Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
GPA 01-04 General Plan 2003 Misc Correspondence
s J TN/City of Palm Desert Comprehensive GP/PC Issue Items/12.2.03 CITY OF PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT TO: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 2, 2003 CASE NO. GPA 01-04 REQUEST: COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - CONSIDERATION OF REMAINING GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS AND FINAL DETERMINATION ON REMAINING ISSUES APPLICANT: CITY I. BACKGROUND The December2, 2003 Planning Commission hearing focuses on the remaining elements of the General Plan review process. This hearing will also complete the Commission's review of the various recommended changes in the Land Use Map and the directing of staff to prepare resolutions for adoption at the Commission's December 16, 2003 hearing. Housing Element The Housing element is one of those mandated by state law and regulations for inclusion in a community's General Plan. The element is designed to balance the need to provide housing for all economic segments of the community, while also assuring the availability of infrastructure and supporting services. The element outlines applicable state law, provides an evaluation of existing Housing Element goals, policies and programs, and provides regional and city-specific demographic data and information. An inventory of vacant residential land available for development is provided, and existing affordable projects are identified and described. Constraints to future development, including physical and governmental, are described, as are special housing needs of the community. The role of the Redevelopment Agency is described, and goals,policies and programs complete the element. Economic and Fiscal Element This element describes the economic foundations, characteristics and trends of the City and evaluates the community's position in the regional economy. Three major components, or legs, of the local economy are identified (retail, resort/tourism and education). Relevant demographic trends provide information on employment, commercial and industrial development, residential development and valuation, growth in taxable sales and transient occupancy taxes, and General Fund revenues. The role of the Redevelopment Agency in economic development and fiscal management is also discussed. The element concludes with goals, policies and programs meant to. assure the continued economic and fiscal prosperity of the community. t TN/City of Palm Desert Comprehensive GP/PC Issue Items/12.2.03 Parks and Recreation Element Parks and recreation assesses current park and recreational facilities in the City and planning area, and future areas and facilities that will expand recreational opportunities. The most common types of parks, their size range and amenities are described, and an inventory of City parks is provided. Future parks are also discussed, as are park financing and the Quimby Act, which authorizes local governments to adopt and apply park impact fee requirements. The element also provides a detailed discussion of trails, paths and bikeways, development standards, mapping of these facilities, and the relationship of trails to the forthcoming Coachella Valley Multiple Species habitat Conservation Plan. The element concludes with goals, policies and programs to direct future parks and recreation development in the City. Arts and Culture Element In the City of Palm desert, arts and culture play a major role in enhancing the quality of life of the City's residents and visitors. The element provides an overview of the City's efforts to expand its involvement in this area. In addition to those found within the City, the element also highlights the arts and cultural resources located elsewhere in the Coachella Valley. The impacts of the arts on the local economy are discussed, as are opportunities for expanding the role of the arts in community development. The wide range of cultural affairs, projects and events currently supported or sponsored by the City are also set forth in the element, along with strategic ideas for continuing cultural resources preservation. The element concludes with goals, policies and programs that direct future planning and activities in the arts. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ITEMS Introduction The following issue items have been considered by the Planning Commission over the course of its deliberations. Issue areas include refinements to land use definitions and land use mapping, refinements to the Circulation Map and Street Cross Sections, Circulation policies and programs, and other areas. These issue areas are discussed below, with staff recommendations following each. LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Hotels and Motels: Several commercial designations have been amended to allow the development of hotels and motels. Status: PC approved. Mixed Use Commercial: This designation was added to the table to provide a specific designation for mixed use developments,both existing and proposed. Status: PC approved. (R-HR) Residential Hillside Reserve (0.2 to 1 du/ac): Staff recommends that this land use designation be amended to provide a potential range of development from 1 dwelling unit per acre to 1 unit per 5 acres. The following language is also proposed for addition to this land use definition: " Development densities and intensities shall be established consistent with slope, visibility and other site constraints." The recommended additional language and permitted density are more consistent with the past application of this designation and its means of establishing development intensities. Status: PC approved. 2 r TN/City of Palm Desert Comprehensive GP/PC Issue Items/12.2.03 LAND USE MAPPING Alessandro Extended: Staff has refined its recommendation for this service alley located immediately north of and parallel to Highway 111, and extending from Monterey Avenue to Las Palmas Avenue. Two concepts to improve circulation provide ancillary parking and improvement land use compatibility between this alley/parking area and adjoining residential lands. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to Council the single-loaded/90° parking configuration. This alternative provides the most cost effective solution to improving the alley with significant additional parking while preserving the residential quality of the remainder lots. It is therefore the most likely alternative to be expeditiously implemented, finally resolving property owner uncertainty. In conjunction with the alley and parking improvements, San Marcos Avenue south of San Clemente Circle would be closed to automobiles to discourage intrusion of commercial traffic into the residential area. Pedestrian, bicycle, and golf cart access would be maintained. These improvements will be integrated into the Core Commercial Specific Plan discussion in the Land Use Element. Status: PC Approved concept Recommended Land Use Element Policy & Program: Policy 5 The City shall facilitate the redesign and construction of enhanced vehicular access and commercial- serving parking on Alessandro Drive (extended) between Las Palmas Avenue and Monterey Avenue, as set forth in the Commercial Core Area Specific Plan discussion in the land Use Element. Program S.A. The City shall coordinate with commercial business owners and residents backing onto Alessandro Drive (extended) between Los Palmas Avenue and Monterey Avenue, and shall design and facilitate the construction of a 24-foot wide two-way drive and one row of 90' parking along the north side of this right-of-way. Landscaping and decorative masonry walls shall also be incorporated into the design to buffer residences from drive traffic and parking activities. San Marcos Avenue south of San Clemente Circle will be closed to automobile traffic. Public access for pedestrians, bicycles and golf carts shall be maintained. The City shall pursue where feasible financial participation from the benefiting commercial property owners towards the cost of right of way acquisition, construction and maintenance of the improvements. Responsible Agency: Community Development and Public Works Departments, RDA, Parking Authority Schedule: 2004-05 Portola Avenue North & South of Fred Waring: In order to facilitate street widening, better assure compatibility of vehicular travel and land use, staff recommended that the Planning Commission assign C-OP (Office Professional) to lots on the west side of and taking access from Portola Avenue. The parcels remaining after street improvements to four lanes are inappropriate for residential but are too wide and costly to be maintained as passive open space. Small residential-scale office buildings have proven to be an attractive and effective visual and acoustic 3 TN/City of Palm Desert Comprehensive GP/PC Issue Items/12.2.03 buffer between intensive traffic corridors and residential uses. Opportunities can also be created for consolidated access drives to reduce impacts on roadway capacity and traffic safety. The "north" segment begins immediately north of Fred Waring Drive and extends north to residences which take access from internal streets. The "south" segment is located between De Anza and a point midway between Catalina Drive and Santa Rosa Drive. Status: PC assigned a modified "Mixed-Use" designation to these lands limiting permitted uses to R-M, O-P or OS. NE Corner of Monterey Avenue & Country Club Dr.: Staff asked that the Planning Commission establish the subject corner as a "Special Study Area" and maintenance of the existing R-M (Medium Density Residential) designation. Due to its location adjacent to one of the busiest intersections in the Coachella Valley, office, commercial or mixed use alternatives may be considered in the future based on unique design solutions and potential impacts to the successful releasing of the vacant commercial space at the southeast corner. Status: PC assigned C-C (Community Commercial) to this site based on its proximity to one of the busiest intersections in the Coachella Valley. University Park Planning Area: This planning area involves lands north of Frank Sinatra, Drive and south of US I-10. Since the transmittal of the Draft General Plan, extensive discussions and application processing have proceeded on projects, which have the potential to substantially implement the land use plan for this area. In response to the proposed developments and other input, staff has developed a refinement to this land use plan that is comparable in intensity to the "Less Intense" alternative evaluated in the GP EIR. It generally maintains the total housing yield shown in the existing General Plan prior to the re-designation of over 700 acres from residential to resort and educational use. The specific arrangement and balance of land uses, residential densities and circulation design was the result of a collaborative effort of the planning and public works staff and property owners. Status: PC decision pending. North District Planning Area: This planning area involves lands located north of US Interstate-10, both within and outside of the City's current Sphere-of-Influence (SOI). In light of the sensitivity of wildlife habitat lands in the area and the now adopted County General Plan, staff asks that the Planning Commission consider two global changes in this area. 1.) First, assign all lands designated as R-ME (Mountain Estates (0-1 du/20 ac) to 0-1 dwelling unit per 40 acres (01 du/40 ac), consistent with the County General Plan. P.S.: Since the November 18th hearing, staff has been informed that the County amended the RCIP Land Use Map to change the permitted density to 1 du/20 acres. 2.) Otherwise apply the "Less Intense" land use alternative designations to the balanced of this district. Status: PC action pending. Cornishe of Bighorn: The subject 12t acre parcel is located within and in the foothills south of Dead Indian Wash on the east side of Highway 74, south of the Canyons at Bighorn and north of the sheep pens of the Bighorn Institute. Approximately nine acres of the property is currently designated low- density residential 3-5 du/ac, and about two acres are designated HPR (Hillside Planned Residential). 4 TN/City of Palm Desert Comprehensive GP/PC Issue Items/12.2.03 The division of land use designations on this property was based on the assumption that the low-density area was less the 10% slope, the criteria for hillside designation. In their land use discussions, the GPAC focused on general policy issues and the University Park Planning Area. They did not focus on each individual parcel. The original Preferred Alternative land use map showed the existing low-density designation. In reference to the question concerning the timing of the recommended re-designation to Hillside Reserve, staff did not focus on the subject parcel until a tract map application was filed with information clearly indicating hillside topography on the site. This conclusion was supported by an analysis of the property conducted in connection with the Canyons at Bighorn project. The adjacent property in Bighorn with similar topography was classified and processed as hillside. The fact that a parcel has been erroneously designated for 25 years does not prevent the city from correcting essentially a mapping error. Corrections and updates are essential reasons general plans are updated. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission assign the subject parcel R-HR (Residential Hillside Reserve), applicable as outlined in the language change proposed above. Status: PC directed staff to maintain the current low density residential designation with the addition of the S (Special Study) designation acknowledging potential change to R-HR. NW Corner of Sinatra& Portola The Planning Commission previously approved professional office development on this property, but the request was ultimately denied by the City Council. The appropriateness of O-P at this location was further discussed and the merits of the O-P designation seemed to outweigh any other concerns. Status: Reaffirm the PC's previous recommendation by designating the corner O-P. CIRCULATION ELEMENT Circulation Plan and Street Cross-Section Amendments Since the transmittal of the GP Draft EIR, staff has conducted a continuing assessment of the General Plan Circulation Master Plan and Preferred Street Cross Sections. A modified circulation plan has been prepared and is attached to this staff report. Refinements to the preferred street cross sections are also attached. These substantially conform to those set forth in the Draft General Plan, EIR and traffic study. It is also proposed that two additional exhibits, "Typical Arterial Intersection" and "Typical No Left- Turn Pocket" (see attached exhibits), be added to the Circulation Element. Status: PC action pending. Policy on Minimal Levels of Service Policy 1 of the Circulation Element indicates that the City shall find acceptable LOS D at major intersections and LOS C on lesser intersections. The policy also references maintaining a minimum LOS D on roadway segments. As discussed in the General Plan and EIR, peak hour LOS C will not always be cost-effectively achievable and LOS D is recommended as the minimum operating goal. The reference to levels of service along roadway segments should also be further considered. In light of these issues, the following alternative policies are,suggested: 5 TN/City of Palm Desert Comprehensive GP/PC Issue Items/12.2.03 "Policy 1: The City shall develop and maintain a General Plan master plan of roads, describing and illustrating detailed improvement plans and priority schedules for implementation." Policy LA: The City shall make good-faith efforts to achieve LOS C along roadway segments and for peak hour intersection operations. LOS D shall be acceptable in instances when physical constraints, land use compatibility or other urban design considerations make achieving LOS C impractical." Status: PC determination pending. Truck Routes General Plan Policy 13 references the identification of truck routes and references specific streets that may qualify as truck rotes, including obvious routes as I-10 and Highway 111. Staff has suggested not listing specific streets,therefore the following new language is recommended: "Policy 13: City truck routes shall be clearly designated and limited to major roadways to the greatest extent practicable. Washington Street, Cook Street, Mentefey ev@nue, St Status: PC action pending. Monterey Avenue Widening The General Plan calls for the completion of Monterey Avenue as a 6-lane arterial roadway from Dinah Shore Drive south to Fred Waring Drive. Concerns raised by city residents and those in adjoining Rancho Mirage have focused on the volume of traffic and associated noise along Monterey Avenue south of Country Club Drive. The General Plan traffic model projects Post 2020 (build out) volumes along Monterey Avenue ranging to above 40,000 average daily trips. The issue of widening Monterey Avenue south of Country Club Drive warrants further consideration. Status: Subject to further discussion. Portola Avenue Interchange The proposed General Plan Circulation Element provides for the re-alignment of Portola Avenue north of Gerald Ford Drive and its eventual interconnection to US Interstate 10. Several advantages emerge from this scenario, including providing yet another point of direct access to I-10 for the more intense development planned in the northern portion of the City, providing north-south relief for such streets as Monterey Avenue and Cook Street, and improving the overall circulation pattern in the central portion of the City north of Fred Waring Drive. Status: Subject to further discussion. Utility Work in Rights-of-Way A common problem has been the disruption to traffic and the occasionally less than adequate repair of streets torn up by the installation, repair and maintenance of utilities located with City street rights-of- way. Staff suggests adding a policy to the Circulation Element and the following draft is suggested: "New Policy: The City shall confer and coordinate with utility providers regarding work on utility infrastructure within the City street rights-of-way, and shall monitor traffic control and 6 R TN/City of Palm Desert Comprehensive GP/PC Issue Items/12.2.03 construction repair to assure minimum traffic disruptions and acceptable pavement restoration." "New Program: In consultation with utility service providers, the City shall develop standards for the planning and execution of utility trenching and other construction activities within City street rights-of-way. Such construction activities shall be planned to minimize traffic disruption and adequate restoration of the roadway." Responsible Parties: City Public Works Department, CVWD, SCE, IID, Verizon, Time Warner Schedule: 2004-05" Status: PC action pending. OTHER GENERAL PLAN ISSUES Public Services and Facilities: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider and, if appropriate approve the following policy and program, which are meant to have the City facilitate or encourage the provision of childcare services throughout the community. "New Policy: The City shall encourage the availability of adequate, convenient, affordable childcare, which is accessible to all economic segments of the community." "New Program: In consultation with service providers, the City shall pro-actively participate in planning and coordination that improves and expands the availability of childcare services in the community. Responsible Parties: Community Services Department Schedule: On-Going" Status: PC action pending Respectfully submitted, PD/JC Attachments 7 RE: 44 401 Portola Avenue Paul & Barbara W. Bowie Palm Desert, CA 92260 71 774 Chuckawalla Way Palm Desert, CA 92260 December 2, 2003 Mr. Philip Drell Director of Community Development City of Palm Desert 73 510 Fred Waring Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Drell: This letter is an objection to the City of Palm Desert General Plan 2000 Preferred Alternative dated September 17, 2003. This objection is filed for the purpose of insuring that ownership and use of the residence referred to above be retained and not lost or diluted due to city action. This asset is a valuable taxed item for the city and is an asset which yields important income to the undersigned. The taking, purchase or rendering of the referenced property to lesser use would substantially destroy the income it now produces. The welfare of the undersigned would be forever reduced. The advantage exercised in the name of the city for the purpose of creating more vehicle traffic in the core of the city is unconscionable. Without doubt, the city has the professional engineering ability and monetary assets available to make street adjustments along this portion of Portola Avenue such as to avert the long history of taking more land. Sincerely yours, P,FCIVV ED Paul Bowi Barbara W. Bowie c',OMMLN� DES PAL" DESERTARTMEt+T CITY �1•�'� MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. TUESDAY - DECEMBER 2, 2003 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chairperson Sabby Jonathan, Vice Chairperson Cindy Finerty Jim Lopez Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Mark Diercks, Transportation Manager Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. IV. PUBLIC HEARING Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. GPA 01-04 and the Draft Environmental Impact Report as it relates thereto - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of a Comprehensive General Plan Update and the Draft Environmental Impact Report as it relates thereto. R MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 The following is a verbatim transcript of this Public Hearing: ScKey Sonia Campbell, Planning Commission Chairperson PD Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Si Sabby Jonathan, Planning Commission Vice Chairperson CF Cindy Finerty, Planning Commissioner JL Jim Lopez, Planning Commissioner DT Dave Tschopp, Planning Commissioner MM Mike Marix, Cornerstone Development DA Dan Allred TN Tom Noble MMC Myron MacLeod EV Ed Vargo JC John Criste BH Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney SC We have Case No. GPA 01-04 and the Draft Environmental Impact Report as it relates thereto - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant. Request for consideration of a Comprehensive General Plan Update and the Draft Environmental Impact Report as it relates thereto. Mr. Drell, shall we continue? PD You have the report. We kind of summed up what we think we've accomplished so far. In reference to the discussion of(inaudible) at Big Horn property, the hillside (inaudible) reserve, does that kind of...the changing it to—keeping it as residential with the study zone or...is that accurate or... I was a little unsure exactly what you did on that one. Maintain the current low density residential designation with the addition of the special (inaudible) designation, acknowledging potential change to hillside reserve? ?? Yes. PD Okay. What is remaining in terms of land use is the balance of, I guess we're calling it University Park... Si Mr. Drell, I'm sorry, just before you go on to that... PD Sure. 2 � I MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 SJ I wanted to ask you on...your summaries are...exactly...very summarized. PD Okay. SJ Will Council get something more expansive than that or is this what they would receive? PD No, we will...for example, on the Portola issue and on the...no, on the Portola issue and on the Alessandro Alley issue, we'll write up a more of a descriptive paragraph that would actually be physically inserted into the text of the General Plan. SJ Okay, I guess...the end result of what we're doing, hopefully today, is to send this on to Council with our recommendations, and we need to communicate that to Council in some fashion. Your staff report, I assume, will be the vehicle for communicating... PD Right. SJ ...those recommendations. And I noted, for example, that, just as an example, on Alessandro there were other comments that I, for one, wanted to communicate to Council. For example, that part of the resolution include a parking management plan to be adopted by the business owners and...I think we talked about maintenance of the (inaudible) once it's there. So I just use that as an example that in some cases, your report...in all cases, it's excellent, and in some cases over-summarized in terms of how I would envision it going to Council because I'd want them to have a little more insight into the depth of our remarks. PD Okay. CF Council will have benefit of our Minutes, correct? PD Yes. SJ That's the best approach, then, is just kind of let them read the Minutes for the detail? CF I do because they're verbatim, and I think that they will be reviewing. 3 f � / MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 Si I hope they have a lot of time on their hands. CF Yeah, I think they're getting ready. They're kind of wondering what it is we're doing with this thing, so... Si Okay. PD No, and I apologize. I thought that I had added a sentence on participation by property owners in right-of-way acquisition, construction, and maintenance of... Si Thanks. PD There's really not a whole lot more to say about the...you have staffs recommended alternative. We feel it's an appropriate balance of land uses considering the unique circumstances that exist out there with the high intensity of commercial uses on the freeway, the regional commercials at the interchanges, the CalState University, the housing demand and needs created by that huge employment generating uses. We feel working with the property owners we've come up with good neighborhood designs which, again, provide the opportunity for, or at least the opportunity for the various economic segments of the community to live in the community. Still the predominant land use being no low density residential and actually resorts, and, you know, it does represent a change. If we hadn't contemplated changing some of our policies and land use philosophies in this area, there was probably no point in us spending the last three years in this exercise. The assumption is that...General Plan updates are a re-examination, and the character by virtue of us inviting CalState into town, the realization of the impact of all the inherent land use compatibility, which really drove the commercial uses on the freeway and at the interchanges, that...again, this is an appropriate, a balanced mix of housing to meet those needs. And, again, we had talked about addition of extending professional office on the south side of Gerald Ford between Portola and Shadow Ridge, and staff has no problem with that concept. (Inaudible) PD A little change suggested by the property owner would be in the...where Cook and Portola is. You see a little...the street that is...originally separated the...what is shown as mixed use, which we can discuss in a moment, to the 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 Office Professional...the Office Professional out there off of Frank Sinatra...in discussions with the Traffic Engineer, in order to get a median break on Frank Sinatra, that road would have to hit Frank Sinatra further to the west, and so they are suggesting that the road would swing to the west between the offices and the golf course. Again, that's really ultimately something that's probably worked out in terms of the more detailed design of that project, which will be soon before you. And so, as I say, you guys had some thoughts on whether you wanted to designate anything mixed use here, so that would be something you might want to talk about. And so, just remember, general plans are general and when you actually look at projects, there are lots of opportunities for refinements. I'm ready for questions and discussion. Yes...oh, you can't hear me? (Inaudible) PD Okay, the machine isn't picking me up. So, again, if we have any...we'lI start discussion. SC Okay, what's on the corner of Frank Sinatra and Cook on the northwest... PD Okay (inaudible) concept which is in this plan, which probably should be discussed are these kind of, we can call them open space corridors, which you see a little green spot there at Cook and Frank Sinatra. The bulk of the area is the mixed use, and the concept of a mixed use in a situation like this is that obviously on Cook Street is the area where it's most appropriate for the commercial component, and then towards the Spine Road, where you're transitioning to residential use, that's where the residential use would be. Obviously any mixed use project would have to be rationally designed consistent with the adjoining land uses. But that's what...but back to the...make note of this...the little green area you see there at the corner, also there's—you see it up on the...on Gerald Ford, as it goes between...about halfway between Portola and Cook Street, then you also see it up there at the intersection of Dinah Shore, Technology and Portola. And the GPAC's philosophy here was to introduce, again, breaks between the various components of the plan with these kind of desert landscapes, somewhat similar to what you see on Fred Waring. Again, this becomes a financial responsibility issue, and probably any sort of landscape parkway treatment that goes beyond what is typical for a project would probably become the obligation of the City. We learned that in dealing with Haystack Park, where we tried to put responsibility for a very large perimeter onto a project, and 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 after a court test we showed it had to be proportional. And since the public benefit was far greater than the specific benefit to the project, it ended up being like a 60-70, 30 percent split. Acknowledging that if that's a land use feature we want to build then it's really almost part of a park program, they're almost passive parks in certain respects. Si What's the OSPP on the northeast corner of Frank Sinatra and Portola? What is planned for that? PD The same sort of thing. Oh, the PP? The public facilities...the developer, and this is, again... Si No, the big green area. The OSPP. PD The big green area. Well, it's gray area. Oh no, it's a small one. Si No, the big one. PD Well, that's the gray one. Si Down lower. Frank Sinatra and Portola. Right there. PD Oh, that one. That, of course, is owned by the Redevelopment Agency, bought for the general intention, and although it's...obviously nothing was written in cement, to be the expansion of Desert Willow. Si Exclusively? PD No necessarily exclusively. Si I guess what I'm...here's the question I really want to ask. Are there any active parks planned to deal with the demand that would be... PD Yes. Si ...created by the residential...implementation of the residential aspect of this recommended alternative? PD Yes. You see three of them in...they are about five acres each, those two are about five acres each, and then there's a smaller one over there, as 6 I MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 John's pointing to, in the...again, size is...they're shown in...generally around five acres each. Si Five acres is pretty small for... PD They are neighborhood parks. Si Okay. PD As part of the school, both the high school and the elementary school, we were planning cooperative parks like we did with the elementary school over at Country Club. For instance, the K through 8 side is shown at, I believe, at 25 acres. I think ten acres of that is shown as a park. It would be a shared park. Again, and the same thing is what we tried to work with the high school, assuming that high school goes there. If the high school doesn't go there, then part of that could be a park instead. I think when we look at the actual specific plan for the...the master plan for the Cook/Portola section, and when we start looking at the grading and how the land uses really interact and how much usable land, I think that is when we kind of make the decision of how large those parks should be. SJ I guess what I'm looking at is...under the staff recommended alternative, we're looking at adding 4,400 housing units, roughly 2,700 of which will be medium and high density. Those alone I would expect to generate over 5,000 kids in time and possibly substantially more than that. This area, as I see it, kind of cries out for a large, active, multi-use park encompassing several soccer fields and ballfields and basketball and all the rest because there's already over-demand on the supply that exists. So I guess what you're telling me is there's no specific land use designation on what we're looking at that specifically plans for that kind of a large-scale, active park. PD What we call...a community park, where you're talking 20 acres. SJ 20 acres or more, yes. CF Phil, on the less intense plan...kind of where...on the staff recommended plan you've got the elementary school, that location, off of Monterey, east of Monterey. PD Right. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 CF You have an OSPP, which is a public park. PD Correct. CIF How large is that that you have set aside? PD Again, that was probably ten acres. Again, it's... CIF You're saying that was ten and these others are five? PD Yes. CIF Because this is so much more green. PD Well, the whole thing was shown, in that less intense alternative, the whole thing was shown green, it wasn't showing as a school at all. CIF Right. PD So in reality, of that 25 acres that you generally see here, we can show, and make it a message at least to the school, that ten of those 25 acres is assumed to be a public park. Whether you want to...figure out to make it larger...I guess the other issue, okay, if we're going to do a community park, where should it go? Si That's why I was asking about the Desert Willow III site, whether there's 20 acres available there to chop off for that kind of a regional park. PD It's shown as a park...you also want to make something that's accessible, easily accessible. Maybe a good location that would be fairly accessible would be right at the south corner off of Portola, the south corner of the Spine Road and Portola. Si The north corner, you mean, of... PD Well, yeah, the north side of the RDA's property. That might be—since it could serve the residential area to the west and the neighborhood to the east. One of the things we're talking about today, when we get to it, is the Park & Rec element. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 CF Phil? PD Yes. CF Do you have another site, perhaps...I was thinking that it might not be a great idea to have a park next to a resort golf course. For example, if you were to go up...I'm thinking where the high school's located... PD And, again, the suggestion would be that they would be in conjunction with the high school, although it's a little bit more problematic pairing parks with high schools, since high schools have a lot more of their own athletic activities that extend in the afternoon. Si And that experiment failed miserably at Palm Desert High School. CF I mean, does the high school necessarily go there? PD That is where...well, if the high school is probably going anywhere in Palm Desert, that's where it is going to do. That is where Palm Springs Unified is either under contract or some degree of commitment on the site. That's probably, if the high school goes anywhere, the most logical place, given the intensity of a high school versus an elementary school is such that it doesn't really belong in the middle of a neighborhood so much. And that makes it fairly central and good access. On the other hand, that area could be, I guess...the problem we had with the high school is that we virtually gave them the site, and then we had to beg to get use of it. So a park could still be developed in conjunction or adjacent to the high school in that general area, but we would make sure that...we cut a bad deal as part of...building that park was really all part of the inducement to get the high school built, and probably in retrospect we would have cut a better deal where we had far more control... CF Okay, but maybe we should start with...is the Commission in agreement that in this university area, we should have something similar to a regional park? PD (Inaudible) community park, which is 20 acres. JL Approximately the size of the Civic Park? PD Oh, no, this is 60 acres. This is a regional park. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 (Inaudible) PD Or what we're doing over on Country Club. CF What's Freedom Park? PD Freedom Park's...exclusive for us, it's probably 25 acres, and then we share a field, a couple of fields, with the school, or one field with the school. CF So maybe a minimum of 25 acres, if we're going to make it similar to Freedom Park? PD Sure. JL I don't know that you have a whole lot of flexibility as to where you put it. It has to be in the section, right? CF No. All this can be changed. PD Yes, we can move... CF We can move all this around. PD It's just that...in a community park, you want relatively, again, accessible to the area. Where you're seeing the high school site, or the Gerald Ford/Portola, is as central as you can probably get, which is... CF Well you know down...what I think would be helpful is on all of the plans that we have, the less intense, staff recommended, etc., if we could have the schools, you know, mapped in there, where we're fairly certain that: a) there's a need; and b)this is probably where they're going to want to go, so that we can get as much certainty in each of the maps... PD Again, we're not in a position now to go back and do that on all the maps. This is...these are the sites the school has officially notified us that they are in the process of acquiring the property and planning the schools. So in terms of that, that's your answer. CF So, going to the staff recommended alternative, where we have the elementary school, the K through 8, where you had said 25 acres for the 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 school and ten for the park, to the east of that we have medium density housing. How large is that site, and what if we were to expand the park into that medium density residential area, which would help to service a number of kids from the low density and medium and high density area. PD Again, I'm not sure that is the appropriate location for a community park. Si What's south of Gerald Ford that's indicated as quasi-public... PD The applicant's...property owner is currently in negotiation with the church there. I'm not sure what the status of it is. He asked for that designation. I'm not...in absence of that working, you want it commercial...I know that's something that probably the property owner might want to comment on. That's only ten acres, that's only ten acres. It can be...that site can be enlarged. JL (Inaudible) think about the schools, and you have the school facilities, and then you have the parks, okay. And it almost serves as two parks because when school's not in session during the course of the weekend, you've got facilities that people can use for recreational needs. So having a park next to a school kind of, I don't know, defeats the purpose. I mean if you want to spread them out a little bit and have some more facilities or at least...again, I'm looking at open space perhaps more than anything else. You've got the facilities for the school that are accessible at times. Some schools don't allow it, and some schools do. And then you've got the park facilities that would be in another location. So if we took, you know, if they want to incorporate ten acres on this...middle school? PD The middle school...the total site has 25 acres.... JL Right. PD ...15 acres of class room exclusive school use facilities, ten acres of shared park, of which...again, we would have a similar program as we... JL And that's okay, I mean... PD (Inaudible) Freedom Park, where part of the park would be open all the time to the general public, and part of the park would be open only after hours. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 JL And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I think that's okay. And then you take another location and say we're going to dedicate this now to the true regional park. PD Yes. JL With soccer fields or with additional baseball fields or softball fields. PD Sure. JL And that would be in a location away from a school area. You'll have a high school, and you will also have (inaudible) have their own recreational facilities, again, available to people at certain times, and then you actually have, in essence, when you look at this, a middle school park, a high school park, quasi-type thing. And then you need to have a regional park. And having a regional park next to a golf course is not a bad thing, either, because when you have lights on in the evening, it's not going to bother anybody. I mean that is a good trade-off right there. Si I would concur. Maybe where we can go with this, because I think the location of the actual park involves economic considerations as well as other considerations that maybe we're not in a position to make. And to add to the mix, I think that CalState has on occasion expressed an interest in cooperating in a community park concept that might incorporate other facilities that then their students, their staff, the families of students and staff, and so forth, can all use. So I think there's a lot that's going to go into the ultimate location. I would be comfortable, speaking for myself, whichever alternative we end up recommending to Council, that we insert in there further recommendation that sooner rather than later a minimum of 20 or 25 acres or more be carved out and set aside for a future community park facility. PD Another consideration is, you know, the Redevelopment Agency also owns 145 acres west of Portola. Si Where? PD It's... Si Between Frank Sinatra and Gerald Ford somewhere? 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 (Inaudible) JL That was also going to be a golf course. Si Oh, yeah. (Inaudible) PD That was the first prospective golf course site. It was always acknowledged that that wasn't great geometry for a golf course, and that's why when the other site became available we bought that, too. JL That's next to Shadow Ridge? PD Yes. JL Absolutely no park in that place. SC Not a good location. PD Sounds like a great amenity for families bringing their kids to the timeshare. They'd maybe get bored with playing golf for four or five days in a row. SC On your preferred alternative plan, you have a high density residential on the—let's see, it would be the northwest corner of Dinah Shore, where now it's all business park, industrial business park, and you have—that orange area right there. Now, I would think that would be...see that area right there on the top? It would be...right, there. And that...right there, the orange one. Now that's a large area right there. Wouldn't that be a good area for a park? It would be between the high school and the elementary school, and it would be out of sight, and it wouldn't be in the...what do you have there, residential? PD Again, I'm not sure it's necessarily an advantage to be on site. I mean—again, that's a question, that's a property that the property owner actually specifically objected to the high density and wanted to develop as a business park. Again, parks do serve still primarily residences, and proximity to residential is still desirable. You know, you don't put high end low density housing adjacent to it, but you put family housing, you put the sort of housing that is logically occupied by people who enjoy parks. 13 t 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 Si Well, again, I don't know that we need to spend all morning on deciding the location of parks. I think...my point is that in making the recommendation to Council... PD Needs to be a community park. Si I think there needs to be a community park of a good size, and I would defer to Council to making the economic determination as to where and other factors as to where the park should be located. DT I'd just quickly add...some of the comments that fellow Commissioners have made I agree with. I don't think sometimes that parks next to schools necessarily work as a benefit to all the residents of the communities because of the restrictions that schools need to put on the parks. So I guess I'm also very much in favor of a regional type park that would serve the needs of all residents and not necessarily be located next to a high school or school, rather. Although it incorporates ballfields and so forth, there are other uses for a park. What I'm hearing, and I agree with the consensus, we need a regional park, we're all in favor of it. It should be located in the spot that would be best used, most successful, by all residents. PD You're saying regional park. Regional park is like we have here. Community park. DT Community park. I guess I'm saying a large community park. PD Which is like the soccer park, like Freedom Park. DT I think if you look in the Valley and look at other cities, the problems that they've experienced, we've experienced, with not having enough facilities to meet all the needs. I would say it would be a large community park. PD Okay. Maybe have a minute motion... CF You want that in the form of a motion? PD Sure. CF Okay. The motion would be to set aside a minimum of 25 acres for a large community park, similar to Freedom Park, in the University area. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 Si Second. Sc All in favor. All ayes Sc Opposed, none. Si Was that appropriate? Did we need to open up public comment before taking action? PD You could discuss it first if you want, or you could wait to get more public comment. It's up to you. Sc Any discussion then, first? Or I'll open it to the public. PD Right. You should let the public speak before taking action. Sc Well, I don't have any blue cards. Is anyone in the audience wanting to speak in regard to public parks, and where they should be located? No? Okay. Comment. We voted. MM Good morning, Mike Marix, Cornerstone Developers. I live at 128 Vista Montay in Palm Desert. We own most of the University Village property. I would caution you on this park thing relative to uses and proximity to residential. On the one hand, you want (inaudible) that; on the other hand, in my view, you clearly don't want a night-lit park next to residential houses. And if you want an example of that, there's one in Palm Springs that's used for soccer, and that lights up for half a mile around every evening until about ten o'clock with throngs of people. On the one hand, that's good, I guess, for use, unless of course I had one of the houses there that was lit up all night until ten o'clock at night with the attendant activity. As it relates to location, the Redevelopment Agency site for Desert Willow III, or whatever it's being called, is 170 acres, excuse me, which is substantially more than you need for a golf course. 120, 130 works for a golf course, nicely. So you've got way more land there than you need if just using that site and not even considering the stuff to the west, which generally surrounds residential. So there's a couple of places to put it. I would hope that whatever interpretation is sent forth to Council doesn't dictate a specific site in there, 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 given the considerations I'm trying to point out. I'd be happy to answer any questions for you. Sc Questions? MM Thank you. Sc Okay, Mr. Drell. PD I don't know how you want to handle this, whether you want to look at little pieces of it, of the staff recommended alternative, and comment on it, or if you want to make general comments...it's up to you guys. Si One way to go is to open it up for public input and then let's talk about it and come to a conclusion. PD Right. Si We're there. Sc Okay. The public hearing is open. Anyone in the audience wanting to speak to these land uses... DA Good morning. I'm Dan Allred with American Realty Trust, 1800 Valley View Lane, Suite 300, Dallas, Texas. I've made a couple of appearances here in the past couple of months, and I guess I just want to reiterate that my company and several of the other land owners, Mr. Marix just spoke to you previous to me, have been working for over a year with the staff to try to come up with a plan... Sc Could you speak in the microphone, please? DA Okay. We've been working over a year with staff trying to come up with a land plan that we can work with that matches what the committee has been doing for the past four years, almost...I've lost track of how many years this has gone on now. And there's a lot of time, money, engineering money, that's been put into this project to try to adapt it to what we have been directed by the City, that the City wants to see there. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 Si Mr. Allred, I'm sorry, can you just point out for us the properties that you either own or control at this point. DA Well, it's—we either own or have sold within the last year or two everything north of Frank Sinatra, it's undeveloped pretty much... Si I guess what I want to get to, though, is the properties that you have a vested interest in at this point. I mean, if you've sold them, then you no longer have a vested interest in how they get developed, a direct vested interest. Is that accurate or not really? DA Well, I carry the notes on quite a few of them, so that's a pretty good vested interest. You know, I've got notes out there of tens of millions of dollars. Si Okay, so north of Frank Sinatra? DA Yes, we sold the property to the City about a year ago for the golf course. All the green we sold to the City. Everything between the golf course land and Gerald Ford inside Cook, Sinatra, Portola, Gerald Ford, we either own or we have the note on. The other current owner is Mr. Marix with Cornerstone who just spoke to you. Si I'm sorry. Frank Sinatra on the south, Monterey on the west, Portola on the east, and Gerald Ford on the north? Even up there, okay. DA Yes. We either own it or we have sold it or are carrying the note on it. Just to give a little bit of history, the first property we were involved with here was about...a little over six years ago, we acquired the current Marriot Shadow Ridge development. We bought the land from the FDIC, negotiated with Marriott for them to do their timeshare, coordinated with them as they worked with the City staff and with the City Council and with the Planning Commission for the development that exists there. At the time, as we were selling that property to Marriott, we were also working with several other land owners, Lionel Steinberg, you may know that name, we bought all of his property. We also bought the Desert Wells tentative tract map. So at one time, we owned about 1,400 acres of land there. Currently, today, just off the top of my head, we own about 200 acres. We've sold pretty much everything but 200 acres, but we carry the note on several hundred acres that we've sold to people like Mr. Marix that we financed it for them while we tried to go through this General Plan process that we thought was going to 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 be finished a year ago, and then we thought it was going to finished six months ago, and then we think it's going to be finished in December. And now I'm hearing stories about several more months, and that's a little bit scary. I guess...I'm sort of throwing myself on the mercy of the court here. We have done everything possible to make this thing happen, and it seems like there's no direction at some point in the City government, and it's been very frustrating because there are lots of people here that have been doing everything they can possibly do to try to come up with a plan that the City will adopt. It's almost to the point, you know, the densities can move around here and there...that's not as big an issue to everybody, it's just getting something adopted. And we just need to see this process move forward and would appreciate your efforts in getting this thing processed as soon as possible. And I'd be more than happy to answer any questions. JL As it pertains to the staff recommended alternative, which is up there right now, are you comfortable with everything that's up there? DA I'm very comfortable. Sc Thank you, Mr. Allred. Si Let me just comment, and I've said this before, and I really sympathize with the frustration that you're expressing. I understand that you as well as others have been put on hold, and I think in retrospect there may have been better ways to handle this. But we're certainly here now, and we hear you very loudly and clearly, and hopefully today you'll get some specific direction from the Planning Commission anyway and then, you know, the Council, if we've done our work thoroughly, maybe they won't need to take as long and go into as much public testimony and depth and so forth as we have. I don't know, that's up to them, but hopefully we can do our part to move this along at this point. DA I don't want my appeal to sound like it's strictly motivated by money because it's really not. About a year and a half ago, we voluntarily let the old Desert Wells map expire. We had the right to pull the grading permit and start building it. And as a consideration to the City and the fact that, you know, Mr. Drell and Carlos Ortega and other people said we'd really like to see that property included in the General Plan, we agreed to do that. So this isn't strictly a money issue with us. We've tried to be a, there you go, a good community citizen, even though we are an out of state owner, and 1 18 f j MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 know...we are probably perceived as carpetbaggers from some points, but we're trying not to be. I feel like, you know, us getting the Marriott deal done has been a big boost to the City, it's been a big boost to us in our property around there because they've increased the value of it quite a bit, and that's why we wanted to get that deal done. But the old Desert Wells map, if I had that today, it's probably worth more than what's on the wall there just because the value of single-family lots in that area of a golf course would be pretty high right now. Si Is that the old Swank project? DA Yes, Bill Swank and Tad (inaudible) are the ones that processed that. Si And that was on Monterey and Frank Sinatra, as I recall? DA Actually, it was basically everything...it's pretty much the existing City golf course and the adjacent property was about 410 acres. SJ I'm sorry, I mean Portola and Frank Sinatra. Okay, then...between the GPAC recommended alternative, the staff recommended alternative, and the less intensive alternative, you've looked at the possible land use designations and you're basically okay with any and all of the above as long as we just move forward. DA Right. And somebody like Mr. Marix, Mike can speak to you more on densities because he really controls most of the residential that's indicated there, but I think he would probably echo what I'm saying, too. I appreciate the time. Thanks. MM I am Mike Marix again, still. I do echo what Dan Allred said. We've been involved on an active basis as an owner for a year and have worked with staff through our engineers. The plan that's put forth as the staff recommended plan is one we subscribe to totally. It doesn't suggest there can't be some tweaking done to it, but there's been a very intense effort on lots of people's parts to come to something that now is before you. Si Mr. Marix, I'm sorry to interrupt. I'm just trying to get my ducks in a row. MM Certainly. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 Si Can you tell me which property... MM Ours is...except for your golf course, and except for commercial that rings Gerald Ford and Cook Street, everything else in that triangle is ours. Si Okay. MM It's all residential. Si Okay. MM It's of varying intensities. Si Do we know your company by another name? MM Cornerstone Developers. Si Cornerstone. I'm sorry to seem ignorant. These have been floating around and I just want to make sure I've got all... MM I understand, and by way of explanation, just last week we sold our home building operation to Linar (sp?) Corporation, and I'm now delightfully out of the home building business but retain these properties, these and others. The suggestion that the public comment be done now before you have a chance to discuss it for yourselves, while procedurally no doubt is correct, is a little bit of cart before the horse. I mean, if you're going to tweak these plans, then gee whiz, I sure want to talk about it because we've been looking at this and working on these along with others for a long, long time. So to suddenly grab something out of the middle and say well, let's do whatever, would change my view, I'm sure. I would hope that you would act expeditiously, and I say that very candidly, economically. It's incredibly expensive. The interest bill alone is $4,000 a day. While that's not your concern, it is clearly mine, and at least you know it. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Si Mr. Marix, let me just ask you, again, the same question. I think you mentioned that you are partial to the staff recommended alternative with regard to the land use designation, the proposed land use designation. MM That is correct. 20 i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 Si Does that mean that you're significantly opposed to some of the other alternatives, or are there certain aspects that you prefer to see or not to see? I guess what I'm trying to get at, if we did settle on one of the other alternatives, does that cause a problem for you? MM I'd have to reserve answer until I've studied them some more. I've obviously looked at all of them. At one point, there was a proposal for the high school in the middle of our property, together with a stadium, and I admit to you that I lobbied real hard at Palm Springs Unified School District to move that because I felt it destroyed the residential nature of that around it when you have lights and stadiums and what have you. It just wiped it out in my view as a logical use, certainly in marketability sense. Si I guess, although...let me just, and I'm not in the business that you're in, so I don't want to pretend to be an expert, but we have designed, successfully designed, active use parks within residential pockets. The current state of the art with regard to lighting is such that, literally, when you're a yard outside of the focused light area, because it is all focused lighting now, you can't even read a newspaper that's before you, so there's not the bounce glow that you kind of think of. At the soccer park, for example, we worked with existing surrounding residents, there are now more residential uses surrounding that park, but we worked with the existing ones and designed it in such a way and implemented shut-down times of 9 p.m. and made other accommodations that met their needs. And they supported that park, even though they were not going to use it. The soccer park is such that the elderly population adjacent was not going to use it, but they still supported the park. And to my knowledge, we have not had one complaint. So there are...I'm not telling you your business, I'm not trying to tell you to put a park, you know, next to housing, but I am suggesting to you that it can work, and in fact, in this City, does work. MM The site that comes immediately to mind would be the northeast corner of Frank Sinatra and Portola, just the corner out on the golf course, and you've got probably 50 acres of excess land there in terms of the golf course. Si I would not disagree. I think ultimately the Council will be the arbiter of that. And, incidentally, whatever our recommendation is today, if you don't like it or if you do like it, you will again have an opportunity to be before the entity that makes the final decision, and that's the Council. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 MM Thank you. DT I was going to add...it wasn't within the scope of this Commission to designate a site for the park, but I, for one, echo your sentiments. You need to be very careful where you place the park. It does have an impact on surrounding housing and so forth, even if you predesignate that and people know it's going in. It's a little bit like complaining about buying a house next to an airport. So I do echo the sentiments that no matter what technology it is, I think the City needs to study the subject very diligently and pick an area that would still be convenient to the residents but not disrupt surrounding property owners. (Inaudible) TN Good morning. My name is Tom Noble. Address is 42620 Caroline Court, Suite 101, Palm Desert. I would just like to reiterate what's been said here. There's been an enormous amount of interchange and work between the property owners in the area and the staff. Staff has been very responsive while getting the uses that I think the Advisory Committee was looking for and accommodating the thoughts and the needs of the property owners. We are, as I think you know, developing the commercial industrial project at Monterey and Dinah Shore. There's a little bit over 200 acres in there which are exempt from the moratorium. We currently are zoned and we'll be under construction hopefully at the end of this week. We also own the 29 acres at the northwest corner of the Portola extension and what will be the Dinah Shore extension. That property is a part of the moratorium and part of the planning going on here. I've appeared before you before and given you a substantial amount of correspondence and a couple of sketches that we've done indicating why we think that 29-acre piece should remain in the service industrial or your new business park office designation. That is as it is shown in the staffs preferred alternative now which for all kinds of reasons, I won't reiterate, but I think that's by far the best use for it. So I'd just like to go on record as bringing those matters up again. We're interested in the overall area, although our... Si Mr. Noble, let me...so you're speaking now to the northwest corner of Portola and Gerald Ford. TN That's correct. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 Si And you are in favor of the IBP land use designation. TN That's correct. Si Thank you. TN And just as a person interested in the area, I also feel strongly that there's a need for more park land within this overall area. It seems to me that the Frank Sinatra/Portola intersection would make by far the most sense. It's very accessible. There are a lot more issues than just lighting in a park of that magnitude. As a former soccer dad, I've been to lots of these things. There are lots of cars, lots of people, lots of kids having a great time, but also some disruption for surrounding areas. It just seems tome that corner would be, where you've got Desert Willow to the south, you'll have commercial uses that (inaudible) proposed now for both corners on the west side. It seems to me that somewhere in the general area of that corner of Frank Sinatra and Portola would give the best access and probably be the best use for it. At any rate, I just wanted, once again, to reiterate. There's been an enormous amount of give and take, input, discussion between the owners in the area. I, very frankly, didn't think that this type of a cooperative effort would work. When Mr. Drell suggested we all get together and try to do that, I had serious doubts, but it's happened, and I think that whatever we've come up with in terms of the General Plan is about as good as it can get. Thank you very much. MMC Myron MacLeod. I reside at 4035 Avenida Brisa, Rancho Santa Fe. I'm not going to repeat everything before, but I am in agreement with what has just been said by Tom Noble and others. What I have that's a little different is our property is 70 acres that includes the 25-acre proposed school site. And we've owned that land for 25 and 35 years, there are two different parcels there. I just wanted to confirm that we have been in not only meetings that Mr. Noble mentioned and Mr. Marix and Mr. Drell, but also with the Palm Springs School District. And I know there are pluses and minuses and opinions I've heard thrown around here about the school district, but nevertheless, they are determined to have acreage in that area, and what is up there, which is...and our property represents, again, a compromise of contiguous property owners...road requirements of the school and things that were palatable by the Building Department here and Planning Department here. So I just wanted to also confirm that we're in favor of the staff 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 alternative plan. I think it represents a lot more than you just see up on that board. Thank you. Sc Anyone else? EV My name is Ed Vargo. I live at 7 Brentwood Way in Palm Desert. I'm on the Board of Directors of the Montecito Homeowners Association. It's a 98-unit complex that is on Cook Street, halfway between Country Club and Frank Sinatra. We're probably one of the closest neighborhood communities of single family low density housing adjacent to this area. We feel somewhat betrayal because we bought there when the General Plan for the rest of the area under consideration was low density. Right now, with the change of taking property for the timeshare, the golf course, and the other uses, and then still expanding the density of housing by increasing the high density to 2,700 units is not in our best interests. It's going to create tremendous traffic, and it's going to lower our property values and lower our overall feeling of what Palm Desert actually is. So we'd like you to understand our position as homeowners, not as property owners, of this area to be developed, and we have a strong feeling. We will be presenting a petition to you and the Council shortly with our feelings. Thank you. Sc Anyone else? Okay, Mr. Drell, any discussion? PD Again, we can break it up section by section and kind of talk about individual land use issues or...how do you want to handle it? One issue that you guys have already brought up, which was the mixed use designation, which again is something that is not critical either way in that the commercial zones we already discussed don't preclude mixed use. It's just if there are specific sites you feel that are particularly appropriate, then you might designate them. If not, we can just remove those designations and wait for proposals from, you know, the property owners relative to that issue. CF Can I offer a suggestion? PD Sure. CF Could we start with perhaps the breakdown of how many acres are set aside for each particular land use and see if that's the direction that the Commission wishes to go? 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 PD Sure. So basically it's looking at the land use charts...between and whether you want to look at...again, between the less intense alternative and the existing and the staff recommended alternative and the GPAC preferred alternative...I don't have all the charts in front of me...but you guys do, I think. If you guys want to (inaudible) on the balance, which we just finished talking about, the balance of land uses overall. JL Well, on staffs recommended alternative, looking at in excess of 10.5 million (inaudible) PD Pretty much all the alternatives show the commercial use almost the same... JL (Inaudible) basically PD Yes, and really that was as much a land use compatibility driven decision, that the uses at the interchanges on a major arterial, up against the freeway, or so...as you see, all of those are pretty much the same. And remember also, general plans, while we've quantified it based on the map, technically the lines aren't as hard drawn as...so within ten percent in general planning is the same. We've hit the wall with the dart. CF Well, on that University...let's see, the staff recommended plan and the preferred alternative, there's no acreage set aside for light industrial as there is in the less intense. Are we...is that a certain message that we're sending or should we really be combining the 173 and the 156 in the less intense use with the industrial business park and the light industrial? PD Again, the areas as industrial light business park are the same. The philosophy there was based on what we're hearing from the developers, and really what we've experienced at Cook Street, what they want to build is what they call flex space, which is adaptable for both varying degrees of office and industrial and showroom and things like that. And what Cook Street has shown is that uses can be made very compatible. Therefore, for us to prejudge the market and say this area is just going to be for the auto body shops and the sheet metal fabricators, this area is just going to be for the architects and the civil engineering offices...the market just hasn't cooperated, so we've kind of said... CF Okay, so there's an average of 300 acres, then, set aside for some sort of business park or light industrial use or combination of that. 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 DT Correct me if I'm wrong, business light industrial refers to a time when the City and the Valley was actually looking at trying to come up with a third leg of the economic support, and it was at that time designated to attract light industry and to create the jobs, the economic engine and so forth. And I think the times have changed, and what we're asking for here is just the flexibility to keep reflecting the time so that the designation could still be available but we're not keyholing it into because the times have changed. Is that a correct statement? PD That's correct. In dealing with our, you know, really we created service industrial more so just to get certain undesirable uses off of Highway 111 originally. Everything was on Highway 111 in the 60's and 70's. We want to get those things off. But again, the times then changed and it got recognized as hey, this is a great place to have these offices that don't need public exposure. And the problem is when you're building big expensive buildings, developers learned that if they so specialized their uses and the economy swung in the wrong direction, suddenly they were stuck with an empty building for a long time. So that's why we've gone to this more generic classification, and it makes it, I think...again, based on, as you said, we're not...it's not logical for people to build significant light industry in Palm Desert anyway. We let the market and design control how these things are ultimately (inaudible) CF Okay, so if we take the blue, the industrial business park, on the staff recommended alternative and the blue with the industrial light, and that's basically the same area, we're just one acre apart... PD Correct. CF ...328 versus 329, so could we start and say that we think that's the direction that we need to go? Sc I would feel comfortable just as it is right now with the light industrial and business park. CF We can work with...for motion purposes, I guess, we'll work with the staff recommended alternative? SC Yes (inaudible) 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 CF And say that we're comfortable and be in favor of the areas designated as industrial business park, understanding that there might be some flexibility within that. JL I agree. CF So should I make a motion for segment by segment, Phil? PD If you want to do that, sure. SC Sabby, did you want to know what we were talking about? PD If she's going to go general land use category by land use category, starting with the industrial business park category. Now the one little complication to that is the location of that one mixed use piece, which...on the north side of Gerald Ford. CF What we were saying (inaudible) blue for business park and the kind of teal color for industrial light, that one sets aside 328 acres, the other sets aside 329 acres, and that the Commission is in agreement that that amount of acreage be set aside for that particular use pretty much in those particular areas, that we think that that's the right concept and the direction the City needs to go. Si Let me ask you this. If we're at the discussion point, and I think we are, maybe we could at least have some discussion about which recommended alternative is overall more appealing to us, and then we can kind of focus on that and modify it. I guess what I'm getting at, as I've reviewed all these alternatives and listened and so forth, the staff recommended alternative is very appealing to me in terms of the various land use designations, including mixed use and the industrial business park for the reasons he just discussed and so forth. My concern, though, is that the high density residential, I think there is a need for high density residential, but it's a matter of degree. And I guess part of what scares me about the high density residential, just some of what we've seen in the past and how intense it really, really is. So I guess what I'm suggesting is that we have some discussion about the basic alternative that maybe is appealing to us and then start kind of dissecting that one. CF Okay. Could we all agree that we'd like to rule out the more intense use? 27 E � . MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 PD You mean the more intense alternative? CF Right, the more intense alternative. (Agreement) CF Okay, that's a for sure. Is there consensus for ruling out the preferred alternative, advocating some 6,000 units out there? (Agreement) CF is there? Okay. So then is there a preference between less intense and staff recommended? DT You know, there I'd like to suggest...I liked the direction you were taking, Commissioner Finerty, where we were looking at... CF Okay. DT ...each of those, the different categories, because... CF That's helpful. DT ...it will give us a sense of what the blend is and where the differences are in the particular categories as opposed to trying to jump between two different maps. CF Okay. DT That was my preference. SC I think Commissioner Jonathan wanted to go ahead and find out which map we wanted to use. Si That's all I was saying. I like the idea, too, but I don't want to jump between two or more maps. I'm saying can we at least pick a map to look at if we're going to pick it apart. CF I think that the two maps we're going to end up focusing on are going to be the staff recommended alternative and the less intense. 