►
From YouTube: City Council & Planning Commission | December 18, 2018
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Please
place
your
hand
over
your
heart
and
join
me
in
the
pledge
I
pledge
allegiance
to
the
flag
of
the
United
States
of
America
and
to
the
Republic
for
which
it
stands.
One
nation
under
God
indivisible
with
liberty
and
justice
for
all.
Thank
you.
You
may
be
seated
see
clerk.
Would
you
please
do
a
roll
call,
counsel.
C
E
F
G
Thank
You
mr.
mayor,
the
council
did
convene
in
closed
session
this
evening
and
did
discuss
the
following
matters
that
are
agendized.
The
ehof
Canyon
View
LLC
litigation
was
discussed.
In
addition,
we
discussed
the
real
estate
matter
involving
the
community
housing
opportunities
corporation
agendized,
the
location
on
that
property
is
the
southeast
corner
of
Indian
Canyon
Drive
and
San
Rafael
Road.
There
was
some
discussion
regarding
my
evaluation.
Those
are
the
only
three
items
that
were
considered
this
evening
in
closed
session
and
there
was
no
reportable
action
and
that
concludes
my
report.
A
Thank
You
Attorney
Kotkin
next
item
is
public
testimony.
The
sight
time
has
been
set
aside,
members
of
the
public
to
address
the
City
Council
and
Planning
Commission.
Only
on
agenda
items
that
are
on
the
agenda
tonight.
Two
minutes
will
be
assigned
to
each
speaker.
We
currently
have
five
people
who
requested
to
speak.
Our
first
speaker
is
Jane
garrison,
followed
by
Tonya
Petrovna
and
Michael
Johnson
and
Mike
Oh
Michael,
Michelle,
Johnson
and
Michael
Johnson,
Anthony,
okay
and
then
Wayne
Warnock
evening.
I.
D
Just
want
to
say
that
I
support
these
the
work
that
the
Planning
Commission
did
I
attended.
Many
of
the
meetings
I've
read
through
every
document
that
came
through
all
the
changes
and
just
wanted
to
tell
the
council
that
they
did
a
fabulous
job.
They
were
the
specifics
that
they
went
through
the
questions
that
were
answered.
The
thought
that
went
into
it
I
just
want
to
thank
all
of
you
for
doing
such
incredible
work.
I
know
it's
been
a
long
journey.
I
really
support
what
you
did.
I
hope
the
council
will
support
it.
D
There's
one
little
request
that
I
have
that
I've
brought
up
at
the
meeting
several
times.
They
are
going
to
know
what
it
is,
but
I
would
ask
that
the
50%
open
space
that
we
add
a
little
word
that
says
clustered
and
would
love
to
see
the
open
space
clustered
if
any,
if
there's
any
conversion
of
golf
courses
to
development
right
again,
thank
you
so
much
for
your
work
and
I
hope
that
council
will
support
the
work
that
they
did.
Thank.
D
Good
evening
Council
and
Planning
Commission
I
echo
Jane's
sentiment
on
what
the
Planning
Commission
has
done.
I
was
a
little
more
optimistic
for
maybe
70%,
but
I'm
going
with
the
50%
I
realized
that
the
work
that's
been
done.
Having
also
been
to
some
meetings
and
to
see
how
well
everyone
you
listened,
then
you're
asked
hard
questions
and
I
was
kind
of
amazed
and
I
thought.
It
was
great,
then,
that
the
work
you
put
into
it
and
yes
counsel,
I,
think
it's
a
great
idea.
All
of
their
lead.
D
I
also
feel
that
I've
been
there's
some
talk
about.
Possibly
these
golf
course
conversions
going
on
a
case-by-case
basis
and
I
would
really
like
to
see
it
not
do
as
such,
because
if
one
were
to
dilute
say
be
less
than
50
percent
or
less
than
what
we
would
really
like
as
a
community
to
keep
our
lifestyle
and
to
keep
our
our
happiness
with
some
open
space
that
it
could
immediately
go
less
than
that.
Each
time
you
know
one
would
set
a
precedent.
So
that's
a
concern
and
thank
you.
D
A
D
H
D
D
A
I
Evening
my
name
is
Michael
Johnson
and
my
home
in
Duluth
Park
is
neighbor
by
three
of
the
city's
golf
courses.
My
common
tonight
reflect
my
thoughts
as
well
as
those
of
Russa,
who
is
the
I
guess
the
chair
of
the
snore
center,
my
his
neighborhood
rest
suffered
an
injury
to
his
hip
and
it
makes
him
unavailable
tonight,
we'd
like
to
commend,
as
the
others
have
the
Planning
Commission
for
the
tremendous
work
they've
done
to
draft
this
proposal.
I
Those
of
us
whose
homes
surround
the
golf
course
greatly
enjoy
the
proximity
to
the
open
space
and
its
positive
impact
in
our
quality
of
life
and
drafting
the
proposed
ordinance.
The
Planning
Commission
has
offered
a
framework
whereby
the
preservation
of
open
space
and
the
associate
enhancement
to
the
city's
quality
of
life
is
protected,
and
we
urge
the
City
Council's
support
and
passage
of
the
ordinance.
I
The
ordinance
requires
that
those
of
us,
the
neighborhood
surrounding
any
golf
course,
are
kept
informed
and
provided
sufficient
opportunity
to
voice
any
concerns
with
any
proposed
redevelopment.
It
acts
to
preserve
our
neighborhoods
by
ensuring
than
to
a
development,
has
appropriate
setback
from
existing
properties
than
at
least
50%
of
the
current
acreage
remain
as
open
space
in
a
separate
parcel.
I
Some
have
suggested
that
in
lieu
of
the
proposed
ordinance,
the
city
evaluate
any
proposed
redevelopment
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
but
while
each
properties
clearly
unique
a
case-by-case
approach
would
consume
a
greater
amount
of
city
resources
requiring
renegotiation
of
those
critical
preservation
issues
again
in
each
case
and
likely
subject
the
Commission
and
the
council
to
greater
pressure
to
retreat
from
those
safeguards.
Each
negotiated
case
with
an
establish
a
precedent
for
redevelopment
cases
to
follow
likely
eroding
those
safeguards
over
time.
I
The
general
plan
umbrellas
private
golf
courses
in
its
designated
open
space
parks
and
recreation
land
use
settlement
and
establishes
a
goal
of
maintaining
existing
open
space
and
security
additional
space
as
the
city
grows.
The
proposed
ordinance
provides
a
key
vehicle
to
achieve
that
goal.
So
we
appreciate
the
work
that
the
Planning
Commission
is
done
in
drafting
the
ordinance,
and
we
certainly
urge
that
the
City
Council
adopted.
D
You
honorable
mayor
councilmembers,
Planning
Commission
members,
my
name
is
Wayne
Corral
Nick
I'm,
a
senior
partner
of
qur'anic
and
Gill
land
in
Palm
Desert
California.
We
represent
a
thousand
units
that
are
adjacent
to
the
Mesquite
Country
Club,
one
of
the
golf
courses
that
would
be
subject
to
this
proposed
ordinance.
D
We
have
followed
it
through
and
and
again
wish
to
praise
the
commissioners
who
put
forth
a
beautiful
or
draft
ordinance
for
your
consideration.
It's
a
balanced
approach.
It's
a
balancing,
because
I
also
represent
developers,
and
these
developers
will
have
an
opportunity
to
know
where
they
stand
up
front
with
all
the
stakeholders
available
at
one
time
and
location
rather
than
spending
a
lot
of
money.
I
personally
have
spent
three
or
four
hundred
thousand
dollars
in
entitlements
only
to
see
it
not
go
forward
because
of
other
issues.
D
This
ordinance
gives
the
developer
that
same
warm
feeling
of
being
able
to
know
what
every
stakeholders
going
to
do
prior
to
having
to
go
forward
in
that
formal
final
process.
Additionally,
it
protects
the
stakeholders
of
your
homeowners
that
live
within
this
community
by
bringing
forth
things
that
are
their
covenants.
That
are
an
existence,
are
their
leases
and
existence.
D
Open
space
is
a
big
issue,
but
it
puts
forth
everything
before
you
and
considers
everything
before
you.
It
wasn't
done
over
a
night
fall.
It
was
done
over
almost
approximately
a
year
worth
of
time
and
hundreds
of
hours
of
time,
both
your
staff
and
these
wonderful
volunteers
who
work
forward
to
it
and
I
do
request
you
give
it
strong
consideration.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
X
is
the
study
session
and
before
we
get
started
on
behalf
of
the
entire
council,
I'd
like
to
welcome
the
Planning
Commission
tonight,
I
think
we
all
recognize
what
an
incredible
amount
of
work
you've
done,
the
number
of
meetings
and
all
the
work
and
the
reports
here.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
being
with
us
tonight.
We've
looked
forward
to
this
for
a
long
time
so
with
that
I
will.
A
A
B
Mayor,
thank
you,
members
of
council
members
of
the
Planning
Commission
again.
Thank
you.
Let
me
go
ahead
and
queue
up
the
PowerPoint
presentation,
while
I'm
doing
that.
We
are
here
tonight
to
discuss
two
items
that
come
forth
out
of
the
recommendations
of
the
ad
hoc,
PD
D
or
planned
development
district
committee,
and
let
me
just
give
you
a
little
bit
of
background
on
this
for
those
members
of
council
who
are
relatively
new
and
members
of
the
public
as
well.
B
There
was
an
ad
hoc
plan
development
district
committee
formed
by
a
settlement
agreement
over
a
project
that
had
been
approved
by
the
city
of
Palm
Springs
back
in
2013.
As
part
of
that
settlement
agreement,
it
required
that
an
ad
hoc
committee
be
formed
that
the
ad
hoc
committee
go
through
our
planned
development
district
ordinance
and
make
recommendations
in
terms
of
improvements
to
the
process.
Improvements
to
the
ordinance.
B
The
ad
hoc
PDD
committee
finalized
their
recommendations
in
March
of
2017
I,
presented
those
recommendations
to
the
Planning
Commission,
who
made
minor
modifications
and
forward
those
on
to
you,
the
City
Council.
You
all
approve
those
in
July
of
2017
and
then
you
looked
at
a
work
plan
to
implement
those
recommendations
of
in
January
of
2018
in
terms
of
the
recommendations
themselves.
I
have
copies
of
the
recommendations
in
your
backup
materials,
there
were
a
total
of
67
recommendations
in
terms
of
changes
to
our
planned
development,
district
process
and
other
associated
changes.
B
The
proposed
planned
development
district
ordinance
that
you
have
in
front
of
you
this
evening
would
implement
31
of
those
67
recommendations.
The
second
item
that
you
have
on
your
agenda.
The
small
lot
district,
is
also
one
of
those
recommendations
and
would
be
implemented
if
that
item
goes
forward
in
terms
of
the
ordinance
itself.
B
I'd
just
like
to
briefly
go
through
some
of
the
major
changes
to
the
ordinance
and
again,
we
can
go
into
additional
detail
as
we
follow
up
with
questions
about
the
proposal
in
terms
of
the
purpose
and
intent
of
the
planned
development
district
ordinance.
There
are
a
couple
of
changes
to
it
number
one.
It
specifies
that
plan
development
districts
are
primarily
for
mixed-use
projects
that
feature
more
than
one
type
of
use.
B
Another
series
of
proposed
changes
are
relative
to
our
application
procedures.
One
of
the
things
that
has
been
recommended
and
that
we're
proposing
to
you
is
that
there
be
a
neighbourhood
outreach
meeting
prior
to
the
submit
all
of
the
application,
with
the
intent
that
the
applicant
would
be
able
to
obtain
comments
and
answer
questions
from
adjacent
property
owners
and
residents,
and
so
that
they
could
also
participate
paid
in
the
design
of
the
project
and
make
comments
on
the
design
of
the
project.
B
Secondly,
we
would
propose
that
a
Planning
Commission
study
session
or
as
we're
referring
to
it
in
the
ordinance
a
scoping
meeting
be
held
so
that
the
Planning
Commission
in
turn
could
also
offer
comments
on
the
proposed
layout
of
the
planned
development
district.
We
are
not
proposing
any
changes
to
the
other
two
steps
in
the
process,
which
would
be
this
middle
of
the
preliminary
planned
development
district
application
or
the
final
planned
development
district
application.
B
One
of
the
other
areas
that
has
also
been
the
subject
of
significant
changes
is
relative
to
the
minimum
development
standards
for
a
planned
development.
Number
one
relative
to
permitted
uses
developments
with
a
single
housing
type
would
not
be
permitted
unless
that
housing
type
is
affordable.
Housing
number
one
that's
to
encourage,
affordable
housing
and
plan
development
districts
are
a
way
to
accomplish
that
and
then,
secondly,
going
back
to
the
purpose
and
intent
is
that
plan
development
districts
are
really
to
address.
B
When
you
have
a
mixture
of
uses
on
the
site
and
standard
zoning
district
regulations,
don't
facilitate
that.
Secondly,
in
terms
of
height,
there
is
language
in
there
that
the
height
in
a
planned
development
district
must
comply
with
the
underlying
zoning
unless
allowed
otherwise
by
the
general
plan
and
there's
certain
exceptions
allowed
under
the
general
plan,
but
those
are
primarily
limited
to
our
downtown
area.
B
Also
in
the
setbacks
in
the
area
of
setbacks,
one
of
the
things
that
is
included
as
a
development
standard
is
that
the
planned
development
district
must
maintain
the
perimeter
setbacks.
The
purpose
of
that
is
to
maintain
neighborhood
character
and
to
be
consistent
with
the
context
of
surrounding
properties
relative
to
open
space.
There
is
language
in
the
development
standards
that
it
must
be
equal
or
greater
than
the
comparable
underlying
zoning.
