►
From YouTube: Planning Commission Meeting | Nov 17th 2021
Description
City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Meeting, held November 17th, 2021
A
D
D
B
At
this
point,
we
have
time
for
public
comments.
It's
this
time
has
been
set
aside
for
members
of
the
public
to
address
the
planning
commission
on
consent,
calendar
agenda
items
and
other
items
in
the
general
subject
matter:
jurisdiction
of
the
commission.
Please
note
that
the
planning
commission
cannot
take
action
on
items
that
have
not
been
listed
on
the
posted
agenda.
Three
minutes
will
be
allowed
for
each
speaker.
B
C
D
B
D
A
G
B
B
Our
next
item
is
green
rock
investments,
llc
doing
business
as
desert;
flowers,
love
that
name
seeking
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
cannabis
cultivation
operation
with
an
existing
building
to
include
a
type
6
manufacturing
facility
occupying
369
square
feet,
a
distribution
center,
a
distribution
activities
of
323
square
feet,
a
cannabis
cultivation
row
of
11
333
square
feet
within
an
existing
building
at
1
9
16
mclean
street
zone
m2
staff
report.
Please.
H
Perfect
right-
okay,
sorry
about
that.
So
this
is
a
cannabis
cultivation
project,
I'm
going
to
get
it
to
move
there
we
go
so
the
application
request
is
a
conditional
use
permit
for
cultivation
which
is
proposed
at
11
333
square
feet,
a
type
6
manufacturing
facility,
which
is
369
square
feet
and
type
6
non-volatile,
meaning
that
they
won't
use
chemicals
or
solvents,
and
then
a
323
distribution
and
transportation
portion
of
the
building
for
a
total
of
12
000
square
feet.
H
H
They
received
the
city
permit
back
in
march
of
this
year
and
went
through
all
the
proper
channels
to
get
the
administrative
permit
and
looking
at
an
area
of
the
site,
you'll
notice
that
it
is
in
the
middle
of
the
mclean
tract
with
other
industrial
sites
around
it.
It
is
zoned
in
our
cannabis
zone,
which
is
an
area
that
is
stipulated
for
type
grow
types
of
facilities.
H
You'll
notice
that
there's
a
parking
lot
behind
it
and
then
vacant
lots
on
both
sides.
There
are
no
restricted
uses
within
600
feet
of
the
site,
meaning
there's
no
playgrounds
or
any
kind
of
child
care
facilities
in
this
area
and
looking
at
the
site
plan,
as
I
mentioned,
the
building
is
existing.
So
all
the
parking
is
there,
the
trees,
the
medians
for
the
trees
and
then
all
the
landscaping
is
currently
in
in
recapping
parking.
They
are
required
to
have
16
total
spaces
and
there
exists
22,
so
they
meet
our
parking
requirements.
I
H
Through
the
administrative
review
process
for
the
city
permit,
they
had
an
odor
control
plan
that
was
reviewed
by
the
city
consultant
and
was
approved
and
they
are
proposing
to
use
carbon
filters
a
box
within
a
box
designed
to
for
the
grow
areas
a
closed
loop,
hvac
system,
administrative
controls
and
staff
training.
Our
older
consultant
is
available
and
is
on
the
call,
and
if
you
have
questions
he'll,
be
able
to
answer
those
for
you.
H
We
conducted
an
environmental
review.
The
autumn
group
prepared
an
initial
study
and
it
was
determined
that
a
negative
declaration
can
be
adopted.
They
are
they
looked
at
energy
use
during
the
operation.
They
looked
at
providing
power
from
our
desert
community
facility
for
carbon
free
power,
they'll
be
using
light
fixtures
to
be
energy
efficient
and
they'll
meet
title
24
energy
codes
and
our
consultant
thomas
strand,
is
available
on
the
call.
H
H
H
H
There's
a
closed
water
system
that
the
applicant
can
describe
better
for
the
cultivation
and
then
the
mission
springs
water
district
provided
conditions
which
are
in
your
conditions
of
approval.
So
they
have
reviewed
the
project
and
provided
a
series
of
of
conditions
that
you
will
approve.
Should
you
do
this
evening,
I'm
going
through
a
couple
of
the
slides.
This
is
a
site
plan
showing
once
again
the
site
is
fully
developed.
There'll,
be
no
grading,
there'll
be
no
changes
to
the
exterior
of
the
building
other
than
a
mechanical
screen
which
we'll
go
over
shortly.
H
In
the
packet
there
are
floor
plans
and
if
I
could
zoom
in
real,
quick
and
show
you
the
flowering
rooms
which
are
on
the
first
floor,
and
I
I
need
to
say
that
they
are
because
of
the
height
of
the
building
they're,
adding
a
mezzanine
level
which
allows
it
to
double
the
square
footage.
So
there'll
be
a
first
floor
in
a
second
floor
on
the
first
floor,
you'll
see
that
there's
areas
for
distribution
and
then
the
extraction
for
the
type
6
manufacturing.
H
H
H
H
H
G
D
B
D
H
H
Yes,
it
was,
and
they
are
they
will
just
they
will
describe
that
to
you
better
than
I
would.
But
my
understanding
is
that
it's
panels
that
go
inside
the
building
that
provides
an
airtight
and
washable
surface
that
owners
won't
escape,
and
I
know
we
have
a
long
history
of
these
types
of
of
uses
going
into
existing
buildings
and
and
using
a
box
in
a
box
description
and
trying
to
describe
it
to
the
applicant.
H
J
J
J
H
H
H
H
The
building
height
is
at
least
24
feet
so
add
another
six.
On
top
of
that,
granted
that
the
the
zoning
code
allows
mechanical
equipment
to
be
screened
at
a
greater
height,
so
it
would
not
be
taller
than
I
would
say
nearby
properties.
There
are
tall
warehouse
buildings
within
that
area,
so
it
would
be
consistent
with
what
other
buildings
I
have
for
mechanical
screening.
H
H
E
B
H
Right
so
the
the
property
runs
with
the
land,
so
the
the
property
owner
green
rock
investors
instead
of
investments.
They
corrected
me
on
that.
So
it's
green
rock
investors,
llc
owns
the
property
and
they
would
have
the
lease
with
desert
flowers
and
they
will
be
able
to
describe
the
ownership
when
they
come
on.
I
B
H
F
F
B
B
H
Right,
that's
correct.
I
pulled
the
conditions
from
the
planning
commission
approval
on
october
27th
of
american
buds
and
you
added
planning
condition
number
22
about
compliance
with
the
municipal
code,
chapter
5.5
and
I
can
read
that
if
you
like,
but
I
can
use
that
in
this
these
conditions,
if
you'd
like.
D
F
B
K
There
we
go
all
right
everybody
I
just
wanted
to
start
off
by
thanking
the
the
planning
commission
and
the
city
staff.
We
really
appreciate
all
the
hard
work.
I
know
there's
a
lot
behind
the
scenes
that
goes
on
to
get
us
to
this
point.
It's
been
a
long
process
for
us.
I
know
it's
a
long
process
for
your
team
respectively.
K
K
K
K
K
A
couple
points
that
are
important
to
our
operation
here
is
energy
conservation,
water
conservation
through
reclamation,
intelligent
design,
high
quality
consultant
contractor
selection.
We
maintain
a
very
stringent
due
diligent
process
with
all
the
contractors
and
consultants
that
we
work
with
commitment
to
our
local
community.
K
Our
core
focus
is
on
corporate
responsibility
and
again
being
the
gold
standard,
I'm
going
to
hop
it.
If
it's
okay,
I'm
going
to
hop
right
into
our
closed
loop
vrf
system
and
our
odor
control
process.
I
know
it
seems,
like
it's
been
a
pretty
important
aspect
of
all
the
different
companies
that
have
come
before
the
planning
commission.
We
are
an
envelope
within
an
envelope
or
a
box.
Within
a
box,
we
have
gone
through
quite
a
bit
of
work
to
make
sure
that
our
building
is
is
truly
odor.
K
Free
from
the
outside.
We've
set
up
a
two
by
two
furring
wall
between
our
our
row
rooms
and
the
exterior
walls
of
our
building.
I
think
they
call
it
a
half-track
fur.
It's
non-permeable
to
air
water.
All
of
our
walls
have
an
frp
coating
on
them.
We
use
5
8
sheet
rock
and
2x4,
and
two
by
six
steel
set
walls.
K
Our
facility
was
built
in
2014..
It's
an
excellent
condition.
As
previously
mentioned
it
was
a
rock
climbing
gym
that
that
we're
converting
into
a
more
or
less
a
two-story
building,
no
exterior
changes
beyond
the
roof.
This
building
is
special
because
it
was
actually
built
with
a
special
type
of
a
block.
It's
called
jumbo
light
and
it's
actually
a
concrete
and
styrofoam
mix
provides
a
tremendous
r
factor.
K
K
K
K
J
Yes,
I
have
two
questions.
One,
I'm
sorry,
three
questions,
one
is
the
california
saving
by
design
with
southern
california
edison?