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 Si Okay. DT It's the male part of me. I don't want to look at any maps. CF You're not going to ask for directions, huh? DT I don't need directions. CF So...let me try this. Let me try a motion that would set aside approximately 330 acres in the area along Dinah Shore and Interstate 10 as noted in staff recommended alternative and the less intense use for the purpose of industrial use, whether it's light or business park or some combination of that. SC That's a motion. We need a second. JL Second. SC Okay. Si Discussion. Are we then limiting...is that motion specifically referencing under the staff recommended alternative those areas indicated in blue as industrial business park. That is a little bit difference than the less intense use. CF It is a little bit different, but we're looking at acres and, for example, and location. Staff recommended is 328 acres, the less intense use is 329 acres. Si Right. CF It is essentially in the same area along 1-10 and Dinah Shore. Yes, there are a few issues, as Phil pointed out, with the mixed use north of Gerald Ford and that sort of thing, but the basic concept, since we've been reminded is a general plan, would be to go along with that recommendation. Si I'm not sure I understand. Are you just speaking, then, to the number of acres or the actual location? CF Both. 29 i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 Si Okay, then I'm going to come back to my earlier point. If we're going to apply land use designation, and I'm in fundamental agreement with what you're suggesting, but if we're going to apply land use designation, I think by definition that's going to apply to a map. And I'm going to come back to my earlier comment, I like the industrial business park designation on the staff recommended alternative. It carries through all the way through the 1-10 corridor as opposed to the less intense alternative which, for example, is interrupted with a... CF I see, the CC. Si ...the commercial, yeah, the community commercial. CF So would you like me to amend the motion to say that we would set aside approximately 330 acres around Dinah Shore and Interstate 10 for industrial business park use as noted on the staff recommended alternative map? Si I would support that motion. CF Everyone else in concurrence? JL Okay. Sc You second that motion, then, okay. CF We're ready for the all in favor. (All ayes) Sc Opposed? None, motion carries. JL Could I, again, throw it out there (inaudible) conversation. Can we settle on perhaps one map to work off as we go through this process instead of trying to switch around the maps and say, okay, let's use the staff recommended alternative as the basis and if there are things you want to incorporate that might come from less or preferred, that we (inaudible) we use staff alternative as the basis for our conversation? Si I think that makes sense if we basically, and what I would suggest is that we say that we want to begin with the staff recommended alternative and then 30 . f ' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 make modifications which we would address item by item as Commissioner Finerty suggested. JL That's basically what I'm saying. (Agreement) Si I think that's a good approach. CF Okay, so then if we were to move on the commercial. We're looking at basically the same number of acres...I don't have them added, but it's somewhere around 600 acres for a variety of commercial. Sc And we're talking more regarding right there on the corner of Cook and Gerald Ford, right? PD Cook and Gerald Ford, of course there's...the bulk of it is on the Monterey corridor. Sc Yeah. (Inaudible) CF Looking on the west side and the east side of the map. PD I think there the—again, you're seeing the predominant regional sort of commercial over on Monterey. The commercial that we're showing on Gerald Ford and Cook is smaller scale. So we don't necessarily get the convergence of the activity of the University with the activity of regional commercial right next to each other. CF Well, it certainly seems like that's the appropriate location for the regional commercial. Sc On Monterey. CF Right. SC And what is that also on Monterey and Gerald Ford. Is that high density residential right next to it? 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 PD It's high density next to it, correct. Sc Okay, is there any problem with having... PD Well, we're still talking about the... Sc I know. CF We're trying to work through the commercial. Okay, so is there concurrence, then, that the regional commercial... Sc Stay where it is. CF ...should stay, yeah, right where it is there on Monterey? JL Basically, we can probably incorporate all the commercial left after that. There's 1435 acres and then the rest of it's already Shadow Ridge. PD Right. CF Right, it's already...correct. JL Right. CF It's already something, correct. Si I'm okay with all the commercial as indicated on the staff recommended alternative. CF Okay. Discussion? Dave? DT I was going to say I concur with Commissioner Jonathan. I'm also comfortable with all of that and would second that if that was a motion. Si It was a motion. CF Sure it was, okay. SC Okay, now are we speaking regarding just Monterey or also Cook? 32 � t MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 JL All the commercial. Si All the commercial. CF All the commercial. Si Also encompassing commercial office professional, commercial regional, commercial resort, and...I'm sorry, and commercial resort as indicated on the staff recommended alternative. SC Okay, but not the mixed use yet, we're not including that yet? Si We haven't gotten to it. CF Okay. SC Okay, so we have a motion and we have a second. All in favor. (All ayes) SC All opposed? None. Motion carries. CF Okay. So do we want to go to mixed use next? SC That would be fine. PD And just to make a...on that mixed use that is on the north side of Gerald Ford, if you...the property owners preference, if there is a mixed use specific designation, he'd like that shifted to the west adjacent to the high school site. DT I'm sorry, you got me lost. CF Say that one more time. PD The mixed use that's on the north side of Gerald Ford... CF Yes. PD ...the property owner has expressed a preference that it would be shifted to the west... 33 i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 CF Okay. PD ...to the northwest... CF Northwest. PD ...to the northwest, mainly because he—they're seeing that the (inaudible) created by Technology and Gerald Ford is kind of one comprehensive project. But again, as I said... CF Is that property owner then wishing that area that's currently recommended as mixed use north of Gerald Ford to be included then in the industrial business park zoning? SC Well, it is right now, too. PD I believe so. SJ I guess I like the existing mixed use various as designated. If we want to add what I guess is the northeast corner of Gerald Ford and whatever that street is... PD That's called Metroplex, believe it or not. SJ Metroplex. Well, we have to change that. That is (inaudible) PD Yeah, there's no theater there as far as I know, but... JL They could have a contest at high school to name that street. SJ Yes, definitely. PD That's the property owners thoughts. SJ That's really Orange County. We've got to get away from that. PD Okay. SJ Anyway, though, if we want to add, that's fine. But I guess I would start by saying fundamentally, I really like the concept of mixed use for the 34 f MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 appropriate areas and I think that designation works well where staff has recommended it. If we want to add that third area, I think that would be logical as well. Sc No, we're not adding a third area. We were thinking about moving (inaudible) PD Again, the property owner talked about doing that. Sc Okay. PD And remember, again, the industrial business park designation doesn't preclude... Si Right, you can still develop it as industrial business... PD Right. Si ...under mixed use. PD Correct. Si I guess what I'm saying is I like the two designated areas for mixed use. I think they're logical. I wouldn't want to move the one that was suggested to be moved because it's sandwiched between different uses. I mean, there are three different uses that surround it, and I think that's where mixed use can be particularly effective on. So I don't want to delete either of those two. If we want to add a third area because we want to accommodate the property owner's wishes, I don't necessarily have a problem with that either, but I would not want to eliminate the two already designated. SC I don't like the mixed use on the corner of Frank Sinatra and Cook. CF I don't, either. SC I don't think that's a great entrance to the City on something like that, especially with the mixed use as the high density residential, 10 to 22. 1 don't think that's the location for it right there on that corner. PD It wouldn't be on that corner. 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 SC Well, no, but it would still be right there, and there you have, you know, Desert Willow right there, too, and then you have low density, and they have medium density. Why would you want to go ahead and put something high density right there on the corner of mixed commercial when you could go ahead and have all that other park there? PD The logical...again, in terms of how it would be ultimately designed or which would still be under our control, the residential would be on the interior road, and the commercial would be on Cook Street. Sc I know, but that's still not a location that I would be happy to go ahead and have it in. CIF And I would concur. Si What do you favor there? Sc Well, actually, if you want to go ahead and even bring Desert Willow all over to that area, you know, go ahead... PD You mean make it resort commercial...I mean, Desert Willow wouldn't go there, we don't own the property. Sc Right, but not to go ahead and...what do you have on the opposite corner...you have Desert Falls, then you have...right? PD Well, the... SC Catty-corner. PD Catty-corner but across the street you have... SC Yeah...then you have... PD (Inaudible) SC Right. PD I believe in the preferred alternative that we have that corner as resort commercial. 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 CF I just think that...I absolutely concur with Commissioner Campbell, and it is mainly because of the high density residential that's included in the mixed use. To me that corner looks like total hodgepodge. You've got so many different uses, and I would prefer to see that little band of purple or lavender the office professional moved out instead of the mixed use. Si I'm still lost. What do you...what would you suggest for either the office professional, well for both, the office professional and the mixed use? What would you change it to? CF I would have a mixed use that would allow for commercial or office professional but a mixed use that would definitely not include high density residential at that important of an intersection. Si On any portion of that? SC Well, actually, it probably doesn't need to be that large either. We can go ahead and have the mixed use with the office professional and then extend either Desert Willow or have, you know, low density housing there over there so that you do have buffer... CF Like that little area of medium density? Sc That's correct. CF That's just a teeny little spot in there and it makes more sense to continue that all the way out. DT Let me just add real quick, though. Frank Sinatra and Cook Street are major intersections. You're not going to have high valued homes going in there. CF Granted. DT And the mixed use designation, if I understand it properly, gives the developer and the City some flexibility to design something there that will be a nice transition for that area. CF But that's also not a wonderful area for apartments. SC For apartments (inaudible) 37 f MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 DT Again, I think the market...the thing that'll make it work will be in the design and the implementation of that, and I don't think the market is going to embrace high density on a busy intersection corner, so that would probably, in my mind, be moved somewhere to the rear of the property toward the medium density, and the front is going to be the commercial, in my mind. But again it's going to come down to what the developer comes up with in design implementation. But in our general plan use, our desire is to give that flexibility so hopefully when the design comes forward it is something that can be embraced by the market. SC Well, that's what we were talking about, but we really don't want to have any high density there. You know, when you're going up the hill, that's high, and you go ahead and have multiple housing over there, high density housing, you know... Si If there was high density housing on the west side of that mixed use area, you would still...in other words, if it was not visible from Cook or Frank Sinatra, you still don't feel... Sc No, I don't feel that that is an area for high density housing right there. It can go ahead and be below, by Gerald Ford, you know, there, but I don't that is an appropriate corner to go ahead and have that. CF Right. I don't think that we should have the high density so close to the third Desert Willow. I just think that there's too much jammed into that little corner, and it's not coherent. Sc So here you have Desert Willow on the south of Frank Sinatra, Desert Willow on the north of Frank Sinatra, and then you have all this hodgepodge right there on that one corner. JL Okay, but I'm getting back...I guess going back to my original question. You didn't want (inaudible) CF Okay, to take that little spot as medium density and make that low density and to take out the office professional, extend the office professional into the mixed use area and make that office professional and some type of commercial. JL What land use would you put on that then? 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 CF It would be a mixed use that would only allow... PD You don't have to do that. JL You don't have to do that. SC We don't want it to be high density. PD Just make it office professional, then. CF Just make it office professional? PD Sure, or general commercial or...remember, all of these are ultimately...whether or not there's housing there is depending on whether you approve a project with housing there. That's all...this is...if you absolutely believe that housing shouldn't be there, then don't designate it as mixed commercial for sure but designate it as one of the specific commercial land uses. CF Okay, then I would take the low density and extend that into that little tiny... PD I thought we were talking about commercial designations here. CF Okay, and then go with the lavender, the OP, and incorporate that into what we see as the mixed use. PD Okay, so you want to preclude all sorts of other sort of commercial uses from that whole area, other than offices? CF What I was saying...you said to designate it as office professional. I'm saying that there could be either office professional or commercial in that area. What we're trying to rule out are the high density apartments in that. PD Then probably general commercial is probably the more appropriate land use there. CF Okay, so general commercial includes what, Phil? SC Right. 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 (Inaudible) CF Thank you. Okay, so...make it general commercial. PD Or the community commercial, which is what we have at...you know, we have the designation of the... CIF So what's the difference between community commercial and general? PD Good question. (Inaudible) CIF Right. (Inaudible) CIF Okay, so general... (Inaudible) JL (Inaudible) designation is assigned to a wide variety (inaudible) specialty retail (inaudible) broad range of clothing and apparel, jewelry stores (inaudible) businesses. Office development (inaudible) secondary use (Inaudible) SC How large is that area? PD Essentially, there isn't any difference. SC How large is that area, the mixed use area? PD Hmm? SC How large is the mixed use area right there, the mixed commercial? PD It's probably almost identical to the...it's probably 25 acres. CIF Wait a second. 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 PD Well, 25 acres including that office...so if you take that mixed use plus that office professional, it's probably about...it's almost the same size as the...the mirror image of the property to the north. CF Okay. (Inaudible) CF Right. DT I just want to point out, though, that that area is across the street from a CalState development, and with the way the budgets work in the UC and CS system, the ability to build dorms and so forth is not going to be there any time in the near future. The mixed use development would allow for the possibility of high density student housing. And again, I think it's in the design and implementation of the project that's important. So I would hate to see us preclude housing going in there in some form or other. PD I have a question of Commissioner Jonathan. You alluded to some severe problem we've experienced with high density projects in the City? Yes, you said some problems of the high intensity that we've experienced...I'd like to know what intensity project you feel has occurred that has had some (inaudible) Si No, no, I said some of the proposals and renderings that have come before us. PD But not the projects we've built. Si No. PD The projects we've built, you know, were 22 units per acre, which is the highest in the range. Is there any inference that those are undesirable projects for the City or not? Si You're asking me? PD Yes. Si Why? 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 PD Because (inaudible) indicated that somehow, by its very nature, high density apartments have a...create a problem. That was...that is kind of the inference I'm hearing, that there is a stigma that is immediately attached and... Si Well, let me say to you...number one, that's not what I said. PD Okay. Si It's not my intent, it doesn't necessarily reflect how I feel. Number two, if it did, that's my prerogative. That's what we're trying to discuss here. PD I just want to understand. Si I think you're, you know, many times you've made your feelings known about high density...you know, and you have a right to do that, and we've heard you. So now we need to talk about it. The mixed use area, that area there, I think—I'm kind of on the fence. I think high density can work there, but I think we're going to have to be very careful about it because I share the concerns that you expressed. I certainly would not want to see high density right on Cook Street or, you know, but in back of it in a mixed use kind of project, I think it could work. And I do think that that is a logical area for high density should it come before us in an appropriate manner with an appropriate design because it is directly adjacent from the school. You know, a lot of people are going to be in high density housing that are students who may even lack transportation, so you're putting them right there where they can walk to school, which I think is a good idea. So I don't necessarily have a problem with the mixed use designation. I think to sandwich the medium density residential between the mixed use and low residential, I guess that's okay, but the office professional I don't think necessarily makes sense. I would think that we ought to extend the mixed use across the street to the office professional and give us a little more latitude about what goes in there because that could be a neighborhood shopping center, it could be, you know, anything as that area develops. PD And remember the property owner's new concept is that that office area would not be separated. The street would run around it. CF Right. 42 f MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 SC But also remember we're having retail on the corner of Cook and Gerald Ford. Offices over there, those are going to go ahead and be office buildings, medical buildings, and retail, so you want to go ahead and put more retail right there? Si I don't. The mixed use gives us flexibility. It's what I like about it. If an appropriate project comes before us and we think, hey you know what, it does look good, this does work here, it is office professional or it is retail or it is, you know, high density of the kind that we can accept and embrace, then I think it's not necessarily a bad idea. I guess I like the flexibility that mixed use would offer us in that location. CF But we would, Commissioner Jonathan, still have that flexibility if we were to designate it as general commercial, reserving our concern for what type of high density as far as what project came forth and how it was utilized, but there would always be the developer's prerogative to ask for a change of zone in presenting a project that would include a mixed use, and then they would be, I believe, further motivated to give us a higher end and more appropriately located high density tract. SC Correct, especially there by the Desert Willow and... CF Right, so that opportunity would still present itself, but then it doesn't, I guess as I like to say, open the door, especially in that location, again, where I just perceive that corner as hodgepodge because it's just got so many things jammed together. Let me try a motion. It may fail, but I'm going to give it a shot. To take the mixed use area and the office professional area at the northwest corner of Frank Sinatra and Cook Street and designate that as general commercial. SC I will second that. Si So you would not touch the... CF I was going to do that... Si ...office professional? JL She is. 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 CF I am. I'm combining it. Si Oh, combining, I'm sorry, I missed that. CF Because remember that street goes through now, so it's kind of like all one. Si Right, right. And the medium density... CF I was going to do that separately. I didn't want to... Si What do you intend to do with that? CF Okay, I would take the low density residential and extend that into where it says the medium density residential, which is just west of the proposed mixed use. I would make that all low density, and I would leave the other uses for the park and the medium density residential as is. SC Did you add that to the motion also or not really? CF I wasn't going to because I wanted to try and do it piecemeal. SC Right. CF Just so you know where I was headed. I just wanted to try and do one thing at a time. SC We have a second, now it's open for discussion. DT Well again, I go back to...I like the mixed use designation. I think it provides a good transition and compatibility to the university across the street. I think, not to be redundant, but again it's in the design and the implementation and we want to speak loudly to developers that we're going to give you this option. It's up to you to make it palatable for the City. And I don't think that's an area that necessarily cries out to be completely or solely commercial. I think it has some mixed use capabilities. I think it would be better designated to include some housing to facilitate the students. So I like the current designation as shown on the staff recommended plan. Si I guess I'd have to fall on that side, but I'm really concerned about if there is one to...the project will come before us that proposes high density 44 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 residential. It would really, I think, have to be something that is very attractive in many respects, and I guess that's true for any project because that's a visible area, but I guess I would come down on that side, that properly designed, properly implemented, I would not have a problem with high density residential in that location because I think it serves the demand that the university will create very effectively. I'd probably want to extend that mixed use, then, to cover the OP as well. Sc Well, we have a first and a second. All in favor. Sc Aye C F Aye Sc All opposed. DT Nay JL Nay Si Nay Sc There we are, 3-2. DT Would we need a resolution, then, to...motion...well, I make a motion, then that we leave the mixed use as shown on the staff recommended alternative on the northwest corner of Frank Sinatra and Cook Street. And I would leave the office professional, right now, again, I think the idea is to have areas of transition. And depending on what the Redevelopment Agency does with the land to the west, I think that would provide a good transition perhaps. Si Well, mixed use would not exclude office professional, right? SC He wants to leave it just as it is, right, the way we have it right there, the mixed commercial and the office professional as it stays right there on the map. DT There, I think again, I'm looking at the transition. If the development of that piece of property to the west is to golf course, I think the office professional, in my mind, makes for better transition. 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 SC So you want to leave it as it is. DT I would leave it as designated, yes. SC Alright. Do we have a second? JL I'll second it. SC Discussion? All in favor. DT Aye Si Aye JL Aye SC Opposed? CF Opposed SC Opposed. 3-2 SJ The other mixed use area? DT Now I think that's appropriate JL (Inaudible) approval DT Second SC All in favor JL Aye SJ Aye DT Aye SC All opposed 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 CF Opposed Sc Opposed. Motion carries 3-2 (Inaudible) Sc For which? TN I thought general commercial about six weeks ago was now going to include... Sc You want to speak in the microphone, please? PD The answer is yes. All commercial zones allow for the potential for mixed use. These specific designations indicate a more specific direction at these particular locations. TN So if somebody had general commercial, can someone include mixed residential... PD Yes. CF And now open space. JL I think...we've a had a lot of conversation regarding the original designation (inaudible)25 acres, so did we want to incorporate that 25 acres into the 188 (inaudible) CF I think we want to add to the 188. (Inaudible) PD Well, it matters in that when we...the property that the City already owns, as opposed to property that the City has to buy, also it's property that comes out of housing as opposed to comes out of what's already been designated for park. So, again, won't be redundant. CF Well, we do have the motion that was to set aside 25 acres. We didn't say where it was coming from. We just said it needed to be a large community park similar to Freedom Park. And we didn't say... 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 JL Would that mean that we would take that 25 acres out of the 188? CF We didn't say. SC We would add it. SJ I'm okay with letting the City make those kinds of decisions because I think it's (inaudible) CF Okay, if we were to take the 188...just one second...we have the 188... JL 188 is... CF ...and 8 on the staff recommended alternative, that's a total of 196... PD And the 188 includes both...the City property is 170 acres. CF Okay PD Existing City property is 170 acres. The additional parks that are added to that, the additional 18 acres, are those three little neighborhood parks shown in that neighborhood. CF Right. And I guess the difference...this is where I really like the less intense because it sets aside more open space. The open space for parks and public reserves sets aside 236 acres where the other is 196, so I guess I prefer to see more open space, and I think the less intense use does a nice job of that. SJ I would concur, and I would further state that the City on some occasions has created open space for the purposes of creating view corridors. Fred Waring maybe is a good example of that. I would encourage further implementation of that concept within the open space areas, wherever those might fall. But I think if you just, if you grab a corner and leave it open, you know, with appropriate landscaping and whatever, that may not be an active use park, it may not be where people go to sit down, although they might, but it creates an open feeling, and as we create more and more housing, medium density and high density, you know, some of the plans that we've seen before us don't provide for a lot of open space within the project, so I think the City can use its resources to create open spaces throughout this area, and I think that 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 would be an effective use of...good planning and effective use of City resources. Sc Yes, because we do have open space on the corner, on all four corners there, Portola and... CF Which is great PD You see, that is the open space public reserve designation. That includes the corners and the corridor on Gerald Ford. Sc Right. CF That's good. Sc That's nicely done. Si And maybe I just...I think some of the other ones that are public reserve are not quite the small park type like the one that's just below it, I guess it's north, it's a strip. JL Less intense? Si On the less intense, there's (inaudible) PR. I guess it's now a street, so...I guess in the chart, there's 25 acres for public reserve as opposed to eight, but I'm not entirely sure where that'll go, and what I'm suggesting is that we don't need to designate where it goes, but that we simply encourage the City to create just open space view corridor type areas as part of that 25 acres. DT Open space view corridors are nice, but I think, one, they're expensive to maintain; and two, I think truly we're talking, when we talk about the 25 acres, is quality of a regional park, a community park. So again, I think what we're trying to state is we want a community park of a minimum 25 acres. Si This is separate and... DT I understand. In addition to it, though, I'm going to say that on those view corridors, I don't think...they get lumped into the parks, but I don't think they're park, I don't think they're active parks. 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 Si We're talking two different things. There's an open space park designation, in the less intense it's 211 acres, and (inaudible)that the 25 acre community park would fall into that. All I'm suggesting is, and you may disagree and I respect that, but out of the 25 acres indicated as public reserve, that we use that to create some view corridors. PD Okay, that's, again, somewhat of an admonishment, we have limited funds. Monies that go into...and 25 acres of passive park and maintaining is a huge amount of money. That money will come out of... CF Okay. But again, we're not...we've got a total of 211 plus 25 acres, that's 236 designated as open space parks and public reserves. We're not saying how it needs to be specifically broken down but that setting aside 236 acres on the less intense versus the 196 on the staff recommended alternative is the way that we're looking to go, correct? So I guess what we're saying is we'd like to see 40 more acres of open space. (Inaudible) PD Again—of course, the difference you're seeing in less intense and staff alternative is we have generically designated parks and schools together, and in this we've specifically designated schools. But the acreage is actually...the acreage shown is the same, it's just here we've broken out schools from parks. I mean, we can...what you're saying is we want to find 25 more acres...well, again... CF I think what we're saying is... PD Remember where it comes from. It comes from...it's going to come from housing. CF Correct. That's where it's coming from. PD And that's why we're building the parks... CF But we're not there yet. PD ...to serve people. CF We're trying to get through the open space. 50 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 PD But, again, this is part of the problem of looking at everything individually, this is a zero something game we're playing, that real estate that you take out of one category or add to one category will come out of another one, and you're therefore making a decision about another category with one. So that's why you have to look at things somewhat holistically. And remember that every time—and theoretically, if you value open space in the desert as much as you value open space in the city, every time you take a house out of the city, a piece of the open desert disappears. Again, we're talking about a zero something game. Housing demand doesn't disappear. Every time we move a house out of the city via a land use plan, you're taking another piece of open space in the desert that will disappear. So it's not a...we're not dealing in a vacuum. Si Well, the less intense alternative has a total of 2,174 acres, which is actually 37 more than the recommended alternative. PD Remember, we're not really... CF Right. PD Remember, these are anomalies of our GIB guy tracing out the areas and using his program to calculate. The areas are identical in area. SJ Well, what I'm suggesting is that if we say that we want more parks and we're talking about 30 acres, we're looking at one and a half percent of the total. PD Sure. SJ I mean, I think that there's room...this is general, after all. CF Right. Si So I think the concept of wanting more parks and if we can get to 236 in total, I would endorse. And I don't think that necessarily means we have to take it away from housing, is my point. CF Well, we don't know where we're taking it from, but right now we'd just like to set aside that many acres. 51 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 JL You want to change the 188 to what? CF We want to use the less intense recommendation of 236 acres of open space, correct? That's 236, as opposed to the map we've been working off of, which is the staff recommended of 196 total. JL Now, are you looking to take 211 in parks and 25 in public reserve? CF No, just 236 total, obviously for both uses, but depending upon where, you know, it's appropriate for the view corridors to go and how large they are, you know, we would just kind of have to wait and see how that falls out. But I do like the view corridors as shown on the staff recommended alternative. PD May I make a little comment. The acreage shown in these charts was purely for educational purposes, to give you an idea of the magnitude. In a general plan, you don't have, you don't calculate the areas of...to your precision, so I mean that's... CF But we're not calculating, we're just saying that out of the 236 acres, some of it is to be parks, and some of it, a much smaller portion, would be the public reserve such as view corridors. PD My point is these charts are not going to end up in the General Plan. DT I think the comment is we all support the parks, we all support the view corridors, if I'm reading the Commission right, but I don't think we can be as precise as saying the actual number of acres. SJ Exactly. DT And I think that would be the problem...the portion I have a problem with. I think what we need to do is state we approve in concept, we like the open space, we encourage more, but I don't think we can get as precise as the number of acres. CF Okay, so then...just to go back, in the commercial and the industrial and all that, we're not approving that amount of acreage, either? DT Well, I think if you precise, you're talking within a certain percentage, I think you have a problem. 52 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 PD Again, you're confusing zoning maps with general plan maps. This is a general plan. What you're saying is the general configuration and location and general proportion... CIF In the less intense use is what we'd like to see. PD ...but ultimately it's going to show...we have to show it on the map. We have to—if you want to...that what you want to do is maybe have a policy in the park and rec or the open space elements to describe the desire to have view corridors along, you know, as shown on this map, but in terms of the actual, you know, we're not saying it's going to be 50 or 80 or 100 feet deep...that's not what this is about. Again, these charts were shown to show a general order of magnitude of one to the other, and if they're within five or ten percent of each other, then as I said, that's probably identical. CIF Okay, so if we want to see more open space than what's in the staff recommended alternative that's very similar to the less intense use, what direction do you recommend we give? PD I don't recommend...in my mind, they are already virtually the same, based on the level of precision in these maps. Again, you're... Si Why don't we just do it this way. PD We're dealing with apples and oranges to a certain degree. Si What if we accepted the land use designation as indicated in the staff recommended alternative but include in our motion and recommendation to Council that they make an attempt to create even more open space, whether it's park or public reserve or view corridor, as their economics and other considerations dictate. PD Right...really this map is showing the general location. You have a big blob of open space there at the corner of Frank Sinatra and Portola. Whether it's a little bit bigger or a little bit smaller when...it has to do with how (inaudible) what you're talking about is, right, putting something in the open space or the park and rec... Si Is the way I approach it something that the Commission could live with? 53 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 CIF Yes DT Yes JC Commissioner Jonathan, in order to facilitate this, we're going to draft a policy and a program that'll go into the parks and rec element, speaking directly to the additional 25 acre or more community park. In that same language, we can also say that on sensitive view corridors in the university area, additional OSPR lands shall be reserved to the greatest extent practicable. (Inaudible) TN This is Tom Noble again. Shouldn't there be an opportunity for public comment on each of these land use designations? There was one in the original for the blue areas, the business park areas, that was not for the mixed use office professional, and it seems to me, especially these open space and park issues...I don't know, but it seems to me there should be an opportunity to comment on each of these before a vote is taken. Sc Yes, you may. Si Can I just address that, Madam Chairperson. I think that we have had ample opportunity for the public to give testimony with regard to the land use designations and just this morning, we opened the public testimony, we received it, and we closed it. We're at the point where we're having Commission discussion, and I don't think we should entertain further public testimony. I think our responsibility now is to come to a decision and move this forward. Coming back to my motion...do I need to restate it or is it fresh enough in everyone's mind? I was afraid you were going to say that. JL I think she wants it restated. Si That we adopt the open space land use designations, both parks and public reserves, as indicated in the staff recommended alternative, with a recommendation to Council that they make an effort to create even more park areas including the community park that we voted on earlier and open view corridors as economics and other considerations warrant. And, furthermore, that we incorporate the language expressed by Mr. Criste into the park element of the plan. 54 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 CF Okay, discussion. Although I basically agree with that concept, I just don't think it's strong enough to send the message that we want more open space. I think we need to be more specific as to how much more open space that we want. I don't know that Council's looking for us to recommend to them that we ask them to find the open space. I think what they'd like for us to do is to maybe recommend where we'd like the open space to go. I still believe that the less intense plan that shows 40 more acres is a nice layout of open space, and I think we just need to be more specific and stronger in our desire to have more open space. Si I don't disagree in concept, but the problem is that in the less intense plan, part of that extra acreage comes from what is now designated and we know we will be designated as school sites. So if we got into now trying to find areas to designate as open space or parks, I think that that's beyond our reach because that's where I have a problem. If there's another way to make a stronger statement about expanding park space, I'm all for that, but I think if we get in to actually designating areas, that's a difficult (inaudible) CF Well, I don't know about exact areas, but I think ballpark areas. And, again, dealing with acreage. I mean, some people might think an extra five acres is enough, some people might think 50 acres would be more appropriate, and I don't think that that message is being sent in the way that your motion was worded. You know, do we want to see a little more or a lot more open space. Sc Mr. Drell, isn't that area also on Gerald Ford there, is that Technology or what...that street that's going to be...that's green right there, too, both sides of Gerald Ford where the high school (inaudible) PD Both sides of Gerald Ford? SC Right. PD No. SC It looks green. Right there. CF The public reserve. SC Right, on the other side. 55 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 PD That is the designated...that would account for, again, roughly about eight acres...those various...public reserves are those (inaudible) areas there. We've got the area up at the Dinah Shore/Portola area, we've got a little bit of... SC That's open space. PD Those are those public reserve corridors...those are the corridor open space areas. SC How many acres is that? You said eight? PD It's roughly about eight. But again, remember, don't get too hung up with this chart. It's showing that...it's a concept of having expanded parkways, in essence, in those locations to delineate some sort of desert character. It's not a construction document for (inaudible) DT The problem I have in trying to use the less intense map is it doesn't show the schools. You've moved a road... CF I know, and that's why I made that point earlier. DT And I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I think the motion is that we're basically stating that given those changes, we're looking at the staff recommended alternative, and then in the strongest terms available to us, stating that we agree with that open space park plan but we also encourage the additional open space parks, and because we don't control the checkbook nor the land in some of these areas, we're saying in the future of the General Plan, we want more space. And that's about as far as we can take it right now, if I understand the concept. PD And the other issue is that, in reality, and I should have done it because I just stopped telling my GIS guy to change the map after every meeting, ten acres of middle school will be a park, so that ten acres could have been added to the category of parks. A portion of the high school site will be a park. So, again, don't get too hung up...I can tell you, when we created the less intense alternative, we did it in about 20 minutes for the purpose of analyzing in very general fashion something, another alternative in the General Plan. We made a lot of quick decisions just to get a variety of things for the EIR consultant to look at. 56 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 CF I guess this is at the point where...I know that we're working off of the staff recommended alternative where...I guess from the mixed use, the open space, and the residential use, this is where my preference definitely goes to the less intense use map because staff recommended is just too much. DT It seems to me, though, with the amount of land the City owns in this district, that there is some potential for the City to incorporate additional parks into there or engage in some type of swapping and so forth. And I believe that what we're again stating is that it looks like the City has the ability to do it. They weren't the strongest words stating we want that done, and there I would say the staff recommended alternative, except for the 25 acres for the community park, shows the better designation as regard to open space parks. (Inaudible) SC All in favor. JL Aye SC Aye Si Aye DT Aye SC All opposed? CF Opposed SC Okay, motion carries 4-1. CF The public facilities? You all know that that's what we need? We know they're going to take it if they need it. PD No, the one that's...the public facility that you see down right off of Cook Street next to the park, in my mind it's really part of the park, and it's really...additionally, that park may include child care, it may include a library. The public facility up at Gerald Ford and Portola is the one that's a little more problematic. It's a big piece of ground. The application originally asked for 57 l MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 it because he thought he was having a church there. It's a very specific designation that if you're stuck with it is, you know, I agree, there may be your open space. But again, I just carried forward what the applicant, the property owner, was requesting. There had been discussions at some time whether that would be commercial at that corner or more generalized commercial. There was some opposition at GPAC to have that commercial that was taken out. The alternative would be to designate those as residential, that whole corner as residential use because churches are a permitted use in a residential zone. Sc We don't want to go ahead and put one in the middle of a residential zone. PD Churches historically have been in residential zones. That's where churches are. They're usually at the perimeter of residential zones. That's where almost all churches are. So the answer is yes, we do want to put it there because that's historically where all churches have been. They're a community facility. SC (Inaudible) in that area would be fine... PD So the alternative to making that would be to extend the residential zones into it in some way, which would still give them the option because again...of a church making an application to go into a residential zone because the zoning ordinance allows it. So that would be an alternative to making that such a specialized designation...from the City's point of view we have no plans to do a public facility there, it would be one of these more...you know, again, it was thought of as a church location, but that's...typically in zoning, you don't go out and zone specific properties for churches unless you've got an actual application for a church. Si I would concur. I don't want to see us limit that pretty important corner to public facility, so I think extension of the residential use would give us flexibility. So as far as a general plan land use designation, I guess I would favor extending residential... PD Medium? (Inaudible) 58 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 Si Yeah. I've got to tell you, I mean, I think that there's a potential there for high density residential if there was to be, for example, if we ended up with a commercial activity right on the corner surrounded by high density then fading into medium, but I guess they can always come in and request a change. JL I wouldn't object to medium residential. PD Again, that could be another mixed use area. Si Good, I kind of thought about that and I didn't want to say that word, you know, but I do think mixed use can work there, again just giving us the flexibility depending on what design comes in. PD Well, the other thing is that's an area where I would like to see the park bigger. ?? Yeah, that park is shown pretty small. Si So whatever the wish of the Commission is, but I do think that public facility is not appropriate, so I guess I would change that to some form of residential or mixed use. DT At this time I could live with the residential. I don't know if I'd want mixed use right across from the high school, but it could be a possibility, again, if it's done right. Si I think just seeing maybe a little neighborhood market right on the corner. You'd have the high school there. (Inaudible) Si Going back to my younger days, yeah. I guess I wouldn't want to preclude it. It's probably design. I mean, that could be a gas station there, I don't know, or fast food, drive-thru. (Inaudible) SC Or you could go ahead and have medium residential or high density residential (inaudible) 59 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 SJ I guess I see a lot of possibilities there, and I don't want to preclude any of those possibilities, again, properly designed. I'll float it out there. I think it's appropriate for mixed use designation (inaudible) the only one. CIF Are you thinking that the park in that area needs to be expanded? Si Very possibly. I mean, again, let's say for example, somebody came in with high density there and they incorporated an extension of the park, that might sell me. Again, properly designed. Sc High density and a park, yes... Si And you've got high density on one side and medium on the other and then a park in between the medium...you know, there are some possibilities, and I think you're just...again, where I see mixed use coming in as an appropriate designation is where it's an area surrounded by a hodgepodge of uses, which is exactly what we have here. So, I'd suggest medium use instead of PF, public facility. CIF So just extending the medium use north. SC So then we can do without the one on the corner of Frank Sinatra and Cook, rig ht? Si I didn't hear the question. What? SC If you're making that mixed use, we'll go ahead and eliminate the one on Cook and Frank Sinatra. Si I didn't make that suggestion. No, I would just say replace the PF on the corner of Portola and Gerald Ford with MU. CF You're saying with mixed use now instead of medium density? Si Right, mixed use which would give us the ability to allow a combination of high density, maybe an extension of the park, maybe a commercial project right on the corner. Or if somebody came in with a medium density project, if it's appropriate, put it there, but...yeah, I'm suggesting mixed use for that corner. 60 t MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 SC I would rather see it medium density and high density in the back. CF Is that a second? SC Well, do we have a motion? Si I'll make it a motion, yes. SC Okay. JL Second. SC Discussion? DT The mixed use might work. I think the medium density across from the school. It's a tough one. I think it would have to be well designed and implemented properly, so if you're looking for that availability in the future, I would support the mixed use, although again, I think where it's going to be it has to be very well done. SC Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor. JL Aye SJ Aye DT Aye SC Opposed? CF Opposed SC Opposed (Inaudible) SJ Quick question for staff. There's another PF area designated on the northwest corner of Portola and Dinah Shore. PD No, that's an Edison site. That's an Edison transformer. 61 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 CF Okay. DT So we can't vote that out? PD Actually, we're trying to figure out a way to move somewhere because it's kind of in an odd location. CF Okay, so then the rest of the public facilities, the 58 acres and the 192 for the university? JL Do we have to have that university there? CF I'll just have a motion that we concur with that. JL Second SC Any discussion? All in favor. (All ayes) SC Opposed? None. Motion carries. CF Okay, so now we get to do the low density, medium density, and high density. SC Which one did you want to start out with? CF Well, I guess what I'd like to see is the medium density increased, the high density...medium and low increased, high density decreased, off of staff recommended alternative. Si (Inaudible) CF I'm looking for an increase in low density to the staff recommended and increase to medium and a decrease in high density. I think that... (Inaudible) CF I'm sorry, a decrease in high density. 62 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 (Inaudible) Si You're looking to target the less intense, more or less. CF I'd like to increase the low density and increase the medium density but decrease the high density. A perfect example is in that area, if we were to have 1 ,832 units, with a potential of more units in that mixed use, we'd be looking in that one area alone over 50% of the units of all residential would be high density. And I just think in that area that is way too dense. Si I guess what I'm asking is are you favoring the less intense alternative (inaudible) more or less? CF I'm favoring the less intense; however, you'll notice on the less intense the low density had reduction of roughly 100 units. Si That's right. CF And I would not want to see that. Si Okay. CF I like the fact that there's more medium density, but I still think we have too much of the high. So I'd like to pull some of the high and put it, I suppose, into the low. I guess what I'm looking at is around 1,000 acres of high density out of the 4,300. Si 1,000 units you mean? CF Yes. Sorry, yes, 1,000 units, yes. JL That would bring our total number of units actually below what is currently in the General Plan. PD Remember, you take a few acres out of high density, you lose lots of units. Remember...if your goal is to preserve open space and still provide housing for people, when you eliminate high density and spread the units out, you're eliminating open space, simple as that. The more you spread out housing, the more open space is destroyed in this valley. 63 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 CF I understand that, Phil. Sc To begin with, on Frank Sinatra and Cook, north of Frank Sinatra, where we were talking about the mixed use there on the corner of Cook... CF Right. Sc ...and eliminate that medium density and also I would like to eliminate in that area the medium density right on Portola right across from the low density on the west side, the little area right there. CF I'm not clear. SC Okay. Right at the end, then, of the golf course... CF Right. Sc ...you have the street and then you have medium density... CF Okay, so north of the golf course... Sc Right, I would eliminate that and make that low density and make the low density next to the mixed use right here too on the... CF Oh, I see, so the low density would flow... SC Right. CF ...diagonal. SC Right. CF And then what about the medium density that is just east of the low density? SC That would be behind the commercial there? CF Yes. SC Okay. 64 • F MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 CF Do you think that's an appropriate buffer? Sc Not that one, the other one. CF The other one. Okay, so I guess my concern is then we would have high density abutting low density. Sc No, there's no high density there. CF But...okay, I'm going up, I'm sorry. Okay, at the corner of Gerald Ford and Portola we did the mixed use, and east of the mixed use is high density. If we were to change that medium density to low density, then you would have high density abutting low density, correct? Sc No, I don't want the high density abutting low density. CF So we'd need to do something else in there. I mean I understand what you're saying about having that diagonal flow of the low density. My concern is the high density abutting the low density because I don't know what kind of low density development we'd get that would want to have housing backed up to apartments just due to the noise alone. SC And you can't have that because it's also going to be two stories probably. CF So we may need to have some buffer in there, a mixed use buffer. BH If I could just comment for a minute. There's a strong policy under State Planning Law at this point in favor of housing, and if we take actions to diminish the opportunities for providing housing, we run contrary to the trend and we have to make special findings under recent amendments that went into effect. Just keep that in mind. It would be somewhat more defensible overall at least if we maintain the current level of housing opportunities within the General Plan. CF But the current level of housing existing is 4,047, is that correct? PD Correct. For this area, although we've... CF And so we're not suggesting that we decrease it. 65 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 PD The suggestions...you only have to take out 10 or 15 acres of high density, and you've already accounted for 300 units, and if you're taking out what I describe as most of the medium and the high, then we're down to about 2,000 or 2,500 units probably. Again, what I heard Chairman Campbell describing would probably get us down to about 2,500 units. I saw almost...so again... CF Well, we just set aside the possibility with the public facility there at Portola and Gerald Ford for the possibility of more medium or even high density. PD No, but again, that is at the discretion of the property owner. We can't force them to... CF I understand that, but we can't force anybody to do anything. They can always ask for change of zone, so... PD But we don't have to grant it. We're designating what we feel is the appropriate mix and most importantly, relative to housing, what is the appropriate level or numbers or general range of housing. And remember, in the plan before you, five percent of the land area is high density. Now, it's very efficient. You're housing a lot of people in a very little piece of land. But again, it's not—you're talking about projects that are One Quail Place and less. In most jurisdictions now, high density is 40-50 units per acre. Our version of high is what many jurisdictions' version of medium, and our version of medium is what many jurisdictions now believe to be low. So it's a matter of efficiency of using the land you have to house reasonably the people you need to house. And, again, if you don't house them here, they will be housed somewhere else. DT (Inaudible) what the City Attorney said. Are we dealing with some number that is mandated by State, given the amount of land we're dealing with? PD There's a new State law that says if you act to decrease the amount of housing, if either the City does it or even if an applicant proposes it, even a property owner...we used to give people medals if they...if it was zoned for ten and they built two—that's now against State law. We have to designate...since it's acknowledged that people have to live somewhere, and if one community decides that we're not going to live here, then...again, it's a zero something game, people have to live somewhere. And so as part of their...the goal of having all communities bear their fair share of housing 66 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 needs, they're saying at least don't, when you submit a general plan or housing element which designates a certain amount of housing, once you've done it you can't decrease it. DT So in effect we are tied to some degree to that number that was derived in the previous general plan. PD Yes. CF We need to have at least 4,047 units, correct? PD Yes, and the housing needs to be a mix of types, consistent with meeting the needs of economic diversity... BH I wish, frankly, that we had gone over the housing element before we entered into this land use discussion because you'll see how, of all the elements in the general plan, one of the top two or three by which we are really constrained by State law is the housing element. And as you know the City has had to solve some housing issues over the last few years. The GPAC spent a lot of time on this, a lot of time on this, and there was not a universal agreement, as everyone knows. But there was also the discussion of the context that we have created for ourselves up in the north end, the tremendous infrastructure advantages, the accessibility, all these synergies that exist, and the need we have created as well to provide for housing because we are essentially continuing to generate a tremendous number of jobs in a range that cannot afford a lot of the houses we have available. We have...the preferred alternative is a substantial movement in that direction. The staff recommended alternative backs up substantially from that GPAC recommended alternative. I would, frankly, conferring on behalf of the City, would say that a further reduction in these medium and high density units in this area is counter to the overall feeling that the City has had, the overall trend of land use patterns here and the intensities of development, and the very facilities, physical and infrastructure facilities we have to serve this area. So with that in mind, I think you'd need to really think about how you proceed on this matter. JL Would it be appropriate to go through the housing element now? (Inaudible) 67 i r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 Sc But again... PD But this simple answer is...is that, and this is something that is coming down the line in the next housing element cycle, which is actually coming up on us very quickly, that in the last cycle we got off very easily. I kind of...they got the estimates on growth from me in determining what our housing need was for this housing element. The new cycle is coming from a fairly sophisticated housing forecaster based on the 2000 census. And the housing need numbers are going to be significantly larger than probably we've even accommodated in this plan. And in discussions with the State that we've had, when cities have said well gee whiz we don't have enough room left to build more housing, the State's response has been well that's the result of your bad planning, find a way to accommodate it, this is your fair share. Because, again, it goes back to the point that when you create jobs, you're creating a demand for housing. Those houses have to go somewhere, and the State is trying to make sure that every community shoulders their fair share. If every—and doesn't just push if off onto the County, which is another thing that's been happening traditionally. So...you know, that's kind of the short version of the housing element is that we've committed to, and the State is now mandating, that cities don't decrease the opportunities to build housing for...especially when you're the economic engine that's generating the need for it. Si Mr. Drell, the residential low density indicated south of Gerald Ford west of Portola that you marked off as formerly being designated for a golf course, is still owned by RDA, is that correct? PD Correct. Si Wouldn't RDA be more likely to develop high density than low density housing? PD It wasn't my assumption, or our assumption, the RDA would necessarily continue to own it. There have been all sorts of, actually, proposals to trade land and things like that. Unfortunately, the one property owner that I haven't heard from throughout this entire discussion is... Si RDA? PD ...the RDA. 68 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 Si But if we maintain a general plan land use designation of low, they, like any other developer, would have to come in and request a change of zone... PD Correct. Si ...and so forth and a change in the general plan to do anything differently than that. PD Correct. Sc I don't think Shadow Ridge would like high density right there next to them either. PD Remember, Shadow Ridge is high density. SC Well... PD They're the one with three-story residential units... (Inaudible) Si ...big area, though. Sc Okay, so the area there I was talking about with medium density up there on that corner, if we do that low density and then we can go ahead and change that area from high density then to medium density, and then all the high density on the east can go ahead and stay there because it would be across the street from whatever street... CF Are you suggesting that the guys maybe rethink their motion of the PF to mixed use and instead make that medium density? SC Well, that's what I was thinking to have it be for medium density and high density, that's what I wanted back there. CF Somehow I thought that's what you were thinking. Sc That's what I was thinking. DT I don't think you meant the guys, you meant the other Commissioners. 69 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 JL I think we've been living together too long here. Well, for the sake of conversation...okay. CF Okay JL Looking at the staff recommended alternative, land use pertains to the residential as...and I'll look first of all toward the area that's residential low density next to the park, golf course, Desert Willow III, whatever it's going to be. As you look at that particular area's focal point for me anyway, in looking at...it goes to medium density on almost all sides and then across the street you go to high density which we're going to need, and then across the street from Portola you have low density, across the street from that on Gerald Ford low density, then that transcends into medium as it gets down the business park there...I think the flow just makes sense as you look at it. I'm not looking at the numbers of units or the acreage, I'm just looking at the map itself and the layout of the property as it pertains...mixed use as we did on the corner there. All of the flow just makes sense as you look at and envision what will be developed in the future. You don't want to have, if at all possible, you don't want to have high density next door to low density, but in the case that you have a street that breaks it up, I don't think that's going to be a problem. And when you have commercial next to high density, that makes sense. When you look at how the whole area flows, it just makes an awful lot of sense on the staff recommended alternative. SC Okay, I don't have any problem with Gerald Ford and Portola on the west side. I think that's fine the way it is. My problem is where I was speaking right now is you know where Desert Willow would be, just that area, is just too much. You have a nice corner at Gerald Ford and Portola on the southeast without having high density right there too, and have the low density and medium density and the high density where it is and change the, again, the medium density where the mixed commercial is by Cook and Frank Sinatra to the northwest corner. That too low density. There's too much of a hodgepodge up there on the corner. Si I think I have to concur with Commissioner Lopez. The GPAC alternative came up with 6,000 residential units. The staff recommendation is for about 4,400, which is a significant reduction in the total number of units. The location of the high density residential in the staff recommended alternative to me is, I think, logical. For example, as we move east from Monterey, we've got high density residential next to regional commercial projects. 70 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 We've got it across the street from industrial business parks. As we continue past Portola, we've got it transitioning from medium density residential and abutting community commercial. So the areas designated as high density residential make sense to me. A part of me definitely wishes that we didn't have to have any high density residential because a part of me is aware that those tend to be the high crime areas. I remember a Biology project that I did as a kid, and the more densely you packed rats in a cage, I mean they started eating each other, becoming violent and so forth. And that has applied to human civilization. The more crowded and dense you put people in, the worse the situation. So, you know, part of me is, you know, scared of that aspect, and I think that there is some of that that we're all kind of thinking about. But I think that we'll be able to deal with that. I think that if we control the type and quality of high density residential, we can overcome many of the problems. I hope so. But I guess on the other side of the scale, we are creating demand for high density residential, not to mention residential units period. We're creating a university or enabling the creation of a university which, by the way, is a regional project. The university will serve the entire desert from, I think, all the way from Beaumont through to Mecca and possibly beyond. So there is joint and shared responsibility for meeting the demands that are created by that development, but at the same time I think the City of Palm Desert needs to do its share. The staff recommended alternative, in my mind, strikes a nice balance, is logically designed, and is one that I can support. DT I have a question. Having read so much and just being inundated with the reports and so forth, I'm confused by the comment that we haven't heard the housing element report. Could you clarify that? PD Well, we did, but we did it, like, a year and a half ago. Remember the first thing we did, we actually reviewed and certified and approved the housing element right at the beginning of the process because of the time line that we had the legal requirement we had to meet. And the housing element has not substantially changed since then, so...you could obviously read it on your own, it's in the document, and it's one that's technically already approved. So it's not...it's a very simple...you know, the State housing law is a very simple thing, and its objective is very simple, to try to get cities to house people. That's what cities are for. In finding the trend partly created by Prop 13, which makes housing not as revenue generous as other uses but to say that to balance that cities still have to have that publication. So that's really what's in the housing element. And then it was complicated by the fact that 71 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 in the interim the State law was passed that said what you commit to you can't change, you can't decrease, you can't lower your obligations at the very least. CIF I don't favor the staff recommended alternative for the main reason that, as I stated before, over 50 percent of the units in that area would be high density. I am concerned about traffic and the congestion. It's extremely too dense. I do prefer some version of the less intense plan, which actually results in 50 fewer units than the staff recommended. And the reason that I like the less intense plan is because of where they've located the high density, and it's less of it. Going back to the staff recommended alternative, the area east of Portola and south of Gerald Ford, to me all that orange is just way too much high density in that area. I feel that in the less intense use, you have high density spread out much better. The changes to the less intense use that I would make, though, would occur in the area just northeast of the proposed third Desert Willow where you see the low density, and I would make the change in there that, kind of south of the low density, I would increase the area of low density and then change the medium density going east again, include the high density in the medium density. Then when you move up on Gerald Ford, where you've got the big block of medium density, I would have some of that as high density residential. I don't know if I lost you all on that. Essentially, northeast of the third Desert Willow, where you see the low density, increase that to incorporate the medium density so that you have all low density bordering the golf course, then take that medium density... Si I lost you right there. You're saying change the low density or change the medium density? Sc Change the medium density. Si To low. CF To low. Si Okay. (Inaudible) 72 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 CF (Inaudible) portion thereof and make that high, and that way you eliminate that solid group of high density that I spoke of earlier east of Portola, south of Gerald Ford, but I believe the City still fulfilled its responsibility to provide housing, but I think that the key, at least for me, from the congestion and the traffic point of view, is to space it out. And I just feel that the less intense use did a better job of spacing out the high density. I think it did a fairly nice job of the medium density, and like I said,just that one little area to increase that to the low density, and then it kind of, I believe, would flow better than the staff recommended alternative. SJ Could I ask you something, then. If I'm reading you right, if we looked at the staff recommended alternative, what you're really doing is taking the big area of high density residential and breaking it up so that a part of it remains high density but a part goes to medium density? CF Yes. SJ I think if we look at the staff recommended alternative, that's really the only change to their plan is converting a part of that area from high to medium. PD If you look at the less intense alternative, its primary characteristic is it's dominated by medium density. The reason why we're able...the reason why the total number of units is the same, 4,300, is it's got less high density but it also has less low density, and it made it up with the medium. But if you...anytime...but if you...in our staff recommended alternative, the low density has already been increased substantially. The medium density has been decreased, but to maintain the 4,300 units, that's where the higher, the greater number of high density units. Anytime you increase the low density, the only way to maintain the units is to substantially increase the high density. And that's what we were trying to get away from. If you want to effectively decrease the high density and maintain the same number of units, you're going to have to decrease the low and increase the medium. CF But I'm already increasing the medium, Phil, because I'm looking at the less intense use, which deletes that acreage for that church area, and I would be making that medium density... PD But, again, that church...that still might be a church. 