CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION

Transcription

1 CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, AUGUST 15, :00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Nancy DeLuna called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner Lindsay Holt Commissioner Ron Gregory Commissioner John Greenwood Vice Chair Joseph Pradetto Chair Nancy DeLuna Staff Present: Robert Hargreaves, City Attorney Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer Monica O Reilly, Administrative Secretary III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner John Greenwood led the Pledge of Allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION None V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None

2 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of August 1, Rec: Approved as presented. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a Parcel Map Waiver application to adjust a common lot line at 868 Andreas Canyon Drive (APN ). Case No. PMW (Jody Jones Development, La Quinta, California, Applicant). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Case No. PMW Upon a motion by Commissioner Greenwood, second by Commissioner Gregory, and a vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAINED: Holt). VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VIII. NEW BUSINESS None IX. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of July 18, (Continued from the meeting of August 1, 2017). Rec: Approve as presented. Upon a motion by Vice Chair Pradetto, second by Commissioner Gregory, and a 5-0 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: None). X. PUBLIC HEARINGS With Planning Commission concurrence, Chair DeLuna moved X. Public Hearing Item No. C Case No. DA/PP/EA (New Cities Investment Partners, LLC, Walnut Creek, California, Applicant) to the first Public Hearing. 2

3 A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a resolution recommending approval to the City Council of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to revise Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter Signs and modify Section Land Use Definitions to allow for freeway-oriented monument signs on commercially zoned developments abutting Interstate 10; and adopt a Notice of Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act. Case No. ZOA (Fountainhead Development, Newport Beach, California, Applicant). Principal Planner Eric Ceja presented the staff report (staff report is available at He stated staff took this item back to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The ARC continued to feel sensitive about the height of signs and recommended a maximum height of 40 feet. As a result of the restricted height, the ARC was in favor of having two signs for some centers. He informed the Planning Commission that the Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) is to allow freeway-oriented monument signs. He noted that any sign proposal would be considered by the ARC. The sign proposed by the applicant was an example of the sign they are proposing for Monterey Crossing. Therefore, the Planning Commission would not be considering the sign design. At the last meeting, a Planning Commissioner asked if the design for freeway-oriented signs could be considered by the Planning Commission. He said staff prefers the ARC continues to review and approve signs since they typically are the reviewing body for sign programs. Chair DeLuna asked how many projects would qualify for an additional sign. Mr. Ceja replied two projects, Monterey Crossing and the commercial site on Portola Avenue. Chair DeLuna clarified that the total number of signs along the Monterey Avenue interchange would be three. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. JOHN LOPER, Palm Tree Communities Consulting, Inc., Irvine, California, thanked City staff for working with them on the sign(s) for Monterey Crossing. He also thanked the Planning Commission and the ARC for their input. He believed the proposed ordinance amendment will assist them in getting signage needed for their project. Mr. Loper said they agreed with all the proposed changes. He noted that the sign company and the applicant are available to answer any questions. Chair DeLuna referred to the proposed sign for Monterey Crossing, which appeared to have an orange color. 3

4 MR. LOPER remarked that the sign is a patina metal color. They are using a corten substance style on some accent pieces for Monterey Crossing, which has a rusty color. Therefore, the signs were meant to use materials and colors that are consistent with the buildings so they all tie in together. Chair DeLuna asked if the buildings would have a rusty color when lit at night. MR. LOPER responded that there are some elements with corten panels, which are architecture accent pieces. He said there were two views included in their packet. One view is at night, with an internally lit sign and only the letters are lit. He noted that the rusty color may change depending on the time of the day. When referring to a rusty color and patina, Commissioner Ron Gregory asked if it is the color they would expect with corten. MR. LOPER replied that corten is a material. He indicated there are other materials that look like corten, which has lifetime characteristics. Commissioner Ron Gregory clarified that it is basically a rust color. MR. LOPER answered yes. Commissioner Greenwood had the assumption that all the larger big box stores located in the northern part of the site would all have signage on the east, west, and north elevations. MR. LOPER explained that the Sign Program reviewed by the ARC had signs shown on the back frontage (fronting the interstate) and on the front. Commissioner Greenwood inquired if there would be any replication of signage on the big box building(s) that would be adjacent to the monument sign. MR. LOPER replied that they have not made a final determination on which tenants would be on the sign panels. He noted that building B was designed to be one or two large tenants or multiple small tenants. He noted there are times a large tenant is in a position to negotiate for a sign panel. Commissioner Greenwood asked how many additional suites would be available within Monterey Crossing. MR. LOPER replied that they have two shop buildings that each could have four to six tenants. There are eight to nine pads, including building B. MR. TOM NOBEL, Palm Desert, California, said at the last Planning Commission meeting he suggested service industrial properties to be included in the ordinance for freeway-oriented monument signs. However, he did not hear back 4

