HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989/04/12 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Council Chamber, City Hall
April 12, 1989
1:30 p.m.
I
ROLL CALL F-Y 1988 - 1989
Present Present Excused Absences
Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to Date
Larry Lapham, Chairman X 17 2
Gary Olsen X 15 4
Barbara Whitney X 14 5
Brent Hough X 17 2
Martha Edgmon X 17 2
Chris Mills X 15 2
Michael Dotson X 16 0
Staff Present
John Mangione, Director of Community Development
Marvin D. Roos, Planning Director
Siegfried Siefkes, Assistant City Attorney
Debra Goodwin, Planner
Sherri Abbas, Planner
Douglas Evans, Planner
Ron Salz, Planning Technician (Temporary)
John Terell , Redevelopment Planner
Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement
Dean Lewis, Traffic Engineer
Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary
Architectural Advisory Committee - April 10, 1989
Brent Hough, Chairman Absent: Reuel Young
Will Kleindienst
William Johnson
Tom Doczi
Mike Buccino
Chairman called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
M/S/C (Hough/Dotson) approving minutes of March 22, 1989 with the following
correction:
Page 13, next to last paragraph under "Public Comments": change "meeting" to
"netting" .
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA:
The April 12, 1989 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall
exterior bulletin board and the Planning Division Counter by 5:00 p.m. , Friday,
April 7, 1989.
j April 12, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 2
j CONSENT ACTION AGENDA
Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted
must be exercised within that time period unless extended.
M/S/C (Olsen/Hough) taking the following actions:
CASE 3.0409 (MINOR) . Application by WENDELL VEITH for architectural approval of
revised entry doors for office at 2825 E. Tahquitz-McCallum Way, PD-71,
Section 13.
Approved as submitted.
CASE 3.0532. Application by INTERACTIVE DESIGN CORPORATION for architectural
approval of detailed landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plans for
a single-family dwelling at 500 Via Miraleste, R-1-B Zone, Section 11.
Approved as submitted.
CASE 3.0545. Application by INTERACTIVE DESIGN CORPORATION for architectural
approval of detailed landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plans for
a single-family residence at 535 Via Colusa, R-1-B Zone, Section 7.
Approved as submitted.
CASE 3.0565 (MINOR) . Application by ST. TROPEZ VILLAS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION for
architectural approval of alterations to the landscape of condominium com-
plex on Alejo Road between Calle Alvarado/Calle El Segundo, R-G-A-8 Zone
(I .L.) , Section 14.
Continued to April 26, 1989 at request of applicant.
CASE 3.0568 (MINOR) . Application by JOEL THAYER for architectural approval of
driveway awning for single-family residence, 2363 James Drive, R-1-B Zone,
Section 3.
Approved as submitted.
SIGN APPLICATION. Application by ARTECH SIGNS INC. for architectural approval
of main identification sign for restaurant (Carrow's) on E. Palm Canyon
Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 26.
Restudy.
: 1
April 12, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 3
ADDED STARTER. (Continued)
M/S/C (Edgmon/Hough) determining that Case 3.0542 is eligible for
consideration.
CASE 3.0542. Application by PAUL SCOTT for architectural approval of a single-
family residence on Vista Chino between Whitewater Club Drive/Volturno
Road, R-1-C Zone, Section 1.
Approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the landscape plans be restudied.
2. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met.
SIGN APPLICATION. Application by BEST SIGNS for architectural approval of main
identification sign for restaurant (Hot Tomatoes) at 167 N. Indian Avenue,
CBD Zone, Section 15.
Approved as submitted.
CASE 3.0272. Application by TKD ASSOCIATES for Voss Investment Properties for
architectural approval of detailed landscape, irrigation, and exterior
lighting plans for a retail/restaurant complex on the northeast corner of
Avenida Caballeros/Tahquitz Way, C-1-AA Zone (IL) , Section 14.
Approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the fountain be restudied.
2. That working drawings be submitted for AAC and Planning Commission
approval .
ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT ACTION AGENDA
Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted
must be exercised within that time period unless extended.
CASE 3.0543. Application by WILL KLEINDIENST for architectural approval of an
addition to an existing supermarket, parking lot revisions, and landscape
plans in Smoketree Center, E. Palm Canyon Drive, C-D-N Zone, Section 25.
Redevelopment Coordinator explained that this application is a redesign of
Smoketree Shopping Center and a expansion of Ralph's Supermarket from
26,000 to 40,000 sq. ft. by extending the building on both sides and in the
back; that the entire center will be repainted; that the landscaping will
be revised; that some parking lot modifications will be made to create
angled parking; that the access to the Highway and to Sunrise will be
simplified by providing a right turn out only on East Palm Canyon and a
separate right turn only on Sunrise to alleviate stacking; that part of the
i
April 12, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 4
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA (Continued)
CASE 3.0543. (Continued)
frontage road will be eliminated (beyond Ralph's Supermarket) ; that the area
will be landscaped; that there will be a closure of some on-site driveways
for additional stacking space and exiting; that the market will be
replicating existing architecture and materials; that the trellis will be
extended for a covered walkway; that Palo Verde and Mesquite trees will be
used in the landscaping and the number of trees increased to meet current
shading standards; and that the dark shade shown on the sample board is the
concrete work and the major color shown for the building is peach.
At Commissioner Whitney's request, he repeated that the east driveway will
be closed; that the major center drive allows turning in but no left turn
out; that on Sunrise there is one lane in and one lane out presently and a
separate right turn only lane will be added and another lane added for left
turns.
Commissioner Olsen requested that the Traffic Engineer comment since E.
Palm Canyon and Sunrise is grid-locked presently and the elimination of the
frontage road will make the traffic situation worse since it is a by-pass
for the intersection.
Redevelopment Coordinator stated that the frontage road will still exist in
front of Downey Savings and into Ralph's parking lot.
Traffic Engineer stated that Caltrans is still studying the entryway since
the agency is not satisfied with the entry on the highway and no final
resolution has been reached.
