►
From YouTube: Planning Commission Meeting | October 3, 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
F
G
G
E
B
G
Public
comments:
the
time
has
been
set
aside
for
members
of
the
public
to
address
the
Planning
Commission
on
consent,
calendar
and
other
agenda
items
and
items
of
general
interest
within
the
subject
matter:
jurisdiction
of
the
Planning
Commission.
Please
note:
the
Planning
Commission
is
prohibited
from
taking
action
on
items
not
listed
on
the
posted
agenda.
Three
minutes
are
allowed
for
each
speaker,
members
who
would
like
to
comment
on
items
1a
and
3a
are
directed
to
speak
now.
That's
the
consent,
calendar
and
the
discussion
of
the
proposed
small
lot
residential
zone.
G
G
B
G
H
Yes,
madam
chair
and
planning
commissioners,
the
enemy
for
you
is
for
a
new
ordinance
for
the
zoning
code.
If
approved,
it
would
have
established
the
new
section.
93
point
two
three
point:
one
eight
of
the
zoning
code
and
what
it
is
regarding
is
the
transfer
of
development
rights.
So,
as
a
bit
of
background
on
the
transferred
development
ordinance,
the
city
back
in
the
2000s,
the
mid-2000s
had
a
long
history
of
preservation
of
mountain
areas,
which
is
all
kind
of
described
in
your
staff
report.
H
We
established
in
2006
the
environmentally
sensitive
area
specific
plan
zone
with
respect
to
the
Chino
Cone
areas
and
including
nine
planning
areas
within
that
the
Chino
cone
in
snow
Creek
areas,
so
that
ordinance
currently
has
limitations
on
development
and
what
could
be
developed.
There's
also
stipulations
that
allow
for
a
transfer
of
development
rights
bonus,
whether
with
it
within
the
area
or
outside
of
those
areas.
However,
the
ordinance
does
not
stipulate
how
transfer
of
development
rights
would
occur
so
on
what
we
have
before.
You
is
an
inordinately.
H
An
that
was
established
in
2007
there's
provisions
in
there
that
discuss
the
transfer
of
development
rights
for
open
space
and
density.
So
there
is
provisions
and
policies
in
the
general
plan
that
discussed
that
in
general,
the
preservation
of
open
space
is
one
of
the
goals
that
the
general
plan
supports.
H
So,
as
you
see
in
the
in
the
slide
on
the
screen
here,
you
have
the
various
densities
that
those
different
designations
permit
and
so
there's
a
variety
of
density
that
could
be.
They
could
occur
within
these
open
space
areas.
So
in
order
to
protect
these
areas
and
preserve
those
these
open
spaces,
the
transfer
of
development
rights
ordinance
is
a
mechanism
in
order
to
do
that.
H
So
this
could
facilitate
transferring
density
from
the
mountain
areas
to
areas
that
would
be
appropriate
for
development,
and
you
see,
as
shown
on
page
three
of
your
staff
report,
how
that
could
off-site
density
transfers
may
also
be
I'll
restate
what
the
policy
says.
It
says
that
off-site
density
transfers
may
be
allowed
if
it
can
be
demonstrated
that
the
additional
density
can
be
absorbed
by
the
host
site,
so
it
does
provide
for
a
manner
to
do
that.
So
that's
what
we're
looking
at
here
with
this
ordinance.
H
As
you'll
recall,
with
other
projects
that
we've
seen,
for
instance,
open
space
parks,
recreation,
where
we
have
a
golf
course
that
essentially
has
no
development
right
under
the
general
plan,
we
looked
at
the
policy.
L
you
to
point
to
that,
discusses
how
open
space
density
or
how
open
space
can
be
converted,
and
it
can
be
done
either
through
an
in-kind
replacement
of
such
open
space
elsewhere
in
the
city,
by
making
a
payment
of
in
lieu
fees
or
by
replacing
the
converted
open
space
through
the
use
of
density
transfer.
H
So
the
third
option
here
the
the
use
of
density
transfer,
is
what
we
would
is
what
this
ordinance
that
we
have
before
you
is
trying
to
address,
so
the
ordinance
itself
has
it
does
it
establishes
your
sending
and
receiving
sites
and
I
would
probably
just
direct
your
attention
to
the
examples
that
I've
given
you.
What
you
have
here
on
the
screen
is
an
example
of
a
site,
that's
eighty
acres
in
the
mountain,
and
so
this
would
be
your
sending
site
for
the
transfer
of
development
right
transaction.
H
This
site
is
a
pre-owned
parcel,
privately
owned
and,
by
definition
of
the
general
plan,
designation,
open
space
mountain
they
have
a
right
to
develop.
Two
units
or
I
should
say
one
unit
for
forty
acres,
but
in
this
case
it's
eighty
acres,
so
they
would
have
the
right
to
develop
two
units.
So
in
our
when
you
look
at
the
ordinance
and
the
five
steps
that
define
how
you
calculate
the
development
right
step,
one
is
you
identify
the
owners
reserved
area.
H
The
reserved
area
in
this
case
is
eighty
acres
step
two
identified,
the
undeveloped
bubble
reserved
area
in
this
case
there
is
no
area
that
would
be,
would
I
have
issue
with
meeting
or
have
with
ease
mints
or
required
landscape,
drainage
or
other
environmental
protections.
While
it's
unlikely,
this
site
would
ever
be
developed.
H
There
is
still
development
potential
based
on
the
general
plan,
so
under
step
two
there
are
no
acreages
that
would
be
undeveloped,
reserved
areas
when
we
move
to
step
three
in
the
ordinance.
When
you
have
80
acres,
you
would
have
a
total
of
80
acres
of
developable
reserved
area
and,
as
I
said,
with
the
general
plan
designation
of
open
space
mountain
at
a
density
of
one
to
one
unit
per
40
acres
you
to
get
two
units,
so
we
would
essentially
what
the
ordinance
would
allow
for
is.
H
H
H
There
are
some
additional
stipulations
in
the
current
ordinance
that
allow
for
a
transfer
of
bonus
density,
and
that
would
be
at
the
same
rate
that
is
currently
allowed
in
the
ESA
SP
zone.
The
Chino
cone
area,
snow
Creek
areas,
so
that
bonus
would
be
one
point,
two
units
at
the
receiving
site
for
every
one
unit
from
the
sending
site.
H
So
it
is
consistent
with
that
ordinance
and,
as
I
said
again,
this
would
provide
a
way
for
not
only
staff
to
review
and
analyze
projects
that
come
in
where
there
is
no
density,
but
also
the
public
or
developers
who
wanted
to
put
wanted
to
establish
density.
There
is
none
currently
and
it
really
puts
the
the
investigation
investigative
work
on
the
developer
to
do
to
go,
find
the
land
that
would
be
appropriate
for
preservation
and,
ultimately
up
to
the
City
Council
to
decide,
if
that's
appropriate,
so
that
kind
of
summarizes
the
ordinance
as
it's
written.
H
Since
this
was
prepared,
we
did,
we
did
have
a
couple
of
meetings
or
we
I'm.
Sorry.
We
had
one
meeting
with
our
subcommittee
today
on
this
topic
and
we
have
discussed
some
other
alternatives
that
may
be
considered
when
calculating
density
and
and
facilitating
the
transaction.
So
that
may
be
something
that
the
subcommittee
members
want
to
talk
about
further,
but
there
may
be
some
work
that
still
needs
to
be
done
for
the
ordinance
in
order
for
the
Commission
to
make
of
a
good
recommendation.
So
I'll
conclude
with
that
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
G
G
So
we
looked,
we
looked
at
that
and
we
think
they
think
it's
worth
taking
some
time
to
get
to
that.
To
get
to
that,
because
the
ordinance
is
drafted,
we
don't
think
would
have
great
applicability
before
we
take
questions
the
the
other.
The
other
thing
we
looked
at
after
some
consultation
with
my
consultation
with
a
Conservancy
group,
was
that
plan.
Putting
a
conservation
easement
on
a
parcel
is
not
the
same
as
the
parcel
being
owned
by
the
city
or
a
conservation
group.
G
So
there's
some
provision
for
long
term
maintenance,
we've
seen
many
sites
that
are
that
we
want
to
preserve,
but
people
use
them
as
dumping
grounds
or
shooting
grounds,
and
that's
not
something
we
want
to
see
happen.
So
that
was
the
other
thing
that
we
had
looked
at
and
discussed
in
the
subcommittee
meeting.
Commissioner,
her
spine.
B
So
that
first
point
you
made
about
the
proactive
practical
boat
being
it
being
practical,
are
you
saying
that,
like
with
one
unit
for
forty
acres,
it
would
be
too
expensive
to
acquire
enough
acres
to
make
a
difference
on
a
receiving
site?
Yes,
okay,
so
then
are
you
saying
that
you
would
up
the
number
of
units
that
would
be
increased
on
the
receiving
site,
but
instead
of
the
one
unit
for
forty
acres,
it
would
be
some
other
calculation.
G
We
didn't
know
that
that
was
the
problem
was
we
didn't,
have
an
easy
way,
and
maybe
our
attorney
can
also
step
in.
We
didn't
have
an
easy
way
of
making
that
calculation
without
some
kind
of
study
that
showed
the
nexus.
So
we
thought
the
alternate
way
was
being
much
more
specific
about
the
parcels
that
could
be
utilized
and
then
taking
a
look
at
how
we
did
them.
So.
G
B
G
Might
be
worth
it
X
amount
and
there's
some
parcels
that
have
sub
fully
recorded
subdivisions
on
them
that
have
never
been
built
out
and
they
may
have
more
value
because
they've
been
they've
been
recorded,
but
the
way
this
was
written
didn't
identify
that.
Yet
there
are
areas
where
people
had
wanted.
You
know
there
was
an
a
referendum
to
stop
one
of
the
subdivisions
from
being
developed
years
ago.
So
the
ordinance
is
written,
didn't
take
that
into
consideration.
G
I
I
The
most
complicated
part
about
these
types
of
ordinance
is
developing,
that
apples
to
apples,
equivalency
of
moving
development
rights
from
one
site
to
another
site
and
making
sure
that
those
reasonably
match
up
so
that
it's
legal
and
practical,
and
so
we
did
discuss
the
draft
ordinance.
That's
been
presented
of
the
Commission
today,
but
then
we
also
had
a
lot
of
these
other
conceptual
discussions
about
where
else
we
could
go
with
it.
I
G
B
So
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
lately
about
the
concept
of,
and
specifically
as
it
relates
to
PD
DS,
but
does
that
concept
apply
to
density
transfers
as
well?
And
if
so,
how
do
you?
How
do
you
justify
that,
when
the
the
area
that's
going
to
be
saved
from
development
could
be
far
away
from
the
area?
That's
potentially
going
to
be
developed.
I
Thank
You,
Commissioner,
Hirsch
mine
Nexus
does
indirectly
come
into
play
here
and
again
that
that's
where
we
get
back
to
those
equivalent
values
and
trying
to
make
sure
we
have
an
apples
to
apples
comparison
there.
If
a
developer
is
going
to
get
more
development
rights
on
developers,
property,
that's
going
to
impact
open
space
preservation
on
that
lot.
As
long
as
you
do,
the
analysis
right
and
you
have
that
equivalency
we're
off
site
open
space
can
be
used
to
offset
that
that
still
passes
Nexus.
It's
just
getting
that
equivalency
right.
B
I
G
I
Typically,
you
know
under
our
golf
course
ordinance.
The
way
it's
drafted
is
that
transfers
of
development
rights
are
done
pursuant
to
a
development
agreement,
and
a
development
agreement
is
a
negotiated
contract
that
provides
a
bit
more
flexibility
there.
So
that's
how
we
deal
with
that
with
a
transfer
of
development
rights.
It's
there's
a
more
direct
impact.
I
You
can
point
to
this
project
will
develop
beyond
what
our
code
provides,
but
in
doing
so
it
removes
additional
open
space,
but
to
offset
that
there
is
off-site
mitigation
with
open
space,
that's
a
little
different
than
just
the
public
benefit
concept.
Under
the
plan,
development
district
I
can
talked
about
that
in
more
detail
later.
B
I
I
mean
the
concept,
is
that
and
what
we've
tried
to
reduce
into
the
ordinance
here
is
that
you've
got
a
sending
site
in
a
receiving
site.
Both
have
a
particular
amount
of
density
of
development
allowed
under
the
general
plan
and
the
zoning
code
and
the
interplay
of
the
general
plan.
The
zoning
code
is
basically,
whichever
one
sets
the
most
restrictive.
You
know
density
is
the
one
that's
going
to
govern
once
you've
assessed.
You
know
what
the
development
potential
is
of
each
of
those
Lots.
B
E
E
G
E
H
J
If
those
two
units
were
built,
you
know
we
have
to
really
ask
the
question:
what
is
conservation
and
is
it
still
conserved
but
I
think
the
really
question
is
coming
up
as
we're
trying
to
use
this
for
golf
courses
and
I
guess.
My
question
is
golf
courses
currently?
Are
they
listed
as
an
open
space
in
our
general
plan?
They're.
J
H
H
Well,
essentially,
would
create
a
way
to
establish
development
in
areas
that
are
that
don't
have
a
right
to
develop
it.
It
was
probably
in
other
words
it
it
would
allow
for
land-
that's
probably
not
ripe
for
development
and
preserve
that
land
and
transfer
it
to
a
land
that
could
be
ripe
for
development.
Like
the
flatter
areas
of
the
city.
J
I
Speak
to
that
any
court
of
sort
of
Golf
Course
conversion
is
necessarily
going
to
involve
a
number
of
entitlements.
The
the
first
one
just
to
get
it
through
the
door
would
be
a
general
plan
amendment,
otherwise
that
open
space
designation
would
prohibit
any
sort
of
reuse
of
that
property.
Besides,
you
know
open
space
recreational
purposes.