5 from the City after the meeting. He also said he asked City staff to include a letter dated August 8 in the Planning Commission packet. Mr. Nobel stated he developed Gateway and there is one piece of property left undeveloped, which he believes will have a retail use and they may also want a freeway-oriented sign. He felt the issue for the City should be the sales tax. The City will receive the same sales tax for a retail operation on service industrial properties as commercial properties. For that reason, he felt the Service Industrial zone with freeway orientation should be included as candidates for freeway-oriented monument signage. Commissioner Gregory asked Mr. Noble how long the Gateway development or the larger property that might want a sign is. MR. NOBLE replied that the freeway frontage property is approximately 600 feet. MS. VASANTHI OKUMA, Fountainhead Development, Newport Beach, California, thanked the Planning Commission for their time. She stated that they have done what they have been asked by the City. She disclosed the ARC was in favor of the Monterey Crossing sign design. She expressed the design panels are very important to them, and they would be happy to work with the City in terms of the design and spacing. In regard to Mr. Noble s comments at the last meeting, Vice Chair Joseph Pradetto inquired why staff did not address his comments. Mr. Ceja responded that at the last meeting Mr. Noble requested the Service Industrial zone be included in the ZOA. He noted that the Planning Commission did not include in their motion to direct staff to look into his request. However, staff did look into the request. He explained when staff looked at other cities and how they apply monument signs, the majority of the cities only apply monument signs to commercial centers. Staff looked at service industrial areas, such as the Inland Empire, and staff did not like the aesthetic of the signs. Staff also looked at other cities similar to Palm Desert, and those cities only applied the freewayoriented signs to commercial centers. Therefore, staff felt freeway-oriented signs only in commercial centers would be appropriate for Palm Desert. Vice Chair Pradetto said theoretically if there was a zone change from a Service Industrial to Planned Commercial, an applicant would qualify for a freewayoriented monument sign. Mr. Ceja responded that there are requirements that need to be met to qualify for a freeway-oriented sign. He noted that it has to be a planned commercial center of 10 acres or more. Most of the properties along Dinah Shore Drive do not meet that requirement. Mr. Stendell added that staff s concern is aesthetics and the clutter of signs. 5

