Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984/03/14 - MINUTES i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall March 14, 1984 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1983 - 1984 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Richard Service, Chairman X 14 2 Hugh Curtis - 14 2 Hugh Kaptur X 13 3 Peter Koetting X 14 2 Don Lawrence X 16 0 Paul Madsen X 15 1 Sharon Apfelbaum X 15 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Sigfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney George Parmenter, Traffic Engineer John Terell, Redevelopment Planner Douglas R. Evans, Planner III Robert Green, Planner II Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - March 12, 1984 James Cioffi , Chairman Earl Neel Chris Mills Hugh Curtis William Johnson Sharon Apfelbaum Michael Buccino William Johnson Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Madsen; Curtis absent) approving minutes of the February 8, 1984 meeting as submitted and the February 22 meeting with the following correction: Page 4, Paragraph 9, TTM 19870/CASE 3.642. Add to the motion: "Service dissented". March 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS ,. CASE 5.0300-PD-156. Application by TEXAS WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. for a Planned Development District in lieu of a change of zone to R-G-A (8) to allow construction of a 180-unit condotel on 20 acres on Avenida Cabal- leros between San Raphael/Frances Drive, 0-5 Zone (I.L.), Section 2. (Environmental assessment. ) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission deny the application for a Planned Development District in lieu of a change of zone. Planner II presented the project and stated that detailed plans have not been submitted because staff recommends denial . Planning Director stated that the Tribal Council also recommends denial of the application. Discussion followed on the design of the original project and that of the proposed project. Planning Director stated that it was designed as a reverse of the original project and that staff had discussed a four- unit per acre density and integration of the two sites as a conference center/destination resort but the applicant did not indicate interest in the proposal . He stated that the project had not been successful as condominiums for sale or on a resort time share basis, and that the applicants have been renting the units on a short-term basis. Chairman declared the hearing open. J. Reimer, 1400 Express Way Tower, Dallas, Texas, the applicant, stated that the sale of the units had not been successful possibly because of being bordered by affordable housing units and that a marketing plan had been developed to sell the units as undivided 1/11th interest (resort share); that since January, 1983 the units have been rented successfully on a short-term basis; and that transient occupancy taxes to the City are projected to be $140,000 in 1984. He stated that the increased den- sity and amenities proposed would make the project successful and bring financial benefits to the City which would outweigh the density bonuses proposed. He stated that the same peripheral landscaping and mainte- nance as on the original project would abate blowsand. In reply to a question from Commissioner Lawrence, Mr. Reimer stated that the units have not been on the market for sale since January of 1983. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Planning Director stated that staff had not requested site plans and other materials because density and land use issues needed clarification and that the use is resort with amenities. Chairman stated that financial considerations should be resolved by the City Council (not the Planning Commission) since the Commission only � , considers land use. March 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 CASE 5.0300-PD 156. (Cont'd.) Commissioner Kaptur stated that if the application had been a Planned Development District with a mix of high- and low-density originally, the requested density transfer would be understandable, but that the current configuration and proposal indicate poor planning. In response to Commission question, Planning Director stated that the sewer density is based on General Plan densities, and that there is little elasticity in the design of sewer mains in the area. Commissioner Koetting suggested that the applicant meet with staff to develop a compromise in density. Commissioner Lawrence agreed stating that he objected to the proposed density. Chairman stated that he could not support the density transfer since discretionary powers should not be used for a "band-aid" approach. Discussion followed on action to be taken. Commissioner Koetting sug- gested a restudy. In response to Commission question, Mr. Reimer stated that it would be worthwhile to discuss actual densities, amenities and impacts on the sewer system with staff. M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen; Curtis absent) for a restudy of the project based on the following findings: 1. That the project is not consistent with housing goals of the General Plan but is consistent with City Council goals of encour- aging quality resort facilities. 2. That the proposal is not consistent with the intent of the 0-5 section of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. That the proposed density could not be adequately serviced by the existing sewer main system. 4. That the proposal could set an undesirable precedent for unplanned increased residential density throughout the 0-5 Zones. 5. That the proposal represents piecemeal planning and development. 6. That the proposal reduces the land average on the site for land- scape blowsand protection of the units. TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS "It was noted that area development ranges in density from 3.5 to 8 units/acre. It was also noted that the higher densities have been per- mitted for those projects providing low and moderate cost housing through a controlled sales program. