►
From YouTube: General Plan Steering Committee | December 14, 2020
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
Great
okay.
A
I'm
calling
the
general
plan
steering
committee
of
december
14th
wow
order.
Can
we
have
a
roll
call.
C
Yes,
member
wilson,
president
member,
wants
president
member
park.
D
D
C
A
At
this
point,
we
will
have
public
comments
pursuant
to
the
brown
act.
Public
comment
is
limited
to
only
the
items
that
appear
on
the
agenda.
There
are
two
minutes
for
each
speaker.
The
items
on
our
agenda
are
the
land
use
element
and
a
review
of
the
land
use
map
and
other
related
matters.
Are
there
members
of
the
public
who
wish
to
speak.
C
I'm
sure
we've
had
one
member
call
in
miss
maribel
nunez,
so
she
is
on
the
line
she
has
about.
She
can
speak
now
and
she'll
have
up
to
two
minutes.
D
Everyone,
my
name,
is
maribel
nunez,
I'm
with
inland
equity
partnership,
a
affordable
housing
coalition
that
works
with
palm
springs
residents
by
any
hun
and
various
other
groups.
Thank
you.
So
much
for
letting
me
speak,
and
this
item
is
related
to
the
land
use
and
zoning.
D
My
understanding
it
was
going
to
include
the
housing
element,
and
so
just
wanted
to
share
look
forward
to
continuous
partnership
in
as
we're
looking
through
the
sixth
cycle
of
the
housing
element,
and
we
definitely
want
to
be
a
partner
before,
during
and
after
in
regards
to
the
housing
element,
draft
plan
that
will
be
deadline,
be
october,
21st
and
so
we're
happy
with
you
know,
with
some
of
the
great
projects
that
palm
springs
has
done
an
emergency
shelter
and
also
some
perfect
supportive
housing
we're
so
we're
happy.
D
We
attended
the
last
meeting
last
thursday
with
the
desert
aids
project
and
the
coachella
valley
coalition
on
some
affordable
housing,
and
so
we
continue
hoping
that
you
know
in
this
work
with
the
housing
element
that
we
include
stable
housing
that
could
also
lead
to
community
wealth,
and
that
includes
inclusive
ordinance,
reduce
setbacks
and
increase
density
so
that
we
have
more
duplexes
and
others
just
so.
We
up
our
numbers.
D
I
think
we
are
a
little
bit
behind
on
the
affordable
housing
units
and
so
really
feel
that
there's
definitely
a
lot
of
work
that
we
could
do
to
make
sure
we
have
lower
not-for-profit
cost
of
development.
So
thank
you
so
much
and
look
forward
to
your
partnership,
but
we'll
be
engaging
in
this
process
of
the
housing
element
and
thank
you
so
much
for
your
time.
C
This
time
I
haven't
had
any
other
requests
to
speak,
madam
chair,
but
if
anyone
else
on
the
call
here
on
the
video
would
like
to
speak,
you'll
have
up
to
two
minutes,
and
that
would
be
the
time.
A
C
G
All
right
good
evening,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
it's
good
to
see
you
again
glad
we
could
do
one
more
meeting
before
the
end
of
the
year.
Jonathan's
pulling
up
the
powerpoint
show
I'll
give
you
a
brief
overview
of
the
agenda
this
evening.
G
We
want
to
provide
you
with
an
overview
of
the
project
where
we
are
and
what
we've
done
at
the
last
meeting
that
we
would
like
to
walk
through
a
few
things
that
we
are
recommending
changes
on,
that
we
haven't
gone
over
with
you
guys
yet
and
then
have
a
discussion
of
some
of
the
text
edits.
So
we've
got
some
map
changes,
we're
going
to
be
covering
with
you
that
you
haven't
seen,
and
then
we
have
some
additional
text
edits
that
we
will
be
reviewing
jonathan.
G
Thank
you
so
this
evening,
where
are
we
in
the
process?
There's
a
couple
things
that
have
happened
since
the
last
time
we
met
the
david
and
david
can
chime
in
here
too,
if
I'm
missing
anything,
but
david
and
flynn
took
the
vision
and
priorities
to
the
city
council
for
their
review
and
their
feedback,
and
they
had
requested
some
additional
engagement
and
outreach
with
various
groups
in
the
community.
G
So
david
and
flynn
have
been
working
on
that.
I
think
it
was
the
sustainability
commission
and
a
couple
others,
and
so
the
outreach
to
those
groups
is
happening
between
now
and
the
beginning
of
the
year,
and
so
we
anticipate
that
with
the
additional
feedback
that
that
david
lynn
are
going
to
be
getting
on
the
process,
we'll
fold
that
in
onto
the
vision
and
bring
back
any
suggested
revisions
to
you
guys
for
review
at
the
next
meeting,
and
then
it
will
go
back
to
city
council.
Did
I
get
that
right,
david?
G
All
right,
and
so
in
addition,
as
we
heard
from
our
guest
speaker,
we
are
still
updating
the
housing
element.
G
You
guys
have
been
giving
us
feedback
on
some
of
the
changes
that
we
needed
to
meet
arena
numbers,
so
that
is
still
in
progress
and
mark
hoffman
from
our
office
is
leading
up
that
charge
and
he
should
have
a
draft
of
the
housing
element
to
david
to
review
by
the
beginning
of
the
year
as
well,
and
so
that
element
is
not
going
to
be
coming
in
front
of
you
guys
it
will
move
forward.
G
Since
you
gave
some
feedback
on
the
land
uses
that
we
needed
to
satisfy
the
numbers,
it
will
likely
go
back
to
the
affordable
housing
subcommittee
before
it's
submitted
to
hcd
for
reviews,
so
we're
thinking
that
will
be
happening.
You
know,
hopefully,
by
march
of
next
year,
and
so
for
our
a
recap,
just
a
general
recap
on
question
or
items
that
we
covered
at
the
last
meeting
just
a
refresher.
We
talked
about
edits
to
the
plan
development
district.
G
That
was
one
of
the
prompts
for
the
general
plan
update
in
and
of
itself.
So
we
looked
at
revisions
to
to
text
relation
to
the
pdds
and
removing
of
those
we
also
looked
at
redesignating
a
site
up
in
the
artist
colony
to
high
density
residential,
which
was
a
mixed
use
area
originally,
but
it
allowed
for
residential.
G
So
we
just
pulled
that
out
as
a
straight
residential
used
to
help
satisfy
the
requirements
for
rena,
and
then
we
also
allowed
for
medium
density
residential
to
allow
some
hotel
and
motel
uses
for
consistency
with
zoning.
So
we
were
doing
a
lot
of
admin
cleanup
and
making
sure
those
uses
were
accurately
reflected
in
the
definitions
which
they
currently
aren't
now
and
then.
Lastly,
we
wanted
to
confirm
tonight
the
small
hotel
designation,
some
edits
we
had.
I
have
a
few
slides
in
a
minute
to
talk
about
those
because
kurt.
G
I
know
everybody
was
interested
in
your
feedback
on
this
one,
especially
just
because
I
I
think
you're
most
familiar
with
some
of
the
small
hotel
areas
and
they're
near
you.
So
I
think
we
wanted
to
run
that
by
and
make
sure
you
are
comfortable
with
the
edits
the
group
had
also
looked
at
so
after
we
go
through
some
of
those
jonathan
is
going
to
go
through
some
of
the
new
edits
that
we're
suggesting,
but
then
what's
next
like,
where
do
we
go
from
tonight's
meeting?
G
And
I've
alluded
to
it
a
little
bit
already?
The
next
steps
will
be
since
the
council
wanted
revisions
to
the
vision
statement.
We
have
added
a
meeting
to
your
steering
committee
agenda
and
so
the
next
meeting
we
will
come
back
to
you
with
the
vision
statement
to
confirm
and
then
also
to
come
back
to
you
with
the
overall,
what
we
call
the
build
out
summary
of
all
the
edits
that
we've
made
tonight.
G
So
those
would
be
you
know
the
total
number
of
units
square
footage
of
non-residential
uses
hotel
rooms,
population
that
sort
of
thing,
and
that
is
what
we
use
to
initiate
the
environmental
review.
So
we
have
to
at
some
point,
have
the
land
plan
stop
moving.
So
once
that
plan
is
approved,
I
say
approved
kind
of
blessed
by
you
guys.
It
goes
to
the
city
council
and
they
will
give
us
the
okay
to
go
ahead
and
study
that
in
the
environmental
document.
Now
that
doesn't
mean
that
they
have
approved
it.
G
So
I
think,
unless
anyone
has
any
questions
about
that
and
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
go
through
those
small
hotel
uses,
so
that
kurt
can
give
us
the
thumbs
up
or
thumb
down
and
if
anybody
else
has
any
feedback.
But
the
group
had
agreed
upon
that
and
then
we
can
get
into
jonathan's
edits.
H
If
I
could
ask,
is
this
our
only
chance
to
look
at
the
land
use
map.
G
Tonight
will
be
the
main
yeah
the
main
opportunity
to
do
that,
because
we
will
want
to
run
the
build
out
by
you
guys
next
meeting.
But
you
know
david,
did
you
have
any
other
feedback?
That's
the
intent
is
tonight
is
to
go
over
the
edit,
so
you
should
have
received
in
your
email.
There
was
a
list
of
a
map
that
showed
changes
only
and
so
this
evening
we're
going
to
go
over
a
select
few,
because
some
of
them
are
boundary
changes
or
minor
adjustments.
H
A
The
the
only
comment
I
have
is
that
I
think
the
vision
and
priorities
may
not
be
just
a
few
meetings
or
early
next
year.
There
were
several.
I
think
there
have
been
three
or
four
meetings
so
far
and
city
council
subcommittee
on
that
wanted
several
more
probably
five
or
eight.
A
So
I'm
not
sure
how
quickly
that'll
happen.
H
A
What
they
didn't
like
was
the
editing
of
the
old
priorities
they
felt
like
that
was
too
limited
and
they
wanted
to
take
it
further
out.
They've
had
to
date,
three
meetings
with
the
business
community
to
get
a
much
better
feel
and
a
broader
feel
for
where
we
should
be
going
not
just
in
land
use,
but
also
in
basically
looking
at
what
the
economy
would
look
like
over
the
next
10
years.
A
I
think
they
were
looking
at
retail
there
being
much
less
retail
and
in
some
of
the
communications
they
were
looking
at
what
kind
of
requirements
there
would
be
for
4
and
5
g,
so
it
I,
I
think,
the
meetings
that
that
they
want
to
have.
A
I
we
got
comments.
The
planning
commission
was
involved
in
this
and
not
just
console,
got
comments
from
sustainability
that
broadened
what
we
had
coming
coming
from
this
group,
but
I
think
they
want
to
do
a
broader
outreach.
They
want
to
go
back
to
some
of
the
neighborhoods
they
feel
like.
They
should
go
back
to
desert
highlands
again
and
then
also
do
the
districts
and
and
touch
base
with
the
non-profits
in
town,
as
well
as
the
business
community
and
the
environmental
groups.
A
So
that's
that's
a
bit
of
it.
I
think
the
main
issue
was
just
the
editing
of
old
priorities
where
they
wanted
a
sort
of
a
broader.
So
a.
G
Yeah
and
my
understanding
was
that,
because
you
know
it
really
is
it's
the
vision
for
the
entire
city,
you
know
so.
We've
been
looking
at
focus,
land
landi's
changes
for
an
admin
update,
because
this
is
a
broader
statement.
That's
going
to
kind
of
govern
the
the
general
plan
over
the
next
20
or
so
years.
They
wanted
to
make
sure
that
the
statement
was
really
well
thought
out
and
important.
H
But
in
in
in
in
some
sense,
though,
the
the
logically
changes
in
the
vision
which
result
in
changes
in
the
plan
itself,
the
land
use
plan
and
the
circulation
plan,
wouldn't
it
I
would.
G
Potentially
in
the
future,
because
this
is
an
administrative
update
to
clean
things
up,
we
also
have
been
talking.
You
know,
to
staff,
about
what
we've
been
calling
the
larger
holding
bin,
so
that
when
there's
a
comprehensive
update
that,
if
more
significant
changes
need
to
be
made,
then
you
guys
can
look
at
that
as
a
land
use
strategy
and
bigger
picture.
But
the
way
that
this
one,
this
update
was
scoped
was
much
more
limited
in
nature.
G
So
the
intent
would
not
be
to
depart
too
far
from
the
uses
that
are
already
existing
in
the
city.
With
the
exception
of
a
few
cleanups.
H
G
A
So,
john
commissioner,
it's
jeff,
kors
x,
mayor
of
course,
and
dennis
woods
that
have
been
on
the
subcommittee
and
as
a
courtesy
they've
had
me,
join
them.
G
Jonathan,
can
we
do
the
next
slide?
Please
all
right,
so
this
was
just
the
refresher
of
our
discussion
on
the
small
hotel
definition.
What
you
see
on
the
screen
right
now
is
the
current
definition
that
talks
about
the
smaller
scale
boutique
feel
of
this
designation.
G
It
has
15
rooms
per
acre,
10
dwelling
units
per
acre,
and
then
it
allows
some
of
the
the
residential
uses
to
be
allowed
in
the
area
as
long
as
they
are
in
the
conv.
They
are
consistent
with
the
conversion
requirements
in
the
city's
code
and
it's
not
intended
to
have
standalone
retail
in
this
area.
But
if
there
are
ancillary
uses
like
a
gift
shop
that
go
with
the
hotel
those
are
allowed.
So
there
was
no
change
to
that
or
that's
the
existing
definition.
Jonathan.
Can
you
hit
the
next
slide
please?
G
So
the
concern
was,
there
are
a
couple
things
one
some
of
the
existing
hotel
uses
that
are
already
there
exceed
the
maximum
densities
that
were
allowed,
and
so
the
concern
was
that
if
a
property
was
if
it
burnt
down
or
was
damaged,
that
it
could
not
be
rebuilt
at
the
same
density
and
scale
that
it
currently
was,
and
so
that's
especially
for
residential
uses.