6 Commissioner Lindsay Holt asked if someone owned property in the Service Industrial zone and wanted to have a freeway-oriented sign, what would be the process for them to come to the City and apply for a sign. Mr. Ceja replied that someone could apply for an ordinance amendment to expand the Zoning Ordinance to include industrial properties. With no further testimony offered, Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Gregory commented he is pleased with the way the applicant has worked with the City. He is also pleased with the way the ARC and City staff has handled this request. He understood Mr. Nobel s concern and understood that Mr. Nobel could apply for this type of signage in the same manner as Fountainhead Development. He stated he is pleased with the concept and comfortable with the current product. Commissioner Greenwood echoed Commissioner Gregory s comments. However, his concern is having an ordinance that allows flexibility. The City of Palm Desert has held signage in very high regard. The City spends a lot of time looking at the details to make sure it is articulated, proportional, elegant, and a piece of art. He said the way the ordinance is written, it provides a limited height of 40 feet and a limited sign area to 400 feet. He felt the City would get signs that are large boxes with clumping and stacking of signs. If he had to base his decision on that type of signage, then he would not support the ordinance amendment. He believed the ARC does an excellent job and he relies on them to make those decisions. At the previous meeting, he made a comment about added height. However, he clarified that he didn t make that comment so they could add more signage to the actual monument. He made the comment to necessarily keep the same amount of height or the same 400 square feet, but have signs be better articulated and give the designers more freedom and flexibility to provide a stronger piece. Commissioner Greenwood asked if staff could make sure the language in the ordinance is clear that the amendment is strictly for the Interstate 10 frontage so it is not misinterpreted. Mr. Ceja remarked that the language staff has included in the sign ordinance amendment is specific to the Interstate 10 frontage. Chair DeLuna thanked the ARC, staff, and the applicant. She felt everyone has done an excellent job of working within the guidelines to preserve and protect the image they all have of Palm Desert. She liked the size of the Monterey Crossing sign. She said she had a problem with signs being taller than 40 feet. She supported staff s recommendation and the applicant s sign proposal for Monterey Crossing. 6

7 Vice Chair Pradetto reaffirmed that Commissioner Greenwood agreed with the amount of actual signage, but give freedom for the structural design and develop an architectural art piece. Commissioner Greenwood responded that he would like to see flexibility in the ordinance. He is concerned with a big block of stacked signs, which does not meet the aesthetic quality for Palm Desert. Vice Chair Pradetto commented that at the previous meeting Mr. Robin Bell mentioned the Monterey Crossing sign was one of the best designs their shop has made in the last 10 years. He thought with a little design freedom, why stop at 10 years? However, in terms of having flexibility, he was not sure how to get there other than create limitations on the number of square footage for the exact actual signage for the shops, then doing something separate for the piece itself. He said he is fine with the ordinance, but he is open to pushing the envelope. Commissioner Greenwood clarified that the ZOA would go before the City Council, then the Monterey Crossing sign would go back to the ARC. His overall concern is that he would like an ordinance that has flexibility. Mr. Stendell interjected that the ZOA is a recommendation to the City Council, He said the Planning Commission could direct staff to explore concepts to allow flexibility, specifically in an effort to enhance the architectural nature of the signs and staff will incorporate the language into the recommendation to the Council. Commissioner Greenwood noted that the staff report mentions that one of the requirements is an enhanced design. However, he does not know what the definition of enhanced design means. His concern is they are evoking and getting the word out that Palm Desert expects a very high-level design, which is something he would like to see at the entry of the City. He would appreciate staff to look at strategic ways to modify the ordinance as such. Commissioner Greenwood moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2705, recommending to the City Council to approve Case No. ZOA ; and direct staff to look at ways to provide further development in terms of the requirements for the design that would allow for flexibility. Motion was seconded by Vice Chair Pradetto and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: None). Chair DeLuna commended and thanked City staff, the applicant, and everyone involved in the good work. It is one of the first projects of this type coming to Palm Desert and some of the first monument signs the City will have near the freeway. 7

