►
From YouTube: Planning Commission | Feb 23 2022
Description
Palm Springs Planning Commission meeting, held February 23rd, 2022
A
B
A
F
A
All
in
favor
aye
aye
that
passes
unanimously.
The
next
item
is
public
comments.
This
time
has
been
set
aside
for
members
of
the
public
to
address
the
planning
commission
on
consent,
calendar
and
other
agenda
items
and
items
in
the
general
subject
matter.
Interest
of
the
commission.
Please
note
that
the
planning
commission
cannot
take
action
on
items
not
listed
on
the
posted
agenda.
Each
speaker
will
have
three
minutes.
A
Testimony
for
public
hearings
may
be
offered
at
this
time
or
at
the
time
of
the
hearing,
members
of
the
public
would
like
to
comment
on
items
1a
and
1b.
The
consent,
calendar
or
3a
and
3b
are
directed
to
comment
under
this
portion
of
the
agenda.
The
only
exception
is
the
applicant
on
items.
Three
a
and
three
b
will
have
five
minutes
at
the
time
of
that
item.
To
comment
on
both
of
them.
H
There
I'm
sorry,
I
thought
my
camera
was
on
up
there,
hello
and
thank
you,
I'm
here
to
comment
on
items
3a
and
3b.
On
behalf
of
the
mesa
neighborhood
organization,
I
transmitted
a
letter
late
in
the
day
yesterday,
I
hope
you've
had
an
opportunity
to
review
it
specifically
we're
concerned
with
the
reliance
on
a
sequa
exemption
for
the
construction
of
the
two
homes
in
on
on
crestview.
H
First,
there
are,
the
project
is
really
more
than
two
homes.
The
applicant
has
admitted
in
public
hearings
before
the
arc
that
the
applicant
intends
to
construct.
On
the
remainder
of
these
lots
and
under
the
secret
case
law
that
I
discussed
in
my
letter,
the
full
scope
of
the
project
must
be
evaluated,
and
that
is
true
also
when
evaluating
the
propriety
of
a
sequa
exemption.
H
My
letter
included
photos
and
video
clips,
and
these
animals
are
easily
disturbed
by
noise
and
construction
and
exposure
to
such
human
activity
has
been
documented
to
cause
adverse
impacts,
particularly
to
pregnant
and
nursing
youths
and
their
their
lambs,
and
so
we
would
urge
that
environmental
review
is
especially
important
for
that
reason.
But,
additionally,
these
properties
are
located
adjacent
to
or
in
the
floodplain,
and
the
floodplain
issue
is
interesting
because
the
study
of
the
flood,
the
flood
zone,
stopped
right
up
right
on
these
properties.
It
hasn't
been
extended
as
far
back
up
as
the
310
property.
H
F
H
Exactly
the
special
flood
hazard
area
would
be
for
the
other
properties,
but
it
would
seem
likely
that
some
of
that
portion
of
the
310
lot
would
fall
within
the
flood
hazard
area
as
well,
and
this
flooding
is
a
major
concern.
I
included
some
photos
of
the
flooding
on
el
camino
way.
It's
not
something
that
should
be
ignored
and
the
city
should
not
approve
the
projects
at
the
very
least
before
the
hydrology
analysis
is
completed,
and
it
is
known
whether
there
are
issues
with
any
of
them.
H
Therefore,
this
is
really
the
case
that
is
right
for
further
analysis
and
review,
both
under
sequa
and
just
under
the
city's
planning
rules.
It's
not
really
a
typical
building,
a
home
on
a
subdivision
that
was
already
approved.
So
thank
you
very
much.
I'd
urge
you
to
to
reject
the
proposal
and
make
the
applicant
do
a
little
more
work
to
show
that
this
is
not
going
to
have
efforts.
Environmental
effects.
F
I
A
B
F
K
Thank
you,
joseph
burke,
333
west
crestview
resident
of
the
mesa
since
2013.
Thank
you,
commissioners,
for
this
meeting
tonight.
Wow
miss
palmer
sort
of
addressed
some
of
the
things
I
wanted
to
talk
about.
So
I
would
just
like
to
say
when
these
plans
were
first
submitted,
I
was
shocked
by
the
size,
the
density,
the
mass
of
the
houses
the
story
polls
are
up
and
even
though
the
plans
have
been
revised
and
made
a
tiny
bit
smaller,
it's
still,
they
overwhelm
the
space.
K
They
don't
respect
the
topography
of
the
lot
and,
if
you
especially,
if
you
look
at
the
photographs
on
the
renderings
that
third
photograph,
I
mean
the
developer
hasn't
taken
time
to
really
show
what
the
two
houses
are
going
to
look
like
and
it
blurs
together.
It
looks
like
one
huge
block
and
I
feel
that
you
know
he's
we.
K
They
have
not
made
enough
effort
to
fit
in
with
the
neighborhood
to
get
feedback
from
us
and
to
come
up
with
something
harmonious
that
we
can
all
be
proud
of,
or
at
least
live
with,
and
I'm
glad
we
have
this
opportunity,
because
I
I've
felt
that
I
feel
like
a
little
bit
like
david
and
goliath.
You
know
when
I
first
saw
those
plans.
I
talked
to
a
lot
of
neighbors
around
here.
F
Thank
you,
mr
burke.
Anyone
else
who
wishes
to
speak,
please
click
the
raise
hand,
feature
or
raise
your
hand.
Mr
malone,
if
you'd
like
to
speak
now,
I
understand
via
the
email
you
sent
me
earlier,
that
you
wanted
to
speak
on
the
public
hearing
item.
You
can
either
speak
now
or
wait
until
that
item
is
heard
so.
L
I'll
be
real,
quick
and
and
get
my
two
cents
in.
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
opportunity.
Long
story
short
this
is
in
regards
to
the
development
in
the
sumner
neighborhood
on
next
to
alejo.
Our
concerns
are
that
at
the
long
story
short
I'm
john
d
malone
live
at
490,
north
farrell,
that's
just
on
the
corner
of
alejo
and
farrell.
The
house
has
been
in
my
wife's
family
since
the
early
1960s.
L
One
of
the
things
that
we
would
like
to
bring
to
the
attention
of
the
planning
commission
is.
There
is
an
enormous
amount
of
truck
traffic
on
alejo
going
through
this
residential
section.
These
trucks
amount
to
many
times
very
large
automobile
carriers
coming
from
the
rental
district,
we
also
see
dual
gasoline
trucks
rolling
through
there
from
the
rental
district
and,
in
all
honesty,
there's
probably
at
least
50
60
ups
trucks
that
roll
out
of
the
ups
area
running
to
alejo,
making
a
right
or
left
on
farrell
drive.
L
I
would
bring
up
the
point
that
alejo
is
not
a
truck
route,
but
certainly
will
now
be
on
both.
I
have
residential
areas
on
both
sides
of
it
with
the
development
comes
I'd
like
to
offer
that
I
have
a
feeling.
A
lot
of
the
truck
traffic
could
work
its
way
on
north
civic
drive.
There
may
also
be
some
opportunities.
L
You
know
way.
You
know
down
the
road.
You
know
for
a
potential
expansion
on
north
commercial,
the
more
north
commercial
road
to
north
farrell.
That
would
take
this
out
of
residential
neighborhoods
overall.
So
thank
you
very
much
planning
commission,
whatever
you
can
do
to
minimize
this
very
heavy
truck
traffic
on
alejo
would
be
greatly
appreciated.
Thank
you
very
much.
F
L
L
L
We
believe
I
think,
if
there's
one
house
that's
different,
then
that
fits
it
doesn't
have
to
match
a
design
that's
already
here,
but
the
problem
is
when
we
start
building
one
two,
three
four
houses
that
all
look
very
similar
to
each
other,
but
not
necessarily
to
the
neighborhood.
That's
when
you
create
kind
of
a
dynamic
change
to
the
neighborhood
in
our
opinion.
L
So
for
us
at
this
point
we
just
don't
feel
like
it
fits
the
neighborhood,
the
design.
I
think
there
have
been
improvements
made
since
the
beginning,
but
I
think
what
we're
looking
for
is
to
see
more
variation
in
that
and
then
I
think
the
the
other
things
that
we've
said
kind
of
all
along
is
to
make
sure
that
we
have
everything
ready
to
go,
including
hydrology,
and
all
of
the
reports
done
before
we
start
to
move
forward
with
the
approval
on
the
projects.
