►
From YouTube: Planning Commission Meeting | April 11, 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
B
B
C
C
A
All
fresh
information
hi,
my
name
is
joy,
Brian,
Meredith
and
I'm,
the
president
of
Main
Street,
Palm
Springs,
and
a
business
owner
in
downtown
Palm
Springs
for
over
30
years.
First
of
all,
I
would
like
to
thank
all
of
you
for
your
many
years
of
work
on
this
project.
It
is
just
as
annoying
to
me
as
you.
A
I
think
that
when
we
were
discussing
this
from
a
Main
Street
level,
we
all
of
us
were
not
perceiving
it
the
way
that
actually
it
is
the
one
word
adjacent
to
the
building.
That
one
phrase
was
very
misinterpreted
by
all
of
us
and
all
of
us
that
I
know
and
that
I
have
spoken
to
about
this,
including
the
Main,
Street
board
and
merchants.
A
So
the
idea
of
having
to
have
the
sign
actually
adjacent
to
the
building
itself
creates
this
weird
sort
of
pattern
of
walking,
rather
than
it
being
along
the
edge
of
the
brick
like
it
was
before,
and
so
the
fact
that
today,
one
of
the
discussions
is
the
three
feet
from
the
curb
is
being
taken
out.
I
want
you
to
understand
how
significant
that
phrase
was
in
our
understanding
of
this
ordinance,
because
we
didn't
see
it
that
way.
A
We
thought
that
you
that
the
intention
was
that
somebody
couldn't
put
it
in
front
of
somebody
else's
building,
not
really
that
it
had
to
actually
be
touching
the
building.
So
we
do
have
some
problems
with
this.
There
are
other
problems
as
well
like
businesses
that
aren't
right
on
Palm
Canyon
and
how
to
deal
with
those
sort
of
issues,
but
that's
really
a
separate
issue.
That's
going
to
need
some
more
definition.
I
would
really
hope
that
we
can.
A
You
know,
persuade
you
to
maybe
review
that
again
and
and
see
if
the
City
Council
would
be
willing
also
to
review
that,
because
I
don't
think
that
the
in
of
this
is
really
what
what
we
were
looking
for
here.
Nobody
wants
to
have
EDA
issues,
so
you
know
we
all
understood
all
that
and
we
were
fine
with
how
it
all
appeared
as
far
as
our
understanding
of
it.
But
now
it
turns
out.
Maybe
we
didn't
really
understand
it.
A
So
I
would
love
to
talk
to
somebody
on
the
Planning
Commission
more
in
more
detail
about
this
or
walk
the
street
with
you
and
and
see
how
this
is
affecting
the
businesses.
I.
Just
don't
feel
that
this
was
exactly
what
we
understood
it
to
be,
and
I
do
take
fault
with
that.
I'm,
sorry,
if
I
misinterpreted
it
and
then
I
in
turn,
told
everybody
my
wrong
interpretation
of
that
and
I
am
embarrassed.
A
F
I
understand
the
need
for
the
structure.
I
think
that
one
of
the
benefits
there
would
be
to
is
I
would
encourage
the
city
whether
it
be
planning
or
whomever,
to
have
some
kind
of
a
workshop
with
merchants.
To
better
understand
this,
because
people
are
having
either
misconceptions
about
it,
they
aren't
unsure
where
it's
going
and
all
they're
doing
is
talking
one-on-one
with
either
code
enforcement
or
whomever
and
I
think
that
that
might
work.
We
can
do
it
in
partnership
with
with
Main
Street,
the
Palm
Springs
Chamber.
F
F
It's
almost
like
it's
new
to
them,
which
we
know
it's
not,
but
also
one
of
the
main
issues
is
when
this
the
shop
is
not
right
on
Palm
Canyon
itself
is
off
the
main
street.
The
seconding
second
is
the
noticing
of
downtown
merchants
and
I
know
I,
don't
know
what
the
requirement
is.
I
know
there's
a
certain
amount
for
noticing
of
public
hearings,
but
we
don't
see
any
other
merchants
here.
People
did
not
know
about
this
meeting.
I
called
the
Palm
Springs
chamber.
F
They
were
unaware
of
the
meeting
around
this
today,
but
even
though
it
may
not
be
the
law
it
may
not
be,
and
what
the
practice
is.
It's
the
right
thing
to
do
to
notice
our
businesses,
and
especially
when
it's
on
1:30
on
a
Wednesday
when
some
of
them
have
other
business
things
going
on,
whether
it's
a
restaurant
etc.
F
G
Hi
I'm
Gregory
Goodman
I'm,
a
businessman
in
Palm
Springs
I,
have
several
businesses
really
confused
about
the
whole
sign
thing
being
right
next
to
the
building
at
our
main
location,
I
see
people
when
it
was
by
the
road,
and
you
know
in
the
red
it
was
fine.
You
know
we
had
it
three
feet
away
from
the
road
and
everything
and
it
was
perfect
now
that
we
moved
it
right
by
the
door.
I
see
people
tripping
over
signs,
everyone
I
mean
it's
become
ridiculous.
G
I
have
a
business
downtown
also,
and
it's
in
the
plaza
and
the
problem
being
there
is
it's
in
one
of
the
little
bungalows
in
the
back
and
no
one
would
ever
know
we're
there
and
they're
saying
that
I
have
to
have
our
little
sign
right
beside
my
door,
so
you'll
never
know
we're
back
there.
We
have
people,
no
one
can
ever
find
us
it's
it's
kind
of
hard.
G
So
that's
my
main
thing
is
the
signage
like
that
is
right
by
the
door.
It's
ridiculous,
and
then
they
want
to
make
the
signs
all
cookie
cutter
I
think
that's
not
what
Palm
Springs
is
about.
Palm
Springs
is
about
small
businesses,
you
know
hard-working
small
business,
men
and
women
and
making
a
cookie
cutter.
It
doesn't
show
Palm
Springs
and
it's
beautiful,
you
know
beauty.
So
that's
all
you
want
to
say.
C
A
I
think
it's
creating
a
problem
that
we
didn't
have
before,
just
in
the
way
that
the
pedestrian
traffic
flow
is
on
the
sidewalk.
