Palm Desert City Council - Study Session, August 28, 2025

Transcript text

AI transcript text.

[00:03:53] Speaker: Welcome everyone to Palm Desert City Council study session for August 28th at 2:15 p.m. And let's just jump into what we need to get accomplished here. Our first item is 2A, update on the 2025 California Desert Pine Air Festival sponsorship.
[00:04:23] Erikica Pal: Good afternoon, mayor and members of the city council. I'm Erikica Pal from the Economic Development Department. Today's item is an update on the sponsorship of the 2025 California Desert Planer Festival. The inaugural festival introduced a new partnership between Palm Springs Life and the Desert Plain Air Association with the city of Palm Desert supporting the event as title sponsor. Staff has invited Paulina Larson from Palm Springs Life to, excuse me, Palm Springs Life to provide a brief overview of the 2025 festival. Paulina.
[00:05:05] Presenter: Good afternoon, Mayor and Council members. Thank you so much for inviting us back to take you through the recap of the 2025 California Desert Plein Air Festival.
[00:05:20] Presenter: This event is owned and produced by the California Desert Plein Air Association. Palm Springs Life is a marketing partner. We, as yourselves, decided to sponsor and really be able to market this event, and so we are here in partnership with them because we believe in this event and we want to thank you for your support and for this vision.
[00:05:43] Presenter: And I will take you through quickly this year's event. We were able to attract artists from near and far for a three-week festival that celebrated the best of traditional painting landscape, also known as plein air. We were able to bring 175 artists through to the Coachella Valley for four days of exceptional paintouts, and they were able to tour our entire destination as well as your city to be able to do their art.
[00:06:19] Presenter: Artists picked and studied their vantage points and were able to submit their art pieces for a three-week exhibit, which was a really great opportunity for this artist community to immerse themselves in the beauty of the Coachella Valley.
[00:06:44] Presenter: Part of our mechanism in soliciting these artists to come here was really to invite them and tout the beauty of the Coachella Valley. One of the things that we did after the event is ask for them to give us their feedback. So I won't take you through all of their testimonials, but when you have a moment, if you can read through them, they had an amazing time in the desert and really enjoyed the beauty.
[00:07:12] Presenter: Years ago, when plein air art was first established, the Coachella Valley was actually one of the original artist colonies because of the train station. This was one of the stops. And so when artists came, they saw our majestic mountains and they saw the beauty. And so being able to bring that back and bring that art form to really one of its inceptions is really exciting.
[00:07:35] Presenter: And so this year, getting their feedback and knowing that they're looking forward to the next year's event was really an exciting note for us to read. But I wanted to highlight that we were able to bring nationally acclaimed artists. This event, although not in its first years, has been really quietly produced, and with this year's partnership with the marketing arm and really promoting and raising funds of the prize package, we were able to draw in nationally acclaimed artists to participate in three categories, which is studio painting, a plein air competition, as well as that exhibit.
[00:08:16] Presenter: So here you can see some of those names. We had over 200 artist submissions, which is incredible for the first year that we've put a lot of marketing push behind this.
[00:08:27] Presenter: As far as attendees, and we look at this event, the artists are also an important audience for us because we want them to continue to come here even outside of the festival dates to really experience the beauty, but also from the attendee side, we were able to attract 3,000 patrons through that three-week-long event.
[00:08:50] Presenter: So whether they were doing paintouts at the Living Desert or paints on El Paseo, or whether they entered the Palm Desert Artist Center, we welcomed 3,000 attendees. This was the first year that we actually were able to calculate the attendance. In the past, there wasn't a mechanism in place. This year, with expanded programming and programming that was ticketed, we were able to come to this figure. So, really excited that now we have this barometer of attendance and we'll be able to measure it year over year.
[00:09:28] Presenter: One of the mechanisms also of this event was the editorial and the marketing and media push. So, by leveraging the recognition of the artist and the areas that the artists were going to be activating in, we were able to secure over 241,000 impressions of editorial, which is a media value of $32,000. This is the media talking about the plein air festival, as well as media impressions. So now there was a marketing arm to this event promoting activations on El Paseo at the...
[00:10:00] Presenter: Living Desert as well as other locations. So all in all, we were able to garner over a million and three impressions, which is a value of $100,000, which is really great numbers. I won't take you through everything, but I did want to just show you a little bit of what the editorial looked like both across platforms. This will show you the specific breakdown in terms of what it did for print advertising, digital signage, and collateral. That was also a piece, a very important piece. The website and ticketing platform—this was the first year that we also relaunched the look and feel of the Plein Air Festival. So, we were able to include additional programming as well as ticketing opportunities. Here are some of the advertisements. A lot of the ads here you'll see are part of Palm Springs Life. These were at no charge; those were things that we, as part of our sponsorship, gave the event. There was investments made to other media, such as Plein Air Magazine and other publishing titles for art categories, and digital advertising, as well as signage and collateral. And that's sort of our guerrilla marketing, as we call it, as we lead up to the event. We want to let people know that this would be taking place. And here's a snippet of our ticketing and our partners and sponsors this year. And we also wanted to show you a little bit of these artists. These were taken all throughout their activations. You could see some of them were in your parks, in the Living Desert, and other scenic locations. And here is some photographs of the three-week exhibit and opening gallery. So, we want to thank you very much for your support. We think that Palm Desert is poised to be the next Laguna Beach or Carmel, where we're able to leverage these artists and being able to bring in an artist colony and continue to attract visitors and give other reasons for residents, full-timers, and part-timers to enjoy living in Palm Desert. Do we have any questions?
