►
From YouTube: Planning Commission Study Session/Meeting | June 28 2023
Description
Study Session of the City of Palm Springs Planning Commission, held June 28th, 2023 at 4:30pm, followed immediately by a regular meeting of the City of Palm Springs Planning Commission, held June 28th, 2023 at 5:30pm
A
B
A
B
D
A
Thank
you.
We
have
before
us
tonight.
Avalon
1150
was
an
LLC
request
for
a
study
session
to
review
proposed
preliminary
plans
for
a
242
242
condominium
units
in
the
multi-family
parcel
located
in
planning
area
12
of
phase
two
within
the
marillon
development
located
at
801
Sunrise
Way.
Do
we
have
members
of
the
public
who
wish
to
speak?
A
E
F
A
E
G
Good
afternoon
Madam
chair
members
of
the
Planning
Commission,
so
the
department
of
planning
Services
decided
that
a
long
girl
after
a
discussion
with
the
applicants,
tried
to
bring
this
this
application
to
you
to
as
a
study
session,
to
introduce
the
application
to
you
and
be
able
to
provide
some
informal
comments
and
directions
to
the
applicants
on
how
on
your
concerns
or
your
interests
or
whatever
issues
that
you
may
have
with
the
application.
It
is
for
a
242
unit,
condominium
unit
at
the
planning
area,
12
of
the
Maryland
development.
F
G
Again,
as
it
might
recall
on
this
development,
the
Maryland
development
was
initially
approved
in
2004
for
1150
residential
units
and
part
of
those
development
include
single-family
residential
development,
including
multi-family.
The
multi-family
development
is
to
be
placed
in
two
specific
areas
of
Maryland.
I
will
get
there
shortly,
but
also
in
that
approval
of
2004.
G
So
what
we
have
tonight
is
242
units
they
will
be
in
the
form
of
attached
duplexes.
There
will
be
three
main
plant
types
designated
as
plan
one
plan
two
and
Plan
Three.
Also
there
will
be
three
distinct
floor
types
with
A
and
B,
meaning
that
you
have
six
different
floor
types
in
total,
but
mainly
there
are
three
types
so
plan
one
of
these,
and
they
will
be
all
in
two
stories
talking
about
the
mass
and
the
heights.
G
All
right
so
moving
right
along
again,
the
scope
of
your
study
session
tonight
is
to
look
at
layout
the
access
and
the
circulation
within
the
subject
parcel
itself,
so
I
will
move
right
ahead.
This
is
the
overall
site
plan
of
Maryland,
so
the
area
of
discussion
tonight
is
here.
This
is
where
the
area
planning
area
12
is,
if
you
recall
about
in
2018
and
2019,
you
approved
the
final
development
plans
for
planning
area.
G
Five,
which
is
this
section
right
here
and
right
here
in
the
middle,
is
the
clubhouse
of
miralon
moving
right
along
so
to
be
more
specific.
Here
are
the
two
multi-family
areas
and
I
also
want
to
remind
the
commission
that
there
has
been
a
final
map
for
these
two
areas,
so
more
specifically
relative
to
planning
area
12.
These
are
some
of
the
main
features
that
I
want
to
point
out.
The
first
of
all
is
the
main
entry
into
the
subject.
Parcel
will
be
a
long
mirror
long
way.
G
G
G
G
I
When
this
project
was
approved
way
back
in
2000
to
three
time
frame,
it
was
approved
for
1237
units
I,
believe
there
was
a
lawsuit
that
was
filed
and
one
of
the
terms
of
the
settlement
was
to
reduce
the
total
unit,
count
for
all
of
the
the
entire
project
to
1150,
which,
coincidentally,
is
Avalon.
1150
LLC
is
the
name
of
the
owner,
that's
where
the
1150
comes
from.
I
Nonetheless,
there
are
I
think
350
multi-family
units
that
are
allowed
on
the
site,
and
so
it's
really
a
push
and
a
pull
between
the
planning
area,
five
that
Edward
just
showed
and
plenary
at
12..
So
what
we've
done
is
maximize
the
unit
count
in
this
section,
which
is
the
Delta
between
350
and
the
158,
are
proposed.
There.
A
G
So
within
the
R3
Development
Area,
the
maximum
height
is
30
feet,
so
if
they
were
to
go
additional
floor,
that
may
be
outside
of
what
the
R3
development
sound.
That
would
allow,
however,
recall
that
the
entire
mirrorland
development
is
a
plant
development
District,
so
they
want
to
go
higher.
They
could
do
so.
However,
it
would
then
require
additional
setback
requirements.
I
A
J
Can
You
Hear
Me,
okay,
on
this
Edward,
can
you
help
me?
I
was
having
a
little
difficulty
understanding
looking
at
the
drawings,
just
how
permeable
the
perimeter
of
the
parcel
12
is
I
can
see,
and
when
you
put
up
the
previous
development,
clearly
there's
Ingress
in
egress
for
pedestrians
for
cyclists.
You
know
you
can
go
out
and
meet
your
neighbors.
It
looks
as
though
there's
only
two
points
of
entry
for
parcel
12.
and
if
you're
anywhere
in
between
you're
going
to
get
in
your
car
and
drive,
is
that
true
or.
G
H
J
E
D
E
I
think,
given
that
we're
at
the
study
session
say
stage
the
way
that
we're
kind
of
envisioning
this
process
working
as
we
kind
of
roll
into
that
sort
of
urban
design
review,
is
we
provided
a
bunch
of
comments?
Some?
We
are
flagging
our
requirements
under
9404
summer
advisory.
You
know,
based
on
what
we
understand,
of
both
your
purview
and
the
arc's
priorities.
E
E
D
H
Good
afternoon,
thank
you
again
for
your
time
this
afternoon
to
review
our
project.
My
name
is
Colin.
Liu
I
am
with
Robert
HyVee
Architects
I'm
very
excited
to
be
back
here
in
this
chamber
for
the
now
we're
reviewing
the
seventh
project
that
we're
doing
here
in
city
of
Palm
Springs.
All
of
this
all
seven
projects
are
all
within
Maryland.
The
master
plan
master
plan
community,
so
Edward
did
a
great
job.
Introducing
the
project
in
the
interest
of
time,
I'm
not
going
to
repeat
any
anything
that
he
has
to
to.
H
He
presented
already
I
just
wanted
to
add
a
little
bit
more
to
the
presentation
that
their
this
site
plan.
Yes,
there
are
two
points
of
vehicular
access.
One
is
coming
in
from
the
main
axis
is
coming
in
from
the
west
from
here
a
long
way
and
then
there's
a
secondary
vehicular
access
from
the
north.
However,
The
Pedestrian
access
are
all
there
are
this.
A
H
H
H
You
will
see
that
on
L4
sheet,
L4
under
landscape,
section,
there's
a
larger
blow
up
of
it,
and
then
there
are
event
launch
on
on
the
east
and
west
side
of
that
the
Shea
structure,
and
then
all
of
this,
the
intent
is
that
for
all
the
residents
here
to
to
be
able
to
walk
down
the
street
and
then
across
Maryland
way
to
access
the
the
Maryland
amenity
Center,
just
located
just
south
south
west
of
the
project,
as
well
as
the
trail
system.
That's
within
Maryland,
where.
H
H
A
I
I
I
J
Thank
you,
I
have
a
question.
One
of
the
comments
from
the
staff
review
from
the
urban
designer
was.
It
says.
The
site
plan
is
too
tight
to
achieve
variation
in
setbacks
to
garage
doors
from
unit
to
unit
I.
Don't
know
if
that
means,
if
that's
just
a
note
or
if
we're
asking
you
to
to
change
that,
and
do
you
have
any
plans
on
addressing
that
I
agree.
It's
a
very
valid
concern,
I'm
concerned
with
it,
but
I'm
wondering
if
you're
going
to
address
it.
H
Yes,
I
will
address
it
right
now.
Edward.
Can
you
go
to
the
first
floor?
Cluster
cluster
first
floor
floor
plan
keep
going
down
down
down.
Okay,
please
stop
go
back.
Okay,
oh
one,
more
okay,
please
stop
yep!
So
again
these
these
duplex
buildings
are
arranged
in
four
building
cluster
clusters
and
the
the
here's
the
street
here
this
unit
is
the
front
door
is
accessed
from
here.
H
The
front
door
to
this
unit
is
accessed
here
and
then
there's
a
Paseo
system
here
that
would
take
out
that
great
gave
provide
access
to
the
two,
the
four
units
in
the
middle,
these
two
units
here
there's
another
Street
up
above
so
they're,
again
they're
taking
access
directly
from
the
street.
However,
the
vehicular,
the
the
garages
are
accessed
VF
this
Paseo
this
motor
core.
A
C
Question
for
you
regarding
guest
parking,
I'm,
assuming
obviously
on
those
30
foot
wide
corridors
between
the
garages.
You're
not
going
to
have
any
ability
for
on-street
parking,
but
will
there
be
any
parking
allowed
on
the
sort
of
the
secondary
Access
Road,
the
Loop
Road?
Will
there
be
any
I
I
had
trouble
finding
any
guest
parking
or
additional
parking
I
didn't
know
if
any
would
be
allowed
on
the
roadway
itself.
H
H
A
J
We're
just
on
the
subject
that
I
had
comments
on,
and
that
is,
it
seems
like
there's
a
lot
of
parking
and
like
some
of
the
space,
could
be
reclaimed
and
used
for
something
other
than
parking.
In
particular,
I
note
that
your
one
bedroom
units
still
have
two
parking.
You
know
two-car
garages
for
one
bedroom
units
and
that
I
thought
I
had
seen
57,
but
there's
there's
a
fair
amount
of
guest
parking.
H
We
we
are
one
space
over
the
required
guest
parking.
So
there's
not
a
there's,
not
an
access
there.
However,
the
one
bedroom
units-
it
is
a
900.
It's
it's
a
thousand
square
feet.
It's
a
one,
bedroom
plus
Den
office
and
went
on
half
bath
so
to
reduce
that
the
marketability
of
a
you
know
nowaday.
If
there's
a
couple,
a
couple
lives
in
that
one
bedroom
unit
and
they
have
two
cars
that
it
might
not
be.
That
might
might
not
be
a
very
marketable
product.
G
So
so,
as
I
said,
Colin
mentioned
as
far
as
the
guest
parking
is
concerned,
that
there's
only
one
that's
above
the
required
number
of
parking
spaces,
the
only
area
and
to
address
the
issue
of
parking
or
using
an
XX
area
for
parking.
Those
two
parking
spots
for
the
one
bedrooms
are
all
attached,
so
they
are
not
on
street.
They
are
not
surface
parking
spaces.
G
J
E
Right,
commissioner,
I
think
I
think
what
just
to
recap,
I
think
the
the
applicant
is
is
indicating
that
they
feel
the
market
is
demanding
more
parking
than
what
the
code
is
requiring.
As
for
staff's
position
on
that,
you
know,
I
think
we
need
to
see
how
all
of
the
various
competing
parts
of
the
site
plan
later
on
and
if
there
are
items
where
we
think
we
need
to
see
changes
and
that
needs
to
come
at
the
expense
of
parking.
E
E
The
circumstances
of
this
particular
development
are
different
than
what
we
might
think
in
other
areas
of
the
city
and
that
there
is
a
very
limited
ability
to
engage
in
your
day-to-day
activities
from
here
without
the
use
of
a
car,
so
I
think
an
argument
could
be
made
and
the
applicant
is
making
that
argument
that
perhaps
the
parking
demand
here
is
different
than
we
might
expect
elsewhere
in
the
city.
So
I
think
we'll
have
to
find
that
sweet
spot.
J
F
I'm,
not
going
to
ask
you
why
you
did
it,
but
I
am
going
to
comment
that
I
think
you
could
take
that
extra
six
feet
by
whatever
the
length
of
all
those
Drive
aisles
are
and
use
it
more
effectively
in
the
Paseo
The
Pedestrian
access
to
your
units.
That's
a
comment.
You
don't
have
to
comment.
You
don't
have
to
answer
me.
Thank
you.
A
C
Kind
of
picking
up
on
what
Lori
was
Raising
regarding
is
there
excess
parking
am
I
correct
in
assuming
that
the
the
great
majority
of
the
excess
parking
is
in
the
second
garage
space
that
is
attached
to
the
one
bedroom
units,
correct
and
so
I.
Don't
know
that,
there's
a
lot
of
ability
to
sort
of
reduce
that
I
mean.
C
Obviously,
if
somebody
in
a
one
bedroom
plus
Den
unit
had
only
one
car,
they
could
store
in
there
or
put
a
pool
table
in
there
or
whatever,
but
I
mean
it's
not
going
to
be
visible
to
the
masses.
So
in
that
respect,
I,
don't
think
visually.
This
will
appear
to
be
an
over
parked
development,
I
think
because
they're
in
garages
absolutely.
H
C
And
then
I'm,
okay
with
the
30
feet
in
between,
because
between
the
garage
face
walls
because
Michael,
if
you'll
note
on
the
plan,
not
all
of
that
is
paved
area,
it's
only
paved
between
the
garages
back
to
back
and
then
they've
got
small
nodes
where
there's
landscape
areas,
so
I
think
that'll
be
good
to
sort
of
soften
those
garage.
Facades
and
I
always
think
that
between
two
back-to-back
garages
you
need
more
than
24
feet
anyway,
so
I'm,
okay
with
the
30
feet.
C
I
would
note
I
do
agree,
though,
with
many
of
the
staff
comments,
especially
regarding
the
street,
facing
facades
needing
more
articulation
or
maybe
you
can
handle
it
with
material
changes
or
color
changes.