So
then
the
project
would
be
considered
conforming,
and
so
that
way,
all
new
development
at
this
point
is
required
to
meet
10
dwelling
units
per
acre
jonathan.
G
So
there
was
suggested
language
that
was
added,
and
the
group
was
in
general
agreement
about
if,
if
a
property
was
damaged
or
remodeled,
that
it
would
be
able
to
be
rebuilt
in
the
density
that
it
was
that
it
was
originally
constructed
at
without
being
non-conforming
as
long
as
it
was
in
the
same
scale
and
met
the
kind
of
it
fit
in
with
the
neighborhood
in
the
surrounding
area.
G
The
other
minor
piece
that
came
with
this
was
that
at
one
point
in
time
the
city
was
doing
the
15
hotel
rooms
per
net
acres,
kind
of
density
for
hotel
rooms,
but
that
hasn't
really
been
something
that
has
been
needed.
So
we
have
been
removing
the
hotel
rooms
per
net
acre,
it's
just
as
long
as
it
meets
the
the
scale
and
the
setbacks
and
the
and
the
size,
and
that
is
consistent
with
the
designation.
G
I
G
H
Sure
the
reasoning
again
behind
the
dropping
the
10
to
15
is
just
because
we
don't
have
anybody.
That's
proposing
more
than
that,
except
for
some
of
the
existings
or.
G
G
And
so
it's
kind
of
an
additional
it's
kind
of
something
and
david
you
can
chime
in
as
to
how
you
have
or
haven't
used
it
over
the
years,
but
that
was
kind
of
a
cleanup
thing.
We
just
look
at
the
fars
and
we
look
at
the
you
know
if
you
can
meet
your
parking
and
that
sort
of
thing
and
you
don't
really
need
to
regulate
the
units
in
the
actual
general
plan,
the
number
of
hotel
rooms
that
was
to
just
add
administratively
streamline
it
a
bit.
G
G
H
Might
want
to
put
the
10
residential,
the
dua
making
sure
it
just
applies
to
the
residential.
So
it's
clear
to
people.
G
C
Yeah,
I
think
I
think
we
were
going
to
talk
about
that
somewhere
in
the
administration
portion
of
the
document.
We
talked
about
making
some
edits
there
so
that
it
was
clear
that
density
is
regulated
as
defined
in
each
land,
use
definition
and
commercial
or
hotel
would
be
regulated.
By
far
I
mean,
I
think
the
reason
was
here
is
that
we
historically
have
had
hotel
density
in
our
general
plan.
So
I
think
that
was
carried
forward
in
2007.
C
at
the
last
meeting.
We
also
talked
about
some
of
the
tribal
land
use
rights
that
there
is
a
higher
intensity
or
density
that
is
allowed.
So
we
just
need
to
make
sure
that
that
was
pulled
into
the
same
section
to
make
that
clear.
F
In
terms
of
the
question
proposed
to
me,
I
agree:
I
think
that
the
addition
is
appropriate.
You
know,
I
think
it's
important,
that
we
recognize.
You
know
in
the
case
of
a
fire
or
some
remodeling
project,
that
we
don't
want
to
put
a
burden
in
place.
That
would
actually
work
against
us
in
terms
of
maintaining
the
character
of
that
neighborhood
we're
not
in
making
it
more
dense
or
anything
of
that
nature.
So
I
think
it's
appropriate
as
written
right.
A
It
is
a
little
confusing,
though,
between
the
fa
it
being
governed
by
far
versus
dwelling
units,
you
kind
of
wonder
what
it's
doing
in
there,
so
it
might
help
in
this
section
to
have
that
a
little
more
fully
defined.
H
Does
that
entitlement
continue
on
to
infinity
or
forever
or
do
we
want
to
say
if
they
haven't
rebuilt
it
after
so
many
years
that
back
to
the
underlying
or
to
the
current.
C
Standards
that
would
probably
be
regulated
in
our
zoning
code.
I
know
we
currently
have
a
time
frame
in
our
zoning
code
now,
so
unless
there's
any
type
of
clarifying
language
that
we
want
to
add
to
this
kind
of
as
a
general
statement,
it
is
like
I
said
it's
it's
currently
in
our
zoning
code.
Okay,.
H
Yeah,
and
does
this
apply
to
a
hotel
like
the
one
on?
What's
it
called,
it's
been
a
project
forever,
the
one
with
the
church.
C
C
F
If
I
might
help
or
ask
for
clarification,
was
the
180
days
david
just
for
them
to
initiate
the
process
versus
complete
the
process.
F
I
thought
it
was
requiring
a
filing,
at
least
in
other
cities,
that
I've
worked
in
it
was
you
had
six
months
to
start
the
process
and
as
long
as
you
were
doing
that
and
pursuing
it,
then
that's
what
covered
it
didn't
expect
of
construction
or
remodeling
within
that
time
frame.
G
Yeah
and
typically
for
a
general
plan,
we
don't
go
into
that
level
of
detail.
We
do
defer
to
the
learning
code,
so
this
was
a
way
just
to
make
sure
that
those
either
residential
areas.
If
something
happened,
that
they
could
build
back,
the
way
that
they
are
and
that
it
wouldn't
be
held
against.
C
Yeah
again,
I
think
it's
more
appropriate
for
our
zoning
code,
but
you
know
generally
like,
as
the
general
plan
should
be.
I
don't
think
we
need
to
clarify
that
here,
okay,
but
it
could
be
something
that
we
look
at
as
a
city
generally
based
on
what
our
current
code
requirements
are
and
what
we
think
would
be
appropriate.
H
Could
you
just
you,
don't
have
to
address
it
now,
but
maybe
if
you
can
email
us
out
the
references
to
the
applicable
zoning
code
or
something.
B
G
I
Thank
you
wendy,
good
evening,
everybody.
It's
it's
nice
to
to
see
you
all
again
and
I
am
going
to
lead.
I
think
what
will
be
a
tag
team
effort
in
reviewing
the
the
changes
to
the
land
use
map
and
to
the
text
of
the
land
used
element
primarily
focused
on
the
mixed
use
section
and
I'll
ask
wendy
and
david
to
jump
in
if
on
items
that
need
any
further
context
or
clarification.
I
So
the
first
part
of
our
review
tonight
will
focus
on
the
land
use
map.
Again,
as
mentioned
previously,
you
received
a
draft
of
that
prior
to
the
meeting
indicating
some
of
the
parcels
that
are
affected
by
proposed
changes
and
I'll
review
some
examples
of
the
types
of
changes
that
have
been
made,
we'll
also
after
that,
following
that
part
focus
on
those
text,
changes
in
the
mixed-use
section,
and
we
welcome
any
of
your
questions
or
comments
as
we
go
through.
I
Please
don't
hesitate
to
to
jump
in
where,
where
you
have
comments
or
questions
that
we
will
go
through
a
little
bit
later
in
the
presentation,
our
upcoming
sequence
of
meetings,
but,
as
I
think
wendy
had
mentioned
before,
we
will
go
after
following
the
confirmation
of
the
vision
and
priorities
the
the
land
use,
map,
changes
and
text
changes
are
going
to
be
reviewed
at
other
public
meetings
and
then
later
on
in
the
process,
we'll
focus
on
goals
and
policies.
I
Okay,
so,
as
mentioned
we're
going
to
start
with
changes
to
the
map,
I
wanted
to
start
by
just
reviewing
with
you
the
typical
types
of
changes
that
we've
outlined,
and
I
should
start
by
saying
that
gis
software
has
greatly
improved
over
the
last
13
years
or
so,
since
the
general
plan
was
last
comprehensively
updated.
I
So
you
likely
will
not
be
surprised
to
see
that
a
number
of
the
changes
that
we'll
be
talking
about
tonight,
the
nature
of
them,
are
due
to
just
improvements
in
the
way
that
we
can
visualize
parcels,
compare
them
to
other
types
of
information.
I
That's
available
to
us
things
like
natural
features.
Zoning
have
all
of
that
in
one
digital
platform
and
and
pay
much
more
fine
detail
to
where
every
line
is
drawn.
I
So
one
of
the
primary
areas
of
change
is
due
to
making
sure
that
the
boundaries
of
the
land
use
designation
areas
conform
with
natural
features
like
watercourses
and
slopes,
making
sure
that
we
are
aligning
the
boundaries
of
parcels
with
with
zoning
where
possible
and
where
it
makes
sense,
and
then
also,
if
there's
been
development
that
have
changed
the
features
of
a
parcel.
Since
the
last
comprehensive
update,
we've
tried
to
pick
those
up
as
well.
I
I
should
add
that
the
leading
up
to
where
we've,
where
we've
come
tonight
started
with
a
very
detailed
look
parcel
by
parcel
by
our
project
team,
our
gis
team
and
also
with
city
staff.
I
Looking
at
you
know
where,
where
we
have
an
opportunity
to
actually
make
some
administrative
changes
and
clean
up
items
so
we're
trying
to
that
all
our
eyes
and
cross
all
our
t's.
I
So
again,
picking
up
where
I
left
off
the
bulk
of
the
changes
that
we're
going
to
be
discussing
and
looking
at
are
administrative
in
nature.
We
are
not
going
to
go
through
every
single
change
in
detail
this
evening,
at
least
that's
not
the
intent.
Our
intent
was
to
show
you
some
examples
of
the
types
of
changes
and,
after
this
introductory
slide
I'll
go
through
those.
But
we
welcome
your
questions
if,
in
reviewing
the
map,
you
have
questions
about
specific
parcels
that
we
do
not
discuss
during
the
presentation.
I
We
welcome
those
questions
from
you.
Another
type
of
change,
we'll
be
talking
about
in
reference
to
some
parcels
around
the
airport
have
to
do
with
changes
to
how
rights
of
where.
I
And
picking
up
areas
where
former
streets
have
been
vacated
and
are
now
part
of
are
open
to
redevelopment
as
part
of
a
land
use
parcel
very
exciting
stuff.
Here,
we're
going
to
be
hopefully
proposing
or
will
be
proposing.
Some
changes
to
in
in
select
areas
more
accurately
reflect
what
has
been
built.
Some
of
these
instances
will
focus
on
areas
where
a
residential
development
project
has
come
in
at
lower
density
than
the
general
plan
designated.
I
Those
are
there's
a
couple
of
examples
that
meet
that
criteria,
and
then
another
flavor
of
administrative
change
is
making
sure
that
the
general
plan
implements
the
recommendations
of
the
section
14
specific
plan,
which
was
adopted
in
in
the
interim
between
the
last
comprehensive
update
of
the
general
plan,
and
it
appears
that
the
recommendation
for
general
plan
changes
that
were
adopted
as
part
of
that
specific
plan
not
yet
been
implemented.
I
So
now
we
have
an
opportunity
to
pick
up
those
changes
within
the
section
14
area,
the
the
new
land
use
changes,
one
of
which
we've
we've
reviewed
with
you
previously
and
was
was
mentioned
by
wendy
at
the
top
of
the
meeting
refers
to
that
the
parcels
in
the
artist
colony
that
we
are
changing
from
a
I
believe
there
are
mixed
use
actually
to
an
hdr
a
bit
of
an
error
in
the
bullet
here
to
be
able
to
use
those
for
the
housing
element
and
encourage
a
more
streamlined
path
towards
housing
development
in
that
area,
and
then
we'll
also
be
discussing
with
you
tonight.
I
H
H
H
Definitely
going
to
have
a
chance
to
take
a
look
at
the
college
park
or
the
indeed
further
the
northern
area,
when
the
old
college
site.
I
Grabbing
my
notes
here,
okay,
so
as
mentioned,
one
of
one
of
the
common
types
of
changes
are:
are
simply
these,
these
pickups
of
corrections,
administrative
changes
to
make
sure
that
the
general
plan,
land
use
exit
designations,
align
with
things
like
flood
zones
or
watercourses
and
with
the
zoning
so
along
here,
you'll,
see
that
if
you
can
see
my
cursor
here,
we
wanted
to
change
the
alignment
of
the
os
open
space.
Water
designation
to
more
accurately
reflect
the
flood
zone.
Here.
I
This
is
in
the
northern
part
of
the
city.
If
you
look
at
the
lower
right
hand,
corner
of
your
screen
you'll
see
a
legend
with
a
magenta
box
showing
the
the
portion
of
the
city
map
in
which
this
area
is
represented.
This
is
just
south
of
the
ten
another
example
of
a
realignment
proposed.
This
is
near
a
different
section
of
tipton
road
near
where
the
the
railroad
runs
across
the
northern
portion,
boundary
of
the
city.
I
The
freeway,
I
believe,
runs
across
north
of
where
this
location
is.
I
believe
this
is
the
one
111
running
diagram.
I
Then,
okay,
a
different
type
of
change
that
correlates
to
a
natural
feature,
is
making
sure
that
our
open
space
designation
for
mountains
aligns
with
the
toe
of
a
slope.
So
that
means
where
the
actual
angle
for
the
mountain
begins
so
as
to
better
align
with
with
the
the
natural
features
and
topography
that
are
there.
I
Yeah,
I
would
imagine
that
the
the
the
and
maybe
david
might
have
a
better
knowledge
of
this
area.
The
specific
features
here,
but
I
think,
by
moving
the
specific
plan
area
boundary
south
of
that
better
or
north.
I'm
sorry
from
where
it's
shown
today
that
that
aligns
better
with
that
feature,
so
that
it's
not
picking
up
the
slope
of
the
mountain.
I
Yes,
sorry:
it's
to
extend
the
open
space
and
the
border
between
the
open
space-
and
this
was
specific
plan.
A
C
I
Where
near,
where
this,
this
arrow
is
pointing.
C
Yeah,
let
me
let
me
just
jump
in
so
this
is
over
by
the
snow,
creek
area,
and
so,
as
you
imagine,
when
you
drive
out
of
the
city
on
highway
111
and
look
towards
that
kind
of
open
wash
area,
you
see
it's
a
lot
of
flat
areas
where
the
water
kind
of
drains
underneath
highway
111
and
then,
where
the
kind
of
the
brown
line
is
below
the
green
color.
