►
From YouTube: Planning Commission Study Session | Dec 15 2021
Description
City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Study Session, held December 15th, 2021
B
A
B
B
C
The
issue
of
sb9
is
a
bill
that
was
signed
into
law.
This
past
fall
and
becomes
effective.
On
january.
The
1st,
mr
leishman
will
go
into
additional
details,
but
it
is
something
that
impacts
all
cities
in
the
state
of
california
and
consequently,
we
will
need
to
move
forward
and
do
an
urgency
ordinance
to
adopt
provisions
in
support
of
sb9
in
terms
of
our
schedule.
Let
me
just
if
you
don't
mind
share
my
screen
for
a
moment.
C
We
are
going
to
be
moving
forward
with
an
urgency
ordinance
at
the
city
council
level
on
january,
the
13th
as
an
urgency
ordinance.
We
need
to
follow
that
up
with
a
regular
ordinance,
and
so
what
we
are
going
to
do
is
bring
that
forward
to
the
planning
commission
on
january,
the
26th
and
then
introduce
it
for
first
reading
at
city
council
on
january,
the
27th
now
the
regular
ordinance
that
I'm
speaking
of
is
more
or
less
the
draft
ordinance
that
chair
wermuch
distributed
this
afternoon
to
you
via
email.
C
C
And
mr
leishman
might
also
give
you
some
additional
thoughts
in
terms
of
how
we
might
tailor
that
to
the
city
of
palm
springs.
So
with
that.
That
is
my
brief
introduction,
and
I
will
turn
it
over
to
mr
leashman
to
go
into
information
about
the
bill
and
the
proposed
urgency
ordinance.
So
mr
leishman.
D
D
C
D
R1
throughout
this
discussion
as
a
shorthand,
because
you
probably
have
at
least
one
possibly
two
different
variations
on
that
name.
So
what
sp9
does
is?
There
are
two
key
sections
of
this
bill.
The
first
section.
Well
I'll
start
with
the
second
section.
The
second
section
of
the
bill
allows
urban
lot
splits
by
right
in
on
an
r1
lot.
So
an
existing
r1
lot
can
be
split
into
two
by
right
or
ministerially,
without
any
discretionary
review
or
discretionarily
imposed
conditions
that
can
happen
in
every
single
r1
lot
in
palm.
C
D
D
So
in
terms
of
minimum
lot
size
for
one
of
these
urban
lot
splits,
the
state
has
said
that
the
minimum
lot
size
must
be
1200
square
feet
or
lower
if
the
city
so
choose
so
chose
on
an
urban
lot
or
on
a
resulting
lot
on
a
lot
that
results
from
an
urban
lot
split
under
sb9,
there
can
be
a
maximum
of
two
dwellings
on
each
of
those
resulting
halves,
and
those
dwellings
can
be
dwellings
of
any
kind.
They
can
be
primary
dwellings
under
the
r1
zone
or
sp9.
D
The
other
key
section
of
sb9
is
in
it's
actually
the
first
section
of
the
bill
where
it
independent
of
urban
lot.
Splits
gives
a
right
to
every
property
owner
in
our
oven
of
an
r1
zone
plot
to
develop
two
primary
dwelling
units
on
the
property,
so
r1
usually
allows
one
most
often
r1
lots
are
already
developed
with
one
sp9.
C
D
D
B
D
C
B
Lots
of
questions,
but
we'll
have
lots
of
questions
we
have
actually,
commissioner
elaine
had
her
hand
up,
and
commissioner
irvin.
So,
commissioner
elaine
first,
I
was
just
wondering
about
the
logistics
of
that.
Do
you
have
to
if
you
have
an
existing
single
family
home
and
a
second
loan
is
built,
do
they
then
have
to
separate
the
utilities
and
get
separate
meters
for
things.
E
B
D
D
B
B
B
Question
for
you
palm
springs
has
no
bus
line.
That
comes
every
15
minutes.
We
have
no,
we
have
some
public
transit,
but
none
of
it
would
qualify.
I
believe
under
this.
So
can
you
talk
a
little
bit
about
parking
and
your
ordinance
said
parking
should
be
off
street,
but
is
that
your
ordinance?
What
does
the
law
say
if
you're
say
you're
since
it
looks
like
in
palm
springs,
we
will
end
up
with
one
parking
space
per
unit.
D
D
There
are
two
big
exceptions
to
that
in
the
state
law.
You've
referred
to
the
one
of
them,
which
is
proximity
to
transit
of
a
certain
level
and
the
other
one
is
proximity
to
a
car
share
vehicle,
and
by
that
I
mean
a
car
share,
vehicle
location,
a
designated
spot
where
people
are
picked
up
or
dropped
off
by
a
car
share
like
uber
or
lyft,
or
where
they
pick
up
or
drop
off
an
actual
car
car
share
vehicle.
Like
a
zip
car,
we
don't
see
those
as
much
anymore.
D
D
D
D
Certainly,
and
to
be
clear
at
the
end
of
the
day,
the
state
law
does
not
require
the
city
to
adopt
an
ordinance
at
all.