So
before
you
know
it
was
off
to
the
side
there
in
the
red
brick
area
along
side
of
the
red
brick.
Where
there's
other
things
you
know,
there's
like
the
benches.
There's
trash
cans
there's
tree
wells,
so
you
know
if
you
could
put
your
sign
in
a
place
where
it
wouldn't
be
also
in
a
problem
with
those
items.
A
But
so
now,
if
you
haven't,
you
know
against
the
build
here's,
the
building,
here's
the
sign-
and
you
have
a
bunch
of
this-
you
have
people
zigzagging
up
and
down
the
sidewalk
I.
Just
the
look
isn't
good
before
it
was.
You
know
all
along
a
row:
it
was
a
nice
clean,
look
to
it
and
now
it's
causing
this
weird
pedestrian
flow.
That
is
going
to
happen.
That
I,
don't
think
was
really
intended
to
happen.
That
way,
so
I
just
think
somewhere
along
the
line.
The
interpretation
got
mixed
up
and.
C
A
It
wasn't
really
until
I
was
alerted,
that
this
discussion
was
happening
and
that
that
was
going
to
be
taken
out
that
I
even
realized
that
there
was
a
problem.
I
I
did
not
know
that
that
wasn't
how
that
that
was
so
I
in
turn
retold
this
same
wrong
information
to
everybody,
and
that's
why
everybody
was
on
board
with
it,
so
it
was
until
this
Ivan
knew.
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
caring,
really
we're
a
lot
of
small
businesses.
Just
trying
to
succeed.
I
know,
there's
a
lot
of
buzz
downtown
right
now
because
of
these
other
businesses
that
have
come
that
have
a
special
signed
program
where
they
get
to
do
more
than
we
do
and
we're
just
little
guys
just
trying
to
survive
in
a
challenging
economy.
Thank
you.
A
D
Chair
just
to
follow
up
on
that
question
in
terms
of
what
the
desire
was
on
the
part
of
the
Main
Street
merchants,
I
believe
the
comment
was
made
that
they'd
like
to
see
it
return
to
what
it
was.
The
prior
language
was
that
a
portable
open
sign
may
only
be
placed
between
a
public
entry
into
the
retail
space
and
the
nearest
fronting
street
or
parking
Drive
aisle.
The
sign
may
be
placed
in
the
sidewalk
public
right-of-way,
no
less
than
three
feet
from
any
Street
or
parking
curb.
C
C
B
G
B
G
E
E
You
say
about
in
terms
of
lapel
La
Plaza
there's
been
a
lot
of
new
businesses
there
lately,
which
is
great.
Have
you
spoken
to
the
landlord
about
I
mean
there's
a
how
many
shops
are
there?
How
many
tenants
are
there?
It's
full
yeah
I
mean
there's
a
lot.
So
a
couple
dozen,
maybe
probably
so
I've
got
to
think
well.
I'm,
just
there's,
probably
I
would
hate
to
see.
You
know
couple
dozens
portable
science
out
your
secondary
science
and
that's
a
specific
case,
but
I
would
encourage
you
to
work
with
the
landlord.
Well.
G
C
This
point
there
being
no
more
questions.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
I'm
gonna
close
the
public
hearing,
and
the
matter
is
before
the
Commission
I
just
thought
that
this
would
speed
it
along
if
I
made
the
motion
with
the
language
change
that
miss
Meredith
suggested
and
that
Flynn
so
articulately
put
before
us
as
a
suggestion
to
the
council,
because
the
current
language
creates
a
trip,
a
tripping
hazard
and
for
public
safety
that
it
be
moved
back
to
the
way
it
was
before
I'm
John-
and
this
is
up
for
discussion.
Yes,.
C
D
Looking
at
the
previous
language,
it
states
that
the
portable
sign
must
be
placed
between
the
entry
into
the
business
and
the
nearest
fronting
Street
or
parking
Drive
aisle.
So
in
the
case
of
the
Paseos
at
La
Plaza,
there
is
no
Street
or
Drive
aisle
other
than
Indian
Canada
and
I'm.
Thinking
of
the
the
South
pasado.
D
C
H
Comment
so
the
merchants
fronting
on
Indian
Canyon
that
are
in
the
plaza
would
be
covered
under
this
ordinance
but
correct
yes,
but
the
ones
the
tenants,
in
the
plaza
fronting
the
pedestrian
covered
walkway
that
fronts
the
parking
lot
that
runs
between
Indian
Canyon
and
Palm
Canyon.
That's
a
private
right
away.
Do
that?
Does
this
cover
that
language
as
well
I.
D
Mean
those
who
only
have
frontage
on
the
parking
area
yeah,
they
would
need
to
put
that
portable
sign
between
the
entrance
of
their
business
and
the
parking
area.
They
wouldn't
be
able
to
move
it
towards
the
palm
canyon
or
the
other
frontage.
It
would
need
to
be
between
the
entry
into
the
business
and
the
parking
area.
Okay,.
D
I
D
I
I
In
many
walkways
and
I'll
just
use
our
examples
here
are
and
I
think
it
was
brought
up
earlier.
Several
of
our
walkways
have
become
very
busy
and
not
only
for
the
pedestrian
path.
That's
free
and
clear
up,
as
you
call
the
walkable
area,
but
people
getting
in
and
out
of
cars,
so
I
assume
keeping
a
75
clear
is
the
75
clear
might
not
include,
or
does
it
include
what
we
call
like
the
trash
and
these
and
the
trees
and
the
benches
no.
D
D
One
con
of
putting
that
in
that
area
is
that
we
need
to
have
a
space
for
getting
in
and
out
of
vehicles,
and
so
in
the
old
language
it
did
say
it
had
to
be
three
feet
back
from
the
curb,
and
so
that
allows
a
car
door
to
swing
open
and
people
to
exit
the
vehicle
other
than
that
I.
Don't
know
that
there
are
any
other
cons
relative
to
putting
it
there
and
again.
D
C
C
This
is
a
public
hearing
item,
Oh,
goodness,
okay,
oh
okay,
sorry
I'm
reading
at
the
wrong
place.