I
just
saw
some
of
the
facades
that
are
facing
the
streets,
the
the
internal
roadways
and
the
exterior
Road,
of
course,
they're
a
little
bit
flat
and
Bland,
and
so
I
think
some
work
could
be
done.
Regarding
that
and.
A
A
You
can
further
that
discussion,
but
I
just
wanted
a
show
of
hands.
We've
got
tight
time,
so
what
I'm
I
want
you
to
hear
that
we
all
agree
with
the
seven
seven
points
that
have
been
raised
by
staff
without
going
through
each
one
of
them
individually
and
Scott's
got
still
got
the
floor
and
I'll.
Let
you
talk
and
later.
C
Yeah
and
I
think
of
the
seven
comments.
The
one
that's
probably
difficult
to
achieve
is
the
variation
in
setbacks
to
garage
doors
and
I.
Think
given
the
layout
of
the
whole
complex,
I,
think
that
might
be
difficult,
but
I
think
you
can
do
things
with
different
garage
doors.
Perhaps
different,
colors
I
think
you
can
do
things
to
sort
of
spruce
up.
How
that
looks
to
those
four
or
eight
units
that
are
going
to
be
accessing
those
little
private
drives
or
those
mini
drives.
A
A
F
F
F
The
individual
buildings
are
just
aggressively
ugly.
That's
all
I
can
say
about
it.
The
exterior
treatment
of
the
buildings
really
does
a
disservice
to
the
architectural
profession,
and,
if
designed,
it's
designs
like
this,
that's
going
to
lead
to
the
demise
of
the
profession
because
we're
facing
AI
now
artificial
intelligence,
and
if
you
fed
this
plan
into
a
AI
program,
they'd
come
up
with
a
much
better
design
than
this.
That
would
the
program
would
and
it
it's
just
embarrassing,
turn
around
and
look
at
that.
That's
just
embarrassing
how
bad
that
looks
and
I'm
just
it.
F
D
E
About
that
so
I
I
mean
I.
Think
it's
important
to
keep
in
perspective
that
this
would
go
through
an
Architectural
Review
process
right,
so
I
think
there's
probably
refinement
that
will
be
undertaken
on
this.
I
would
just
ask
if
there
are
specific
points
you
want
to
make.
You
know
maybe
the
top
notes,
either
as
instruction
to
the
arc
for
the
public
record
or
to
the
applicant.
Maybe
we
hear
that.
F
Don't
I
I
think
it's
so
far
off
the
mark.
You
tear
up
what
you
have
and
start
over
I
think
the
buildings
themselves
are
fine.
The
site
plan
is
fine.
The
spacing
between
the
units
is
fine.
The
floor
plans
are
fine,
but
you
gotta,
look
at
those
again
they're,
just
terrible
I,
don't
have
anything
specific
to
say.
A
Peter
did
you
I
had
going
in
a
slightly
different
direction,
some
of
I'm
worried
about
the
sort
of
very
small
amount
of
personal
space
outside
space
that
somebody
who
lives
or
buys
one.
It
buys
one
of
these
units
or
rents,
I'm,
not
sure
if
it's
rent,
I'm
assuming
it's
purchase,
buys
one
of
these
units
would
have,
and
so
one
thought
I
had
was
extending
the
patio.
Can
the
patio?
Is
it
large
enough
to
take
a
spool.
H
A
When
we
did
the
other
section,
we
looked
at
putting
a
pool
and
I
think
we
didn't,
because
people
could
do
spools
in
many
of
those
units
here.
That
is
a
problem
for
me
to
not
see
water,
not
see
a
pool
in
this
area
that
people
can
go
to,
and
so
some
of
my
concerns
are
shade.
The
amount
of
patio
space
that
you
have
it
looks
to
me
like
you
could
easily
extend
that
patio
space
at
least
increase
the
depth
of
it.
A
I,
don't
think
you
can
light
it
up,
because
that's
a
garage
that's
next
to
it,
but
it
it
just
seems
very
small.
So
the
other
thing
I
looked
at
was
you
have
sloping
roofs
over
the
I'm,
not
sure
if
it's
a
front
air
entry
or
some
of
the
areas
and
if
those
became
patios
that
had
glass,
doors
and
people
could
walk
outside
and
at
least
have
a
second
floor
patio
where
they
have
a
chance,
maybe
of
looking
out
at
the
mountains.
A
A
So
that
was
one
looking
at
water
usage,
looking
at
the
amount
of
patio
space
look
or
outside
space
and
possibly
creating
a
second
floor
or
a
third
floor
patio
space
in
terms
of
what's
in
the
site
fund
site
plans,
tight
I
would
prefer
that
if
you
could
go
higher
with
some
of
the
units
and
create
more
I,
don't
know
if
you
want
to
for
a
sale
unit
but
create
more
density.
That
way,
so
we
had
a
little
more
open
space
in
this
it
just
it
just
feels.
A
It
feels
tight
to
me
and
I,
don't
if
I
was
buying
and
I
was
looking
at
one
of
the
old
Garden
condos
in
Palm
Springs.
That
has
a
lot
of
Garden
area
around
it
and
this,
even
if
this
was
hot,
much
higher
end
and
higher
finished
I
think
people
might
go
for
the
areas
that
have
more
green
space
and
so
competitively.
I
think
I
think
you've
got
this
wonderful
area
with
a
lot
of
open
space,
but
this
feels
this
feels
boxy
and
not
open
to
it.
A
A
H
Yes,
I
will
I
too
I'll
and
I'll
be
very
brief.
Okay,
so
I'm
using
this
one
elevation
as
a
go
by
I
think
that
it
might
be
a
little
misleading,
because
what
we're
trying
to
show
is
the
four
views
of
this
one
particular
building,
keep
in
mind
that
these
are
duplex
buildings
that
are
plotted
15
feet
away
from
each
other
and
they're
going
to
be
very
tight,
and
that's
why
there
are
elevations,
for
example,
this
facade
here.
Unless
you
are
inside
the
motor
Court,
you
will
not
see
that
from
the
street.
H
So
with
that
said
that
the
front
patio
walls
we
intentionally
did
not
there's
a
variation
and
the
wall
Heights,
it's
a
there's,
a
30
3
foot,
6
low
wall
with
a
gate
here,
so
that
you
could
put
a
patio
chair
there.
You
could
sit
outside,
but
yet
we're
concerned
about,
because
that
these
private
spaces
are
pretty
tight.
Where
do
you
put
the
AC
condensers,
as
Ken
Lyon
recommended
that
we
need
to
Shield
that
away
from
the
street
as
you're
driving
by
the
last
thing
you
want
to
do?
H
F
F
H
A
F
F
H
More
when
she
below
they'll
go
back
back
the
other
way,
yep
right
there.
Please
so
imagine
this
is
that
sloping
roof
or
a
flat
roof
if
we
have
access,
if
that
become
a
a
second
floor
deck
that
deck
is
going
to
impact
the
privacy
of
the
units
here
as
well
as
the
unit
here,
and
if
we
do
that
same
deck
across
the
corner.
Here
again,
you
will
have
deck
to
deck.
A
You
might
be
able
to
do
it
on
the
end
units
I,
just
I,
just
I.
Just
think
you
need
to
look
more
at
that.
You
don't
have
outside
space
here,
that's
sufficient
for
people
who
are
living
in
the
desert
and
coming
to
the
desert
because
they
want
to
enjoy
the
desert
in
the
winter
time
and
I
just
I
mean
that's
the
thing
you
don't
have
with
the
way
you've
configured
this,
so
you
so
you've
got
a
problem
to
solve
and
I
don't
think
you've
solved.
It.
H
G
A
G
E
A
E
I
would
just
add,
as
planning
director
I
feel,
an
obligation
to
make
a
comment
that,
as
we
add
and
layer
on
those
items,
the
cost
of
these
units
will
go
up
and
I.
Think
commissioner
hirschbein
put
it
well
and
that
I
do
think
from
the
city's
perspective.
We
want
to
encourage
unit
types
that
are
providing
an
alternative
to
the
other
types.
F
F
F
A
A
That
and
and
it's
and
having
no
water
at
all,
I
mean
not
even
a
water
feature,
the
I
guess
the
other
thing
I'd
say
is
in
your
Paseo
areas.
You
need
shade
structures,
you
need
to
protect
people
from
the
summer
heat
and
I.
Think
you
had
one
that
I
saw
but
you're
going
to
need
more
than
that.
It's
going
to
need
to
be
designed
in
some
way
that
you
have
good
shade
for
people
to
walk
down
that.
C
C
But
I
I
appreciate
the
fact
that
this
is
the
different
type
of
unit
and
maybe
not
everybody
needs
their
own
pool
or
doesn't
mind
walking
100
feet
across
Maryland
way
to
get
to
the
collective
pool,
so
I
feel
less
concerned
about
that.
I
wholeheartedly
support
the
comments
about
shade,
especially
through
that
Paseo
I,
think
that
needs
to
be
done
for
sure
and
I.
A
A
J
And
having
heard
your
comments
about
garages
and
how
that
impacts,
your
marketing
or
marketability
I
would
Echo
that
for
a
pool
or
access
to
a
pool,
I
live
without
a
garage.
I,
don't
live
without
a
pool
here
in
the
desert
in
the
summer,
with
especially
with
a
kind
of
Stark
nature
of
the
architecture
of
everything
about
the
design.
I
think
you
need
some
some
something
refreshing.
A
Thank
you
good
evening
and
I
want
to
welcome
you
to
what
is
now
the
6
p.m.
Regular
meeting
of
the
Palm
Springs
Planning
Commission
for
June
28
2023
before
we
go
forward.
I
just
want
to
open
this
meeting
in
honor
of
two
of
our
members
who
will
be
leaving
us
tonight.
Who've
served
six
five
and
a
half
and
seven
years,
Peter
marutzi
and
Michael
hirschfeim
and
I
just
want
to
thank
you.
F
B
C
A
Thank
you.
This
this
time
is
set
aside
for
public
comments
for
members
of
the
public
to
address
the
Planning
Commission
on
consent,
calendar
or
other
agenda
items
and
items
of
general
interest
in
our
subject
matter.
Jurisdiction.
Please
note
that
the
Planning
Commission
is
prohibited
from
taking
action
and
items
not
listed
on
the
posted
agenda.
Three
minutes
will
be
allowed
for
each
speaker.
A
testimony
for
public
hearings
may
be
offered
at
this
time
or
at
the
time
of
the
hearing,
members
of
the
public.
A
A
L
Good
evening,
members
of
the
Planning
Commission
I
misunderstood
the
agenda
when
I
read
it,
I
should
have
been
here
at
4
30
for
the
general
comments
for
item
1A
on
the
study
session.
That's
what
I'm
wishing
to
speak
about
I
apologize
for
misunderstanding.
The
agenda.
My
name
is
Bruce
younger
I
reside
in
Maryland,
where
I
serve
on
the
HOA
board
of
directors
and
I'm
here
to
speak
on
agenda
item
number
one
which
was
on
the
study
session.
I
have
previously
addressed
this
Commission
on
the
traffic
Ingress
and
egress
issues
from
this
development.
L
Currently
there
are
only
two
entrances
in
and
out
of
the
community
and
both
of
them
take
traffic
out
onto
Indian
Canyon
Drive.
This
should
be
considered
a
health
and
safety
issue
as
if
there's
ever
any
type
of
incident
like
an
accident
fire
police
activity
that
would
shut
down
Indian
Canyon
Drive,
we
would
be
without
any
Ingress
or
egress
into
the
development.
L
The
two.
In
addition,
there
are
two
of
the
two
exit
routes.
One
of
them
is
frequently
obstructed
by
construction
equipment
during
working
hours.
That
exit
is
to
the
West
also
requires
drivers
heading
towards
downtown
Palm
Springs.
To
make
a
dangerous
u-turn
on
Indian
Canyon
Drive
at
Corazon
Avenue,
and
we
have
recently
started
to
get
complaints
from
residents
of
desert
Highlands
Gateway
Estates.
Regarding
the
U-turn
traffic
they
are
encountering
when
they're
exiting
on
the
unique
Canyon
Drive.
L
L
We're
requesting
that
as
a
condition
for
the
approval
of
this
project
before
you
today
that
you
require
the
developer
to
complete
the
Avenida
cabiros
entry
exit
gate
and
have
it
operational
before
any
work
is
allowed.
Commence
on
the
particular
site.
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
your
concern
and
tension
today.
E
J
C
A
J
J
E
C
I
just
have
two
brief
comments
on
the
February
22nd
2023
minutes.
Page
two
middle
of
the
page
commission
comments
in
response
to
commissioner
Miller's
regarding
the
intent.
The
word
question
should
be
in
there
commissioner
Miller's
question
and
then
on
the
next
page
page
three
toward
the
bottom
of
the
page.
Three
lines
up,
staked
Stone
should
be
stacked,
stone.
It's
staked
twice
there.
A
B
C
C
M
E
A
E
Let
me
pull
up
the
presentation
all
right,
good
evening,
Commissioners.
This
item
relates
to
the
annual
Zone
zoning
code.
Update
I
will
go
through
some
of
the
more
substantive
changes
individually,
but
as
a
reminder,
we
Endeavor
to
make
administrative
corrections
to
the
code
each
year
to
address
various
issues
that
may
have
Arisen
over
the
course
of
the
past
year,
for
example,
if
we
need
to
reflect
changes
to
state
law
or
other
regulations
that
impact
the
zoning
code
or
if
we
become
aware
of
conflicts
with
other
regulatory,
Frameworks
or
legal
opinions.