The
Planning
Commission
subcommittee
and
members
of
the
ad
hoc
committee
recommended
that
we
also
define
a
private
open
space
and
public
open
space,
which
is
included.
B
Another
thing
that
was
discussed
at
length
is
to
preserve
the
city's
grid
arrangement
of
streets,
and
so
that
streets
or
driveways
in
the
planned
development
district
would
be
aligned
to
the
grid,
the
street
grid
of
surrounding
properties
and
then
another
thing
that
was
important
in
the
development
standards.
For
our
committee
was
relative
to
pedestrian
and
bicycle
access
that
there
not
be
gates
to
prevent
pedestrians
or
bicycles
from
entering
the
project.
B
One
of
the
sections
that
we
also
discussed
was
relative
to
public
benefit
just
for
informational
purposes.
Previously,
public
benefit
was
not
actually
in
the
planned
development
district
ordinance.
It
existed
as
a
separate
City
Council
policy.
One
of
the
things
that
came
up
in
the
ad
hoc
committee
was
the
desire
to
have
additional
public
benefits
required
in
doing
some
research
on
that
topic.
B
In
terms
of
extensions,
we
would
apply
the
same
two-year
extension,
that's
available
under
our
revised
extension
of
time,
ordinance
in
chapter
94
of
our
zoning
code.
One
of
the
things
that
was
very
important
to
our
ad
hoc
committee
was
that
any
extensions
of
subdivision
Maps
also
be
timed
with
the
extension
of
the
entitlement
for
the
planned
development
district.
B
That's
been
an
issue
for
us
in
the
past,
where
we've
had
maps
that
have
been
extended
and
the
plan
development
district
has
not,
and
so
that's
again
to
keep
those
things
in
line
and
then
also
another
thing
that
has
been
recommended
is
our
termination
of
a
planned
development
district
in
consulting
with
our
city
attorney.
That
actually
needs
to
happen
via
a
public
hearing
process.
B
We've
also
added
language
that,
when
a
plan,
development
district
is
terminated
that
the
zoning
reverts
to
the
previous
zoning
that
was
in
place,
and
so
those
are
the
significant
changes
to
the
planned
development
district
ordinance.
Now
our
committee
has
also
recommended
some
associated
changes,
which
you
will
see
in
the
ordinance
here
this
evening.
Number
one
is
relative
to
definitions.
B
We've
had
to
add
a
number
of
definitions
to
that
section
of
our
zoning
code
to
address
specific
processes
and
terms
that
are
in
this
ordinance
and
then
another
thing
again
going
back
to
the
topic
of
gated
access
of
planned
development
districts.
They
are
also
proposing
to
discourage
gated
access
to
communities,
but
there
are
exceptions
that
the
Planning
Commission
could
approve.
B
If
there
is
demonstrated
impact
of
the
communities
such
as
spillover
of
parking
or
traffic,
that
the
streets
would
not
be
able
to
handle,
and
so
in
certain
instances
the
Planning
Commission
would
be
able
to
approve
gated
communities,
but
the
language
that's
being
proposed
is
that
it
is
generally
discouraged
in
terms
of
the
changes.
These
are
the
goals
that
we
have
with
the
changes
to
the
ordinance
number
one
is
to
reduce
the
number
of
waivers
that
are
requested
as
part
of
planned
development
districts.
B
That's
something
that
we've
heard
from
the
public
and
the
public
hearings
that
we've
had
on
this
topic
for
members
of
our
ad
hoc
committee
and
for
members
of
our
Planning
Commission.
Also.
Another
goal
is
by
making
changes
to
our
process
by
requiring
a
public
outreach
meeting
and
a
study
session
that
the
Planning
Commission
is
to
have
greater
public
input
in
the
planned
development
district
process.
And
so
that's
one
of
the
things
that
the
proposed
ordinance
would
do
and
then
also
to
update
and
amend
our
zoning
code
to
facilitate
standard
zoning
designations
for
projects.
B
So
so
those
are
some
of
the
goals
that
completes
my
presentation.
I
would
also
like
to
at
this
time
thank
the
members
of
our
ad
hoc
PDD
committee,
Kathy
Warmack,
Marvin
ruse,
Jim
Harlan,
Lynne,
Keller,
Dean,
Scott,
Big,
B,
Jim,
Harlan
and
Michael
Johnston,
and
then,
of
course,
our
Planning
Commission,
who
also
participated
in
that
process
extensively.
So
again.
That
concludes
my
presentation
to
you
and
mr.
mayor
I'd
turn
it
back
to
you.
I'm
happy
to
answer
questions
and
to
take
your
direction
on
this
matter.
Thank.
A
You
what
I'd
like
to
suggest
is
we
invite
chair
Mike
to
make
any
additional
comments
you'd
like
to
make
regarding
this
overall
and
then
I'll
open
it
to
questions
and
comments
from
the
council
members
and
then
to
the
individual
members
of
the
Planning
Commission,
so
sure?
Where
Mike?
Would
you
like
to
add
the.
H
H
It
wasn't
the
focus
of
what
we
did
on
the
Commission,
but
it
was
the
problem
that
led
to
the
original
lawsuit
in
the
original
commission
coming
together.
I
think
we've
done
as
good
a
job
as
we
know
how
to
do
with
this.
In
terms
of
making
recommendations
to
you,
there
will
be
under
this
probably
fewer
exceptions
to
the
zoning
code.
H
It
may
not
be
used
as
frequently
it
may
be
used
for
more
novel
situations
instead
of
what
it's
been
primarily
used
for
the
last
couple
of
years,
which
is
very
small,
lot
subdivision,
x'
residential
subdivisions,
so
that
I
think
that's
the
only
thing
that
I
wanted
to
say
on
it.
Just
in
terms
I
did
want
to
say
that
all
three
of
the
items
that
are
coming
before
you
tonight
came
out
of
the
subcommittee
recommendations.
H
The
golf
course
conversion
ordinance
was
also
item
55
on
that
on
that
recommendation
list
and
just
wanted
to
let
you
know
that
it
wasn't
something
that
just
came
out
of
the
blue,
but
it
we've
we've
had
a
number
of,
and
when
we
get
to
that,
we
can
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
numbers
that
we've
had
of
golf
course.
Issues
come
before
us
that
made
us
want
to
deal
with
us
now.
J
Ultimately,
it
was
create
your
own
zoning,
and
that
happened
because
we
went
through
such
a
long
period
of
no
development,
and
so
the
city
was
working
with
people
as
much
as
they
could
to
actually
have
some
progress
in
our
forward
movement
of
development
downtown
well,
and
not
only
downtown
but
all
over
the
city.
So
this
I
think
really
does.
Finally
close.
The
gap
are
the
many
gaps
and
takes
pdds
back
to
where
they're
supposed
to
be,
which
is
a
tool
of
good
instead
of
a
tool
of
evil.
I.
J
So
I'd
still
like
to
see
more
of
a
cafeteria
of
choices
within
a
project
that
a
developer
can
come
will
come
with
the
other
thing
that
I
always
understood,
PD
DS
to
be
for
was
mixed-use
developments.
We
always
wanted
to
encourage
those
and
and
for
all
the
right
reasons
you
know,
having
retail
or
having
multifamily
buildings
mixed
with
single-family
residence
fits
in
with
Palm
Springs.
It
fits
in
with
who
we
are
fits
in
with
our
smaller
character
and
it
creates
villages,
and
we
don't
see
enough
of
that.
J
J
H
J
I
was
really
I
was
so
excited
to
see.
Cameron
come
cuz.
We
were
finally
gonna,
get
the
true
definition
of
a
BDD
and
we
didn't
get
it
so.
I
hope
that
mixed
use
stays
a
big
part
of
the
definition
and
that
maybe
we
could
add
some
incentives
to
the
PDD
for
mixed-use
projects.
Maybe
there's
increased
density,
maybe
there's
something
that
we
could
do
to
actually
entice
people
to
do.
Mixed-Use.
J
Well,
then,
how
do
we
ensure
that
so
every
developer
we
know
and
I've
ever
worked
with
and
who's
ever
done
with
a
PD
D
comes
in
with
their
list
of
things
that
they
want
relief
from
on
top
of
the
PD
D
RI,
always
like
flexibility
in
our
zoning,
because
I
believe
that
heart
cookie
cutter
just
doesn't
always
work.
In
fact,
it
rarely
works
and
we
should
have
some
flexibility
but
where's
that
fine
line
between
flexibility
and
not
having
these
developers
hammer
us
for
now
additional
relief
on
top
of
the
PD
D.
J
Are
we
simply
saying
if
you
and
I'm
it's
a
question?
Are
we
saying
with
this
proposal
this?
Is
it
you
don't
get
any
more
setbacks
on
this?
You
don't
get
any
more
height
than
this.
This
is
hard
line.
If
you
want
another
inch
of
setback,
sorry
a
PD
D
isn't
going
to
work,
for
you
is
that,
where
we're
headed
is
that
our
intent
and
that's
that's
a
question
I
think
we
all
need
to
answer
and
then
another
question
that
I
have:
is
this
concept
of
open
space
being
equal
or
greater
to
the
underlining
underlying
zoning?
B
In
terms
of
the
requirement
for
open
space,
let's
say,
for
example,
that
the
underlying
zoning
is
r3
and
there's
a
minimum
requirement
for
45
percent
open
space.
So
if
a
PD
D
project
comes
in,
they
would
have
to
have
a
minimum
of
45
percent
open
space
in
order
to
be
consistent
with
the
pd
d
ordinance,
so
they
could
have
50%,
they
could
have
55%,
but
at
a
minimum
they
would
need
to
have
45%.
Okay.
J
And
I'm,
sorry,
you
know
what
I
was
doing.
I
was
I
was
mixing.
My
ordinance
as
I
was
thinking.
Pdd
was
gonna,
have
to
be
50
percent
Oh
open,
but
that's
actually
for
our
next
ordinance.
So
of
the
golf
course.
So
then,
then,
that
what
you
described
makes
perfect
sense.
I
have
more,
but
I
want
to
hear
from
my
colleagues
as
well
can.
H
F
J
H
J
I
agree
with
you
Kathy
and
I
guess
what
I
was
suggesting
is
is
monetizing
it
because,
with
with
monetizing
it
I
think
staff
can
direct
applicants
at
the
staff
level
saying
you
know,
based
on
what
you're
asking
for
here
in
your
PDD,
you
sort
of
fall
into
this
realm
right.
You
know!
No,
we
can't
ask
affordable
housing
from
you,
but
we
can
sure
darn
ask
for
a
nice
sized
park
from
you,
so
I
think
once
we
monetize
that
that'll
probably
solve
that
and
that
possible.
B
J
B
J
J
J
K
Thank
You,
mayor
and
I'm
gonna
again
also
reiterate
the
thanks
to
the
Planning
Commission
for
all
this
great
work.
I
just
have
a
couple
things
so
one
you
know
on
the
public
benefit
issue,
I
know
a
council
and
we
had
a
study
session,
which
seems
like
a
long
time
ago.
We
talked
about
you,
know,
having
a
public
benefit,
be
either
affordable,
housing
being
included
or
in
a
fund
which
we
can't
do
at
least
the
fun
part.
Unless
we
do
a
nexus
study,
we
can
make
sense.
K
There
are
some
arguments
we
could
make,
but
my
understanding
and
city
attorney
just
confirm
this
is
that
if
we
make
it
a
requirement
to
have
a
development
agreement
for
all
plan
PTDS,
then
we
can
do
whatever
we
want.
So
I
just
want
to
confirm
that,
because
I
know
that
was
something
the
council
was
interested
in.
I
know
the
Planning
Commission
at
least
some
members
had
interest
in
that.
K
Yes,
thank
you
that
if
you're
going
to
do
a
PD
day,
this
would
be
a
development
agreement
which
gives
us
the
flexibility
to
do
things
like
affordable
housing
or
affordable
housing
fund.
So
that's
something
I
liked
it
right
right,
but
at
least
we
can
do
it
right.
We
take
away
this
whole
issue
about
people
challenging
Nexus,
or
you
know
our
studies.
We
just
we
don't
have
to
do
PGD.
So
if
we're
going
to
do
them,
we
do
them
with
the
development
agreement,
and
that
should
solve
that.
K
The
only
other
question
I
had,
which
is
sort
of
on
how
you
handle
controlled
access
in
gates,
which
I
agree
with
and
I'm
fine
with
you
know
the
language.
If
there's
significant
traffic
impacts
are
probably
add
the
word
significant
or
public
safety
issues,
so
I'm
a
little
concerned
with
saying
that,
because
at
least
all
the
research
I
read
is
it
cuts
both
ways
on
public
safety.
K
There
may
be
a
slightly
slight
reduction
from
all
the
studies
in
residential
burglary,
which
is
rare
but
increase
in
things
that
happen,
because
people
are
in
more
controlled
environments
like
domestic
violence
and
other
things,
and
it
also,
of
course,
increases
just
moves
the
burglaries
to
outside
the
residential,
the
gated
neighborhood
from
the
study,
so
it
doesn't
reduce
it.
It
just
moves
it
to
someone
else.
So
I
don't
see
public
safety
unless
we're
gonna
say
own.
This
neighborhood
is
dangerous,
which
I,
don't
think
is
the
intent.
I
would
not
include
that
as
a
factor.
K
L
I
want
to
give
a
particular
thank
you
and
congratulations
to
the
two
of
you
for
your
leadership.
We
would
not
have
these
recommendations
with
about
the
work
that
each
one
of
you
has
done,
and
so
thank
you
tremendously.
A
couple
of
questions
the
what's
being
brought
forward
tonight
is
moving
31
of
the
67
recommendations.
So
what
is
the
plan
for
the
other
36
recommendations?
L
B
See
I
believe
I
had
included
a
copy
of
the
work
plan
in
your
backup
materials.
