Ron's Log

« California Population Rising | Main | Barbara Branden Dead At Age 84 »

December 13, 2013

DHS Planning Commission - 12/10/2013

Commissioner Colarossi was absent from this meeting of the Planning Commission and is, I was told, technically no longer a Commissioner because he has had at least three unexcused absences.

Commissioner Gerardi asked that the Public Hearing be moved to the top of the agenda so that the applicant wouldn't have to sit through three discussion items.

Rio Ranch Changes

The applicant is Sears, the owner of KMart, which is remodeling its property so that it can lease about a third of it to Rio Ranch Market, a supermarket chain. This project was approved by the Planning Commission in May of this year. Since then, Sears tells us, they got bids that were way high. So did some "value engineering" and re-bid the project. It still came in high. So Sears came to the city and asked to be excused from a laundry list of improvements that the Planning Commission had required. City staff talked them down from that crazy place so that finally Sears was asking for only these three revisions to the Conditions of Approval:

• There is a requirement for a perforated metal screen that will go along the Two Bunch Palms Trail side of the building to screen the loading dock from public view. The screen is to be attached to the fence that already exists. Sears proposed to delete this requirement entirely. The ALRC (at their December 5 meeting) suggested a "screening type shrub" along there instead.
• The Conditions of Approval passed in May 2013 required Sears to reseal and re-stripe the entire parking area that they own. This is shown in green here:
  
  Now they are requesting to reduce that to just the area in front of Rio Ranch. As shown below:
  
  The parking lot needs to be repaved with a 2-inch cap. To do the entire KMart parking lot would cost at least $185,000, Sears says. So they propose to repave the area in front of Rio Ranch (as shown above) and slurry seal and re-stripe the rest of the KMart parking lot.
• Allow the landscaping and other site work to be phased in over 36 months. Below is the landscape plan that was approved back in May.
  

Chair Sobotta initiated a discussion of what kind of shrub would be used for that screen. He suggested that rather than any kind of shrub, a vine like cat's claw is what they would need.

Commissioner Romero wanted to know how the landscaping would be phased in. Is there an actual phasing plan? Her first concern on landscaping is the area around the bus stop on Palm Drive. There are some "nasty,ratty trees" in the parking lot that can wait, but the area along Palm Drive can't.

Vice Chair Gerardi asked what the benefit to the city would be if these requests were approved. Martín Magaña said all other conditions remain and there is no change to the landscaping except to spread it out over 36 months. Using plants to screen the loading dock would add some color and might look better than the metal screen. He said KMart put a slurry seal on the parking lot about 4 years ago, and it's not in bad shape now, but it is worn. The ultimate benefit is a new business and more shoppers in that shopping center.

The representative from Sears came to the podium. He said that by phasing in some of the work over 3 years it will give Rio Ranch some time to get going. The landscaping will be done completely, he said. He said that the metal screen originally proposed along Two Bunch Palms Trail would cost $40,000. They are investigating alternative materials for the parking lot that might cost less. Mr. Sobotta suggested he look into GlassGrid, which the Sears representative had not heard of before.

Dean Gray came up to comment. He said he has seen many developments being shortchanged. "Being business-friendly does not mean going cheap," he said. He asked the Commission to keep our standards high. He said that it will take a long time for trees to grow big enough to match the screening of the proposed metal screen. The parking lot needs to be redone. What is the benefit to the city to wait three years? The proposed new landscaping is not extraordinary. He has seen developers come to DHS and ask for concessions, variances and delays. This leads to trouble. We have a history of allowing developers to cheapen their projects because we are so eager to get development. Construction is expensive, he said, and "it's just the cost of doing business."

The Sears representative said he has been in construction for "quite a number of years" and he has worked for KMart for a long time. They need to make sure the tenant is viable. They need to get the cash flow going. "We have no intentions of bailing out on any of this." If the return on investment isn't there, Rio Ranch won't be there either.

Mr. Gerardi asked how many other projects KMart had done with Rio Ranch. The answer is that this is the first time they've done it with Rio Ranch, but they've done the same deal with other supermarkets. Mr. Gerardi said he was surprised they missed the mark so much. The applicant said "That's a very long story."

Mr. Sobotta said that cat's claw needs something to climb on. They can put up a material that is much cheaper than the proposed metal screen if all they need to do is support a vine. They could put wire horizontally along the existing fence.

Ms. Romero said that if anyone wants to see how densely cat's claw will grow, just go by the DHS Nursery on Palm Drive at Flora. All that greenery growing on the carport structure is cat's claw. She said that "we have to compromise sometimes in order to get the job done." If we take a hard line we can end up with nothing, she said. "Rio Ranch is not a giant corporation." [It has seven stores.]