Planning Director explained that the shopping center still will have an
interior connection from one end of the project to the other; that the
current frontage road has been a problem since there is no stacking
ability at the access points; that the present interior roadways are diffi-
cult for drivers to understand and use; and that the proposed configuration
will alleviate the problem and allow for more landscaping.
Discussion continued on removal of the frontage road. Commissioner Olsen
reiterated that the frontage road should not be eliminated. Commissioner
Whitney commented that the frontage road is a traffic hazard and also is a
place for cars fnr sale on weekends. Chairman commented that the same
amount of traffic that has always been in the center will continue, and the
interior circulation does not impact Sunrise and E. Palm Canyon.
Commissioner Olsen stated that people use the frontage road as a by-pass.
Commissioner Whitney commented that the extra access on Sunrise will be a
big help by eliminating much of the stacking.
Commissioner Edgmon requested that a swatch of the proposed colors be
painted on the building before the colors are approved.
Commissioner Olsen asked about increased parking. Redevelopment
Coordinator stated that the standards have been met.
.,e Commissioner Whitney stated that her office is in the shopping center and
asked if she should abstain.
i
i
April 12, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 5
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA (Continued)
CASE 3.0543. (Continued)
Assistant City Attorney stated that she should.
In response to Commissioner Mill 's question, Redevelopment Coordinator
stated that the large area in front of Wells Fargo is for parking on both
side of the driveway for the ATM and parking is pulled in from the corner.
Will Kleindienst, 121 S. Palm Canyon, Project Architect, stated that the
large parking area is for maneuvering, passing, and parking for the two
walk-up tellers and the drive-thru.
Commissioner Mills stated that there should not be parking on the outside.
In reply to Commissioner Dotson's question, Redevelopment Coordinator
stated that Commission approval relative to the Highway access would be
subject to final Caltrans approval and the circulation pattern will be
returned to the Commission if it is changed.
M/S/C (Hough/Edgmon; Whitney abstained) approving the application subject
to the following conditions:
1. That all recommendations of the Development Committee be met.
2. That a swatch of the colors be painted on the building for Commission
and AAC approval .
�. 3. That the parking area around Wells Fargo be restudied.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CASE 5.0400-ZTA. Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for an amendment to
Sections 9100.00 (Definitions) , 9201.00 (R-1) , 9209.00 (C-B-D) , and 9230.00
(Signs) of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposal would amend the definition
of "Adult Entertainment Establishments" ; remove the exemption regarding
price signs at certain automobile service stations; allow for off-site real
estate signs; provide for accessory residential uses in the downtown area;
and amend the regulations regarding the placement of manufactured housing
on single-family lots.
(Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration; no
comments received; action.)
Planning Director stated that there is an extensive staff report on the
Zoning Text Amendments; that the amendments have been developed due to
requests and concerns from several sources; that the City Council directed
that the gas price signs be reinstituted on the scenic corridor (Palm
Canyon Drive) to alleviate price gouging by some gas station operators;
that the State would force compliance under its Business and Professions
Code; that the "Adult Entertainment" section has been expanded to include
live entertainment; that an applicant will be applying for a Conditional
Use Permit for live entertainment; that there are stringent requirements on
proximity to schools and churches; that the words "which has" in the new
i
April 12, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 6
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
CASE 5.0400-ZTA. (Continued)
section should remain although they have been struck out in the draft docu-
ment; that all manufactured housing will be treated as any other type of
housing regarding City regulations; that some regulations may not apply
(siding and roofing materials) ; that materials will be reviewed as to com-
patibility with the neighborhood; that a the manufactured house will
require permits and fees the same as any other type of house; that rider
signs are now provided in the Ordinance for real estate signs and have been
reviewed by the real estate industry; that staff is recommending against
off-site real estate signs since the provision could open the door for
billboards and would require anincrease in zoning enforcement; and that the
final portion of the amendments would allow conversion of upper story
floors downtown to living quarters under a Land Use Permit.
Director of Community Development stated that he had much faith in the
current Zoning Ordinance which is effective; that Palm Springs is a leader
in sign ordinances and a City that takes into account the aesthetics and
the quality of the environment; that the prohibition of off-site signing is
the cornerstone of the Sign Ordinance; that the current Ordinance prohibits
business signs unless on-site; that two representatives of the real estate
board with whom he met felt the Ordinance should be changed because off-
site signs are being used on weekends anyway (Zoning Enforcement Officers
work irregularly on weekends) ; and also because sales are falling behind
that of other valley cities that allow off-site signs; that other types of
off-site signs could be requested such as billboards, garage sales, etc. if
the proposed revision is approved; that an Ordinance should not be changed
to make a segment of the business population's job easier; that the City is
known for its stringent Sign Ordinance; that an argument cannot be made to
allow off-site signing because of higher sales in another valley cities;
since some cities prohibit off-site signs and some do not; that a letter
has been received by staff from a landscape architect in Midland, Michigan
who was very impressed by Palm Springs and felt that prohibition of bill-
boards and strict regulation of heights signs and amortization are the
reasons for the City's beauty; and that the letter also commended staff.
Chairman stated that the Sign Ordinance revisions would be discussed last.
In reply to Commissioner Dotson, Planning Director stated that the regula-
tion of signing, materials, and overhangs is allowed under State law and is
agreeable to the manufactured housing industry which evidently feels that
they should have been contributing toward more aesthetic manufactured
housing in the past.
Discussion continued on the amendments.
Planning Director stated, in reply to Commission question, that signs not
already posting prices will have to be redesigned to include the prices in
the overall square footage; that most of the signs have not been changed
since State Law mandated the posting; and that redesigning the signs will
be expensive. He stated price signs cannot be posted separately. He
stated that the State Department of Weights and Measures would have to be
contacted regarding the time period.
April 12, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 7
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
i
CASE 5.0400-ZTA. (Continued)
In reply to Commissioner Mill 's question, Planning Director stated that
having siding materials compatible with the desert would eliminate metal .
In reply to Commissioner Edgmon's question, Planning Director stated that
gas price signs have to have a conversion from metric to standard prices.
Assistant City Attorney clarified by stating that a gas station has to post
the price and the units (such as liters) and a means of conversion for the
customer by State law.