[00:12:16] Councilmember 1: Oh, please.
[00:12:17] Councilmember 2: Thank you. And I got to say, I attended pretty much every event at the Artists Council. I love what they're doing. This was a great event. Couple of questions on the numbers. 3,000 attendees—is that unique visitors, or is that 150 of the same people showing up 20 days?
[00:12:32] Presenter: Yeah, those are—that's not a unique number. You could have someone that went to the Living Desert and then someone that came in through the artists. So, we don't have a unique number. So yeah, some of them could be duplicates. It's really hard to sort of calculate unique numbers when we have different entry points. So, that's just what we were able to count at the Artists Council and then through our ticketing.
[00:12:55] Councilmember 2: Okay, very good. And then secondly, the city sponsored to the tune of $25,000, I believe.
[00:13:01] Presenter: I believe, Erica... Yes, okay.
[00:13:04] Councilmember 2: That put us up as the lead or title sponsor, it looked like. According to the advertising I saw, we were right there at the top.
[00:13:11] Presenter: Yes.
[00:13:12] Councilmember 2: We actually named the event Palm Desert—Palm Desert, California Desert Plein Air. And what was the total sponsorship dollars amount among all the sponsors? Just trying to get an idea of...
[00:13:22] Presenter: Yeah, and I don't have the budget, but I know we have sent it up. I believe our really only cash sponsors at this time has been the City of Palm Desert, El Paseo, and then us with our media. So, everyone else we've been leveraging, you know, trade and so forth. But we have the full financials and the budget that we would be happy to send over to you so you can see. But this event has been really small, and it still continues to be small, and that's why your support is really important because it allows us to again continue to go out and attract these artists. One of the things that we learned when we produce events is if our talent has a really great experience, they will tell other people in the industry and they will want to come out. So that's really important for us. And also, really raising the prize package, because that's going to attract the most acclaimed artists who are competing currently.
[00:14:22] Councilmember 2: Perfect. And last question: the plan is to put it on again in 2026?
[00:14:27] Presenter: Yes, the plan is to produce another event in 2026. And even though the event really takes place in January through February, we want to be able to expand on how many times the artists come. So yes, the event's going to take place, but we might have activations during the off-season and other parts. So, we're talking to El Paseo about maybe doing an informal paint-out with some artists in the fall leading up to the festival again to really be able to draw in the entire year and the...
[00:15:02] Presenter: ...artist to come here and paint. And so far, I think they've really liked that idea.
[00:15:10] Council Member: I really appreciate Palm Desert's name being associated with these type of events. You know, it's elegant. It's the arts, and it just speaks to the Palm Desert persona. So, I think this is wonderful.
[00:15:26] Presenter: Thank you. Yeah, we too believe in this event. And when we met Diane two years ago, the first year it was too late for us to get involved, but we photographed it to be able to rebrand it. And the next year, which was 2025, that's when we came on board. We said, 'Okay, we'll help you in your marketing arm.' And we wanted to present it to you because from all of our partners, we know how invested you are in the arts, and so we felt that Palm Desert was poised to take this and welcome our artist community.
[00:15:59] Council Member: Thank you.
[00:16:00] Presenter: Thank you for your support.
[00:16:01] Mayor: Thank you. Okay, we will now move to 2B, provide direction on certificate of appropriateness process for historic properties.
[00:16:16] Carlos Flores: Thank you, Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. Carlos Flores, Development Services, here to present on the item in front of you today. So, just a little bit of background. A certificate of appropriateness is an application that's required for any modifications to either a designated or eligible historic property. Our recently completed citywide survey gave staff a resource to identify properties that would be subject to the certificate of appropriateness application. We really have two issues here at hand that we're looking for direction on. The first one is that our current code, when it comes to these applications, has an unclear process based off scopes of work on certain sections. Generally speaking, it gives staff or an administrator in staff the ability to approve these applications. But the code itself provides an unclear process on whether it's a staff approval, or whether it should be given to City Council for approval, or whether it should be given to our Cultural Resources Preservation Committee, or CRPC, for approval. For example, demolitions or rear renovations to these properties. In certain sections, it says it's approved by staff. In certain sections, it says it's not something staff's to approve. And then in other sections, it says the CRPC is to review. The second part of this—
[00:17:38] Council Member: Something real quickly. You said something about—and later on in this voluminous agenda we have, we're going to be changing the name to the Historical Preservation Society. It's easier for me. Can we just use that? I think we're going to adopt it, or council or committee perhaps. My question is, you said 'for their approval.' Is it for their advice or for their approval?