8 B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a new 2,498-square-foot addition to the existing buildings at Crystal Palm Courtyard to be used as a private members only social business club, inclusive of exterior façade remodel to the existing buildings located at Highway 111; and approval of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Case No. CUP (Desert Social Club, LLC, Coachella, California, Applicant). Associate Planner Kevin Swartz outlined the salient points of the staff report (staff report is available at and offered to answer any questions. He noted that the applicant is also available to answer questions. Chair DeLuna inquired if there would be live music, if so, what the hours would be and will there be a noise mitigation plan. Mr. Swartz responded that there will not be live music. The applicant has indicated there will be easy listening music playing over the speakers. Chair DeLuna asked when the applicant would pay the parking in-lieu fee. Mr. Swartz replied that the fee is due at the same time when the applicant pays for the Building & Safety fees. Chair DeLuna asked when parking would be constructed along Alessandro Drive. Mr. Stendell responded that there is no time table for the construction of Alessandro Drive at this time. It was noted that clients/customers would use the frontage road for parking. Vice Chair Pradetto commented that the staff report does not mention the memberships are limited to men. He said there is an assumption that most of the members would be men, and asked if there is no limitation. Mr. Swartz said to his knowledge it would be limited to men only and deferred the question to the applicant. Commissioner Gregory inquired if the architecture was approved by the ARC. Mr. Swartz answered yes. He noted that the proposed project went to four ARC meetings. He said there were three design variations, and the design before the Planning Commission is what the ARC approved. Commissioner Gregory understood there would be parking improvements on Alessandro Drive. He asked how far parking is available to the people who would use the facility. Mr. Swartz replied that most of the people would park on the frontage road until the improvements on Alessandro Drive are completed. 8

9 Commissioner Gregory asked if the City is comfortable with the parking challenges or lack of parking. Mr. Swartz responded that staff recommended the applicant talk to the adjacent property owner (formerly McGowan s restaurant) to possibly use their parking for special events. Commissioner Gregory asked if McGowan s restaurant is still out of business. Mr. Swartz replied that is correct. Commissioner Greenwood inquired if the applicant decided to change the use from no longer a club for members only and converting the club into a bar, what would be the process. Mr. Swartz said an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would need to be reconsidered by the Planning Commission, with a new public hearing. In addition, if the club were to be converted into a bar, a public hearing notice would need to be sent out to adjacent residents and reviewed by City staff. Commissioner Greenwood asked if there would be lighting on the exterior of the building. Mr. Swartz replied that there is no lighting on the building. There would be lighting coming from the Alessandro Drive He noted the applicant could consider incorporating lighting in the interior courtyard and exterior walkways. Commissioner Greenwood asked if there was discussion during the ARC meetings in regard to the reason for closing the front of the project to the Highway 111 corridor. He pointed out that the applicant gave detailed attention to the design of the door; however, you can no longer see into the courtyard. Consequently, the door would close off the other retail tenants in the building, which tends to depart from the intent of the General Plan Update. Mr. Swartz responded that the front of the project was discussed by the ARC. The ARC let the applicant know that it is in their best interest to provide retail openings for the retail tenants, and they left it up to the applicant to decide. The design they submitted is what they preferred. Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MS. PATTY NUGENT, applicant, Coachella, California, stated that they are excited to bring a new business to Palm Desert and new façade to the Highway 111 corridor. 9

10 Commissioner Holt asked the applicant if there is a similar type of business that they mirrored their business plan after, if so, where is it located. She was interested in the applicant s decision for opening this type of business in Palm Desert. MS. NUGENT communicated that every major city in the world has a private club where business people and/or celebrities can go for privacy. She mentioned old Hollywood used to go to Melvyn s in Palm Springs. She said Palm Desert is advertised as the Rodeo Drive of the Desert. So they saw a place where private and business people can go to conduct business or have private meetings, and not worry about other people peeking into their lives. Commissioner Gregory asked if the proposed facility could become a bar someday. MS. NUGENT answered no. Out of curiosity, Commissioner Gregory asked if it would be terrible or a problem to have a bar. MS. NUGENT reaffirmed that having a bar is not their intent. Commissioner Greenwood asked what led to the decision to close off the courtyard. He also asked if there would be a Sign Program for the retail tenants. MS. NUGENT responded that the existing tenants already have their own clientele; therefore, they do not anticipate having extra signage on the front of the building. Commissioner Greenwood asked if they would be open until 10:00 p.m. MS. NUGENT replied yes. She asserted that the business club will not be a nightclub. The club is for business people to conduct business during business hours. She added that their current tenants are usually done about 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Greenwood pointed out that it appears on the side of Alessandro Drive there are no gates or a way to seal off the ramp access into the breezeway. He asked if there are any security concerns. MS. NUGENT responded that the access way off the Alessandro Drive has not been addressed. The current tenants deal with their own security issues. Commissioner Greenwood inquired if there have been any discussions with the building designer pertaining to exterior lighting. 10