Chairman declared the hearing open for input on manufactured housing, con-
version to residential use in the C-B-D, adult entertainment establish-
ments, gasoline price signs, and rider signs.
There being no appearances, Chairman declared the hearing closed on these
items.
M/S/C (Olsen/Whitney) ordering the filing of a negative declaration and
approved Zoning Text Amendments to all items except real estate off-site
signs.
Commissioner Whitney asked if she should abstain during discussion and
action on real estate off-site signing since she is a realtor.
Assistant City Attorney explained that she did not need to abstain because
the Ordinance has city-wide application and affects a significant segment
of the population.
Commissioner Mills stated that he had performed professional services in
the past 6 months for the Board of Realtors. Assistant City Attorney
stated that Commissioner Mills would have to abstain.
Chairman declared the hearing open.
The following people spoke in favor of the allowance of off-site real
estate signs:
Rod Dow, representing the Palm Springs Board of Realtors
Bob Fey, 423 Tahquitz, Realtor
Karen Aguilar, for the Local Government Relations Committee/Board of
Realtors
Tony Aguilar, Realtor
Ingrid Baddour, 247 Via Las Palmas, Hampton Realty
Ron Gerich, Century 21 Van Lizzen, Realtor
Selma Kilberry, Realtor
Paul Sheppard, Board of Realtors
Charles Spatarro, Realtor
John Wessman, 72200 Clancy Lane, Rancho Mirage, Developer
Jim Lobland, 2121 E. Tahquitz-McCallum, Realtor
They voiced the following:
- Other cities allow off-site directional signs.
April 12, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 8
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
CASE 5.0400-ZTA. (Continued)
Rider signs as outlined by staff are acceptable.
- Directional arrows constitute a main marketing tool for the industry.
- Local government can only have reasonable enforcement and no ban on signs
unless there is a compelling need.
Cities cannot impose regulations on content. (If some signs are allowed
with non-commercial messages, all non-commercial messages must be allowed
(i .e. , carwashes at churches, garage sales, etc.) , and there can be no
discrimination in the content of the sign.
- The total elimination of the signs is unlikely because of the First Amend-
ment.
- Off-site signs are means of advertising, especially for prospective buyers
in cars.
- There should be a compromise between the public need and the public
welfare.
- "Hidden" and corner homes need more than one sign.
- Realtors should be educated on local sign ordinances (which is being done
in Palm Springs) .
- Realtors have been working with the City to incorporate the needs of the
industry into the sign ordinance.
- Off-site signs are temporary in nature, unlike billboards.
- Palm Springs has the most restrictive sign ordinance in the State.
- The California Association of Realtors is watching the outcome of the pro-
posed amendment in Palm Springs.
- The citizens of Palm Springs would be harmed if the Ordinance is not
adopted because it is important in attaining their rights and wishes.
- The real estate industry is not self-serving.
- There is a local petition backing off-site signing.
- Graphs show that Palm Springs is lower in the prices of homes, in selling
of homes in comparable neighborhoods to other cities, and in the time
houses are on the market.
- Help is needed for the industry.
- The industry provides a service.
The industry would be willing to help the City enforce removal of the
signs.
April 12, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 9
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
CASE 5.0400-ZTA. (Continued)
Two more signs are needed for each unit offered for resale.
Mayor Bono has spoken in favor of off-site real estate signs.
The City administration has not listened to the appeals of the realtors for
off-site signs and is trying to justify their positions, and are on ego
trips.
- The realtors are voters and want the administration to mandate regulations
beneficial to the community.
- Realtors should not have to plead for the signs.
- Realtors have a right to make a livelihood and not having off-site signs
makes it impossible.
- People do not look at the City of Palm Springs with envy as was stated by
staff.
- There are problems within the administration of the City.
- Buyers looking for property on their own need directional signing.
- Regulations are needed that allow real estate agents to conform to the sign
ordinance.
- Palm Springs is getting a "depressed" reputation.
- House prices could be kept up with proper signs to open houses.
- City staff asked for help from the realtors to paint the fronts of
buildings downtown and the City should be willing to reciprocate by
allowing the signs.
- Prospective buyers find it difficult to find homes in Palm Springs.
- Realtors are not asking for too much by asking for the signs.
- Can type signs should be reviewed in the downtown and possibly outlawed.
- Neon should be considered again, it is an exciting sign medium.
- Sign provisions for monuments for large scale centers should be reviewed to
allow them in projects under 3.5 acres.
- Realtors should be allowed 2 or 3 off-site directional signs for each
property.
- Palm Desert enforces its sign ordinance and the permission of the property
owner is obtained to have signs on the property.
- Realtors work with the city staff in other cities in regard to sign
enforcement.
_ r
April 12, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 10
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
CASE 5.0400-ZTA. (Continued)
Property values have increased in other cities.
The following person spoke in opposition to proposed off-site real estate
sign allowance:
Richard Smith, 1060 Olive Way, stated that he was involved in the develop-
ment of the sign program when he was Director of Community Development for
many years; that all the arguments presented could be agreed with and staff
sympathizes with the people affected by the regulations, but that variances
to the Ordinance weaken it and make it difficult to administer. He stated
that one of the major assets of the City is the Sign Ordinance; that per-
haps the City's regulations are not stringent enough; that some changes to
the Ordinance have been made because of State regulations; that the
proposed off-site signing may set a precedent; that the strength of the
Ordinance is in the prohibition of off-site signs. He asked that the
Ordinance not be changed.
Commissioner Whitney stated that she has always felt that the realtors need
the valuable tool of directional signing; that at least one and perhaps two
should be allowed in addition to the sign on the property; that the sign is
not permanent; that the realtor should be allowed to try directional
signing and if the practice is abused, the Ordinance could be revoked.
Discussion followed regarding numbers of off-site signs. Commissioner
Hough asked if the number could be regulated. Planning Director stated the
Commission could include a provision that no more than one sign should be
at a given location. Commissioner Hough stated that there would be a
willingness in the beginning to do the right thing but that one sign at any
one location should be a condition.
Commissioner Olsen asked about a defense if other types of establishments
request off-site signing.