Let
me
just
go
there
very
quickly,
so
the
first
thing
on
the
work
plan
obviously
was
the
ordinance
that
you
have
in
front
of
you
this
evening.
The
planned
development
district
ordinance,
because
that
accomplishes
the
most
in
terms
of
these
procedures,
also
in
terms
of
the
second
task,
which
is
to
modify
our
administrative
procedures
for
processing
planned
development
district
applications.
Once
the
ordinance
is
adopted,
we
will
also
modify
our
procedures
and
that
will
implement
that
set
of
recommendations.
B
L
This
may
be
a
question
more
for
the
attorneys.
I
certainly
appreciate
all
of
the
language
that
we
have
received
regarding
public
benefits.
Affordable
housing
is
frequently
identified
as
a
public
benefit.
Can
you
differentiate
if
there
is
any
between
affordable
housing
and
ordinances
that
require
inclusive
housing
as
a
part
of
a
project
or
in
order
to
gain
approval?
You
one
must
incorporate
an
inclusive
housing
element
into
that
and
what
is
the
basis
of
law
that
allows
communities
to
to
require
inclusive
housing
and.
G
F
Thank
You
mr.
mayor
members
of
City
Council
honorable
staff,
Planning
Commission,
yes,
an
inclusionary
housing
ordinance
again
isn't
across
the
board,
determination
that
would
apply
to
all
subject
housing
projects
subject
to
that
ordinance.
In
this
case
a
project
specific
public
benefit.
It
comes
back
under
the
nexus
rules,
and
so
that
is
a
constitutional
limit
that
applies
to
both
general
law
and
charter
cities.
Setting
that
ceiling
on
what
you
can
exact
out
of
a
project
in
exchange
for
those
land
use
entitlements
as
councilmember
kite,
Mayor
Pro
Tem
scorers
mentioned
earlier.
F
F
L
L
C
Thank
You
mr.
mayor
I'm,
sharing
my
I,
usually
have
two
spots
here,
so
I'm
sharing
my
space
tonight.
So
thank
you
just
a
comment,
thank
you
again
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
that
the
subcommittee
for
volunteering
for
all
of
this
work
you
make
our
jobs
easier.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
these
excellent
ordinances.
I
just
wanted
to
comment
and
follow
up
on
some
of
the
comments
from
my
colleagues
and
I
had
some
questions
as
well.
So
I'll
start
with
the
questions.
C
If
I
can
director
so
I,
see
and
I
read
the
ordinance
about
the
outreach
meeting
to
the
community,
which
I
think
is
a
fabulous
idea.
I
just
wanted
a
little
more
specifics
about
the
thinking
behind
who
will
be
involved
with
that
and
the
notice
requirements.
It
looked
really
general
in
the
ordinance
it
just
said
to
residents
and
owners
and
neighborhood
organization.
So
will
that
be
really
run
by
the
city's
director
of
neighborhood
involvement
or
how
does
either
you
or
the
Commission
feel
free
to
please
join
in
as
well.
C
B
In
terms
of
the
organization
of
the
meeting,
the
applicant
would
be
responsible
for
selecting
the
venue
needs
to
be
in
the
general
location
of
where
the
project
is
located
and
would
also
be
responsible
for
preparing
the
mailing
list
of
labels,
which
staff
would
then
verify
and
staff
would
be
the
ones
responsible
for
sending
out
the
notices.
So
we
would
be
the
ones
who
would
be
doing
that
in
terms
of
the
notification
area
and
I'll
apologize.
B
B
The
idea
would
be
that
the
applicant
would
run
the
meeting
since
they
are
explaining
the
project,
but
staff
from
the
planning
services
department
would
be
there
to
monitor
the
meeting
and
be
available
for
questions
as
well,
and
then
the
applicant
would
also
be
responsible
for
providing
notes
and
a
list
of
attendance
at
the
meeting.
So
the
majority
of
the
responsibility
falls
to
the
applicant,
but
the
planning
services
department
would
make
sure
that
the
mailing
is
correct
would
also
attend
the
meeting
and
verify
that
the
meeting
was
held.
Thank.
C
You
so
I'm,
looking
at
page
15
for
the
redlined
version
of
a
draft
ordinance,
and
it
just
says
the
applicant
shall
conduct
at
least
one
in-person
outreach
meeting
in
accordance
with
the
procedures
outlined
by
the
director
planning
services.
So
maybe
that's
the
normal
radius
that
we're
talking
about,
but
it
just
says
in
general,
notification
shall
be
provided
to
surrounding
residents,
property
owners.
It
seems
vague
and
not
well-defined.
So
if
we
want
to
have
stricter
rules
to
note,
give
notice
to
the
applicants
about
who
really
they
need
to
notice.
C
C
I
had
a
few
other
questions
as
well:
one
on
affordable
housing,
so
I
see
that
and
I
agree
with
councilmember
Roberts
about
defining
the
public
benefit
categories.
I
would
like
to
see
it
more
well
defined
so
that
there
are
more
options
and
we
can
give
ideas
to
applicants
as
well,
but
I
see
that
we
defined
in
this
ordinance
affordable
housing
at
80%
of
the
adjusted
median
income
for
the
community,
which
is
maybe
sometimes
high.
C
If
we're
talking
about
what
type
of
affordable
housing
we
really
want
to
incentivize
I
think
this
is
a
great
ordnance
for
incentivizing,
affordable
housing.
So
thank
you
so
much
for
that.
This
is
really
important.
I
just
wanted
to
look
at
that
definition
of
80%
AMI
and
if
there
was
discussion
about
if
it
should
be
lower.
B
We
did
discuss
affordable
housing
in
terms
of
what
should
be
the
standard
and
I'll
ask
chair
lemak
if
you
recall
having
any
additional
discussion,
but
I
think
we
landed
on
80%
as
kind
of
being
the
median
range
that,
because
we
have
such
a
dearth
of
affordable
housing
here
in
Palm
Springs
that
we
didn't
want
to
limit
ourselves
too
severely
that
we
needed
both
in
the
the
60%
and
the
80%
range.
The.
H
30,
the
very
low
of
the
30%
35%
very
hard
to
do
without
subsidies
so
including
that,
even
though
it's
something
we
probably
would
all
like
to
see
there
just
at
currently,
there
aren't
subsidies
to
cover
that
60
is
the
tax
credit
limits
and
eighty
are
the
limits
for
tax-exempt
bonds.
So
it
depends
on
which
mechanism
you're
thinking
the
developer
would
finance
at
currently
you're,
probably
seeing
more
in
the
in
the
sixty
percent
range.
In
terms
of
where
the
financed
the
available
financing
is.
C
You
that's
helpful,
and
so
just
in
thinking
about
yeah
what
we
could
actually
incentivize,
but
thinking
that
maybe
we
would
get
projects
with
just
a
few
units
at
eighty
percent,
which
might
not
be
that
lower
than
market
rate
might
not
be
getting
to
what
what
we
want.
I
think
that
goes
to
the
councilmember
Roberts's
points
of
having
at
least
categories
or
some
sort
of
monetized
categories.
So
we
can
think
about
how
many
units,
how
much
I
mean
is
one
unit
at
eighty
percent.
You
know
how
would
all
of
that
fall
into
this
ordinance?
C
C
In
your
presentation
and
I
saw
it
in
the
staff
report
to
you
said
that
this
would
require
applicants
to
comply
with
the
underlying
underlying
zoning
unless
it's
allowed
by
the
general
plan.
I
know.
In
some
cases
we
have
conflicts
between
zoning
and
general
plan
in
a
lot
of
cases
right,
which
is
why
we've
been
over
relying
on
this
process.
So
if
there's
a
conflict,
then
what
would
control
and-
and
what
would
happen,
this
ordinance
typically.
B
Ultimately,
the
general
plan
would
apply
or
would
rule
when
you
have
a
conflict
between
the
general
plan
and
the
zoning.
This
reference
is
specific
to
height
and
in
the
general
plan
there
is
only
one
area
where
it
talks
about
height
and
that's
relative
to
the
downtown
area.
There
are
certain
locations
in
the
downtown
area
where
additional
height
was
desired,
and
so
that's
the
only
instance
where
more
height
is
allowed
under
the
general
plan.
B
C
So
what
options
would
be
available
to
counsel
if,
for
example,
we
had
a
mixed-use
project
that
was
going
to
include
affordable
housing
or
something
else
that
wanted
to
go
above
the
height
requirements?
Does
this
take
away
the
ability
to
have
counsel
have
discretion
about
going
above
the
height
requirements
or
the
density
yeah.
B
Potentially
it
does,
and
again
this
is
a
fine
line
that
we
tried
to
tread
in.
The
ad
hoc
committee
is
allowing
a
certain
degree
of
flexibility
while
not
allowing
too
many
waivers,
because
again,
some
of
the
charges
were
that
we
waived
too
much
in
the
past,
and
so
what
I
might
suggest
is
that
perhaps
we
look
at
the
development
standards
section
of
the
proposed
ordinance
and
allow
certain
exceptions
for
affordable
housing
and
only
for
affordable
housing
rather
than
other
types
of
projects.
So
that's
some
way
that
we
could
address
that.
C
K
C
What
that
looks
like
and
then
strike
that
balance,
which
you
all
have
done
really
well
and
then
I
guess.
My
last
question
is
really
to
the
Planning
Commission,
maybe
the
chair
or
staff,
but
we
I
liked
the
idea
of
asking
for
a
development
agreement
really
in
a
lot
of
these
projects
so
that
we
can
have
those
clear
requirements
for
public
benefit
and
and
more
easily
allow
affordable
housing,
whatever
public
benefit.
So
do
you
have
comments
about
that
now?
The.
H
Only
comment
I'd
have-
and
it
might
be
the
same
one
Flynn
might
have-
is
that
usually
we've
seen
development
agreements
when
we
anticipate
the
project
just
going
to
be
done
over
a
longer
time
period.
The
downtown
might
be
an
area
where
you
anticipate
a
longer
build-out
and
your
development
agreement
allows
for
that.
H
We
did
one
in
Sorrento
Park,
because
we
anticipated
they
would
be
building
out
over
a
longer
time
period
and
I
I,
don't
have
I
mean
we
clearly
looked
at
one
in
the
golfcourse
conversion,
ordinance
as
a
way
of
doing
that
ordinance
and
allowing
the
possibility
for
density
transfers.
So
it
makes
sense
to
me,
but
I
the
limitations
or
something
I
think
Flynn
might
have
to
say
what
his
comfort
level
is.
Yeah.
B
No
I
think
generally
requiring
a
development
agreement
may
be
a
useful
tool
for
planned
development
districts,
especially
if
it's
a
larger,
planned
development
district.
That's
going
to
be
developed
in
phases
having
some
type
of
a
development
agreement,
I
think
is
helpful
to
guarantee
that
process
for
smaller
projects.
It
may
not
be
as
helpful
and
actually
may
be,
a
burden
for
certain
projects.
You
know,
especially
if
the
project
is
for
affordable
housing.
C
B
B
Don't
want
to
create
more
holes,
yeah
the
development
agreement.
The
city
would
need
to
adhere
to
the
development
agreement,
as
would
the
applicant,
and
so
it
does
not
allow
future
City
Council's
to
make
modifications
unless
there
are
provisions
within
the
development
agreement
itself.
For
amendment
sorry.
B
C
B
C
You
and
those
are
all
the
questions.
I
have
I
just
wanted
to
comment
on
this
issue
about
the
gates.
I
agree
with
the
mayor,
pro-tem
cores
on
that
I
think
that
we
want
walkable
accessible
cities.
We
don't
want
them
to
be
gated
off
I.
That's
we
hear
that
a
lot
from
developers
that
they
want
to
be
that
the
public
wants
that
and
the
market
demands
that,
especially
in
thinking
about
moving
to
districts
and
having
candidates
run
district-wide
I
know
there
are
portions
of
indio
that
are
entirely
gated
off,
and
that
means
candidates
can't
reach
them.
C
A
A
I've
watched
you
working
on
this
last
couple
years
and
three
years
ago,
when
we
first
came
on
his
council,
everything
was
a
every
development
project
is
what
PDD
and
it
was
causing
us
so
much
trouble
and
we
had
no
real
control
and
it
was
the
developers
were
in
control.
We
weren't
and
I
think
this
is
gonna
fix
a
lot
of
those
problems.
I
have
one
quick
one
question,
and
this
is
for
Chris.
A
And
the
other
question
and
councilmember
holstege
brought
this
up
on
page
38.
The
definition
of
affordable
housing,
I
I
was
not
real
comfortable
with
that
definition,
because
it's
referencing
California
health
and
safety
codes,
and
so
it's
not
really
clear
ID
we
took
it's
such
an
important
issue
to
us.
I
think
we
should
make
sure
our
definition
of
this
is
very
clear
and
acceptable
to
all
of
us.
So
customer
roberts
did
you
have
another
question
before
kicked
us
over
to
the
Planning
Commission.
J
The
the
reason
we
have
to
leave
some
flexibility
is
every
now
and
then
you'll
hit
one
and
I
think
the
best
example
that
I
can
remember
is
vibe
I.
Think
it's
five
across
the
street
from
what's
going
to
be
the
new
co,
D
and
I.
Remember
we
allowed
gates
there
because
we
didn't
want
people
avoiding
parking
costs
by
now,
flooding
in
to
a
neighborhood.
So
there
are
situations
and
I
think
we
had
another
one
that
was
a
senior
housing
or
an
assisted
living.
J
Where
steps
it
would
have
made
more
sense
for
staff
to
have
better
control
within
the
project
dealing
with
people
that
might
not
have
their
full
mental
capacity.
So
we
have
to
leave
that
somewhat
flexible,
but
I
think
Sonny
wishes
had
it
for
years
to
simply
not
allow
gates,
unless
it's
absolutely
urgent,
we've.