You
could
just
be
completely
hands
off
and
very
likely.
You
would
find
development
under
sb9
happening.
That
feels
really
inconsistent
with
the
nature
of
your
r1
neighborhoods,
so
hence
the
urgency
to
get
something
in
place
that
at
least
can
help
direct
the
sb9
development
to
be
consistent
and
compatible
based
on
the
standards.
D
With
time.
You'll
find
that
there
might
be
some
of
those
things
that
you
want
to
revisit,
or
some
that
you
just
want
to
abandon,
and
you
certainly
can,
but
we're
recommending
to
all
of
our
clients
to
start
with
the
full
set
of
tools
and
then
see
which
ones
you
like
or
find
to
be
helpful
and
then
start
making
decisions
about
how
you
want
to
change
them
or
maybe
drop
them.
B
B
B
C
D
D
Some
cities
that
want
to
consider
larger
units
potentially
in
the
future,
particularly
when
with
families
in
mind,
are
kind
of
putting
a
pin
in
that
idea
and
plan
on
revisiting
that
particular
aspect
of
it.
In
the
first
quarter
as
part
of
a
larger
policy
discussion
that
they
feel
would
take
too
much
time
right
now
to
have,
because
they
recognize
that
it's
pretty
important
to
have
some
rules
in
place
come
january,
1st
or
as
soon
thereafter
as
we
can
get
them.
A
D
F
D
Sorry
the
only
floor
that
a
dwelling
has
to
deal
with
if
the
city
doesn't
choose
to
impose
a
higher
one
is
the
floor
that
exists
in
the
building
code
and
health
and
safety
code.
There
are
two
dovetailed
provisions,
one
in
the
uniform
building
code
and
the
other
in
the
health
and
safety
code,
which
together
mean
that
a
dwelling
can
be
as
little
as
220
square
feet.
They
call
that
an
efficiency
unit
in
cities
that
have
affirmatively
opted
to
lower
it
even
further.
D
We
recommend
the
800
square
feet
as
the
maximum
to
any
city
that
wants
to
see
these
units
be
affordable
by
design.
That's
that's
really.
The
only
way
these
are
going
to
be
affordable
is
if
they're,
affordable
by
design
in
the
state,
both
through
the
adu
law
and
through
this
law,
has
made
a
strong
commitment
to
encouraging
affordable
housing,
and
I'm
in
that
sense
I
mean
affordable,
not
based
on
an
income
restrictive
covenant,
but
based
on
how
the
market
values
smaller
units.
F
That's
interesting,
I
I
read
differently
in
terms
of
the
the
motivation
for
the
800
square
feet.
I
thought
it
was
because
if
a
developer
or
any
others
want
to
come
in
and
build
something
larger,
they
would
be
discouraging
and
you
could
say
well,
that's
that's
great,
because
it'll
restrict
it
to
just.
F
You
know,
affordable
housing,
but
on
the
other
hand,
it
might
make
it
hard
for
them
to
pencil
it
out
if
they
wanted
to
do
a
thousand
square
feet
or
something
I'm
just
wondering
if
the
real,
the
actual
motivation
is
really
to
make
it
more
difficult
to
build,
not
necessarily
to
make
it
to
help
it
be
affordable
housing.
But
anyway,
I
guess
that's
a
policy
question
that
the
council
will
have
to
address.
B
B
What
I'm
saying
is
that
it
is
a
policy
question
and
the
question
is:
are
there
ways
of
dealing
with
it
800
square
feet
if
you
have
a
two-bedroom,
a
thousand
or
eleven
hundred
square
feet
if
you
have
a
three
bedroom,
so
those
those
are
kinds
of
questions
that
we
might
want
to
look
at
in
terms
of
what
can
be
built
because
we
have
we
build
very
very
little.
I
mean
if
you
look
at
all
of
the
affordability,
that's
come
in
recently.
F
C
C
We
may
want
to
make
to
that
urgency
ordinance
in
that
the
issue
of
square
footage
limitations,
as
we
just
discussed
right
here,
you
as
the
planning
commission
may
recommend
that,
rather
than
800
square
feet,
we
might
want
to
bump
that
up
to
encourage
housing
for
families,
while
not
going
to
the
point
where
it
allows
the
creation
of
luxury
dwellings
on
these
second
laws.
That's
not
the
purpose
of
the
ordinance
it's
to
develop,
affordable
housing,
something
that
we
dearly
need
here
in
palm
springs.
So
the
issue
of
things
such
as
square
footage
limitations,
design
standards.
C
F
C
F
C
C
F
Understand
why
we're
doing
three?
Why
don't
we
just
wait?
Take
our
time
understand
what
we
really
want
to
do
from
a
paul's
perspective
and
just
pass
that
one
ordinance
instead
of
having
this
quickie.
Let's
get
this
in
there,
because
we
don't
want
some
developer
to
come
in.
I
don't
know
I
just
it
seems
odd
to
me
to
do
three.