Assistant City Attorney stated that it is difficult to fashion a statute or
ordinance which would allow off-site signing of one type but restrict other
types; that the courts have stated that constitutional rights are trampled
where signs are regulated on content; that time, place, and manner are
permissible regulations;that off-site sign regulations which are content-
oriented are prohibited by the State Supreme Court and the regulation was
carefully worded to meet definitions and requirements in the Metro-media
vs. San Diego case. He stated that if off-site signs are allowed saying
"Open House" , and other types of signs are prohibited, there is a definite
possibility that there will be a problem.
In response to Commissioner's question on whether or not another type of
business (antique stores, for example) could erect an off-site sign, he
stated the City might have to allow it. He stated that if the City amends
the ordinance to allow off-site signs and limits the regulation to real
estate off-site signs, the signs are content-oriented; and that limiting
the signs to content and to one industry is risky.
April 12, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 11
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
CASE 5.0400-ZTA. (Continued)
In reply to CommissionerWhitney, Assistant City Attorney stated that he
could not give a definitive answer on whether or not a sign with only an
arrow would be allowable.
Chairman stated that the arrow would be for residential areas and would not
be the same kind of clutter like signs in a business zone.
Assistant City Attorney stated that yard sale signs would have a similar
basis for regulation as residential open house signs; and that it is diffi-
cult to fashion an ordinance to allow one specific type of activity and not
another similar type.
Chairman stated that billboards are permanent and off-site directional
signs are temporary; and that there is no threat of billboards in the City.
Assistant City Attorney stated that the City has the power to adopt a sign
of small size and limited hours for residential areas, but that adopting
signage for a particular industry or activity is a problem.
In reply to Commissioner Edgmon's question, Planning Director stated that
the intent of the Ordinance is to include condominiums as single-family
residences.
Commissioner Olsen stated that the supposition on the signage was that on
any one corner there could only be one sign, but that if it is not a
correct supposition, it would set a precedent for other signing.
Chairman suggested a trial period of one year with a permit fee and also to
see if other business will want to place signs at intersections. He stated
that the sign permit revenue is needed for enforcement.
Commissioner Edgmon stated that she understood the needs of the realtors,
but felt that the sign ordinance would be eroded by allowing off-site signs
and she could not support it.
Commissioner Dotson stated that the City is placed in jeopardy and cannot
control the types of activities using off-site signs; and that there is no
choice but denial .
Commissioner Olsen asked if the off-site sign question could be continued
for more research from the legal staff.
Planning Director commented that it seems that some of the Commissioners
support a temporary period; but that staff does not want to issue permits
at least for the trial period because of the expense of setting up a permit
program; and that the program could be evaluated at the end of a year. He
stated that there are many people violating the ordinance presently (such
as flower and strawberry salesmen on weekends) and also that he has seen in
other cities lighted, portable signs on trailers which could happen in Palm
Springs since there have been innovative methods for signs.
Chairman asked how other cities avoid having sign clutter.
i
April 12, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 12
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
CASE 5.0400-ZTA. (Continued)
Commissioner Olsen commented that he would like to know how many residences
are behind walls.
Chairman reiterated that other cities allow off-site signs and Palm Springs
should have a trial period of one year with guidelines developed, and if
not followed, the ordinance would not be in effect at the end of the year.
Assistant City Attorney stated that a one year time limit could be a condi-
tion.
In reply to Commissioner Hough, Planning Director stated that issuance of a
permit does not mean that a sign is appropriate or located appropriately,
and that there is no nexus between the permit and its being used properly.
Commissioner Whitney stated that the off-site directional signs should be
allowed to see if there are problems; that the realtors need a tool ; and
that they are the best guardians of the privilege.
Commissioner Dotson stated that even with the sunset clause the Sign
Ordinance is in jeopardy because of signing for other commercial ventures;
and it is difficult to rescind once a precedence is set.
Chairman stated that if there are problems, the ordinance will be
rescinded.
Assistant City Attorney suggested that the Zoning Text Amendment could
state that the section is repealed at the end of a certain date unless
amended otherwise.
M/S/C (Whitney/Hough; Mills abstained; Dotson/Edgmon dissented) approving
open house directional signs as outlined in the staff report. (On file in
the Planning Division) ; changing No. 10 of the new section from "one such
sign" to "two such signs" ; allowing only one sign per intersection and
including a sunset clause eliminating these provisions at the end of one
year unless extended by the City Council .
TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS
In keeping with its policy of acting on planning cases that are City-wide
in nature, this case was considered by the Tribal Council at its meeting of
April 11, 1989.
After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commis-
sion, the Tribal Council took the following actions:
1. Concurred with Planning Staff's recommendation that the filing of a
Negative Declaration would be appropriate.
2. Approved the proposal amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, including
the proposed addition to Section 9320.07 that would permit and
regulate the use of temporary real estate open house directional
signs.
April 12, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 13
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
CASE 5.0358-G-1. Request by the BLM for Commission review of the environmental
assessment and revised plan of operations for the Whitewater Hill Wind park
north of I-10, between White Water Canyon/Highway 62, outside the Sphere-
of-Influence.
Planner (Evans) circulated photos of Whitewater Hill and the windmills on
it and stated that the proposed revisions will place 74 more turbines in
addition to the 150 presently on the hill . He stated that the new turbines
could be 150 feet in height and placed wherever they can fit in the park;
and that the new ones are much larger. He stated that the purpose is to
boost energy output; that the large windmills will be visible from many
points in the valley; and that the County feels there is no visual impact
since there are 150 turbines on the hill presently as well as a microwave
tower, a utility corridor, and a water facility. He stated that the size
of the new turbines is so much larger that there will be a dramatic con-
trast between the existing turbines and the new ones; that the blades are
much larger in diameter; that the operator proposing these new turbines is
the most successful one in the world; that the BLM has an alternative to
place 34 turbines only but the placement would be on the the ridgeline
which is very visible; that some of the high poles will be within a few
feet of the rim of Whitewater Canyon; that there is one turbine there now
that is visible from I-10; that staff is concerned about ridgeline location
and the irregular spacing which will add to the visual clutter although
some of the turbines will not be placed so that they are visible from the
City; that there is not good information on the noise impacts; that the
developer is citing a study done overseas on noise and interpreting these
facts for the desert; and that the City should be on record opposing the
methodolog
y of the noise determination since that determination process
should not be used on any more turbines near the city. He stated that the
windpark is north of the Sphere of Influence but could be annexed. He
reiterated that the issues are the prominence and size of the turbines;
(because they could be on a lower tower) ; and that the proposal is an esca-
lation of wind energy development which will be seen often in the future.