I
Once
once
your
going
down
that
path,
there
may
be
a
possibility
for
transfer
of
development
rights.
You
know
it's
speculative
right
now.
You
know
who
can
see
into
the
future,
but
certainly
you're
right
that
as
it
currently
stands,
a
golf
course
would
not
have
any
residential
units
to
transfer
or
or
except
even
because
they
could
not
develop
it
with
that
general
plan.
Land
use
designation
so
that
that
hurdle
would
have
to
be
cleared
as
well
as
other
entitlements
before
you're.
Even
talking
transfer
of
development
rights.
J
I
F
Hi,
my
name
is
Tanya
Petrovna
and
I,
just
like
to
say,
as
I've
listened
to
your
conversation
that,
knowing
when
you
do
transfers
in
the
mountains,
not
all
species,
animal
and
plant
life
thrive
over
there.
There's
different
zones
is
when
we
speak
about
the
environment
that
certainly
some
things
fare
well
on
the
valley
floors
and
do
not
thrive
or
live
at
all
in
the
mountain
areas.
Just
to
make
note
of
that,
if
you
go
forward
to
think
of
these
transfers
and
your
apples
and
oranges,
thank
you.
K
Hi
I'm
Michelle
Johnson
from
Palm
Springs
I.
Just
don't
think
it's
right
that
you
take
open
space
from
one
area
and
give
those
rights
to
someplace
else.
It
could
be
out
in
the
boonies
someplace
or
if
it
goes
to
the
mountain.
Well,
that's
not
accessible
to
most
people
who
it's
accessible
to
now,
and
the
traffic
and
the
noise
and
everything
else
it
adds
to
the
existing
neighborhoods
is
just
you
know
astronomical
compared
to
what's
there
now
and
I
just
and
if
the
streets
go
through
that
weren't
there.
A
My
name
is
Dan
barber
I'm,
the
president
current
president
of
the
los
compadres
neighborhood
organization,
I've,
been
dealing
with
some
of
this
stuff.
You
guys
have
been
dealing
it
a
lot
longer,
but
since
last
February,
one
of
my
first
comments
is
I'm,
appalled
at
the
lack
of
a
communication,
the
lack
of
information
and
the
confusion
that
has
gone
on
since
then,
today
was
a
perfect
example.
Commissioner
woods
was
still
kind
of
confused
and
everything.
Every
time
I
have
gone
to
the
Planning
Commission.
A
This
has
been
on
the
average
of
about
once
every
two
weeks,
I
get
a
different
answer.
I
have
met
with
several
of
you
sitting
here
today
and
one
of
the
things
I've
been
appalled.
That
is,
the
general
plan
has
one
area.
Then
we
have
a
zoning
area.
Some
of
these
golf
courses
are
on
Indian
land.
How
many
we
have
last
I
heard
there
were
I
think
eleven
potential
golf
course.
Two
of
those
are
on
Indian
land.
One
time
there
was
going
to
be
a
moratorium.
Now
we
don't
know
there
is
get
the
facts
together.
A
Let
us
know
in
the
public
when
you're
gonna
meet,
so
we
can
talk
about
this,
get
our
people
together.
We
are
the
people
I'm,
one
of
the
people
of
the
organized
neighborhoods
and
I
get
the
phone
calls
what's
happening.
I
get
angry
residents
what's
happening.
If
you
guys
don't
know
the
answer
as
Commissioner
woods
didn't
know
today
or
confuse,
can
you
imagine
what
the
residents
feel
I've
lived
in
this
city
since
1991,
one
of
the
most
enjoyable
things
to
me
as
I?
A
Go
down
Farrell
drive
every
day
to
get
to
my
house,
I
see
a
lot
of
open
space
and
that
beautiful
mountain
view.
How
much
is
that's
going
to
be
taken
away?
How
much
of
this
transfer
I
used
to
work
in
the
energy
business?
So
I
did
a
lot
of
those
transfers
of
energy
rights,
so
the
35
acres
in
Valyrians?
A
How
many,
how
much
of
that
is
going
to
be
left
to
open
space
and
how
much
of
it
is
going
to
be
transferred,
or
is
it
going
to
be
I've
seen
five
different
examples
of
what
they
wanted
to
do
with
this
space?
It's
not
clear
to
resident.
It's
not
fair
to
residents.
I!
Think
you
guys
and
you're
doing
a
great
job.
Don't
get
me
wrong,
but
yes,
you
need
more
time.
A
I
was
one
of
the
big
people
that
were
pushing
for
the
moratorium,
so
this
information
could
get
together
and
all
of
the
neighborhoods,
because
it's
going
to
affect
us
all.
It's
gonna
affect
Palm
Springs
for
generations
to
come
with
the
amount
of
open
space
I
just
want
it
to
be
fair.
I
want
an
all
to
be
equal,
I,
don't
want
to
have
belly
or
greens
Indian
canyons,
because
they're
in
on
Indian
land
treated
one
way
and
then
you've
got
tahquitz
creaking
somebody
elder
or
mesquite.
A
F
Good
afternoon,
madam
chairman,
my
name
is
rush.
You--They
I've
been
a
resident
of
this
town
for
about
15
years.
I
represent
sunrise,
I'm
Senora
sunrise,
which
consists
of
about
1800
homes.
Can
you
imagine
how
many
phone
calls
I'm
getting
I'm
going
crazy,
I
didn't
even
know.
I
wanted
to
speak
today,
because
I
was
so
confused
about
where
we
are
and
where
we're
going.
F
F
The
tribe
I,
don't
know,
is
Bel
Air
Indian
land
a
lot
a
and
who's
the
lessee
Alessi's,
who
the
owners
I
don't
know
and
I
think
somebody
better
spend
some
time
checking
in
on
the
legal
capacity
of
who
we're
talking
with
owned
by
our
greens,
he
told
me
that
they
settled
a
contract.
It's
going
to
be
converted
to
fee
simple,
but
there's
a
caveat.
Cavett
is
that
the
city
lets
us
do
what
we
want
to
do.
First.
F
Well,
I,
don't
understand
this.
You
know
when
you
look
at
the
moratorium.
Possibility
one
thinks
well,
maybe
it's
not
you,
sir
anymore?
Well,
it
is
because
our
planet,
our
general
plan,
our
code,
is
messed
up.
It's
very
old
now
I
understand
that
they're
going
to
be
talking
about
sending
it
outside
agency
to
help
speed
up
the
process,
but
we
don't
know
what
that
is,
and
you
know
we
have
85%
of
this
land
is
open
spaces.
F
F
I'm
Darryl
Thomas
and
I'm
recently
moved
to
Palm
Springs
from
Texas
and
in
Texas.
We
have
similar
situations
as
far
as
open
spaces.
But
to
me
what
I
see
is
the
Indian
land
they're
not
involved
in
these
meetings?
I
mean
I,
haven't
seen
one
tribal
leader
here
and
so
we're
just
floundering
around.
If
we're
not
getting
their
buy-in
onto
the
whole
situation
too,
or
wondering
what
it
is
that
they
want
to
do
with
that
land
I
mean
we
could
just
throw
rocks
with
each
other
all
time.
F
F
But
if
we're
looking
at
you
know
doing
the
transfer
of
development
or
rights,
Belair
is
worth
more
than
80
acres
in
the
mountains,
I
mean
the
mountains
are
huge,
but
once
that
land
here
in
the
middle
of
Palm
Springs
is
developed,
it's
gone
and
we
like
that
open
space.
It
does
good
things
for
floodplain
control.
It
gives
people
the
ability
to
walk
around
freely.
F
F
Earth's
in
Fuego,
Palm,
Springs
I
was
born
here
and
I
see
us
moving
in
a
direction
of
less
and
less
space
taller
taller
buildings,
which
is
basically
reducing
and
eliminating
our
natural
resource,
which
is
the
beauty
of
Palm
Springs.
We
are
such
a
small
confined
area
that
we
are
never
going
to
grow
and
expand
outward,
but
if
we
keep
going
inward
and
taking
away
our
open
spaces,
we
lose
the
actual
resource
that
is
Palm
Springs.
F
The
only
reason
we
exist
here
and
that
people
want
to
come
here
and
also
it's
damaging
to
our
population
because,
as
I
explained,
we
need
the
open
space.
If
we're
gonna
do
a
trade
out,
it
needs
to
be
a
minimal.
If
anything,
it
really
shouldn't
be
a
trade
out,
because
that
was
on
the
intention
either
of
the
open
space
created
in
the
2007
plan,
so
I'm
for
the
moratorium.
Thank
you.
G
G
I
have
been
told
the
same
as
you
that
the
moratorium
has
not
yet
happened,
and
it
will
be
reschedule.
The
discussion
at
City
Council
will
be
rescheduled.
I.
Do
believe
that
our
legal
counsel
is
looking
into
the
status
of
the
leases
which
are
which
are
standard
in
in
our
agreement
with
the
tribe
are
exceptions
to
the
ability
of
the
Planning
Commission
and
City
Council
to
make
decisions
on
a
lottery
land.
G
G
If
that
answers
your
questions,
but
at
least
I
can
tell
you
that
we've
been
continuing
to
work
on
this
and
we've
been
looking
at
the
Golf
Course
ordinance,
not
because
we
want
to
give
away
our
open
space,
but
we
want
to
have
some
way
to
preserve
it
when
people
when,
because
it's
privately
owned-
and
we
don't
want
our
golf
forces
to
get
into
the
situation-
that
the
old
Palm
Springs
Golf
Course,
got
into
where
it
was
fallow
and
blowing
sand
and
a
hazard
to
the
people
living
around
it.
So
we're.
G
G
The
draft
that's
in
front
of
us,
and
one
of
the
things
we
discussed
today
was
whether
this
would
be
helpful
at
all
I
think
the
transfer
of
development
rights
ordinance
and
we
wanted
to
pursue
it
a
little
bit
further
before
we
decide
that
we
have
no
way
of
figuring
out
how
we
do
it
short
of
an
appraisal
or
a
development
agreement.
But
we
we
did
want
to
look
at
it.
G
The
goal
again
for
the
general
public
is
not
to
give
away
lands
for
nothing,
but
if
something,
if
a
private
developer
has
the
has
they
can
meet
the
conditions
that
they
don't.
Somebody
doesn't
buy
a
golf
course
from
someone
at
a
high
price
not
expecting
that
they
will
have
to
enter
into
an
agreement
to
buy
some
other
lands
that
replace
the
open
space.
That's
utilized,
because
if
you
go
and
buy
a
golf
course
for
ten
ten
million
dollars,
and
then
you
find
out
that
you
we
want
to
keep
people
from
paying
a
lot.
G
D
Yes,
I
think
there
was
some
a
lot
of
discussion
about
what
is
the
appropriate
ratio
of
lands
in
the
mountains,
for
example,
or
if,
if
we
were
to
allow
for
a
golf
course
to
convert-
and
we
have
no,
it's
a
completely
discretionary
action
and
sometime
in
the
future.
If
we
were
to
do
that,
I
think
I
did
some
back
of
the
envelope
calculations
here
in
under
staffs
proposal,
which
is
not
we're
not
proposing
to
go
to
prove
that
today
or
anything,
but
there's
would
be
roughly
twenty.
D
Five
hundred
acres
of
the
mountain
areas
to
have
to
be
preserved
for
the
hundred
roughly
hundred
units
that
would
be
is
proposed
for
Bel
Air.
That's
the
type
of
ratio,
that's
being
talked
about
it's
you
know,
you've
all
their
arguments
forward
against
it,
whether
you
think
it's
a
good
idea
or
a
bad
idea,
but
it's
not
just
serving
that
one
for
one
and
you
know
the
ordinance.
D
So
it's
a
very
complicated
process
and
procedure
so
like
I'm,
going
to
be
certainly
recommending
a
continuance
on
this
autumn
when
we
get
to
it
because
it
does
need
some
more
research
and
I
would
certainly
express
some
concern
about
using
units
and
I.
Think
I
expressed
this
to
the
committee.
I,
don't
think!
That's
the
appropriate
unit
for
doing
the
conversions
I'd
like
to
see
some
different
ones
that
we
discussed
the
committee
and
go
forward
at
that
and
come
have.
D
G
J
Of
all
I'd
like
to
thank
people
who
are
here
participating
in
the
public
process,
I
think
it's
always
a
sustainable
City.
When
we
have
people
participate
and
it's
it's
appreciated.
I,
don't
know
if
I
personally
appreciate
being
attacked,
but
I
can
tell
you
that
I
have
30
years
worth
of
experience
and
my
questions
were
not
out
of
ignorance
and
not
out
of
confusion
at
all.
We
have
9
we
received
on
our
dias
here,
9
letters
or
comments
from
different
people.
There
is
confusion
out
there.
J
My
line
of
questioning
was
to
help
people
either
in
the
audience
or
at
home,
get
clarification
on
some
of
the
issues
they
had
brought
up
in
their
comments
because
they
may
not
be
here
to
speak.
They
may
not
want
to
speak.
They
may
not
be
feel
comfortable
in
speaking
and
I.
Think
it's
imperative
that
we
bring
it
up.
I
am
totally
supportive.
Continuing
this
I
think
it
is
a
very
hefty
issue
to
look
at,
but
I
do
want
to
reiterate.
G
G
Just
a
informal
way
from
the
Coachella
Valley
Mountains
Conservancy,
which
took
a
look
at
it
in
terms
of
if
there
was
a
density
transfer,
what
what
mechanisms
would
guarantee
both
the
the
fairness
of
the
transfer
and
also
the
upkeep
of
them,
the
area
that
was
being
preserved
so
I
think
that's
one
additional
thing
that
we
need
to
look
at
both
the
mechanism
and
if
some
Mountain
Landis
being
preserved,
how
it's
being
preserved.
So
we
have
a
motion.
We
have
a
second.