C
That's
really
closer,
probably
more
closely
aligning
to
where
the
mountain
slope
starts
to
rise.
So
we
would
align
the
spa,
the
special
policy
area
to
more
closely
align
towards
the
slow,
the
toe
of
slope
so
further
south
to
where
that
brown
line
is
so.
What
we're
trying
to
do
is
really
make
it
so
that
you
know
we're
reflecting
topography
and
and
really
aligning
the
the
boundaries
of
these
two
designations.
More
appropriately.
C
No,
the
snow
creek
there.
A
C
You
know
cone
oscar
canyon,
where
the
sloped
areas
were
where
the
alluvial
fan
is.
Those
are
really
all
of
the
special
policy
areas
and
we
define
those
specifically
in
our
land
use
element.
C
No
it's
so
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
so
you
see
where
the
green
is
that
green
area
is
really
overlapping,
what
shouldn't
be
a
special
policy
area,
so
the
special
policy
area
is
more
of
the
flatter
or
alluvial
fan
areas,
whereas
the
mountain,
where
you
start
to
have
a
rise
from
the
bottom
of
or
I
guess,
the
top
of
the
olivia
fan
from
where
those
areas
are
and
becomes
more
of
a
steeper
slope.
That's
where
we're
looking
at
aligning
the
open
space
mountain
designations.
H
G
Well,
except
that
yeah
to
the
area,
that's
on
the
the
right
side,
but
in
that
little
adjustment
area,
where
the
scoop
is
it
follows
it.
B
G
And
it's
showing
open
space
mountain
it
the
designation's
already
following
it,
where
I
don't
know
where
the
line
came
from
that
straight
one.
Sometimes
the
data
is
not
perfect,
but
I
mean
this
is
just
a
minor
adjustment,
so
we
wouldn't
cut
it
straight
across
we'd,
continue
to
leave
the
green
for
open
space
mountain
where
it
is,
and
maybe
just
to
tighten
it
up
a
little
bit
where
the
above
that
straight
line.
I.
H
G
I
Okay,
this
is
an
area
where
there
has
been
some
better.
I
C
That's
correct:
what
you
see
is
the
mound
that
you
drive
around
and
then
there's
the
when
you
point
development
over
there.
That's
actually
in
the
this.
What
you're,
seeing
in
color
between
the
black
lines
is
actually
in
our
sphere
of
influence,
but
it's
just
a
correction
that
we
can
make
as
a
part
of
this
change,
or
this
update.
C
C
C
Yeah
and
they
I
agree.
If
we
actually
annex
this
area,
we
would
take
another
look
at
what
the
current
land
uses
are,
but
then,
for
now
this
isn't
really
changing.
The
current
designation
is
too
much.
B
I
Hey
this
is
this
is
an
area
where
we
thought
there
could
be
better
alignment
with
the
floodway
here
to
so
you'll,
see
in
in
the
larger
map
that
you
were
provided
with,
that.
The
the
the
open
space
water
designation
here,
which
flows
from
lower
left
hand
to
the
upper
right,
has
been
expanded.
I
B
C
B
I
This
is
an
area,
as
I
had
mentioned
before,
in
the
vicinity
of
the
airport.
The
new
parcel
definitions
that
we
received
from
the
city
actually
has
this
right
of
what
was
formerly
indicated
as
a
right-of-way
removed.
So
this
is
again
just
a
cleanup
here
and
every
parcel
that
touched
upon
an
area.
That's
cleaned
up
will
appears
in
the
map
that
you
were
provided.
H
G
We
can
double
check
it,
it
shouldn't
be
different
because
it's,
the
all
the
land
use
designations
are
still
the
same.
It's
just
removing
the
right-of-way
and
then
adding
that
land
used.
G
Right
yeah,
but
it's
still
the
same.
That's
what
we
had
in
the
land
use
plan
from
20
2007.,
so.
B
G
I
It
doesn't
what
it
does.
It
doesn't
show
in
the
I'm
sorry
I'll
I'll,
just
clear
it
to
clarify
in
the
the
new
parcelization
and
that
we're
getting
kind
of
deep
in
the
weeds
on
planning
technicalities
here.
But
the
new
digital
parcel
file
that
we're
working
with
from
the
city
actually
does
not
show
a
right-of-way
running
between
the
airport
use
and
the
industrial
use
here
it
used
to.
It
does
not
anymore
so.
I
I
That's
an
error.
It
looks
like
a
third.
G
C
Yeah,
I
guess
the
point
is:
is
the
road
that
was
previously
there
went
directly
to
barista
and
with
the
realignment
of
the
airport
roadways
that
ship,
which
previously
showed
as
a
public
road,
is
now
it's
still
a
public
road?
It's
just.
The
city
owns
the
right
of
way,
so
it's
been
absorbed
into
the
property
adjacent
to
it.
C
So
we'll
take
a
look
at
the
adjacent
designations
and
we
don't
know
the
city
owns
both
properties
on
both
sides
of
that
that
line
where
the
road
is.
So
what
we'll
just
do
is
make
sure
that
you
know
if
there's
if
we
should
keep
this
industrial,
where
the
city
parking
lot
is
as
well
as
the
facilities
that
order.
I.
B
H
C
H
I
Okay,
another
example
here
of
an
abandoned
water
tank
that,
in
that
role,
had
a
designation
as
a
public
or
a
public
utility
use
it's
since
it
is
no
longer
used,
it
has
reverted
to
private
ownership
and
we
believe,
or
we
recommend,
should
be
absorbed
within
the
osm
designation.
I
I
promise
I'm
not
going
through
every
single
one,
but
this
is
a
different
type
of
a
different
flavor
of
administrative
change,
reflecting
an
existing
use
here.
This
is
on
palm
canyon,
just
south
of
mesquite,
where
you
know
in
conversation
with
the
city.
We
are
recommending
for
these
two
parcels
here
that
are
you
that
are
hotel
sites,
that
they
be
redesignated
from
neighborhood
commercial
to
tourist
resort,
commercial.
I
Okay,
another
example
of
an
administrative
change
to
reflect
an
existing
use
in
the
current
general
plans.
That
is
the
the
prior
it
this
area,
which
is
now
used
as
a
city
as
a
animal
shelter,
a
hazardous
material
drop
off
and
solar
energy
generation,
we
believe,
should
be
redesignated
to
a
public
quasi-public.
I
G
A
This
is
just
a
question:
have
you
dealt
with
the
water
course
in
the
mesquite
golf
course
in
the
three
golf
courses
that
are
there
in
the
in
this?
Were
there
any
modifications.
C
C
A
C
It's
something
I
think
we're
looking
at
as
part
of
the
update
just
to
make
sure
that
all
the
water
course
designations
are
aligned
with
the
current
fema
designations.
So.
G
Yeah-
and
that
was
the
whole
point
of
this-
we
were
aligning
the
flood
zone,
the
fema
maps
with.
So
that's
why
the
water
courses
are
the
way
they
are
and
those
little
adjustments
same
thing
with
the
hillsides.
So
that's
our
gis
tech
brought
it
up
all
the
ones
up
tests
that
were
inconsistent.
So,
if
you
look
at
the
map
that
shows
where
all
the
changes
are,
you
can
see
they
either
align
with
parcels
or
the
watercourse
if
it
doesn't
align
exactly
with
a
parcel.
I
Okay,
another
change
type
here
is
at
the
at
the
northern
end
of
sunrise.
This
is
just
north
of
four
seasons:
boulevard,
where
there
are
a
couple
of
parcels,
they're
designated
as
open
space
park,
open
space
p,
which
is
parks
and
recreation.
G
H
That's
the
plan
park
and
then
this
area
is
just
existing
utilities
or
what
I
know
there's
a
channel
somewhere
back
there
right
or
something.
I
Yeah
there
didn't
appear
to
be
any
structures
here.
I
don't
know
if
there
previously
was
or
or
what
dwa
was
using
has
used
this
property.
For
I
don't
know
david.
If
you
any.
I
Yes,
this
is
what
I've
mentioned,
showing
what
I
had
mentioned
previously
related
to
the
section
14
specific
plan.
This
was
one
of
the
implementation
recommendations
on
the
left.
You'll
see
what
was
shown
as
in
the
specific
plan
as
the
existing
general
plan,
land
use
designations
and
those
are
still
in
place.
Today,
the
figure
on
the
right
out
of
the
specific
plan
showed
the
proposed
land
uses.
I
The
arrows
on
the
left
here
show
where
there
are
inconsistencies
between
the
two
where
proposed
or
changes
are
proposed,
and
our
recommendation
is
to
pick
those
up
during
this
update
of
the
general
plan.
I
This
is
neighborhood
commercial
and
I
should
clarify
that
there
is
a
small
piece
here
that
is
the
future
post
office
site.
The
post
office,
I
think,
was
located
here.
David
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
about
this,
but
n
is
moving
to
the
eastern
edge.
H
C
No,
so
the
what's
showing
in
the
darker
color,
pink
or
red
along
sunrise,
is
neighborhood
commercial
and
that's.
What's
currently
there
one's
being
built
one's
existing
further
north
on
sunrise
is
where
the
post
office
is
being
built
right
now,
so
that's
reflected
on
the
map,
use
that
you
have
and
it's
showing
it
as
the
blue
color
for
that
that
specific
parcel
and
actually
the
map
that
you
have
is
actually
goes
too
far
and
provides
more
than
we
should
be
using
for
public
designation.
C
So
it's
actually
going
to
only
be
one
parcel,
which
is
where
the
post
office
is
being
built.
The
property
to
the
north
of
that,
which
is
on
the
corner
of
vallejo
and
sunrise,
will
remain,
as
it's
shown
here,
medium
density,
residential
and
then
the
property
on
the
corner,
where
it's
currently
a
parking
lot.
That
will
also
remain
so.
It
would
be
just
a
small
portion
of
where
the
post
office.
B
Yeah,
that's
it
and
sunrise
and
awkwards
or.
C
I
And
yeah
and
and
to
david's
point
we're
gonna,
we'll
issue,
you
all
a
an
updated
map
by
tomorrow.
That
just
shows
that
one
that
fix
picked
up
in
one
other
area
that
we're
gonna
show
to
you
a
little
bit
later
on.
H
D
H
G
Yep
yeah-
and
this
has
all
been
you
know
adopted,
so
this
is
really
an
admin
cleanup
to
reflect.
What's
on
that
proposed,
we
say
it's
proposed,
but
that.
B
I
Okay,
all
right:
this
is
the
current
college
park
specific
plan,
the
the
northern
portion
of
that
area,
where
the
college
of
the
desert
site
was
intended
for
the
what's
designated
in
blue
as
school.
Here,
there's
also
a
park
site
here
shown
it's
existing
park
right.
I
Yes,
so,
as
some
of
you
may
know,
the
college
of
the
desert
is
no
longer
planning
to
to
relocate
there.
There
is
a
different
site
identified
for
the
college
of
the
desert.
We
talked
about
it.
I
think
a
little
bit
at
the
last
meeting
at
the
palm
springs.
Mall
we're
gonna
be
talking
about
that
in
reference
to
the
mixed
use
areas
a
little
bit
later.
I
But
what
is
being
shown
here
is
a
proposed
redesignation
of
these
areas
for
residential
use,
use
that
is
consistent
with
the
surrounding
neighborhoods
or
the
the
adjoining
neighborhoods.
It
would
keep
that
park
site
intact
and
then
towards
palm
canyon.
I
mean
indian
canyon.
I
There
there
is
some
would
be
some
higher
density
residential
in
the
form
of
medium
density,
residential
here,
which
is
consistent
with
the
citing
higher
densities
of
residential
use
along
the
primary
quarters
of
the
city.
Also,
a
small
corner
of
neighborhood
serving
commercial-
that's
identified
here.
I've.
C
H
H
G
Well
yeah,
some
of
it
is
because
adjacent
is
ldr,
but
then
you
also
have
very
low
density
residential,
so
we're
trying
to
transition
if
it's
worth
bringing
up
and
making
it
higher
density.
If
that's
something
that
you
guys
see,
that's
a
value.
A
I
think
we
should
give
it
consideration.
The
question
this
is
a
question
for
dixie
is
in
terms
of
this
area.
Also,
what
do
you
think.
H
A
Because
this
is
are.
H
A
B
Because
they,
a
guy
I'm
to
my
understanding,
is
trying
to
build
homes
out
there
that
I'm
the
community's
not
really
embracing
right
now,
because
they're
not
low
housing,
we
need
low
housing
out
there.
B
G
So
can
I
clarify
so:
does
that
mean
lower
income,
housing
versus
low
density
housing?
I
just
want
to
make
sure.
H
B
G
A
G
C
But
staff
has
been,
staff
is
aware
of
an
application
that
will
be
coming
in
for
this
area.
It
is
residential,
though
we
don't
have
the
formal
application.
Yet.
The
idea
here
is
that
this
is
what
we
understand
will
come
forward,
but
again
it's
not.
It
hasn't
been
formally
submitted
yet.
B
A
F
Topic
unless
I
missed
it,
do
we
have
an
idea
of
the
two
blue
sites
that
are
public
quasi
public?
I
don't
think
they
were
that
under
the
old
original
plan
and
are
there
specific
uses
for
those
two
or
something
they're,
not
aware
of.
G
C
I'll
leave
it
to
the
chair.
The
chair
is
if
the
chair
is
open
to
receiving
comments.
H
Just
a
point
of
information
that
the
application
that
dave
was
referring
to
will
look
very
similar
to
what
you
see
in
front
of
you
right
now.
So
just
just
as
a
point
of
information
to
y'all.
I
That
that
is
our
completes,
our
review
of
the
plan,
the
map
itself,
so
I
wanted
to
take
an
opportunity
if,
if
there
are
additional
questions
about
the
map,
but
to
take
those
now
maybe
from
is
that,
if
that's
appropriate,
if
the
chair
is
okay
or
we
can
keep
going
with
the
text,
editor.