What
is
the
electricity
or
energy
offset
that
that,
with
that
program,
is
allowing
you
with
the
with
the
proposed
building
improvement
and
then
question
number
two
is
knowing
that
it's
a
septic
system
tank.
Can
you
speak
a
little
bit
more
about
what
are
the
check
and
balances
that
you
will
have
on
understanding
how
the
water
is
going
to
be
driven?
J
K
K
We
we,
I
I
noticed
in
one
of
the
previous
applicant
meetings,
that
a
shower
was
a
requirement,
and
I
watched
some
previous
where
there
wasn't
a
shower
and
we
think
it's
a
good
addition,
not
only
for
our
employees,
but,
as
you
mentioned
previously
contaminants,
you
know
people
might
ride
their
bike.
Although
it's
it's
a
kind
of
a
hike
out
to
north
palm
springs
on
a
mic
depending
on
the
time
of
year,
but
with
those
reduction
of
facilities.
K
K
K
Sustainability
award
from
the
city
of
palm
springs
to
purchase
some
environmentally
friendly
pumps
that
we'll
be
using
to
pump
our
wash
down
water,
and
I
know
there
was
some
questions
previously
about
you
know.
How
does
that
work?
So
in
each
one
of
our
flower
rooms,
there'll
be
a
sump
pump
in
the
floor
and
that
when
we
do
a
cleanup
at
the
end
of
a
grow,
that
water
will
be
pumped
to
a
holding
tank
and
then
hauled
off
site
by
a
licensed
contractor
measure,
and
we
also
measure
what
goes
in
the
wash
downs.
K
K
I
do
believe
we
have
our
safety
safety
data
sets
available
as
well
for
review
the
other
water
reclamation
processes
that
we
have
is
condensate
water
from
our
hvac
system
and
our
dehumidifiers
on
the
floor
plan
that
that
glenn
showed
earlier,
you
might
have
seen
some
water
tanks
on
the
south
end
of
the
building.
Two
of
those
are
dedicated
to
reclamation,
so
we're
going
to
pull
as
much
water
back
out
out
of
the
process
as
we
can
and
then
to
answer
your
I'm
sorry.
What
was
your
first
question.
K
K
We
worked
with
a
great
team
that
drove
us
in
the
right
direction,
so
we
ended
up
selecting
leds
and
they
also
helped
us
out
with
our
hvac
design.
I
think
the
the
annual
savings
was
980
000
kilowatt
hours
back
off
the
grid,
so
nearly
a
megawatt
by
by
choosing
these
you
know
and
not
going
with
a
high
pressure
sodium,
whether
kind
of
legacy
light
or
forced
air,
or
anything
like
that.
So
that's
why
we
that's
why
we
go
with
that
program.
G
K
G
So
that's
interesting
to
me,
so
how
does
that
necessarily
translate
in
less
use
of
water?
In
other
words,
the
staff
within
that
facility
is
still
going
to
be
using
the
existing
plumbing
fixtures.
So
I
don't.
I
see
that
as
a
I
see
that
as
a
reduction
in
fixtures,
but
not
necessarily
a
reduction
in
water.
K
G
Saying
from
the
last
use
is
that
reduction
correct
from
the
last,
not
from
your
impending
use,
correct
from
the
prior
use?
Okay,
so
it's
really
just
a
reduction
in
use
of
water,
which
is
not
as
reliant
on
less
fixtures.
Okay,
I
was
looking
for
new,
exciting
standards
to
add
here,
but
obviously
I
was
looking
in
the
wrong
place.
B
Thank
you
and
the
at
this
point.
The
public
hearing
is
closed.
I'm
just
going
to
take
the
floor
for
a
moment.
This
is
a
very
good
project.
I
think
it
hits
almost
everything
that
we
want.
I
noticed
some
items
that
people
asked
for
and
if
I
can
tie
them
in
under
pln4,
I
think
it's
for
just
when
they
do
the
checks
hold
on.
Oh
sorry,
pln
5,
which
is
the
renewable
energy.
B
B
I
G
B
B
B
B
D
Yeah-
that
was
my
comment.
I
and
I
I
do
want
to
move
to
approve
this
with
conditions
so
as
as
it
pertains
to
that,
I
would
just
like
our
staff
to
review
the
architectural
details
when
they
come
in
pertaining
specifically
to
that
issue
and
not
certified,
but
just
make
sure
that
this
furred
out
wall
system
and
and
the
sheetrock
perpendicular
to
it,
create
a
bond,
and
that's
indicated
in
the
drawing
so
there's
something
that
we
can
point
to
and
say
yes,
that
that's
right
because
right
now
it's
a
little
pretty
vague.
I
B
E
I
do
and
then
I
also
have
on
the
fourth
one
as
well.
The
last
paragraph
of
finding
number
two.
There
are
no
sensitive
or
protected
uses
near
the
site
and
I
would
add
the
words,
the
use,
the
comma.
The
youth
will
occupy
a
vacant
building
providing
for
tax
revenue
and
jobs,
and
therefore
the
proposed
facility
is
desirable.
E
Number
four:
we
weren't
directly
responsive
to
the
finding
that
we're
supposed
to
be
making
about
the
traffic,
although
that
information
is
all
available
in
the
environmental
document.
But
I
would
suggest
that
the
last
sentence,
or
the
second
sentence,
be
revised
to
say
that
the
existing
street
network
surrounding
the
location
adequately
supported
a
previous
use
which
generated
a
greater
number
of
trips
and
higher
vehicle
miles
traveled.
So
it
will
adequately
carry
and
then
continue.
It
will
absolutely
carry
the
traffic
for
the
proposed
project.
B
D
Oh,
you
know
I
just
wanted
to
mention
one
other
thing.
Architecturally
and
I
don't
know
if
commissioner
prus
agrees
with
me
on
this,
but
I
think
putting
a
six
foot
high
corrugated
fence
around
the
parapet
is
kind
of
guilty
of
lily.
I'd
be
okay
with
them
having
exposed
units
up
there
I
mean
it's
an
industrial
area.
There's
lots
of
exposed
equipment
in
that
area.
I
I'm
just
fine
with
them
not
doing
that.
B
I
D
A
G
B
Okay,
moving
right
along
to
2c
a
project
that
we
have
seen
many
times
and
are
delighted
to
see
again
and
commissioner
song
you're
recusing
yourself,
correct.
Yes,
ma'am,
okay,
the
desert
aids
project
for
a
development
agreement
to
vest
certain
development
rights
for
a
term
of
10
years
and
timeline
for
expression
associated
with
the
approval
of
case
3.1047.
B
H
Sorry
I
had
to
mute
myself,
so
there
we
go
so
you
can
see
this
slides
right.
The
full
screen.
Yes,
okay.
So,
as
you
mentioned,
the
dap
has
received
a
general
plan
amendment
to
modify
the
land
use.
You
also
had
an
amendment
that
the
planning
commission
approved
to
expand
the
pd
boundary,
establish
development
standards.
H
B
H
Great
okay,
sorry
for
the
delay.
So,
as
you
mentioned
the
project
history,
so
the
planning
commission
conducted
a
public
hearing
back
on
november
of
2020
and
you
approved
all
the
entitlements
for
the
project
and
then
again
in
2020.
You
approve
the
mitigating
declaration.
The
city
council
did
that
in
december
the
city
council
also
approved
the
development
agreement
with
the
coachella
valley,
housing
coalition
for
sunrise,
vis,
vista
sunrise,
2,
and
then
the
planning
commission
approved
the
final
development
plan
for
the
housing
on
september
of
this
year.
H
H
H
In
the
development
agreement
there
is
a
timeline
for
development,
and
this
is
an
exhibit
that
you'll
see
in
the
staff
report
and
also
in
the
development
agreement
itself,
and
I
will
have
I'm
sure
the
applicant
will
go
over
this
timeline
with
you,
but
it
is.
It
is
meant
to
start
in
2024,
which
is
at
the
ending
of
the
vista
sunrise,
2
construction,
so
they
sort
of
go
hand
in
hand.
H
H
H
So
the
planning
recommend
the
the
plan.
The
recommendation
is:
the
planning
commission
approve
the
project,
the
development
agreement
and
recommend
the
city
council
of
the
first
reading
of
the
ordinance
which,
as
I
mentioned,
is
in
your
packet.
So
that
concludes
my
report.
Madam
chair
and
the
applicant
is
available
to
discuss
it.
B
F
F
The
commission
we've
been
working
towards
breaking
ground
and
is
in
prog
in
the
process
of
getting
vista
sunrise
to
apartments
and
creating
a
health
care
system.
So
the
entire
campus
project
will
have
housing,
medical,
dental,
behavioral,
health,
food,
pantry,
social
services
for
those
of
our
community
who
are
most
in
need.
The
idea
of
the
pavilion
is
to
expand
our
capacity
to
work
inside
of
our
own
footprint,
so
also
we're
combining
the
buildings
for
our
patients,
so
they
don't
have
to
go
outside
during
the
extreme
summer
months
to
go
from
one
building
to
the
other.