B
The
ordinance
makes
a
lot
of
sense,
because
the
underlying
statute
is
not
as
clear
as
this
would
be,
so
I
was
reading
it
for
that
purpose
today
and
then
also
reading
it
to
look
at
the
issues
that
I
think
are
palm
springs
specific
that
it
probably
parking
was
one
of
them
for
me
how
we
deal
with
height,
if
you
have
to
get
to
800
feet.
If
you
have
to
go
to
a
second
story,
I
do
think
pretty
early
on.
We
should
have
something
about
setbacks
on
second
stories.
B
So
there's
some
there's
some
real
issues
in
this
that
having
this
is
protective
of
the
lot
owners
and
and
the
city,
but
I
would
like
us
to
get
as
quickly
as
we
can
to
clearing
up
the
the
sort
of
housing.
Affordability
points
that
I
think
will
be
specific
to
palm
springs,
and
one
of
them
for
me
is
the
front
yard
setback,
especially
for
new
dwellings,
because
that
actually
allow
probably
allows
for
parking.
But
commissioner
irvin
had
his
hand
up.
C
B
And
some
of
the
questions
you
know
that
I
think
will
be
big
questions
and
that's
a
question
from
flynn.
Do
we
have?
It
seems
like
we
have
enough
r1
districts
that
there's
no
reason
to
apply
this
to
our
two
and
our
three
districts,
because
you
can't
build
single-family
homes
in
those
districts.
Correct
well,.
C
You
can't
build
single-family
homes
in
multi-family
districts.
They
are
permitted
uses,
however,
sb9
specifically
addresses
single-family
districts
and
so
and
to
answer
your
question:
yes,
we
do
have
enough
single-family
districts
where
this
could
be
helpful
in
terms
of
developing
affordable
housing
in
those
areas.
B
D
After
a
manner
yes,
so
there's
nothing
in
an
sb9
that
affects
hoas
and
their
ccnrs,
their
ccnr's
if
remain
in
effect,
if
the
ccnrs
prohibit
further
subdivisions
or
prohibit
the
development
of
a
second
unit
on
the
property,
they
remain
in
effect
and
they're,
binding
and
enforceable,
and
that's
that's
the
hoa's
job
to
enforce
them
or
the
neighbor
to
the
members
of
the
hoa
to
enforce
them.
That's
not
really
a
city
job
to
enforce
private
covenants.
D
B
D
Certainly,
and
that's
an
important
issue
that
flynn
and
other
staff
members
flagged
for
our
office,
the
urgency
ordinance
that
you
see
is
a
sample
set
of
code
amendments
that
were
prepared
with
cities
generally
in
mind.
We
didn't
prepare
it
specifically
for
palm
springs,
so
there's
nothing
in
it
that
addresses
hillsides,
though
that's
certainly
bound
to
be
an
important
part
of
your
robust
policy
discussion
in
the
first
quarter.
D
D
D
You
know
as
legally
could
it
be
any
initial
ordinance?
It
certainly
could.
But
what
we're
dealing
with
now
is
an
urgent
need
to
get
something
on
the
books
that
gives
the
city
a
range
of
tools
to
help
ensure
that
the
development
that
will
could
start
happening
on
the
1st
of
january
or
is
reasonable
in
light
of
the
context
of
the
of
the
neighborhood
and
so
to
wait
to
craft
and
then
agree
on
some
hillside
language.
D
F
E
D
D
Sb
9
units
may
not
be
located
period
and
then,
as
you
revisit
the
ordinance
later,
to
see
how
you
might
want
to
loosen
up
the
restrictions,
you
could
consider
what
criteria
you
would
be
willing
to
see
development
in
those
hill
side
areas
comply
with.
So
that's
if
you
need
something
just
to
get
it
kind
of
covered
somewhat.
D
F
F
How
many
parcels
would
actually
meet
the
criteria
for
an
800
square
foot
dwelling
with
the
recommended
setbacks
and
all
the
other
things
in
the
ordinance
in
my
neighborhood,
every
single
house
has
a
pool
and
there's,
even
though
our
my
parcel
is
100
by
100.
We
can't
we
could
not
squeeze
an
800
square
foot
house
in
there,
so
I
it
may
be
that
most
neighborhoods
in
palm
springs.
Aren't
this
wouldn't
even
apply
to,
and
it
may
be
a
very
small
number.
F
C
Peter
we
would
have
to
go
lot
by
lot
and
basically
design
each
lot
and
I'll
tell
you.
We
just
do
not
have
the
staff
to
do
that.
That
raises
an
interesting
question
and
maybe
todd
you
can
talk
about
this
in
terms
of
being
able
to
fit
an
additional
dwelling
on
a
lot,
how
much
demolition
could
be
done
to
an
existing
residence.
D
So
they
would
they
can.
They
can
pull
off
one
wall
and
then
attach
a
second
unit
to
that
wall
or,
as
will
more
likely
happen
in
most
cases,
owners
will
just
decide
to
build
a
second
unit
detached
from
the
first,
perhaps
on
the
other
side
of
the
pool,
perhaps
in
place
of
the
pool
owners
are
going
to
have
to
make
hard
choices.
D
D
B
That
raises
two
more
questions.