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Com- mission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: i I March 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 CASE 5.0300-PD 156. Cont'd. 1. Concurred with City Planning Staff's findings in that: a. The proposed overall density of 6.7 units/acre does not con- form with the General Plan Land Use designation of 4 units/ acre. b. The project does not propose to provide low and moderate cost housing through a controlled sales program, therefore it would not qualify for the bonus density granted other such projects in the area. 2. Recommended that the request for a Planned Development District in lieu of a change of zone to R-G-A (8) be denied in that the pro- posed project does not conform with the density provisions (Sec- tion 9407.00-B.1) of the Planned Development District. 3. Noted that the potential environmental impacts referenced in Plan- ning Staff Report dated March 14, 1984 could possibly be mitigated and should be fully addressed in an Environmental Assessment/ Initial Study, if the project proceeds." CASE 6.343-VARIANCE. Application by J. KOLMEL for a variance in rear yard setback to allow addition to a residence at 1523 Rojo Circle, R-1-C Zone, Section 26. (This action is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per CEQA.) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve the application for a variance to allow an addition to a residence at 1523 Rojo Circle. Planning Director stated that most variances are not granted, but that there are grounds for the proposed variance application. Commissioner Koetting requested that architectural plans be submitted since the proposed addition would be visible from LaVerne Way. Planning Director stated that submission of plans could be a condition of approval and that a letter had been received from a neighbor request- ing that oleanders be planted and maintained to screen the wall from the LaVerne side. Discussion followed on construction standards for the residence. Plan- ning Director stated that it was built in 1964 to R-1-A standards. Chairman declared the hearing open. W. Johnson of Palm Desert, the architect, stated that grounds for a variance exist and that the applicant was willing to landscape the barren portion on the outside of the wall but also desired to plant landscaping on the inside. Discussion followed on the proposed landscaping. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. March 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 CASE 6.343-VARIANCE. (Cont'd. ) M/S/C (Koetting/Madsen; Curtis absent) approving the variance based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: FINDINGS: 1. That the following circumstances are present making the normal application of the zoning ordinance a hardship on the subject property: i a. Irregular shape, including fronting on a cul-de-sac lot. i b. Substandard size (9,900 square feet as opposed to 10,000 square feet required in the R-1-C Zone) . C. Substandard dimension in depth (80 foot average as opposed to 130 feet as now required in the R-1-C Zone when backing on a secondary thoroughfare. ) 2. The granting of this variance will not constitute the granting of a special privilege since many other properties in the vicinity and neighborhood already are built with a similar rear yard condi- tion, and other properties under similar conditions could be afforded similar consideration. 3. That the granting of this variance will not materially affect the public health, safety, and welfare, or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property. 4. That the granting of this variance will not affect the General Plan. CONDITIONS: 1. That the architectural plans of the addition be submitted for approval by the AAC and Planning Commission. 2. That detailed landscape and irrigation plans be submitted. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS DETERMINATION - 10.338. Request by RIMROCK SHOPPING CENTER for Planning Com- mission determination that a gymnasium is an allowable use in the C-D-N Zone. M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen; Curtis absent) determining that a gymnasium is an allowable use in the C-D-N Zone. March 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 CONSENT AGENDA M/S/C (Kaptur/Lawrence; Curtis absent) taking the following actions for items on the consent agenda. CASE 3.373 (Cont'd. ). Application by R. YOUNG for S. Havens for architec- tural approval of final landscape, irrigation, and exterior lighting plans for 11-unit condominium complex on Vista Chino between Chapparral/ Cottonwood, R-2 Zone, Section 17. Approved subject to the following conditions: Landscape i 1. That Pinus Mondale be substituted for Pinus Canariensis. 2. That the number of Pinus Mondale be increased to two on the south elevation. 3. That two Ficus Retusa be added to screen the northern elevation of the carports. Carports: That the carport design be retained as originally proposed. CASE 3.603. Application by MICHAEL BUCCINO & ASSOCIATES for architectural approval of landscape plans for condominium complex on Avenida Granada/ South Palm Canyon Drive, R-2 Zone, Section 35. Approved subject to the following condition: That the interior of the street trees be increased in size (25% of the total number of trees on this site to be increased in size with specific emphasis on Jacarandas) . CASE 3.649 (HOA). Application by ENGINEERING PARKING SYSTEMS for architec- tural approval of security gates for condominium complex at 1050 E. Ramon Road, R-4 Zone (I.L. ) , Section 14. Approved subject to the following condition: That details of ground cover and vines on the fences be submitted for staff approval . CASE 3.662 (Minor) . Application by D. R. SCOTT for architectural approval of landscape plans, decking and spa at 2295 Bisnaga Avenue, R-1-B Zone, Section 25. Approved as submitted. March 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (Continued) �.