L
F
E
F
L
Yes,
I've
located
it
now
madden
chair,
it's
in
section,
7,
10
annual
review,
and
this
is
a
mostly
standard
language
that
you
have
in
development
agreements
to
say
that
every
12
months,
during
the
term
of
the
agreement
you
have
to
as
a
developer,
continue
to
show
good
faith,
substantial
compliance
with
the
agreement.
So
it's
basically
an
annual
check-in,
but
there
was
language
added
and
there's
similar
language
in
the
housing
agreement.
L
L
So
once
you
pull
building
permits,
you
come
up
to
an
annual
review
under
the
development
agreement.
There
is
no
longer
a
basis
to
say
you
have
not
made
reasonable
progress
because
building
permits
have
already
been
pulled.
I
will
note
that
this
is
not
typical
language,
but
this
was
language
that
was
negotiated
into
both
the
housing
agreement
and
into
this
agreement.
E
Well,
it's
a
little
bit
perplexing
because
that
same
paragraph
710
says
in
one
place.
It
says
that
notice
of
the
annual
review
shall
include
the
statement
that
any
review
may
result
in
the
amendment
or
termination
of
the
agreement
later.
In
that
same
paragraph,
it
says
that
this
city
shall
have
no
right
to
terminate
or
amend
the
agreement
as
a
result
of
anything
in
the
city
review
pursuant
to
710.
L
E
I
I
just
don't
know
what
the
viewpoint
is.
Does
the
city,
as
I
read
this,
the
obligations
there's
nothing
binding
the
applicant
to
anything
and
it's
great
application,
great
use,
but
but
it
is
a
leap
of
faith
that
nothing's
going
to
change
in
10
years
and
I'm
concerned
that
the
city
is
obligating
itself
to
doing
street
improvements.
L
The
purpose
of
that
negotiated
added
language
is
that
once
dap
pulls
building
permits,
the
annual
review
basically
just
becomes
the
annual
review
and
is
not
a
basis
to
terminate
or
amend
the
agreement
and
again,
if
the
planning
commission
believes
that
that
you
know
it
is
too
open-ended,
you
know
you're.
Certainly
you
know
free
to
express
your
thoughts
on
that.
B
L
E
I
do
have
a
question
that
might
get
at
the
heart
of
the
matter
for
me
going
into
the
negotiations
or
the
discussion
with
applicant.
What
did
the
city
identify
as
the
business
points,
or
the
deal
points
that
the
city
wanted
to
get
out
of
this?
Obviously,
the
city
gives
gives
up
something
the
developer
gets
something.
What
did
the
city
want
to
get
out
of
this.
L
H
H
Yeah,
so
we
wanted
to
be
able
to
as
part
of
the
overall
project
the
improvements
along
sunrise
that
was
important
for
the
planning
commission
to
make
sure
that
the
residents
or
folks
aren't
jaywalking
across
the
street.
So
that's
always
been
an
important
part
of
the
the
project
and
also
to
have
a
timeline
like
you
mentioned
to.
If
the
city
is
going
to
go
into
a
development
agreement
and
invest
those
those
10
years
that
we
know
that
the
project
will
get
finished.
B
Second,
I
have
a
question:
if
no
one
else
does
and
it's
that
we
are
right
now
we
have
a
president
who
has
just
signed
a
1.5
trillion
dollar
infrastructure
agreement,
and
I
would
like
to
leave
some
room
in
this
that
I
think
there
was
an
agreement.
That's
the
city
would
pay
80
000
for
that
street
walk,
but
if
they
could,
if
they're
able
to
fundraise
with
the
federal
government
and
do
something
better
than
what's
planned,
I
would
like
to
leave
some
room
in
this
for
that
to
happen.
I
Yes,
I
am
so
in
terms
of
the
eighty
thousand
dollars
the
city
can
determine
how
it
may
want
to
contribute
those
funds,
whether
we
contribute
them
from
our
general
fund
or
whether
we
contribute
it
from
a
grant.
I
believe
that
the
city
has
the
option
to
go
about
doing
that.
I
don't
know
that.
There's
anything
special
that
we
need
to
include
in
the
language
of
the
development
agreement
to
do
that,
but
we
might
do
as
part
of
the
recommendation
of
the
planning
commission.
I
B
F
M
It
is
certainly
madam
chair,
dap's
intent
not
to
start
without
having
the
ability
to
finish.
That's
part
of
the
reason
for
the
flexibility
in
time,
because
this
is
as
as
I'm
sure,
you're
aware,
this
will
be
funded
from
multiple
sources.
Multiple
donations,
multiple
grants,
much
multiple
loans
and
and
being
able
to
gather
all
of
those
funds
so
that
the
project
can
move
forward
is,
is
the
one
question
in
in
a
501c3
life
when,
when
big
improvements
are
proposed,.
B
D
H
H
D
D
A
My
first
question
is
just
to
better
understand
what
you
were
saying
to
your
worm.
Look
with
the
five
years
of
construction
completion
possibly
occur
if
it
took
10
years
before
the
building
permits
were
pulled,
then
you
start
the
clock
for
the
five
years
of
construction.
So
really
it's
15
years,
potentially.
L
Years,
yes,
madam
chair,
I
my
concern
would
be
that
we're
effectively
turning
this
into
a
15-year
development
agreement.
At
this
point,
my
understanding
from
staff
and
developer
is
that
10
years
is
going
to
be
the
outside
envelope.
To
get
all
of
this
done,
there's
also
a
provision
in
the
development
agreement
that
says
they
will
comply
with
the
attached
schedule.
The
attached
schedule
actually
has
them
done
before.
L
B
L
Will
be
a
final
schedule
that
is
going
to
be
attached
as
an
exhibit
to
the
development
agreement
and
we've
worded
it
to
say
this?
Is
the
final
schedule
approved
it's
not
a
preliminary
or
a
draft
schedule
tentative.
It
would
be
a
final
schedule
and
it
would
be
the
binding
deadlines
for
them
to
complete
the
work.
If
I
made
madam
chair,
I
would
also
add
that
language
we
talked
about
earlier
at
the
end
of
7.10
that
commissioner
elaine
had
mentioned
from
our
position.
L
L
It
would
be
done
under
the
review
of
the
city
council
annually
as
with
all
development
agreements,
and
they
could
make
a
determination
whether
there's
good
faith,
completion
or
good
faith.
What's
the
word,
I'm
using
good
faith,
compliance,
good
faith
progress,
and
you
could
still
do
that
without
this
language
there.
This
language
does
create
an
issue
about
once
they
pull
the
building.
Permit
you
basically
let
go
of
review
authority
on
that.
B
B
B
L
Yeah,
madam
chair,
if
I
may
I'll
just
note
really
quick,
I'm
looking
at
the
agreement,
street
improvements
shall
be
completed
by
the
city
on
a
mutually
agreed
upon
schedule
established
prior
to
issuance
of
grading
permits.
So
grading
permit
for
the
pavilion
triggers
the
obligation
to
have
a
mutually
agreed
schedule
in
place.
But
if
the
commission
would
like
to
make
that
more
specific,
you
can
certainly
recommend
that.
B
D
B
B
Well,
what
relates
we're
talking
about
the
pavilion
but
they've
tied
in
the
street
improvements
which
are
really
related
to
the
apartment
building?
So
I
just
like
to
up
the
timeline
on
that
as
a
recommendation
from
our
commission
for
the
reason
that
work,
it's
a
concern
for
public
safety,
and
so
I
would
do
it
either
or.
L
B
L
If
that
language
in
710
that
we've
been
talking
about
is
removed,
the
city
council
would
have
continuing
annual
review
authority
to
look
and
say.
Have
you
made
good
faith
progress?
Well,
no.
You
haven't
completed
yet
we're
not
there,
but
you've
missed
this
milestone
and
if
it's
severe
enough,
that
could
be
the
basis
for
the
council
to
amend
or
revoke
the
development
agreement,
but
not
with
that
language
in
7.10
that
extra
language
that
was
negotiated
it
would
have
to
be
removed.
F
No
chair,
we
do
not.
Actually
the
tenure
is
an
extreme.
We
have
we're
almost
certain.
We
have
the
financing
to
buy
for
to
cut
that
time
period
down
drastically,
but
we
just
don't
want
to
go
in
writing
at
this
point
and
we
were
very,
very,
very
close
to
having
all
the
financing.
So
this
is
just
really
a
belt
and
suspenders
request
for
that
10-year
period.
I
have
absolutely
no
foreseeable
idea
that
this
would
take
more
than
2024
at
the
outside.
B
E
Madam
chair,
I
would
certainly
agree
to
that.
I
think
that's
wonderful.
I
also
asked
the
city
attorney
to
take
a
look
at
the
last
sentence
in
7.09
and
see
if
that
needs
to
be
revised
as
well,
because
it
says
that
the
developer
has
a
right
to
develop
how
and
when
they
bloody
well
choose
and
I'm
paraphrasing
here
and
I'm
not
sure
if
that
needs
to
be
addressed
as
well.
L
We
can
we
can
certainly
take
a
look
at
that.
Madam
chair,
I
don't
believe
7.09
necessarily
needs
to
be
changed.