Commissioner Burke asked what kind of teeth do we have to enforce any phasing plan. Mr. Magaña said that if the Conditions of Approval were not met the Planning Commission could revoke their entitlements, which would shut down the business.

The applicant suggested the possibility of a performance bond.

Mr. Gerardi asked "What's our track record on using bond money to enforce improvements?" This brought a round of chuckles from almost everyone in the room. Mr. Gerardi said he thought that bonds would be too uncertain considering the state of the city now.

Mr. Gerardi said he was not in favor of granting any of the applicant's requests. He wasn't in favor of the project when it first came up. He said that when they initially came in this looked like a band-aid on something that needed something more. This is a prime piece of property in the heart of our town and it looks terrible, he said. The proposal is still not very good. The place should be pristine and look like a class property. "I don't see the benefit to this community." If Rio Ranch walks "I don't see it being that big a deal," he said. He said the applicant should have known the costs before they first proposed this. He has seen it before when developers promise something and then come back later and want it changed. HE thinks the city compromised a great deal on this originally. "We're done compromising on this."

Chair Sobotta said that many things had been done to try to keep KMart in place and profitable, including bringing Walgreen's there, building the strip that originally housed Blockbuster and bringing Starbucks in. He said "For any of these businesses we want things to pop really nice, really sharp." Delaying the landscaping gives him concerns about losing Rio Ranch "because it's not going to pop." It needs to look fresh and new. He said the KMart center may have to compete with Walmart in a few years and it's won't compete the way it looks now. It can't wait three years to make it. He said he would be willing to compromise on the screening for the loading dock. He would like to revisit the requirement for the stone facing on the pilasters only in front of Rio Ranch. People have been asking why the Planning Commission didn't require those across the whole front of the building, including KMart.

[At the earlier hearing Sears had said it would cost much too much to re-do those pilasters because they would have to be completely rebuilt to carry the added weight.]

Vice Chair Gerardi moved to simply deny.

At this time the Chair asked Senior Planner Rich Malacoff (who's sorta new) to explain the idea of using minute motions to approve. This subject was originally on the agenda before the KMart/Rio Ranch request and it may have had some relevancy to the procedures at this point in the hearing.

Mr. Malacoff said that minute motions still had all the documentation that would go along with the usual resolution, except that instead of approving the resolution, the Planning Commission would simply vote to recommend to the City Council that it approve (or deny) the resolution. The benefit is staff time. It takes less work for staff to prepare for a meeting if the commission will approve using minute motions.

In this particular case staff had not prepared a resolution to deny the request so he asked for a brief recess so one could be prepared. In response to a question from Mr. Gerardi, Mr. Malacoff said that the Commission needs to provide strong findings for a denial, just as it would for an approval. It needs to be legally sustainable. The Chair called for a recess and Mr. Malacoff retired to the backroom along with Mr. Magaña and Attorney Quintanilla to draft up something.

They brought back a brief resolution with only these findings: (1) it's not consistent with the original approval and (2) the proposed changes will not make a positive contribution to the shopping center and the Palm Drive corridor.

Ms. Romero asked if the matter of the parking lot was a safety issue. She asked if it was possible to let this go forward without compromising the Commission's original intent. Mr. Gerardi asked "What was our original intent?" Ms. Romero answered that it was to have a nice looking center. Mr. Gerardi responded that it was the appearance, not safety. Ms. Romero agreed. She said that if we allowed the living screen of the loading dock and denied the delay on landscaping, we could allow a phasing of the parking lot repaving.

Mr. Gerardi said "You get more landscaping for us..."

Mr. Sobotta asked Mr. Magaña to refresh the Commission's memory of what was required for the landscaping. Mr. Magaña said there would be the landscaping along Palm (not around the Walgreen's corner), the area along Two Bunch Palms Trail between Walgreen's and KMart, and landscaping along the northern facade of the building which includes removal of those overgrown mesquite trees. Also there will be improvements in just the three islands in front of where Rio Ranch will be, plus all the trees throughout the parking lot.

Mr. Gerardi said this was the minimum that they presented to the Commission. They aren't even doing all the planted areas in front of the building. Ms. Romero said she didn't want to compromise on the landscaping at all, but the parking lot...

"If Rio Ranch walks, they walk," Mr. Gerardi said. He added that he didn't know if that particular business was that valuable to the city.

Commissioner Burke said that the city needs new businesses, but he agrees with Mr. Gerardi. He said it's a balancing act, but he wants to be on record that he thinks it's important to get Rio Ranch market. He doesn't want to steer any business away.