H
Had
we've
had
one
or
two
people
come
back
with
amendments
to
peds
when
they've
been
in
a
much
more
urban
area
and
there
they've
had
people
coming
in
at
all
hours,
using
their
pools
and
parking
in
their
parking
and
people
have
come
back
and
in
that
instance,
that
was
a
safety
issue.
So
I
think
that's
been
pretty
individual.
We've
never
allowed
safety
issues
from
the
onset,
but
we
have
allowed
safety
issues
in
terms
of
PDD
modifications
and
I.
Think
there's
only
one
bull.
J
Gates
can
be
locked,
but
the
the
request
for
either
the
unproven
additional
safety
the
gates
provide,
and,
in
fact,
I
think,
statistics
show
it's
a
false
sense
of
safety
and
also
that,
because
our
buyers
want
it,
the
Planning
Commission
hasn't
been
going
for
that
for
years,
any
more
than
we
have
so
that
one's
been
that
one's
been
going
pretty
well
and
then,
with
the
only
thing
with
development
agreement.
I
know,
we'll
probably
be
talking
more
about.
That
is.
J
My
understanding
from
the
city
attorney
is
that
that
is
a
way
to
truly
to
create
the
vehicle,
that's
necessary
for
public
benefit,
and
although
we
normally
wouldn't
consider
that
in
cases
other
than
what
you
described,
Kathy
where
it
was
a
longer
project.
In
this
case
it
gives
us
the
box
to
put
the
benefit
into,
and
it
sounds
like
we
kind
of
needed
that
so
would
that
may
require
more
discussion.
Thanks.
L
Will
be
quick
and
it's
just
simply
a
caution
on
development
agreements
and
only
a
caution
once
we
sign
those
development
agreements.
As
the
director
said,
it
is
binding
on
the
city
and
we
need
only
look
at
the
downtown
project
as
an
example
where
we
were
able
to
go
back
and
scale
back
that
project
in
later
years
to
come
up
with
what
I
think
is
a
much
more
successful
project,
because
we
had
that
flexibility.
L
Had
there
been
a
development
agreement
in
place
when
the
council
took
over,
we
would
not
have
been
able
to
scale
that
downtown
project
back,
so
we
need
to
to
use
them,
but
be
very
careful
that
we've
got
everything
in
there
that
we
want,
because
once
we
sign
it,
we
are
also
bound
by
all
of
those
obligations.
Council.
C
You,
mr.
mayor
I,
just
had
a
follow
up
about
this
conversation
about
vehicular
access
on
page
39.
I
know
we're
not
writing
the
ordinance
and
and
voting
on
it
right
now,
but
I'm
wondering
if
we
can
say
documented
public
safety
concerns
or
something
like
that,
because
I
agree
that
everyone
will
claim
this
is
in
a
low-income
neighborhood.
It's
a
public
safety
concern
things.
We
don't
necessarily
want
people
to
to
raise,
but
we
maybe
if
we
have
real,
documented
public
safety
concerns
like
break-ins
or
things
that
she
was
saying
that
Kathy
was
saying
that
might
help.
A
E
You,
mr.
mayor,
it's
been
quite
a
long
effort
going
back
to
with
JR
and
they
looked
a
small
lot
committee
I,
remember,
sort
of
a
preach
editor
to
the
PDD
committee
and
Lisa
I
know
we've
struggled
through
this
on
the
Planning
Commission
as
well.
This
represents
a
major
change
for
the
city,
we're
going
from
a
very
flexible
PDD
system
to
one
that
is
more
traditional
City
that
will
follow
the
zoning,
our
zoning
rules
and
their
general
plan
and
those
are
going
to
mean
things
are
completely
inflexible.
There
is
always
the
possibility.
E
If
someone
wants
to
do
something
different
than
this
in
the
zoning,
you
can
do
a
zone
change.
What
a
concept
zone,
change
general
plan,
change,
that
sort
of
thing
or
a
specific
plan
where
you
can
do
a
lot
of
things
that
are
that
vary
from
the
standards.
If
you
really
want
to
do
that,
it's
a
more
cumbersome
process
than
a
PDD,
but
all
those
tools
are
still
available
in
the
special
cases
where
they
are
merit.
First,
they
are
discretionary
items
in
front
of
the
City
Council.
E
There's
still
a
lot
of
work
to
be
done:
I'm
gonna
emphasize
that
we've
got.
This
is
a
major
step
forward
if
it's
adopted,
but
the
the
biggest
thing
that's
yet
to
be
done
is
to
actually
update
our
zoning
ordinance
we're
going
to
have
a
lot
of
problems
going
forward.
If
we
say
you've
got
to
obey
the
zoning
ordinance
when
that,
in
fact,
the
zoning
ordinance
as
many
years
old
and
is
inconsistent
with
the
journal
plan,
I
don't
want
to
get
back
into
that
again,
but
I've
been
harping
on
that.
For
about
seven.
E
This
nearly
seven
years
I've
been
on
the
Planning
Commission.
We
need
to
fix
that
and
finally
we're
moving
forward
on
that.
In
particular,
we
need
to
update
the
multifamily
zoning
rules
to
address
single-family
condominiums
that
can.
That
is
a
new
way
that
you
could
do
the
small
lot
ordinance
that
we've
been
seeing
and
then
maybe
that's
what
we
want
to
do,
but
we
really
need
to
consider
you
could
have
Dakota
Dakota
like
project
or
a
soil
like
project
done,
as
rather
than
single
family
lots.
E
E
These
ordinances
moved
together
sometimes,
but
we
had
it
at
some
point
and
you
know
I
think
what
the
Planning
Commission
has
been
doing
is
assuming
we
start
with
the
presumption
that
gates
are
not
allowed,
and
the
developer
has
to
make
a
very
good
case
that
that
gates
are
a
requirement
for
the
project
to
go
forward
and
we've
been
looking
like
you
said
it
with
vibe.
We
were
looking
at
parking,
it's
and
some
of
the
cases
for
senior
housing.
We've
looked
at
that
way.
So
with
that
I
think
those
are
all
of
my
comments.
E
M
Thank
you,
Mary
moon
I
want
to
bring
back
to
what
councilmember
Roberts
mentioned
in
his
comments.
Obviously,
we
are
reacting
to
what
has
been
a
long
time,
abuse
of
the
PDT
process
and
the
way
we're
reacting
to
it
is
we're
making
an
extremely
inflexible
in
terms
of
it's
only
going
to
be
used
for
mixed-use
projects.
M
But
if
you
look
at
other
cities,
the
PDD
practice
has
been
very,
very
successful
in
not
its
abuse,
but
in
taking
very
complex,
strange,
odd
projects
where
you
sort
of
a
round
peg
in
a
square
hole
and
being
able
to
merge
the
uniqueness
of
the
project
with
certain
requirements
for
design
standards
that
aren't
necessarily
code
adaptable.
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
understand
what
we're
doing
here
is
we're
not
allowing
the
PDD
process
to
be
used
for
anything
other
than
mixed-use.
For
example,
counsel.
M
More
holstege
talked
about
the
situation
where,
let's
say,
you've
got
affordable,
housing
and
you've
got
a
conflict
between
affordable
housing
and
the
general
plan.
The
quickest
way
to
do
it
really
would
be
to
use
a
PDD
for
that
purpose
to
reconcile
the
differences.
But
again,
if
we
go
down
that
path,
we'd
have
to
be
very,
very
careful
that
we
are
limiting
the
PDD
for
very
unique
and
special
circumstances
where
the
zoning
and
the
other
inline
core
land
use
documents
just
didn't
work,
but
I
just
I
just
wanted
to
bring
that
up.
A
D
Thank
you,
so
yeah
I
would
just
like
to
amplify
a
little
bit
what
councilmember
holstege
talked
about
in
terms
of
outreach
meetings,
and
if
then
you
have,
but
if
you
have
listened
to
my
comments
over
the
years,
I've
been
critical
of
certain
projects
that
have
come
before
us.
We're
renters
were
not
notified.
Some
pretty
substantial
changes
adjacent
to
their
residences
and
I
was
told
at
one
point
that
there
was
some
of
the
council
was
going
to
address
that
more
generally
I,
don't
know
if
that's
happened
yet
it
has
so
so
right.
Now.
D
B
N
Want
to
say
that
if
anything
good
comes
out
of
a
lawsuit,
it
would
be
the
package
that's
in
front
of
you
today,
absolutely
because
it
gives
as
good
governance.
It
gives
assurances
to
people
that
the
City
Council,
the
Planning,
Commission
and
other
bodies
will
act
with
the
laws
that
they
believe
and
trust
that
they
put
into
place
and
I.
N
Think
that
does
this
I
think
your
questions
about
some
of
the
specifics
and
our
questions
that
we've
worked
on
in
the
specifics
are
incredibly
important
and
we
have
I
think
listen
to
the
public
very
strongly
on
all
of
this
and
I
think
the
package
before
you
does
the
same
and
I
think
your
questions
that
you're
proposing
are
also
fantastic
questions.
So
I
just
say
that
I
think
this
is
the
the
silver
lining
and
a
lawsuit.
C
Have
a
follow-up
question:
if
I
may,
because
I
think
that
was
a
really
good
point
about
the
timeline
that
our
zoning
code
is
so
outdated.
It's
it's
older
than
I.
Am
it's
a
good
talking
point
for
it,
it's
older
than
me
and
it's
outdated,
and
so
when
will
this
go
in
effect
and
when
will
we
update
the
zoning
code
so
that
we
won't
need
this
right?
That.
I
B
We'll
be
able
to
go
ahead
and
use
this
ordinance
and
we're
following
up
as
I
had
mentioned.
Mixed-Use
development
is
going
to
be
one
of
the
next
things
that
we
tackle
in
terms
of
updating
our
zoning
code
in
terms
of
other
changes
to
the
zoning
code
as
we
go
through
the
beginning
of
the
update
to
the
general
plan
that
will
inform
other
changes
that
we
need
to
make
to
the
zoning
code.
One
of
the
other
things
that
staff
is
working
on
is
doing
an
annual
update
to
the
zoning
code.
B
You
saw
recently
where
we
didn't
update
to
the
uses
that
permitted
uses
in
the
central
business
district
we'll
be
looking
at
other
zoning
districts
to
update
the
uses,
update
development
standards,
etc.
So,
there's
a
lot
of
smaller
ordinances
that
we
can
undertake
that
will
help
to
update
our
zoning
code
without
going
through
a
full
rewrite
process
that
would
take
several
years
so
again
we're
looking
at
doing
it
in
small
bites
and
getting
a
lot
of
things
taken
care
of
where
there
are
issues
currently
I
do.
H
A
B
In
terms
of
the
proposed
small
lot
ordinance
as
I
had
mentioned,
this
is
also
an
outgrowth
of
the
PDD
recommendations
in
actuality.
Our
Planning
Commission
established
a
subcommittee
way
back
in
2014,
of
which
mr.
Roberts
was
also
a
member
of
that
committee
at
that
point
in
time,
along
with
commissioners,
where
muck
and
Keller
Dean,
and
now
commissioner
Irvine
as
part
of
that
committee,
but
we
had
looked
at
this
as
a
way
to
reduce
the
number
of
applications
PDD
applications.
B
Since
the
small
lot
development
pattern
was
one
that
isn't
permitted
in
our
zoning
code
and
the
planned
development
district
process
was
the
only
way
to
achieve
that.
So
what
this
will
do
is
number
one
implement
the
recommendations
of
the
ad
hoc
PD
committee.
Secondly,
it
will
create
a
standard
zoning
district
for
small
lot
development
and
then
third,
it
will
allow
for
smaller
single
family
lots
right
now.
Our
zoning
code
has
a
minimum
lot
size
of
7500
square
feet.
B
B
The
subcommittee
that's
been
in
place
for
the
Planning
Commission
looked
at
examples
of
other
cities,
who've
adopted
small
lot
development
standards.
We
looked
at
our
other
cities
in
the
Coachella
Valley
LA
has
an
ordinance.
Glendale
has
an
ordinance,
and
there
were.
There
was
an
ordinance
that
I
worked
on
while
I
was
in
Las
Vegas.
In
addition
to
that,
we
actually
examined
a
number
of
the
small
lot
developments
in
Palm
Springs,
and
we
looked
at
things
as
diverse
as
to
what
their
density
was
in
terms
of
the
dwelling
units
to
the
acre.
B
We
looked
at
their
minimum
lot
sizes
their
lot
with
their
lot
coverage,
and
so
we
examined
a
lot
of
different
projects
to
kind
of
understand
what
their
development
standards
were
and
what
their
characteristics
were
to
use.
As
a
model,
we
put
together
an
initial
draft
of
a
small
law
ordinance
and
we
started
out
looking
at
a
4,000
square
foot
minimum
lot
size.
We
were
also
considering
a
two-story
height
limit
requiring
public
and
private
open
space
because
we
had
issues
with
parking
within
some
of
the
small
lot
developments
that
had
been
developed
here
in
Palm
Springs.
B
We
were
also
looking
at
additional
parking
requirements
getting
down
to
how
wide
the
streets
needed
to
be
where
sidewalks
could
be,
and
it
got
to
be
a
little
bit
cumbersome.
It
became
a
little
bit
difficult
to
administer
and
I
think
it
was
a
little
bit
difficult
for
either
applicants
or
the
public
to
understand
and
looking
at
an
initial
draft,
and
so
we
went
back
to
the
drawing
board
and
we
looked
at
an
actual
example
in
the
city
of
Palm
Springs.
B
That
would
be
a
good
model
for
small
lot
development
and
what
we
came
across
was
the
Vista
Santa
Rosa
subdivision,
which
is
in
the
war
sans
area.
It's
bordered
by
Ramon
on
the
north
Camino
para
Sela
on
the
south,
and
it
is
located
just
east
of
Indian
Canyon.