7.09,
as
commissioner
elaine
mentioned,
is
within
that
project
schedule
and
within
the
term
of
the
agreement.
The
developer
has
the
prerogative
when
they
do
elements
of
the
project
to
get
it
completed
in
the
best
manner.
L
L
I
would
recommend,
even
if
desert
aids
project
has
every
intention
of
completing
everything
in
three
four
five
years,
that
a
schedule
be
attached
that
actually
pushes
it
out
to
10
years
to
match
the
term.
I
don't
want
the
city
to
be
in
an
awkward
position
where
the
schedule
says
finish
it
in
five
years.
The
agreement
says
it
has
a
10-year
term.
They
conflict
to
a
certain
extent.
There.
B
I
completely
agree
with
you
on
that
and
I
agree
with
not
changing
709,
because
I
want
them
to
be
able
to
set
their
construction
as
they
see
fit
and
not
have
to
be
involved
or
liable
in
that
regard.
So
that's
the
only
change.
I
would
suggest
I'd
suggest
those
two
changes
as
a
motion.
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
second,
I
would
second
that,
and
is
there
any
discussion
on
this?
A
L
7.10
is
the
general
provision
that
we
have
in
all
the
agreements
that
says
every
year
we
can
evaluate
and
see
developer.
Are
you
making
good
faith
progress
toward
completing
the
project
consistent
with
the
agreement,
and
everything
in
that
section
up
to
the
last
sentence
is
standard
language
that
we
put
in
all
the
da's,
but
that
last
sentence
was
specifically
added
with
the
vista
sunrise
2
project
and
has
been
held
over
for
this
one.
But
again
our
advice
is:
if
you
want
to
take
that
out,
you
can,
it
would
still
remain
a
10-year
agreement.
L
You
would
have
annual
review.
The
council
would
have
annual
review.
There
would
be
a
project
schedule
and
they'd
have
to
meet
the
milestones,
so
I
don't
believe
removing
that
last
sentence.
You
know
eliminates
control.
In
fact,
if
anything,
I
think
it
gives
the
city
additional
control
to
review
honest.
L
A
B
B
B
E
F
D
D
A
G
B
B
I
I
First
of
all,
relative
to
the
minimum
building
area
for
automobile
service
stations
staff
had
proposed
a
minimum
area
of
400
square
feet.
It
was
the
opinion
of
the
commission
that
that
requirement
should
be
removed
and
that
that
would
be
determined
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
so
I've
removed
the
minimum
square
footage
requirement
associated
with
that.
I
There
was
a
comment
from
planning
commission
relative
to
the
need
to
provide
some
type
of
protective
space
for
staff
members
of
the
gas
station,
and
so
we've
added
language
relative
to
protective
space
for
employees,
meaning
that
there
needs
to
be
a
space
as
part
of
the
gas
station.
That
is
either
heated
or
cooled
for
staff
members
if
they
are
not
outside
the
building.
I
Another
requirement
that
was
removed
from
the
ordinance
at
the
request
of
the
planning
commission
was
the
requirement
for
minimum
lot
area
we've
removed.
That,
please
keep
in
mind.
However,
for
each
zone
district
there
is
already
language
there,
so
having
it
in
this
part
of
the
ordinance
was
duplicative
and
there
is
no
real
need
to
have
it
in
this
particular
ordinance
relative
to
service
stations.
I
Another
thing
that
was
modified
was
language
relative
to
electric
vehicle
charging
spaces.
We've
clarified
that
language
and
added
a
requirement
that,
at
a
minimum
at
least
one
charging
space
must
be
provided.
I
want
to
clarify
that
when
we
use
the
term
charging
space,
it
does
mean
that
there
is
a
charger
there.
It's
not
just
pre-wired,
but
they
will
have
equipment
for
people
to
charge
their
vehicle
just
to
point
out
in
terms
of
the
city's
requirements.
I
I
believe.
Last
year
we
added
language
requiring
electric
vehicle
charging
spaces
for
commercial
and
multi-family
residential
uses.
It's
based
on
the
amount
of
square
footage
if,
for
example,
with
the
walmart
facility
that
we
looked
at
based
on
its
square
footage
that
they
were
proposing,
it
wouldn't
have
been
required
to
provide
any
electric
vehicle
charging
spaces.
So
we
did
add
language
requiring
at
least
one.
I
The
other
thing
that
we
added
is
relative
to
restrooms.
There
was
already
language
there
requiring
restrooms.
I
just
wanted
to
confirm
to
you
that
we
are
keeping
that
requirement
in
there.
That
would
also
be
required
by
the
building
code
for
the
use,
and
so
there
is
a
requirement
for
restrooms
for
patrons
of
the
gas
station
facility.
I
I
B
B
G
I
have
questions
about
that,
so
electric
chargers
now
require
the
space
for
cars
to
sit
there
for
what
is
it
a
minimum
of
30
minutes
if
they're
fast
chargers
and
they
could
be
sitting
there
a
lot
longer
so
that
to
me
would
drive
a
very
different
design
for
the
actual
station.
It
would
also
require
the
station
to
be
of
a
certain
size
where
you
could
have
cars
parked
being
charged
and
still
have
other
cars
getting
in
and
around
to
maneuver
it.
So
I'd
like
to
get
staff's
take
on
that
specifically.
G
Okay,
so
the
question
is:
do
we
want
to
add
the
requirement
for
charging
to
all
future
stations?
I
I'm
thinking
about
I'm
thinking
about
the
stations
that
I
go
to
on
a
regular
basis.
Most
of
them
do
not
have
the
space
for
charging
for
better
or
worse.
They
simply
don't
so.
It
sounds
to
me
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
director
that
we
are
now
then
going
back
to
a
minimum
size
station
to
house
electric
charging
as
well.
I
Not
necessarily
we
are
requiring
at
least
one
space
that
doesn't
mean
that
they
need
to
add
building
space
for
that
they
just
need
to
provide
a
space
for
charging.
Also
in
our
zoning
code
relative
to
the
provision
of
electric
charging
spaces,
it
does
not
increase
the
number
of
parking
spaces
that
you
are
required
to
provide
by
code.
I
We
allow
the
use
of
electric
vehicle
charging
in
spaces
that
are
required
for
commercial
uses,
and
so
it
doesn't
necessarily
increase
the
number
of
spaces
that
you
have
keep
in
mind,
that
for
new
gas
stations,
you,
as
the
planning
commission,
are
going
to
be
reviewing
the
site
development
plan
or
the
development
permit,
as
we
call
it
and
so
you'll
be
able
to
assess
the
adequacy
of
the
number
of
parking
spaces
on
the
site,
both
for
convenience,
store
uses
for
pumping
of
fuel
or
for
electric
charging
and
approve
or
conditionally
approve
the
site
plan.
Accordingly,.
G
So
it's
funny,
I
don't
have
an
electric
car
it
wouldn't
it
wouldn't
come
to
my
mind,
while
when
I
pulled
into
a
gas
station
say
I
wanted
to
go
in
and
get
a
bottle
of
water,
I
wouldn't
pull
into
an
electric
charging
space
that
wouldn't
feel
right
to
me.
So
I'm
wondering
if
by
eliminating
parking
for
the
well,
not
eliminating
parking
but
sharing
the
parking
space
with
charging.
I
Typically,
when
there
is
the
availability
of
an
electric
charging
space
at
a
commercial
location,
it's
because
I
have
a
need
to
go
there
to
begin
with
so
oftentimes
at
a
shopping
mall
or
a
similar
facility
I'll
be
in
shopping
at
the
stores.
While
my
vehicle
is
charging
with
a
gas
station,
it's
a
little
bit
different
in
that.
I
If
there's
a
convenience
store,
I'm
only
going
to
be
in
there
for
a
few
minutes,
but
if
I
do
need
to
top
off
my
car,
if
you
will,
with
some
additional
electric
charge,
I'm
definitely
going
to
take
advantage
of
doing
that
again.
This
comes
back
to
the
planning
commission,
looking
at
new
gas
stations
on
a
case-by-case
basis
to
determine
the
sufficiency
of
parking
spaces
while
providing
this
important
service
to
those
who
have
electric
vehicles.
G
I
B
D
J
G
I
don't
have
any
issue
with
adding
charging
stations.
Of
course
it's
a
good
idea.
The
question
for
me
is
what
are
those
impacts
on
each
station
and,
if
we're
allowing
them
to
eliminate
parking
to
add
charging,
are
we
now
taking
away
important
parking
within
those
places?
I
mean
my
experience
is
when
I
go
in
for
gas,
people
are
using
the
convenience
stores
and
gas
stations
constantly.
G
B
B
E
B
G
B
G
I
F
I
D
D
L
The
the
finding
of
necessity
necessary
with
alcohol-
it's
not
like
you
know,
a
fire
extinguisher
is
necessary
in
a
room
where
there
could
be
a
fire.
It's
not
like
that.
It's
it's
necessary
inconvenient.
It's
good!
It's
good
development
for
the
site
that
could
be
determined
in
conjunction
with
the
restaurant
on
site
or
the
other
business
on
site.
You
know
being
complementary,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
it's
not
a
necessity
in
the
way
you
might
think
of.