This
is
an
amendment
to
the
Planning
Commission
rules
and
procedures
and
we
look
at
a
staff
report.
Last
time
we
passed
certain
changes
and
we
asked
for
changes
that
had
to
do
with
allowing
the
chair
to
call
either
an
applicant
or
a
member
of
the
public
back
during
non
public
hearing
items
and
Flynn
can
get
a
staff
report.
Okay,.
D
And
the
chair
is
already
given
my
staff
report.
Essentially
last
time
we
discussed
that
we
would
like
to
add
language
relative
to
giving
the
chair
that
ability
to
call
people
forward
to
respond
to
questions
during
non
public
hearing
items,
and
so
what
we
have
proposed
is
the
language
on
page
six
of
the
rules
and
procedure,
and
essentially
that
lays
out
the
format
for
discussion
of
non
public
hearing
items
in
the
middle
paragraph
it
states.
D
The
chair,
may
invite
the
applicant
or
members
of
the
public
to
provide
testimony
or
to
respond
to
questions,
and
so
that's
the
language
that
you
requested
to
be
added.
And
then
one
of
the
things
that
we
felt
was
important
to
include
there
is
that
responses
by
the
applicant
or
members
of
the
public
shall
be
limited
to
the
questions
posed
by
the
Commission.
So
this
isn't
a
free-for-all
public
comment,
but
rather
it's
directed
towards
questions
specifically
requested
by
the
Commission,
and
so
with
that
we
would
propose
that
change.
D
One
of
the
other
things
that
we
would
also
propose
is
on
page
5.
We
left
out
of
the
order
of
discussion
under
public
hearings,
questions
to
the
applicant
or
appellant
by
the
Commission,
which
you
see
there
in
red
and
underscored.
That
is
something
that
we
would
also
propose
just
to
clarify
that
any
questions
of
the
applicant
remained
under
the
public
hearing
portion
of
the
agenda
and
are
taken
there
as
testimony
and
with
that,
we
would
request
your
approval.
Of
these
changes
can.
C
C
D
Chair
and
members
of
the
Commission,
thank
you
very
much.
As
you're
aware,
we
have
been
through
a
lengthy
process.
Looking
at
proposed
revisions
to
our
planned
development
district
ordinance,
you
appointed
a
subcommittee
late
last
year
to
begin
working
on
those
changes
based
on
the
final
list
of
approved
recommendations
that
the
City
Council
has
approved.
So
the
subcommittee
has
been
working
over
the
last
couple
of
months.
What
we
wanted
to
do
is
have
a
discussion
item
with
you.
D
D
D
I
have
a
chart
that
I'd
like
to
pass
out
to
you
that
will
help
us
in
that
discussion
and
then
the
second
area
that
the
subcommittee
would
also
like
to
talk
about
with
you
all
as
a
group
is
language
relative
to
gated
communities
and
I
have
a
handout
from
the
general
plan
that
has
the
language
relative
to
gated
communities.
So
if
you'll
just
give
me
a
moment,
let
me
distribute
those
to
you
now.
C
D
And
one
of
the
key
changes
here
is
under
the
purpose
of
the
planned
development
district.
These
9
points
were
language
that
was
suggested
by
the
ad
hoc
plan
development
district
committee,
and
so
that
whole
section
of
the
document
has
been
revised
to
reflect
the
recommendations
of
the
ad
hoc
committee.
D
I
I'm
sure
I
do
have
a
question
of
at
this
point.
Flynn
I've,
seen
how
in
our
city,
PD
DS,
have
been
used
and
maybe,
in
some
cases
not
used
appropriately
or
maybe
their
intended
purpose
and
other
cases
they've
turned
out
marvelously
and
I've
also
seen
where
specific
plans
have
been
used
both
effectively
in
the
city.
What
I'm
a
little
unclear
on
is,
as
we
go
through
this
PD
V
review
here
and
I,
don't
have
the
benefit
of
the
institutional
knowledge
is.
I
D
Don't
know
if
members
of
the
subcommittee
would
like
to
address
that
as
well,
but
just
from
my
standpoint,
it
has
been
our
practice
more
often
than
not
to
use
a
planned
development
district
for
any
type
of
specialized
development.
We've
used
specific
plans
very
rarely
looking
at
the
Downtown
Development,
that
is
under
a
specific
plan.
We
have
several
more
throughout
the
city
that
we've
used,
but
again
our
practice
has
not
been
to
use
those
very
often
there
are
certain
advantages
and
disadvantages
under
both
approaches.
D
What
you
saw
proposed
this
morning
was
the
use
of
a
specific
plan
for
golf
course
development.
Just
in
my
limited
experience
with
specific
plans,
one
of
the
benefits
I
see
to
those
is
that,
generally,
they
tend
to
cover
multi-phase
development
over
a
period
of
years
and
are
often
accompanied
by
a
development
agreement
well
which
helps
to
ensure
the
development
of
the
specific
plan
area.
But
again
it's
a
matter
of
practice
for
cities
and
either
tool
is
appropriate.
D
C
In
terms
of
the
PD
process,
the
PD
was
used,
the
public
felt
excessively
for
the
creation
of
small
lot
subdivision
and
where
we
didn't
have
zoning.
That
would
cover
that
and
one
of
the
things
that
the
PD
subcommittee,
which
I
was
on
looked
at,
was
implementing
a
small
lot
subdivision
ordinance.
So
that
would
have
areas
of
the
city
where
we
could
do
small
lot
subdivision,
but
that
this
particular
instrument,
which
is
to
do
some
unusual
or
interesting
projects,
not
be
part
of
our
ordinary
zoning
and
not
be
it
not
be
utilized
as
frequently
so
you.
C
And
I
think,
having
sat
on
both
subcommittees
the
recommendation
for
a
specific
plan
for
a
golf
courses.
It's
usually
a
larger
development,
it
would
be
multi-phased
and
the
criteria
that
we
put
into
the
PD
ordinance
wouldn't
necessarily
fit
the
criteria,
the
development
criteria,
a
that.