A
Here
are
additional
questions:
let's
take
them
now
I
have
one
which
is:
is
there
a
way
as
we
get
the
maps
of
zeroing
in
on
it
and
looking
at
areas
more
closely.
I
G
G
So
if
we
have
edits
between
now
and
then
it
will
just
make
it
a
little
bit
more
challenging,
because
the
rest
of
the
group
will
not
have
heard
the
conversation
and
david,
I
think
we'd
have
to
figure
out
how
to
best
review
those,
because
if
you've
got
multiple
comments
or
questions,
and
then
the
group
is
only
supposed
to
be
looking
at
the
things
tonight.
C
C
If
you
want
to
just
send
it
to
me,
I
can
put
that
in
the
table
and
and
let
everyone
know
how
that
was
addressed.
Okay,.
G
In
the
powerpoint
there
are
examples
and
the
map
that
you
were
provided
in
your
email,
the
pdf,
that's
everything.
With
the
exception
of
there
was
a
one
public
for
the
post
office
that
we
needed
to
add
and
what
jonathan
was
there?
A
mixed
use,
one
that
we
needed
to
fix
as
well
or.
G
There
was
a
a
map
catch
so
with
it
this
map,
when
you
look
at
the
map
that
we
provided,
that
says
gp
proposed
and
it
shows
just
the
cut
colored
and
anything
that
has
a
color
on
it.
If
it's
brown
blue
purple,
we
covered
a
lot
of
them,
so
you
can
see
you
know
the
general
ones
with
boundaries
and
things
like
that.
But
if
there
were
any
others
that
caught
your
eye
and
you're
like
hey,
what
do
you
know
is
it?
G
H
I
have
a
question
about
the
two
large
spa
areas:
one
in
palm
hills
south
end
of
this
near
the
south
end
of
the
city,
spa
and
then
there's
a
large
one
along
in
chino
canyon,
which
I
think
was
another
former
proposed
development
site.
I
Okay,
I've
got
it
and
I'm
gonna
I'm
gonna
actually
share.
I
will
share
the
version
that
you
all
have
received.
So
yes,
so.
I
My
understanding
is,
this
was
just
a
city
boundary
fix
that
it's
actually
just
a
cleanup
of
an
incorrectly
shown
parcel
here.
E
H
We've
had
a
couple
of
residential
a
couple
of
votes
on
both
of
those
two
big
spa
areas
right
kathy-
and
I
don't
know
if
that
would
have
that
affects
the
the
designation
or
not.
B
G
C
I
don't
have
markup
on
that
one.
So
I'm
not
sure
why
that's
there.
C
Yeah
we
may
have
to
take
another
look
at
that
because
if
that's
there's
no
proposed
change
to
the
land
uses
for
that
area,
so
my
assumption
is:
is
it's
related
to
street
parcel
changes,
and
so
it
was
probably
just
absorbing
those
areas,
but.
C
B
C
C
To
the
land
use
for
this
area,
so
I'm
not
sure
why
it's
showing
up.
My
only
guess
is
is
that
it's
related
to
street
streets
that
were
previously
part
of
an
old.
H
G
What
we
look
at
is
what
the
parcels
come
back
from
the
assessor's
office
yeah.
So
you
know
we
reflect
those
new
parcels,
but
that's
definitely
a
special
policy
area
that
was
in
there
before
okay
and
there
was
no
intent
to
do
any
changes
to
that
area.
So
it
has
to
be
a
mapping
thing
and
we
can
go
through
and
jonathan
will
double
check.
The
notes
from
our
our
gis
person.
A
And
then
just
one
question
that
I
know
that
some
areas
of
the
chino
cone
have
been
absorbed
into.
I
guess:
preservation
there
in
preservation
areas
now
and
with
text
amendments
that
don't
allow
them
to
be
developed.
I
think
that'll
also
be
true
of
oswit.
Is
there?
Does
this
reflect
those
changes.
C
Let's
see
so
no
changes
proposed,
it's
still
a
special
policy
area
when
the
city,
it's
further
down,
not
up
sorry
jonathan,
so.
H
C
A
You
talking
about,
as
would
I
can't
I
can't
so
it's
a
special
policy
area
right
now,
but
does
the
land
use
designation
change
when
it's
in
a
ownership
of
a
non-profit
required
to
stay
in
its
current
natural
state?.
A
H
C
Yeah
and
our
open
space
conservation
designation
is
one
to
one
unit
for
20
acres,
correct
our
open
space.
Mountain
designation
is
one
to
one
unit
for
40
acres.
So
again,
the
special
policy
areas
are
really
just
to
define
further
that
this
is
an
open
land
area
and
any
type
of
development
requires
special
attention
through
a
specific
plan.
Adoption.
C
C
Yeah
so
again,
that
was
an
old
designation
when
the
city
processed
an
application
for
the
oswec
canyon
area,
the
that
was
challenged
in
court
and
then
the
court
over
overturned
the
entitlement
and
then
what
the
city
was
required
to
go
through
and
amend
the
general
plan,
and
so
that
is
already
part
of
the.
What
should
be
the
current
map
that
you
see
online,
but
it's
not
reflective
of
the
map.
That's
online,
unfortunately,
so.
G
So
what
we
can
assure
when
you
look
at
that
current
map
and
what
we
will
make
sure
is
that
whole
area
will
be
spa,
so
the
er
will
go
away
and
then
what
you
can
see
where
the
differences
in
the
map
are
so
that's
where
jonathan
was
referring.
You
see
how
there's
like
little
white
holes
so
it
to
on
the
right
side
where
the
boundaries
of
the
spa
don't
match
the
city
boundary.
G
There's
like
a
you
can
see
the
topography,
it's
white
and
grey
yeah,
it's
the
hills,
yeah
just
kind
of
to
the
right
of
where
the
estate
residential
was.
If
you're
looking
at
the
current
map
in
that
area,
there's
a
couple
little
holes
there,
and
so
the
reason
that
spa
is
is
likely
showing
up
is
because
there's
two
spots
there
that
have
no
land
use
designation
on
them.
I
think
so.
G
We
are
cleaning
that
up
to
make
it
match
with
the
city
boundary,
and
so
then,
we'll
make
sure
the
underlying
current
map
shows
the
estate
residential
where
it
looks
like
you
know,
there's
roads
and
streets
in
there
as
spa
and
then
that
will
reflect
the
edits.
That
david
was
talking
about
so
that
whole
thing
should
just
be
spa.
H
G
Issue
well
we'll
confirm
with
david
on
what
that
what
the
challenge
was
and
what
it
was
required
to
be,
and
so
we'll
we'll
make
sure
that
that's
covered
based
upon
what
the
the
agreements
were.
Yeah.
C
For
reference,
if
anyone
is
watching
this
after
the
meeting,
it's
ordinance
number
1919
that
changed
the
canyon,
south
specific
plan
and
the
general
plan
to
designate
austin
canyon
or
oswitch
cone
as
an
area
subject
to
environmentally
sensitive
regulations.
C
C
Right
again,
that's
a
cleanup
thing
that
I
think,
although
it's
not
something
that
we
would
call
attention
to,
because
it
should
have
been
changed
already
on
the
map,
but
we'll
make
sure
it's
incorporated
in
the
final
map.
A
There
are
a
couple
of
areas
that
I
think
there's
an
additional
10
acres
there
that
belongs
now
to
friends
of
palm
springs
mountains,
which
will
be
in
perpetuity
special
policy
area
for
your
purposes.
You
might
want
to
collect
what
those
areas
are.
H
There's
a
big
area
east
of
looks
like
where
chocolates
creek
is
coming
out
of
the
mountains.
Just
at
the
edge
of
the
city.
Boundary
on
the
west
side
looks
like
we're
changing
something
there
to
osm
or
is
that?
Is
that
just
again
a
surveying
thing
or.
G
H
Then
you've
got
a
bunch
of
area.
That's
marked
in
green.
G
H
And
a
little
bit
of
water,
open-space
water-
is
that
a
technical
change
or.
I
Yeah,
that's
a
toe
of
slope
for
the
green
and
I
think
of.
I
I
Just
to
confirm
for
everyone,
that's
this
area
here
right,
we're
looking
at
yes,
yeah.
C
Yeah,
so
what
we're
doing
there
is
reflecting
that
the
current
boundaries
were
not
consistent
with
the
the
open
space,
water
and
open
space,
mountain
topography.
G
G
All
right,
we've
still
got
a
few
other
text
changes
we
wanted
to
run
by
you
guys,
but
I
don't
want
anybody
to
feel
rushed
at
all.
Were
there
others
that
were
jumping
out
to
you
guys
that
you
thought
you
might
want
to
ask
questions
on
or
do
you
think
we're?
Okay
with
what
you're
looking
at
with
the
exception,
we'll
follow
up
on
the
spa,
and
then
we
got
your
feedback
on
the
college
of
the
desert
site.
I
Hey
back
to
it
again
largely.
I
There
we
go
looking
here
at
some
proposed
changes
that
were
sent
to
you
in
a
word
document
or
actually,
I
think,
received
a
pdf
version
that
had
track
changes
on
it
towards
the
end
of
last
week.
I
The
intent
here
with
and
for
the
changes
that
we're
going
to
review
with
you
in
in
detail
really
is
to
clarify
the
intention
of
the
mixed
use
and
multi-use
designation
and
then
the
flexibility
of
its
application
and
and
and
those
that
it
encompasses
the
changes
to
the
the
mixed
use
description
that
I'll
review
after
this
right.
We're
focused
here
on
the
mixed-use
multi-use
definition,
which
appears
with
the
other
land
use
definitions
in
this
section
of
the
document.
I
During
our
last
meeting,
we
had
looked
at
the
text-
that's
showing
it's
already
incorporated
here,
showing
the
incentive
for
affordable
housing
to
meet
that
residential
density
of
up
to
30
dwelling
units
per
acre.
That
was
that
was
provided
through
a
different
mechanism,
the
the
plant
development
district
previously
so
making
that
available
to
as
an
incentive
to
those
who
include
affordable
housing
projects
and
we'll
come
back
to
that.
I
A
little
bit
later,
when
we
look
at
the
cbd,
central
business
district
definition,
which
also
appears
under
the
mixed
use
section,
the
other
clarification
here
that
we
wanted
to
review
with.
You
was
in
the
definition
itself,
making
it
clear
that
a
mixing
of
uses
can
occur
either
within
a
single
building
vertically.
So
an
example
would
be
having
a
retail
or
commercial
use
on
the
ground
floor
of
a
building
with
residences.
Above
that's
what
we
mean
when
we
talk
about
a
vertical
mix
of
uses
and
then
or
can,
can
be
found
horizontally.
G
Here
mainly
was
to
just
clarify,
because
the
definition
doesn't
include
how
that
vertical
versus
horizontal
it
talks
about
it
in
text
later
on,
and
so
this
was
just
a
revision
kind
of
tightening
up
and
helping
so
that
when
staff
at
the
counter
are
getting
it's
just
a
clarification
of
the
definition.
F
Is
kurt?
I
have
one
question
about
this
in
in
reviewing
this
information
with
some
of
it
that
we
have
not
gotten
into
yet.
I
was
a
little
confused
by
the
inclusion
of
multi-use,
as
rather
than
just
going
with
mixed
use,
because
a
little
later
on,
we
actually
delete
some
language
that
is
specific
to
multi-use,
and
I
did
just
a
little
bit
of
online
research
and
I'm
not
really
finding
much.
In
terms
of
that
phrase.
Multi-Use
and
when.
F
G
There's
always
a
history
to
this
right.
When
I
worked
on
this
on
back
in
2007,
the
principle
at
the
time
was
of
the
mindset
that
multi-use
meant
when
things
are
next
to
each
other
and
mixed
use
was
vertical
and
I
for
the
longest
I
I
had
a
teta
tet
with
him
saying
it's
just
mixed
use,
it's
just
if
you
can
stack
it
or
put
it
next
to
each
other
and
he
wanted
the
multi-use
language
in
there.
G
G
F
But
the
one
place
that
it
is
mentioned
is
a
later
paragraph
and
it's
been
proposed
to
delete
that
sentence
anyway.
So
I
would
suggest,
unless
there's
other
reasons
for
keeping
it,
that
it
might
clean
it
up
a
little
and
make
it
a
more
readable
document,
general
public
for
people
who
don't
know
that
history.
C
I
I
I
Okay,
so
that
that
was
the
suggested
change
to
that
definition.
Now
I'll
go
ahead
to
the
mixed
use
description,
which
occurs
several
pages
later.
Actually,
if
you
look
back
here,
we've
referenced
to
where
those
descriptions
can
be
found
in
the
document,
we'll
make
sure
those
the
pagination
references
are
correct,
but
starting
on
page
30
of
the
existing
land
use
element
is
a
description
of
the
intention
for
the
mixed
and
multi-use
now
to
be
called
mixed-use
areas
of
the
city.
I
The
suggested
changes
that
we've
included
here,
as
I
mentioned,
are
intended
to
clarify
how
that
definition
is
implied
what
is
and
and
applied.
So
one
of
the
areas
we
wanted
to
strengthen-
and
that's
shown
here
is
actually
maybe
strengthen-
is
not
the
best
word,
because
we
wanted
to
show
that
it's
more
flexible.
You
know
that
there
is
flexibility
in
how
the
designation
is
applied
and-
and
there
is
you
know,
an
opportunity,
and
then
I
think
we'll
talk
about
this.
I
When
we
look
at
the
dents,
the
the
ratio
of
land
use
mixes
that
are
included
for
each
of
the
mixed
use,
areas
that
are
shown
in
the
city,
jonathan.
H
The
mixed
uses
down
to
the
actual
partial
level
there's
no
way
of
allocating
them,
so
we
can
find
out
if
a
proposed
development
on
a
single
parcel
is
consistent
with
the
general
plan,
because
a
lot
of
the
times
the
pro
development
proposal
will
come
in
partial
by
parcel,
and
I
think
we
one
of
the
legal
cases
we
had
was
that
they
that
area
near
chocolates,
creek
just
north
of
the
a
w
area
there,
the
south
rather
well,
you
haven't
done
enough
enough
of
your
mixed
uses
in
this
area
to
get
anywhere
near
your.