L
L
It's
it's
an
appropriate
development
for
the
property,
that's
not
detrimental
to
surrounding
properties.
That's
generally,
the
way
we
apply
that
again,
it's
not
necessary
or
necessity
is
in
this
development
must
or
this
alcohol
must
go
in
on
this
site
or
something
like
that,
it's
more
you
know.
Is
it
consistent
with
our
codes
as
a
good
development
practice,
and
is
it
not
detrimental?
L
Okay?
I.
I
would
note
that
in
state
alcohol
licensing
law,
when
we
override
an
overconfidence
and
over
concentration
when
it
goes
to
the
city
council,
it's
called
a
public
convenience
or
necessity
certificate,
and
even
though
necessity
is
in
the
title,
it's
not
really
a
fighting
necessity.
It's
a
finding
of
convenience.
It's
it's
gonna
fit
in
with
the
neighborhood.
We
can
justify
the
over
concentration
because
it's
a
net
add
to
the
community.
It
may
have
a
different
line
of
liquor,
beverages
that
other
stores,
don't
so
you're.
B
B
I
A
Because
I'm
assuming
what
cherwermick
is
implying
is
that
alcohol
is
more
expensive
than
most
of
the
items
that
are
sold
in
a
convenience
store,
and
so
therefore
50
percent
could
be
an
awful
lot
of
alcohol
or
maybe
it's
the
opposite.
Maybe
my
math
isn't
working
right,
but
the
50
of
value.
I
don't
really
know
what
that
means
exactly,
because
I
don't
know
what
kind
of
liquor
they're
selling
you
know.
I
I
B
B
B
F
J
I
This
is
coming
before
you,
based
on
the
conversations
that
we've
had
with
applicants
relative
to
recent
proposals
for
warehouse
facilities
and
fulfillment
center
facilities
in
the
north
end
of
palm
springs
in
terms
of
the
zones
they're
located
in
the
vicinity
of
the
I-10,
freeway
and
north
indian
canyon
drive.
The
issues
that
we've
been
running
into
relative
to
the
existing
development
standards
are
primarily
related
to
the
height
of
buildings.
I
That's
allowed
in
those
zone
districts
and
then
also
a
concern
on
the
part
of
staff
relative
to
the
adequacy
of
parking
requirements
for
the
proposed
uses
in
terms
of
the
location
of
the
zone.
Districts,
the
ei
and
m2
zones
are
only
found
in
the
northern
area
of
the
city,
as
you
can
see
here
on
the
map
surrounded
by
the
red
border,
the
ei
zone
is
the
zone
there
shown
in
teal,
and
then
the
m2
zone
is
shown
in
purple.
I
I
I
I
I
Here
is
the
I-10
freeway
the
cardinal
crossed
here
and
then
the
railroad
line
which
serves
as
the
southern
boundary
for
the
ei
zone
district.
So
hopefully
that
helps
you
to
understand
where
we
are
relative
to
conservation
areas
and
that
these
two
zone
districts
do
not
encroach
into
any
designated
conservation
area.
D
I
I
I
C
I
Unless
there
are
any
other
questions,
let
me
move
into
what
is
being
proposed
to
modify
in
those
two
zone.
Districts.
First
of
all,
as
I
had
mentioned,
height
has
been
an
issue
with
the
proposed
facilities
that
we've
looked
at
currently
in
both
the
m2
and
the
ei
district.
There
is
a
30-foot
base,
height
limit,
with
the
possibility
of
going
up
to
40
feet.
I
What
we're
proposing
is
to
modify
that
to
keep
the
30-foot
base
height
limit,
but
allowing
60
feet
in
height.
If
number
one.
The
parcel
is
a
minimum
of
at
least
one
acre
in
size
number
two,
it's
a
minimum
of
a
thousand
feet
or
more
from
the
freeway
right
of
way
and
then
number
three
that
the
project
provides
one
foot
of
setback
for
every
one
foot
in
height
relative
to
the
property
lines.
I
So,
for
example,
if
the
building
is
60
feet
in
height,
it
would
need
to
be
a
minimum
of
60
feet
away
from
any
of
the
perimeter
property
lines.
Secondly,
we're
proposing
a
height
of
up
to
95
feet.
If
the
parcel
has
a
minimum
acreage
of
five
acres
number
two,
it's
a
thousand
feet
or
more
from
the
freeway
and
then
number
three,
also
maintaining
that
one-to-one
setback
from
property
lines
in
terms
of
the
height.
I
What
we
looked
at
was
standards
for
how
these
types
of
facilities
are
developed
in
the
staff
report
and
in
the
backup
materials
we
identified
that
there's
two
basic
types
of
systems
that
we
see.
The
first
is
what's
called
a
narrow
aisle
racking
system,
which
requires
a
building
height
of
approximately
55
to
60
feet.
I
I
Under
our
current
code,
it
would
require
1250
parking
spaces
which
may
grossly
overstate
the
parking
need,
and
so,
if
an
applicant
is
to
provide
the
number
of
spaces
currently
required
under
the
code,
it
ultimately
winds
up
being
much
more
asphalt
or
paved
area
on
the
site
that
is
actually
needed
for
the
use.
There
are
some
impacts
to
that.
Both
environmental
and
other
impacts
that
we
see
number.
I
I
There's
a
number
of
other
modifications
that
are
very
minor
in
nature
that
we're
proposing
relative
to
the
lot
coverage
where
standardized
standardizing
the
lot
coverage
is
60.
That's
currently
the
standard
in
the
m2
zone.
We
would
propose
that
for
the
ei
zone
as
well
we're
reducing
the
percentage
of
landscaping,
that's
required
in
the
front
buffer
area,
reducing
that
from
25
to
15.
I
Keep
in
mind,
however,
that
there
are
also
buffering
requirements
for
parking
lots
that
are
required
in
the
zoning
code
in
another
chapter
of
the
zoning
code
and
that
you,
as
the
planning
commission
and
architectural
review
committee,
will
be
reviewing
those
landscape
buffer
areas
to
make
sure
that
they
are
appropriate
and
then
there's
other
minor
corrections
to
the
text
and
code
references.
I
will
point
out
that
commissioner
song
found
a
couple
of
references
that
I
missed,
and
so
commissioner
song
I
will
require,
will
update
and
revise
those
two
that
you
pointed
out
to
me.
I
B
C
F
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
jerry
taylor
from
the
little
california
bistro,
I'm
gonna
wear
two
acts
tonight.
It's
interesting.
One,
of
course,
is
for
palm
springs
city,
the
more
business
we
can
bring
in
that's
going
to
make
the
city
more
successful
and
more
solvent.
I
think
it's
really
important.
So
that's
one
hat!
F
The
second
hat
is
my
publishing
hat
I've
been
in
business
publishing
for
more
than
60
years,
and
the
only
current
magazine
media
group
we
have
left
is
for
supply
chain
and
a
big
part
of
supply
chain
is
warehousing
and
distribution
centers.
So
I'm
pretty
familiar
with
the
structure
and
the
potential
for
the
distribution
center
that
should
go
up
in
that
area.
F
F
It's
extremely
well
run
very
efficient
and
quite
profitable,
and
it's
a
perfect
location
for
it.
There's
no
residential
around
it.
Lots
of
freeway
ramps,
there's
no
problem
with
the
height,
and
it
really
is
a
perfect
business
to
palm
springs
areas
like
this.
I
just
think
it's
something:
that's
a
no-brainer
for
us.
It's
just
exactly
what
we
should
be
looking
for
in
areas
like
this
and
it's
successful.
F
If
this
works
and
it
will
work,
there'll
be
others
coming
in
like
it,
it's
very
simple:
if
they
don't
do
it
in
palm
springs,
they'll
find
some
other
place
to
do
it,
but
this
is
the
perfect
location,
it's
the
perfect
building
for
that
location,
and
it
has
my
total
total
recommendation
to
do
it.
So
thank
you
for
your
time.
It's
it's
an
exciting
project.
It's
good
and
I
I
hope
you
approve
it.
Thank
you.
B
A
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chair.
You
know
when
I
drive
interstate
60
and
I
see
these
massive
warehouses
and
distribution
centers.
I
find
them
to
be
monstrous
and
completely
inappropriate,
particularly
in
the
set
in
the
setting
of
our
desert,
and
I
would
not
be
supportive
of
encouraging
these
massive
warehouses
to
be
built
in
our,
at
least
within
our
city
they're.
Just
too
large.
I
think
we
should
keep
the
original
height
limit
of
30
feet,
and
if
these
massive
monstrous
warehouses
want
to
move
down
valley,
then
so
be
it.
A
But
I
don't
think
we
as
a
city
should
encourage
these
awful
looking
boxes
in
our
beautiful
desert.
I
mean
that's,
what
makes
our
desert
different
and
I
don't
think
we
just
want
to
you-
know,
see
an
endless
line
of
these
distribution
centers,
not
just
in
our
city
but
moving
up
and
down
the
freeway.
So
I
think
they're
awful
and
I
would
never
support
any
change
of
height
limit
to
encourage
these
things
to
be
built.