11 MS. NUGENT stated it was mentioned during an ARC meeting. She stated she is in favor of exterior lighting anywhere near a dark alley. She said it would not be a problem for them to add exterior lighting to the walkway if needed. Commissioner Greenwood asked if the construction documents would go back to the ARC for review. Mr. Swartz replied yes. Chair DeLuna asked if someone parks in the back, a person would need to walk along the side to the walkway to enter the building. MS. NUGENT replied that is correct. Chair DeLuna inquired if the walkway would be closed after hours or would it be left open. MS. NUGENT responded that currently there is not a design for a gate. However, if the Planning Commission felt it would be an issue, they had no problem installing a gate. Commissioner Holt suggested a gate for safety and security reasons. Chair DeLuna agreed. MS. NUGENT said they will work on adding a gate. Commissioner Holt mentioned she has tried to find salons or studios in buildings similar to the proposed building for the social club along the frontage roads of Highway 111. She said without signage it is difficult to know what is located inside of the buildings for new customers. She asked what the process is if a tenant wanted to add signage. Mr. Swartz replied that some signs could be approved over the counter. For a multi-tenant building, a Sign Program could be proposed for review and approval by the ARC. Commissioner Greenwood inquired if all the electrical cabinets along the main walkway would be fully enclosed. MS. NUGENT answered yes. Commissioner Greenwood referred to Exhibit A4, Building Section B and pointed to the interior breezeway elements. He asked what those elements are. 11

12 MS. NUGENT explained the ARC wanted her to increase the improvements to the existing building. She said the elements are the façades so you cannot see the air conditioners or the peak of the building. Commissioner Greenwood asked if the roof plan indicates two air conditioner units. MS. NUGENT replied that is correct. Commissioner Greenwood inquired if the amount of air conditioning was checked to make sure enough tonnage is being provided for the new building remodel. If more tonnage is needed, he asked Ms. Nugent if she understood that it would need to be screened. MS. NUGENT remarked absolutely. She thanked the Planning Commission and she looked forward to doing business in Palm Desert. With no further testimony offered, Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Holt commented that the area for the proposed project is in need of façade improvements; therefore, she welcomes the business to Palm Desert. She is interested to see how the business works and would like to have a report if any of the men on the Planning Commission happen to attend the club. She also hoped the City moves quickly with the improvements to Alessandro Drive, which is in dire need of improvements. Commissioner Gregory noted he is not sure what came first, the improvements for Alessandro Drive or the proposed project. He felt it might reflect the symbiosis of the efforts on the part of the City and people who are brave that want to develop property in an area that has been overlooked for decades. Therefore, he wished the applicant good luck and applauded their effort. Chair DeLuna mentioned that the City has a new General Plan and the City is putting particular emphasis in the area. She is delighted to see someone coming forward and taking the first steps, and she hoped it would encourage others to want to improve and move into the area. Commissioner Greenwood moved to waive further reading and adopt: 1) Planning Commission Resolution No to approve Case No. CUP , subject to conditions; 2) direct staff to look into exterior lighting along Alessandro Drive and the walkway; and 3) if a security gate is necessary, direct staff to review the gate with the applicant. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Holt and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: None). Chair DeLuna thanked the applicant for coming to Palm Desert to do business. 12

