commission wished to make. It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, approving the findings and recommendation as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Campbell and Tanner voted no). It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2524, recommending to the City Council approval of ZOA 10-69 adding Chapter 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2010 25.130, Location of Miscellaneous Uses, to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, as amended by changing the words "thrift stores" to "independent massage establishments" in E of Section 25.130.020 Definitions and adding the words "excluding cigarettes" to G of Section 25.130.020. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Campbell and Tanner voted no). 1X. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell reported that the next meeting would be March 17. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Chairperson Limont also reported that the next meeting would be March 17. C. PARKS & RECREATION Commissioner Tanner stated that they had a presentation by the City Attorney regarding the Brown Act and reviewed upcoming events and discussion items. D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Schmidt said they met last Monday and primarily it was updating and the City Attorney spoke about the Brown Act and the need for everyone to adhere to it. The next meeting would be in a month. XI. COMMENTS 1. Commissioner DeLuna said she apparently missed something when they were discussing the definition of rock outcroppings and that part of the motion that got bifurcated. She had something that she wanted to include in the definition and missed the opportunity because she didn't realize what the process that was occurring would exclude any further discussion on the section of the rock outcropping. She didn't know the proper forum to address that. Mr. 18 CiTY Of PNLf�� (IESE � I 73—S�a I�xi t�V(%.�itin�, l)ki��t P��in-� Dt<rkr.C:��in��iini.a y>zhu--�57H �r�►.:760 ;46—o6�i i i,�x:�60 ;qi-7��yK ��,G,�.,p.d��d.,���.����; CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 10-69 NOTICE OF INTENT BY THE CITY OF PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ADDING CHAPTER 25.130 LOCATION OF MISCELLANEOUS USES TO THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Adding Chapter 25.130 Location of Miscellaneous Uses to the Palm Desert Municipal Code will prohibit certain miscellaneous new uses along Highway 111 and EI Paseo, including tattoo and body piercing establishments, pawn shops, fortune teller or palm readers, smoke shops, billiards or pool halls, and bail bond establishments. All existing miscellaneous uses will be considered legal non- conforming and will be allowed to continue business until such business is no longer in operation. PROJECT LOCATION: Along Highway 111 and EI Paseo within the City of Palm Desert. PUBLIC HEARING: SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, April 22, 2010, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project andlor negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. General questions related to the ordinance can be directed to the City of Palm Desert Planning Department at 760-346-0611. PUBLISH: Desert Sun Rachelle Klassen, City Clerk April 11, 2010 Palm Desert City Council MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 22, 2010 With City Council concurrence, Mayor Finerty called a recess at 4:52 p.m. She reconvened the meeting at 4:54 p.m. XVII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, ADDING CHAPTER 25.130-LOCATION OF MISCELLANEOUS USES-TO THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE Case No. ZOA 10-69 (City of Palm Desert, Applicant). Principal Planner Tony Bagato stated this was a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add a section for Miscellaneous Uses that are identified in the Ordinance. At the November 10, 2009, a Planning Commissioner requested staff to research potential regulations onto tattoo establishments. The City currently had five establishments on Highway 111, and there was a concern with having certain business types along the City's prime commercial corridors of EI Paseo and Highway 111 as a resort community. On December 15,2009,staff presented four possible restriction types and stated that if there was a concern over the image of businesses, staff felt there were other businesses that should be in that category as well along with tattoo establishments. On March 16, 2010, staff presented the Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) and locations of Miscellaneous Uses. Those uses are identified in the Ordinance as bail bonds and body piercing establishments, billiards or pool halls, fortune tellers, independent massage parlors, tattoo shops, and smoke shops,which are categorized as mainly smoke shops that sold paraphernalia. He said it wouldn't include high-end cigar shops or cigar lounges, because those did exist on EI Paseo. The uses would be prohibited on Highway 111 and EI Paseo, but allowed in other C1 or Service Industrial Zones with a 1,000-foot distance separation from a similar use. He said a tattoo establishment would have to be 1,000 feet away from another tattoo, but could be next to a massage parlor or smoke shop. He said the City Council packet included a map that illustrated the current Miscellaneous Uses that would be grandfathered under the Ordinance. Staff received one letter from Ink Sanity Tattoo voicing their concern over the fairness of the Ordinance and asking for the opportunity to expand or downsize if they had to, but the current non-conforming uses would not atlow it and would require a separate Zoning Ordinance Amendment. They asked that perhaps tattoo parlors can be removed from the Ordinance, however, because this item was originally requested by the Planning Commission, staff recommended that it remain. On March 16 the Planning Commission recommended approval on a 3-2 vote with Commissioners Tanner and Campbell voting NO. He offered to answer questions. Mayor and Councilmembers noticed they did not have a copy of the map with the identified current Miscellaneous Uses along EI Paseo and Highway 111. 