Chairman stated that the visual impact on people coming to the City is
ridiculous and the it is ludicrous to build higher ones, especially in
prominent areas; and that the EIR has not addressed noise and visual
impacts well .
Commissioner Dotson asked if the site could be packed and small units used
as a tradeoff.
Planner stated that the site is too tight and cannot be more densely
packed.
M/S/C (Hough/Whitney) recommending that the BLM be informed of the City
concerns as follows: Prominence of the machines, noise, height and blade
size of the machines; and that the Commission recommends that the noise
study be reevaluated to address desert conditions.
April 12, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 14
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CASE 5.0504-PD-199 (REVISED) . Application by M.H. SHASHANI for a revised
Planned Development District to allow construction of a 66 unit apartment
complex including density bonus on N. Indian Avenue between San Rafael
Road/Simms Road, R-2 Zone, Section 2.
(Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration; no
comments received; action.)
Planner (Abbas) stated that the site has been revised and is more formal
now; units are staggered to give relief to the front of the buildings and
to orient the buildings toward the amenities of the project and the
parking; and that architecture has been redesigned to more of a desert
style. She stated that the AAC reviewed the project and recommended
approval with several conditions.
Chairman declared the hearing open.
George Theodoro, Rancho Cucamunga, the owner and architect, stated that the
project has been redesigned per AAC comments and oriented to the interior;
thereby enclosing the project internally and protecting it from the wind.
He stated that there will be wrought iron fencing and entry gates; and that
he accepted the AAC conditions.
R.W. Griffin, 300 Molino, stated that the residence he owns will be
affected by the project; that the people of the neighborhood appreciate the
time and energy expended on the revision; that the people are not opposed
V to development the area but want to express concerns because the
neighborhood has lived with the results of a public housing project
directly south of the proposed project, which has added a negative impact
to the neighborhood and lowered property values. He stated that a liquor
store across Indian Avenue has further eroded the neighborhood because of
the traffic, noise, police responses, public drunkenness, trash, noise from
the vehicles in the parking lot. He stated that the developer has tried to
overcome some of the objections with the inward turning of the project to
make more of a community presence; that in the public housing project to
the south parking is available on the inside but the residents park and
double park around the perimeter; that the entry gate approach may fore-
stall the perimeter parking problem; that an increased density is a concern
as well as waiving the 150 ft. requirement for second story units in R-1
zones. He stated that mountain views will be obscured and more noise and
confusion added to the neighborhood.
Mark Rodgers, 290 Simms Road, stated that his house and bedrooms are on
Simms Road and if the project exit is on Simms, he will be affected. He
stated that the public housing project is across the street from his house
and crime has increased and there are inoperable cars, trash and public
drunkenness. He stated that he is not opposed to development but did not
want two story apartment buildings to be built again; and that the Commis-
sion has not taken into consideration the neighbors' concerns. He stated
i
April 12, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 15
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
CASE 5.0504-PD-199 (REVISED) . (Continued)
that the Commissioners would not want the conditions in their backyards.
He also stated that he felt that the property values have decreased.
There being no further appearances; Chairman declared the hearing closed.
Commissioner Dotson asked about the impact on the sight line to the
mountains regarding the 150 ft. setback.
Planning Director stated that the ordinance requires up to 150 ft. but that
the Commission can reduce the setback futheoay6r?getof the two stories is
at least 150 ft. lby
Planner stated that the reductionis 46 feet and would increase slightly due
to AAC conditions.
Commissioner Mills asked if the Commission approved the site plan
previously.
Planning Director stated that it was a restudy.
Commissioner Mills asked to see the roof plan and asked the species of
hedge along the east property line.
Planning Director stated that it was a Texas Privet which grows to 7 feet.
Commissioner Mills stated that the east property line should be adequately
screened.
Commissioner Hough stated that the tot lot was relocated and the building
was brought forward so the setback is more than 46 feet.
Commissioner Mills asked if the City is required to allow public housing.
Planning Director stated that although the City Attorney sometimes dis-
agrees with him, the Commission has the ability to deny any Planned
Development District; that the City is mandated to either give a density
bonus or other equivalent to make the housing affordable but if the housing
is inappropriate it can be denied, and the developer can go to court. He
stated that the law requires a density bonus or other equalivent if the
developer is giving 25% of his units as affordable housing; and that the
subject developer is giving 20%, but that extremely strong findings would
have to be made to have the project sent back for further study. He stated
that the Commission can deny the project but the City is probably vulner-
able in that case.
Discussion followed on the neighbors' concerns. Commissioner Mills asked
about the encroachment of the project to the south. Commissioner Edgmon
stated that it would be difficult for the City to deny the application.
Commissioner Hough stated that by right of ' zone almost the same density ,
could be built, and that the developers have tried to address neighbors'
concerns.
April 12, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 16
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
CASE 5.0504-PD-199 (REVISED) . (Continued)
t.
Planner stated that she could get a roof plan for Commission review, but
that there will be no equipment on the roof.
Assistant City Attorney explained that the proper motion would be to
continue the application to April 26 since tabling it would mean that the
Commission would have to take action before the end of the meeting.
Discussion continued on the roof, tile inserts, and the proximity of the
second story to the R-1 Zone.
Planner explained that the setbacks are 110 feet.
Commissioner Mills stated that the roof line will be barely visible at 90
ft. even with no hedge above the 6 ft. wall , and that views will not be
obscured except possibly with the landscaping. He stated that because of
the density bonus, nothing can be done; but that he wanted to review the
roof plan.
Discussion continued on continuing the case to an adjourned meeting.