Mr. Gerardi said he agreed that he doesn't want to turn away any business, but he wants them to know "we've got a certain level of standards and we're going to adhere to those standards." We need to clean up the community and find businesses that will partner with us to do that.

Mr. Sobotta said his thoughts were of protecting the integrity of KMart itself. It's imperative to give this shopping center a facelift, he said. He asked rhetorically how many similar situations the Commission had let go by - that is, an applicant coming back to ask for changes allows the Planning Commission to open up all issues and add more conditions. The prominent location of this shopping center made it critical to the appearance of the city as people come in along Palm Drive.

Mr. Burke said that the building must look good to compete with Walmart and it's to KMart's advantage to improve the property as soon as it can.

[Ya know, it could work to the city's advantage if the Walmart proposal just hung where it is in its pre-EIR stage for several years. The Planning Commission could hold that over every developer's head. "You know, if you don't improve your property to this level, the Walmart boogie man is going to come in and eat your business for lunch." My apologies to the Economic Development Committee for that heresy.]

Mr. Sobotta said that what could happen is that Rio Ranch has a blah looking exterior and people keep driving by without realizing it's there. "We've got to freshen up this and make it really pop," he said. He is concerned that Rio Ranch may lose out if the Commission compromises. "They've got to hit the road running," he added. He said that they had already compromised a little bit on this project. "I don't think we need to compromise anymore."

Mr. Gerardi said he could see the benefit of a live screen along the loading dock and suggested the applicant might want to come back with a better proposal on that.

Mr. Malacoff said that the Commission could continue this hearing to allow the applicant to come back with a proposal.

Attorney Quintanilla suggested that the landscaping and parking lot items could be denied outright, while denying the loading dock screening item "without prejudice." This would allow Sears to come back with another proposal.

Mr. Gerardi asked if their decision would be appealable to the City Council. Mr. Quintanilla said it is. Mr. Gerardi modified his motion to state that the loading dock screen item was denied without prejudice. The other two issues remained as simple denials.

The denial was approved 4-0.

Proposed Conditions of Approval

This was a presentation to the Commission of a sort of template for Conditions of Approval. I imagine the benefits of this are to (1) give applicants an idea of what will be required of them in DHS, and (2) to help assure that no planner (current or future) overlooks any of our standard conditions. It guarantees greater consistency while also expediting the process.

Mr. Gerardi asked about item 12C. Item 12 pertains to Art In Public Places. It starts out saying that developer must comply with AIPP requirement and then lists the options which are

1. Install a piece of public art themselves; or
2. If the amount of the AIPP requirement (0.75% of the project's value) is less than $20,000, then the developer can just pay that amount into the AIPP fund; or
3. "Nothing in this section shall prohibit the Applicant/Developer from placing an approved public art with acquisition and installation costs in an amount less than the Art in Public Places Program allocations, where the 0.5% or 0.75%, as required and provided in subsection A of this section, value of the public art exceeds $20,000.00 and provided that the Applicant/Developer shall also pay into the Art in Public Places Fund an amount equal to the difference between the Art in Public Places Program allocation and the costs of acquisition and installation of such public art. "

Wow! Confused grammar and missing words, but what I think it says is that the developer can choose a combination of A and B. Put up some less expensive public art and then pay the difference into the AIPP fund. But that paragraph is copied verbatim from the City Code, 17.60.050 so I think we can lay the responsibility for that mess to the city's previous law firm.

Mr. Malacoff said this was a standard condition that already exists. The rates referred to are 0.5% for residential and 0.75% for commercial. Mr. Gerardi thinks it means what I said above, but he asked Mr. Malacoff to look at it and clean it up.

Mr. Malacoff said he didn't think any projects had done their own art. [But he would think wrong - Hacienda Hills had their own art which is now, IIRC, standing in front of the Visitor Center.]

Mr. Sobotta asked about a provision prohibiting outside storage, placement of payphones. Mr. Malacoff said there is a provision in there that says payphones are prohibited. [But I haven't found it yet.] Mr. Burke asked if anyone saw anybody using payphones. He said that would be like seeing a unicorn.

I think that's an interesting comparison because at Burning Man you can find both payphones and unicorns.

Mr. Sobotta said that there is a payphone on the west side of Walgreen's. He was sure that when the Walgreen's application was processed in 1999 that they Planning Commission prohibited any outside storage including vending machines or payphones. He added that the fact that you see exposed conduit leading up to the phone is confirmation that they did not permit it originally. Mr. Malacoff said he would check Walgreen's Conditions of Approval and report back to the Commission.