This
subdivision
was
actually
mapped
back
in
1927
and
in
some
of
the
historical
research
it
indicates
that
it
was
a
subdivision
for
working
people
in
Palm,
Springs,
so
I
kind
of
liked
that
as
a
model,
the
lot
size
within
that
subdivision
is
between
5,000
and
6,000
square
feet.
B
The
height
of
the
houses
in
that
neighborhood
is
one
story,
and
then
the
streets
are
standard
street
widths,
so
it
does
allow
for
parking
on
both
sides
and
while
there
aren't
sidewalks,
particularly
in
this
neighborhood,
the
street
width
would
allow
for
that
or
the
right-of-way
width
would
allow
for
that
again.
Looking
at
this
as
a
model,
here's
some
examples
from
homes
within
that
subdivision.
Again,
it's
a
very
pleasant
scale
in
terms
of
its
development,
the
one-story
height
is
consistent
with
what
we
see
in
other
residential
neighborhoods.
B
B
We're
proposing
a
minimum
lot
width
of
50
feet
for
interior
Lots
55
feet
for
corner
Lots
to
allow
additional
setback
on
the
secondary
street
in
terms
of
the
setbacks,
we're
proposing
a
15
foot
setback
for
the
house
from
the
front
and
then
a
20
foot
setback
for
the
garage.
The
reason
for
that
is
number
one.
It
allows
a
standard
depth
parking
space
in
front
of
the
garage
and
then,
secondly,
what
that
does
is
it
brings
the
house
forward
rather
than
the
garage,
and
so
the
garage
isn't
the
most
prominent
element
on
the
street.
B
B
We
are
allowing
an
increase
in
lock
coverage
up
to
45
percent
to
allow
for
the
smaller
lot
size
and
then
in
terms
of
streets.
What
we
would
propose
is
that
we
just
use
our
standard
street
dimensions,
and
so
that
would
be
a
60
foot
right-of-way,
which
allows
for
32
feet
of
payment
with
parking
on
both
sides
and
sidewalks
on
both
sides.
If
that
is
something
that's
desired,
the
Planning
Commission
subcommittee
and
the
Planning
Commission
had
recommended
a
couple
of
modifications
to
our
general
r1
standards.
B
One
is
to
allow
for
zero
lot
line
development
within
the
r1e
zoning
district.
Secondly,
because
the
lot
sizes
are
smaller,
they
have
proposed
that
we
allow
tandem
garages
and
so
that's
one
parking
space
in
front
of
the
other,
also
to
allow
garages
to
encroach
into
rear
yard
setback
areas
and
to
allow
alley
loaded
garages.
B
We
did
a
number
of
iterations
looking
at
what
this
would
result
in
in
terms
of
the
setback
requirements,
the
lot
coverage
requirements
and
the
resulting
house
size.
That
would
be
permissible.
What
we
found
with
the
setbacks
that
we
are
proposing
and
with
the
lot
coverage
limited
at
45%,
even
on
the
smallest
lot,
you'd
still
be
allowed
to
have
an
1,800
square
foot
house
and
that's
the
living
area
with
a
450
square
foot
garage
and
that
doesn't
allow
you
to
max
out
your
setbacks.
And
so
you
wouldn't
be
building
right
up
to
all
the
setbacks.
B
You'd
still
have
a
generously
sized
house
and
ample
open
space
on
the
lot
itself,
as
you
increase
the
lot
size
I've.
Given
you
examples
there
of
a
6,000
square
foot
lot
and
a
7,000
square
foot
lot
again.
The
house
size
can
increase,
but
you
don't
ever
maximize
your
setbacks
that
the
lot
coverage
keeps
the
overall
open
space
in
check
on
the
house
and
on
the
development.
B
What
I
think
will
be
the
more
typical
example,
as
you
see
on
the
right
is
to
do
a
three
foot,
exclusive
use,
easement
area
on
one
side
and
then
you'd
be
required
to
have
a
nine
foot,
set-aside
yard
setback.
On
the
other
side.
Again,
it
still
results
in
a
twelve
foot
side
yard,
that's
usable.
In
this
instance,
it
gives
you
a
little
bit
more
flexibility
in
terms
of
the
openings
on
the
side
where
the
exclusive
use
easement
is
so
again.
Those
are
just
two
different
examples
of
zero
lot
line
development
that
would
be
permissible.
B
One
of
the
things
that
the
Planning
Commission
recommended
was
having
rear
loaded
garages,
either
from
an
alleyway
or
else
having
a
driveway
along
one
side
of
the
house
where
the
garage
is
at
the
rear
of
the
property.
And
so
we
went
through
those
iterations
to
see
how
that
would
work
and
how
that
could
be
permissible
and
again
it
maintains
the
house
size
and
maintains
the
basic
character
of
the
neighborhood.
So
that
is
also
permissible
under
this
proposed
ordinance.
B
In
terms
of
consistency
with
the
general
plan,
the
proposed
small
lot
development
would
be
consistent
with
two
existing
residential
land-use
categories:
either
the
low
density
residential
category
or
the
medium
density
residential
category
both
allow
single-family
development.
It's
really
looking
at
the
lot
size
and
the
dwelling
units
to
the
acre,
where
it
would
be
most
appropriate
and
generally
density
from
the
r1e
district
would
range
from
about
five
dwelling
units
to
the
acre
at
your
larger
lot
sizes
up
to
7.5
dwelling
units
to
the
acre.
B
When
you
get
down
to
the
5,000
square
foot
lot
sizes
in
terms
of
the
implementation,
the
city
isn't
looking
to
rezone
properties
to
our
1e.
Rather
we
would
let
the
applicants
file
a
changes
own
applic,
along
with
a
tentative
map
application,
and
that
would
be
the
process
that
we
would
use,
and
so
again
they
would
look
for
areas
where
the
general
plan
would
permit
that
in
terms
of
the
density
and
then
filed
the
changes,
own
application
and
the
map
application
together,
and
so
again
the
city
would
not
be
going
through
and
rezoning
properties
with
that.
B
H
Yeah
we
just
thought
this
was
elegant.
It
allowed
us
to
use
smaller
Lots.
It
allowed
us
to
keep
the
street
system.
We
didn't
worry
about
the
amount
of
public
open
space
it
it
allowed
for
the
possibility
of
sidewalks,
and
we
we
all
liked
it.
It
was
much
easier
to
work
with
and
the
configurations
we
had
tried
to
do
when
we
were
looking
at
4,000
square
foot,
Lots
and
ratios
of
public
open
space
and
narrow
streets
and
gated
communities.
H
A
Okay,
thank
you,
Council
one
question
I
had
on
this
like
share
Mike
said
it's
an
elegant
solution,
but
one
question
I
had
is
you
gave
examples
of
some
existing
small
lot
developments
like
Maryland's,
Sola
cetera?
You
didn't
mention
the
Dakota,
which
you
know.
We
really
don't
want.
Imagine
that
one
bit,
but
all
of
those
are
two-story.
What
is
the
logic
and
not
allowing
two-story
on
these.
B
On
the
smaller
Lots,
you
know
we
did
consider
that
as
I
had
mentioned
back
at
the
beginning,
and
it
really
came
down
to
an
issue
of
neighborhood
character
that
our
single-family
neighborhoods
are
really
characterized
by
the
one
store
development
and
that's
something
that
the
Planning
Commission
felt
was
important
to
preserve.
What
we
were
able
to
demonstrate
is
that
you'd
still
be
able
to
achieve
the
square
footage
for
a
fairly
generous
sized
house
without
having
to
go
to
two
storeys.
Now
there
were
other
things
that
were
discussed.
B
You
know,
you
know
you
could
do
larger
side
yards
if
you
went
to
a
two-story,
but
I
think
there
were
just
so
many
concerns
about
the
fact
that
where
we
would
have
these
adjacent
to
single-family
neighborhoods,
you
don't
want
two
stories
next
to
one
story,
and
so
it
just
was
easier
to
have
a
one-story
height
limit
in
terms
of
maintaining
the
character
here
in
the
city.
Okay
and.
H
J
Thanks
Muir
and
I
agree
with
chair
Warmack
I
think
this
is
an
elegant
solution
and
we
did
struggle
with
this
and
I
think
we
probably
over
overcomplicated
that
over
the
years
looking
for
the
right
solution
and
I
mean
it
looks
like
you
zeroed
in
on
it.
Thank
you,
I
think
what
I
was
most
moved
on
with
all
of
this
and
I
have
nothing
to
add
to
it.
J
E
So
that
the
councilmember
Roberts
is
right,
we
struggled
with
the
going
to
smaller
loss
and
we
kept
running
into
problems,
just
note
that
you
can
still
go
to
smaller
physical
Lots
through
the
condominium
process.
If
you
want
to
make
it
do
it
that
way,
so
that
doesn't
say
we
can't
do
another
soul
or
something
like
that,
but
it
would
have
to
be
kind
of
minion
Lots
rather
than
standard,
separate
Lots.
N
N
Think
this
ordinance
really
tries
to
get
us
away
from
that
idea
that
it
needs
to
be
all
about
the
car,
and
it
could
be
more
about
the
people
that
live
in
the
community
connecting
on
the
street
as
a
public
space
and
I.
Think
this
ordinance
as
Kathy
had
put.
It
is
an
elegant
way
to
do
that
and
I
encourage
you
to
approve
it.
O
A
B
P
You,
director
and
council
members
and
planning
commissioners.
So
it's
a
bit
of
background.
This
ordinance
came
out
of
a
request
by
the
Planning
Commission
a
year
ago,
so
last
December,
the
Commission
requested
staff,
worked
with
the
Subcommittee
on
putting
together
an
ordinance
to
address
golf
course
conversions.
So,
as
you
see
on
the
screen,
the
ad
hoc
subcommittee
met
on
ten
different
occasions
over
the
past
year
and
the
Planning
Commission
held
a
study
session
on
this
item
back
in
April,
with
public
hearings
in
June
and
a
recommendation
for
approval
in
October.
P
So
the
ordinance
it
has
six
sections
sections
A
through
F
and
now
go
through
each
of
those
with
you
briefly
so
section
a
is
the
purpose
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
where
it
started.
It
basically
gives
an
overview
of
what
the
ordinance
is
about.
It's
about
maintaining
open
space,
preserving
views
and
access,
providing
neighborhood
outreach
and
introduces
the
two-step
process
that
the
ordinance
and
visions
or
requires
as
a
part
of
any
conversion
application.
P
It
provides
a
description
of
the
neighborhood
outreach
requirements
and
establishes
that
there's
going
to
be
development
standards
as
a
part
of
this
process.
So
the
ordinance
itself
it
does
in
its
applicability.
We
added
that
definition
that
it
includes
golf
courses
that
are
both
operational
and
non
operational
in
the
city.
Currently,
the
city
has
nine
golf
courses
that
are
either
operational
or
non
operational.
P
P
So
essentially
it
would
require
them
to
describe
what
would
be
the
case
of
a
no
conversion
application,
a
partial
conversion,
application
where
you
may
have
a
three-hole
course
or
a
nine-hole
course,
an
opt,
an
alternative
scenario
where
you
may
have
a
donation
or
purchase
either
to
align
Conservancy
or
possibly
the
adjacent
neighborhood
owners,
and
then,
lastly,
the
typically.
What
we
see
is
the
preferred
alternative
for
applicants,
which
is
the
full
conversion
request
and
as
a
part
of
the
intent
to
convert
application
process.
P
P
Section
E
is
what
describes
what
is
the
it's?
The
compatibility
review
guidelines.
So
there
are
a
number
of
guidelines
that
must
be
considered
by
both
the
Planning
Commission
and
the
City
Council
and
looking
at
these
requests,
and
they
relate
to
compatibility
to
the
design
of
the
project,
applicants,
responsiveness
to
community
input,
environmental
impacts
and
compatibility
with
adjacent
residential
development.
P
And,
finally,
section
F
of
the
ordinance
describes
the
development
standards
and
has
a
list
of
things
that
an
applicant
must
adhere
to
for
any
conversion
application.
One
a
couple
of
notable
ones
that
I'll
point
out
are
the
open
space,
any
Golf
Course
conversion
application
must
include
a
minimum
of
50%
open
space,
and
that
is
maybe
what
we're
calling
desert
Greenway
in
the
ordinance
desert.
Greenway
is
essentially
a
landscape
area
within
the
project.
It
could
also
be
naturalized
open,
desert,
open
space,
artificial
ponds.
P
So
the
standard
for
a
desert
Greenway
is
a
minimum
of
a
hundred
and
one
hundred
seventy-five
feet
so
and
I
think
it
was
important
as
a
part
of
this
process
to
clarify
what
this
ordinance
does
for
the
public
as
well
as
just
in
general.
It
does
not
encourage
golf
course:
development,
a
redevelopment
of
golf
courses.
There
was
a
misconception
that
what
we're
doing
here
is
looking
to
encourage
developers
to
come
and
submit
applications
to
do
a
redevelopment
of
golf
course.
That's
not
what
this
ordinance
it
does.
P
It
really
provides
a
set
of
standards
that
one
would
have
to
adhere
to
if
they
were
to
purchase
a
golf
course
and
say
I'm
going
to
redevelop
that
that
course,
and
and
with
this
ordinance
we
would
have
standards
in
place
already.
That
says
well,
if
I
redeveloped,
that
course
I
have
to
have
half
of
it,
is
open
space.
So
it
does
not
encourage
Golf
Course
redevelopment.
P
It
does
not
also
address
transfer
of
density
or
development
rights.
So,
with
the
development
agreement
were
essentially
creating
a
way
to
negotiate
what
what
we
would
do
with
money
or
transferring
of
open
space
land
and
there's
a
part
of
a
project,
and
so
that's
why
we
essentially
went
back
to
just
a
requiring
a
development
agreement
for
any
Golf
Course
conversion.