Assistant City Attorney stated that renoticing is not necessary and the
meeting could be adjourned to Wednesday, April 19.
Planning Director stated that the Chappel housing project to the south has
no 150 ft. setback requirement because it went from street to street to
street; and when not abutting an R-1 Zone, the setback is 25 feet.
Commissioner Dotson asked if the architect ! could'show the roof slope.
Project Architect stated that the roof on the two story building should be
the same as the roof on the 1 story (5:12 pitch) .
Commissioner Mills stated that he did not want to be able to see the back
of either the parapet or the wing wall .
Discussion continued on the roof plan.
Commissioner Mills requested that the details all the way around be
reviewed.
M/S/C (Edgmon/Hough; Whitney/Lapham abstained; Dotson dissented) continuing
the application to April 26 for the applicatn to address concerns on the
roof plan and setbacks.
Commissioner Olsen left the meeting.
... TPM 23123 (REVISED) . Application by ASL CONSULTING ENGINEERS for Peter McKernan
for a revised tentative parcel map to combine four lots into one on Vereda
Del Sur/Via Las Palmas, R-1-A Zone, Section 10.
April 12, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 17
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
TPM 23123 (REVISED) . (Continued)
(Previously given environmental assessment in conjunction with original
map.)
Recommendation: That Commission approve the application subject to condi-
tions.
Planner (Abbas) stated that he property has been redesigned to become one
parcel and that the previous map had two parcels.
Chairman declared the hearing open; there being no appearances, the hearing
was closed.
M/S/C (Mills/Hough; Olsen absent) approving TPM 23123 (Revised) based on
the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings•
1. That a Parcel Map is the appropriate application for a lot
consolidation.
2. That the proposed lot consolidation is in harmony with the Zoning
Ordinance and Objectives of the General Plan.
3. That the proposed lot consolidation is not detrimental to the
surrounding properties or the environment.
Condition•
1. That the Development Committee conditions dated March 10, 1989, shall
be complied with.
TPM 24346. Application by MAINIERO, SMITH & ASSOCIATES for John Wessman to sub-
divide a 40-acre parcel for industrial purposes for property on the south-
east corner of Ramon Road/Gene Autry Trail , M-1 Zone (I .L.) , Section 20.
(Commission response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration; no
comments received; action.)
Planner (Abbas) gave the staff report and stated that Camino Parocela will
be extended; that there will be three points of access on Ramon and a
median island; that there is no median planned on Gene Autry; that there is
a frontage road access for customers; and that the AAC recommended a
restudy feeling that there are too many points of access which would create
conflict, and that an internal circulation system should be developed. She
stated that right turns would be the only access; that there is a condition
for access between the lots; that the median breaks the center; and that a
traffic signal will be placed when traffic warrants are met. She stated
that a left turn can be made out of the center driveway, but it would be
dangerous.
April 12, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 18
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
TPM 24346. (Continued)
Planning Director explained that the signal at San Luis Rey would be
activiated soon.
Planner showed the traffic light location.
Planning Director stated that the traffic already backs up past San Luis
Rey; that the Tribal Council consultant questioned the reasons for the AAC
review of the map and was told by staff that there are architectural site
plan issues on maps.
Commissioner Dotson asked about access to some of the smaller lots on
Parocela.
Planner stated that only six of the driveways are approved and the others
are shown for Desert Water Agency purposes.
Commissioner Dotson asked about access to Ramon.
Traffic Engineer stated that the two outer drives with right turns only are
no problem, but that he is opposed to the center access because left turn
out would create a severe traffic accident problem because of crossing
several lanes of traffic.
Chairman stated that a the car turning left would block traffic flow along
Ramon without a signal .
Chairman declared the hearing open.
John Wessman, 72200 Clancy Lane, Rancho Mirage, Project Developer, stated
that he has owned the property for many years but has not developed it
because of lack of demand; and that he was asked to join an Assessment
District as one of the major properties in the area because improvements
are needed to the highway; that in order to develop the property there has
to be access to Ramon and that he would not move ahead with the project or
join the assessment district if there is no access. He stated that the
Indian owner could appeal to the Tribal Council ; that he did not feel that
access points to Ramon will impede traffic; that there is a traffic light
at San Luis Rey and one at Gene Autry; that in his experience in other
developments there are no accidents with people turning in or out; and that
if the traffic flow is impeded, he will install a light and that this could
be a condition of approval .
Commissioner Dotson asked the reason the applicant could not provide
access off Gene Autry and develop an internal circulation pattern.
Mr. Wessman stated that he tried for years to get tenants for the property
but that he was unsuccessful because of the lack of access to Ramon,
especially with his competition in Cathedral City having access. He stated
that people have to turn out of the site and go back to Palm Springs and
that the development will go to Cathedral City i�naoccess is allowed.
..,.
Commissioner Dotson stated that if cars exit to Gene Autry, they can turn
back to Palm Springs.
April 12, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 19
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
I,
TPM 24346. (Continued)
Mr. Wessman stated that every other city allows access to Ramon; that
traffic lights and access are required to make the center work; and that
access is the most important element. He stated that on the highway there
will be commercial uses with light manufacturing in the interior; and that
he told staff he would put in a traffic signal .
Planning Director stated that commercial uses require a Conditional Use
Permit in the M-1 Zone.
There being no further appearances, Chairman closed the hearing.
Commissioner Hough stated that he could see the developer's point of view
regarding access to Ramon and had no concerns about the right in and out,
put had a problem with the left turn.
Chairman stated that a requirement for a right turn should be made. Mr.
Wessman agreed.
Discussion followed on a signal light at the intersection.
In reply to Commissioner Whitney, Traffic Engineer stated that the actual
light to light distance is 1320 feet splitting the actual access between
San Luis Rey and Gene Autry; that although there would be no current use on
the south side, access at San Luis Rey is an ideal way to get out of
the project and go east or west.
Mr. Wessman commented that Caltrans allows 660 ft. between the signals on
the highway and that that is the distance between the signals between
San Luis Rey and Gene Autry.
Commissioner Dotson commented that if cars came out on Gene Autry or San
Luis Rey, it would be the same as coming out of the center.