[00:18:04] Carlos Flores: Right now, our code says historic committee, it is their approval.
[00:18:09] Council Member: Okay, thank you.
[00:18:10] Carlos Flores: And so that is the number two issue that we laid out here. Back in February 2023, a board or commission—boards or commissions were designated as bodies with final approval authority, and committees were referral bodies. But here in this code, this committee is still given final approval authority. So really, what we're laying out or asking this Council is: A, should we move forward with cleaning up this code, and B, what process should we use on this code? So staff has identified two different options. The first one is pretty similar to what we have right now when we're calling staff determination. And this is for a certificate of appropriateness to be approved by staff with the ability of staff to send it to City Council for final approval with historic committee recommendation. So what this would mean is that the code says these applications are approved by staff, but when staff reviews it, based off certain guidelines, frameworks, or findings, staff can determine, 'No, this should go in front of City Council for final approval and go to the historic committee for a referral.' We do this with other applications, say, an administrative use permit or things of that nature at a staff level where staff is still given the ability to pull it up. The other option provides more definition in scopes of work but less flexibility when it meets those certain parameters, and it's what I'm calling a minor/major review process or tiered process. And this would be where we would change the code to identify certain scopes of work are a minor application and other scopes of work are a major application. Everything that falls under minor would be approved by staff. Everything that falls under major definitely has to go—
[00:20:01] Carlos (Staff): ...to City Council with Historic Committee reviewing and referring the project. So again, this would mean that anything under major wouldn't have the flexibility or ability for staff to review and approve and would always go to City Council. But it would in turn provide more definition of what goes to who. Here's an example of what that would look like. So this is taken from the City of Pasadena, who has that minor/major framework, and they outline, you know, certain projects are a Category 1 review versus a Category 2, and outline, you know, demolitions go to their Historic Committee, minor projects reviewed by staff, and so they provide that distinction and a clear definition of what goes to what. So again, with all of that said, what staff is asking for is really a two-part. Part one is direction on let's revise this section to remove the committee final approval. And then part two, what direction we want to go for final approval of a staff approval approach or minor versus major? Thanks.
[00:21:12] Council Member: How long would it take staff to determine what is minor and major?
[00:21:19] Carlos (Staff): So for us, what we are saying is it would take about one to two weeks. We'd intake the application, make sure that the applicant's given us everything, but it would be pretty quick at that point...
[00:21:30] Council Member: ...because it's either going to fall under one scope or the other to determine major? Well, I guess what I should be more specific. How—what is the definition we're using for major? Was that on that last slide? How are you determining it's—
[00:21:44] Carlos (Staff): We don't have the definition right now of what's minor versus major. What we're asking for today is if we want to go through that approach, then staff would come back at a future date with an ordinance change proposing we think this is minor versus major, using other cities as examples.
[00:21:59] Council Member: I see. So the criteria has yet to be determined on what's going to constitute major versus minor.
[00:22:05] Carlos (Staff): Correct. We just want—
[00:22:07] Council Member: Okay. Got it.
[00:22:09] Council Member: I have a question. The major versus minor distinction, although we haven't defined it, have you or anyone else on staff put any thought to what that distinction might look like?
[00:22:24] Carlos (Staff): Yeah, I think—I'll pull up here the City of Pasadena, using that somewhat as a framework. You know, I think when it's a change to a property that's designated as historic, and let's say it's a demolition of that, that's something that's pretty clearly a major project. I think there's a big distinction between properties that are designated historic versus properties that are eligible to be designated. I think there's a big distinction, major or minor, there. And, you know, things like demolitions and really things that are facing the public side versus the rear provides a major versus minor on these properties.
[00:23:06] Council Member: So everything that's on the historical survey we did recently, are those officially designated, or would those fall in Category 2 as through survey?
[00:23:16] Carlos (Staff): Those would be eligible, right? So it'd be eligibility versus designation. And that is a big distinction that we'd likely say one is minor versus one is major.
[00:23:27] Council Member: And I think—I'm not speaking for everyone, but I think that there is some sentiment that the development community, even if the answer is yes or no, they're more interested in certainty and speed than anything else. So if the answer is no, they say, 'Just give us the answer no, that's fine. We'll move on.' What they don't like is uncertainty and lengthy timelines. So we're seeing that through some of our objective design standard work and trying to—these are the rules of the game upfront, you know the game. It appears to me that Category 2 is more in that direction of setting up more of the major versus minor and then setting those expectations earlier. Am I kind of understanding that correctly?
[00:24:20] Carlos (Staff): That's correct. Again, the one distinction I'm bringing up, right, is if we establish a major review, all of those would definitely have to go to City Council, right? We're providing that clarity as well, without the flexibility of a staff-level approval. But you're correct, it would provide a lot of the information upfront and saying, 'You meet this bucket, you meet this bucket, you know which path you want to go on.'
[00:24:46] Council Member: Thank you, Carlos. So one thing that kind of stuck out was in the very first background, under the background analysis in the staff report, about any modifications or...