A
Thank
you,
mr
newell,
with
that
the
public
hearing
is
closed,
we're
moving
to
the
consent
calendar.
There
are
two
items
on
the
kent's
consent.
Calendar
1a
is
the
approval
of
the
minutes
of
february
9th
2022
and
the
1b
is
the
sanborn
architecture,
on
behalf
of
one
lost
balmus
for
a
parcel
mat
waiver
to
subdivide
an
existing
one,
lot
parcel
into
three
separate
parcels
within
the
gated
one
los
palmas
subdivision
located
at
555
north
monte
vista.
G
E
A
And
chairwomac,
yes,
thank
you.
The
next
item
is
item.
Two.
It's
a
public
hearing
item
beatitude
llc
for
a
conditional
use
permit
to
operate
a
cannabis
manufacturing
facility
within
an
existing
building
at
771.
South
palm
springs
for
south
williams,
road
suite
777
staff
report.
Please
and
staff
report.
Please.
B
B
There
are
four
other
cannabis
facilities
in
the
immediate
vicinity
to
the
north.
We
have
capital
growth,
which
is
a
dispensary
cultivation
and
manufacturing
facility
to
the
west.
We
have
desert
care,
which
is
a
dispensary
manufacturing
and
distribution
facility
as
well,
and
then
to
the
south.
We
have
sps
manufacturing
llc,
which
is
a
dispensary
lounge,
manufacturing
cultivation
and
distribution
facility.
B
B
B
B
I
did
want
to
bring
to
your
attention
that
the
cannabis
facility
is
proposed
to
operate
monday
through
friday
from
7
am
to
4
pm.
They
are
anticipating
one
to
two
employees
and
the
odor
control
plan
has
been
reviewed
by
their
department
of
special
program
compliance
and
our
older
consultant,
who
is
available
to
answer
any
questions
pertaining
to
the
odor
control
plan.
A
F
F
So
the
type
n
and
type
p
uses
that
we
that
are
considered
less
likely
to
produce
odors
or
less
of
an
odor
based
on
the
processes
that
they're
using
those
uses
were,
were
permitted
within
the
m1
zone
through
a
conditional
use
permit,
and
so
the
heavier
manufacturing
uses
that
are
licensed
with
the
state
as
a
different
type
that
are
not
typed
in
a
type
p.
Those
licenses
are
only
permitted
in
the
cannabis
overlay
zone,
which
is
north
of
the
freeway.
A
B
E
F
A
A
F
A
A
E
The
the
target
is
always
objectionable.
Boilers
is
to
match
the
regulations,
and
this
is
well
within
compliance.
They're
actually
doing
an
ionization
on
top
of
the
activated
carbon
carbon
filtration
and
as
as
the
planning
commission
moves
forward
and
populates
the
the
requirements
of
this,
I
would,
I
would
encourage
you
to
just.
E
I
would
encourage
you
to
populate
the
requirements
be
followed
through
the
building.
As
this
is
an
entitlement
process,
the
conditions
of
approval
are
usually
theoretical
in
nature.
Much
like
the
compliance
to
the
odor
control
plan
is
dictated
that
they
will,
but
we
still
need
to
maintain
that
there
be
some
sort
of
inspections
throughout
to
make
sure
that
it
is
installed
correctly.
A
F
A
N
As
discussed
with
our
the
the
consultant
on
the
application,
we
went
through
significant
revisions
and
to
ensure
that
there
really
was
going
to
be
little
to
no
odor
emanating
from
the
structure
and
given
the
process
as
well
as
the
similarities
that
we
missed
with
our
neighbor
baked
betty's,
we
tried
to
pretty
much
replicate
their
process,
in
fact
try
to
enhance
it
if
possible,
with
the
ionization
and
the
carbon
filter.
So
as
far
as
odor
is
controlled,
we
do
not
foresee
any
significant
odor
as
far
as
the
human
sense.
N
N
But
I
will
say
that
it
is:
it
shouldn't
be
harmful
by
any
means,
especially
because
there
is
no
actual
extraction
happening
on
the
premises,
given
the
license
type
and
we
don't
project
a
large
operation,
especially
within
the
first
year.
It's
projected
to
be
very
limited
in
the
sense
that
it's
going
to
be
small
batches
with
a
small
handful
of
licensees
will
be
working
with,
so
the
actual
infusion
processes
will
not
occur
more
than
I
want
to
say
a
couple
of
times
a
month.
N
It's
mostly
going
to
be
used
initially
just
for
for
storage
and
distribution,
which
again
is
not
going
to
which
does
not
really
relate
to
flour,
oxygen
cultivation
or
flour
on
the
premises.
So
there
really
should
not
be
any
significant
odor
at
all,
but
I'm
not
sure
how
to
further
elaborate
for
the
time
being.
But
I
guess
I
will
I'll
stop
there
for
now.
A
M
N
It's
mostly
going
into
vaporizer
pens,
disposable
pens
or
cartridges
for
the
most
part
there
may
there
may
be
very
little
infusion
in
edibles
to
start
and
if
anything,
it's
really
going
to
be
either
the
basics
like
chocolate
or
some
form
of
gummy,
but
that's
not
really
going
to
be
a
heavy
focus,
at
least
not
in
our
plans.
It
is
mostly
going
to
be,
when
I
say
mostly
probably
over
90
is
really
going
to
be
strictly
going
into
pens
and
cartridges.
M
N
M
N
M
A
F
A
M
M
H
Is
sufficient
to
move
forward
with
some
additional
provisions?
I
do
think
jay
can
speak
a
little
more
on
the
odor
type
and
infusion
has
very
little
odor
associated
with
it,
especially
if
you're,
infusing,
chocolates
or
baked
goods
or
gummies
you
smell
the
baking,
not
the
cannabis.
The
odor
is
so
mint.
A
A
A
The
only
other
one
is,
I
would
like
to
see
pln3.
My
concern
is
something
coming
to
us
without
the
due
diligence
of
having
looked
at
what
we
standardly
approve.
So
I'm
fine.
If
we
get
what
we
what
we
need
in
this,
but
I
would
like
to
see
it
in
the
motions
I
won't
have
to
send
it
back
if
we
get.
If
we
get
this
information
well,.
M
F
M
M
A
Can
can
our
attorney,
I
know
you're
a
visiting
attorney,
give
david
language
on
ln3
so
that
we
can.
We
can
get
a
motion.
Are
there
any
other
questions
for
the
applicant?
I
have
one
which
is
just
I
know,
you're
renting
this
facility,
it's
in
very
bad
shape.
Have
you
talked
to
your
the
party
that
owns
it
regarding
any
improvements
and
on
the
exterior.
N
A
E
And
in
the
sense
of
manufacturing
it's
on
the
lowest
spectrum,
distillates
do
range,
they
have
a
faint
odor,
sometimes,
and
then
they
run
away
down
to
no
odor.
The
expectation
of
source
odors
in
this
building
is
very
low
in
comparison
to
a
regular
cannabis
facility.
You
won't
have
open
products
for
very
long.
You
would
expect
the
same
amount
of
odors
being
generated
in
a
dispensary
that
should
not
have
open
products,
so
I
would
expect
low
odor
source
generated
to
begin
with
and
a
compliant
odor
control
plan
that
they
have.
E
I
don't
recall
the
box
in
the
box
is
specific
to
maintaining
pressure
relationships
in
here
that
we
just
don't
have
here,
because
we
don't
have
the
complexity
of
a
massive
high
high
motor
source.
Well,
when
we
first
started
doing
when
we
first
started
doing
it,
it
was
because
the
older
buildings
seemed
to
have
just
openings
of
leakage.
E
I
don't
know
it
had
to
do
with
pressure,
but
right
and
the
new
standards
are
maintaining
a
pressure
relationship
that
is
calculated
and
that
we're
making
sure
that
the
building
is
negative,
now
you're
not
allowing
the
building
to
leak
anymore.
So
even
if
the
building
is
loose,
the
expectation
of
pressure
would
be
outward
in
because
we're
mandating
that
they
follow
the
outside
air
ventilation.
E
Rules
to
gen
to
create
our
own
stream
that
is
treated
so
every
building
cannabis
facility
will
be
negative
pressure
to
the
ambient
exterior.