For
me.
The
40
60
lot
split,
you
might
have
features
in
palm
springs
houses
that
people
don't
want.
They
might
have
a
large
enough
lot
that
they
could
put
a
second
unit
or
split
it,
but
want
to
share
some
of
the
features
and
it
this
doesn't
look
like
that.
Allows
that
to
happen.
D
F
F
The
setbacks
imposed
by
the
underlying
zone
must
yield
to
the
degree
necessary
to
avoid
physically
precluding
the
construction
of
up
to
two
units
on
the
lot
or
anyway
go
on,
but
it
says,
but
in
no
event
may
any
structure
be
less
than
four
feet
from
a
side
or
rear
property
line.
How
does
that
relate?
I
guess
there's
a
question
for
staff.
How
does
that
relate
to
our
current
setbacks
required
for
an
adu
or
something
like
that?
D
So,
commissioner,
the
the
adu
law,
as
you
probably
know,
is,
is
very
clear
and
very
strict
about
what
cities
can
impose
in
terms
of
side
and
rear
setbacks.
It
says
that
when
it
comes
to
adus,
a
city
may
not
impose
any
setback
side
and
rear
on
that
adu
any
greater
than
four
feet,
so
the
city's
hands,
the
city
has
very
little
choice.
There.
C
F
D
I
was
just
gonna
finish
the
thought
that
under
sb9
it's
that
is
not
the
rule,
we're
not
limited
to
a
four
foot
side
and
rear
setback.
We
can
impose
our
normal
ones.
Of
course
those
normal
ones
have
to
yield
to
allow,
like
all
of
our
other
objective
standards,
have
to
yield
as
necessary
to
allow
a
two
unit
or
a
second
unit
at
800
square
feet,
but
the
stat,
the
state
law
here
under
sb9,
says
that
in
in
that
setback
having
to
yield,
it
never
has
to
yield
below
four
feet.
D
C
B
B
B
B
B
D
Sharing,
commission,
that's
that's
a
great
question
and
no.
The
city
does
not
have
to
allow
second
stories.
In
fact,
the
sample
code
amendments
that
you
that
will
go
before
the
council
for
urgency.
Adoption
limit
units
built
under
sb9
to
being
16
feet
above
grade
now
we
anticipate
these
being
on
the
ground,
not
a
second
story.
D
D
So
in
that
rare
case,
where
the
lot
is
so
small
that
you
can't
fit
the
two
units
on
the
ground,
then
the
city
would
have
to
consider
allowing
them
to
go
up
the
second
story,
but
that
really
only
comes
into
play
with
lots
that
are,
oh,
I
don't
know:
2
000
square
feet
or
smaller,
probably
2
400
square
feet.
If
they're
going
to
split
them
into
resulting
lots,
and
I
suspect
that
you
have
view
if
any
lots
that
are
legally
subdivided
in
the
city
and
that
are
that
small.
D
B
C
B
F
E
I
have
to
say
that
a
good
portion
of
the
lots
that
are
developed
in
town
the
houses
are
already
situated
almost
in
dead
center
of
the
lots
and
so
by
trying
to
get
trying
to
meet
that
60
40
split
is
going
to
be
very,
very
tough.
It's
it's
it's
going
to
be
a
case-by-case
basis.
It's
it's
not
going
to
be
just
a
giant
free-for-all.
E
F
And
I
appreciate
your
saying
that,
because
I
think
ultimately,
when
the
public
starts
paying
attention
to
this,
the
council
will
probably
want
to.
However,
you
want
to
word
it
reassure
them
that
most
likely
their
neighbor
isn't
going
to
be
able
to
accommodate
many
of
these
for
good
and
for
bad,
and
so,
if
people
start
raising
hell.
Oh
excuse
me
cain
about
the
idea
that,
oh,
my
god,
our
neighborhood's
going
to
be
overwhelmed
with
you
know
these
other
units
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
F
E
It's
tough
looking
at
these
and
it's
tough,
even
looking
at
just
general
adus
that
we're
currently
processing
we're
processing
quite
a
few,
and
it's
even
tough
for
the
adus,
even
though
they
do
not
have
discretionary
review.
But
we
do
look
at
pad
heights
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
super
elevating
pads.
We
would
need
to
still
kind
of
do
that
for
this
just
to
make
sure
that
they
can
meet
sewer
requirements,
server
flow
requirements.
So
this
these
are
not
going
to
be
easy.
Hey
here's,
my
application!
F
F
So
where
would
the
so
the
parking
if
it's
one
space
per
unit,
so
the
the
main
house?
Let's
call
the
front
house-
would
have
have
to
have
one
space
for
themselves
and
they
would
also
have
to
make
room
for
another,
because
you
can't,
if
you
can't
get
your
car
around
to
the
back,
where
the
other
adu
is.
You
need
to
have
it
in
the
front.
Yeah.
B
What
the
draft
ordinance
said
was:
there's
a
preference
for
both
units,
both
lots
or
both
units
to
have
street
access
to
be
adjacent
to
a
street,
and
that
makes
sense,
I
think,
for
new.