� DISCUSSION - CASE 5.0309 (MISC. ). Planning Commission discussion of proposed RV park R. Richey at Indian Avenue and I-10 in the sphere of i influence. Planner III stated that no site improvement plans have been submitted, and that staff reviews sphere projects for compliance with City standards. He stated that in some areas the proposal does not meet City requirements but t q that the density complies with City standards. Discussion followed on the configuration of the site. Planner III stated that the major EIR issues are noise impact from Hwy I-10 and blowsand abatement. He stated that staff is recommending City development standards for this site, that the project would include three phases, that a trash collection/enclosure system has not been developed, and that the project is on septic tanks. R. Richey, 2013 N. Indian Avenue, the applicant, stated that the project would be on septic tanks and developed to County standards. He stated that he did not know whether the project would be annexed to the City and described the recreational areas to be developed with the phases. Discussion followed on the type of Commission action and Commission concerns. Planning Director stated that direction could be given to the County that the proposal should conform to City standards and other Commission concerns if desired. Chairman stated that the percolation ponds in the vicinity would be an attractive recreation use but would have policing problems. Commissioner Koetting stated that the Commission could make recommenda- tions for standards, but that the proposal is not within the City limits. He suggested that Commission concerns be noted (such as set- backs and open space) . Commissioner Kaptur stated that the County should review the project's septic tank location in relation to their proximity to the percolation ponds. M/S/C (Koetting/Kaptur; Curtis absent) recommending to the County that the project conform as much as possible to City requirements, i .e. , set- backs, sewage system, and open space. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) SIGN APPLICATION. Application by IMPERIAL SIGNS for the Spa Hotel for archi- tectural approval of identification sign on Calle Encilia/Tahquitz- McCallum Way, C-1-AA/R-4-VP Zone (I.L. ) , Section 14. Planning Director indicated that the AAC recommended restudy but that the applicants are present and wished to discuss the sign with the Commission. March 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 SIGN APPLICATION. (Cont'd. ) Discussion followed at the display board with the sign applicant, L. Hart, who stated that the sign is elegant, and reflects the Indian heri- tage and the hotel 's historic significance. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he felt it should be simpler and noted AAC recommendations. Mr. Hart stated that the AAC had not realized that the building had a stucco finish and that the sign materials reflect the building materials. M/S (Apfelbaum/Service; Curtis absent) approving the sign as submitted (later amended to include the hotel 's agreement to complete the sign program within a year and compliance with the sign ordinance) . The vote was as follows: AYES: Apfelbaum, Service, Lawrence NOES: Kaptur, Koetting, Madsen ABSENT: Curtis The motion failed. Commissioner Kaptur suggested that a final rendering be submitted for AAC approval . Further discussion followed on the sign materials and the sign base. Mr. Hart stated that one sign is being proposed but that all signs reflect the same theme and will be constructed as budgeting per- mits (approximately 2 years) . Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that her motion was based on completion of the sign program within a year. Commissioner Lawrence stated that he could support a year's length of time for economic reasons. M/S (Kaptur, Madsen) for a restudy. The vote was as follows: AYES: Kaptur, Madsen and Koetting NOES: Apfelbaum, Lawrence and Service ABSENT: Curtis The motion failed. Discussion followed on the aesthetics of the sign including the materials and colors. Mr. Hart stated that individual perferences are affecting the Planning Commission's decision and that the sign has been thoroughly reviewed. He stated that he felt that the sign was an ele- gant, historic one. M/S (Kaptur/Koetting; Curtis absent) for a restudy for simplification of the sign (suggesting a sign in a landscape base) and review of colors and materials. The vote was as follows: AYES: Apfelbaum, Lawrence and Service NOES: Kaptur, Koetting, Madsen ABSENT: Curtis The motion failed. March 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 SIGN APPLICATION. (Cont'd. ) Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that the AAC discussed the sign thoroughly and there was a dichotomy of opinions which were not reflected in the vote. Commissioner Lawrence stated that he liked the sign. M/S/C (Madsen/Kaptur; Curtis absent; Lawrence dissented) to continue the sign application review to the March 28 meeting for the entire Commis- sion to be present. Planning Director stated that the applicant could not appeal the con- tinuance because no action (only continuance of the application) was taken by the Commission. SIGN APPLICATION. Application by H. KASSINGER for architectural approval of sign program, sign application for E. Welles, and showcases for the Bank of Palm Springs Center/Courtyard on Tahquitz-McCallum Way between Calle E1 Segundo/Calle Alvarado, C-1-AA/R-4-VP Zone, Section 14 (Ref. Case 3.309) . NOTE: Assistant City Attorney was contacted and ruled that Commis- sioners Kaptur and Madsen who have offices across the street from the Bank of Palm Springs Center could participate in discussion on the application but that Commissioner Lawrence who rents office space in the Bank of Palm Springs Center could not. Commissioner Madsen stated that he would not participate. Planning Director stated that there were two submittals: A sign program for the stores on Tahquitz-McCallum; and two display cases on Tahquitz- McCallum. He described the sign program and colors and materials and stated that the signs are unlit. He stated that the original staff suggestion was to build a wall and make a courtyard look for the pro- posed bronze metal display cases; and that the AAC recommended approval but that two of the members felt that the purple awnings and orange the were not visually compatible. He stated that the Commission had man- dated a retail look to the Center with the recent approval of the canopies. Discussion followed regarding the sign letters and the showcases. Chairman stated that the cases should be large enough to accommodate large scale products and that metal store windows were not the answer. Further discussion followed. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he felt that the applicant was defeating his purpose with the type of display cases proposed. M/S (Koetting/Apfelbaum; Curtis absent; Lawrence and Madsen abstained) approving the sign program with the applicant to restudy the tile color with individual signs to be reviewed and approved by staff. Discussion followed. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the orange color should be removed. D. Christian, the architect, noted that the applicant wants the orange tile. Further discussion followed. March 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 SIGN APPLICATION. (Cont'd. ) Commissioner Koetting withdrew his motion with the consent of the seconder. Commissioner Kaptur stated that with the awnings being burgundy there was a new color scheme for the Center. M/S/C (Kaptur/Koetting; Lawrence and Madsen abstained; Curtis absent; Service dissented) approving the sign program and colors and restudying the orange the color to make it complementary with the new color scheme and with individual signs to be reviewed and approved by staff. M/S/C (Kaptur/Apfelbaum; Curtis absent; Lawrence and Madsen abstained) denying the display cases. Commissioner Koetting noted that the display cases should be in the courtyard (not on the street). CASE 5.0303-PD-152. Application by R. GREGORY & E. JOHNSON for architectural approval of golf course landscape and irrigation plans for golf course/condominium project at Ramon Road/Farrell Drive, R-1-C & W-R-1-C Zones, Section 24. Planner III stated that the maintenance building has been moved to Sunny Dunes off Sunrise, that the applicant has submitted specific plans on the tees, greens and fairways. He stated that the bikeway has been changed per Planning Commission conditions; that staff is recommending that detailed landscape plans be submitted of representative sections of several elements of the plan; and that the applicant has requested a Planning Commission field trip to the site. C. Mills, 278-C N. Palm Canyon, the architect, requested that the rough grading on the front nine be allowed to continue and stated that the natural area will be left untouched. He requested a Commission determi- nation on a tennis court location, and stated that the courts will be sunken and unlighted. He requested that the bikepath be on one side of Farrell only with a meandering sidewalk on the other side; and that 50 to 60 mature olive trees be allowed to be planted (which could be moved later if necessary) . Chairman stated that there are several olive trees on the DeBartolo project that could be placed on the golf course. Mr. Mills stated that the tennis courts are approximately 200 feet from the Sunshine Villas complex and could be bermed, if necessary. He stated that the equestrian path on the edge of the channel goes into the wash and under the Sunrise Bridge, and that no decision has been made on fencing although the equestrian trail would not be fenced. R. Leonard, resident of Sunshine Villas, stated that the homeowners appreciated the Commission's concern over the maintenance building loca- tion. He stated that the homeowners were concerned that driving and parking of cars of the tennis players would become a problem and ques- tioned the reasoning for having the tennis courts next to Sunshine Villas. He stated that the residents want their land to be the golf course. March 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 11 CASE 5.0303-PD-152. (Cont'd. ) Commissioner Lawrence stated that the developer had moved the clubhouse per the homeowners request but that the tennis courts do not present a problem. Mr. Leonard stated that the original residents knew where the Sunshine Villas tennis courts were when they bought in Sunshine Villas. Discus- sion continued. Chairman stated that there was not to be a debate. R. Fixa, 567 Sunshine Circle, stated that he appreciated the fact that the maintenance building was moved but objected to the placement of the tennis courts since his home is adjacent to them. He stated that the residents of Sunshine Villas knew where the courts were and knew that there were no future plans for tennis courts, that expensive legal fees have been paid, and that the residents requested that the land be kept free as a green belt. He stated that the tennis court should be on land adjoining the new condos, and that if the courts were sunken they would flood. He stated also that the residents do not want to have a roadway behind Cerritos and requested that the condo units near Sunshine Villas be all one-story. E. Johnson, 344 Cathedral Canyon Country Club, landscaper for the project, stated that there was an urgency to planting of the landscape because of the approaching summer season. Chairman stated that a definite landscape plan is required, and that the applicant has sub- mitted only progress plans. Planning Director stated that the landscape plan was to be a final but that the AAC felt that more details should be submitted; and that staff's recommendation would be for approval with specific areas to be submitted for review. He stated that the applicant wants to develop a full scale model of the site. Chairman stated that he did not want to approve "as built" plans. Commissioner Kaptur stated that the applicant was at the Commission' s mercy since revisions would have to be made if the Commission did not approve what the developer has built. Chairman commented that the process was a complete perversion of the normal procedure, and that planning should be put on paper for proper review so that the Commission does not have to view the project in the field. Discussion continued on the applicant's request and lack of plans. Mr. Mills stated that complete landscape plans will be submitted for the 3- 28 meeting. Further discussion followed. M/S/C (Lawrence/Koetting; Curtis absent; Madsen dissented) taking the following actions: 1. The request for a bikepath on the east side of Farrell with a meandering sidewalk on the west side is approved. 2. New location of maintenance building on Sunny Dunes is approved. 3. The rough grading of the front nine holes can continue. 4. That focused details of the landscaping of greens, tees, lakes, public right of ways, and bikeways be submitted and approved: March 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 CASE 5.0303-PD-152. (Cont'd. ) 5. Location of the tennis courts per plans or mounding next to Sunshine Villas is approved -( courts to be sunken and unlighted) , ,(:Tennis court landscape plans are to be submitted with`detairled land- cape plans for-,-review at the 3-2.3-84 Planning Commission meeting. ) 6. Planting of the olive trees is approved subject to relocation if necessary. 