So
you're
saying
that
in
your
recollection
and
we've
not
required
that
not
for
type
and
or
like
a
dispensary,
not
that
I
can
call
all
right,
then
I'm
okay
with
that.
Thank
you.
E
A
A
A
D
A
D
A
B
A
A
D
Madam
chair,
I
did
hear
earlier
your
concern
about
if
complaints
are
received
and
not
acted
upon
there,
that
might
be
grounds
for
revocation.
I
have
serious
concerns
about
taking
any
action
against
an
applicant
or
permittee
just
based
on
complaints.
It
really
needs
to
due
process
requires
that
we
investigate
a
complaint
and
we
verify
that
there
is
in
fact,
a
violation.
It
needs
to
result
in
a
fine
or
some
under
some
other
indication
or
or
decision
that
there
has
determination
that
there
has
been
a
violation.
A
M
May
I
suggest
that
this
is
an
enforcement
problem
more
than
it
is
a
condition
problem,
and
I
would
suggest
that
this
is
a
conversation
that
would
take
place
with
the
city
attorney
and
city
staff
about
our
enforcement
issues.
If
there
are
some
pretty
hard
rules
in
here
for
applicants
now
that
were
not
in
place
four
years
ago,
we
all
four
years
ago,
the
specific
facility
that
you're
referring
to
did
not
have
anywhere
near
the
conditions
or
the
coverage
and
odor
control
plans
that
we
have
in
place
today.
M
A
A
We're
moving
to
the
next
item,
which
is
a
land
investments
llc
for
general
plan,
amendment
from
current
industrial
designation
to
very
low
density,
residential
change
of
zone
from
planned
research
and
development
park,
m1p
to
single-family,
residential
r1c
and
tentative
track
map
and
administrative
minor
modification
to
subdivide,
2.53
acres
of
undeveloped
land
to
create
eight
single-family
residential
lots
for
future
development
at
2100,
east
olego.
Road
staff
report.
Please,
yes,
and
can
we
have
this
brief,
I'm
assuming?
C
C
The
existing
business
park
to
the
north
and
the
professional
building
to
the
east
and
there's
a
city
yard
that
directly
the
south
of
the
project
site
and
the
project
site,
is
located
on
navejo
road
between
juanita
and
a
commercial
road,
and
this
is
just
to
show
the
existing
conditions
of
the
project
site
again.
The
site
is
vacant
and
the
topography
is
relatively
flat.
C
The
african
is
proposing
to
subdivide
this
project
site
into
eight
single-family
residential
lots
and
that
there
are
no
above-ground
structures
proposed
at
this
moment.
As
a
part
of
this
project
for
the
proposed
general
plan,
amendment
africa
is
requesting
to
change
the
current
designation
of
industrial
to
very
low
density,
residential
and
change.
C
The
current
zone,
designation
of
a
planned
research
and
development
park
zone
to
single
family
residential
zone,
the
proposal
is
not
subdivision,
meets
or
called
requirement,
except
for
the
lot
with
requirement
for
lot
number
four
and
lot
number
eight,
because
the
project
site
is
adjacent
to
alejo
road,
which
is
a
secondary
sort
of
fare.
The
greater
block
width
is
required
for
these
lots,
while
the
zoning
code
requires
130
feet,
minimum
at
african
is
proposing
117
and
requesting
administrative
minor
modification.
C
As
a
part
of
the
general
plan,
amendment
process
and
the
mitigating
negative
declaration
has
been
prepared
and
the
staff
finds
that
the
implementation
of
the
mitigation
measures
will
reduce
the
anticipated
environment
impact.
The
distance
significant
and
then
also
the
single
family
residential
use
will
contribute
to
relieving
the
statewide
housing
shortage
crisis.
C
The
number
two
approved
case
at
5.1521
general
fund
amendment
and
to
change
the
current
land
use
designation
from
industrial
to
very
low
density,
residential
and
approve
the
change
of
zone
from
the
current
designation
of
a
research
and
development
park
to
single
family,
residential
and
approved
alternative
track
map
to
subdivide
the
2.53
acre
project
site
into
eight
single
family,
residential
parcels
and
the
lastly
approved
case
7.1645,
which
is
an
administrative
manual
modification
to
reduce
the
code
required.
130
foot,
minimum
lot
width
to
117
for
lot
four
and
lot.
C
B
C
When
staff
conducted
the
same
visit,
staff
didn't
notice,
some
of
the
I
believe
it's
the
ups
tracks
that
are
parked
on
alejo
and
the
commercial
road
size.
However,
once
this
subdivision
takes
place
and
the
residential
development
will
happen,
obviously
those
vehicles
will
not
be
blocking
the
driveway
or
anything
like
that
in
terms
of
traffic,
that's
coming
from
the
rental
car
agencies
and
nearby
industrial
properties.
Unfortunately,
that's
not
something
that
the
staff
can
really
regulate.
O
Although
I
wanted
to
add
that
I
did
have
a
brief
meeting
with
ups,
probably
about
two
three
weeks
ago,
because
they
are
actually
planning
an
expansion
of
their
project
and
I
explained
to
them
the
need
for
them
to
you
know:
reevaluate
their
parking,
their
on-site
operations,
because
this
subdivision
was
going
to
be
occurring.
So
they
are
aware
that
they
are
going
to
be
not
really
they're,
not
really
being
impacted,
but
they're.
O
G
M
M
I
want
to
get
staff
state
and
the
attorney's
state
on
whether
some
language
wouldn't
be
warranted
here,
for
this
approval,
as
an
indemnification
for
the
city
and
or
to
ensure
that
the
ccnrs
for
future
buyers
of
these
parcels
are
aware
of
of
the
potential
noise
issues.
That
will
definitely
be
part
of
this
new
block
of
residential.
C
F
Yeah,
I
think,
as
you'll
notice
in
the
conditions
we
do
have
the
ccnr's
as
a
requirement
that
the
app
can
provide
those
as
a
part
of
our
review.
So
within
that
we
can
have
a
stipulation
that
the
developer
must
disclose
these,
the
the
surrounding
land
uses
might
be
impactful,
and
I
think
mr
lushman
has
some
specific
language
that
he
can
provide
to
the
commission.
M
A
J
J
Residential
project
was
going
to
be
the
best
fit
for
the
neighborhood
to
reduce
the
impact
of
these
industrial
uses
in
and
around
the
neighbors.
And
so
you
know
that
was
one
of
the
to
address
mr
malone's
comments
earlier.
That
was
one
of
the
things
that
I
wanted
to
address,
and
so
we're
happy
to
work
with
all
of
the
commissioners
with
staff
to
see
how
we
can
further
alleviate.
A
J
However,
I'm
happy
to
have
some
sort
of
covenant
in
regard
to
the
specific
issue
being
addressed,
but
I
would
not
want
it
to
potentially
impact
the
ability
of
people
to
do
custom
home
sites
on
these
lots.
That
would
be,
you
know,
obviously,
would
have
to
go
through
the
the
process
of
architectural
review
and
planning.
But
I
I
didn't
necessarily
you
know-
want
to
require
a
development
with
ccnr's
here.
A
A
I
share
mr
vice
chair
robert's
concerns
that
what
we
do
have
is
an
industrial
zone
and
we
don't
want
to
take
away
from
the
industrial
zone.
The
use
of
that
zone
as
it
has
previously
occurred.
Not
you
know
I
mean
not
cars
and
trucks
threatening
lives,
but
their
ability
to
use
those
roads
as
befits
their
the
business
that
they've
established
there.
A
F
Yeah,
the
current
conditions
do
require
that
ccnr
is
being
submitted.
The
alternate
to
that
would
well
to
address
the
mr
gilbert's
comments
about
not
wanting
to
require
design
review.
You
know
that
certainly
could
be
stipulated
in
ccnr's.
That
design
review
is
not
required
in
each
slot
shall
be
developed.
M
I
I
think
that
this
is
a
really
good
use
for
this
particular
parcel,
and
my
understanding
from
the
application
and
meeting
with
the
applicant
prior
to
our
meeting
was
that
the
developer
intends
to
sell
the
parcels
off.
It
all
makes
sense
it's
a
good
use
for
the
land.
I
think
the
impact
on
the
residential
neighborhood.
M
It
will
be
a
positive
impact.