My
sense
is
a
lot
of
this
could
be
new
lots
that
are
developed,
not
not
lots
that
are
in
existence
that
they
would
probably
I
mean
my
lot
if
I
wanted
to
do.
It
would
be
big
enough
if
somebody
could
walk
up
the
side
yard
where
the
trash
is.
A
B
E
D
D
C
Let
me
jump
in
there
per
the
contract
or
the
agreement
that
we
have
with
the
tribe
tribal
trust.
Land
is
excluded
from
the
city's
zoning
regulations.
However,
allotted
trust
land
is
subject
to
the
city's
zoning
ordinance.
So
consequently,
with
our
adoption
of
these
regulations,
it
would
be
permissible
there.
I
would
imagine-
and
mr
priest
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong.
E
Yes,
yeah
you're
correct:
there
are
some
exceptions
in
the
agreement
where
perhaps
applying
the
zoning
code
conflicts
with
the
terms
of
a
federal
lease
or
with
federal
law,
but
other
than
that
you
are
correct,
the
local
zoning
code
would
apply.
I
would
also
note
that,
on
a
t
land,
there
is
a
right
to
appeal
the
decision
of
the
city
on
zoning
matters
to
the
tribal
council.
Ultimately,.
D
Chair
and
count
and
commission,
if,
if
I
may,
this
is
todd
again
there
just
to
be
clear,
there
is
nothing
in
sb9
that
would
require
that
would
subject
sd-9
or
protect
sb9
from
tribal
regulation
any
differently
than
your
normal
zoning.
This
is,
for
all
intents
and
purposes,
just
another
part
of
your
zoning
code
in
your
subdivision
code
and
to
the
extent
that
your
zoning
applies
at
all
in
in
tribal
territory,
it'll
apply
the
same
way
to
sb9.
There's
no
extra
special
treatment
here.
B
So
let
me
go
back
to
hillsides
right
now.
We
treat
hillsides
and
properties
on
major
corridors
as
special
and
they
get
they're
reviewed
individually
because
of
one
because
of
hillsides
and
two,
the
major
corridors.
Does
that
mean
there
would
be
no
review,
no
normal
review
of
any
any
single
family
dwelling
or
only.
D
B
D
D
D
D
B
B
D
I
was
just
going
to
say
that
that
chair,
the
the
the
code
amendments
that
bbk
provided
included,
placeholders
for
lock
coverage
and
far
and
open
space.
But
again
they
were
just
placeholders
and
there
hasn't
been
a
policy
discussion
around
what
those
numbers
should
be
if
if
it
makes
sense
to
have
them
so.
F
D
B
D
The
12.5
is
because
that's
about
as
narrow
as
you
can
get
according
to
my
public
works
friends
or
our
public
works
friends
and
have
a
driveway
sufficiently
wide
for
a
car,
and
so
some
cities
have
at
the
outset
said
no,
that's
not
wide
enough.
We
want
it
to
be
15
feet,
or
I
did
one
two
nights
ago
where
this
the
town
wanted
to
make
it
50
feet,
because
their
minimum
lot
width
is
100,
so
they
figured
that
would
work
that
that's
a
placeholder,
but
it's
a
placeholder
with
a
purpose.
D
F
F
D
D
F
F
D
D
D
F
D
D
D
B
But
we
can't
I,
it
said
that
the
city
could
impose
fees.
Is
the
understanding
that
this
ordinance
would
give
staff
the
ability
to
determine
what
the
fees
should
be
in
terms
of
the
I'm
assuming
it
will
take
staff
time
to
process
these,
and
we
can
charge
fees
commencement,
certainly
with
the
amount
of
staff
time.
D
We
will
yes,
the
city,
the
city,
madam
chair,
will
follow
the
laws
that
govern
setting
fees
generally.
The
city,
of
course,
can't
make
any
money.
It's
not
supposed
to
be
a
profit
center,
but
the
city
can
make
reasonable
assumptions
about
how
much
staff
time
it
takes
to
process
and
the
like
and
and
based
on
those
reasonable
assumptions
impose
a
fee
through
the
normal
process.
There's
nothing
special.
That
needs
to
happen
here.
D
That's
exactly
right
and
we
we
generally
do
not
codify
our
fees.
As
you
probably
already
know,
the
the
fees
are
usually
either
either.
The
council
authorizes
a
director
to
establish
the
fees
as
long
as
there's
a
reasonable
basis
or
as
more
as
as
is
more
common.
The
fees
are
proposed
by
staff
and
approved
by
resolution
by
the
council.
E
B
Mine,
my
question
has
to
do
with
the
applicants
and
some
some
interest
in
an
interesting
question.
If
we
have
an
individual
applicant
coming
in,
it
has
to
be
the
property
owner,
it
has
to
be
a
natural
human
being
it
can't
it,
it
wouldn't
be
say
a
corporation
or
a
trust
that
has
gone
there's.
There
have
been
articles
today
about
trusts
that
have
gone
out
and
bought
thousands
and
hundreds
of
thousands
of
homes
which
then
they
rent
out
again.