73 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 CF ...that portion high density. I know, but what I'm saying is you don't necessarily have to pull it out of low density, you can pull it out of that mixed use area where you have that flow as it's shown in the less intense use of medium, but then you take a portion of that, the upper portion, and you make that high density residential. So I think... PD Do you have a drawing you can show me? CF Yes, do you want... PD (Inaudible) Let's start with the staff recommended (inaudible) DT Should we take a five-minute break? Sc We're taking a five-minute break. PD I guess the other issue is that...back to the concept of a general plan...is that...another thing that impacts, especially the area of Frank Sinatra and Portola and Cook Street, is it's a hill. A good deal of real estate is going to be taken up by transition, flow transition because from the corner of Gerald Ford and Cook to the beginning of the golf course, which is about the peak of the slope, there's 80 feet of fall, 80 feet of rise. I believe the balance of the various categories, I think, is correct, whether there's going to be some tinkering with the distribution a little bit as Commissioner Finerty is describing. Si Let me ask you this. You know that large area that Commissioner Finerty was talking about that's all high, if we converted a portion of that to medium, can we make up for it...you see where you have low residential north of Gerald Ford, west of Portola... PD That property owner isn't here. Si Because, I mean, that's across from the school. I just wonder if we could...because I think breaking up the mass... PD Yeah...as you see...I will agree that the balance that you see in the less intense alternative is a balance I like better. It's got...it's more...and the reason is I do like single family neighborhoods as a rule, and whenever I can solve housing problems with single family neighborhoods I think that's a 74 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 positive. The problem is that the pressure from the current marketplace and what's easiest to develop is low density, short-term. And the balance that you see in that plan was, to a certain degree, driven to better accommodate today's...the demand from the property owner, the desire of the property owner is to build more low. And so, that's what drove the increase in the high density. If by expanding the medium into that area, I have no problem at all looking for other places to put high, as Commissioner Finerty has suggested, that a piece of that medium density south of...it would be 35`h and Dinah Shore, part of that can go to high to make up for the high that is converted to medium in the Cook Street area. That's...again, I agree with her that that mass of high between the Spine Road and Cook Street and Gerald Ford is a good candidate to reduce in size, with increasing the...and the nice thing about medium is, remember, apartments tend to be built in blocks. Medium, all you need is one street because medium is basically a single family conventional lot product. Si What's Indian Creek Villas? Is that medium density? PD That's medium, that's probably... Si In between medium and high. PD Yes, it's probably close...it's maybe 10 or 11 . SJ Yeah, you've got...but that would be on the upper end of medium. PD Upper end of medium... SJ ...lower end of high. PD ...yeah, lower end of high. DT What is Desert Rose, then? PD Desert Rose is at seven. Desert Rose is in the middle of medium. SJ And the difference there is that's single family residential, whereas Indian Creek Villas is two stories. ?? Fourplexes. 75 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 PD The difference is... SJ Yeah, two story fourplexes. It's pretty wide open, and it's a mixture of rental and ownership. PD Yeah, technically it's all...they're all condominiums, but a good percentage of the condominiums are rented. What medium...Desert Rose is a good example of medium. If we were to do that over again, I would find a way to detach them but build two stories and add...to get the size of what the marketplace wants and the product that's now being built... DT What is the procedure from here if I'm reading the Commission that you'd like to somehow break up that block of high without, again, playing with the totals. I mean, how much tinkering can we do here? PD Okay, what I suggest, and we've made progress today...we're going to have to come back next meeting anyway to finish the EIR and give you the final resolutions. We will work along the lines that Commissioner Finerty has described to break up the mass of the high over there and try to distribute it a little better, keeping the 4,300 units generally. And we can come back with maybe two or three more alternatives for the next meeting to adopt with—we will be bringing back to you the resolutions for both the general plan and the EIR, and we'll try to incorporate all the various changes you've already talked about in the text, with some alternative exhibits to attach to the resolution. SJ And our objective there will be to break up the large mass of high density residential between Cook and Portola and replace it somewhere probably north of Gerald Ford. PD Yes. SJ Okay. And to end up with at least somewhere around or between the mix in the less intense and the staff recommended alternatives. PD Correct. SJ Yeah, in that ballpark. PD About 4,300 units. 76 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 DT Just to completely muddle it up, though, let me state that I'm not opposed, that I'm not opposed to higher density going in closer to CalState. Again, done properly. I've heard some talk about the medium density that's north of Frank Sinatra there. In my mind, that might even be something to look at as far as high density. Even though the City's talking about a future golf course, the northeastern shown low density maybe might be better for medium or higher density. So I guess I'm saying that I agree with the overall concept. I think we're heading in the right direction, but I'm more open to where we break this up, space it out, given the confines that you're dealing with, though. PD We will get back together with the property owners again...believe it or not, I actually do try to accommodate them, and see if we can come up with some...a little bit of tweaking to accomplish those goals. Sc Okay, and so that will be on our next meeting, then. And it will be for 8:30 again in the morning. Because this evening, we're going to go ahead and resume just our regular public hearings. We're not going to be working on the general plan this evening. PD I don't think so, no. SC Okay. PD Well, it's 11:30. Sc It is 11:30. PD The only question is...we didn't go over the park and rec element. I don't know if you need to. You can just read it and if you have questions, maybe...but I don't think there's any... SC I think we discussed parks already too. PD Yeah, I don't think we need to deal with that any more. The same thing if you want to listen to the fiscal...basically it does a financial analysis of various....of the plan and how City revenues match potential costs. We're still projected at (inaudible) DT Is there anything new from what we've had in our reports. 77 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 PD No. DT Okay. SC Okay. Si Just one last thing. As you go back to the drawing board with the map, the area on the corner of Gerald Ford and Portola that we designated earlier as mixed use, I would still like to see mixed use on the very corner, but if you needed to take a portion of that square and make it high density or medium density or whatever, I can live with that. It's just the very corner that I would suggest remain mixed use. PD It's ten, we can make it five. Si If it works out. If you look at it and say no, that's (inaudible) CF Since you're coming with various alternatives, that could be one. PD Sure. CIF Okay. Are we adjourning until this evening? JL Quick question. The items that are on the staff report that was given to us that we did not get to...such as circulation (inaudible) cross section...it seems like that would require...some of these require action pending...some of the items that are action pending items...are we going to address that this evening or should we continue for another half hour and knock these things out? PD Why don't we try to knock those out. JL There are some things that are left...for instance, well the north district plan area... Si I do need to leave at 12 noon. JL And I do, too. 78 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 JC The remaining...well, first I should ask if there are any questions about the status on items that we identified that Planning Commission had taken action on. Any questions at all or corrections or anything of that sort? They run down to...well, starting in page 3, in order to address the issues of land use policy with regard to the Alessandro extension, you'll note that we drafted the policy and the program, which pretty much covers everything, and we're going to incorporate some of that language into the text of the General Plan land use element itself as well as the policies and the programs. The next issue, then, had to do with, that we hadn't taken action on... Si North District Planning Area? JC Yes, and maybe what we...rather than—maybe it might be best to skip directly to the circulation items rather than more of the land use items because on page 5...those we can knock out pretty simply, pretty quickly I think. The Public Works staff, Planning staff, and our consultant, we all worked together on the...looking again at the street cross sections and the circulation plan, and staff recommended some minor amendments to both the classification map and to the standards which have been incorporated in the materials you now have. I would ask that you find those acceptable so that they can be forwarded with the draft general plan to the City Council. CF On circulation, I'm not pleased with policy indicating that we're still accepting Level of Service "D". JC Right, that's the next item. CF Okay. JC This item is really just on the master circulation map. CF Okay, then I'd move for approval on that. JI Second. SC All in favor. All ayes SC Opposed? None. Motion carries. 79 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 JC Thank you. The next item, then, refers to the item that Commissioner Finerty was speaking to, and that has to do with trying to find a way of bridging this language between the standard that we ideally would like to have of LOS "C" while giving us enough flexibility with regard to the Level of Service "D"which is in many instances what we're probably going to end up with because of practical constraints. To address that, what we did was we modified or provided modified language for the policy, and then for the Policy 1 and Policy...or actually, I should say Program 1A. No, I guess it's Policy 1A. Essentially, the City will make a good faith effort to achieve Level of Service "C" along roadway segments and for peak hour intersection operations and LOS "D" shall be acceptable in instances where or when physical constraints, land use compatibility, or other urban design considerations make achieving LOS "C" impracticable, it should say. DT I think we're playing with semantics. I think, given the previous reports and the traffic studies, this is probably the best we can hope for. Strong statement saying we want Level "C" but we acknowledge that Level "D" sometimes because of certain constraints will have to be accepted. And I think that's just a terrible reality, but it is that. CF You know, our neighboring cities like Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage, they're at Level of Service "C". JC I'm sorry, I didn't... CF Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage, aren't they at LOS "C"? JC LOS "D". CF They're at "D"? When did that change? JC When we did Rancho Mirage's general plan, it was adopted Level of Service "D" as an acceptable Level of Service. CF I know La Quinta went to "D", but I'm just not ready to drop our standards and quality of life. JC No, I understand what you're...the dilemma. 80 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 PD You know, the issue is that having 8-10 lane arterials, even if it's achieving Level "C" for overall quality of life is not necessarily the case. There are other urban design considerations. We're not going to have...we're not going to interlace this entire valley with freeways just to achieve Level "C". There are other urban considerations other than traffic, and that's what's being acknowledged here. JC These are also peak period... SC Peak period (inaudible) JL The language that's incorporated more specifically in Policy 1A and in general in Policy 1 is basically (inaudible) instructed staff to do. That was the language that basically (inaudible) good faith efforts to achieve Level of Service "C". Impractical it was "D". CF I thought we had said that Level of Service "D" would be acceptable in peak hours. JC That's correct. CF And I don't see anything about peak hours, but I see a lot of wiggle room on other urban design considerations and physical constraints and land use compatibility, and I was under the impression we were dealing with just peak time. I think that's what I had heard Mark Greenwood say, that that's when we would be having the problems staying at Level of Service "C". JC That's correct, and the wording references maintaining during the worst time of the day, the most heavy traffic periods, that our good faith effort would continue to be "C", but the default would be permissible at "D". And that would be during the worst, heaviest, travel times of the day. CF But it says that "D" is acceptable when physical constraints, land use compatibility, or other urban design considerations...) just think, why do we even need that sentence? PD Because that is a decision that we make where to achieve Level "C", we have to say put in 8 or 10 lanes, well no, at this location we don't want to be running a 10-lane highway across in front of an elementary school. Or again, there are other quality of life criteria that we use other than traffic, and when 81 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 the requirements of achieving Level "C" start impinging on those other ones, then that's when you make that decision to say well in this case, we'll accept Level "D". CF I know, but I don't...the direction that we gave back at, I guess this was at our November 181h meeting, this is at least when the first Policy 1A was given to us, that's the date on it, I don't see hardly any difference between that and the new Policy 1A dated December 2"1. It's almost word for word. JC I did my best. CF I don't doubt that you did do your best, John. I'm just saying that I remember my concept of the direction we gave, which may be different than the other Commissioners' concept, but I'm not seeing much change in language. Maybe a few words were taken out and maybe two or three were changed, but that's it. JC Well, it's a short policy, so if you have some specific language in mind that you'd like me to try to work in here, I'll be glad to try and do that. CF Well, I would just like to take out the second sentence. When we say the City shall make good faith efforts to achieve Level "C", fine. We're not...we're making the good faith effort, that's true. I strongly disagree where we say that Level of Service "D" shall be acceptable in instances. We've got too much wiggle room in there where we can just slack off and allow, you know, Level of Service "D" to exist. Si What if instead of saying acceptable we said allowed. CF It's the same difference. Si Well, I think the word acceptable implies maybe what you don't like, which is it's acceptable. PD Maybe we should change it to tolerated. JC Or can't we just get along with a Level of Service (inaudible) DT This has to be a tradeoff. There is no perfect solution to this. If you want Level "C", you're going to be talking about taking some roads and making 82 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2. 2003 them 8-10 lanes. The reality is we would never allow that. Since traffic is going to flow where it wants to flow, no matter what kind of barricades you put up, we're going to live at times with Level "D" and I'm even sorry to say there are Level "F's" going on in the City right now. So we can play with this all we want to, but it's going to be a fairy tale. The truth of the matter is, the reality is going to dictate to us that we have to live with certain traffic problems so that we don't impact other quality of life that we also find highly desirable. JC And the purpose of the language was in fact to put the decision makers like you on the hook rather than to give you an out, both sides actually, so you have to rationalize why you are finding, you know, the LOS "D" to be acceptable in a given situation. CIF Why did you take out the part at community build out levels? PD Because we should be achieving...our goal is to achieve it all times, not just at build out. I mean, basically, by taking it out it means it applies always. I took that out because, again, to me our goal is not to say oh well, we'll be suffering until we get to build out and then we'll fix it at build out. The goal is to...should be occurring uniformly throughout time, not just at the end. DT I would make a motion that we approve the Policy 1A as stated by the staff. JL I'll second it. Sc Any discussion? Okay. All in favor? JL Aye SJ Aye SC Aye DT Aye SC Opposed? CF Opposed 83 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 Sc Motion carries 4-1. JC The next item had to do with concerns that the Public Works staff had about the truck route policies, so you see we've abbreviated it and added language regarding major roadways to the greatest extent practicable. And as Mark can speak to the issue, there are limits on what the City can do to control this sort of thing, but rather than being specific to streets, they felt this gave them more latitude to manage the situation. DT I'd make a motion to approve it. Si Second. All ayes Sc Opposed? Carries. JC Next item is really an information item. Again, it had to do with the widening of Monterey Avenue to six lanes. There is a program to do that, and as you also know, our neighbor next door, Rancho Mirage, is about to engage in a focus study. It's really more of an information item than anything else. This is also true of the Portola Avenue interchange. Si Do you need action on Monterey Avenue? JC No, not actually. Si Okay, it's just for our... JC Yes. Si Alright. JC Further discussion if you'd like. Staying with Portola Avenue, this is a project that the City is moving forward with with CalTrans and with the County, and it will greatly enhance our access and improve circulation in that active area in the north end. Si And eventual, in terms of a connection to Interstate 10, means five-year time horizon? 84 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 JC That's a very good question. Given the current budget constraints, it could be, easy, a ten-year wait before we saw approaching a development phase on that. Si Is that out best guess at this point? JC It is my best guess based on mostly the funding constraints we have at the moment. We've lost out STIP money pretty much universally and it's going to be...other projects are in the pipeline right now for interchange monies under the CVAG TUMF program. In response to concerns raised about how do we manage the streets being torn up by utility providers, we added a policy that the City shall confer and coordinate with utility providers regarding work on utility infrastructure within the City street rights of way and shall monitor traffic control and construction repair to assure minimum traffic disruptions and acceptable pavement restoration. And you can see we have a program to effectively make sure that happens, and we have named all the potentially guilty parties. CF Do you want action on that one? JC Please CF Okay, move for approval. JL Second Sc All in favor All ayes SC Opposed? None. Motion carries. JC Finally, we...at the request of, I think it's a staff person, we have, regarding some of the social programs, in this case child care services, it was requested if we could add something explicit to the...and we're proposing, I think, for the public facilities, services and facilities element, a new policy that would state that, quote, the City shall encourage the availability of adequate, convenient, affordable child care which is accessible to all economic segments of the community, and the program that in consultation with service providers, the City shall proactively participate in planning and 85 i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 coordination that improves and expands the availability of child care services in the community. And that requires action on your part. DT That is such an innocuous kana (sp?) that it's hard to argue with; however, I have a couple of questions. The first one is what does it mean, both dollar wise, and does it then state that essentially we're going to have more lenient zoning for child care facilities or allow them in the neighborhoods or what exactly does it mean? JC It means that the City is on record that they recognize the importance of child care and when there are opportunities to facilitate its development in an appropriate manner, that the City will actively engage in helping to facilitate that sort of thing. DT And why is that a part of the Planning Commission...Planning thing...plan, and then also, again, go back to what does it mean? More lenient zoning? Does it mean expansion of dollars? JC It may mean neither of those things. It may mean simply that Community Development staff or Social Services staff in the City are more actively engaged in assessing and, you know, for instance the City supports programs...the YMCA, which is hosted in the City and has child care programs all over the Valley. The City has and can continue to actively facilitate those being available. And it doesn't necessarily mean additional staff or additional monies, but there are programs already where the City does help, and it was thought by staff that maybe we should be official about it and go on record as a policy for the General Plan. DT Are there other quality of life policies we want to incorporate, then, at the same time into this or... JC In regard to other issues, I think throughout the General Plan, we have... ?? Lots of them. JC ...a lot of quality of life items, and this is just kind of one of those little niches that we didn't really focus on a lot in the public services and facilities. DT So essentially we're adding something that we may have (inaudible) 86 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 JC Exactly PD And most directly, we're engaged right now in a nexus study for a potential development fee for child care, and as part of that, they're doing a master plan, and in order to do that sort of thing, you have to then...it has to be reflected in your general plan. Whatever you do, new fees or new impact policies, you have to support that with something that's in your general plan. CF Okay, so developers that want to put forth an application in the City, they're going to be asked to put up a fee for child care, like they do for art in public places? PD We're doing a study to see if that's appropriate. This is something that was initiated by the Council, and it is on the table...that is what the study is about. But part of it they're doing a whole master plan of trying to be proactive in promoting child care. CIF But we are proactive (inaudible) at Desert Rose, right? We have child care there. PD We went and built a child care center, yes. SC So then we would be looking at high densities to have a child care facility in high density areas? PD The plan does show...that's what that PF is on that plan...a potential use in PF areas is child care, yes. I mean, we have child care over here in the Park. The Park & Rec, so yes. SC Right. Si I guess what I'm having a problem with, I certainly don't take any issue with the City adopting a policy of encouraging or facilitating, you know, child care, but I'm having trouble seeing where that fits into the General Plan. You know, unless we're going to create a use designation or... PD No, there's a lot more to the General Plan than the land use. If you look at all the elements, there are all sorts of general administrative policies that have nothing to do with land use or... 87 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 Si Well, but they do. PD No, for example we have a policy relative to the ratio of police to the population. It's not a land use issue, it's a...the General Plan is not just a land use document. It goes...if you read through a lot of the elements, a lot of them have relationships to land use but a lot of the policies are more general City administrative. Si I see what you're saying. JC And they range even as far afield, if you will, as arts and culture, where the City's very actively engaged because it's been part of the quality of life, so... Si I see what you're saying. Thank you. JL I'd move for approval. DT Second Sc All in favor All ayes Sc Opposed? None. Motion carries JC It's noon, as you can tell by the bells. Ask not for whom the bell tolls. And have we decided whether we are going to continue the item to this evening or to next... SC No, we're going to continue to next... JC Next hearing. Sc Yeah, the next hearing, the next meeting will be... CF The 16' Sc The 16' at 8:30. JC That's all I have, then. 88 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 SC Okay. CF Motion to adjourn to tonight at 6? 1 guess that's what we're doing? SC Second JL We're meeting tonight? JC And you want to continue this item to your... CF We just adjourned. JC You need a motion to continue. CF Okay, a motion to continue the General Plan public hearing until December 161h at 8:30 SC Second. All in favor. All ayes Sc All opposed. Motion carries CF I'll move to adjourn. JL Second. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, by minute motion, continuing GPA 01-04 to regular meeting on December 16, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. Motion carried 5-0. V. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Finerty seconded by Commissioner Tschopp,,adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting w5s MotwneAt 12:0 p. . PHILIP DRELL, cretary ATTEST: SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission 89 . POSTED AGENDA ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - DECEMBER 2, 2003 8:30 A.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER • 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Any person wishing to discuss any item not otherwise on the Agenda may address the Planning Commission at this point by stepping to the lectern and giving his/her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Planning Commission. IV. PUBLIC HEARING Any person wishing to discuss any item not otherwise on the Agenda may address the Planning Commission at this point by stepping to the lectern and giving his/her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Planning Commission. A. Case No. GPA 01-04 and the Draft Environmental Impact Report as it relates thereto - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of a Comprehensive General Plan Update and the Draft Environmental Impact Report as it relates thereto. Recommended Action: Move by , second by , by minute motion, continuing GPA 01-04 to regular meeting on December 16, 2003. V. ADJOURNMENT Move by second by , adjourning the meeting by minute motion. POSTED AGENDA PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary of the City of Palm Desert Community Development Department, do hereby declare that the foregoing agenda for the Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, December 2, 2003, was posted on the bulletin board by the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, on Wednesday, November 26, 2003. Dated: November 26, 2003 TONYA MONROE, Administrative Secretary City of Palm Desert, California ✓ 4 University Park- Preferred Alternative D7�• /n/d2//� r GENERAL PLAN LANDUSE ITEXT ACRES BLDG SQ FT UNITS Commercial, Community C-C 75 813,153 - Commercial, General C-G 45 489,937 - Commercial, Neighborhood C-N 9 101,262 - Commercial, Office Professional C-OP - _ _ Commercial, Regional C-R 215 2,342,220 - 10 — -I— .003 Commercial, Resort C-RS 328 3,569,089 - Industrial, Business Park I-BP 275 2,993,576 - S+a��r �Qe�p-F- Lbocc Industrial, Light I-L - - _ Mixed Use MU Open Space, Parks OS/PP j 180 - Open Space, Public Reserves OS/PR 21 - - Open Space, Park/School P/S - Public/Quasi-Public Facilities PF 241 - - Residential, Low Density R-L 292 - 877 Residential, Medium Density R-M 268 - 1,876 Residential, High Density R-H 181 - 3,255 Study Area S _ _ - TOTALS 2,129 10,309,237 6,008 10/20/2003 l niversity Park Staff Recommended Altern( GENERAL PLAN LANDUSE TEXT ACRES BLDG SQ FT UNITS Commercial, Community C-C 35 379,855 - Commercial, General C-G - - - Commercial, Neighborhood C-N - - - Commercial, Office Professional C-OP 14 150,400 - Commercial, Regional C-R 275 2,990,506 - Commercial, Resort C-RS 307 3,338,323 Industrial, Business Park I-BP 328 3,567,028 - Industrial, Light I-L - - - Mixed Use MU 32 172,362 286 Open Space, Parks OS/PP 188 - - Open Space, Public Reserves OS/PR 8 - - Open Space, Park/School P/S - - - Public/Quasi-Public Facilities PF 266 - - Residential, Low Density R-L 448 - 1,344 Residential, Medium Density R-M 131 - 919 Residential, High Density R-H 102 - 1,832 Study Area S 4 - - TOTALS 2,137 10,598,474 4,381 10/20/2003 University Park- More Intense GENERAL PLAN LANDUSE JTEXT I ACRES BLDG SQ FT I UNITS Commercial, Community C-Cj319 1,251,305 - Commercial, General C-G - _ Commercial, Neighborhood IC-N142,412 - Commercial, Office Professional C-OP126,875 Commercial, Regional C-R2,454,792 - Commercial, Resort C-RS3,471,516 - Industrial, Business Park I-BP2,006,403 - Industrial, Light I-L 1,693,693 - Mixed Use MU - _ Open Space, Parks OS/PP 217 Open Space, Public Reserves OS/PR 12 - Open Space, Park/School P/S 206 Public/Quasi-Public Facilities PF - A7,376 Residential, Low Density R-L 292 Residential, Medium Density R-M 176 Residential, High Density R-H 293 Study Area s _TOTALS 2,220 1 11,146, 10/20/2003 University Park-Less Intense d GENERAL PLAN LANDUSE ITEXT ACRES I BLDG SQ FT UNITS Commercial, Community C-C 102 1,111,222 - Commercial, General C-G - - - Commercial, Neighborhood C-N 11 114,287 - Commercial, Office Professional C-OP 47 509,856 - Commercial, Regional C-R 245 2,664,081 - Commercial, Resort C-RS 319 3,471,516 - Industrial, Business Park I-BP 173 1,880,195 - Industrial, Light I-L 156 1,693,236 Mixed Use MU - - _ Open Space, Parks OS/PP 211 - - Open Space, Public Reserves OS/PR 25 Open Space, Park/School P/S 206 - Public/Quasi-Public Facilities PF - _ _ Residential, Low Density R-L 414 - 1,242 Residential, Medium Density R-M 199 - 1,618 Residential, High Density R-H 82 - 1,471 Study Area S - - _ TOTALS 2,188 11,444,393 4,331 10/20/2003 UNIVERSITY PARK- EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LANDUSE 1995 ACRES BLDG SQ FT UNITS COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL 618 6,727,327 - DISTRICT COMMERCIAL 47 515,076 - LOW DENSITY 668 - 2,004 PARK 170 - - PUBLIC FACILITIES (CAL STATE) 192 - - RESIDENTIAL STUDY ZONE (RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY) 10 - 180 RESIDENTIAL STUDY ZONE (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) 131 1,426,590 - RESORT COMMERCIAL (MARRIOTT TIME SHARE) 307 - I - TOTALS 2,143 1 8,668,993 1 2,184 10/21/2003 DI P L �P YIVERSITYP�4RIfV General Pfau 2000 Staff Recommended Alternative u (l D IlEDR os/PR w � uENERAL PLAN 2000 �► R-M LANDUSE CODES Residential Land Uses Desert Estates(R-DE)0-1 du/10 ac R-L Hillside Reserve(R-HR)1 du/5 ac Low Density(R-L)0-4 du/ac O R-� /-6P Medium Density(R-M)4-10 du/ac PF High Density(R-H)10-22 du/ac pF Commercial/Industrial/Business Land Uses Regional Commercial(C-R) P Community Commercial(C-C) R-B R R--L General Commercial(C-G) PF OW Neighborhood Commercial(C-N) Resort se ��AD FORD DIR Mixed (MU)-Commercial/High Density b(R-H)10-22 du/ac Office Professional(C-OP) PF Office Professional(C-OP)/High Density(R-H)10-22 du/ac Industrial-Business Park(I-BP) - ,♦; Industrial-Light(I-L) Rrf ♦ �a Other Land Uses `♦' , Public/Quasi-Public Facilities(PF) ♦. � Open Space-Parks(OS/PP) 0 Open Space-Public Reserves(OS/PR) Open Space-Private(OS/PV) R-L Open Space-Waterway(OS/FW) R-L /FM OHO Freeway(FWY) =Study Area N p�♦� PF W+E p MI% ♦� - -- ... ♦ ♦ 'C-ATS Feet fi�I�NK /Jlfi�ITIGI DJ[ ® RL �� l� 1 O/2O/O3 R-L R LR-L R-L -% R-LR LR�L R-L R-L R-L /L E �10 K UNIVERSITY PARK 1 General Plan 2000 R-L Preferred Alternative 1 •Ai 1 h'n aNrMM�Yt°.. R M R-f1 D H IEED4 "1 OS/PR ' R M - -� R-M GENERAL PLAN 2000 �o LANDUSE CODES � Residential Land Uses R--L Desert Estates(R-DE)0-1 du/10 ac Hillside Reserve(R-HR)1 du/5 ac 0 Low Density(R-L)0-4 du/ac Medium Density(R-M)4-10 du/ac P High Density(R-H) 10-22 du/ac OS/PRO Commercial/Industrial/Business Land Uses R--M 11111111111Ij Regional Commercial(C-R) PF Community Commercial(C-C) Per General Commercial(C-G) RJ Neighborhood Commercial(C-N) 'w D CIEE. V row Resort Commercial(C-RS) C-OP OS/PR Office Professional(C-OP) OS/PV Office Professional(C-OP)/High Density(R-H)10-22 du/ac Industrial-Business Park(I-BP) Industrial-Light(I-L) Other Land Uses Public/Quasi-Public Facilities(PF) t ��► Open Space-Parks(OS/PP) jam' ! R M Open Space-Public Reserves(OS/PR) 0 C Open Space-Private(OS/PV) �' GRS R-L ~ Open Space-Waterway(OS/FW) C-C Freeway(FWY) ILI O* N PP W r OS/PP C-G cs R-L R-L s R-L R-L C_HS 0 1,00=��00 _ Feet 6 �CAX47M DR YR G iA'i1lM 11Ri1 R L i IR 10/20/03 R-L C-RS R-L R LR-L C- R-LR-LR-L R-L R-L R-L R �� � r e� ,_ ��c�� S tl ���� �� °maw' I_L T lD a/ a3 R M U/YIYE I PARK General Plan 2000 wr FWY C (D PY R-L More Intense R-L r �.y � Ilp ` .GR GR R-M R-M R-H I BP OS/PR R-H ' I-BP R-M R_H R-H R"L R L R-MR-M R-Pl ? R-L I-BP R-H GENERAL PLAN 2000 C-G R-H LANDUSE CODES W FLVYFwr R-L Residential Land Uses W I--L R-H R-L I-L Desert Estates(R-DE)0-1 du/10 ac Jr-BF 1-HP I-BP Hillside Reserve(R-HR)1 du/5 acR-H Low Density(R-L)0-4 du/ac l BP R M PP l_l, OS/PR Medium Density(R-M)4-10 du/ac C_C Y-M OS/PP OS/PR R-H OS/PV High Density(R-H)10-22 du/ac R-L Commercial/Industrial/Business Land Uses R-M C-G I L -Regional Commercial(C-R) GG Community Commercial(C-C) I_L -General Commercial(C-G) C-N R-H C"ly I-L -Neighborhood Commercial(C-N) 7 [) P' Cr,,;AID 170 t) 17: I BP FWY Resort Commercial(C-RS) C-OP OS/PR Office Professional(C-OP) Office Professional(C-OP)/High Density(R-H)106,&ac R--H C-G OS/PV Industrial-Business Park(I-BP) Industrial-Light(I-L) Jtther Land Uses S R H C-C .� !-BP Public/Quasi-Public Facilities(PF) t` C-G Open Space-Parks(OS/PP) "" R M r�Open Space-Public Reserves(OS/PR) C-G 1 `s;, Open Space-Private(OS/PV) ! R L ,��� -Open Space-Waterway(OS/FW) GRS If-BP (FWY) z' ,') FWY I-BP R h r) PUT N P/S ^� F ? ..Z W (/�Ir I-BP vv R--L R--L R-M s OS/PP R-L R-L 0 1,000 2000 R M C-RS F Feet RAWA%�IV-I TRI A O R-L _ -t�,�" �',�7.1 itZ-1 t� R L MmVlKRAY,4 RA 0.7 10/20/03 R-L OS/PV C-G C-RS OS/PP C-RS It L R-LR"L C RS R LR LR-L K R--L R-L / UMVERSITYPARIC Q � L v /1 General Plan 2000 /CJ Less Intense ?� rN,4 R-L / R-M R-M R-M OS/FR D H REDR 0S/FK R-fi( r. GENERAL PLAN 2000 R-L LANDUSE CODES Residential Land Uses Mountain Estates(R-ME)0-1 du/20 ac Desert Estates(R-DE)0-1 du/10 ac Hillside Reserve(R-HR)1 du/5 ac 0 Low Density(R-L)0-4 du/ac Medium Density(R-M)4-10 du/ac _ pF High Density(R-H)10-22 du/ac -L Commercial/Industrial/Business Land U R-L , —Regional Commercial(C-R) R L Community Commercial(C-C) —General Commercial(C-G) Neighborhood Commercial(C-N) Resort Commercial(C-RS) GE RALD DIR Office Professional(C-OP) 0S/1W Office Professional(C-OP)/High Density(R-H) Industrial-Business Park(I-BP) RM Industrial-Light(I-L) , } )ther Land Uses P/S iW Public/Quasi-Public Facilities(PF) Open Space-Parks(OS/PP) R-L Qd F Open Space-Public Reserves(OS/PR) Open Space-Private(OS/PV) R-L O -Open Space-Waterway(OS/FW) Freeway(FWY) N p/S W+L v S R-L R-L AT-M R--L R-L 0 1,000 2.000 R-M Feet T OR .R L fi�Il� R L AUA6/1 I/A(ArRA DR 10/20/03 R L R LR-L R-L R-LR LR�L R-L R L R-1 U1D/a�17Y )3 d J; PARK k COF) l L r General Plan 1995 Existing GENERAL PLAN 1995 LANDUSE CODES j: Residential Land Uses LOW DENSITY 3-5 Du/Ac. D/A�is/yODR RESIDENTIAL STUDY ZONE Commercial/Industrial/Business Land Uses r< COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT COMMERCIAL RESORT COMMERCIAL Other Land Uses ro PUBLIC FACILITIES PARK i i, iO/RD At io/RD Ole CAL e STATE USB w�e u EMERALD s DESERT COUNTRY 0�1, 000 2.000 CLUB Fit i"AR OR i/PM)KI/A fAT/i!4 10/21/03 RECEIVED JAMES MCDOWELL 2003 74082 CHINOOK CIRCLE ' `y PALM DESERT, CA 92211-2076 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 760.773.3206 "ITY OF PALM DESERT ca2macs@,juno.com October 21, 2003 Mr. Philip Drell DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-0611 Re: Shepherd Lane - Planning/Redevelopment Dear Mr. Drell, Due to late unforseen circumstances I was unable to attend the meeting of the Planning Commission that was held on October 7, 2003. 1 was able to attend the meeting held this morning, and unfortunately for me the discussions at hand did not include the University Park area that includes Shepherd Lane. In prior discussions with you about proposed changes you indicated that Shepherd Lane would be opened up as a through street from Portola in the vicinity of the homes known as "Olive Grove" all the way to Frank Sinatra Drive. As of this date Shepherd Lane dead ends at Petunia Place going north from Frank Sinatra. I want to go on record opposing the opening of Shepherd Lane as you have proposed for the following reasons: I. The development of vacant land parcels north of Woodward Drive, south of Gerald Ford, east of Marriott's Shadow Ridge, and west of Portola means there will be hundreds of new homes built in this area. As a result a horrendous number of motor vehicles will have access to their homes by using Shepherd Lane, 2. Portola will become a very congested street much like Monterey. In order to avoid heavy traffic buildups, drivers going south on Portola intending to make a right turn onto Frank Sinatra would most likely turn into Shepherd Lane and use it as a conduit to go west on Frank Sinatra.. Philip Drell Page 2. 3. Congestion will also become more apparent at the intersection of Portola and Frank Sinatra. This too will influence drivers to use Shepherd Lane as an alternate route who will be going north on Portola to bypass the intersection noted above. Mr. Drell, I live at the corner of Chinook Circle and Shepherd Lane. There is little traffic now in this area. With your plans to open Shepherd Lane as a through street you are going to create a nightmare in the future years for all the residents who now live north of Frank Sinatra up to Petunia Place. So why would you recommend disturbing a peaceful and quiet area to become an area laden with traffic day and night. Your consideration in not opening up Shepherd Lane to through traffic as you have proposed would be very much appreciated. I might add I have discussed this matter with other residents, and they too are opposed to this change. Sincerely, mes dOe Copy to: ,j Sonia Campbell, Chairperson, Planning Commission *ATER � ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGcwCY o` IDfSTRIbi COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058•COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236•TELEPHONE(760)398-2651 •FAX(760) 398-3711 DIRECTORS: OFFICERS: JOHN W.McFADDEN,PRESIDENT STEVEN B.ROBBINS, PETER NELSON,VICE PRESIDENT GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TELLIS CODEKAS JULIA FERNANDEZ,SECRETARY RUSSELL KITAHARA October 16, 2003 DAN PARKS,ASST.TO GENERAL MANAGER PATRICIA A.LARSON REDWINE AND SHERRILL,ATTORNEYS File: 1150.06 Corporate Limits Phil Drell Community Development Director `- T City of Palm Desert ' 1 ,�� y: 73-5 10 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 r Z . 3 DFVPLOPAf- Dear Mr. Drell: )r'PALM, '1 ME;r, Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Update for the Comprehensive General Plan for the City of Palm Desert The District has received your request for comments dated September 16, 2003, regarding the above-mentioned project. Our comments are as follows: 1. Paragraph 1, page II-11, Water Quality, needs to be amended to read: Some portions of the Coachella Valley groundwater basin are contaminated with increased levels of nitrate. Possible sources of this nitrate contamination include the application of fertilizers on golf courses and farms and effluent from septic tanks and wastewater treatment plants. 2. Paragraph 5, page III-86, Groundwater Replenishment, needs to be amended to read, "The facility, which began operation is 1995, and expanded in 1998, has successfully recharged 12,685 acre-feet of water use as of August 2003." 3. Paragraph 2, page III-87, Groundwater Replenishment, needs to be amended to add, "The San Diego Water Authority is also an agency listed in the Quantification Settlement Agreement." 4. Paragraph 1, page III-89, Water Quality, needs to be amended to read, "Possible sources of this nitrate contamination include the application of fertilizers on golf courses and farms and effluent from septic tanks." TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY �t Of Phil Drell -2- October 16, 2003 The District has no further comments. If you have any questions please call Dan Charlton, Stormwater Engineer, extension 2316. Yours ery y, Steve Robbins General Manager-Chief Engineer DC:1 es\eng\sw\oct\eir-pd COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Sue Fairfield 73969 Krug Avenue RECEIVED `�-.+ };D Palm Desert, CA 92260 October 16, 2003 ` Iq 2003 ,!,WVNITY DEVELOP11ENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF RUM DESERT Ms. Sonia Campbell, Chairperson City of Palm Desert Planning Commission RE: Portola Avenue/Fred Waring Rezoning to Small Professional Buildings Dear Ms. Campbell: I attended the meeting on October 7th regarding the above referenced rezoning issue on Portola Avenue. After hearing many of the developers and residents speak at the meeting, I would like to re-state my concerns regarding the Portola Avenue rezoning. I have lived in Palm Desert since 1967 and have seen the City go through many changes. I am very concerned about the direction the City is taking on this rezoning proposal. Since 1979, I have lived in the Portola/Rutledge area and currently live on east end of Krug Avenue. The back of my house, bedroom and kitchen windows, face southeast toward Rancho Road, Fred Waring and Portola Avenue. My backyard view currently overlooks the back roofs of the two end houses on the section of Portola included in the area being discussed for this rezoning. I do not want to have my mountain views ruined by looking at an office building(s), nor do I think it would be wise for professional buildings to be built in a well-established residential/school area. Ms. Campbell, would you vote for a small professional building erected behind your home in Palm Desert.. I don't think so 1 think you would want the development being planned near your home to be consistent with your neighborhood and that is what I want If you re-study the colored maps sent us, you will note that everything north of Fred Waring between our neighborhood, including the Hovley Lane area, to Country Club Drive, is low and medium residential with two schools and parks interspersed. It is a nice mix neighborhood, but currently without any office buildings, except for the City Council and Sheriff's Department at the south end of the Civic Center Park. J As I stated at the meeting, if you drive down Fred Waring from Portola to Highway III, you will notice many of the office buildings (a 2 story at San Pascual, the 2 story on the corner of Monterey, and the old "Pier One" building sitting vacant) all advertising office space for lease, plus 3-4 vacant lots with signs advertising office buildings being built. Do we really need to rezone this small strip at Portola and Fred Waring for more office buildings; I think not. I respectfully request that the Planning Commission take another look at this area and rethink this rezoning issue. I do have some sympathy for these property owners, but they chose to buy their current homes on Portola, just as I chose to buy my home in my great little neighborhood in the Vineyards area. If the City chose to help these owners by buying their property, one solution might be to re-landscape this area with desert landscaping, including trees and a nice wall, possibly with a mural and/or a sculpture. It might improve the look of Portola at this corner, as was done on Fred Waring. I do not agree with Mr. Drell's statement to me at the hearing, "be careful what you wish for" regarding the increased noise without some structures to buffer the noise. And quite frankly, I could live with a little more noise than an office building near my backyard. I think it would be poor planning to rezone a well-established residential area so that developers can erect ANOTHER office building! And if the land was behind your home property, I don't think you or Mr. Drell would welcome a rezoning proposal that might allow an office building built in your backyard. Please carefully look at this Portola rezoning issue again. Do not let this current proposal pass, which would diminish the property values of the homes next to this site, as well as affect our quality of life in this part of the City. Put yourself as a Palm Desert homeowner in my place. Would you want an office building that close to your home and the view out your backyard? Please don't let the developers fill in every corner of our desert with commercial buildings, a sea of homes and other commercial centers; leave us some beautiful open desert space. I appreciate your efforts on the behalf of our neighborhood and our disappearing desert. Thank you for your time and consideration of this request. Sincerely, / ! ( Sue Fairfield A Very Concerned Palm Desert Resident Sue Fairfield 73969 Krug Avenue E , . I - .t D Palm Desert, CA 92260 2003 October 16, 2003 ONINIUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT "ITY OF PALM DESERT Ms. Cindy Fi nerty City of Palm Desert Planning Commission RE: Portola Avenue/Fred Waring Rezoning to Small Professional Buildings Dear Ms. Fi nerty: I attended the meeting on October 7th regarding the above referenced rezoning. After hearing many of the developers and residents speak at the meeting, I would like to re-state my concerns regarding the Portola Avenue rezoning. I have lived in Palm Desert since 1967 and have seen the City go through many changes. I am very concerned about the direction the City is taking on this rezoning proposal. Since 1979, I have lived in the Portola/Rutledge area and now currently live at the east end of Krug Avenue. The back of my house, bedroom and kitchen window, face south toward Rancho Road, Fred Waring and Portola Avenue. My backyard view looks toward the back roofs of two houses that are in the section of Portola being discussed. I do not want my current view of the south mountains ruined by looking at an office building(s), nor do I think it would be wise for professional buildings to be built in a well-established residential neighborhood area on a very busy street. Ms. Finerty, would you want a small professional building erected on a vacant lot behind your house? I don't think so. I would hope that you would want any future City plans to be consistent with your neighborhood and that is what I want. If you would kindly re-study the colored maps sent us, you will note that everything north of Fred Waring between our neighborhood and Country Club Drive along this Portola corridor, is low and medium residential neighborhoods with two schools and parks interspersed. It is a nice mix neighborhood, but currently without any office buildings except for the City buildings on the south end of the Civic Center Park. As I stated at the meeting, if you drive down Fred Waring from Portola to Highway III, you will notice many office buildings (a 2-story at San Pascual, a 2-story on the corner of Monterey, the old Pier One building sitting vacant in Trader Joe's center, plus 3-4 vacant lots with signs already proclaiming office buildings being built). These all have lease space available per their advertisement signs. Does the City really need to rezone this small strip at Portola and Fred Waring for more office buildings; 1 think not. 1 respectfully request that the Planning Commission take another look at this area and rethink this rezoning proposal. I do have some sympathy for these property owners, but they chose to buy their current homes on Portola, just as I chose to buy my home in my great little neighborhood in the Vineyards area. If the City chose to help these owners by buying their property, one solution might be to re-landscape this area with desert landscaping, including trees and a nice wall, possibly with a mural on the wall or a sculpture. It might improve the look of Portola at this junction, as was done on Fred Waring. I don't agree with Mr. Drell's statement to me at the hearing, "be careful what you wish for" regarding the increased noise without some structures to buffer the noise. And, quite frankly, I would take a little more noise than an office building near my back yard. The City does not need to rezone a well- established residential area so that developers can erect ANOTHER office building Please rethink this current proposal and vote no against the Portola rezoning. Do not let this current proposal pass, which would diminish the property values of the homes next to this site, as well as affect our quality of life in this part of the City. As I stated at the hearing, I fear that Palm Desert and the Coachella Valley are turning into another Orange County with all of the endless development and increase in traffic and it makes me very sad Please help us stop this kind of over development and preserve what we can of our beautiful desert. Don't fill in every corner of our desert with commercial buildings, homes and other projects, leave us some open space, and leave us with some of our desert undisturbed. Thank you for your time and consideration of this request. I appreciate your support for the future of Palm Desert. Sincerely, X Sue Fairfield A Very Concerned halm Desert Resident CITY OF PALM DESERT COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development DATE: October 16, 2003 SUBJECT: Land Use Analysis Detailed land use analysis of the land use alternatives shall be provided at the meeting. j- TN/City ut Palm Desert/Amended 10.17.03 Draft Comprehensive General Plan/Land Use Element Table III-1 City of Palm Desert Draft General Plan Proposed Land Use Designations (AMD'D TEXT IN BOLD) Land Use Designation (Density) Purpose of Land Use RESIDENTIAL (R-DE) Desert Estates (0-1 du/10 ac) This designation provides for single-family residential development on lots a minimum of ten acres. The Desert Estate land use provides a development density intermediate between more typical open space/conservation lands and low residential densities, providing lots sufficient for rural and estate lifestyle yet with room to limit site and environmental impacts. This designation applies primarily to lands in the Sky Valley area. (R-ME) Mountain Estates (0-1 du/20 ac) This designation provides for single-family residential development on lots 20 acres or greater in size. The Mountain Estates designation recognizes the added constraints of steep terrain on site development and extension of access and services. It provides an intermediate step in development density between open space/conservation lands and low residential densities, providing lots sufficient for rural and estate lifestyle, while limiting site and environmental impacts. (R-HR) Residential Hillside Reserve (0-ldu/5ac) The Residential Hillside Reserve designation serves to provide an intermediate development density for lands located on sloping terrain primarily within the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The designation permits the development of one single family home on lots of not less than five acres. The intent is to provide reasonable development opportunities while protecting natural and scenic resources. III- 4 TN/City of Palm Desert/Amended 10.17.03 Draft Comprehensive General Plan/Land Use Element (R-L) Low Density Residential (0-4 du/ac) This low density designation provides for single-family residential development. These lands serve to buffer more dense residential development from estate residential uses, and may be appropriate in areas with some site constraints. The R-L designation typically provides for low density single family subdivisions and Planned Residential Developments (PRDs), which may include golf course-oriented resort developments. It serves to transition between lowest residential densities and more moderate densities described below. Planned Residential Developments (PRDs) are master planned communities, which consolidate areas for structures, common open space and recreation areas, and integrate access and private internal roadways. PRDs permit the transfer of densities from open space/recreation areas, thus preserving open space and possibly allowing development to maximize allowable densities. The purpose of PRDs is to promote planned residential development and amenities beyond those expected under conventional development. It is also meant to provide greater flexibility in design, varying ranges in densities, and encourage well-planned neighborhoods through creative and imaginative planning. It also provides for an appropriate mix of housing types, which are unique in their physical characteristics to warrant special methods of residential development. A full range of residential development is permitted in PRDs. (R-M) Medium Density Residential (4-10 du/ ac) Appropriate residential development under this designation includes single family and PRDs with shared open space, recreation and other amenities. Condominiums, garden apartments and affordable housing may also be appropriate for these lands. The intent of this designation is to encourage I11- 5 TN/City of Palm Desert/Amended 10.17.03 Draft Comprehensive General Plan/Land Use Element development of a wide variety of dwelling unit types at moderate densities. (R-MH) Residential Mobilehome (6-10 du/ac) The Residential Mobilehome land use designation is assigned to existing mobilehome parks and subdivisions, and also provides for new mobilehome developments on thoughtfully considered lands. Mobilehome development, where for lease or subdivision, shall be considered discretionary and require Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval. Projects developed under this designation should be integrated and planned developments within a minimum planning area of five (5) acres, although in certain circumstances larger sites are preferable. (R-H) High Density Residential(10-22 du/ac) This designation allows for the greatest diversity of residential development, including attached single and multi-family dwellings. This designation is most suitable for planned communities, and for affordable and senior housing, where smaller units and higher densities may be appropriate. Duplex and multiplex development is most common and provides for PRD's with a varied range of residential types, including apartments and condominiums. Mobilehome parks or subdivisions with PRD type development may also allowed with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Density bonuses may be available, on a case-by-case basis, for approved affordable housing projects. COMMERCIAL (C-G) General Commercial The General Commercial designation is assigned to a wide variety of smaller commercial centers, specialty retail shops, a broad range of clothing and apparel,jewelry stores and a variety of personal service businesses. Office development is also permitted as a secondary use. Development may range from free-standing retail buildings, offices and restaurants, to planned III- 6 TN/City of Palm Desert/Amended 10.17.03 Draft Comprehensive General Plan/Land Use Element commercial centers. Hotels and motels may also be appropriate on these lands. Mixed use development with professional office and residential may also be permitted through approval of an integrated master plan. (C-N) Neighborhood Commercial The Neighborhood Commercial designation provides for neighborhood-scale shopping centers located near residential areas to provide convenient vehicular but also pedestrian and bicycle access. These developments are typically anchored by smaller grocery and convenience stores. A wide range of other uses, including banking, barbers/beauty salons, dry cleaners, restaurants, service businesses, offices and other related activities are commonly found in these planned centers. Neighborhood commercial planning areas typically range in size from 2 to 8 acres, providing approximately 20,000 to 80,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. Mixed use development with hotels or motels, professional office and residential may also be permitted through approval of an integrated master plan. (C-C) Community Commercial The Community Commercial designation provide services for a substantial portion of the community, with shopping centers typically located on major streets but within convenient driving distance to residential areas. These developments are typically anchored by supermarkets and superdrug stores. A wide range of other uses, including financial and professional offices, personal care business, restaurants, service station and other community-serving services are commonly found in these planned centers. Hotels and motels may also be appropriate on these lands. Community commercial planning areas typically range in size from 5 to 15 acres, providing approximately 50,000 to 150,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. Mixed use development with professional office and III- 7 TN/City of Palm Desert/Amended 10.17.03 Draft Comprehensive General Plan/Land Use Element residential may also be permitted through approval of an integrated master plan. (C-R) Regional Commercial The Regional Commercial designation provides for larger scale, integrated shopping centers and malls, which may be anchored by several department stores or other large-scale anchors, including "big- box" retailers, a variety of retail outlets, and restaurant and entertainment uses. Hotels and motels may also be appropriate on these lands. Office development may also be an integral part of these developments. Typical sizes range between 200,000 and 800,000 square feet or more of gross leasable floor area. This type of development can also be facilitated through the preparation of a Specific Plan. Mixed use development with professional office and residential may also be permitted through approval of such an integrated master plan. (C-OP) Office Professional The Office Professional designation is assigned to lands that provide comparative advantages for office development, with use characteristics that enhance compatibility with residential and other sensitive land uses. Professional office lands serve as effective buffer or transitional uses between commercial and residential neighborhoods, and provides convenient professional services to surrounding residents and businesses. Office use is appropriate along arterial roadways, integrated with commercial development, and as stand- alone business parks. Adjoining office- serving parking may also be developed on adjacent residential lands, consistent with thoughtful design practices. Mixed use development with hotels and motels, professional office and residential may also be permitted through approval of an integrated master plan. (C-RS) Resort Commercial The Resort Commercial designation is assigned to lands planned for or already developed as resort uses, including hotels III- 8 TN/City of Palm Desert/Amended 10.17.03 Draft Comprehensive General Plan/Land Use Element and associated uses, timeshare projects, and associated recreation and open space amenities, including golf courses, tennis courts, and pools and spas. These lands uses are geared to the visiting tourist public and also provide important venues for community meetings and events. Mixed use development with professional office and residential may also be permitted through approval of an integrated master plan. (C-MU) Commercial-Mixed Use This land use designation provides for a mix of uses, including those identified in any of the commercial land use designations, as well as professional offices, institutional and medium or high density residential. This designation is applied to lands that have benefited from approval of a master development plan or Specific Plan. The mixed use development is intended as a highly integrated master plan that optimizes complementary land uses and distributions, internal non- vehicular access, and low traffic volumes within residential areas of the master plan. Commercial mixed use developments will vary in size and are discretionary approvals. INDUSTRIAL (B-P) Business Park The Business Park designation provides for a flexible mix of office, service commercial, wholesaling and light manufacturing uses ranging from professional and medical offices to copy and printing shops, business and office supply stores, and paint and tile and cabinet shops, and similar uses. Limited retail sales, including restaurants, geared primarily toward park businesses may also be appropriate. Mixed use development with professional office and residential may also be permitted through approval of an integrated master plan. III- 9 TN/City of Palm Desert/Amended 10.17.03 Draft Comprehensive General Plan/Land Use Element (I-L) Light Industrial The Light Industrial designation provides for a variety of light industrial uses operating primarily in enclosed buildings, and those requiring limited and screenable outdoor storage. Examples include clean manufacturing operations, warehousing and distribution facilities, mini-warehouse storage, and a variety of light manufacturing businesses. Siting industrial lands in close proximity to major regional highways is also desirable. Preferred development includes master planned industrial parks with integrated access and internal circulation. INSTITUTIONAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES (P) Public/Quasi-Public As noted in this element and on the Land Use Map, the Public/Quasi-Public designation is assigned to City Hall and the Civic Center, other City and governmental offices, libraries, schools, hospitals, floodways, police and fire stations, utility substations, as well as other public/quasi- public administrative offices. Institutional Symbols (P/CC) Civic Center (P/FS) Fire Station Fire Station (P/PS) Police Station Police Station (P/H) Hospital/Medical Hospitals and similar in/out-patient medical services. Also may be assigned to convalescent and skilled nursing facilities. (P/S) Designates educational facilities such as day care, elementary, intermediate, high schools, special schools and technical schools, and colleges and universities. (P/L) Libraries (P/PO) Post Offices (P/U) Utility Substation- designates electric, gas, telephone, water and other similar facilities. III- 10 TN/City of Palm Desert/Amended 10.17.03 Draft Comprehensive General Plan/Land Use Element OPEN SPACE (OS) Open Space The OS designation is assigned to those lands determined to be a special, important or valuable natural resource that warrants protection. The designation is assigned to such lands as parks, which carry a designation of (OS/PP); golf courses are defined as private open space with a designation of OS/PV. Mountainous and desert areas under public or quasi-public ownership are assigned the designation of Public Reserve (OS/PR). The designation allows the discretionary approval of trails, trailheads and associated facilities, but does not allow vehicular access. The Open Space designation may also be used to define special resource areas or those that may pose threats or hazards to development. Lands important for their recreational, biological, or regional economic value may also be assigned an open space designation. Examples of resource lands and hazards include ground rupture or liquefaction hazard areas, detention and retention basins, trails, estuaries and large habitat areas for sensitive biological resources. (OS/PP) Public Parks (OS/PR) Public Reserve Open Space (OS/PV) Private Open Space (OS/FW) Floodways III- 11 HILLSIDE STUDY REPORT HIQ-WAY 74 COUNTRY CLUB HILLSIDE ZONE Job No. H15-1-15 September 1989 PREPARED FOR: JIM HAYHOE DEVELOPMENT, INC. PREPARED BY: HOUSLEY ASSOCIATES, INC. INTRODUCTION Mr. Ray Diaz, Director of community Development, informed Mr. John Hayhoe, our client at a meeting held on September 12, 1989, that a Hillside Study was required on the portion of the Highway 74 Project that was within the designated "Hillside Zone" as stated in the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance. To conform with the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance, Mr Hayhoe authorized Housley Associates to perform the Hillside Study of the proposed development within the Hillside Planned Residential District. Method of Analysis The procedure outlined in the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance, Section 25.15.030, was used to determine the number of dwelling units permitted on the hillside parcel. Three options from the Zoning Ordinance were used to conduct the study: 1. Option No. 1 - Parcel Average Slope Method 2. Option No. 2 - Toe of Slope 3. Option No. 3 - Dwelling Unit Building Site The fourth option described in the Zoning Ordinance does not apply to this project according the City's staff. Aerial topography at a scale of 1"=100' was used to evaluate the slopes in this study. A plan measure wheel was used to measure contour lengths and a planimeter was used to calculate areas. RESULTS OF STUDY The results of the Hillside Study are shown on the attached Figure 1. Option 1 Option 1 calculates an Average Slope "S" over the area of the entire parcel of 260, and using this slope, specifies 1.66 acres per dwelling unit density and requires 77.5% of the lot areas to remain in a natural state. This option allows a Maximum Total Number of 39 Dwelling Units on the entire 64 acre parcel. Option 2 Option 2 allows a density of 3 dwelling units per acre for areas that are adjacent to the valley floor (toe of slope) which have a average slope "S" less than 10%. These areas are delineated and shown on Sheet 1 of the H.P.R.,D. Zone Slope/Density Study. Two Cases are investigated using Option 2. Case 1 assumes that no changes are made to the Golf Course alignment shown on the current land plan. Outside of the Golf Course boundaries there are 13.56 acres that meet the requirements to be developed at a density of 3 units per acre; thus yielding a total number of 41 units that can be located in the toe of slope area. Case 2 assumes that the land plan is changed so that the Golf Course is not placed within the designated Hillside Zone and that the hillside area is developed with the maximum number of units possible. Based on this assumption, there are 23.8 acres that qualify to be developed at 3 units per acre yielding a total number of 71 units. Option 3 Option 3 deals with specific dwelling unit sites whose slopes are twenty percent or less and are not adjacent to the valley floor, if the following criteria is met: 1. Minimum area of one-half acre 2. Minimum dimension of one hundred feet 3. Maximum of overall density of one dwelling unit per acre. Evaluating the same Case 1 as described earlier (Golf Course unchanged) , there are 15.2 acres in the parcel that have a slope "S" less than 20% as described in this Option; however, the overall area of 23.0 acres controls (Criteria No. 3) and permits 23 units (See Sheet 1) . Case 2 (Golf Course removed) contains 17.8 acres of property with "S" less than 20o and the overall area is 40.4 acres. Thirty-six (36) units are permitted on this portion of the parcel. SUMIM AMID CONCIXSIONS Option 1 is very restrictive on development density on this parcel probably due to the averaging of the very steep slopes with the mild slopes. It is believed that a more representative and useable average slope "S" can be obtained if areas are isolated and categorized. Combining Options 2 and 3 separates the slopes into categories and allows different densities accordingly. Adding the results of options 2 and 3 for Case 1 gives the recommended maximum number of dwelling units for the hillside parcel area of 64 units. The total number of planned lots is 60, (50 whole lots and fractions of 17 lots, which are roughly equivalent to 10 whole lots) . Adding the sum of Options 2 and 3 for Case 2 gives the recommended maximum number of dwelling units for the hillside parcel area of 107 units, however, since the golf course would have to be redesigned this is probably not acceptable. It is recommended that the dwelling units be located on the areas delineated on Sheet 1 of the H.P.R. ,D. Zone Slope/Density Study at the appropriate density. The intention of the Hillside Planned Residential District Zone is, as stated by the City Ordinance, "to encourage only minimal grading in hillside areas that relates to the natural contours of the land and will not result in extensive cut and fill. . ." Care should be taken in locating lots and street layout in order to meet these objectives. • (goT aTOgM T Og guaTeAinba ATg6noa ale gOigM S401 V 90 suOT43sag pue sgoT aTOgM ZT) 'ET st sgoT pauueTd 3o aaqumu Tegog aqy •s4Tun ST sT paaaM suOO Igaadoad uou6eD Tap aqg 90 aapuieuraa aqg uT aTgeMOTTP sgtun go aaqunmu TPgog aqg 'aaOJaaags, -sgiun g Og pagTUITT St Pale stgg uz pTaTA aqg os 'aaOP/np T 30 UOT;e4TUITT A4Tsuap TTeaano UlnWTXew aqg Aq pauieagsuoo aagganj si aouemoTTe sTgg 'aanaMOH -01 9q PTnOM uOTgaod sTgg vo sgTun go aaqumu aIgPMOTTP aqs '%OZ og %OT uaaMgaq sataeA adOTS aqg goTgM ut saaOe Z-S gnoge seq 'saaoe L-g ATagemtxoadde 'paaapzsuoo K4aadoid aqg 3o aeputewaa aqy •sgtun L 30 pTOTA e ao aloe/np E go A;Tsuap e aAPq pTnoo uOigaod stgq aOueuTpaO 6uTUOZ aPTSTTTH aqg aaPuO -a0T uegg ssaT go adoTs e aneq oq punog seM Agaadoad aqg 3o uoTgaod aaoe i -Z V *auoz S--d'd aqg utggtM st gegq Agaadoad aqg go uoigaod gegq ATuO paaapisuoO umpuappe aqy •Ipngs TPUTSTJO aqg ut pazATeue SPm Agaadoad uou6eD Tap aqg 3o uoigaod K :fgaadoad uou6eD T-0 ' (40T aTOgM T og guaTPATnba ATg6noa ale gDTgM S40T � Jo SUOT43PIJ pue S40T aTogM 0T) 'TT sz S401 pauueTd go aaqumu TP404 aqs -sgtun 6Z si Pale stgq ut Sgiun go aaqumu aTgeMoTTe Tegog aLU -%OT uegg ssaT aO og Tenbe adOTs e aneq og punog sPM saaOP 8-6 ATageMTxoadde go Pale uV :Agaadoad pMAz) -pageaUTTap Seale adOTS 4uaa9JJTP aqg ggTm Apngs Agtsuap/adoTs auoz 'p' W d-H aqg go Z gaegs uo uMogs ale seam Apngs aptSTTTH uou6eO Tap PUP pM[D aqs SNOISMONOD CNV I.2tVWWIIS umpuappe STgg ao; pagenTPAe sPM (pa6uegOun asanoZ) JTOJ) T aseO ATuO pue paaapTSUOD aaaM E pue Z -ON uotgdo ATuo 'aanaMOH •4aodal TPut6tao aqg ut pasn seM se umpuappe STgg ut pasn seM sTslTeue 90 poggaw awes aqy STs-ITew go poggaW •pasodoad ST abuego auoz ON -L-•g•d pauoz ATguaaano ST gI -gOaCoad gnTO AagunoZ) VL AeMgBTH aqg UT papnTOut st gotgM Agaadoad uou6eD Tap aqg go uoigaod gegq sz Taoaed puoOas aqy -guatTO ano Aq pasodoad uaaq seq S-•g•d oq a6uegO auoz v 'S'o Pauoz pue (pM[D) 4OT14STO aagPM A@TTeA eTTagDeoO aqg Aq pauMo ATquaaano Agaadoad aqg go uOtgaod uodn paaa6e uP ST Taoaed 4sat3 aqs, •STaOaed Teuotgtppe oMq apnTOui Og sTsATeue adOTs ano puagxa aM_ gegq pagsanbaa guaugaedap 6uzuuPTd gaasap uTed 30 AgtO aqg 90 AOr TTgd •aW NOIJ.7[l�d,NI WOCN21CKIV --•- �wr 1�i�uu.0 1:04 tviw 1) 15102179560 From.Stuart Rickard OCT. 14.2003 4:06PM IESIGN & CONST. ( NO.e61 P.112 Placeworks Real F-state Development October 14, 2003 Mr. Philip Drell City of Palm desert 73.510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 RE: SE CORNER 1-10 AND COOK STREET Dear Mr. Drell: Please find attached the proposed site plan for the property at the above-referenced location. I am writing on behalf of Mr. Jerry Williams, who currently holds an option to purchase this property, and Mr. Dennis Sivers, the current owner of the property. Mr. Williams and I are working together to construct an office/flex industrial development pursuant to the site plan. We wish to request that the City of Palm Desert Planning Department staff modify the proposed General Plan Amendment designation for this site in order to support development of the site in accordance with the proposed uses and site plan. We request that the Industrial Business Park (B-P) land use designation apply to this property. We believe our proposed development represents the highest and best use of the property. There is a great deal of demand for office/flex industrial space that is central within the Coachella Valley and has immediate 1.80 access. We plan to process an industrial condominium map for these buildings, which would allow smaller users to purchase their promises - and we believe this will make these buildings highly desirable. For these reasons, our development would proceed immediately upon obtaining land use approvals. We evaluated other options before we determined that the proposed development is the highest and best use. Office use is not viable at this time because there is a lack of demand and a lack of local amenities to support office employees. We believe, however, that office demand will increase in the next 10 to 15 years, and have accommodated that by designing our buildings to accept future office use (generous parking ratios and ample glass). Retail use of the site is compromised by its location: 1.) although close to a major freeway off-ramp, the project is on the wrong side of Cook Street, necessitating a u-turn to access the parcel; 2.) visibility is poor due to a.) the incline of Cook 5treet, which hides the rear portion of the site both from Cook Street and from east-bound 1-10 and b.) the distance from 1-10, which results from the rail right-of-way and a 50' storm drainage easement being between 1-10 and the rear 1 N1 Pacific Avenue, Alameda, GA 91501 ph: (510) 499.9400 fax: (510) 217.9560 Received Oct-14-2003 05:04pm From-15102179560 To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 002 To: Page 3 of 3 2003-10-15 00.01:54(GMT) 15102179580 From:Stuart Rickard OCT.14.2003 4:06PM J� _SIGN & CONST. NO.E361 P.2i2 of the site; and 3.) existing development in the nearby area does not warrant a retail center. In the long term, this site will never be preferred over other nearby sites for retail development due to the access and visibility issues. For the reasons outlined above, we suggest that the General Plan Amendment assign the Industrial Business Park (O-P) land use designation to the subject parcel. We aim to build a high-quality project with excellent architecture and landscape design that would provide for upgrading use in the long-term and that would have significant economic development benefits for the City of palm Desert. Please call me with any questions regarding the above at (510) 499-9400. Sincerely, Stuart Rickard President We supp ve request. Jerry Wi liiams Dennis Sivers 1501 Pacific Avenue, Alameda, GA 94501 ph: (510) 499-9400 fax: (510) 217-9560 Received Oct-14-2003 05:04am From-15102IT9560 To—PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 003 Wednesday, October 15, 2003 REXEIVED l E ? 