Mr. Sobotta suggested considering a list of permitted exterior colors. He said Palm Desert has a list of 22 colors. This makes it easier when covering up graffiti. It would also restrict businesses from changing their exterior colors without getting a review from the city.

Mr. Malacoff put it on his to-do list.

Mr. Magaña said that Code Enforcement is already working on the matter of the payphone at Walgreen's. Mr. Malacoff said he and Mr. Magaña had discussed that future zoning changes could include getting rid of all outdoor Redboxes, Blue Rhinos, and payphones. But he doesn't think propane can be stored indoors, but a store that has an enclosed outdoor garden area [like KMart used to have] could deal with it.

Mr. Malacoff said the code should include more specific standards for drive-thrus as well - 4-foot walls to prevent stray headlight glare, minimum turning radius, maximum number of outside menus, speaker volume limits, etc.

Mr. Gerardi said that some [unnamed] member of the City Council has been telling him that the zoning code requires every house have at least one 15-gallon size tree in the front yard and asked if that was correct. Mr. Malacoff said no, but code requires an approved ground cover. Mr. Sobotta said he thought it was two trees.

[I can't find anything like this in the code for existing homes, although Conditions of Approval for housing developments may include it.]

Mr. Magaña said that when he came to DHS in 2009 the Planning Department had a handout that was intended for in-fill development and code enforcement that had guidelines that called for at least two trees in the front yard, but no size was specified.

Palms count as "trees" for landscaping purposes in Desert Hot Springs.

Delivery Of Planning Commission Materials

This was a discussion of how the Commissioners want to get their agenda packets. During the discussion it gradually became clear to me that the agenda packets for Planning Commissioners have been being delivered by hand to each Commissioner. Yes, an actual city employee would get in a car and drive around the city to drop them off. I never knew that, and I have never heard of that being done for any other body - but you can bet the next time I get a chance I'll ask a Planning Commissioner in some other city how they get their materials.

Mr. Malacoff asked the Commissioners what their opinions were on either electronic delivery coupled with a hard copy at the meeting, or just coming in to City Hall to pick up their copies.

Mr. Burke was okay with electronic delivery.

Ms. Romero can't visually deal with the electronic version, and she doesn't have a printer.

Mr. Magaña said the City Council gets an email message containing a link to their agenda packet. Kristie Ramos clarified that for any City Council member who doesn't want to deal with the electronic version on their iPad the city staff will print it out for them so they can come in and pick it up.

The consensus was to send it electronically and print a paper copy. Commissioners who want to could come in and pick up the paper version and any not picked up would be brought to the Commission meeting.

Use of Minute Motions to Approve Projects

City code does not require a resolution for approval (or denial) of a Conditional Use Permit, a design review, or a development permit. State law requires a resolution when approving any legislative item, like a General Plan amendment, a Specific Plan amendment, or a zoning change.

Approving items by minute motions takes less staff time.

Reports & Comments

Mr. Magaña said they would be meeting soon with Tahiti Partners trying to finalize some items in their plan check.

The creation of the public art for the Health & Wellness Center is underway. Completion is expected by March 2014.

There is a project proposed for the vacant lot on the east side of Palm Drive between 2nd and 3rd. It will be office/retail. Under 10,000 square feet. The goal is to bring it to the Commission in February.

Scott Monroe, the owner of what will be the Vista Ventana, has purchased the old Riviera on Hacienda. This will require much more work than the Vista Ventana. All of the front parking is in the right of way, so it will have to go. He will need to build a new parking lot in back.

Mr. Malacoff said a lot of film permits are being issued. A film is currently being shot at night at the Flamingo on Pierson. Earlier they had been shooting at the former gas station at Indian and Pierson which is in the county. Our Police Department has notified county code enforcement that they really need to do something with that place. Feedback from the county is that the structures on the site will be torn down within 3 months.

Commissioner Gerardi said there was something in the paper that suggested something happening with either Tuscan Hills or Walter Luce or both. Mr. Magaña said he saw the article and it wasn't clear what location was being talked about, but it was described as a 160 acre project for Senior living, but nothing has come into the Planning Department. Mr. Malacoff said Walter Luce had made an appointment with him but didn't show. Mr. Magaña said Walter Luce had tried to set up a meeting with Interim City Manager Robert Adams.

Walmart wants to submit their latest revisions of the EIR to staff for screen check before releasing it publicly.

Filed under Desert Hot Springs | permalink | December 13, 2013 at 05:52 PM

Comments

The comments to this entry are closed.