E
We
do
this
to
ensure
that
the
Zen
encode
is
relatively
current,
where
we
can.
What
I
would
like
to
say
at
this
time
is
that
the
annual
update
is
not
intended
to
implement
major
shifts
in
policy.
We
would
typically
want
to
ensure
that
there
is
more
public
consultation
where
we're
introducing
new
policy
or
making
those
major
shifts
or
deviations,
and
that
said,
I
did
also
want
to
highlight
again
that
we
will
be
embarking
on
our
our
comprehensive
update
to
the
zoning
code
shortly.
E
E
We've
not
had
detailed
conversations
with
that
property
owner
or
with
any
applicant
there,
but
what
I
do
understand
is
they've
been
engaging
with
residents
of
asena
around
a
potential
pickleball
facility,
as
well
as
some
other
uses
that
they're
exploring
there
I
want
to
be
clear
that
that
application
has
not
been
filed.
It
is
not
subject
of
this
discussion,
nor
are
the
changes
that
we
are
making
through
this
annual
update
applicable
in
any
way
to
that
site.
E
What
we
are
looking
at
here
are
changes
on
residential
sites,
and
we
are
looking
at
establishing
a
policy
framework
where
today
non-exists
so
I
just
want
to
be
really
clear
on
that.
If
development
of
that
Desert
Sun
building
does
proceed,
we
will
go
through
the
proper
process
at
that
time,
depending
on
what
it
is
that
they're
proposing
to
do
so.
I
just
want
to
be
very
clear
for
members
of
the
public,
as
well
as
the
commission
that
we're
not
looking
at
a
specific
development
proposal
at
that
site
at
this
time.
E
E
That,
in
theory,
are
very
widely
permissible
and
not
subject
to
the
additional
oversight
that
we
see
in
these.
These
tennis
court
Provisions.
We
have
over
the
years,
made
different
policy
determinations
to
allow
us
to
employ
the
tennis
court
Provisions
to
other
sports
courts,
including
pickleball,
but
really
what
we
want
to
do
here
is
codify
that
in
the
zoning
code
to
give
us
more
protection,
but
also
certainly
more
clarity
to
property
owners
in
terms
of
what
they
can
and
cannot
do
so.
E
I
just
want
to
stress
that
we
are
actually
introducing
more
oversight
to
sports
courts,
other
than
tennis
courts
where
today
none
exists
and
then,
finally,
just
just
to
sort
of
build
upon
that
and
given
the
tremendous
public,
you
know
interest
in
pickleball
courts
and
some
of
the
specific
concerns
that
may
be
generated
by
those
uses.
I
think
that
there
is
absolutely
some
work
that
needs
to
be
done
and
some
analysis
to
be
done
on
on
the
noise
around
that
particular
use
and
how
we
may
need
to
regulate
that
better.
E
As
I
said
in
my
opening
remarks,
we'll
be
starting
the
comprehensive
update,
soon
and
I.
Imagine
that
we
can
look
at
that
issue
as
part
of
that
process
and
see
what
we
might
need
to
do
to
differentiate
pickleball
from
other
types
of
sports
carts
on
residential
sites
and
perhaps
also
elsewhere.
So
that's
a
conversation
we
will
continue
to
have.
E
So
what
are
we
actually
doing
here
kind
of
touched
on
this
already
right
now
we
have
regulations
in
in
930101
specific
to
tennis
courts
on
residential
sites.
You
know
everything
is
defined
as
being
relative
to
tennis
courts.
It
allows
us
to
regulate
things
like
wall
Heights,
for
visual
screening
and
noise,
attenuation
setbacks,
lighting
things
of
that
sort
again
for
private
tennis
courts
on
residential
sites.
E
E
M
E
So
today
for
plan
development
districts
at
the
at
the
preliminary
St
stage.
That
review
occurs
with
the
Planning
Commission
and
then
is
approved
by
the
city
council
and
the
final
development
plan
comes
back
in
and
is
reviewed
Again
by
the
Planning
Commission.
What
we
are
not
clear
on
in
the
in
the
code
is
arc's
role
in
reviewing
that
and
again
I
think
looking
back
to
what
we
intended
through
the
2019
changes
and
just
how
we
actually
apply
this
in
practice.
E
You
know
we
want
to
make
sure
that
there's
an
Architectural
Review
that
happens
at
that
final
stage.
So
what
we
have
proposed
here
is
to
clarify
that
the
arc
would
review
the
final
PD
where
it
where
the
overall
development
plan
is
substantially
compliant
with
what
U-Haul
have
approved
at
the
tentative
stage.
If
there
are
changes
to
that,
it
would
have
to
come
back
through
a
modification
process
if
it's
minor,
it
might
be
dealt
with
at
the
staff
level.
E
E
The
idea
here
is
that
it
wouldn't
come
to
Planning
Commission
at
the
final
stage,
so
we
would
be
swapping.
We
would
be
taking
it
from
Planning
Commission
down
to
Arc
in
terms
of
that
final
development
review
again
only
where
it's
compliant
with
what
you've
all
approved
at
the
tentative
stage
and
then
to
council
and
no
no
council
at
the
final
stage.
E
E
E
Well,
I'll
start
with
item
seven,
because
that's
the
first
one
here
so
item
seven
relates
to
two
enet
projects.
Today
the
rules
indicate
that,
to
take
advantage
of
the
urban
lot
split
provisions
of
sb9,
you,
the
the
the
the
units
need
to
be
owner
occupied,
and
what
we
are
saying
here
is
that
you,
non-profit
developers,
may
also
utilize
those
tools
again
to
sort
of
look
at
the
groups
that
are
trying
to
produce
affordable
housing
types
to
allow
them
to
utilize
those
tools
and
produce
more
housing
throughout
the
city.
E
And,
of
course,
I
cannot
find
it
number
six
we
are
looking.
This
is
interesting
in
that
I
believe
we
sort
of
just
took
what
state
law
said
and
put
it
into
our
zoning
code
when
we
developed
that
density,
bonus,
ordinance
and
state
law
really
only
requires
you
to
Grant
a
density
bonus
ordinance
to
moderate
income,
affordable
housing
where
it
is
owner
owned,
where
it's
an
ownership
model,
it
does
not
have
to
apply
to
rental
housing,
I.
E
Think
what
we're
seeing
specifically
in
our
market
and
the
type
of
development
that
we're
seeing
in
the
interest
that
we're
seeing
in
moderate
income
housing
is,
we
would
like
we
are
proposing
that
we
would
expand
that
to
apply
to
rental
housing
that
includes
modern
income
housing,
so
that
we
can
continue
to
incentivize
that
affordable
housing
development
and
then,
finally,
for
plan
development
districts.
We
are
looking
to
allow
additional
modifications
through
that
process,
again
subject
to
Planning
Commission
recommendation
and
oversight
for
a
few
items
to
be
modified.
E
That
today
cannot
be
modified
through
that
process,
and
this
is
in
response
to
development.
We're
seeing
that's
running
into
some
issues.
That's
limiting!
You
know
what
they
can
pencil
out
and
and
develop
under
today's
zoning,
and
so
that
would
be
for
law
coverage
and
open
space.
That's
where
we're
really
seeing
constraints,
particularly
in
that
medium
and
high
density
Market,
where
we're
looking
to
get
more
units
in
those
categories
and
we're
being
constrained
by
the
law
coverage
and
open
space
requirements.
E
right
now.
We
don't
include
this,
but
we
think
it's
good
to
provide
some
additional
oversight
for
Hillside
additions
and
remodels
to
undergo
minor
architectural
reviews,
so
that
would
be
done
at
the
staff
level.
But
right
now
that
isn't
required,
and
we
believe
that
you
know
in
accordance
with
the
way
the
balance
of
the
rules
are
structured.
That
would
be
helpful.
We've
also
provided
clarification
on
applications,
submittal
requirements,
and
then
we've
also
defined
the
effective
data
of
approval.
So
right
now
we
have
essentially
two
different
processes
that
are
occurring
again.
E
This
goes
back
to
the
2019
changes
that
were
made
where
the
development
permit
could
be
approved
by
the
Planning
Commission
and
we'll
have
a
certain
effective
date
and
therefore
lapsing
date.
But
then
it
needs
to
go
to
Architectural
Review
for
their
review
and
that
will
also
have
its
own
effective
date
and
and
lapsing
provision
dates.
We
want
to
try
to
sort
of
fuse
those
together
by
saying
that
the
development
permit
would
become
effective
six
months
after
the
planning
commissions
decision
or
at
the
time
of
ARC
approval,
whichever
occurs
first
and
again.
E
This
is
just
to
kind
of
minimize
confusion
that
could
happen
under
today's
process,
where
you
have
different
effective
dates
and
therefore
different
lapsing
dates.
If
that
makes
sense,
and
then
finally,
another
administrative
change
for
Architectural
Review,
which
is
more
of
a
cleanup
item,
and
that,
given
the
structure
and
their
relationship
to
the
Planning
Commission,
we
would
just
correct
that
any
appeals
on
Architectural
Review
decisions
be
filed
with
the
city's
planning
department
rather
than
the
city
clerk,
because
we're
the
ones
that
manage
that
and
bring
it
to
the
to
you
all.
E
There
are
a
whole
series
of
Corrections
that
are
being
made.
I
know,
we've
gone
back
and
forth
on
planning
department
versus
development
services
department.
So
we
are
correcting
that
as
well
as
references
to
my
title,
where
applicable,
to
go
back
to
planning
services
and
planning
director
the
next
one's.
Interesting
and
I
will
flag.
Where
is
number
eight,
and
this
is
conditional-
use,
permit
lapsing
Provisions.
E
So
this
is
in
response
to
case
law
and
different
decisions
that
have
happened
over
the
years,
where
the
advice
from
the
city's
attorney
the
city
attorney's
office
is
that
we
cannot
have
conditional
use
permits
automatically
lapse.
They
actually
need
to
go
through
a
revocation
process,
so
we
are
simply
establishing
that
process
to
say
after
two
years
you
know
we
may-
or
you
may
initiate
a
revocation
process
to
rescind
that
conditional
use
permit
rather
than
having
it
automatically
lapse,
because
there's
some
question
as
to
whether
that's
legally
sound.
E
And
that
is
kind
of
the
summary
of
the
major
changes
in
here
as
well
as
some
of
the
cleanup
items,
depending
on
your
on
your
decision
tonight.
This
will
go
on
to
the
city
council
for
their
decision
and
again
a
reminder
that
we
will
be
doing
a
comprehensive
update
of
the
zoning
code
in
the
coming
weeks
and
months
to
address
some
of
the
bigger
issues.
E
J
Okay,
I
I
noticed
that
in
one
place
we're
talking
in
some
zones
that
the
lighting
can't
be
greater
than
400
watts.
In
other
places,
it
can't
be
greater
than
1000
watts
and
giving
that
in
given
that
in
both
the
zones
you're
doing
the
same
thing,
which
is
lighting
and
Tennis
Court
in
the
dark
or
whatever
sport
car
chord.
It's
going
to
be
I'm,
not
sure,
what's
going
on,
and
is
that
correct
that
some
corks
need
to
be
darker
than
others?
I.
E
Think
the
idea
here
is
so
so
subsection
one
is
applicable
to
single-family
residential
zones,
where
section
two,
where
you
get
that
the
higher
the
higher
amount
of
light,
the
higher
wattage
the
multi-family
zones.
So
I
think
that
the
differentiation
there
is
simply
that,
if
you
are
in
a
you
know,
a
single
family
neighborhood.
A
higher
amount
of
light
will
impact
your
neighbors
greater
than
if
you're,
on
a
larger
multi-family
site,
and
presumably
you
know
or
potentially,
surrounded
by
other.
J
Uses
what
this
is
doing
is
it's
limiting
the
amount
of
light
per
fixture.
So
it's
not
saying
that
if
you're
in
a
single-family
Zone,
you
can
only
have
a
certain
number
of
foot
candles
would
be
the
way
to
accomplish
it,
because
this
would
allow
you
to
just
install
more
light
fixtures
and
have
it
as
bright
as
in
another
Zone.
E
J
E
N
A
A
A
M
C
And
this
so
Madam
chair,
my
comments
on
number.
Six
are
really
almost
grammatical
on
page
for
under
toward
the
top
of
the
page
under
density,
bonus
density
bonuses,
10,
moderate
income
shall
be
granted
a
density.
Bonus
of
up
to
five
percent
I
would
recommend
putting
in
the
words
up
to
because
it
otherwise
it
seems
like
it
must
be.
A
five
percent
bonus
and
I.
Think
you
mean
to
say
up
to
five
percent.
C
E
C
A
I
I
have
a
general
comment
on
that
which
is
and
I
sat
on.
The
group
that
worked
on
the
PD
ordinance
change.
I
think
it
changes.
The
final
plan
should
come
back
to
Planning
Commission.
It
should
come
to
the
commission
that
approves
it
to
make
sure
that
it
substantially
in
agreement
and
I.
If
you
want
to
add
something
for
Architectural
Review,
because
we
would
have
had
a
procedure
to
have
Architectural
Review
involved
in
the
mix
at
that
point,
but
I
think
their
review
has
to
come
after
this
agreement.
A
J
I
will
I
have
to
say
that
I
had
a
little
bit
of
a
concern
reading
through
this
as
well
my
mind
going
towards
Architects
know
a
whole
lot
of
things.
I
don't
know
anything
about,
but
I
do
more
know
more
about
planning
and
I
wasn't
completely
comfortable.