The
golf
course
exception-
I
mean
in
the
same
way
it
wouldn't
have
fit
the
downtown
exception.
E
D
H
H
D
C
D
Why
we're
on
the
uses
permitted
section?
One
of
the
comments
that
chair
made
was
under
number
one
on
uses
permitted
we've
added
a
second
sentence
there.
It
says
a
planned
development.
District
application
is
not
intended
for
a
single
housing
type
unless
combined
with
some
type
of
civic,
commercial
or
institutional
use.
So
that
was
one
of
the
changes
there
to
clarify
the
issue
that
it's
not
really
intended
for
a
single
residential
type.
C
D
E
F
Expressed
some
reservations
about
this
I
think
in
the
committee,
as
you
recall,
I'm
working
under
the
assumption
that
we
will
not
be
using
this.
This
process
for
small
lot
of
subdivisions
in
the
future
I
think
we're
gonna
say
that
one
approves
go
ahead
and
do
the
small
Lots
I
can
certainly
see
if
someone
wants
to
come
in
with
a
single
type
of
residential
unit
that
wants
to
violate
their
wants
to
change
a
standard
for
some
reason
in
a
particular
development.
F
Pdd
would
be
a
way
to
do
that
and
then
there
may
be
a
very
good
reason
for
doing
it.
That
particular
thing
I,
don't
see
why
we're
limiting
this
to
taking
away
the
right
to
do
this?
First
single,
a
single
housing
type
I
know
we
want
to
encourage
different
types
of
development
within
PD
DS,
but
really
I'm.
C
B
C
C
D
Okay,
moving
on
to
page
2,
looking
under
property
development
standards,
this
is
where
we
have
made
some
additions,
based
on
the
comments
of
the
kinesin,
rather
significant
additions,
based
on
the
comments
of
the
ad
hoc
PVD
committee,
and
these
are
development
standards
that
we
would
use
to
evaluate
projects
in
our
staff
report.
So
number
one
relative
to
building
heights.
We
added
language
that
building
heights
shall
conform
to
the
requirements
of
the
underlying
zoning
district
or,
as
may
be
permissible.
Under
the
general
plan.
D
There
is
in
the
downtown
design
guidelines
of
the
general
plan,
certain
areas
where
additional
height
is
allowed,
but
otherwise
the
general
opinion
of
the
committee
was
that
we
should
adhere
to
building
heights
and
so
that
language
has
been
added.
There's
also
been
some
language
added
relative
to
setbacks
in
number
three
to
implement
recommendations,
number
15
and
17.
D
Moving
on
to
number
six
under
property
development
standards,
this
is
the
regulations
relative
to
open
space
and,
as
you'll,
see
on
page
seven
sorry
number
six
on
page
two
and
continuing
on
to
page
three
subparagraphs,
a
B
and
C.
This
is
the
issue
of
what
is
private,
open
space
versus
common
open
space.
How
much
open
space
should
be
required
for
a
planned
development
district,
and
this
is
one
where
we
did
request
additional
input
from
the
Planning
Commission
on
this
in
the
chart
that
I
just
passed
out
to
you.
D
What
I've
provided
is
a
summary
of
open
space
versus
lot
coverage
requirements
in
the
existing
zoning
districts
of
the
city.
What
you
will
see
is
that,
typically,
there
is
either
a
lot
coverage,
that's
used
in
our
zoning
districts
or
an
open
space
requirement,
and
only
in
one
instance
in
one
zoning
district
is
there
both
a
lot
coverage
and
open
space
requirement,
so
the
typical
practice
has
been
you
to
use
one
or
the
other
in
our
zoning
districts.
D
What
we
are
focusing
on
under
the
plan
development
district
is
on
open
space
and,
more
importantly,
on
the
quality
of
that
open
space.
And
so
one
of
the
things
that
we
would
like
to
establish
is
of
the
open
space.
That's
required
for
a
planned
development
district.
How
much
of
that
could
be
private,
open
space
or,
in
other
words,
a
walled
area
for
a
private
residence
versus
how
much
should
be
common,
open
space
such
as
greenways,
recreation
areas,
etc.
H
H
C
C
It
seems
to
me
that
that
we'd
want
some
number,
whether
it
be
40%
of
it
open
with
half
of
that
being
individual
or
I
mean
that
that
seems
to
be.
It
doesn't
seem
like
we're
going
to
need
in
this
lot
coverage
requirements
as
opposed
to
having
a
percentage
for
the
overall
development
and
then
allow,
if
they're,
individual
residential
units,
a
portion
of
that
to
go
to
the
individual
residential
I.
D
C
I,
don't
know
I,
don't
but
I
think
if
you
do
an
open
space
requirement
and
then
you
say
a
percentage
of
up
up
to
so
much
of
a
percentage
of
that
can
be
individual
if
they're
individual
units
correct,
and
do
you
know
what
number
looking
as
I'm
looking
at
most
of
the
ones
that
have
open
space
requirements,
they
vary
between
30
and
50
percent
and
had
you
thought
through
what
the
standards
should
be
here?
I
was.
D
C
D
I
was
thinking
either
40%.
So
let's
say,
for
example,
that
you
have
10,000
square
feet
of
required
open
space.
If
you
allowed
40%
as
private,
open
space
and
4,000
square
feet
would
be
assigned
to
individual
residences
through
some
type
of
a
wall,
and
then
6000
square
feet
would
be
some
type
of
common
Park,
Greenway
or
recreation
space.
Just
so.
C
Numbers
today
beautifully
put
in
a
number:
that's
45
to
50
percent,
depending
on
staff
recommendation
for
open
space
and
then
of
that
40%
of
that
could
be
used
for
individual
open
space.
That
seems
to
me
from
what
we
have
here
that
would
fit
and
let
let
it
be
staff
recommendation
as
to
whether
it's
45
or
50,
okay.
E
D
D
E
C
It's
a
on
page,
three
da
is
president
protection
of
natural
features
such
as
water
courses,
sensitive
land
area,
existing
native
vegetation
wildlife,
unique
topographical
features
and
views
to
be
required,
and
then
on
a
separate
item.