All
I'm
looking
for
here
is
really
some
sort
of
disclosure
that
protects
the
city
in
the
future,
from
buyers
of
those
parcels
to
ensure
that
they
know
they
are
coming
into
the
they
are
coming
onto
the
edge
of
an
industrial
area
that
is
extremely
active
and
can
be
very
noisy.
M
A
D
Certainly
there,
madam
chair
and
commission,
the
what
I'm
hearing
from
the
commission
is
the
need
for
disclosures,
whether
that's
through
a
ccnr
through
a
deed
restriction
or
through
some
other
seller
disclosure
requirement.
There
are.
There
are
numerous
ways
to
solve
this
problem.
If
we
write
a
generic
condition
of
approval
requiring
seller
disclosure
of
the
surrounding
uses
to
be
approved
by
the
city
attorney
at
the
city,
attorney's
reasonable
discretion,
we
can
figure
out
what
the
best
tool
is.
If
the
applicant
decides
to
go
with
the
common
interest
development,
we
can
fold
it
into
the
ccnr.
D
D
A
B
A
A
D
G
A
J
F
G
K
G
I
I'm
certainly
not
looking
to
put
anything
in.
I
just
wanted
to
bring
it
to
everyone's
attention
and
make
sure
I
was
reading
the
plans
correctly.
I
want
to
say
now.
I
think
this
is
a
good
use
here.
This
is
one
of
those
difficult
sites
that
has
been
on
the
periphery
of
an
industrial
zone
and,
as
the
applicant
stated
I
mean
this.
This
is
a
difficult
property
and
we're
gonna
see
more
of
these
properties.
G
I
think
we
saw
one
on
sunrise,
boulevard
recently
or
sunrise
way
recently,
where
single-family
homes
were
being
proposed
and
there's
going
to
be
more
pressure
for
single
family
to
be
approved,
and
I
wholeheartedly
support
this.
I
just
wanted
to
be
clear
on
whether
there
was
any
encroachments
that
we
needed
to
be
concerned
about
affecting
those
lots
at
the
northern
end,
but
I'm
satisfied
with
the
ques
with
the
answers
that
I've
gotten.
F
I
think
that
was
the
only
added
condition
unless
I
missed
an
additional
comment
from
mr
miller.
So
if
that's
that's
the
only
condition,
that's
what
we
have
currently
in
the
motion.
The
other
point
I
would
just
make
is
that,
based
on
what
what
the
outcome
has
stated
tonight
and
what
we
have
in
our
conditions,
they
might
be
contrary
to
what
we
should,
what
we
have
in
the
draft
conditions
before
you.
M
G
B
E
B
M
A
F
Madam
chair
and
planning
commissioners
as
you'll
recall,
we
typically
do
an
annual
update
to
the
zoning
code
to
correct
errors,
clean
up
issues
that
we've
identified
over
the
past
year
and
address
other
matters
that
have
been
brought
to
staff's
attention
relative
to
the
zoning
code.
So
let
me
share
my
screen
and
make
the
presentation.
F
So
for
this
year's
update,
we
have
several
items
that
we
are
making
changes
to
relative
to
corrections
or
changes
either
in
state
law
or
other
matters.
But
the
first
item
that
I
want
to
mention-
and
this
is
in
attachment-
a
of
your
staff
report-
child
day
care
facilities,
not
child
day.
Car
facilities
currently
is
permitted
by
land
use
permit
in
residential
zones
and
those
are
specifically
identified
in
the
table
under
under
sb
234
senate
bill
234
that
went
into
effect
last
year.
F
It
does
currently
prohibit
cities
throughout
california
from
requiring
any
type
of
permit
or
license
if
they
are
operating
in
accordance
with
state
law,
and
so
what
we're
proposing
is
to
revise
any
area
which
is
a
large
daycare
to
be
permitted
by
right
to
be
consistent
to
be
consistent
with
state
law.
Currently,
we
allow
small
day
cares
in
these
residential
zones
by
right,
but
basically
this
changes
it
to
allow
small
and
large
daycares
by
right
in
the
residential
zones
currently
where
they're
permitted.
F
Another
topic
that
we're
trying
to
revise
in
the
code
with
this
update
is
the
condominium
and
hotel
economy,
hotels
and
timeshares.
Specifically,
we
currently
identify
and
designing
code
in
various
multi-family
and
hotel
zones
and
some
commercial
districts
where
time
shares
are
permitted
by
conditional
use
permit.
We
do
not
currently
identify
condo
hotels
anywhere
in
the
zoning
code,
aside
from
section
93,
which
is
our
general
conditions
and
standards
section,
and
in
that
section
of
the
code
it
does
state
that
plan
development
districts
are
required
for
any
condominium
hotel.
F
The
city
has
somewhat
dated
trash
and
closure
ordinance.
We
do
identify
recycling
containers
as
being
required
as
a
part
of
that
ordinance.
As
you
probably
know,
sb
1383
now
requires
city
to
cities
to
accommodate
organic
waste
as
of
january
1st,
so
we
are
proposing
changes
to
our
ordinance
to
accommodate
organic
waste
containers
in
the
proposed
update.
F
Street
improvement
requirements,
I'm
currently
in
our
in
section
93
of
the
zoning
code.
We
do
identify
what
is
required
relative
to
permits
for
street
improvements
or
street
dedications
as
a
part
of
any
building
permanent
application
that
the
city
has.
We
also
identify
where
a
dedication
is
currently
not
required
when
someone
applies
for
a
building
permit,
but
we
don't
have
any
language
right
now
that
specifies
improvements
when
improvements
are
not
required.
F
There
are
several
cleanup
items.
As
you
recall.
Last
year
we
were
trying
to
nail
down
the
definition
of
a
youth
center
relative
to
a
cannabis
use
and
its
proximity
to
that
dance
studio.
So
we've
included
a
definition
of
a
youth
center
in
the
definitions
list
for
the
update
and
include
private
facilities
to
be
included.
In
that
definition,
we
revise
the
adu
description
to
current
terminology
and
the
list
of
uses
promoted
by
cup.
F
F
We've
experienced
currently
someone
who
has
paved
over
a
majority
of
the
front
yard,
so
in
order
to
really
reinforce
that
the
city
would
not
allow
that.
We
would
like
to
add
something
in
our
code
to
address
that.
So
we
have
that
proposal
in
the
code
update
this
year,
we're
trying
to
correct
an
error
that
was
omitted
in
the
recent
update
to
the
cannabis
ordinances,
specifically
in
the
mnp
and
over
cannabis
overlay
zone.
F
F
We're
making
revisions
to
the
hillside
ordinance
to
reflect
arc
as
an
approval
body
to
be
consistent
with
the
changes
we
made
last
year
to
the
architectural
review
and
development
permit
process.
In
section
94
of
the
zoning
code,
we're
making
a
recommendation
that
you
adopt
a
prohibition
in
our
prohibited
signs,
section
relative
to
parked
vehicles
that
are
that
have
signs
either
painted
or
applied
to
the
vehicle
that
are
intended
to
attract
attention
to
a
business
or
product
where
the
vehicle
is
parked.
F
As
you
know,
we
have
a
lot
of
mid-century
homes
that
do
not
have
parking
spaces
that
meet
current
standards
due
to
a
smaller
garage.
We
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
they
don't
explicitly
in
our
code
that
they
do
not
need
to
provide
additional
or
an
enlarged
garage
space
and
there's
some
other
minor
changes
in
the
code
that
we're
proposing
and
those
are
really
just
corrective
or
grammatical
changes
or
references
to
a
director
or
a
city
engineer
or
other
minor
changes
like
that.
F
A
B
That's
a
pretty
common
thing
for
people
who
want
to
do
for
businesses
to
do,
and
I
agree
that
getting
some
sort
of
handle
on
it
would
be
a
good
thing
and
it
certainly
would
have
improved
the
aesthetics
of
the
community
in
general.
However,
I
think
that
the
way
this
is
worded
is
not
really
going
to
accomplish
that
end,
because
all
it
takes
is
for
the
business
to
simply
move
there.
It's
usually
a
truck,
or
you
know,
with
painting
something
painted
on
the
side.
B
So
I'm
wondering-
and
this
might
in
part
be
a
question
for
the
city
attorney
if
there's
something
that
we
can
do
that
in
light
of
the
fact
that
what
we're
trying
to
regulate
is
commercial
speech
not
protected
first
amendment
speech:
is
there
some
and
probably
you're,
working
with
the
streets,
the
the
state
streets
codes
which
allow
you
to
park
72
hours
on
the
street?