7. Review of the bikepath by staff is required. I 8• Submission of detailed landscape and other final plans for the 3- 28 meeting is required. ! 9. That smaller palms be used with larger palms (clusters vs. individual palms) . Commissioner Apfelbaum stated that the bikepath is close to the tennis court area and has not been discussed. Mr. Mills described the configu- ration of the tennis courts and bikepath and landscaping along the streets. Commissioner Koetting stated that the Commission has been generous in its review of the project. Commissioner Kaptur stated that he had hoped that the homeowners would resolve their difficulties regarding the tennis courts and that the developer has been reasonable in helping to resolve problems. He stated that review of the landscaping and mounding is as far as the Commission can go. Mr. Fixa stated that efforts have been made to resolve differences with the developer, that there are legal difficulties and that the residents want the 1 and left open. CASE 3.602. Application by R. GREGORY for the City of Palm Springs for archi- tectural approval of final landscape plans for police station expansion, 3300 E. Tahquitz-McCallum Way, CC Zone, Section 13. M/S/C (Kaptur/Koetting; Curtis absent) approving the application subject to the following condition: Submission of landscape screening of the trash enclosure for staff approval . MISCELLANEOUS ACTIONS M/S/C (Madsen/Kaptur; Curtis absent) taking the following actions: TTM 17260 & CASE 3.645 (Cont'd. ) . Application by HELTZER ENTERPRISES for architectural and tentative tract map approval for 120-unit condominium project on Golf Club Drive between Waverly Drive/Cree Road, R-3 Zone (I.L. ), Section 29. (Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration and final approval . ) ,Continued to 3-28-84 meeting. March 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 13 TTM 17260 & CASE 3.645. (Cont'd. ) TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS "At its meeting of February 21, 1984, the Tribal Council approved the preparation of a draft Negative Declaration and approved TTM 17260. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Com- mission, the Tribal Council took the following actions: 1. Approved the filing of a Negative Declaration and reiterated its action of February 21 to approve TTM 17260. 2. In reviewing the Planning Commission meeting minutes of February 22, 1984, it was noted that this case was continued pending an overall restudy of the site plan, building height, configuration of elevations, etc. It was also noted that the proposed project meets all development of the R-3 Zone with the possible exception of distance between buildings in the case of courtyards, and that the proposed density is approximately 76% of the maximum allowable under the R-3 Zone. In view of the above notations, the Tribal Council expressed a concern that some of the design issues may be arbitrary in nature, and are resulting in undue delays in the processing of this issue. DISCUSSION -CASE 3.666 (Minor) . Commission review of design for historic marker for the Historic Site Preservation Board (HSPB) . Continued to 3-28 for a more thorough staff presentation. CASE 3.665. Application by L. JOHNSON for revised plans for trellis for single-family hillside residence at 2332 Cantina Way, R-1-A Zone, Section 27. (Reference Case 6.339) Continued to 3-28 at the applicant's request. CASE 7.556-AMM. Application by J. WADDINGTON for T. Eadie for architectural approval of archway and columns for residence at 620 Rose Avenue, R-1-B Zone, Section 10. Restudy. (Noting that the mass of the arch element should be increased. ) March 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 14 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL ITEMS (Continued) CASE 3.608. Application by M. BUCCINO for R. Pond for architectural approval of landscape plans for single-family residence on Dunham Road between Hillview Cove/Stonehedge, R-1-B Zone, Section 1. M/S/C (Kaptur/Madsen; Lawrence abstained; Curtis absent) approving the application as submitted including revisions to the building elevations. COMMISSION REPORTS, REQUESTS AND DISCUSSION Discussion on Study Session with CVB regarding Convention Center. Planning Director requested that a subcommittee be appointed to work with staff on the convention center. Chairman appointed Commissioners Kaptur, Apfelbaum and the Chairman to serve on the ad hoc Committee with staff for review of the center. Commission/Holiday Date Conflict. Chairman stated that several holidays fall on Planning Commission meeting dates in 1984, and that he would work with staff to change the dates or cancel the meetings. Revised Sign Ordinance. Commission directed that the sign ordinance and the environmental assessment be reviewed atthe 3-28 meeting and then continued to a night meeting on April 11. Used car lot on East Palm Canyon and Sunrise adjacent to Crocker Bank. Staff to investigate this illegal use. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 6:52 p.m. PEA ING UIRECTOR MDR/ml ATT: A. Minutes of Case 11.15 (Bogie Road street name change) . B. Minutes of Case 5.0310-MISC. (percolation ponds in the sphere of influence). . .March 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CASE 11.17 (Continued) M/S/C .(Lawrence/Ko-etting; Curtis absent) recommends to the Council that it approve 'a street name change from Bogie Road to Gene Autry Trail (from East Palm Canyon Drive to East Vista Chino) . TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS This proposed street name change was considered by the Tribal Council at its meeting of February 7, 1984. It was noted that the major portion of Bogie Road southerly of Ramon Road is adjacent to or traverses Indian- trust lands. After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Com- mission, the Tribal Council took the fo-llowing actions: 1. Reiterated its previous action to endorse this proposal to change the name of Bogie Road to Gene Autry Trail as being timely and appropriate. 2. 