[00:25:02] Speaker 1: ...to properties, structures or buildings that meet or may potentially meet certain historical criteria. So, I'm thinking, and there are buildings in town that say the owner bought them 30 years ago, just as a traditional building, not historically designated. And historically speaking, pun intended, I thought that the property owner had some determination in whether or not they wanted to adopt a historical designation to their building.
[00:25:33] Speaker 2: They have the ability on formal designation. That's correct. You know, they have to agree to be formally designated. It's the "eligible to be designated" that's a little, you know, looser, right? And it comes with looser, you know, guidelines on our end as well. But the citywide survey that was done, that was done to say this property may be eligible for these reasons.
[00:25:58] Speaker 1: But the effect or outcome is the same for the property owner. They say, "Hey, I want to demolish this thing or sell to a developer that's going to demolish them." If they may be eligible, or have been designated by the CRPC in that study we did as a building that is historically significant, their hands are tied either way, whether they choose to adopt that designation or whether they're simply just qualified by virtue of being eligible by age, historical significance, whatever.
[00:26:26] Speaker 2: What we're proposing today is for there to be a difference essentially, right? That a major versus minor would create that difference and saying just because you're on a list, that's different than being formally designated. It comes with, you know, less stringent rules on it because there is a difference between just being on a list as potentially versus being formally designated. And that's part of the reason why we identified we need to clean up this code to provide clear parameters of on one set you're potentially eligible and another set, you know, an owner has said, "I want my property to be designated and I want my property to be recognized as historic property." Okay, we're going to, and City Council has approved that. So our role is let's maintain that, right? We are going to make sure you don't modify your property because this is a historic property. The other one comes with, you know, we're still trying to maintain it, but there's less rules and findings, I guess, to be made to keep it that way. There's more that the owner can do to modify their property.
[00:27:32] Speaker 1: Okay. Isn't another factor that triggered this whole review is the fact that CRPC went from commission to committee?
[00:27:41] Speaker 2: Correct.
[00:27:41] Speaker 1: So, we've taken away their decision-making, however. So, therefore, we need to clean up the code to reflect that. Okay. So, I'm thinking, I'm going to give you a specific example like the Desert Magazine building built in the mid to late '40s by the Henderson Brothers, I believe. Say the owners have not adopted themselves as a historically significant building or designated that way. They want to knock out the front wall right now and expand the street. Would they be allowed to do that?
[00:28:06] Speaker 2: Right now, they would have to go through a certificate of appropriateness application. They would submit that to city staff. City staff would review and determine if it goes to CRPC, it goes to Council, or it's a staff level approval. Something like that would likely be something we'd punt up, right? We'd say, "CRPC, we want you to review. Council, we want you to make a decision on it." It's going to be case by case with the Council.
[00:28:30] Speaker 1: Okay, let's look at that one. That's a good one to look at because isn't that Jay's, and at one time it was Geronimos, which was a disco? But it has been so bastardized from the original architecture. Would it even fall under any of this?
[00:28:51] Speaker 2: That is part of the application process is considering alterations, right? That's something you look at when you formally designate something.
[00:28:57] Speaker 1: Okay.
[00:28:58] Speaker 2: Has it been altered so much that it's lost its historical integrity? That's something we review in the certificate of appropriateness as well.
[00:29:03] Speaker 1: Because I remember when we discovered those peeler poles are faux. They're not real. They just stuck peeler poles up there for effect, and then they've gone through tremendous amount of architectural change since then. Um, do you have more questions?
[00:29:20] Speaker 3: Okay. I, the "certain historical criteria" phrase is so ambiguous, and it's important to me because we could wind up really holding up a lot of people. And while we're trying to protect an awful lot, at the same time, one of the things we need to protect are property rights. And as a person who has a 60-year-old home and I've done some things on it and gone through the permit process, I certainly wouldn't want to be held up for 10 weeks to do something. I don't want Mills Act. I don't want historical designation. At the same time, I do my...
[00:30:00] Council Member: ...very best to remain true to the original architecture, but I don't want to have my hands tied. And I think there's a lot of people in that position. So, that's a concern I have when we talk about this. It's, you know, certain historical criteria. I'll bet my house showed up in that inventory we did, and I just want to make sure that we are not tying people's hands who want to go ahead and do the right thing at their home. You know, we're also in a position—those homes were built when environmental issues weren't a big issue. We're trying to put in good windows and upgrade our insulation, those sorts of things, and we don't want to be held back from that. So, I think we need to be really careful with this, and I wouldn't want to wait 10 weeks for an approval. You know, I put up a wall using breeze blocks that were absolutely congruous with the rest of the breeze blocks, and I got it through the planning process. I got my permit very quickly. This, though, I'm wondering if now I'm looking at weeks to get it done, and that makes me a little anxious.