G
So
the
intent
of
the
percentages
was
to
you
know,
look
at
because
you
have
so
many
mixed-use
areas
to
show
that
each
area
is
its
special
own
special
node
and
has
its
own
special
mix
so
that
they
don't
compete
against
each
other,
but
they're
complementary
right,
one
may
have
more
residential,
one
may
be
more
of
an
office
cluster
or
an
activity.
Center
you've
got
downtown,
so
that
was
the
intent,
and
so
I
I
probably
need
a
little
bit
more
clarification.
G
We've
been
working
with
david
about
talking
about
the
mixes
and
we're
going
to
show
you
those
in
a
little
bit
on,
because
on
some
projects
we
have
seen
big
projects
come
in
and
we're
suggesting
to
revise
the
the
mix
of
uses.
But
we
were
able
to
go
through
this
round
and
see
you
know
how
much
was.
Actually
you
know
what
the
actual
percentage
mix
was
of
each
mixed
use
area
to
see
if
it.
G
If
we
should
to
even
know
if
we
should
look
at
adjusting,
we
had
to
see
how
it
was
building
out
where
it
was
already,
and
so
I'm
not
sure
you
know
what
was
happening
or
if
there
was
a
challenge
on
that.
You
know
if
it
was
because
people
were
trying
to
do
a
mix
of
all
the
uses
on
one
parcel.
The
intent
is
to
take
that
area
as
a
district
and
it's
the
percentage
mix.
So
that's
how
you
get
the
horizontal
right
so
that.
G
And
that
that
is
okay,
because
that's
the
horizontal
as
long
as
the
balance,
so,
for
instance,
if
it
was
a
mix
that
said
it
should
be,
you
know
40
residential,
a
30
office
and
30
commercial
that
all
of
a
sudden.
If,
whatever
came
in
ended
up
being
you
know,
eighty
percent
residential,
then
it
was
kind
of
like
take
a
time
out
and
look.
Is
that
really
what
this
district
is
supposed.
H
That's
almost
exactly
what
happened:
okay
and-
and
I
think
we
got
sued
over
the
fact
that
it
wasn't
consistent
with
the
journal
plan,
and
I
think
that
didn't
we
lose
that
one
david.
H
Yeah
yeah.
G
So
the
intent
is
to
revisit
it
at
that
point
to
see
if
the
project
is,
you
know
generally
consistent
with
what
you
guys
are
intending,
or
if
it's
a
huge
departure,
then
it
should
just
put
a
gpa
in
there
to
massage
the
the
percentages
that
are
proposed
david.
Do
you
have
any
other
thoughts
on
on
how
that's
been
implemented
since
you're,
the
one.
C
Yeah,
I
mean
one's
right.
We,
as
I
think
we
talked
about
briefly.
The
challenge
has
always
been
to
live
up
to
the
to
the
ratios
and
it
it
becomes
in
terms
of
in
practice,
implementing
those
ratios
making
sure
you
know
that
we're
in
line
with
that
you
know.
That's
that's
a
good
question
does.
Does
the
committee
think
that
the
ratios
are
well?
We
can,
I
think,
we'll
get
into
that
just
a
minute,
but
definitely
in
terms
of
in
practice
how
we
implement.
It
has
been
a
bit
of
a
challenge
and.
I
A
I
Build-Out
for
these
mixed-use
areas,
it
helps
us
to
identify
the
mix
of
uses
that
you
know
we're
going
to
be
modeling,
sure
future
scenario
yeah,
but.
G
Well,
so
I
think
that's
where,
when
we
were
going
through
this
for
the
most
part,
when
we
double
checked
the
areas
and
jonathan
can
confirm
and
you'll
see
and
some
of
the
changes
we're
proposing,
most
of
the
areas
seemed
to
fall
within.
You
know
the
range
of
what
they
were
being
proposed.
Already
there
was
room.
There
are
a
couple
areas.
We
were
proposing
changes,
so
hopefully
those
are
the
areas
where
it
would
be.
G
We
would
be
fixing
the
issue,
but
I
definitely
would
like
to
hear
from
you
guys
as
to
whether
or
not
that
does
that
and
if
you're
saying
it's
a
big
policy
issue,
then
we'll
look
to
david,
because
you
know
the
intent
is
that
if
that's
something
we
have
to
revisit
down
the
road
when
we're
looking
at
more
comprehensive,
you
know,
here's
all
the
different
land
use
changes
we're
making
or
you
know.
G
G
I
mean
that
was
the
other
thing
at
some
point
we
talked
about
with
flynn
and
david
was
there
they
said,
do
we
need
to
have
the
mixes
and
the
only
argument
I
have
on
that
one
is
that,
when
we're
trying
to
create
those
nodes
that
way
it's
not
a
free-for-all,
I
mean
there's
when
you've
got
this
long
corridor
of
how
it
should
function.
That
was
the
intent
was
to
try
to
say
this
area
is
supposed
to
look
a
little
bit.
An
action
act
like
this.
G
This
one
is
different
all
along
the
corridor,
so
that
when
you're
driving
down
it
they
would
almost
be
their
own
mini
destinations
with
different
different.
A
F
Okay,
if
I
might
you
know,
I
don't
have
a
solution
for
this,
but
there's
a
phrase
in
here
that
keeps
jumping
out
at
me
and
that's
one.
That's
not
proposed
to
be
changed
as
we
go
down
this
introduction
of
mix
you
get
down
to
about
the
tenth
line,
it's
generally
more
concentrated
and
then
it
says
and
uses
are
also
generally
mixed,
either
vertically
or
horizontally
within
any
given
property.
G
Yeah
and
maybe
it's
we
could
change
that.
I
I
like
that
you're
pointing
that
out
because
it
could
say
it
could
be
mixed
vertically
or
horizontally
within
any
mixed
use
area.
You
know
so
then
that
way
it
provides
that
flexibility
in
there
and
it
doesn't.
That
was
the
point,
was
to
not
make
it
happen
on
that
one
property.
But
I
don't
know
if
that
fixes
your
percentage
issue,
but
I
think
that
does
we
do
need
to
clean
up
that
given
property
part.
D
Madam
chair,
I'm
I'm
concerned
about
keeping
these
percentages
and
I
think
you're
always
going
to
butt
up
against
the
market
against
people
trying
to
develop
these
properties,
I'd
like
to
see
them
removed.
I
understand
the
need
to
have
some
assumptions
when
you
do
your
environmental
document,
but
I
think
this
gets
way
in
the
weeds.
We
don't
know
what
the
landscape
is
going
to
look
like
over
the
next
10
years
in
terms
of
especially
commercial
and
office
space.
B
Saying
when
I,
when
I
read
it,
I
thought
how
in
the
world,
do
you
figure
out
at
that
granular
level?
How
to
do
that?
Well,.
D
A
Yeah,
I
I
I
mean
I
tend
to
agree
with
what
margaret's
saying
and
what
kathy
said,
and
when
is
it?
Is
that
generally
felt
david?
What's
your
thought
on
this.
C
Is
challenging
for
staff
to
implement
the
the
mix,
but
what
you
see,
though,
if
we
do
decide
to
keep
it
in,
are
some
adjustments
to
the
percentages
where
we
felt
you
know
more
residential
is
appropriate,
given
the
direction
that
we
see
the
market
going
with
private
development.
C
So
at
the
staff
level,
I
think
I
think
margaret's
right
it
is.
It
can
be
problematic
for
us
to
implement
so.
E
G
The
percentage
and
we
haven't
gotten
to
some
of
the
other
examples,
but
if
you
look
at
the
way,
there's
a
a
narrative
in
the
general
plan
currently
that
describes
for
a
lack
of
a
better
term
the
personality
or
what
the
character
of
each
node
is
intended
to
be,
and
that's
what
the
percentage
mix
was
kind
of
like
a
target
of
like
okay.
This
is
supposed
to
be
a
neighborhood
commercial
center,
and
this
is
supposed
to
be
residential.
G
So,
as
you
were
seeing
the
interesting
part,
is
you
know,
as
you
guys
looked
at
artist
colony,
you
know
some
of
the
feedback
we
got
was
well.
Could
you
just
change
some
of
that
mixed
use
to
residential
the
mixes
up
there,
that
we
had
was
higher
percentage
residential
with
some
commercial
and,
I
believe,
a
little
bit
of
office
in
there,
but
that
was
so.
People
could
have
the
flexibility
of
where
it
went
versus,
showing
the
explicit
land
uses
on
there,
but
you
guys
are
like
hey.
G
We
could
put
some
residential
back
so
a
lot
of
these.
You
know
it
was
just
it
really
was.
What
we
haven't
done
is
looked
at
all
the
other
uses
in
the
corridor
and
tried
to
just
figure
out
how
they
complement
each
other.
Now
I
I
agree
100
administratively
so
much
easier,
not
to
have
the
the
mixes.
You
know
it
is
a
nice
way
to
ch,
have
a
checks
and
balance,
and
maybe
it's
maybe
the
wording.
G
If
you
were
to
go
this
route
would
be.
You
know,
this
is
a
target
area,
but
this
the
areas
aren't
limited
to
these
percentages.
So
I
guess
it's.
You
know
when
a
property
owner
comes
in
and
they're
trying
to
build
a
particular
use.
Do
you
point
them
to
a
specific
node
and
encourage
them
to
go
in
those
areas,
because
you're
trying
to
create
a
certain
character
in
that
area
or
you're
trying
to
create
a
collection
of
certain
type
of
uses
in
that
area?
G
Otherwise
it
you
know
just
might
be
a
little
bit
here
and
there
so
it
and
then
the
market
can
dictate
so
there's
just
two
different
ways
to
look
at
it.
H
D
I
guess
I'm
I'm
willing
to
trust
a
developer
in
these
mixed
use
areas
and
you
combine
that
with
the
city's
existing
development
review
framework.
I
just
think
that
there's
enough
conversation
between
the
developer
and
the
community
here
in
palm
springs
that
would
make
sure
that
whatever
gets
developed
is
going
to
be
a
good
project.
I
mean
that's,
I'm
willing
to.
I
just
think
you
remove.
All
of
these
hurdles
preferred
mixes
of
uses.
I
think
those
those
just
feel
arbitrary
to
me
because
really
my
experience,
you
know
developers
of
money
drive
this
process.
E
Yeah,
I
I
still,
I
still
respectfully.
I
still
think
that
there's
some
parameters
on
it
and
then
maybe
that's
just
for
talking
about
my
own
personal
experience
with
things,
but
I
would
go
with
obviously
the
majority,
but
I
j
I
just
like
having
some
criteria
or
something
that
kind
of
gives
gives
things.
So
things
don't
get
too
far
out
of
out
of
balance.
F
F
I
I
would
agree
with
margaret
that
I
think
that,
given
the
way
that
things
are
reviewed
community
input
all
those
kind
of
things,
I
think
it
will
allow
it
to
be
a
little
more
flexible
if
we
don't
put
these
somewhat
arbitrary
percentages.
In
I
mean
I
think
they
were
put
in
with
a
good
intent,
but
it's
just
a
guess
at
what
makes
sense.
A
C
So
I
think,
unless
there's
issues
about
it,
unless
the
committee
has
issues
with
the
way
it's
written,
we
have
the
one
comment
about
changing
the
last
sentence
in
black
text
to
be
modified.
But
you
know
if
everyone
else
is
okay
with
this,
we
can
move
on
to
the
other
descriptions
and
maybe
generally
as
we
get
into
those
we
can
unless.
C
C
Someone
has
specific
recommendations.
We
can
say
generally
that
these
are
targets
that
are
not
required
to
be.
I
don't
want
to
adhere
to,
but
these
are
the
targets
for
each
each
mixed
use
area
and
there
may
be
flexibility
as
approved
by
council.
E
D
E
D
I
And
this
was
what
kurt
was
referencing
in
terms
of
striking
multi-use
to
simplify
right.
It
was.
I
Right
and
this
was
to
kind
of
clarify
the
district
role.
G
I
Yeah,
there's
there's
language
in
here
that
I
think
it
both
clarifies
what
is
intended
by
the
target
percentages,
but
also
provides
an
alternate
pathway
via
general
plan
amendment.
But
you
know,
I
think
we
could
rework
this
to
make
it
more
clear
along
the
lines
of
the
feedback
that
we've
received
about.
G
And
it
said
the
last
sentence
says:
while
this
mix
should
be
used
as
a
guideline
for
development,
the
ultimate
composition
of
the
area
may
vary
in
response
to
market
conditions.
So
maybe
it's
a
clarifying
that
these
are
intended
as
targets
like.
We
don't
have
that
wording
in
there
and
then
I
guess
the
question
is
going
to
be.
You
know
we
do
have
that
language
in
there.
That
says,
if
the
project
does
not
support
the
intent
of
the
designation,
it
says
a
general
plan.
Amendment
to
a
designation
may
be
required.
G
I
don't
know
why
it
says
single
use,
but
you
know
maybe
what
I
don't
if
we're
trying
to
avoid
the
general
plan,
amendments
to
margaret's
point
of
you
know
being
being
open
and
kind
of
friendly
to
allow
the
mixes.
I
don't
know
if
there's
another
way
to
do
that
or
if
it's
you
know,
if
the
percentages
are
there
and
they're
they're,
decent
and
their
targets,
and
if
it's
really
something
that
just
completely
changes
the
intent
of
what
that
description
is
then
require
a
general
plan
amendment.
G
It's
that's
supposed
to
give
you
some
flexibility,
but
it
really
puts
the
honest
on
you
know,
david
or
whoever
else
to
say
it's
meeting
the
intent
or
not
and
that's
kind
of
a
weird
place,
because
it's
not
a
very
clear
line
of
where
that
is
or
it
would
be,
on
the
council
to
decide.
H
But
if
somebody
comes
in
with
a
single
land
use,
maybe
we
should.