13 C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council for the construction of a 412-unit apartment project with a clubhouse, recreational amenities, and roadway improvements; and a Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act for an undeveloped 18- acre parcel located on the south side of Hovley Lane East, east of Portola Avenue. Case No. DA/PP/EA (New Cities Investment Partners, LLC, Walnut Creek, California, Applicant). Mr. Ceja recommended that this item be continued to a date uncertain to allow staff to re-notice the public hearing. Staff also received a letter from an attorney representing the Canterra Apartments, and staff would like time to address the attorney s comments. He presented a brief staff report (staff report is available at Staff recommended a continuance and to hear public comments. Mr. Stendell, Director of Community Development, added that staff received significant comments from adjacent property owners. Staff recommends the continuance to allow staff to review the comments. There was also a request from the residents to hold the public hearing during the fall when more property owners are back in Palm Desert. Chair DeLuna invited public comments FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MS. KATHERINE JENSON, Rutan & Tucker, LLP, Costa Mesa, California, noted Rutan & Tucker is the counsel for the Canterra Apartments. She highlighted some issues for the Commission s consideration. She requested to re-notice the public hearing and complete a new environmental document. In regard to the 1989 development agreement, she said the zoning would be changed to provide for a total of 612 units, which half have been constructed (Canterra) and the other half are to be constructed on the vacant property. The development agreement is binding and effective as to the Canterra project; therefore, they are surprised there would be a unilateral modification to that agreement. Ms. Jenson said the Canterra Apartments are still a party to that agreement. She also said for 30 years Canterra has been subject to the agreement and have been collecting lower rent on the 31 low income housing units. The development agreement is still in effect and it cannot be modified without Canterra s consent. She communicated that they do consent to the increase in density. It is also doubledipping to give the proposed project a density bonus on top of the density it already received going from zero units to the acre when it was open space to what is now, which is 17½ units per acre. Lastly, she said an environmental impact report is going to be required given the magnitude of the project. MR. RICK MORAN, Palm Springs, California, noted he is the owner of the Canterra Apartments. He and his business partner have been subject to the development agreement since ownership and they have complied with the agreement. They do not believe the City could unilaterally change the development agreement without Canterra s consent. Additionally, they do not 13

14 believe that the proposed 412 units could be built without their consent until the development agreement expires. He stated that the proposed project is zoned for 10 percent affordable housing. Therefore, under State code the percentage of affordable housing units cannot be increased. He noted Canterra and all the surrounding neighbors are opposed to the proposed project. The proposed project is grossly overscale, dense, and tall. He voiced the proposed height would block their views to the west and there would be more traffic in the area. MS. GERALDINE DAVIS, Palm Desert, California, pointed out that the first slide Mr. Ceja displayed on the screen was not the same representation of the apartment buildings they were shown at their Portola Country Club community meeting. Mr. Stendell interjected that the Mr. Ceja s presentation was extremely abbreviated. The whole presentation would be given at a future meeting. Mr. Ceja displayed the additional renderings on the screen. MR. ROB BERNHEIMER, Indian Wells, California, noted he is representing the Venezia community. He highlighted and asked that Commission to consider the following concerns with the proposed project: 1) zero lot lines for the garages and suggested setbacks of 10 to 15 feet from Venezia s residents backyards; and 2) the proposed three-story buildings would be impactful and suggested the buildings be spread out and limited to two stories. MS. DIANE WOHL, Palm Desert, California, stated the density at the proposed location is inappropriate and incongruent. The three-story buildings are too dense for the proposed project site. She noted that some amenities for the project are duplicated with amenities available at the Hovley Soccer Park. She recommended removing some of the amenities being proposed for the project so there could be a bigger footprint for more buildings that are not three stories. MS. ROCIO MARTINEZ, Palm Desert, California, said she lives in Venezia and her property would be most impacted by the proposed three-story buildings that will be almost 40 feet tall. She mentioned that they currently have sand dunes that are approximately 15 feet tall, which she could see from her backyard and could provide Mr. Ceja with pictures. She commented that recently she had coyotes jump over her wall. The coyotes scared her because she has young children and a dog. She shared this story to paint a picture of how close and how greatly impactful it would be to have 40 feet buildings looking over her backyard. Ms. Martinez communicated she chose to live in Palm Desert for the privacy, the quality of life, and for the schools and amenities that are nearby. She did not know what would be a great recommendation, but pleaded for the City to take a look at the proposed project. In conclusion, she supports low income housing, but not at the expense of the quality of life for the local residents. Residents would lose their privacy and schools would be overpopulated. 14

