HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPA 01-04 Final Environmental Impact Report TIN/I-aim Desert City Council
Comprehensive GP/EIR Staff Report/1.15.04
if • CITY OF PALM DESERT
.frr DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
b ; r'44N' STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
DATE: JANUARY 15, 2004
CASE NO. GPA 01-04
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.
APPLICANT: CITY
BACKGROUND
The City initiated the subject Comprehensive General Plan update process in the winter
of 2000, forming a General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) with members from a broad
cross section of the community. Over the course of the GPAC's work, research and
technical studies were conducted, requirements of current state law were documented, and
draft elements were prepared. In several instances, GP elements and related materials
were first taken to other City committees and commissions to get input on the element. The
GPAC initiated its meetings with a bus tour of the City and planning area in the Spring of
2001 and continued to meet bi-weekly and then monthly over a period of two years. GPAC
members also traveled to other communities to visit re-emerging and innovative residential
and mixed use design projects.
With the completion of GPAC element development, review and completion, staff initiated
the final stage of environmental analysis, focused primarily on refinement of land use
mapping and statistical analysis, traffic analysis and associated environmental issues such
as air quality and noise analysis. An extensive traffic model was developed based upon
the regional transportation model development by SCAG and CVAG, which also
incorporated additional areas of study along the I-10 corridor (see EIR appendices and
attached Planning Commission hearing staff report of November 4, 2003.). The Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Comprehensive General Plan was completed
1
alm Desert City Council
Comprehensive GP/EIR Staff Report/1.15.04
at the end of the summer of 2003 and transmitted to the public, utilities and governmental
agencies and others for a 45-day review, which ended in November.
The Planning Commission began it deliberations in September of 2003 and over the
course of eight public hearings reviewed the various General Plan elements and the
Program EIR. Presentations were made on each of the General Plan's elements, with the
most extended discussions focusing on land use and transportation issues. The Draft EIR
was also reviewed by the Commission and draft responses to public comments on the
Draft EIR were also considered and recommended to the Council for adoption (see
attached Final EIR). A variety of specific issues were addressed by the Commission,
including site-specific land use mapping, area design issues and amendments to policies
and programs. Each of these issue areas is discussed separately below. Public comment
was presented at each of the hearings and focused primarily upon individual properties.
In general, the policies and programs described in the various elements are rearticulations
and refinements of the principles which have guided Palm Desert's successful
development over the past 30 years. With the exception of a few focus areas identified
below, the land use designations within developed areas of the city have been left
unchanged or adjusted to better reflect existing developed conditions. With the input ,
assistance and cooperation of the GPAC , residential and commercial property owners,
and Cal State; the Planning Commission has recommended a detailed land use plan for
the area north of Frank Sinatra Dr. that responds to the unique demands and opportunities
created by a university campus and the regional commercial/industrial/research facilities
which will be attracted to the 1-10 corridor.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
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. Where
staff recommendations differ from the Commission's, these follow the Commission's
recommendation.
LAND USE DESIGNATION DEFINITIONS
Hotels and Motels: The Commission wished assurance that hotel development was
possible in most commercial designations. Several commercial designations were
2
TiVr-alm Desert City Council
Comprehensive GP/EIR Staff Report/1.15.04
amended to allow the development of hotels and motels (see attached revised Land Use
Table).
PC Recommendation: Approve
Mixed Use Commercial: This designation was added to the table to provide a specific
designation for mixed use developments, both existing and proposed (see attached revised
Land Use Table)..
PC Recommendation: Approve
(R-HR) Residential Hillside Reserve (0.2 to 1 du/ac): Recommended 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 densities are more consistent with
the hillside ordinance amendments recommended by the Planning Commission currently
being considered by the Council.
PC Recommendation: Approve
LAND USE MAPPING
The following issue areas were given focused attention by the Planning Commission during
their deliberations.
Cornishe of Bighorn: The subject 12± acre parcel is located within and in the foothills
south of Dead Indian Wash on the east side of Highway 74, immediately 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). 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.
3
T i.,. alm Desert City Council
Comprehensive GP/EIR Staff Report/1.15.04
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 a portion of the site.
Although there is evidence that Hillside Reserve designation may be applicable for a
portion of the site, the Planning Commission felt that given the status of the current
application and the history of this property, a decision to potentially change the existing
the designation should be made as part of the overall project development and
environmental impact review process.
PC Recommendation: Maintain current R-L (Low Density Residential) designation
with addition of the "S" (Special Study) overlay designation acknowledging the
potential for the R-HR designation and the need for site-specific study.
North Highway 111 Alley: Private redevelopment of the north Highway 111 frontage
between Monterey Avenue and Las Palmas has lagged behind other areas within the
commercial core. Shallow depth and the fragmented ownership pattern has discouraged
new investment. Without opportunities to expand parking supply, building expansion and
renovation has been discouraged.
The Palma Village and Core Commercial Specific Plans recommended conversion of all
the lots backing onto the alley to public parking to support commercial redevelopment.
RDA funding priorities and the costs of acquiring 18 parcels with 10 homes delayed
implementation of the plan for 20 years, leaving both residential and commercial property
owners in limbo. The City has obtained public parking easements on two parcels through
conditions of approval for two projects and purchased a third parcel in connection with a
lawsuit settlement.
When the GPAC discussed the future of this area, they heard from residents and property
owners adjacent to the alley who expressed a preference for a less costly compromise
solution which allowed some expansion of parking on the alley while preserving the
existing integrity of the residential neighborhood. The expanded parking leaves sufficient
lot depth to preserve most of the existing homes and allows residential development of the
vacant lots with some adjustment of setbacks. It was agreed that homes and front yards
facing the street were preferable to the back end of a parking lot regardless of how well it's
landscaped. While backing onto a commercial parking lot may not provide the most tranquil
residential environment, the existing residents have lived with this condition for over 40
years.
4
alm Desert City Council
Comprehensive GP/EIR Staff Report/1.15.04
Two rear parking alternatives were designed (see enclosed aerial photo exhibits). The first
included a center double row of angled spaces served by two one-way aisles requiring 46
feet of expansion generating 254 parking spaces. At least five homes would need to be
acquired and demolished.
The second design included one row of 90 degree spaces and a two-way aisle requiring
26 feet of expansion operating 188 spaces. Only two units would need to be demolished.
In considering these alternatives, the GPAC and Planning Commission agreed that
regardless of which solution is selected, the City needs to commit to implementation within
a reasonable time frame providing residents and commercial property owners some degree
of certainty. If that commitment cannot be made, the parking program should be
abandoned allowing the residential and commercial property owners to maintain or develop
their property under existing parameters.
In conjunction with the parking improvements, residential property owners requested that
San Marcos Drive, which links San Clemente Circle with the alley, frontage road and
Highway 111, be closed at San Clemente to vehicular traffic to eliminate commercial traffic
from their neighborhood. Since the circle streets already have two access points onto San
Gorgonio Way, this third access is not necessary. Pedestrian access would remain.
Given these objectives and testimony from the residents, commercial property owners and
tenants, the Planning Commission endorsed the 90 degree, 26-foot design and closure of
San Marcos since it provides significant expansion of parking supply at the lowest cost with
the least disruption of the residential neighborhood and therefore will most likely be
implemented. Descriptions of this revised program will be integrated into the Core
Commercial and Palma Village Specific Plans' discussion in the Land Use Element.
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 San
Marcos and Monterey Avenue, as set forth in the Commercial Core Area Specific Plan
discussion in the Land Use Element.
PC Recommendation: Approve
Program 5.A.: The City shall coordinate with commercial business owners and residents
backing onto Alessandro Drive (extended) between Las 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
5
TI ilm Desert City Council
Comprehensive GP/EIR Staff Report/1.15.04
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
Schedule: 2004-05
PC Recommendation: Approve
Preliminary Program Cost Estimate:
Land Acquisition $ 450,000
House Acquisition and Demolition $ 400,000
Parking Lot Construction $ 750.000
Total $1,600,000
Maintenance would be funded through a President's Plaza type assessment district.
Portola Avenue Between De Anza and Rutledge: In the 1960's when Portola Avenue
was a narrow two-lane road stopping at the Whitewater Channel, single family lots were
created fronting along its west side with driveways backing out onto the street.
Portola has become a major arterial with volumes of 19,000 ADT with projected growth to
24,000 ADT. We are currently widening Portola south of Fred Waring on the east side to
provide a minimal four-lane cross section without bike lanes or parking. North of Fred
Waring, the four lanes were accommodated by the elimination of the parking lane.
The increasing traffic volumes and lane configuration within 18 inches of the curb have
significantly compromised the single family residential qualities of these lots. Backing out
of the driveways has become increasingly difficult. The completion of the ultimate cross
section including parkways, bike/golf cart lanes, landscape medians and dual lefts at the
intersection will require additional right-of-way expansion on the west side further
degrading the residential quality of these parcels.
While the GPAC and Planning Commission agreed that the remaining parcels fronting onto
Portola were no longer appropriate for single family use, there was not a consensus for any
single alternative. Staff recommended professional office based on our past success on
Fred Waring and Monterey. The remaining depth is too shallow for practical residential
development but too deep to landscape and economically maintain as a parkway. With an
6
r
TINiralm Desert City Council
Comprehensive GP/EIR Staff Report/1.15.04
average depth of 90 feet, it is twice the depth of the Fred Waring Baja Park. A C-OP
designation would give residential property owners a reasonable opportunity to profitably
sell their homes, significantly reducing the City's right-of-way acquisition costs for the street
widening, and transfer all landscape installation and maintenance costs for the parkway
to the developers and owners of the office projects. Our experience on Fred Waring and
Monterey has demonstrated that office buildings provide a better traffic noise buffer then
open space. After considerable discussion, the Planning Commission recommended a
mixed use zone which would allow medium density residential, professional offices, or
open space based on market demands and City budget priorities.
PC Recommendation: Assign a modified "Mixed-Use" designation to these lands
limiting permitted uses to R-M, O-P or OS .
Preliminary Cost Estimate: If the City allows private development of the remainder
parcels, costs other than for the actual road improvements would be minimal. Right-of-way
dedication, parkway landscaping and maintenance would be conditions of development
approval.
If the remaining parcels are developed by the City as a Fred Waring style parkway, the
following costs are estimated:
Land Acquisition $ 1,700,000
Installation including walls 800,000
$ 2,500,000
Annual Maintenance $ 112,000
NE Corner of Monterey Avenue & Country Club Dr.: This area has had a long history
of attempts for commercial land use changes. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission designate the subject corner as a "Special Study Area" and maintain 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 ability
to mitigate potential impacts to adjoining residential lands, as well as the successful
releasing of the vacant commercial space at the southeast corner. The Planning
Commission agreed with the property owner that the site's location dictated a C-C
(Community Commercial) designation.
PC Recommendation: C-C (Community Commercial) to this site based on its
proximity to one of the busiest intersections in the Coachella Valley
7
Tiviralm Desert City Council
Comprehensive GP/EIR Staff Report/1.15.04
Staff Recommendation: R-M with S/Special Study overlay designation
acknowledging the potential for a commercial or office use to be determined as part
of a focused application.
University Park Planning Area: The land use discussions at GPAC and Planning
Commission were driven by issues of compatibility, housing demand, urban design, parks,
open space and the ability to support efficient circulation and public transportation.
A. COMPATIBILITY
The proximity of 1-10, the Southern Pacific Railroad, two existing and a future
interchange, major arterials and the Cal State Campus dictated the logical locations
for commercial / industrial and higher intensity residential uses.
The commercial/industrial designation in all the alternatives were all generally
consistent with the existing General Plan. Forty-six percent (46%) of the defined
University Park planning area is designated for commercial, industrial or resort uses.
Uses adjacent to major arterials were selected so that they could front onto the
street eliminating the need for walls, landscape assessment districts and promoting
a more attractive open streetscape.
B. HOUSING DEMAND
At buildout of the designated commercial/industrial areas, resorts and the
University; 20,000 jobs will be created generating a housing demand of at least
10,000 dwelling units. Given Palm Desert's central location and the strength of its
regional commercial and educational attractions, it is not anticipated that the plan
will accommodate all this demand. The GPAC's preferred alternative proposed
approximately 6,000 units for this area. The original less intensive alternative
projected approximately 4,300 units which is consistent with the existing General
Plan as established by the North Sphere Specific Plan.
As a result of property owners and prospective residential developers' desires to
include more low density single family homes in their plans, a revised less intense
alternative was designed which generally replicated the housing production of the
existing General Plan. Since 1990, over 700 acres of residentially designated
property in this area have been removed from potential housing production through
approval of nonresidential uses including Marriott Shadow Ridge, the Cal State
Campus, and the potential future third Desert Willow golf course. To make up for the
loss of this residential land, medium and high density areas were designated.
8
Tiviraim Desert City Council
Comprehensive GP/EIR Staff Report/1.15.04
In the revised alternative, 648 acres of the 2,135-acre planning area were
designated for residential uses including 413 acres (64%) low density, 132 acres
(20%) medium density, and 103 acres (16%) high density. Eighty-four percent
(84%) of the residentially designated area will be single family product.
C. URBAN DESIGN
Palm Desert is known for its high quality master planned resort communities
designed to meet the demands of tourists, second home buyers and retired
residents. Subdivisions oriented toward the permanent resident families have rarely
benefited from the same degree of sophisticated design. The area north of Frank
Sinatra provides our last opportunity to promote the development of thoughtfully
designed master planned neighborhoods which will efficiently address the needs
and be served by the surrounding commercial and educational facilities.
The plan recommended by the Planning Commission includes a balanced mix of
residential, commercial, industrial, neighborhood community parks, school sites, golf
courses and open space corridors. Uses are carefully placed to maximize
compatibility and convenient access. The more intense commercial and residential
uses are concentrated adjacent to the interchanges, the University Campus and
along arterials to maximize the opportunities for the implementation of convenient
and efficient alternative transportation opportunities including pedestrian, golf carts,
bicycles, and public transit.
PC Recommendation: Approval of overall city land use plan including specific
design for University Park area.
Preliminary Cost Estimate: The primary public costs of implementing the University Park
land use plan will involve the development and maintenance of the parks and open space
areas.
Land Acquisition Costs: The plan designates a community park and three neighborhood
parks of varying sizes totaling 42.5 acres. Based on the projected residential production,
the city's park dedication requirements should yield at least 43 acres.
Park Development Costs:
25 acre community park $ 9,000,000
10 acre neighborhood park 4,000,000
5 acre neighborhood park 2,000,000
2.5 acre neighborhood park 1,000,000
Total $16,000,000
9
Tri,ralm Desert City Council
Comprehensive GP/EIR Staff Report/1.15.04
Annual Maintenance $ 1,140,780
Open Space Areas: The plan designates desert landscaped open space areas at some
intersections and corridors totaling approximately eight acres. If at least two acres can be
assigned to adjacent private development consistent with typical perimeter landscaping,
City acquisition requirements would be six acres.
Land Acquisition at $100,000/ac $ 600,000
Landscape Installation 784,000
Total $1,384,000
Annual Maintenance $ 156,000
While these costs are significant, the projected RDA tax increment and sales tax revenues
will also be significant.
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 the application of the land
use designations from the "Less Intense" alternative, which also more closely reflects the
County adopted land use plan for this area but also includes an increase in residential
densities.
PC Recommendation: Globally apply "Less Intense" land use alternative.
Staff Recommendation: Same
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.
PC Recommendation: Approve
10
TIv/ralm Desert City Council
Comprehensive GP/EIR Staff Report/1 .15.04
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, which is the optimum service level for any roadway. 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:
"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 1.A: 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."
PC Recommendation: Approve
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 1-10
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 Strcet, Monterey Avenue, State Highway 111, US Into 3tatc-10 or
other roadways deemed appropriatc."
PC Recommendation: Approve
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:
11
TIN/ralm Desert City Council
Comprehensive GP/EIR Staff Report/1.15.04
"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
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"
PC Recommendation: Approve
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 child care services throughout the community.
"New Policy: The City shall encourage the availability of adequate, convenient, affordable
child care that 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 child
care services in the community.
Responsible Parties: Community Services Department
Schedule: On-Going"
PC Recommendation: Approve
Police and Fire Protection Element: The following changes to Policy 3 and 4 page VI-36
were recommended by the City Attorney.
Policy 3: The City shall strive to maintain a police staffing ratio of at least 1.5 sworn
officers per 1,000 residents.
12
TIN!ralm Desert City Council
Comprehensive GP/EIR Staff Report/1.15.04
The City shall strive to maintain Fire Department staffing and other appropriate measures
of community fire protection to maintain an ISO Class 3 insurance rating.
PC Recommendation: Approve
General Plan EIR : Summary of Comments and Draft Responses
The City received several letters on the Draft General Plan and the Draft EIR. These were
carefully reviewed, with those constituting comments on the Draft EIR being transcribed
and responded to. A total of nine letters were received regarding the EIR that required
some response. Comments ranged from concerns regarding individual properties to global
questions regarding environmental mitigation. A few comment letters were from public
service providers, updating data in the Draft EIR and recommending minor re-wording for
clarification. No outstanding, unmitigated issues were identified in reviewing and
responding to the public comments. Please see the attached Final EIR (Response to
Comments).
General Plan EIR: The General Plan EIR was prepared in conjunction with the
preparation of the Comprehensive General Plan. It involved the collection, documentation
and analysis of a wide range of data and information, the conducting of field surveys and
area assessments, development of an extensive photographic record, and the preparation
of aerial photos and a wide ranging of mapping.