2003 CITY OF PALM DESERT -'--.OPMENT DEPARVAENT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE `,LM DESERT PALM DESERT, CA 92260 NBNA UNIQUE PROPERTIES LLC ALLEN NAZERI 74478 HWY 111 #342 PALM DESERT, CA 92260 ATTENTION: MR. PHILIP DRELL PALM DESERT PLANNING COMISSION RE: General Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Drell, On August 22, 2002, The planning commission recommended to the city council approval of GPA 02-02, C/Z02-02 and PP 02-06 by adoption of resolution No.2148, subject to conditions as amended, and motion carried 5-0. (Copy Attached) On September 12th, 2002 The city council of the city of Palm Desert denied the planning commission approval based on the following justification: ( Copy Attached) 1. The proposed general plan amendment was immature at the time considering GPAC was updating general plan land use. 2. The City Council pointed out the general plan amendment on the subject property was inappropriate without the knowing what the zoning for the surrounding land uses will be. 3. The City Council considered the 12 acre site south of the subject property being zoned as an office use will be sufficient for the area at this time. Now, with the preliminary proposed map by GPAC, It is our request from the GPAC to reconsider the rezoning of 3.9 acres of land on the Northwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue, from Low Density Residential to Professional Office Use as part of the general plan amendment based on the following facts: 1) Planning Commission already has approved the land use change from low density residential to professional office on August 22"d, 2002 2) The surrounding land uses have already been considered and the only vacant land designated as office professional use North of Frank Sinatra is the SW corner of Gerald Ford& Portola 3) Despite the city council's ( item# 3)justification of planning amendment denial, the property south of the subject Property is a 12 acre commercial and not a professional office use as shown on the general plan map. 4) The large number of residential housing planned according to the general plan map will require professional services and according to the current proposed land uses, the only land use on the SW corner of Gerald Ford and Portola may not be sufficient to service the future residents. 5) From the developmental standpoint, it is economically and esthetically not feasible to build residential houses on the subject property for the following reasons: (a) Geometry Developments with residential units would be difficult due the limited north to south property dimension which is only 280 feet. Assuming a 60 foot wide public street running east-west would leave 220 feet or 110 feet of lot depth on each side of the street. On lots which back on to arterial streets extra deep rear yards are desirable which would not be available for those units. (b) Noise Dwellings this close to arterial streets have the potential to result in long term noise problems as traffic volume increase in the area. Portola and Frank Sinatra both have the potential to carry high volumes of traffic in the future. Portola is designated"major thoroughfare" in the Circulation Element and Frank Sinatra is a designated"arterial". (c) Corner Design The typical residential lay out which would create an east-west street extending easterly from Shepherd Lane would place one dwelling unit right at the intersection. There would be a six- foot masonry wall 20 feet from curb face similar to Hovely Lane and Monterey. There is avery limited opportunity to open space and significant landscape statement. Office use on this site would allow us to achieve a situation similar to Cornerstone Complex and will result in an open, landscaped corner. (d) Features Supporting Office Professional Land Use Through out the city office professional zoning has been used as an effective buffer between high traffic volume streets and more intense land uses. In this instance the office professional property will buffer the residential to the north from Frank Sinatra and provide a suitable transition from the neighborhood commercial zoned property on the south side of Frank Sinatra. The office professional land use allow us to create an open landscaped area with a significant art piece as part of the city's art display at the corner of two major streets which would not be possible with a residential lay out. 7. The additional professional office land use will redirect traffic away from already congested center of the city where most offices are located along Fred Waring and HWY 111. 8. The subject property has already been studied by Department of Public Works, Riverside County Fire Department, Metro transit and Coachella Water District and have been recommended for a zone change. Based on the above facts as well as the attached copy of City Of Palm Desert Staff Report, It is our request that the General Plan Advisory Committee rezone 7ry the subject from low density residential to professional office use. Sincerely, Allen Nazeri NBNA UNIQUE PROPERTIES LLC p3 Crystal Palm Courtyard rtyand 73-338 Highway I I I Palm Desert, CA 922260 October 14, 2003 City of Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: Expansion of Parking on North Side HWY I I I Alley Dear Members of the Planning Commission; After attending the last planning commission meeting and listening closely to the three options that Mr. Philip Drell outlined for this project, namely: 1. Do nothing. 2. Expand the alley by 25 feet north from the center line. 3. Expand the alley by 45 feet north from the center line. I would like to register my opinion that you choose the solution that best satisfies the problem in the long term. I think Phil's explanation of the duty of the commission to visualize the parking requirement by looking many years into the future is the key point. Parking during the season is difficult now and can only deteriorate in the future. By doing nothing, or accepting a compromise solution of only expanding the alley to accommodate one row of parking, an opportunity is lost to solve the problem in the long term. I listened carefully to the few people who spoke for alternate solutions and those arguments seemed short sighted. Phil has intelligently identified on the map he presented the optimum single family housing size that would be available after reducing the lots for the long term solution. Because of time restraints he did not clearly present these conclusions. The point is that small single-family lots remain that are not inconsistent with the current neighborhood. It is my belief that the land owners and homeowners do not seriously object to this project, they only want fair compensation. C C . Please do the right thing and maximize this parking proposal. If it doesn't happen now so that the business owners such as myself can continue to improve their properties, this side of HWY 111 will continue to deteriorate. Sincerely, .12 Peter Hartwig Owner-Crystal Palm Courtyard cc: Mr.Phil Drell . TF�IE ROBERT MAYER CORPORATION October 16, 2003 t'�- y 2003 d�lr`'�i Tti�rYP41pt D,,Vc Dh,PAR(.YtFti"j: F_RT Chairwoman Sonia Campbell Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-5 10 Fred Waring Drive Pahn Desert, California 92260 RE. APN 620-391-015-5, 8.6 acres Northeast Corner of Country Club Drive and Monterey Avenue Dear Chairwoman Campbell: At the October Vb meeting of the Palm Dcscrt Planning Commission, 1 addressed the Commission regarding our property at the northeast comer of Country Club Drivc and Monterey Avenue_ I requested that our property be considered for a commercial land use designation as part of the city's update to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. This would be a change from the medium density residential designation of the property today_ At this time we are not requesting or seeking approval of a spccific project. Those approvals will come in due time and be handled through the normal project review process_ Rather, as part of the larger citywide review of land uses which will set direction and manage growth long into t-be future, we ask that our property be re- classificd so that this parcel more appropriately fits with the characteristics of the intersection. We believe that as this highly travcicd intersection, commercial uses are more appropriate than residential uses. As you continue the review and debate over land use issues, we would hope that our request merits your positive response. We respectfully request that you recommend a commercial land use designation on our property to the City Council for their ultimate approval. 660 Newport Center Drive,suite 1050 Box 8680 Newport Beacn,Cal7ornia 92658-8680 (OQO) 7.59-K91 Received Oct-16-2003 02:38pm From-8487201017 To—PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page OOZ ULT-16-03 14 :43 FROM:ROBERT MAYER CORP I0:9497201017 PAGE Chairwoman Sonia Campbell October 16, 2003 Page 2 of 2 Thank you for your contemplation on this important matter. Sincerely, The Robert Mayer Corporation p*� Lawrence F. Brose Senior Vice President LFB:hs cc: Cynthia Finerty,Palm Desert Planning Commission Sabby Jonathan, Palm Desert Planning Commission Jim Lopez, Palm Desert Planning Commission Dave Tschopp,Palm Desert Planning Commission Carlos Ortega, City o£Palm Dcscrt Phil Drell, City of Palen Desert Received Oct-16-2003 02:38pm From-9497201017 To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Pace 003 a 1 CPALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION CC: PHIL DRELL, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING CARLOS L. ORTEGA, CITY MANAGER FROM: JUSTIN MCCARTHY, ACM FOR REDEVELOPMENT DATE: OCTOBER 16, 2003 SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE FOR APN # 620 391 015 Redevelopment Agency staff wish to comment on the economic and housing issues as they pertain to APN #620 391 015 relative to the change of zone from Planned Residential - 7 (PR-7) to Neighborhood Commercial (C-N), as listed in the General Plan 2000 zoning map noted "More Intense." Currently, Plaza de Monterey, located directly south of the land in question, is undergoing a major repositioning of the project. As you are aware, the development recently lost its anchor, Albertson's, to the project on the southwest corner of Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive in Rancho Mirage. This has left the center with a 47,000 sq. ft. anchor store and several smaller stores empty for a total of 55,930 sq. ft. or a 66% vacancy rate for the center. The center and the Albertson's store were recently purchased by one developer, bringing the entire center under one ownership, thereby better enabling the marketing of vacancies and repositioning of the center. At the October 7, 2003, Planning Commission meeting, developers and property owners were given the opportunity to express to the commissioners their desires to re-zone and develop properties in the city. It is our understanding that the owner of the land at the northeast corner of Monterey and Country Club displayed a site plan for a neighborhood grocery store center at that location and asked for re-zoning of the property. At this time, development of a new neighborhood grocery store center directly across from an existing vacant center will not only make the current center less esirable f l G.`.RDA\Niamh Ortcga\WP Data\)us6n\Merrws\zone change for apn#620 391 01 S.wpd •.•CC�J��.•.•.• 2003 ?;Am? ;r;vrY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEN"' ^!Ti OF PAN MERT t s Zone Change for APN # 620 391 015 October 16, 2003 Page 2 of 2 grocery store, but will add to the retail leakage occurring at the site by smaller stores exiting the property for either the new center or the Albertson's center in Rancho Mirage. It is unlikely that a new center will bring net new dollars to the city. It will also increase blight at Plaza de Monterey. Currently, the free market can resolve the repositioning of Plaza de Monterey. The development of another new neighborhood shopping center immediately across the street will very likely create a condition where the existing center will continue to deteriorate. This would require the Redevelopment Agency to invest scarce resources in order to alleviate a blighted condition if the redevelopment plan could be amended to include Plaza de Monterey. Otherwise, the City might have to intervene financially. In addition, re-zoning of the property at the northeast corner of Monterey and Country Club will delete available land in which to construct housing. GPAC,through its planning efforts, has indicated that housing in the north sphere will need to increase over the next 20 years. Re-zoning this parcel to a commercial use removes housing from the north sphere and potential patronage for the existing retail center. It would appearthat the surrounding commercial projects would instead benefit by creating a medium-to-high density housing development. Given the need for higherdensity housing and an affordable housing product for middle income families and young professionals,the Housing Department is willing to work with the property owner and Planning Department to find an appropriate residential use for the site. We recommend that the land at the northeast cornerof Monterey and Country Club remain zoned for housing. ram G'*DAUiamh Ortega\WP DataVustinNernuskmne change for apnp 620 391 015.wpd 2 Cd ! 4 L ul cd CO , f p0 N W 00 ! � 0 MDR 4-10 O.U./AC \, r r J \ W= AC LIl � o 0 CES � 0 iQ' a W j O Q CC LDR CL � L r 0-4 D.U./AC O 80.87 AC t L MDRI 4-10 O.U./AC j 30r38 AC , r w a -- - — ' - - - - - - - - - - - - RA _ DRIB— - - - - - - - - - - - - ,a ---------------------------- ----- -------- ----- -- ----- -- ------------ ---- ---------- ----- --- -- - ------ ---- ` � � LEGEND - PEDESTRIAN LINKAGE � 4 00 - VEHICULAR ACCESS N.T.S. ECEIVED OCT 2 0 2003 Philip Drell OMMGN;TY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of Palm Desert CfTYOF PALM DESERT Planning Department 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 October 15, 2003 Dear Mr. Drell and Planning Commissioners; My name is Lucy Perez Rodriquez and I own the property at 73-361 San Benito Circle. This house has been in our family for more than 30 years and is presently occupied by my daughter Bertha and her two children. At this time I am living in Redding, California, but visit Palm Desert several times a year. We were very upset about 15 years ago when the new Community Plan was to condemn our home to make a parking lot. It was very difficult not knowing what was going to happen to our property. Now with the new plan we are pleased that our home will be saved. However, in a recent letter it was suggested that the city take 45 feet off the back of my property for a parking lot. That would put the parking lot right next to my bedroom window. Would it be possible for the city to take only 20 feet leaving us a small backyard for protection? Or, would it be possible to have parking on the large vacant lot to the east of our property? I believe that vacant lot belongs to the city. I will be driving down to Palm Desert for the meeting on October 21, and hope to see you then. Anything you can do to help protect our home would be very much appreciated. Sincerely your7L -cy , 12 z�ea � C��lt��� Perez Ro r-iquez 73-361 San Benito Circle Palm Desert, California 20415 Greenview Drive Redding, CA 96002 Philip Drell City of Palm Desert Planning Department 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 October 15, 2003 Dear Mr. Drell and Planning Commissioners; My name is Lucy Perez Rodriquez and I own the property at 73-361 San Benito Circle. This house has been in our family for more than 30 years and is presently occupied by my daughter Bertha and her two children. At this time I am living in Redding, California, but visit Palm Desert several times a year. We were very upset about 15 years ago when the new Community Plan was to condemn our home to make a parking lot. It was very difficult not knowing what was going to happen to our property. Now with the new plan we are pleased that our home will be saved. However, in a recent letter it was suggested that the city take 45 feet off the back of my property for a parking lot. That would put the parking lot right next to my bedroom window. Would it be possible for the city to take only 20 feet leaving us a small backyard for protection? Or, would it be possible to have parking on the large vacant lot to the east of our property? I believe that vacant lot belongs to the city. I will be driving down to Palm Desert for the meeting on October 21 , and hope to see you then. Anything you can do to help protect our home would be very much appreciated. Sincerely yours , Lucy Perez Rodriquez 73-361 San Benito Circle Palm Desert, California 20415 Greenview Drive Re ding, CA 96002 / r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21 2003 VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 03-15 - KELLER & SALERNO, Applicant Request for approval of a lot line adjustment to correct a fence encroachment between two dwellings at 74-251 and 74-231 De Anza Way. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. GPA 01-04, CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant (Continued from the 8:30 a.m. October 21, 2003 meeting) Request for consideration of a Comprehensive General Plan Update. Chairperson Campbell explained that the Commission continued the General Plan hearing from the morning session. The public hearing was open and the Commission would allow 30 minutes. She explained that she had blue Request to Speak cards from several people and would call their names to come forward first and then allow anyone wishing to speak to come forward. The first name she called was Claudia Gutierrez. There was no response. The next name was Paul Brady. MR. PAUL BRADY, 78-694 Cimmaron Canyon in Palm Desert, addressed the Commission. He said he wanted to speak about the Sares Regis apartment project which was before them later this evening, but he planned to make his comments as part of the GPA. He stated that he was speaking in support of the Sares Regis 320- apartment project for inclusion in the University Village land use plan. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21 2003 As one looks around Palm Desert, he thought it was easy to see that there is a need for multifamily housing. One only had to look at the population growth within the Coachella Valley to recognize the need for housing products other than single family homes in country club settings. He said he had nothing against country club settings or resort-type homes. The Sares Regis Group project would help in meeting the housing needs for all ages, especially the young professionals including the public safety employees, police and fire, teachers, hotel and restaurant employees, and the staff at the University, as well as the College of the Desert. Apartments, especially ones proposed by the Sares Regis Group, are an integral part of community living. Quality and well constructed multi-family housing was not only needed to house people, but is also important to the economic vitality of the region. This project, as compared to single family housing, would assist to minimize area-wide traffic congestion and would be an attractive and compatible neighbor to those that live, work and play in Palm Desert. He encouraged the Commission as they consider the remainder of the General Plan amendment to give strong consideration as they go later this evening in addressing the apartment project going before them. He thanked them for their attention and was available for any questions. Chairperson Campbell called Malcolm Riley. There was no response. She next called Jim Henson. There was no response. The next name was Richard Domanski. There was no response. The next name she called was Patrick Perry. MR. PATRICK PERRY, an attorney with Allen Matkins with offices at 515 South Figueroa Street in Los Angeles, addressed the Commission. He explained that he was appearing on behalf of the owners of the Cornische at Bighorn property, the small-wedged piece of property at the very southern property boundary. He noted that he appeared and spoke to the Commission on October 7. He said he didn't want to go back and repeat everything he said at that time, but he did want to address an issue that appears in the staff report for this evening's hearing. 3 i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21 2003 He explained that there is a slope density study that is attached to the staff report that was apparently prepared in 1989, and there is an addendum to that study which appears to address the Cornische at Bighorn property. It is a 12-acre property which is currently surrounded on the north, east and west by the Canyons at Bighorn development. The property is currently undeveloped. The tract map application was submitted for that property on August 4 which proposed four residential lots and the development of up to 57 dwelling units on those four residential lots. This is the maximum allowable permitted density under the existing General Plan and zoning designations for that property. As he indicated previously, as currently proposed under the Preferred Alternative presented on October 7, and which is dated August 18, the General Plan designation for that property would be changed to Hillside Reserve which would permit no more than one residential dwelling unit per five acres. So from 57 units under the existing General Plan and zoning designations it would be reduced as part of the General Plan Update to no more than two units permitted on the property, a drastic reduction. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on how many units would be allowed. Mr. Perry reiterated that it would be from 57 to two, because under Hillside Reserve it is one unit per five acres, and it is a 12-acre site. He presumed this addendum was presented to the Commission as part of the low density study to demonstrate there are slope issues with respect to the property. He wasn't here to deny that this is hillside property, that there are slopes, and there are characteristics of the property which may justify a reduction in the density. He would argue, however, that this addendum does not stand for the proposition that such a drastic reduction is justified. According to this addendum, there would be at least 15 units permitted on the property which would work out to a residential density of approximately 1.25 units per acre. Again, approximately eight times of what would be permitted if the property were redesignated to Hillside Reserve. It was his feeling that the proper way to address the issue of the residential density on this property is 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21 2003 through the tract map process. If there is a need to reduce the density, it should be done on a property specific basis through the tract map application process rather than as a -wide General Plan amendment, especially where there does not appear to be any substantial evidence to support such a drastic reduction from 57 units to two units. If one looks at the boundary of the General Plan designation on the current map, it is co-terminus with the existing property line. Therefore, it would be just this property and not the adjacent property to the north or the west on the other side of the property line that would so be redesignated. There is no evidence to show that this property is any different in terms of its characteristics than the property on the other side of the property line. This would amount effectively to illegal spot zoning. He also argued that this is an arbitrary designation and not supported by substantial evidence. What he urged the Commission to do was leave the General Plan designation as it is on the Preferred Alternative in the Draft EIR that shows the western portion of the property designated as Hillside Reserve. The remainder of the property is Low Density Residential which has an allowable residential density of zero to four residential units per acre. That would give the Commission leeway to revise the density based on the project, or the property characteristics such as environmental impacts, availability of infrastructure, access, and so forth on a property-specific basis rather than restricting the density so drastically as part of the General Plan Update process. He thanked the Commission and was available for any questions. Chairperson Campbell called Dan Allred to the podium. MR. DAN ALLRED with American Realty Trust, 1800 Valley View Lane, Suite 300 in Dallas, Texas, addressed the Commission. He explained that the company he represents has owned property in north Palm Desert since 1997. At one point they owned about 1,400 acres. The first transaction they did was the Marriott timeshare development which is now open and operating. About the same time they acquired that and worked out the plan with Marriott, the City seemed to be acceptable with that, and then the company acquired other properties around it. So they had a total of about 1 ,400 acres. 5 l MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2003 They had since sold off a good portion of that, some of it to the City or Redevelopment Agency. At the time they acquired it, every bit of it was either Planned Residential 5 Service Industrial, or there was about 300 acres in the Wonder Palms Development Agreement which was generally commercial type uses. Since that time, a little over 300 acres has been developed by Marriott, so that will not be single family. They sold 171 acres to the Redevelopment Agency for a golf course, so that would not be residential. And about the time they were acquiring this, the City worked out arrangements with Cal State for the land there that was about 160 acres. Then there was a high school and K through 8 elementary site that has been negotiated, so in total, there's about 700 acres in that area north of Frank Sinatra that has been sort of taken out of use in the last five, six, seven years. His purpose for stating that is that he detected this morning concern about the high density. He thought if one looks at the amount of acreage that has been taken out of use and just applied three units per acre, and it allows five units per acre, but if a more reasonable three units per acre on that area, that was over 2,000 units that was anticipated in the old General Plan that would not be there. Another thing is there seems to be a real focus on everything on the north side of 1-10 and that there will be this huge amount of density up there and it seems like that might need to be a separate study because as he understands it, very little and possibly none of that property is in the City. The County has much more restrictive uses there in their new plan that they just adopted this month, and there are 1,000 acres that the lizard preserve is acquiring, and then there is a big flood plain. He didn't think there would be that much density. This 1 ,400 acres they have tried to choreograph with several local investor/ developers / home builders. They worked very closely with staff to try to come up with a plan that meets the goal of the GPAC and meets the and desire of factions within the City to create some more affordable housing up in that portion of the City. The plan which they submitted, there were actually two, one between Monterey and Portola north of Gerald Ford, and then the other one which was the old Desert Wells property between Frank Sinatra, Portola, Gerald Ford and Cook across from the Cal State campus. Those aren't just 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21 2003 drawings on a flat piece of paper. They worked very closely with staff for the last several months to take into consideration the topography. There's a fairly steep slope there, grading, traffic, utilities, and land use. One of the things they were having to deal with is this is such a well located piece of property in this Valley, and it's the center of the Valley. It's on the interstate. There's an interchange at Monterey, an interchange at Cook and an interchange planned to be at Portola. This is where activity needs to be. That's why Wal-Mart wants to be there. That's why it's a good location for the University. That's also why people want to live there, because it's so easy to get to jobs all over the area of Palm Desert and the adjoining cities. It is also an area where people can build office buildings and attract employees and customers from around the Valley. He thought if one looks at the area along Highway 111 that has been developed over the last 30 years or so, a band of commercial, and on either side of it today there are a lot of multi-family, a lot of condos and a lot of denser residential development than one sees in the golf course communities. The golf course communities have made the City what everyone enjoys about the City, but there has to be these other areas that make sense in a City that grows and is attracting more jobs and more development. He said they voluntarily in July of last year let the map expire on the old Desert Wells property, which was the typical golf course residential related development on the north side of Frank Sinatra between Cook and Portola. He said they did that at the request of the City. They could have pulled a grading permit and built out the golf course and the lots. There could be a golf course there today, but they chose to step back and let those entitlements expire in an effort to try to work with the City to come up with a plan that the Commission is looking at this evening. A lot of time, effort, people, and staff people have worked on this. He encouraged the Commission to look at the time and effort that had been put into this and understand that yes, it is a little more dense than some people in the City are comfortable. However, if one looks at the issues on the north side of 1-10 and the close to 700 acres in this immediate area that has been taken out of residential development in the last five, six or seven years, it's not going to be as big an impact as some people think. He said he would appreciate the Commission's sincere 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21 2003 consideration. He and his engineer were available to answer any questions. There were no questions and Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to address the Commission regarding the General Plan. There was no one. Chairperson Campbell left the public hearing open and said they would be continuing it to their next meeting. Commissioner Lopez said he would move for continuance to November 4. Commissioner Finerty asked to what time it would be continued. After further discussion, the Commission decided to set the time at the end of this meeting. Commissioner Lopez said his motion would be to continue the matter to November 4 and to set the actual time at the end of the evening. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, continuing this item to November 4, 2003. Motion carried 5-0. A. Case No. CUP 03-14 - LENNART & KAREN RENBERG, Applicant (Continued from September 2, 2003) Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 3,050 square foot detached accessory garage with a height of 17' 11'/2" and a rear yard setback of 15"-0" for property located at 77-577 Mountain View. Mr. Urbina explained that the reason a conditional use permit application was filed to allow this detached accessory garage is because the zoning here is Residential Estate 40,000 square foot minimum lot size. In this zone the minimum standard rear yard setback is 50 feet. Any encroachment into the 50 feet by an accessory structure requires a conditional use permit application. The height allowed for a detached accessory structure in the rear yard is one foot of setback from a property line for each foot of building height. Mr. Urbina noted this case was continued from the September 2, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, and at that time the applicant was considering filing a variance application to allow a height to exceed the 18 feet up to 19 feet 2.5 inches which is what the previous plans showed. An 8 POSTED AGENDA - PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - OCTOBER 21, 2003 6:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION (October 9, 2003) VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Any person wishing to discuss any item not otherwise on the Agenda may address the Planning Commission at this point by stepping to the lectern and giving his/her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Planning Commission. B. This is the time and place for any person who wishes to comment on non-hearing Agenda items. It should be noted that at Planning Commission discretion, these comments may be deferred until such time on the Agenda as the item is discussed. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Planning Commission. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 03-15 - KELLER & SALERNO, Applicant Request for approval of a lot line adjustment to correct a fence encroachment between two dwellings at 74-251 and 74-231 De Anza Way. Recommended Action: Move by , second by , approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Vlll. PUBLIC HEARINGS POSTED AGENDA PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. CUP 03-14 - LENNART & KAREN RENBERG, Applicant - Continued from September 2, 2003. Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 3,050 square foot detached accessory garage with a height of 17'-111/2" and a rear yard setback of 15"-0" for property located at 77-577 Mountain View. Recommended Action: Move by , second by , approving the findings as presented by staff. Move by , second by , adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. approving Case No. CUP 03-14, subject to conditions. B. Case Nos. TT 31346 & VAR 03-01 - CENTENNIAL HOMES, Applicant - Continued from August 19, 2003 Request for approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide 2.53 acres into 9 single family residential lots (10,000 square foot minimum lot size), and approval of a variance to allow a reduction in the R-1-10,000 zone's 100 foot minimum depth to 96.8 feet and to allow a reduction in the 90 foot minimum lot width to 73.3 feet with an average lot width of 81 .6 feet. The project site is located at the southeast corner of Bel Air Road and Alamo Drive. Recommended Action: Move by , second by , approving the findings as presented by staff. Move by , second by , adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. approving Case Nos. TT 31346 & VAR 03-01. C. Case No. TT 31071 - WORLD DEVELOPMENT, INC., Applicant - Continued from July 15, 2003 and August 19, 2003 Request for approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide 36.63 acres on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive 1 ,413 feet west of Monterey Avenue into 153 residential lots and two additional lots, 73-400 Gerald Ford Drive. Recommended Action: Move by , second by , to continue to November 4, 2003. P POSTED AGENDA PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 D. Case Nos. GPA 03-05, C/Z 03-04, TT 31363, PP / CUP 03-06 and DA 03-02 - SERES REGIS GROUP, Applicant - Continued from August 19, 2003 Request for approval of a general plan amendment from low density residential (3-5 dwelling units per acre) to high density residential (7-18 units per acre), a change of zone to PR-13 (planned residential, thirteen units per acre), a Precise Plan / Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map for condominium purposes to construct 320 residential condominium units on a 25-acre site on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive 636 feet east of Monterey Avenue, 73-240 Gerald Ford Drive, APN 653-260-029. Project includes a height exception for roof elements 27 feet in height and a Development Agreement which will include, among other matters, provisions for affordable housing units. Recommended Action: Move by , second by , to continue to November 4, 2003. E. Case Nos. GPA 03-07, C/Z 03-10, PP 03-11, TPM 31515 and DA 03-03 - RICK EVANS, Applicant - Continued from September 2, 2003 Request for approval of a general plan amendment from low density residential to planned commercial; a change of zone from PR-5 (planned residential, five units per acre) to PCD (planned community development); and a precise plan and tentative parcel map for a commercial/office project at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive, 37-001 Cook Street. Said project includes 111,880 square feet of retail (including drive- thru restaurants), a three-story hotel with up to 140 rooms; and one-story garden offices totaling 122,000 square feet. Project is generally located at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive described as a portion of 653-390-062. Recommended Action: Move by , second by , to continue to November 4, 2003. F. Case Nos. C/Z 03-13 and TPM 31730 RBF CONSULTING, Applicant Request for approval of a zone change from PR-5 (planned residential, five dwelling units per acre) to PCD (planned community development) and a tentative parcel map dividing 306 +/- acres into five lots. Property is generally located south of Gerald Ford Drive between Portola Avenue and Cook Street, 37-500 Cook Street. Recommended Action: POSTED AGENDA PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 Move by , second by , to continue to November 4, 2003. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (No meeting) B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XIII. COMMENTS XIV. ADJOURNMENT DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant, of the City of Palm Desert Community Development Department, do hereby declare that the foregoing agenda for the Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, October 21, 2003, was posted on the bulletin board by the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, on Friday, October 17, 2003. Dated: October 17, 2003 DONNA QUAIVER, Senior Office Assistant, for TONYA MONROE, Administrative Secretary City of Palm Desert, California �•� MINUTES - ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. - TUESDAY - OCTOBER 21, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 8:33 a.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chairperson Sabby Jonathan, Vice Chairperson Cindy Finerty Jim Lopez Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Mark Greenwood, City Engineer Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. GPA 01-04, CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant (Continued from October 7, 2003 and September 16, 2003) The following is a verbatim transcript of this Public Hearing: Key SC Sonia Campbell, Planning Commission Chairperson PD Phil Drell, Director of Community Development 1 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21 2M Si Sabby Jonathan, Planning Commissioner JL Jim Lopez, Planning Commissioner DT Dave Tschopp, Planning Commissioner DM Donna Matson LR Lucy Rodriguez BP Bertha Perez TIP Tim Palmer MC Michael Castelli LW Locksi Witte MG Mark Greenwood, City Engineer CIF Cindy Finerty, Planning Commissioner MH Margaret Hartsworn CM Chris McFadden ?? Unclear who was speaking Sc We have Case No. GPA 01-04, City of Palm Desert, Applicant, and this public hearing is being continued from October 71n and September 16tn Request for consideration of a Comprehensive General Plan Update. The Public Hearing is open, so Mr. Drell... PD Good morning. We are continuing discussion of the land use element and the focus areas. I would like to start at this time with the north Highway 111 alley issue. To review, this area north Highway 111 , originally the Palma Village Plan designated all the lots that you see on the north side of this alley as developable into a Presidents' Plaza type common parking area to encourage redevelopment of the north Highway 111 commercial lots. For various reasons over the years, this was really never implemented. The Redevelopment picked up one lot. We have a couple of committed lots via some redevelopments that did occur to the Andreino's Restaurant and to Mark's Golf, but in general, the alley looks pretty much the way today as it did 15 years ago. We had proposed last meeting an alternative plan which would extend 46 feet north of the alley, creating a double row of parking, creating I believe 264 parking spaces. The problem is, it would eliminate a couple of houses, actually three houses, one tri-plex and one house which is being used as a business on San Marcos. Based on testimony at the last meeting, we produced another alternative which instead of a double row in the middle of diagonal spaces, we'd have one row of 90 degree spaces on the north side and a six-foot landscape planner and a wall adjacent to the residential allowing for trees. This could save all of the existing houses with the exception of the two on San Marcos, the tri-plex and the house that is being used as a window tinting business. It produced 188 spaces. If we probably put in some intermediate landscape planters so you wouldn't have 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 just a continuous asphalt drive it might come down to 170 spaces. At four spaces per thousand, it could generate about 40-50,000 square feet of expanded development on the area as opposed to 60,000 or 70,000 square feet for the alternative with more parking. Obviously, the cost of acquisition...probably one of the obstacles in the implementation of this plan was not wanting to face the cost, and so coming up with an alternative that preserves to the greatest extent the existing residential uses and preserves most of the back yards might be a simple alternative that actually can be implemented. You have in your packet a letter from a property owner advocating...it was just distributed to you this morning...this lesser alternative with just...again, it would take 26 feet of the back yard. So, open up the floor to either discussion from the audience or... Si Brief question before we do that. PD Sure. Si Alternative A would create, you said, 244? SC 264. PD 264. Si And how many homes would be impacted? PD Three homes would be impacted, a tri-plex on the west side of San Marcos, which in some people's opinion should be impacted, and then there is a house on the east side of San Marcos which is used as a business. Si So four homes plus a tri-plex? PD Correct. Si Would there also be back yard acquisitions? PD Yes. There would have to be 26...there would be 46 feet of back yard acquisition. It would also eliminate those garages, certain lots have those garages that back onto the alley. Right here and here. In this plan, they'd still probably be eliminated. The houses that would be eliminated would be here, here's the tri-plex, here is the house that is a business, and then two houses over here off of San Benito. The garages, these two garages, this house also has somewhat of a garage that would be impacted. The other 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21 2003 thing that would be impacted in any plan is...over on Las Palmas there is an apartment project with a whole line of carports, and actually that is a area which we did do some implementation, that we did acquire this parcel. Here are the carports...we did acquire this parcel here, which the carports could be relocated to, and the City actually owns the parcel next to it. In the straight in parking plan, you see that these two houses are still preserved, obviously with a significantly shorter back yard. This house here on the end, right next to the Walgreen's parking lot, the wall would almost go right up to the back of the house, so the back yard's entirely eliminated...that one still might have to be sacrificed and be acquired if we are going to build the parking adjacent to it. Again, theoretically, we can do a little jogging there at the corner since we do have some room since it's a vacant lot on the other side. Si So the idea is that the City would acquire that property on a voluntary basis if possible and then incur the costs of creating the parking, or are we talking about... PD Again, that would be a discussion...in the Palma Village Plan, the suggested implementation would be that the Parking Authority would acquire the properties, build the parking lot...we've already received easements from a few of the commercial property owners as part of their developments. An assessment district would be created to maintain it, like exists in Presidents' Plaza, and then as individual redevelopment projects or private redevelopment projects expanded their buildings, they would be assessed a per parking space fee for the additional parking that their expansions generated. So there would be somewhat of a pay as you go and some reimbursement to the Authority. For those businesses that took advantage of the extra parking, they would contribute and reimburse the Parking Authority. Si But the additional parking is not just to enable expansion, it's also to alleviate the parking deficiency that exists, right? PD The reason why there's a parking deficiency is the alley is so undesirable, that really no one wants to park in it. Most everyone parks out on the frontage road right now. The frontage road capacity is probably maxed out. If in fact all the employees park back behind the buildings, probably right now we would be okay. The primary goal of the investment is to encourage remodeling and expansion and redevelopment of those old buildings. Si How much room is there for expansion? I mean remodeling, yes, but actual expansion... 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 PD Most of the...if you look at the stores here...for instance, the old...you're looking at 20, 25%coverage of the Highway 111 lots, and you notice that the lots are substantially vacant, you see a lot of cars on the frontage road. So the goal would be...you have some that are...some lots that are—the other problem a lot of the lots, they are only 50 feet wide, which is a lousy geometry for developing parking. It's much wider than you need for one row of parking but not enough for two, so it makes a lot more sense for those lots to be built out. In essence, what we're trying to do is taking real estate that is on Highway 111 that is probably worth $20 a square foot and create parking on real estate that is far less expensive. Let's look at a lot of those back yards...first, about half of those residential lots are currently vacant and a lot of the back yards that are there are not particularly well maintained either because of the indefinite boundary that we have there with the commercial zone. Hopefully as part of this, you create a nice row of trees which the back of this thing then would create a somewhat more compatible defensible boundary there between the commercial and residential uses. JL For the sake of the conversation this morning, obviously one of the options is to do nothing. PD Correct. JL But let's say for this morning we say we put in Plan B. We do anything else to that alley, or do we just add parking places, and everything that's on the side of the buildings just remains the same. Is there any thought about going back because right now the place looks pretty bad. The alley is undesirable, as you say, and if we did nothing, or if we did put parking, what will we do, or what should we do regarding the parking or the situations behind all of those buildings along that entire alley, because it is a very undesirable place. I don't even know that if we put parking back there and it remains exactly the way it is today, that anybody will use the parking back there. PD You would have to be...coupled with...we have a facade improvement program because the other thing we have to do is we have to make the backs of the buildings also desirable. We have had, and we heard from some of them last meeting, three or four property owners who have been waiting for 20 years for this to happen, to justify the expansion and remodeling of the buildings. It might take a long time, obviously, depending on how aggressive we want to get with our facade program. If you are familiar, in our facade improvement program, we will pay for 50% of facade changes up to...again, a $70,000 job we would pay $35,000. Whether we 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21 2003 want to up that to encourage not just facade changes but remodeling and to make sure that those facade changes occur on the backs of the buildings as well as on the front, that would be another incentive. There are two ways to do redevelopment. One is with a bulldozer, which one of our neighbor cities has tried. The other is, for example, what is slowly happening on Fred Waring or what happened on Monterey. All we did on Fred Waring and Monterey is change the land use. It has taken some time, but Monterey between 111 and the College and beyond the College actually up to Park View, now looks pretty good, and all we did was we had vacant properties or old run-down houses, and all we did was change the zoning. In 20 years, it has slowly changed. You are seeing the same thing happening on Fred Waring. Given the value and desirability of those properties on Highway 111 , the market will tend to try to maximize that value, and the buildings that are there now don't do that. Eventually, you will have property owners who will say gee whiz, this is a great location to have a business, but this is a 2,000 square foot building that has eight-foot ceilings, it's got a swamp cooler, it's got lousy electrical, probably needs to be torn down, but right now it can only be replaced with a 2,000 square foot building. Typically, people don't like to tear down buildings for which they are receiving rent, no matter how ugly they are, because they can only replace them with the same square footage. So being able to provide at least some opportunity for expansion, which means more rents for more rentable area or leasable area...the other thing, we have some existing businesses that are very successful. Generally, we have a whole bunch of successful businesses in that stretch. A number of them have outgrown their buildings, and they are faced with either moving or expanding. Without more parking, they can't expand. It's a lot more dramatic and obvious change when we just use a bulldozer. We have chosen to try to work with the existing businesses and existing property owners...and right, it's going to take longer, but I think it will eventually happen because they are sitting on very, very, very valuable commercial real estate which is being underutilized by the current buildings. SC Mr. Drell, let's talk about 20 years from now, 25 years from now...do you think that Plan B with 188 spaces would be enough? PD Okay, this is what I meant to say at the beginning. When you are doing this sort of redevelopment, there's going to be no perfect solution, especially when you're balancing objectives at the boundary of the residential and commercial area. It will provide...obviously the more we have the better. More parking allows...a little bit of incentive is good, a lot more incentive is more, is better. It goes back to the practicality of how much this costs to implement this and what is the cost on the residential side. It becomes a 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 tough call, but acknowledging that there will be no perfect solution, it compromises what you're going to end up with. Si I want to ask you something, Mr. Drell. I'm not sure...I'm not trying to make a point as much as I really need this question in my mind answered. I remember many of these businesses coming through the approval process, through us, and trying to persuade us, and many cases successfully, that they have adequate parking. In many cases, they sought exceptions to our ordinance and received that exception. Why would we then come back and build additional parking for them now that they realize that they made a mistake? PD Okay, those businesses that came through, we got something from them. Andreino's we got a lot. I mean, a parcel. Basically, this parcel right here as part of his approval he...okay, right here, as a condition of approval...he got approval on the basis that he would temporarily contract with the bank and the veterinary clinic for parking. But what we got from him was a parking easement on this parcel and a condition that if we ever do this, he would contribute per the amount of parking he needed. Same thing with Mark's Golf, as you recall. Si But you said we're not going to ask them to contribute toward the construction of the parking. Only if someone comes in for an expansion. PD He was conditioned with his approval to, if and when it ever...he did provide the real estate. Si You know, Andreino's is a good example because I remember them coming to us and persuading us that yeah, they're going to have parking at the bank and no, it's not too far for their customers, and yada yada, and then they were here at our last meeting saying oh, it's a terrible situation, we have to walk all the way across to the bank for our parking, so I mean... PD No, remember, the presumption of their approval was that someday we would implement this program, and remember the motivation was...the goal of the program was to get good businesses to do the things you need to be successful, so that was the goal, that's the end goal. And those approvals were predicated on us someday implementing this adopted program that's in the General Plan today. And instead of telling them, sorry don't do that, go somewhere else, abandon your building, build a restaurant in Rancho Mirage, we said...again, there's no perfect solution. We weighed the cost of discouraging a very successful business. And by the way, that's the one business who...a lot of our businesses have been hurt by The River...for 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 whatever reason, his business had it's best year ever in the last year. It tells you something about what we achieved by making that choice. We said in the interim we will have this fixed, which is not perfect, that allows you to do business. You will (inaudible) contribute a piece of real estate to the ultimate goal, which allows...we don't have to buy his property, we don't have to acquire anything for that lot, he's given it to us already. And add that he will make a contribution when the thing's built, but that's the same thing we did with Presidents' Plaza, and remember in 1980 when we built Presidents' Plaza, it was a similar situation. When it opened, yeah maybe less than half of it was full of cars in 1980, but it allowed businesses to expand and to do better, and now it's jammed full. So it took time, and we've had to redo it once to even get more parking in there. One, we're not doing it for the existing businesses, we're doing it to hope to attract new businesses to encourage the owners to invest money in their properties. Same thing with the problem with Radio Active there at the corner, a situation, again, where a guy has a great tenant, it is creating them a lot of rent, the building looks awful, but he's not going to get a nickel more if he gets a nicer building. He's got the same lease. So it's partly a psychology game. The (inaudible)we've approved, we've approved...same with Mark's Golf, we've got an easement for the lots behind him, we don't have to acquire that lot. Sometimes that's what cities do. SC Any other questions of Mr. Drell? DT I've got three or four for you. PD Sure. DT What has driven the number of parking spaces needed? Has there been a study conducted that shows we need 264 or 188 or is it just what would work? PD We're looking at what produces some parking. The original goal, again...the Palma Village Plan initially wiped out all these houses entirely, and you have a wall like you see in the back of Walgreen's. The perception by a property owner who lived right here, in my own conversion, and something actually I knew all along but was in my mind was emphasizing the needs of the commercial over the residential to a certain degree, the first motivation to change was the quality of life and the quality of a residential experience in these circles would degrade significantly even if you had landscaping and a wall and a back end of a parking lot. What makes the best neighborhood is houses on both sides, houses and front yards. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21�2003 DT So we don't have any real... PD No, in terms of we want to produce more parking, let's produce as much parking as we can in a fixed piece of geometry that's shared by two uses and come up with a line that still preserves sufficient residential real estate to still have houses. That's what you see here is how to plot vacant lots and originally on the 46 plan, which took out a bunch of houses and shortened the back yards, that theoretically you could still plot houses on those lots, you might have to adjust our front yard setbacks a bit, but it's just a matter of balancing the geometric requirements of residences with trying to work in the geometry of parking, which is created in either 24- or 25-foot increments. DT On Plan A, it was 46-foot encroachment into some of the houses to the north. PD Right. DT On Plan B, how much would that go into, on average? PD Plan A would be 45, Plan B is 26. DT 26 feet. PD 26 feet. DT Have you met with or had any kind of community meetings over there, met with homeowners individually or as a group and with some of the businesses to see what might work and what might be a consensus that they would have on approving this... PD I've met with them individually, I've never met with them all together other than them coming together at these meetings. DT And then I guess the other question would be, I've always understood that's not really an alley, that there actually is a street, a portion, maybe it's the westerly portion that is a street, but needless to say, it's not a very safe driving area back there and it's a heavily used alley/street. If you implemented this, would the alley be improved, would the poles come down? PD Yes, it would be made, redone, it would be a regular width drive aisle. Again, on this plan, we would put...that's the reason we would have less than 188, 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21 2003 we would probably put, typically we do intermediate fingers into the parking lot so you don't see 45 feet of just asphalt, there'd be trees sticking out into it. It would look as attractive as any alley that meets our standards, of any parking lot that meets our standards. DT You may have answered this earlier, but I assume you are visiting employees using this because it's not going to be very convenient for customers to use it as parking given the looks of the buildings in the back, and I understand the hope that they would improve those buildings looking in the back but then crossing a street/alley could also be a problem. And so going back to my original question of do we know what we really need back there and what will be used as opposed to what works. PD The answer is we know we need more parking unless we just want to do let the buildings expand without any. We really (inaudible) Andreino's mainly because it's a night use and they can borrow parking from—but general businesses, without question, will need more parking. You're right, eventually for the parking to be most effective, they'll have to develop some sort of rear entrances, they'll have to make the buildings more attractive. There are many...you know, El Paseo...again, President's Plaza is a real parking lot. A lot of people use it, and since it was used, a lot of those buildings did get remodeled and got oriented with accesses to the rear. It's not an uncommon arrangement, it's just that right now...again, it's not inviting for anyone to park there. DT I guess the real question too, we have the Palma Village Plan which was never fully implemented for various reasons. I guess...is the City prepared at this time to proceed in a timely manner to accomplish this, or is this something that 20 years from now we'll be looking at and saying it hasn't worked, hasn't gone forward. PD The answer to that is something the Council will have to answer. Staff recommendation and hopefully the recommendation that you go to them with is that, which is kind of like the initial premise of the discussion, is what do we have to do. If we're not...and that's part of the motivation for scaling it back to some sort of...providing options that provide some sort of an economically palatable solution, that if we're not prepared to do something in terms of expanding parking, we should forget about expanding parking and then just look at prettying up the alley, making it functional. But whatever we should do, we should do something, and if we're not, again if we're not prepared to take on the financial burden of building this thing, then we shouldn't do anything. Whatever it is, we should give the property owners, 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 both the commercial and the residential property owners, some certainty as to what to do with the future. The residential ones on those vacant lots can go...they can build houses on them. People who have existing houses, they know they can fix their roofs, and it's worthwhile for them to do that without having their house torn down a year from now. So a decision should be made and committed to. DT So as far as the perusal of this commission, if we were to approve one of these plans, perhaps we would want to put a caveat on it that we do it either in a timely fashion and/or abandon it and not move forward in any way so that people can take away some uncertainty on their properties, both on the business and on the home side. PD Yes, absolutely. Si A follow-up question on Commissioner Tschopp's comments. Did GPAC or staff ever review the possibility of, let's call it an Alternative C that would deal with the existing parking shortage only rather than with the expansion. For example, creating pockets of parking in conjunction with an employee parking management plan, something that would effectively eliminate the existing problem but not be directed towards the possibility of future expansion? PD The answer is no. The plan that...one thing that we didn't want to see is a lot of parking and then a house and then a lot of parking. Again, in terms of the residential environment, we wanted to see continuous house frontages on the circles. This plan probably lends itself most to that in that you can jog back and forth 25 feet without...you know, we could probably do these one at a time without significantly impacting the residential character, have that line go in and out. The 46 feet becomes...well, the 46 plan requires continuous aisles on the side and that probably, it's got to go (inaudible) or not. But this one probably could go, and it does that...you know, for a 50-foot lot, it adds five parking spaces, which is 1200, 1300 square feet. Or, again, if we were doing it, it could be kind of like on a first come, first served basis. If someone wants to do their remodeling now, they can take advantage of two sections or three sections and pick up 15 spaces, 20 spaces, and then we can kind of assess and as case by case goes on into the future. SC Okay, any more questions of Mr. Drell? Now, I do have some blue cards here, if there anyone wishing to speak in regard to what we...okay, please step up. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 DM Good morning, Madam Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Donna Madsen and I live at 73-341 San Benito, and I first want to say in response to the question had Mr. Drell met with any of the homeowners of commercial people. I want you to know that he has bent over backwards. I had many long detailed conversations with Mr. Drell, and he is very thorough about providing material, making suggestions. And his coming up with Plan B, of taking only 26 feet, instead of the 45 feet of our back yard, makes an entire difference because, for example, Mary McGowan's Irish Inn is short of parking, and if you take 45 feet of my property and of Ms. Rodriguez's, that parking all night long, it's a jolly place, and lots of wonderful people that socialize late into the night, would be parking within six inches of my bedroom window, with the 45, but with Plan B, I would have a 20-foot buffer. And I'm already talking to my gardener about trees and bushes and everything to put in on my side to help buffer that. And that makes my home still livable, so I really recommend and hope that you can go with Plan B or with Commissioner Lopez's suggestion to leave it as is. Nothing has happened for 25 years, and the future is certainly generally uncertain for all of us at this point. Another suggestion would be is to take one of the commercial lots and turn that into a parking lot. So, thank you for your time, thank you for Mr. Drell who has listened and who has come up with Plan B and other suggestions. We very much appreciate your sensitivity to the quality of life for our homes and properties, as many people have had this property for...Lucy has had hers for 30 years, it's been in my family for 50 years, and we very much appreciate your thoughtful and considerate thinking on this project. Thank you so much. SC Either Lucy Rodriguez or Bertha Perez? LR Lucy Rodriguez, and I've lived there for quite a while. Right now... SC Can you give us your address also, please? LR Oh, 73-361 San Benito Circle, and one of the things is that I was never notified that this was happening until just a few weeks (inaudible) I live up in northern California. My daughter lives here, my kids were raised here and everything, and I was a little bit disappointed because I wasn't notified of what was happening. I got a Portola but nothing about the alley. I will see that whatever is reasonable, that it will benefit for the City or whatever, but a lot of the businesses there on the alley, they have never really done anything, I mean my yard is surrounded with block all around, and so is Donna's and a lot of the back yards there. I realize that they're old, but it's mostly the businesses that it looks, to me, more shabby, because it makes it 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21 2003 kind of dark. And I was there for a lot of years and I saw a lot of things, and the alley does look kind of rundown and everything. It seems like there...what is it, the 26 is okay, but it seems like the businesses should do a lot more of the back because that's what looks more untidy to me. Thank you. Sc Bertha Perez? BP Hi, my name is Bertha Perez, and I do reside at 73-361 San Benito Circle. I do agree with Mr. Drell that something has to be done. This has been planned for many years, and nothing has been done, and we'd like to fix our area, too, but we've all been kind of in limbo. And 111 1 think you do need to kind of take care of the looks. And the 26 feet I think will be perfect and have the alley looking good, and then people would park back there, you know, with the trees. And you know, we do our part and the businesses hopefully they would do theirs because it does, you know, people are afraid. I live right there and wouldn't walk back there. It's scary. You need lights. I have two kids that are going to COD, so I am going to stay there for a while, so it would be nice. And it sounds like you guys...he has a really good plan, he does. And I think it would, you know, people driving along 111, too, you'd see a much nicer area, because when I drive, you know, you can see everything out there, and I do think a wall and maybe some trees and nice parking, and the businesses, I'm sure, would work, you know, I'm sure once they see all this they'd put money into their own businesses. They'd make it look better because they do want their clients to, you know, park in a safe area and I'm sore they would put more money into it, they would. Right now, they're not because the road's cracked and who wants to drive back there, who wants to park back there. Nobody. So it sounds like a good thing, and the City should invest money into it because I think it would just better the whole 111 area. It gets used a lot, it gets used quite a bit, it's the main road. So I do agree with him. Thank you for listening to me. SC Thank you. Anyone else in regards to this? Please come forward. TP My name's Tim Palmer, and I live at 44-900 San Clemente Circle. Can I point to the map real quick...(inaudible)...where's the car wash at(inaudible) PD And what you're seeing is the superimposed potential house that can occupy a lot after the expansion. TP Are we talking back here... 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21 2003 PD You're right here. TP These are proposed? PD Yes, all the white things are actually proposed showing that the remaining lots can still accommodate a single-family. TP (Inaudible) PD It's still zoned R-1 , yes, and those are 1,600 square foot pads. TP I do have a window tinting business Phil was referring to, Filter-Lite, but the car wash has been there many years, there used to be a hardware store where the cleaners is. I've put up with noise, the Red Barn partying, it doesn't make much difference, I've been there for 35 years almost. And about 20 years ago, this same thing that Donna and Rodriguez was speaking of, everything is in limbo about what to do, so again like Phil says, why should you put a roof on your house if you're not sure how long you'll be there. The City had a lawsuit against me being there running a business in a residence, and it's been that way many people before I ever bought the home in 1970. There's always been a painter in there, an electrician, it just lends itself to that kind of environment. I want to point out one more thing. When I was back in the Planning Commission a few years ago, probably when the lawsuit was against me, thanks to Ray Diaz, but where the line should have separated residential and commercial, knowing that Palm Desert was one of the fastest growing cities back in the 80's, and that was (inaudible) eliminate San Marcos, keep all the circles with residences there, keep San Gorgonio, but anywhere from (inaudible) to south should have been eliminated way back then, knowing the growth potential for that area. think it was decided when the City wanted to go to the Cook Street industrial area that a lot of this part got neglected and so therefore they didn't need mine, they didn't need Donna's, etc., etc. And that never got implemented. But that way you don't have the residential people trying to get through to the Highway on that and make that all parking and expand the buildings. But move the alley or road there, offset it like it is further to the est and run the road up against that wall with your buffer zone and keep that all commercial but take everything like me out of there. I'm like a boll weevil, I don't care where I go. But I have been there many years, and it is very frustrating like Donna and Rodriguez said. And the poor guy that owned the car wash couldn't even repave his parking lot because apparently that's not a desirable business to be there. And, of course, they've opened up another "restaurant/bar" across San Marcos way, and I think there might be room in 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21. 2003 that parking lot for golf carts to park in the "designated" size of spaces. But I wish them good, I've known them for a long time. Take as much as you can now because you're going to need it. I go along with Phil. Don't hesitate again and again and again, year after year for 20 years in doing this. I'm willing to work with the City in any way, but my suggestion is do it now. hope to live another hundred years but the City's going to be here for 500 years. Thank you. SC Thank you, Mr. Palmer. Anyone else? TP Could I say one more thing? I don't mind the pocket parking, there's nothing wrong with that for now, until...people have been parking in the streets and everywhere as far it goes now, you may as well not put those three residences behind me, make that the parking lot if those commercial people need that parking. The previous owner a long time ago was storing cars back there, and the City made him tow the cars out of there, and it was his property. Of course, it has since sold, but make that parking back there. It's too small for those three proposed homes to get in and out of San Clemente Circle. I mean, just by walking it, looking at it, and living there every day. And as far as the amount of parking on the frontage road and in the alley, I look at it every day, and I see plenty of parking left over as I drive by there five and six times a day. But I would do the major move if I was the City. Thank you. SC Thank you. MC Hi, my name is Michael Castelli. I own Castelli's Restaurant (inaudible) Andreino's. Thank you. SC Can we have your address, please. MC 73-098 Highway 111. 1 think, first of all, Phil has been working very hard to try and do something to the back of the alley, and for me and the rest of the people, we need to know if it's going to happen. Second of all, 15 years ago opened my restaurant. It was a very small restaurant, I sat 30 people. Steve Smith here told me you need to put landscaping in the back of your alley because we are going to make this alley beautiful, and that was 15 years ago. I have since remodeled three times. I seat almost 170 people. Why is it I do not have a parking lot? I'm probably the only business that doesn't have its own parking lot. Thank you, City, for letting me expand and do that. Two years ago I expanded and I probably have the most beautiful building on the back of the alley that is the ugliest alley in the neighborhood because you said we are going to make it better. So we all are waiting for 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21�2003 you to do this. Other things that are...I speak for Radio Active and the pet hospital, that that alley, which is supposed to be a street because you do the water and everything, needs somehow to be fixed because you can't drive through it. And this guy has been preaching to get something done, so I think what really needs to be done and figured out, and I feel sorry for the homeowners, figure out if we're going to do something or leave it because Sabby and Dave, you guys were both at First Bank, and you've seen when you drive through there how bad it is, especially when I have delivery trucks, have everything, nobody can go through there. It's a hazard. In the corner, you can't drive in the alley...I'm sorry, street...you need to fix it or leave it for another 15 years and make people make the backs of the buildings beautiful. For what, I don't know. So I think I speak for a lot of the people here that we need to make a decision about doing something with that. Thank you. SC Thank you. Si Mr. Castelli, let me just ask you a quick question while we have you up there. What I'm hearing is that your point is that the City has a responsibility to maintain its streets and roadways and that that particular alley or street is in need of some of the City's attention. With regard to the parking, whose responsibility, and you're a business owner, whose responsibility do you think it is to create parking for private businesses? MC Well, I tried to do this. I bought the lot behind me. Si I'm not focusing on you. MC Right, I understand that. Si You said you talked... MC Okay, I tried to do something. I bought the lot behind me and was going to buy the lot next to me for parking, but the City said we do not want parking between two residential houses. So I'm in limbo waiting til hopefully the City figures out something to do with the parking. I don't have the answer for the rest of the business owners, but I think the rest of the business owners could expand their businesses similar to like I did, all the way to the alley, and have the parking if they wanted to. Similar to like we did at Keedy's, the back of Keedy's, you have parking all the way in the back there, and it's nice. Thank you. SC Anyone else? 