P
But
the
ordinance
does
do
it
does
establish
a
process
to
convert
open
space.
Golf
Course,
open
space
require
a
level
a
greater
level
of
public
outreach
that
a
developer
would
have
to
go
through.
It
creates
minimum
standards
for
open
space
and
setbacks
and
eliminates
the
potential
for
complete
redevelopment
of
an
entire
Golf
Course
to
commercial,
residential
or
otherwise.
P
So
one
item
that
we
wanted
to
point
out
when
we
were
looking
at
our
open
space
element
is
this
table
within
the
open
space
element
that
talks
about
what
the
city
has
in
terms
of
its
parks
and
golf
courses.
So
there's
a
total
of
1517,
a
KERS
in
the
city
that
is
developed
with
parks,
generally
public
parks,
as
well
as
golf
courses.
So
you'll
note
that
9%
of
the
recreational
acreage
in
the
city
in
the
open
space
parks,
recreation
element
is
devoted
to
two
golf
course.
Spaces.
P
However,
that
does
not
we
do
not
that's
not
the
only
recreational
space
that
the
city
does
have.
The
city
also
has
a
network
of
trails,
bike
lanes
and
other
recreational
amenities,
so
we
are
94
square
miles
in
size,
but
so
that's
just
one
piece
of
a
kind
of
the
parks.
Recreation
element.
It's
one
piece
of
the
city's
overall
network
of
recreational
uses
that
occur
and
we
have
the
kind
of
a
map
that
shows
you
the
outline
of
the
city's
boundary
on
the
left
and
some
of
the
amenities
of
parks
within
the
city.
P
So
I
just
like
to
conclude
that,
as
the
staff
report
was
completed,
we
did
receive
the
letter
from
the
tribe.
They
are
recommending
denial
of
the
ordinance
for
three
reasons.
The
liked
tribe
felt
that
the
Golf
Course
redevelopment
should
be
reviewed
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
So
this
is
information
that
was
not
available
to
the
Planning
Commission
when
they
were
looking
at
this
developing
this
ordinance
and
I'm
recommending
it
to
the
council.
P
The
second
reason
for
now
recommendation
is
that
open
space
and
desert
greenways
are
not
compatible
with
the
highest
and
best
use
of
allotted
trustee
land
and,
lastly,
that
the
intent
to
convert
process
is
too
onerous.
So
I'll
conclude
with
that,
I
can
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
may
have.
Mr.
mayor.
Thank.
A
H
We've
during
my
six
and
a
half
years,
we've
dealt
with
a
couple
of
golf
course:
conversions,
the
most
difficult
of
which
was
sarena
Park
and
we
didn't
have
Stan.
When
we
went
into
sarena
park.
We
were
lucky
to
have
a
good
developer
to
work
with
on
that,
but
that
developer
I
think
had
about
60
neighborhood
meetings.
We
we
had,
they
met
with
several
neighborhoods
that
were
concerned
with
the
conversion
of
that
space,
which
had
been
allowed
to
be
feral
for
many
many
years
and
had
become
a
neighborhood
problem.
H
Yet
there
were
many.
There
were
many
meetings,
I
think
we
had
about
11
meetings
on
it.
If
I'm
correct
is
that
is
that
the
right
number
Flynn?
We
had
a
lot
and
we
didn't
have
standards,
but
we
had
seen
in
the
PD
process.
We
had
read
some
of
the
Golf
Course
conversion
ordinances
that
had
been
developed
as
the
best
models
in
the
country
out
of
Florida,
because
Flynn
had
brought
those
to
our
attention
and
those
were
things
that
we
looked
at.
H
So
we
were
able
in
Serrano
park
to
get
47%
open
space
out
of
that
development.
A
center
road
going
through
it
that
stayed
open
and
some
interior
park
spaces,
and
but
even
in
that
process
we
weren't
able
to
tie
down
some
things
like
we
never
got
to
architecture
of
the
homes
that
were
going
to
be
built
because
we
didn't
have
time
in
all
those
meetings
and
that's
still
something
that's
in
front
of
us.
H
So
when
we
looked
at
what
it
took
to
start
something
from
scratch
with
the
I
would
say
the
most
amenable
and
helpful
developer
and
most
progressive
developer,
we
could
think
to
work
with
on
a
project
like
that
it
was
overwhelming,
and
so
what
we
really
wanted
were
guidelines
for
any
and
it's
I
think
irresponsible.
To
think
that
no
golf
courses
will
convert,
because
that
is
happening.
So
we
don't
want
them
to
convert.
We
want
them
to
stay
profitable
and
stay
stay
open,
but
in
case
they
do.
H
We
wanted
some
guidelines
to
work
with,
and
the
very
first
and
most
important
was
public
meetings
and
a
range
of
public
meetings,
including
at
least
one
citywide
meeting,
because
the
the
loss
of
a
golf
course
base
is
not
just
important
to
the
HOAs
or
the
houses
that
surround
it.
It
may
be
important
to
people
who
live
as
far
as
five
miles
away,
who
come
to
walk
their
dog
there
or
hike
there
or
bike
through
a
particular
area
or
ride
their
horses
through
a
particular
area.
So
we
we
felt
that
the
public
issues
were
important.
H
We
also
know
that
many
of
the
golf
courses
have
incredible
agreements
with
their
neighbors
to
some.
Some
of
them
even
have
agreements
where
the
neighbors
pay
them
hundred
thousands
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
per
year
to
maintain
the
golf
courses
and
that
the
developers
when
they
come
in
to
us
might
not
tell
us
about
those
agreements.
H
So
we
wanted
to
know
what
those
were,
and
we
also
wanted
some
perspectives
on
what
kind
of
environmental
issues
we
would
deal
with
mainly
what
the
main
environmental
issues
I
think
with
these
are
waterways,
that
many
of
our
golf
courses
are
part
of
the
wash
or
part
of
waterways
and
they're
flooding.
They
can
flood
the
adjacent
areas.
We
don't
know
what
those
issues,
so
we
wanted
a
preliminary
sense
before
we
ever
looked
at
it
of
what
the
environmental
were,
and
we
we
also
met
with
several.
H
H
We
think
people
can
get
through
those
those
pieces,
it's
basically
giving
information
and
in
involving
the
developer
in
meetings
on
the
standards.
We
knew
that
each
golf
course
would
be
different.
That's
why
we
put
in
a
standard
of
50
percent
open
space,
but
not
necessarily
knowing
if
it
could
be
clustered
if
it
would
be
a
green
way
or
a
buffer
between
the
existing
homes
who
are
or
just
view
rights,
not
rights,
but
views
for
people
who
drive
down
feral
or
one
of
the
streets.
H
Where
you
see
a
golf
course
in
its
your
view
of
open
space
in
the
city
or
you
walk
along
the
sidewalks
along
it.
So
we
wanted
to
help
preserve
those
areas
we
didn't
dictate.
What
kind
of
development
would
go
in
only
that
if
it
was
buffering
residential
that
there
would
be
setbacks,
that
would
protect
the
homeowners
that
are
there
and
then
we
wanted
in
the
we
wanted.
A
specific
plan
because
we
want
the
developer
to
tell
us
what
their
standards
are
for
development
early
on.
H
So
we
want
to
know
if
they
don't
know
who
is
a
builder
is
going
to
be
what
the
rules
are
for
that
builder
in
terms
of
what
kind
of
building
they're
going
to
do,
and
we
also
wanted
something
that
we
knew
that
they
if
there
were
roads
that
have
been
cut
off
by
the
golf
course
in
the
past,
there
was
the
ability
for
the
city
if
it
needed
you
to
put
the
roads
back
in
in
some
in
some
fashion.
So
those
were
the
things
we
were
looking
at.
We
we
have
been.
H
We
did
work
with
good
models
and
we
worked
with
great
staff
and
with
the
with
the
Planning
Commission
attorney
Jim
priest,
to
make
sure
what
we
were
doing
was
legal
and
that
we
could
do
it
and
that
it
it
was
a
workable
plan.
A
number
of
the
members
of
the
community
came
to
us
and
asked
us
for
70%
open
space
for
60%,
open
space,
I'm,
not
sure
what
the
magic
number
is.
We
stayed
with
50
because
we
had
gotten
close
to
47
in
Sorrento
Park
and
we
didn't.
H
We
thought
that
there
was
a
point
at
which
we
were
not
doing
a
conversion
ordinance
with
rules
but
doing
a
prohibition.
So
we
didn't
want
to
do
a
prohibition,
but
we
wanted
to
honor
the
fact
that
most
of
the
open
space
that
people
enjoy
in
this
city,
even
if
they
can't
use
it
unless
they
rent
a
golf
cart,
is-
is
still
the
the
golf
courses
that
were
used
as
an
inducement
for
people
to
buy
homes
around
them.
J
Thank
you
and
again,
thank
you
for
your
great
work
on
this
more
great
policy.
So
you'll
have
to
forgive
my
next
two
questions.
So
one
of
my
favorite
New
Yorker
cartoons
is
a
guy
standing
at
his
desk,
holding
a
phone
scheduling,
an
appointment
and
what
he
says
is
no
Thursday's
out
house.
Never
does
never
work
for
you
and
I
think
that
cartoon
applies
in
that
height
I
can't
help
wondering
what
would
happen
if
we
didn't
do
this,
so
golf
courses
are
zoned
as
open
space.
J
J
Golf
courses
we
just
learn
and
I
didn't
know
that
statistic
make
up
the
majority
of
our
open
space.
I
I'm
not
advocating
for
this
necessarily
but
I,
think
it's
a
question
that
has
to
be
asked.
Why
allow
them
to
be
converted
to
housing
simply
well
hold
on
Kathy.
Just
simply
why?
Why
not
simply
say?
No,
the
zoning
change
is
not
allowable
on
open
space
that
it
was
formerly
used
as
golf
courses
Syrena
park,
which
we
worked
on,
was
unfortunate.
J
Syrena
Park,
passed
through
hands
of
developers
and
went
into
bankruptcies
and
all
sorts
of
things
and
the
poor
people
that
had
to
live
around
it
really
suffered,
because
basically,
it
turned
into
a
Dust
Bowl
when
I
first
thought
it
looked
like
Oklahoma
in
in
a
Steinbeck
book
and
I
knew
you'd
like
that.
Fine,
so
I,
there's
part
of
me
that
doesn't
want
to
me.
J
I
almost
fear
that,
even
though
this
is
a
Cumbre,
cumbersome
and
intense
and
well
written
policy
for
conversion,
it
now
creates
the
opportunity
it
creates
a
path
for
a
conversion
and
there's
a
part
of
me
who
doesn't
want
to
create
a
path
for
conversion
to
anything
other
than
recreational
space
parks.
And
so
the
argument
I
would
use.
Is
that
so
maybe
without
the
opportunity
to
convert
to
housing
golf
courses,
don't
have
so
much
land
value.
J
J
It
doesn't
make
sense
financially
for
the
maintenance
of
the
land
and
so
forth,
but
they
could
be
turned
into
parks
and
they
could
be
turned
into
wall
areas
of
water,
and
if
they
don't
have
this
tremendous
value,
it
perhaps
have
gifts,
cities
an
opportunity
to
buy
them
as
parkland,
or
give
the
surrounding
developments
that
were
built
around
them,
an
opportunity
to
buy
them
for
green
space
or
recreational
space.
So
I
just
throw
that
out
there
I
I'm
not
thoroughly
convinced
that
I
like
the
idea
of
giving
a
path
to
conversion.
A
P
A
They've
indicated
they
would
probably
do
okay
yeah,
you
know,
council,
member
Roberts
has
a
good
some
good
points
there.
He
always
does,
but
one
of
the
questions
I
keep
thinking
about
is
is
the
is
the
rights
of
a
private
private
ownership
of
land,
and
if
someone
owns
land,
I
can
certainly
understand
why.
If
someone
owns
property,
this
looks
on
a
golf
course
and
that
Golf
Course
is
privately
owned.
The
Golf
Course
becomes,
or
it's
not
usable
anymore,
because
the
sport
is
not
as
popular
as
it
used
to
be.
A
That
person
now
has
some
land
and
I,
don't
see
where
it's
really
right.
For
that
person
for
people.
The
liver
they're
around
this.
To
expect
that
person
to
maintain
that
land
to
water,
that
land
to
and
otherwise
there's
just
let
it
go.
Let
it
go
foul,
oh
and
you
end
up
with
a
Sarina
Park
type
situation
where
you
have
dust
blowing
and
you
have
Homa
in
the
dustbowl.
So
if
someone
does
not
have
the
opportunity
to
use
time,
I
privately-owned
not
publicly
owned
land
a
privately
owned
land.
A
If
there's
not
a
course
to
a
reasonable
development
of
that
land.
Let's
say
like
7,500
square
foot
fold
full
size,
housing
developmental
arts,
that
that
land
is
just
going
to
sit
there
and
go
fallow
because
they're
not
going
to
sit
there
and
pay
for
that.
So
I
think
we
I
think
that's
important
that
we
have
a
route
to
be
able
to
convert
golf
courses
if
necessary,
we're
talking
about
50%
coverage
and
if
on
7500
foot
square
foot
Lots
like
I,
know
the
bel-air
greens
they're
sort
of
kicking
that
idea
around.
A
You
only
can
do
35%
lot
coverage
I
think
on
a
7,500
square
foot
lot.
So
you're
talking
about
65
percent.
You
know
open
space
on
that
and,
if
you
do,
the
small
Lots
like
we
were
just
talking
about
that's
still
45
or
50
55
percent
open
space,
so
I
think
we
I
think
it's
important
that
we
have
this
procedure
and
have
a
reasonable
procedures
for
people
who
owned
privately
owned
land
and
want
to
do
a
reasonable
development.