Concurrent with the development of an extensive and comprehensive information and
database, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data were also collected and used to
prepare baseline mapping for the City General Plan. Many of the resource and hazard
maps prepared for the General Plan where developed in a GIS format and provide a
reliable and update able mapping system that will be accessible to City official, planners,
engineers and other interested parties. Many of these map resources have already been
mounted on City computers and are being used for refined land use and other analysis.
The EIR is an essential part of the General Plan development process. Under the
California Environmental Quality ACT (CEQA), General Plans and their amendments are
considered "projects" and therefore require thorough assessment in the form of an EIR.
This EIR has been prepared to review the environmental constraints and opportunities
associated with the adoption and implementation of the General Plan. In addition to
assessing impacts associated with the Plan and instituting mitigation measures, the EIR
is designed to be used as an information database to facilitate the streamlining or tiering
of the environmental review process for subsequent projects proposed in the City and
elsewhere planning area.
13
Tiwralm Desert City Council
Comprehensive GP/EIR Staff Report/1.15.04
The EIR incorporates technical data collected over a broad area and analyzes General
Plan impacts within this context. The EIR summarizes the major goals and policies of the
Plan, as well as the various land use categories set forth therein. The EIR evaluates a wide
range of environmental issues associated with the implementation of the General Plan,
including land use compatibility, traffic and circulation, flooding and drainage, geotechnical
and seismic safety, air quality, biological and archaeological resources, and noise impacts.
Other areas evaluated include the availability of public services and facilities and the socio-
economic impacts associated with General Plan implementation.
The EIR also characterizes the environmental setting of the region and identifies the
environmental resources and constraints within which the General Plan study area occurs.
Existing regional infrastructure, land use patterns and natural resources are also described
in this section. The document also provides a comprehensive evaluation of land uses and
resources specific to the City and the General Plan study area. It discusses potential
impacts to the physical environment associated with the adoption of the General Plan land
use designations, and policies and programs. The EIR evaluation includes analysis of
population, patterns of development, alterations to the physical environment, and the
availability of public services and facilities. Because some aspects of the General Plan may
result in significant environmental impacts, mitigation measures are offered, where
appropriate, to reduce these impacts to insignificant levels.
The EIR also evaluated the potential impacts associated with alternatives to the Preferred
Alternative Land Use Plan. This alternatives analysis provides an important basis of
comparison for differing development scenarios. Finally, the EIR provides an assessment
of short-term use and long-term productivity of the affected environment. The irreversible
and irretrievable commitment of resources, including water resources, biological habitat
and air quality, are assessed to facilitate long-range planning. Growth inducing and
cumulative impacts associated with the adoption of the General Plan land uses are
examined. Possible and appropriate alternative projects are also identified, in addition to
other mandated CEQA issues. Finally, in Section IX, persons, organizations and
documents consulted or referenced are cited.
CEQA and Other Requirements: The General Plan EIR has been prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statutes (Public
Resources Code Section 2100-21177) and CEQA Guidelines of 2002 (California Code of
Regulations Section 15000 et. seq.), as amended. CEQA states that the adoption of a
general plan, element thereof, or amendment requires the making of findings concerning
the identified significant environmental effects (Title 14, California Code of Regulations
section 15088). The EIR findings must be supported by substantial evidence and must
explain how significant effects have been or should be mitigated. The General Plan EIR
serves as an informational and analytical document that provides decision-makers, the
general public, and other responsible or interested agencies with an objective assessment
14
TIN/ralm Desert City Council
Comprehensive GP/EIR Staff Report/1.15.04
of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed General Plan. The mitigation
measures proposed therein are intended to eliminate or reduce to an acceptable level the
environmental impacts associated with the General Plan. Mitigation measures set forth in
the EIR shall become part of the "project" approval, and an integral part of the General
Plan.
Other Reviewing Agencies: In addition to the City departments responsible for review
of the Plan, certain local, state, federal and regional agencies have also reviewed the Draft
EIR. These agencies include, but are not limited to the California Office of Planning and
Research, California Department of Fish and Game, CalTrans, Bureau of Land
Management, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG), South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD), and utility
providers serving the study area. Several other public and quasi-public agencies, and
private for-profit and non-profit organizations have also reviewed the Draft EIR.
The General Plan EIR is meant to serve at a program level. Additional environmental
documentation, such as environmental assessments and environmental impact reports,
may be required for specific plans, subdivisions, use plans and other development
applications that may be processed by the City.
Prepared by: Prepared by:
John Criste Phil Drell
Terra Nova tanning & Research Director of Community Development
Appro Approval:
er Croy Carlos L. Ortega
ACM for Devel ent Services City Manager
PD:JC/tm
Attachments
(Wpdocs\tm\sAgpa01-04.cc5) 15
c
t r
z ,
R
r h h �
,0
5' 12 12' 12' 12' 12' 14'
85' 85'
14' 12' 12' 12'
I ,
E �
I I I I /
i
I
I
TYPICAL ARTERIAL INTERSECTION
SCALE 1- = 20'
X CRONMO NE-,
14 101
rri
ci, 35
38.5' 22.5'
cv
1 1141
f `1
TYPICAL NO LEFT TURN POCKET
SCALE 1-= 20'
r �.. Exhibit
Palm Desert General Plan leen,
L J TERRA NOVA° �`
Preferred Street Cross Section ,' # / !
Planning&Research,Inc. Cityof Palm Desert
�,,,
R/W 150'RIGHT OF WAY N/A
1 24' 42' 18' 42' 24'
PARKWAY ROADWAY MEDIAN ROADWAY PARKWAY
8' VARIES 8' 12' 12' 12' 9' I 9' 12' 12' 12' 8' VARIES 8'
I S.W. 4'MIN. I 4'MIN. S.W. I
4 I 1
'5"i r . . Via •.
2% <'rJcn
ICURB h GUTTER CURB BIKE LANE I N
t'"� I MEANDERING WALK NO PARKING
u.c. u.c.
ARTERIAL STREET SECTION
SCALE: 1"- 10'
R i 59' 118'RIGHT OF WAY R/W
59'
I 1
I 18' 32' 1 ' 32' 18' 1
PARKWAY ROADWAY MEDIAN ROADWAY - PARKWAY
6' VARIES 8' 12' 12' 9' 9' 12' 12' 8' VARIES 8'
I SW.4'MN. a MIN,S.W. 1
.ek.,,t3.ta*rj I I
'f. 1 CURB 3 GUTTER CURB ., I '"' 1"
6' I MEANDERING WALK PARKING PARKING QB ( 8.
MUTT
BIKE LANE unun
C°RRI00R THOROUGHFARE SECTION CORRIDOR
SCALE: 1•-ID'
R I 54' 1118'RIGHT OF WAY R/W
I I I
I 18' 30' _ 12' 30' 18' I
PARKWAY ROADWAY TWl7L ROADWAY PARKWAY I
6' VARI 6' 12' 12' 6' 6' 12' 12' 6' VAPo 8'
!p,, 1 W. 'MIN 4'MIN W. 1
i''+ I ....-fix I
�_ u I &4,.-` '
;E' y 1�\� \ CURD k Gu iTER BIKE LANE I '"'�i�>
6' I MEANDERING WALK NO PARKING I 6
UflUTY UnUTY
C0R1"D0R SECONDARY STREET SECTION CORRIDOR
SCALE: 1'-10'
R/W 76'RIGHT OF WAY R w LE
38' �k 36
1 I I TWLTL TWO WAY LEFT TURN LANE
I 12' 20' 12' 20' 12' I U.C. UTILITY CORRIDOR'
PARKWAY ROADWAY MEDIAN ROADWAY PARKWAY S.W. SIDEWALK
OR TWLTL C.S. GRADED SHOULDER
L5' 8' 12' 6' 6' 12' B' 5'1 ASPHALT PAVING
® AGGREGATE BASE
NS•W 1. �r S•Wi �;:4^ AGGREGATE BASE
'•• ,,M • s!�.'''- R/W RIGHT OF WAY LINE
�,7" -23— - {' I'L STREET CENTERLINE
1 5, 4'I CURB&GUTTER.'1 4 15 1 \ ' • UTILITY CORRIDOR IS FOR AT
i C I PARKING Q$ C I GRADE OR ABOVE GROUND
BIKE LANE FACILITIES.(I.E.WATER METERS,
TELE.RISERS,ETC....)
COLLECTOR STREET SECTION
SCALE: 1" - 10'
R/W 56'RIGHT OF WAY R/W R/W 40'RIGHT OF WAY R/W
28' 28' I I 20' E 20' I
10' 18' I 18' 10' : 8' 12' 12' 8'
IPARK ROADWAY I ROADWAY PARK I I G.S. ROADWAY I ROADWAY G.S. I
6' 8'
SW. SW. Y I I
x 1
.?;> l _ �_ _Lk .CFI- � S 23 .,
�. �L ^-CURB k GU 4�� d. I NATIVE i 6'A.C. I �>.�yi.y
L.C. SIDEWALK �'C. I I
LOCAL STREET SECTION RURAL STREET SECTION
SCALE: 1"- 10' SCALE: 1' - 10'
r .-' Exhibit
® Palm Desert General Plan ,,
J TERRA NOVA Preferred Street Cross Sections , , _' F�
Planning&Research.Inc. City of Palm Desert "vi1lJ
TN/City ____dm 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 (0-1du/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„l ratm 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
III- 5
TN/City ,,.-alm 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 ralm 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 ralm 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 ,,..alm 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 .,, alm 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 alm 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2239
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM PREPARED FOR CITY OF PALM
DESERT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE BASED UPON
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE.
CASE NO. GPA 01-04, GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND
DRAFT EIR
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Desert General Plan Update ("Project" or "Proposed
Project") has been proposed; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public
Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15000 et seq.) and the
City's Local CEQA Guidelines, the City of Palm Desert ("City") is the lead agency for the
Project; and
WHEREAS, in compliance with CEQA, the City prepared a Draft Environmental
Impact Report ("EIR") to analyze the potential environmental effects of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the EIR on May 19,
2003 for a period of 30 days pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15082(a), 15103
and 15375; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15082, the City solicited
comments from potential responsible agencies, including details about the scope and
content of the environmental information related to the responsible agency's area of
statutory responsibility, as well as the significant environmental issues, reasonable
alternatives and mitigation measures that the responsible agency would have analyzed in
the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, approximately seven (7) written statements were received by the City
in response to the NOP, which assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for
analysis in the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, a Draft EIR was completed and released for public review on September
17, 2003 and the City initiated a 45-day public comment period by filing a Notice of
Completion and Availability with the State Office of Planning and Research; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2239
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092, the City also
provided a Notice of Completion and Availability to the State Clearinghouse and to all
organizations and individuals who had previously requested such notice. Copies of the Draft
EIR were provided to approximately 40 public agencies, organizations and individuals; and]
WHEREAS, during the 45-day comment period, the City consulted with and
requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies
and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086; and
WHEREAS, all potential significant adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently
analyzed in the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, during the official public review period for the Draft EIR, the City received
approximately nine (9)written comments, all of which the City responded to in the Final EIR;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, at its regularly
scheduled public meetings on September 16th, October 7'h and 21st, reviewed the General
Plan Update and at public meetings on November 4', December 2' and 16th, 2003,
reviewed the General Plan Update, Draft EIR and Draft Responses to Comments for the
Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth
the basis for its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's
Local Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so
that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been
adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes both
the feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the Project's
potential environmental impacts and a range of feasible alternatives capable of eliminating
or reducing these effects in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the
City's Local Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the Planning Commission
pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as
a whole and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2239
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the City finds are
less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant
but which the City finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant, through the
imposition of feasible mitigation measures identified in the Draft and Final EIR and set forth
herein, are described in hereby incorporated into the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the Planning Commission has heard, been
presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative
record, including the Draft EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all
meetings and hearings; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning
Commission and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the
Project and
WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City or, any
additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new inrormation
requiring recirculation or additional environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines
section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT RESOLVES AND RECOMMENDS TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
1 . That the Council of the City of Palm Desert certifies that the FEIR for the
Project has been completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA
and the City Rules to Implement CEQA.
2. That the Council adopts the General Plan Update as revised and submitted
by the Panning Commission.
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2239
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at an adjourned meeting of the Palm
Desert Planning Commission, held on this 16th day of December, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: JONATHAN, LOPEZ, TSCHOPP, CAMPBELL
NOES: FINERTY
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
)14
SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, ecretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
4
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: September 16, 2003
CASE NO: GPA 01-04
REQUEST: Consideration of a Comprehensive General Plan Update.
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
BACKGROUND:
General Plans are comprehensive planning documents which force cities (and
counties) to look 20 years into the future to determine short and long term
community goals and establish policies and programs to achieve those goals.
The process requires cities to expressly analyze connections between individual
short-term decisions and their long-term results.
General Plans begin with a clear description and understanding of existing
community conditions, strengths and weaknesses. Opportunities are identified
for enhanced quality of life as well as future problems which might degrade
future living standards.
The city's current General Plan was originally drafted in 1 980. Although the
plan has evolved over the years as a result of property owner and city initiated
amendments and specific plans, the main text describes a city that no longer
exists. The goals, policies and programs articulated in the existing plan have
played a major role in transforming what was once a dusty stop on Highway
1 1 1 to a world class resort destination and the most desirable commercial and
residential location in the Coachella Valley.
II. PROPOSED PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW PROCESS AND SCHEDULE
At the September 16 hearing, it is proposed that after a broad overview, the
commission review the Environmental Resources and Hazards and Public
Services and Facilities Elements. Although important, these elements are less
directly associated with the commission's normal area of responsibility. This
would allow the commission to focus on the Community Development Elements
(principally Land Use and Urban Design) at the October 7 meeting which will
have direct relevance to several specific pending applications.
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. GPA 01-04
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
During the City Council's debate concerning the development moratorium, there
was an expressed desire to avoid unreasonable delays in processing applications
resulting from a prolonged General Plan review.
Ill. THE NEW PLAN:
The draft General Plan Update was the result of a collaborative effort of the
consultant (Terra Nova Planning & Research), city staff and the General Plan
Advisory Committee (GPAC), a select group of prominent Palm Desert residents
who met on a monthly and sometimes biweekly basis over a two-year period to
debate the city's future.
The plan is comprised of five major subcategories:
A. Administration and Implementation
B. Community Development
C. Environmental Resources
D. Environmental Hazards
E. Public Services and Facilities
The Administration Element describes the basic structure, content and function
of the plan.
Community Development Elements relate most directly to the physical
development of the city, both public and private.
Environmental Resources, Environmental Hazards and Public Services deal with
how the city manages resources and provides services.
The first task of each element is to accurately describe existing conditions in the
Year 2000, including a discussion of past policies and programs which were
responsible for the city's successes as well as unresolved issues and problems.
Future goals, policies and programs are then listed which build on the city's past
successes and addresses future challenges. Basic concepts of land use
compatibility, safe and efficient traffic circulation, environmental resource
conservation, public safety, protection from environmental hazards and the
provision of a wide variety of high quality public services are carried forward
into the new plan.
2
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. GPA 01-04
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
While most of these issues involve a re-articulation of principles which have
guided the city's decisions since incorporation, the GPAC recognized that new
strategies will also be required to address changing conditions in the future. As
cities and regions develop, the emergence of new industries and the scarcity of
land and other resources require new and different solutions to achieve the
city's goals.
IV. LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN:
In addressing land use issues, the GPAC quickly affirmed the fundamental goal
of preserving the character and enhancing the quality of existing neighborhoods.
Attention then focused to a few selected areas where changing conditions
dictated new urban design strategies including:
A. North of Frank Sinatra (University Park).
B. North Highway 111 / Alessandro Alley between Monterey Avenue and
Las Palmas.
C. Portola between Highway 111 and the Whitewater Storm Channel.
A. UNIVERSITY PARK:
The city's growth since 1975 has been dominated by large master
planned golf resorts anu country clubs consistent with the goal of
becoming a world class resort destination. Permanent resident-oriented
subdivisions have been generally in-fill developments wedged between
the resorts.
In discussing the future of the remaining vacant land north of Frank
Sinatra, the GPAC quickly identified the following unique factors which
dictated a fundamental shift in the city's land use and urban design
emphasis:
1 . The growing Cal State University Campus.
2. Up to 6,000,000 square feet of potential office / commercial /
industrial to be developed along 1-10.
3
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. GPA 01-04
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
3. The Development of the 1-10 / Monterey Interchange area as a
dominant regional shopping district.
With a projected student enrollment of 15,000 and up to 3,000
employees, the campus will eventually be the largest institution (public
or private) in the valley. Whole communities owe their existence and
economic base to a university campus which provides great opportunities
for dynamic interactions with surrounding land uses. They can also
generate large volumes of traffic and housing demand.
Along 1-10, fundamental land use compatibility principles dictate office
/ industrial uses adjacent to the railroad and freeway. The Monterey / 1-10
interchange located at the geographic center of the Coachella Valley will
grow to be one of the valley's dominant regional commercial.
In response to the convergence of these three powerful commercial and
educational attractions, the GPAC determined that the emphasis should
shift from a resort-oriented urban design to master planned permanent
resident serving neighborhoods which respond to both the demands and
opportunities created by these attractions. A buildout analysis of the
campus and likely commercial / industrial uses including the completion
of Desert Willow and the Marriott Shadow Ridge revealed a potential of
up to 20,000 new jobs generating a housing demand of up to 10,000
units. The city's historical low density pattern would yield approximately
3,500 units on the remaining residentially designated land. The question
was asked, "Where will the rest of these employees live?" It was first
suggested that these households should live somewhere else.