That
Architects
would
have
the
same
knowledge
of
the
planning
concerns.
J
That
being
said,
I
was
prepared
to
if
staff
recommended
it
to
say
that
it's
fine
I
suspect
that
in
either
regard
staff
will
really
do
the
Lion's
Share
of
the
review
themselves
and
bring
it
forward
to
the
committee
or
Commission.
But
I
will
say
that
the
wording,
whichever
way
it
goes
in
here,
is
a
little
bit
muddied.
I
believe.
In
fact,
it
ends
up
by
saying
that
the
final
development
plan
has
been
approved
by
the
Planning
Commission
or
the
city
council
and
which
completely
confused
me,
because
I
thought
we
were
just
shifting
the
other
way.
J
E
I
would
be
concerned
about
adding
another
step
in
the
process,
so
I
think
you
know
from
staff's
perspective.
We
were
trying
to
ensure
that
there
was.
You
know
just
to
talk
about
our
thinking
and
and
you've
all
engaged
in
this
process.
Much
more
than
I,
so
I
will
listen
to
the
debate,
but
in
conversations
with
our
team
and
then
thinking
about
how
it
happens,
I
I
think
there
was
a
concern
that
there
was
no
role
for
the
arc
as
defined
currently
and
that
by
the
time
you're
coming
into
final.
E
Ideally,
you
know,
you've
all
had
your
say
on
it.
You've
all
given
the
feedback
on
the
site
plan
and
what
is
coming
forward
at
final
should
reflect
what
you've
already
seen
and
what
city
council
has
approved
and
that
there
is
an
opportunity
for
you
at
that
tentative
stage
to
give
direction
on
the
architecture
both
to
the
applicant
and
to
to
us
to
The
Arc
in
their
review.
E
E
A
M
E
C
J
I
have
in
my
short
tenure
on
the
the
commissioner
commission
here
I
have
seen
it's
not
just
a
proformal
rubber
stamp
and
that
there
are
times
when
the
planners,
the
Planning
Commission
has
said.
No.
This
is
not
in
substantial
com
accordance
with
the
preliminary
plan,
despite
the
recommendation
from
staff
I'd.
Also
take
a
look
at
my
fellow
commissioner
to
the
right
and
look
at
him.
He's
had
a
lot
of
experience
in
these
things
and
asked
what
his
recommendation
would
be.
C
Well,
in
in
my
31
plus
years
of
public
sector
planning
and
zoning
I
I
find
the
Architectural
Review
committees
sort
of
reach
here
to
be
different
than
what
I've
been
used
to
and
I've
I've
never
had
something
go
to
a
an
Architectural
Review
after
it's
gone
to
the
Planning
Commission.
To
tell
you
the
truth,
so
I
certainly
support
the
Planning
Commission,
seeing
it.
But
I
am
also
sensitive
to
Trying
to
minimize
the
number
of
steps
that
a
developer
has
to
go
through
because
that's
time
and
that's
money
and
that's
increased
cost
to
development.
C
A
And
some
of
the
way
it's
this
has
worked
out
is
a
little
more
delegating
more
than
I
thought
we
were
delegating
in
the
beginning.
It
was
to
eliminate
the
confusion
of
the
Architectural
Review
people
having
to
look
at
something
when
they
didn't
know
what
what
the
entitlements
would
be
and
that
always
created
problems.
E
A
E
E
Correct
I
think,
okay
for
our
discussion,
we're
talking
subsection
C
right,
which
is
the
process
change
and
the
approval
Authority
D
is
around
those
standards
and
giving
sort
of
again
more
flexibility
for
medium
and
high
density
developments,
which
I
think
you
know.
Staff
certainly
continues
to
recommend.
J
J
E
We
are
seeing
this
as
as
really
limiting
the
ability
of
these
projects
that
want
to
provide
affordable
housing
at
those
density
limits
to
provide
what
they
would
like
to
have.
You
know
provide
to
pencil
out
I,
don't
know
that
we
have
the
right
number
in
mind,
and
so
because
this
is
such
a
discretionary
process.
I
think
we
purposely
left
it
open
for
discussion
at
the
staff
level
and
then
certainly
with
the
Planning
Commission
and
city
council.
If
you
all
feel
more
comfortable
putting
an
upward
limit
there
I
think
we'd
be
happy
to.
J
And
it
doesn't,
it
doesn't
say
you
know,
for
a
minimum
of
20
units
or
a
certain
percentage
of
affordable
and
if
we're
trying
to
be
very
accommodating
of
all
affordable
housing
projects,
then
I
get
it
and
I
think
it's
set
up
just
fine
and
in
fact
I
like
it.
But
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
was
intentional,
because
there's.
A
E
I
think
because
we
have,
we
have
a
lot
of
rules
in
here
that
are
already
looking
to
modify
certain
development
standards
and
we're
adding
one
or
two
new
into
it.
We
felt
comfortable
with
it,
but
that's
certainly
you
know
for
your
discussion.
This
isn't
a
whole
sale
new
policy.
We
have
a
process
already
to
modify
those
development
standards.
It
just
currently
is
silent
on
those
two
items.
E
K
Yes,
I
mean
we,
we
did
review
that
section,
I
mean
legally
it
it
passes,
muster.
It's
really
the
commission's
opinion
that
we're
soliciting
this
evening,
if
you
think
that
this
is
a
significant
policy
change
to
the
point
that
maybe
it
needs
to
have
further
discussion,
we
could
loop
back
in
with
some
of
the
other
discussion
that
we've
been
talking
about
with
possible
the
prior
topics.
A
And,
and
that's
probably,
what
the
problem
is:
is
that
it's
an
undefined
policy
at
this
point?
It's
not
defined
enough
to
just
I
mean
I'm
sympathetic
to
making
the
change
for
affordable
housing
I
want
it
much
more
specific
than
this.
So
I'd
like
to
know
what
you're
proposing-
and
this
is
very
open-ended.
K
Well
and
again,
not
just
to
reflect
what
Mr
Hadley
had
mentioned
earlier.
This
is
part
of
the
PDP
process,
and
so
you
know
this
is
necessarily
a
flexible
process
and
I
think
that
was,
you
know
staff's
attempt.
There
was
to
maintain
flexibility
and
all
that.
But
again,
if
the
commission
has
thoughts
about
placing
some
sort
of
a
limit
on
this,
you
know
that's,
certainly
the
commission
can
provide
direction
to
us
and
then
we
can
incorporate
that.
E
A
E
O
K
And
I
would
just
point
out
Madam
chair
at
the
end
of
the
day
that
this
is
tied
to
a
PDD
process
where,
ultimately,
the
city
does
have
discretion
to
Simply,
say
no,
it's
a
legislative
entitlement
and,
as
I
understand,
Mr
hadman.
Correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
typically
some
sort
of
a
site
plan
is
submitted
as
part
of
the
PDD
application
process.
Now
am
I
correct
right.
E
We
were
exploring
different
tools
to
get
to
the
amount
of
housing
that
we
felt
was
appropriate
and
best
met
the
needs
of
that
area,
and
we
felt
like
whichever
tool
we
used.
There
were
downsides
to
so
we
are
trying
to
expand
the
toolbox
to
allow
us
to
facilitate
conversations
with
affordable
housing,
Developers.
A
E
That
through
I
think
that
we
didn't
want
to
plan
for
every
permutation
I
think
that
there's
too
many
factors
that
would
go
into
that
and
again
because
we're
talking
just
about
affordable
housing
developments
that
would
come
in
through
a
highly
discretionary
process.
We
felt
that
that
was
a
a
conversation
best
had
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
What
I
might
suggest
is
one
potential
option
is
if
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
are
addressing
what
today
is
a
zoning
barrier
to
affordable
housing
production?
E
You
know
a
I'm
open
to
suggestions
on
on
what
that
upward
limit
might
look
like
I,
don't
have
an
answer
to
that
today,
but
another
option
would
be
that
we
could
commit
as
part
of
the
comprehensive
update
to
further
refining
this
policy
and
putting
parameters
around
it.
I
don't
know
that
we'll
see
a
rush
of
applications
in
the
year
or
so
before.
We
undertake
that
process
or
complete
that
process.
But
that
is
another
option.
A
A
C
Yeah,
just
a
further
question,
really
on
number
nine
I
see
that
in
Roman
numeral
three,
where
we're
talking
about
modifying
open
space,
it's
clearly
tied
into
affordable
housing,
but
you've
been
speaking
as
if
these
other
Provisions,
including
the
added
Building
Story,
and
the
10
increase
in
units,
are
also
tied
to
affordable
housing.
I
didn't
see
where
that
that
no
connection
is.
E
O
E
I
think
that's
certainly
input
that
we're
open
to
I
I
I,
don't
know
that
that
was
necessarily
intentional
or
not
I.
Don't
I
can
understand
if
there's
a
concern
about
blowing
that
open
so
happy
to
take
Direction
on
that,
but
again
just
I.
Think
from
my
perspective,
the
most
important
flexibility
we
want
to
provide
is
for
either
rental
housing
or
affordable
housing.
So
I
would
be
happy
to
take
feedback
on
that
on
G
and
sorry
chairwoman,
you
started
to
talk
about
this
and
then
we
went
in
a
different
direction.
A
E
So,
just
to
clarify
under
Roman
numeral
three
on
page
seven,
we,
it
does
say
the
maximum
lot
coverage
and
minimum
open
space
standards
may
be
modified
for
projects
providing
affordable
housing
within
medium
and
high
density
residential
zones.
So
I
think
we're
covered
on
that
am
I
hearing.
You
say
you
want
to
add
rental,
affordable
housing
or
rental
projects.
I.
E
Years,
I
think
when
we
discussed
this
at
the
staff
level,
we
felt
in
the
absence
of
the
broader
State,
Direction
and
housing
element
commitments
that
we've
made.
We
wanted
more
time
to
analyze
the
broader
rental
conversation
if
your
direction
is
to
add
that
now
I
would
just
ask
Mr
priest,
if
he's
okay
with
that,
but
we
would
certainly
be
open
to
making
that
change
now.
A
A
C
Well
and
I'm
I'm
not
opposed
to
offering
incentives
or
talking
about
deliberating
on
incentives
for
incentivizing,
more
rental
housing
in
the
city,
but
I
don't
know
that
we
do
that
through
this
cleanup
provision-
and
maybe
we
we
look
at
Beyond
open
space,
we
look
at
Building
height.
We
look
at
densities
to.
A
Incentivize
rentals,
your
most
affordable
housing
is
rental.
There's
very
there
wouldn't
be
any.
We
wouldn't
see
any
high
rise
or
higher
for
sale,
affordable,
housing
that
somebody's
building,
because
the
subsidies
are
greater,
so
I
I
think
by
definition,
what
you
have
here
is
is
rental
and
affordable,
but
it's
partially
it's
if
it's
has
some
rental.
Some
affordable
component
have
you
when
you
say:
affordable
housing,
even
even
the
deeply
affordable
that
we've
approved,
has
some
some
units
that
are
at
median
income
or
or
moderate
income
right.
E
J
Madam,
chair
I'm,
getting,
although
I
was
the
first
one
to
LEAP
into
this
conversation,
I'm
getting
increasingly
concerned
and
uncomfortable
with
the
fact
that
I
think
some
of
these
are
really
policy
decisions.
Where
we're
talking
about
you
can
add
an
extra
story.
You
can
reduce
open
space.
These
are
things
that
people
in
Palm
Springs
really
care
about
and
we're
having
a
public
hearing.
With
the
description
of
saying
it's,
no
major
policy
changes
or
proposes
part
of
this
annual
update
and
I
I.
C
I
think
we
need
to
keep
these
back
a
house
as
as
tools
in
the
toolbox
to
offer
to
a
developer
to
incentivize
the
affordability
of
of
their
units.
So
I've
got
concerns
both
on
this
being
more
than
than
a
than
a
cleanup
item,
as
well
as
there's
no
tie
to
these
flexibilities
to
an
affordable
provision.
E
E
Have
commitments
both
in
the
existing
and
the
housing
element?
That's
working
through
the
process
to
remove
to
be
pro-housing
and
to
remove
barriers
to
housing
production.
So
this
we
were
seeing
this
as
an
easy
way
to
actually
meet
one
of
the
commitments
that
we
were
making
in
the
new
housing
element.
That
was
part
of
the
thinking
on
this,
but
I.
A
Hear
the
concerns
I
mean
I,
think
it
takes
us
into
policy,
but
if
it's
needed
to
get
the
housing
element
through
and
just
tying
this
to
affordability,
not
making
any
changes
except
the
site
plan,
you
know
increased
units
being
allowed
by
a
site
plan.
Reconfiguration,
I,
guess
I
would
I
would
allow
it
because
we
have
to
get
our
housing
element
approved.
E
And
maybe
we
park
the
height
issue
because
it's
a
little
unclear
in
here.
It's
not
tied
to
affordable
housing
as
written,
and
maybe
we
need
more
thinking
on
that
clarify
the
language
and
I'm.
Just
thinking
out
loud,
certainly
not
giving
direction,
but
just
trying
to
piece
together.
Conversations
clarify
the
language
on
the
10
increase
to
just
internal
reconfigurations
and
then
are
you
suggesting
for
the
Roman
numeral
number
three,
keeping
that
insofar
as
it's
tied
just
to
affordable
housing.
J
Can
you
clarify
for
me,
the
housing
element
has
not
yet
been
approved.