E
E
E
Okay
and
then,
as
far
as
job
generation
goes,
the
studies
that
I've
seen
indicate
that
fulfillment
centers
don't
over
the
near
term
over
a
year
or
maybe
two.
There
is
an
increase
in
employment
in
a
county
where
fulfillment
center
comes
in,
but
then
that
increase
disappears
completely
after
two
years.
Do
you
have
any
information
on
on
job
generation,
job
growth,
long-term
economic
impact
in
that
regard,
and
how
high
paying
or
low
paying
are
those
jobs.
I
E
Okay,
one
of
the
things
I
noticed
in
the
resolution
that
was
prepared
at
a
draft
resolution
was
talking
about
come
conformance
with
the
general
plan
and
some
of
the
goals
that
are
there
and
then,
for
example,
one
was
for
land
use,
number
four
attract
and
retain
high
quality,
sustainable
commercial
development.
The
staff
report
says
that
this
would
do
this.
Can
you
connect
for
me
how
in
particular,
the
large
I'm
not
talking
about
the
wind
energy,
but
the
large
warehouses
and
or
distribution
centers
would
attract
high
quality,
sustainable
commercial
development,
not
industrial.
I
E
Well,
the
the
general
plan
distinguishes
the
different
engineers
between
commercial
and
industrial
and
the
goal
in
the
general
plan.
Talks
about
sustainable
commercial
development
does
not
talk
about,
and
it
doesn't
mention
industrial,
so
I'm
wondering
how
warehouses
would
contribute
to
sustainable
high
quality,
commercial
development,
retail
or
what
have
you
yeah.
I
So,
in
terms
of
the
city's
areas
that
are
set
aside
for
industrial
uses,
certainly
we
want
to
see
those
grow
and
thrive
as
well.
Not
only
our
c1
or
cbd
commercial
districts
so
contributing
to
the
overall
health
of
the
city
of
palm
springs
in
both
our
commercial
industrial
areas
is
certainly
a
goal
of
the
general
plan.
Wouldn't
you
agree.
E
I
E
I
G
Thank
you.
My
concerns
lean
more
to
environmental
impacts,
so
I
was
very
concerned
with
the
concept
of
having
one
of
these
facilities
within
1500
feet,
of
where
our
groundwater
is
stored.
So,
in
my
understanding
of
how
these
facilities
operate,
they
have
hundreds
of
trucks
coming
on
a
daily
basis
to
bring
and
take
goods
away
those
trucks
leak.
C
G
So
again
I
wouldn't
be
opposed
to
having
one
here
or
there,
but
not
a
lot
of
them,
but
I
do
feel
very
strongly
about
the
impacts
on
the
aquifers
and
their
proximity
to
the
aquifers
and
then
to
look
at
mitigation
techniques
for
what
these
trucks
would
leave
behind.
And
that
might
be
as
simple
as
requiring
concrete
pads
versus
asphalt
within
the
bays
of
where
these
trucks
park
to
load
and
unload.
G
B
J
J
J
I
F
A
J
A
I
B
F
F
F
D
Thank
you
in
terms
of
economic
benefit,
I'd
like
to
drill
down
on
this
tax
that
would
be
generated
for
the
city.
I
don't
see
how
that's
possible.
I
mean
somebody
in
palm
desert
goes
on
the
internet
and
orders
a
package
be
delivered
to
her
his
or
her
house,
and
it
comes
from
a
warehouse
or
a
fulfillment
center.
That's
within
the
city
of
palm
springs.
I
don't
see
how
the
state
can
even
begin
to
allocate
that
specific
tax
generated
amount
to
palm
springs.
I
don't
think
there's
any
mechanism
for
that.
Is
there.
B
L
D
Well,
if,
if
we're
gonna,
maybe
table
this
or
or
ask
for
some
more
discussion,
I'd
like
to
know
that
the
other
thing
is
I'm
kind
of
of
two
minds
about
this.
But
I
agree
with.
Let's
see,
I
think
it
was
commissioner
roberts
to
talk
about
an
oversaturation
of
these
buildings
and
I
think
one
way
if
we're
going
to
approve
them
at
all
and
I'm
not
100
sure
I'm
going
to
approve
them
at
all.
B
I
think
that
does
create
the
tourist
experience
and
it's
not.
It
may
be
not
where
we
have
our
hotel
rooms,
but
it's
where
people
see
our
mountains
and
anticipate
where
they're
going
to
be
visiting
so
especially
on
the
south
side.
I
think
it's
it's
too
close
to
the
white
water,
wash
it's
too
close
to
the
perk
ponds.
B
I
don't
think
anything
should
happen
there,
I'm
more
open
on
the
north
side,
but
I'd
like
to
see
some
mitigations
and
I
think
the
crp
to
not
have
over
concentration,
make
sense
and
and
part
of
my
saying
the
north
side
has
more
to
do
with.
I
do
think
it's
a
point
of
sale
issue,
so
I
think
we
lose
a
lot
of
sales
taxes
when
we
buy
from
amazon
and
it
comes
out
of
a
fulfillment
center
in
fontana.
A
A
It's
just!
Why
should
we
encourage
that
for
tax
revenue
or
otherwise?
You
know
and
the
issue
that
commissioner
urban
brought
up
is
that
there's
mostly
low-paying
jobs
and
you
know
you're
sacrificing
the
future
of
our
desert
for
short-term
revenue
gains
or
maybe
long-term
revenue
gains.
But
it's
just
it's
just
wrong.
You
know
how
passionate
people
were.
I
know
it
was
on
the
south
side
of
the
freeway
when
that
warehouse
was
proposed
off
that
ramp.
A
It
wasn't
strictly
because
it
was
adjacent
to
you
know
a
nature
preserve
or
you
know
it
was
because
it
was
just
wrong.
It's
this
monstrous
thing
in
the
desert,
and
I
just
don't
think
we
should
encourage
that.
I
just
don't-
and
I
I
just
would
go
down
to
my
conscience
if
they
say
well,
let's
go
ahead
with
that,
because
you
know
the
texan
was
great.
It's
going
to
happen
anyway,
yeah,
but
why
does
it
have
to
happen
in
our
city.
B
E
E
None
of
these
are
cities
that
I
would
choose
to
live
in
or
that
I
would
want
to
model
palm
springs
after
the
size.
I
think,
is
completely
out
of
context
with
the
desert
natural
resources
and
what
we
have
here,
certainly
to
be
convinced
and-
and
perhaps
I
could
be
to
be
convinced-
I
would
have
to
know
more
about
the
economics
of
it
from
what
I've
been
able
to
learn.
I'm
not
convinced
that
it
would
provide
that
these
types
of
development
would
provide
an
economic
advantage
to
palm
springs.
E
I
am
a
fan
of
what
cvep
is
doing
and
the
job
growth
and
the
industries
that
they
are
courting
and
with
the
idea
of
the
types
of
technology
businesses
small
startups,
going
through
the
incubator
and
accelerator
programs,
the
things
that
pay
real
wages,
I
would
rather
see
us
do
things.
Make
changes
if
we're
going
to
change
the
built
environment
of
palm
springs?
Let's
do
it
for
something
that
is
more
meaningful,
rather
than
quick
and
easy
and
done
in
plenty
of
other
cities.
J
I
I
was
thinking
that,
in
order
to
be
productive
is
to
come
along
with
the
idea
that
the
current
ordinance
dance
with
30
feet
as
base
height
and
that's
what
we're
going
to
proceed
with
and
then
maybe
even
look
at
the
parking
ratios
with
a
30
foot
height
and
the
decision
is
to
work
it
with
the
current
conditions
and
make
it
better
so
that
if
an
applicant
does
want
to
come
in,
they
will
design
it
within
the
current
conditions
that
that
will
be
the
way.
I'm
I'm
approaching
this.
J
So
just
because
I
went
around
and
around
my
my
attitude
is
that
the
current
conditions
is
what
we
need
to
improve
and
not
allow
a
deviation
and
second,
if
there
is
an
idea
that
we
are
going
to
deviate,
that
we
don't
put
it
as
cup
and
make
the
applicant
go
through
all
the
application
and
then
later
on,
find
out.
That
is
not
a
viable
project.
Let's
just
straight
out
tell
them
what
is
possible
or
not.
G
I
G
G
I
was
very
impressed
with
some
of
the
suggestions
of
commissioner
song
and
that
I
think
that
we
can
mitigate
their
environmental
impacts
by
requiring
them
to
backfill
somewhere
else,
meaning
do
some
of
the
things
that
she
suggested
like
have
their
energy
sources,
be
sustainable
and
happen
and
have
them
create
environments
on
the
ground
that
are,
you
know
that
encourage
natural
habitat
and
so
forth.
How
do
I
feel
about
the
height?
I
can't
say
I
have
a
strong
feeling
either
way:
30
40
60
feet.
G
It
depends
on
exactly
where
they're
being
asked
to
go.
So
if
it's
right
off
the
highway
and
it's
it's,
it
is
using
some
of
the
descriptions
that
others
are
using
here.
You
know
going
to
be
this
horrendous
massive
thing.