As all the Coachella Valley cities grow out toward. 1-10, each will be
experiencing similar pressure for employment generating development
adjacent to the freeway. Each city and the county will be struggling to
meet the housing needs generated by their own employment growth and
economic development. In the unincorporated County, the lizard preserve
north of 1-10 and the extensive new preserves proposed in the Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan will limit extensive new urban
development in vacant county areas. Job-creating uses on the north side
of 1-10 will be generating their own housing demand which the County
will be struggling to accommodate. The General Plan should not assume
4
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. GPA 01-04
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
that other jurisdictions over which we have no control will accommodate
the city's housing needs.
The GPAC concluded that land use policies in the remaining vacant land
between Frank Sinatra and 1-10 emphasize master planned residential
neighborhoods with a diverse mixture of housing types and price levels
designed to address the permanent residential housing needs generated
by the campus and I-10 commercial / industrial development. The GPAC
saw these policies not onlyin terms of an obligation but as an
9
opportunity to create great neighborhoods providing an enhanced quality
of life as a result of the accessibility to the work, schools, parks,
community and cultural services.
The university campus, Gateway Shopping Center, planned Palm Springs
Unified K-8 and high school, neighborhood parks and Desert Willow
provide extraordinary resources for future residents. If master plans
include direct internal access to jobs, shopping and. educational
destinations, traffic pressure on the arterial road system can be lowered.
Lastly, the GPAC concluded that one of the Coachella Valley's most
valuable assets is its natural desert open space. Our resort economy is
largely based on the perception that as one travels through the San
Gorgonio Pass, Los Angeles is finally left behind. If housing demand
continues to be met only by sprawling low density development, that
open space will disappear. To preserve our image as a series of urban
villages within the natural desert, housing demand needs to be addressed
through more efficient and creative use of vacant lands within existing
cities coupled with aggressive action to preserve the remaining open
desert.
The key to guaranteeing that new neighborhoods are compatible with the
city's resort character is design. To maximize both land use efficiency
and quality, these neighborhoods need to benefit from the same level of
sophisticated and creative master planning which has made the city's
resort developments successful.
The demands and opportunities created by the .campus and 1-10
commercial will develop slowly over 20 years. Master plans must
5
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. GPA 01-04
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
incorporate enough diversity and flexibility to address short, middle and
long-term needs and opportunities.
B. NORTH HIGHWAY 111, MONTEREY TO LAS PALMAS:
The Palma Village and Core Commercial Specific Plans described a land
use / redevelopment program for north Highway 111 between Monterey
Avenue and Las Palmas including the residential lots fronting on the
Alessandro Alley. The program was designed to encourage the private
redevelopment and expansion of the commercial highway frontage uses
by creating public parking on the alley facing residential lots. A landscape
strip and wall was designed to buffer the commercial / residential
boundary.
With the exception of the Walgreens project, the plan has never been
implemented, leaving a land use cloud on the effected residential parcels.
The Andreino's restaurant has been remodeled and expanded in
anticipation of the new parking.
An impacted residential property owner appeared before the GPAC and
requested that the planned parking lot be reduced in width leaving
sufficient room to develop small homes. This would reduce the ultimate
cost of the program and provide a more desirable two-sided residential
streetscape. If homes are replaced by a parking lot, views of the backs
of the commercial building are opened up to the residences significantly
compromising the character of the neighborhood. The Walgreens example
demonstrated that a wall and landscape buffer was not an adequate
substitute for a landscaped front yard and home.
A plan was prepared by staff which reduced the parking lot by 60%
allowing sufficient room for home construction subject to acceptance of
alternative small lot development standards. The plan provided for
approximately 11 new spaces per commercial parcel allowing a 2,500
square foot expansion. The GPAC endorsed the conceptual plan with the
admonition that the City must be prepared to implement the program in
a reasonably short time allowing residential property owners to either sell
their lots for parking or develop homes.
6
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. GPA 01-04
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
C. PORTOLA CORRIDOR:
Portola Avenue between Highway 111 and the Whitewater Storm
Channel was originally designed as a two-lane residential street. It is
slowly evolving into a four-lane major thoroughfare through widening
projects and the elimination of parking lanes creating severe impacts on
the remaining homes which front or side onto the street. On the west
side north of Fred Waring, the lack of a parking lane coupled with high
traffic speed creates significant safety problems for residents attempting
to back out of their driveways.
South of Fred Waring, widening projects will leave remanent parcels
which preclude conventional residential development. Staff recommended
going to Professional Office throughout the corridor which has proved to
be a compatible buffer in high traffic areas. The GPAC endorsed office
use north of Fred Waring, but designated medium density residential to
the south. .
V. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission continue Case No. GPA 01 -04 to October 7,
2003.
Prepared by: Review a d Concur•
Phil Drell Homer Croy
Director of Community Development ACM for Deve ent Services
/tm
•
•
4
&u+t admit
f `
1,J� i" �
:./ 7-ai
J
P.O. Box 1504
J-
,..,. �) =.. .Lc/ 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO
',•, . (760) 777-7000
!VOF1k.—"�` LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 FAX (760) 777-7101
October 31, 2003
RECEIVED
Phillip Drell, Community Development Director .z 2003
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
g t;3TY OF PALM DESERT
Palm Desert, CA 92260
RE: Draft General Plan
Dear Mr. Drell:
Your draft General Plan appropriately identifies capacity preservation,intersection spacing
and access management on pages III-81 & 82 in Policy 2 and the subsequent program
statements for implementing Policy 2. However,Program 2.0 contains escape language that
can allow city officials to subvert the fine goals stated elsewhere in the General Plan.
Specifically, Program 2.0 says "Except for special circumstances, on Major Arterials the
minimum spacing for signalized intersections shall be 1,750 feet." The General Plan is
silent with respect to what constitutes a special circumstance.
The General Plan should identify example intersections that are considered to have special
circumstances, and cite criteria and reasons as to why they are special. For example, are
existing full-turn intersections that do not comply with the General Plan spacing requirement
considered special? If so why?
The City of La Quinta is particularly interested in the evaluation criteria that will be
employed in analyzing two intersections on Washington Street: 1) the Washington
Street/Calle Las Brisas intersection (590' n/o Fred Waring Drive), and 2) the Washington
Street/Tucson Circle intersection (150' s/o Darby Road). Neither of these intersections
complies with the proposed General Plan unless the unknown special circumstance criteria is
applied. These two intersections are excellent case studies in why full-turn access should
not be given to every development that connects to a Major Arterial street. There will
always be pressure to provide convenient access by sacrificing the mobility and capacity
preservation aspects which are the higher priority considerations on Major Arterial streets.
Acquiescing to the pressure means a few citizens receive a benefit at the expense of many.
The special circumstance criteria should not be tailored to accommodate decisions favoring
special interest pressure.
Page 1 of 2
T:\PW DEPT\STAFF1SPEER\LETTERS\031024A.DOC
If you havequestions regarding this please call me at (760) 7 -
matter, 7 7 7042.
Sincerely,
imothy . onas , P.E.
Public Wor s Director/City Engineer
TRJ/SDS/acj
cc: Jerry Herman, Community Development Director
Page 2 of 2
T:\PW DEPT\STAFF\SPEER\LETTERS\031024A.DOC
October 31, 2003
Planning Commission •-J - 4 V. � Li
73-510 Fred Waring
Palm Desert, CA 92260 i 2003
MUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMF.''"v.''c 4rA{DESERT
Dear Commission Members:
I am writing in response to the City of Palm Desert's General Plan. More specifically, I
am referencing the proposed change in zoning in the vicinity between Rutledge and Fred
Waring on Portola Avenue. I am a current homeowner in the area affected and I would
like to address my concerns regarding this issue.
I disagree with the city's current plan to rezone this area for commercial use. The city
must widen Portola Road between Rutledge and Fred Waring in order to create a safer
thoroughfare for residents and schoolchildren. The proposed plan to rezone this area for
small office\professional development is not the right answer. Such a plan will only
aggravate the congestion problems that currently exist in this vicinity as well as make it
unsafe for children walking to and from school.
Over 25,000 cars a day travel up and down Portola. Residents who are forced to back out
of their driveways face a constant chance that a speeding car will broadside them.
Residents should not be allowed to face such conditions in their own neighborhood.
According to the General Plan, the city has future plans to connect the north-end of
Portola Avenue with Highway 10. Obviously, such a plan will only increase the volume
of traffic flowing on Portola, thus putting residents at greater risk of injury. At the
intersection of Rutledge and Portola you have two grade schools. On a daily basis you
have a number of small children who walk home on both sides of Portola towards Fred
Waring. If the city follows through with its plans to rezone this area for commercial use,
you will have small children walking on sidewalks that intersect entryways to small
businesses. Does the city want to risk having a child seriously injured or killed?
The bottom line is this: The city needs to admit that future traffic will only increase
dramatically over the next 20 years, especially in the vicinity between Rutledge and Fred
Waring. Rezoning this area for commercial use will only add to the congestion and
increase the risk that pedestrians will be injured or killed. The city must make the
inevitable decision to widen this thoroughfare and make it safe for the entire community.
Sincere yours,
4
wil
Daniel Yoakum
Nancy and Dan Yoakum
43625 Portola A ye.
Palm Desert,Ca.92260
4•
CAI/F�T�
• TRIBAL PLANNING, BUILDING & ENGINEERING
.37 Q
a
�c1HU1�--P�
October 29, 2003
Mr. Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Re: Draft EIR — City of Palm Desert General Plan
Dear Mr. Drell,
We appreciate the opportunity to review the Draft EIR for your city's Draft General Plan
and offer the following comments:
1. Page III-121— Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program: Item B addresses
establishment of a city-wide database that is updated annually. The City may want to
consider developing an Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan that could
be updated periodically, say every 2-3 years.
2. The cultural sensitivity zones shown on Exhibits III-14 and III-15 are well developed
and conform to modern interpretations of desert adaptation strategies, both
prehistoric and historic. I suggest that the following mitigation measure be added:
When a proposed project is within an identified cultural sensitivity zone, and
when ground disturbing activities will occur, the city/developer shall employ a
cultural monitor or a Secretary of the Interior's Standards qualified archeologist to
monitor construction in the event that cultural resources are encountered. This
monitor/archaeologist should have the authority to halt destructive activities in the
event of a discovery and shall notify the appropriate authorities to inspect and, if
need, prepare a treatment plan for the mitigation of cultural resources.
3. At this point, it may be beneficial in the long run for the City to research and
incorporate local tribal areas of concern, and develop plans to attend to them now
rather than wait for them to surface during project implementation.
650 E. TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY • PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 • (760) 3253400 • FAx: (760) 325-0593
Palm Desert GP DEIR
October 29, 2003
Page 2 of 2
We hope you find these comments helpful. If you have any questions, please feel free
to contact Joe Nixon, Cultural Resources Coordinator, at 883-1313.
Very truly yours,
Pa-
Margaret Park, AICP
Director of Planning
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF
CAHUILLA INDIANS
C: Tom Davis, Chief Planning Officer
Joseph M. Nixon, PhD., Cultural Resources Coordinator
Project File
F:\Letters and Memos\Palm Desert GP DEIR Itr.doc
I
0OFlye�y' —=p United States Department of the Interior
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
44RQ"" 3 Ve°9 Joshua Tree National Park
IN REPLY REFER TO 74485 National Park Drive
L7621 (JOTR-R) Twentynine Palms,California 92277-3597
October 20, 2003
Mr. Phil Drell
Community Development Director
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Dear Mr. Drell:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the Draft Environmental Impact Report
for the Palm Desert General Plan.
The plan is well-written and well thought out. Environmental concerns as they relate to
the park appear to be covered. Because the park is increasingly becoming ar
"ecological island" surrounded by high-density urban and commercial development, our
major concern is the type of development of lands immediately adjacent to the park
boundary. The preferred alternative of the Palm Desert General Plan calls for zoning of
lands adjacent to the park boundary into either open space (OS/PR) or to mountain
estate (R-ME). This seems to be an appropriate compromise as reserve zoning is highly
compatible with the park's land use and mountain estate is the lowest density of
residential land use. However, for maximum protection of the area along our park
boundary, we would always prefer that the adjacent outside lands be in some sort of
reserve status to provide a buffer zone to the park against less compatible land uses.
An additional land issue indirectly related to the park is the use of lands in your plan
located between the park and the Fringed-toed Lizard Preserve. There is an ecological
process at work whereby alluvial material from the park moves down slope to feed the
sand dunes and other critical habitat of the fringe-toed lizard at the preserve. Any land
use on the lands between the park and the preserve that would block this process will
create a critical environmental issue.
We hope that our comments will be of use to you for your plan.
Since ly,
urt Sauer
Superintendent
tit] tVED
JAMES McDOWELL
74082 CHINOOK CIRCLE 2003
PALM DESERT, CA 92211-2076 (!+iiiN r' L;.` ?�,tl::r DEPA TMEN',
760.773.3206 7,7 . 1 jr:srRT
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. I 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 c e
Copy to:
,-Sonia Campbell, Chairperson, Planning Commission
THE
\ ROBERT
• MAYER
CORPORATION
October 16, 2003
Chairwoman Sonia Campbell
Palm Desert Planning Commission
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm 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 7th meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, I addressed the
Commission regarding our property at the northeast corner of Country Club Drive 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 specific project. These
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 the future, we ask that our property be re-
classified so that this parcel more appropriately fits with the characteristics of the
intersection. We believe that as this highly traveled 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 Beach,California 92658-8680
(949)759-8091
Chairwoman Sonia Campbt
October 16,2003
Page 2 of 2
Thank you for your contemplation on this important matter.
Sincerely,
The Robert Mayer Corporation
(-XAA
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 of Palm Desert
Phil Drell, City of Palm Desert
NI AT ER ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGt,ICY
kVA
/STRIG 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
RUSSELLOKITAHARA DEKAS
October 16 2003 JULIA FERNANDEZ,SECRETARY
DAN PARKS,ASST.TO GENERAL MANAGER
PATRICIA A.LARSON REDWINE AND SHERRILL,ATTORNEYS
File: 1150.06
Corporate Limits
Phil Drell
Community Development Director
City of Palm Desert -
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260
Dear Mr. Drell:
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
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:les\eng\sw\oct\eir-pd
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
Sue Fairfield
73969 Krug Avenue {
Palm Desert, CA 92260 € '_ .`I `_ `y1i
2003
October 16, 2003
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 haw: 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....) don't think so. I 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.
As I stated at the meeting, if you drive down Fred Waring from Portola to Highway
Ill, 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
1 I 'T4D
. C; 2 0 2003
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 Ro i.quez
73-361 San Benito Circle
Palm Desert, California
20415 Greenview Drive
Redding, CA 96002
Wednesday, October 15, 2003 _i,,. a i \'
C ...r 1 7 2003
t�
CITY OF PALM DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE '' T. `/` ';P'i 1 T DEPA$ ,E„:T
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:
(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 I l 1.
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
the subject pro y from low density residential to professional office use.
Sincerely,
Allen Nazeri
NBNA UNIQUE PROPERTIES LLC
VO$ C) 3 Crystal Palm Courtyard
�� �`� 73-338 Highway 111
opt( Palm Desert, CA 922260
��
co 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 111 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.
4111/
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,
Peter Hartwig
Owner-Crystal Palm Courtyard
cc: Mr.Phil Drell
To: Page 2 of 3 2003-10-15 00:01.54(GMT) 15102179560 From.Stuart Rickard
OCT.14.2008 4:06PM J, IGN & CONST. NO.861 P.1/2
Placeworks
Real 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 premises - 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 Street, 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
1501 Pacific Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501
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) 15102179560 From:Stuart Rickard
OCT.14.2003 4:06PM Jl iIGN & CONST. NO.061 P.2/2
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 (B-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 suppsj t t- • ,ve request.
r ,p.
Jerry Wi l4ams
Dennis Sivers
1501 Pacific Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501
ph: (510) 499-9400 fax; (510) 217-9560
Received Oct-14-2003 05:04pm From-15102179560 To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 003
Lundin
Development Co.
IOctober 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
1
i'
.-,--,- ..
Il
----I —
--- r
- - - __mS?IVTF.RE 1 .:1 NUE -
0.1
i if
,.:, iM .v _ . ash ' ( � .k. :, ► iit -10
• 1 IA - \f° 1 —1 \
, .1 1 . i 411, I .---', 1 1 t_ -,7- 4,. i
_ I Poi
, . .-
tt _I_ i Sta «s� J •4� [
1 "fit "�-� > t - --- 1 y Z
I tj 'i r ►�-1 APA. .4 ;i f �./�P rim •',.� 10 ••t� 11
j i -i ._ ':ai°' — r 1 t a.a a/ 1 yi'�j 1L jai ,
I 1 1 14 4 r'a ♦:4 4 ,E 4
C i ) are— _ ,,: '�1. i'i
i _ - R ►1v hV o1 aa ,4� 1 ►' .. • x * r
I I
1 ffffff eCl
t t, - e�5
I m. 41 . ,g r o� 1t:
�Q I_ 1-
1X# 1 \ �.1e}i \� — ` tact: Or 11
I L
k 1,r_k.„ % _ 9 r ye i♦ ur
Iill
- t .• /t.. F �'*! j ' ; Ts
► is
1. • % �'r ,;; ' �t f t, .«.::+, 1 a. �_
__ L Ys yy 1 I 1! _ j
a►a
} r f e?s 44 '' alp:_
I I
8 r;. i I ;I a•a
g 3 X I 17.1 ' Lwow DEVELOPMENT, ('
Is w ; a g , Ia COUNTRY CLUB PLACE Ciofii
x" z I NE CORNER COUNTRY CLUB & MONTEREY ARCHITECT
1 `I PALM DESERT, CALNFORMA
0
411.