[00:31:19] Staff: Yeah. And to add to that, right, I think if what I'm hearing, if we do want to distinguish between major versus minor, is reserving the major items to truly major items, right? And again, we'd come back for that and, you know, identify, okay, staff can approve this in a couple weeks on these minor items, basically similar to the scopes of work you're saying. And I also want to add that the certificate of appropriateness application is not necessarily meant for, you know, roadblocks and saying no. A big part of it is also recognition and recordkeeping for the future, right? Who, you know, did staff know that this property was, you know, historically significant, or did this person just go through this process and no one accounted for that? And so you are able to look back to say, sure, this property was historically significant, this is the work they were doing, and they have their right to do it. There was some sort of recognition on it. You know, a more significant version of that you see on certain properties, they leak plaques of some sort to recognize, okay, that was how they recognized what was here before versus what it is now, or even letting the owner know, did you know that your windows are from, you know, a certain year, and they maintain that part? So, it's part of recognition more so than information.
[00:32:36] Staff: And, Council Member Kinttonia, did you have something that—
[00:32:41] Council Member Kinttonia: Yes. Um, I am following along and I see the concern of what would take a little bit of time versus a lot. So, I really do appreciate having that distinction between major and minor. Um, so that that does make sense to be a little clearer, but I also wonder if this will also be streamlined by the process that is already in place for staff in even designating once we had staff move that approval to go through, you know, staff at a much deeper level before it goes to the committee. Would this also help reduce that since they have to go through the checklists? And the other consideration that I was thinking is that now that some of these committees and commissions meet so infrequently, that could take even longer in the process before it comes back. So, you know, wondering how that could be extended. I know that's out of your hands, but does that make sense? Am I communicating that?
[00:33:40] Staff: It does. And for the first part, the survey has been is a very, very valuable resource for staff to quickly identify whether or not this is potentially any significance at all. Before, without that survey, what staff would have to do is, I have this building here, I have to look up all the records, look up the year, and look up different things, and there is a lot of subjectivity to that, whether or not. And so it gets—it could have or could get kind of stuck. Now we have that survey to say, someone's already looked at this site, this is what they're saying. They actually looked at it and said there's no significance there. We don't even need an application. Let's move forward. And so staff is able to do that part quicker.
[00:34:17] Council Member Kinttonia: Okay, that that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. Um, the other question that I had, or just observation, is that members of the committee, or if it gets redesignated as a commission, they may not have the knowledge of what's going on in the area. What are potential other developments or changes? Would that have any impact on anything you may approve to a historic property if it's adjacent to something else? So, for example, if my colleague here has a home that has been designated, and then we're trying to figure out the wall that divides our property, would that prevent me from doing that? Where does that get—
[00:35:02] Councilmember: ...into play in terms of one property getting approved if it's adjacent to another that either does not want the determination or is in that limbo?
[00:35:12] Staff: Yeah. I mean, it's looked at on the property itself that's applying. You know, if there's other context that's needed that the applicant wants to give to a committee or council to approve it, you know, they can make that case, but it's really looked at on their site as well. When it comes to historic preservation, it's site-specific, unless it's a district of some sort.
[00:35:36] Councilmember: But my question was like, say that boundary—since I know that happens a lot with neighbors that dispute, 'No, that's my wall. No, that's your wall. I built it. No, you didn't. Here's the plans.' But things have changed. If a neighbor is adjacent, like I said, if hers is designated and my home is adjacent, would I have any limitations on building anything that touches that area? Does that make sense? If I wanted to put in any sort of agriculture and may need to...
[00:36:07] Staff: If it's on your property and your property is not designated, no, you would not have it. That becomes a civil—you know, we do deal with that, right? With shared walls. It becomes a civil issue between the two depending if it's a shared wall or entirely on one side. But if you are doing something on your side, on your property, and you're not designated, you don't have to go through—we don't have to consider your neighbor's designation.
[00:36:30] Councilmember: Perfect. Thank you.
[00:36:32] Mayor: Okay. So, do you kind of have—we absolutely... Oh, do you have more?
[00:36:39] Councilmember: Oh, that... Yeah. Do you say—I know we want more detail and...
[00:36:43] Mayor: It sounds like we're going through the process of definitely cleaning it up, definitely making a committee-only referral and identifying a major versus minor, where the major projects are, you know, far and few between. It's really reserved for major projects and streamlining essentially everything else.
[00:37:03] Mayor: Great. Does everyone agree with that?
[00:37:05] Staff: Great. Thank you so much.
[00:37:07] Councilmember: Option two for sure.
[00:37:09] Mayor: Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So, our next is 2C, regulations for exterior lighting and illumination on commercial buildings. Mr. Fernandez, and thank you for—I'm glad, I know last time it was brought up before us, we all wanted to look around a little more and, you know, Mr. Flores had to walk away with the question marks. Now, it's you.