G
H
H
As
we
discussed
today,
staff
incorporated
changes
that
referenced
the
transfer
of
development
rights
ordinance
and
those,
obviously,
if
we
are
not
acting
on
that
ordinance
or
taking
that
ordinance
forward,
would
have
to
be
stricken
from
the
ordinance
so
I'll
just
go
through
those
real
quick
with
you
on
the
strikeout
version,
the
the
marked
up
version,
the
red,
underline
and
strikethrough
version
of
the
ordinance,
which
is
the
red
text.
That's
why
the
easiest
to
reference
and
go
through
it
page
two
of
the
document
you'll
see
reference
b1,
a
little
B
3.
H
H
Otherwise,
the
changes
that
you
see
in
the
document
are
consistent
with
the
recommendations
that
work
provided
by
the
Planning
Commission
back
in
June,
as
well
as
some
changes
that
the
subcommittee
had
recommended
as
a
part
of
the
overall
improvement
of
the
draft
ordinance.
So
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have,
and
this
is
a
public
hearing.
Thank
you.
Questions.
G
I
G
G
H
H
50%
of
the
land
is
to
remain
open
and
it
includes
greenways,
landscape,
buffers,
water
channels,
waterways
and,
to
the
extent
feasible
artificial
ponds
and
is
based
on
the
gross
acreage
of
a
project.
There
are
there's
a
whole
section
dedicated
to
what
defines
a
desert
Greenway
with
minimum
sizes,
as
well
as.
H
There
are
buildings
pack
requirements
for
single
story
structures
on
a
proposed
golf
course:
development,
50-foot
setback
is
required
from
the
property
lines
adjacent
to
surrounding
areas.
That's
the
that
would
be
an
average.
Well
excuse
me:
that's
a
minimum
50-foot
and
then
the
average
being
no
less
than
35.
H
There's
a
multi-story
structure.
Setback
requirement
of
150
feet
from
existing
development
adjacent
to
the
golf
course
property
to
the
new
structures
on
the
property,
and
that
would
be
a
minimum
of
150
foot.
150
foot
setback,
but
a
reduction
could
occur
to
a
hundred
feet
if
buffered
by
a
desert,
Greenway.
H
H
One
thing
I
would
also
note
that
any
proposed
Golf
Course
conversion,
the
application
process,
is
a
two-part
process
for
the
public
for
the
benefit.
The
public
first
part
is
an
intent
to
convert
application
where
there
are
a
whole
series
of
items
that
an
applicant
would
have
to
go
through
in
terms
of
alternatives
to
a
proposed
development,
including
preservation
as
a
golf
course
partial
conversion
of
a
golf
course,
as
well
as
the
proposed
full
development
of
the
course,
with
still
we're
meeting
the
requirements
of
this
ordinance
in
terms
of
the
50
percent
open
space.
H
H
After
that
is
completed
to
the
satisfaction
of
staff,
then
they
could
submit
the
full
and
formal
entitlement
applications
which
would
include
the
general
plan
amendment
as
necessary,
as
well
as
a
development
agreement
in
order
to
establish
the
terms
of
any
proposed
application
and
type
entitlement
application
and
any
other
entitlement
that
would
be
necessary
for
a
formal
development
proposal.
So
there
are
quite
a
bit
of
requirements
that
would
go
into
any
proposed
golf
course.
Development
should
it
occur.
Based
on
these
ordinance
requirements,
so
I'll
conclude
with
that
have
to
answer
your
other
questions.
A
follow-up.
B
H
I
B
H
G
I
Access
to
property
for
park
purposes
or
whatever
would
again
be
governed
by
access
our
watchword
for
the
day,
however,
with
a
development
agreement,
because
that's
a
negotiated
contract
between
developer
and
city,
the
city
could
obtain
more
property
rights
if
they
can
negotiate
that
into
a
development
agreement
beyond
in
excess.
But
that
would
be
through
a
development
agreement.
G
But
the
just
in
terms
of
your
questions,
any
public,
any
open
space
that
was
required
for
a
approved
use
would
not
count
as
open
space
for
the
50%
requirement.
Therefore,
in
one
say,
in
one
of
the
iterations
of
bel-air
greens,
we
saw
a
hotel
development
that
had
an
open
space
requirement
that
wouldn't
count
toward
the
50%
open
space
in
this
ordinance
am
I,
correct,
right.
J
Like
to
direct
this
is
the
attorney
if
I
could
just
know.
Jim
and
I
want
to
follow
up
on
my
earlier
questioning,
where
we
heard
that
a
golf
course
if
it's
open
space
in
the
general
plan
cannot
have
development
taken
away
from
it.
Obviously,
there's
nothing
to
transfer
or
be
a
receiver
site
for
for
a
transfer.
However,
in
this
questions
for
the
edification
of
everyone,
listening
as
well,
a
development
agreement
can
override
all
of
that.
J
I
A
development
agreement
I
don't
mean
to
get
too
much
in
the
weeds
here,
but
when
you're
talking
about
a
large
project
such
as
a
golf
course,
a
shopping
center,
some
very
large
project,
when
you
do
a
development
agreement,
it's
not
just
done
in
isolation,
it
will
have
all
of
the
land
use
entitlements
wrapped
up
with
it.
General
plan.
Amendment
zone
changes,
see
you
peez
any
sort
of
other
entitlements
there
and
then
typically
what
the
development
agreement
does.
I
Is
it
then
takes
those
entitlements,
it
locks
them
in
and
then
the
benefit
to
the
developer
is
the
developer
gets
to
use
those
entitlements
for
a
far
longer
period
of
time
than
under
normal
circumstances.
Typically,
it
would
be
two
years
and
you
got
to
get
get
kicking
on
your
development.
The
development
agreement
may
allow
them
to
go
five.
I
Ten,
sometimes
I've
done
them
as
long
as
20
years,
where
the
vesting
last
that
long
buys
the
developer
a
lot
of
time
to
ultimately
develop
the
project,
but
those
are
still
tied
to
other
entitlements
and
often
times
it
goes
to
the
City
Council.
As
a
big
package,
you
know
a
number
of
entitlements,
along
with
the
development
agreements.
J
G
For
the
general
public,
what
we're
proposing
is
something
that
is
still
discretionary,
because
it
involves
a
general
plan
amendment.
It
is
discretionary,
it
isn't
a
foregone
conclusion
that
somebody
would
come
in
with
a
golf
course
conversion
proposal
and
it
would
be
approved
it's
still.
It's
still
a
discretionary.
I
G
D
Through
a
couple
things
with
staff
and
kind
of
convert
and
confirm,
this
is
the
way
this
is.
This
would
work,
but
we've
got
started
on
this
from
our
perspective
with
the
Sarina
Park
of
Palm
Springs
Golf
Course
issue,
where
the
base
that
the
property
owner
just
decided
but
we're
not
gonna,
operate
the
Golf
Course
anymore
and
it
became
a
horrendous
mess
and
it
still
is
for
all
the
people
that
live
down
there
and
is
basically
blighted,
and
we
did
not
want
to
get
into
that
situation
again.
We
cannot
say
legally
that
you
can't.
D
We
cannot
redevelop
any
Golf
Course
the
Supreme
Court
in
the
Constitution.
Basically
say
you
can't
that
becomes
a
taking
what's
called
a
taking
and
you
have
to
pay
the
the
government
agency
would
have
to
pay
for
the
property
under
that
MOU.
So
we
want
to
make
it
difficult
to
are
challenging
to
convert
a
golf
course,
but
we
still
have
to
allow
it
in
some
cases,
but
we've
set
up
here
and
and
Dave.
Can
you
correct
me
if
I
say
any
of
this?
This
thing
wrong?
That's
wrong!
D
One
of
the
tests
are
include
assessing
the
adjacent
homeowners
associations
ability
to
what
would
rights
do
they
have
over
the
golf
course
and
I
think
in
the
case
of
Mesquite
golf
course.
If
correct
me,
if
I'm
wrong,
there
are
some
existing
rights
that
would
probably
probably
preclude
any
conversion
right
from
the
start.
So
we're
worried
about
feral,
that's
probably
going
to
be.
It
may
be
a
difficult
one
to
convert
just
because
of
other
issues.
D
They
have
to
demonstrate
that
they
cannot
feasibly
financially
operate.
The
golf
course
anymore:
they
have
to
consider
an
option
that
would
be
partial
conversion,
like
maybe
doing
a
shorter
course,
rather
than
the
full
18-hole
course
that
may
be
out
there.
They
have
to
demonstrate
all
of
these
are
infeasible
before
they
even
get
to
the
point
of
considering
a
full
conversion.
They
have
to
consider
donation
or
potential
purchase
of
the
property
by
some
government
or
homeowners
association
or
a
nonprofit
group
that
could
operate
the
land
as
a
golf
course
or
a
public
park.
D
They
have
to
demonstrate
that
all
of
those
are
infeasible
before
they
get
to
the
point
of
converting,
potentially
converting.
So
it's
it's
a
long
and
challenging
road,
long
par
5
or
par
16,
probably
actually
before
you
could
even
get
to
that
at
that
point,
and
then
you'd
have
to
go
into
the
conversion
process
which
says
that
you'll
have
to
preserve,
under
this
ordinance
at
least
50%
of
the
open
space
on
site
in
any
case
and
then
potentially,
if
it
allowed
50%
off
site.
D
That's
the
basic
thrust
of
the
core
of
what
we
have
here
and
I
understand
a
lot
of
people
I'm,
definitely
listening
to
people
in
terms
of
what
what
they
like.
We
have
to
have
some
way
that
meets
both
the
supreme
court
tests,
but
makes
it
a
challenge
to
convert
a
golf
course.
I
think
that's
where
I
is
Dave.
If
I
said
that
correctly,
yes,
there
was
one
other.
There
was
one
other
point
that
I
forgot
to
bring
up
that
I,
don't
know
if
is
in
here
and
I
know
anyway,.
G
H
G
You
that's
just
those
were
two
items
that
I
noticed
that
we
hadn't
we
possibly
hadn't
covered
in
previous
questions,
for
the
public
and
I,
don't
know
have
people
in
the
audience
hold
the
staff.
Hopefully,
you've
pulled
the
staff
report
and
the
ordinance
itself
from
the
so
you've
looked
at
it
and
you've
looked
at
the
changes
when
you
comment,
I.
Think
at
this
point,
I
want
to
open
public
comments.
Since
the
city
is
technically
the
applicant.
There
won't
be
a
applicant
on
this,
but
you
have
three
minutes.
C
Don't
certainly
mean
to
suggest
in
the
ignorance
on
the
part
of
any
individual
but
I
do
think.
There's
a
great
deal
of
confusion
and
I
need
like
to
commend
the
Planning
Commission,
the
subcommittee's,
who
had
the
pleasure
of
watching
some
of
these
meetings
and
there's
no
doubt
the
level
of
hard
work
that
you've
put
into
this.
C
But
I
think
the
remain
remains
a
lot
of
confusion
at
the
general
city
level,
I
wonder
since
the
general
plan,
because
the
comment
was
made
that
the
general
plan
essentially
is
the
law
and
yet,
with
respect
to
open
space,
the
priorities
listed
in
the
general
plan.
The
city
has
not
met
them
since
2007
and
the
general
plan
11
golf
courses
were
listed,
some
of
which
no
longer
exist.
Those
comprise
90%
of
the
acreage
depicted
in
the
general
plan
as
being
open
space.
C
We've
already
lost
some
of
that
and
we
know
that
others
of
those
are
on
Indian
leased
land,
which
creates,
as
those
following
ballet
are
know,
a
great
deal
of
issues.
There's
a
statement
in
the
general
plan
that
the
goal
is
5
acres
per
100
per
thousand
residents
and
it
shows
a
forecasted
growth
of
the
city
that
will
would
be
certainly
not
meeting
it
today.
It
also
talks
about
park
space
being
up
within
a
mile
of
people's
residences.
C
I
appreciate
that
some
open
spaces
in
park,
but
I
think
the
concept
of
moving
open
space
up
into
the
mountains,
defeats
that
purpose
of
having
access
to
park
space
but
I
guess
they
need
to
make
the
plea
that
there
be
some
recognition
that
that
this
is
theirs.
There's
a
great
deal
of
confusion
with
respect
to
the
zoning
and
the
general
plan
when
the
signage
that
was
put
up
on
Bailey,
our
greens
by
the
city
and
the
Planning
Commission,
noting
that
there
had
been
proposals,
the
zoning
was
clearly
marked
as
r1c.
C
Yet
in
the
discussions
it
was,
it
was
declared
open
space
after
the
fact
of
the
original
purchase
and,
of
course,
that
led
to
confusion
and
led
to
some
discrepancies
with
ash
incorporated.
The
current
alleged
owners
I
want
to
reference
the
letter
that
was
in
the
packet
from
SB
EMP,
the
attorneys
representing
ash
on
august
31
of
this
year,
and
some
of
the
points
that
they
made
in
that
because
I
think
they're,
significant
I
think
those
are
our
issues
that
need
to
be
addressed
to
make
this
ordinance
more
bulletproof.
C
If
you
will,
one
of
them
was
the
suggestion
that
that
was
imagined
that
the
improvement
and
maintenance
cost
of
any
open
space
that
is
preserved
if
a
Golf
Course
is
converted
that
the
cost
of
those
fall
to
the
to
the
the
seller
or
the
the
developer.
But
that's
not
clearly
spelled
out,
as
was
already
been
indicated.
If
it's
not
spelled
out,
it's
not
clear,
it's
not
going
to
be
done.
C
C
K
Good
afternoon,
commissioners,
my
name
is
for
the
record
I'm
a
resident
of
being
a
north
course
of
the
Indian
Canyon
scale
for
a
sort.
However
I'm,
not
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
neighborhood
organization
and
while
I
do
have
a
comment
related
to
my
work
on
the
sustainability
Commission
I'm,
also
not
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
sustainability
Commission.
With
that
on
the
record.
Just
a
couple
of
comments.