Is
there
some
other
way
that
we
could
accomplish
this
so
that.
F
Commissioner
lam,
we
actually
found
this
code
in
west
hollywood's
code.
They
have
the
same
provision
and
their
sign
ordinance
as
a
prohibited
sign
type.
It
does
say
24
hours.
We
moved
it
to
72
just
to
be
consistent
with
vehicle
code,
but
others.
Another
city
is
currently
limiting
it
to
no
more
than
24
hours.
So
we
could
consider
that-
and
I
don't
know
if
mr
ellison
is
concerned
with
that-
hopefully
not
but,
as
I
said,
another
city
is
currently
doing
that.
D
D
I
suggest
adopting
the
rule
and
then
adapting
to
whatever
enforcement
challenges
arise
in
application
rather
than
trying
to
solve
that
problem
up
front.
It
might
be
that
the
72
hour
or
the
or
24
hour,
like
west
hollywood,
that
it
works
just
fine.
I
think
most
often
complaints,
drive
enforcement
and
we'll
see
that
we'll
see
that
happen.
Here
too,.
B
A
A
G
Yeah
on
item
number,
six
on
attachment-
a
let
me
go
back
there
may
be
the
word
for
for
might
be
missing
under
b,
regarding
the
paving
in
the
front
yard,
the
third
line
up
from
the
bottom,
where
it
says
the
remainder
of
said
front
yard,
may
be
used
for
off
street
parking.
I
think
that's
a
simple
typo!
G
G
It's
talking
about
exclusions
for
street
improvements
when
a
building
permit
has
been
issued
for
remodeling.
The
remodeling
does
not
involve
extensive
construction
of
the
front
of
the
building,
and
then
it
gets
a
little
muddled
where
it
says
where
it
would
not
where
it
would
be
possible
to
conform
to
required
setbacks.
G
F
F
D
D
I
think
it's
over
six,
but
one
to
two.
I
think
a
small
can
be
up
to
six,
but
they
can
also
add
their
own
children
up
to
one
or
two
children,
so
that
makes
small
up
to
eight,
if
you
include
their
own
kids
and
large
can
be
large,
is
similarly
fuzzy.
So
all
that
is
to
say
is
that
it's
kind
of
in
that
six
to
eight
up
to
13
14
range.
B
I
would
suggest
that
we
say
that
the
facility
is
primarily
used
to
host
recreational
social
or
educational
activities
for
minors,
given
that
there
are
a
lot
of
homework
or
tutoring
type
of
centers
that
that
might
pick
up
and
then
in
the
resolution
itself,
the
third
finding
finding
c
we're
referring
to
the
director
of
planning
services,
and
I
don't
believe
that
that
position
exists
anymore.
We
might
have
now
that
might
be
outdated
and
need
to
be
updated.
F
A
A
F
G
A
G
E
M
A
A
Thank
you
we're
in
item
three,
which
is
unfinished
business,
hawkins
and
marshall,
and
it's
item
three
a
and
three
b.
I
think
we
had
indicated
that
the
applicant
could
speak
for
five
minutes.
Should
we
do
that?
Mr
newell,
before
the
staff
reports
on
those
and
do
handle
them
in
a
combined
fashion
or
shall
we
handle
that
separately?.
F
A
It
is
item
3a,
hawkins
and
marshall,
on
behalf
of
carmelita
properties,
limited
for
a
major
architectural
and
administrative
minor
application
to
construct
a
3278
square
foot
single-family
residence
on
a
15,
000,
178
square
foot,
hillside
parcel
located
at
310,
west
crest,
crestview,
drive
and
item
3b
is
hawkins
and
marshall,
on
behalf
of
carmelita
properties,
limited
for
major
architectural
and
administrative
minor
modification
applications
to
construct
a
3,
344
square
foot
single
family
residence
on
an
11
206
square
foot
parcel
located
at
322,
west
crestview
drive
staff
reports.
Please,
yes,.
C
The
project
site
is
an
undeveloped
hillside
property
in
the
mesa
neighborhood,
which
is
adjacent
to
other
vacant
lot
to
the
west,
and
this
is
just
to
show
the
site's
topography
and
the
existing
condition
of
the
site.
The
as
you
as
you
can
see
here
in
the
topography,
a
drawing
the
site's
topography
slots
down
from
the
front
to
the
rear.
C
The
african
is
proposing
to
construct
a
residence
which
is
3278
square
feet
containing
2775
square
feet
of
living
area
and
a
503
square
foot
garage
on
the
15
173
square
foot
lot.
The
proposed
load
coverage
is
approximately
21.6
percent
and
then
excuse
me.
An
applicant
is
proposing
a
maximum
building
height
of
23.2
feet.
A
C
C
C
So
after
the
january
12th
meeting
the
applicant
installed
a
storyboard
according
to
the
specifications
required
by
the
planning
commission
and
submitted
a
certification,
the
storyboards
that
are
installed
at
the
site.
The
storyboards
are
installed
at
the
corners
of
the
building
segments
and
to
represent
the
building
height,
and
each
bowl
was
connected
with
a
ribbon
to
outline
the
proposed
building,
and
these
are
the
images
of
the
story
polls
are
installed
by
the
applicant.
C
I
just
like
to
point
that
one
out
this
is
a
rear
innovation
that
knows
view
of
the
purple's
project,
and
this
is
a
street
facing
innovation,
and
since
the
january
12th
planning
commission
meeting
that
weekend
has
made
some
changes
to
the
landscape
plan.
The
image
on
the
left
side
is
what
was
previously
proposed
and
an
image
on
the
right
side
is
the
one
that's
been
proposed
as
a
revision.
C
C
In
addition
to
the
requirements
presented
by
the
planning
commission,
the
african
has
made
some
minor
changes
to
the
previously
proposed
plan.
The
previous
plan
included
a
balcony
on
the
east
elevation.
However,
the
african
has
removed
the
balcony,
which
projected
into
the
required
setback
area
and
and
then
also
the
applicant
made
some
changes,
design
changes
to
the
treatment
of
the
east
elevation.
C
Additionally,
the
african
decided
to
commit
the
36
roof
overhang
projection
into
the
west
side
there
and
setback
area,
as
shown
here
in
the
yellow
on
the
right
season
on
the
left
side
and
that
portion
has
been
removed
and
the
reverse
plan
on
the
right
right
hand.
Side
shows
that
the
proposed
building
actually
conforms
to
the
setback
requirement.
In
this
idr.
C
C
No
overhang
of
balcony
is
just
a
building
and
the
based
on
the
revision
style
finds
that
african
has
responded
to
planning
commission's
comments
from
the
january
12th
planning,
commission
meeting
and
the
project
is
consistent
with
intel
general
plan
and
meets
the
applicable
development
standards,
except
for
the
building
height
and
the
front
yield.
Setback
and
applicant
has
submitted
an
administrative,
minor
modification
in
accordance
with
applicable
law,
and
the
project
generally
meets
the
architectural
review
and
health
side.
Review
criteria
and
project
meets
the
findings
required
for
administrator,
minor
modification
approval
and
staff
is
recommending
conditions.
C
E
C
For
this
case,
the
zoning
code
allows
hillside
projects
to
allow
the
met
with
the
approval
of
administrator
manufacturing
approval.
The
building
height
can
be
increased
up
to
30
feet
and
then
also
allows
a
reduction
in
the
front
yard.
Setback
from
typically
required
required
25
feet
to
10
feet
and
applicants
submitted
application
to
request
a
10
foot,
front
yard
setback
and,
in
this
case,
23.3
foot
building
height.
C
Yes,
for
the
building
for
the
building
height,
I'm
sorry
for
the
hillside
building
height
the
approval
authority
is
granted
to
the
architectural
review
committee.
However,
the
decision-making
body
has
option
of
deferring
the
matter
to
the
planning
commission
or
the
decision
body
if
they
determines
that
taking
the
sanction.
Action
is
appropriate.
C
C
A
A
You
said
that
there's
a
10-foot
setback
in
the
front,
but
is
that
just
to
where
the
garage
is
located
because
it
looks
like
most
of
the
property
is
set
back
to
allow
landscape
in
a
pool
and
the
majority
of
the
house
at
a
fur
at
the
further
end?