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 LW Good morning. My name's Locksi Witte, and I live at 44-870 San Antonio Circle. It's the property with the swimming pool. I'm here today because my husband can't make it and he'd like me to actually bring up the fact that the Core Commercial Area Specific Plan and the Palma Village Specific Plan, the first which was adopted in July 1987 and the second, the Palma Village Specific Plan, which was adopted June 13, 1985, is showing up again in this new General Plan. And the alley, according to the City's implementation plan, is going to be an assessment district. My question is does it mean that if the City does not get 51% of the property owners approval on the new tax, this whole plan won't go ahead, or is there another method the City is going to implement this whole plan? The other thing is, I agreed with Dave Tschopp that if the Commission does approve this, that there be a time limit on it. It is difficult for us. If you're doing 26 feet or 45 feet, the structure in the back, which is the living unit for us, is going to be gone, and our air conditioning unit is 30 years old, it's going to go. We have to decide whether we want to sell the property and move on, but the thing is I found out that I'll have to disclose, if I'm going to sell my property, what's going to happen to the alley in the back. So it's going to put us in a bind, you know, what we're going to do. So I'd appreciate the consideration that if plans are going to be made, you know, that we residents be informed what is going on and that there's a time limit on it so that we can get on with our lives. My husband had to put in the pool when he became disabled, and that was money we pumped in, and now even the City's Housing Authority is not going to buy up the property for affordable homes because it has a swimming pool on it. So...thank you. SC Anyone else? Okay, Mr. Drell. PD That last question. It is our...maybe it's an act of faith that we...which was reinforced by our experience in the past with Presidents' Plaza...that since we are doing this for the benefit of the commercial property owners, it is our assumption at least half of them will be supportive of it. If it turns out that half of them aren't supportive of it, and basically what we do with Presidents' Plaza, we first gave them the proposition. We said we will invest a million dollars in your parking lot if you agree to an assessment district to maintain it. And if they would have...my assumption was that if they said forget it, we're not going to maintain it, we would have probably walked away from the deal. So our assumption is, and it's all everyone's doing this, that commercial property owners will be supportive of that deal. Another thing I'd like to talk about, which is the...those houses that are going to back onto this alley are going to be noisier. It's not going to be like living in Big Horn or out in a quiet 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 residential neighborhood. There are going to be benefits and burdens on those property owners to stay there, to live there. If they're the sort of people who like the guy who lived behind Ruth's Chris, if they went to work at 4:30 in the morning and had to go to sleep at 9, then that's not the place to live. On the other hand, there are benefits to being right next to the action. If you're someone whose lifestyle is compatible with being in that location and being able to access the businesses on 111, there's a benefit. The burden is it's going to be noisier. So those are not going to be...for someone who likes peace and quiet, it's not the place to live. And hopefully...but we still believe that it's better to have a house there. I grew up 50 feet from Sepulveda Boulevard, which we used (inaudible) at that time was the freeway, the main freeway between San Fernando Valley and West L.A. and Santa Monica, and it had benefits and burdens, you get used to it. In New York City, you have multi-million dollar penthouses on, you know, Fifth Avenue. It has benefits and burdens, and hopefully the people make their choices who enjoy the benefits to live there. I think overall, it becomes better for the whole neighborhood to have those houses. Any other questions you have for me? DT To address some of the concerns and move us forward, I guess, as a part of the General Plan, can we draft something that would be a proposal. Assuming that we will adopt some stance on this, some change, can staff draft a proposal that's included in the General Plan and a specific time line to get it done. PD Sure. DT So that if the businesses don't agree, if this doesn't happen, etc., and so forth, that the area would then not be disturbed. PD Or Plan C comes in where we just clean up the alley. And it is an alley. It's a 20-foot, and Mark could...it is a 20-foot wide littered lot that was created by the original subdivider that created the commercial and residential parcels. What happened in those days often, that lot would be offered to dedication to the County and actually what appears to have happened maybe here, it actually happened with a lot of the "alleys" in town, the County never accepted the dedication. When the City incorporated, we assumed all of the County's right-of-ways, and then they kind of disappeared, and no one remembered about these things. And so some of these alleys, although technically those dedications are in perpetuity, I'm not sure if we ever were able to find whether we actually accepted the dedication of this thing. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21�2003 MG We have not accepted the dedication here. I should say, though, that we're in the process of identifying all of these offers of dedication that weren't accepted by the County. It's a paperwork nightmare trying to find them, and then we intend to accept them all in one action. So this should be considered a public alley. PD And again, hopefully a design...this might be someplace where we need speed humps. That's another issue. If you can bring those trees fingers then it tends to visually narrow it and tends to slow people down, but that would be the other thing, part of the design, to try to figure out ways to control the speed. Sc (Inaudible) on any of this today? Si I thought we were going to do it all together when we get to it. PD It would probably be good to discuss. It's up to you, but while it's hot in your mind to either give discussion or give us direction. It's up to you. Si I don't know. We haven't done that with the rest of the General Plan. Are you suggesting we deviate from that? I thought we were going to wade through the entire Plan and then get to the discussion. PD Well, these items where we have folks here that we might not want, they might not be interested in waiting until we wade through everything else. Sc Well, my feeling is if we're going to go ahead and do it, I would like to go ahead and actually go all the way and go with Plan A and have the 264 spaces. We have those businesses facing Highway 111 . They are old buildings, and even though the parcels are small, there may be someone that may come along and remodel them and have one larger building instead of two or just expand to the alley and we would have more employees and more people who would be coming to the businesses so that we would need more parking spaces. And it would be just like Presidents' Plaza that has been restriped and restriped a couple of times, and we cannot squeeze any more parking spaces in there. And, again, if we're going to do it, let's go all the way and do it correctly and have all the other businesses in the back clean up their act and make it more pleasant and more—how do you say...crime-free, if there is any crime back there. And I do agree with Commissioner Tschopp in having a deadline when all of this should go ahead and be completed. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21 2003 CIF I would concur. I sat on GPAC and listened to many people speak about what it is that needs to be done. My view of Plan B is it's simply a band-aid approach. I understand the impact on some of the homeowners, but our job here is to look 20 years down the road and try to do what's best for the entire community. So, therefore, I would feel that Plan A is the best. I think that we need to somehow amend an ordinance so that the owners of the buildings are required to clean up the back side of the buildings. I think that if the alley is a public alley and that is the City's responsibility, that that alley needs to be cleaned up. I think that adding parking would help along with landscaping and trees and then putting in the required time line to make sure these things get done and that the property owners are not left in limbo because that's another thing I'm really hearing is, you know, do something. And this would be my idea. DT Well, first I'd say that I think that in some respects that area is a blighted area, and it truly needs the attention of the City and the concerted efforts of the Redevelopment Agency and traffic, engineering, etc., and so forth. Having said that, I'm not convinced yet of either A or B plan because I haven't really, it hasn't really been demonstrated the number of parking spaces that are needed, and I haven't really seen any documentation that the City has the resources to do it all in one shot. And I'm afraid if we adopt the wrong plan, we could be sitting here 20 years from now saying we didn't get it done again. So in some ways, I kind of lean to Plan A, the 26-foot movement, to hopefully get the thing off and running, to get that area cleaned up and get things approved. At the same time, looking down the road, it would probably make more sense for Plan B, so I guess I'm saying at this point in time I still need some time to really study this. But I truly think there has to be a concerted effort and we need to have the businesses involved in cleaning up the back area. We need to make that...it's not an alley, it's a street...and we need to kind of acknowledge that and/or take away that possibility of it being a street. I'm not convinced that people, customers, will walk across the alley/street to the businesses the way it is right now, so if we were to implement either plan, I think we need to somehow make certain that it truly does benefit what we're trying to accomplish there. So, I lean toward the 24-foot alley, the Plan B I guess is what it is, only because I'm concerned that to try to implement Plan A may not get done in a timely manner. Whatever we do, I think that we need to make certain that we draft a proposal that truly states a time line that it be accomplished and if it isn't accomplished, that it be abandoned and then the alley simply be cleaned up and improvements made by the businesses to the buildings. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21. 2003 JL And I would...I guess I'm looking at it a little differently, and I think that...where I'm coming from is I believe that the burden of the parking issue needs to be shared a little more than 50% as pertains to the commercial developers on that alley. I think that we need to do something. Shame on us for listening to people who 15 years ago were told something and nothing has happened since. I think that we need to move on this. I think we need to do something. The alley is...and I drove it this morning when it's the quietest...it looks terrible. I would not want to have a business...I guess I would be embarrassed to have a business or have a home that backs up to such an ugly situation. Mr. Palmer has probably lived in some of the...Mr. Palmer mentioned...some of the great places there, the Red Barn and the car wash, and they've been there for an awful long time, and I've used those facilities. I've never gone to the Red Barn, but I remember anyway, but I think it's time to do something, and I think that the residents, the commercial owners on that alley/street, whatever you want to call it, need to share in the burden on this. And I think that it needs to be shared by the people who develop the businesses there. And to have allowed that alley behind their buildings to deteriorate to the point that no one will go back there and use it..l mean there is parking back there, and no one uses it. I mean I know that anybody in their right mind wouldn't park back there half the time. So, mean, it needs to be shared by the commercial people, it needs to be done, there needs to be a time line on this. At first I was looking at the Plan B, which would not have as much of an imposition on the homeowners along that area, lets them maintain their property and most of what they have right now. You know, I'm not opposed to the wider one, but I think we need to do something, and I think it needs to incorporate not only the widening onto the property of the residents, but the burden needs to also include the redevelopment of the areas behind the businesses. And we should not just make this one...I mean we have an opportunity now to take an area that looks pretty bad and create a very unique alley or walkway, business environment, that would impact positively to that area. And if it's a meandering street that goes through with street lights and trees and beautification, I think that's where we need to be. And I think 15 years down the road or 20 years down the road when we look at that, we can say man we did a great job with that, and now we would be using that instead of Presidents' Plaza to compare what we should be doing in the future when it comes to developing needed areas that need to be improved. So I guess I would say I'm in favor of something happening immediately or as soon as possible, and it would involve additional parking back there. I'm not going to say one way or the other, but I do think it needs to happen in a timely manner. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21 2003 Si So it appears we have some Commissioners in favor of Plan A and some in favor of Plan B; of course, I'm in favor of Plan C. Let me explain what I mean by that. I think...I'm trying to focus on a) what the real problem is in that area and b) what the City's responsibility is for fixing that problem because I, for one, don't believe that government is responsible for fixing all problems. But there is some shared responsibility here. Plan C as I envision it would incorporate many of the elements of Plan B, which is a 26-foot incursion but on a modified basis. Meaning that parking, at least initially, would go in that north side of the alleyway on a spot basis, hopefully where it's needed and hopefully where it causes the least amount of disruption to the residential neighborhood. And the idea is that it would solve the existing problem, not try to solve the potential future possible expansion of some of these private businesses. And the reason I say that is I think that the most urgent issues, the existing parking shortage and traffic and circulation and all the attendant problems that it creates, we need to deal with that right away. The City's role in terms of future expansion would be to do the same thing that it did on Fred Waring and on Monterey as part of the Palma Village Plan, which is to enable, to create a zoning which enables the private developers to use the north side of the alleyway for parking if future owners decided that their expansion acquisition of additional property and conversion to parking lots, which owners on Fred Waring and Monterey have done. So it works. The Palma Village Plan works, and I think it simply needs to be implemented more aggressively on that part of the alleyway in terms of meeting the needs of future expansion. And that, of course, would be at the private owners' expense. The City's role, furthermore, should incorporate the cleaning up of that alleyway, immediately. I mean, that's a problem. No matter what happens with traffic circulation and so forth, that alleyway is a disgrace, it's used a lot, it's dangerous, it's unsightly and needs to be dealt with, and I think that is the responsibility of the City. Furthermore, I think that the City should encourage, through subsidies, such as it has in the past, an improvement, specifically of the rear of the Highway 111 businesses because some of those rears are just atrocious. If they meet Code, I think the Code needs to be changed because really, it seems like an unhealthy situation in the back with some of those buildings. The new parking, when I say on a spot basis, I think should be done via an assessment district, which would be funded partially by the City, as it did, for example, at The Gardens parking structure, and partially by the private business owners because I do remember the restaurant owners, the George Metsovas's (spelling) and others that came before us and said I want to build my building and, trust me, this is all the parking I need now or I'll ever need. Well, now that they're coming back to us and saying I don't have enough parking, I don't think the City should dig into its pockets and relieve them of the problem that they 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 created for themselves. So I think there needs to be a sharing of partnership in resolving the current parking problem. So I would suggest an assessment district, not just for the maintenance but for the construction, with the costs to be shared between the City and the private property owners. Finally, I concur with what I think I heard all my fellow Commissioners say, which is it's time. Enough is enough. So we need to adopt a time line and either the plan gets implemented or we abandon it, say you know what, we the City have fixed up the alleyway, we've tried to work with residents, we've tried to work with property owners, there ain't going to be no more parking, so move forward on that basis. If we get to that point, that's at least better in terms of letting everyone know where things stand and where they will in the future. So I think we need to adopt a time line that has a do or die deadline and stick to it. That's my Plan C. SC There you have it, Mr. Drell. JL Could I, Madam Commissioner, make one more comment. On some of the comments that Commissioner Jonathan made, I'd like to say that this property on Highway 111 is prime real estate, and right now it's not being fully utilized and hence, the City is not realizing the sales tax revenue that they could get from this piece of property. So I would hate to see us adopt a Plan C which is simply to just clean up a bad area in back. I think we need to look forward, and I think the City has set the precedence by helping or being instrumental in creating parking in Presidents' Plaza, The Gardens, and even the mall. So I think to come into an area that is prime property, that needs the City's attention to help that property fully develop into its highest potential, is something that should be done and probably should have been done 20 years ago, but now that we're here, I hope that we get it done and move forward. So I would hate to see us adopt Plan C. I hope we move forward and make the best of this property for both the neighbors, the homeowners on the north side, and the businesses on the south. And,yes, would expect the businesses to pay their fair share. PD Since a large part of this decision will depend on how much we think we can afford or are willing to pay, and that really only lies with the Council. Obviously, if you were given a blank check, to make everyone happy, you could come up with an Option D. So what John and I will try to do is draft a summary discussion, which we will forward to Council expressing all of the various permutations of opinion. You're all...I kind of agree...it really comes down to what we can afford to do. And, therefore, in essence convey that to the Council because I don't you guys are really in a position to make that 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21 2003 decision or even make that recommendation because, again, you don't have the checkbook, let alone a blank check. Si Well, what I envision, and we're having discussion now only because you suggested it because we have folks interested on this matter. What I envision is that when we're done...I mean, this is part of the General Plan discussion, so what I envision is that when we're done with the whole discussion, that what we would draft is a comprehensive narrative about our recommendation because that is our role, it's just to recommend to Council where to go from here. So you're not suggesting that this be a separate... PD No. In the land use element there is a section on the Palma Village Plan. That's where this would go. It's just that, again, you guys are at a disadvantage. This isn't just a Planning issue, this is a Redevelopment issue which is ultimately influenced by how much money you have to spend. And the Council are the only ones who can make that decision on how much money they want to spend because they can look at all of the various programs in the City and priorities so that...I think what I heard is that we should do as much as what we can afford and be prepared to do and we should try to do as much as what we can afford to do. Ultimately, it will be the Council's decision of what we can afford based on how important they think. So we'll give it a shot. MG Could I ask for a couple of points of clarification from a Public Works perspective. At the last meeting, last time we talked about this, a couple of residents were concerned about San Marcos and whether it should be closed as part of this plan. I'd like to get some feeling from you in that regard. PD Yes, I meant to talk about this also. One of the general issues in circulation is you should either have limited access or loss of access. The reason is what you don't want is a little bit of access where the traffic that wants to go in a particular direction gets concentrated in one spot to the detriment to those particular owners...everyone else loves it because they don't get any traffic, but the people who are on that one little street that gets all that traffic. So we did get a letter from property owners on San Clemente Circle requesting that San Marcos be ultimately closed, which solves one of the problems that Mr. Palmer talked about, people using that as a shortcut to San Gorgonio and that way. I would say in this case it makes sense. Good news is we picked up another lot and could build another house there. And that is partly...which we'll get into when we talk about the rest of the General Plan. Also part of my motivation is that we're actually, we're kind of housing- 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21. 2003 poor in this City relative to our housing demand and therefore the reason for preserving as much housing as we can, where we can. Si Just to comment on that very briefly and to answer Mr. Greenwood's question. Yes, I do favor the closure of San Marcos for the reasons that Phil discussed. I think it makes sense. This is coming out of left field, but maybe you ought to consider, and maybe you already have, one way access on the alleyway as we have on certain other secondary access streets. Because it is not as wide as a full street, it may make sense. And the third and final comment with regard to Mr. Drell's comments is you were saying that we all favor the approach that the City should spend what it can to fix the problem. I do not agree with that. I think that there is shared responsibility, as I mentioned earlier, between the City and between private property owners. And I guess this is my final comment. Plan C doesn't just fix the alleyway, it does make the financial commitment and the full commitment to eventually get in all the parking that is required. It just does that initially through spot parking and subsequently through encouragement of additional parking for private developers that want to expand and create additional space on what they should recognize and evaluate whether it's a prime area that deserves that kind of investment. PD The Palma Village Plan did contain specific requirements for reimbursement for the businesses that actually expanded. It's just that certain coordination issues that individual property owners just don't have the ability to do, that the City has to do, it's hard as an individual property or business owner to take the time and effort to organize people all over the country that the City has the ability to do. MG And then assuming that we were going to close San Marcos to vehicular access, would it be reasonable to assume that we would want to maintain pedestrian access to the neighborhood with an access to the businesses. We're talking about closing it to vehicles but not necessarily walling it off completely. And then another issue I would like to clarify is that I think each of you mentioned the look of the alley now. Were you talking about trash and weeds and that kind of stuff or were you talking about architecture and fences. JL I think it's a little bit of everything. CF All of the above. MG What we could do in the short term is have the Code Enforcement Department go out there and take a look and see what codes are being 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21 2003 violated and have it spruced up. And we could probably do a one-time sweep with Public Works forces and pick up all the trash and pull the weeds and then make sure it's on the sweeping schedule. If you'd like, I think we could take some interim steps along the way, since this is a many-year process. CF That would be great. DT The interim step in nice, but I think we need to take, again, the big view and the long-range view. To answer your specific question on San Marcos (inaudible) the possibility of being stoned by some of the people that live on those streets, I've used that cutaway for years. It's very convenient, and having said that, I would say absolutely you should take a look at closing that and maintaining the integrity of the residential streets there. But I'd hate to see us put a barricade there as we've done in other parts of the City which I don't think look like they've been completed. And, again, I know that's a problem of how much money, but it's just my thought. MG I think with this one where we're building an entire parking lot with walls and everything, it would be easy to incorporate to make it look like an integral part of the project. JL And I would concur. I think we should close San Marcos and work with that and make that a desirable location. I'm sure residential access would be fine, but again, incorporating an entire look to that alleyway. I would also concur with Commissioner Jonathan that I'm not sure I really agree with financial segments that you were talking about. I think the narrative needs to address the need to move ahead on this particular project, a time line based on the finances would be fine, but the need needs to be that we need to move ahead on this. I think that as good a job as we've done with other parts of this community, we really have neglected that area, and I think we need (inaudible) SC I concur also with the closing of San Marcos. MC (Inaudible) closing of San Marcos, one, is the access to my restaurant, which is a very busy restaurant. Two, putting a band-aid on Sabby's Plan C would mean I would put a parking lot between two residentials, and it is not creating anything better. Dave and Jim were doing...what we need to do, I think, is what we did on Fred Waring and Portola. You have the opportunity, you have the needs, make it nice, instead of trying to put a band-aid on something that definitely needs a bigger band-aid. 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 SC And we agree. PD Okay, moving on, let's now turn to Portola. You have your own copies, hopefully that you can see. This is a somewhat simpler problem. Again, what you're seeing is the proposed expansion or the ultimate improvement of Portola as recommended by the GPAC, which includes a four-lane road with a median, with bike lanes on both sides, and at least 12-foot parkways along the sides showing a double left from Portola, westbound on Portola, and it shows what's remaining. To summarize quickly, between De Anza and a half block south of Santa Rosa, it shows at least 180 feet left after that dedication or that acquisition of right-of-way. Some areas...north of Catalina, we have actually 150 feet, so while those areas are not...the right-of-ways will come relatively close to the existing houses, there is still a lot of room left to do something with. The GPAC in this area recommended medium density residential, which is less than ten units per acre, which would in essence...where you have one unit, you'd see two. Staff is not especially convinced that we could induce anyone to actually do that. I don't think...it will not be...again, I don't believe it will be appropriate or likely for a property owner to take out his one house and put two houses there. And back to the other comment is that in these redevelopment area situations, you don't come up with a perfect solution, but the solution that we've used in the past, that I believe has worked is professional offices where we have lots that are deep enough. We can put, if we want, we can, given the shallowness of these lots compared to some of the other places where we've done this, limit it to one-story, but if we want...again, the private sector, private property owners to take a lead on the redeveloping of these areas, you have to give them a use that's clearly economically superior to what they have now. don't believe medium density residential is enough. Conceivably, high density residential might be enough to induce redevelopment of these parcels. The shallowness also makes that somewhat difficult. North of Fred Waring, since it includes also creation of a (inaudible) right southbound from Portola to westbound Fred Waring, the lots right north of our kind of lineal park and narrow it down to 63 feet, which is still theoretically developable, that you build an office building and then a parking lot next to it and then an office building and a parking lot. You wouldn't be doing parking lots in the back, they'd be side by side. North of Rancho Road, it expands to 91 feet, which again is...unfortunately these areas are not wide enough for a park, too wide for a parkway or very expensive for a parkway...you know, we did that thing on Fred Waring because there we were under 50 feet, we were between 40 and 45 feet, and it's very nice, but it's a very expensive solution for the remaining real estate. Again, it's another whether we want to pay for 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 it or not. The other issue relative to the remaining property owners that are behind, nothing knocks down the noise like a building. Reports that I've heard from some of the property owners who now live behind our Fred Waring parkway, that it is significantly noisier now than it was when there was a line of homes there, that even an eight-foot wall is not as effective at stopping noise as 13-foot-high buildings, which are 20 feet deep. Again, given the fact that there is no perfect solution, coming up with a land use that is likely to be pursued by those property owners in a timely manner, the same issue of...this is not something that we're going to...this is one of those solutions where we're just going to try to come up with a land use that works and hopefully the private market solves the problem for us. Our suggestion would be north of Portola, as shown on the map, I mean north of Fred Waring, that we determine what the right-of-ways, approve the right-of-way and then allow the property owners to figure out a way that they can economically develop the remainder. And the same on Portola, I mean south of Fred Waring to De Anza, that I think either high density residential if you don't want to do offices but I think historically small offices have worked very well for us in these situations. Sc Mr. Drell, do you remember what three lots were purchased by the architects that they mentioned last time, was it by Catalina? PD I believe they are right here. Those have the benefit of this weird, kind of (inaudible) lot that looks like it just has a swimming pool on it. So, that area ends up with almost 150 feet of depth left. Sc Over the three lots right there on Catalina? PD I believe so. Sc So it would be north of Catalina. PD North of Catalina. The City actually owns a couple lots. I believe they own these two. Sc The two gray ones? PD Yes, those were owned by the...we bought those from the old water district. SC Any questions of Mr. Drell? 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 CF Just one question for Mr. Greenwood. When we discussed this in GPAC, we talked about a four-lane and a six-lane widening of Portola to the freeway. Refresh my memory as to why the four-lane is more feasible. MG Well, the modeling for Portola shows that the future volume will be something in the range of 25,000 cars per day, where it's about 20,000 cars per day now, a little bit less than 20,000. So that 25,000 to 28,000, maybe up to 30,000, could be handled adequately by a four-lane road. And there's also...Portola would make a very good bike route. It actually connects the residential part of south Palm Desert to the rest of the City in a pretty reasonable way. So from a staff perspective, we recommended going with four lanes with the bike lane. And it should say too, the map here shows two-way left turn lane, and it probably should show raised median instead of two-way left turn lane and show turn pockets at the appropriate streets, so it's not completely accurate. So our feeling is that Portola can just be a four- lane road. And it's also a matter of the practicality, that once we get down towards the 111 , we simply cannot get a six-lane road in there without major impact to existing viable businesses that I don't think we would...we just wouldn't entertain doing that. Something I'd like to add while I have the floor is that while you're considering zoning here, hopefully you'll take into account what the quality of life is to live in a house on a street with 25,000 cars per day. That may happen in other areas, but in Palm Desert, it probably doesn't match the quality of life we'd like to portray. And also from my selfish perspective, all those driveways on a busy street cause traffic problems, so I'd just like you to consider that. CF Thank you. SC Mr. Greenwood, again with Commissioner Finerty, the four lanes right now, most of Portola has four lanes right now except between Rutledge and Highway 111 , so that's most of...that's the only change that's going to be done there? MG Right. It's a very narrow four-lane now...it's under construction between Fred Waring and 111 where it had been just a two-lane road that was very heavily impacted. The problem between north of Fred Waring is that they are very narrow lanes, ten-foot lanes right next to the curb, and we do have some safety concerns there. We would like to spread out a little and develop the standard road section rather than just four lanes jammed into what really should be a two-lane road. 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 SC So actually most of the changes are just going to be taking place between Rutledge and Highway 111 on Portola. MG That's what's portrayed here, and it's not to say that some other miscellaneous widening wouldn't happen further to the north as part of making Portola a truly four-lane arterial road. North of Rutledge our problems are somewhat less, the lanes are reasonably wide, so I wouldn't see any major impacts to properties north of Rutledge. SC So you don't think that probably 20 years from now we'll go through this whole thing again and will be wanting six lanes on Portola? I mean, it's happened on the corner of Portola and Fred Waring going south where we made the right turn there, now all of that will need to go ahead and be redone again, and this was only done a year ago. MG Portola is the one street that we just don't know. The model doesn't show that much growth on Portola. Where it shows Monterey increasing by at least 50% in traffic volumes over 20 years, it only shows Portola growing by like 20% maybe, and modeling is a very, very imprecise tool, so we have to be careful. So I can't guarantee that someday we wouldn't decide that we needed the six lanes, but that would, you know, 20 years down the road we may decide that those businesses that are now viable and very vibrant, by that time maybe they've moved on, maybe that property is available. But with the situation we're given right now, today, it's difficult to recommend anything more than four lanes. SC So actually, we're looking just for today but not really towards the future. MG No...well, for 20 years. PD Sometimes, again, depending on what you have. And we're just not talking about...in this case, we're not talking about taking the back yards of some homes, we're talking about knocking down some large new office buildings and restaurants, which we're talking about those buildings that are between De Anza and...I think we're also talking about some homes as well south of De Anza on the west side where the back yards of those condos. MG Yes. PD So we basically have so much new, high-quality development that I think we're stuck for 50 years, short of major demolition of very high-quality, very expensive structures, with four lanes. Remember, people tend to make their 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21,2003 choices. When a certain road gets at capacity and gets to a certain amount of inconvenience, they start moving elsewhere. So that's why we're going to the six lanes everywhere else. Sometimes you're stuck with what you have. Si I have a question, I guess, (inaudible) as well. And I'm sorry if I missed this, but what is the status of the Portola freeway interchange, and would that impact your assessment of the future of Portola. MG The Portola freeway interchange is a current CIP, Capital Improvement Plan, project. In fact, we have a meeting with CalTrans later this week to discuss it. We should plan on seven to ten years for construction. I have researched what the traffic model data show, how does this Portola interchange affect Portola near Fred Waring, and it shows very negligible impact. The model was run with and without the Portola interchange. And I think the volume difference at Fred Waring was about 1 ,000 vehicles per day on 25-30,000. The impact on Portola in the Frank Sinatra area was, like, 20,000 per day, so the impact with and without the interchange is much greater further north. Once we get down south of the Whitewater, it has a very modest affect. Si Thank you. SC Any more questions of Mr. Drell? PD Okay, we can move on to... SC Does anyone here want to go ahead and speak in regard to Portola? Okay, go ahead, your name and address. MH Margaret Hartsworn (spelling), 74-038 Catalina Way, facing right on Portola, so I'm glad to hear it's okay for 50 years. Anyway, the comment that I really want to bring up is that there has been talk about a stop light at De Anza. Now, how is that going to impact our Portola Del Sol complex, and I don't know if there's anyone here from next door Portola Village, because it's quite, quite difficult and has been getting worse and worse since the extra lane was put in and now with the four lane, it's going to be even worse. Now, cars charge right by the curb and we're wondering how this stop light at De Anza is going to impact our getting out to go south or north probably will be a little easier because the light will possibly be red and hold back the traffic, it can turn out to go north. But what about the light at Fred Waring. If that's green, there are going to be cars going there. You cannot turn out, and if there's anyone wanting to turn west on Catalina, they stop right there in front of our complex. So even if you have a chance on one side or the other on 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 the traffic, there's going to be some impeding you by turning onto Catalina or the light being green on Fred Waring. So we have a hundred units, and thought there would be someone else here, but I think it should be considered the possibility of a sensor light there like Portola Country Club is, and I gather now the one up there by Chaparral with the development across, the light is already in. It's not working, but it's in. Because it's going to be really rough to get out. So I know that individual residents across on the west side of the street also have the problem, but we have the problem of getting out of our complex. And with the light at De Anza, we feel that it's going to hold up traffic, yes, but if it's green, they're going to be charging because now there are four lanes going to be open. And it's going to be awfully difficult for us to get out. So we would like the Board to please consider the possibility of if you're determined to put De Anza in as a light, then what about the possibility of some kind of a sensor light for us when somebody wants to turn out, that that should be considered or thought about or debated about. Thank you. Mg Actually, I can address some of those comments now. There is a traffic signal under construction, as we speak, at De Anza and Portola. You'll see the signal poles in the air within the next week or two. So that is a fact. As to additional signals on Portola, we would have to recommend against that. The Country Club and the projects and private developments that do have signals are generally those that have 600 units or so or even more than that within their confines, and so you have quite a number of cars coming out of there every day. So we have to balance the capacity on Portola versus the needs of the residents that are adjacent to it. Where I just finished saying we thought that we could get away with four lanes on Portola, if we were to install signals at every 300 feet along Portola, we would definitely need six lanes, so we balance one impact for another, and we need to be very cautious about that. We hesitate to recommend a signal at additional private development gates. SC Thank you, Mr. Greenwood. CM Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Chris McFadden of McFadden McIntosh Architects, 72-925 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert. We're in the process of acquiring three of the parcels at the corner of Catalina and Portola, and I wanted to come up and mention in support of the fiscal aspects of what Phil is proposing here. We gave fair market value, asking price, on the three parcels, and we understand that at the last meeting that we were here, our real estate agent was approached by three or four other owners who have a situation where they can't let go of their properties along 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 the Portola corridor there because of pending City issues that something may happen to those parcels, and upon disclosure, they lose their potential sale. They have approached us, or our real estate agent, asking for viability with the pursuit of the commercial program there, and we're going to be alleviating some of the traffic concerns, I think, with residents pulling out onto Portola there. Ours is kind of a unique project, we've done this in the past with the (inaudible) financial group up the road there, and the land values really hold themselves much better with the commercial use. SC Chris, I want to confirm you did buy the lots north of Catalina Way. CM That's correct. There are three parcels, and we are trying to acquire a fourth. SC Anyone else? Okay. Phil? PD Back to the land use map. Also in response to some of the comments that we had last meeting. Going from south to north, there is the issue brought up relative to what used to be called Laliberte parcel, this is the inholding parcel right south of Canyons at Big Horn, within the...and representative of that property owner questioned the City's redesignation (inaudible) from low density residential to hillside reserve, that it was some sort of retaliation of some sort. The response relative to timing, the GPAC and the General Plan issues dealt with broad land use issues throughout the City, they never really concentrated or focused on single parcels generally. It is true, when the application was submitted, staff was forced to focus for a moment on an individual parcel. As part of the tract map, it showed a topographic, the topography of the existing...of this parcel, which indicated to us that it had slopes in excess of ten percent, which is how we define hillside. We also went back and looked through the files of...back to the original submission for the Canyons, and you have in your packet a slope study that was done by Harold Housley for this property, which indicates that a substantial portion of it, most of it, is above ten percent. The area that is less than ten percent, part of the area, part of the parcel, lies in the channel there, which is the flat portion. But the substantial portion of the developable property is above ten percent; therefore, by definition by how we define hillside in this town, makes it eligible for the hillside reserve. In connection with that, we need to, at least until such time as there is a determination relative to our hillside ordinance, amend our land use designation for hillside reserve which states that the designation permits the development of one single family home on lots of not less than five acres. That's truly inconsistent with our hillside ordinance since we differentiate between...until we get a detailed slope analysis for each parcel, we can't tell exactly what that toe of slope is, and therefore the hillside ordinance allows that determination to occur when applications are 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21 2003 made. And those areas that turn out to be in the zone or that are less than ten are treated differently and are allowed one unit per acre. So I'm suggesting that the language of hillside reserve in terms of the land use table state residential hillside reserve, one unit per acre to one unit per five acres, and then the language would also say in the text residential hillside reserve designation (inaudible) development density for lands located on sloping terrain primarily within the foothills of the Santa Rosa mountains. Depending on slope, single family homes on lots of one unit per acre to one unit per five acres shall be permitted. So in essence, since our General Plan designation is general and may include some flatter areas, this allows for that. We talked about 111, we talked about Portola. The issue of...we had a gentleman speak and we had correspondence about those properties at the north side of the wash on Cook Street on the west side. Staff is recommending that we accept the suggestions by those property owners, one being that triangular parcel right adjacent to the wash with all those constraints, to allow that for professional office. Also, the three residential parcels on the south side of Cheryl, that now have an office building directly across the way and that are separated on their west by the entrance driveway to the golf course, that those three are appropriate also for office professional. Moving further north, the other issue of concern is the northeast corner of Country Club and Monterey where we have both letters requesting that this be redesignated for neighborhood or community commercial and a letter from the Director of the Redevelopment Agency concerning that this stay residential since it will...the redesignation will inhibit their re-leasing of the vacant Albertson's store. So my suggestion last meeting, as it is now, should be...and we have created a study category...that it is possible that the final land use in this property might be something other than residential. Until we get a little more focused on actual proposals, that we're not prepared to recommend any changes, but on the other hand, it's not slamming the door on it...there still should be some consideration of a change in designation. We're not still sure which. You also got a letter from a property owner at the northwest corner of Frank Sinatra and Portola, which you had processed actually an application for a little office complex on a four-acre parcel right there on the corner. You guys recommended approval, it kind of stopped at the Council, partly because of the General Plan, partly some Councilmembers maybe did not think it was appropriate. That applicant/property owner again is requesting an office professional designation. Given the...again, the same issues that we're facing on Portola now we're...30 years ago, Portola was perceived as an appropriate place for homes. Today, the realization that it is not. 30 years ago probably if someone had any bit of foresight, they could have predicted that it was not a 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 good place for homes, but again that's part of the nearsightedness that some decisions get made on. I believe these corners of major arterials, while maybe okay now for a home at Frank Sinatra and Portola, long-term I think a better use is professional office, both from the impact on those property owners and secondly, just visually having a property at the corner that is open to the corner, without walls, where you actually see it and have open space and landscaping, and fronts of buildings I think is preferable to have walls and corners which otherwise we end up...and we end up needing to have high, high walls to provide acceptable environment for the residents. So I believe that these...our position then for this property was that professional office was appropriate, and that is still our position. ?? Mr. Drell. PD Yes. (Unclear) PD We're calling it a study area as well so that, again, when that applicant comes back, we'll have a hearing and therefore there will be a focus hearing and the folks in that Shepherd Lane neighborhood will be able to weigh in again on the design of that project and the advisability. You had asked for an analysis of the alternatives, and we have almost all of that. What I don't have at this time is a table for the existing General Plan in this area. I've been able to...one of the problems is that we are dealing with different land use categories, and a number of things have happened since...that have impacted our General Plan already. In looking at the existing General Plan, you see this big swath of low density yellow. If you add up that acreage, it's a bit more than two sections, so it's about 1 ,300 plus 160, it's about 1 ,500 acres, 1 ,400/1 ,500 acres. If it had been developed at three units per acre, which is a typical low density standard, we were looking at approximately 4,000/4,500 units. What's happened in the interim to a lot of that yellow, you see east of Cook Street, part of that is Cal State, so the opportunity to develop housing west of Cook Street has disappeared because Cal State is there. What you're seeing on the west of Monterey used to be 300 acres of residential, but it's turned into Marriott Shadow Ridge, so between Cal State and Marriott Shadow Ridge, of that 1 ,500 acres, we took out about 500 acres, so we're down to 1 ,000 acres for residential. The other thing that's now happened, when you look at the new maps, is that the northeast corner of Portola and Frank Sinatra has been purchased by the Redevelopment Agency, and it's now showing up as a potential Desert Willow III. So from that original 4,000/4,500 acres of housing that we were showing in the 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21 2003 original General Plan, we've taken out of housing designation approximately 600/700 acres, almost half of it by virtue of Cal State, Desert Willow III, and Shadow Ridge, therefore reducing the remainder down to something more like 2,000 or 3,000 units. But remember, the existing General Plan probably provided for approximately 4,500 units in that yellow, developed at low density. Let's start with the preferred alternative, which is the same as what we've seen, and it produces a total number of 6,000 units, that the assumptions being that the low density would be at three units per acre, the medium density would be seven units per acre, the high density would end up developing at 18 units per acre, which is about 70% of... CF What was medium? PD Seven. CF Okay, and that's an average? PD That's an average. CF Because we're saying it could be four to ten units. PD Four to ten. CF And the 18 that you're saying is an average, it could be ten to 22? PD Yes, and they were saying it has to do with what I see...in talking to perspective developers and what their thinking is, seven units per acre it to me the most typical medium density because that is what you can build detached without alleys and unusual layouts. Three, again, is what our typical low density has been on average. 18, again, as I see projects that are 13/14 units per acre and projects that are 22 units per acre, so 18 1 think is what a fair expectation is. And we came up with 6,000 units. What is fairly typical...the thing that doesn't change in each of the alternatives is the amount of commercial. We're looking at, as you see, ten million square feet of varying forms of commercial, and that actually doesn't include the University. CF Phil, I have a question. PD Sure. 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 CF You're saying that the commercial doesn't change. PD Substantially, yes. CF Okay, I'm looking at our current plan for commercial, in the EIR section, which is Table 3-1, and I'm showing that the existing commercial plus the potential commercial, comes to over 15 million. PD For which....we don't have a table for just this area in the EIR. CF No, not for just this table, I'm talking for the whole City. PD For the whole City. Okay. CF Okay, but most of what's going to get changed is at this end of the City, correct? PD No. The other misleading correction we have to make...in the EIR, when it says City-wide... CF Right. PD ...it's also including the planning area... CF Nope, nope, nope, nope, not on this one. I see where it says sphere of influence and planning area, and I'm not quoting from those. I'm quoting from existing City existing square footage, City potential square footage. PD Okay. CF And that would be 15.5 million roughly. PD Okay CF The preferred alternative decreases that down to 14.1 million. So there is a difference. PD Between that and existing General Plan, and if you look at...if you compare the existing to all of the alternatives, you'll see where that change occurs is north of Gerald Ford to what is 35th. It's showing all industrial, and in the alternative, we've converted most of that to residential, so we have increased...we have... 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 CF So what we've really done is converted that to high density residential. PD Well, let's look at the...in the preferred alternative we converted to high density and medium density, correct. And that is where you see the difference...again, my estimate of the existing, assuming all the yellow got developed as residential, which we know it's not, about 4,500 units in the preferred goes up to 6,000 units because of the increase in...if the fact that it's not all low, that we have medium and high in there. CF Well, I know that some of the Planning Commissioners didn't sit on GPAC, and I just think that it's a good thing to point out that there would be a reduction in commercial and what's being touted then is to increase medium density somewhat and high density substantially, and that is what GPAC's preferred alternative is. And although I sat on that committee, I did vote against it, so that's why I'm trying to show the other side of the story. PD We'll hear all sides of the story. Si What's the reduction to commercial in this area? CF They don't have it. PD It's approximately...basically, we calculated commercial based on 25 percent coverage, so basically we took out about 160 acres and figure 10,000 square feet of development per acre, that's 1 .6 million. Si For this area. So it would have been, let's say 12 million, so under existing land use, down to about 10.3. PD Yes. And the motivation for that partly had to do with the imbalance between...and housing demands generated and the traffic generated from all that commercial was not being balanced by the housing production which after we take out Shadow Ridge, the University, and Desert Willow III golf course, it probably ends up with about more like 2,500 units. So then we looked at...so that's the preferred alternative. There was then a less intense alternative...let's look at the less intense alternative, which is the last table, which reintroduced low density. Basically, what all the alternatives attempt to do is to create two neighborhoods, or actually three neighborhood sections. You have the Shepherd Lane neighborhood, which is proposed to continue to develop along the current low density pattern. You have the University neighborhood on Cook Street, which has commercial on Cook Street. And I'd also like to point out that all the alternatives, including the existing General 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 Plan, what is not showing up on this General Plan map remember was the Wonder Palms development agreement which designated the Cook Street/Gerald Ford as commercial. All the alternatives are in common pretty much on the rest of the commercial showing the Cook Street Frontage as varying forms of retail commercial or office or mixed use. What it has essentially done is reconfigure the commercial. The existing plan shows it more on Gerald Ford, and it is our feeling and the feeling of property owners and the GPAC that Cook Street is a more appropriate avenue for the concentration of commercial, not Gerald Ford, and so all the alternatives show the corner of Cook Street extending down to Gerald Ford as various forms of commercial. And then creating neighborhoods between Cook and Portola, another neighborhood north of Gerald Ford between Portola and Monterey. So, in each one of those a less intense alternative low density residential was reintroduced, reducing both high density and medium. CF Mr. Drell, how can we compare the less intense use to the current zoning? How would those numbers of low density residential of 1,242 compare to how it's currently zoned? What would be the total number of units under today's zoning? PD I said under today's zoning, assuming that we were having...based on this map, it was about 4,500 units. CF Of single family. PD Of units, period. The only multi-family...in the Wonder Palms agreement, they had ten acres, which doesn't show up on this map, ten acres in the study zone, you have ten acres of multi-family, but all the rest of it was low density. But there was, as I say, there's about 1 ,800 units of it, 1 ,800 acres of it which at three units per acre is at least 4,500 units. CF But I need to try to compare what the less intense alternative is to what our current use is, and I see that you have it for the less intense, the preferred alternative, the staff recommended alternative, and the more intense. We're just missing the last piece of the puzzle. PD We're missing a chart. The good news is that the existing General Plan has only three land uses in it, it's all low density, and I said, the low density residential is approximately...it would be 1 ,500 acres and at three units per acre, that's 4,500 units. 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21 2003 CIF Let me ask you this. If our current zoning, and this is for the entire City, not counting the sphere of influence or the planning areas, our current zoning is showing that there's a potential for another 6,861 units, of which 5,199 are low density. PD No. CF That's throughout the entire City. PD Throughout the entire City, correct. CIF Correct, okay. So would it be fair, then, to say that most of those 5,199 units that are potential would exist in this north sphere area? PD Yes, that's correct. CIF Okay. So if we were to do some sort of comparison, would we also further draw the conclusion that the potential medium density of 1 ,124 units would exist in this area? PD I don't understand how you got the 1 ,124 units. CIF There's 1 ,124 units of potential medium density residential. PD City-wide. CIF City-wide, correct. PD Yes. CIF Okay, and then the same thing would be for the high density, the 537 units City-wide, but the majority, overwhelming majority, would be in this north sphere. PD Yes, that's true. CIF Okay, thank you. PD Where that existing number is somewhat misleading...in looking at that, residential units were imputed to the University campus, residential units were imputed to the 170 acres that we now own for a golf course and residential units were imputed to Shadow Ridge. So that's why dealing with the existing General Plan is a little bit tricky. Not only are the designations 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2M different but we have areas that are designated that are now...effectively they've been taken out of the housing market. CF Okay, could I just make one point to my fellow Commissioners before we move on to another use. If you take this less intense recommendation, you see that the residential for low density is calling for 1 ,242 units, but realizing that the existing, the way we have it now, would be 5,199 units, so it's a considerable reduction in low density housing. Similarly, with regard to the medium density, where our current plan calls for 1,124 units, it would shoot up to 1 ,618 units. And again, with high density, existing is showing 537 units, high density would then be changed to 1 ,471 units, which is almost tripling that, and this is the less intense use. Si This is for that area. CF No. Si Or is that in total. The numbers you just gave us, is that the total, Cindy? CF Okay, in the less intense, those numbers are for that area. Si Right. CF What I'm comparing it to are numbers for the entire City, but you heard me ask Mr. Drell would most be in this area, and he said yes most would. Okay, so this is the less intense use. Si What are those numbers again? CF 5,199. Si Right. CF 1 ,124. Si Right. CF And 537. Now if you take the same exercise as we go through all of the other scenarios, the preferred alternative, the staff recommended alternative, and the more intense, you're going to see the difference between current and what the proposal is, and you're going to see low density go down dramatically and high density/medium density rise dramatically. 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 PD And there's no question that it happens. That was intentional. It was a perception that we're running out of land, we have the...that 10 million square feet of commercial development generates huge amounts of housing demand, the University will develop and generate huge amounts of housing demand, and given the land we have left, it calls for a different character of neighborhood in terms of density, not necessarily a different character in design, and I can argue that it can actually be superior in terms of design. But there's no question that the intent of the alternative is to maximize the housing potential on the remaining land we have left to attempt to meet the housing demand created by that 10 million square feet of commercial. SJ A couple of questions on that chart before you go on. And by the way, it would be helpful to have a chart, as you've done over here for existing. PD We can. Can someone go over to Bob Ritchie's to see if he's done one, he was supposed to be doing one for me. SJ My question to you, though, on the drawings, on the existing uses, you've got that brown area which you call residential study zone. PD Correct. SJ But in fact that is not an existing, I mean, that's not a zone. PD This isn't a zoning ordinance, this is General Plan. In reality, everything north of Gerald Ford in the Wonder Palms is designated as commercial. SJ Okay, so when you say existing, that brown part is not...that doesn't truly exist. PD It is what our General Plan shows, and it made the zoning designation subject to that plan, which is that Wonder Palms plan which in essence made everything north of that, in terms of zoning, planned community development. We've seen no actual projects on there. Technically, we could have some residences. If you remember what was in the Wonder Palms, they talked about mixed use, potential of multi-family. It's ambiguous. Unfortunately, it's still ambiguous to a certain extent. SJ What I'm trying to get at is the existing General Plan shows what land use where you've got that indicated is a residential study zone...we don't have 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21�2003 that as an actual land use in the existing plan, do we? That's a term of art that I've only (inaudible) PD Yes, we did, we do have it. And the reason was in this area there was a line drawn and, as you recall, 2,000 feet from the railroad tracks and the freeway, which is what that line represents. It said depending on individual projects, we would kind of assess them on a case by case by basis whether they be residential or commercial, that because of the impact of the freeway...and so it was kind of left up in the air as projects came in. That is actually what that weird area is. Si There is an existing land use in the existing General Plan, the 1995 General Plan, that calls that a residential study zone. PD Well, it was actually created by the North Sphere Specific Plan, which is what this came out of. Si Okay. My other question is, when we look at the roadways in the preferred alternative, it seems to me that they kind of reflect reality and what we expect to be reality and then some of the other renderings, the roadway portions are very different. For example, in the more intense use, we don't even have Cook Street going to the freeway, so is that just an artistic thing? PD No, that's a...again, I got these delivered this morning, that's just a mapping error. Si Yes. I knew that was an error there, but in some of these other ones, the roadways don't connect, that's just a mapping (inaudible)... PD Yes. Si ...(inaudible) we looked at the more comprehensive roadways like in the preferred alternative or the staff recommended alternative, that would probably be a more accurate representation. PD In that those were far less conceptual. Obviously, when we get to the staff recommended alternative, that was far more (inaudible) because actually that was done for very specific projects and it reflects very specific project design. Si Some of which we've approved, including some of these roadways that are reflected... 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21 2003 PD A few of them, but most of them, you know, we've approved 35th, we've approved Technology. 351h is, you know, midway between Monterey, midway between... Si Dinah Shore PD Dinah Shore and...don't fixate so much on the roadways, this is not a circulation element. It just kind of gives you an idea. Okay, this is a number which is probably a more realistic number in terms of number of housing units in that we have deleted Marriott, which we know is not going to be housing, we've deleted the Cal State, and I guess my guesstimate turns out to fairly accurate, and we've deleted the golf course. We would end up with...and we added the one ten-acre piece of the Wonder Palms plan, which specifically is designated as high density, and we get 2,100 units. That gives you kind of an idea. CF Okay, so what you're saying is from the entire City, for low density, we have 5,199 units that could be developed. But after you take out the University and the Marriott and all these other things you're alluding to, that's going to reduce all the way down to 2,004 units? PD 2,184. CF So you're saying it goes from 5,199 to 2,184. PD For this area. I don't know where you're....your 5,100 number isn't exactly in this area. CF Yes, I understand, it's for the City, but I didn't have anything else to work with, I just pulled it off the table (inaudible) PD But this is the actual...that if we take out an existing zoning, we take out the areas which have been taken out of the housing market by other land use decisions, we're down to 2,100 units. CF So what we would really be doing, for example, on the University Park existing, comparing that with the less intense University Park, it would be a difference of 2,004 existing units versus 1 ,242 low density units. PD Right. 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 CF Right? And since the existing plan is not calling for medium density, we would be adding 1,618 medium density, and we would be increasing high density from 180 units to 1 ,471 , correct? PD That's correct. CF Thank you. PD Yes, there's no question, and again, we're...as Scotty said you can't change the laws of physics. We have `x' amount of real estate...actually, when we did our initial projection on commercial development way back at the beginning of GPAC, we were looking at only about 6 million square feet of commercial in our rough guess, of which we projected a housing demand of 10,000 units. ?? In regard to the existing in the EIR that you're looking at, the existing housing units... CF Right. ?? The University is not factored as residential, it's factored as public for the University, so the gap that you're looking at is much less great than it may appear. That is, the EIR reflects the 200 acres plus or minus the University as University, not as residential, so the gap between existing as Phil was suggesting it in the General Plan is not that great. It's not as great as... PD I think we're looking at `x' number of units, and there's no question that the only way to increase the number of units on a fixed (inaudible) real estate is increased density. And I guess the question becomes how do you do it, do you do it primarily with medium density or...how do you play with the mix? We saw the housing demand of at least 10,000 units. As you see in all of the alternatives, we fall pretty short of that. Any other comments? But again, there's no question that the numbers are going up. That's the whole point of the exercise. CF But our point as Planning Commissioners in reviewing this is not to necessarily buy into what GPAC or staff says about numbers going up. Our job is to look at how successful this city's been, what that success has been predicated upon, and to determine how our success will be enjoyed in the future. PD Okay. 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21�2003 CF Okay. PD So we have the less intense...as I say, it increases...reintroduces low density into those two neighborhoods, call it the University neighborhood, we can call it the Wal-Mart neighborhood, and as a result of doing that, the number of units drops approximately, I guess 2,000 or 1,700. Next, the EIR looked at a more intense alternative, which the high density increased even more, resulting in another...it went up from, for example, high density went up in the more intense 293 acres, you have more high density than medium as opposed to the preferred alternative where it's kind of reversed, 268 to 181 medium to high, and it's basically reversed, and the high intensity we have 293 high and 176 and still the low is still confined to the Shepherd Lane area. And then the number of total units increases to 7,300. And then lastly, we have what we're calling the staff recommended alternative, which incorporates... Si Is the other one a GPAC preferred alternative? PD Yes. And the difference between them is in essence the incorporation of the two plans that you saw last meeting for the Wal-Mart neighborhood and the University neighborhood where low density has been not only reintroduced but is now in terms of...is now the largest, significantly largest category, 448 acres, and then medium density is, I mean low density is increased significantly to 448 acres, the medium density is decreased significantly, high density is only decreased slightly or less so, but it is also decreased significantly. And, again, the unit total ends up being almost identical to the less intense alternative. Si That includes 286 residential use units in the mixed use area? PD Correct. Si What does that represent? PD In these cross hatched areas...and although the location of...you see there's a cross hatched area, red and white, on Gerald Ford right at Technology, although the developer of that property would be more interested in moving that towards the west towards the High School site. There is now product being produced where a commercial project will include residential on... Si Are we talking about high density residential (inaudible) 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 PD Yes, it would probably be high density, and the implied mix would be half commercial, half high density. (Inaudible) CF Don't feel bad, we just got them ourselves. When you talk about the mixed use being split between commercial and high density, how then does that 286 total units get broken down? PD Hard to tell, depending on the project. There is no specific requirement that they build residential at all, it just provides the opportunity to do it. And those areas are somewhat equal in area, probably half and half conceivably, maybe one of them wouldn't have any. CF It's market driven? PD Yes. (Inaudible) PD It shows a little bit more commercial in that the preferred alternative, the...we have correspondence (inaudible) from this property owner, in the preferred alternative that was shown as high density residential, and we're now showing that back as an industrial office park. The mix...again, the common elements in other respects is the commercial at the corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford. It's showing school sites, elementary school, K-8, and a high school. Everything else is similar. The big change is the reintroduction of low density residential as the dominant residential land use. But if I point out that in terms of total number of units, what we've kind of done compared to what the original General Plan did when it designated all this yellow is if all this yellow had been built out low density, we would still have ended up with about 4,000 or 4,500 units. So what this does to a certain degree is compresses those units on smaller area of land as a result of taking those large hunks of land out of production. SJ You just lost me. I thought you said existing would have produced 4,500. PD 4,500 if housing had been developed on Shadow Ridge, if housing had been developed on our 170 acres. Si Going back to the... 