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
RECEIVED
October 7, 2003
t��. . 0 7 2003
S:-OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
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
r M
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
4110
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
September 15, 2003 EC E.I\E
D
7 2003
Mr. Phil Drell
4m, I
Director of Community Development DEAeTr>E T
DESERT
City of Palm Desert
73510 Fred Waring Dr
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
HAND DELIVERED
Re: Parcel "C"of Parcel Map
Waiver No. 02-22
Dear Mr. Drell:
The purpose of this letter is to advise you, the Planning Commission and the City
Council, of our concerns regarding certain land use designations proposed for the
referenced parcel in the General Plan 2000 Preferred Alternative. This parcel consists of
approximately 29 gross acres which are contiguous to the southerly boundary of Parcel
Map No. 24255. Current zoning of Parcel "C" is Service Industrial and judging from the
color codes shown on the Preferred Alternative it appears that a portion of the property
along the Dinah Shore Drive Frontage is being suggested for R-H (high density
residential) use and the north west corner of the intersection of Dinah Shore Drive and
Portola Avenue seems to be designated as Open Space. For a variety of reasons, among
which are the following, it seems to us that Parcel "C" should remain in the Service
Industrial zone:
1. The subject parcel is bordered by Parcel Map No. 24255, which
contains all S.I. property, on the north and will front Dinah Shore
Drive on the south, the Portola Avenue freeway ramp on the east and
the railroad to the north east. Dinah Shore and Portola are both
designated to carry heavy traffic volumes and the noise factors
from those roads, the railroad and the freeway as well as the proximity
of the property to industrial uses make it undesirable for residences.
Dinah Shore Drive will offer a wide, landscaped buffer between
industrial facilities to the north and residential neighborhoods to the
south. A natural transition from high density units to lower densities
plus schools and parks can take place moving south from Dinah
Shore Drive and the future 35th Avenue;
Mr. Phil Drell
September 15, 2003
Page 2
2. Based upon the demand that we have had for lots in Gateway Industrial
Park (Phase 1 of P.M. No. 24255) it appears that Parcel "C" can be
absorbed in a reasonable time frame for light industrial and office uses.
We strongly feel that the continuity of uses that would be attained by having
service industrial uses northerly of Dinah Shore with residential and
attendant uses such as schools and a park southerly thereof will provide
much better living and working conditions for all concerned. Of particular
concern would be the safety of children living north of Dinah Shore
crossing such a busy intersection, or even jay walking across Dinah
Shore, to get to school or the park;
3. The suggested open space, apparently at all four corners of Dinah Shore/
Technology Drive and Portola Avenue is a concept with which I am not
familiar. Among the questions that arise are how large is each area and
who pays to acquire and improve the property.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions that you may have regarding this matter.
Very Truly Yours,
Thomas S. Noble
I I ;
CITY OF PALM DESERT
=--T GATEWAY AREA
i \
, .
PREFERRED ALIGNMENT
I
1 i - j
,...
,....,
1
- - -
TRACT HOMES
__ _
4,L.N.
I
1
•• l i .'� AQ9O .�RrC•e/ "C„ o� tali a i o.z-,Z.2 W I
All
o
PH• SE I isio,
�� --
r -•\ / Po, i./r--.o >~06� ��s,3,. ��,tc 4 I
w - 35TH AVENUE ._!Er: _\ •, ' / -C,// \re---c 4...4..../ 'e /.e...-. C 4/.4 6"
f \o . j
2 "V
•
I —ri I -\ 9ti jar
i \iO4, \o\ 1 o
j 11111r
\o sok - w Cn
GERALD FORD DRIVE \�9i.‘, /
JPip,0Sel Uses \ \• 4 '•
•E 1/4 MILE 1/2MILE (I U P, \ 1
1 \
I SCALE: 1" = 1/4 MILE(1,320') O I (OS—PV)
0.
i ' I
:l i 1 ,
POHEROSA
HOM ES
RrC it
September 15, 2003 -: 3 2003
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
(IN OF PALM DESERT
Mr. Phil Drell
Director of Community Development
CITY OF PALM DESERT
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
RE: General Plan 2000 Preferred Alternative
Dear Mr. Drell
Ponderosa Homes is a privately held homebuilder based in Pleasanton, California with offices in
Palm Springs. Founded in 1968, Ponderosa Homes has a well established reputation for
combining creative design and quality construction to create neighborhoods with lasting value.
We currently building Mosaic at Esplanade, a 104-lot move-up family project located at Fred
Waring and Jefferson in La Quinta. I urge you and the Planning Commission to visit our project
and witness the quality and style of a Ponderosa Homes community.
Ponderosa Homes is the owner of approximately 130 acres located at the NW corner of Gerald
Ford and Portola Avenue. We purchased this property in September of 2002 with the intention
of developing an upscale residential community consistent with the quality of existing Palm
Desert residential developments. We are very concerned about certain aspects of the General
Plan 2000 Preferred Alternative ("Alternative") as is relates to our property, to whit:
1. The Alternative shows two small commercial areas located at the SE and SW corners of
our property. We do not believe that these uses are compatible with our plan and will serve as
nuisance uses to future homeowners in our proposed community. We also believe that the
abundance of commercially designated property along Monterey and Cook Avenues is more than
adequate to service the area and limits the ability to attract a user for these proposed sites.
2. The Alternative creates small pockets of Residential, 10-22 units/acre at the NW and SE
corners of our property. We do not believe that currently, nor in the foreseeable future, there is a
market for this land use (other than apartments) in this location. We believe that locating
apartments in these areas would detract from the quality of our proposed residential community
and will be a less attractive use for the visible Gerald Ford/Portola corner.
3. The Alternative includes a school site which is split between three property owners. It is
also located in a portion of the area which is less than ideal from a topographic perspective.
6671 Owens Drive • Pleasanton, California 94588-3398
Tel: (925) 460-8900 • Facsimile: (925) 734-9141
As an alternative, Ponderosa Homes has been working closely with the other property owners in
the area including World Development, Myron MacLeod, the Sares-Regis Group, Nobel
Company LLC and the Palm Springs Unified School District to create a plan which incorporates
the school site, low, medium and high density residential uses and commercial and industrial
uses into a plan on which all of these parties can agree. This plan includes a mix of land uses
similar to that proposed by the Alternative but in a way which fosters the creation of cohesive
neighborhoods sensitive to the demands of homebuyers. I have attached a copy of this proposed
General Plan Alternative, which was submitted to you yesterday, for reference purposes.
Please consider this plan in finalizing the draft General Plan Update. We are prepared to submit
tentative maps for a portion of our property in keeping with this plan and we trust that these can
be processed concurrently with the General Plan Update. We have experienced considerable
delay in our ability to process this project given the imposition of the moratorium and we trust
that our efforts to create a satisfactory General Plan alternative will be considered in good faith.
Sincerely yours,
PO EROSA HOMES II, INC.
Jeffrey C Schroeder
Vice President, Land Acquisition &Planning
r _ _j
m — — MONTY AVENUE - - - - - -
0 m 7 n". 1 (�
< -u ! 0 iI
I m RE "n Ikim D
y I oite
pp`q W
'NZ �e �,
(A D !co 0 .1• 0 ✓,:
m j
GATEWAY DRNE -, 7 i
}p N 1 I
Dc,
OD voa
i
, rR
' DO
I
I
-
[' ill
r Oi.
j
VO cCoa i
{ ND0
Do>� ' 1
I o
o
I:I oo� DOM :�
I
7Ho ff
,3
11 1 ; D.
i •
I ' ,
v�-
z 0e
tio�A 4_=�
if) �-\�'�
�\\
MAIN PLANNING
SMITH AND ASSOCIATES, INC(op
Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram
PIdNNNG/CIVIL 920-9811 /LAND SURVE9-789Y/NG
777 R.SPRINGS,
CANYON WAY SUITE 301 MACLEOD / WORLD / PONDEROSA
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92262-6 764
TELEPHONE(760)920-9811/FAX 929-7889
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
•
September 15, 2003
P 1 5 2003
Mr. Phil Drell ILNT DEPARTMENT
Director of Community Development ?.if DESERT
City of Palm Desert
73510 Fred Waring Dr
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
HAND DELIVERED
Re: Parcel "C"of Parcel Map
Waiver No. 02-22
Dear Mr. Drell:
The purpose of this letter is to advise you, the Planning Commission and the City
Council,of our concerns regarding certain land use designations proposed for the
referenced parcel in the General Plan 2000 Preferred Alternative. This parcel consists of
approximately 29 gross acres which are contiguous to the southerly boundary of Parcel
Map No. 24255. Current zoning of Parcel"C" is Service Industrial and judging from the
color codes shown on the Preferred Alternative it appears that a portion of the property
along the Dinah Shore Drive Frontage is being suggested for R-H (high density
residential)use and the north west corner of the intersection of Dinah Shore Drive and
Portola Avenue seems to be designated as Open Space. For a variety of reasons, among
which are the following, it seems to us that Parcel "C"should remain in the Service
Industrial zone:
1. The subject parcel is bordered by Parcel Map No. 24255, which
contains all S.I. property, on the north and will front Dinah Shore
Drive on the south, the Portola Avenue freeway ramp on the east and
the railroad to the north east. Dinah Shore and Portola are both
designated to carry heavy traffic volumes and the noise factors
from those roads, the railroad and the freeway as well as the proximity
of the property to industrial uses make it undesirable for residences.
Dinah Shore Drive will offer a wide, landscaped buffer between
industrial facilities to the north and residential neighborhoods to the
south. A natural transition from high density units to lower densities
plus schools and parks can take place moving south from Dinah
Shore Drive and the future 35th Avenue;
Mr. Phil Drell
September 15, 2003
Page 2
2. Based upon the demand that we have had for lots in Gateway Industrial
Park (Phase 1 of P.M. No. 24255) it appears that Parcel "C" can be
absorbed in a reasonable time frame for light industrial and office uses.
We strongly feel that the continuity of uses that would be attained by having
service industrial uses northerly of Dinah Shore with residential and
attendant uses such as schools and a park southerly thereof will provide
much better living and working conditions for all concerned. Of particular
concern would be the safety of children living north of Dinah Shore
crossing such a busy intersection, or even jay walking across Dinah
Shore, to get to school or the park;
3. The suggested open space, apparently at all four corners of Dinah Shore/
Technology Drive and Portola Avenue is a concept with which I am not
familiar. Among the questions that arise are how large is each area and
who pays to acquire and improve the property.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions that you may have regarding this matter.
Very Truly Yours,
Thomas S. Noble
T"V ' V VWLLian26,/0act4 1�z / t iES
J /—
9RP..• -..- ;i ! iVIC." =^r'.,' 'a.f:'M�. °S_ 5A-,;==`•>.z>.bM,s9tA Vf+ss 1-^khe x.''0146WION 9.31Vikt!,:i+�.'-IM,Y,OWArtiVIMI" Via.
G
September 8, 2003 RECEIVED
Phillip Drell • 2003
Director of Community Development i; ;h1mR1 ny il;VE PMENT DEPARTMENT
City of Palm Desert CilY OF PALM DESERT
73510 Fred Waring Dr.
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
RE: APN 624160004-9 3.91 acres at Cook
Dear Mr. Drell:
Thank you for meeting with me this morning regarding the General Plan 2000
layout drawing which indicated that the land belonging to my clients RC Group
Associaters, LLC was designated as "Open Space" by the use of the "green"
color coding.
As we discussed with my client Phillip Cordova, who accompanied me this
morning, the zoning designation for this parcel is R-1. You indicated that the
"green" designation on the drawing was an oversight of the general plan com-
mittee or the preparer of the layout drawing. As you know, Mr. Cordova is pur-
chasing the property owned by RC Group and we needed an immediate clarifi-
cation of the error in the layout drawing.
Thank you for your immediate attention to this correction.
Very trul yours,
/ Z...-/*, - ,----,,-,VS- ---------—=',--
Bobbie R. Williams
WILLIAMS & GADDY PROPERTIES, INC.
Cc: RC GROUP Associates, Inc.
cc: Phillip A. Cordova
74-000 Country Club Ste: E2 • Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 779-9332 • Fax: (760) 779-5650
eh•I',y'`j Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District
43-420 Trader Place • Indio,CA 92201 • (760)342-8287 • Fax(760)342-8110
E-mail: CVmosquito@cvmvcd.org • Website: www.cvmvcd.org
1,-414411
June 9, 2003 RECEIVED
Board of Trustees
President JUN 1 3 2003
NICK NIGOSIAN,JR.
County at Large John D. Criste COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEN9
Vice President AICP, Planning Consultant
CITY OF PALM DESERT
RON PERKINS City of Palm Desert
La Quints 73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Secretary/Treasurer Palm Desert, CA 92260
ART McKAY
Palm Desert Subject: Comments regarding the Comprehensive General Plan Update for the
BEN LAFLIN City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California
County at Large
PAUL S.MARCHAND Dear Mr. Criste,
Cathedral City
JUAN DE LARA Thank you for the opportunity to express our opinion regarding the environmental
Coachella impact report regarding the Palm Desert Comprehensive General Plan Update,
Riverside County, California.
GARY BOSWORTH
Desert Hot Springs The Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District (the District) has
DENNIS GODECKE concerns on the plan that may increase the risk from disease carried by
Indian Wells mosquitoes and other vectors for residents in the Coachella Valley. A major
GENE GILBERT concern of the District is the potential of introduction of West Nile virus (WNV)
Indio in California, and ultimately in the r'oachella Valley. Mosquito species that are
LESLIE PRICER present in the Valley are the major vectors of the WN virus that caused close to
Palm Springs 300 deaths and over 4000 infections in the U.S. last year.
JOHN FUSCHETTI The Initial Studyof the Palm Desert Comprehensive General Plan Update
Rancho Mirage p p
according to the information has been prepared in accordance with the CEQA.
DONALD E.GOMSI However, the District has potential public health and environmental concerns
General Manager regarding the Environmental Settings - section Hydrology, (page 19). Negative
consequences of the proposed Plan that the District is concerned about are
excessive standing water that may be created by increased development and
inadequate discharge systems for storm flows and street irrigation runoffs. The
creation of the standing water in obstructed discharge water systems (storm
sewers, catch basins, culverts) might potentially affect public health by increasing
habitat availability for aquatic stages of disease vectors, and by creating harborage
and moisture for reservoir and nuisance species.
According to the statement on page 19 of the document, the City is directly
responsible for management of local drainage into regional facilities.
Furthermore, it is stated that the City of Palm Desert has adopted and is
John D. Cn.
Page 2
June 9, 2003
implementing a Master Drainage Plan and ordinance that serves to assure
adequate local facilities.
Increasingly stringent urban stormwater runoff regulations have recently
mandated the construction of structural Best Management Practices (BMPs), for
both volume reduction and pollution management. The District strongly supports
the BMPs with the purpose to prevent, reduce, or eliminate mosquito breeding
from stormwater management structures.
To prevent further construction of the city drainage system that will increase
potential mosquito breeding and affect public health, the Coachella Valley
Mosquito and Vector Control District is proposing to be involved in the design
and implementation of stormwater BMPs for the City of Palm Desert. It is
evident that some structures could be improved if vector issues start to be
considered prior to construction. The District staff should be directly involved in
development and implementation of BMPs for the construction and maintenance
of economically efficient, biologically acceptable, and environmentally
compatible stormwater management structures.
This proactive, rather than reactive approach to the prevention of potential vector
problems will ultimately result in cost savings, minimize long term vector
production and associated surveillance and control, and ensure compliance with
health and safety codes. Additionally, the District is also proposing to increase
communication and collaboration between all interested agencies.
In general, the District supports the Plan, and takes this opportunity to bring to
your attention the necessity of incorporating all the elements in order to insure the
public is protected from vectors and nuisance species that can be created by the
proposed project.
If you have, further questions please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
iff0_4
Donald E. Gomsi,
General Manager
Cc: Branka B. Lothrop PhD, Vector Ecologist
Jim Saulnier, Field Supervisor
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S PALM DESERT. CA OFFICE
Palm Desert City Council 2004 JAN -8 PM 5: 19
73-519 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260 January 9, 2004
Re: General Plan Update N. Highway 111/Alessandro Alley
Date of Council Meeting; January 15, 2004 8:30 am
Dear Members of the City Council,
In November 2003, the PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION approved a
plan presented by Philip Drell, Director of Community Development. This plan
concerned the city taking residential property for a parking lot for the commercial
buildings on Highway 111 across the Alessandro Alley. Although the home owners and
property owners would much prefer not losing any of their property to parking lot use,
the taking of 25 feet is a compromise most of us could live with. In most cases it saves
the structures/homes and takes only backyard footage. Also, this plan leaves most of the
residential property with a 20-foot buffer from the future parking lots. Mr. Drell
recommended this plan since he said it would be the easiest plan for the city to implement
and the most economical.
Your support of this recommendation would be appreciated by the property
owners whose property is adjacent to the Alessandro Alley.
My property, located at 73-341 San Benito Circle has been in limbo since 1985,
when the last Community Plan was approved. That plan recommended converting all of
the subject R-1 residential properties to a parking lot. For 18 years we have been waiting
to see what the city was going to do. We would appreciate a decision, and action in the
near future.
Please see the enclosed letter to Mr. Drell and the Planning Commission dated
January 20, 2003/October 6, 2003, concerning my property.