How
do
you
treat
that?
How
did
you?
How
do
you
think
about
the
fact
that
you
have
this
larger
landscape
area
in
between
the
garage
and
the
house?
The
actual
house.
A
C
C
A
C
The
density
requirement
for
a
single
primary
residential
corso
is
set,
which
is
one
single
family
dwelling
unit
for
a
lot,
so
the
specific
language
in
the
zoning
code
and
which
assistant
planner
excuse
me
assistant,
director
of
planning
I
can
confirm,
but
that
density
calculation
stipulation
is
applicable
for,
for
instance,
multi-family,
residentials
or
development.
That
would
require
density
calculations.
A
C
F
Madam
chair,
the
only
thing
I
would
add
to
miss
fukuchi's
comments
response
is
that
the
there's
two
there's
two
standards
that
that
we
have
in
our
code
in
the
hillside,
ordinance
it
talks
about
today
and
how
you
calculate
density
when
you're
establishing
a
tract
or
a
new
subdivision
in
the
hillside
area.
You
are
to
exclude
areas
that
are
over
30
slope.
F
F
A
And
and
then
the
other
question
is:
do
you
consider
these
two
lots
together
when
you're
evaluating
it
in
terms
of
the
impact?
Because
we
have?
We
have
two
lots
and
no
hydrology
report
but
clear,
clear
issues
with
waters
sloping
down
that
entire
site
going
across
both
home
paths,
and
I'm
I'm
just.
I
have
a
great
deal
of
concern
about
the
hydrology
issue
and
I
I
want
to
understand
how
you
consider
these
separately
when
they're
a
budding
and
they
have
the
same
hydrology
issue.
O
O
We
have
come
quite
a
quite
a
way
since
then,
and
we're
only
down
to
one
aspect
of
the
hydrology
study
that
we
don't
agree
to,
and
that
is
the
accumulation
of
water
at
ridge,
road
and
crestview,
and
how
it
would
affect
these
lots.
But
I
can
tell
you,
at
the
end
of
the
day
myself
city
engineer
and
our
planet
engineer,
as
well
as
their
hydrologist
at
the
end
of
the
day,
we're
pretty
confident
that
the
water
can
be
mitigated
safely.
I
Thank
you.
I
want
to
thank
you
for
the
the
courtesy
here
to
present
briefly
to
you.
Noriko
did
a
good
job
discussing
the
the
changes
that
were
made
from
the
previous
submission,
but
I
do
just
want
to
briefly
touch
on
on
this
process
as
a
whole
and
then,
if
possible,
share
a
diagram
that
sort
of
reinforces
the
changes
that
were
made
from
previous
submission
to
now.
I
We've
addressed
and
revised
massing
building
relationships
to
the
surrounding
topography,
their
heights
relationship
to
neighbors
views,
grading
and
hydrology,
and
those
are
just
a
few
that
stand
out.
Furthermore,
as
as
mentioned
by
noriko,
no
variances
are
are
being
requested
or
are
required
for
either
of
these
projects,
and-
and
these
are
both-
they
were
and
and
are
still
reinforced
by
unanimous
arc
approval
and
and
city
staff
approval.
I
So,
however,
you
know
after
the
original
planning
commission
submittal
and
the
subsequent
discussion
that
took
place,
it's
still
kind
of
apparent
that
maybe
there
are
some
issues
with
the
perceived
massing
along
the
northern
slope.
So
the
changes
that
we
made
between
the
previous
middle
and
now
were
to
try
to
further
reduce
the
impact
along
that
facade
or
along
that
elevation,
as
perceived
by
camino
and
ridge
road
to
the
north.
I
This
is
these
changes
are
reflected
in
the
story,
poles
that
you
saw
and
also
the
revised
renderings
and,
if
possible,
I
I
could
show
a
diagram
just
to
briefly
summarize
these
and
some
are
reiterating
what
noriko
had
mentioned,
but
she
didn't
get
a
chance
to
talk
about
322.
Yet
so
I
will
touch
on
both
at
the
same
time.
Is
that
possible
david
to
share
screen.
F
I
So
310
regarding
310,
it's
it's
highlighted
here
in
blue
that
the
changes
that
were
made
and
the
dashed
lines
here
indicate
the
previous
design.
So
obviously
one
of
the
the
requests
by
both
staff
and
and
the
planning
commission,
you
guys
was
that
peers
as
a
structural
foundation,
type
were
preferred
to
walls,
and
that
was
those
changes
are
made
and
those
are
reflected
in
the
plans
and
the
renderings.
I
The
overall,
in
addition
to
that,
the
overall
building
width
from
wall
to
wall
was
reduced
by
one
foot.
So
in
summary,
we
reduced
the
floor
area
by
an
additional
187
square
feet
on
on
310,
as
well
as
reduce
the
length
of
the
home
as
perceived
from
the
north
and
then
regarding
322,
highlighted
here
in
red.
I
I
So
those
in
summary,
those
are
the
the
primary
changes,
and
these
were
meant
to
make
additional
efforts
to
listen
to
what
was
mentioned
at
the
previous
hearing
and
do
what
we
could
in
that
matter
of
time
to
further
address
it.
Additionally,
you
know:
we've
been
months
and
months
with
engineering
going
back
and
forth
and
extending
our
survey
data
and
we're
in
the
process
just
to
echo
what
rick
mentioned
we're
just
waiting
on
the
final
additional
survey.
I
I
I
So
I'm
just
going
to
read
her
question
in
in
context
here
she
wrote
on
page
49
of
of
item
3b.
The
foundation
of
310
crestview
shows
two
very
large
song,
solid,
concrete
foundation,
walls
supporting
the
floor
structure
above
it,
and
the
dotted
line
on
this
plan
is
representative
of
the
main
floor
and
therefore
made
for
above
and
therefore
supported
by
these
concrete
foundation.
Walls.
However,
in
the
photoshop
renderings
on
page
42
and
43,
these
walls
do
not
appear
and
instead
show
peers.
I
I
But
if
you
refer
to
page
67
in
this
in
the
new
staff
report,
it
shows
the
proposed
design
of
the
foundation,
including
the
peers,
and
this
is
consistent
with
the
revised
renderings
next
question
was
additionally,
renderings-
do
not
appear
to
match
plans
in
the
plan
drawings,
the
in
all
capitals,
the
roof
height
for
322
appears
to
be
taller
than
310.
However,
the
renderings
make
the
roof
heights
appear,
the
same.
The
story
poles
appear
to
match
the
drawings,
not
the
renderings.
Please
see
page
four
figure
d.
I
This
appears
to
just
be
a
matter
of
looking
at
it
in
3d
versus
2d
322
pre
projects
beyond
310
to
the
north,
as
you
can
see
in
the
plans
and
from
that
vantage
point
from
where
the
photo
was
taken
and
the
image
rendered
and
matched
to
the
photo
with
the
story
poles.
This
is
what
you
would
see
these
the
renderings
and
the
story
poles
match
and
the
story
polls
have
been
certified.
A
M
Okay,
could
you
also
show
us
the
more
direct
showing
the
two
houses
so
there
we
go
so
my
question
for
the
applicants
is
also
a
comment
as
planning
commissioners
we're
used
to
seeing
a
lot
of
fluffy
landscaping
covering
buildings,
and
in
your
case
you
did
a
good
job.
My
question
to
you
is
these
plantings
and
trees
that
you're
showing
here
do
you
are
these
actually
part
of
your
landscape
plan
and
if
they
are,
are
these
natives
plantings
or
these
things
we
would
find
in
this
area?
Naturally,.
I
So
this
elevation
is
is
a
pretty
accurate
representation
of
the
planting
and
the
the
rendering
from
camino,
because
it
would
effectively
render
the
buildings
obscured.
We
reduced
the
planting
a
little
bit
for
the
for
the
rendering
purpose,
but
the
we
looked
at
the
recommendation.
The
plant
recommendations
from
I
forget
the
the
entity,
but
it's
a
palm
desert.
I
M
M
A
A
M
Yeah,
madam
chair
I'll,
just
get
my
comment
out
of
the
way
early
and
quickly
these
these
two
houses
have
been
through
a
tremendous
amount
of
process.
I
I
you
know.
I
I
believe
that
they're
probably
a
little
bit
big
for
their
parcels.