Otherwise
we're
going
in
to
put
that
land
nobody's
gonna
be
looking
at
some
nice
grassy
golf
course.
K
Thank
you,
mayor
and
I
appreciate
both
of
your
comments,
because
I
think
they're
both
important
to
this
discussion.
I
was
been
quite
thinking
quite
where
you
were,
although
I'm
intrigued
by
it.
I
was
thinking
more
in
the
70
percent
range,
because
50
percent
is
what
were
it's
in
the
TDD
ordinance
and
to
me
someone
bought.
This
is
open
space.
They
didn't
buy
it
as
developable
property.
So
it's
a
little.
It's
not
the
same.
I
absolutely
get
the
private
property
rights,
but
it's
a
little
different
than
someone
bought
land
that
was
zoned
for
residential
or
commercial.
K
This
was
zoned
as
open
space.
They
bought
it
with
that
in
mind,
and
now
they
want
to
change
it
to
something
else.
So
to
me,
if
we're
going
to
allow
that
it
needs
to
be
more
than
what's
in
the
in
the
in
the
PDD
process.
So
I
just
think
that
we're
treating
this
like
we
were
treated.
Pdd
I
have
some
issue
with
that
amount
of
use
ii.
K
Just
think
we're
I'm
struggling
here
is
with
councilman
Robert
suggestion
is,
and
maybe
there's
an
answer
to
it.
If
we
said
actually
we're
not
gonna
give
up.
You
know
the
open
space,
let's
just
say
for
argument's
sake.
How
do
we
prevent?
Oh,
nothing
gets
Oklahoma,
but
that's
where
we're
at
tonight.
But
how
do
we
prevent
someone
from
just
saying
I
mean?
Yes,
we
can
find
them,
etc,
but
how
do
we
really
prevent
it?
K
Because
if
someone
can't
make
a
golf
course,
work
and
I
want
proof
that
they
actually
can't
make
a
golf
course
work,
not
just
because
they
see
more
dollar
signs
at
the
end
because
I'm
concerned,
that's
what's
gonna
happen
from
this.
It's
you
know.
The
golf
course
is
doing:
okay,
it's
not
what
they
would
like
and
they
can
make
more
money,
turning
half
of
it
into
residential.
So
I,
don't
want
to
see
that
happen
and
I
know,
that's
not
the
goal.
You
don't
want
to
encourage
it,
but
I
I
worry,
that's
might
be
the
unintended
consequence.
K
B
Yeah
that
becomes
kind
of
a
difficult
question,
and
some
of
the
things
that
have
been
brought
up
in
the
public
meetings
that
have
been
held
is
that
the
city
should
adopt
standards
to
continue
to
maintain
a
golf
course.
Even
if
it
isn't
operational,
but
again,
there
becomes
a
challenge
for
the
property
owner
is
how
do
you
pay
for
the
maintenance
when
there
is
no
active
use
on
the
property,
and
so
there
has
to
be
some
balance
between
an
active
use
and
being
able
to
maintain
the
property
and
that's
again,
the
difficult
question.
B
K
Sorry
event,
my
thought
is
that
we
move
to
a
higher
percentage
of
open
space
and
I
think
we
want
to
discourage
people
from
actually
doing
this.
I
don't
know
if
you
could
have
something
where
you
know
you
have
to
show
that
they're
losing
considerable
money,
and
that
was
probably
too
difficult.
But
you
know
that's
kind
of
stuff.
I
would
be
interested
in.
H
H
So
if
you
were
running
and
say
a
multi-family
with
a
45%
open
space
requirement
that
wouldn't
count,
it's
50%
open
you're,
not
not
counting
any
of
the
developed
land
or
the
streets.
So
that
really
leaves
you
with
probably
more
open
space.
But
50%
of
it
is
absolutely
open
that
and-
and
that
was
how
we
crafted
it-
to
make
sure
that
it
wasn't
included
in
the
open
space.
That's
normally
included
in
a
single-family
home
or
an
apartment
building
or
a
hotel.
J
J
You
know
when
I
spoke
about
sarena
Park,
in
the
condition
that
we
first
saw
it
and
the
first
time
I
ever
saw
it
was
when
it
became
I.
Think
you
Kathy
you
and
I
went
drove
on
it
in
my
truck
to
look
at
it
and
I
was
shocked
by
the
condition
of
that
Park
or
that
Golf
Course,
and
what
the
neighbors
were
living
around.
I
didn't
feel
for
this
developer.
I
didn't
feel
for
this
owner
I,
can't
let
my
buildings
and
properties
fall
into
horrible
disrepair.
J
My
choices
are:
if
I
can't
afford
to
maintain
them,
I
need
to
let
them
go.
I
need
to
sell
them,
perhaps
give
them
back
to
the
bank
or
do
something
because
I
can't
I
can
no
longer
or
won't
be
allowed
by
my
city
to
leave
my
properties
in
Pharaoh
condition.
So
I
don't
have
a
lot
of
sympathy
for
a
person
or
group
or
whatever
that
owns
a
golf
course
that
they
can
no
longer
afford
to
operate
it
as
a
golf
course.
There
are
other
uses.
There
are
other
recreations.
J
Again,
I'm
not
advocating
completely
against
having
a
conversion
path.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
when
we
do
that,
we're
not
inviting
conversion
I
would
his
onerous
as
this
conversion
path
is,
and
it's
pretty
onerous
the
potential
of
money
to
be
made
in
a
development
on
that
much
land
exists
and
it
adds
a
tremendous
amount
of
value
to
what
was
formerly
open
space
and,
frankly,
if
there's
because
of
our
zoning
and
that
controls
value,
which
then
opens
up
many
more
options.
J
I
think
I
err
on
the
side
of
wanting
to
not
create
a
conversion
path,
but
simply
require
that
no.
This
is
owned,
open
space
and
the
intention
of
our
city,
and
if
we
look
at
our
general
plan
all
over
it,
it
talks
about
the
need
and
desire
for
open
space
and
in
all
of
our
development
standards.
Open
space
is
an
absolute
priority.
You
know,
as
as
these
guys,
even
wrote
this
great
policy
about
it.
L
P
I
should
note
that
this
was
done
back.
You
know
this
table
is
from
our
2007
general
plan.
At
that
time
there
were
11
courses
to
that.
We'd
no
longer
have
our
the
Palm
Springs
Country
Club
golf
course,
and
the
Avalon
project,
which
has
been
converted
to
an
accurate
comparative
cultural
use,
but
all
right
of
the
nine
that
remain.
L
G
It's
a
little
bit
more
complicated
than
that,
but
not
much.
The
the
land
use
agreement
that
we
have
with
the
tribe
specifies
that
if
there
are
leases
that
are
BIA
leases,
the
tribe
doesn't
have
anything
to
delegate
to
us
so
that
they're
outside
the
reach,
so
to
speak,
but
you're
right
if
it's
tribal
its
tribal
okay.
L
G
D
L
Where
I'm
going,
we
have
very
few
golf
courses
that
are
in
jeopardy,
but
we
do
have
some
that
are
in
jeopardy
and
some
that
have
already
demonstrated
that
Avalon
before
it
could
even
get
off
the
ground
failed
as
a
golf
course,
and
it
failed
as
a
golf
course.
Community,
Palm,
Springs,
Country
Club,
failed
as
a
golf
course.
Community
bel-air
greens
has
not
has
failed
as
a
golf
course.
That
is
something
that
is
happening
in
our
country
and
they
tend
to
be
older.
Golf
courses
that
do
not
appeal.
L
Not
only
is
it
because
fewer
people
are
playing
golf.
Those
who
are
playing
golf
are
not
interested
in
playing
on
some
of
these
older
golf
courses
with
much
narrower
fairways
with
much
shorter
fairways
with
fewer
amenities
than
what
you
see
in
many
of
the
modern
Golf
Course
communities.
It
happens
in
our
community
in
our
economy.
Over
and
over
again
someone
builds
something,
and
then
somebody
comes
along
and
build
something
better
and
customers
move
over
to
that.
L
L
Well,
let's
go
out
and
figure
out
some
way
that
if
they
fail
we're
still
going
to
be
left
with
enough
money
that
we
can
keep
them
looking
as
pristine
golf
courses
out
into
the
future
and
turn
it
over
to
open
space
I,
just
don't
see
how
that's
realistic,
I,
don't
know
where
that
money
comes
from
and
I,
don't
know
where
the
city
gets
the
ability
that
every
time
a
golf
course
fails.
We
have
a
new
public
mark
that
we're
suddenly
going
to
be
responsible
for
building
and
taking
over.
L
So
what
we
have
here
in
front
of
us
is
I
believe
an
extremely
well
thought-out
set
of
recommendations,
and
this
is
not
simply
the
50%
of
open
space.
We
see
in
a
PDD,
none
of
the
streets.
None
of
the
open
space
that
are
in
the
Lots
count
is
50%
additional
of
open
space
and
I'll.
Go
back
to
what
chair
Warmack
said.
We're
trying
to
make
this
very
difficult
for
people
to
convert.
L
C
There's
been
a
lot
of
talk
about
this
in
discussion
and
you've
done
so
much
work.
So
thank
you
for
this
ordinance.
I
think
that
this
is
a
good
compromise.
I
agree
with
councilmember
Middleton,
so
I
do
want
to
ask
some
other
staff
questions
and
thank
you
for
your
presentation
and
the
information
so
I
really
liked
this
table
and
then
also
the
map
of
the
recreation
facilities
and
the
parks
and
open
space
and
Palm
Springs,
which
is
really
great
to
see.
C
You
know
for
me:
I
live
near
Mesquite
and
I
live
near
Bel,
Air
Green,
so
I
see
both
sides
of
this
because
I'm
affected
by
I
don't
live
in
walking
distance
of
a
park.
I
can
maybe
make
it
to
DeMuth,
but
it's
a
little
far
and
my
dogs
are
tired
by
then
I
have
little
dogs,
and
so
really
my
opens
face,
and
my
greenery
and
my
nature
time
is
spent
in
that
pathway
on
Mesquite
I.
C
Think
it's
one
of
the
most
beautiful
views
in
Palm
Springs
and
then
I
live
near
Bel,
Air
greens,
which
is
sitting
there
and
is
fallow
and
is
blighted,
and
so
we
have
to
have
both.
You
know
really
it's
the
responsibility
of
the
city
to
provide
open
space
and
public
park
amenities
to
its
residents,
which
is
why
Parks
and
Rec
is
really
important
to
me,
because
that
that
is
our
duty.
I
mean
if
we
require
landowners,
people
who
own
private
property
to
we
don't
allow
people
to
convert
to
a
use
that
is
no
longer
usable.
C
They
didn't
buy
it
as
open
space,
though
it's
owned,
is
that
they
bought
a
golf
course,
so
they
bought
something
that
was
a
business
and
that
was
operating
and
is
now
not
functional
and
so
I
think.
If
we
prevent
conversion
at
all,
which
you
know
I
would
like
to
see
my
dream
world,
the
city
buy
some
of
those
parcels.
I
tried
to
pitch
already
buying
another
six
million
dollar
golf
course
for
our
city
right.
We
need
open
space.
We
need
green
areas
for
our
residents.
We
need
more
Parks
and
Rec
for
our
residents.
C
So
that's
a
big
concern,
but
if
we
prevent
conversions,
we're
gonna
have
more
Bellaire
greens
and
that's
not
open
space
available
and
that's
not
an
amenity
available
to
the
public.
That's
me
walking
by
afraid
that
there's
coyotes
or
you
know
it's
garbage,
it's
blighted.
So
it's
a
safety
concern,
so
I
hear
you
I'm
gonna,
think
more
about
that
I'm
not
prepared
to
take
a
position
tonight,
because
I
want
to
think
more
about
this
ordinance.
C
I
definitely
want
to
hear
from
the
planning
commissioners
who
spent
all
this
time
having
a
lot
of
these
debates
back
and
forth,
but
that's
why
I
was
concerned
that
if
we
had
an
80%
or
70%
that
it
just
wouldn't
be
viable
for
people
who
own
the
land,
which
we
don't
own,
that
it
would
just
sit
fallow
and
they
could
do
nothing
with
it
and
obviously,
if
we,
if
we
require
too
little,
then
we
don't
have
the
benefit
of
the
open
space.
The
views
I
mean
thing.
C
That's
really
important
to
say
with
this
is
the
environmental
concerns
and
I'm
glad
you
looked
at
that
because
we
do
know
that
this
is
where
coyotes
and
bird
life
and
all
of
our
native
species
I
mean
they
live
in
these
waterways
in
these
areas,
and
so
that's
really
important
too.
So
it's
it's
a
nuanced
conversation.
It's
a
really
hard
conversation
and
balance
and
in
line
to
draw
in
the
sand,
I'd
like
more
input,
so
I
know
you've
gotten
a
lot
of
public
input
as
well.
C
I
would
wonder
if
there
are
people
who've
done
this
before
in
terms
of
converting
golf
courses
or
people
who
haven't
been
involved
in
this
process
that
we
can
reach
out
to
because
we
need
a
strike
or
it's
a
heart.
It's
this
is
hard
and
we
are
and
I
thought
where
you
are
going
and
asking
how
many
golf
courses
this
affects
right.
So
there
are
nine
operational,
three
or
four
on
reservation:
tribal
land.
C
P
P
C
Maybe
when
this
is
brought
back,
we
could
get
those
specifics
about
which
golf
courses
and
how
they're
owned
and
more
information
about
what
this
would
touch,
because
I
am
worried
about
unintended
consequences
and
that's
what
we're
all
trying
to
wrap
our
heads
around
to
is
what
is
the
long-term
consequences
of
this?
This
policy
well
I,
have
other
questions,
but
maybe
we'll
allow
a
Planning
Commission
to
speak
now,
unless
you
wanted
to
well.