Typically,
you
prove
the
housing
element
and
it
has
a
list
of
the
things
that
you're
going
to
be
doing
to
reduce
barriers
to
providing
affordable
housing
was
any
of
this
included
in
the
barriers
that
we
were
going
to
take?
Is
approval
of
the
housing
element
by
the
hcd
contingent
upon
us
already
having
done
this,
or
is
that
one
of
the
things
that
we
have
represented
that
we
will
do
after
they
approve
it?
The
latter
that.
E
J
E
It's
not
going
to
hold
up
approval
of
the
in
our
fourth
round
of
review,
which
we're
currently
entering,
and
we
will
come
back
to
this
during
directors
reports.
You
know
we
are
being
pushed
further
and
further
and
further
to
make
these
sort
of
pro-housing
and
you
know
geographically
targeted
commitments,
and
so
we
I
wouldn't
say
we
have
anything
in
there.
E
That
says
we
will
modify
the
PD
ordinance
in
this
exact
way,
but
we
certainly
have
and
have
been
sort
of
made
to
have
commitments
around
removing
these
kinds
of
barriers
and
addressing
them,
and
so
in
our
thinking,
given
that
we
have
to
have
time-based
very
clear
metrics.
This
is
one
that
we
put
a
close
metric
on
thinking
that
we
could
chip
away
at
it
quickly.
But
that's
for
us
to
work
through
and.
K
K
F
K
You
know
clean
up
or
an
update
and
then
ask
to
pull
some
of
these
and
we
those
could
be
discussed
on
a
more
substantive
basis
later,
but
I
think
that
it
was
noticed
properly.
We
are
having
a
public
hearing
that
is
proper
in
the
staff
report.
You
know
again
outline
these
as
cleanup
I
think
there's
some
debate
whether
these
are
just
clean
up
or
policy.
The
commission,
you
know,
has
a
different
belief
on
that
sounds
like
and
that
that's
fine,
so
that
would
be.
K
J
That
being
said,
I
don't
have
a
particular
objection
to
making
the
recommendations,
but
in
passing
it
on
to
the
city
council,
drawing
to
their
attention
this
specific
item
or
these
specific
items
so
that
they
don't
think
that
we're
trying
to
slide
things
through
and
and
make
policy
for
them,
because
it
really
to
me
is
a
policy
issue.
So.
J
E
E
So
you
have
this
lag
between
when
the
development
permit
is
approved
and
when
the
architectural
process
happens,
and
so
you
have
two
different
effective
dates
and
therefore
two
different
lapsing
dates,
and
so
we're
trying
to
sort
of
fuse
those
together
as
closely
as
possible
to
say
it
takes
effect,
either
six
months
from
now
or
once
you
receive
that
ARC
approval,
so
that
we
don't
have
that
sort
of
a
huge
gap
between
those
two
processes.
If
that
makes.
J
E
Correct
and
we
didn't
want
to
have
no,
you
know
I
think
there
was
some
question
as
to
why
we
put
the
six
months
in
there
at
all,
and
the
answer
to
that
is.
You
may
never
go
forward
with
the
ARC
approval,
so
we
didn't
want
there
to
be
no
sort
of
start
date
for
the
clock
for
that
ability
to
to
revoke.
So
that's
where
we've
said
six
months
or
ARC
approval.
A
A
E
And
this
is
another
item
just
you
know,
since
it's
come
up
that
we
are
being
pushed
by
the
state
to
look
at
going
Beyond,
just
the
minimum
of
sb9,
and
so
this
language
is
obviously
borrowed
from
that
we're
chipping
away
at
it
today.
In
a
way,
we
think
we
can
and
agree
that
we,
in
fact
we
have
a
commitment
through
our
housing.
Our
proposed
housing
element
to
look
at
where
we
can
go
beyond
the
minimum
requirements.
K
A
K
A
Sorry
this
is
requiring
a
four
foot,
a
four
foot,
clear
area
around
a
mailbox
in
in
any
subdivision.
That's
built,
mailboxes
are
sort
of
plunked
on
people's
land
in
some
area,
that's
convenient
and
it's
private
land
and
I
I
think
what
the
site
plans
they
that
are
existing
that
have
already
been
approved.
They
won't
be
able
to
get
the
four
feet.
K
A
E
E
A
O
A
higher
density
means
more
players,
more
paddles
balls
hits
and
conversations
all
in
the
same
footprint.
Fans
of
pickleball
and
businesses
are
eager
to
capitalize
on
the
trend
and
they're
pushing
the
com.
The
conversion
of
tennis
courts
parking
lots,
playgrounds
to
pickleball
courts,
outdoor
sites
present
a
significant
noise
abatement
challenge,
particularly
if
attempted
after
the
fact
litigation
has
led
cities
like
Denver,
Colorado,
Lake,
Oswego
and
Oregon
to
close
the
outdoor
pickleball
courts.
O
Palm
Springs
City
Council
has
extensive
experience.
Managing
noise
and
balancing
Recreation
opportunities
with
residents.
Quality
of
life,
proactive
regulation
and
thoughtful
planning
can
reduce
the
possibility
of
conflicts.
So
here
are
some
of
the
things
that
we
recommend
require
a
conditional
use
permit
for
the
conversion
of
construction
of
pickleball
courts
in
any
residential
park
or
Commercial
location,
create
specific
conditions
for
noise
that
will
ensure
that
sound
mitigation
happens
as
part
of
the
construction
or
conversion
set
a
specific
not
to
exceed
decibel
limit
for
adjacent
properties.
O
We
know
from
our
experience
with
music
at
the
air
museum
that
sound
bounces
off
of
hard
surfaces
over
walls
and
drifts
on
the
Wind,
professional,
sound
mitigation
and
Engineering
are
critical,
establish
minimum
setbacks
from
neighboring
properties.
Court
lighting
should
be
consistent
with
Palm
Springs
light
requirements
so
that
the
courts
do
not
contribute
to
light
pollution
or
obliterate.
Stars
and
Views
hours
of
usage
should
be
reasonably
limited
so
as
not
to
negatively
impact
neighboring
communities.
A
A
J
C
C
J
A
E
A
E
J
E
E
So
this
this
well
in
some
cases
we
have
to
come
back
through
a
PD
Amendment
or
somewhat
because
it's
not
listed
here
as
a
minor
modification.
This
would
allow
it
as
one,
but
this
is
not
a
density
bonus,
so
we're
not
granting
additional
residential
capacity
through
this
tool.
This
is
where
you
have
an
approved
PD.
It
says
you
get
100
units,
maybe
you're
able
to
move.
Some
walls
move
some
things
around
and
all
of
a
sudden,
you
can
get
105.
technically
that
that
wouldn't
be
a
minor
modification.
E
A
M
B
A
A
E
A
F
A
A
N
Actually,
not
the
planning
director
anymore,
but
I'll
go
ahead
and
introduce
the
report,
if
you
don't
mind
Madam,
chair
and
members
of
the
commission.
The
item
that
you
have
this
evening
is
relative
to
the
studies
that
have
been
prepared
by
our
consultant
regarding
inclusionary
housing
and
a
commercial
Nexus
fee,
rather
than
going
into
the
background.
We've
already
discussed
that
in
a
previous
study
session.
N
The
intent
is
that,
once
these
studies
are
completed,
they'll
be
forwarded
to
the
city
council.
The
city
council
will
then
review
the
information
in
the
studies
and
at
that
point
they
can
either
direct
staff
to
move
forward
with
the
preparation
of
an
inclusionary
ordinance,
or
they
may
request
additional
information
or
additional
study
in
terms
of
bringing
these
reports
to
the
Planning
Commission
prior
to
giving
them
to
the
city
council,
as
we
have
had
with
recently
other
issues.
N
We
value
the
input
of
the
Planning
Commission
on
items
that
we
bring
forward
to
the
city
council
and
oftentimes.
It's
helpful
to
get
your
input
based
on
your
experience.
Some
of
you
have
dealt
with
these
issues
before
in
other
communities
to
have
a
look
at
the
study
before
it's
finalized
and
presented
to
the
city
council.
N
Should
the
city
council
want
to
move
forward
with
these
studies,
as
I
had
mentioned,
for
example,
on
the
inclusionary
housing?
If
that's
something
that
they
want
to
look
at
developing
an
inclusionary
housing
ordinance
that
would
come
back
to
the
Planning
Commission
at
some
future
date,
where
you
all
would
discuss
the
specific
language
of
the
ordinance
and
make
recommendations
to
the
city
council
with
the
commercial
Nexus
fee?
That's
something
that's
not
typically
included.
N
In
the
zoning
code,
you
may
not
see
that
unless
the
city
council
wants
a
Planning
Commission
input
on
that,
so
I
just
wanted
to
give
you
a
little
bit
of
background
that
these
studies
are
not
complete.
We're
taking
your
input
this
evening
once
the
consultant
has
your
input,
they'll,
finalize
the
studies
and
present
them
to
city
council.
What
we
anticipate
is
that
they
would
be
presented
to
the
city
council
at
the
July
24th
meeting,
and
so
that's
what
we
are
shooting
for
with
that
I'd
like
to
turn
it
over
to
our
Consultants.
N
P
P
My
name
is
Ashley
cannett
I'm,
a
principal
with
economic
and
planning
systems
and
I'm
joined
by
my
colleague,
Chinmay
domlay,
who
is
an
associate
in
our
Los
Angeles
office,
and
we
were
last
before
you
in
April
and
we're
back
tonight
to
share
updated
results
and
to
present
some
potential
recommendations
just
for
your
discussion
and
feedback
this
evening.
So
with
that,
let's
dive
in
in
the
next
slide.
Please
our
agenda
tonight
is
to
just
very
briefly
review
the
context
and
a
little
bit
of
background
of
where
we
are.
P
Since
we
were
last
before
you,
we
will
talk
about
the
updated
maximum,
nexus-based
commercial
linkage,
fees,
talk
about
some
approaches
to
setting
those
fees
and
then
entertain
your
discussion
last
time
you
liked
to-
or
you
wanted
to
have
some
discussion
after
each
item
so
we'll
do
that
this
time
as
well,
unless
you
direct
me
otherwise,
then
we'll
move
on
to
inclusionary
housing,
we'll
talk
about
the
ownership
program
or
some
options
for
the
ownership
program,
some
options
for
the
rental
program
and
then
have
some
discussion
next
slide.
Please.
P
Are
you
talking
about
others
before
this
item
tonight
and
in
recognition
of
this
studying
a
commercial
linkage
fee
and
an
inclusionary
fee
are
commitments
in
the
draft
housing
element
document,
and
so
we
EPS,
we
were
brought
on
board
last
year
and
we've
been
working
with
Chris
and
Flynn
for
the
past
several
months
to
dial
in
the
technical
assumptions
underpinning
our
calculations
and
in
the
course
of
our
work.
We've
reviewed,
affordable
housing
fees
in
the
region
and
across
the
state
and
we'll
share
those
with
you
tonight.
P
P
Thank
you.
So
we
heard
we
heard
a
question.
You
know
where
are
Healthcare
and
Technology
land
uses
within
this
study
and
they
are
in
the
office
category,
and
we
can
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
that
as
we
get
there.
We
also
heard
a
little
bit
of
a
nudge
or
a
suggestion.
You
know
what
would
happen
if
we
allowed
the
in-lu
fees
to
rise
up
just
a
little
bit.
What
would
that
allow
us
to
achieve
in
terms
of
an
inclusionary
requirement?
P
We
were
also
asked
to
take
a
look
at
some
of
the
requirements
and
other
tourism-based
cities
so
that
you
had
a
better
more
of
an
Apples
to
Apples
comparison,
as
you
think
about
potential
fees,
and
so
we
took
a
look
at
we
coordinated
with
with
staff.
We
took
a
look
at
Encinitas,
Carlsbad
Monterey,
and
we
added
in
additional
commercial
linkage
fee
comps
as
well.
P
There
were
other
questions
that
are
not
reflected
in
our
technical
work,
but
City
staff
may
be
able
to
address
them
and
they
may
come
up
for
city
council
as
well
and
those
questions
were
you
know
how
is
development
on
tribal
land
affected?
How
much
development
potential
remains?
That
is
how
many
you
know
the
projects
that
are
not
already
entitled
and
which
therefore
would
not
be
subject
to
any
of
these
fee
programs.
P
If
they
are
adopted,
there's
a
question
about
how
much
fee
Revenue
would
be
generated,
which
is
a
really
difficult
question
for
anyone
to
answer.
Since
we
don't
know
exactly
and
the
amount
or
the
pace
of
potential
new
development
and
then
a
final
question
is:
will
development
go
go
elsewhere?
Next,
please,
so.
P
We
then
take
a
look
at
how
much
rent
these
income
restricted
households
can
afford,
based
on
those
updated,
2023
income
limits
and
the
amount
of
rent
that
can
be
paid
is
translated
to
a
value.
So
we
take
the
capitalized
value
of
that
stream
of
Revenue
and
the
rent
that
a
very
low
income
household
can
afford
translates
to
a
value
of
nearly
forty
thousand
dollars.
It
was
twenty
six
thousand
dollars
with
the
2022
income
limits,
and
this
increases
to
94
000
for
a
lower
income,
household
and
299
000
for
a
moderate
income
household.
Those
are
this.
P
Those
are
the
values
that
these
income,
that
are
that
are
Income
constrained
households
can
afford,
and
the
takeaway
here
is
that,
even
with
the
income
limit
increases,
it
requires
a
very
significant
development
subsidy
to
build
affordable
housing
even
for
a
moderate
income
household.
Next,
please
so
like
last
time.