[00:37:35] Sihi Fernandez: Good afternoon, Madam Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Sihi Fernandez. I'm here with Development Services to present on exterior lighting requirements for our commercial businesses. Some background: Chapter 24 of our outdoor lighting provides definitions for decorative and architectural lighting, but it lacks guidance for the standards and the process for these types of lights. On August 22nd, 2024, Council held a study session on the matter. During the study session, staff sought potential standards and guidance from Council. Staff was directed not to take immediate action, but instead to monitor the situation. To date, staff has not received any design review applications for exterior lighting, and at Council's request, this item is being brought back for further discussion. These are photos taken in the evening and at night from some of our businesses that are located along Cook Street, adjacent to the I-10 freeway. Here are some businesses that are located on 111 using a combination of decorative lights, window lights, and some using string lights. Here are some more examples of businesses along Monterey. So staff prepared a table comparing our standards to neighboring cities. Both Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells discourage or prohibit facade and window lighting. Most cities allow for string lighting either through some type of staff-level decision or they are exempt from review. Lastly, looking at enforcement, we do have a requirement in our code that any existing exterior modifications or alterations require review and approval by our Architectural Review Commission. The intent for our outdoor lighting section is to minimize light pollution impacts and preserve the nighttime environment. Staff has recommendations on permissibility and...
[00:40:01] Staff: process, but we are seeking council's direction on what type of lights we want to allow and the process looking forward. And that concludes staff's presentation. Staff is available for questions.
[00:40:16] Councilmember 1: Thank you. Other questions, comments? Thanks. Okay. So, going back to the photo of the Wildest Restaurant versus, I don't know, Mario's, would the lights on top of Wildest be considered string lights because they're like strings of bulbs?
[00:40:38] Staff: So, it could—it would be considered architectural lighting. So, it's highlighting those architectural features...
[00:40:45] Councilmember 1: ...like...
[00:40:46] Staff: ...but it's also string lights. So, it's a combination of both. So, you know, it looks like a series of bulbs on top of Wildest that kind of highlights the building...
[00:40:56] Councilmember 1: ...roof line, whatever. Whereas Mario's is like a tube neon lighting. Is one distinct from the other in moving forward?
[00:41:05] Staff: Yeah. So, that's what we're looking for direction on is the facade and window lighting and then also to just looking at string lighting.
[00:41:13] Councilmember 1: So when you say window lighting, are you speaking of when they have the neon inside the window that comes through the window, like Shoe...
[00:41:21] Staff: So...
[00:41:22] Staff: ...here's an example of Shoe City of the window lighting.
[00:41:26] Mayor: Okay. So, one of the things—are we addressing also some of the establishments will have neon signs inside the window showing out? And I think those need to be addressed too because when you talked about the reasons we do it, and they're all good reasons, we could add one to that and it would be the aesthetic desirability of that area for businesses. Would another business want to come be on that block with that type of aesthetic? And I think we need to look at that. What's in windows when they just slap something in a window.
[00:42:07] Staff: Okay.
[00:42:08] Councilmember 2: I agree. These lights that we're seeing in Shoe City—ugly. Real ugly. Got to fix it. And the Mayor's right. We see some of these faux neon or neon, they just—it's ugly and it doesn't fit most places that we would expect our standards to be. That's my thought.
[00:42:32] Councilmember 3: I have a slightly different take, perhaps. Have you received any complaints in the last year about the lighting? I'm curious why we're even... Okay, so we have received complaints. Okay, that changes my comments.
[00:42:47] Mayor: And register one here, too.
[00:42:50] Councilmember 3: Okay. Because perhaps some of these, like maybe Shoe City, is doing this for safety reasons. You know, is there crime or homelessness an issue? So, they want these type of lights. I think there's safety factors we need to factor in.
[00:43:07] Mayor: And that's why we have the street lights and we give them programs to have cameras, and we have more than 150 cameras throughout the city. Plus, they can put—we help pay for their cameras. That is aesthetically, in my estimation, also—it is not up to the standards of Palm Desert. And when we asked to come back to this when it was first presented to us, I said I'd like to go out and look at some of these places that were presented at that time. And I did just that. And it's just not up to the standards of Palm Desert's aesthetics. And it's not going to attract other businesses that say, 'Yeah, you know what? I have a higher level of type of business. My aesthetics are higher. I have a better product. I should be next to somebody with glaring neon lights that come through the window or that are around the window.' I think we really need to be careful with this. You know, it becomes the wild, wild west with some of these types of... when we look at the dispensary, if you go by that at night, which I did after it was shown to us the other day, it's just not attractive, and we really need to make sure that we are upholding the aesthetic standards of Palm Desert.
[00:44:27] Councilmember 3: Okay. So the example of Wildest with the—not the string lights, but the ones to the left, the two—I don't know how to describe it properly. So those would be allowed? Something... see these here? Yep, those two. So something like that would be allowed? Some form of lighting would be allowed.
[00:44:51] Staff: Yeah. Those are the—those are building lights. Those are lights on the building that would be allowed. It would be... and then you have the string lights there, and then I see he was...
[00:45:00] Staff: ...mentioning, right, we have the string lights on the facade building itself, and so we believe there's a distinction between, I think, what our proposal is.
[00:45:09] Mayor: So the lights on Wildest, we're saying we think we want to approve, but not the ones on Shoe City?
[00:45:15] Staff: Right. So the recommendation from staff, right, for string lights is to be allowed of low lumen, and we provide more distinction of those being allowed. Um, the—the term is leaving me—basically if it's on an outdoor patio, right? It's functional—functional lighting for—for—for the string lights, versus um what we're talking about today is more of that architectural, decorative um type of lighting where it's...