First
of
all,
I
would
like
to
echo
the
comments
made
by
other
speakers.
It
is
not
clear
to
whether
the
ordinance
would
apply
to
a
lot
e
land.
K
I
read
the
land
use
contract.
That
council
approved
two
weeks
ago,
is
that
it
would,
but
that
really
should
be
specified.
I
realized
that
that
is
not
an
issue
for
the
commissioners
chair
where
Mike
has
mentioned,
but
when
this
goes
through
the
Commission
and
up
to
Council,
that
should
be
clarified
in
discussions
with
the
Tribal
Council.
Once
again,
it's
my
understanding
that
it
would
apply,
but
that's
a
big
issue
for
us
and
for
you
know,
other
other
golf
courses
on
on
lottery
land.
Second
I'd
like
to
echo
the
comment
that
my
good
friend
mr.
K
nouse
made
in
the
letter
he
submitted-
that's
the
very
last
page
of
your
package
and
that's
the
role
of
potential
neighborhood
organizations.
If
there's
to
be
no
conversion
in
the
language
that
is
in
Section,
C
2,
a
of
the
draft
under
the
development
developers
alternative
assessment
under
no
conversion,
it
refers
to
existing
property
owners,
associations
or
new
associations
with
existing
neighborhood
or
which
owns
or
manages
residential
unit
common
area
within
500
feet.
Well,
the
neighborhood
organizations
under
the
city's
ordinance.
K
We
don't
actually
manage
any
property,
but
if
that
language
can
potentially
be
broadened,
there
pretend
there
could
be
a
role
for
the
neighbourhood
organizations
that
that
may
require
change
in
the
city's
ordinance.
But
to
give
you
an
example
that
you
may
have
heard,
our
neighborhood
organization
has
just
completed
a
very
successful
membership,
drive
or
and
drive
with
the
tribe,
and
so
the
tribe
will
be
getting
more
than
hundred
thousand
dollars
from
our
residents
of
our
neighborhood
to
keep
the
clubhouse
open
and
have
more
people
out
on
the
north,
Carl
North,
Club
golf
course.
K
So
there
is
definitely
a
role
for
the
neighborhood
organization,
we're
not
officially
doing
it
is
for
the
tribe.
We
sponsored
and
job
we're,
successful
and
getting
a
large
money
collected
and
will
be
turned
over
to
the
tribe
in
the
next
couple
of
days
and
they'll
start
opening
the
clubhouse
starting
on
November,
first
and
finally
wearing
my
sustainability,
Commission
hat.
You
know,
as
I
worked
on
the
water
efficient
landscape
ordinance,
which
is
codified
as
Section
860
of
the
municipal
code.
The
development
standards
I
believe
f4
refers
to
following
CVWD,
but
doesn't
have
a
reference
to.
K
K
A
A
Saying
that
you
were
confused
to
others
did
later
so
I
wanted
to
say
that.
But
my
other
real
question
was:
we've
been
talking
about
the
transfers
and
one
of
them
that's
very
unclear
to
me,
and
if
someone
can
answer
to
be
a
done
deal,
I
heard
that
the
50%
is
supposed
to
say
open
space.
At
one
point
at
one
of
the
subcommittee
hearings,
there
was
like
a
limit
talked
about
of
how
much
of
that
other
50%
could
be
transferred.
A
I
mean
I,
remember,
hearing
at
one
point
and
I'll
just
use
bel-air
greens
it
was
35,
acres
50%
was
supposed
to
stay.
You
know
open
space
at
17
and
a
half
and
that
other
half
of
the
other
17
event
and
a
half
would
be
up
for
grabs.
Is
that
is
there
an
upper
limit
or
is
it
you
know
of
that
leftover
50%
that
can
be
transferred,
we'll.
G
F
Madam
chair
autumn,
wolf
commissioners
staff
counsel,
my
name
is
Wayne
Gorelick,
with
the
law
firm
of
ground
like
Gilliland
and
Nitin
in
Palm,
Desert
California
I'm
here
representing
muskie
Country
Club
homeowners
association
I
also
represent
about
60
HOAs
in
this
community
300
in
the
desert
and
about
20
golf
courses.
I
want
to
first
thank
the
subcommittee
tireless
work.
Countless
hours
did
a
fantastic
job.
F
The
ordinance
we're
talking
about
today
creates
a
road
map
where
none
exists.
Now
it
provides
protections
to
the
homeowners
and
the
HOAs
in
relationship
to
a
potential
golf
course.
Conversion
where
none
exists
now
it
provides
solutions,
were
none
exists
now,
I
encourage
you
to
approve
this
and
send
it
to
the
City
Council
I
do
suggest
that
madam
chairs
Commons
are
well
taken
relationship
to
the
one
golf
course
that
is
foul.
Oh
now,
and
it's
not
operating
suggested
definition.
That
would
include
a
definition
for
golf
course
to
include
anything.
K
Hi
again,
Michelle
Johnson,
smooth
Park
once
again
towards
the
transfer
to
Mountain
area.
The
mountains
have
a
humongous
amount
of
open
space.
The
city's
got
almost
none
plus
you're
trading
land.
That's
not
you're,
going
to
land
us,
basically,
probably
not
buildable,
because
of
the
topography
and
everything
to
land
that
you
know
can
be
and
from
what
I
remember
in
the
previous
discussions
they're.
K
What
they're
proposing
for
open
space
is
little
pieces
here
and
there
trading
35
acres
for
piecemeal
pockets
here
and
there
isn't
really
equal
to
open
space,
and
maybe
it's
not
for
this,
but
somebody
did
mention
them.
Okay,
and
for
a
to
store
up
I
hope
it
doesn't
go
through
it
all,
but
there
was
mention
of
two-story
being
allowed.
Another
neighborhoods
around.
There
are
two
storey:
that's
not
going
to
blend
in
with
the
neighborhoods.
K
F
Hello,
Tanya
Petrovna
again,
I
would
just
like
to
echo
the
sentiment
Michaels
spoke
about
earlier
with.
If
the
general
plan
is
is
the
2007
version
allocates
a
certain
amount
of
acreage
per
person
for
open
space
and
if
that
is
not
being
met
now,
how
are
we
meeting
that
by
reducing
open
space,
for
example,
golf
courses
being
reduced
to
50%,
so
it's
a
little
bit
of
a
confusion.
I
haven't
I
just
wanted
to
state
that
I'm,
probably
not
alone.
Thank
you.
G
J
So
there
be
broader
acknowledgment
or
knowledge
of
a
transfer
I
think
we
had
also
asked
that
one
of
the
meetings
be
more
general
in
nature
and
almost
the
community
in
general,
not
just
the
neighbor,
because
I
think
when
we,
when
we
spoke
before
changing
or
converting
a
golf
course
is
more
significant
than
just
the
neighbors.
It's
a
huge
which
we
heard
in
testimony
today.
It's
a
much
larger
issue.
So
I
think
just
adding
some
verbage
and
would
let
staff
do
that
that
a
meeting
be
more
broad
in
nature,
and
those
are
my
comments.
Thank
you.
J
J
I
You,
commissioner,
I,
madam
chair
members
of
the
Commission
bel-air
greens,
as
our
office
understands,
is
ality
land,
which
is
that
in-between
category
of
tribal
land
there's
certain
tribal
land.
That's
what
we
call
trustee
land
city
does
not
have
land
use
jurisdiction
over
it.
On
the
other
hand,
there's
also
what's
called
fee
owned
land
which
the
city
does
have
jurisdiction
on
a
lot.
Eland
is
in
that
in-between
category.
I
Now
the
council
did
approve
an
updated
agreement
with
the
ala
kulli
on
teh
tribe
two
weeks
ago,
as
I
recall
that
set
out
that
relationship
and
as
a
general
rule
under
that
agreement,
the
city
does
have
land
use
jurisdiction
over
a
lot
e
land,
which
would
mean
the
golf
course
ordinance.
A
moratorium
ordinance
would
apply.
I
However,
there
is
a
particular
section
in
the
lease
section
11
as
I
recall
that
says
that
the
city
will
not
have
jurisdiction
over
a
lot
Island
to
the
extended
interferes
with
any
federally
negotiated
lease
we're
trying
to
find
out
what
those
leases
are
with
the
nature's
of
those
leases
and
we've
been
reaching
out
to
the
tribe
to
get
those
once
we
understand
the
nature
of
those
leases,
we'll
have
a
better
understanding
about
the
land
use
jurisdiction
over
those
park
over
those
golf
courses.
So.
I
I
C
C
C
C
B
B
B
B
There
should
be
something
in
there
about
naturalized
waterways,
that
concrete
channels,
in
my
estimation,
do
not
constitute
open
space
and
then
the
other
comment
I
have
specifically
about
the
ordinance
has
to
do
with
public
access
to
the
open
space
right.
Now
you
guys
the
communities
living
in
this
sort
of
fantasy
that
this
golf
course
it's
been
not
in
use
for
many
years,
is
sort
of
a
public
park,
but
it's
not
it's
private
land
and
technically
they
could
put
a
fence
up
around
it
and
keep
everybody
out,
but
so.
B
But
to
make
the
leap
to
that,
something
that's
going
to
be
developed
has
to
include
access
for
the
public
I'm
I'm
in
favor
of
actually
I.
Think
I
think
we
should
all
I
think
the
ordinance
should
specify
that
certain
types
of
the
open
space
that
will
be
provided
under
this
be
allowed
to
be
accessed
by
the
public.
Otherwise
I
think
we
lose
the
benefit.
K
A
G
For
the
general
public,
we
did
include
one
of
the
goals,
which
was
views,
the
preservation
of
views
and
not
just
the
preservation
of
open
space.
So
there
are
many
reasons
to
do
this,
but
I
was
going
in
order
if
it's
okay,
if
I
make
comments
and
I'll
go,
go
to
you
next
I
think
it
would
be
good
for
staff,
possibly
to
comment
on
the
park
allocations
that
are
in
the
general
plan,
which
I
think
the
the
level
that
we
anticipate
in
terms
of
parks
will
be
met.
G
H
For
neighborhood
parks,
so
the
goal
is
essentially
for
every
thousand
residents.
We
have
5
acres
of
park
space.
Currently,
what
it
says
is
we
have
156
acres
that
is
developed
park
space,
not
including
golf
courses,
so
at
the
ultimate
build-out
of
the
city.
There
is
additional
parks
park
line
that
would
be
needed.
However,
that's
not
factored
in
at
this
time
because
we're
not
at
build-out.
This
is
we're
well
under
build-out.
H
Right
so
the
the
public
parks,
the
the
element,
describes
all
of
the
open
space
Park
Recreation,
which
includes
public
parks
as
well
as
golf
courses
with
when,
when
the
city
established
its
goals
in
the
in
the
Recreation
open
space
element,
it
was
I
said
one
one
for
every
thousand
residents.
You
have
five
acres
of
park
space.
It
also
has
a
goal
to
have
parkland
within
one
mile
of
every
residential
area.
There's
a
map
that
we
have
as
part
of
our
general
plan
circulate
or
recreation
element.
H
That's
figure
5-1,
where
you
show
areas
that
are
deficient
that
do
not
meet
the
one-mile
radius.
When
we
look
at
the
park,
spaces
that
are
included
in
that
those
are
really
only
public
parks.
Those
do
not
include
golf
course:
shirt
lands,
so
there's
deficiencies
throughout
the
city,
primarily
in
the
southerly
end
of
the
city,
south
of
East
Palm
Canyon,
where
we
have
Golf
Course
space,
but
we
don't
have
parkland.
So
we
look
at
all
of
these
things
as
part
of
this
document
and.
G
Then,
for
the
general
public
people
who've
asked
about
bel-air
greens.
As
far
as
we
know,
it
was
through
the
1970s
and
then
the
2000
and
my
correct
general
plan
updates
where
fifty
percent
of
the
land
was
identified
as
open
as
open
space
and
fifty
percent
was
zoned
for
residential
for
our
one
C
and
that's
currently,
both
the
general
plan
and
the
zoning
designate.
The
zoning
the
underlying
zoning
was
residential,
but
50
percent
of
it
was
identified
in
the
general
plan,
as
in
the
current
general
plan
and
previous
general
plans
as
open
space,
the.
G
G
F
H
D
D
D
The
back
when
we
did
the
general
plan
update
in
2007-2008.
It
had
been
planned
to
update
the
zoning
at
that
time.
However,
that
was
the
time
of
the
housing
recession
and
the
money
for
doing
that,
which
is
roughly
a
million
dollars.
I
think
something
like
that.
Right,
husband
was
taken
out
of
the
budget
for
several
years.
D
Those
are
very
common
they're,
very
complex
items
and
the
communication,
sometimes
when
we
just
send
something
to
the
council,
isn't
isn't
always
as
as
good
as
we'd
like
it
to
be
and
I
think
like
we
did
with
the
downtown
plan
plans
and
zoning.
That
would.
This
would
be
a
really
good
time,
while
we're
still
considering
the
final
changes
to
the
ordinance
to
have
such
a
joint
session
and
I.
D
Think
I'm
going
to
suggest
that
I
don't
see
anybody
to
peel
here
cringe,
but
I
think
it
would
be
a
really
good
idea
because
it's
very
complicated
and
then,
but
that
would
probably
also
include
the
other
two
items
on
today's
public
hearing
agenda.
Yes,
the
PDD
ordinance
and
the
transfer
of
development
rights
whenever
they
are
ripe,
I,
don't
know
if
we're
quite
there
yet,
but
I've
got
some
more
last
minute.
D
G
K
G
G
J
This
would
be
on
page
5
of
11
number
item.
3
is
neighborhood
outreach
meetings,
a
is
how
to
do
it
after
the
file.
Read
this
the
previous
sentence,
so
that
you
get
it.
These
meetings
shall
be
provided
to
surrounding
res,
including
renters
and
occupants,
and
property
owners
and
community
associations
that
are
located
within
500
feet
of
any
boundary
of
the
subject.