I
have
to
say
that
I
think
the
design
is
good.
I
think
the
applicant's
gone
a
long
way
to
making
them
work.
C
Sure
so
this
is
a
presentation
for
322
west
crispy
drive,
which
is
adjacent
to
310,
with
crispy
drive
that
you
just
reviewed
about
five
minutes
ago,
and
the
project
site
is
actually
the
west
the
vacant
lot,
and
here
is
a
topography
very
similar
to
the
adjacent
lot.
The
slope
goes
down
from
the
from
the
front
to
the
to
the
rear
and
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
construct
3
344
square
foot
residents
on
eleven
thousand
two
hundred
and
six
square
foot
lot.
The
proposed
cavities
is
approximately
twenty
point.
C
C
In
addition
to
the
comments
provided
by
the
planning
commission,
the
begins
team
decided
to
reduce
the
projection
of
the
real
portion
of
the
residence
by
by
three
feet,
and
this
is
just
to
show
how
the
three
full
reduction
affects.
The
overall
design
by.
As
you
see
here,
shown
appointed
by
red
arrow,
the
projection
of
the
upper
level
has
been
reduced,
and
this
is
just
to
show
the
real
innovation
of
the
the
glucose
residents.
C
C
Let's
say
the
staff
is
recommending
the
planning
commission
to
approve
the
project
subject
to
conditions
of
our
approval
that
are
included
in
exhibit
a
which
include
the
following
landscape
design,
to
be
revised
and
subject
to
a
further
review
by
the
excuse
me
over
design
to
be
improved
and
then
also
the
structural
support
should
be
excuse.
Me
shall
be
subject
to
review
and
approval
by
the
architectural
review
committee,
and
this
concludes
our
staff
presentation
on
322.
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
I
I
think
it's
the
examples
that
I
see
there
are
more
of
a
cautionary
tale
of
what
can
happen
if
we
have
homes
essentially
reshape
the
landforms,
and
I
am
inclined
to
not
support
either
the
homes.
Because
of
that
I
listened
to
conversations
about
and
the
analysis
about,
the
hydrology
about
flooding
about
the
size
of
the
homes.
I
don't
think
the
size
of
the
homes
are
atypical
for
that
area,
and
I
think
that
they
are
fine.
B
I'm
convinced
that
our
engineering
after
getting
through
the
city's
department,
would
be
adequate
to
provide
to
prevent
flooding
of
neighboring
or
these
homes
themselves.
I'm
not
as
concerned
about
that,
but
I
am
concerned
when
asked
to
make
findings
that
each
of
the
homes
conforms
to
the
intent
of
the
general
plan
and
in
particular
I
think,
when
we
take
a
look
at
the
finding
about
the
site,
layout,
orientation
and
location
of
structures
relative
to
open
spaces
and
topography
and
also
to
the
binding
for
harmonious
relationship
with
the
joining
developments.
E
I
thank
thank
you
for
that
commercial
lamb.
My
problem
stems
maybe
from
the
same
area,
but
I
was
asking
questions
about
amms
and
whether
they're
discretionary
or
not
or
by
right-
and
it
seems
that
we
do
have
to
make
findings
to
approve
an
amm,
and
one
of
those
is
that
we
have
to
certify
or
state
that
this
project
is
harmon
has
a
harmonious
relationship
with
existing
adjoining
developments
and
the
community
and
the
neighborhood
immediate,
and
I
think,
there's
a
valid
argument,
at
least
in
my
mind
that
can
be
made.
E
That
says
that
that
it's
not
it's
not
it's.
It's
not
harmonious
with
with
the
topography
and
it's
its
impact
to
that
street,
I
I
don't
think
a
10-foot
setback
on
that
narrow
little
street
is
necessarily
harmonious
and,
furthermore,
I
don't
there's
no
real,
clear
indication
where
that
street
lies
in
relation
to
the
property
line.
I
mean,
I
know
from
my
own
experience,
so
developing
properties
in
the
hollywood
hills.
The
the
paved
street
often
does
not
conform
to
the
city
right
away.
E
E
So
to
grant
the
setback
when
we
don't
even
really
know
where
it
is,
is,
is
problematic
for
me
and
the
streets
very
narrow,
and
you
know
a
10
foot
setback
might
be
appropriate
in
some
other
contexts,
but
in
this
one
it
doesn't
make
sense
to
me.
So
I'm
also
leaning
that
for
me
it
I
can't
make
that
particular
finding,
which
is
necessary
for
the
amn.
G
I'm.
I
was
a
little
surprised
that,
given
the
extensive
topography
of
these
sites
that
there's
only
three
or
four
steps
in
each
of
these
homes,
in
terms
of
a
step
down
on
the
floor
plans,
obviously
the
one
house
has
a
a
lower
level,
so
I'm
sort
of
excluding
that,
but
from
the
main
floor
of
the
homes,
there's
only
a
three
steps
which
would
be
about
an
18
inch
drop
in
the
in
the
house
and
given
that
the
properties
drop
a
lot
more
than
that,
I
would
say
my
initial
reaction.
G
You
know,
given
that
I
will
support
you,
know
a
redesign
of
these
homes.
I
know
this
has
been
through
that
already,
at
least
once
so
I'll
defer
to
the
pleasure
of
the
commissioners
that
have
been
here
as
supposed
in
the
you
know
as
to
whether
you
want
to
continue
this
again
or
go
through
a
decision-making
process
that
might
result
in
a
denial
of
these
homes
at
this
time,
so
I'll
defer
to
the
other
commissioners
to
to
lead
that
charge.
M
A
A
And
one
is
2924,
I
don't
know
exactly
what
that
pad
looked
like.
I
didn't
walk
up
to
that
parcel,
but
I
feel
like
the
other
homes
are
smaller
and
they
don't
jut
out
into
the
ravine.
The
jutting
out
into
a
30
foot
or
more
than
30
foot
slope
really
bothers
me.
They
jump
they
jut
out
more
and
they're
too
big
for
the
pads
they're
on
on
a
respectful
home.
I
think
I,
I
also
think
had
one
been
modern
and
one
been
a
bit
more
eclectic.
A
They
would
respect
the
fact
that
the
mesa
is
very
eclectic
and
the
homes
on
the
edge
really
aren't
aren't
all
modern
architecture.
So
I
I
have
a
hard
time.
I
can't
make
the
findings
on
this.
I'm
sorry.
The
applicant
has
gone
through
this
much
with
it.
I
think,
and
I
will
go
to
our
attorney.
I
think
we
do
make
need
to
make
a
decision
tonight
and
on
another
note,
I
think
that
the
land
that
the
landscape
plan
in
on
the
ridge
area
needs
to
be
native
plants.
A
It
can't
be
plants
we
take
out
of
the
it's.
I
think
it's
the
coachella
valley
water
resources
board
list,
which
is
mainly
non-native
plants.
It
should
be
native
back
there
and
were
we
to
approve
this.
I
probably
would
have
asked
for
an
open
space
easement
which
we
can
do
under
our
zoning
code
for
for
the
land,
but
I,
but
without
a
smaller
pad
I
you
know,
I
think
these
homes
should
be
reduced
by
probably
a
thousand
square.
You
know
a
thousand
square
feet
to
be
something
that
I
could
be
comfortable
with.
A
That
I
feel
would
respect
the
topography
of
what's
on
the
ridge.
I
didn't
really
look
at
the
homes
and
count
the
homes
that
are
on
the
other
side
of
the
ridgeline.
But
it's
what's
surrounding
that
ridge.
That's
important,
and-
and
I
do
think
that
this
these
would
take
they're
out
of
character
with
the
neighborhood.
M
M
M
I
think
that
adding
to
modern
homes
that
are
distinctly
different
and
interesting
in
their
own
ways
adds
to
that
beauty
with
respect
to
them
cantilevering
over
their
own
land,
but
not
into
the
gully.
I
don't
see
that
as
a
problem.
There
are
plenty
of
homes,
including
the
one
next
door
that
have
decks
and
balconies
and
all
sorts
of
things
that
cantilever
it's
part
of
the
nature
of
hillside
properties,
and
so
I
think
that
other
than
them
being
a
little
bit
large,
and
not
that
I
don't
think
that
that
oversized.