They
should
be
limited
to
the
the
development
limits
that
we
talk
about
at
the
beginning
of
this,
which
I
think
is
what
15
du
per
acre
for
residential
and
0.5
or
0.25
far
for
other
uses
right
and
and
he
would
not
get
the
advantage
of
having
both
he
or
she
would
not
get
the
advantage
of
having
both.
D
It
seems
to
me
if
you
can
make
if
you
can
make
the
general
plan
I'll
use
the
word
vague,
vague
enough.
Then
it's
going
to
eliminate
a
lot
of
general
plan
amendments
that
people
feel
like
they
have
to
process,
because
the
language
is
too
specific
and
staff
doesn't
feel
strong,
feel
confident
about
finding
that
justification
of
consistency.
D
So
I
think
again
at
wendy's
point
there's
a
fine
line
here.
I
would
defer
to
staff
on
that
as
to
what
language
kind
of
the,
how
detailed
this
needs
to
be
as
a
as
a
planner
I'd
prefer
to
see
less
detail
on
my
general
plan.
That
gives
me
the
ability
to
evaluate
projects
and
make
you
know,
gives
me
the
the
professional
ability
to
analyze
a
project
and
see
if
it
really
meets
the
community
standard.
G
And
I
agree,
the
only
other
thing
I
would
offer
to
just
consider
was
that
that
was
the
intent
when
we
put
back
in
the
day,
the
pdd
in
the
language
to
have
flexibility
on
things
and
people
took
it
to
the
nth
degree
on
that,
and
so
now
you
see
we're
taking
that
out.
So
I
100
agree.
There
is
a
fine
line,
but-
and
we
have
now
more
provisions
in
place,
so
that
wouldn't
happen.
G
So
I
feel
more
comfortable
that
you
know
the
way
that
the
community
is
looking
at
projects
that
come
in
that
that
wouldn't
happen,
but
that
was
that
was
the
intent
at
that.
Time,
too,
was
to
give
it
the
flexibility
to
respond
to
market.
G
So
I
don't
know
david
newell:
do
you
have
it?
I
don't
know
so
I
mean
I
think
what
we
could
do.
I'm
kind
of
hearing
maybe
put
the
targets
in
there.
Maybe
david
will
talk
to
you
about
what
that
trigger
would
be
for
a
general
plan
amendment
or
not
like
to
what
degree
do
we
specify
what
would
need
to
happen
when.
C
Yeah
yeah,
I
think
we
can.
We
can
work
through
it.
I
mean
the
feedback
it
sounds
like.
Is
that
the
targets,
although
they're
they're
they're
nice,
to
have
we
don't
want
to
make
them
binding
in
terms
of
our
project
reviews?
So
I
think
it's
we
can
say.
Instead
of
preferred
land
juice
mix
or
mix
you
for
mixed
use
areas,
we
can
say
target
lime
juice
mix,
so
I
think
we
can
make
work
that
work
that
in
and.
G
G
G
I
guess
the
question
is
we'll
go
through
one
more
mix,
I
mean
we
have
to
make
assumptions
for
the
mix
of
uses
anyway,
but
if
we
look
at
the
mixes-
and
we
can
just
use
that
for
the
build
out,
everybody
will
get
another
opportunity
to
look
at
this
language
again
when
we
bring
the
policy
language
forward,
so
they
can
see
what's
in
there.
So
I
think
this
is
good
feedback,
because
we're
already
getting
into
the
write
up
of
that
goal
and
policy
section
for
the
mixed
use.
G
So
maybe
that
gives
us
enough
to
move
forward
with
that.
What
do
you
think.
E
I
would
just
tell
you,
I,
I
feel
much
more
comfortable
with
the
targeted
target
targeted
in
in
overall
and
then
as
I
go
through
everything
else,
it
the
rest
of
the
document.
As
I'm
looking
on
my
other
screen,
everything
looks
good
because
it
ties
the
same
thing
in
by
just
saying
targeted.
I'm
I'm
much
more
comfortable
with
that.
Thank.
G
You,
the
group,
concur
that
if
we
look
at
that
from
a
target
and
then
we'll
look
at
what
we
need
to
do,
because
maybe
we
could
change
the
language
to
say
something
like
if
the
project
significantly
differs
from
the
targets,
then,
but
then
it's
like
what
significantly
so,
how.
E
G
All
right
so
overall,
we'll
noodle
on
it
a
little
so
maybe
jonathan
could
you
go
through
and
show
like
some
of
the
mixes,
because
we
did
test
these
you
guys
we
did
go
through
to
see
how
you
guys
were
doing,
and
you
were
okay
with
the
exception
of
a
couple
areas,
so.
I
Yeah,
I
don't
have
the
the
existing
worked
in
here.
You
can
come
back
to
that.
If
we
want
what
we
had
identified
were,
I
think
it's
three
areas
where
there
were
obvious
and
changes
that
either
planned,
uses
or
approved
uses
had
had
warranted.
You
know
re-looking
at
the
description
and
or
the
percentages
and
re-evaluating
those
one
of
those
is
the
area
at
indian
canyon,
drive
and
san
rafael
drive.
I
This
is
the
area
in
the
just
south
of
the
site
that
had
been
identified
for
the
cod
campus
that
we
were
looking
at
before.
So
the
our
thinking
on
this
was
that
the
role
of
this
area
wouldn't
necessarily
need
to
change,
including
the
mix
of
uses,
but
rather
just
a
refresh
of
the
description
to
recognize
that
it
would
not
be
a
higher
education
campus
and
would
instead
be
a
primarily
residential,
neighborhood.
A
This
is
desert
holland
right
and
I
I'm
wondering
if
the
neighborhood
still
wants
it
to
be
55
to
65
industrial.
What
what
I've
heard
at
city
council
meetings
is?
They
want
some
commercial,
some
neighborhood
serving
commercial
in
that
district,
yeah,
grocery
stores
and
and
other
stores,
and
that
the
industrial
uses
that
have
gone
there
have
been
mainly
recently
cannabis.
B
Would
like
to
have
something
like
laundry
mats,
grocery
stores
in
that
area
make
it
like,
and
we
have
enough
industry.
We
have
enough
cbd
industries
out
there
and
we
we're
looking
for
something
more
for
the
community
to
maybe
get
work
jobs,
maybe
like
just
a
post
office
or
anything.
That's
can
bring
in
for
the
neighborhood
to
get
jobs
and
make
money
make
a
living
since
they
took
the
cod
out.
We
residential
is
not
really
something
that
we
are
looking
at.
B
I
would
like
for
to
be
out
there.
We
would
like
retail
stores
things
like
that
mom
and
pop
stores,
in
that
same
area
where
the
cod
was
support,
was
proposed
to
go
and
they
took
that
away
so
now.
That
is
what
the
community
would
like
to
see
happening
in
that
area.
G
We're
looking
specifically
at
the
mixed
use,
so
we're
not
yeah
talking
about
the
so
dixie
it
sounded
like
you
were
referencing
the
college
of
the
desert
that
old
site
right.
This
is
an
area
just
south
of
that.
So
when
we're
describing
it,
it
talks
about-
and
it's
like
an
intersection
to
the
south,
so
there's
a
bunch
of
uses
that
are
jobs
around
there,
and
so
it's
saying
that
this
mixed
use
area
would
be
complementary
to
a
new
residential
neighborhood.
So
the
college
of
the
desert
was
assumed
to
be
in
that
a
new
residential
neighborhood.
G
G
We
have
the
that
what's
shown
on
here
is
the
boundary
of
the
mixed
use
area
plus
what's
existing
on
the
ground,
so
not
our
existing
general
plan
because
obviously
that's
mixed
use,
so
we
already
have
a
larger
percentage
of
industrial
there
and
so
we're
looking
at
the
remaining
uses.
There's
us
and
there's
some
residential.
G
You
know
so
like
we're.
Looking
at.
What's
left,
there's
probably
small
opportunity
for
retail
to
be
complementary,
so
you
know
dixie,
you
were
talking
about
kind
of
the
laundry
mat
personal
services,
other
things
there's
room
to
include
that,
but
right
now
this
is
predominantly
an
industrial
job
center.
Now.
The
other
thing
I'm
hearing
is
that
there's
a
concern
about
cannabis,
and
so
you
know
maybe
the
in
the
implementation
it's
more
of
a
okay.
How
do
we
attract
other
types
of
businesses
to
this
area
that
may
include
office
or
other?
G
You
know
desirable
jobs
for
the
community,
so
I
don't
know
does
that
change
anybody's
thoughts
on
the
mixes
there,
because
it's
just
south
of
the
college
of
the
desert
or
we
put
a
hold
on
what
that
you
know
we're
saying
that
would
be
complimentary
too,
and
we
you
know
because
we
were
showing
residential
land
uses.
We
assumed
you
know
a
new
neighborhood
with
some
neighborhood
commercial
up
there.
G
B
But
it's
a
mix,
it's
already
a
mix
already,
so
it
has
a
lot
of
different
businesses
up
there.
They
have
the
cannabis,
they
have
the
car,
the
mechanic
shops
paint
shops.
B
That's
they
already
so
you're
saying
that
you
can
put
more
commercial
businesses
in
that
same
area.
G
Yes,
so
right
now,
the
preferred
mix
of
uses
says
that
the
range
of
industrial
would
be
55
to
65,
which
is
you
know,
kind
of
what
you're
starting
to
see
with
the
acreage
there
15
to
25,
residential
and
15
to
25
commercial.
I
mean
none
of
these
add
up
perfectly
to
100.
It's
just
to
kind
of
give
that
range
of
what
the
whole
the
mix
the
targets
should
be,
but
you
know
it
could
be.
G
We
could
revisit
all
the
percentages
on
all
of
the
the
areas,
but
most
of
them
match
what
you're
starting
to
see
in
development,
as
so,
we
haven't
suggested
changing
the
percent
mix
on
this
one
because
it
still
allows
for
some
residential
and
it
still
allows
for
commercial
depending
on
what
the
market
and
industrial
it
allows
for
all
of
it.
Depending
on
what
the
market.
F
B
What's
that
question
the
hatched
areas
or
the
hatched
area?
Okay,
yeah
are
vacant
right,
so
whenever
we
ever
going
to
stop
calling
at
the
college
of
the
desert,
it
sort
of
makes
it
very
confusing,
because
it
has
such
great
implications
for
what
that
space
is
to
be
used
for
it's
very
different
than
what
we
were
looking
at
and
and
tried
to
identify,
calling
it
mixed
use
or
a
more
dense
housing.
B
That
would
be,
I
know
at
the
north,
but
that
would
have
implications
for
what
you
would
want
at
the
south.
Wouldn't
you
across
san
rafael,
I
mean
they're
contiguous
to
one
another.
Almost
there
was
another
neighborhood
in
between,
so
it
would
seem
like
what
I
hear
dixie
saying
is
that
they
they
really
need
things
that
will
serve
their
residents
that
are
already
there
and
the
ones
that
be
would
also
be
moving
into
this.
B
The
space
that
was
to
be
the
college
of
desert
if
it
were
to
become
affordable,
housing
kind
of
neighborhood.
H
B
H
A
Right
and
in
in
terms
of
the
unused
land,
I
think
what
the
community
has
wanted
was
more
more
community
serving
retail.
A
little
bit
of
the
thatched
land
will
probably
be
housing
on
the
north
of
ri
of
radio
road
that
was
set
up
as
a
housing
development
that
failed
john,
can.
I
G
Right
right,
this
is
the
existing
mixed-use
boundary,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
show
too
from
a
planning
perspective.
You
know
when
you
look
at
the
areas
that
are
vacant
now,
that
doesn't
mean
some
of
the
industrial
areas
can't
turn
over
so
that
the
mix
could
change.
But
right
now
the
vacant
you
have
is
kind
of
in
between
sandwiched
in
between
industrial
uses
for
the
most
part,
whereas
maybe
you
could
see
some
residential
on
the
north
side
as
it
transitions.
G
You
know,
you
know
just
south
of
rosa
parks
and
then
more
than
likely
I
mean
I
don't
know
the
lot
depths
on
the
south
side
of
san
rafael.
But
it's
you
know.
G
A
The
thatched
areas
was
supposed
to
be
affordable,
housing
and
that
fell
through
a
number
of
years
ago,
because
they
weren't
close
to
a
bus
transit.
They
didn't
get
tax
credits.
E
So
maybe
the
percentages
could
just
be
reviewed
and
maybe
the
commercial,
the
excuse
me,
the
industrial
portions
of
that
might
want
to
be
dropped
down
a
little
bit.
Maybe
the
encouragement
of
more
commercial
services
in
that
area
can
be
broadened
a
little
bit
and
I
think
that
would
probably
solve
this
part
of
the
issue
and
then,
as
we
work
on
north
of
tranview
road,
that's
to
be
determined
as
we
what
we
already
talked
about,
but
we
just
talked
about
that
area
being
medium
density
residential.
H
You
know
the
very
best
place
for
a
neighborhood
commercial
would
be
at
the
northwest
corner
of
san
rafael
and
indian
in
terms
of
being
having
a
viable
center.
That's
it's
got
lots
of
pedestrian
access
from
around
further
to.
E
E
C
It
depends
on
the
use
and
the
city's
changed
its
ordinances
about
a
year
ago,
so
it's
not
as
flexible
or
as
relaxed
as
it.
Currently
you
know
it
was
more
relaxed
the
step,
the
allowable
uses
in
the
industrial
zones.
This
area
doesn't
allow
for
cultivation
any
longer.
C
So
so
now
it's
it's
not,
as
you
know,
there's
more
other
restrictions
in
terms
of
locating
relative
to
other
cannabis
businesses.
So
I
don't
expect
that
we
would
see
a
continuous
continuation
of
the
saturation
that
we
have.
B
It's
it's
been
a
major
bone
of
contention,
especially
with
regard
to
the
the
odor
being
very
offensive
with
the
manufacturing.
That
sort
of
thing.