Golf
Course
period,
I'm
asking
to
add,
after
that,
a
minimum
of
one
neighborhood
outreach
meeting
shall
be
noticed,
citywide
in
a
format
and
form
approved
by
the
city.
E
G
We
had
language
about
and
if
we
can
do
this
within
Nexus
that
when
the
development
agreement
is
negotiated,
that
some
some,
the
consul
and
Planning
Commission
make
an
effort
in
the
development
agreement
to
include
access
to
Trails
on
the
public
land,
just
summon
something
to
that
effect
language
that
we
can
say
in
a
mr.
priest
if
you
can
find
a
variant
that
would
work
in
that
regard.
We.
G
G
I
G
H
G
G
B
G
G
D
One
thing
we
want
to
when
we're
talking
about
applying
to
fallow
golf
courses,
I,
think
we
want
to
say
where
something
like
that,
where
an
entitlement
has
not
been
already
granted
because
we
don't
want
to.
We
definitely
don't
want
this
to
apply
to
Sarina
Burke
right.
G
I
G
I
D
I,
just
wanna
make
it
clear
that
we're
not
going
back
on
those
two
painful
enough
months.
One
more
item
that
I
just
had
forgotten
and
I
thought
we
were
gonna
put
this
in
here.
Maybe
it's
in
here
somewhere
David
that
I
can't
find
there.
D
It
needs
to
be
some
discussion
about
it's
effectively,
a
previous
transfer
of
development
rights
or
density
averaging
at
least
one
golf
course
I
can
think
of
right
in
the
center
of
town
was
built
where
everything
was
zoned
previously
zone
for
low-density,
single-family
residences,
but
the
area
some
of
the
areas
around
the
edges
of
that
was
then
changed
to
higher
density
condominium
development,
effectively
a
TDR
Elmen
rights
to
allow
for
the
golf
course
and
the
higher
density
condominium
development.
That
was
we.
D
We
need
to
have
some
assessment
made
of
whether
there
was
a
commitment
to
the
golf
course
use
in
the
prior
zoning
decisions
about
the
best
way.
I
can
think
of
saying
it.
Maybe
there's
some
better
words,
but
if
there
was
a
if
the
golf
course
was
approved
and
then
higher
density
surrounding
the
golf
course
had
been
previously
granted,
we
need
to
be
very
careful
about
changing
the
golf
course
increasing
the
density
yet
again
and
maybe
under
on
page
four
of
ten
of
the
non
red
line
version
under.
D
So
if
there
was
a
I
can't
think
of
the
exact
words,
I
want
to
say
and
I
get
Flynn's
help,
but
if
there
was
a
previous
decision
made
to
increase
densities
around
the
golf
course
by
transferring
the
units
that
were
where
the
golf
course
is
now
to
higher
density.
I
think
that's
something
we
want
to
certainly
take
into
consideration.
G
G
G
G
The
only
other
thing
that
was
suggested,
and
my
suggestion
was
that
we
take
a
vote
on
this
and
then
send
this
to
Council,
with
the
requests
that
we
have
a
meeting
with
council
about
this,
to
discuss
what
we've
done
and
where
we've
gotten
so
that
there
would
be
a
discussion
we
do
have
our
consul
representative
here,
I,
don't
putting
you
on
the
spot
council
member
Middleton.
Is
that
something
that
would
be
agreeable
to
the
council?
In
your
estimation,.
B
F
G
E
You
have
made
a
motion
with
the
following
recommendations
as
revisions
to
the
draft
ordinance
number
one
is
to
include
in
the
definition
of
golf
course
any
non-operational
courses.
We've
also
had
a
comment
about
that
to
exclude
any
that
might
already
have
entitlements,
and
so
we
do
have
that.
Secondly,
was
to
include
references
to
the
water,
efficient,
landscape,
ordinance
and
I
believe
that
you
had
also
wanted
to
add
maintenance
of
the
open
space.
E
As
part
of
that
number,
three
is
relative
to
section
2,
a
sub
2
I
about
adding
language
relative
to
neighborhood
organizations
as
participating
in
that
number.
Four
is
relative
to
including
a
citywide
meeting
in
the
notices
and
that's
the
language
from
Commissioner
woods
that
I'll
ask
mr.
woods
to
forward
to
us
just
to
make
sure
that
I
have
that
exact
language.
Number
five
is
relative
to
the
development
agreement
to
encourage
access
to
trails
on
public
lands
as
part
of
the
Planning
Commission
City
Council.
Negotiations
of
the
development
agreement.
E
Number
six
is
to
establish
in
the
ordinance
the
relationship
of
the
ordinance
to
allotted
land
number.
Seven
is
relative
to
waterways
that
concrete,
channelized
waterways
were
not
to
be
included
in
the
open
space
requirement,
but
wherever
there
are
recreational
amenities
adjacent
to
the
waterways,
that
those
could
be
included
in
the
open
space
requirement.
And
then
number
eight
is
in
the
requirement
for
a
development
agreement
that
there
be
a
date
certain
for
either
the
a
payment
or
the
transfer
of
land
relative
to
the
density.
E
D
G
H
H
G
G
G
E
Chair
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
to
turn
some
time
over
to
mr.
priests,
our
attorney
to
talk
about
two
issues.
As
you
may
recall,
from
our
previous
discussions
on
this
particular
draft
ordinance,
there
were
two
issues
that
still
needed
work.
One
was
relative
to
public
benefit
and
the
second
was
relative
to
revocation
procedures.
So
with
that,
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
turn
that
over
to
mr.
priest
and
then
I'll
follow
with
any
additional
comments.
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
Planning
Commission
honorable
council,
member
and
staff.
Yes,
as
indicating
the
staff
report,
there
are
two
issues
that
our
office
has
identified
in
the
PD
D
ordinance
that
required
some
alterations.
Some
revision
in
order
to
comply
with
California
law.
The
first
and
we've
been
alluding
to
it
earlier
in
this
meeting.
In
the
context
of
golf
course,
conversions
is
public
benefit
yeah.
The
city
does
have
a
public
benefit
policy.
It's
been
on
the
books
for
quite
a
few
years.
I
However,
our
office
had
concerns
with
that
public
benefit
policy
because
it
exceeds
Nexus,
and
we
know
I've
been
throwing
that
word
around
a
lot
this
afternoon.
What
does
that
mean?
So
let
me
see
if
I
can
try
to
explain
this
in
a
couple
of
minutes.
We
start
from
the
premise
that
I'm,
a
property
owner
I
have
a
right
to
develop
my
property.
I
In
addition
to
that,
we
have
this,
it
can
be
somewhat
of
a
nuance
to
rule
California
called
essential
Nexus
and
then
it's
paired
with
another
concept.
We
have
called
rough
proportionality
and
what
that
basically
means
is
you
can
regulate
my
property
and
how
I
develop
it:
height,
setback
and
all
that
stuff.
But
what
of
my
ownership
rights?
Can
the
city
actually
take?
I
What
can
it
actually
what
we
call
exact
from
me
as
a
property
owner
and
we've
come
up
over
the
years
with
these
concepts
of
Nexus
proportionality
and
what
you
basically
do
is
when
I
develop
my
property,
it's
going
to
have
certain
public
impacts
on
infrastructure,
on
services,
etc.
You
know
with
one
house
or
one
small
property.
I
It
would
be
a
very
small
impact,
but
you
know
if
I'm
building,
you
know
two
hundred
houses,
an
entire
subdivision
tract
that's
going
to
require
additional
police
fire
streets,
sidewalks,
Park
land,
all
of
those
types
of
things
and
the
city
has
the
legal
right
to
take
a
certain
amount
of
my
profit:
private
property
rights
as
a
developer
and
put
that
into
public
ownership
to
offset
those
impacts.
So,
for
example,
I'm
building
a
large
tract
and
we're
gonna
need
to
add
a
street
in
order
to
provide
reasonable
access
to
that
subdivision.
I
The
city
could
say
this
portion
of
property
going
through
your
project
is
not
going
to
be
houses,
it's
going
to
be
a
public
street
and
when
it's
done
you're
going
to
dedicate
that
over
to
the
city,
that's
the
legal
term.
We
use
is
to
give
it
over
to
public
ownership
and
the
city
will
operate
it,
maintain
it
etc.
But
again,
in
order
to
arrive
at
that
calculation,
you
need
to
at
least
first
point
to
an
impact
and
go
large.
Residential
project
is
going
to
create
access
issues
that
require
streets
and
sidewalks.
I
So
those
types
of
things
the
city
has
the
legal
right
to
say:
yeah
private
property
owner
we're
gonna
have
that
property
to
solve
that
impact.
We
also
have
impact
fees
in
the
city.
There's
also,
what's
called
a
development
impact
fee
nexus
report
that
the
city
did
when
it
adopted
those
fees
and
that
determines
hey
how
much
of
new
police
facilities
or
new
fire
facilities
or
these
other
type
of
public
infrastructure.
I
I
And
it
usually
is
a
very
lengthy
report,
gets
into
a
lot
of
studies
and
analysis
and
then
concludes
with
impact
fees,
that
a
new
house
has
five
hundred
and
fifty
dollars
of
fire
impact,
and
so
we're
gonna
charge
up
five
hundred
and
fifty
dollar
impact
fee
to
the
developer
for
a
building
permit
to
build
that
one
house
and
it's
a
it's-
a
lengthy
set
of
calculations
that
consultants
do
to
come
up
with
that.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
though,
it
still
comes
down
to,
is
there
an
identifiable
impact
on
public
services
or
public
infrastructure?
I
That
development
is
creating
that
in
order
to
offset
that
the
city
needs
to
take
something
needs
to
take
some
of
that
private
property
right
away
from
the
developer.
The
concern
with
public
benefit
is
that
it
acknowledged
that
there
was
this
nexus
limit
and
then
said
more,
and
that
was
the
concern,
because,
with
the
exception
of
a
development
agreement
which
is
a
negotiated
and
agreed
to
contract
with
the
developer,
even
with
PD
DS
with
any
sort
of
other
land
use
entitlements,
the
city
is
limited
to
this
nexus
limit
and
that
state
constitutional.
I
It's
actually
federally
constitutional,
its
Fifth
Amendment.
So
that
was
our
concern
with
the
public,
with
the
public
benefit
language
as
originally
drafted.
So
we
have
revised
that
to
indicate
that
the
city
can
require
more
to
the
extent
that
that
PDD
district
with
its
flexible
zoning
is
creating
additional
impacts.
That
wouldn't
be
there
if
you
were
just
following
code,
and
so
that's
why
we've
recraft
in
the
language
that
way
in
order
to
bring
that
more
into
conformity
with
both
u.s.
and
state
constitutional
law.
I
I
And
a
permit
is
issued,
that
is
a
vested
valuable
land
use
entitlement
that
the
developer
holds
and
now
with
subdivision
Maps
there's
a
special
case,
because
there's
a
state
statute
that
actually
time
limits
those
there
isn't
one
that
time
limits.
Other
land
use
entitlements
like
conditional
use
permits,
or
things
like
that,
and
so
there's
actually
a
court
case
out.
There
is
called
the
Fort
Bragg
case
that
says
that
automatic
expirations
of
those
types
of
permits.
I
You
can't
do
if
you
fail
to
use
the
permit
within
a
certain
period
of
time,
one
year,
two
years,
whatever
your
code
says,
that
can
be
a
basis
to
revoke
the
permit,
but
it's
not
a
basis
for
just
automatic
revocation
and
that's
a
due
process
thing
again:
that's
class,
that's
constitutional
law
as
well,
so
the
property
owner
is
entitled
to
notice
and
to
have
a
hearing
before
the
Planning
Commission
to
you
know
defend
you
know
his
or
her
position
and
then
the
Commission
can
make
a
determination.
So
it's
not
really
eliminating
the
standard.
I
It's
just
sort
of
a
shift
in
emphasis
in
the
procedure
a
little
bit
again.
If
a
developer
sits
on
a
permit
for
two
years
and
doesn't
do
anything
with
it,
then
that
doesn't
mean
the
city
just
has
to
let
that
go
on
ad
infinitum.
But
what
you
would
do
is
you
would
notice
that
up
for
a
revocation
hearing,
as
opposed
to
just
it's
automatically
expired.
E
G
E
A
couple
of
things
that
I
just
wanted
to
add
to
that
is
in
reviewing
the
memo
that
came
to
us
from
mr.
priests
office
about
public
benefit.
One
of
the
things
to
take
into
consideration
is
that,
with
the
proposed
changes
to
the
planned
development
district
ordinance,
we
are
permitting
fewer
waivers
from
development
standards
than
existed
previously,
and
so
there's
going
to
be
a
significant
limit
to
what
people
can
ask
under
the
new
plan,
development
district
ordinance
and
so
that
reduces
to
a
certain
degree
the
public
benefit
that
we
would
be
requesting
anyway.
E
I,
don't
think
public
benefit
is
as
necessary
as
it
was
in
the
past
because
of
those
limitations
that
we've
placed
on
it.
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
comment
and
then
just
to
go
into
some
additional
detail
about
revocation
procedures.
One
of
the
questions
that
has
come
up
is
how
do
we
do
revocation
relative
to
a
planned
development
district?
E
If,
for
example,
the
development
does
not
go
forward,
then
what
we
would
do
is
we
would
bring
that
before
the
Planning
Commission
after
the
time
period
has
expired
in
a
public
hearing,
as
mr.
priest
has
indicated,
to
request
to
revoke
that
PD
zoning
and
to
change
the
map
back
to
its
original
designation.
So
it
doesn't
mean
that
we
can't
do
it
any
longer.
It
just
means
that
we
have
a
public
hearing
process
and
that
we
formally
notice
that
as
part
of
the
process,
as
mr.
priest
indicated,
we'll
need
to
know
relative
to
those
two
points.