[00:45:40] Mayor: And then to be politically correct, I'll use the word holiday. What about holiday lighting?
[00:45:46] Staff: That—that one too we—we—we'd have to um, you know, reserve and—and let for—for certain times of the year.
[00:45:51] Mayor: So can we go back? And I just want to show something that, you know, that we have to deal with, and actually Pedra has to deal with it. If we look at the Wildest, we have it along the top, and it looks—it looks, I think, it's attractive. But then there are the string lights that hang down, and most of them are out. So it becomes un—it's an unfortunate job that now we have to go out and say, 'By the way, you're not taking care of your lights,' but it becomes another chore of the city's. But I guess we need to do that because those are clearly out, or it appears to be that they're out to me. But I—I definitely think—can we go back to the other cities and—and let's all take a look at that and give your thoughts on that?
[00:46:44] Councilmember: May I, Madam Mayor?
[00:46:45] Mayor: Please, please.
[00:46:46] Councilmember: One of the—the things that I can see where—where it does seem strange that it—it—it sticks out as a dipping loop. Are these some of the places that have outdoor dining? Perhaps this contributes to the environment of eating outdoors instead of just having one of those patio lights. Is—does Wildest have that?
[00:47:04] Staff: They—they do have outdoor dining. Correct.
[00:47:06] Councilmember: Okay.
[00:47:07] Staff: And that is where we are seeing it more. You see, you know, this is Mario's here that they have some type of lighting. Um, but you—you do see those string lights typically in the—the restaurant patio areas.
[00:47:23] Councilmember: So, I think that that's something that we should take into consideration of the occasions under which they would be allowed, because I—I really think that that contributes to—to the ambiance. We don't want um, you know, to have the—the heaters and those lamps be used until we really truly need them for—for heat. So, I can see the consideration for that. One of the um elements that I remember discussing the first time around would be for the buildings that already have it, such as those off of Cook for Goodies and the dispensary, would we then tell them, 'Turn them off or remove them,' because that's a substantial expense to ask somebody to remove them?
[00:48:07] Staff: That—that is part of the direction we're looking for today. You know, our recommendation for what we're calling that facade lighting is that it would require um we take them through that ARC design review, and if it is not approved, then they would have to take it down. We could also provide um, you know, one of our recommendations for that facade lighting is for it to be low lumen and um and white, and really to provide that distinction that—that at least for staff is what we've seen provides less impact compared to, you know, that neon uh color on the buildings.
[00:48:45] Councilmember: One of the things that—that was also mentioned was in terms of allowing um the areas by the freeway to maintain that for visibility because in that area there isn't a lot around. Has there been a consideration to have this allowed in certain zones?
[00:49:01] Staff: That's a direction we see if we can.
[00:49:04] Councilmember: Right. I'm—I'm leaning towards what you just said about by the 10 freeway, and—and my other concern is doing an undue financial burden on our businesses, especially our restaurants that are suffering under the high food costs, and Shoe City perhaps with—I'm not saying I like the lighting. I just want to be cognizant that we don't want to put our businesses out of business if it's an exorbitant cost. Do you have an idea on what something like what it would cost, say, Goodies Cafe to get rid of what they have? Do we have an idea on cost—
[00:49:41] Staff: —on cost for them to take it down? No, I don't have—
[00:49:43] Councilmember: —and to replace it with something. So, we don't have that.
[00:49:47] Staff: No. No, we don't. Yeah. Um, it wouldn't necessarily need to be replaced if the—if the direction is that they remove them. Um, as Mayor Hornick said, we do review parking lot lighting and building lighting to meet very pretty specific—
[00:50:02] Staff: Um, lighting standards to make sure that there is safety and visibility for people going in and out of the building. So, even if this is removed, they would still have that lighting for security and safety and function.
[00:50:15] Speaker: Them wanting to replace it would be entirely, you know, an aesthetic choice.
[00:50:20] Mayor: Okay. So the financial cost is a big concern that I believe should be addressed.
[00:50:27] Councilmember: I concur.
[00:50:28] Mayor: So the value of signage by the I-10 is indisputable. We understand that value and we should certainly take that into consideration. But as we drive up and down the streets, we'll see some pretty shoddy-looking lighting. And it just isn't aesthetically pleasing. It is not of the standard that we generally try and put forward as Palm Desert's aesthetic standards. So, I think it's something we do need to look at. And what we see is with the other cities, what they're doing, um, discouraged. That doesn't mean it's a blanket no, but it's discouraged. So, we need to look at this. I think the architectural review is important. They're going to look at it through the eyes of what is best for the greater good for the entirety of the city. And ultimately, that's our goal and that's why we're here. So, I would really recommend we look at that. And when we—and just to be clear again, when we say window lighting, are you talking about around the perimeter or are you talking about some of those, uh, lights that people will advertise with neon within their windows?