Sincerely yours,
Donna Matson
73-341 San Benito Circle, Palm Desert
4418 Avocado Street, Los Angeles
cc: Philip Drell
Director of Community Planning
Philip Drell
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. I 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
E�E1b'
CpLMITy
LDR>E Et�
OFFICE
ESE. T. CA
1004 JAM 13
RE: 44 401 Portola Avenue AM 8. 37 Bo i
Paul & Barbara W.- l.._
Palm Desert, CA 92260 71 774 Chuckawalla Way
APN 627135003-1 Palm Desert, CA 92260
RE: City of Palm Desert January 13, 2004
Public Works Department Portola
Avenue from De Anza to Rutledge
Way Project Map of 10-17-03
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Palm Desert
73 510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 91160
Dear Honorable Mayor Spiegel and Members of The Council:
This letter centers on a certain matter stated in the TN/Palm Desert City
Council Comprehensive GP/EIR Staff Report/1. 15.04, page 6.
This is an objection to an element under "Portola Avenue Between De Anza
and Rutledge. Specifically, objecting to the last sentence in paragraph 3 which
states, "The completion of the ultimate cross section including parkways,
bike/golf cart lanes, landscape medians and dual left at the intersection will
require additional right-of-way expansion on the west side further degrading
the residential quality of these parcels".
There is no sound reason, need or requirement to expand Portola Avenue
on the west side between, at least, De Anza and Waring Drive.
Examination of the Portola Avenue map referred to above shows easily
that virtually unrestricted widening can be accomplished on the east side of
Portola Avenue between De Anza and Waring Drive.
The only small consideration being the possible installation of a sound
barrier wall of about a 250 foot distance beginning at the north east corner
of Santa Rosa Circle and Portola Avenue and extending the stated distance
north toward Goleta Avenue.
The issue of taking land on the west side of Portola Avenue has previously
been directed to City Engineer Greenwood in the attached letter dated
November 19, 2003; and the matter has been further addressed to Director Drell
in attached letters dated December 2 & 17, 2003.
The residence referenced to above and owned by the undersigned is of
good value, use, in code compliance and deserving of all due respect as any
other residence in good standing as found in City residential zoning.
It is asked that the Council, at the hearing of January 15, 2004, take
formal action and approve the return of this matter to the appropriate City
echelon with the directive that the taking of land on the west side of
Portola Avenue between De Anza and Waring , at least, be abandonded and that
other measures be sent forward to meet the apparent needs regarding street
widening as proposed in the referenced Project Map of October 17, 2003.
Respectfully submitted,
pouVr` -7
Paul Bowi Barbara W. Bowie
attachments
RE: 44 401 Portola Avenue Paul Bowie
Palm Desert, CA 92260 71 774 Chuckawalla Way
APN 627135003-1 Palm Desert, CA 92260
RE: City of Palm Desert November 19, 2003
Public Works Department Portola
Avenue from De Anza to Rutledge -
Way Project Map of 10-17-03
Mr. Mark Greenwood, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Palm Desert
73 510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Dear Mr. Greenwood:
As owner of the referenced residence I am seeking information based
on the referenced Project Map and the status of the proposed right-of-way
which might apply to the west side of Portola Avenue.
Specifically:
a. What is the stage of implementation for securing this right-of-way?
b. What committees/councils have acted in this matter?
c. What is the status of property owner notification/input? (The
current hearings on street widening and zoning change show that the
the above residence and others near by are to retain their res—
idential designation) . It seems that the De Anza/Rutledge project
introduces a separate issue and conflicts with published materials.
The undersigned also wishes to secure data regarding alternative
considerations centering on street widening in this area which may be
accomplished alternative to the taking of additional land.
Of question is why land cannot be taken on the east of Portola which
would not impact residences?
There is also linkage in this issue relative to street width between
El Paseo and Grapevine on the west of Portola which is not fully two lanes
and what makes this different in terms of traffic flow relative to De Anza/
Rutledge?
The undersigned believes that street engineering other than taking of
additional land can be accomplished with satisfaction.
Therefore, it is asked that a full complete disclosure of public nature
be set forth for evaluation.
Sincerely yours,
DAVL---,eA/)/-4
Paul Bowi
file
s1.1c wO1-ih:;
•,TV OF P1.L'., p t.Lf.1
•
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,
Paul Bowi Barbara W. Bowie
LETTER TRANSMITTAL ADDENDUM Paul & Barbara W. Bowie
71 774 Chuckawalla Way
Palm Desert, CA 92260
December 17, 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 addendum is founded on matters expressed in letters dated
November 19th and December 2, 2003, copies of which are attached.
It is important that a definitive reply be forwarded regarding
the future of the property located at 44 401 Portola Avenue as relates
to the possibility of street widening.
It is planned that at least two substantial improvements to the
property will be implemented in the reasonable future. However, this
can take place only with the clear commitment by the City that the
property has an unimpeded useful future to the undersigned.
Kindly respond to this matter at your most reasonable time.
Sincerely yours, ' n
2 -
Paul Bowie Barbara W. Bowie
THE
ROBERT
MAYER o
CORPORATION r >.<
r
:C
3rn-rn
c rn(?
mxs
rn max-
January 13, 2004 -v m v,d
(e? 4
f1-rt
CI1 >
N m
Mayor Robert Spiegel
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260-2578
RE: Comprehensive General Plan Update
Dear Mayor Spiegel:
After several months of concentrated study, the Comprehensive General Plan update is
now before you. The months of hard work by your staff and the community have
produced a thoughtful and well-organized document providing the framework for future
growth in the City of Palm Desert. All who participated in this exhaustive project should
be congratulated for what has been accomplished.
With regard to our property at the northeast corner of Country Club and Monterey, we
would like to confirm our support of the Planning Commission's recommendation for a
"Community Commercial" (C-C) land use. We are in accord with the Planning
Commission's belief that a commercial use is the most appropriate land use designation
for our property.
As you know, we have owned the property for many years. We acquired the property
with the intention of it someday being a commercial center and thus, have always
believed that a commercial use was the best use for our property. We base this on the
following:
Need: We estimate the current population within this trade area of Palm Desert
to be approximately 36,000 residents. Within the next five years, this number is
expected to grow to 46,500 residents, ultimately reaching 50,000 by the end of
the decade. These numbers do not include the time-shares or extended stay hotels
within the trade area whose numbers exceed 2,000 units. Based upon a ratio of
one grocery store required to serve the needs of 4,000 households (or
approximately 8,300 residents using 2.07 residents per household from the 2000
Census),we estimate the need for at least six commercial districts within the trade
area in the foreseeable future. This formula of one grocery store per 4,000
households is consistent with the City's 1995 General Plan Land Use Map (dated
June 22, 1995). The 1995 Land Use Map provides four commercial districts and
660 Newport Center Drive,Suite 1050
Box 8680
Newport Beach,California 92658-8680
(949)759-8091
Mayor Robert Spiegel
January 13,2004
Page 2 of 3
when the Ralph's/Rite Aid center at Country Club and Cook and the Von's
Pavilions at Bob Hope and Gerald Ford in Rancho Mirage are added in, a total of
six commercial districts exist or are proposed within the trade area.
When the Marriott Desert Shadows time-share was developed, one of the six
commercial districts in the trade area was eliminated. Based upon current trends,
we believe that at least one, possibly two, additional commercial districts should
be added in order to keep up with growth. The more than 10,000 units in the pre-
and active development stage in the cities of Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage will
support these additional commercial districts. Our property is the perfect
candidate to replace the commercial district lost with the development of the
Marriott Desert Shadows thereby maintaining the balance of commercial land use
within the trade area.
Limited Opportunities: Most successful commercial centers need the benefit of
major arterials at signalized intersections to provide for safe turning movements
and convenient access to and from the surrounding neighborhoods. Most of the
major intersection properties within the trade area are either built-out or
committed for other uses. Our property is one of the few undeveloped properties
at a major intersection available for consideration as a commercial district within
the trade area.
Appropriateness of Location: We have planned our property to function
adequately as a commercial center since we acquired the property in 1978. It is
approximately 8.6 acres and was set aside for future development as a
commercial center from the original land purchase of 40.0 acres. The property is
sufficient in size to provide adequate leaseable space with sufficient parking all in
an architecturally pleasing and well-landscaped center. Our commercial center
will generate the necessary traffic warrants justifying the installation of the
already funded traffic signal at Via Scena and Country Club. This traffic signal
will make movements in and out of our property as well as Plaza de Monterey
safer for the public.
Complimentary Uses: The Country Club and Monterey intersection is a classic
example of where complimentary land uses provide direct benefit to the
consumer. There are distinctly different categories in the marketplace today for
grocery stores. The new Albertson's in Rancho Mirage serves as the traditional
"supermarket" catering to mid-income consumers. The proposed Gelson's at the
Plaza de Monterey center(southeast corner)would serve as the "gourmet"market
with its class of full-service, high end products catering to the consumer with the
upper and highly disposable income. The introduction of a "specialty" market
like Wild Oats (Henry's) on our property would compliment the other grocery
stores by acting as the "farmers-market", specializing in fruits/vegetables, nuts,
vitamins, etc. With these three different types of markets locating at Country
Mayor Robert Spiegel
January 13,2004
Page 3 of 3
Club and Monterey, consumers will have an array of choices to meet their
grocery shopping needs.
Today we are not requesting or seeking approval of a specific project. We are however,
experiencing a significant amount of interest in our property by commercial developers,
many coming to us with the intended user as described above. The eventual approval of
a specific project will come in due time and be handled through the normal project
review process. At this time, we respectfully request that you endorse the Planning
Commission's recommendation of a Community Commercial land use designation for
our property as you consider the long-range growth in the City of Palm Desert.
Thank you for your consideration on this matter. As always, should you have any
questions,please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
The Robert Mayer Corporation
r
Robe L. ay -
Seth. Vice ' sid t
cc: Bu . d Crites,Mayor Pro-Tern
Jean Benson, Councilmember
Richard Kelly, Councilmember
Jim Ferguson, Councilmember
Carlos Ortega, City Manager
Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
Mayor Robert Spiegel
January 13,2004
Page 4 of 3
bcc: Richard Roemer
Bob Mayer
Steve Bone
Larry Brose
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
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.
Chairperson Campbell indicated that the applicant requested that the item
be removed from the agenda and placed on the next agenda on Octobef 7,
2003.
Action:
No action.
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 No. GPA 01-04 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
CVV
Request for consideration of a Comprehensive General Plan
Update.
Mr. Drell said he would give a short introduction of how they got to this point
and then John Criste, the Planning Consultant from Terra Nova, would be
proceeding with the presentation.
2
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
At the end of 1999, beginning of 2000, there was a suggestion by a council
man that they update the general plan. The last general plan was originally
drafted in the year 1980, although it had been amended many times and
some specific plans had been done for more detailed analysis of certain
areas in the city, the fundamental text still dated back to 1980. He said it
fundamentally described a city that no longer existed. Most of the programs
in the general plan they had succeeded in implementing, and Palm Desert
became the world class resort destination they set out to be in 1980.
When it was first suggested that they do a new general plan, his first reaction
was, "What's the point?" They looked out and saw a fundamentally vacant
area built out from the mountains to Frank Sinatra Drive and it was pretty
much anticipated that they would build a couple more country clubs in that
vacant area and then there was commercial/ industrial development along
the freeway and then they were done. Why go through the mental
gymnastics that went into putting a plan like this together when development
in the rest of the city was pretty much a foregone conclusion? They
eventually admitted it was something they had to do. The City Council put
together a hand selected group of local Palm Desert prominent citizens to sit
on a General Plan Advisory Committee to be the co-authors of the plan along
with city staff and the consultant.
The General Plan was made up of a bunch of elements, some which dealt
with land use, transportation and parks. Most of the General Plan had
elements which dealt with more mundane, but still interesting and important,
elements of city policy relative to development of resources, use of
resources, environmental hazards, and administration. He said as they got
into their second hearing on October 7, they would discover that the GPAC,
whenever someone looks at something fresh or with new eyes, they see
something they didn't expect. In this case in looking at the vacant area north
of Frank Sinatra, they saw different things. One was the new Cal State
University campus and the fact that while they were always thinking about
that vast open desert that seemed to go on forever when driving north to I-
10, suddenly they realized that we are running up to 1-10. There isn't really
that much real estate left before they run into 1-10, which still pretty much
dictated commercial/industrial development.
Then there was the novel idea of if they should try to balance the commercial
development and the university with the appropriate residential land uses to
3
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
try to address the housing needs of those major new sorts of land uses they
really hadn't considered before as all that important. The result was some
interesting, exciting new ideas. Which when talking about land use they
would get into. Those ideas centered around shifting the focus for the city
development in the last stage from what had been a resort oriented land use
to permanent resident to address the housing needs. He said it turned out
as they did the analysis that there were very significant housing needs being
generated by the commercial and industrial development on 1-10 and the
university, both as an educational institutional in terms of students and as a
business in that a state university in itself would be the single biggest
business in the valley, the biggest single employer. In terms of payroll,
probably the biggest single payroll in the valley. He said there are whole
communities around the world that exist just because of their proximity to a
university. That really shaped a lot of the discussion.
Mr. Drell stated that the other interesting thing about general plans is that
they both force the City and give the opportunity to look into the future. While
Planning Commission was mainly looking at a development today and how
it would be developed in the next six months and their focus was a year or
two years at the most or typically even less than that. It was very microscopic
in terms of the perception of the future of the city. They look at it in one little
increment and one lot developed at a time.
What the general plan required the City to do was look 20 years into the
future and not simply make decisions of what they think is the most obvious
solution given today's market conditions. It forced the city to look at what
requirements would be, what needs would be, 20 years from now and try to
figure out a way to come up with programs and policies that were still
reasonably responsive to the decisions they had to make two weeks from
now, but would also provide guidance for how they wanted to end up when
done. The challenge, especially here, was that they were dealing with driving
uses, meaning the university which they knew would be 20 years from now,
but they also knew it was going to take time to get there. It wasn't like
approving the mall. They knew the mall was going to get built in 18 months.
It was built and was moving. It was the nature of state universities to evolve
very slowly. They eventually become the elephant in the china shop, but they
started as a baby elephant and very slowly grew. The trick was how to come
up with an ultimate urban design for the area around the university which
provided property owners with reasonable use of their property in the near
4
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
term, but still guided them in such a way that when all the opportunities of the
university and all that commercial manifested itself, which could take a long
time, they would have an end result which worked.
The goal tonight was to try to deal with the non-development oriented
elements. If they could get through all of those tonight, on October 7 they
could focus on the more typical ones the commission was familiar with which
included land use. And by then they should have more information from the
EIR on the circulation model, and Parks and Recreation and Open Space
and those sorts of things which were normally the purview of the
commission. He said unless there were questions specifically about the
process, he would turn it over to Mr. Criste.
Commissioner Jonathan commented that he wanted to make it clear to those
in attendance that it was their intention to end the meeting at 9:00 p.m. and
then continue it to the next meeting on October 7, so if anyone didn't have
an opportunity to be heard, they would have another opportunity. He said
they agreed as a commission to keep meeting until everyone had an
opportunity to be heard and the commission had an opportunity to have their
discussion.
Procedurally, he understood that they as a commission would be reviewing
the Draft Comprehensive General Plan document, listening to input, having
discussion and then they would make a recommendation to City Council to
spring board their discussion of the matter. Mr. Drell said that was correct.
He noted that there was a secondary complication, which was the EIR that
had been delayed relative to this document and ultimately they would have
to review that document as well and how they timed that review with the
main document would be complicated. But there, the EIR's most significant
impact would be in the areas of land use and circulation. Commissioner
Jonathan asked what the time of expectation was for it. (Mr. Criste spoke
from the audience and said that the EIR went to the State Clearinghouse that
day so the 45-day comment period would start tomorrow. He said that copies
would be delivered to the City the next day.) Mr. Drell said they would be
able to begin weaving that information in, especially from the results of the
traffic model, at the next meeting. But they wouldn't be a position to act on
it until the comment period was up.
5
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
He said that after the meeting he wanted to talk to the commission about
some complexities that would come into play at the next meeting relative to
certain regular items that would be on the agenda and how they wanted to
deal with that since they hadn't been advertised yet. To a certain degree, it
might be determined by how much progress the commission made today as
to how the commission wanted to divide up the time for the next meeting.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if there would be time tonight for public input
and comment. Mr. Drell said yes. His suggestion was for them to go through
an element, open the public hearing for comment on each element as they
complete each element discussion. He thought that was the simplest for
people so that they could react immediately to a particular subject. Unless
there were other suggestions. Commissioner Jonathan was wondering if Mr.
Criste wanted to go through the entire presentation and then go back and
look at it element by element. Chairperson Campbell thought it would be
fresher in people's minds to do it element by element.
Commissioner Tschopp noted that there were numerous individuals in the
audience who have questions, comments and / or concerns about specific
pieces of land and if he read the staff report correctly, the commission would
not be getting into that until the next meeting. Mr. Drell said that if they
wanted to make their comments now, maybe they could wait until the end
and hopefully have a comment period at the end of today's meeting.
Commissioner Jonathan asked how long the presentation was from Mr.
Criste.
Mr. Criste said that the elements they were going to be talking about
were more informational in nature and didn't lend themselves to a lot
of discussion or debate, so they could move relatively quickly through
them. It wasn't their intent to go through each and every policy and
program, he didn't think that was necessary. So he thought in an hour
and a half they could go through the elements as well as have time for
comments. He didn't expect a lot of comment from the public on these
matters because they would cover environmental resources and
environmental hazards. He thought perhaps public services and
facilities would prompt more comment than the others.