Well,
if
it's
set
way
back
off
the
highway,
it
may
not
have
those
kind
of
impacts.
G
G
I'm
rambling
here,
I
guess
I'm
not
opposed
to
a
height
increase
if
they're
pushed
further
and
further
away
from
the
highway,
so
their
visual
impacts
aren't
bad.
I
think
what
I'm
hearing
from
my
colleagues
and
what
I
feel
myself
is.
We
want
to
dig
deeper
into
these
standards
and
make
make
them
more
sustainable
and
find
out
more
about
their
finances
and
make
sure
their
ecological
impacts
are
minimum
to
none.
B
D
D
It
is
the
further
back
it
is,
and
I
also
like
the
idea
of
it
not
being
this
continuous
wall
for
a
mile
or
two,
but
that
there
be
some
gaps
and
figuring
out
if
that's
through
a
cup
or
for
some
other
method.
So
we're
not
overburdened
with
these
things,
but
I'm
not
I'm
not
committing
to
a
position.
I'm
just
saying
that
I'm
a
little
bit
open
so
does
that
help.
A
D
D
Is
in
a
particularly
different
configuration
because
it's
blue
below
the
freeway,
so
even
if
it's
90
feet,
you
might
only
see
the
top
45
feet
or
something,
and
I
think
the
freeway
where
we
are
goes
up.
You
know
the
land
goes
up
to
the
north.
So
if
it's
90
feet
on
top
of
a
raised
elevation,
it's
going
to
be
even
that
much
higher.
So
I
don't
know
that
that's
a
particularly
relevant.
D
A
Just
I
find
the
sketches
thing
to
be
one
of
the
most
ugly
monsters
I've
ever
seen
and
imagine
how
if
that
was
like
you
say,
elevated.
That
would
even
be
worse,
but
you
know,
commissioner
song
may
have
made
some
excellent
points.
I
mean
I
would
have
gone
with
a
motion
that
said,
let's
stick
with
the
current
height
limit
and
then
let's
look
at
ways
of
making
that
area.
You
know
better,
maybe
fewer
parking
spaces
other
things
that
could
be
helpful.
That
would
have
been
my
supply.
I
would
support
that,
but
I.
D
A
I
know
there
is
a
formula
like,
for
instance,
in
the
the
the
project
near
rimrock:
wasn't
there
some
trade-off
between
land
that
they
were
going
to
be
taking
away
from?
You
know
natural
habitat,
and
then
it
was
exchanged
for
areas
within
the
wash
or
something
I
mean.
I
guess
there
is
a
formula
for
exchanging
negatives
for
quality.
B
B
And
so
because
they
destroyed,
they
were
going
to
destroy
the
beetle
habitat
on
that
land.
They
would
buy
other
natural
other
land
with,
but
that
could
be
a
solution
to
it.
I
I'm
still.
You
know,
I
agree
with
you
that
what
we've
seen
coming
up
the
60
is
just
awful
and
it
doesn't
look
like
palm
springs
and
destroying
our
vistas
is
not
a
good
thing.
I'm
not
sure
that
some
of
the
vistas
aren't
destroyed
on
the
north
side.
B
B
They
won't
be
the
same
scale,
they're
the
same
height
but
they're
a
small
box
compared
to
what's
being
proposed,
but
I
I'm
adamant
about
not
on
the
south
side
of
the
freeway,
where
we've
got
our
perk,
our
perk,
you
know
perk
ponds
where
we're
getting
our
water
roaring
down
for
the
aquifer.
I
think
that's,
I
just
don't
think
we
should
do.
We
should
do
it.
B
A
I
I
E
G
It's
always
helpful
when
we
have
an
applicant
because
it
forces
us
to
but
development
standards
are
something
that
we
need
to
stay
ahead
of
in
a
changing
world
right,
and
you
know,
a
conditional
use
permit
is
is
the
easy
way
out.
We
simply
say:
let's
look
at
them
on
a
case-to-case
basis.
Maybe
their
impacts
can
be
mitigated.
G
I
think
the
one
on
highway
60
is
a
terrible
design,
because
not
necessarily
the
height
of
it
or
even
the
size
of
it.
It's
because
there's
no
plantings,
there's
we're
just
seeing
the
trucks
we're
seeing
it
all.
Maybe
they
can
be
designed
in
such
a
way
that
they're
not
ugly.
Maybe
we
can
hide
them
a
lot
in
in
trees
and
landscaping
and
desert
scapes.
G
So
I
want
to
suggest
that
we
bring
this
back
if
you,
if
it's
being
asked
for
us
to
look
at
it,
but
let's
look
at
all
standards
on
it
and
let's
look
at
real
mitigation
procedures.
So,
at
any
time
we
could
have
had
an
application
for
one
of
these
up
to
30
feet.
We
just
haven't
and
you're
suggesting
we're
not
seeing
them
because
30
feet
doesn't
won't
satisfy
any
of
the
applicants.
B
Can
I
speak
to
that?
There
is
a
project
there's
an
applicant
looking
at
a
couple
of
different
our
city
in
another
city.
That's
what
I've
heard,
because
I've
gotten
a
phone
call
about
it,
which
I
communicated
with
the
director.
I
don't
know
if
he
heard
I
don't
think
they're
an
applicant
yet,
but
there
there
was.
There
was
a
request.
I
think
that
we
followed
and
look
at
it.
I
do
think
that
if
we
take
no
action
on
it,
the
console
will
be
more
sympathetic.
A
A
B
A
I
agree
with
your
point.
Your
point
makes
sense,
except
that
I
don't
think
we
should
do
anything
to
encourage
this
sort
of
development.
It's
and
that
would
be
the
message
we
send
to
the
council,
but
we
just
don't
encourage
this
sort
of
development
and
then,
if
they
say
well,
you
know
you're
not
looking
at
the
big
picture
and
you
know
we
need
these
jobs
and
we
need
this
and
that
okay,
well
that's
their
decision,
but
I
don't
think
we
as
a
commission
should,
under
any
circumstances,
encourage
this
sort
of
development.
G
Just
sure,
well,
the
reason
I
would
like
this
to
come
back
is
because
I
don't
agree
with
no
never
ever
on.
Well,
certainly
on
something
like
this,
I
think
it's
something
that
should
be
examined
fully.
I
think
we
should
see
what
the
financial
implications
are
for
our
city.
I
don't
agree
that
creating.
G
G
Of
course,
we
want
jobs
that
pay
more,
but
I
think
job
creation
in
itself
is
not
a
bad
thing.
I
think
we
do
owe
it
to
our
city
to
look
at
the
finances
of
these
things.
So
I'd
like
to
see
it
come
back
to
us
sooner
than
later.
If
that's
what
the
city
is
looking
for,
and
for
us
to
look
at
all
sides
of
it
rather
than
just
height.
B
G
B
F
J
F
J
May
I
make
a
comment
real,
quick
just
to
visualize
what
one
over
one
800
square
foot
parking
requirement
is
like
is
you
can
go
by
fedex
and
you
can
see
that
not
even
50
of
the
parking
spaces
is
occupied
with
cars.
So
it's
just
to
give
you
a
perspective
of
a
ratio
of
1
over
800
square
foot.
Space
looks
like
in
a
parking
lot.
B
I
As
you
will
recall,
from
a
previous
planning
commission
meeting,
we
had
public
comment
where
an
individual
requested
that
the
planning
commission
consider
the
allowance
of
a
cat
cafe
in
the
central
business
district
in
terms
of
the
city's
zoning
regulations,
cat
cafe
would
require
that
they
have
kennels
on
site
and
kenneling
is
not
permitted
in
the
central
business
district
zone.
So
there's
really
two
options
to
allow.
I
This
number
one
is
to
do
a
zone
text
amendment
to
allow
kennels
or
the
second
option
that
we
have
is
for
the
planning
commission
to
make
a
determination
that
a
cat
cafe
is
similar
to
other
uses
that
are
permitted
in
the
central
business
district.
Let
me
just
go
through
those
two
options.
Briefly
in
terms
of
the
zone
text
amendment
you,
as
the
planning
commission
did
consider
the
ability
to
have
kenneling
in
the
downtown
area
in
2015
and
then
in
2018.
I
in
those
discussions-
and
this
was
primarily
related
to
having
some
type
of
animal
daycare
facilities
in
the
central
business
district
zone.
There
were
a
couple
of
concerns
that
were
raised
number
one,
having
adequate
exercise
area
or
outdoor
space
for
the
animals.
Number
two
was
concerns
about
waste
from
the
kennels
and
then
number
three.
There
was
a
concern
about
noise
in
terms
of
moving
forward
with
a
zone
text
amendment.
I
If
that's
the
direction
that
you'd
like
to
go,
what
we
would
need
to
do
is
to
amend
chapter
92
of
the
zoning
code
to
allow
the
kennel
use.
You
could
restrict
that
to
just
cat
cafes,
but
you
would
need
to
allow
the
kennel
use
somehow
and
then.
Secondly,
based
on
your
previous
conversations,
we
would
also
want
to
amend
the
palm
springs
municipal
code
to
establish
standards
for
kennels
in
terms
of
minimum
areas
of
kennel
sizes,
minimum
exercise
areas
etc.