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 PD Going back to our original designation. Si But the chart shows 2,100. PD Yes, which is what happens when we take all of those out. So we've taken out, we've almost taken out half of the original designation of residential property by converting it to non-residential land uses. And, again, it will be somewhat more clear when we talk about traffic. When you have the destinations, and one of the requirements of General Plan guidelines, and one of the requirements of housing elements, and one of the requirements of State housing law it to attempt to achieve a balance between employment generating activities, jobs, and housing. Unless we want to eliminate a lot of this commercial development along the freeway, we are going to see close to a doubling of commercial development in the City with this development on I- 10, which will be creating a huge demand for housing. Those people have to live somewhere. If they don't live here, they'll be living in Desert Hot Springs, they're going to be living out in what you now see as County open space. The perception that...in talking to housing developers, we are living in a land, believe it or not. And the multi-species plan is going to take at least a third of that open space away. So the people have to live somewhere, and if we want to preserve the open space, and if we want to preserve 1-10 as a driveable freeway and our interchanges, if they don't live here, they're going to have to come into town on those interchanges. Si Can I ask a question on a point you just made. Isn't there a more symbiotic relationship between residential and commercial. I mean, I've heard you say just now and before that commercial development creates a need for residential housing. But when people come in and occupy those residences, don't they in turn create commercial demands which creates...don't they have commercial needs which creates a demand for commercial development as well? Don't they have to go shopping and don't... PD Correct. And that affects the timing. We're not talking about the timing of these things, we're talking about...when the City is built out, whether it's five years or ten years or 50 years from now, what are the appropriate land uses given the physical constraints or impacts on those land uses. The development along the freeway is dictated by the impacts of being on the freeway. I don't think we want to put a lot of housing on the freeway. Also, the freeway is a positive impact on businesses. So you want to take a physical given, which is the freeway and the railroad tracks, that confers positive benefits on certain land use activities and negative benefits on land 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21 2003 use activities. So what has always been proposed since day one in this city is that you want to put those uses on the freeway that positively benefit and that aren't impacted by the negatives, which is commercial industrial uses. So there is a symbiotic relationship, of course, between the two. They are both part of the City, they're both things that people, that businesses...with the majority of these businesses are actually...the commercial is going to be industrial office park. So it's not going to be shopping. But they don't build the...let me step back a second. This here is a little unique, being on the interchange. The commercial development of those shops are somewhat independent of the housing in that the traffic that comes through those interchanges obviously can't support...you already see the commercial stuff there before there's any housing at all. So the commercial development at the interchanges will probably occur and can occur before there's any housing at all. It's supported by the whole Valley. The issue becomes, in terms of housing for the employees, do you want those employees commuting in from Desert Hot Springs, or do you want at least a portion of them or as many as you can commuting from five blocks away or two blocks away. We're not only talking about numbers, we're talking about length of trips, which has an impact on air quality. The other thing we're talking about is preservation of open space. Every house that is not built here will be built somewhere else in this valley, which kind of differentiates the two types of demand. There is permanent housing demand, and there's reserve demand. Permanent housing demand is probably closely tied to the local economy, how many jobs there are. People typically don't move out here and live here unless they're either retired or they have a job. Reserve demand is probably unlimited, since the market is the world. We could sell as many or as few resort houses...it's not limited by any local occurrence other than if we screw up the environment no one wants to come here any more. The issue is that as a city, that is the commercial, and will be the industrial of the Valley, once this area is developed, which is the same reason why Costco and the mall wants to be in the center and the same reason why the businessman now wants to be in the center, you want to serve the whole market as conveniently as possible. There's nowhere better than being in the center around the freeway. Is there a benefit to the city to its residents to have at least a portion of those people being able to live in close proximity, which takes the pressure off the interchanges. So in essence it tries to address the endemic problem in Southern California which is the absolute long distance commuting-based economy and to provide...in the long term what all the other communities in Southern California have faced too late is they try to get back to bringing people...you know, after the fact, they try to figure out a way to bring housing back to downtown Los Angeles, they're trying to do it in Orange County now after the fact, trying to bring more housing to get people 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21 2003 off the 91 freeway somehow, and actually the market is supporting it. Unfortunately, it's too little too late. They came to that realization when most of the land was already consumed. The little dibs and dabs of housing that they can now build in the developed areas of Orange County probably won't have an appreciable affect. The goal here is to try to both create and...just in terms of numbers, trying as best we can. And again, we're only, as you see by even the less intense alternative, only meeting a fraction of the housing demand. The other thing is that what medium and high density does is provides a more diverse economic mix to better address the diverse economic mix of the job market. And, therefore, it provides a greater opportunity for those moderate income and lower employees the opportunity, again, to live in somewhat proximity of their place of employment. CF Mr. Drell, could you answer a question with regard to open space. PD Sure. CF On a University Park preferred alternative as well as staff's recommended alternative, there's no provision for acreage for a park/school as there is in the more intense and less intense use. PD Okay, go back to what you just said. CF Okay, go to the preferred alternative. PD The chart? CF The chart...and you will see under open space park/school, there's a dash, there's no provision. PD Under the...there shouldn't be. Again... CF Okay, well that's what I'm trying to determine. PD Let me look at your....on the preferred alternative open space parks... CF And it has public reserves of 21 . 29 PD You're saying 180 acres for open space parks. And then under schools, it's showing nothing, and it... CF Correct. 50 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 PD ...shouldn't show nothing. It should show... CF If I could call your attention then to the University Park more intense and less intense use, it is showing 206 acres. PD The numbers should be 206 because the... CF Then what does that do for the total number of acres, then, what...is something else added in? PD No. Well, if you notice, the more intense shows more acres total. It shows 100 more acres total. The less intense shows (inaudible). One of the delays was, and I don't know the source of it, our GIS guy was having a hard time taking these various maps and reconciling the acreages. Again, we were working on it for the last week and a half. The school area should be identical... CF In all of them, right? PD ...in all of them, yes. CF So you're saying that if we add the total of acres in the preferred alternative, we're going to come up with 2129, or is that going to increase by 206? PD It will be 22 something. Again, these...remember, general plans are general. They're showing general areas that...in attempting to quantify them, it is not necessarily productive. We're looking...in terms of target shooting, here we're hopefully judged on how close we...whether we hit the wall, not whether we hit the bull's eye. It's the zoning ordinance when we get more precise. Now what you see the most precise is the staff recommended alternative because that was closely analyzed by an engineer who gave us plans, and our GIS guy still had to transfer those plans to a map, but I would say that one is probably...but again, it shows schools and parks zero on that one, too. CF Yeah. PD I think we're probably closer to twenty two five if we were to do it, but I think... CF And all of these that were prepared were based on medium density being seven and high density being 18. 51 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 PD Yes. Okay? The reason why staff was recommending the recommended alternative is that instead of acknowledgment of what the current market is, the current market is still strong for low density and we have to give the owners of the property the ability to kind of start off their projects with what the current market, my feeling is and what I'm hearing from developers is that they're finding a harder and harder time finding vacant lands to build new projects, and this valley is going to be forced, just like we're being forced, to look at alternatives. And not necessarily new, these are residential neighborhoods that have been traditionally built in cities in Southern California for a hundred years or more and ironically is now what all these older communities are going back to as they run out of land and acknowledge that based on the housing demand...and by exporting your housing, you don't solve your traffic problems, you make them worse. And that's been the lesson of Southern California. CF But there's also no guarantee that if there's even adequate housing, that those people that buy those houses are going to work right there. They still may decide to drive somewhere else because the benefits or the salary is more lucrative. So we can't count on just because there's a bunch of units that everybody that lives in that area is going (inaudible) right there. PD And I'm sure that everyone won't. I would guess 30% of them do. I believe that one, the fact that this will be such a convenient place to live... CF So you're going to be moving there? PD I'm not going to be moving there. I'm going to be retiring and moving... CF You're going to be staying in Idyllwild? PD I'm going to be retiring soon and staying in Idyllwild. I believe given a choice, and the market kind of supports this, people want to live in Palm Desert for the same reason why businesses want to be here. And so we have probably the strongest housing demand. Almost the identical unit that a builder builds in Palm Desert, he can sell for$100,000 more here than he can in Cathedral City. So there's already...given a choice, people want to be in Palm Desert. CF But I... PD The combination of being in Palm Desert, the convenience of walking distance to a mall, Wal-Mart, or a University, or an elementary school, or a 52 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 high school, or where you work, I think will induce a fair number...and again, everyone that you can keep from having to come through that Monterey interchange or the Cook Street interchange or off the arterials(inaudible) is a saving of a trip. There's the issue of, one, a fixed number of units...and really, this is to a certain degree...for us to solve our problem, every city is going to have to make this same decision, of trying to address their housing/jobs balance because that's the only way you'll...there ultimately has to be a balance unless we have people commuting from San Bernardino, which I don't think we want. The other issue is if everyone has a reasonable balance, and even if you have people making their own choices, their random choices, of where they work and live, you at least get a hundred percent utilization of the roadways, both directions. Unfortunately, when you have, and what occurred in, what was (inaudible) in L.A. 30 years ago when you had all the traffic, all the morning traffic going one way into jobs and all the morning traffic (inaudible) much congestion but you were only utilizing half the roadway. The ideal situation is for every city to have that balance; therefore, everyone can make their own choices, and you distribute the traffic on the roadway at least evenly in both directions. But, again, we're not even, unfortunately, even with the staff alternative, we're only going to meet a fraction of the demand. CF I would just like to offer for consideration another point of view of why it is that people like to live in Palm Desert. And it might be because of the resort- type community, and it might be because of the low density housing, and it might be because people have left the Orange County area and see how congested that is and have come here and decided maybe they don't want this to turn into another Orange County, and that we would like to preserve the quality of life that we're currently enjoying today. And I wanted to point out a quote our City Manager made from the Desert Magazine, and he's stating that the challenge now is to see that we don't deviate from what got us here. You know, what got us here was the resorts and our low density housing. Ortega warns we must now constantly look back and see what got us to this point, and he sees that as controlled growth, and I would agree with that. Si Question, a couple of questions. The staff recommended alternative varies somewhat from the less intense alternative, and as I see it, it's in two major respects. Number one, the housing element, while the total number of housing units are almost identical between the two alternatives, there is about the same low density, much more medium density, and somewhat more high density. 53 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 PD In which? Si In the staff recommended alternative. In other words... PD Right. In the less intense alternative... Si You take away from medium and you add to high density. PD There's less...if you look just at those areas where we changed, which are the two, you know, the Monterey and the Cook Street ones, there is...in the less intense alternative, there is less low density... Si Right. PD ...there is more medium density... Si Right. PD ...and less high density. So we made up...the 4,300 units has a more of a medium density orientation, less of a high density orientation. Si No. CF No, that's not correct. PD In the less... Si It goes down. The medium... PD You're comparing... CF The medium goes down. PD The medium... Si Hang on. I'm going from the less intense to the staff. PD Okay. Si And what you've done is go down from 1 ,600 medium density in the less intense... PD Right. 54 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 Si ...to 900 medium density in staff... PD Correct. Si ...and conversely, you've gone up in the high density from 1,400 to 1,800... PD Correct. Si ...so it represents a shift. Total number of units is about the same, but you're shifting more into high density. PD But low has also gone up. In essence, the tradeoff has been between the less intense and the more intense. The less intense and the staff is that low density has gone up a bit from 449 acres in the....it's gone up from 414 to 448, it's... Si The total number of units is almost identical. It's 1242 versus 1340. PD 13, well it's 100 units. Si Yes. PD Okay, so it's gone up a little bit, but remember the bulk of that low density is in that... Si I'm just trying to understand why staff didn't just say less intense is about what we want, so...let me just finish the question first. PD Okay. Si So if I'm reading it right, part of it is the residential element with the shift from medium density to high density, and the other part, if I read it right, is that the commercial community goes down from 1.1 million to about 379,000 square feet of commercial community development, from 102 acres to 35. PD Okay, your observation is absolutely correct about the residential, and that is based on acquiescence to the developers request. Si Okay. 55 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21 2003 PD And this kind of relates to my original comment about housing, that our solution to the housing problem the last 13 years is either low density or high density. We have built low density private single family or high density apartments, and the goal in terms of wrestling with trying to produce the needed housing in a limited amount of real estate of the GPAC was to try to make that up as much as we can while preserving the single family quality of these neighborhoods. And that is where the medium density came in. Developers request, he wanted more high density. He also wanted more low. He wanted more than the traditional balance of high and low, and I had to struggle to get the medium in there because the medium density is a little bit more of a...for people who haven't done it, it's a product that has disappeared over the last 30...or it is only being reintroduced in those areas where they have to do it. So it is simply...you can say I caved in. A big piece of the community commercial that changed, if you look at the maps, was, and I should have brought this up because I think you have some correspondence relating to it, is that site at the northeast corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford, you see the difference, where we once had the skate park, I mean the ice skating rink, and we had designated that as community commercial. In wrestling with that property since the ice skating rink disappeared, and one of the reasons why we had the ice skating rink there because it was kind of tucked up near the interchange ramp and therefore it seemed like a good place to hide something, under the interchange ramp doesn't make it a good...the same reason makes it not a good site for a neighborhood shopping center. The fact that it's on the wrong side of Cook Street, it's on the University side not on the housing side, the fact that it is obscured substantially by the off-ramp, that based on the property owners request and our re-examination decided that it is a better extension of that industrial office park which extends all the way behind the University than community commercial. So that took out a big hunk of that community commercial. And I don't believe there was any other change that we...part of that also might have been the addition of the mixed use. Si Yeah, I don't understand the map because we're taking away that area from commercial community in the staff recommendation. PD Right. Si But in theory it should be replaced with the industrial... PD Industrial should have gone up. Si Should have gone but it doesn't. 56 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21 2003 PD And it doesn't go up enough. SJ Right. PD It went up ten acres, but it should have gone up, like, or the other one shouldn't have gone down as much. SJ (Inaudible) why the total comes down... PD If we added some more industrial over there, Mr. Noble's property, west of Portola...again, I'm... SJ And that's...we're hitting the wall, not the target, I understand. The other question I had was if we look at the map that's up there right now, north of the freeway there is a large area designated as RH, and actually the yellow section to the west of it is RL, RH being high density residential, RL being low density residential...none of that area is incorporated into your tables, is that correct? PD Correct. We're only looking at the area south... SJ Did staff consider that those areas and others to the north of the freeway could be part of the solution to the housing demand created by the University? PD The answer is...or a couple of things...the answer is yes. The problem is then you have to get the people over the freeway, which becomes your constraint. If you ever drive around Orange County, that becomes a big problem. The answer is yes. That's why we put so much high density there. It's not designated there now. Realistically, we don't think that that amount of high density is realistic. We would actually even be recommending, and what didn't get changed in the graphics since we were all concentrating on the City portion, that the less intense alternative is more appropriate north of the freeway as well. But the answer is yes, that is why we, around 1000 Palms, we beefed up the zoning or are suggesting to the County they beef up the zoning as well to make up for what we see at least a 6,000-unit deficit that even in the less alternative we will end up with. But again, that's a lesser solution in that it forces people going through the interchanges which are the choke points in our circulation system, and when they get screwed up, not only do the people coming off the back going to have a problem but then you can't get on and off the freeway. And then again, you end up with the Brea 57 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 Boulevard or Imperial Highway interchange with 57 freeway that takes..it has about seven lights, it takes you about 25 minutes to get across. SJ Well, that's not the only solution to those issues. I've also seen those areas, and the reason I asked if staff studied that area as part of the solution is we also see bridges connecting neighborhoods that are on two sides of the freeway without access onto the freeway. PD Remember, we are looking at doing Portola. SJ Although Portola will have an interchange (inaudible) but Washington used to have (inaudible) PD They are very difficult, very expensive, given the width of that...and it can be done, but...I'm agreeing with you. SJ I'm not recommending it as a solution. I'm asking if staff studied the feasibility of the area north of the freeway as a potential part of the solution. PD Yes. SJ ...understanding that it could involve elements that either would be cost- effective or wouldn't be, such as a bridge to connect those (inaudible) I don't know. PD The answer is absolutely. That's why you see those designations. SJ Okay. But it is not a part of the staff recommendation at this point, nor is it coming to us from GPAC saying what we really need to do is focus on that... PD No, the answer is it is part of the staff recommendation...that if you look at the preferred alternative, if you compare the preferred alternative to the less intense, okay, or if you see a huge amount of high density in the preferred alternative. SJ Okay, and the staff recommended... PD And the staff recommended...and the reason is we never changed. When we did this map, the concentration was getting all the intricacies of the City portion. We never...but the recommendation, and just realism, that I don't think...when you concentrate too much high density in a monolithic...our goal even in doing the high density was not to have huge blocks of high density 58 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21 2003 like they have in Orange County, which again you get...the goal in any mixed...the concept of mixing uses enough is that you get...it's like monoculture and agriculture, you get alternative peaks of activity that work better with the traffic system and relieve congestion because you have people coming to work in one direction, people leaving from work from their homes as opposed to a huge block of residential where a monstrous amount of people are moving in one direction. So in looking at what you saw in that huge block of high density north of 1000 Palms, we just, in retrospect, said that's just too big, that's too much concentration of high density and, therefore, we...in the less intense alternative, you see it's about cut in half. Si Right. If we expand it, if we kind of lifted our heads up a little bit and expanded the area to incorporate even in the less intense usage the residential that potentially can exist north of the freeway, we would create all the housing the University would ever be projected to require and then some. PD I don't believe that is the case. Remember, it's not the University. The University is not the main housing engine. It's the biggest business. Si Well, at a minimum, it certainly opens up a tremendous amount of additional housing beyond (inaudible) ?? Actually, it does not. Remember that there are job generating uses also existing in proposed north of 1-10. And the traffic model shows good fit relatively with the preferred alternative between the jobs we create and the homes we create. We have just the reverse problem in the University Park district. Si Look at how much housing you see north of the freeway (inaudible) PD No, but... SJ ...commercial plan north of the freeway that's going to create that kind of demand...? ?? And the other uses that are there, that is correct. PD Remember, even with all our housing that we're showing south of the freeway, we're only projecting a third to, 33-40% of the housing demand. What we're saying is that north of the freeway, at least that is what the traffic model is showing, that we are...it takes that...if you look at the history of every Southern California community, the sort of development that you're 59 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 used to is only generating 30-40% of the amount of the housing needed to service the commercial uses, which explains why San Fernando Valley got developed. Once San Fernando commercial got developed, why San Gabriel Valley became the housing source, so we've been constant exporting a substantial part of the housing demand to the neighboring developing portion of Southern California in each progressive increment of growth, and that is...which works as long as you have unlimited land to expand to, at some point in time distance becomes a problem. Remember, there was the big push for people to commute from Lancaster/Palmdale into L.A., and then suddenly a lot of people moved out there and they said oh my God, there is a (inaudible), so there's a limit of how far you can do that. It's like an ameba, you get too big, you start collapsing from a...both in terms of congestion, in terms of how much people are willing to commute, in terms of distance. But in essence, the type of residential...and Cindy talks about Orange County. Orange County developed on the low density model. To say we don't want to become like Orange County, we are becoming like Orange County based on the pattern of development that we've followed over the last 30 years. You don't see it until—the congestion part doesn't come until the end, when it's too late. But anyway, you're absolutely correct. Whether we can influence the County to make those designations is a question. I don't think we're prepared to annex 1000 Palms, nor are they interested in annexing to us. CF But we're not talking about going from Palmdale to L.A. or something, we're just talking about going over the freeway from our housing. PD And the answer is yes, that's why we...theoretically, we tried to load up in the north to try and make up for what we knew...and remember, we're staring with the City...if you read the EIR, we're starting with a significant...we're at a significant housing to jobs deficit already based on our commercial we have today. Since we've developed very little, if you look at the map, three- quarters of our land development in the last 20 years has been in resort golf courses. We've been generating a lot of commercial development and in proportion very little permanent residential housing. Our primary residential housing source is still the old stuff south of 111 , which was developed 30 years ago. CF We had stated at our last meeting that this session would go until 11 :30? SC Right. CF And it's beyond 11:30. 60 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 SC That's correct. CF And I don't think we're close to any consensus. PD We might want to let the public speak. Si And I apologize, I do have a lunch appointment and I've got appointments booked through the afternoon. CF I do as well. That's what I had planned upon. Si Yes. (Inaudible) Sc Well, we are resuming our public hearing also at six o'clock, but we were going to go ahead and not do the General Plan at six but do all our other public hearings that have been continued. So we have run over time, and your consensus is? CF I would move to continue this to November 4th as recommended by staff, and I think now all the Commissioners have all these little tables and charts, which we just got, and that will give them adequate time to study it and see what they'd like to see. SC And then, also, do we want to go ahead and resume it at six o'clock in the evening, or do we want to have another session at 8:30 in the morning? Si A suggestion would be, and I sympathize with those who have made a special effort to be and have sat here for, you know, these three, three and a half hours. I would be willing to devote at least a small portion of the initial part of our meeting if people wish to come back, and limit the General Plan matter to maybe thirty minutes or even forty-five minutes, really cut if off at that point because we have a significant amount of ordinary City business to conduct after that. CF Yes, we do, and I would go along with the first thirty minutes for public testimony only with General Plan items. Sc That's fine. 61 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 (Inaudible) CIF Ma'am, you're out of order. (Inaudible) CIF You're out of order. You should please sit down. ?? Tonight we would have time for individuals to speak on some matters we've discussed today that might not be able to speak at our next meeting, which would still allow public input to everything we've talked about today, is that what we're talking about? CIF Yes. Si I think we would still continue to November 4th CF 4th...So we'd have testimony tonight for a half hour and on November 4th as well, whether we meet at 8:30 or six or both. SC Right. And then we'll go ahead and...we'll decide on that this evening after we go ahead and hear testimony for the first half hour. Si By the way, this is now, what, our third meeting on... SC Yes, I think it is. Si I think our last meeting we began at four and ended at eleven... CIF Right. Si ...so I think this body is committed to give this matter its full attention and to ensure that the public has ample opportunity to give input. We're as serious about this as anyone, so...I certainly regret if anyone is inconvenienced, but I think that if they have some opportunity tonight and then again on the 4m and more if necessary, everyone will have a chance to be heard. So would...do you require a motion to that effect? (Inaudible) Si Okay, I would move to continue this matter to tonight... CIF For one-half hour. 62 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003 Si Six p.m. to six-thirty, with the hope that only those that truly are either from out of town or who would be inconvenienced to be heard on the 4th will speak at that time, and then to entertain recontinuing the matter to the meeting of November 4m SC Which we'll decide on the time on that... CF Tonight. I would second that. SC All in favor? (All ayes) SC Opposed? Motion carries. So we'll reconvene at six o'clock this evening. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, continuing Case No. GPA 01-04 to October 21 , 2003 at 6:00 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. 63 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21 2003 V. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 11 :51 a.m. PHILIP DRELL, Secretary ATTEST: SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /mg 64 F POSTED AGENDA ADJOURNED MEETING PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - OCTOBER 21, 2003 8:30 A.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER • 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Any person wishing to discuss any item not otherwise on the Agenda may address the Planning Commission at this point by stepping to the lectern and giving his/her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Planning Commission. IV. PUBLIC HEARING Any person wishing to discuss any item not otherwise on the Agenda may address the Planning Commission at this point by stepping to the lectern and giving his/her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Planning Commission. A. Case No. GPA 01-04, CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant (Continued from October 7, 2003 and September 16, 2003) Request for consideration of a Comprehensive General Plan Update. Recommended Action: Continue to regular meeting of November 4, 2003. V. ADJOURNMENT Move by second by , adjourning the meeting by minute motion. NOBLE & COMPANY, LLC 42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 101 •Palm Desert,California 92211 •Tel. (760)836-9073•Fax(760)836-9074•E-mail:Noblecompanyllc@aol.com October 7, 2003 Mr. Phil Drell Director of Community Development City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 HAND DELIVERED Re: Parcel "C" of Parcel Map Waiver No. 02-22 Dear Mr. Drell: Enclosed please find a copy of my letter to you dated September 15, 2003. I would like to once again call to your attention the issues raised therein as well as a number of other problems which would result from the currently proposed plan. The Preferred Alternative map included in mailings to the public and staff presentations does not show the locations of the Dinah Shore Drive and Portola Avenue extensions which will be completed in early to mid 2004. As it is very difficult to understand the enormously negative effect that the proposed designations would have on the subject property without seeing the street locations, we have prepared the enclosed color coded map showing them. This layout reveals that the proposed designations would provide an R-H area of about 16 acres (up to 350 + - dwelling units), several acres of OS/PV and an oddly shaped I-BP section of approximately 8 acres. Some of the undesirable effects of locating residences northerly of the Dinah Shore Drive extension as well as questions regarding the OS/PV area are set forth in my September 15 letter. Equally disturbing, however, is the fact that the proposed I-BP portion of the subject property would, due to its very difficult shape and lack of frontage on any road, be undesirable for most uses. This property would be accessible only from Dinah Shore Drive, through the proposed high density residential area. The lack of street frontage would preclude office, showroom and other more attractive buildings and users which 1 r Mr. Phil Drell October 7, 2003 Page 2 do not require street visibility would generate heavier automobile and track traffic which would not be compatible with the adjacent residential use. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the entirety of the subject property be designated I-BP which is consistent with its current SI zoning. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. Very Truly Yours, Thomas S. Noble cc: Planning Commissioners CITY OF PALM DESERT GATE WAY AREA DALI GNMENT PREFERRE I \ � I TRACT HOMES I 90� it/ I 81 P r \ W l I \ 1 +OR-V '-� \ Z a \ c re-das.' cd.ss A w 35TN AVENUE tz- ,, LU 0I 1 \ LU ti 1 GERALD FORD DRNE --- ---}--------�---- ------------- � Pr'o�osed Uses I W I 0 118 MILE 1/4 MILE 1/2 MILE < • tl'�-6 P) j (660') (1,320') (2.640') JOI ccI O PV I SCALE:1'=1/4 MILE(1,320') 0 a 1� i Lundin Development Co. October 7, 2003 To: Palm Desert Planning Commission From: Lundin Development Company Subject: Shopping Center Planned for NWC of Monterey& Country Club A shopping center is being planned for development at the subject corner anchored with Henry's Market and Walgreen's Drug. This is deemed the optimal, highest and best use for this vacant site. The site merits commercial development and will bring to this location very desirable small-scale commercial uses in an exciting and special architectural setting created by Jim Cioffi. The plan provides for abundant landscaping and a quiet "green-belt" separation of the center from adjoining housing. (See enclosed site plan and architectural renderings). This site was planned for a shopping center in conjunction with the Merano development with CC&R's disclosing and providing for such a shopping center at a later date. Today is that date! (See enclosed excerpts from the CC&R's). Traffic considerations dictate the need for enhanced safety at this location, which will be provided by a traffic signal to be installed at Via Scena and Country Club. This signal has been needed for some time by both the old Albertson's (now vacant) center on the south and Merano residents on the north. Adequate traffic warrants for such signal cannot be achieved unless this site is developed commercially. Its existing residential zoning cannot provide the necessary warrants. Therefore, in the interest of achieving the best redevelopment of the existing old Albertson's center, including the best replacement tenant and refurbished architecture, this signal at Via Scena is necessary for these customers to have the safest return trip toward the west and south via Country Club. A traffic study is being prepared by Urban Crossroads showing details. Thank you for your consideration of our request for land-use approval of our proposed shopping center. We filed our application for a General Plan Amendment on January 17, 2003. (See enclosed copy of our application). 16400 Pacific Coast Highway,Suite 207- Huntington Beach,California 92649- (562)592-6020- FAX(562)592-6050 �-------------------------------ram I I I � 1 I I I I ( I I t I � , � I f ' I I I f I I 1 I I I � I i 1 /I I , 1 '- _UNDIN DEVELOPMENT. a COUNTRY CLUB PLACE cio K © NE CORNER COUNTRY CLUB & MONTEREY� :, RCHlrr=cr '` PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA `� ? yjti+ } 1-;:; g - 9 r�: ,�.t, ' �►� c' ., � - ..�� /jl/rJI! { ,s�.� i' -w .. t M,6 �, .. �- .. � ���1 '�'•-' � E 7 i ,I - • � , L y 'IW r a / a MEOW _ Aa aarr - r- _..._ A Y a'` ._. .-� �- ._ _ .. ._ �-�-�_ ;� w } _ - -- .� �, 1 .. ..�.. �: � J _fi _ _r : __ -� c. �_- +c. �- �' M— �^ � � -. RECOR-DING REQUESTED BY: pR1N o AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: LAW OFFICE OFT FR A, �� K. vC^ \1'30N OTHY S. MUR.4KA.�iI Coy�:y R �or�er The Wilshire Courtyard RIVEnS!Dl_ (" }OUN*TY CALIFORNIA 5750 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 500 — Los Angeles, CA 90036 Phone: (213) 933-5900 Fax: (213) 933-7100 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTS FOR THE PALM DESERT MERANO - Tract No. 27882-1 A Planned Residential Development Fist American 1"rtle Company has recorded this instrument by request as an accorn- modation only and has not examined it for re0arity and sufficiency or as to its effect upon the title to any real property that may be described herein. [ PD-Multi-CCR;: 1/24/94 J [ This Set:1r06/05/95 J= TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE DESCRIPTION PAGE DECLARATION AND RECITALS R-1 I DEFINITIONS I-1 II PROPERTY RIGHTS IN COMMON AREAS II-1 2.01 Common Areas and Purposes II-1 2.02 Easements of Enjoyment II-1 2.03 Title to the Common Areas II-1 2.04 Delegation of Use II-1 III GENERAL RESTRICTIONS III-1 3.01 Single Family Residential Use III-1 3.02 Business or Commercial Activity III-1 3.03 Rights Reserved by Declarant III-1 3.04 Garage Doors III-1 3.05 Temporary Structures III-1 3.06 Signs III-2 3.07 Debris, Trash and Refuse III-2 3.08 Plant Restrictions III-2 3.09 Exterior Clothes Lines III-2 3.10 Nuisance III-3 111 Owner's Maintenance and Repair Obligations III-3 3.12 Restrictions on Exploration and Removal of Minerals III-3 3.13 Indemnity by Owner of the Association III-3 3.14 Exterior Apparatus Regulations III-3 3.I5 Solar Heating Systems III-4 3.16 Window Covers III-4 3.17 Leasing III-4 3.18 Committee Approval for Construction III-4 3.19 California Vehicle Code and Parking Regulations II1-4 3.20 _Animal Limitations III-5 3.21 Common Fences' 111-6 i Alm- ARTICLE DESCRIPTION PAGE XI I ANNEXATION XII-1 12.01 Annexation of Additional Property XII-1 12.02 Contents of Annexation Document XII-1 12.03 Conveyance of Common Area(s) XII-2 12.04 Declarant Under No Obligation to Continue Development; Effect of Annexation XII-2 12.05 Deannexation XII-2 12.06 Association's Merger or Consolidation XII-3 XIII GENERAL PROVISIONS XIII-1 13.01 Duration XIII-1 13.02 Amendment XIII-1 13.03 Enforcement: Resolution of Disputes XIII-2 13.04 Enforcement: Binding and Non-Binding Arbitration XIII-3 13.05 Notification of Declarant by Association of Defects and Resolution of Disputes with Declarant XIII-4 13.06 Notices XIII-5 13.07 Partial Invalidity XIII-6 13.08 Number XIII-6 13.09 Attorneys' Fees XIII-6 13.10 Coachella Valley Water District Well Site XIII-6 13.11 Adjacent Commercial Development Site XIII-7 EXECUTION PAGE SUBORDINATION BY LIENHOLDER EXHIBIT A - PROPERTY EXHIBIT B - ADDITIONAL PROPERTY EXHIBIT C - COMMON AREA LOT(S) EXHIBIT D - CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 1354, 1365, 1365.5, 1365.7 and 1366 (e) By accepting a Deed to a Lot, each Owner, for himself/herself and invitees, personal representatives, assigns and heirs (collectively, the "Owner's Related Parties") hereby: (1) Acknowledge that Declarant has dedicated the fee title of the Well Site to the District for well site purposes; (2) Acknowledge that the District may at any time in the future construct and operate water wells at said site, and such construction and operation may involve heavy equipment operation, including drilling and maintenance derricks which may create noise and vibration ("Well Site Impacts"); (3) Acknowledge that Owner has been notified by Declarant of the matters referenced in paragraphs (1) and (2) above; (4) Assume the risk of any property damage, personal injury and/or creation or maintenance of a trespass or nuisance created by or arising in connection with the Well Site Impacts during the normal course of construction and operation of the Well Site (collectively, the "Assumed Well Site Risks"); and (5) Release, waive, discharge, covenant not to sue, indemnify and agree to hold harmless Declarant, the Association, the Board, the other Members, and each of their respective officers, directors, shareholders, affiliates, successors and assigns (collectively, the "Released Parties") for any losses, costs (including, without limitation, attomey's fees), claims, demands, suits, judgments or other obligations arising out of or connected with any of the Assumed Well Site Risks, whether caused by the negligence of the Released Parry or otherwise. 13.11 Adjacent Commercial Development Site. (a) Declarant owns a parcel of land of approximately 8.6 acres located at the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Monterey Avenue which is not a part of the Property or Additional Property (hereinafter the "Shopping Center Site"). Declarani intends to develop the Shopping Center Site at some time in the future as a commercial shopping center. (b) By accepting a Deed to a Lot, each Owner, for himself/herself and invitees, personal representatives, assigns and heirs (collectively, the "Owner's Related Parties") hereby: (1) Acknowledge that Declarant intends to develop the Shopping Center Site at some time in the future as a commercial shopping center; XIII-7 (2) Acknowledge that the construction of a commercial shopping center on the Shopping Center Site may involve heavy equipment operation and large scale construction activities which will likely create additional vehicular traffic, noise, dust and vibration during the course of such construction ("Shopping Center Impacts"); (3) Acknowledge that the operation of a commercial shopping center on the Shopping Center Site will likely create additional vehicular traffic, noise and night lighting impacts on a permanent basis ("Shopping Center Impacts"); (4) Acknowledge that Owner has been notified by Declarant of the matters referenced in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) above; (5) Assume the risk of any property damage, personal injury and/or creation or maintenance of a trespass or nuisance created by or arising in connection with the Shopping Center Impacts during the normal course of construction and operation of a commercial shopping center on the Shopping Center Site (collectively, the "Assumed Shopping Center Risks"); and (6) Release, waive, discharge, covenant not to sue, indemnify and agree to hold harmless Declarant, the Association, the Board, the other Members, and each of their respective officers, directors, shareholders, affiliates, successors and assigns (collectively, the "Released Parties"), for any losses, costs (including, without limitation, attorney's fees), claims, demands, suits, judgments or other obligations arising out of or connected with any of the Assumed Shopping Center Risks, whether caused by the negligence of the Released Party or otherwise. XUI-8 Fp- IN WITNESS Va- EREOF, the undersigned, being the Declarant, has executed this Declaration for Tract No. 27882-1 on the day and year first written above. DECLARANT: AVONDALE CORPORATION, a California corporation X J By: ROBERT L. R its: President STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ss. On 19 9- , before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared 7r.,3 E Z7 [Xl Personally known to me - OR - [ ] Proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (SEAL) Q DEBT S.P10 Notary Public --• NOTARY PJBLC•CALFORNA LYaece County a My C—E=w"Apr.12 1997 j OFF EXHIBIT "A" PROPERTY Lots 13 through 38, inclusive, of Tract No. 27882-1 , in the City of Palm Desert, as per Map filed in Book 253, Pages 8 through 12, inclusive, of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside County. r EXHIBIT "B" ADDITIONAL PROPERTY Lots 1 through 12, inclusive, 39 through 62, inclusive and Lots C, 1, J, K, L, and 64 of Tract No. 27882-1 aver MaD filed in Book 253, Pages 8 through 12, inclusive, of Maps; and Lots 1 through 64, inclusive, and Lots A, B; C, D, and E of Tract No. 27882-2 in the City of Palm Desert, as per Map filed in Book 253, Pages 13 through 17, inclusive, of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside County. Pp EXHIBIT "C" COMMON AREA-LOT(S) f Lots D, E, F, G, and H of Tract No. 27882-1 , in the City of Palm Desert, as per Map filed in Book 253, Pages 8 through 12, inclusive, of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside County. r CALIFORNvIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 1354, 1365, 1365.5, 1365.7 and 1366 EXHIBIT "D" Current as of 01/01/95 [ Pagelofll ] § 1354. Covenants and restrictions in declaration as equitable servitudes; enforcement (a) The covenants and restrictions in the declaration shall be enforceable equitable servitudes, unless unreasonable, and shall inure to the benefit of and bind all owners of separate interests in the development. Unless the declaration states otherwise, these servitudes may be enforc-ed by any owner of a separate interest or by the association, or by both. (b) Unless the applicable time limitation for commencing the action would run within 120 days, prior to the filing of a civil action by either an association or an owner or a member of a common interest development solely for declaratory relief or injunctive relief, or for declaratory relief or injunctive relief in conjunction with a claim for monetary damages, other than association assessments, not in excess of five thousand dollars (S 5,000), related to the enforcement of the governing documents, the parties shall endeavor, as provided in this subdivision, to submit their dispute to a form of alternative dispute resolution such as mediation or arbitration. The form of alternative dispute resolution chosen may be binding or nonbinding at the option of the parties. Any party to such a dispute may initiate this process by serving on another party to the dispute a request for resolution. The request for resolution shall include: (1) A brief description of the dispute between the parties, (2) A request for alternative dispute resolution, and (3) A notice that the party receiving the request for resolution is required to respond thereto within 30 days of receipt or it will be deemed rejected. Service of the request for resolution shall be in the same manner as prescribed for service in a small claims action as provided in section 116.340 Of the code of civil procedure. Parties receiving a request for resolution shall have 30 days following service of the request for resolution to accept or reject alternative dispute resolution and, if not accepted within the 30-day period by a party, shall be deemed rejected by that party. If alternative dispute resolution is accepted by the party upon whom the request for resolution is served, the alternative dispute resolution shall be completed within 90 days of receipt of the acceptance by the party initiating the request for resolution, unless extended by written stipulation signed by both parties. The costs of the alternative dispute resolution shall be borne by the parties. CIty of Palm DeselECEIVED T3-510 Fred Waring Dr., palm Desert, CA 9?264 17 2003 (619) 346-0611 Fax: (619) 341-7093 • S G,G, 'p't:dC`il'I'i 0?`tESi DEP�RTSt£`T ! ,i-Y O F?.\U-M DESEFT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION FORM: De artmen -Of Commuru Developmen The Robert Mayer Co.riDoration ATTN: Larry Brose Applicant:.(please print).- -- Suite 10 5 0 ( 9 4 9 ) 15 9-8 0 91 660 Newport Center , Telephone 1 L/Uiling:Address 92660 9 2 CA Zip-Code Newport Beach, State- QUEST ;.(Describe specific nature`of approvalreques e _. ' s General Plan to "District Commercial" in order to Amend the City y grocery and accommodate a neighborhood shopping center anchored b a g y in size . drug store. Property is 8 . 64 acres PropertyDescrptrQn-(Adr?- s)_�z- Avenue Northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Monterey i A lessor's Parcel 6 2 0-3 91-015-5 Es�inS_Zoning s that they are the owner(s) of the property described herein and e tiling of this appllcanon. Property Owner Authorization The undersigned state nereny give autnonzation ror th ++ '0) EE Date Signature RG RT L. L"�'x of Palm Desert of all liabilities regarding any deed restrictions Agreement absolving the O�THIS I Desert of aU AGREE��ENT,Abe lve the-citydiiies lve to any deed restricrions. I DO BY ti1Y SIGNATURE that may be applicable- to the properry described herein. _( n —O 75 ( Ll�y � mkii�lEE Date Signature RO$�xl 1' Applicant's Signature Signature L R BROSE Date C e ?�/ase No. GPA- Reference Case No. Date: Accepted By: / p. 2 y> l y -RECEIVED 17 2003 t)MMU rITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT DONALD AND PATRICIA ROSBURG CHARLES AND SALLY SPARKS .........................................................................................8....Schol.........ar....La.n..e.....ast... ....... .... ........... 74074 Scholar Lane West 7412 E Palm Desert, CA 92211 Palm Desert,CA 92211 October 7, 2003 City of Palm Desert General Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: University Village proposed land use plan We of College View Estates H greatly oppose your plan for the University Village. The density of apartments,condos and high-density housing and professional buildings should be closer to the college. We strongly urge you to consider placing the green space plans closer to our existing homes and moving the proposed University village on the land between Portola and Cook We feel that professional offices in front of College View Estates H would impose a hardship on residence including depreciation of property values,increases in traffic, light pollution and the view and privacy that we paid for. Thank for your careful consideration to this matter. Received Oct-07-03 10:32am From- To-CITY PALM DST EMRGY Page 02 TN/City of Palm Desert Draft General Plan EIR Section III-Existing Conditions,Impacts and Mitigation Measures Table III -1 Existing General Plan Statistical Land Use Summary City/SOI City/SOI City/SOI SOI & SOI & SOI & &PA &PA &PA City PA City PA City PA Dev. Vacant Total Existing Existing Potential Potential Buildout Buildout Land Use Designation Acres Acres Acres Units Units Units' Units' Units Units Affordable High Density 39.3/- -/- 39.3/- - _ High Density(7-18 du/ac) 257.7/- 39.8/- 297.5/- 537 - 2,339.7/ Medium Density(5-7 du/ac) 2,125.6/- 214.1 /- - 8,002** 9,081** 1,124 - 9,663 15,570 Medium Density(5-8 du/ac) -/823.9 -/434.8 41,259 1,259 - 2,609 Medium High Density (8-14 du/ac) -/242.0 -/369.5 4612 612 _ 3,880 Hillside Planned Residential (1 du/ac) 35/- 372.6/- 407.6/- 279 - Low Density 7,045.2/ 8,349.4/ (3-5 du/ac) - 1,304.2/- - 4,891 - Very Low Density (1-3 du/ac) 104.4/- 12.9/- 117.3/- 29 - Low Density(2-5 du/ac) -/ 1,995.4 4891 891 -/2,886 22,512* 6,071* - 3,341 27,711 12,074 Rural Mountainous(1 du/ac) 411.6 4131.8 131.8 4143 143 - 99 Rural (1 du/5 ac) 41,531.8 1,531.8 -/9,350.2 10,882 - 1,403 Very Low Density (0.4-2 du/ac) -/532.2 -/687.1 41,219 1,219 - 1,031 Rural Village(0.4-2 du/ac) -/29 -/86.1 -/ 115 - 129 11,550.8 9,607.2/ 1,943.6/ / Residential Total 5,166.1 11,950.5 17,116.6 30,514 15,152 6,861 12,491 37,375 27,644 City/SOI City/SOI City/SOI SOI& SOI& SOI & &PA &PA &PA City PA City PA City PA Dev. Vacant Total Existing Existing Potential Potential Buildout Buildout Land Use Designation Acres Acres Acres S .Ft.' S .Ft.' S .Ft.' S .Ft Z S .Ft.' S .Ft.Z Commercial*** 3.3/- 281.2/- 284.5/- 31,625 - 2,694,796 - 2,726,420 - Core Commercial and Related Uses 211/- 29.1 /- 240.1/- 2,022,055 - 278,871 - 2,300,926 - District Commercial 84.2/- 100.1/- 184.3/- 806,905 - 959,278 - 1,766,184 - Office Professional 118.1/- 45.7/- 163.8/- 1,131,776 - 437,952 - 1,569,728 - Regional Commercial 268.6/- 203.7/- 472.3/- 2,574,048 - 1,952,098 - 4,526,145 - Resort Commercial**** 173.1 /- 94.9/- 268/- 1,658,852 - 909,446 - 2,568,298 - Business Park(0.25-0.60 sar) -/6.8 4209.5 209.5 4216 216 - 65,166 -2,007,680 - 2,072,846 Commercial Retail (0.2-0.35 sar) -/ 162.2 -/449.6 4612 612 - 1,554,395 -4,308,607 - 5,863,002 Commerical Tourist(0.2- 0.35 sar) 41.7 1.7 415.7 15.7 417 17 - 16,291 - 150,456 - 166,747 Commercial Total 858.3/ 754.7/ 1,613.0/ 170.7 674.8 845.5 8,225,261 1,635,852 7,232,441 6,466,743 15,457,702 8,102,595 III-5 1; TN/City of Palm Desert Draft General Plan EIR Section III-Existing Conditions,Impacts and Mitigation Measures Table III - 1, Continued Existing General Plan Statistical Land Use Summary City/SOI City/SOI SOI& SOI& & PA &PA City/SOI & City PA City PA City SOI&PA Land Use Dev. Vacant PA Total Existing Existing Potential Potential Buildout Buildout Designation Acres Acres Acres S .Ft.2 S .Ft.2 S .Ft.2 S .Ft.2 S .Ft 2 S .Ft.2 Industrial 3.0/- 281.2/- 284.2***/- 44,431 - 4,164,684 - 4,209,116 - Service Industrial 235.3/- 25/- 260.3/- 3,484,887 - 370,260 - 3,855,147 Light Industry(0.25 -0.60 sar) 4443.4 443.4 4654 654 41,097 1,097 - 6,566,931 - 9,686,002 - 16,252,933 Industrial Total 235.3/ 306.2/ 443.4 654 544.5/1,097 3,529,318 6,566,931 4,534,944 9,686,002 8,064,263 16,252,933 Open Space 67/- 495/- 4562 562 - _ _ Park 432.9/- 103.1/- 4536 536 - _ _ Open Space- Conservation -/- 4526.7 526.7 4527 527 - - _ OS-CH Conservation Habitat 4165.5 165.5 36,063.7 436229 36229 - - _ OS-R 300/ Recreation***** 971.2 4451.3 451.3 300/ 1,423 - - _ OS-RUR Rural 440.7 40.7 412,336 12,336 412,377 12,377 - - _ OS-W Water 48.8 8.8 464 64 473 73 - - - Waterway 182.5/- 38.1/- 220 6/- 982.4/ 636.2/ 1,618.6/ Open Space Total 1,186.2 49,441.7 50,627.9 - - Civic Center 39.6/- -/- 39.6/- - _ College/University 164.2/- 210.3/- 374.5/- - - Elementary School 15.6/- -/- 15.6/- - _ Middle School 9.5/- -/- 9.5/- - _ _ High School 24.3/- -/- 24.3/- - - _ Public Facilities 202.7/- 55.5/- 258.2/- - - - Sports Complex 15.5/- -/- 15.5/- - - _ Public Facility(< 0.60 sar) 443.2 43.2 415.9 459 59 - - _ FWY 4336.0 336.0 452.0 52.0 4388 - - Public/Quasi 471.4/ 265.8/ Public Total 379.2 67.9 737.2/447.1 - - 12,154.E/ 3,906.5/ 16,064.1/ Total Acres 7,345.6 62,788.9 70,134.5 * Includes attached and detached single-family housing units. ** Includes multi-family housing units from two to fifty-plus and mobilehomes. *** Total acreage in the North University Park planning area is 569. The designation of Commercial/Industrial is estimated to be 50% Commercial and 50%Industrial.The acreage has been divided here. **** Gross acreage under this designation is 568 acres. This misrepresents the actual land use, which consists of a 300±acres of golf course (Open Space-Recreation)and 100 acres of hotel/resort commercial. ***** Includes 300±acres removed from Commercial Resort category.See above. ' Assumes 75%of the total number of units possible,at maximum permitted density. ` Assumes 22%lot coverage for commercial development and 34%lot coverage for industrial development III-6 i ------------------------ -------------- -- ------ a MONTEREY AVENUE _ _ _ _ _ _ v I , i n i n m V m D, M � I o 0 D o o zI a ml a I wN F N D Z I . �00 r C n Z j 0D3 0 ° ------ � a 0 � , m ° ° ° i GATEWAY DRIVE o � O O co O i =N �N ! i .la N !p I 00 �oo Qg D0: i vv w �000 D� oD D\3) 0> n 0 0 �o o ° 31 A I I J I Noo I � 0D3) 1, gA 6 j 0> d co m < 0 I �z 00 I , D Z 0 _ __ PORTOLA AVENUE MAIN SMITH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Proposed General Plan Land Use Dia(�ram PLANNINGNING / CIVIL ENGINEERING / LAND SURVEYING �7 777 E. CANYON WAY, SUITE 301 MACLEOD / WORLD / PONDEROSA PALMM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92262-6 784 TELEPHONE (760) 320-9811 /FAX 323-7893 bVA\Sj ./100" t-l.j u ��s �s aniar� crr d cr+a-da9 . Goai��� �vW 2003 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Philip Drell CITY OF PALM DESERT Director of Community Development City of Palm Desert October 6, 2003 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 January 20, 2003 Dear Mr. Drell,/ Commissioners; Thank you for reviewing the status of the revised Community Plan for the City of Palm Desert with me last week. As you know, my property located at 73-341 San Benito Circle has been in limbo since the last community plan was approved in 1985. In that plan my property, which includes a three-bedroom house was being considered to being converted from R-1 to a parking lot to accommodate the commercial shops on Highway 111. 1 have recently observed that very few vehicles park in the spaces provided behind the shops. Marc's Golf Shop never had more than three cars and that's during January during the week and on the weekend.And since his building is new, and the one next door was just remodeled last year, I believe that additional parking certainly is not going to be needed in the near future. In the past 17 years I have considered selling my property several times but when the interested parties learned of the uncertain future they immediately lost interest. During our conversation on January 17`h, you indicated that the plan at this time recommended not destroying the houses which are adjacent to the alley, but taking some of the footage at the rear of the lots to allow for one or two rows of parking or to leave our property as is. Leaving the property "as is"naturally is what we would hope for. Last year two houses on San Benito Circle were sold. The one at 44-787 sold for $190,000. and the small house 3 lots east of my house sold for more than $200,000. Also, two new houses were built on our circle the year before. One of the main benefits of my property is the large backyard, which would allow for a garage, a swimming pool, or playground equipment. Losing most of my backyard would certainly reduce the value of my property. However, this is better than losing my house. I inherited this property from my Mother in 1977. Now that I am considering retiring, I hope to spend most of the winter in my Palm Desert house. Knowing the final decision of the new Community Plan would be very helpful. Therefore I would appreciate receiving any notices concerning any meetings which would affect the plan and my property. Sincerely yours, Donna Matson (73-341 San Benito Circle, Palm Desert) 4418 Avocado Street, Los Angeles, Ca 90027 (323) 466-8601 Daytime Phone i October 1, 2003 , C E I VE D 2003 Mr. Philip Drell Director of Community Developement -'`'' ``'' k1e.\r De Axr�1�s� City of Palm Desert l `1`sexT 73-5 10 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260-2578 Re: General Plan Update Planning Commission Hearing Request This letter is to indicate our written support for the updated version of the proposed General Plan for the City of Palm Desert. As property owners or operators of growing businesses along Highway 111 between Las Palmas and San Marcos avenues we understand this new plan will finally address the shortage of parking in the area that our businesses operate in. We strongly urge the adoption of this new General Plan by the Planning Commission and the City Council so that additional parking in the rear of our business locations becomes a reality as soon as possible. Thank you, for your consideration regarding this matter. Associated Desert publishers of- Tom Nelson a*Shoppers,Inc. W sMEET AVIR Premium Auto Video Gott*__, Z;MEET 73-394 Hwy. 111 Hal I Paradis 1 President&Publisher 73-400 Highway 1 1 1 N Palm Desert,CA 92260-3908 760/346-1729 N FAX 760/346-7350 Aennif . Fleming, DVNV Animal Medical Center For Display Advertising 760/770.5638 0 For Reader Ad Dept 760/346-0601 73-386 Hwy. 111 -i— — Banke'Scissors Men's Hairstyling 73-386 Hwy. 111 Dan Dapper Animal Krackers Grooming Suite#7 73-360 Hwy. 111 ti General Plan Update Request October 1, 2003 Page-2 3� V�J� �J Byra aul U. C.Comics Suite #3 73-360 Hwy. I I I La Costena Express Suite#4 73-360 Hwy. 111 Ma c owan/Leonard McGowan's Irish Inn 7 - 40 Hwy. 111 Ater artwig Euro can Const coon 73- 38 Hwy. 111 Peter Ha ig Crystal Palm Court 73-338 Hwy. 111 • ( i General Plan Update Request October 1, 2003 Page-3 /"I AS -Z Marc ITachado vkov Marc's Golf Suite A 73-330 Hwy. I I 1 Ve ��ints, Ph.D. Family Therapist 73-303 Hwy. I l I and E. Huffman Value Resources, Inc. Suite#101 73- 2 Hwy. IIIZ uben 'os Creative Dog Grooming Suite#103 73-280 Hwy 1 1 ttress xpr ss Suite#102 73-280 Hwy. 111 General Plan Update Request October 1, 2003 Page - 4 lan J. Silberman Desert Discount Cleaners 73-250 Hwy. 1 / P dis s iat d Desert Sh ppers Inc. 7 -40 wy 111 Bi 1's Hairstyling and YaAer Shop Suite#106 73-282 Hwy. 111 Barb Nations The Hair Gallery Suite #2 73-360 Hwy. 111 4is ne Shop 1 73-386 Hwy.l 11 ed Barn 73-290 Hwy. 111 FROM HCO,LLC FAX NO. : 7605686532 Oct. 01 2003 02:36PM P1 RECEIVED City of Palm Desert Attn: Phil Drell OL I 0 1 2003 73510 Fred Waring Drive. Palm Desert, Calif. 90960 COMMUNITY CI DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Via Fox #760-341-7098 Re: General Plan Land Uses Sheryl and Cook Dear Mr. Drell: As you are aware I have a equitable interest in the property on the southwest comer of Sheryl and Cook St. The four tots on the easterly and of Sheryl are an anomaly. The General Plan process is suggesting that these lots be zoned residential. My position is this... The three lots most easterly (33,34,35), are seperated by the fourth lot (32) which is a perpetual easement to the golf center which we sold to the parks and recreation dept. The three separated lots are on a major artery (Cook) and would be very undesireable (if not hazardous) for someone to live in as residential housing.. the noise and danger of proximity to heavy traffic by weight and volume is very negative to residential occupants.... The property to the north side of Sheryl is zoned OP (with a CUP for exceptions) and fits well with the Cook corridor General Plan._ It is our opinion and request that the three lots in discussion would best serve the neighborhood, general plan and the property owner if they were given the zoning designation of Office Professional.. This would be consistent with all the other Cook frontage properties of the same profile. Please represent our position to the Planning commission and Council. Respectfully S mi ed, Richard M_ ughes 760-668-6538 Received Oct-01-03 03:38pm From-7605686538 To—CITY PALM DST EMRGY Page 01 f ( Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP attorneys at law 515 South Figueroa 7th Floor Los Angeles California 90071-3398 Allen Matkins telephone. 213 622 5555 facsimile. 213 620 8816 www.allenmatkins.com writer.Patrick A.Perry t.213 955 5504 flle number.F3263-002/LA626955.01 e.pperry@allenmatkins.com October 1, 2003 VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL City Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: City of Palm Desert Draft Comprehensive General Plan Dear Members of the Planning Commission: This firm represents Cornishe of Bighorn, LLC ("Cornishe"), owner of approximately twelve acres of undeveloped property(the "Property") located along the southern boundary of the City as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A. We have reviewed the Draft Comprehensive General Plan ("DCGP"), dated September 5, 2003, and the associated draft Environmental Impact Report("DEIR"), dated September, 2003, and we have extremely serious concerns regarding the reduction in the allowable development potential for the Property proposed in the DCGP. For the reasons set forth below,we accordingly urge you not to change the land use designation for the Property, but to retain the existing residential density to which the Property has remained subject for more than 20 years. A. The Permitted Density for the Property Is Consistent with that of Adiacent Properties and Has Remained Unchanged for More than TwentYears. According to Exhibit III-2 in the DCGP, the land use designation for the Property in the existing General Plan is Low Density Residential, which allows three to five residential units per acre. According to the City's current zoning map, the easterly portion of the Property is zoned HPR, Hillside Planned Residential, and the remainder of the Property is zoned PR5, Planned Residential with five dwelling units permitted per gross acre. According to the land use map in the General Plan adopted by the City in 1980, the existing land use designation for the Property has remained unchanged since at least 1980. Moreover, the existing land use and zoning designations for the Property are consistent with the land use and zoning designations for the adjoining properties located in the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn development. Los Angeles Century City Change County San Diego San Francisco Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP attorneys at law City Planning Commission October 1, 2003 Page 2 B. The Preferred Alternative in the DCGP Dated September 5, 2003, Retains the Existing Land Use Designation. Exhibit III-1 in the DCGP,which is dated July 15, 2003, represents the preferred General Plan alternative. According to Exhibit III-1, the portion of the Property that is currently zoned HPR has been redesignated as Hillside Reserve, which permits one dwelling unit per five acres. The land use designation for the portion of the Property that is currently zoned PR5 has remained Low Density Residential. Exhibit III-1 of the DCGP corresponds to Exhibit III-1 of the DEIR, which also represents the preferred alternative and is dated July 15, 2003. According to Exhibit III-1 in the DEIR, the land use designation for the Property is the same as that on Exhibit III-1 of the DCGP. In fact, Exhibits V-2 and V-3 of the DEIR, which illustrate the more intense alternative and the less intense alternative for purposes of environmental review both show the land use designation for the Property to be the same as that shown on Exhibit III-1 of the DCGP. A copy of Exhibit III-1 of the DCGP is attached for your convenience as Exhibit B. A copy of Exhibit III-1 of the DEIR is attached for your convenience as Exhibit C. Copies of Exhibits V-2 and V-3 of the DEIR are attached for your convenience as Exhibits D and E,respectively. C. The Land Use Map Dated August 18, 2003,Reduces the Allowable Density from Five Dwellingper Acre to One Dwelling Unit per Five Acres. A subsequent land use map, which is also labeled as the preferred General Plan alternative and which is dated August 18, 2003, has now been circulated. According to the August 18 land use map, the entire Property has been redesignated as Hillside Reserve, thereby limiting the permitted density of development to one dwelling unit per five acres. A copy of the August 18 land use map is attached for your convenience as Exhibit F. On August 4, 2003, Cornishe submitted an application for a tentative tract map for the Property, according to which the Property is proposed to be subdivided into four residential lots,three open space lots, and three lots designated for private streets and access. The tentative tract map proposes the development of up to 57 dwelling units on the four residential lots,which is the maximum allowable density of residential development on the Property under the current land use and zoning designations. There appears to be no explanation for changing the land use designation of the Property between July 15,2003 and August 18,2003, other than the submittal by Cornishe of its tentative tract map application. Cornishe has no objection to the proposed land use designation for the Property which is shown on Exhibit III-1 of the DCGP and Exhibits III-1, V-2, and V-3 of the DEIR because the land use designation shown on these Exhibits (i) is consistent with the existing zoning designation for the Property, (ii) is consistent with the density that has been permitted on the Property for at least 23 years, and (iii) is consistent with the existing land use and zoning Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP attorneys at law City Planning Commission October 1, 2003 Page 3 designations of the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn properties. Cornishe does object, however,to redesignating the Property as shown on the August 18 land use map because redesignating the Property from Low Density Residential to Hillside Reserve could result in a reduction in the allowable number of residential units on the Property from approximately 57 to two, a reduction of more than 96 percent. The Property would also be designated more restrictively than the adjacent properties that have similar characteristics. Moreover,the redesignation of the Property as shown on the August 18 land use map is not reflected in any of the alternatives studied in the DEIR. Absent additional environmental review, redesignation of the Property from Low Density Residential to Hillside Reserve would therefore render the DEIR inadequate and constitute a violation of the California Environmental Quality Act. For all of the foregoing reasons, Cornishe respectfully urges the Commission to adopt the preferred General Plan alternative shown on Exhibit III-1 of the DCGP and Exhibits III-1, V-2, and V-3 of the DEIR and to reject the proposed designation of the Property shown on the August 18 land use map. Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Please call with any questions or if I can provide further information with respect to the foregoing. Very truly yours, P,0141- P-e�� Patrick A. Perry PAP:kt Enclosures cc: Fred Franzia Roger M. Schrimp, Esq. 48-000 To Ra / Q.1 - i.` 49-000 7HERE�vE �`.� PR-7 � PR-7,D PR-7 r R- 50 000 x. ---S-' l _ P.C.D.,D jl O.S. \ P.CD,D 2_- - - -T SI-000 BIGHORN / iN T- 1 T-6P.C�,p ! T-7 P.CA,D I 0 I Palm Desert 4--_____4-_____t-_____4-_____ _____L-__� General Plan Preferred Alternative I L.. 7- ,f ,r z ; Legend Roads ' I+ - -- - Township/Range Sections ,I r y I { I / I i "� Railroads I City Limits --� `---- -- - - -- .1 _1 , I General Plan Planning Area _ , -- City Sphere of Influence 1 1 Golf Course I �s cx; I Residential Lend Uses I ~- I Mountain Estates (R-ME) 0-1 du/20 ac -- � I _ Exhibit III --- — -- ------� ----- 4------4---- - I I • I 1 - , I - Riverside County Location Map I 1 I /, J _.. �. -. -i __ •--. _-___T—_ —_- --—-- Map Verubn N.:6 I Map Prepare n d O'July 15,2003 Mep Properod 8y:Aoriel Inforrnat-Systams • I ' 1 _ I I I 1� , , , O G7 infurmWiun I I I I Sc.l. ,:,00,000 za.000 .—- - -- - F— Palm Desert I I r Gen a al Plan i Existing ' I I Legend ___�4- —__ M.Jor Road. r Minor Road. •Ir d4 y` Yo�144 I ' Town.nyr/Range S-Hon. I i *aL'�•Ik� .w; � - I �'.. +Y�"�r; ,W, ..a�.9'y'.µc "".�'-�f;TM I sense, Cfty , ,I(E . � ����,� d ..,= + � I� ,.`�44 .f,.�,;;,,•a�,k. •ate: •'� ,.... , ..:... I �I-.,,-� R.Ikoaa. --- _ ,,wr'Y +t Y- .I I '._..�� 1 w J��{y-N� iY '�' �.IY i- .k •Nu .. r_-11\ I Lhnk. - - Y® General Ran Rannln p Ar. r � '�14.w .,1. n.'°"� •d- I I I _ .k .rb-- �HH-YaV4 �o• �k , o/lnfk,-..V P ae 4p �k.,.,,w w yw r 't•� , �, clt s n I '+I'��k :'k' y, .y '.° +I. .. .. i __ Y 'n`. �I I - •." .14�� � I half Cawea _ 1 i `f+f n .a+R r w �v +4 a d " "°''o: k a�t " City General Plan County General Plan 5 " ,k+a + ` ►r +r • "p „'hc +s°' * 'r '1` i Designations Designations "" +w.'+Y+* -,dJ.y.-'✓f°'...Pr y. 'n'+-► "fit yM ik•ik_ fJ4' I •,►,u,.. ,?�.r Y� �` �,AY. '► ,r y,I ,y+c. �kyy�W: y +sue -{b .w � y,.�yl •w� , , --— — d..''MY'6 `�'�•w, 'a 'IP. ,,� aa+ +4 •Yd•Y` 4*�L�„ I•IMiJR� I I , ,. 11�'1 _ _I ,.""�:'� � Y.�r ,y,W+� �- •'� .irk° ��.;�'S'l'�'°.��.��'w�t+ta :,'" I :.,, I r I �i I I II� f`, it I I �� �• J ,,,I.� d4��}I.,WM' '�.� iWr' � -aY a1{+�ds' -W I I 1 I J, I�I ��• wx ;�'...1Y .u,I,� �✓" :'�` .r -,_�i�;r'r. •YI � '� � Y�,+a'14 +ic"f"�i j+raa•r.rh ''1f'+W',�, ...�''f`+k a,. ��. .. , ..,. , - , '�.. 'u-`_ 1.--I ;.- ., e,e .y� -�� w.ys .r4, i y..Y•. ..r. aL ,ycl �,W i I , I 1. � J I Exhibit Lam. .Y .vt•.6: y, �-'� � i � I ` ly,•w f§Var i`Y Y -11fJ4 .�t-.aky"iY,iM ' tL W vlr '�'' e,de County Lamian M.p 'l +V1. w dfu i 1 Map Verzion I �4 My,Prepared On:July 16,2003 Jk dK al: Y4 •IY _ `,,w. I +t++K. :Ir ..f, •:�,r .yy� '�" ,W'W'�'' �,wt• Prepared By:Aerial Information Syneme .Yr A,Y •I� / I �y,ey.-I.��.,Y��+Y�+,►Y � � �,i w�µ,y�ary,.