Let's
start
with
the
commercial
linkage
fee
and
just
briefly
again,
a
commercial
leakage
fee
is
a
one-time
charge
on
new
non-residential
real
estate
development.
P
It's
intended
to
mitigate
the
impacts
that
new
non-residential
development
has
on
the
local
Workforce
and
the
need
for
affordable,
Workforce
housing.
These
fees
are
authorized
under
California's
mitigation,
fee
act
and
they're,
charged
in
dozens
of
cities
and
counties
throughout
the
state,
including
in
nearby
Palm
Desert,
and
several
in
adjacent
San,
Bernardino
and
Los
Angeles
counties
and
we'll
review
some
of
those
with
you
tonight.
P
About
a
new
commercial
development-
and
we
wonder
you
know
how
many
jobs
are
going
to
be
generated
from
that
new
development.
How
much
will
those
employees
earn
how
many
units
of
housing
will
those
employees
require?
It's
not
exactly
one
one
to
one
right.
There
are
multiple
earners
per
household
in
many
cases.
We
then
ask
what
is
the
gap?
We
just
talked
about:
what's
the
gap
between
Housing
Development
costs
and
Workforce
purchasing
power,
and
then
what
is
the
fee?
The
linkage
fee
that
would
fill
fill
that
Gap
and
on
the
next
slide.
P
We,
this
is
small,
I
I,
know
I'm.
Sorry,
we
calculate
what
that
fee
would
be
with
a
subsidy
required
would
be
for
a
prototypical
building
of
around
a
hundred
thousand
square
feet,
and
then
we
normalize
that
down
to
a
per
square
foot
fee
and
what
we're
calculating
here
are
the
maximum
Nexus
justifiable
fees.
P
Next,
please,
okay
and
these
fees
are
high
and
higher
than
what
you
would
want
to
charge
they're
higher
than
what
could
reasonably
be
absorbed
by
new
development.
So
our
next
step
is
to
think
a
little
bit
about
it
from
a
feasibility
perspective
and
in
the
case
of
commercial
linkage
fees.
The
way
we
do
that
is
we
take
a
look
at.
We
do
a
survey
of
fee
levels
in
other
cities
and
as
a
reminder
within
the
Coachella
Valley.
P
The
cities
do
have
flexibility
to
set
land
use
categories
as
to
be
most
appropriate
for
their
development
potential.
You
can
also
see
some
cities
like
Glendale
and
West
Hollywood
they've
set
a
fee
that
is
just
consistent
across
the
land
use
categories,
so
no
variation
between
the
land
use
categories
and
Los
Angeles,
the
city
of
Los
Angeles.
Does
a
variation
of
this
their
linkage
fee?
It's
not
on
here,
but
there
are
linkage.
Fee
varies
from
3.48
cents,
a
square
foot
to
five
dollars
and
80
cents,
a
square
foot.
P
It
varies
by
market
area
of
the
city,
but
not
by
land
use.
Category
San
Diego's
program
back
to
the
Chart
here
hasn't
been
updated
in
at
least
five
years,
but
they
I
put
it
on
here
because
they
did
something
interesting.
They
phased
in
their
program
when
they
adopted
it
just
to
test
to
test
the
waters
San
Luis
Obispo
is
this:
is
the
city
of
San
Luis
Obispo,
not
the
county
by
the
way,
but
it's
pretty
consistent
across
the
board
five
to
six
dollars
per
square
foot-
and
this
is
reflective
of
a
very
recent
update.
P
Napa
is
in
the
3.50
to
six
dollar
per
square
foot
range
with
hotels
carrying
the
highest
fee.
There
Napa
is
a
good
tourism-based
comp,
Palo
Alto
over
on
the
right.
We
include
just
to
demonstrate
that
there
are
jurisdictions
that
charge
much
higher
fees.
Of
course,
Palo
alto's
in
the
Silicon
Valley
area,
where
there's
a
lot
of
development,
a
lot
of
development
pressure,
but
we
wanted
to
show
that
range.
P
P
The
third
option
is
a
little
different
and
it
introduces
an
equipment
lens,
meaning
that
there
are
some
types
of
non-residential
development
that
bring
other
benefits
along
with
them.
So
our
high
fee
is
set
at
six
dollars
a
square
foot,
but
then
retail
restaurant
Services,
which
generates
sales
tax
in
the
city
and
hotel
which
generates
tot,
are
set
lower
at
three
dollars
a
square
foot.
There
are
lots
of
ways
to
think
about
that.
P
That's
just
a
prompt
discussion
next
slide,
please,
and
let's
move
on
to
discussion
so
in
just
as
context
setting
in
the
context
of
the
city's
Arena,
which
is
about
you
know,
2500
2600
units,
including
very
low,
including
about
545,
very
low,
408,
low
and
461
moderate
income
units.
Do
you
think
a
commercial
linkage
fee
would
help
generate
Revenue
to
invest
in
affordable
housing,
especially
as
you
think,
of
the
potential
uses
of
those
commercial
linkage
fee
revenues
and
then
of
the
options
that
we
went
through
or
perhaps
others
that
come
to
mind
for
you.
P
P
F
I
that
would
help
me
I'm
not
going
to
be
on
Planning
Commission
anymore,
but
I
think
that
would
help
Commissioners
understand
what
the
impact,
how
much
these
fees
would
generate
and
if
it's
appropriate,
if
it's
very
high,
then
maybe
that's
a
good
thing.
If
it's
very
low,
maybe
it's
like.
What's
the
point.
D
A
Just
speaking
as
someone
who
worked
in
housing
in
Santa
Monica,
it's
a
Beach
City,
it's
a
tourist
City.
It
is
a
it's
a
job
generator
for
a
city
it.
If
you
were
on
the
freeway
at
the
10
freeway
coming
in
the
morning,
all
the
traffic
would
be
coming
into
Santa
Monica
and
for
jobs
and
at
night
they'd
all
be
leaving.
So
it
it
had
a
lot
of
development
in
a
range
of
Industries,
very
attractive
for
development
and
got
redeveloped
a
lot.
We
used
the
we
had
linkage.
A
Fees
back
in
I,
can't
believe
I'm,
saying
the
80s
when
I
80s
and
90s
when
I
worked
there
and
we
used
it
basically
for
subsidies
for
affordable
housing
development
that
could
have
been
new,
it
could
have
been
preservation
and
it
was.
It
was
our
main
one
of
our
two
main
generators
of
funds
to
attract
non-profit
developers
to
work
in
the
city
and
by
doing
that,
they
basically
at
that
point
in
time.
A
10
percent
of
the
rental
stock
in
the
city
was
affordable,
with
the
use
of
that
kind
of
a
fee
to
create
housing,
but
it
significantly
different
in
terms
of
the
amount
of
commercial
development
and
the
attractiveness
of
its
Hotel
industry.
It's
real
estate
to
developers,
so
the
the
very
best
developers
were
interested
in
being
there.
A
Things
got
redeveloped
and
it
wasn't
anywhere
near
as
high
as
that
when
I
was
working
there
I
think
it
was
in
the
three
to
four
dollar
range
back
then,
but
it
was
a
significant
generator,
but
it's
a
very
different
real
estate
market
in
terms-
and
it
was-
the
linkage-
was
mainly
on
office.
Medical
I
mean
that
was
I
again
I,
don't
know
if
the
hotels
paid
in
I
actually
don't
don't
know
that,
but
we
were
I
mean
it.
It
was
a
city
that
hotel
new
hotels
were
being
developed
and
it
wasn't
like
so.
D
A
D
A
Segment
of
of
film
and
television
was
there,
so
it
was,
it
was
a
huge
job
generator
and
there
was
a
lot
of
commercial
investment
which
resulted
in
money,
but
the
the
value
of
this
kind
of
a
fee.
What
it
really
does
is,
if
you
want
to
do
very
low
and
very
low
income
housing,
it's
it's
the
fee
that
helps
you
be
able
to
do
that.
D
J
D
A
I
would
think
that
the
rest
of
the
mark,
the
fact
that
none
of
the
other
Valley
Cities
charge
fees,
is
it
just
incentive
to
raising
your
fee.
You
know
I've
watched
Gretchen
come
to
city,
council
and
chide
us
for
the
kinds
of
fees
we
charge
for
for
building
permits,
we're
competitive
in
Palm,
Springs
and
Flynn.
You
know
that
better
than
I
do
we're
competitive
with
the
rest
of
the
market
in
Palm
Springs,
for
what
gets
built.
N
We
are
generally,
you
know,
there
are
some
unique
differences
between
the
cities
in
terms
of
their
various
markets,
but
yeah
Coachella
Valley
is
a
unique
place,
and
so
we
need
to
take
that
into
consideration
as
we
look
at
something
like
a
linkage
fee
and
I'm
going.
To
be
honest,
it's
very
tough,
comparing
us
to
some
of
the
coastal
cities,
even
though
we
may
have
the
cachet.
F
In
terms
of
hotels,
you
know
there
was
a
discussion
in
April.
Well,
it's
Palm,
Springs
hotels
are
going
to
want
to
build
here,
but
hey
look
at
hotels
over
the
last
five
years.
You
know
it's
so
hard
to
build
a
hotel
here
and
if
we're
going
to
put
more
fees
on
it's
going
to
be
even
harder,
I,
so
I
think
you
want
to
be
careful
with
that.
That's
my
opinion.
Well,.
A
J
So,
yes,
worrying
about
one
city,
charging,
50
cents,
a
square
foot
in
US
wanting
to
maybe
not
put
on
a
dollar
fifty
cents
in
because
then
people
would
go
elsewhere.
We're
really
missing
the
big
picture,
which
is
you
bring
businesses
and
workers
to
your
city
and
you
don't
pay
them
a
living
wage
and
they
can't
live
here
and
and
the
burden
goes
to
the
city.
J
Because
now,
suddenly
we
have
workers
that
can't
live
here
that
are
commuting
in
from
Coachella
or
desert
hot
springs
or
someplace,
that's
more
affordable
to
them,
they're,
clogging
up
Our
arteries
and
all
of
our
roads
with
traffic.
The
air
quality
is
a
lesser.
We
don't
have
families
participating
in
the
elementary
schools
here
because
they
have
to
live
someplace
else
and
come
here
to
work
because
we
don't
have
affordable
housing
for
them.
J
So
I
think
it's
a
little
simplistic
to
just
look
at
a
recommended
fee
of
you
know
four
dollars
a
square
foot
and
think:
oh
no
people
won't
build
here.
They
won't
open
businesses
if
we
charge
them
that
much.
The
Palm
Springs
is
going
gangbusters
with
development,
so
I
particularly
liked
when
we're
looking
at
the
inclusionary
housing
numbers
and
the
fee
recommendations
or
the
fee
scenarios
there,
because
it
identifies.
J
How
much
is
feasible,
how
what's
the
profit
margin
that
developers
are
making
off
of
the
homes
that
they're
building
here
and
how
much
of
that
can
you
eat
into
without
scaring
them
away?
It's
harder
when
you're
talking
about
the
commercial
properties
and
you're
you're,
looking
at
the
linkage
fee
here,
because
we
don't
necessarily
know
what
they
need
to
make?
J
Is
this
going
to
scare
them
away,
or
is
this
going
to
deter
them,
or
are
they
suddenly
going
to
decide
that
you
know
what
we
can
build
for
less
in
Cathedral
City
and
maybe
we'll
go
there
instead,
I
think
you
have
to
understand
that
Palm
Springs
does
have
a
unique
cachet
that
is
attractive
to
businesses,
particularly
to
tourism-related
businesses
and
I.
Don't
think
that
charging
them
again,
1
100th
of
the
impact
that
they're
causing
the
city
or
costing
the
city
to
build
here,
is
necessarily
going
to
scare
them
away.
A
I'm,
looking
at
here
and
I
think
there's
six
dollar
maximum
is
probably
what
the
Consultants
think
we
can
charge
as
I'm.
You
know,
somewhere
between
a
buck
50
and
six
dollars
depending
on
the
category
I,
don't
I
mean
Santa
Monica
was
the
People's
Republic
of
Santa
Monica
back
then,
and
to
them
it
was
we're
going
to
charge
this
fee
and
we
don't
care
if
anybody
in
La
does
and
they
had
10
percent
of
their
housing
stock.
Eventually
early
on
was
affordable.
You.
J
A
J
J
A
Have
to
worry
about
scaring
business
away,
especially
right
now,
because
interest
rates
are
so
high
and
there's
people
are
deciding
whether
they
want
to
build.
But
at
the
same
time
not
doing
it
doesn't
tell
us.
If
we
can
do
it
and
either
we
phase
something
in
or
we
start
with
a
low
number
and
see
if
it
works.
A
A
J
A
J
J
A
A
A
J
M
N
J
J
N
There's
two
things
that
I'm
hearing
one
is
that
somewhere
between
four
and
six
dollars
seems
to
be
appropriate
from
some
of
the
Commissioners.
The
other
thing
that
I'm
hearing
is
that
the
idea
of
considering
this
with,
as
it
stated
in
option
three
in
Economic
Development
lens,
is
another
thing
that
seems
to
have
piqued
the
interest
of
the
Commissioners.
A
The
only
other
categories
that
are
missing
are
agriculture.
When
I
say
that
I
mean
cannabis
grows
because
that's
I,
don't
know
where
you
treat
that
and
then
another
big
source
in
the
in
the
valley
here
is
energy,
and
you
know
we've
recently
put
in
battery
storage
we've
a
couple
of
years
ago.
I
think
when
I
wasn't
on,
you
guys
did
the
500
foot
tall,
windmills
the.