D
B
B
E
I'll
just
throw
this
in
on
top
of
kathy's
question,
so
I
that
was
a
concern
of
mine.
The
enforcement
aspect
of
this
seemed
like
a
real
concern.
You
know
it's
hard
enough
for
us
to
keep
track
of
vacation
rental
owners
and
the
other
things
that
we
have
to
enforce
on,
but
and
as
you
and
as
you
said,
very
often,
enforcement
is
complaint
based,
but
I
don't
know
what
the
complaint
would
be.
E
You
know
a
neighbor
wouldn't
necessarily
know
who
the
homeowner
is
or
who
the
property
owner
is
because
so
often
things
are
rented
out
to
begin
with,
which
is
completely
legal.
So
I
see
this
as
a
potential
for
real
problems
and
violation,
and
I'm
wondering
how
much
latitude
we
have
to
really
enforce
it,
like
requiring
proof
of.
I
don't
know
primary
address
for
tax
purposes,
or
I
don't
know
I
I
don't
know
it
to
me.
D
Commissioner,
that
you're
right
to
be
concerned-
and
we
thought
of
that
too,
as
we
were
drafting
the
ordinance
and
you'll-
see
on
further
reading
that
under
both
provisions,
both
the
urban
lot
split
and
the
second
unit
provisions,
there
there's
a
statement
about
how
the
city
is
authorized
to
require
evidence
demonstrating
compliance,
and
we
just
leave
it
at
that
in
the
code.
And
then
I
actually,
it
actually
says
a
little
bit
more
than
that
as
examples.
E
You
know
I
in
a
perfect
world,
I
think
you're
right
I'd,
be
very
interested
in
the
examples
of
what
we
can
use
for
enforcement,
but
again
in
neighborhoods,
where
you
have
30
up
to
30
vacation
rental
ownership.
Nobody
knows
who
owns
what
anymore,
and
so
it's
not
like
you
know
we
leave
it
to
beaver
and
the
neighbors
are
down
the
street.
Our
neighborhoods
are
very
different
now
so
anyway,
I'll
leave
it
that
I
have
major
concerns
on
enforcement.
E
F
C
E
C
So,
commissioner,
by
sir
roberts,
what
we're
going
to
be
doing
is
the
city
is
going
to
be
adopting
an
emergency
ordinance.
City
council
will
do
that
on
january,
the
13th
we'll
follow
up
with
version
2
of
the
ordinance,
which
is
essentially
the
urgency
ordinance
going
through
the
regular
public
hearing
process.
B
The
I
think
the
one
reason
to
have
the
cookie-cutter
language
they
have.
There
is
just
so
that
we
don't
end
up
with,
in
the
short
interim,
a
trailer,
a
shed
that
you
had
that
for
the
first
six
months
that
there's
some
some
control
on
something
absolutely
completely
out
of
place
being
put
in.
Until
we
get
that
language.
D
Okay,
jared,
that's
absolutely
right!
This
is
todd
again.
That
is,
that
is
the
intent
with
which
we
drafted
it
because
keep
in
mind.
We
were
drafting
this
for
cities
up
and
down
the
state
as
their
urgency
ordinance
to
give
them
a
full
set
of
tools,
sort
of
the
interim
ordinance
so
that
they're
not
over
a
barrel
come
january
1st,
knowing
that
most
cities
will
want
to
revisit
it
after
a
robust
policy
discussion
in
the
first
or
second
quarter.
D
F
E
D
E
B
D
Sense,
that's
a
great
question.
It
does
so
if
I
could
just
restate
it
to
make
sure
I
understand
well,
let
me
preface
it
with
a
comment:
the
if
it's
already
zoned
r1
or
whatever
the
palm
springs
equivalent.
Is
it's
a
foregone
conclusion
right,
you're
not
going
to
ever
be
looking
at
an
sb
at
a
project
wondering
if
about
sb9
potential,
because
that
sp9
potential
is
already
there
nobody's
going
to
come
to
you
for
a
project
in
r1
anymore.
B
D
A
D
D
So
cities
are
kind
of
waking
up
to
the
reality
that
I'm
going
to
have
to
keep
in
a
list
of
all
the
cities
or
of
all
the
lots
in
the
in
the
city
that
have
either
gotten
a
second
unit
or
an
urban
lot
split
under
sb9.
And
I
just
need
to
check
that.
Every
time
I
get
an
application
for
an
sb9
project
to
make
sure
that
they
haven't
already
taken
advantage
of
it.
B
B
B
B
B
C
One
of
the
things
to
keep
in
mind
is
we
do
have
another
subcommittee,
the
tree
subcommittee
that
we're
putting
together.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
there
isn't
too
much
overlap,
because
we
will
probably
have
those
two
subcommittees
working
around
the
same
time.
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
careful
in
terms
of
the
extracurricular
assignments
that
we
give
you
as
planning
commission
members.
E
C
F
C
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
It's
part
of
the
small
hotel
land
use
designation
in
the
general
plan,
which
allows
10
dwelling
units
per
acre,
and
this
was
a
new
classification
that
the
city
added
in
2007.