Open
spaces
shall
be
integrated
into
the
overall
design
of
the
project
so
that
it's
not
just
that
sentence
really
requires
integration
and
not
just
that
it
fit
within
that.
It's
not
a
natural
features.
H
C
D
I
You
know
there's
and
I'm
not
sure
if
we're
merging
our
common
open
space
with
really
a
dedicated
open
park,
and
let
me
give
you
an
example
of
what
I'm
thinking
about
you
go
into
some
of
our
Planned
Unit
development
soar,
whatnot
or
condos,
where
they
have
common
area,
but
that
common
area
belongs
to
the
Association,
not
the
general
public
and
we've
had
peds
come
up
where
they
may
have
common
area,
but
they're
not
building
a
park.
That's
a
public
park.
They
may
be
paying
Quimby
fees,
but
that's
not
necessary
and
I.
I
Think,
though,
our
definitions
for
that
need
further
clarification,
one
just
so
we're
understanding
and
the
applicants
are
understanding
and,
secondly,
I
think
affordable.
Housing
also
needs
more
definition
because
is
it
dedicated?
Is
it
not
dedicated
who
runs
it?
You
know,
what
do
we
mean
by
affordable
housing
just
put
in
an
affordable
housing
unit,
and
we
can
see
in
San,
Francisco
and
and
other
beach
cities
somebody
moves
in
as
a
law
student.
You
know,
is
there
affordable,
they
stay
there.
I
I
D
On
page
three,
if
we're
moving
on
from
open
space
number
seven
land
development
district
shall
respect
the
existing
street
grid
so
that
entrances
to
the
development
are
streets
within
the
development
aligned
with
the
existing
street
grid.
This
is
something
that
was
of
much
discussion
at
the
subcommittee
and
just
wanted
to
get
your
feedback
on
that
number.
Eight.
D
D
Density
could
be
increased
in
accordance
with
requirements
in
state
law,
and
there
is
existing
language
in
state
law
that
does
allow
increased
density
for
affordable
housing
projects
and
essentially,
what
we
would
do
is
in
those
situations,
look
at
the
language
in
state
law,
for
density
bonuses
for
affordable
housing,
and
so
those
are
the
other
changes
that
are
proposed
under
Section
D
of
the
document
and
then
section
e
goes
on
to
public
benefit.
If
you're
ready
to
move
on
to
that
discussion,.
E
C
A
specific
purpose:
in
usually
these
days,
affordable
housing
has
a
non-profit
and
you
might
want
to
say,
deed,
restricted,
affordable
housing
with
a
non-profit
general
partner
owner
or
general
partner.
Some
affordable
housing
may
be
owned
by
a
corporation
or
by
someone
else,
but
the
managing
general
partner
will
be
a
non-profit
I.
D
Very
bright
and
again
we
had
a
lot
of
relate
on
this
topic,
as
you
can
imagine,
but
you
know
I
think
there
are
good
things
with
connecting
with
the
grid.
I
also
think,
there's
great
things
that
can
happen
when
we
do
traffic
calming
as
part
of
that,
and
so
allowing
the
streets
to
meander
I
think
would
be
a
positive
thing,
allowing.
C
I
Have
to
say
that
I
would
support
number
seven
and
I
can
give
you
some
prime
examples
and
in
our
city,
where
we've
approved
PD
DS
and
what
happens
is
they've
done
instead
of
the
streets
coming
in
together,
they've
been
offset,
and
that's
really
actually
a
very
unsafe
thing
to
do,
and
not
a
safe
thing
to
do
whatsoever.
So
just
having
the
streets
come
in
at
the
same
angle,
I
think
is
very
important
and
that's
how
I
read
number
seven
so
I
see
number
seven
disc,
as
is
relatively
an
important
chicky
and.
E
D
One
of
the
things
that
the
Planning
Commission
subcommittee
wanted
to
make
clear
is
that
public
benefit
is
over
and
above
the
standard
requirements
that
would
be
required
of
any
development,
and
so
we
have
that
statement
I
believe
a
couple
of
times
throughout
this
portion
of
the
public
benefit.
We
also
had
a
discussion
about
sustainable
features
that
it
needs
to
be
over
and
above
what
would
be
required
under
state
law
or
the
city's
adopted
solar
policy
that
we
now
have
in
place
and
committee
members.
I
Have
a
item
B
on
page
four
about
sustainable
features,
I
actually
think
it
needs
to
be
the
higher
level
of
LEED
certification.
The
lower
level
of
LEED,
certification
and
California
is
almost
like
meeting
title,
24
and
I
think
it
really
needs
to
be
the
higher
level
and
we
need
to
say
gold
or
platinum.
Okay,.
D
Public
benefit,
if
not
moving
on
to
application
requirements,
section
F
on
page
four
under
number
one
as
I
talked
about
this
morning.
This
is
a
brand
new
requirement
that
for
plan
development
districts,
they
would
be
required
to
file
a
pre-application
first
before
they
file
their
formal
applications.
C
D
D
One
of
the
things
that
was
also
recommendation
of
the
ad-hoc
committee
is
under
to
be
the
applicants
required
to
submit
a
project
justification
statement,
and
they
we
would
require
this
as
a
justification
letter
that
they
submit
to
the
city
with
their
application,
and
so
that
was
a
recommendation
of
the
ad
hoc
committee,
and
one
of
the
things
that
they
would
need
to
address
is
how
the
architectural
form
and
site
planning
is
superior
to
that
which
is,
would
otherwise
result
from
from
conformance
to
the
standard
zoning
district
requirements.
So
mr.
D
D
It
referred
you
back
to
the
criteria
for
approval
of
conditional
use
permits
and
that
sometimes
became
a
little
bit
confusing,
and
so
what
we
are
proposing
here
is
that
we
have
separate
findings
that
would
be
made
for
planned
development
districts,
and
so
these
are
specific
to
plan
development
districts,
and
so
those
findings
are
listed
as
one
through
seven
under
Section
G
and
so
in
our
staff
reports.
We
would
have
an
analysis
of
the
conformance
of
the
project
relative
to
the
findings
and
criteria
that
you
see
there.