D
E
D
D
Just
thinking
which
occurs
very
rarely
these
days,
but
I
thought,
maybe
we
want
to
do
on
page
eight
of
the
draft
ordinance
red
line
version
number
item.
Three
public
benefit
the
first
line
under
general,
where
you
go,
you
added
to
offset
any
additional
impacts,
specifically
created
by
the
waivers
of
development
standards
requested
under
this
section.
D
I
D
Isolating
the
impacts
created
by
the
changes
in
the
zone
or
the
changes
in
the
PDD
versus
the
changes
caused
by
the
project
and
I
think
particularly
sequel
where
the
project,
the
no
project
is
the
baseline.
We
might
want
to
changed
that
language
to
use
the
project,
that's
the
baseline
rather
than
that.
Okay,.
I
D
I
D
I
Well,
it's
not
that
our
requirements
wouldn't
miss
anything,
it's
that
if
you
took
a
project
and
developed
it
to
code,
we're
not
asking
for
any
flexes
owning
anything.
There
are
so
many
there's
so
many
fees
and
so
much
property
that
the
city
could
get
from
that
project
to
offset
those
impacts
to
mitigate
those
impacts.
Now
I
come
in
with
a
PDD,
that's
gonna
change
the
zoning
some
and
to
the
extent
that
adds,
impacts
that
normally
wouldn't
be
there
for
a
to
code
project.
D
I
understand
that
I
just
would
like
to
change
it
to
project
because
I
think
distinguishing
that
changes
from
the
zone.
Let's
call
it
the
zone.
Change
is
gonna,
be
very
tricky
and
require
a
lot
of
technical
analysis.
We
won't
have
where
we
will
already
have
all
the
analyses
for
the
project
itself,
where.
G
D
I
You
have
explicit
statutory
her
eyes,
ation
of
something
that
automatically
expires
and
the
courts
have
upheld
that,
and
so
in
that
special
case
with
tentative
maps
yeah,
you
are
coming
back
to
the
Planning
Commission
for
extensions
or
if
there's
statutory
extensions
like
there
were
for
many
years
during
the
development
slump
in
the
recession,
but
all
the
other
land
use
entitlements,
such
as
see
ups
variances
changes
stuff,
like
that.
Those
are
things
that
don't
automatically
expire
due
process
requires
that
those
come
back
to
the
Commission
or
the
council
for
a
revocation.
Another.
E
That's
sorry
if
I
could
jump
in
Madame
chair,
that's
one
of
the
specific
things
that
the
subcommittee
requested
is
that
we
time
the
entitlements
so
that
they
expire
together,
so
that
one
isn't
extended
beyond
what
the
others
are.
So
what
I'd
recommend
that
we
do
is
mr.
priest
if
we
could
just
look
at
that
language
to
make
sure
that
we're
still
there
relative
to
the
expiration
of
the
entitlements
where
there
are
multiple
entitlements
associated
with
a
planned
development
district.
B
I
B
Be
and
if
there
was
additional
impact,
wouldn't
that
be
covered
under
the
normal
taking
anyway,
regardless
of
calling
it
a
public
benefit
or
not,
I
mean
to
me.
It
sounds
like
we
don't
even
need
a
public
benefit
portion
in
this
ordinance.
If
it,
we
can
only
extract
what's
extractable
under
typical
circumstances,.
E
I
Iiiiii
I
understand
your
question
to
be.
You
know
if
it's
all
exactions
in
Nexus
anyway,
you
know.
Why
are
we
specifically
calling
this
out
I
think
it's
useful
to
at
least
call
this
out
in
the
ordinance
to
make
it
clear
that
you
know
Nexus
still
applies.
If
there's
additional
impacts,
we
can
offset
those
just
as
a
clarifying
point,
but
I
would
agree
with
you
that
yeah
I
mean
you
know
whether
we
call
it
public
benefit
or
if
it's
just
an
exaction
from
a
project
that
has
Nexus
it's
the
same
concept.
I
B
Getting
back
to
your
example,
so
again
in
the
past,
we've
we've
we've
done
these
small
lot
subdivision,
for
instance,
on
typically
our
three
or
commercial
zone,
and
and
we
don't
really
have
any
applicable
setback
standards
that
you
could
then
transfer
to
these
smaller
Lots
subdivision.
So
even
in
that
case,
would
you
still
be
able
to
say
that,
for
instance,
we're
hiring
a
common
little
green
area
or
a
dog
park,
or
something
would
be
in
excess
in
that
case,
if.
E
I
Giving
an
example
from
parks
cuz
that
that's
the
one
that
tends
to
cause
it
causes
out
of
the
most
challenges
for
lost
cities.
You
have
a
project
and
say
it's
got
when
it's
all
said
and
done.
It's
got
twenty
acres
of
open
space
left
on
the
property.
The
city
has
done
its
calculations
based
on
the
number
of
people
who
are
going
to
be
moving
into
this
project
and
stop
the
five
per
thousand
standard.
The
city's
general
plan
is
adopted
and
the
conclusion
is
that
we
have
Nexus
to
collect
six
acres
for
a
park.
I
The
city
could
say
as
a
condition
of
your
permits,
hand
over
six
acres.
It
will
be
dedicated
as
a
public
park.
You
know
located
on
the
corner
or
located
somewhere
where
it's
accessible,
but
what
you
do
with
the
other
14
acres,
the
other
14
acres,
is
still
the
developer's
property
and
if
they
want
to
now,
if
it's
regulated
to
be
open,
space
or
parkland,
or
something
like
that,
the
city
could
still
require
it
to
be
open
space
or
parkland,
but
it
would
be
privately
owned,
open
space
or
parkland,
so
it
could
be
an
HOA
park.
I
It
could
be
a
pool
house,
it
could
be
those
kinds
of
things
not
publicly
accessible
so
that
that's
the
distinction
there.
You
have
Nexus
to
maybe
get
some
of
the
property
into
a
public
park
which
again
would
be
publicly
accessible.
It's
how
most
city
parks
get
developed.
Is
they
get
an
exaction
from
a
developer
that
built?
You
know,
cable
and
are
you
know
a
lot
of
these
big
developers?
They
would
reserve
a
section
of
land
in
the
project.
It's
like
that's
going
to
be
Smith,
Park
or
Jones
Ark,
or
something
like
that.
I
But
you
may
not
be
able
to
get
all
of
the
property
under
a
public
benefit
theory,
because
again
you
still
have
to
point
to
an
impact,
and
you
need
to
show
that
that
taking
is
proportional.
That's
the
other
element
of
it
when
you
do
impact
fee
studies,
very
lengthy
reports,
and
it
gets
into
all
of
that
stuff.
So
you
come
with
a
fair
number
of
this
is
what
we're
gonna
charge.
New
development
for
police
fire
streets,
general
government
there's
a
whole
slew
of
them
that
get
charged
under
impact
fee
law.
I
hope
that
makes
sense.
G
So
you're
talking
public
benefit,
so
you're
not
really
talking
site
plan
in
this,
in
terms
of
and
which
I
don't
think
fits
into
public
benefits.
So
when
we've
approved
small
residential
developments-
and
we
include
a
swimming
pool
and
a
dog
park
for
the
residents
that
isn't
a
public
benefit
that
has
been
assessed,
that's
a
portion
of
the
site
plant
that
goes
into
the
development.
Yes,.
I
That
that
that's
a
very
important
legal
distinction
to
is
your
authority
to
regulate
private
property
is
more
extensive
than
your
ability
to
take
private
property
for
a
public
use.
You
can
still
regulate
and
say,
yeah
developer.
It's
still
your
property,
we're
not
taking
it
into
public
ownership,
but
you
will
still
be
limited
on
height.
You
will
be
limited
on
setback
so
limit
on
these.
B
I
B
So
let
me
just
posit
another
example
so
because
another
example
there's
a
site,
that's
zoned
commercial
and
a
developer
wants
to
develop
residential
on
that
property,
and
he
wants
to
do
it
through
a
PD
D
and
that
site
borders
a
natural
path,
that's
owned
by,
for
instance,
a
water
district
that
people
use
for
recreational
purposes
can
can
you
under
the
public
benefit
part
of
that?
Can
you
require
that
the
developer
provide
a
landscape
buffer
within
his
own
property
before
the
development
part
of
it
begins?.
I
I
You
could
probably
justify
a
buffer,
but
again
it's
a
matter
of
degree,
it's
a
matter
of
proportionality
and
so
that
that's
where
it
gets
a
little
tricky,
especially
if
you're
going
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
because
you
really
have
to
look
at
each
case
when
we
do
impact
the
is.
Our
attempt
is
to
come
up
with
an
across-the-board
rule
for
everybody
right,
but
some
of
these
like
dedication
of
a
buffer
or
you
know
reserving
a
buffer
that
would
still
be
privately
owned,
but
not
develop
again.
Those
are
things
you
really
take
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
G
G
Section
C
on
page
9
of
its
public
benefits,
C
and
the
applicant
shall
be
responsible
for
identifying
requested
waivers
their
impact
on
public
infrastructure
and
services
and
the
accompanying
public
benefit
that
will
offset
the
impact
okay
I.
The
question
I
have
and
we're
not
we're
not
through
the
public
hearing,
but
there's
no
reason
not
to
put
language
in
there
about
staff
confirmation.
G
G
And
then
a
question
for
mr.
priest
and
I
already
know
the
answer,
but
you've
deleted
all
the
sustainable
features
which
are
over
and
above
what
would
be
in
the
2020
sustainability
guidelines,
and
does
that
mean
that
we
need
to
look?
Some
of
them
are
and
they
would
pertain
only
to
commercial
buildings.
E
One
of
the
reasons-
and
it
was
actually
me
who
took
this
out
based
on
the
memo
from
mr.
priests
office,
looking
at
the
fact
that
the
public
benefit
has
to
address
the
specific
impacts
of
the
waivers
being
requested
that
it
didn't
seem
that
sustainable
features
would
necessarily
address
that
and
then,
secondly,
because
of
recent
advancements
that
we
as
the
city
have
made,
such
as
adopting
our
solar
policy
and
changes
in
title
24
that
are
forthcoming,
that
it
didn't
seem
like
this
language
was
really
necessary
any
longer.
Now,
if
it's.
E
G
I
Tend
to
concur
with
Flynn
that
it
would
be
difficult
to
demonstrate
a
specific
project
impact
that
you
would
use
sustainability
features
for
to
specifically
offset
you
know
again
title
24
code,
compliance.
You
know
an
improvement
of
design
standards
to
have
more
sustainable
features.
That's
all
fine
and
the
city
has
the
legal
authority
to
adopt
that
through
building
codes
and
all
that
stuff,
but
on
a
projects
a
specific
basis.
You
know
it's
a
little
bit
of
a
challenge
for
me
to
just
figure
out
how
a
sustainable
building
practice
will
offset
an
identifiable
impact
of
new
development.
G
I
I
And
there
are
there's
a
network
of
laws
already
in
existence
that
assist
with
water
sustainability.
You
know
having
to
evaluate
you,
know
the
water
sufficiency
of
the
site
before
you
get
approvals
before
you
get
Maps
all
that
type
of
stuff
impact
fees,
I
am
assuming
the
city
does
have
water
system
impact.
G
I
Not
let's
talk
because
that's
a
very
common
way
that
water
sustainability
impacts
are
addressed.
Is
you
have
a
water
system
impact
fee
that
goes
into
a
fund
that
builds
new
water
capacity,
new
systems?
They
do
it
for
sewer
wastewater
all
that
stuff
as
well.
Groundwater
augmentation
charges
which
the
courts
have
blessed
in
the
last
couple
of
years,
where
you
can
charge
as
part
of
your
water
bill,
the
city
can
charge
additional
money,
that's
necessary
to
recharge
the
ground
water,
so
the
aquifer
doesn't
get
overdrafted.
There
are
a
number
of
ways
that
cities
can
do
that.
I
I
I
You
know
that,
might
it
might
pass
Nexus
just
thinking
about
it
off
the
top
of
my
head
to
to
ensure
that
waters,
not
you
know
evaporating.
You
live
in
a
desert
climate
out
here
and
that
that's
obviously
a
greater
concern
that
if
you
were
living
at
the
coast,
you
know
again
it's
something
I'd
like
to
look
into
at
first
blush.
It
might,
in
my
pass,
muster
under
Nexus
requirement
like
that
yeah
and.
I
G
Then
my
other
question
is:
maybe
you
or
flynn
could
go
through
the
revocation
process,
where
what
that
would
look
like
step
by
step
where
we
have
a
combination
of
a
project
with
a
final
trap,
track
map
and
a
PD
that
doesn't
get
built
out?
What
does
that?
What
does
that
look
like
when,
when
does
so
we've
that's
the
concern
I
have
is,
is
what
are
the
different
permutations
of
revocation
of
a
PD
that
we
need
to
consider
that
impact
the
decisions
were
making
here
or
that
additions
were
making
cure.
You.
I
Know
again,
it's
really
just
sort
of
a
shift
in
procedure.
More
than
anything
else,
insta
you
have
a
developer,
that's
you
know
gone
past
two
years
or
one
year
whatever
the
cutoff
is
in
your
cup
staff
could
flag
that
identify
that
and
then
they
would
notice
that
up
for
revocation
hearing
before
the
Planning
Commission
and
they
and
then
the
Planning
Commission
would
hear
the
item.
I
It's
literally
that
simple,
as
opposed
to
as
opposed
to
the
applicant
coming
to
you
for
an
extension,
it
would
be,
it
would
be,
it
would
come
to
you
on
a
revocation
and
then
the
property
owner
would
be
present
and
could
explain.
You
know
hey
what
have
you
been
doing?
Have
you
been
utilizing
your
entitlements
or
not
so.
G
I
Is
looking
at
understood
technically,
it
would
not
be
an
extension.
It
would
because,
under
the
Fort
Bragg
case,
the
entitlement
just
keeps
going
on
with
the
lamp.