So
under
the
current
density,
that's
permitted.
They
would
get
no
more
than
seven
units
to
the
for
the
three
quarter
acre
lot
that
it
sits
on
so
it's
you
know,
the
current
density
is
less
less
than
half
of
what's
currently
built
on
the
property.
A
Excuse
me,
five
apartment
units
within
this
designation,
so
two
of
these
examples
are
hotels
that
were
previously
paying
hotel
tot
and
have
at
some
point
stopped
paying
tot.
So
there
is
potential
that
two
of
the
properties
might
have
a
desire
to
convert
to
presidential,
so
that
may
be
a
possibility
in
the
future.
B
F
A
F
B
E
E
So
in
other
words,
why
would
we
have
maybe
all
right
so
excuse
us
as
an
example?
Maybe
there
was
an
apartment
building
that
had
10
units
that
got
converted
to
a
hotel
and
wants
to
convert
back
well.
Let's
say
they
want
to
use
other
space
in
the
building
or
they
want
to
reduce
larger
units
into
smaller
units.
So
we
might
have
some
apartment
stock,
that's
one
bedrooms
or
or
even
smaller
units
for
people
who
want
those.
Why
are
we
limiting
that
at
all?
Why?
E
Wouldn't
we
let
them
convert
to
any
number
as
long
as
it
fit?
You
know
most
other.
You
know
design
standards.
I
know
parking
is
an
issue
that
you
know.
We
need
to
look
at
that
seriously,
but
it
I
think
we
should
look
at
each
case
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
We
want
to
attract
people
to
come
in
with
these
conversions
and
I
think
we
should
leave
it
open
for
creativity
and
use
of
the
space.
E
E
B
B
A
Yeah,
I
think
the
this
started
from
a
project
that
had
come
in
an
application
that
was
received
by
the
city.
You
know,
certainly,
staff
can
look
at
exploring
more
flexibilities
and
seeing
how
that
you
know
what
impacts
we
might
have
from
having
greater
flexibility,
and
but
you
know
things
we
want
to
address
as
far
as
loopholes,
to
avoid
a
project
that
you
know
hey.
E
My
concern
about
this
ordinance,
the
way
it's
written
is
there's
no
flexibility.
They
would
have
to
go
back
to
10
apartments
and
that
might
be
extremely
costly
or
or
it
may
not
be.
It
might
not
make
financial
sense
to
them
and
if
our
goal
is
is
to
to
or
we
find
it
desirous
to
have
hotel
units
converted
back
to
apartments,
I'm
just
looking
for
all
the
flexibility
that
we
can
have
in
this
and
to
make
it
make
it
as
attractive
as
possible.
E
I
see.
Thank
you,
commissioner
roberts.
Madam
chair.
The
task
that
I
was
working
with
staff
on
the
concept
we
were
working
with
at
the
time
was
basically
a
one-for-one
conversion
process.
If
you
have
a
15
unit
hotel
that
used
to
be
an
apartment
building,
you
could
go
to
a
15
unit,
apartment
building
and
there'd.
Be
that
one
for
one
transition.
E
If
the
city's
policy
was
to
allow
a
a
larger
transition,
say
15
hotel
units
to
20
or
25,
smaller
apartment
units
or
something
that
would
be
a
policy
call
of
the
city,
we
could
probably
write
something
in
the
ordinance
to
that
effect.
That
said,
our
office
is
also
recommended,
in
addition
to
an
ordinance
to
that
effect,
also,
a
general
plan
amendment
that
recognizes
this
special
exception
from
the
density
limits
that
are
in
the
general
plan.
E
C
One
of
the
benefits
of
doing
that
is
by
allowing
a
density
bonus.
It
would
guarantee
that
that
percentage
of
units
would
be
affordable,
which
is
one
of
our
goals.
So
perhaps
vice
chair
roberts,
that's
how
we
do
it
is
through
allowing
the
use
of
the
density
bonus
and
then
doing
that
in
the
purpose
of
doing
affordable
units.
If
we
were
to
allow
more
and
smaller
units,
you.
E
Know
what
director
that
that
is
a
great
idea
and
that's
something
that
I
had
mentioned
to
mr
newell
today-
that
perhaps
we
do
this
with
sugar
rather
than
vinegar,
and
you
know
we
can't
get
people
to
build
apartments
anymore.
It's
too
expensive.
It
doesn't
pencil
out
here's
the
one
opportunity
to
add
apartments,
affordably
and
fast
to
the
rental
market.
I'd
love
this
to
see
everything
we
can
do
to
make
this
appealing.
B
What
what
I
would
do
with
it,
though,
is
to
allow
a
density
bonus
for
affordability,
but
but
allow
at
least
a
room
for
unit
conversion.
I'm
not
sure
how,
however
you're
looking
at
that
flint
or
allowing
them
to
go
back
to
what
they
originally
had
without
the
density
bonus
or
allowing
the
density
bonus.
E
B
A
A
So
our
central
business
district,
as
you
know,
it's
the
core
of
our
downtown-
it
spans
generally
from
ramon
road
to
the
south,
as
you
see
here
on
the
right
in
the
graphic
to
alejo
road
to
the
north
and
a
little
bit
further.