In
that
section,
a.
C
J
Have
not
seen
anything
that
you've
missed.
Madam
chair
members
of
the
Commission?
Yes,
whether
you
call
them
Planned,
Unit
development
plan,
community
development,
planned
PD,
D
or
any
other
yeah.
They
generally
have
these
type
of
findings
and
again
they're
pretty
general
findings.
You
know
consistent
with
the
general
plan.
You
know
layout
orientation,
you
know
the
public
benefits,
you
know,
that's
generally
consistent.
You
see
that
most
of
these
ordinances-
and
these
would
be
in
accord
with
that.
Ultimately,
the
end
of
the
day.
J
D
Like
that,
there's
a
language
under
the
criterion
findings
that
would
allow
you
to
say
the
findings
are
not
met,
and
that
would
be
your
method
for
not
approving
the
project.
So
I
think
that
the
findings
are
broad
enough,
that
you
can
make
a
case
that,
if
you
do
not
like
a
project
because
you
do
feel
it
is
too
intense,
too
dense,
there
will
be
traffic
impacts.
Things
like
that,
not.
D
Moving
on
to
action
I,
one
of
the
things
that
I
wanted
to
do
as
a
staff
member
was
to
clarify
how
we
do
modifications
to
plan
development
districts,
because
it's
not
always
clear
what
the
threshold
is
in
terms
of
something
that
needs
to
come
back
to
the
Planning
Commission
versus
something
that
can
be
approved
at
a
staff
level.
And
so
what
I've
done
is
identified.
D
The
the
shape
of
it
changes
slightly
based
on
the
layout
of
the
parking
lot
or
something
like
that,
where
they're
not
decreasing
the
amount
of
landscaping
or
the
landscape
area,
they're
just
making
adjustments
to
it.
Those
are
things
that
I
would
define
as
a
minor
modification
that
would
be
approved
at
a
staff
level,
but
anything
where
they
are
increasing
the
intensity,
the
number
of
units
or
attempting
to
decrease
parking
requirements
below
what
has
been
approved
or
what
would
be
allowed
under
code.
D
Those
things
would
be
major
amendments
that
would
need
to
come
back
to
the
Planning
Commission
for
approval.
So
again,
the
intent
of
that
section
is
to
define
what
can
be
approved.
Administrative
leave
IRS's
what
needs
to
be
approved
by
the
Planning
Commission
under
Section
J
termination
of
proceedings.
D
There
is
language
that
we've
added
to
the
end
of
that
statement,
and
that
is
relative
to
the
timing
of
tentative
map
approvals,
the
idea
being
the
recommendation,
the
committee
that
tentative
map
should
be
approved
in
accordance
with
the
entitlement
or
in
step
with
the
entitlement
that,
if
we
extend
an
entitlement
through
the
extension
of
time
process
that
the
map
should
also
coincide
with
that,
the
one
caveat
to
that
is,
if
the
state
in
the
future
any
extensions,
automatic
extensions
of
tentative
Maps.
That's
not
something
that
the
city
would
have
control
over,
but
under
regular
circumstances.
D
E
J
Well,
really,
the
better
question
is:
was
the
developer
do
but
the
the
you
know
you
know
in
land-use,
we
have
a
lot
of
these
things
that
sort
of
independently
track,
and
then
all
of
them
ultimately
meet
up
for
a
final
project
with
the
subdivision
map
act,
says
is
you
cannot
sell
lease
or
finance
individual
Lots
until
you've
recorded
that
final
map?
Now,
if
somebody
went
forward,
got
a
final
map
recorded,
but
the
above
surface
entitlements
to
actually
build
the
project
have
expired.
J
Arguably
a
developer
could
still
individually
sell
or
finance
or
lease
those
individual
Lots,
but
for
practical
purposes.
That
may
not
do
a
whole
lot,
because
they're
gonna
have
to
get
the
other
entitlements
to
actually
build
something
on
that.
So,
while
technically
some
of
these
things
could
be
approved
and
might
be
able
to
go
forward
a
little
bit
to
actually
have
a
true,
unified
operating
project,
everything's
got
to
be
brought
up
to
speed.
So
if
the
state
law
should
extend
tentative
Maps
for
nine
years
like
they
did
before,
but
the
PD
D
was
allowed
to
expire.
J
D
Chair,
let's
pose
this
question
of
our
city
attorney
I'm,
going
to
put
him
on
the
spot
here
if
we
were
to
propose
language.
That
said
something
to
the
effect
that
a
final
map
for
a
planned
development
district
shall
not
be
recorded.
If
the
planned
development
district
entitlement
is
terminated,
would
that
be
appropriate
to
put
in
this
section
of
the
document
it
was.
This
is
something
that
we
would
want
to
think
about.
We.
J
J
H
D
C
D
J
D
With
that,
we
didn't
really
have
any
other
changes
other
than
the
addition
of
definitions
that
we
need
to
support
the
proposed
changes,
and
you
have
those
at
the
bottom
of
the
page.
We've
already
had
comments
on
the
definition
of
affordable
housing.
We
also
need
to
make
some
minor
revisions
to
our
definition
of
lot
coverage
and
then
what
we
have
not
had
in
our
code
prior
is
definition
for
open
space,
common,
open
space
and
private
open
space,
and
so
those
three
definitions
would
be
brand
new.
D
D
So
there's
just
comment
new
sorry,
Commissioner
Maroussi
just
made
a
comment
about
swimming
pools.
Typically
in
the
past,
we've
included
recreational
facilities
as
being
included
in
the
open
space
because
they
are
recreation
facilities
for
residents,
and
so
we
have
allowed
swimming
pools
to
be
included
as
part
of
that
I
thought
these.
B
D
D
C
H
Have
a
comment-
and
it
goes
to
this
two
common
open
space,
open
space,
comma
common
and
it's
and
it
says
or
members
that
means
open
space
that
is
designed
and
intended
for
the
common
use
by
residents,
guests
or
members
of
the
general
public.
So
you
could
under
that.
Well
because
it
says
or
members
could.