A
C
C
F
A
C
Whatever
the
number
is
an
escalator,
Clause
I
know
we
did
it
in
Oakland
there
was
an
escalator
Clause
that
was
based
annually
on
the
and
I
wrote
it
down,
because
on
the
Marshall
and
Swift's
Residential
Building
cost
index,
which
is
a
known
entity,
and
so
in
Oakland
in
2016
they
started
their
houses.
What
they
call
the
housing
jobs
impact
fee
started
at
four
dollars
per
square
foot
across
the
board
for
the
various
land
use
categories
that
it
applied
to,
and
then
there
was
an
annual
escalator
and
I.
C
Don't
know
what
they're
at
now
the
annual
escalator
didn't
start
for
five
years
in
so
2021
was
the
first
year
they
did
the
escalator
clause
and
I,
of
course,
wasn't
there,
but
so
that's
something
that
I
think
that
can
be
done
and
I
think
that
makes
sense,
because
I
think
this
is
so
new
to
Palm
Springs,
it's
so
new
to
the
Coachella
Valley.
It's
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
pushback,
but
I
think
it's
so
important
to
get
something
on
the
books
that
provide
some
monetary
benefit.
C
That
cities
can
use
that
Palm
Springs
can
use
to
provide
affordable
housing,
whether
it
be
through
land
to
help
a
non-profit
or
whatever
I
think
we
got
to
start
small
because
we're
not
going
to
get
something
Grand
approved.
We
know
that,
and
nor
should
we
try,
but
I
think
we
need
to
get
something
on
the
books
and
then
have
some
sort
of
escalator
Clause
built
in
after
a
certain
number
of
years.
This.
A
C
L
M
P
Depending
on
the
policy.
It
is
state
law
that,
if
you
have
an
inclusionary
housing
program,
you
also
need
to
offer
alternative
means
of
compliance.
There
are
a
lot
of
ways
that
can
express
itself,
but
most
often
it
is
in
the
form
of
an
in-loop
fee,
so
we'll
be
talking
about
both
inclusionary
requirements
on
site
and
in-lu
fees
as
well.
So
next
slide
please
and
one
of
the
things
that
you
requested.
Last
time
we
tried
to
add
a
lot
more
detail.
P
These
by
the
way,
are
requirements
on
new
rental
development.
Most
cities
will
distinguish
their
inclusionary
programs
between
rental
product
and
ownership.
Product
Temecula
has
a
program
20
focused
on
low
income.
Housing
Montclair
has
a
program
around
15
split
between
moderate
and
very
low,
and
it's
not
always
really
easy
to
find
what
the
in-lu
fees
but
are.
But
if
we
found
it,
we
put
it.
We
put
it
on
here
and
in
Montclair.
The
in-lu
fee
is
fifteen
thousand
dollars
a
unit
in
Encinitas.
P
P
The
fact
that
this
that
the
in-loof
fee
is
at
this
level
makes
me
think
that
either
the
program
was
adopted
quite
a
while
ago,
or
they
are
intentionally
setting
their
fee
lower
than
the
on-site
requirement
to
incentivize
fee
Revenue,
because
that
is
not
aligned
with
where
we're
seeing
development
costs.
These
days,
Monterey
was
a
little
aside.
Monterey
is
20
on-site
inclusionary
all
focused
on
moderate
Santa
Cruz
is
also
at
20,
but
focused
on
low
and
Pasadena,
just
to
throw
out
an
example
of
a
hire
in
Luffy
they're
at
20.
P
Half
of
that
is
moderate.
The
rest
is
split
between
low
and
very
low,
and
the
in-lu
fee
can
range
significantly
from
36
dollars
a
square
foot
to
around
76
dollars
a
square
foot
in
Santa
Cruz.
While
they
don't
publish
a
fee
program,
they
it
varies
and
they've
calculate
it
at
the
time
of
the
application
trying
to
understand
the
sales
price
of
the
or
the
value
of
the
inclusionary
unit
versus
the
value
of
the
market
rate
unit.
P
I
think
the
state
is
increasingly
interested
in
having
in-lu
fees
being
very
clearly
calculated
and
published
on
websites
in
a
really
transparent
way.
So
there
aren't
ad
hot
calculations
being
required,
as
development
occurs
next
slide
please.
So
we
just
looked
at
rental
requirements.
These
are
ownership
requirements.
We've
got
some
of
the
same
cities,
but
a
few
new
ones
as
well.
P
Jurupa
Valley
keeps
their
requirement
the
same
Cala
Mesa
has
a
program
actually
doesn't
exactly
take
the
form
of
an
inclusionary
requirement
requirement.
It
looks
more
like
a
a
zoning
or
a
regulatory
requirement,
but
it's
five
percent
low
Temecula
again
20
percent
low
Montclair,
also
15
15
split
between
very
low
and
moderate,
which
is
interesting,
Encinitas
again
two
options
you
can
at
the
developers,
discretion
they
can
decide
to
Target
low
or
very
low
Carlsbad
is
15
low
with
an
8
500
per
unit
in
Luffy.
P
P
We
Define
that
as
a
yield
on
cost,
that's
net
operating
income
divided
by
development
costs
and
our
feasibility
threshold
there
is
5.5
percent
and
what
we're
looking
for
is
profit
or
returns
that
exceed
those
metrics
right.
Those
are
those
are
the
metrics
that
would
allow
market
rate
development
to
occur.
We
need
there
to
be
enough
profit
that
the
developer
can
absorb
the
requirement
and
still
make
the
decision
to
move
forward
with
the
project.
P
We
can
achieve
a
10
requirement
targeted
to
moderate
income
households,
but
we
were
also
trying
to
blend
income
levels
as
much
as
possible
to
diversify
income
levels
where
we,
where
we
can
so
in
option
two.
The
in-loop
fee
increases
to
twenty
dollars,
a
square
foot
square
foot
per
market
rate
square
foot
and
with
that
fee
we
keep
the
overall
inclusionary
requirement
at
10,
but
we're
able
to
reach
some
of
those
low
income
households
in
option
three.
We
stretched
the
ilu
fee
to
25
a
square
foot.
P
Which
is
higher
than
we
see
in
most
jurisdictions,
but
not
Pasadena.
You
might
recall,
but
our
model
does
indicate
that
it's
feasible
and
it
allows
a
15
inclusionary
requirement
and
we
have
that
allocated
five
percent
low
and
10
percent
moderate
one
of
the
things
you'll
note
among
these
ownership
options
is
the
is
that
we
don't
have
any
percentage
allocated
to
very
low.
One
of
the
things
we
have
heard
from
cities
and
observed
ourselves
is
that
it's
very
challenging
to
qualify
very
low
income
households
for
ownership
housing.
P
It's
where
that
in
Luffy
Revenue
can
really
be
leveraged.
If
you
get
that
or
wear
a
commercial
linkage,
fee,
Revenue
can
be
leveraged.
So
during
the
discussion
part
of
tonight,
if
you
have
thoughts
on
any
of
these
trade-offs
would
be
curious
to
hear
your
thinking
and
I'll
just
discuss
those
those
three
options,
but
we,
along
with
City,
along
with
Flynn
and
Chris,
considered
a
range
of
options.
P
A
P
P
Bonus
or
other
sorts
of
concessions
or
waivers
by
including
those
units
on
site,
they
might
make
a
different
choice.
But
yes,
often
especially
for
smaller
projects,
you
would
see-
or
you
know,
maybe
a
smaller
number
of
units.
You
might
see
a
preference
to
pay
that
in
Luffy
and
really
not
just
ownership,
but
not
just
ownership
development,
but
all
developers
will
almost
always
prefer
to
pay
the
in-link
fee
just
because
they
it's
one.
It's
a
fee
that
occurs
one
time
in
their
pro
forma
and
then
they're
done.
P
A
That
makes
sense
it's
just
as
I
looked
at
what
the
income
levels
are
of
job
Seekers
and
jobs
that
are
created.
It
looks
like
my
own.
First
inclination
was
to
say,
aim
it
and
at
moderate,
because
those
are
people
who
may
be
able
to
re
afford
the
repairs
that
come
with
home
ownership
I.
But
let
me
just
finish,
but
the
the
incomes
that
are
really
impacted
are
people
that
there's
more
people
that
are
low
income
at
the
80
percent
level
that
need
housing
that
are
of
the
jobs
we
generate.
A
J
And
I
will
just
say,
chair
that
I
agree
with
you,
100
on
ownership,
housing
I
think
is
best
targeted
at
the
moderate
income.
Maybe
a
couple
units
at
the
low
income
but
I
think
the
inverse
for
the
rental
projects.
I
think
that's
where
we
have
a
lot
of
people
with
very
low
or
low
income
and
there's
a
desperate
need
and
Rental
housing
I
believe
typically
can
suit
them
better.
C
And
I
would
agree
with
commissioner
Layin
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
concentrate
the
ownership
requirement
on
the
more
of
the
moderate,
and
that's
still
that's
still
doesn't
necessarily
say
what
our
option
is.
I
mean
I'd,
be
interested
in
hearing
what
the
commission
is
looking
at
in
terms
of
percentages.
Is
it
10?
Is
it
15
percent
and
then
I
think
regarding
the
in-loop
fee,
I
think
it
makes
it
makes
sense,
because
not
every
developer
or
will
develop
in
the
city.
C
A
Larger
units
in
Santa
Monica,
we
we
had
the
option
that
they
could
build
rental
housing
off
site,
even
even
where
it
was
for
sale
condos
they
paid,
they
could
do
it
off-site
and
that
actually
worked
very
well.
If
that
option
is
in
there
it,
the
housing
that
got
built
was
nice.
The
city
had
a
role
in
it
and.
J
A
D
A
B
D
A
P
P
So,
let's
move
into
rental
and
just
have
the
same
discussion
our
option,
one
here.
Oh
next
slide,
please
thank
you.
Our
option.
One
is
our
lowest
overall
inclusionary
requirement
at
six
percent,
but
it
achieves
our
deepest
affordability,
with
half
of
those
units
being
affordable
to
very
low
income,
households
and
the
other
half
targeting
low-income
households.
I
hope
I
said
that
right
it
didn't
sound
right
with
half
of
those
being
affordable
to
very
low
and
the
other
half
to
low.
P
Maybe
I
said
that
right,
the
recommended
in
Luke
or
for
this
option
is
twenty
dollars
per
square
foot
of
market
rate
development
option
two:
the
inclusionary
requirement
increases
to
10
and
while
we're
still
able
to
capture
some
of
those
very
low
households,
it's
offset
by
bringing
the
moderate
income
households
into
the
mix.
Here
the
fee
decreases
to
Fifteen
dollars
a
square
foot
and
in
option
three.
The
on-site
inclusionary
requirement
increases
to
15,
and
this
is
all
in
the
moderate
income
category.
P
If
that's
not
the
direction
I,
just
I
just
heard
but
appear
as
an
option,
the
in-lu
fee
here
comes
back
up
to
around
twenty
dollars.
A
square
foot
see
with
this.
You
can
just
really
see
the
trade-offs
between
that
overall
on-site
inclusionary
requirement
and
what
you're
able
to
achieve
in
terms
of
your
income
levels
and
I'll
note,
but
I
didn't
I
forgot
to
say
it
on
the
ownership
side.
P
I'll
say
it
here:
you'll
see
that
we
we
calculate
what
is
the
actual
equivalent
of
that
on-site
requirement
from
a
fee
or
cost
perspective,
but
the
recommended
Target
is
a
bit
higher
in
every
in
every
case.
Again
we're
trying
to
be
thoughtful
about
that
incentive.
You
know
not
wanting
to
unless
we
intend
to
from
a
policy
decision
not
wanting
to
incentivize
payment
of
the
in-loom
fee
versus
the
provision
of
the
units
on
site,
but
that
is
a
policy
decision.
A
Thank
you
not
seeing
when
I
have
comments.
It's
we've
only
Built
one,
one
rental
property
in
the
last
20
years
that
I
know
of,
and
it's
a
specialty
property
for
for
wealthy
retired
gay
people
that
create
has
a
lot
of
services
not
quite
assisted
living,
but
some
mix
between
luxury
luxury
retirement,
Assisted,
Living
and
where
I
look
at
this
and
I'm
perfectly
fine.
A
With
this
with
any
of
these
models,
I
think
we
have
to
do
more
to
entice
apartment
owners
or
Builders
to
come
in
and
so
I
think
you
have
to
do
something
where
you
have
a
10
percent
inclusionary
requirement
or
six
percent
or
whatever
it
is.
But
you
give
them
a
density
bonus
and
some
other
incentives
to
come
in
or
otherwise
we're
going
to
have
this
lovely
program
for
rental.
But
it
doesn't
work
for
people
to
build
rental
housing
and
we
haven't
seen
it,
and
there
are
probably
a
lot
of
reasons
why?
A
E
E
Those
were
some
of
the
challenges
they
were
running
into,
where
even
the
current
density
bonuses
weren't
getting
them
where
they
needed
to
be
to
incorporate
moderate
income
housing.
There
are
other
issues
that
go
into
this
around
funding
and
you
know
all
of
the
stuff
that
goes
behind
producing,
affordable
housing,
but
you
know
I
do
think
we
in
that
instance,
we
have
a
willing
partner
who
was
feeling
a
little
bit
constrained
by
zoning
and
I.
Think
some
of
this
discussion
would
help
that's.
A
Did
it's
encouraging
that
they've
come,
but
they
also
need
they
need
density
bonuses
to
be
able
to
do
it
that
what
we
have
currently
in
our
zoning
or
what
you
know
and
and
costs
don't
make
them
do
it.