In
some
cases
on
both
sides
of
palm
canyon
and
indian
canyon,
it's
shown
in
the
red
and
what
it
allows
for
is
a
mix
of
commercial
office
residential
at
a
higher
concentration
and
density
than
other
areas
of
the
city.
A
Many
many
of
these
developments
that
I'm
going
to
go
through
tonight
do
not
comply
with
this
minimum
of
21
20
units
per
acre,
but
there
are,
but
they
are,
but
they
are
good
examples
of
projects
that
we
thought
were
desirable
for
the
city
as
well.
We've
seen
a
recent
project
that
does
not
was
not
able
to
comply
with
the
minimum
density
standards
for
the
cbd,
and
that
was
the
project
at
north
palm
canyon
in
chino
and
I'll
go
over
that
to
my
examples
here.
A
So
in
terms
of
existing
mixed-use
projects
that
we
have
on
123
north
long
canyon,
in
on
block
c
of
the
downtown
project,
there
are
four
residential
units
on
the
site
is
about
an
acre
in
size.
It
does
not
comply
with
a
minimum
of
21
to
1
units
per
acre,
but
it
it's
about
at
it's.
You
know
developed
at
4.121
units
per
acre,
so
this
is
just
one
example
where
you
know.
Obviously
we
want
to
encourage
housing
downtown,
but
this
doesn't
comply
with
the
minimum
threshold.
A
673
north
palm
canyon
drive
further
up
the
main
thoroughfare.
There
is
one
residential
unit
on
less
than
a
quarter
acre
at
a
density
based
on
the
size
of
the
lot.
It
is
fourth
four
point
three
five
one
units
per
acre
and
it's
located
in
the
central
business
district,
so
it
does
not
comply
with
the
minimum
threshold
of
21
to
the
acre
further
north
on
palm
canyon,
the
project
site
at
803,
north
palm
canyon
drive.
There
are
12
1
units
above
retail.
A
A
Three
residential
units
on
point
six
acres,
so
that
equates
to
five
to
one
units
per
acre.
It
is
part
of
the
also
part
of
the
neighborhood
community,
commercial
general
plan
designation.
So
in
this
case
it
does
not
comply
with
the
minimum
threshold
if
it
were
to
meet
a
cbd
classification.
But
it's
part
of
the
ncc
classification.
A
A
So
we
wanted
to
present
some
examples
of
what
we
thought
were
good
examples
in
our
kind
of
commercial
corridor
areas
where
we
have
residential
densities
at
less
than
the
minimum
threshold
of
21
per
acre.
But
so
we
thought
that
those
were
good
examples
that
were
are
cases
where
we
wouldn't
want
to
preclude
a
project.
A
A
C
C
I
want
to
qualify
that
by
saying
we
don't
need
a
minimum
threshold
as
it
applies
to
mixed-use
development
in
commercial
districts
thresholds
are
important
in
residential
districts,
especially
in
our
multi-family
residential
districts,
where
we
want
to
encourage
more
housing
units,
and
here
in
palm
springs.
We
have
a
horrible
past
of
under
developing
our
multi-family
districts
and
that's
something
that
leaves
us
in
the
situation
that
we're
in
currently
relative
to
affordable
housing
development.
C
B
F
A
F
A
F
So
is
that
an
unintended
consequence
of
this
I'm
just
trying
to
think
about
examples
where
someone
might
come
in
and
say?
Well,
you
know
we
want
to
sell
these
as
luxury
units.
We
don't
want
to
have
21
units
per
acre.
Let's
just
put
a
corner
cafe
and
that's
you
know
800
square
feet,
and
that
way
we
can,
you
know,
go
ahead
and
do
it,
for
you
know
far
less
than
21
units
per
acre.
B
C
B
C
E
E
So
if
somebody
wanted
to
convert
to
two
or
three
large
apartments
versus
you
know
ten
one
bedrooms
it
seems
like
we
should
create
the
opportunity
for
that
as
well.
So
I
very
much
concur
with
what
I'm
hearing
from
my
colleagues
again
leaving
complete
flexibility
in
creating
residential
units
and
not
forcing
them
into
a
minimum
number.
F
We
would
want
to
have
a
minimum
because
we
don't
want
them
just
to
build
the
luxury
housing
there
right.
If
the
goal
is
that
we
want
to
increase
density,
if
you
have
a
vacant
parcel
like
the
rios
parcel,
we
don't
want
them
to
come
in
with
10
units,
each
of
which
is,
you
know,
3
000
square
feet
or
whatever.
E
F
C
E
B
B
B
F
E
E
B
E
B
B
B
So
so
I
would
keep
that
standard,
but
I
would
want
to
see
the
frontage
of
the
property
be
commercial
and
if
they,
if
they're
doing
something
behind
it,
that's
that's
housing.
That's
that's
completely
fine
with
me
because
that
the
back
portion
of
that
large
project
is
never
going
to
work
really
well
as
a
commercial
project.