E
And
growing,
by
increasing
increasing
the
percentages
there
on
the
commercial
just
on
this
one
thing:
we're
talking
about
for
20
minutes
now
by
increasing
the
percentages
on
the
commercial
does
that
solve
some
of
the
some
of
the
issues
of
the
neighborhood
and
some
of
the
issues
that
we
would
like
to
accomplish
with
this
session.
B
E
B
B
Want
is
to
be
like,
for
instance,
palsy
tracks.
B
B
We
have
maryland
on
those
parks,
there's
a
complex
right
down
the
corner
that
no
one
would
be
able
to
afford
to
live
in,
so
we're
getting
blocked,
we're
getting
kind
of
blocked
in
so
this
is
why
we
were
like
if
this
guy
has
to
be
some
residential
homes
out
there,
they
we
feel
that
they
should
be
affordable
homes,
where
everyone
would
have
opportunity
to
buy
a
house
and
that's
our
main
concern.
F
Yeah
and
dixie-
I
would
you
know,
endorse
that
that
goal
and
from
my
perception
at
this
stage
in
here,
we,
I
guess,
need
to
focus
on
how
changes
in
density
might
go
toward
that
goal,
because
if
there
are
higher
densities
allowed,
then
it
should
allow
for
higher
levels
of
affordable.
But,
as
we
know,
I
remember
when
mountain
gate
was
built,
a
lot
of
people
thought
those
prices
were
going
to
stay
down
and
immediately
they
jumped
up.
F
It
became
a
very
popular
area
for
that,
so
I
think
you
kind
of
we
have
to
put
certain
pieces
of
the
puzzle
together.
We
can
do
so
much
in
this
general
pan
process,
but
then
there
has
to
be
more
emphasis
through
the
city,
I
think,
or
in
other
things,
to
reach
out
to
those
affordable
developers
to
take
advantage
of
what
is
put
in
this
plan
and
or
incentive
programs
that
might
push
that
even
further.
But
I
I'm
not
aware
myself
of
how
we
can
do
put
in
affordability
restrictions
to
a
general
plan
in
these
areas.
C
Right,
that's
correct,
I
think
the
we're
also
doing
those
are
creating
mechanisms
in
the
description
to
allow
for
more
density
for
affordability
or
affordable
projects,
so
I
think
we're
creating
mechanisms
to
do
it
in
our
general
plan
in
the
mixed-use
areas,
specifically,
but
yeah
kurt
you're
right
in
terms
of
how
we
get
there.
I
think
it's
important
that
we
have
goals
and
address
that
in
our
goals
and
policies.
C
G
Yeah
and
then
we
just
look
at
things,
that's
why
I
was
talking
about
the
land
uses,
so
we'll
put
the
commercial
to
commercial,
but
a
lot
of
times.
Commercial
properties
also
look
for
visibility
and
opportunity,
you
know.
So
if
the
vacant
parcels
are
down
a
street
in
a
back
corner
and
people
aren't
driving
by
you
know
just
so
when
you're
looking
at
a
marketability
of
a
site
for
commercial
but
there's
different
types
of
commercials,
so.
A
G
Yeah-
and
I
think
the
challenge
for
us
is,
you
know,
with
the
way
that
this
project
was
scoped,
was
that
we
weren't
looking
at
all
the
land
uses
and
revisiting
them
we're
tuning
these
tight
refinements.
So
these
are
all
great
ideas
of
things,
and
so
I
think
you
know
I'm
putting
notes
down
on
all
of
it
to
see.
You
know
what
is
in
a
holding
bin
for
next
time
what
we
can
cover
through
the
admin
we
have
like
three
more
slides
to
go
through,
and
I
want
to.
A
A
G
And
I
think
that's
great:
it
gets
the
attention
that
it
needs
so
we'll
focus
and
put
the
focus
on
and
see
what
we
can
do
so
that
we're
not,
I
don't
know
we'll
we'll
figure
it
out.
We
have
to
look
at
it
and
see
we'll
make
the
suggestions
we'll
go
back
and
put
our
thinking
caps
on,
but
our
goal
at
that
point
will
be
not
to
add
any
more
industrial
than
what
we
have,
which
is
50
and
then
bump
up
the
commercial.
G
Whoops,
the
next
one
I
have
I'll
give
a
preview
is
on.
Oh,
it's
the
changes
to
we're,
calling
it
the
it
was.
The
old
palm
springs
mall.
So
it's
the
higher
we're
calling
it
the
higher
education
campus
now,
and
so
we
added
a
reference
to
the
future
home
of
the
campus
for
the
college
of
the
desert
and
some
of
the
ancillary
uses
that
they're
proposing
in
there
and
then
I
think,
you're.
I
think
it's
up.
Oh
no
did
I
skip
one.
Did
I
miss
one.
H
G
C
G
A
F
Yeah,
I
think
the
reality
is
that
the
campus
will
also
have
a
fair
amount
of
space
for
offices.
You
know
whether
it's
admissions
related
or
things
of
that
nature.
Not
everything
will
be
classrooms,
so
I
wouldn't
think
that
we
need
office
in
here.
There's
lots
of
office
along
that
corridor
just
to
the
west,
and
I
wouldn't
think
that
the
campus
itself
or
the
entire
parcel
that
the
cod
is
planning
to
want
to
have
out
parcels
that
have
office
in
them
that
aren't
related
to
the
campus.
A
The
the
uses
on
that
are
going
to
be
some
commercial,
that's
related
to
the
school
right
and
entertainment.
That's
related
to
the
it's
hospitality
too
yeah,
that's
what
I
was
thinking
as
commercial
as
hospitality
and
then
there's
the
center.
B
E
D
G
Yeah-
and
I
think
the
only
one
of
the
other
reasons
we
were
looking
for
a
little
bit
of
mix
in
there
was
because
the
definition
that
we
have
for
school,
the
in
the
general
plan,
just
as
straightforward-
does
not
allow
for
hospitality
and
some
of
the
other
creative
things
that
they're
looking
at.
So
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
the
school
definition
that
is
in
the
general
plan
doesn't
limit
the
creativity
of
the
other
things
that
they're
doing
well.
There's
already.
B
B
They
report
to
the
state:
don't
they
for
their
their
building
requirements.
E
C
Yes,
yeah,
it
was
originally,
you
know,
as
you
know,
a
theater
and
it's
kind
of
transformed
a
little
bit,
but
I
would
still
consider
it.
Entertainment,
commercial.
E
B
E
B
I
think
they're
in
I
they
definitely
are
using
this
a
vocational
kind
of
training
and
and
also
now,
that
the
pdc
campus,
the
palm
desert
campus
of
csu
san
bernardino,
has
a
hospitality
major.
It's
a
definite
way
for
the
hospitality
students
at
cod
to
transfer
into
the
baccalaureate
program
at
the
pdc
campus.
G
We
could
do
it.
Here's
another
creative
way
unless
david
sees
a
challenge
on
this,
I'm
trying
to
balance
the
school
part
because
the
designation
is
actually
mixed
use.
So
I'm
wondering
if,
if
we
did
say
you
know,
the
intent
is
for
it
to
be
an
educational
facility
and
talk
about
those
ancillary.
Well,
it
does
say
ancillary
uses,
but
we
could
say
that
could
include
you
know,
support
commercial
or
you
know.
G
A
I
would
do
is
just
do
20
to
40
percent
commercial
and
60
to
80
percent
school
and
then
define
define
this
school
fairly
broadly
to
include
the
potential
for
the
hotel
and
you
still
have
the
cultural
center.
So
that's
cultural,
entertainment
and
that's
going
to
stay.
That's
a
theater
and
all
sorts
of
film
festivals
and
a
range
of
other
things
that
are
run
out
of
the
cultural
center
farmers
market.
A
G
I
Yeah,
reflecting
the
elan
residential
project
you
built
on
a
large
portion
of
what's
vacant
there
now.
B
F
Yeah
I
mean
my
perception
is:
there's
been
some
turnover
of
different
types
of
businesses,
but
if
anything
there's
been
some
growth
in
kind
of
the
antique
vintage
owns
that
kind
of
a
thing,
and
then
you
have
the
the
standard,
but
you
know
once
the
bagel
shop
went
in
and
some
of
that
there
are
some
new
tenants
and
there
are
some
that
have
left.
F
This
doesn't
take
in
further
east,
so
it's
just,
I
guess
when
we're
on
the
east
side
of
palm
canyon
here
this
is
not
taking
both
sides
of
the
business
district
there
in
sunny
dunes.
G
The
mixed
use
designation
yeah,
probably
because
I
don't
have
to
look
at
that,
but
I
think
the
other.
If
we
looked
at
the
current
general
plan,
that
might
be
commercial
on
that
side.
Let
me
pull
it
up.
Quick
yeah.
F
G
G
C
C
G
Yeah
so
then
the
question
is,
you
know
earlier
on.
When
we
were
talking
about
the
vision
it
was,
you
know
jobs,
and
so
the
question
is,
you
know:
do
you
mix
the
types
of
jobs
you
want
to
see
throughout
so
leave
that
percentage
mix
for
office?
But
now
I
can't
remember
david
because
you
have
mix
of
uses
everywhere
right
now
does
office.
Does
commercial
allow
for
awesome
office
space
as
well.
C
C
In
the
preferred
mix,
we
define
office
separately
from
commercial,
but
in
the
zoning
we
allow
offices
generally,
it
just
depends
on
what
the
zone
is
so
for,
like
the
cm
zone,
which
is
a
lot
of
the
red
area
here,
which
is
commercial
manufacturing
in
that
zone.
We
allow
offices
of
all
types.
F
I
was
just
thinking
of
that
property
north
of
mesquite
and
west,
that
that
vacant
parcel,
if
there
were
when
the
comment
was
made,
that
is
there
really
a
market
there
for
office.
I
was
just
wondering
if
medical
office
has
to
have
a
different
designation
or
there's
a
medical
office
similar
to
what
we
see
a
variety
of
up
on
chocolates
between
the
airport
and
sunrise.
G
G
Unless
you
know,
if
you
know
it's
a
hospital,
you
know,
then
you
designate
that,
as
you
know,
a
public
facility
or
a
use
like
that,
but
otherwise
you
get
more
flexibility
in
the
general
plan
for
those
uses.
A
C
And
it
does
and
in
those
percentages
we're
showing,
where
can
we
pull
that
that
slide
back
up?
I
think
it
shows
the
increase
of
residential.
G
G
Just
for
the
residential,
the
30
to
40
percent
that
you're
showing.
Would
that
mean
that
if
the
the
area
that's
already
built
on
the
east
side
and
the
stuff
that's
proposed
on
the
west
that
whole
bottom
half
of
the
the
mixed
use
area
yeah?
Would
that
that
would
take
up
all
of
the
30
40
of
the
residential
right.
So
then
the
rest
of
the
vacant
would
be
or
the
rest
of
the
uses
would
either
be
office
or
commercial.
A
If
commercial
can
include
office,
why
don't
you
just
make
it
70
60
to
70
percent
commercial
and
34
40
residential.
A
I'm
just
wondering
if
we're
going
to
see
given
all
of
the
changes
that
have
come
from
covid,
if
we're
going
to,
I
think
we're
going
to
have
a
surplus
of
office.
F
But
once
we
change
to
show
that
second
residential
project
underway
we've
already
identified,
there
are
basically
two
parcels
left
that
are
vacant
of
any
size
for
new
construction
versus
redeveloping
areas
down
along
sunny
dunes.
So
I
guess
my
feeling
is
that
there's
these
percentages
are
going
to
end
up
more
closer.
Maybe
this
is
where
you
were
going
kathy
was:
is
almost
a
50
50
between
residential
and
commercial
provided
the
commercial
allows
for
office?
F
G
A
Yeah
you're
50
you're
50
50
between
residential
and
commercial
office,
and
I
would
flex
them
so
that
you've
got
a
little
bit
of
room
a
little
bit
of
wiggle
room
so
that
they're
not
exactly
50
50.
I
So
the
other,
the
other
area-
and
I
this
was
the
one
that
we
had
mentioned
previously-
is
not
shown
on
your
map
and
is
the
reason
we
need
to
reissue
the
map
and
I'll
I'll
on
the
next
slide.
I
I'll
show
the
implicated
parcels
on
the
map,
but
this
reflects
this
is
the
vista,
chino
and
sunrise
the
western
side
of
sunrise.
We.
I
The
map,
so
this
map
shows
the
recommended
expansion
of
the
mixed
use
area
south
of
vistaccino,
took
to
encompass
the
desert
aids
project
campus.
That
is
there.
I
So
previously
the
the
mixed
use
area
just
encompassed
this:
the
commercial
or
the
neighborhood
retail
north
of
vistacino
on
the
west
side
of
sunrise.
A
G
So
the
existing
one
is
in
white
up
on
the
north,
so
we're
not
showing
that
that
part
isn't
showing
up
so
we'd,
be
adding
the
area
to
the
south
to
expand
the
mixed
use
area,
and
I
think
david,
that's
yeah,
because
of
the
the
project
and
how
it
was
entitled
too
right
that
helps.
B
H
F
Yeah
but
that's
yeah,
that's
on
the
front
edge
of
vista
chino.
Right,
I
think,
what's
being
talked
about,
perhaps,
is
that
north
east
section
of
the
stater
brothers
complex,
I
would
agree.
We
had
talked
at
one
time
about
whether
that
provided
an
opportunity
for
more
residential
blending
in
with
the
shopping
center,
yeah.
B
Residential
will
fall
under
the
airport,
a
lock
issue
which
we
had
with
at
dap
they're,
so
close
to
that
active
runway
they'll
be
limited
to
what
they
can
build.
It's
fully.
I
That's
acknowledged
in
the
the
existing
description
there
on
the
last
line.
I
don't
know
if
that's,
it
was
a
deliberate
reference
to
those
standards,
but.
E
Just
going
to
run
into
a
lock
and
whatever.
H
A
A
So
so
this
includes
like
the
new
starbucks
that
is
going
in
across
the
way
and
all
the
uses,
along
with
the
bank
and
albertson.