16 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 22, 2010 City Clerk Rachelle Klassen confirmed the City Clerk's Office did not receive a copy of the map and that's why it was not included in Council's packet. Mr. Bagato displayed the map and pointed the locations of the Miscellaneous Uses and tattoo establishments on Highway 111. Further responding, he confirmed there were five establishments within 1,000 feet of each other. Councilman Spiegel asked what were the restrictions used by other cities in the Valley. Mr. Bagato responded the cities of Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, and La Quinta didn't address miscellaneous uses in their Code, but actually prohibited tattoo shops as well as other uses. However, the City of La Quinta allowed fortune tellers with a Conditional Use Permit(CUP), but tattoo shops are prohibited in most of the cities. He said Cathedral City was looking into restricting the same uses Palm Desert was proposing to their new area off Highway 111 and Palm Canyon, the revitalization down town. Further responding, he agreed Palm Desert probably had the most tattoo parlors because it was the most business friendly toward them. Councilman Kelly commented he couldn't read the map that was being displayed from where he was sitting. Councilmember Benson stated the staff report indicated there were currently five tattoo and eight independent massage establishments that would all be grandfathered. She said the intent of the Ordinance was to prohibit new ones. Mr. Bagato agreed,stating the existing establishments could not relocate. He said once an establishment closed for more than six months, they would no longer be able to re-open in the same location. Further responding, he confirmed the proposed Ordinance was not intended to put establishments out of business. Responding to request, Mr Bagato agreed to go back to his office to make copies of the map that illustrated the current Miscellaneous Uses that would be grandfathered under the Ordinance. NOTE: At this point in the meeting, and with City Council concurrence, Mayor Finerty suspended consideration of Public Hearing A in order for staff to provide the requested map. She continued with the remainder of the City Council, Redevelopment Agency, and Housing Authority Agendas, then returned to Public Hearing A. Mayor Finerty noted Mr. Bagato had concluded his staff report, and the Council was resuming with questions regarding the map. 17 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 22, 2010 Mr. Bagato described the area of focus, which was between Portola Avenue and Town Center Way just before Desert Crossings. Responding to question, he said most of the businesses and tattoo establishments were between San Pablo and Portola Avenue. Mayor Finerty declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. BUDDY HAYNES, Owner of Insanity Ink II Tattoos, 73-338 Highway 111, Palm Desert, stated he assumed the Council received the fetter he wrote, which stated he didn't agree with the proposed Ordinance, but he understood. However, he asked the Council to consider placing tattoo shops in its own category. His business was fortunate that it had another three years on his lease for his shop, but it included a hair salon. He said business was good, but if it got better or declined, he still wanted the opportunity to relocate across the street or next door and still abide by the proposed 1,000-feet distance. He understood why the City didn't want his business close to EI Paseo and agreed it probably didn't belong there. He said his partner James Livingston had monitored all the foot traffic his shop received from being on Highway 111 for the past two months and can show the Council the amount of clientele it received. He was curious what Council meant when it stated that Palm Desert's image was a"tourist town,"because up and down Highway 111 were restaurants, a gun shop, a hardware store, and pet grooming store, so he didn't quite understand how.tattoo shops got stereotyped in the miscellaneous category. He hoped the Council will take into consideration to set tattoo establishments aside, because if he had to add onto his business or move next door, what would be the difference. He appreciated the fact that his business would be grandfathered, but the proposed Ordinance dictated how his business can grow or downsize,which was not a way to become successful. He offered to answer questions. Councilman Spiegel stated on the north side of Highway 111 was a parlor with a huge sign that said "Tattoo." MR. HAYNES responded it was not his establishment. He said his shop shared the same wall with McGowan's Pub and is four doors down from the Red Barn. He said a Planning Commission member was quoted in the newspaper as stating that being open late hours attracted crime, which he found appalling, because there was no statistic with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department that would support the statement. He said his shop and other restaurants stayed open late, but they did not attract crime. He said they were hard-working people, and he watched out for his community, because he was born and raised here and lived here since 1980. He was proud to be part of this City, because it's been good to him and fellow citizens. 