4For purposes of better identity for the traveling public, it was suggested that this name change should include that section of . Palm Drive in unincorporated County territory and extending southerly on I-10. j March 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PUBLIC HEARINGS i v CASE 11.17. Application by W. HIRD for -a name change from Bogie Road to Gene Autry Trail from East Palm . Canyon Drive to East Vista Chino, Sections 30, 19, 20, 17, 18, and 7. (Some °I.L. ) Recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that. it approve a street name change for Bogie Road (from East Palm Canyon Drive) to East Vista Chino to Gene Autry Trail . Planning Director stated that Resolution of Intention for Street Name Change notices were posted along Bogie Road and that some contact had been received from the public including an objection that it would be costly to change stationary and restencil the equipment for one of the firms. He stated that a letter had been received from Mrs. Hird requesting approval and that the request would be reviewed by the City Council on March -21. He Mated also that dedication plans have already begun. In response to Commission question Planning Director stated that staff would4consider two signs (Bogie Road and Gene Autry Trail) during a time of transition. Chairman d'eclared ,the hearing open. The following persons spoke in sup- port of the street name change: Mrs. J. Laduke, 2294 Star Road. J. Cooper, 2560 Golf Club Drive. �-' J. Kenna, President, Chamber of Commerce. B. DeGrande, -2912 Playmor. H. Haddock, former City Leisure Services Superintendent. D. Williams, 4� 3 N. Palm, Canyon Drive. H. Williamson, 690 Cielo Drive T. Keiley, 1800 S. Sunrise Way The above persons stated that they felt that Mr. Autry was an honored member. of the community who has made significant contributions to the City. The follow.ing persons spoke in opposition: A. Albert,, North Bogie Road, R. Butin, Airport Park Businessman. Reasons stated in opposition were as follows: Costs of changing stationery and merchandise, and costs of relabe ling/restenciling equipment; name change not suited to a commercial street; many businesses on Bogie Road will be affected; and disruption of record keeping with government agencies. Dr. Butin stated - that businessmen should be reimbursed for costs incurred by the name . change. Commissioner Koetting suggested that a fundraiser be initiated' to help reimburse expenses incurred by residents on Bogie Road. ATTACHMENT "A" March 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Madsen stated that storing the water benefits northern and ... southern California more than the desert. Mr. Levy stated that it was not northern and southern California water but will be water that can be pumped to the Valley and assures (the Valley)_ that- there is water in the reservoir since there is no pipeline from northern California to the Valley. He stated that although there is a water agreement with the State, there is a possibility that water would be curtailed to the Valley in the event of a drought, since the agreement is not completely binding. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Levy stated that eventually facilities would need to be built, and that there is an advantage in the fact that the MWD has agreed to build the facilities. He stated that in the drought of '76 to '77 there was no northern California water pumped across the Tehachapi Mountains. He noted that the MWD will pay for the dikes ($3 to 3.5 million), that it is an economic advantage to deliver water on power contracts in a period of surplus, and that water would be j stored for the future and benefit of the Valley. He described briefly the history of the CVWD and stated that a permit was filed on the ulti- mate "build-out" to keep the land from being sold by the BLM and that what is proposed to be built at the present time is the medium-term facility. Commissioner Koetting stated that Palm Springs would be adversely effected by the total project and will be a guinea pig in a disaster, such as an earthquake. He questioned reasons for not prepar- ing an EIR for the total project. Mr. Levy stated that the Negative Declaration was prepared for Phase 1 `�-- but before anything else is constructed CEQA guidelines would be met Planner III stated that CEQA requires an full assessment of a project in a tiered fashion including the ultimate project which is not being addressed; and that wind turbines may be proposed in the ponds and on the dikes between the ponds. He stated that it may be inappropriate to extend the dikes to protect the turbines because the natural open space quality would be lost. He described the dikes asbeing 400 feet apart and 10 feet high with the top of the dike at 50 feet where there may be wind turbines. He stated- that in the past small dikes have failed and have caused minor flooding on Indian Avenue. He described the config- uration_of the dikes and stated that they are constructed to fail in a series so that flooding is not in one stage. He stated that a portion of the project is within the City limits, but that the CVWD did notcon- tact City staff nor have the impacts of the EIR been quantified. He stated that the staff has not seen the Whitewater Flood Plain - channeli- zation program and its effect on Indian Avenue and that the potential substantial impact requires public review. He stated also that recrea- tional water use should be reviewedwith the CVWD. Planning Director stated that there are many concerns and that growth inducing impacts vis a vis water and land use have not been discussed with the District. He stated that liquifaction has not been addressed, and that the environmental review has been treated lightly. He noted that no discussion of land use or open space impacts has been held. He requested that the CEQA/NEPA study remain open until issues have been addressed and also that urbanization and City services should be addressed. He stated that the City will meet with the County on sphere planning on Friday with a joint document to be prepared by the summer of 184. He stated that dialogue needs to be developed for projects in the sphere area and that the percolation pond issue is before City Council March 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS DISCUSSION - CASE 5'.0310 (MISC. ). Commission discussion of proposed expansion of existing percolation ponds (DWA & CVWD) in the Whitewater Flood Plain west of Indian Avenue within the sphere of influence. Planner III stated that the percolation pond _expansion came to the attention of the staff approximately 2 months ago as a side issue in discussions with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on another project and that Phase 1 construction