A
Wanted
to
comment
on
the
fact
that
you
know
maintaining
a
golf
course
and
open
space
is
expensive.
We
sub,
we
use
taxpayer
dollars
to
subsidize
our
golf
course
by
a
one
and
a
quarter
million
dollars
a
year
and
someone
who
privately
owns
land
they
can't
afford.
They
can't
take
taxpayer
dollars
to
maintain
and
land
and
keep
it
irrigated
or
even
convert
it
to
to
desert
landscaping,
which
we
all
know
is
expensive,
because
that
has
to
be
irrigated
somewhat
or
you
end
up
with
Oklahoma
sorry
about
Oklahoma
tonight.
A
But
but
that's
why
we
have
to
find
a
reasonable
compromise
here,
because
we
can't
end
up
with
with
fallow
land
throughout
the
city,
because
I
know
I'm.
Also
a
member
of
the
O'donnell
Golf
Course
at
night
and
I
know
how
much
it
costs
our
golf
course,
because
it's
private
to
maintain
that
golf
course
and
it's
a
lot
of
money.
A
Even
if
the
O'donnell
were
to
give
the
Golf
Course
back
to
the
city
tomorrow,
I
don't
think
we
could
find
it
in
our
general
fund
budget,
the
money
to
actually
maintain
that
that
acreage,
because
it's
very
expensive-
and
we
struggle
now
just
to
maintain
the
parks
that
we
have
and
keep
the
trees
alive
and
keep
the
water
to
keep
the
grass
watered.
Maintaining
parks
is
very
expensive.
Look
how
much
we're
having
to
budget
for
the
new
downtown
park.
I
mean
its
parks
are
expensive
to
maintain
so
there's
something
else.
K
We're
coming
on
this,
which
is
I,
don't
think
anyone's
saying
we
should
maintain
them
as
golf
courses
and
just
not
have
people
play
on
them
and
we're
going
to
water
all
the
grass
and
keep
all
the
grass
I
mean
and
our
our
golf
courses
are
so
expensive
because
we
have
huge
debt
that
were
paying
every
year
because
of
the
way
it
was
financed
to
buy
the
land,
but
I
just
want
to
go
back.
I
mean
someone
bought
this.
K
They
wanted
operate
a
business
great
as
a
golf
course,
but
they
bought
it
because
zoned
open
space
and
that's
a
big
difference
here
for
me,
no
one's
saying
they
have
to
maintain
it
as
a
golf
course
and
water
or
the
grass
and
keep
it
looking
like
that
all
the
time
or
the
city
would
do
that
there
could
be
right.
One
is
now
agriculture,
at
least
it's
we're
not
putting
buildings
on
it.
The
block
views
and
take
away.
K
It
doesn't
mean
it's
gonna,
be
you
know
a
city
park,
it
could
be
right,
it
could
be
agriculture,
it's
just
it's
not
going
to
be
built
up,
and
that
to
me
is
a
distinction
here
and
so
I
just
want
us
to
be
open
to
thinking
about
other
uses
that
people
can
have
a
business
on
it
that
don't
have
the
extraordinary
costs
of
maintaining
a
golf
course.
So
you
know
I
think
where
jr.
K
was
going
with
more
recreational,
but
there
are
other
things
that
would
keep
it
from
being
built
and
it
would
still
be
open
and
unbuilt,
but
could
be
used
for
other
purposes,
and
so
I
want
to
be
really
what
I
was
gonna
say.
We
need
a
tennis
club,
I
mean,
but
there
are
other
uses,
whether
recreational
or
agricultural
I
just
want
to
be
more
open
to
the
thought
that
we
have
to
put
houses
on
them.
K
That's
that's
a
bit
of
a
concern
to
me
and
when
you
look
at
the
percentage,
even
if
it's
just
six
of
these
of
the
cities
space
that
is
not
available
to
be
built,
we're
gonna
lose
an
extraordinary
forty
percent
of
it.
Fifty
percent
of
it
will
be
gone
and
so
I
know
some
of
it
will
be
on
these,
but
I'm
just
really
concerned
about
about
that
by
the
way.
If
we're
going
to
do
this,
I
think
this
is
really
a
great
policy.
K
C
C
I
mean
this
might
be
a
space
for
nonprofits
to
come
in
and
buy
the
land
parcel
and
keep
it
as
open
space,
or
something
like
that
so
I
I'm
just
worried
about
the
feasibility
and
that's
what
I
don't
have
information
about
the
market
and
that's
what
I
would
like
is
really
what
are
those
business
opportunities?
What
are
these
owners
or
developers
gonna
do
with
this?
If,
if
they
can't,
if
we
keep
it
all
open
space
which
I'm
open
to
that's.
L
Question
as
we
do
more
research
than
this
I
would
like
to
know
for
all
of
the
golf
courses.
How
were
they
being
used
before
they
were
turned
it
into
golf
courses
and
actually,
how
were
they
zoned
at
the
time
that
the
golf
course
was
developed?
Was
it
in
fact
open
space
that
was
will
be
being
used,
or
was
it
just
simply
vacant
land.
D
G
D
And
then,
just
finally
that
50%,
that
was
a
number
we
struggled
with
his
Commission
and
I
know.
The
subcommittee
did
as
well
and
I
would
suggest
when
you
guys
look
at
this,
that
that's
not
set
in
stone.
It's
not.
You
know
something
brought
down
from
the
mountain.
It's
it's
something
that
you
guys
should
really
analyze
and
figure
out
your
cells
as
well.
O
O
We're
done
so
I,
don't
really
have
much
more
to
say
about
the
ordinance
I
mean
it
sounds
like
the
questions
really
aren't
about
the
ordinance.
There
are
bigger
questions
you're
dealing
with
so
once
you've
come
to
some
conclusion
about
the
bigger
questions.
Maybe
you'll
have
more
questions
about
the
you
know
the
details
of
this,
which
I
think
are
pretty
good.
We
worked
on
it
for
a
long
time
got
lots
of
input
from
the
from
the
public.
E
Thank
You
mr.
mayor
I
was
really
getting
interested
in
this
about
a
year
and
a
half
ago
when
I
was
looking
online,
cruising
online,
I
guess
and
he
saw
that
listed
properties
for
sale
in
Palm,
Springs
and
included
the
mesquite
Golf
Course,
with
about
potential
for
about
I
think
was
several
hundred
units
listed
bulb,
I,
never
so
that
that
really
began
to
scare
me
and
I
think
began
to
push
this
forward.
We've
said
that
subsequently
discovered
with
the
case
of
Mesquite
that
there
are
a
lot
of
other
restrictions.
E
Thank
goodness
that
would
also
prevent
or
make
it
very
difficult
for
it
to
convert
even
absent.
This
ordinance,
like
the
neighbors,
have
the
right
to
veto.
Any
changes
of
you,
sir,
have
been
effective
right
so
that
that's
a
very,
but
that's
the
one
that
was
been
driving
I
think
a
lot
of
Mesquite
has
been
driving
a
lot
of
this.
E
The
50
percent
open
space
is
is,
is
an
important
figure.
Now
one
of
the
things
that
that
I've,
envisioned
and
we've
talked
about
is
who
would
pay
for
the
maintenance
that
that's
50
percent,
open
space
and
I've,
always
envisioned
that
that
would
be
the
other
50%.
That
would
be
a
responsibility
of
the
homeowner
associations
for
the
development
and
that
would
provide
a
funding
source
for
the
maintenance
would
not
necessarily
be
the
city
know
whether
that's
viable
or
not.
E
We'd
have
to
look
at
the
individual
cases,
but
that's
what
we
have
envisioned
I
think
is
the
source
of
funding
for
that,
whereas
a
total,
no
conversion
leaves
you
the
question
of.
How
do
you
maintain
it
and
remember
that
that
50%
would
be
open
space
desert,
Greenway
type
of
thing,
and
so
we
would
not
be
losing
all
of
it
and
of
the
50%
that
would
be
developed.
E
There
would
be
50,
roughly
50%
required
open
space
as
part
of
our
normal
ordinance
process,
so
it
would
be
a
net
75%
remaining
open
space.
There
is
an
issue
that
I
think
the
council
should
take
a
look
at
that.
We've
had
some
controversy
with
the
public
on
and
that
is
well.
The
50%
open
space
is
provided
on
site.
E
There
would
be
a
50%
conversion
to
other
open
space
somewhere
else
in
the
city
that
we'd
have
to
as
part
of
the
development
agreement
arrange
for
purchase
and
in
the
case
of
sarena
park,
council
has
chosen
to
use
the
areas.
I
guess
that's
still
being
discussed,
but
generally
chosen
to
use
the
that
50%
is
a
purchase
of
lands
along
the
mountains
at
the
base
of
the
mountains
and
I
think
along
Palm
Canyon
Drive
area.
E
That
was
the
same
model
we've
been
using
and
assuming
that
that's,
where
that
open
space
would
go.
That
has
raised
some
conflicts
with
some
members
of
the
public
who
think
that
hey,
that's,
not
fair,
but
I,
think
that's
a
policy
that
the
council
needs
to
look
at.
We
followed
your
policy
with
Sabrina
Park.
H
E
M
Is
very
clear
that
we
were
very
concerned
about
what
eliminating
these
open
space
areas
meant
to
the
community.
We
heard
countless
stories
of
people
who
literally
depend
on
these
golf
courses
to
be
their
nature,
walks
their
outlets
for
serenity
for
walking
their
dogs,
and
it's
not
just
the
people
who
are
adjacent
to
the
golf
courses.
People
in
Palm
Springs
really
feel
that
the
golf
courses
are
community
assets
for
everyone
to
enjoy.
So
I
really
appreciate.
Councilmember
Roberts's
comments,
it's
something
quite
frankly,
we
really
didn't
think
a
lot
about
we
are
given
when
we
began.
M
This
was
that
we
had
to
find
a
way
to
fill
the
gap
where
these
private
spaces
would
no
longer
be
maintained.
There
would
be
developers
dying
to
get
their
hands
on
this
property
and
there
could
be
terrible
damage
done
to
the
to
the
environment
of
our
communities
by
just
ripping
these
these
golf
courses
up,
so
we
it
was
a
balance
that
we
had
to
go
through.
One
thing
that
I
think
is
important.
M
M
The
way
it
is
another
one
is
putting
into
the
legal
ownership
of
a
conservative
or
a
environmentally
sound
organization,
but
it
seems
to
us
that
by
forcing
it-
and
maybe
we
should
make
these
provisions
stronger
by
making
the
developers
really
do
their
due
diligence,
do
do
a
search
of
the
alternatives
to
see
what
is
possible
to
see
whether
there
are
conservancies
out
there,
who'd
be
willing
to
buy
the
property
or
whether
there
were
other
other
commercial
uses.
As
you
mentioned,
that
are
possible
on
the
property
and
maybe
going
to
step
further.
M
We
could
also
require
the
city
and
the
planning
department
to
also
do
its
own
due
diligence
with
respect
to
alternatives
that
would
be
available
to
a
straight
out
and
right
to
element,
because
I
think
we
shouldn't
throw
this
away
cavalierly,
we
haven't
true,
we
didn't
think
we
were
doing
it
here
because
we
made
it
quite
onerous,
but
we
are
giving
up
tremendous
community
assets
and
I
think
it's
probably
worthwhile
going
back
to
the
drawing
boards.
Thinking
about
this
a
bit
more.
A
H
H
The
though
the
golf
courses
can
be
sold
to
somebody
who's
speculating
and
without
them
knowing
what
they
could
possibly
do,
they
may
overpay
for
them
and
then
demand
that
they
get
that
exchange.
So
that's
a
that's.
The
worry
on
the
other
side
and
I
know
that
Palm
Springs,
the
old
Palm
Springs
Golf
Course,
was
sold
through
foreclosure,
and
so
that's
also
possible
that
somebody's
buying
it
and
then
it
you
know
it's
an
it's
a
risk
they're
taking
but
they're,
going
to
push
very
hard
and
nothing
that's
come
to
us
on.
H
These
has
come
with
the
developer,
suggesting
the
preservation
of
open
space
we
have
you
know
what's
come
to
us
is
the
present
is
the
suggestion
that
every
square
foot
be
used
and
we
have
to
push
back,
and
so
it's
that
I,
you
know
I,
don't
want
to
lose
an
inch
of
open
space,
but
I
I
also
worry
about
the
neighbor
who
lives
there.
Who's
who's
bought
on
the
edge
of
the
golf
course
like
in
old
old
Palm
Springs.
H
The
people
who
bought
on
the
adjacent
street
really
didn't
get
anything
preserved
because
they
weren't
in
the
got.
We
couldn't
preserve
that
one
in
Serena
Park,
so
people
had
bought,
bought
looking
out
over
a
golf
course
and
we'll
have
a
house
next
to
you
know
in
front
of
them
and
that
wasn't
the
way
those
properties
were
developed
or
sold
to
people.
Oh.
N
N
However,
when
that
can't
happen,
the
unintended
consequences-
it's
just
something
I,
would
really
suggest
you
look
closely
at
because
I
think
quality
development,
an
interesting
development.
If
anything
were
to
go
in
at
all,
it
really
needs
to
be
something
that
enhances
our
community
on
a
long-term
basis.
Thank
you.
A
B
Of
points
we
have
the
Golf
Course
moratorium,
the
conversion
moratorium,
which
is
in
place
through
March,
based
on
what
I'm
hearing
here
this
evening,
you
all
are
requesting
some
additional
research
I
think
the
appropriate
time
to
give
that
to.
You
is
when
we
make
the
report
on
the
moratorium.
So
we
can
include
the
additional
research
at
that
point
in
time
and,
as
we
consider
the
extension
of
the
moratorium,
you
can
give
further
direction
in
terms
of
how
you'd
like
to
proceed
with
this,
you.