It's
not
it's
not
a
matter
of
extending
it
or
not.
It
just
runs
with
the
land
until
revoked.
So
instead
of
coming
before
the
Commission
to
keep
an
entitlement
going,
it
would
be
coming
to
the
Commission
to
stop
an
entitlement
that
can
effectively
just
keep
running
on
its
own.
Does
that
make
sense?
I
E
Me
let
me
offer
another
example:
let's
say
that
we
have
a
planned
development
district
application,
a
major
architectural
application
in
a
subdivision
map,
those
are
approved
by
City,
Council
and
they're,
given
two
years
to
develop
in
that
two
years
they
don't
develop.
So
they
request
an
extension
of
time
which
comes
before
the
Planning
Commission
Planning
Commission
gives
them
a
one-year
extension
of
time.
They
come
back
in
one
year.
They
still
haven't
developed,
they
request
another
extension
of
time
and
Planning
Commission
says
no
we're
not
going
to
approve
your
extension
of
time.
E
E
G
E
I
G
E
B
I
G
G
I
G
G
E
D
D
D
I
G
K
F
My
name
is
my
name
is
Julie.
Souls
are
in
thanks,
everybody
for
all
the
work
that
you
do
for
us.
I
do,
while
studying
here.
I
do
something
came
to
mind
the
other
day
I
was
driving
past
filardo
and
against
the
mountain
I
noticed
there
was
a
bike.
Rack
I
think
it's
part
of
the
PDD
I'm,
not
sure.
That's
why
I
hesitated
in
coming
up,
but
it
was
a
tiny
little
space.
F
So
my
question
is:
how
little
can
they
can
the
land
owner
offer
the
community
and
call
it
a
park
because
it
was
a
small
bench?
A
bike,
rack
and
I
saw
a
water
fountain,
but
it
could
have
been
Roger
because
I
was
driving
by,
but
I
thought
that's
kind
of
unusual
place
for
that.
So
my
question
again
is:
is
there
a
minimum
requirement
for
an
owner
of
property
to
call
it
a
park,
be.
J
F
G
Is
there
anyone
else?
If
not,
the
public
hearing
is
closed
and
this
matter
is
before
the
Commission
you're,
referring
to
the
Dakota
project.
That
was
a
section
of
land
that
was
offered
by
the
applicant
to
the
city
and
I
believe
it
is
a
city
park
for
people
who
bike
paths
to
stop
and
get
water,
and
it's
a
trailhead,
it's
I
won't
say
any.
Let
your
comments
stand
I.
Don't
we
had
the
same
questions.
G
There's
a
history
to
this
that
people
may
or
may
not
know
that
the
p
d--'s,
a
special
ad
hoc
committee,
was
set
up
through
a
lawsuit
on
the
dakota
project
and
it
meant
for
about
a
year
it
had
representatives
from
the
Planning
Commission
from
the
developer,
from
the
people
who
sued
the
Dakota,
and
then
we
added
three
people
and
we
came
up
with
a
series
of
recommendations
that
are
included
in
the
packet.
This
is
for
commissioners,
that
are
our
new.
G
The
group
itself
recommended
about
sixty
changes,
but
they,
including
the
people
who'd
been
involved
in
the
lawsuit,
took
the
position
that
we
should
continue
the
PD
process,
but
really
circumscribe
it
and
limit
it.
So
that's
what's
before
us
today.
The
one
thing
that
is
a
significant
limitation
is
that
the
PD
process
can
no
longer
be
used
for
a
single
housing
type.
It's
basically
when
you're,
combining
different
kinds
of
property,
so
the
PD
would
no
longer
be
you
utilized.
G
If
this
is
approved
by
us
and
the
console
for
a
project
like
the
Dakota
and
it
it,
we
have
in
front
of
us
later
today
for
comment,
a
small
lot
subdivision
proposal
that
would
take
the
place
of
doing
that.
So
that's
one
of
the
limitations
that
Flynn
mentioned
is
that
we're
not.we
we
are
recommending
to
if
we
pass
this
we're
recommending
to
council
that
we
no
longer
creates
single-family
subdivisions
through
a
PD
process,
but
that
it
go
through
a
regular
zoning
process.
G
So
I
think
that
maybe
Flynn,
because
the
public's
listening
I
think
that's
the
major
limitation,
but
you
might
want
to
just
let
the
public
know
it's
very
severely
limited
in
terms
of
what
it
would
currently
be
used
for.
It
would
be
used.
If
somebody
wanted
to
put
two
different
commercial
uses
together
or
in
the
downtown
area,
they
would
be
using
a
PD
process.
G
If
somebody
wanted
to
build
affordable
housing,
they
might
be
utilizing
the
plan
development
process
and
if
they
were
putting
together,
I
think
the
one
project
that
we
currently
have,
that
might
be
a
PD
and
I,
always
call
it
the
rock
garden
project.
Even
though
I
know,
that's
not
the
name
where
it
had
multifamily
along
the
street
front
on
Palm
Canyon
and
single-family
housing
in
the
back.
It
was
a
multiple
family,
housing
type,
something
like
that
could
still
be
done,
but
it
would
be
limited
and
things
like
the
Morris
and
the
vibe.
G
E
If
I
might
just
add
to
that,
you
know
some
of
the
projects,
for
example,
vibe
might
be
able
to
come
in
and
if
we
go
forward
with
the
small
lot
ordinance,
the
vibe
might
be
able
to
come
in
under
the
small
lot
ordinance
for
the
single-family
product,
and
then
the
multi-family
product
could
be
under
our
standard
r2
r3
zoning.
So
there
still
is
the
possibility
for
some
of
these
projects,
but
they
would
need
to
conform
to
either
the
new
small
lot
district
or
the
existing
multifamily
districts
as
a
way
to
do
that.
E
But
you're
correct
in
that
the
proposed
changes
to
the
planned
development
district
ordinance
do
significantly
limit
the
waivers
that
would
be
permissible.
The
recommendations
are
that
perimeter
setbacks
need
to
be
maintained.
The
height
limits
of
the
underlying
zoning
district
need
to
be
maintained
and
other
similar
standards,
minimum
open
space
requirements
that
needs
to
be
maintained,
and
so
that
reduces
significantly
the
number
of
waivers
that
are
possible.
J
Of
all
I
want
to
really
commend
mr.
priest
for
bringing
the
issue
before
us,
keeping
us
out
of
trouble
and
keeping
this
moving
forward.
We've
reviewed
it
many
many
times,
I
think
there
is
a
complete
validity
to
keeping
pdds
and
flexible
zoning
I'll
call
it
flexible,
zoning
and
I
think
there
was
just
there
was
that
think.
There
was
just
an
article
in
curb
delay
about
flexible
zoning
and
the
benefits
that
it
can
provide.
J
I
think
our
Flynn
had
just
given
us
a
couple
of
examples
of
the
benefits
this
that
we
could
achieve
as
a
city
by
using
a
PDD
ordinance
like
this,
that
we've
come
before.
We've
also
heard
a
lot
of
public
testimony
on
this,
and
we've
done
a
lot
of
revisions
to
it.
To
get
to
the
point
where
we
are
today,
so
I
applaud
everyone.
Who's
been
a
part
of
that
process
with
that.
I
would
actually
like
to
make
a
motion
to
approve
it
with
the
following
changes
that
I've
heard
from
my
fellow
commissioners.
J
J
The
projects
waivers
requested
I
think
the
term
waivers
is
still
a
very
important
thing
to
have
in
there,
because
it's
proportionality
and
the
understanding
of
waivers
is
very
important
to
that.
The
only
other,
tuccio
and
then
further
down
in
the
red
line
version
I.
Think
to
our
chairs
thing.
A
staff
confirmation
of
the
public
benefit
to
add
that
the
wording
of
that
could
be
flexible.
D
G
D
G
One
change
before
you
get
there,
which
is
the
very
last
section
and
it's
just
a
rewording:
uncontrolled
access
with
gates,
page
13
number
II,
and
it
would
just
be
to
change
the
order
of
the
wording
so
that
we
say
controlled
access
is
discouraged.
We
will
interrupt
existing
street
grid.
Controlled
access
to
development
shall
only
be
approved
by
the
planning
commission
and
put
put
that
first
and
then,
if
there
is
a
request
what
it
would
entail.
So
we
emphasize
the
fact
that
we
don't
that
it's
public
access
that
controlled
access
will
be
limited.
E
Madam
chair,
if
I
might
just
add
one
more
thing,
commissioner
calorie
dine
had
requested
on
page
8
under
3a
that,
under
the
underlined
portion,
offset
any
additional
impact
specifically
created
by
the
project
rather
than
by
waivers.
He
had
wanted
us
to
investigate
that.
If
you
might
ask
if
that's
acceptable
to
the
motion
maker.
G
I
E
I
I
I
may
suggest,
madam
chair
revising
that
first
sentence
to
say
each
application
for
a
planned
development
district
shall
require
the
provision
of
public
benefit
to
offset
any
impacts
of
the
project
,,
including
those
additional
impacts
specifically
created
by
waivers
of
the
development
standards
required
under
this
section.
Is
that
acceptable
to
the
Commission.
C
So
I
understand
that
the
public's
concern
about
it
and
I
think
this
addresses
it
and
you've
worked
on
it
for
a
long
time
and
I
think
ultimately,
when
the
public
realizes
the
effect
of
this
new
ordinance,
they
will
be
very
pleased
because
you
have
put
in
a
huge
amount
of
effort
to
deal
with
all
the
issues
that
were
related
to
the
abuses
of
the
process.
So
I
think
I
strongly
support
a
motion
to
approve.
G
G
E
E
Secondly,
to
allow
something
smaller
than
our
current
smallest
lot
district,
the
r1d,
which
has
a
minimum
lot
size
of
7500
square
feet,
and
then
third
was
really
to
maintain
the
character
of
our
community
that
if
we
do
allow
small
Lots
and
needs
to
be
something
that's
appropriate
to
the
character
of
Palm
Springs,
rather
than
other
things
that
you've
heard
today
about
becoming
Orange
County.
That's
certainly
something
that
we
want
to
avoid
I
mean
so
going
back
to
the
purpose.
That's
what
we
were
looking
at
with
the
small
lot
ordinance.
E
One
of
the
things
that
came
to
us
as
we
had
gone
through
several
different
iterations
of
the
proposed
ordinance,
was
looking
at
precedent
right
here
in
Palm
Springs
for
small
lot
development.
We
have
the
Vista
Santa
Rosa
subdivision,
which
is
located
south
of
Ramon
north
of
Camino,
para
Sela,
and
then
just
immediately
to
the
east
of
Indian,
Canyon
Drive,
and
it's
actually
a
wonderful
little
subdivision
that
has
small
homes
that
have
a
great
scale,
great
character
and
its
really
a
good
place
to
study
as
precedent
for
a
small
lot
ordinance
here
in
Palm
Springs.
E
If
you
look
at
the
per
particulars
of
the
subdivision,
the
lot
size
is
between
5,000
and
6,000
square
feet.
Each
of
the
Lots
are
about
a
hundred
feet.
Deep.
The
Lots
vary
between
50
to
60,
feet
and
width
height
of
the
residences
in
the
district
one-story
and
in
the
street,
with
it
uses
our
standard
street
grid,
where
the
right-of-way
is
60
feet
wide.
The
actual
width
of
the
pavement
is
36
feet,
and
so
that
leaves
you
side
on
either
side
of
the
the
pavement
for
sidewalks.
E
E
We
also
looked
briefly
at
allowing
a
two-story
house
in
the
r1e
district,
but
ultimately
came
back
to
respecting
the
character
and
scale
of
development
of
Palm
Springs
and
have
limited
that
to
one-story
and
then,
in
terms
of
street
width.
We
would
just
rely
on
the
general
plan
requirement
which,
for
local
streets
has
a
minimum
width
of
50
feet
to
60
feet
and
then
being
able
to
do
the
pavement
and
sidewalks
within
that
right-of-way
width.
E
E
Secondly,
one
of
the
recommendations
of
the
subcommittee
is
to
allow
zero
lot
line
configurations
so
that
you
could
do
a
share
juice
easement
and
gain
more
usability
of
the
side
yards
for
the
development
and
the
third
was
to
encourage
outdoor
spaces
by
allowing
covered
porches
to
be
exempt
from
the
lot
coverage
requirements.
As
I
had
mentioned,
we
went
through
a
number
of
different
iterations
of
looking
at
what
the
setbacks
and
the
lock
coverage
would
do
in
terms
of
the
resulting
square
footage
of
the
residences.
E
This
is
what
the
resulting
lot
coverage
would
result
in
in
terms
of
the
house
size,
and
so
you
can
see
how
sizes
of
1,800
square
feet
in
the
smallest
example
up
to
2,700
square
feet
in
a
larger
lot
under
the
r1e
district
in
your
packet
I,
provided
you
with
examples
of
floor
plans
that
would
be
possible
under
the
Arwen,
a
zoning
district
standards
looking
at
two
different
developers
here
within
the
Coachella
Valley.
And
so
as
you
look
at
those
floor
plan
examples.
E
And
so,
even
though
the
45
percent
lock
coverage
might
seem
somewhat
restrictive
and
the
one-story
height
limit
might
seem
restrictive,
it
does
give
us
a
rather
generous
housing
product,
so
I
think
it
would
still
be
successful
as
we
are
proposing
it
in
terms
of
the
implementation
of
the
Arwen,
a
zoning
district.
How
would
that
occur?
The
city
would
not
go
out
and
rezone
properties
to
r1e,
rather,
property
owners
would
submit
an
application
to
file
a
change
of
zone
to
r1e.
E
The
second
aspect
of
that
is
it
would
need
to
be
consistent
with
the
underlying
general
plan
so
based
on
the
square
footage.