is scheduled to begin on April_ 2 He stated that construction would be staged over the approximately 20 years and that the purpose of the present expansion is to store an advance allotment of water from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD). He stated the normal allocation is 61,000 acre feet with an annual increase to 200,000 acre feet under the advanced allocation program. He stated that 150,000 acre feet had been added to the groundwater basin in the past 10 years so that acceleration of recharge can be done during a one year rather than a 10 year period; and that the project is located within the Whitewater Flood Plain from Windy Point to Indian Avenue and from Highway Ill to the Southern Pacific Railroad and involves a five to six square mile area. He described environmental documents prepared previously for the first percolation ponds and stated that in the 1983 document there was no mention of expansion of the ponds. He noted that the document distributed to the Planning Commission was from the,: Coa- chella Valley Water District (CVWD) for Phase 1 and that it is incon- sistent with CEQA which states that the entire project must be addressed and that the document is inadequate for a project of the proposed scope. He stated that BLM document begins to address the expansion but its references require updating and that technical questions should be addressed to Tom Levy of the CVWD who is a specialist in ground water recharge (project manager). ? Chairman stated that he had attended a meeting with Mr. Levy regarding the expansion ponds and that the expansion would not result in any' addi- tional water other than what has originally been contracted for (the- same quantity of water but in a accelerated -timeframe). Planner III explained the mechanics of water delivery to the Coachella Valley from MWD in normal and drought conditions and explained that the water is traded for ease in delivery. In reply to Commission question, he stated that the water is perked only during non-summer months when the evaporation rate is less than in summer months. T. Levy of the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), Coache la, Cali- fornia, explained that the District is proposing to practice good water I . management by storing the water in the expanded percolation ponds in order to make water available to MWD or to northern California during periods of drought. He stated that the percolation will be done during j periods of low water evaporation. Commissioner Lawrence questioned whether or not the advantages out- weighedof disturbing the desert environment. Mr. wei hed the disadvantages s 9 9 Levy stated that storing water ensures that the valley's water supply is maintained and is not depleted when droughts occur in northern Califor- nia. He stated that the evaporation rate is approximately 1%. ATTACHMENT "B" March 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES on decrease or increase of water costs. He explained that two projects are involved and that an environmental assessment was done for the first stage per CEQA guidelines and that the second project is an application filed with the BLM which is a permit to grant a right for expansion for the future which will have an environmental assessment per CEQA before anything is constructed. He stated that the ground water level has been going down and with the expansion of the percolation ponds the water level will rise, but not beyond the point of non-pumping in the Valley. He stated that the additional water would not cause lubrication of the fault and precipitate an earthquake. He noted that the ground would not be saturated from the ground water table to the surface since the pond- ing is not a continuous situation and will not change conditions that would naturally occur. Commissioner Lawrence stated that the project should be reviewed totally. Mr. Levy stated that the BLM required a construction plan for a permit to "hold" the land although the proposed final expansion will be in approximately 30 years. He reiterated that an EIR would be done on future construction and stated in reply to Commission question that the City was not notified because the project the Negative Declaration covers is not in the City and there is no requirement to notify the City, although City staff was given material when it was requested. He stated that the CVWD has worked with the BLM for one and a half years and was sorry that City staff was unaware of the project. Discussion followed on future annexation of the area. Concensus was that it would be a City Council concern. In response to a Commission question, Mr. Levy stated that the excess water proposed to be placed in the percolation ponds is now flowing the Gulf of Mexico and that the preliminary hydrology report indicates p Y that flooding on Indian Avenue would be less than that of a 10-year storm. He stated that in spontaneous failure ofthe levee the water would spread equal to a 10-year storm since the levee is approximately 2 miles from Indian Avenue and has space in which to spread. He stated that there are dikes protecting the City on one side in case of flooding and that the humidity of the water storage is insignificant comparing to the humidity caused by irrigation of agriculture in the lower Coachella Valley. In reply to Chairman's question, Mr. Levy stated that the plan has gone through an authorized procedure, that the public had a chance to review the proposal in conjunction with the CEQA process for the District, and that the City's staff would be kept aprised of projects (in the future). Chairman stated that the only obstacle to construction of Phase 2 is the CEQA process. Planning Director stated that the storage and distribution of water facilities is specifically exempt from local zoning control since water agencies are autonomous and that there is very little interaction and control under normal circumstances unless the area is annexed. He stated that the City has some authority since the environment assessment is inadquate and most of the documentation is not concerned with construction of the dikes but with the delivery of the water. March 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES the on March 21 with no time for discussion with the CVWD or the County. He stated in reply to Commission question that the reason for Planning Commission