Planning Director explained that reciprocal access easements will be
required and staff has concerns about not having a development plan for the
map. He stated that on site circulation is required property to property;
that traffic could go east or west without having to go the central access,
but that the applicant does not want to commit to a definite alignment.
Commissioner Mills stated that the auto park across the street has an
approved access point with a left turn and wondered why the Commission
approved it. He asked if staff were in favor of an access point on the
north side.
Planning Director stated that Traffic Engineer was not.
In reply to Commission question, Traffic Engineer stated that later a
double left turn movement on Gene Autry can be allowed.
Commissioner Mills stated that the requirements of staff stated no left
turn access from the lots and a reciprocal easement would allow movement
for cars to get to a left turn.
April 12, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 20
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
TPM 24346. (Continued)
M/S/C (Mills/Hough; Olsen absent) approving TPM 24346 based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. That the proposed 38 lot subdivision is in conformance with the provision
of the W-M-1 Zone.
2. That the proposed parcel map complies with the General Plan, Subdivision
Map Act, Subdivision Ordinance, and is not . detrimental to existing or
future uses permitted in the area.
3. That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate future uses
including yards, setbacks, walls, landscaping and other features required
to adjust the use to existing or future uses permitted in the area.
4. The site is served by Ramon Road and Gene Autry Trail , two major thorough-
fares, and by San Luis Rey Drive and Sunny Dunes Road, two collector
streets, all of which are capable of carrying the type and quantity of
traffic to be generated by any future uses.
5. The conditions imposed are necessary to protect the public health, safety
and welfare.
Conditions:
1. That all of the Development Committee conditions dated March 14, 1989, as
amended, shall be met.
2. That all of the mitigation measures of the environmental assessment dated
March 23, 1989, shall be met.
3. That a signal light be installed on Ramon Road half-way between Gene Autry
Trail and San Luis Rey.
TRIBAL COUNCIL COMMENTS
1. Concurred with the filing of a Negative Declaration subject to the mitiga-
tion measure contained in environmental assessment dated March 23, 1989.
2. Concurred with the findings outlined in Planning Commission Staff Report
dated April 12, 1989, and approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 24346 subject
to Development Committee conditions dated March 14, 1989.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT ACTION AGENDA
Approval of architectural cases is valid for two years. The approval granted
must be exercised within that time period unless extended.
5.0427-CUP. Application by RICHARD FISCHER for Sonny Bono for architectural
approval of minor addition to restaurant and discotheque at 1700 N. Indian
Avenue between Vista Chino/Via Escuela, R-3 Zone, Section 2.
April 12, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 21
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA (Continued)
5.0427-CUP. (Continued)
Planning Director explained that the revision allows for expansion of the
east side of the building away from the street and that the AAC recommended
approval .
M/S/C (Hough/Edgmon; Mills abstained; Olsen absent) approving the applica-
tion as submitted.
i
CASE 5.0488-CUP. Application by CHRIS MILLS for Warner Cable for architectural
approval of revised site plan and architecture for Warner Cable Service
Center on Farrell Drive/Tachevah Drive, N-0-5 Zone, Section 12.
Planner (Abbas) stated that Warner Cable has changed its plans to develop
the entire property and has decided to build the service facility only; and
that the site plan has been revised and closes the cul-de-sac which was a
condition of approval of the airport map.
M/S/C (Hough/Dotson; Mills abstained; Olsen absent) approving the applica-
tion as submitted.
SIGN APPLICATION. Application by SIGN ARTS for the Radisson Hotel (formerly
Riviera) for architectural approval of main identification sign for hotel
on the northeast corner of N. Indian Avenue/Vista Chino, R-3 Zone, Section
2.
Zoning Enforcement Officer explained that the sign will be located at the
intersection of Vista Chino and N. Indian Avenue; it will be part of the
block wall at that location and will be slightly radiussed. He stated that
the cabinet will be set into the wall and will be textured to look like
part of the wall . He stated that the design is an exciting innovation
which could be applied in other locations; that it will be lighted for a
halo effect; and that no seams will show.
M/S/C (Whitney/Edgmon; Olsen absent) approving the sign application as sub-
mitted.
CASE 5.0247-CUP (TIME EXTENSION) . Application by SONNY BONO for a 12-month time
extension for a conditional use permit for a restaurant and discotheque on
N. Indian Avenue between Via Escuela/Vista Chino, R-3 Zone, Section 12.
Planning Director explained that the CUP was approved two years ago; that
staff recommends approval ; and that the number of seats in the restaurant
will be reviewed by staff.
M/S/C (Hough/Edgmon; Mills abstained; Olsen absent) approving a 12-month
time extension for CUP 5.0247 subject to all original conditions of
approval .
CASE 20.111 (CZ-5427) . Request by RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT for
Planning Commission consideration of a change of zone from W-2 to C-P-S on
property north of I-10/west of Palm Drive (Gene Autry Trail ) , Sphere-of-
Influence.
April 12, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 22
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA (Continued)
CASE 20.111 (CZ-5427) . (Continued)
Planning Director stated that staff is requesting an overall Specific Plan
for Palm Drive to see traffic impacts.
M/S/C (Whitney/Hough; Olsen absent) recommending a Specific Plan of the
Palm Drive corridor to determine traffic impacts.
TTM 16759. Request by PETER TYNBERG for Planning Commission consideration of
deletion of architectural requirements for an existing subdivision on
Bogert Trail , east of S. Palm Canyon Drive, W-R-1-B Zone, Section 35.
Planning Director stated that two letters have been received requesting
that AAC review of the lots and the map be eliminated; that the map was
approved 8 years ago; that the staff requirement was to have AAC review of
all lots (which is a long time policy) ; that the project has a design
review process of unknown caliber within the project; that there is a six
foot wall around it; and that the yards cannot be seen. He stated however
that the Chaddick, Milner, and Andreas Hills tracts and all of the tracts
in the South Palm Canyon Area have architectural approval ; and staff recom-
mends retaining the requirement for architectural review.
M/S/C (Dotson/Edgmon; Olsen absent) denying the request to delete architec-
tural review from lots on TPM 16795.