It
would
either
be
the
low-density
residential
for
the
larger
lot
size,
the
7,000
square,
foot,
Lots
or
medium
density
residential
for
the
smaller
lot
sizes
under
the
ordinance,
the
5,000
and
6,000
square
foot
Lots.
E
So,
generally,
you're
going
to
be
ranging
from
about
five
dwelling
units
to
the
acre
to
about
7.5
dwelling
units
to
the
acre,
and
so
again
the
changes
own
would
need
to
be
consistent
with
the
existing
underlying
residential
zoning
on
the
property.
That
concludes
my
comments,
just
in
terms
of
our
next
steps.
We
have
this
before
you
as
a
discussion
item
today.
E
If
you
are
ready
to
move
forward
after
your
discussion
today,
we
would
do
that
as
a
notice
public
hearing
at
a
regularly
scheduled
Planning
Commission
meeting
finalize
the
draft,
and
then
we
would
forward
that
to
the
City
Council,
as
has
been
discussed
earlier
today,
I
think
that
would
be
appropriate
to
do
it
at
a
study
session
with
the
planned
development
district
ordinance
and
the
Golf
Course
conversion
ordinance.
So
again
that
concludes
my
comments
and
I'd
be
happy
to
take
your
questions
and
your
comments.
J
I
applied
to
the
effort
and
I
applaud
the
effort,
because
I
think,
as
we
heard
before,
we
have
seen
PD
D's,
where
what
we
walk
in
and
they're
bad
examples,
and
all
we
saw
was
garage
door
after
garage
door
after
garage
door.
I,
don't
think
that's
a
great
urban
form
that
we
want
to
repeat
I
would
prefer
instead
of
a
solid
15
foot
setback,
varied
setbacks
with
an
average
fifteen
feet,
so
one
could
be
set
back
more
one
could
be
set
back
less
but
that
they
could
be
varied.
J
We
could
incentivize
it
to
be
even
less
than
forty
if
I
present,
with
certain
features
that
could
be
an
alleyway
as
a
feature
or
a
covered
veranda
as
a
feature
for
a
spool
which
is
a
cross
between
a
pool
and
a
spool,
and
a
spa
in
the
back
and
I
think
some
incentives
for
trying
to
get
the
urban
form
that
I
think
we're
trying
for
here,
which
is
a
walkable,
condensed
neighborhood.
We
could
achieve
that
with
just
some
tweaks
to
the
ordinance
as
written.
C
In
Greater,
Los
Angeles
I
thought
50
by
100.
Lots
is
standard,
not
considered
small
I
mean
almost
all
of
Los.
Angeles
is
50
by
100
and
on
those
Lots
they've
built.
You
know
those
small
apartment
buildings
over
the
years
which
were
not
going
to
allow
the
question
I
have
is
if
the
maximum
lot
coverage
is
45%
there.
C
You
know
we
do
have
a
housing
crisis
and
in
Los
Angeles
now
they're
starting
to
look
at
these
granny
flats
at
the
rears
of
the
property,
because
a
lot
of
times
in
very
small
houses
in
the
front
and
open
land
in
the
back
and
in
there
all
they're
allowing
small
houses
to
be
built
there.
So
I'm
just
wondering
why
we
would
want
to
restrict
it
to
45
percent.
If
we
were
trying
to
also
address
the
housing
crisis.
Maybe
members
of
the
Commission
committee
could
I.
B
B
If
you
wanted
to
do
an
auxiliary
dwelling
unit,
we
could
come
up
with
language
that
would
allow
that
but
I
think
that
would
necessitate
reducing
the
size
of
the
main
dwelling
unit,
because
right
now
what
Flynn
is
showing
us
is
really
dwelling
units
that
max
maximize
out
the
45%
for
just
the
main
dwelling
unit.
But
if
you
wanted
to
include
an
auxiliary
drawing
there,
I
think
you'd
have
to
reduce
the
main
dwelling
unit
by
that
I
mean.
Is
that
possible
so
something.
E
I
certainly
think
that's
something
that
we
could
consider
what
we
could
play
with
is
maybe
looking
at
something
of
45
percent,
where
there's
just
a
single-family
residence.
If
there's
an
accessory
dwelling
unit,
we
might
bump
up
the
lock
coverage
to
50%
as
a
weight
and
reduce
the
size
of
the
main
house.
So
that's
something
that
we
can
certainly
look
at
it.
When
we
come
back
to
you
in
a
public
hearing
session.
B
B
E
G
The
4554,
the
accessory
dwelling
units
make
sense
where
we're
trying
to
get
to
address
the
housing
crisis
is
that
in
the
past,
we've
been
building
most
of
our
single
small
lot
subdivision
on
r2
r3
in
our
for
land,
and
this
would
free
that
land
up
for
actually
getting
some
kind
of
multifamily
on
it,
as
opposed
to
single-family
long
single
thing.
You
know
condensed:
single-family
houses,
so
I
love.
What
you've
done
with
this
I
think
it's
elegant
and
simple
I'm,
not
sure
about
the.
G
The
alleyways,
because
they
do
take
up
more
land
and
I,
don't
think
we
have
any
tradition
of
alleyways
at
all.
In
Palm,
Springs
I
grew
up
with
one.
You
know
you
know
housing
unit
that
had
that,
but
nobody
parked
in
Chicago.
They
come
in
through
the
alleys
and
they
park
in
the
back
of
their
garage
but
I.
Don't
they
don't
know
what
that
would
do
here?
I
mean
it
would
make
it
more
walkable,
but
it
would
reduce
it
would
sort
of
offset
the
reduction
in
the
size
of
the
lodge.
E
What
we
can
do
is
we
can
work
with
engineering
to
see
how
we
might
be
able
to
make
alleys
work.
One
of
the
thoughts
that
comes
to
mind
is
in
our
general
plan
under
local
streets.
If
we
can
reduce
the
right-of-way
requirement
where
alleys
are
provided,
that
might
be
one
of
the
ways
to
achieve
that
goal.
So
let
me
do
some
additional
work
on
that
and
see
what
we
might
be
able
to
come
back
with
it'd.
J
G
D
And
when,
if
Lin
could
explain
to
us
first
off,
what
does
the
state
over
I
do
on
the
successes?
The
accessory
unit
I
know
that
they
override
our
zoning
somehow
right
or
do
they
tell
us?
What
we
have
to
do
was
that
there.
E
Are
certain
requirements
in
terms
of
allowing
accessory
dwelling
units
in
terms
of
the
size
of
the
units,
the
configuration
of
the
units,
parking
requirements,
and
things
like
that,
so
you
will
see
coming
forward
again
as
I
had
mentioned.
Probably
your
second
meeting
in
October
will
have
some
revisions
to
the
accessory
dwelling
unit
ordinance,
which
spells
out
the
changes
that
are
required
in
state
law.
D
D
Another
way
you
could
do
the
same
thing,
it
would
look.
The
same
would
be
to
use
our
two
or
three
zoning,
which
is
what
they
were
doing
and
create
a
condo
lot
for
each
home
which
functionally
legally
I
know
it
has
a
lot
of
differences
but
functionally
it
looks
just
the
same,
and
we
did
that
with
the
icon
development
up
on
North
Palm
Canyon,
where
we
have
again
almost
identical
to
Seoul
and
Dakota.
D
These
small
Lots
I
think
they're
about
five
to
ten
feet
apart,
something
like
that
physically
they're,
not
actual
Lots,
their
condo
Lots
and
there's
a
that's
a
major
legal
distinction,
but
for
practical
purposes
it's
the
result
is
the
same
and
I
think
still
think
you
know
we're
not
doing
yet.
What
would
what
you're
kind
of
indicating
is
getting
rid
of
that
option
because
they
can
come
back
through
the
r2
r3
zoning?
As
condominiums
and
I
think,
that's
actually
a
good
idea.
D
Did
they
do
they
because
I
still
like
some
of
that
product,
not
everyone
does
I
recognize
that
I'd
rather
see
us
also
take
a
little
bit
of
look
some
at
the
r2
r3
standards
and
see
how
they
will
look,
how
they
would
accommodate
that
type
of
unit
or
we're
gonna
be
right
back
where
we
started
from
cuz
everybody's
gonna.
Go
that
way
just
like
the
icon
people
did,
and
that
came
out
of
some
discussions
that
we
had
here
we're
wired
she's,
calling
it
condominiums
rather
than
small
legal
Lots.
If.
E
E
D
G
G
What
happened
to
that
objective
was
it
got
very,
very
convoluted,
and
so
this?
What
I
and
I'm
just
going
to
speak
I
think
this
is
elegant
and
lovely
and
it
keeps
our
streetscapes
which
is
really
important.
We
don't
end
up
with
gated
communities.
We
end
up
with
something
that
people
can
drive
through
and
live
in
and
possibly
even
have
sidewalks
on
and
trees
in
front
of
their
houses.
So
it
I
think
it's
it's
absolutely
elegant.
It's
something
that
we
need.
G
I,
think
it
will
be
used
and
I
think
the
suggestions
that
Commissioner
woods
and
Commissioner
Mertz
II
made
to
this
are
really
good
and
I'd
like
to
see
this
come
back
to
us.
I,
don't
think
we
need
to
do
much
more
with
us
and
I'd
like
to
see
it
come
back
to
us
so
that
we
can
act
on
it
and
add
it
to
the
other
two
items
when
we
discuss
things
with
Council
I
think
it
goes
with
the
PD
ordinance.
J
If
I
wanted
it
I
just
want
to
add
two
things:
I
think
the
examples
that
were
provided
in
the
packet
are
very
Orange
County
we're
trying
to
so
as
we
think
it
through
maybe
doing
some
different
ideas
and
the
other
thing
just
about
la
coverage
and
I
understand,
architecture,
everything.
But
if
we
look
at
ICON
I,
don't
know
what
if
we
took
them
as
small
Lots,
let's
just
say
we
took
them
as
that.
You
know
some
of
them
have
little
casitas
in
the
back
or
they
have
a
little
cabanas
in
the
back.
G
G
K
F
B
Know
there's
been
a
lot
of
developments,
Orange
County
in
other
places,
where
they
try
to
mitigate
that
a
new
urbanism,
walk
streets
coming
in
from
behind
I
haven't
seen
anything.
That's
totally
I
applaud
the
goal,
and
but
if
there's
something
we
can
come
up
with
the
it
you
know
you
have
a
50/50,
have
a
house
every
50
feet
and
you
have
a
20
foot
wide
garage.
B
It's
almost
by
definition.
You
wind
up
with
that
I'm
I,
don't
I
hope.
Maybe
there's
some
way
around
it,
but
I
think
think
about
it.
Maybe
we
can
modify
the
code
to
address
that
in
some
way.
Maybe
the
garage
door
doesn't
face
the
street,
it's
perpendicular
I,
don't
know,
but
that
would
increased
the
driveway
so
I.
Also
you
have
this
huge
driveway
I,
don't
know!
Maybe
there's
some
way
to
mitigate
it.
So.
J
Think,
there's
a
I'm,
sorry,
there's
I
think
there's
a
variety
of
ways
to
do
it.
The
old
1920s
with
the
driveway
went
along
the
side
of
the
house,
and
you
parked
in
the
back
is
a
way
to
do
it.
Another
way
is
maybe
tandem
or
every
third
unit,
I
mean
I,
think
there's
very
creative
ways
to
do
it
without
having
it.
There.
D
E
Is
a
requirement
for
single-family
that
they
provide
to
covered
parking
spaces
that
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
both
have
to
be
within
a
garage?
It
could
be
a
garage
and
a
carport
or
it
could
just
be
a
carport,
but
the
requirement
is
for
two
covered
spaces.
If
you
would
like
to
look
at
the
option
of
only
requiring
one
covered
space,
for
example
in
the
r1,
a
zoning
district
that
might
be
appropriate
based
on
the
lot
size,
if
that's
a
direction
that
you'd
like
to
go,
that's.
B
E
What
we
can
do
is
again
we'll
notice
this
for
a
public
hearing.
I'll
come
back
with
the
suggested
revisions
that
have
already
been
discussed
and
then
also
as
an
option
all
look
at
just
requiring
one
covered
space,
and
so
that
way,
you'll
have
the
option
of
discussing
all
of
those
things
together.
One
and
one
yep.
E
D
That
will
be
coming
up
before
Planning
Commission
departures,
where
I
think
two
of
us
are
gone
as
of
the
end
of
the
year,
so
want
to
combine
that
maybe
have
some
discussion
where
they
want
to
combine
that
with
the
holiday
party
or
make
them
two
separate.
I,
don't
have
any
strong
feelings
another,
but
we
I'm
gonna
go
out
of
here
with
a
lot
of
parties.
E
Is
with
great
sadness
that
I
report
to
you
that
mr.
donenfeld
has
resigned
his
position
on
the
Planning
Commission
we
received
notice
just
earlier
today
before
Planning
Commission
started
this
afternoon,
and
I
would
like
to
offer
my
most
heartfelt
thanks
for
his
service
on
the
Planning
Commission,
not
just
this
most
recent
term,
but
his
previous
terms
that
he
had
also
served
on
Planning
Commission
for
his
thoughtfulness
and
his
deliberations
and
his
fairness
in
the
Proceedings
that
we
had
here
before
Planning
Commission.
E
E
E
F
There,
it
goes
so
yes,
I'm
Peter,
King
and
I
was
hired
in
man,
and
so
I
I've
been
helping
mr.
Kotkin,
with
a
variety
of
things.
I
come
here
with
25
years
experience
as
a
city
attorney
with
the
city
of
Los
Angeles,
which
included
stints
handling
the
area.
Planning
Commission's
the
Planning
Commission,
a
lot
of
litigation
involving
land-use
issues.
I
was
general
counsel
for
a
time
with
the
Port
of
Los
Angeles
and
handled
a
lot
of
their
sequel,
work
and
litigation,
and
so
I
was
a
jack-of-all-trades.
Perhaps.