Commissioner Jonathan said he thought that the public might benefit from
hearing Mr. Criste's presentation and if he could keep that to an hour or hour
6
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
and 15 minutes, then they would still have time to open it up to the public. He
thought the public would benefit as much as the commission would before
getting into discussion. Chairperson Campbell thought they should go
element by element and let people speak and ask questions while it was
fresh in their minds. If they finished all of the elements for this evening and
had an hour and a half left over, all the people here for the land use could go
ahead and speak and give their recommendations but with the knowledge
that it would be covered at the next meeting and they could attend the next
meeting or the commission would have heard their comments this evening.
Commissioner Lopez agreed with the process of going through the elements
and giving the public the opportunity to comment on those particular
elements. He asked if Mr. Criste would give a general overview first or go
straight to the elements.
MR. JOHN CRISTE, Terra Nova Planning & Research in Palm
Springs, said he would give a very brief general overview so they
could see how they approached putting it together. For well over two
years they had been working with the City staff hand in glove and the
General Plan Advisory Committee to prepare the document. They
initiated the work by employing a team of consultants, archaeologists,
biologists, traffic engineers, air quality specialists, noise specialists,
and preparing background information and conducting technical
studies of different areas. Then they prepared elements for the
General Plan and as the staff report pointed out, they had essentially
five core chapters in the General Plan: Community Development,
Environmental Resources, Environmental Hazards, Public Services
and Facilities, and Administration. He said there was also an
introduction to the General Plan which was a useful overview of the
plan. Tonight they were going to focus on the Environmental
Resources, Environmental Hazards and Public Services and
Facilities. They would go through them element by element in the
order in the General Plan. He said they would start on page IV-1 .
He said they had their archeologist conduct a very thorough literature
search and do what they sometimes called a windshield survey, but
an extensive survey of records from the City and other sources. They
looked at the cultural resources that occurred in the city that were
both prehistoric and resources that he called the European settlement
of the Coachella Valley and the Palm Desert area. The element
7
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
provided background discussion in that regard to the prehistoric first
and focused primarily on the Cahuilla Indian tribes that have been
here for at least 2,000 or 3,000 years. They talked about that culture
and its role in the Coachella Valley prior to and after European
settlement.
Other areas they focused on had to do with major kinds of activities
that were historically significant to the development of the region. That
included the building of the railroad in the 1850's, the building of the
Colorado River aqueduct in the earlier part of the 20th century, as well
as other kinds of development and settlement of the core part of the
city itself. When that occurred, major routes like Highway 111 which
dated back to an old Indian trail called the Maricopa Trail which later
became the Bradshaw Trail, was very important to folks trying to get
out to the gold mines along the Colorado River. So our history wasn't
really a matter of when the first houses were built on Highway 111,
but the history followed the American Indian use of the region. They
tried to show that there is a connectivity between prehistory and what
they have in the 21st Century now occurring in the Palm Desert area
and the Coachella Valley overall.
They talked about the prehistoric period, the historic period and right
into the 20th century including the major transportation including the
ocean to ocean highway that was on the north side of the planning
area which was replaced by Interstate 10. In the last part they talked
about the founding of the city and how some of the most important
early development occurred in the 1940's right around and after World
War II and some of their founding fathers, including the Hendersons
and other folks involved in the development of the early community.
The element then briefly summarized the sensitivity maps that are
included in the General Plan. They were meant to alert staff and the
general public to areas where the likelihood of encountering either
prehistoric or historic resources occurred. For the sake of protecting
those resources, they had not mapped them explicitly, they were
available to staff and experts, but they were used primarily to help
developers know that they might be encountering resources in the
course of developing a given site.
8
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
The element included a discussion of historic preservation programs
including federal and city programs. He noted that the City has been
very actively engaged in what they sometimes referred to as Arts and
Culture, but the historic preservation of the community. The next part
was a discussion of future directions and how they were going to
continue to grow the city or redevelop the city and what kinds of
issues needed to be kept in mind when those activities were taking
place.
Then there were goals, policies and programs beginning on page IV-
12. The primary goal of the whole exercise was the documentation,
maintenance, preservation and enhancement of archaeological and
historic sites, artifacts, traditions and other elements of the city's
cultural heritage.
He noted that the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) reviewed
these in detail and they also reviewed this with one of the other city's
commissions and this was the product of several reviews and
discussions. He asked for any questions regarding the Archaeological
and Cultural Resources Element.
Commissioner Lopez said he found the history fascinating. He asked if they
should have a motion of acceptance or how they wanted to proceed. Mr.
Criste said they should give the public an opportunity to speak.
Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked for any
comments. She noted that she had some Request to Speak cards and asked
if Mr. Patrick Pratt was interested in speaking regarding this element. He said
no. Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Tom Noble was interested in
speaking on this element. He also said no. There were no public comments
on this element.
Mr. Criste explained that the next element in that chapter was
Biological Resources. He noted that Palm Desert has been a leader
in resolving the conflicts that sometimes arise between urban
development and protection of biological resources. Their consultants
in this case were Dr. Lawrence Lepre and his team who had almost
30 years of experience in the Coachella Valley. They had a very
thorough assessment conducted and also benefited from a lot of work
9
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
that had been going on over the last few years in the development of
the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
which was very near completion. They hoped to see it available for
public review in the next few weeks to a month.
In that discussion he said they spoke in detail trying to give the city
officials and staff a good background on the environmental setting,
the biological resources that occur in the Coachella Valley and in the
planning area and why they were important and what to look out for
in different areas. They spoke to issues like the desert biome and the
relationship of clients to habitat, how topography shaped the kinds of
habitats we have and the effects they have on the kinds of wildlife that
exist in these areas. They discussed the natural communities
including the sand fields. On display was an exhibit, one of the many
included in the element. It showed the distribution of certain wildlife
species in the southern portion of the planning area. It showed the
occurrence of bighorn sheep. So they could see that Peninsular
Bighorn Sheep were a major biological resource that Palm Desert and
other cities in the cove communities especially have had to work
around, manage and try not to impact significantly.
Another was the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard which extended
from the Whitewater River north into the other sand fields. But they
also talked about other areas like the alluvial fans that wash out of the
mountains and the sandy washes. Part of the planning area north of
1-10 also included palm oases that were created by the diking of
ground water where the faults prevented ground water from migrating
and created a whole unique habitat there, the California fan palm
community.
He said they added some graphics to enhance the reader's
appreciation for the biological resources in the community. They could
see the mapping of the various resources that were based upon
original research they conducted, as well as research by those
preparing the multi species habitat plan. He pointed out the
comprehensive listing of resources including their status. He
explained that both the state and federal governments have
endangered species acts and many of the species were classified as
threatened and endangered species.
10
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
They also spoke to the relationship of urbanization to biological
resources and the impacts that occur, the lizard and the sheep
probably being the most well known in terms of potential conflicts that
arise. Then the element spoke to the future direction to take and
recommended for future councils and planning commissions to take
in terms of protecting these resources for future generations.
The next portion was the goals. The protection and preservation of
the planning area and regional biological resources including rare,
threatened and endangered. Also to cultivate a pattern of community
development that comprised both a functional and harmonious
relationship with nature and the built environment. He said they would
see throughout the General Plan the philosophic perspective that
sensitive development could occur in a fashion that did not have to
degrade the environment or preclude the persistence of sensitive
biological resources. Also, that these biological resources are capital
resources. Some cities like Rancho Mirage adopted the bighorn as
their icon and a lot of folks were attracted to the region because of the
wild lands and the resources we have. So both in this element and
elsewhere in the General Plan they could see those policies and
programs reflecting that philosophy. He asked for any questions.
As they looked at the goals and subsequent policies and programs,
Commissioner Lopez noted that there was a lot of action that was outlined
to be taken by staff and by the City. He asked if Mr. Criste had incorporated
a time line for them or how they were to progress on those particular items.
Mr. Criste explained that each of the programs had a schedule to
them. Some of them were ongoing types of activities where staff
would take an application across the counter and would be
implementing them just in the course of doing project processing.
Others had to do with the City's participation in regional government
where CVAG is taking a lead, such as the institution of the multiple
species plan.
He stated that Palm Desert has been a leader in things like resolving
the conflicts between trail use and bighorn habitat. He asked if Mr.
Drell would like to speak to that question as well.
11
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
Mr. Drell asked if he had a specific question relative to trail use, design or
recreation. Commissioner Lopez said no. As an example, he read the part
where it said that the City would coordinate with local research institutions
and conservancy groups and that was part of one program. He asked if that
was something that was currently being done or would be initiated. Mr. Drell
said that was something they already do on an ongoing basis. Commissioner
Lopez asked for and received confirmation that a lot of the parts of these
programs were currently under way.
Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak regarding this
element. There was no one.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if within the areas remaining to be developed
within the city borders, if there were any significant areas that would be
prevented from development due to environmental or ecological concerns.
Mr. Criste said no. Most of the resources of concern where there were
lands available for development were primarily north of Interstate 10.
Even the Crest project which the commission approved earlier this
year, although it occurred within designated habitat for the bighorn,
they were able to put together a mitigation program that addressed
the concerns of the resource agencies. That was pretty much the
extent of what was still available for development in that area.
North of 1-10 they have the sand habitats that are very sensitive and
a key part of the Multi Species Plan. There were also other activities
which would probably preclude development in a lot of that area such
as flood control and expansion of the preserve. Those sorts of things.
But south of Interstate 10, no. He noted that the Multi Species Plan
was evaluating an alternative that would look at the preservation of
sand dune habitat south of 1-10, but it was an alternative for the sake
of review far from the preferred alternative.
With regard to the areas north of 1-10 and the potential annexation or
expansion of city lines to that area, Commissioner Jonathan asked if that
was addressed in the report or considered in the analysis.
Mr. Criste asked if he meant from a biological resources point of view.
12
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
Commissioner Jonathan said yes, in addition to the overall General Plan.
Mr. Criste said yes, it was considered.
Mr. Drell indicated that it was a problem that the County ran into extensively
in the County General Plan because where most of the multiple species
preserves are located is a very delicate problem to reconcile land use
regulations on private property relative to preserves in terms of how they
were designated. The solution in the County General Plan was basically to
have an overlay, but all County lands and private property were designated
a use. Then there were the discussions of the future of preserves and the
multi species plan was a layer above, but not necessarily in contact with the
layer below mainly for the very problem of confronting the issue of taking
someone's private property and saying it's going to be preserve for the milk
vetch. It would be an ongoing negotiation with property owners as to how to
implement these biological preserves.
Starting on page IV-38 of the General Plan, Mr. Criste said this was
a very key element, the Water Resources Element. Over the years
they have done a lot of work with and for the Coachella Valley Water
District, which adopted a water management plan for a management
area in which Palm Desert is located and served. They spent a lot of
time with district staff going over this and with others.
He pointed out the standard discussion of background information
was next and it talked about the water basins that serve the planning
area. It was primarily the Whitewater sub basin where the potable
water was that serves the city and the planning area. In the north end
there is the Desert Hot Springs sub area north of the faults. He said
the faults in that area enhanced the amount of mineral deposits in
those waters, so water north of the San Andreas fault zone was
generally not potable. Folks in the Sky Valley portion of the planning
area had to have water brought in south of the fault and generally
south of Desert Hot Springs where CVWD had well fields and brought
the water over. He said that Palm Desert is centrally located right over
the prime location of the Whitewater sub basin which is a very large
aquifer, high quality water and was also downstream of the recharge
facilities that were constructed 25 years ago or more by CVWD
between 1-10 and Highway 111 as they are leaving the valley.
13
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
They discussed that in the element and the other sub basins that
occur in the area including the Mission Creek sub basin and the
Thousand Palms sub area. They provided data on the approximate
water and storage in those areas. Then they discussed demand for
ground water and the condition of the sub basin in terms of its over
draft status.
He noted that there is an annual overdraft. That meant that the
amount of water brought out of the basin was greater then the amount
of water going into the basin. That had two effects he said were
important. The first was that it reduced the net amount of water at
least in the first 1,000 feet of water bearing material. That effect was
as they lower the water table, they increase energy costs associated
with drawing the water up from a lower level. The other, which had
really become better understood only in the last five to ten years was
that it wasn't really intuitive, but the soils have been deposited here
over millions of years and the water bearing materials were miles thick
in some parts of the Coachella Valley.
If they looked at the soil column, it was made up of not only particles
but water molecules as well. When they remove the water from
pumping it out, they leave spaces where water used to be and the
overburden of the soils and rock on top of that start to compress the
water bearing soils. The effects were twofold.
One is that compression is a permanent effect so the "sponge" is
permanently compressed to some degree and its ability to store water
was effected by this draw down. The other is the changed surface
elevation by virtue of this in some places and they have subsidence.
They identified subsidence in a couple of locations in the valley,
including along Monterey Avenue and the Monterey Country Club
area, but also in La Quinta and elsewhere. It was becoming a much
more broad problem. He said they talked about that in greater length
in the Geotechnical Element.
He said they have quite a discussion about fresh water and storage,
the rate of overdraft as it was calculated just a couple of years ago.
He stated that the method of how to calculate overdraft was changing
14
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
yet again and they would probably need to revisit this issue in a few
years and suggest some minor modifications to the element.
In the element they talked about the replenishment program and the
use of the Whitewater basins to recharge the ground water. Mr. Criste
indicated that water came from the Colorado River from the Parker
area. Then they also had water resources that were now trying to be
brought to the valley through the quantification agreement which was
part of the deal between IID and San Diego for some of the
agriculture water to go to urban uses and we would gain another
100,000 acre feet which would benefit primarily the lower valley, but
would have an indirect effect on Palm Desert as well.
The Byzantine water agreements dating back to the early part of the
20th Century were discussed briefly and probably had something to
do with the difficulty they've had in working out the final agreement on
the quantification deal. He said another important thing that
happened in the last 10 to 15 years was the Coachella Valley Water
District especially, but also Desert Water, who have been leaders in
the use of tertiary treated water. That was water that has gone
through a third stage of treatment. He noted that Palm Desert has
been a leader in the use of tertiary treated water for golf courses and
those kinds of uses where it was permitted. He thought they would
probably see an expansion of that. The Water District intended to
continue to expand the use of tertiary treated water.
Water quality issues were discussed in the element and some of the
sources of various water and their quality, as was water regulation.
New programs were in effect for the last 10 years or so about
controlling urban runoff from parking lots and improved areas where
they could scrub those before they had a chance to percolate into the
groundwater.
The next part was on the water conservation program. Mr. Criste
noted that Palm Desert has been a leader in, especially in municipal
landscaping and in other areas to enhance wise water use and try to
get more out of each drop of our precious ground water.
15
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
He said that was really where the future direction issues were in the
element. Participating with regional government and with the Water
District directly to be sure we have water for future generations in the
valley and in the community.
The primary goal was a dependable supply of safe, high quality
domestic water to meet the needs of all segments of the community.
Then they had a series of policies and programs to achieve that goal.
He asked for any questions.
Commissioner Tschopp said that given we have a small impact on air and
water quality here, what we get is from people down valley from us and up
valley who have a bigger impact. He asked what Mr. Criste would surmise
would be the effect on us and on the implementation of this plan from water
and air quality.
On the city of Palm Desert, Mr. Criste said it would be a cumulative
effect. He noted that golf course users demanded quite a bit of water,
so they had an opportunity to have a significant cumulative effect on
the amount of water. The issue of subsidence was a relatively local
issue. When they pump water, generally they are pumping water from
within the planning area or within the vicinity in order to serve the
city's needs. When they pump water from the ground water, it created
a cone of depression which was an inverted cone. So as they go
down toward the bottom they got closer to where water was coming
into the well casing. Up toward the top they have a spread. This area
where they have this spread out of the water table is where they could
have subsidence occur. So if for no other reason than to protect our
ability to store water in our portion of the aquifer and also to address
the subsidence issue, that was a direct positive effect from
conservation.
Mr. Drell said that currently some 70% of the water used in the Coachella
Valley is used in either landscaping or agriculture. Even when the agriculture
goes away, he thought that number was very similar for the whole Southern
California region in completely developed areas. When they think of water,
they think of drinking and flushing toilets. Those things were relatively minor.
Water directly consumed by human beings was not the primary source of the
overdraft. He noted that Mr. Criste mentioned two impacts of overdraft which
16
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
are compression and subsidence. The more long-term significant impact was
running out of water. Having no more water left.
He stated that the water in the aquifer was basically prehistoric. It is the
remains of a huge lake that filled this valley 1,000 years ago. Because of
climate change that occurred 700-800 years ago, all the surface water
evaporated and disappeared and they were still dealing with the lake that is
still left underground. Under natural conditions, based on our use of the
water, there was not really a significant amount of new water going into the
basin. Therefore, in the future if there isn't a likelihood of a climate change,
they would start to get water back in. So we are mining no different from a
coal mine or gold mine. Eventually if they mine it and don't figure out a way
to put water back or at least keep it at a stable level, they would mine out the
resource and it will be gone and it would not be able to be replenished. That
was one of the fundamental issues in resource conservation. While there
might be technological fixes in the future to get more energy from the sun
and everywhere else, in most cases most of the aquifers that serve most of
the arid west is this prehistoric water that was left over from a period 1,000
years ago when it was a lot wetter. We have been living on it and the biggest
hazard of living on it and not figuring out a way to conserve it, it would be
gone. He didn't think anyone had considered how or even thought about
what we will do when it is gone.