�"W'�'�'�''�ay4 .Ji'�,ly'�(°•Yr I ; , � ) PlamLy¢Rera+;.4c. MAN ,.• —1 1 •'4 .W. �. '+Y.K,LL �k iF J4`I '•�,,JfcJKt -W yo �i• I II ayln na,ion 1. I 1 I I I _- PalmDesert � l � I , _ ___ �__�1 General Plan r + I 1 More Intense Alternative -- I- { � I I' I - L II l--- ---_I •—-I-®�--I- Leg end Roads Township/Range Sections Railroads City Lim its � General Plan Plannina Area City Sphere of influence gcn Golf Course ---+------- -- -- I I , Ill W. J I Residential Land Uses I I i Exhibit. I , V 2 I -L' i I I , , , I Riverside County Location Map Map V-1—Nu'1 Map Prepared Orr J-JV 16.2003 Irim— -sVareme 1II I I II , + i , I • 17ER.ya.,�V u.. I I I , � pedal ' a,000 z0.000 I r I 1 - , Palm Desert General Plan T I y 1 I I I I Less Intense Alternative -- .� prFl ' ' , Legend J 1:.. --_� 1 I I I J I =-. �._ I - I r Rands I TownahiplRenge Sections I Railroads City Limits -- , - I~` I �� General Plan Planning Area I h ___ I \ I - • • City Sphere of Influence Golf Course ---y— -�- - f I ' Residential Land Uses - I . I I - 1 �71 L 1 I I , 1 1 -+ -- __._ �.._ -- -- ------ I-- y------� - ' Exhibit �_ V 3 I Riverside County Location p 1 , _ I I I 1 I I I , + I M - � Ma Map Vmelon Nn:1 M. f r...d On:J-IV 15,2003 6y Aerial Information Systems 7 1 1 /^ L i TERRA VA° I ,aerial i i I I I �'-'•-- I I ' I •• �\ fomplion I . -,-—__ I 1 I I M.Aeo 2. ..__. - Sr�rF i Resldentid Land Uses DINAR SHOREp Desert Estates(R-DE)0-1 du/10 ac u Hillside Reserve(R-HR) 1 du/5 ac W 4�* Low Density(R-L)0-4 du/ac w Medium Density(R-M)4-10 dulac L- ^� I I � I • 2 I I` I 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 I 1 l Miles p Prided, by and a�iReriai fnformic�'.WQ,u r`.? } art r, preparea on .f"lagust SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Kathleen DeRosa ED I S O N Region Nlanager An EDISON INTERNATIONAL'Company September 25, 2003 Mr. Phil Drell ;,t,. ; a 1 2003 Community Development Director City of Palm Desert COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 CITY OF PALM DESERT Subject: Draft Comprehensive General Plan Dear Mr. Drell, Thank you for including Southern California Edison (Edison) in the review process for the above referenced document. The City of Palm Desert is located within the service territory of Edison. Edison's power distribution system is prepared to deliver the power by the State's electricity market to this area. The California Independent System Operator is the agency now responsible for managing the State's electric grid and securing power supplies. The relocation, reconstruction, extension or under grounding of Edison's electrical distribution system which may be necessitated within the proposed area will be performed by Edison in accordance with Edison's effective Tariff Schedules approved by and filed with the California Public Utilities Commission. Please include the following concerns in your report: • Please be aware that the SCE facilities may be impacted by the project and may require relocation. Facilities will be relocated at the customer expense unless a recorded land rights on private property contains a relocation clause to move facilities at SCE expense. • The integrity of any and all SCE land rights will be maintained and the developer at no cost will secure all replacement land rights to SCE. • Identified SCE properties may require relocation, please make sure REO is provided 5 sets of street improvements plans showing all SCE facilities at no less than 50 scale drawings 20 or 30 is preferred. It is critical to provide SCE plans as soon as possible to: Mark Mainer Manager of Real Estate Operations Corporate Real Estate Southern California Edison 14799 Chestnut Street Westminster, CA 92683 If you have any question or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (760) 202-4211. Sinc ely, leen DeRosa Pu 'c Affairs Region Manager 36100 Cathedral Canyon Dr. Cathedral City,CA 92234 760-202-4211 Fax 760-202-4136 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 Chairperson Campbell agreed and called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan was absent for this item). It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2228, approving Case No. PP/CUP 03-12, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan was absent for this item). Mr. Drell suggested that they have a 20-minute recess. Commission concurred. Chairperson Campbell announced that at 6:20 p.m. they would begin their general plan meeting and that would last until 9:00 p.m. At 9:00 p.m. they would hear a continued public hearing item. THE 20-MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED AT 5:58 P.M. IX. 6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS CHAIRPERSON CAMPBELL RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 6:27 P.M. Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. F. Case No. GPA 01-04 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant (Continued from September 16, 2003) Request for consideration of a Comprehensive General Plan Update. Mr. Drell explained they would first have the General Plan/EIR consultant from Terra Nova, Mr. John Criste, briefly go through the text of the Urban Design Element and the Land Use Element which would be the primary subject of discussion. Then they would get to specific descriptions of the land use map and highlight those areas of which there has either been a change 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 proposed or areas where specific property owners are requesting a designation other than what was shown. They were then going to focus on three specific areas: the north area above Frank Sinatra which they were calling the University Park area; the area adjacent to North Highway 111 between Monterey and Las Palmas; and the area along Portola where due to changing circumstances there has been a lot of discussion about different sorts of land uses in these areas than those contemplated in the past. In terms of a brief introduction of the Land Use Element in the General Plan, he said general plans provide a unique opportunity to look into the future. It forced them to look into the future. While most of our lives are concerned with today, tomorrow, six months, two years, three years, five years, general plans really force them to look at the end state 20 years, 50 years and 100 years to a certain degree. What gets built would fundamentally be there for a long long time. While it was both exciting to look 20 years down the line, it was kind of frightening to be saddled with having to make a decision today about how the city would look, operate and function 20 years from now. But that really was what the task is. They hear a lot of the pressures today in terms of the market demand and everything else. The General Plan forced them to look at not just the pressures of today, but what the pressures will be, what the needs of the city will be 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 or 40 years from now. The opportunities to address those pressures 10, 15 or 20 years from now would be determined on what they do today. If they didn't provide and anticipate as best they could, they were going to be responding to the changes occurring around them for the next 50 years and when those changes occur, they wouldn't have any ability to respond. He said it forced the City to take that broad view and do the best they can. He said we have great opportunities in this city given the wonderful things that were happening and the wonderful things they know will happen. He thought we had greater opportunities than others and had mostly positive things to look forward to. He introduced John Criste of Terra Nova Planning & Research who would give the philosophical side of the land use discussion. He noted that there were a lot of faces in the audience of people who were members of the General Plan Advisory Committee who worked for two years to put this whole thing together. He thanked them for their work over the two years and for coming tonight to hopefully give the Planning Commission some insights into their decisions and thinking in terms of putting this plan together. 36 ' f t MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 MR. JOHN CRISTE addressed the commission. He stated that he would present and give a quick overview of two elements tonight. The Community Design Element and the Land Use Element. Although it might seem counter intuitive, he wanted to start with the Community Design Element because it really reflected a lot of the logic and philosophy that drove the development of the land use plan and other aspects of the General Plan. In their document, it started on page III- 141 of the General Plan. As with all of the elements, he said it began with a purpose statement that tries to set forth the purpose of the element. It also provided background information pointing to the way that the community design issues are integral to just about every other consideration they were making on the General Plan, ranging from land use to parks and open space, to the look of the community in the overall, as well as such issues such as street scape, building design, etc. In the element they note that the community is essentially a kind of a "tale of two cities." It is a community that consists of permanent residential development with is now it's own full-fledged business sector and as seen, a more diversified base with major educational institutions and some light industry. But they also have, what they are best known for, is as destination resort community, a second home retirement community as well. So we have these two different sets of ideas about what the city is and they needed to make sure that both of those valid conceptions of our city get proper attention. Throughout the element they referred to issues having to do with the quality of life and that was really the bottom line for all of us here--to make sure that all aspects we can control enhance the quality of life in the community. Also, they tried to take what is the leading edge or emerging kinds of ideas in community planning and design and that was sustainability. At the last meeting they talked about some of the issues having to do with air quality and availability long term of water resources. He said those kinds of sustainable community issues are expressed in detail in the element. There was a section that identified a dozen principles of sustainable development related to quality of life. They also knew that they had to operate in context so we have our own boundaries, but we're also members of the Coachella Valley and other cities have their own jobs to do in terms of land planning and 37 f G MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 hopefully were doing it in a fashion that is compatible with the shared values we have. So we have regional design principles that were elaborated upon. He said they were also trying to balance the concept of the community as a whole and harmonizing the community as a whole with individual development proposals when they come in to not necessarily shoe horn developments into a certain kind of image or type, but to make sure it is compatible and harmonizing with more of the global or over arching principles they were espousing. So they talked about issues of continuity in community design as well. Place making and places that have identity lend character and identity to the community overall as well as in specific locations. He said they also talked about community form and design planning, getting much more to the specifics that are exercised by bodies like the Planning Commission, the Architectural Review Committee and the Council. Then they outlined some of the various issues important in that regard having to do with architectural design, site planning, access and those sorts of issues that bring in all the various disciplines that the City has under its roof and the professional experience shared on the various committees. He said they tried to enhance this section a little bit with graphics. Mr. Criste indicated that another important aspect of community design and development is the landscape palette. He said Palm Desert has been a leader in the integration of the desert xeriscape palette, not only for water conservation purposes, but because it really lends connectivity between the built environment and the natural environment in which we live. He said they also relate these issues to the preservation of open space and the development of parks, landmarks and focal points in the community which help to give identity. Preservation of the important view sheds we have from our various streets and developments of the mountain vistas and deserts. Issues having to do with development that could adversely affect those like signage, amassing of buildings that unnecessarily obstruct our tremendous views. Talking about some of the community design issues having to do with the type of development, we are now seeing emerge in the community things like the university and the university park planning area specifically as well. 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 He said they ended this particular element with a brief discussion of future directions and how they bring all of this together as they look at future development proposals. Then there were three goals. The first was a high quality of life provided within a liveable, sustainable and balanced community with a distinct character consistent with the city's status as a premier resort community and important commercial center. Another goal is an aesthetically pleasing community appearance achieved on all levels which preserves and enhances the city's resort identity, community image and natural setting. The last goal was for standards of community design, architecture and landscaping that enhance land use and development efficiencies and are integrated with the city's desert setting and natural scenic resources. Policies and programs followed to implement those goals. He asked for any questions. Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was open and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. Mr. Criste stated that before proceeding with the Land Use Element, he would like to briefly give the commission an overview of the chapter, the Community Development chapter, and that included the Land Use Element, the Circulation Element (which they would discuss next time), the Housing Element, Parks & Recreation, Community Design (which they just covered), Arts and Culture, and Economic Development. He also pointed to the introduction and Administrative Element which were discussed last time. He thought it was important to understanding how the General Plan is implemented. The Land Use Element was generally considered the key element. It was literally where development met the dirt and where the ideas were manifest literally in the community. They started with the purpose statement, the background discussion, it referenced relevant portions of the government code, and the mandates we have to develop the element. They discussed issues of land use, land conservation, and quality of life. They briefly defined the types of land uses the element covers. Then they had a table which provided a breakout by land use type: residential, commercial, industrial, and public facilities. Under each of these headings they had various subsets. For instance, under residential they had the lowest densities of residential, which was one unit per ten acres which was the Desert 39 • E f MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 Estates going up to the high density residential where they allow between 10 and 22 units per acre. Then they had the commercial designations which included general commercial, neighborhood commercial, from the most general to the more specific, community commercial (which is the larger scale), and then the largest scale development which is regional commercial and included large acreage, big box, anchors and that sort of thing. Then there were the office professional designations and a designation specific to resort commercial for our hotels and those ancillary commercial activities that they support. He said industrial was modest comparatively. There were two designations: a business park and light industrial. Under the institutional services and facilities falling generally under public and quasi public designations, they have all the subsets there that identify civic centers, fire stations, police stations, libraries, schools, and those kinds of public and quasi public facilities. Finally, open space designations, the general designation and the subsets which identify public parks, public reserve open space (which a lot of that land would be lands going into conservation under the multi species plan, or that the City has purchased for conservation), private open space which helped them to identify the tremendous wealth of private golf courses and other private open space that benefits our residents. Then open space associated with flood ways. While many of them were hard edged, armored facilities, there were also areas where there are open space amenities like the debris basin at the top of Palm Valley Channel as an example, and even the Whitewater River Channel. The element also had tables which were rather tight and to facilitate understanding some of those, he gave out some highlighted handouts, but he said it took a little patience to work through them. They had the preferred alternative which emerged from the GPAC and then compared that to the existing conditions as well. He said the element then had two land use maps: the existing designations (both of the city and the county), and the preferred alternative map. He said they made some refinements to those maps since. He explained that inevitably there were some mapping errors and things of that sort which cropped up. Mr. Drell and his staff, along with input from Mr. 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 Criste and staff, were able to identify most of those and they would be touched upon this evening. He said what they did next was break up the discussions into these subsets of land use that they discussed, the residential and commercial. They provided a background discussion of each of those and specific goals, policies and programs for each of those subsets. He said they could go over those, but he thought they were pretty much self-explanatory. They discussed the various areas of the city and the type of development that occurs there including the RDA project areas and specific plans that we have in the community. He stated that there are tables associated with each explaining the breakout of the land use. They also did a special discussion of the university park planning area and did a breakout of land use mapping and tables as the area has been planned through the GPAC. He said the same approach had been taken for each of the land use categories and industrial, open space, public facilities and services. He asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Jonathan noted that some of the sub elements like the Commercial Core Area Specific Plan, Palma Village Specific Plan, West Hills Specific Plan for example made a reference to the General Plan Appendices. He asked if they were provided or if they were separate documents. Mr. Criste said there had been some discussion about how to treat the specific plans at the end of the process because the purpose of the specific plans in many instances had been achieved or was being achieved. Mr. Drell could address that, but their intent had been to perhaps create an appendix for staff and it would be in the back of the document. It was not put into the draft. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was the intent to do so. It almost implied that the detail would be in the appendix. He asked if there was an intent to provide that information and to create an appendix or not. Mr. Criste noted that the specific plans exist as documents and they have been processed through the city, some for more than 20 years. 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 Commissioner Jonathan said that in other words they hadn't been amended. They were referenced here, but weren't here. Mr. Drell thought the most logical strategy would be to physically incorporate them, and he thought they pretty much had done that, by adding the policies of them into the general plan document. For example, relative to the land use element, all the land use policies and the land use designations of those specific plans are in the General Plan. They have treated those as amendments to the general plan. Relative to the specific discussions in that they do get down into a far greater detail, it talked about almost block by block in these areas, so logically they should be part of an appendix. He said they would try to get them to the commission for the next meeting. With regard to Table III-6, the University Park Land Use Plan, Commissioner Finerty noticed that for the Preferred Alternative there was a break down as far as the number of units for low density, medium, and high density. She asked if that same information could be provided for the other less intense and more intense ones. Mr. Criste said they could. They didn't have that break out currently for those alternatives. Commissioner Finerty said it would be helpful because when they are talking about total number of new units in that area, they knew what it would be for the Preferred Alternative, but for the Less Intense it would be nice to see the difference, as well as for the more intense. Mr. Criste explained the breakout they currently have between the existing General Plan for the City and the Preferred Alternative for the City with only a handful of other areas constitutes the lion share of the difference. So where they have 60 some hundred units available under the existing General Plan, under the Preferred Alternative the additional units are largely attributable to the university park area, which was probably another 2,000 units approximately. Commissioner Finerty asked how much less intense and how much more intense it would be based on the other amounts they have. Mr. Criste said it would be more intense by about 30% and he hadn't evaluated the less intense alternative. 42 1 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 Commissioner Finerty said she would like that information. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. Mr. Drell said that what they would talk about first was the area south of Country Club to the southern limit of the city. He would highlight some of the areas of interest and concern, either areas which were discussed by GPAC or areas on which they received some correspondence. He explained that he would like to talk about some of the individual property issues and then they would let the individual property owners make their comments about them. Starting at the bottom, he pointed out a 12-acre area at the southern edge of the city which he said is directly south of Canyons at Bighorn. He said it was the only remaining area in the city that wasn't developed as part of Bighorn. He noted that there was an in-holding of 12 acres in the beginning of the foothills there. Under the current general plan, this was identified as flat land and was designated as low density residential and zoned at five units per acre. Based on an assessment of the exact topography, that property has slopes with an average of about 20%, therefore, it met all the physical characteristics of a hillside property. It is directly adjacent to and of similar characteristics as the Canyons property directly to the east which is designated as Hillside Reserve. Therefore, in that it shares all the characteristics of similarly situated properties, they determined it should be classified as Hillside Reserve. He said that meant a significant difference in developable potential from five units per acre to one unit per five acres. He thought that property owner would want to talk to the commission about it. Another area of change was on the north side of the flood channel at Cook Street. He noted there was a golf course and driving range there now which had been acquired by the Recreation and Park District. On previous maps it was shown as public open space and a park. In reality it is a privately owned parcel that had been leased to the driving range and was now no longer leased and wasn't acquired as part of the park. It is currently designated as low density residential. Wedged between the driving range and channel, that probably wasn't a particularly realistic land use. He said the property 43 A e MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 also has a sewer that goes through it which constrains the north part of it. Therefore, although it was probably three acres, only an acre was developable. Staff was suggesting that the property be zoned for professional offices. He believed that was what the property owner was requesting. As previously discussed and would be discussed later, the area along the north side of Highway 111 between Monterey and Las Palmas was the subject of a lot of discussion in the specific plan which he would review and he would talk about those later in detail. Another item of specific interest and conversation dealt with the northeast corner of Country Club and Monterey. It is currently zoned medium density residential and they have had several applications for commercial developments and neighborhood shopping centers on that corner. Although in the preferred alternative it remained medium density residential, in the more intense alternative it was designated as neighborhood commercial. So the EIR was able to analyze the impacts of it as neighborhood commercial. The GPAC in the absence of a specific application was hesitant to recommend any changes to that. The property owner would be shortly coming before the commission and asking for that change. For that property, staff would be recommending that for the time being they keep it as medium density residential and create within the text of the General Plan in essence a study zone which says that given the unique location at Country Club and Monterey, one of the busiest intersections in the Coachella Valley, that maybe residential was not necessarily the most appropriate use. So giving it a study zone asterisk in addition to the base zoning would in essence indicate that the City still has an open mind on the property pending a specific application where they would go through the normal hearing process with focused attention on a specific project where the neighborhood could specifically see what is going on. He reiterated that staff was recommending staying with what we have, but using a study designation and keeping an open mind. An area that came before the commission six or eight months ago was the northwest corner of Portola and Frank Sinatra. There was an application for an office project on that corner. The Planning 44 ' t i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 Commission recommended approval of the general plan amendment. In general GPAC declined to get involved in specific parcel issues in that they felt those were more appropriate for the normal focused hearing process on a particular project and parcel, so they declined to endorse office at that corner. Mr. Drell noted that it is at a major intersection of arterials and might be a good candidate for the study zone, both from a livability point of view from the residents that might have to live there and secondly, from an urban design point of view where they have residential projects they end up with walls around corners. Where they have commercial or office projects, they have in essence a project that faces the corner and is open. He thought this property might be another candidate for a study zone. So within the city limits, those were the primary changes other than the three focus areas (the university area north of Frank Sinatra, the Portola area, and the Highway 111 area). He said the commission might want to give those property owners an opportunity to speak and make their case and either agree or disagree with the designations. He suggested that they open up the public hearing for comments on areas excluding the university park area, excluding Portola, and excluding the Highway 111 alley area. Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was open. She indicated that she had some Request to Speak cards where people said they wanted to speak regarding the general plan, but didn't mention which area specifically, so if anyone wished to speak regarding this specific area, they could address the commission now in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. LARRY BROSE with the Mayer Corporation, 660 Newport Center Drive in Newport Beach, California, addressed the commission. He stated that they are the owners of the property at the northeast corner of Country Club and Monterey. It is an 8.6-acre undeveloped parcel with a medium density residential general plan and zoning on it. He said he was here tonight with Herb Lundin and Greg Beaver of Lundin Development Company. He said that the commission was just handed a packet. He said Lundin prepared that packet and they 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 would be their developer partner on this property should they be granted the request put before the city. He stated that in January they submitted a general plan amendment. He said it was included in their packet and soon they would be ready to submit all of their application for site development review and design review process. Their request right now was for the commission's consideration of the commercial designation on their property, and as Mr. Drell mentioned, this was an alternative analyzed in the EIR. To do it now, so they could move forward on a property that was really ripe and ready for commercial development. He said it is at an intersection that was if not the, was one of, the busiest intersections and cross roads in the community. It is a busy intersection and they believed that commercial use made more sense than a residential use. He said they have a lot of interest from a commercial standpoint in the property. They have a major anchor, Henry's Market, who was ready to open business there as soon as they could build a store. He explained that Henry's is a specialty retailer. It focuses on fruits and vegetables and was like a Trader Joe's, but leaned more toward the fruits, nuts, grains and vegetables. He said there isn't one in the Coachella Valley today. Their mission is to have one in Palm Desert and the border between Rancho Mirage and Palm Desert was a great location, one in La Quinta and one in Palm Springs. This would be one of the earlier stores. He said they also have Walgreens as the other anchor on the property. In their packets he said they would see some quick architecture designed by Jim Joffy, their architect, which would give them a little character idea of the project they intend to build. He noted it is across the street from Plaza de Monterey, which has an empty store or an empty box on it right now. The Albertson's moved to the other side of the street. They believed, and their developer partner believed, that the two centers would be complementary to one another and their center would actually help the commercial center on the other side as well. With the commercial development on their property, they would generate the trips that would warrant the signal 46 r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 at the intersection of Via Scena and Country Club. He said Via Scena is the intersection immediately east of Monterey. Mr. Brose stated that Mr. Mayer subdivided and built the Merano residential project, which was their neighbor. He said they were conditioned to fund through their assessment district the signal for that intersection, so the money was sitting there ready to go. They just needed to generate the trips to justify the signal. The commercial center would do that. In the traffic analysis they completed on more of a focused level, it demonstrated that a commercial center would generate the trips for that signal. A residential use would not. He said they have met with the Merano neighborhood, they met with the board of directors, with the homeowners immediately adjacent to their property, and with the entire group of those that wished to attend. He said they listened carefully to the issues brought up and came back to address those issues. He said the concerns centered on views, security, traffic, setbacks, noise, and that kind of thing. He believed that they have met their needs through their site plan, through their architecture, they have a great sense of pedestrian scale on their project, it is user friendly and they believed it would be a great stroll from their subdivision or other subdivisions in Palm Desert or golf carts to their center and would make a great addition to the community. Bottom line was they were looking forward to getting this project built. Their request at this time was to facilitate that and seek the commission's recommendation to Council for a commercial designation on their property. He said both Herb Lundin and Greg Beaver were present if there were any questions. MR. PATRICK PERRY, an attorney with Allen Matkins located at 515 South Figuroa in Los Angeles, addressed the commission. He stated that he was present on behalf of Cornische at Bighorn LLC, the owner of the property located along the southern boundary along the city limit of the city. He indicated that he submitted correspondence last week and didn't know if the commission had received it or had time to look at it and had additional copies with him. He said he wasn't going to go through the entire letter in detail, but he did want to touch on some of the major points. 47 • f MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 He stated that the primary concern, as Mr. Drell mentioned, was that as presently proposed the general plan land use designation would severely restrict the amount of residential density on the property. It would decrease the residential density, at least on most of the property, an allowable density of five units per acre to an allowable density of one unit for five acres. In early August, Cornische had submitted a tract map application which proposed development of 57 units on the property which was the maximum permitted under the existing zoning and the existing land use designation. According to the Draft Comprehensive General Plan prepared in September, the existing land use designation for the entire property under the general plan is low density residential which allows up to five residential units per acre. The existing zoning on the property right now for an eastern sliver of the property was currently zoned Hillside Planned Residential and the number of residential units permitted there was subject to a slope density calculation. The remainder of the property, the bulk of the property, was zoned Planned Residential development with five units permitted per acre. He stated that the civil engineer who prepared the tract map did the calculations and determined that 57 units was the maximum that would be permitted and that was why that number was applied for on the tract map application. On the preferred alternative shown in the Draft Comprehensive General Plan dated July 15, 2003, at least the land use designation on the preferred alternative reflected the existing zoning. He said it shows that the portion of the property currently zoned hillside planned residential is designated hillside reserve. The remainder of the property which is currently zoned Planned Residential five units per acre is shown to be low density residential, which is slightly reduced from the existing and allows up to four residential units instead of the five currently permitted. That was their understanding when they first reviewed the general plan. That preferred alternative is also the same one currently in the Draft EIR. It wasn't until August 18 that a new map was proposed which reflects the redesignation which is different from the July 15 map and shows the entire property now to be hillside reserve instead of a portion of hillside reserve and the rest low density residential. He urged the commission to leave the designation the way it is in the Draft Comprehensive General Plan and the EIR. Not only did the 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 preferred alternative show the general plan designation to be the combination of hillside reserve and low density residential, two other alternatives that were studied, the less intense alternative and the more intense alternative also showed that designation. The only thing they were able to identify that changed between July 15 and August 18 is that Cornische submitted their tract map application. This to them looked like it was done as an after thought in order to redesignate the entire property as hillside reserve instead of only the portion. It looked like the after thought was made in direct response to the fact that an application was submitted. As such, they felt this redesignation between July 15 and August 18 is not based on substantial evidence, it had not been considered in the Draft EIR because all of the land use maps that were shown in the Draft E I R are the July 15 designation and not the August 18 designation. So he urged the commission to keep the map the way it is, allow the development to go forward, allow the residential density for this property to be established through the tract map application process instead of sort of cutting it off at the knees at this point through a drastic redesignation through the general plan update process. He encouraged the commission to read the letter and if they needed additional copies, he would be happy to provide them. He said it laid out these points in more detail and he was prepared to answer any questions they might have with respect to this. MR. PHIL CORDOVA, 72-624 El Paseo, Suite C-5, addressed the commission. He stated that he is the owner of the property on the wash at Cook Street. He noted that currently that property is zoned R- 1 and had some constraints to it with the sewer running along the northern part of the border and some additional costs as far as the wash was concerned and slope protection. He was proposing to have it changed to office professional. He said he is a photographer in the valley and his intent is to move his studio over there. Due to the nature of that property in that it is such a pie shape, there was a lot of area not really developable, but for him it would work well and it was his intent to create an outdoor location park on the back side of it and give him better use of it. As far as the impact on the area, he thought it would be less than homes. 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 MS. MARGARET HARTSWORN, 74-038 Catalina Way, addressed the commission. She said her home was just off of Portola. She stated that she didn't know if they were allowed to speak up with all these professionals. She didn't know how many people present were average homeowners, but she didn't think it was clear what the general plan really entailed. The comment from the developer/gentleman from Newport Beach, she agreed with Phil Drell that the corner should be left an area of study. Yes, he probably got approval from those living in Merano and he said he addressed all their problems, but they just had a market move out. She didn't patronize it much, but she did go there when it was Lucky's, then Albertson's, and they moved out and went to the other corner and left that a big empty store. Now that gentleman wanted to put in Henry's Market, which would be very compatible with whoever would be in there. He didn't know who was going to be in there, so she asked how it would be compatible. If he wanted a Henry's Market, she thought they should remodel the old Albertson's building and go in there. She also asked why they needed another Walgreens to anchor it when there is a Walgreens at Highway 111 and Monterey. All this talk about low density, it was getting bigger and bigger. She said she has been here since 1988 and it had just gotten more condensed. They couldn't see the mountains anymore. She knew it was the same old environmental comments, but they used to be able to look out and see something. Now, even El Paseo Gardens from the original plan was going to be low and only Saks in the middle was going to be high. Now they couldn't see those mountains anymore. She asked when all this concentration for business and development, and she knew they had to prepare, but they had to prepare for 10, 15 and 20 years. She agreed, but asked why they had to put in things and then tear them out two weeks later. She asked if the powers that be weren't thinking or planning correctly. The only project she thought went fairly well was Fred Waring. She thought they did a phenomenal job, but even there they put in curbing and tore it out. They put the corners in, then tore them out. She asked how many times they had to make a mistake before it could go on. In the meantime, it was tearing up all their streets, the whole area, and they start another 50 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 project before finishing the last one. So she thought it needed to be planned and like the old saying plan your work and work your plan, but don't keep coming in. Then people come in and say they need a new shopping center there on the corner. Get rid of the other stores, they would move over to the new one and then the other ones are left empty in a big deserted shopping center. She mentioned the Rite Aid center and said that center was virtually dead. That was because people move on to the new shopping center. This gentleman was talking about Henry's and Walgreens, so she wanted to know how many other stores were going to be in there to concentrate in that corner. They already have Albertson's that were virtually covered by those two grotesque buildings in front of them. She thought Albertson's was going to have a glorious new shopping center. It was an improvement, but why they had to move she didn't know. So they built the beautiful Albertson's and then all of a sudden these big buildings are coming up on the corner in front of them. She knew that was over in the other area, but at the same time, why build another shopping center. Why couldn't they remodel and make new the existing one and get someone in there? That was her comment. She thought there should be better thought. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone else wished to speak. There was no one. Mr. Drell stated that the next item they were going to discuss was probably the most substantive change they were addressing in the General Plan. He said the easiest and greatest opportunity to change things for the future was where we have vacant land and north of Frank Sinatra is where we have the vacant land. He said when the general plan process started three years ago, it was suggested we do a new general plan and his first reaction was we'll do a couple more golf courses, we'll have commercial and industrial up against the freeway and we're done. Why spend a lot of time agonizing over it. Just for practical reasons, our old document which was done in 1980 described a city that didn't really exist anymore and, therefore, the whole thing deserved a fresh look and they went ahead and initiated the process. We also got a letter from the Attorney General that said we needed to since we hadn't done it in 20 years. 51 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 He said that the first conclusion they reached, and if they looked at the map the color that stood out was yellow, which is low density residential. He said that the city has developed and continues to develop as primarily a low density residential area. Although they could see green, those were the golf courses at the Marriott and Desert Willow. If they saw the other golf courses, they would see that since 1978 or 1980 a good two-thirds of the real estate in the city has been developed in resort-oriented development. When they read the old general plan and if they remembered the 2000 Plan, the goal of the City was to become a world class resort destination. That is how they planned and that was the result. We succeeded very very well in becoming the resort destination of the Coachella Valley. He said they used to complain that whenever there was a news report they would talk about Palm Springs when it was really Palm Desert. Now if it is in Rancho Mirage, Cathedral City or La Quinta, they say Palm Desert. So we are the identified heart of the Coachella Valley when it comes to resort destinations. In the 1990's they began making an important decision, which was to invite a Cal State University campus to the city. After a lot of discussions and negotiations, we ended up with a deal locating a branch of the Cal State San Bernardino campus in the city. A master plan was drawn up, land exchange agreements executed with the Cal State system which should inevitably lead to a Cal State Palm Desert. Cal State universities, despite electronic learning, could be the most dominant institution both from an educational point of view and simply as a business in the community. In that north area where they immediately focused at the GPAC, the most obvious place to look at where to change things, the vacant land, it was clear that the nature, the characteristics, the needs and the opportunities afforded by the university campus were fundamentally different than a resort hotel. Whole communities exist and economies were based on their proximity to a California State University. So they saw that was going to be different. There would be students there, professors, staff, and a class of employees that would be significantly different than we're used to. If they looked through the EIR at average incomes and the type of employment of Palm Desert, it was dominated by service employees, retail employees, hotel employees and even the managers that work at all these places at the lower rung of the economic ladder in terms of management. The characteristics of employees who work at a university are significantly higher. They also looked at what would happen along 1-10. Looking at the map, they saw the traditional, old time commercial along Highway 111 which really 52 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 hadn't changed substantially since 1982 or 1983 when the mall was built. It just got filled in, but still hadn't changed. There was a blue area around Cook Street, which was the almost built out office industrial area. Everything else was basically yellow. So the impact of traditional commercial in the city had been relatively small. Even with that, when looking at the EIR, Palm Desert has the highest ratio of jobs in the city to population than any city in Riverside County. We have twice as many in terms of a ratio. So even with that, we dominate economically the valley mainly because of what happens and what has been happening traditionally on Highway 111. We are now getting up to 1-10 and from a purely land use compatibility point of view, he asked what the logical use was of 1-10. It would be more commercial. So they suddenly see the re-emergence after a fairly solid swathe of green, they were suddenly hitting another concentration of commercial / industrial uses at the interchanges. Since they built them, they had also become the logical location for rather intense retail use. The first task of the GPAC was to say, okay, hypothetically what did they think the housing demand would be resulting from the development of the university and the commercial / industrial / retail corridor along 1-10 between the University/Cook Street and Monterey. At that time using rather crude methods, they identified six million square feet of commercial development in addition to the university. There had been a lot of focus on how quickly the university would happen, how big it was going to be, and the university was just one business in what would probably be the most desirable commercial / industrial location in the Coachella Valley. Not only was it dead center, it was at the freeway. So it was center from north and south and east and west. Most businesses who desired to capture the whole market would want to be in the center. There was accommodation of the university on the east side, the six million square feet of commercial / industrial along 1-10, and then the regional commercial area developing at the Monterey Interchange with the Costco center now filling out, the future development of the Wal-Mart center pending the resolution of a lawsuit, the slow but steady development of the Rancho Mirage Marketplace with Home Depot, and the rest. They identified up to 20,000 employees that would be working in those areas and at the university and creating a need for up to 10,000 new dwelling units. They looked at the existing zoning and the existing traditional development 53 x MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 pattern in the area. If they were to extend just the yellow as the expectation had been, they would see maybe 2,500 units being built. Based on current market demand they would be primarily middle, upper end units like those being built on Shepherd Lane priced in the $300,000 to $400,000 range. More than a planner like himself, who is probably one of the highest paid public employees in the Coachella Valley, that was more than he could afford and was surely more than most professors or mid level managers could afford. He said there is a requirement in state law in the General Plan guidelines and the Housing Element that says we have an obligation to attempt to house the broad range of economic needs in the community. Therefore, from a pure housing need point of view there was a thought that maybe we should try to encourage or try to plan for something other than predominately $300,000 to $400,000 8,000 square foot lot single family neighborhoods. So the question became how to house that many people in the remaining area we have left. There are approximately 1,000 acres of residential property north of Frank Sinatra. The traditional solution has been two choices. The current standards require, if we have a single family home, it has to be on an 8,000 square foot lot, which pretty much dictates based on housing value if they build a certain sized house it dictates a certain cost. Now that market is somewhere in the $300,000 plus range. If people couldn't afford to live in a house like that, you build apartments. So our pattern has been pretty much since incorporation, low density single family for a certain segment of the population that can afford that product. If they couldn't, we build apartments at 18 to 20 units per acre. What has disappeared from the housing landscape, which began to disappear soon after World War II, was the California bungalow, the G.I. home after World War II which used to be found in the suburbs of the San Fernando Valley, medium density residential, and single family detached on 4,000 and 5,000 square foot lots. It turned out that many of the communities that have preceded us in developing, like Orange County which was the last one before the Coachella Valley started getting populated, a housing product they rediscovered now that they found that a large portion of the population didn't want to spend three or four hours on the 91 Freeway. Given the few pieces of vacant land left in Orange County, to try to address that need for those folks who still want to live in town in houses they can afford and not spend their lives on the 91 Freeway, that was now the dominant new product in Orange County on the little pieces of land that are left. Unfortunately there 54 i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 is so little left, the development of those at a 4-8 unit or 6-8 unit density with a 4,000 or 5,000 square foot lot, it really had no impact on the overall housing market since there was so little left. The conclusion of the GPAC was instead of going the traditional route of low density single family and high density apartments, we should diversify the opportunities for the home buyer and preserve what they believe to be the ideal neighborhood for families to grow up in, which are single family neighborhoods and in essence rediscovering the medium density single family product, which is seven or eight units per acre. Therefore, they redesigned the medium density category in the General Plan to be 4-10 units per acre with the goal of getting something in between to help address the housing needs while still preserving the essential single family character of Palm Desert's neighborhoods. The other important concept that came out of GPAC was we became a world class resort community by benefiting from very highly skilled and sophisticated master planning. Through the efforts of Marriott and Bill Bone, we got world class resorts and they master planned them and designed them exactly to the specifications of the client market which was the second home buyer and the vacationer. One thing we haven't seen in Palm Desert since 1980 or since incorporation, was that same sort of planning expertise applied to a permanent residential neighborhood. As it applies to the university, one of the things that make for those people who have gone to universities that have been associated with a compatible synergistic surrounded community, it greatly expands one's experience in going to college. Having the university's boundaries extend beyond the physical boundaries of the school into the neighborhood community was an important thing he experienced going to U.C. Santa Cruz. In Boulder, Colorado, with the University of Colorado, as well as Yale, New Haven and Chapel Hill in North Carolina, what people experience, according to those universities, was as much the community around it as it was the university and when the representatives of Cal State talked to us, they were quite enthusiastic about the future of the university in contrast to what they are dealing with in San Bernardino, where the University is isolated from San Bernardino. In Palm Desert we have the opportunity to create a community that takes advantage of the opportunities of the University and allows the University to take advantage of the opportunities of the surrounding community. Therefore, what they saw there was a plan that tried to create two residential 55 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 neighborhoods, both with a variety of housing to try to address that housing need created by both the University and the commercial. He directed their attention to the block directly east of Cook Street, between Cook and Portola, and the block between Monterey and Portola north of Gerald Ford. On the south side of the block was City/Redevelopment-owned property that might or might not develop as an extension of Desert Willow. In each of these neighborhoods, what was important was that they function together integrally and not be a series of isolated tracts which has dominated single family residential development in the past. They have convenient internal access to commercial services that surround them and they have convenient access to the University. He said one of the problems we are experiencing relative to traffic in this town is significant congestion on arterials. One of the contributing reasons is that most developments and most tracts dump traffic directly onto arterials. People couldn't travel to any destination without entering the arterial system. What their direction was in designing these neighborhoods was to the greatest possible extent, residents within these neighborhoods could access commercial services or go directly to the University without having to enter either Portola, Gerald Ford, Frank Sinatra or Cook Street. The other feature of these plans was the location of schools. Our schools are a significant destination. In this neighborhood on the west side, the school district with jurisdiction in this area communicated to staff a desire and a need to develop a K-8 school. This was seen as an opportunity to create a significant attraction for the marketing of family residential property, providing an opportunity for trips and short trips to and from school to be generated within a neighborhood without having to create congestion and traffic out on the arterial. The suggestion of these land uses immediately created some concerns among property owners who have control over these properties. In today's market, the quickest and most profitable and most obviously finance-able type of development was low density residential. He was sure the entire area could be developed as low density residential very easily and very quickly, probably before any of the housing demand or needs were manifested by the commercial or the university. Going back to the discussion of looking at the next 18 months, two years, five years or look at trying to accommodate longer term need, he thought they were fortunate, whether due to his 56 i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 persuasion or their own interest in the projects, property owners in both those areas have seriously looked at the issue of trying to master plan these areas and have come up with solutions which he believed substantially implemented the intent and goals of the General Plan. He said he would turn it over to them to describe their alternative land use proposals for these two areas. Going back to the long term versus short term issue, he said we need to provide projects which don't just respond to the nearest term market demand because once the land is developed, there was virtually no way to change that use in the future. The goal had been to provide projects and designs which provide reasonable opportunities, both for the short term, medium term and the long term. He felt the plans that are going to be proposed accomplished that and would create some great neighborhoods out there. He said he would like to turn it over to those that want to speak to provide their alternative visions for this area. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MS. NANCY YOAKUM, 43-625 Portola Avenue, addressed the commission. She said her home is located between Fred Waring Drive and Rutledge Way. She said she didn't know if she was speaking out of turn, but she got up at 5:30 a.m., worked 10 hours and her family was really hungry and would like dinner cooked tonight, so she wanted to address the commission and say her piece. When she first moved into her home on Portola Avenue, Portola was a two-lane street. The City decided to expand it and make it two lanes each way, taking away the ability for her or anybody who was going to visit to park on the street, and increased the traffic flow. Now the City has plans to eventually connect Portola all the way up to Interstate 10 which would increase the traffic even greater. She received a notice dated September 19, 2003, which stated that the City is planning or discussing rezoning her property for small professional offices because of"significant noise and safety problems, especially for residents backing out of their driveways, of which she was one. She said she and her husband fumbled through the website and tried to do their best getting through the thousands of pages of the General Plan trying to get to their specific area. Finally her 57 i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 husband contacted the City to inquire what type of impact this would have on them. He was told that the City wasn't going to be involved with the exception of the rezoning. This wasn't an eminent domain project, but they might be contacted by a developer independently if and when they were interested in making an offer on their property. She felt this was a safety issue which the City has a responsibility to address. The City is the one who decided to rezone and the City is deciding to connect Portola to Interstate 10, so she felt the City should take ownership of their home, not a developer. The safety issues needed to be remedied immediately. The extension and rezoning of Portola Avenue didn't address the safety issues. Since the City hasn't addressed these issues, they have looked into and attempted to move to a safer street. However, realtors were declining to list their properties because they must disclose this legal notice stating that no one would be interested as far as a single family homeowner in making an offer on their property due to this rezoning. She felt they were being stripped of their rights as homeowners and that their lives were on hold indefinitely. She hated to think if her husband had to relocate to another area that they were stuck in a position they shouldn't have to be in. They should be able to sell their home at any given time and she didn't think it should just be left up in the air not knowing one day to the next when and if this will happen. She wanted to know how this would be addressed. MR. PAUL BRADY, 78-694 Cimmaron Canyon in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He stated that having spent 45 years in local government, as well as the private sector, he could appreciate what they were going through in trying to rework the general plan. He was privy to and worked with developing a general plan for one of the nation's largest planned communities, the city of Irvine, and spent the last 28 years there, the last ten as city manager. He noted that the task before them was not an easy one as they went through and tried to continue making Palm Desert the premier community it has become. He informed the commission that he was representing Alliance Retail Partners, the developers of the 23.6-acre parcel at Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive west of the university or more commonly known as the University Village project. He said they would come before the 58 c E MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 commission on October 21 with their project for their review and hopefully approval. Tonight as they discuss the Land Use Element of the General Plan amendment, Alliance Retail Partners asked for their assurance that the GPA map accurately depict their property, the University Village project land, as mixed use retail and office development as depicted within Planning Area 3 as an amendment to the prior approval of the Wonder Palms Development Agreement dated October 24, 1997. The previous map in his view didn't properly identify the parcel and he hoped that had been corrected by Mr. Drell and the staff. He stated that city staff and the developer found the University Village project to be consistent with all the elements of the General Plan. They further believed that the land use is consistent with that which is allowed on the general commercial land use designation. Their mixed use project, going to the commission on October 21, promotes and enhances the policies of the general plan including the planning uses which were complementary to the university park planning area. At the October 21 meeting, it was their intent to bring before the commission the amended request presented to them at the September 2, 2003 meeting. At that time they would ask the commission to consider their zone change, the precise plan and any and all amendments to the Wonder Palms development master plan. Alliance Retail Partners encouraged the commission to hear the remaining testimony before them this evening on the land use element and any other elements that remain to be discussed and approve the GPA at their earliest possible convenience. With the correction of the map, they hoped that this would satisfy their concern. Their mixed retail / hotel /garden office project was at a very critical stage. He said they would hear that many times, but time was of the essence for their project to move forward without further delay. Any delays to the GPA approval and more specifically the university village project entitlements would result in the project losing its economic vitality and feasibility. He thanked the commission for their attention and consideration as they reviewed the two remaining general plan amendment considerations tonight. He noted that he and Rick Evans were available to answer any questions. 59 e MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 In response to Ms. Yoakum, Commissioner Jonathan explained that the commission wasn't ignoring her, they were just going to defer their discussion of the whole general plan amendment to a point after which it was all presented and all the public had an opportunity to give input. Her comments were heard and they made notes of her comments and would take them into consideration. He didn't want her to be offended that they weren't responding immediately. MR. ROBERT PAUL, 74-100 East Petuna Place, addressed the commission. He said they heard discussion with regard to apartments, but didn't hear any discussion about the possibility of condominiums or town houses instead of apartments. The apartments we've had here have had lots of problems and he thought they had pride of ownership at a lower price that even Mr. Drell could afford on his salary. He thought pride of ownership was important and a big plus to the city. They wouldn't have the problems like they do at One Quail Place and other apartments. He thanked the commission. MR. MARVIN ROOS of Mainiero, Smith & Associates, addressed the commission. He explained that they were representing a consortium of property owners: Ponderosa, World Development and MacLeod Couch land. He said that was the area from Monterey to Portola, about 300 acres. They had been working back and forth with staff and had the additional intrigue and complication of a school site, etc., and they had something before the commission, something they had reviewed with Mr. Drell and thought it would make sense for this area. It would include a variety of housing types, a variety of commercial developments, as well as the school site. Starting at Monterey, he said there wasn't a lot of change. Commercial would be along Monterey and potentially they were looking at high density residential, but it was a study area. There were two high density residential pods on 35th Avenue and on Gerald Ford that would be along Gateway Drive, the new road that would be behind the commercial development north of Avenue 35. Moving a little to the east, they placed a school site with the aid of the Palm Springs Unified School District that would be surrounded by residential development with a little commercial on one side, pedestrian and street connections all around that area, and it was one 60 t MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 of the slightly less hilly areas of that region, which was a little difficult on a school site. Moving over the 160 acres to the east of the school site was a medium density residential area at Dinah Shore and 35th; low density residential which was basically what it had been. The existing Southern California Edison utility site was right at Portola and Dinah Shore, and service industrial which was a continuation of that service industrial area coming from the existing proposed development just north of Avenue 35. He said they have been working in concert with the staff on this and thought that the uses were compatible and meet the demands and needs. On a redesign just on a portion of the low density area, they actually picked up ten units, so Mr. Drell was giving points now to people who were picking up units in these developments. So it was zero to four on the low, four to ten on the medium, and then the higher density. He thought the service industrial was important to basically create some noise blockage from the freeway and railroad tracks. If they looked at the statistics and the circulation guide, the freeway was looking at over 200,000 cars a day at buildout. Right now it was about 60, so there were some significant increases in noise and traffic along that corridor. He hoped that Portola could happen, although there were certainly some constraints on the north side of the freeway to having any real meaningful traffic coming across Portola, but at least people could get off and come to this area. He hoped the commission would concur with their request. He said it was a little less intense than what Mr. Drell wanted to see originally, but he thought they were in the ballpark in trying to coordinate with that neighborhood formation that is part of the general plan. He said there were others from those properties here tonight and they might add a sentence or two, but they would try to keep it short. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the medium density Mr. Roos talked about, if he would anticipate condominiums, single family detached homes, rental properties versus ownership, etc. 61 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 Mr. Roos said that in terms of what they had seen so far they still thought it would be ownership. Certainly they were working on projects up to ten units per acre that are detached, so that was still a possibility. The product they had seen in Brea and other places are a higher density detached that are single family ownership. With the changes to state law relative to construction defects hopefully helping some of the condominium market, they might see some of that. He said they were working on a couple of projects in the Palm Springs area that are condominiums, so they had their fingers crossed on that issue. That seemed to be coming back. One of the projects west of Gateway was proposed as a rental, so there would be a mixture of variety types. Commissioner Jonathan said the high density residential they would anticipate would be rental and most typically apartments. He asked if the school/park was a proposed high school. Mr. Drell said it was K-8, elementary, and a middle school. Depending on how an association develops with Palm Springs, the vision was that it would be a school / park combination like Washington Charter School or with the school on Country Club. So it would be a neighborhood park and a school site. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was within Palm Springs Unified School District. Mr. Drell said yes. Commissioner Jonathan noted that they were also planning a high school. Mr. Drell said yes. Commissioner Jonathan asked where it would be located in relation to this one. Mr. Drell said it would be across the street from Portola northeast of Gerald Ford. Back to the question regarding high density, Mr. Drell said that high density started at ten units per acre. So he would assume and would encourage that between ten and 20 there was a lot of room for condominiums. The goal was to have as broad a variety as possible, not limiting choices, and allowing people to buy. There were a lot of different variations of design they could do between ten units per acre and 20 or 25 units per acre which is what they had at One Quail and San Tropez. He hoped they could address all the facets of the housing market. Chairperson Campbell asked what Mr. Roos was planning for the commercial. Mr. Roos said there was nothing specific for the commercial along Monterey. He thought it would be complementary to what was happening to the north. At the corner there had been some discussion 62 s t MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 of another neighborhood center to serve the residential needs that were coming around. In terms of that proposal, Mr. Drell said it fit somewhere between the Preferred Alternative and the Less Intense Alternative in terms of unit count. MR. GARY ARMSTRONG with RBF Consulting, 74-410 Highway 111 , addressed the commission. He said the overall area they had been calling university village in the past was 2,075 acres and this area in this presentation they were talking about tonight was 280 acres. They have been working in collaboration with City staff, Cornerstone and ART to develop a design framework for university park and they were requesting the commission's endorsement of this conceptual vision, both for land use and community character. They envisioned a walkable mixed use residential community contiguous to the university campus and the commercial areas to the north with employment, shopping, and recreational amenities all within the community. He gave a power point presentation and explained that the property was bordered to the north by Gerald Ford Drive, to the west by Portola Avenue, to the east by Cook Street and to the south by Frank Sinatra Drive. He said there were approximately 280 acres with mixed use commercial and commercial uses along Cook Street. High density residential would be around Gerald Ford and would transition to medium density and low density residential adjacent to the proposed city golf course to the south. Comprehensive multi use trail and pathway system would safely connect all areas of the community and an internal collector would enforce the walkability and the potential use for electric or golf carts in this area. The non-residential buildings would be oriented to the street and would be shaded with landscaping and have pedestrian- friendly walkways. The mix of uses were shown with approximate acreages and low density residential being the predominant use. Medium was at 58 and high density at 55. Quasi public commercial was 15, mixed use commercial 21, commercial 33, office 7 and three separate parks at 11 for approximately 280 acres. They felt this balance of land use mix would allow the residents to live, work, shop and play within the project itself, reducing the demands on Palm Desert's existing arterial highway street system. He 63 E MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 said they would also be providing design guidelines which would be incorporated in the review process to reinforce and maintain the city's image. He showed slides intended to depict the design character and the look and feel of the proposed project. He said the low density residential was fairly traditional. There were examples of typical plottings of these types of units. He said they were talking one to four units per acre and very traditional for what was in the city. Medium density residential would range from five to ten units per acre and they could see in the overall that it was a little denser, but they could still very easily provide single family residential, courtyard, and a little bit smaller lots. They wanted to focus on the street scene and getting the garage doors to not dominate the street scene, so the architecture was forward and there were varying garage placements within the project and a lot of articulation in the architecture. He said the higher density residential could be many things other than apartments. He said the bungalow style could be placed on a very small lot, there were courtyard lots, clusters, zero lot lines and a wide variety of mixes. As mentioned, the more recent legislation was allowing condominiums to come back in So. California on the construction defects. On the 10-22, ten was the upper end of the single family end and there was a wide range of products now and there were some very exciting products available based on what the market would bear. The commercial and mixed use was a very exciting area adjacent to the campus and a walkable distance from these residential uses. They wanted to create a sense of community and a sense of identity that Mr. Criste was talking about at the start of the presentation tonight. He said office might be included in the mixed use area and there was a separate office area. They wanted to put those buildings out front and put the parking behind it so they didn't have a car dominated street scene. They also wanted to provide for the jobs to housing balance that Mr. Drell was talking about and hopefully residents here could walk to work. The quasi public included churches, community centers, libraries, senior centers, day care, and public service. The concept was a resident would be able to go to church, perhaps play golf, and pick up 64 i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 their dry cleaning all in their golf carts and go home. Their street scapes and gateways in the landscaping area would be in keeping with Palm Desert standards. They anticipated the Cook Street side by the commercial to be a little more town oriented and as they transitioned to Gerald Ford, the more residential side would be more natural, native landscaping, but in keeping with the desert theme. There would be numerous trails and access ways throughout the community. All areas of the project would be accessible through this trail system, especially the three parks that would act as identity nodes for the various neighborhoods. He said they were asking for the commission's endorsement of this concept so they could move forward. The next step for them would be for them to provide greater detail in the form of a master plan and design guidelines. He asked for any questions. He said there were representatives from the developers present as well as their engineering expert if there were technical questions. MR. DON THOMPSON, 43-845 Portola, addressed the commission. He said Portola is the most discriminated street he has ever seen in his life. All the trucks that come off the freeway don't go down Cook, they don't go down Monterey, they go down Portola. They have a narrow street and their parking was taken away from them. They kept dangling this in front of them that some day they were going to widen Portola. Why not do it now? Property would cost them a lot more the longer they put it off and it would be much more expensive for the City. He wouldn't be here 100 years down the line to see what they did with the city. He said it is a wonderful city and what they did with Fred Waring is outstanding. He said it was time to do something with Portola. And now they were going to open it up to the freeway. He suggested they live on Portola to see what goes on there. When he wanted to back out, he had to watch out for the kids, then he had to watch out for the trucks, and then the traffic because of the school, there was no point in him even trying to get out of his driveway from 2.00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. because of the schools. He thought it was time for them to do something about Portola and get them out of this. They couldn't sell their houses, they couldn't get in and out comfortably and he didn't know what was going to happen. He was told 20 years down the line they might take their houses. He 65 r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 didn't know at age 99 how big of a house he would want to buy, but it would be in Palm Desert if he could make it. He asked them to please give them some consideration and straighten out Portola. He was speaking for a lot of people on Portola. One young lady lived at the corner of Portola right where the right turn is and he suggested that she get a hummer to get out of there in the morning because she had to work at the hospital. He said if he was her, he would get a tank to get out there. They couldn't move on that street. He appreciated the fact that Monterey is a prettier street to have nicer homes, and Cook is a wonderful street with nicer homes and golf courses, so he didn't represent all those people with all that money. He represented a bunch of people who would like to be able to move out there or do something with the area to straighten it out for them. He said he didn't expect an answer tonight, but tomorrow would be okay. MR. JEFF SCHROEDER, a Vice President with Ponderosa Homes, 400 S. Farrell in Palm Springs, addressed the commission. He said they are a private home builder based in Pleasanton, California, and they have local offices here. He thanked them for the opportunity to speak about the General Plan Update. They are relatively new comers to the Coachella Valley. He said they opened up their first project earlier this year in La Quinta called Mosaic at the corner of Fred Waring and Jefferson. He said it was a traditional single family project. It wasn't in a resort community and said they were addressing a market they thought there was a lot of demand for, which was move up families from the local area. He said the homes are very attractive and encouraged them to go visit that project. He hoped they would be impressed with the Ponderosa quality and style they were bringing to the Coachella Valley and hoped to add to Palm Desert. They purchased the property located at the corner of Portola and Gerald Ford in November of last year with the anticipation of developing under the existing zone at that point. He said they were a little bit shocked to be forced into a moratorium along the way; however, they understood the desire of the community to look into the future and plan for changes that would occur with the university and other things they wanted to plan for. So they stepped back and had taken some time to work with their neighbors, including the MacLeod Company and World Development, the school district, and Noble Company LLC to try to come up with a 66 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 plan with Mr. Drell's guidance that might be a more acceptable alternative for both the city and the owners out there. He said that plan was recently presented by Mr. Roos and they believed they were on board with that concept. He thought that was a concept that would allow them to move with a project that meets a serious need for existing move up housing in the area and provides for future higher density options on a portion of that site. He said it was connected to the school district site and would create a very nice neighborhood for the community and he urged them to support that alternative. He asked for any questions. Chairperson Campbell asked for clarification on the location. Mr. Schroeder said it was approximately 130 acres at the northwest corner of Portola and Gerald Ford. Commissioner Jonathan noted that there were 130 acres and they had a yellow square on the map indicated as 80.87 acres. Mr. Schroeder said there were 80 acres they were proposing as low density and approximately 37 acres as medium density to the north. MR. RICK POST, 77-125 Indiana Avenue in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said he had the privilege and honor of serving on the General Plan Advisory Committee, as Mr. Drell alluded to as GPAC. As they knew, because both Chairperson Campbell and Commissioner Finerty both served on that committee, there was significant debate and discussion regarding the university village concept. The feeling was that there is a need for mixed use commercial, but also housing for families and seniors, as well as faculty, staff and students that would in the future be coming to the university. Probably one of the most significant aspects of this whole area was he heard many comments from very good folks, well-meaning folks, saying in essence that we have a certain formula that has worked for us in Palm Desert for many years. Mr. Drell alluded to that. When the City invited Cal State and then later UC Riverside onto the 200 acres at the corner of Frank Sinatra and Cook, those things changed and 67 t MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 the formula changed. The commitment the City needed to make to the university, to the families and folks that work there, changed as well. He thought it was important that the whole concept of the university village was to enhance both the education and the cultural experience for the folks in Palm Desert, as well as individuals around that area. He said he was very encouraged by the presentations by the developers, particularly the last one with the university park because he thought that was what many of them had in mind. He was also pleased to see how the apartment concept was addressed. For a lot of folks when they think of a university and for most of the folks in the audience that weren't aware, he spent about 30 years in the education business, was currently a dean at the College of the Desert and worked 14 years for Cal State University as a business law professor. He wanted to kind of dispel a couple of myths. One was that this Cal State campus would be populated by a lot of youth desiring to live in big box apartment complexes and tune their cars and drive their motorcycles in the neighborhood. The average age of the students that would probably be attending this campus would run between 22 to about 35. They would be taking upper division and graduate studies classes. Something else most people were not aware of is that student housing was virtually nonexistent on Cal State campuses. Some of the larger campuses with many more hundreds of acres than this facility would have house less than 10% of their freshman class. This particular university would probably enter a genre that was brand new to the Cal State system. Because of budget cuts, he proposed and submitted to them that this campus would probably, once it was built out, would concentrate primarily on upper division and graduate studies. That was because of budgetary constraints and other problems. That wasn't to say they won't have a freshman or sophomore class, but it would be a reduced population. As an example, Cal State Fullerton has quit accepting applications for freshmen and were cutting back the freshmen class applications to a fraction of what it has done in the past. Cal State San Bernardino has had to do likewise. So they were going to see more resources in the Cal State system given over to upper division and graduate studies. 68 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 Consequently, the average age of the student population was going to increase. The faculty staff in that area would be a significant portion of that population, as well as seniors who would find that the cultural opportunities from the campus once it was built out would be substantial and significant. They would be drawn to concerts and plays, poetry readings, and other cultural events on the campus like art shows. He thought that was important. In closing he wanted to say that a lot of effort went into this plan. Two years of the committee's time, and he said he would embrace the plan and that it was positive for Palm Desert and it was very important to be patient and allow this area to develop according to the plan and not respond, as Mr. Drell indicated, to market forces that would have us surround this university with country clubs and other forms of retail rather than some of the more thoughtful plans introduced this evening. He thanked the commission. Commissioner Jonathan said they had not been provided nor asked for minutes from GPAC. He said they received periodic updates. He understood the conclusion and the majority vote that resulted from two years of dynamics, but he asked if Mr. Post could give them some insight into the dynamics that resulted into that conclusion. In other words, was there dynamic discussion, was there an opposing position, was that opposing position strong or was their unanimous direction right from the start. Mr. Post said there was vigorous discussion, dramatic opposition to some of the concepts and frankly many of the folks who went over to the notion of the university village concept. There was never unanimity from the beginning. There happened to be what he felt was a very good mix on that committee, both from folks from the developers' side, the public side, from the private sector and again, Ms. Finerty and Ms. Campbell both sat on that committee. He thought there was a good cross section. He felt very privileged to actually be on the committee. He said there were a number of current educators as well as past educators. Dr. Bill Kroonen, former President of COD was on that committee, and others from the educational community. 69 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 He thought there was a good mix and excellent discussion. He felt the City was extremely forward thinking in bringing this process together and it was one of the reasons he was so pleased to serve on it. It was not an easy sell on the university village concept. He wasn't quite sure who coined the phrased. He borrowed a similar phrase when he made a presentation to the group and he had borrowed it from the notion of campuses like Westwood Village, UCLA and other campuses like Chapel Hill and others that Mr. Drell alluded to. For him, it was the notion of having a place that is very positive and very proactive for students, their families, but just as importantly the faculty, the residents and the staff that would be in that area. He said there was vigorous debate and he felt very positive. He thought there was, after a time from the developers, there was an acceptance that this did make sense given the direction that the City placed themselves in by giving this land to the Cal State system. Going back to the student housing issues, even completely built out this would be one of the smallest if not the smallest Cal State campus in the system. They weren't going to use their resources to build student housing. MR. JIM LEWIS, 43-210 Silktree Lane in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He informed them that yes, at the beginning the developers that were involved on the committee as well as some public, they were adamant to let the market drive. And that was basically what they heard until they started talking about it and thinking about a concept, about realizing that this university campus was going in there and what it would be like surrounded by gated communities. So he was awesomely delighted by the positive attitude he had heard tonight by some of the developers. It seemed that the initial shock of not letting the market drive, they had taken a step back and thought about it and looked at it and actually came to conclusions that we can work together. That this whole concept, given the last small bit of land we have so far in Palm Desert, we can work together. It was too valuable to leave to happen stance. Some say let the market drive it, but if they did that, they would see haphazard development here and there, as they were seeing already, that would somehow get put together. But they all have walls. Every 70 t MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 development out there has a wall that will keep us from having a cohesive plan out in that northern area. What the Planning Commission was not doing tonight, they were not deciding upon details, and they have seen quite a lot of detail of what might be going on. They really weren't doing that and they weren't limiting development, although they might be delaying it. Would they be supplying all the housing necessary for all the jobs and the university? No, they weren't doing that and didn't plan on doing that. But he thought they could tread lightly and slowly and come up with a plan that could envision that university. A few years ago that decision was made to give the land to the university. That irreversibly changed the outlook of the city of Palm Desert from now on. What they were doing tonight was attempting to come to a consensus with an overall general plan that would accommodate housing and commercial needs of the university for years to come. Some voices had deemed it desirable to allow just market driven development to come in and even people on the committee did say they could live in Cathedral City, they could live in Indio and Mecca and get on the bus or it was right next to the freeway, so they could drive. Why not envision something they could put together like they heard tonight? They could live there, work there, go to school there and they wouldn't need the buses, they wouldn't need the parking lots or at least less of them. Forward thinking people should not expect Cathedral City or Indio or Thermal to house students coming to the University of Palm Desert. We have a choice tonight and in our future to accept an abstract pieced together puzzle of this northern area, or a blended and cohesive plan. He urged along with what he considered a somewhat consensus of GPAC, that they would endorse the village concept of actually planning that northern sphere appropriately as it is outlined in the general plan. MR. TOM NOBLE, 42-620 Caroline Court in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He apologized for the lateness in providing the commission with a letter prior meeting and a letter from today with a little hand colored map he did. He said he was just addressing one piece of property. By seeing the street alignment as it would be when Dinah Shore Drive was extended to meet Portola Avenue, they would 71 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 see roughly the 29-acre piece of property which is now Parcel C of a parcel map waiver they did last year. As he read the proposed plan and taking the street alignment into account, they have a large portion of high density residential butting up to an oddly shaped piece of service industrial or business park industrial as it would be called, which in turn was contiguous to the south of an industrial park they were currently getting ready to start construction on. It seemed to him for a number of reasons that residential was not a good use in that area and it basically rendered the industrial portion, the light industrial, almost useless. He could see a lot of conflicts between the industrial and residential there. His request, and it went along with the other property owners in the area suggested, was that the entire piece stay with a business park/industrial use. He asked for any questions. MR. MYRON MACLEOD, 4035 Avenida Brisa in Rancho Santa Fe, addressed the commission. He said they had been jumping back and forth from different projects and he just wanted to go back to the one Tom Noble was just talking about. He said he would be brief and wouldn't repeat the things Marvin Roos already said. To tie this together in his mind, he wasn't a professional consultant, he was a member of a family group that has owned 70 acres here and this parcel for about 30 years. The commission heard different people before them tonight. Using the map he showed the commission the location of World Development, Ponderosa, Tom Noble's property, and their own property. In listening to the previous speaker regarding the advisory commission, it struck him that he was very accurate. What they have here, and they have had their parcel 30 years, Ponderosa just bought theirs, World was somewhere in between, Sares Regis was further down, and they were all shocked by the moratorium, yet it brought them all together. So his comment was to bring more of a personal comment to this. He said this proposal was a best effort from all of them, and they were all motivated by what they want to do with their parcels, but it represented a best effort of them trying to get together with Phil Drell's department, with the school plans, and come up with a proposal. When they thought of the word that it is an alternative 72 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 plan, to him it wasn't so much alternative as it is a refinement of what the commission already recommended in that area. Looking at the map, the same uses were applied, they were just slightly modified to fit in more practical uses as to how these properties would be used. As an example, the original plan showed a different location. That seemed like a good idea because the school would be embedded in this nice, cozy neighborhood. In reality the school district wanted to have one side of their property on Gateway so they would have a better traffic flow for buses and a lot of parents wanted to bring their kids to school because they are worried about security. So there were things that all evolved out of this process. He said that was just an example of how they put their heads together to try to come up with a solution they thought was a good alternative. He asked them to give that some consideration. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that the drawing indicated in the upper right-hand corner, the northeast corner, as service industrial use and they just heard from Mr. Noble and he presented a map that showed that as high density residential. He asked if that was because they were looking at different proposals for that same area. Mr. Drell said the preferred alternative showed it as high density residential. The fifth alternative restored it to industrial business park (since they would no longer have a category called service industrial). That was the difference. MR. TERRY GREEN, 48-555 Verbena Road in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said he was also the point course person for the University of California Riverside and its development of the campus site adjacent to Cal State San Bernardino. He stated that he wanted to make some very brief comments in support of the concept of the development of a university village/university park adjacent to the university properties. He was speaking to them in two capacities. One in his former role with the University of California Riverside on behalf of their project and one as a 25-year resident of the city of Palm Desert. He commended the Planning Commission and the City Council, both current and past, for the magnificent job of planning and developing this community. He said it was one that all of them that live here are so very proud of and it was really thanks to the hard work of the planning commission and council members and advisory committees that have come together over the years to give 73 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 careful thought as to how this community builds and what the role this community plays in the overall development of the Coachella Valley. He thought their leadership was to be commended over and over again. The University of California Riverside would begin construction next month on its building complex. They have a 20-acre parcel within the 200 acres thanks to the good collaboration with Cal State San Bernardino. As Dr. Post indicated, and he himself was also a 30-year veteran of higher education as well, what they were seeing evolve here in Palm Desert was unlike anything they would see in California. The adjacency of two of our primary university systems developing satellite campus facilities side by side. Not only that, the continued collaboration between these two institutions, both on what they are going to do here in Palm Desert, but in also tying those two programs together with College of the Desert, they were going to see a rather unique model for higher education in California and one which many of the state educational leaders are looking at as examples of what can be done in areas where there aren't full-blown university campuses yet. So for the City of Palm Desert to pause, take a step back and carefully look at the surrounding areas he thought was extremely important and commended those that have been involved in the planning process. The plans and concepts he was seeing and that they have looked at from UCR and what was being thought of as the development around this campus site were very pleasing for them. They were somewhat concerned about the nature of the development adjacent to this campus site. Like Cal State San Bernardino, they would not be able to provide resources in their initial development for student housing. Their initial focus would be at the graduate level and they were developing their primary focus around master degree programs and entrepreneurial management. They would be marrying that concept and degree with other technical majors in environmental science, engineering, arts management and medical management. What they would be seeing at the UC Riverside component here were graduate students from several majors taking the dual degree option for entrepreneurship and management at the Palm Desert campus. So they would be having a lot of the best and brightest students, not just from UC Riverside, but from the University of California system and with other universities 74 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 around the nation they were entering into agreements with to do joint programs with them. He said those students would be needing housing and they would need faculty that would need housing. He said they would very much like to see a university environment developed around this campus. They have a great collegial relationship with Cal State San Bernardino and they were actively working on joint degree options with them and joint degree possibilities with College of the Desert. He said it was a very exciting time for all of them and higher education in the Coachella Valley. He added that UC Riverside completely supports the development of a university village concept around this property. He thanked all the hard working committee members who worked on this. Since Mr. Green had been here a long time, Commissioner Lopez asked what he envisioned student attendance to be initially. Mr. Green said their initial core enrollment would be about 250 graduate students. In addition to that they would be having a number of other program options that would bring students from international destinations and other universities. He said some of those partnerships were still being formed, but their building capacity would only allow at one time 250 students in their two first facilities. He expected it would grow expedientially over time and student enrollment, but they would start out with about 250 full-time equivalent students and probably 600 or 700 bodies coming through the first year of operation. They would only develop the first eight acres in the first year and then they would grow from there. MR. JOHN COVER, Baxley Properties at Hovley and Cook, stated that he would be very interested in seeing an ice center somewhere in the quasi public. They had been thwarted in Indio and were shut down in the mall. He said he had been working with them somewhat and they have come up with a business plan. He hoped they would look at it as a possibility to do a joint effort with the public, the ice groups, the university with a sports program, it was a 501 C3 charitable amateur sports situation and he thought it would be great to have a place for everyone to skate. 75 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 Mr. Drell asked for a show of hands of those who were present regarding the Portola issue and how many were present for the Highway 111 frontage road issue. (It was about equal.) He said they could address it all at once and have people talk all at once. Mr. Drell said that to a certain degree these were similar issues. Chairperson Campbell asked if they were going to do both of them this evening or if they should postpone it to next time. Mr. Drell said people were here and hopefully they could at least take their testimony. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that it was the commission's intent to stop this part at 9:00 p.m. and hear some other public matters. Their other option would be to take public testimony, unless Mr. Drell's presentation was brief. Mr. Drell said he would try to make it brief. The Portola one was especially brief, but he would start with the frontage road one. He said the city developed and was laid out in certain ways 30 or 40 years ago. Over time things have changed and they have been trying to figure out ways to adjust to that change. In the area between Monterey and Las Palmas, they have a unique situation with a rather shallow commercial strip. They have an alley behind it and residents that back up right behind it to the north. Back in 1983 they examined this in the Palma Village Plan. The solution at that time was to take this entire strip, expand in a President's Plaza style parking area with lots that back onto that alley to create a common parking area and use that as incentive to encourage business property owners on Highway 111 to remodel, expand and everything else. Typically with the ownership pattern in this area, the size of the lots created a great constraint to invest in these buildings. One couldn't expand a building without adding parking and property owners typically didn't want to invest in their property unless they could add square footage and increase revenues. If they drive up and down town, this was 20 years later and was still a strip that had fallen behind the advances which the rest of the city has made. Although this scheme of creating this parking situation in the back was described in 1983 and again in 1987, it has never been implemented. The residential property owners had been left in limbo. They didn't know if they should fix their roofs tomorrow or if the City would turn it into a parking lot. The business property owners who might have plans to do their remodels didn't know when the City would provide parking. When the GPAC looked at it after 20 years and got some input from property owners, an alternative 76 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 scheme was suggested and they created a double row of parking down the center and only take 45 feet of the back ends of those residential lots, leaving most of the houses undisturbed. Some of the houses, depending on how the design went, might have to be demolished or purchased in their entirety. The main feature of the plan would be that the remaining lots would be, whether they had existing homes or not, would be developable with new homes along some of the lines they talked about previously relative to the smaller lot, single family detached design. That would finally finish out these circles with houses on both sides, which he thought was the most desirable residential environment for a residential street--to have houses on both sides. Part of the conclusion was based on their disappointment with the appearance of the back of Walgreen's. Back ends of parking lots no matter how they are landscaped still look like the back ends of parking lots. So that was the endorsed plan by the General Plan Committee. He said there could be an alternative three which only took 25 feet and therefore would provide half the amount of parking, but it would probably save all the houses. The last plan was to do nothing. He thought the consensus conclusion was that whatever we come up with this time, whether it was do something or do nothing, they have to follow through on it. To provide programs like this and not follow through was an almost blighting policy itself. It created a great deal of uncertainty and in itself created a disincentive to invest in the property. He asked for any questions. He noted that there were residential property owners present who wanted this resolved, as well as commercial property owners who wanted it resolved. It was now time for the City to make up its mind to do something or nothing, but whatever it was, create some sort of certainty for the future. Chairperson Campbell asked if they should hear testimony with regard to that issue. Mr. Drell said Portola was pretty simple. Forty years ago Portola was a quiet little residential street and houses were designed that front right on that street or with driveways that back on that street. For better or worse, the character of Portola had changed and it was now a major arterial. In the same way they dealt with a similar situation on Fred Waring where they had houses that backed onto Fred Waring or fronted onto Fred Waring. It was the same situation on Monterey. He wanted to make a kind of distinction, although the input and all its aspects was important for the public, the function for the General Plan is to create the land use basis for change. It didn't necessarily create the change. 77 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 In our system of real estate development, predominately the private sector still followed through on land use definitions. Occasionally the City got involved and that was something that they could weigh in on as to whether they thought the City should get involved in solving in terms of giving advice to the Council or Redevelopment Agency. The general plan discussion's motivation was exactly the same discussion which we heard. That this whole line of houses that back onto Portola were built in another era and a different set of circumstances. His understanding about the value of the property being devalued was not because of our notice, it was because of the physical conditions that exist there. Most people looking for single family homes were not looking for a single family home on a street like that where they have to back out into traffic that is coming 40 mph 18 inches from the curb. From a land use point of view, the solution is, what is a land use that not only is compatible with that traffic, but even benefits from the traffic? That is how they create value in property. In this case they successfully on Deep Canyon, on Fred Waring, and on Monterey have been able to, by changing the land use and allowing the market and there is a significant market for small office buildings, to come in and they have seen the conversion of homes in those areas to offices and the consolidation of parcels so people wouldn't have to back out onto the street anymore. The issue of the urgency of making that conversion is a different question that the Council and the Redevelopment Agency would have to answer. The same issue, although he didn't have a photograph before them, the same issue exists to a lesser extent south of Fred Waring on the west side of Portola. There is a block of homes that also back out onto the street which in examining, the General Plan Committee stood pat in maintaining the residential density. Staff recommended the same solution-- that we are not going to see new investment in homes on those lots at medium density. That the characteristics of the traffic on that street are such that there are a lot of better places to put money in if they want to live in a home. So the option was to provide those property owners with a land use for which they believed there is a strong market which is the small office market. It was both compatible with the street and they found it was compatible with the houses that remain behind it. He recommended that the commission open it up to anyone who wanted to speak on these two issues. 78 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 Chairperson Campbell stated that they would start with Highway 111 and asked if anyone wished to address the commission. DR. JERRY MEINTS, 71-450 Painted Canyon in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He informed them that he also owns an office building located at 73-302 Highway 111 in Palm Desert, Village Counseling. He said he is a 38-year resident of Palm Desert and he was amazed at this city and the progressive planning he heard tonight. He said it was incredible to be a member of this community. He was really proud and really impressed. He thought that Mr. Drell described pretty accurately their situation on Highway 111. They have been called the blighted community, at least the blighted commercial community, along the Highway. The City a couple of years ago approached many of them and provided them with funds to do facelifts to their buildings. The Planning Commission and Architectural Review approved their changes and he thought many of the property owners put a lot of money into making their building and businesses more attractive to do a better job in serving the community, particularly from their perspective as a counseling clinic. A challenge that has created is that they are all doing a lot of business. In fact, they had a letter of support from most of the property owners and business owners along Highway 111 encouraging them to do what Mr. Drell suggested and that was to finally do something. For many many years they have struggled with inadequate parking. The City has overlooked the number of parking spots they probably should have and let them go ahead and do their facelifts and beautify their buildings, but some of their colleagues on Highway 111 were losing business because there is no parking. People that used to drop by and get their hair cut at Scissors can't stop because there is no parking. They have to walk two and a half blocks back to the barber shop to get a hair cut and that was untenable in 115 degree weather. So he was strongly encouraging the Planning Commission to move forward with the suggestion that finally the City access the property along the alley way, create parking spaces so the business owners could continue to serve their clients and their community members, and that the City could finally focus on beautifying that particular area 79 ! t MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 so they could continue to do business and continue to help Palm Desert prosper. MR. GORDON SPIELBERG, 73-394 Highway 111, stated that he, like Dr. Meints, owns a piece of property in the same area. He said Dr. Meints pretty much covered exactly his feelings and the feelings of a lot of the other property owners in that area. He thought the back end of the alley had been neglected and there was a lot that could be done. It hinged on parking. What they would like to do is expand their facility and they would definitely need more parking along with that expansion. They needed more parking now, but with the expansion they wanted to do, they would need even more. He hoped the commission would see fit to move that along and allow them to begin construction. He was sure a lot of the other business owners along there would like to do that as well. MS. DONNA MATSON, 73-341 San Benito, addressed the commission. She said that house has belonged to her for 25 years, it belonged to her mother for about 15 years and before that it belonged to one of her mom's best friends. She has been coming to this house and to Palm Desert for over 50 years. She loves Palm Desert and loves her little house. This house was one of the first ones built in Palm Desert. It has the slab with the colored cement, it has a swamp cooler, it has overhang and 20 years ago they were told that the house might be condemned for a parking lot. Over the last 20 years she had been offered quite a nice price for the house and she thought she should probably sell it, but she wasn't able to because when she told them about the pending condemnation of the house, it couldn't be sold. Now she is close to retirement and she has planned and fixed up the house and would like to live there. Twenty years ago they were told all of the houses would be taken. So the person next door, his house was in bad shape and he said he wasn't going to spend money fixing it up if the City was going to take it, and he bulldozed it. So for 20 years they have had an empty lot next door. Then they were told they would probably take 20 or 25 feet of the back yard. That would save Lucy Perez's house, it would save her house and some others and would provide some parking for the commercial district. If they took 45 feet, that would take off the back 80 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 wall of her bedroom and her porch. She showed a picture of her house, the back yard, the alley, and the lot next door. She said there were several things they needed to think about. They were talking about daytime use and night time use. McGowan's, the Irish Inn, was a night time use. The Red Barn was a night time use. The rest were daytime uses. She thought they needed to balance that. She kept checking the parking situation and they said they didn't have parking, but with the front parking and the back parking that faced the alley, many times there were only one or two cars there. She didn't know if people didn't understand that there is parking behind their buildings. She showed a picture of the area behind Peter Hartwig's property, Mary McGowan's property, and the golf building which she thought was a beautiful new building. She asked how many people he had in a day. She watched and he has maybe three or four cars and he has 12 or 13 parking spaces. Then there was the family therapist and the doctor said he didn't have room, but whenever she went by, there was plenty of room and very few people parking there. They also had the other small little shops which had a great turnover. They very seldom survived a summer. She showed pictures of the other parking lots and a huge parking lot area which she said belongs to the City which could be a major parking area and could be used by all of those small shops. So her request was to please do something. She has been waiting for 20 years. Are they or aren't they? How much are they going to take? When are they going to take it? When is she going to get paid? For her neighbor, that was her only house. She herself had another house or so, so she wasn't locked in as many of the other people are, especially on Portola. That was sort of their life big investment. They just really needed to know. To make a wall and take 45 feet off of everyone's property along there, that wasn't necessary. They have a vacant lot that Mark from the golf place had and there was a huge lot that the City has, so they could jog and take 20 feet there, put in a pretty wall and a little landscaping. It didn't have to wipe out two of their houses that they've had for 30 or 40 years. So she was requesting if they really needed it, and they've been saying for 20 years that it was going to grow, there are two lovely buildings there, Mark's and the family therapist. She asked if they really needed this parking, if they could use the City parking, some of the lots that are already vacant, but if they do take property, 81 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 please take 20 or 25 feet. That would at least save their houses. And please make a decision and let them know where they stand. She thanked the commission for their attention. MR. HAL PARADIS, No. 4 Conejo Circle in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He informed commission that he publishes the White Sheet shopping guides and they are right on the corner of Highway 111 and Las Palmas. He said he would like to echo all the comments they have heard tonight. He believed it was very important to bring this to a conclusion or at least some direction so that they could plan for the future. He thought it was imperative that they have more parking in that area and he would look to have some direction from the Planning Commission and the City Council to move in that direction and get something done as quickly as possible. If nothing more,just to say they were going to do it would be a tremendous help as far as their long range planning. They have an "L" shaped building there and they have looked at a number of proposals to upgrade the plan, but they were also in a state of limbo. He asked the commission to give some consideration to it. They would like to move ahead with the project as soon as they could. He thanked the commission. MR. PHIL WITTE, 44870 San Antonio Circle, addressed the commission. He said he would like to encourage the Council and the Commission to do something. He has lived there since 1977 and it seemed like the place had been in limbo for a long time. They have invested a lot of money, time and effort in making a nice place to live. Whether they took 20 feet, 25 or 45, it would still wipe out a good portion of his property and put a wall right on his pool. All he could ask was to please treat the residents fairly. If they were going to do this, compensate them properly and please be humane. This had been going on too long. He thanked the commission. MS. PAT LA MARSH, 73-098 Highway 111, addressed the commission. She agreed with the last speaker. They needed to help the owners as well as the business owners. She said they have approximately 100 to 250 cars at night in season at their restaurant and they desperately needed parking. She didn't want to have to relocate anybody if it wasn't going to be advantageous to them, the homeowners. But they couldn't expand anymore and they didn't have any parking in the back except for a dirt lot. They had to use the bank 82 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 or Walgreens and their clientele had to walk a couple of blocks through the alley or in the dark. That wasn't safe. She said there are businesses who have tremendous parking problems. Radio Active as well and he asked her to speak for him as well. MS. CAROL WILLIAMS, 44-850 San Antonio Circle, addressed the commission. She said she has a garage that would be affected by the extension of the alley, so she would not like to have the alley way extended. As her previous neighbor said, she felt a lot of the parking could be applied in the vacant lots in the residential area. Those vacant lots seemed to depress the quality of the homes in the area. If the City could landscape the open lots and turn them into parking lots that perhaps might help the situation. She thanked the commission. MS. FRANKIE RIDDLE, 44-805 San Clemente Circle, addressed the commission. She said her issue was if they convert the alley way into parking as proposed on the map, San Marcos would be left open and that would divert all the traffic and the people that park back there onto their residential street. She felt there should be some consideration made to closing off the street so that all the traffic wasn't diverted into that residential area. She thanked the commission. MS. MARY ARNOLD, 44-818 San Clemente Circle, stated that she has addressed the City on two separate occasions to see if they could do something about San Marcos Avenue. She said they moved there three years ago and immediately noticed how the traffic circulation was on Highway 111 and use San Marcos Avenue and San Clemente Circle as a byway to San Gorgonio Way. San Clemente Circle is a street, not a byway. She said they would like that byway changed. Everyone who signed the petition she submitted before who lives on San Clemente Circle would like to see San Marcos Avenue and San Clemente Circle closed to traffic. There are only two properties on San Marcos Avenue. There was like a little four-plex and a window tinting business on San Marcos Avenue. So those were the only two properties that would possibly be affected and she didn't see how they would be adversely affected by closing off San Marcos Avenue. So she would appreciate that given some consideration. She thanked the commission. 83 i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone else wished to address the commission regarding Highway 111. There was no one. She asked if there was any testimony regarding Portola Avenue. MR. CHRIS McFADDEN, McFadden McIntosh Architects, 72-925 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 204 in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said he has been a resident in Palm Desert for 12 years and has had his business in Palm Desert since January of 1989. They love the community so much they want to build an office building and address some of the concerns discussed along Portola Avenue in particular. He noted that it is a major north-south arterial. There are presently two residences that must back out onto the street and one residence that has access to it. There are four parcels complete in there and they have three of them in escrow right now. He has another partner and they would have all four of the parcels. This parcel was a particularly unique shape. It has a large flag lot on parcel three that goes all the way down the back that they propose to buffer. Mr. Drell asked for a better description of the location of the parcels he was identifying. Mr. McFadden said the property is south of Fred Waring at the intersection of Catalina and Portola. They were proposing to have their driveway off of Catalina. He pointed out the two existing residences that currently back out onto Portola. They were proposing to demolish the three residences that exist and there would be a complete driveway through there with a right-hand turn restriction only. That would allow a fire truck and trash truck to get through there and for them to get to Catalina and do a left/ right movement. He said that eventually there would be a median down the middle of Portola and Portola would connect to 1-10 eventually, so they would see an increased traffic movement in there. The massing of the building was very conducive to this use, but it was currently zoned R-1 and they would like to propose to the commission that it be changed to O.P. and that would allow them to proceed forward on this. They had these properties in escrow and they were prepared to do this as quickly as possible. 84 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 Mr. Drell said this was a demonstration of how a change of land use could result in a physical change if there is a market for it. Referring to Mr. McFadden's drawing, Chairperson Campbell asked about an area in the middle and if it had a building. Mr. McFadden said it was parking in between the buildings that was buffered with landscaping. So they propose two separate buildings. Initially they would probably build at the top and do a build to suit down below. MS. LISA BILLINGHURST, 74-041 Aster Drive, addressed the commission. She said her back yard actually backs up to Portola. She said a lot of the residents, because they weren't involved with this on a daily basis, didn't get a lot of general information on exactly what was proposed to happen. Using a map she pointed out the homes that were going to be sold, removed or having businesses going into the area. She pointed out her house, the third house off Desert Star. She said they have been there for 12 years. The traffic there was atrocious and was like a freeway. Visually it didn't look very good. They had some concerns. They already have a four-lane highway. If they were going to put a median in there, that was information they needed to know as homeowners on how they would stick a median in between there when they already had sidewalks. No one was talking about taking anyone's property. The City was proposing this and they were discussing this and they didn't know how they were going to widen that particular area and who it would effect. She didn't think as homeowners they had all the information. They just needed basic, simple information on what was proposed for development in the area. The City did a great job on Fred Waring. They extracted all the homes and put the park in there, but they listened all night long about property that isn't developed yet and now they were talking about areas that are developed that need to be redeveloped to accommodate the area, but they had byways off of Magnesia Falls that had beautiful block walls, they had finished block walls off of Fred Waring and then they had this area with old walls and it was like they weren't finishing anything. They were starting new projects before they finish a particular area. She thought this was an area with a lot 85 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 of traffic, people come into the valley this way and visually that was what they were seeing. They were seeing all of these houses that are having trouble backing up and she didn't think they as homeowners had enough information on what was going to happen from the Planning Commission. All this general information didn't affect a lot of them. It was interesting but didn't affect them directly, so she was asking Mr. Drell if they were going to get a little more personalized information on how the development would take place on Portola because they were confused. Mr. Drell explained that he didn't know if those decisions had been made yet. He said there had been thoughts and proposed ultimate designs for Portola. He thought this might be the appropriate process to discuss what those are and what the solution might be. Mr. Greenwood explained that right now there was no plan whatsoever. They were waiting for the General Plan process to determine what needs to happen and the Circulation Element needed to address the road width on Portola. Mr. Drell hoped they would get to it at the next meeting, but the intention is, and he recalled the agony the City went through for ten years on Fred Waring, and the decision to take single family homes was very hard for them. On the other hand, talking to the people who live on Fred Waring, not making a decision didn't do them any favors. He thought there were two ways to deal with this. They have this big General Plan and he used the term Study Zone. A program in the General Plan didn't necessarily have to resolve this now, but it needs to place on a priority as something that needs to be solved and pursued. That could probably take up a lot of discussion all to itself focusing on one group of people that doesn't necessarily take in the whole city. Like the area on Highway 111 and the frontage road, it probably took in some very focused discussion among the people impacted to then come to a resolution. Whether they should hold up the whole General Plan for it was another issue. To verify the Public Works position, Mr. Greenwood stated that the Public Works Department develops a five-year capital improvement program. Widening on Portola or any work on Portola was not currently included in the five-year plan. But the plan is updated every year and projects could be inserted in any year of the five-year plan, so a plan could go from not on the list to the first year at any given time, but right now there was no plan for any work on Portola, other than what was currently under construction. Mr. Drell 86 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 said that was designed to minimally create four lanes all the way to Highway 111. At the GPAC it was discussed that it was not the ideal end state for Portola. It is through a residential area and the fact that we have a side walk where people are capable of walking to school where we have traffic going 45 mph 18 inches away from the sidewalk, this was something that needed to be a program in the Circulation Element of the highest priority so that in a reasonable period of time that gets resolved. They couldn't deal with all the details in the General Plan, but this is one. It was identified in the Palma Village Plan as a problem 20 years ago. Ms. Billinghurst said their main concern was children on the sidewalk. They drive down there and traffic was going 60 mph when it was supposed to be going 40. There were kids pushing each other on the street and she was just waiting for one to go into the street. She wasn't opposed necessarily to businesses if that was what takes place in the area of the 15 homes, but she thought they needed to make provisions for the walking traffic and the kids. They had a school that was not going to be moved from there, so it needed to be taken into consideration when these plans were set forth. She just wanted a little more general information. She didn't know there was going to be a median. Mr. Drell said staff didn't know if there was going to be a median either. It was something that had been discussed as potentially desirable to create residential ambience. MRS. ESPANA, 43-825 Portola, addressed the commission. She said she they came from Chile and moved here. The only thing they had was their house. She agreed about Portola, but wanted to know when. Mr. Drell asked where her house was located on Portola. Mrs. Espana said it was at the corner of Portola and Rancho. Mr. Drell asked if she had to back out onto Portola. Ms. Espana said yes. Mr. Espana also addressed the commission and said their house is at the corner of Portola and Rancho. 87 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 Mr. Drell said that meant their house fronts and their driveway backs out onto Portola. He said the proposal at this stage in terms of the land use element was to say that they would provide the land use ability for someone like Mr. McFadden or another architect who would like a little office to buy the property and was willing to pay far more for that property to put an office there than someone would pay to buy it for a home. At this time that was all they were talking about. Unlike Fred Waring where they had to take so much that it would wipe the houses out, he didn't think it was contemplated that we would have to take, no matter what happened, there would be enough lot depth to develop something. So at this stage, unless they convinced the City otherwise, they would be leaving it to people like Mr. McFadden and other office developers, once they gave them the go ahead through a land use designation, to in essence get value out of their property and move somewhere that was more compatible for a home. Mr. Espana said they were concerned about how long they would have to wait in indecision. There was a letter sent before about two years ago. Mr. Drell said the decision would be made in the next two or three months. MS. SUE FAIRFIELD, 73-969 Krug Avenue in the Vineyards, addressed the commission. She said her house is at the end of Stoney Hill and Krug Avenue. It wasn't on Portola, but if they put office buildings in place of the houses they tear out of that strip, her house would back up to that. There would be a parking lot or an office building probably cater corner to her behind her. She has been in Palm Desert since 1967 so she has seen a dramatic change in growth. Portola is a very busy street. She drives down Portola toward Country Club and worked at Eisenhower for a very large physician group there. She drives that way every day and there was a huge amount of traffic. A lot of the parents who have children at Lincoln School park in their neighborhood in the morning and around 2:00 p.m. they were all pulling off of Portola and parking there off of Stoney Hill and Rutledge. They were there every day waiting for their children to cross the street. One of her neighbors had his truck or car stolen out of his driveway and he was the first house there on the corner. That was in broad daylight a couple of afternoons ago. So they had that traffic. Magnesia Falls was now going through and that 88 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 would be a major thoroughfare. If they go down Portola at Magnesia Falls in the morning when parents are bringing their children to school, there was a huge traffic backup down Portola, down the wash almost back up to Chaparral of people trying to turn left at Magnesia Falls to drop their children off at school. They had that traffic situation morning and afternoon by the school. Now when she travels down Fred Waring between Portola and Monterey, they have three or four vacant lots with signs on them saying they are going to build office professional buildings. There is a brand new building on San Pascual and Fred Waring that still shows a vacancy sign and wasn't filled. There was the professional building at Monterey and Fred Waring still showing leasing office space. There was the old Pier 1 Imports building on Town Center Way and Fred Waring sitting vacant because Pier 1 moved, so that was office space. She felt sorry for the people who back out onto Portola. That was a problem that needed to be addressed. Her feeling was that the City should buy the property from these people as they did on Fred Waring and put a park or something, but if they put more professional buildings on there, she asked how much traffic that would cause on that corner. That was a major artery there and there was a lot of traffic. By buying those homes in that area, and that area if they looked at the highlighted map in the mail was totally residential from Fred Waring down Portola across the wash up to Country Club, it was all residential and they were now encroaching into that neighborhood and putting small office professional buildings there. She didn't see the need for that. She thought there might be another way to buy that property because people are having a problem and put a little park there or put something, but they didn't need any more professional buildings encroaching into the residential area, even if it was an older area. When she bought her home there four years ago, she loved the area because it was central to the area. She could run home for lunch in ten minutes, but when she stands in her backyard now, the traffic from Portola and Fred Waring, if she had her door open it was deafening at night. There was a lot of traffic and she didn't feel that putting in more professional buildings was going to alleviate the traffic problem. She felt the homeowners should be given some restitution and be allowed to move out of the area, but she didn't think putting in 89 � t MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 another small office building there was something they need and to a community that is a residential neighborhood now when they have all these other areas in Palm Desert mentioned tonight that they would be developing, she didn't see the logic to that. She was told there was another meeting in a couple of weeks when more would be decided. Mr. Drell said they would be continuing this meeting to October 21 to see if they could come up with some conclusions. Ms. Fairfield hoped they wouldn't encroach into the residential neighborhood. When they were talking about a small office professional building, she asked if they were talking one story or two stories. Mr. Drell said most were one story. They had the ability to specify. It was usually a mixture of one or the other or both. On Monterey they were primarily one story. On Deep Canyon they have been primarily one story. Sometimes they are two-story. He commented that if she thought the noise was deafening now, if those houses disappear and they aren't replaced by some other structure, their noise impacts would go up expedientially. There was nothing like a building to stop noise and that was what they were now hearing from the people who now back onto Fred Waring. They used to have houses in front of them and now that they had open space, the noise issue is that the wall doesn't do the job that houses or buildings might have done. So they have to be careful what they ask for. Ms. Fairfield said she would take that into consideration. She just felt that like a lot of people who have lived there for years, she chose to live in Palm Desert because she thinks it is a forward thinking community and they have been recruiting a lot of physicians to their group and when they talk about settling in Palm Springs or other areas, she tends to lead them to the center of the valley in Palm Desert or Rancho Mirage. But she thought they had gotten out of hand. Like the other person who spoke earlier, how many Walgreens do they need? How many Wal-Marts? How many Costco's? She has friends that have been in the valley in business for years and they were talking about moving to Oregon. She has a friend who has a pest control business and he talks to clients and they are selling their homes and moving to Tennessee or other areas where it isn't as 90 f j MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 congested and they can have some land. She hated to see Palm Desert become Orange County. The growth had to stop somewhere and when she saw them talking about encroaching into a residential neighborhood and adding more small professional buildings, there were a lot of vacancies along Fred Waring. She knew they were looking at a long range plan, but thought they needed to look at it seriously. If they started encroaching into her neighborhood, her house has gone up quite a bit in value over the last couple of years, but she wouldn't live there and have professional buildings encroaching into her backyard. She wouldn't want to be there. She liked the area now, it was a nice little community and people have taken pride of ownership in these homes. She didn't want to look out the backyard by the pool and look at professional buildings. That wasn't why she moved there. She hoped they would think this through very carefully. There was no further testimony and Chairperson Campbell asked if there was a motion. Commissioner Finerty said she would move to continue this matter to October 21. Chairperson Campbell seconded the motion. Mr. Drell asked if the commission wished to consider meeting at a different time other than 6:00 p.m. since there were several public hearing items to be considered which had been continued from previous meetings and depended on the General Plan decisions. After further discussion it was determined that the commission would continue this item to 8:30 a.m. with discussion to 11:30 a.m. on October 21. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, continuing Case No. GPA 01-04 to October 21 , 2003 at 8:30 a.m. Motion carried 5-0. G. Case No. PP 03-10 - GILL DESERT PROPERTIES, INC., Applicant (Continued from September 2, 2003) Request for approval of a precise plan of design for a ten-building medical and general office complex (93,842 91 (7, MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 square feet)on an 8.72-acre site at the northeast corner of Cook Street and Hovley Lane, 41-340 Cook Street. Mr. Smith reminded commission that this matter was before them at the September 2 meeting. At that time the applicant had not had an opportunity to meet with the homeowner's association at Belmonte Estates which is the development to the east and north of the property. He advised that a meeting was held on September 24 and he attended the meeting along with 15 or 20 of the homeowners. As well, one of the Commission's requests of the applicant at the last meeting was to put up some poles on the site so they could get an idea of the placement of buildings and heights. He noted he advised Commission of that last week and knew that some of them visited the property. At the September 24 meeting a series of issues were brought up. One was the traffic access onto the site. In response to those concerns, there was a condition added by Public Works to increase the left-turn pocket from south bound Cook Street from 150 feet to 300 feet in length. This would allow for considerably more stacking. There was a question on parking lot lighting. The applicant, Mr. Ricciardi, said it was his intention to light the parking lot with maximum 42" bollard lights, plus some lighting under the carport structures. That was conditioned in the draft resolution. He said there was a request for the installation of a screen wall across the north end of the property which the applicant's representative agreed to. Mr. Smith pointed out that it was possible that the grading plan could be such that the northerly portion of the property could drain to the north in that they have a 27-foot setback which could be developed into a partial retaining area. They didn't want to preclude that from happening because that would lower the site in that area, which was desirable, so if they chose to do that there wouldn't be a wall. If they chose not to do that, there would be a wall per the conditions staff put in. The applicant indicated they would put lights on the building at night. There was a condition requiring adherence with the dark sky ordinance which requires that the light sources be fully cut off. There was a concern relative to the location of three trash enclosures on the east property line. The applicant agreed to relocate these trash enclosures. He said he meant to pass out revised site plans to the Commission which he received today which indicate that the east landscape strip has been increased in width and the three trash enclosure areas have consequently 92 r I 00-J � POSTED AGENDA PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - OCTOBER 7, 2003 4:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (September 2, 2003) Action: V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION (September 25, 2003) VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Any person wishing to discuss any item not otherwise on the Agenda may address the Planning Commission at this point by stepping to the lectern and __giving his/her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Planning Commission. B. This is the time and place for any person who wishes to comment on non-hearing Agenda items. It should be noted that at Planning Commission discretion, these comments may be deferred until such time on the Agenda as the item is discussed. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Planning Commission. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 03-11 - DARWIN ALBERT DEASON, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge Lots 74 and 75 of Tract 25296-1 to accommodate construction of a larger home in the Canyons at Bighorn. t POSTED AGENDA PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 B. Case No. PMW 03-07 - VALLEY CHRISTIAN ASSEMBLY, Applicant Request for approval of a lot line adjustment to accommodate an addition to the Valley Christian Assembly building at 73-979 Fred Waring Drive. C. Case No. PMW 03-14 - DAVID AND MICHAELEEN PREST and JOHN AND LEIGH ANN VUKSIC, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge two lots into one on the east side of San Pablo, also known as APNs 627-141 -021 and 627-1 12-010. Recommended Action: Move by , second by approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case Nos. GPA 03-06, C/Z 03-09 and PMW 03-05 - SCHMID INVESTMENTS L.P., Applicant Request for approval of a general plan amendment from residential (medium density 5-7 units per acre) to office professional, a change of zone from PR-5 N.S.P. (planned residential, five units per acre with a natural overlay and scenic preservation) to O.P. (office professional), and a parcel map waiver reconfiguring two lots fronting on Village Court at the northerly end of the Embassy Suites property located at 74-700 Highway 1 1 1 . 2 POSTED AGENDA PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 Recommended Action: Move by , second by , approving the findings as presented by staff. Move by , second by , adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. GPA 03-06, C/Z 03-09 and PMW 03-05, subject to conditions. B. Case No. CUP 02-20 - SBA NETWORK SERVICES INC. FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a 58-foot high wireless telecom- munication tower located at 100 Kiva Drive at the corner of Highway 74 and Cahuilla Way. Recommended Action: Move by , second by , approving the findings as presented by staff. Move by , second by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. approving Case No. CUP 02-20, subject to conditions. C. Case No. CUP 03-15 - CHOICE ENTERPRISE, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to construct a four-unit, one-story apartment project at 73-765 Shadow Mountain Drive. Recommended Action: Move by second by approving the findings as presented by staff. Move by second by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. approving Case No. CUP 03-15, subject to conditions. 3 POSTED AGENDA PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 D. Case No. C/Z 03-12 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a change of zone from R-2 (7) to Office Professional (O.P.) for 14 lots located on Fred Waring Drive east of San Anselmo Avenue to San Pablo Avenue. Recommended Action: Move by , second by , approving the findings as presented by staff. Move by , second by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending to City Council approval of Case No. C/Z 03-12. E. Case No. PP/CUP 03-12 - PREST / VUKSIC ARCHITECTS for DESERT ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan for construction of a 7,650 square foot office medical building and a conditional use permit to allow an office parking lot on residential property. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Fred Waring Drive and San Anselmo Avenue. Recommended Action: Move by , second by , approving the findings as presented by staff. Move by , second by , adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending to City Council approval of Case No. PP/CUP 03-12, subject to conditions. DINNER RECESS AT 5:30 P.M. RECONVENE MEETING AT 6:00 P.M. 4 i POSTED AGENDA PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 IX. 6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. F. Case No. GPA 0 1-04 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant (Continued from September 16, 2003) Request for consideration of a Comprehensive General Plan Update. Recommended Action: Move by , second by approving the land use element by minute motion and continuing Case No. GPA 01 -04 to October 21 , 2003. G. Case No. PP 03-10 - GILL DESERT PROPERTIES, INC., Applicant (Continued from September 2, 2003) Request for approval of a precise plan of design for a ten-building medical and general office complex (93,842 square feet) on an 8.72-acre site at the northeast corner of Cook Street and Hovley Lane, 41-340 Cook Street. Recommended Action: Move by , second by approving the findings as presented by staff. Move by , second by, , adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. , approving Case No. PP 03-10, subject to conditions. X. COMPLETION OF ITEMS HELD OVER FROM 4:00 P.M. SESSION 5 POSTED AGENDA PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 XI. MISCELLANEOUS None. XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (No meeting) B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XIII. COMMENTS XIV. ADJOURNMENT DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary of the City of Palm Desert Community Development Department, do hereby declare that the foregoing agenda for the Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, October 7, 2003, was posted on the bulletin board by the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, on Friday, October 3, 2003. Dated: October 3, 2003 TONYAMONROE, Administrative Secretary City of Palm Desert, California 6