[00:51:45] Staff: No, the advertisement of neon within the windows, um, that has a strict code section on what it's allowed to say and size and all of that. When we talk about window lighting, if you see the, um, one in the center and one in the bottom left, that's what we talk about window lighting. That doesn't have clear—because that's not a sign. It's not, um, you know, functional building lighting. They are just framing their window with colored signs. That's what we're talking about, um, for window signs.
[00:52:11] Mayor: Okay. Thank you.
[00:52:12] Councilmember: And Mayor, if I may, if you go back to that slide, Carlos, the dispensary has a little open sign, uh, sign. Is that kind of what you're referring to? Like that? Some of those are a little cheesy, right?
[00:52:24] Staff: Agree. And that is a—that is within our sign code. They, they do have allowances, um, right now for that, but that, that is a, a distinct—
[00:52:33] Councilmember: And is it just open and closed, or is it products? What is it?
[00:52:37] Staff: You're testing me here. Uh, open, closed. I want to say they're—they might have a little more flexibility with, um, on text. We, we get limited in what we can limit when it comes to text, but we do have some. I believe it's—
[00:52:53] Councilmember: Open, closed, maybe for sale signs also. Okay.
[00:52:56] Staff: But yeah.
[00:52:57] Mayor: Well, let's take a look at that. I, I, I commend you for bringing it back in the way you did, and the comparisons, I think, are very helpful, and I just want to make sure that we show Palm Desert to be the best it can be.
[00:53:11] Staff: So, to be clear, it sounds like where we're going is string lights. Okay. Um, on like the restaurant patios, window lighting, you know, strong discouragement to, to find a way to remove those. And then for facade lightings, um, looking along the 10 freeway to see, you know, to try to analyze the financial impact on there, but, um, have those go through an ARC review.
[00:53:38] Mayor: I think so. And, and this is just one voice. I'm not afraid of taking lighting down. That cost is minimal. I wouldn't—I, I certainly support those by the 10 having signs. You know, we, we went through a big struggle about signage by the 10. And because we then got to a point we said, 'Yes, we should have signage by this 10,' we encouraged more and more businesses to be there because they could be successful because they did have signage. But if it is not aesthetically pleasing lighting, that's what we need to look at. We want them to have signs. We want them to be able to say who they are and what they're selling and, you know, their name brand, but, uh, I, I am not tremendously concerned about having someone take down bad lights. It's not a great expense.
[00:54:36] Councilmember: And I might add, we would need objective standards, right? Because it could be subjective—
[00:54:42] Mayor: —if, if it's not clearly defined.
[00:54:46] Staff: Agreed. And this helps us, you know, the—our Chapter 24 outdoor lighting as part of our Unified Development Code project. It is actually going to be unified right with the rest of our sections. And so this is, um, a big part of that. And so—
[00:55:00] Staff: This helps us guide that process and also helps our code enforcement team here, you know, what to act on. But yes, I completely agree and that's part of the clarity we're looking for today, those objective standards for us to put in the unified development code.
[00:55:15] Councilmember 1: May I have one final question on when we were discussing the I-10 corridor, in particular the last session was regarding that at Cook and 111, Shoe City, which we can agree does stand out very garishly from the others. Would that be allowed because it's in that area also along the 10 corridor, or could we potentially limit it to a certain amount of lumens or watts so that they can have some lighting but it's not as blinding when you go by? And then we get Washington, you know, as we see more people changing, and does that make sense?
[00:56:00] Staff: It does. And so the Shoe City would be—we'd consider that further south from that area. We don't have a distinct zone of I-10 corridor, but we do have what we call a freeway commercial overlay zone, which, you know, is a zone, an overlay area essentially adjacent to that freeway, and this is outside of that.
[00:56:21] Councilmember 1: So it's sort of the visibility from the 10 that guides that.
[00:56:24] Staff: Correct.
[00:56:25] Councilmember 1: I just want to add one more point if I might. I had received a couple of phone calls last year, and I think code enforcement went out there. There was turning out to be a huge homeless issue, and I know code compliance went out there to try to help clean things up. So, we need to make sure we're talking to our business owners in this shopping mall to make sure we keep that in mind in terms of, you know, perhaps this lighting is—you know, unfortunately we do have homeless. I wish we didn't have any homeless people, but we need to keep this in mind too for our businesses.
[00:57:06] Councilmember 2: Mayor, I'd like to add one more thing. Under the proposed permissibility for facade lighting, you call out white light. I would go so far as to suggest on the string lights allowed, if low lumen and also white, so that we're not stuck with the Christmas light kind of appeal.
[00:57:25] Staff: I think that's an important distinction. Thank you.
[00:57:30] Mayor: Okay. Is there anything else? He says, "No, please no more." Okay, thank you very much. And that concludes our study session, and we will be back at 3:15 for closed session.
[00:57:50] Councilmember 3: And Madam Mayor, my apologies. My agenda said it was 2:30, so you guys started before I had arrived. And so my apologies for that. My binder had 2:30.
[00:58:01] Mayor: Okay. And why don't we make this—we'll be back at 3:20. Give us a few extra minutes, please.