You
therefore
exclude
members
of
the
general
public
and
I'm
thinking
of
like
a
swimming
pool.
D
Have
approved
projects
where
the
amenities
of
the
project
are
restricted
to
residents
and
their
guests.
There
are
also
examples
of
projects
that
we've
approved,
where
we
have,
in
specific
cases,
stated
that
those
amenities
need
to
be
open
to
the
general
public.
To
give
you
an
example,
Marilyn
and
the.
H
H
D
Yes,
this
would
be
a
good
time
to
discuss
gates
again
another
topic
of
much
discussion
at
the
ad-hoc
committee
level,
as
well
as
the
Planning
Commission
subcommittee.
I
gave
you
the
handout
from
the
city's
general
plan
in
terms
of
the
language
that
exists.
Currently,
this
is
in
the
community
design
element
and
it
says,
prohibit
gated
community
entries
and
perimeter
walls
around
entire
neighborhoods
instead
provide
privacy
through
design
features
such
as
meandering
streets,
ample,
landscaping
and
house
placement
that
provides
privacy
and
exclusivity.
D
The
question
has
been:
should
we
include
language
about
gates
in
the
planned
development
district
ordinance
as
part
of
these
changes
that
we're
making
generally
one
of
the
things
that
I
would
mention
to
you
is:
is
this
something
that
you
want
to
provide
in
the
zoning
code
as
a
general
requirement
for
all
developments?
Could
it
be
specific
to
planned
development
districts
and
again?
This
is
something
that
we're
looking
for
input
from
the
Planning,
Commission
I.
Think.
F
You
know
you
have
to
have
very
good
reasons
for
having
a
gate
such
as
you're
right
next
to
the
Convention,
Center
and
you're
speaking
of
or
my
house
is
up
or
a
senior
citizen
project,
perhaps
or
something
or
if
you're,
in
a
very
high
crime
area
that
can
be
documented
or
something
so
things
like
that
not
for
reasons
of
creating
exclusivity
I
think
it's
a
reason
potentially
for
reasons
of
safety
or
things
like
that.
Right.
C
B
I'm
just
worried
about
the
timing,
whether
or
not
it's
gonna
take
forever
for
the
zoning
code
to
be
modified,
whereas
we're
dealing
with
the
planned
development
district
now.
So
let's
put
that
to
be
an
aspect
in
the
planned
development
district
that
we
hope
will
be
approved
shortly
and
then,
who
knows
when
the
zoning
codes
gonna
be
modified,
so
that
was
really
what
I
think
is
the
timing
really.
D
D
What
I
would
tell
you
in
terms
of
the
timing,
is
that
if
you
see
this
as
being
an
issue
related
to
planned
development
districts
that
you'd
like
to
see
in
the
zoning
code,
there's
no
reason
that
we
can't
include
that
as
part
of
this
ordinance
update
as
you'll
notice,
I'm
making
changes
to
other
sections
of
the
code,
primarily
the
definition
section,
because
those
are
necessary
to
implement
these
recommendations.
So
I
see
that
there's
a
couple
of
different
options.
You
can
either
include
that
language
directly
in
the
plan.
Development
district
ordinance
itself.
D
C
Long
as
it's
I
think
as
long
as
we're
doing
it
at
the
same
time,
it's
fine
to
do
it
generally
and
I.
Do
think
that
saying
that
it's
not
for
purposes
of
exclusivity
that,
but
it
would
have
to
be
for
demonstrated,
high
crime
or
a
traffic,
a
traffic.
You
know
a
traffic
burdened
area,
I
mean
those
are
the
only
two
reasons
that
we
I
think
I
can
think
of
two
projects
where
we've
allowed
gates
later
and
they
included
both
one
or
the
other
of
those
exceptions.
I.
I
I
would
have
an
issue
saying
high-crime
justifies
a
gate,
because
the
studies
will
show
you
the
minute
you
put
bars
on
the
window,
whether
or
not
you
have
crime.
The
presumption
is
you
have
crime
so
I,
and
we
really
if
we
want
to
form
a
crimeless
community,
both
visually
and
spiritually,
as
well
as
actual
crime.
I.
Think
the
idea
of
gates
to
stop
crime
is
not
the
right
signal.
F
Think
we
want
to
bring
the
language
back
and
see
what
it
says
overall,
rather
than
I've
been
some
quite
a
bit
of
research
on
this
recently,
and
there
is
some
evidence
in
some
cases
that
gates
do
actually
reduce
crime
or
prevent
some
crime.
Their
mayor
name
may
not
be
better
reasons
for
doing
that
and
I'm
concerned
as
well
as
if
we
do
that,
there's
a
public
perception
that
gates
create
grates
may
help
Public
Safety
and
without
them,
project
might
not
be
viable
in
areas
where
we
would
like
to
see
some
projects.
F
F
That's
another
issue
that
there's
not
very
place
in
I
think
we
have
residential,
but
their
movie
might
have
them
in
the
future
and
well
like
well,
we've
got
it
I
guess
with
the
diplomat
or
the
one
of
those
projects
where
we've
got
under
under
under
the
under
the
condominium
building
parking
I
think
they
have
gates
there
and
that's
a
logical
place
for
it.
So
we
need
to
think
about
it
a
little
bit
more
before
we.
E
Agree
with
that,
we
reviewed
a
case
recently
worthy
there
was
the
issue
of
homeless
people,
utilizing
the
swimming
pool,
so
I
think
we
just
need
or
counsel
needs
discretionary
ability,
but
I
think
you're
right.
Commissioner
Keller
died
in
that
it's
the
burden
of
the
applicant
to
really
prove
the
need
for
gates
right.
Why.
B
D
I
When
we've
had
these
PD
D's
come
in,
where
they
gate
them
and
then
the
road
structure
is
substandard
to
a
city,
roads
and
then
that's
to
become
private
roads,
which
there's
some
benefit
financially
to
the
city.
To
that
and
there's
probably
some
benefit
aesthetically
and
whatnot
I,
don't
know
as
we
if
we're
trying
to
preclude
with
whether
or
not
you
have
gates
is
irregardless.