18 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 22, 2010 MR. JAMES LIVINGSTON, Co-Owner of Insanity Ink II Tattoos, 73-338 Highway 111, Palm Desert, requested the City rewrite the Ordinance, because a tattoo and permanent cosmetic were the same thing, yet permanent cosmetic was not included as Miscellaneous Uses. He offered to answer questions. Councilman Spiegel requested that Lieut. Shouse provide the Council with his thoughts on the matter. Lieut. Shouse stated the Police Department had not received an inordinate amount of calls for service regarding tattoo parlors. He said tattoo parlors did not come up on the radar as being an issue for the Police Department. He said the Department had more problems with bars in town and other locations. With no further testimony offered, Mayor Finerty declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Kelly stated the proposed Zoning Ordinance was very arrogant even though he wouldn't get or have a tattoo, but he recognized there was a whole different culture out there that liked tattoos and had them. He said how could he be so arrogant as to say he didn't agree with their culture and have them kicked out,which he didn't understand. He noticed that pool halls were also included in the proposed Ordinance,yet as a senior in high school, he had a 40 hour a week job, played basketball, dated Mary Helen, and in his spare time he hung out in the pool hall, and he just got recognized as citizen of the year yesterday. He said he valued the education he received at the pool hall. Another thing that amazed him was that Palm Desert had the best in the Valley, because many people have told him Quick Massage located at 74-125 Highway 111, Palm Desert, was a wonderful place to get a massage. He didn't frequent massage parlors, but a lot of people do like them. He recognized the City had problems with massage parlors, in fact it had one case on the agenda this evening, but that was the job of the City Council to take care of it. He said the City had problems with its parks, it had to mow the grass and trim the trees, but just because it had to be done, didn't mean they had to get rid of its parks. He said the City will have to continue to monitor the massage parlors to make sure they followed the Ordinance. As far as he was concerned, he thought the proposed Ordinance was very arrogant. He said if the Council wanted Palm Desert to be upscale and have the best shops, then it should get rid of its utility poles, maintain the streets, paint the white lines on the road, and make it so that the establishments and stores are the place to be. Then the City will automatically have the best places and wouldn't have to worry about these zoning ordinances. Councilman Spiegel stated he was torn with the matter, because he would like to make Highway 111 prestigious as possible. Whether the Red Barn and other establishments on Highway 111 were prestigious, he sometimes 19 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 22, 2010 questioned, but he wasn't sure how to turn it around or if it was possible. However, he agreed with Councilman Kelly and Mr. Livingston's and Mr. Haynes' concern, which was that the landlord or owner of a building can raise the rent and there was nothing that could be done by the tenant. Councilmember Benson stated the City had too many Miscellaneous Uses and it was the City's fault for allowing them in the first place, but to say that if a business didn't succeed it couldn't relocate, may be wrong because they may succeed where the rent is lower. She said the Ordinance needed to state that no new parlors will be accepted on Highway 111, but existing ones are grandfathered with the right to expand or downsize. She said the Council needed to be more lenient with existing establishments, because they came in when it was allowed. Responding to question, Mr. Erwin stated the proposed Ordinance as written did not allow existing businesses to move to another location. Certainly if the Council desired, a hearing process or process to allow existing establishments to expand, depress, or move to other locations can be established as long as they complied with the distance requirements. He offered to craft some language to that effect. Councilman Spiegel and Councilmember Benson thought that would be fair. Councilman Spiegel stated the City had plenty of massage and tattoo establishments, and it didn't need anymore, but disagreed to locking in existing establishments to a location. Councilman Kelly stated it was a free country and the economy should take care of itself, because it dictated how many restaurants or grocery stores a City would have. He said the Council should not get into the business of controlling how many businesses it should have. Councilman Kelly moved to deny staff's recommendation. Motion died for lack of a second. Councilmember Benson moved to, by Minute Motion, refer the Case back to staff for clarification regarding the grandfathering of existing businesses at this time as to what they can do in the future (i.e., expansion, downsizing, relocation) including an appropriate process for such consideration. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by 3-1 vote, with Kelly voting NO and Ferguson ABSENT. 20