review of the document in its incomplete form was that the BLM is ready to take action on the permit and that the comment period is over on the 26th of March which is the day the BLM intends to take action. He stated that the staff requested Commission and Council com- �ment rather than staff response to concerns and that the Commission can state that the environmental assessment is incomplete. Planner III stated that the BLM has had the application for approximately a year which is a typical turnaround time and that the staff was told that the BLM does not need comments from the City Council but if City comments were forthcoming the time period would be 20-days (March 20, 1983) . He noted that the BLM feels that the project is minor and requires little environmental documentation; and that the environmental assessment is a statement rather than an analysis. He noted that staff had requested a two-week extension of the review period which was refused by the BLM although the City could comment on the day the action is taken, and that it is probable that the City's comments will have little impact. Chairman stated that in recent discussions with a Councilman, he learned that there are 27 golf courses in the planning stages in the Valley which result in use of 1 million gallons of water per day per course. He stated that if there were not as much growth the Commission probably would not be reviewing the proposed percolation pond expansion. He noted that the project is very important- with a regional significance and has a massive impact, that the City did not know about the -project except by accident and that no public hearings have been scheduled. He stated that he had read the document and could not decipher 'it because the reference materials noted in it were in Coachella He stated that the Corp of Engineers has stated in the City's seimic safety element or other documentation that significant hydrostatic pressure in a seismic fault could cause fault slippage and that in the event of an earthquake of significant magnitude the Palm Springs area could be inundated by flood waters. He stated that an unlined 10 foot levy will not contain a major flood and the _water is aimed at the weakest flood control dike (between Sunrise Way and Palm Drive). He stated that he wondered what the criteria would be if an engineer were proposing to build a dam across- the Tahquitz Canyon, that he had procedural concerns and wondered how a negative declaration could be made in July 1983 for a -project of regional significance. He stated that there were other concerns incud- ing growth and infringment on the fringe-toed lizard area. Commissioner Madsen stated that the document is contradictory since it finds no effect on the fringe-toed lizard but when the dikes are built the lizard will inhabit the area. Chairman expressed other concerns with the document includinglubrica - tion of fault lines. Commissioner Lawrence stated that obstruction of views will cause are aesthetic impact. In response to Commission question, Planning Director stated that the Desert Water Agency (DWA) and the CVWD both knew of the proposal . In response to Commission question, Mr. Levy stated that the long-term impact is that the same amount of water will be obtained but the supply will be in the ground water basin and that statistics were not available March 14, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Discussion followed on the type of Commission action. M/S/C (Lawrence/Apfelbaum, Curtis absent) that the Commission make the Council aware of the concerns discussed including lubrication of an earthquake fault, aesthetics, flooding, regional impact, future annexa- tion of the area, inadequate environmental assessment and review period for the City, and inadequacy of land preservation for the fringe-toed lizard. The Commission also stated in the motion that the CWCD should pay $750 an acre for land purchase for a fringe-toed lizard preserve, and that a full EIR should be prepared noting the Commission's concerns. Discussion followed on the possible mitigative measures. Planner III stated that the full EIR should be a joint one following CEQA and NEPA guidelines. Commission recessed at this time (4:20) . Chairman stated that another member of the audience wished to voice an opinion (4:30) . Mrs. R. Lecata, 530 N. Calle Marcus, stated that the percolation ponds would have a profound impact on the Valley; that the public has not been adequately informed on the impacts, and that the proposal could cause "delayed shock" to the public. She suggested that the City take legal action in the public interest. She stated in response to Chairman's question that water quality had not been reviewed by the Commission and questioned the quality of water to be received by the City if the perco- lation ponds are constructed. C a: 73 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chamber, City Hall March 28, 1984 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL F-Y 1983 - 1984 Present Present Excused Absences Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to date Richard Service, Chairman X 15 2 Hugh Curtis - 15 2 Hugh Kaptur X 14 3 Peter Koetting X 15 2 Don Lawrence X 16 1 Paul Madsen X 16 1 Sharon Apfelbaum X 16 1 Staff Present Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director Sigfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney George Parmenter, Traffic Engineer John Terell, Redevelopment Planner Michael Dotson, Planner II Douglas R. Evans, Planner III ` Robert Green, Planner II Dave Forcucci, Zoning Enforcement Officer Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary Architectural Advisory Committee Present - March 26, 1984 James Cioffi, Chairman Earl Neel Chris Mills Hugh Curtis William Johnson Sharon Apfelbaum Michael Buccino William Johnson Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Koetting (Lawrence absent) approving the minutes with the exception of Case 5.0312-MISC. (percolation ponds) since a page was inadvertently deleted; and with a revision to Sign Application (Spa Hotel) as follows: The motion should read (final motion, Page 8) : AYES: Kaptur, Koetting, Madsen NOES: Apfelbaum, Lawrence, Service ABSENT: Curtis M/S/C (Apfelbaum/Kaptur; Lawrence absent) approving Case 5.0312-MISC with the addition of the final page re: discussion and motion (see attachment to Minutes of 3-28) .