DETERMINATION -- (General Plan) . PLANNING COMMISSION determination that the
sale of surplus land 10 acres on Tamarisk, west of Farrell Drive) does not
conflict with the City's General Plan.
Planning Director state that the City purchased the property from the
School District; that the area was originally marked as a school and park
on the General Plan but the designation has been removed; that the property
will be residential and that a sale is pending.
Commissioner Dotson asked if the City had reviewed alternate uses such as
park space.
Planning Director stated that the land has been reviewed for a pre-divided
subdivision.
Commissioner Dotson asked if this is the opportune time to sell the land.
Chairman stated that the City has no real use for the land since it is
surrounded by residential and can only be residential .
Assistant City Attorney reminded Commission that the only question is
whether or not the sale of the land is in conflict with the General Plan.
Planning Director stated that the Commission could pass onto Council its
concerns about the timing of the sale of the property.
April 12, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 23
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA (Continued)
20. DETERMINATION (General Plan) . (Continued)
M/S/C (Dotson/Hough; Mills/Lapham dissented; Olsen absent) that the sale of
the surplus land as described above is not in conflict with the City's
General Plan, 'and that the value to the City be optimized.
DETERMINATION 10.371. PLANNING COMMISSION determination that an auto rental
office is a compatible use in PD-193, a mixed use complex on El Cielo Road
between Tahquitz-McCallum Way/Ramon Road, P-Zone, Section 18 (Ref. Case
5.0459-PD-193) .
Planning Director stated that a letter had been received from Design
Associates, developer of a mixed use complex on El Cielo, to allow an auto
rental office in the Planned Development District for the project; that the
uses in this PD were specifically approved using C-1-AA Ordinance provi-
sions when the Planned Development District was approved; that the staff
concern is that storage of cars will overwhelm the parking lot (although
there will be a connection later with a larger parking lot) ; and that the
lot will appear as though it were a vehicle parking lot. He stated that
problems have occurred with the rental car agency on Vella which parks cars
on the street; that the applicant is requesting the use by right; and the
use could be added to allow it under a Land Use Permit or a Conditional Use
Permit.
Bernie Crawford, 1729 E. Palm Canyon, #204, developer, stated that Thrifty
and Executive Car Leases are two tenants in the new complex; that main-
tenance, storage and repair will not be permitted on the site; that a CUP
application could be made for a time frame for review in a year if there
are concerns; that Thrifty has its own maintenance and storage yard on
Mesquite; and Executive would pick-up airport passengers in a van and
transport them to the rental office where and they would leave by car. He
stated that there is a parking lot, not visible from the street, on the
complex; that the City receives 7% of the car rental for pickup at the
airport which is an opportunity to increase City income.
Planning Director read the list of all the uses under the PD and stated
that staff recommends against the auto rental use. He stated that the
Commission has to determine whether or not it is compatible with the other
uses in the PD; and that the proximity to the airport is the one factor
that relates to the use; and that if the Commission determines that the
use is compatible, an application for a LUP or a CUP should be required.
Chairman stated that the use should be under a CUP because there should be
no storage of autos.
M/S/C (Edgmon/Dotson; Mills abstained; Olsen absent) determining that an
auto rental office use in PD-193 is an allowable use if approved under a
CUP.
April 12, 1989 PC MINUTES Page 24
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Airplane Heights. Planning Director stated that airplanes advertising
Spring Games were not keeping a 1,000 ft. minimum height in residential
areas.
CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. Update of City Council actions .
CASE 5.0505-ZTA (Tennis Court Ordinance) . Approved by Council except the
16 ft. pole height was lowered in residential zones to 12 ft.
CASE 5.0501-CUP (Ben Perry Tennis Court) . Planning Commission denial was
appealed by the Mayor. Council continued the item until April 19 since
Mayor Bono was not present.
CASE 5.0482-CZ (Mixed Use Shopping Center/Entertainment Complex at Sunrise
and Vista Chino. Council reviewed the entertainment center at the study
session and was concerned that it would be competition to the downtown but
approved a contract for an EIR with a local consulting firm.
COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS OR REQUESTS.
High School Auditorium Remodel . Commissioner Whitney asked about the
remodeling of the Plaza Theater for use as a live theater because there has
been an offer to remodel the high school auditorium for the same use.
Planning Director stated that the Plaza Theater will not have a flyloft or
be enlarged.
Field Trip. Planning Commission field trip to review night lighting on the
hillsides, signs and landscaping at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 12.
ADDED STARTERS. (Determination of eligibility for consideration.) None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business , Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:35
p.m.
P AN G DIRECTOR
MDR/ml
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Council Chamber, City Hall
April 26, 1989
1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL F-Y 1988 - 1989
Present Present Excused Absences
Planning Commission This Meeting to Date to Date
Larry Lapham, Chairman X 18 2
Gary Olsen X 16 4
Barbara Whitney X 15 5
Brent Hough X 18 2
Martha Edgmon X 18 2
Chris Mills X 16 2
Michael Dotson X 17 0
Staff Present
Marvin D. Roos , Planning Director
Siegfried Siefkes , Assistant City Attorney
Debra Goodwin, Planner
Sherri Abbas , Planner
Douglas Evans , Planner
John Terell , Redevelopment Planner
Dave Forcucci , Zoning Enforcement
Dean Lewis , Traffic Engineer
Mary E. Lawler, Recording Secretary
Architectural Advisory Committee - April 24, 1989
Brent Hough,, Chairman
Will Kleindienst
William Johnson
Tom Doczi
Mike Buccino
Reuel Young
Tom Doczi
Chairman called the meeting to order at 1 :30 p.m.
M/S/C (Dotson/1-lough)g ) approving minutes"` of April 12, 1989 iith the following
correction :
Page 20, Paragraph 1 ; TPM 24346; Add : "Dotson dissented (feeling the light is not
needed on Ramon Road between Gene Autry Trail /San Luis Rey) ."
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA:
The April 26, 1989 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall
exterior bulletin board and the Planning Division Counter by 5:00 p.m. , Friday,
April 21 , 1989.