I
The
time
frame
to
do
a
zone
text
amendment
would
typically
take
about
three
to
four
months.
By
the
time
it
went
through
the
planning
commission
and
up
to
the
city
council
in
terms
of
the
cost.
There
would
be
no
cost
of
the
act
to
an
applicant
if
this
was
initiated
by
the
planning
commission,
which
you
all,
as
the
planning
commission,
have
the
authority
to
do.
I
Looking
at
the
other
option,
there
is
a
method
by
which
an
applicant
can
request
a
determination
from
the
planning
commission
relative
to
a
use.
That's
not
specifically
listed
in
the
zoning
code
and
cat
cafe
is
certainly
a
use
that
isn't
listed
in
our
zoning
code.
You've
done
this
before
most
recently
with
the
pinball
museum.
I
In
terms
of
the
findings
that
the
planning
commission
would
need
to
make
relative
to
the
cat
cafe,
use
you'd
have
to
make
a
finding
that
it
is
similar
to
other
uses
that
are
permitted
in
the
zone
and
that
the
impacts
from
that
use
are
no
more
than
any
other
use.
That's
permitted
in
the
zone
in
terms
of
a
cat
cafe.
I
I
The
cost
is
about
fifteen
hundred
dollars
or
sixteen
hundred
dollars
for
the
applicant
and
then
a
land
use.
Permit
would
also
be
required
on
top
of
that
for
the
cat
cafe,
because
the
restaurant
use
for
the
cafe
use
does
require
a
land
use
permit.
In
the
central
business
district
zone,
so
those
are
the
two
options
that
I'd
be
looking
for
direction
from
the
planning
commission.
I
There
are
specific
standards
that
they
would
impose
upon
this
relative
to
separation
of
food
service
areas
from
the
actual
area
where
customers
or
potential
customers
would
interact
with
the
cats,
so
the
applicant
would
need
to
be
aware
of
that
and
then
relative
to
the
land
use
permit.
There
are
specific
conditions
that
we,
as
staff,
would
impose
upon
this
use
in
terms
of
the
ultimate
number
of
cats
that
they
would
be
able
to
kennel
on
site
at
any
one
time.
I
Also,
we
would
want
to
require
that
they
have
an
agreement
with
a
shelter
as
opposed
to
a
breeder,
and
we
would
want
some
type
of
a
monitoring
by
the
shelter
itself,
in
addition
to
a
number
of
other
conditions
that
we
would
impose.
So
I
just
want
to
make
it
clear
to
you:
if
we
go
the
determination
route,
there
would
still
be
restrictions
that
we
would
impose
through
a
conditional
use
permit,
and
so
basically,
what
I
am
looking
for
from
the
planning
commission's
direction
relative
to
these
two
approaches
to
dealing
with
a
cat
cafe.
B
B
I
B
G
G
It's
a
coffee
house
that
I
like
there
aren't
many
dogs
there
funny
enough,
but
the
entire
thing
is
themed
around
dogs
and
they
encourage
it.
I
I
I'm
just
gonna
say
I
like
the
idea
of
this,
the
idea
of
adopting
out
cats.
I
think
it
could
be
a
really
charming
use,
something
very
unusual,
something
very
palm
springs,
and
if
we
can
find
a
way
to
do
something
like
this,
I'm
I'm
very
open
to
it.
A
All
right,
well,
my
thumb
is
ready
to
move
somewhere.
I
just
have
a
question
when
we
discuss
the
issue
of
a
kennel
which
is
overnight
housing
correct.
This
is
what
we're
talking
about.
It's
not
just
a
campaign
we
did.
There
was
a
central
business
district
request
project
that
we
turned
down
because
they
didn't
have
any
outdoor
area
for
the
animals.
Do
you
remember
this,
maybe
about
a
year
or
two
ago?
So
how
would
that
differ
from
what
we're
talking
about
here?.
G
So
think
of
the
shelter
gang,
the
the
shelter
does
not
have
an
outdoor
area
for
cats
that
I
know
of
they
have
a
cat
room
and
the
cats
are
free
to
run
around
in
the
room
and
they
they
have
all
the
this
cathy
there's
a
chair
was
pointing
out.
You
know
they
have
all
sorts
of
beds
and
boxes
and
things
that
they
hang
out
in,
but
again
like
the
shelter
their
goal
isn't
to
house
them,
it's
to
turn
them
over
it's
to
find
homes
for
them,
and
so
I
don't.
I
We
were
actually
looking
at
a
zone
text
amendment
at
that
time
for
that
specific
use
and
the
ultimate
direction
of
the
planning
commission
was
not
to
move
forward
with
it.
Because
of
the
concerns
about
that,
this
is
a
little
bit
different
in
that
the
cat
cafe
number
one
would
be
limited
to
cats
and
has
already
been
pointed
out.
They
don't
need,
they
don't
have
the
same
demands
that
dogs
do
and
then.
A
B
I
G
I
G
G
I
Yeah,
what
I'd
recommend
is
that
we
leave
that
to
the
health
district
to
determine
whatever
separation
may
be
necessary
and
that
we,
as
the
city,
don't
need
to
get
into
that
matter.
I
just
wanted
to
note
that
in
case
the
applicant
is
watching
that
they
will
need
to
communicate
with
the
health
district
and
resolve
any
issues.
The
health
district
may
have.
B
B
I
B
Okay,
the
next
item:
we
have
a
couple
of
things
for
the
commission.
One
is,
I
think
we
have
a
request
to
have
a
study
session
on
the
new
state
laws
and
they
had
originally
been
talked
about.
The
I
think
the
third
week,
but
the
request
was
to
have
it
the
first
week.
I
think,
on
the
first
of
december,.
I
Madam
chair
we've
done
some
additional
research
into
that
in
terms
of
having
a
study
session
on
december.
The
1st-
and
it
doesn't
look
like
we'll-
be
able
to
do
that
based
on
notification
requirements
just
so
that
you're
aware
we
have
a
rather
full
agenda
scheduled
for
december,
the
8th,
and
so
it
would
be
difficult
to
do
both
a
study
session
and
your
regular
agenda
on
the
8th
and
so
we'll
need
to
break
this
up
into
two
parts.
I
I
I
I
A
I
A
Yes,
the
memo
that
you
sent
from
the
city
attorney
was
so
complicated
and
confusing.
I
couldn't
understand
what
the
whole
point
of
it
was
since
it's
a
law
that
the
state
has
passed
and
it
was
going
to
be
implemented
so
confused
there.
Oh,
it's
happened
yeah,
so
I
don't
understand.
What's
the
discussion
point
since
it's
going
to
go
into
effect
in
january
1st,
but
anyway
that
was
what
we
were
supposed
to
discuss.
I
suppose.
D
I
I
B
I
A
B
B
B
G
I
B
J
B
I
Could
do
a
party
if
we
could
do
it
out
of
doors
just
being
very
cautious
on
the
part
of
the
example
that
the
city
sets
if
we
could
find
a
venue
that
was
out
of
doors
and
safe
from
the
elements,
because
we
have
no
idea
what
the
weather
is
going
to
be
like
in
december.
It
could
be
90,
it
could
be
50
degrees,
we
don't
know,
but
if
we
could
find
a
location
out
of
doors
that
would
work.
B
B
I
I
The
item
was
appealed
to
the
city
council
at
the
city
council
meeting.
Unfortunately,
they
overturned
your
decision,
but
they
did
agree
with
you
that
the
dance
studio
is
a
youth
center.
What
they
are
having
the
applicant
do
is
file
a
waiver
application
that
will
be
required
to
come
back
before
the
city
council
to
waive
the
distance
between
the
facility
and
the
youth
center.
I
So
again,
they
did
find
that
the
facility
was
a
youth
center.
They
agreed
with
the
planning
commission
on
that
point.
One
of
the
things
that
we'll
be
looking
at
doing,
based
on
your
decision
and
support
from
the
city
council
is,
as
we
get
into
the
annual
update
of
the
zoning
code.
We
will
clearly
define
that
a
youth
center
includes
both
public
and
private
facilities.
I
So
it's
clear
for
applicants
in
the
future
moving
forward,
how
we
define
youth
centers.
So
with
that,
we
do
appreciate
the
work
that
the
planning
commission
did
on
that
item
and
ultimately,
what
you
have
done
is
provided
clarification
on
that
issue.
Madam
chair,
that's
the
only
report
I
have
mr
newell.
Do
you
have
any
other
items
for
the
planning
commission.
C
Just
the
only
other
thing
that
I
would
add
is
that
the
city
submitted
its
response
to
hcd
for
the
housing
element
comments
that
we
received.
So
we
did
that
on
november,
2nd,
so
they'll
have
60
days
from
that
date
to
respond,
and
let
us
know
that
everything
looks
good
or
they
may
give
us
more
comments.
Hopefully
that's
not
the
case,
but
in
anticipation
of
them
concluding
their
review
within
the
60-day
period
and
saying
that
our
housing
element
is
in
compliance
with
state
law.