If
we
still
want
to
allow
the
ability
to
have
private
roads
or
we
want
to
make
P
de
DS
always
have
public
roads.
I
F
C
We
should
address
the
private
public
road
issue
and
maybe
I
don't
know
that
we
have
a
solution
to
that.
It's
the
the
benefit.
If
you
have
an
association,
your
roads
are
always
it
can
be
up
to.
They
can
be
in
good
shape,
even
though
the
city
doesn't
have
funds
to
fix
their
roads,
there's
a
benefit
and
there's
a
benefit
to
the
city,
to
not
pay
for
them,
but
I
think
we
have
never
addressed
public
private
roads.
When
we've
looked
at
a
PD,
we've
always
assumed
they'd,
be
private.
C
I
If
you
look
at
several
of
our
PD
DS
that
have
been
approved,
what
you
end
up
with
is,
let
me
go
back.
Would
you
look
at
a
single-family
residential,
traditional
single-family
residential
prayer,
zoning
code?
You
have
lot
coverage
and
setbacks
so
front.
Lawns
are
not
considered
open
space
they're,
just
part
of
the
setback
and
the
lot
coverage
when
you
get
into
PD
D's.
I
I
don't
know,
is
this
PD
and
I
know
it's
gone
through
a
lot
of
iterations
addresses
some
of
those
issues.
You
can
increase
the
open
space,
but
it
still
doesn't
change
your
street
view
of
that,
especially
if
you,
if
it's
going
to
be
a
public
street
or
even
if
it's
a
private
street,
that's
not
gated
and
open.
It's
still
a
Google
map
card
Google
are
driving
by
taking
a
picture
representing
your
city
in
that
particular
area.
C
Certainly
put
that
into
this
draft
small
lot,
ordinance,
which
we've
got
a
review
now
against
what
we've
done
here,
but
maybe
we
should
take
a
look
as
to
whether
or
not
we
should
include
some
of
those
items
here,
because
we
we
did
require
in
that
we
required
certain
kinds
of
street
with
parking.
You
know
had
very
clear
standards
and
if
this
doesn't
include
single-family
home
lots
or
a
subdivision
of
single-family
home
Lots,
we
may
need
the
standards
only
in
that
ordinance
and
not
in
this
but
I
think.
C
D
This
is
just
a
discussion
item,
so
there
is
no
action
to
be
taken
here
today.
What
I
will
do
is
we
will
want
to
go
back
to
the
Planning
Commission
subcommittee
to
work
on
your
comments
that
have
been
suggested
here
today
and
then,
once
we
have
a
good
draft,
we
would
probably
want
to
invite
our
ad
hoc
PDD
committee
to
attend
and
sit
down
with
us
and
review
this
in
some
type
of
a
study
session.
So
I
think
that
will
probably
be
our
next
step
and.
C
K
Didn't
know
about
this
until
this
morning
and
I
was
reading
this
well
I'm
listening
to
the
other
discussions,
I
think
there's
some
detail.
Stuff
I
mean
have
some
big
area
stuff
that
you
Nolan
and
I
and
others
have
talked
about,
but
I'll
try
to
draft
some
stuff
up.
You
know
what
was
the
one
that
well
the
well
there's
just
some
details
on
how
the
PDD
works,
how
it
works
on
the
map
is
it
zoning?
Is
it
not
zoning
and
those
kind
of
things
that
are
in
here
that
I'll
work
with
Flint
on
separately.
K
Well,
the
one
thing
I
think
that
you
guys
would
would
like
to
contemplate
is
that
single-use
housing
issue
at
least
I,
think
you
need
to
open
that
up
for
affordable
housing,
but
there's
a
lot
of
stuff
that
could
be
in
a
PDD.
That
might
be
a
you
know
where
you
have
a
I,
don't
see
one
in
our
four
zone
or
something
and
you're
trying
to
do
something
with
a
condominium
project
or
something
it's
more
or
less
the
single
housing
type
that
would
have
to
be
a
PDD,
so
I.
E
K
The
intent
of
this
was
to
exclude
the
small
lot
stuff,
as
that
was
the
bet,
was
the
primary
angst,
as
we
were
going
through
this.
So
you
know,
there's
a
there's.
A
few
things
like
that.
You
know
I
would
disagree
with
alignment
of
streets
all
the
time
when
you
lie
in
a
street.
You
often
end
up
at
the
traffic
light,
so
you
know
there's
there's
some
details
on
you
know.
Some
of
this
sounds
better
guidelines
than
ordinances
with
a
lot
of
what
is
happening.
K
I,
don't
think
you're
gonna
get
a
lot
of
Pee
Dee
Dee's
and
while
that
may
have
been
one
of
the
goals,
the
the
the
vacuum
still
is
in
the
other
zoning
regulations
that
aren't
that
that
aren't
there
yet
to
follow
up
with
where
we
have
been
doing
PD
DS,
because
we
don't
have
good
standard.
We
don't
have
a
good
difference,
though
the
ordinance
for
a
condominium
project.
It
was
one
of
the
reasons,
the
pd
d
out
it
got
invented
in
1967.
K
I
tell
you
the
date,
but
I
don't
know
that
is
because
all
of
a
sudden,
this
new
thing
called
condominiums
came
up
and
we
have
single-family
zones
where
they
wanted
to
do
those,
and
that's
why
you
know
if
you
look
at
the
projects
along
sunrise
in
our
first
public
benefit,
was
we
converted
a
frontage
road
requirement
that
was
gonna
exist
on
Sunrise?
If
you
like,
a
son,
sunflower
villas
right
there,
Ramona
and
in
sands
and
sunrise,
you
see
the
frontage
road
and
that
was
gonna.
E
K
C
This
item
is
closed.
We
are
moving
to
Planning
Commission
reports,
requests
and
comments.
The
only
comment
I
would
have
Flynn
is
that
we
set
up
our
subcommittee
meetings,
so
we
move
this
through
these
items
through
rather
quickly,
okay
and
other
commissioners.
Do
you
have
comments?
Commissioner
Keller
Danny's,
your
light
on
Fisher
Hudson,
yeah.