So
what
Chris
has
been
doing
is
very
creative,
but
we're
going
to
have
to
be
creative
and
that's
my
message
to
console.
C
My
comment
on
this
for
rental
would
be
I.
Think
option
two
looks
the
most
favorable
to
me
because
it
sort
of
spreads
out
across
the
full
spectrum
of
income
levels
and
I,
like
the
look
of
that
and
it's
the
lowest
in
Luffy
per
square
foot,
so
I
think
that
will
not
at
least
de-incentivize
rental
housing
any
as
much
as
the
other
end
of
fees.
A
P
And
I
add
in
a
basis
point
in
this
yield
on
cost
threshold.
A
basis
point
is
it's
worth
a
lot.
It's
worth
a
lot
more
than
you
would
see,
for
example,
in
a
profit
margin
just
the
way
the
math
works.
So
it
does
look
razor,
thin
and
I.
Don't
want
to
suggest
that
it's
you
know,
there's
lots
of
profit
out
there,
but
it's
a
little
bit
misleading
one.
One
basis
point
can
make
a
big
difference.
N
P
Playing
I'll
just
mention
it
here:
I
had
a
parallel
slides
on
the
ownership
side,
but
we
moved
quickly
into
rental.
The
intent
of
these
slides
is
to,
and
you've
picked
up
on
it
already
and
discussed.
It
is
to
demonstrate
that
all
of
the
options
we've
presented
to
you
tonight
have
been
through
our
feasibility
lens
and
we've
we've
determined
that
they're
all
feasible,
that
they're
all
feasible
options
and
on
slide
24
the
next
one.
Thank
you
just
wanted
to
give
you
an
example
of
what
this
might.
P
You
know,
look
like
in
the
real
world
how
it
might
play
out.
So,
let's
just
walk
through
if
you'd,
like
maybe
one
option
in
the
interest
of
time
so
option.
Two
I
heard
some
interest
in
that
that's
10,
overall,
with
half
of
that
being
targeted
at
moderate
and
the
remaining
half
being
split
between
very
low
and
low.
P
So,
for
example,
a
25
unit
market
rate,
rental
project,
25
units
times
10
is
2.5
so
of
those
25
units
2.5
would
be
set
aside
and
deed
restricted
for
affordable,
very
hard
to
do
that
to
a
fraction
of
a
unit.
So
all
inclusionary
housing
ordinances
discuss
how
to
treat
fractional
units,
and
this
is
a
policy
decision.
But
what
often
happens
is
that
the
fractional
unit
can
Round
Up
or
pay
or
pay
a
fee,
and
it's
not
the
in-loofy,
it's
an
affordable
fee.
P
So
it's
the
equivalent
of
that
affordable
subsidy
that
the
fractional
unit
would
pay
if
a
developer
chose
not
to
build
on
site
but
to
pay
the
in
Luffy
Instead
at
fifteen
dollars
a
square
foot
assuming
the
units
are
about
a
thousand
square
feet,
each
that's
15
000
per
unit
or
for
a
25
unit
project,
375
thousand
dollars,
I,
don't
think
I'll
walk
through
the
other
options.
Unless
you
have
questions
about
them,
but
next,
please
so
like
with
the
commercial
linkage
fee
we
wanted
to
just
give
you
some
discussion
prompts
I,
don't
think
you
need
them.
P
So
I
want
to
remind
everyone.
You
know
again
in
the
context
of
Arena
and
your
affordable
housing.
You
know
what
the
capacity
that
you're
trying
to
provide
through
your
housing
element
and
also
you've,
had
you've
had
this
discussion
in
a
very
robust
way
all
evening,
but
just
a
reminder
that
both
their
benefits
to
both
achieving
those
on-site
units
as
the
market
rate
development
occurs,
but
that
also
there's
a
lot
you
can
do
with
that
in
Luffy
Revenue.
P
It
can
also
be
used
to
advance
the
city's,
affordable
housing
objectives
so
just
to
continue
the
discussion
with
respect
to
the
on-site
requirement.
What
do
you
think
is
appropriate
in
the
city
for
both
rental
and
then
for
ownership
developments,
and
then
one
topic
that
we
haven't
talked
a
lot
about
yet
but
curious
to
hear
your
thoughts.
C
I
I
think
we
we
went
through
really
what
our
what
our
recommended
options
are,
at
least
across
the
various
income
levels.
We
didn't
talk
really
at
all
about
other
than
chair.
You
had
mentioned
just
now,
the
starting
at
five
units,
but
still
require
the
in-lube
below
that
so
that
they
don't.
We
don't
have
a
bunch
of
four
unit
projects.
Only
four
unit
projects
I
agree
with
that.
But
do
we
start
at
one
unit
or
two
units?
I,
don't
know
I
mean
that's
a
question.
I
think.
C
So
it's
going
to
start
at
two
units,
then
I
think
right
for
inlow,
but
I
think
there
should
be
a
obviously
a
threshold
upon
which
it
starts
and
I
don't
know.
If
five
is
right
or
is
it
ten
my
experience
with
Oakland
for
17
years?
Well,
once
they
finally
got
it
in
place,
they
started
at
20
units
for
residential,
so
they
chose
a
different
tact.
A
As
you
know,
you
might
want
to
start
with
20
units
for
in
lieu,
because
you're
going
to
get
you're
only
going
to
get
one
or
two
units
in
the
project
at
five,
you
might
be
fractional
if
you're
doing
ten
percent.
It
depends
on
where
you
set
the
percentages,
but
I
think
the
charging
the
fee
at
some
point
at
some
low
point
is
important
so
that
you
at
least
get
the
fees.
C
And
I
think
the
same
question
I
think
should
apply
to
the
commercial
linkage
fee
too.
Do
we
start?
Where
is
the
threshold
there
as
well
and
I?
We
didn't
talk
at
all
with
the
Consultants
about
that,
but
I
know.
In
my
experience
with
Oakland
they
had
a
quite
a
large
threshold
before
the
jobs
housing
impact
fee
kicked
in
the
different
Market.
Obviously
up
there
different.
A
So
yeah
somebody's
coming
in
and
I
mean
the
question
is:
what
what
do
you
count
as
as
nuke
I
mean
complete
new
construction?
Is
these
days
always
going
to
be
expensive
if
you're,
if
you're,
building
a
retail
establishment
or
you're
building
a
cannabis,
grow
or
and
since
you're
not
charging
it
for
a
remodel.
B
J
J
No
I
don't
think
on
a
remodel
and
I.
Think
cvac
actually
has
an
example
of
this
one
of
the
fees
not
tomf
one
of
the
fees
that
they
have.
You
do
have
to
pay
when
there's
a
change
in
use
going
and
it
might
be
one
associated
with
the
transportation
network.
But
when
you
change
the
use
of
a
building
such
that
it
has
more
people
and
working
in
it
in
a
more
intense,
a
denser
use,
you
have
you
pay
the
fee
associated
with
it.
That's.
P
That's
typical
that
if
they're
in
the
case
of
a
remodel
or
an
addition,
that
the
any
net
new
I'm
talking
about
the
commercial
linkage
fee,
that
any
net
new
square
footage
would
be
charge
the
fee
or
if
there's
an
intensification
of
the
use,
you
said
it
perfectly
that
might
also
trigger
trigger
the
fee.
You
would
calculate
it
with
under
your
current
use
and
then
under
the
proposed
use
and
charge
the
difference.
F
A
C
A
C
C
Let
me
ask
Ashley
regarding
the
commercial
linkage
fee,
I
had
mentioned
my
experience
with
Oakland,
starting
with
a
quite
a
high
threshold.
What
do
the
other
jurisdictions?
Typically
that
that
you've
researched
do?
Do
they
start
at
five
thousand
square
feet
or
ten
thousand
square
feet,
or
do
they
start
at
zero
square
feet?.
P
More
often
than
not,
I
see
it
starting
at
zero
square
feet
the
phenomenon
which
I
don't
know
who
exactly
it
was.
Who
said
this
idea
that
you
might
get
development
right
up
to
a
minimum
amount.
I
think
we
see
that
more
often
with
commercial
with
commercial
square
footage
where
you
might
get
to
this
sort
of
Cliff
below
which
people
are
trying
to
keep
their.
P
You
know
the
size
below
which
people
are
trying
to
keep
their
projects
so
more
often
than
not
I
see
the
commercial
linkage
to
be
kicking
in
at
zero,
so
any
new
square
footage,
but
I
have
seen
that
minimum
size
as
well,
usually
pretty
low.
You
know
like
2,
000
square
feet,
or
so
that's
not
the
norm.
In
my
opinion,
though,
or
in
my
what
I've
seen.
P
A
P
I
wouldn't
I,
you
know
so
I
put
those
options
together
for
discussion,
but
they
do
reflect
fees
that
I
think
are
well
feasible
and
appropriate
for
Palm
Springs.
So
you
know
not
higher
than
that.
Five
to
six
dollar
range
I
think
new
development
can
accommodate
higher
fees.
But
for
all
the
nuanced
reasons
you
discussed
I
think
keeping
it
around.
That
level
is
appropriate.
J
N
No,
we
don't
need
votes.
What
we're
doing
is
we're
taking
your
comments
and
your
direction.
This
will
inform
as
we
finalize
these
studies
and
present
them
to
city
council
for
the
most
part,
you've
kind
of
come
to
consensus
on
some
of
these
ideas,
and
so
that
makes
it
a
little
bit
easier
for
me
to
help
synthesize
that
for
our
Consultants,
but
again,
I
think
you've
been
very
helpful
in
identifying
the
direction
that
we
might
present
to
city
council,
as
well
as
identifying
other
information.
N
J
J
N
M
A
D
A
D
I
do
after
five
and
a
half
years
on
the
Planning
Commission,
it's
sad
to
be
leaving.
It's
been
a
tremendous
honor
to
be
able
to
participate
in
the
process
here
and
I've
learned
a
lot
and
I.
You
know:
I
tried
to
write
down
a
few
of
the
subcommittees
that
I
participated
in
that
I.
Think
I
was
able
to
contribute
to,
and
I
thought
were
quite
interesting.
D
There's
been
a
lot
of
Commissioners,
we've
worked
with
you
know,
and
sadly,
some
had
to
leave
very
quickly
and
others
had
to
leave,
for
you
know,
business
reasons
or
whatever,
but
it's
it's
wonderful
that
this
city
has
such
a
great
pool
of
talented
people
that
are
willing
to.
You
know
donate
their
time
for
this.
So
it's
been
wonderful
and
I
really
appreciate
it.
I
love
working
with
all
of
you.
F
I
just
want
to
thank
everybody
from
this
commission
and
previous
commissions.
I've
learned
so
much
just
from
my
fellow
Commissioners
over
the
years
and
I
also
participate
participated
in
a
lot
of
subcommittees
both
from
Council
and
Planning.
Commission
and
I
learned
a
lot
there
too,
related
to
how
different
constituencies
within
the
city
what
their,
what
their
important
things
are
and
I
I
have
learned
a
tremendous
amount.
It's
been
incredibly
interesting,
I'm
I'm,
really
happy
I've.
Had
this
opportunity
I
think
it's
time
to
pass
the
torch.
F
We
could
use
some
fresh
thinking
on
on
commission
I
wish
the
new
Commissioners
well
in
their
Endeavors,
and
the
present
Commissioners
I
know
will
help
them
along.
It's
been
a
great
ride
and
I
I
plan
on
hopefully
working
with
City
in
other
capacities,
I've
applied
for
a
couple
of
different
positions,
we'll
see
what
happens
and
I
continue
my
work
with
the
friends
of
the
library
promoting
the
needs
of
the
library,
so
I'll
stay
involved,
but
I
wish
you
all
well
and
keep
doing
the
good
work.
Thank
you.
A
F
A
A
E
You
so
on
the
24th,
you
know
we
we
mentioned
the
housing
element
earlier
and
the
ongoing
General
Plan
update.
We
did
have
a
productive
meeting
with
hcd
recently,
where
I
think
we
got
some
real,
tangible
feedback
on
what
it
is.
We
need
to
do
to
get
across
the
finish
line.
As
part
of
that
you
know,
their
preference
is
certainly
that
we
resubmit
and
go
through
another
60-day
review
cycle,
but
I
think
in
recognition
that
that
would
be
our
fourth
and
that
per
their
own
words.
E
We
are
not
in
compliance
and
subject
to
builders
remedy
and
all
of
the
fun
things
that
come
along
with
that.
They
recognize
that
we
are
under
a
lot
of
pressure
to
get
this
across
the
finish
line,
so
we
are
tentatively
holding
Monday
July
24th
for
a
joint
meeting
of
the
Planning
Commission
and
city
council
to
consider
and
approve,
ideally
our
housing
element.
E
There
is
a
lot
of
work
to
get
us
there,
so
we
will
know
in
the
next
week
or
so
to
confirm
that,
but
but
our
Consultants
are
on
board
they're
working
very
hard
to
get
that
done
and
I
think
we
have
a
good
game
plan
to
get
us
there.
So
that
will
be
very
exciting.
So
please
hold
that
date.
I'll
send
out
a
reminder
by
email,
but
that
is
looking
good.
A
N
It
will
be
handled
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting,
okay
so
that
Planning
Commission
will
review
the
document.
First
make
recommendations,
take
action
and
then
city
council
will
consider
it
after
the
Planning,
Commission
and
city
council
have
acted
on
the
housing
element.
The
city
council
will
then
go
into
their
regular
agenda.