15 MR. ORRIN WEINSTEIN, Palm Desert, California, said he is on the homeowners association for Venezia. He voiced there are 94 homeowners that are very upset about the proposed project. The homeowners knew moving into Venezia that there would be a development; however, they were not expecting a 412-unit apartment project. He asked for the Commission s consideration and possibly have the proposed plans reworked. MR. DAVID NEWMAN, Palm Desert, California, respectfully asked Chair DeLuna to recuse herself from hearing and voting on the proposed project before it goes to the City Council. He was led to believe that Chair DeLuna s primary occupation is in the field of affordable housing and low income, which to him presents an apparent and obvious conflict of interest. He said his strong feeling on this matter is further evidence by the demeanor and tone of voice that he saw during the previous meeting. He felt Chair DeLuna does not possess the attributes to fairly assess the impact that The Sands project will have upon the existing neighborhoods of Portola Country Club, Venezia, and Canterra Apartments. He stated a fair and impartial decision would be influenced by Chair DeLuna sitting on the Planning Commission. He questioned the Chair s personal agenda and loyalties, whether it is for the City Council or to the politicians in Sacramento. He said it does not appear that Chair DeLuna has the citizens of the existing communities best interest at heart. MS. JUNE ENGBLOM, Palm Desert, California, commented she lives in Portola Country Club. She voiced that The Sands project would look like the Magic Kingdom on Hovley Lane. She asked if students from Carter Elementary School would be uprooted to make room for kids that would live at The Sands, or would class sizes be increased. She pointed out that three members on the ARC expressed concern with the size of the project; however, only one member voted against the project. She agreed with getting rid of some amenities and adding more two-story buildings. If they are trying to accommodate low income housing, she asked why not consider 26 percent of the 306 units, then there would be 80 units for low income housing. She hoped a compromise would be offered. MS. PAULA SCHOFIELD, Palm Desert, California, said she lives in Venezia and her backyard would be backing up to proposed building number 12. She is a single woman living in the home and expressed her concern with garages being built on a zero lot line. She is concerned people would jump over the wall into her backyard. She stated she has serious environmental sensitivities, and also has a concern with auto fumes due to garages being so close to her backyard. With no further comments from the public, Vice Chair Pradetto asked staff how they plan to address comments made this evening for the next hearing. Mr. Ceja responded that staff would meet with the developer to discuss the evening s action and review letters received from the attorneys and adjacent neighbors. 15

16 Vice Chair Pradetto inquired if the Planning Commission would be provided with a response. Mr. Ceja replied yes. Vice Chair Pradetto requested that the response by staff is broken down issue by issue, so it is easy to follow. He asked staff if the applicant was present. Mr. Ceja remarked that the applicant decided not to attend once he found out that the item was going to be continued. Vice Chair Pradetto also requested discussion regarding Assembly Bill 2222, and whether there is discretion in the concessions. He noted that the staff report indicated there are three concessions, which one concession is the reduction in the parking count and garages with zero setbacks. He felt the concession was counted as one. However, it could easily be categorized as two concessions leading to four concessions, so he requested staff s opinion on that matter. Commissioner Holt commented she has a number of other questions she would like answered at the next hearing. She said she would the questions to staff. Vice Chair Pradetto moved to, by Minute Motion, continue Case No. DA/PP/EA to a date uncertain. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Gregory and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: None). XI. MISCELLANEOUS None XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None B. PARKS & RECREATION None XIII. COMMENTS Commissioner Greenwood profusely thanked Ms. O Reilly for the snacks. Commissioner Gregory agreed. 16

17 XIV. ADJOURNMENT With the Planning Commission concurrence, Chair DeLuna adjourned the meeting at 7:33 p.m. ATTEST: NANCY DE LUNA, CHAIR RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MONICA O REILLY, RECORDING SECRETARY 17