M
I
think
these
houses
are
attractive
and
I
think
they
do
fit
in
you
know
I
read
the
neighbor
comments
and
public
comments
very
carefully,
and
they
very
much
have
an
impact
on
my
deliberations
and
and
how
I
think
about
these
projects,
and
many
of
the
neighbors
concerns
were
about
the
houses
in
the
future.
The
other
houses
that
this
develop
or
other
parcels
that
this
developer
has
in
this
area
and
for
me
those
properties
would
be
scrutinized
in
a
big
way
because
they
they
are
down
in
the
actual
belly
area.
M
F
Madam
chair
can
just
note
that
there
are
some
comments
from
commissioners
about
the
front
yard
setback
in
the
event
that
the
project
did
comply
with
the
25
feet.
It
should
be
known
that
that
would
push
the
house
further
back
and
potentially
down
into
where
there
has
been
some
previous
comments
about
the
flood
issues
relative
to
the
project.
So
just
something
to
keep
in
mind.
One
other
comment
is
relative
to
the
street.
F
That
does
show
that
the
street
is
further
offset
from
the
property
line
and
also
on
that
same
page,
you
do
see
some
of
the
other
locations
of
the
homes
in
the
neighborhood
and
they're
set
back
to
the
streets.
So
there
is
some
historic
precedent
for
homes
that
are
closer
to
the
street,
to
address
either
topography
issues
or
perhaps
natural
drainage
channels
through
the
the
neighborhood.
So
I
just
want
to
make
those
comments
related
to
those
questions
or
issues
that
were
brought
up.
A
E
E
M
M
E
A
D
Madam
sharing
commission,
those
timelines
are
really
to
benefit
the
applicant
they're,
the
they're,
the
applicants
to
waive.
If
the
applicant
doesn't
want
the
benefit
of
a
short
turnaround
or
a
deadline
for
making
a
decision,
they
don't
have
to
take
it.
They
can
request
additional
continuances
or
additional
hearings,
and
it
then
becomes
your
decision
whether
to
grant
that
request
or
not.
I
I
It's
hard
for
me
to
say,
because
the
the
contradictions
between
you
and
the
arc
is
very
difficult
to
predict.
As
you
know,
our
intention,
with
cantilevering
over
the
hillside,
was
to
comply
with
the
building
code,
which
says
we
can't
grade
within
a
slope.
That's
30
percent.
The
solution
there
was
to
float
it
above.
The
30
slope
use
piles.
I
310
didn't
get
that
benefit
so
to
penalize
us
based
on
something
that
was
recommended
by
the
arc
seems
you
know
it's
frustrating
to
say
the
least
and
to
say:
we've
been
designing
these
around.
What
we
thought
was
respect
to
the
hillside.
That's
written
in
your
code
to
avoid
slope,
that's
steeper
than
a
certain
percentage.
That's
what
we
tried
to
do.
We
tried
to
do
that
and
now
we're
getting
penalized
for
it,
saying
that
it's
not
harmonious.
I
A
A
D
B
I
A
D
Madam
chair
and
commission,
I
might
be
able
to
help
with
that.
Just
as
a
reminder
for
the
applicant,
of
course,
the
there's
no
opportunity
to
meet
with
the
body
as
a
whole
without
it
being
a
noticed
meeting
and
a
public
meeting
like
this
one,
but
any
applicant
can
always
seek
out
its
public
officials
in
one
or
in
one-on-one
meetings
or
one
on
even
two
meetings.
F
F
Staff
can
prepare
a
resolution
of
denial
based
on
the
findings
you
present
or
what
you
would
like
us
to
include.
We've
presented
some
for
you
as
findings
and
support.
However,
if
the
commission
has
made
findings
based
on
your
discussion
tonight
in
draft
resolution,
we
can
modify
those
commit
or
those
findings
each
one
that
the
commission
would
like
us
to
change,
and
we
will
make
that
the
final
resolution,
if
it
is
a
denial.
B
I
in
particular
found
that
I
was
not
comfortable
making
with
the
resolution
that
staff
had
prepared
for
approval
with
making
the
findings
number
one
and
number
two.
I
believe
that
the
site,
layout
orientation
location,
the
structures
and
the
relationship
to
one
another
into
the
open
space
and
topography.
B
B
A
E
D
Right,
madam
sharon,
commission,
before
you
vote
on
that
motion
or
or
refine
it
for
the
sake
of
the
record,
I'd
like
to
clarify
I'm
looking
in
the
code
at
the
findings
that
need
to
be
made
for
approving
or
not
a
minor
modification.
The
first
one
is
that
the
requested
minor
modification
is
consistent
with
the
general
plan.
I
think
that
we
just
heard
an
articulation
of
a
finding
of
how
that
cannot
be
made
and
the
overall
objectives
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
But
there
are.
There
are
three
other
findings
there
and
I
would.
D
D
I
I
was
listening
to
you
carefully
and
I
didn't
hear
anybody
speak
directly
to
whether
or
not
the
neighboring
properties
will
be
adversely
affected
as
a
result
of
granting
the
minor
mod
I'd
like
to
hear
about
that
on
the
record.
Also,
I
I
would
like
to
hear
about
whether
an
approval
or
conditional
approval
would
be
detrimental
to
the
health,
safety
or
general
welfare
of
persons
living
there
or
nearby.
D
And
lastly,
I'd
like
to
get
something
on
the
record
about
whether
or
not
you
find
that
the
approving
the
minor
mod
would
is
justified
or
not
justified
by
the
environmental
features.
And
maybe
you
have
spoken
to
that
environmental
features,
site
conditions
and
location
of
existing
improvements.
I
guess
that
would
include
existing
homes
and
the
historical
development
patterns.
B
D
No,
it
just
makes
it
easier
on
the
appeal
and
it
makes
it
easier
to
defend
the
decision
if
you've
been
a
little
more
exhausted,
but
certainly
as
a
as
a
legal
threshold.
You
have
to
make
all
four
to
approve,
and
if
you
find
that
you
cannot
make
one
of
them,
then
that
is
legally
sufficient,
but
just
to
eliminate
downstream
contention.
D
A
A
G
G
My
big
issue
is
with
topography
and
I
just
don't
feel
like
the
structures.
The
volumes
of
the
structures
have
respected
the
topography
enough.
It
may
just
mean,
from
my
perspective,
pushing
down
that
most
northern
the
northernmost
volume
of
the
building
down
a
couple
more
feet
in
elevation,
whether
that
means
there's
some
grading
that
has
to
be
done
or
not.
I
don't
know:
there's
a
the
cantilever
in
the
sections.
The
cantilever
shows
like
there's
room
for
that
volume
to
be
sunk
in
further,
and
that
would
satisfy
me.
A
G
E
A
E
B
A
A
A
A
G
E
B
I
I
number
one
I'm
not
comfortable
with,
unless
I'm
not
comfortable
with
making
findings
on
it.
Unless
somebody
tells
me
what
the
overall
objectives
of
the
zoning
orders
are,
then
it
could
be
more
particular
and
number
two.
The
neighboring
properties
will
not
be
adversely
affected.
We've
had
nothing,
we've
had
nothing
but
a
parade
of
residents.
Who
don't
want
this?
Who
complain
it
to
about
it?
Who
object
to
it
for
myriad
reasons,
they
would
certainly
argue
that
their
property
would
be
adversely
affected,
but
I
don't
know.
B
Are
we
saying
that
their
property
values
would
be
negative,
adversely
affected?
Are
we
saying
that
the
hydrology
issues
might
not
be
solved
and
therefore
the
properties,
if
they're
arguing
that
it's
their
view
that's
adversely
affected?
I
would
argue
that
there's,
no,
nobody
has
a
right
to
their
view.
A
A
A
F
E
B
G
M
E
E
G
M
C
B
A
B
F
Madam
chair
and
commissioners,
as
you
know
likely,
the
city
council
is
currently
doing
their
visioning
sessions,
so
stay
tuned.
For
that,
as
there
will
be
some
of
the
priorities
that
they've
identified
that
apply
to
us
are
relative
to
the
general
plan,
the
housing
element,
the
city's
infrastructure,
sustainability
goals
and
so
forth.
So
we
have
gotten
some
direction
on
that,
but
more
on
that
will
be
we'll
come
forward
as
we
get
into
the
budgeting
process
for
the
upcoming
fiscal
year
and
that's
all
I
have
to
report
manager.