He said we are on the consumption side. On the local level we regulate
consumption by our policies, whether they be landscaping or land use. He
said the demand for housing was kind of related to other things. As we
economically develop, people would come here to live. They had to live
somewhere. Very simply, the more landscaping they had to maintain,
whether it was drought tolerant or not, the more water consumption per
household occurs with the substantial portion of that watering the ground and
the bougainvillea, the mesquites, olive trees or orange trees. So that ended
up relating to land use and the efficiency of how we allocate and conserve
all the resources in the valley as growth occurs to make sure that growth is
balanced with the resources we have, whether it's the road system, or the
air, or the amount of water. Eventually, since we regulate consumption in the
city, how we organize our activities has a direct bearing on whether that
aquifer goes empty or not.
17
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
Commissioner Jonathan said that what Mr. Drell was telling them, and he
concurred, is that there is a finite supply of water. What Mr. Criste was telling
them is that we are in an annual deficit mode, an over draft, so we are
depleting that finite limit annually. He said there might be other sources in
addition to replenishment of the aquifer such as drawing through agreements
with other agencies and getting water from elsewhere, but it seemed like
some of that was a stop gap so that eventually we would run out. He said
they got a taste of that this last summer when some golf courses were not
supplied water and they had to go to other sources or cut back. We have
experienced water rationing in various communities including ours, so we
have gotten a taste of that. His question to him was if any community,
including Palm Desert, ever looked at what that finite supply is and said we
can't develop any more because we don't have water to supply to this
community, or more sanely, we need to develop in a certain direction
because if we develop in this other direction, we will run out in 10 years, 20
years or sometime because we simply don't have enough to accommodate
Type A development so they needed to go in the direction of Type B. He
asked if any communities had ever gone through that process and if Palm
Desert would do so now or in the future.
Mr. Criste said the answer to both questions was yes. Although they
were somewhat advantaged, the city of Santa Barbara is a good
example. They had draconian measures which were essentially for
growth control because they didn't want to participate in the state
water project. They did that purposefully. They felt this was a way of
controlling the quality of life in the community and not allow sprawl to
continue. He said there have been communities, primarily in the
Midwest, that were no more almost because agriculture had drained
the ground water resource so thoroughly. He noted this wasn't an
uncommon predicament. History showed over a millennium that
Rome and lots of other cities that tapped ground water were
effectively able to bring about their own demise or certainly the
shrinkage of their size by virtue of that.
Commissioner Jonathan noted that some were not by choice.
Mr. Criste agreed some weren't by choice.
18
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
Commissioner Jonathan said that for a lack of planning, these cities, whether
it was Rome or cities in the Midwest, they met their demise not by choice, but
because of a lack of planning.
Mr. Criste concurred. He said that the water
management plan that
9
CVWD has developed had what he thought were modest goals in
terms of conservation. As Mr. Drell pointed out, the use of non human
consumption of water was the lion's share of the consumption of
potable water in our region. Another is that there is a direct
relationship between residential density and the per capita use of
water. Apartment complexes with higher density were substantially
more efficient on a per capita basis then single family homes of 8,000
to 10,000 square foot lots.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was because of the landscaping.
Mr. Criste said it was because of landscaping, swimming pools,
sometimes larger family size, but it was primarily a function of
landscaping and those kinds of non consumptive uses.
Commissioner Jonathan asked how that compared to commercial
development.
Mr. Criste said that commercial development was a relatively modest
user. It depended on the type. Restaurants were higher, but if they
thought about a retail center, there wasn't a lot of water consumption
other than for landscaping, restrooms and maintenance primarily.
There was a land use component to it, but there was also having
one's cake and eating it too. That was where they sometimes looked
at these as problems rather than opportunities. A parallel is they look
at energy as though there is an energy problem. We don't have an
energy problem, we have an energy opportunity. For instance, if they
were to take the opportunity to conserve energy with the available
technology, the amount of jobs and domestic economic, real
economic production that could result from that was stupendous as
opposed to exporting dollars to buy petroleum. The same sort of thing
would happen in the Coachella Valley and elsewhere as water
conservation technology becomes more integral to development as
it has already to agriculture. Whole businesses have been
19
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
revolutionized because they brought domestic technology to the same
level of production, but with a tremendous savings and water use.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if the Draft General Plan, or if Mr. Criste's
analysis determined whether we are at a point where we need to take
draconian measures like the City of Santa Barbara and say we have to stop
development now or in the next ten years because we're going to run out of
water. Or if it at a minimum looked at the water depletion, the over draft, and
say this is a more effective way to proceed with developing the currently
undeveloped portions of the city in terms of the water usage.
Mr. Criste thought it was the latter.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if the plan looked at that and if they would be
hearing about that.
Mr. Criste said that the plan very much directed them to participate
with our other users and our service providers. Just like air quality and
water resources, it knows no boundaries really. They encourage
through the policies and programs that we work with CVWD, Desert
Water and our neighbors. He noted that CVWD has implemented a
region wide water conservation programs related to landscaping. We
have role to play, but it isn't just our city that will be able to solve the
problem.
Regarding commercial development, Mr. Drell said that part of the exercise
of looking 20 years into the future was looking under the surface, not just at
what is the most obvious impact of a particular action, but at the secondary,
etc., ones. A fundamental starting point of the GPAC's discussion on land
use wasn't the normal one. They looked at commercial development and the
impact. He said that commercial development is what drives almost
everything else in the city in terms of land use. Commercial development
generates jobs, jobs generate a demand for housing, and then they were
back at residential and said it's the landscaping of residences that demands
most of the water. He said there is some conclusion that if housing demands
most of the water and industry doesn't, they should have more commercial
use. But again, there was a connection between residential and commercial.
They are like Siamese twins and he thought we'd ignored that to a certain
degree. We've looked at them as contradictory land uses that we have to
20
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
protect from each other. That has been our emphasis, land use compatibility
when in fact they are Siamese twins. The people who work in commercial
development, industry and offices have to live somewhere. The curiosity is
when they start looking at the difference between traditional industry and the
tourist industry and their relationship to housing. In terms of filling up resort
housing, our market is the whole world and the economy of the whole world.
In terms of our local housing market which is permanent resident housing,
there is a very intimate relationship between the production of local jobs and
the demand for resident housing. Those are inextricably related. Therefore,
economic development, even though the factory may not demand any water
other than employees flushing a toilet, could create a huge demand for water
indirectly depending on how these people are housed and how we have
used the land to house them.
Mr. Criste stated that the next element showed that same kind of
parallel.
Commissioner Lopez said that 20 years ago when he first came out here as
a new resident, they would assume that anyone that had four to six inches
of rain a year had to be an expert on how to conserve water. They talked
philosophically how some of this is based on some philosophical views. He
thought what they have seen, and that most of the residents would agree, is
that philosophically over the years we have taken our eye off that ball and
allowed places to be built or developments to come through. Using the
Desert Springs Resort as an example, there is a golf course with a lot of
greenery, Monterey Country Club and the Lakes. Now all of a sudden there
is a need to really conserve water and they get back to looking like the
Arizona desert with landscaping that is more hospitable to conserve water.
He really wanted to make sure that staff always, and they need to keep it at
the forefront in the next 20 years, not take their eye off the ball again. He
thought these policies, procedures and programs helped to do that. But he
knew they needed to do better conserving the water. He thought the use of
tertiary water should be looked at. He knew it was available to many golf
courses and some chose not to use it because it effected the cost of their
operation in replacing certain items. They needed to watch the technology
of how to deal with that particular type of water usage.
Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak regarding this
element. There was no one.
21
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
Mr. Criste stated that consistent with that discussion, but having
different characteristics, was the Air Quality Element. He noted that
we are a highly regulated environment at this point and had been for
the last 15 years. This element focused on two big issues effecting
Coachella Valley air quality. That was small particulate matter
sometimes called PM10, ten micron or smaller. There was also ozone
which we largely import into the valley from air basins to the west. The
discussion provided some background information and talked about
the regulatory environment that we are subject to and have to operate
in, both essentially as a cascade of federal down to state and regional
regulation.
Then they spoke to the two primary pollutants of concern, PM10 and
the ozone and cited the state and federal standards. He said they
also tried to give the reader an understanding of the relationship
between the climate in the valley and how we got the pollutant levels.
Then they described the current circumstances and some of the
history with regard to PM10 and ozone.
On PM10, he noted that we have been struggling for years to be
found to be an attainment area, a term used under the Clean Air Act.
He said we have gotten close a couple of times, but to some extent
we are victims of our own success. The development we've had, the
site disturbance, the increases in traffic and all those things
compounded the generation of PM10. He said we are and have been
instituting more and more strict measures to try to control that as
described in the element.
Ozone heretofore had been pretty much an imported problem, but we
are starting to create our own ozone issues. So our efforts with
Sunline and the City's other efforts to try to bring other fuels primarily
associated with automobile traffic or other means of moving vehicles
would be important in addressing our contribution to ozone.
Then they briefly discussed other pollutants like carbon monoxide and
nitric oxides. Then the City's fugitive dust control ordinance which has
been pretty effective with few well publicized examples that were very
much associated with our wind regime. In the Geotechnical Element
there is an exhibit that showed the wind hazard area. The dunes we
22
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
have are a direct artifact not only of the highly erosive processes we
have in the desert, but the tremendous power of the wind to take
particulate matter, lift it and transport it. We have a natural
environment much like the drought condition that we have to work
within and try to manage the way we do things to limit those impacts.
Those spoke about alternative energy as a means of addressing
some of those issues. They described some of the air quality
monitoring stations that South Coast Air Quality Management District
has and then they also spoke to the sensitive receptors in the valley.
He said we have a higher than average age in our community, as well
as Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells. The average household is older.
Older folks and young children were particularly susceptible to these
pollutants. That was another important driver from an economic view
as well as a human health point of view to address this issue.
The next part was the future directions. He said it was very much an
act locally but think globally sort of mandate. CVAG was listed as the
regional coordinator for these measures and they needed to continue
to work on doing what they do in a more thoughtful manner to try to
control these emissions.
He said there was one single primary goal for air quality which was
the preservation and enhancement of local and regional air quality for
the protection of the health and welfare of the community. He thought
the welfare of the community was broad. It was not only health, but
economic. It was even the lasting material wealth and well being of
our community. He said there were full sets of policies and programs
that attempted to address those issues. He asked for any questions.
Mr. Drell said he had another comment relating air quality to land use like he
did water to land use. He said it related to the same question about
commercial development and the relationship between commercial
development and residential development. For every trip origin there is a
destination. So while they are often focusing when they think of development
and controlling development, most ordinances have controlled residential
development thinking if they somehow controlled where people live and don't
let them live anywhere, they will control growth and control water
consumption and control all of the associated negative impacts to growth.
23
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
The problem was when they have all the destinations, they still get all the
traffic and the automobile trips into the city. Then all the associated impacts
of them. For every origin is a destination. One of the issues that GPAC
grappled with was that purely by the city's geography being in the center of
the valley, we will always be one of the prime destinations of trips. Therefore,
how we organize that relationship between origins and destinations, origins
meaning homes and destinations meaning places of work and places where
people shop. That would have an ultimate impact on air quality because it
would determine not just how many trips people make and what mode of
travel they use, but how long those trips would be. Whether a short trip of
two blocks or a mile or a trip of 25 miles. That would ultimately have a
profound impact on the city's air quality when we are all done. Air quality was
one of those impacts that change very very slowly and almost imperceptibly.
Once a land use structure was created which was not conducive to
protecting air quality, it was very hard to go back and change it and correct
that problem. As they are facing in Los Angeles. All the alternatives that
might be used to change things were pretty much precluded by an
established land use pattern.
Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Criste if we would expect high density
residential to generate a greater adverse impact on the ozone layer. They
were looking at more traffic and more car trips with higher density residential
than commercial. Mr. Drell said that for every trip there is a destination.
Commissioner Jonathan said he understood that. Mr. Drell said that if we
have the bulk of the destinations, the trips, whether they originate here or
not, a great number of them would end up here. He said it was a very
complicated interaction, but it was not as simple. When they think of a trip as
an origin and a destination, sometimes they ended up with surprising
conclusions of how they then organize them in relationship to each other.
Commissioner Jonathan said he heard what he was saying and said it was
a cogent point, but he didn't know whether it was a case of the chicken or the
egg coming first. Most restaurants and most retailers didn't follow the
philosophy of build it and they shall come. They didn't put up a store and say
eventually people will come because we are here and because we are
creating employment. Some commercial came into existence because the
population has reached its saturation point. It could be argued that the
increase in population is what drives commercial development versus
commercial driving additional residential. He thought at the end of the day it
24
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
was a symbiotic relationship and they both impact each other regardless of
whether the chicken or egg comes first. To avoid adverse impacts on
pollution or water usage, they stop development. That wasn't going to
happen. So the question was if there is a big difference between the two.
Mr. Drell thought he would see that when they get to looking at the traffic
model and how the traffic model analyzes the various alternatives given the
Y
fact that the traffic model was not really designed to do that. It was designed
to study macro events throughout the valley, but it did show some
interesting, surprising correlations relative to how they organize origins and
destinations relative to both total trips and length of trips. The longer the trip
is, the more pollution that would occur. A two-block trip, although cold starts
are still an important problem and generate more pollution per mile than a
30-mile trip, but still in total a 30-mile trip would generate more pollution.
More importantly, certain land uses absolutely preclude alternative ways of
transporting yourself around in terms of how they arrange them. He said he
grew up in L.A. and they would never be able to have a good bus system in
L.A. no matter how much money they poured into it because the land use
made it inefficient to try to transport people that way. He said this also went
back to the question of us having plenty of water today and maybe having
plenty of water for 20 years. Our transportation works fine now and it might
even work in 20 years. When they start asking the question of how it would
work in maybe 50 years, hopefully our time horizon went even further than
the 20 years. That's when they start carrying everything out to its logical
conclusion and saying, okay, are we painting ourselves into a corner.
Mr. Criste stated that next week when they talk about the land use
and traffic they could elaborate on that discussion. It was a very
important discussion regionally.
Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak regarding this
element.
MR. TOM NOBLE, 42-620 Caroline Court in Palm Desert, addressed
the commission. He said he hadn't really intended to comment on
these elements, and he wasn't sure he fully understood what was
happening, but it seemed to him on the water issues and the air
quality issues that there are very adept agencies in the valley now
handling those. It seemed to him the approach for the City would be
25
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
to state a policy encouraging conservation, encouraging high air
quality, and then basically get out of the way and let CVWD and
CVAG go ahead with their policies which he thought were highly
effective. He agreed with Mr. Criste that CVAG's approach requiring
a certain amount of desert scape in landscaping was minimal, but he
thought they had greater plans for higher levels of conservation in the
future. He said he would hate to see the City conflicting with CVWD
in that case and with CVAG on air quality issues. They were all
looking for the same result and he thought they could end up
interfering with one another.
MS. LOUISE KERMODE, 38-731 Desert Mirage Drive, addressed the
commission. She didn't understand if we are over drafting the water
now and they were planning on all this building, where the water
would come from. It didn't make any sense to her. She said she would
like a little better explanation of where they were going to fill in for all
the over drafted water.
Mr. Drell said that was the $64,000 question. The energy issue received a
lot more attention because we are confronted more immediately by it. It went
back to our time horizon and we have an immediate experience with that with
electricity going out. The water issue was absolutely fundamental and it
wasn't just fundamental in the Coachella Valley, it was fundamental
throughout the arid western United States which to a certain degree to a
more or lessor degree were in the same predicament. We are living on
prehistoric water predominately. On the other hand, people still have
children, immigrants still flood into this part of the country, both from outside
the country and from the east. Despite all the people ragging about
California, people are still coming and we still have a very strong effort to
develop our economy and our economy requires people to work and it
attracted employees. Did the element deal with it adequately? No. But they
would be talking about ways to at least make it better given the constraints
and the inevitability of population growth and growth in our economy which
we actively promote. They're talking about developing jobs, increasing city
and public revenues, and what that does. Economic development did that.
But economic development and population growth and development were
inextricably intertwined. It is difficult to deal with this absolutely fundamental
problem without starting to take those all apart. But there were ways in terms
26
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
of water and air where they could surely try to consume less at the very
least. He hoped they would get to a position to create a balance.
Commissioner Jonathan informed Ms. Kermode that he also shared that
concern and thought they all did. He thought they needed to stay tuned to
this process because in his mind natural resources are needed. Needed by
human beings and businesses. They need energy and water. Both of those
did have somewhat of a fine limit, certainly water. Part of what the
commission would do was look to the next 20 years and/or 50 years and they
had to take that into consideration. He didn't think they were at an extreme
point where they stop everything, but they needed to understand where they
are in that process since they were already in a negative position with regard
to water and not proceed with this plan without having a better, more tangible
understanding of what that limit is and where they are heading. He was sure
they would hear more about that as this discussion proceeded.
To Mr. Noble's comments, Commissioner Lopez commented that there are
elements and policies in the General Plan that incorporate the coordination
between CVWD and CVAG to help drive a lot of these points within the plan.
But they did always want to keep it foremost. By having this element in the
plan, it assured that they weren't taking their eyes off of the ball, primarily
those two areas of water usage and air quality as it pertains to the
development of our community in the future. Not just Palm Desert, but the
Coachella Valley.
Mr. Drell noted that CVWD has water conservation formulas for landscaping.
He thought they might be following Palm Desert's formula. Upon an
understanding that their standards allowed them to grow alfalfa, we came up
with far more stringent standards that said they could only grow alfalfa on a
third of someone's property, not all of it. It created great consternation in the
landscape community and it took them a while to adjust. The City has often
led the way and other agencies have followed and this was the case with
water.