A
So
we've
got
this
designated
mixed
use,
but
just
as
a
quick
question,
this
is
all
entitled
not
completely
built
out
yet,
but
it's
it's
all
entitled
at
this
point
right.
C
So
effectively
there
really
isn't
any
change,
that's
going
to
happen
per
se,
unless
we
don't
think
that
what's
written
here
is
consistent
with
what
has
been
approved
by
council,
because
the
council
just
approved
this
right.
B
A
E
C
I
Correct
me,
if
I'm
wrong,
but
there
was
also
I
mean
an
evolution
envisioned
over
the
you
know
of
the
lifespan
of
the
prior
general
plan,
in
which
a
transition
of
some
of
you
know
there
would
be
infill
residential
on
that
albertson's.
E
Lie
but
we're
not
talking
about
the
albertsons
a
lot
at
this
point
are.
G
G
Yeah
and
so,
for
instance,
if
for
some
reason,
people
got
creative
and
wanted
to
do
residential
on
top
of
the
albertsons,
oh
god
to
allow
for
that
right.
G
F
G
Well,
you'll
see
it
with
build
out
we'll
let
you
know
what
the
assumptions
are
on
each
one
of
those
for
the
mixed
uses
and
the
targets,
so
we'll
then
you'll
be
able
to
double
check
that
too.
We'll
get
that
to
you
in
advance
of
the
the
next
meeting,
so
that
you'll
be
able
to
look
at
them
and
see
yeah.
A
G
I
I
hinted
before
oh
geez
about
the.
This
is
consistent,
I
think,
with
what
had
been
reviewed
and
approved
during
the
last
meeting,
offering
a
alternate
pathway
to
the
maximum
intensities
and
densities
that
were
already
provided
via
the
pdd
or
specific
plant
avenue,
and-
and
this
provides
an
alternate
means
to
attain
those
through
incentivizing,
affordable
housing.
G
B
G
What
we
were
saying
is
that
this,
because
the
cbd
is
is
similar,
you
know
it's
looking
at
allowing
for
a
higher
density
getting
to
the
maximums,
assuming
that
you
can
provide
certain
affordability
levels,
and
so
we
thought
it
made
sense
to
apply
that
here
as
well.
So
to
get
to
the
70,
you
would
have
to
provide
some
level
of
affordability.
A
No,
the
only
this
is
just
a
question
we
had
always
talked,
or
always
talked
with
flynn
about
trying
to
get
height
for
the
different
districts
and
and
set
it
for
different
districts.
You're,
not
looking
at
any
of
that
right
now.
I
guess
that's
all
zoning
code,
but.
F
Yeah
I'll
just
comment
that
you
know
I
kind
of
got
even
though
I'm
very
analytical
and
mathematically
oriented,
I
totally
got
lost
in
terms
of
what
the
final
product
might
look
like,
given
these
different
ars
and
50
units
or
50
and
70
dwelling
units
per
acre.
So
I'm
just
going
to
trust
that
you
planners
kind
of
when
you
do
this.
It
all
sudden
gives
you
a
vision
of
what
that's
going
to
be,
and
I
just
know
him.
We.
G
Had
talked
to
david
too,
he
had
kind
of
suggested.
You
know
just
looking
at
it.
So
how
do
we
simplify?
Because
there's
a
lot
of
stuff
going
on
in
the
cbd
and
other
places?
You've
got
fars
and
dwelling
units
and
percentages
and
stuff.
So
we
were
going
to
look
at
a
way
to
make
that
just
more
more
clear
and
the
implementability
and
how
it
gets
applied.
G
Not
no,
I
mean
we're
going
to
leave
it
here,
but
it
might
be
like
a
just
a
pulse,
though,
that
there's
consistency
in
how
it's
implemented
at
the
counter
and
interpretation
of
what
this
says.
So
the
intent
is
not
to
to
rework
this,
but
it's
just
to
make
sure
that
everybody
knows
what
the
intent
of
how
it's
supposed
to
be
applied
is.
B
G
H
H
In
this
district,
my
thought,
like
you
need
to
match
this
with
the
ground
truth,
but
that
there
is
maybe
it's
the
parcel
that's
in
light
pink
there
between
smoke
tree
commons
and
smoke
tree
village.
I
guess
it's
called
that
that
porcelain,
pink
and
the
actual
coco's
restaurant
site,
which
is
undeveloped,
you
know
not
used
right
now,
would
be
a
very
good,
low-income
housing
site
or
just
a
mixed-use
housing
site
in
that
development.
H
Again,
we're
not
going
to
see
much
more
commercial
expansion
in
there
and
given
it,
has
commercial
on
either
side.
That
would
be
a
great
node
for
that
type
of
thing.
You've
been
talking
about
wendy
along
eastbound
canyon,
and
this
is
just
just
showing
this
whole
thing
as
mixed-use
doesn't
get
to.
I
think
to
our
point
as
much
as
yeah.
What
I
had
envisioned
was
that
that
undeveloped
area
plus
the
cocoa
site
would
potentially
be
be
potential
residential.
H
Don't
know
how
that
gets
allocated
most
of
that
commercial,
a
lot
of
commercials
existing.
I
I
just
wish
we
could
show
what
the
intention
was.
I
don't
think
we're
proposing
commercial
within
the
existing
two
shopping.
Centers
I
mean
residential.
F
Would
be,
I
think,
you're
right
in
the
sense
that
it
does
refer
to
multi-family
residential
uses.
That
could
perhaps
be
beefed
up
a
little
bit
in
terms
of
emphasizing
somehow
the
opportunities
for
residential
in
there.
But
the
two
bookends
for
the
west
and
the
east
to
me
are
going
to
presumably
stay
primarily
commercial.
H
C
Well
that
no
I
mean
not
all
of
them,
the
smoke
tree
village
and
commons
that
both
of
those
are
mixed
use
designated.
The
albertsons
is
mixed
use
up
on
sunrise
and
vista
chino,
and
then
the
vons
is
neighborhood
commercial.
H
Yeah,
I
just
I
think
what
is
it
kurt
made,
the
point
that
those
two
shopping
centers
are
probably
not
going
anywhere
and
we
might
want
to
just
focus
say.
Our
focus
here
is
on
the
undeveloped
piece
in
the
between
them.
G
H
G
Yep
so
we
could
just
say
there
are
opportunities
to
redevelop
and
you
know,
look
at
focused
residential.
F
H
G
Specific
parcels,
it's
the
whole
area,
but
we
can
prioritize
residential,
does
it
mean
otherwise
we
would
just
take
the
land
uses
off
the
other
and
then
change
it
to
the
mixed
use
applies
to
all
of
it,
so
I
think
the
text
could
be
focused
on
those
you
know.
Vacant
sites
so
target
residential
for
vacant
sites
and
maybe
opportunities
for
the
under
used
restaurant
or
you
know
empty
restaurant
sites.
I
don't
know
closed.
F
Quick
final
item
on
that
is,
the
first
sentence
describes
smoke
tree
as
located
on
east
palm
canyon,
drive
between
sunrise
way
and
the
city
limits
yeah,
but
this
doesn't
extend
to
our
city
limits.
It's
just.
I
C
B
B
No,
no
it's
an
existing
cherokee
is
the
porsche
thing
is
to
the
west
of
cherokee.
A
And
then
there's
there's
there's
an
area
and
maybe
it's
up
cherokee.
Is
it
up
where
matthew
wrote,
matthew
road,
oh
yeah,
cause
we
just.
C
B
Where
is
the
glory
god
church
on
here,
then,
is
that
before
makes
you
seven?
I
mean
the
hatch
at
the
city
limit.
B
A
The
only
question
I
have
is
what
you
have
is
mixed
use:
seven
has
a
lot
of
water
and
maybe
protected
bug,
life
and
other
things
we.
A
Yeah,
it's
right
underneath
rimrock,
it's
just.
A
No
no
rim
rock
is
the
area
rock
was
the
area
where
they
did
the
the
initiative
to
stop
development.
That.
A
A
C
A
A
H
A
H
G
Yeah,
I
think
that
the
question
is,
you
know
we're
not
going
in
the
specifics
of
project
review
or
the
you
know.
I
just
don't
know
like
the
mitigative.
If
it's
things
can
be
mitigated,
we'll
take
a
look
at
it
and
then
it's
more
like
the
percentage
mix
of
uses.
Let's
just
say
if
it
is
developable,
is
that
lumping
it
in
with
the
rest
of
all
of
those
three
pieces
being
thirty
to
sixty
percent
residential
twenty
to
forty
resort
and
twenty
neighborhood.
G
A
H
A
Is
that
going
to
go
through
it's
been
years
and
years
that
it
hasn't
been
built.
C
G
H
H
Again,
the
the
type
of
thing
that
we
have
down
the
street
at
on
the
other
side
of
gene
entre,
trailer
matthew,
drive
there.
I
don't
know
what
that
density
is
shown
as
dave.
A
That
was
a
pd
and
probably
30
to
the
david
30
to
the
acre
15
to
the
acre.
No.
A
F
Let
me
mention
are
we:
are
we
sure
that
that
eastern
mu7
is
only
going
to
be
considered
for
residential,
because
I
know
from
working
with
other
cities
that
in
the
not
too
recent
past
there
were
discussions
of
that
site
being
proposed
for
some
auto
dealer
expansions,
and
I
can't
get
into
any
more
detail
than
that
because
it
involved
when
I
was
working
at
other
cities.
But
I
know
that
there
have
been
commercial
uses
bought
for
that
site
as
well.
Even
if
perhaps
the
only
thing
that's
risen
to
a
discussion
with
palm
springs,
staff
was
residential.
G
H
C
Well,
why
don't
we
call
them
sub
areas,
seven,
a
b
and
c
or
a
and
b,
depending
on
if
we
keep
this
middle
one
and
then
we'll
figure
out
in
terms
of
a
recommendation,
what
the
proposed
use
is,
I
suppose,
we'll
just
keep
it
mixed
use
and
then
have
the
option
to
have
either
a
commercial
or
residential
project.
Here.
H
G
G
I
Well,
we've
talked
about
it
many
times
throughout,
so
I
think
at
this
point
it
should
be
clear
that
the
next
meeting
will
come
back
with
some
recommended
revisions.
I
think
to
the
vision
on
priorities
based
on
the
outreach,
the
additional
outreach
that
the
city
staff
has
already
conducted
and
will
be
conducting
in
january,
and
then.
G
So
we
will
have
to.
We
only
got
one
extra
meeting
to
include
build
out
and
vision
like
the
vision
we
got
the
extra
meaning
for
the
vision
and
we
spread
out
the
build
out
because
we
had
the
vision
statement
in
there
so
that
we're
trying
to
accomplish
both
in
whatever
meeting
that
is
whenever
it
is.
This
february.
I
Yeah,
then,
we'll
be
digging
into
these
projections
about
different
types
of
uses.
G
I
Yep,
so
this
kind
of
sequence
of
hearings
and
meetings
is
and
activities
has
been
updated
since
the
last
meeting
to
reflect
the
edition,
so
we're
here
tonight
meeting
number
five
additional
outreach.
I
This
is
just
more
sequentially
than
than
with
dates
attached,
but
the
intention
is
that
the
again
vision
and
priorities
come
back
to
the
steering
committee
before
they
go
to
the
council
and
before
the
land
use
plan
goes
to
the
public
at
the
next
workshop
and
then
we
do
have
to
get
to
our
housing
element.
Submittal,
so
that'll
be
going
through
the
process
in
the
first
part
of
of
next
year
as
well.
G
Yeah
because
we
have
to
we'll
get
feedback
on,
we
have
to
keep
the
housing
element
moving,
so
we're
trying
to
time
that
build
out
and
the
review
by
city
council
with
the
housing
element.
So
I
think
we're
good
on
the
all
the
parcels
that
we
need
to
meet
arena
and
then
there's
a
lot
of
other
little
things.
We're
trying
to
work
out
that
it
goes
way
into
the
minutia
of
hair
splitting
for
housing
elements.
G
But
after
we
get
that
vision
and
priorities
and
the
direction
on
the
land
use
element
we're
going
to
have
that
public
workshop
like
so,
the
public
will
get
to
see
the
land
plan
before
it
goes
to
city
council.
So
that's
going
to
be
another
area
where
we
could
use
your
help.
Getting
the
word
out
about
that
land
plan
before
it
goes
to
council.
I
And
then
further
out,
we've
we
will
be
concluding
at
some
point
our
work.
This
is
a
kind
of
longer
range.
Looking
at
how
the
environmental
process
folds
in
after
the
land
plan
has
been
set.
After
likely,
the
housing
element
gets
goes
off
for
its
first
level
of
review
with
hcd.
If.
H
A
G
Absolutely
we
are
adaptable
so
right
now
it's
actually
been.
You
know
more
complicated
and
jonathan,
and
I
just
did
a
visioning
exercise
with
the
community,
like
you
guys
had
your
in-person
one
at
the
convention
center.
We
did
that
with
more
perk
virtually
just
last
week.
So
if
we
can
go
back
to
putting
it
in
person,
we
are
fine
to
do
that
at
any
time.
G
It
actually
is
a
little
bit
more
coordination
on
us
to
figure
out
how
to
do
everything
virtually
and
to
get
the
word
out,
especially
for
those
public
workshops
with
the
community,
but
it
just
it's
whatever
direction
we
get
from
the
city.
A
A
A
I
Any
if
anyone
knows
how
to
get
land
use
planning
consultants
at
the
top
of
the
vaccination
priority
list.
Much
appreciate
your
help.
B
G
E
A
B
G
G
Was
optimistic
on
the
visioning,
so
it's
whenever
we
can
get
the
outreach
on
the
visioning
done
and
with
you
know,
staff,
availability
and
whatnot,
so
we're
working
on
the
land
plan
stuff.
But
we've
got
to
come
back
to
you
with
both
things,
so
even
if
one
of
them
is
done
earlier,
we
can't
do
that
until
all
the
outreach
has
been
done
for
for
the
visioning.
So
we
can
come
back.