Mr. Criste stated that another resource element was the Energy and
Mineral Resources Element starting on page IV-63 of the General
Plan. They provided background information. With regard to mineral
resources, he said they were largely limited to sand and gravel
resources which were not uncommon and were important to the
27
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
construction industry and associated industries. They talked about the
classification of those. He commented that one of the more important
aspects of this element had to do with energy resources. He noted
that in the Coachella Valley we are blessed with tremendous energy
resources in the Coachella Valley, not only tremendous wind
resources, but in the south end of the valley we have tremendous
geothermal resources where a lot of electricity is generated. There
were also great opportunities for solar energy.
pp So they pointed out
those issues. He referred to an exhibit in the element that maps the
mineral resources that they know to occur in the planning area
primarily north of I-10 and one pocket immediately west of Rio Del Sol
in the Rancho Mirage sphere of influence.
The next part spoke to electrical power services and what limited
control we have over our own destiny there. He said there were some
efforts by the City to gain a little more control, at least in terms of
pricing of electric power. The generation of power was very much an
economics driven matter and one of both values as well as concerns
for air quality and other environmental issues. He said the regulatory
issues discussed the service providers, both Edison and IID were
discussed in the element. Then they also spoke to natural gas and
those services. Also local renewable energy resources that he just
mentioned and efforts of Sunline to take advantage of emerging
technologies like fuel cells, hydrogen technologies and those sorts of
things. Some of the programs Sunline and College of the Desert have
been involved in. Before Peter Wilson left, he had spoken about the
Cal State University being interested in pursuing those same sorts of
issues.
They had a discussion of future directions and the primary goal is
efficient, sustainable and environmentally appropriate use and
management of energy and mineral resources, insuring their long-
term availability and affordability. Then they had policies and
programs addressing that. It was a case where they could generate
resources locally to some degree, but they were also largely reliant
upon a regional and global energy economy at this point. He asked
for any questions.
28
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to address the commission
regarding this element. There was no one.
Mr. Criste said the next element and the last element in the
Environmental Resources Element was the Open Space
Conservation Element. He explained that both Open Space and
Conservation were mandated elements by the state. They joined
them together since they were given the flexibility to cobble the
general plan together as seen fit.
For us, he said open space and conservation were very important.
They looked at it as the golden goose that gives reason for the
Coachella Valley to be such a thriving destination area. He said there
was a fair bit of purpose statement in that regard. The background
information discussed some of the regulatory requirements and then
the open space categories followed the state guidelines. There was
open space for recreation and they listed some of those resources
like the National Monument at Joshua Tree, etc.
They also cited the city's parks, which were also discussed in the
Parks and Recreation Element which they would cover next time. Also
open space for natural resources and that included biological
resources and in some instances could even reference the mineral
resources in the planning area. They spoke to some of those resource
areas like Thousand Palms and the Coachella Valley Preserve. Then
open space for managed production of resources and that was really
a reference to mineral resources primarily. If they had forests, they
would fall under that category as well. Then open space for health
and safety and that had to do with preservation of our air, water and
addressing issues like fire risk and those sorts of health and safety
concerns.
Then they spoke to various legislative acts that have been passed
that empower us to acquire land for parks and open space purposes.
He noted that Palm Desert has been a real leader in those sorts of
things, as have other cities in the Coachella Valley. Those were listed.
They spoke to the public lands trusts that we have in the valley, not
the least of which was the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy
which is a state agency and had been a leader in helping them to
29
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
consolidate open space lands and enjoin them with publicly owned
lands for conservation.
Available funding mechanisms were addressed that the City and
others have tapped into to acquire lands and to put into effect
conservation. They briefly discussed future directions and a couple of
goals which had to do with the preservation, management and
protection of these environmental resources. Again, the philosophy
was espoused that we can have a balance between the community's
built environment and the local and regional protection and
preservation of the unique desert environment. There were policies
and programs to put these into effect. He asked for any questions.
Mr. Drell said this was another connection with land use. Just like water,
open space is an absolute finite resource and even more palpable. Water is
hidden underground. He said there is a certain amount of open space in this
valley. Every time we develop another square foot of it, there is a square foot
less, probably forever. That again went back to the fundamental question of
how to deal with the pressures for growth in land use. Given that every time
they reduce a subdivision by one house, by one lot, that lot got pushed out
somewhere else. Given a fixed amount of demand for either residential or
commercial or whatever real estate, every time they consume an extra
square foot of it would end up somewhere else in this valley. That
somewhere else would be a piece of open space. Unless we come to grips,
either through a physical mandate on the limit of both commercial/industrial
development, period, or in how we physically accommodate in terms of
surface area the growth we are subject to, that determines how much open
space would be left over. At the same time one of the most important issues
and side effects of the multi species plan, although legally motivated by
protection of endangered species, its most tangible result would be the
preservation of a lot of open space which would probably be more
meaningful to people than the fact that there is a Jerusalem cricket that
would live or not live. But it went back to land use and how they manage
growth and organize growth. That would determine at the end of the day
whether we look like the San Gabriel valley or the San Fernando valley or
like the french countryside where they see individual towns and lots of
wonderful countryside around it. That difference had to do with how we
regulate land use.
30
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
Commissioner Tschopp noted that the General Plan cites the government
code that requires every city and county to prepare and adopt a local open
space plan within its jurisdiction. Then it went on to talk about open space
categories, locations within the planning area, and then went on to cite
Joshua Tree National Park and other things that aren't within our jurisdiction.
He asked if that was reconciled within our planning for the city within our
jurisdiction.
Mr. Criste asked if he was concerned that we have extended
ourselves beyond our authority.
Commissioner Tschopp said he was only reading what it cited as the
government code and then what we are using as areas outside of our
jurisdiction.
Mr. Criste said there is an expression in planning that says make no
small plans. Over the course of developing the General Plan, they
started with the resources first. One of the things the GPAC came to
terms with was that the boundaries issue has limits in terms of how
and what we can control and what can control us as a community.
Over the course of looking at what they should really be evaluating,
it was determined that it was appropriate that the City, which has
been a leader in the Coachella Valley, not be afraid to cast its net
broadly and that if they were to evaluate those issues/resources
which are really regional resources, we would be in a better position
to voice our concerns in the future when regional governments or
state and national government was talking about how they are going
to manage them, delete them or expand them. So we are mandated
to address those things within our limits and were not precluded from
better educating ourselves and arming ourselves with knowledge so
we can be even more effective leaders in the regional dialogue that
occurs on these resources.
Commissioner Tschopp said that we are in comprehensive compliance with
the government code then.
Mr. Criste said yes, absolutely.
31
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to address the commission
regarding this element.
MR. GEORGE MARZICOLA, 71-876 Vista Del Rio in Rancho Mirage,
addressed the commission. He said he has been in the valley for 40
years. Most of his work was in Palm Desert. His background career
was brokerage and then he got into raw land syndication and had 22
partners in ten companies and they concentrated on Country Club
Drive. He said they owned and developed about 1 ,500 acres there,
so he had some knowledge of Palm Desert and development.
He stated that for every yin is a yang. All he had heard here tonight
was negativity. We are losing water, etc. His suggestion for the
commission's consideration was to bring in a bigger picture. His own
development he made appearances and would bring in someone from
the County Water District because they had a much larger view of the
water and water resources. Looking at our history, he said the early
farmers in the 1800's were very practical. They contracted with the
Colorado River for water. They bought water from the Colorado River
to conserve our own aquifer. His best knowledge when he would bring
someone in from the Water District, they would testify that there is
about 200 years of water supply here in the desert. No one mentioned
in this report that in a three-year period we had two 100-year floods.
No one had mentioned that it is cyclic. There are times we get
incredible rainfall here. That is why they had to build a bridge across
Bob Hope Drive as an example, and other places in the valley.
His major point was for them to please consider the other side of the
coin. They had heard the yin where we will run out of water, etc., now
look at the yang part. He wanted to see a broader view of water. He
also urged them not to be so influenced by the negativity that they
commit the horrible crime that Palm Springs did in 1970 when the city
council declared a moratorium on development. It was wonderful for
Palm Desert because it moved the epicenter of development from
Palm Springs to Bob Hope Drive and Country Club Drive. That was
how we got our development here and how we really took off. He
asked them to consider where they are headed and their
recommendations and consideration that if they choke off
development, they are going to drive development away to some
32
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
other place. We have 600 square miles of flat land in this valley, so
we have plenty of room for development. He did want them to
consider the other side of the coin.
After no further comments, Mr. Criste noted that the next element was
the Geotechnical Element. He said in the general plan discussion,
they were highlighting the constraints issues, but they were certainly
looking at these resources as essentially economic resources for
economic development as well. He said they were moving into the
Environmental Hazards Element chapter. The Geotechnical Element
was a very important element in the valley and our reason was very
much a technical phenomenon. We have an area that is probably one
of the most technically dynamic in the world. The valley is a creation
of a spreading zone created by the fault which extends down to what
is called the east pacific rise that created the Gulf of Mexico, and if it
weren't for sediments from the Colorado River, we would still be part
of the Gulf of Mexico as far as Indio. So we are in this area that has
spread the valley, raised the mountains, created a tremendous area
of sediment that has also provided us with this tremendous aquifer
that Mr. Marzicola referred to that stores all this great ground water
that has taken millions of years to build up. So we have both a benefit
from the geotechnical conditions and then geotechnical hazards
which they outlined in the element. They talked about some of the
geotechnical conditions. Everything from the basement rock to the
sand dunes were all geotechnical aspects of the valley.
Because we have this dynamic area, we are subject to ground
shaking and even ground rupture. In the element there were several
exhibits including seismically induced rock zones, rock fall areas and
landslides. We have areas that are subject to settlement when we
have strong ground shaking and fault hazards and areas where
faulting actually passes through the valley that would create not only
ground rupture, but tremendous ground acceleration or shaking. Then
there were the wind hazard areas as well. They talked about these
throughout the element at length because they are very important and
have a tremendous long-term and sometimes immediate
consequence for the valley. It also related to issues like subsidence,
partners in our air quality issue with the sands created by these
geotechnical conditions.
33
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
Then they talked about measuring seismic hazards and how that is
done. We have had some tremendous advances in geotechnical
prediction, earthquake prediction and the size of earthquakes and that
kind of modeling had become more sophisticated. A lot has been
learned about our region since the Landers quake and that effected
building codes to protect property and lives in the future. Then they
spoke about the individual faults that are tremendously interesting and
beautiful things in themselves, but also constituted significant physical
constraints that we need to manage our ways around. They also
included things like liquefaction and deformation of land, etc. So they
spoke to these at length and they provided really good background for
the planners and for others who have to implement the regulation of
land use in the community. Then they talked about mitigating these
impacts and there was state law and regulations that not only mapped
them, but also tells us how to address development in these
seismically active zones. They referred to the Uniform Building Code,
the California Building Code, etc., and seismic retrofit requirements.
They spoke to the future directions issue and then a single goal to
maximize protection of human life, land and property from the effects
of seismic and geotechnical hazards. We have sets of policies and
programs and a very excellent geotechnical report which was in EIR
that the commission would be getting a copy of. It was in the appendix
of it. He asked for any questions.
Chairperson Campbell asked if this was the section that talked about the
ground sinking.
Mr. Criste thought they pretty much covered the subsidence issue.
The ground shaking was the main theme here.
Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to address the commission
regarding this element. There was no one.
Mr. Criste stated that the next element had to do with flooding and
hydrology. As Mr. Marzicola pointed out, we have been subject to
some tremendous flooding events. He said it was kind of an irony that
the desert has some of the most severe flooding events that occur
anywhere and it has to do with our geography and the nature of our
34
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
physical area here. He thought they provided some pretty good
background information, also speaking to the regulatory environment
we are in and tried to provide some understanding of the climatic
conditions that would occasionally allow for tremendous storms to
brew right over our area. They talked about the benchmark storm that
occurred in Indio. He said there would be some photos into the
document, but it showed some of the flooding we had here in 1976
and even in 1979 when he came out here, he remembered at Miles
Avenue the Whitewater River must have been 20 feet deep gunnel to
gunnel rushing through there, so it is an amazing thing for those that
have witnessed flooding in the desert.
It then spoke to the local and regional flood control issues. The
Coachella Valley Water District is responsible for the regional flood
control, management of the Whitewater River and the incrementally
being constructed mid valley stormwater channel. In the north area,
there was the future Thousand Palms flood control project to protect
Thousand Palms and Interstate 10. In the city we have local facilities
like the San Pascual Channel which is managed by the City. They
talked about FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
which maps major flood zones and they consolidated the flood
mapping and created a single exhibit. It was in the element that
showed the different flood zones within the planning area. It talked
about the backbone drainage system and the substantial investment
that has been made in flood protection already and the ongoing flood
control facilities and improvements that are made. And the City's
master drainage plan and how some of the zone systems had been
developed and some of the major drainage facilities that have been
approved and some that are planned.
Then they spoke to the extensive use in the valley of mitigation
through design where golf courses and other kinds of open space
amenities are used for flood control. They discussed the non point
source discharge where flooding could also carry pollutants into areas
where they can percolate into the ground water. Then opportunities
for flood control facilities or associated open space to be used for
wildlife or even for passive open space for park type activities, etc.
35
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
There was a single goal. A comprehensive assessment of flooding
and other hydrologic hazards in the community and complete facilities
and services effectively protecting lives and property. Then they had
a series of policies and programs that addressed us attempting to
reach that goal. He asked for any questions.
Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to address the commission
regarding this element. There was no one.
Mr. Criste said the next element starting on page V-43 was the Noise
Element. He said they could see in the graphics provided throughout,
noise is associated primarily with transportation and almost entirely
with vehicular traffic. They provided some background discussion.
They spoke to the California Department of Health Services and the
model we use to model future impacts of traffic especially, but other
sources of noise on the community. The noise was generally boiled
down to a 24-hour average of community noise called the community
noise equivalent level. In their discussions that was how they
compared relative noise environments in the valley. They spoke to the
range of noises and their effects physiological and even
psychological.
Then they characterized the existing noise environment and pointed
to things like the Union Pacific/I-10 corridor which is a substantial
noise generator. He noted that sometimes aircraft overflights were,
although we weren't particularly effected, but he identified the
Bermuda Dunes Airport and the noise contouring that had been done
for it. Then they also spoke to some of the common mitigation
measures we have available that are pretty effective at bringing traffic
noise down and those included berming and masonry walls. Those
kinds of facilities that were able to attenuate noise. He thought noise
really lent itself to mitigation very well.
They also spoke to mechanical noise sources, heating and ventilation
equipment, and those sorts of things that can have components of
noise that can project fair distances. Then they talked about noise and
land use compatibility and provided a table which showed what noise
contours anticipated in 2020 based on the traffic model that they ran.
Those were totally unmitigated, so they needed to be taken with a
36
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
large grain of salt. As shown on the graphic on page V-47, even along
arterials effective mitigations could be put into effect with the proper
kind of acoustical barrier design.
Table V-4 on page 51 showed some of the general compatible issues,
noise levels, and kinds of land uses generally considered to be
compatible and not compatible. They spoke to the City's effective
noise control ordinance which had been used on several projects in
the city. He had personally and he thought it had been very effective.
Managing the noise environment and speaking to future directions in
terms of noise management and managing the noise environment so
it didn't adversely impact the community. The goal for this element is
a noise environment that respects community residents and reflects
the community's appreciation for a sense of place with the peace and
quiet in balance with the city's resort residential character, its sensitive
receptors and its natural wildlife habitats. Then they had policies and
programs to address the various noise issues identified. He asked for
any questions.
Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to address the commission
on this element. There was no one.
Mr. Criste stated that the next element was Hazards and Toxic
Materials. He said this was something of a boiler plate element, but
there are issues that arise that we have some control over. They had
to do with assigning truck routes, especially for the hauling of
petroleum products and things like that. As rail traffic increased, these
kinds of issues would arise, but they also had them on a more
mundane level with some of the land uses that have chemical and
volatile fuels associated with them.
They discussed briefly hazardous waste and sewage disposal. It
could effect things like air quality and water quality and human health
in general, then spoke to the hazardous waste management laws and
regulations in effect. He said the County was a big player in helping
us manage hazardous waste materials and the hazardous materials
response teams we have that are integral to our fire protection
services.
37
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
Then they had future directions and the goal to maintain and promote
measures to protect life and property in the city of Palm Desert from
hazards resulting from human activities and development. Then they
had policies and programs to put those sorts of things into effect. He
also mentioned that this was developed in conjunction with the
Emergency Preparedness Element and tremendous input from not
only the city police and fire, but also from the Public Safety
Commission. He asked if there were any questions.
Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to address the commission
regarding this element. There was no one.
The next chapter was Public Services and Facilities. The first of
element was the Water, Sewer and Utilities Element. As opposed to
resource management, he explained this had to do with infrastructure.
The nuts and bolts that deliver resources and services to the
community and they spoke to the government regulations in that
respect and then touched upon CVWD as our water purveyor, Edison
and IID as electric service providers. They also noted that in the
planning area in Bermuda Dunes, the Myoma Dunes Water District is
the provider of a limited area there.
For waste water treatment, we have the Cook Street plant. Parts of
the planning area would be served by a plant on Avenue 38 north of
Indio. They talked about the use of septic tanks and how we are trying
to retire those because there is a demonstrated relationship between
ongoing septic use and ground water contamination. There were
requirements of the city for connection to sewer systems. They talked
about the major utility corridors and also making compatible some of
the utility infrastructure like substations which Palm Desert has been
pretty effective in integrating with residential development so that they
aren't offensive but are able to provide that step down service to give
them usable voltages for our power.
Deregulation was discussed, which had brought us all kinds of
positive and negative consequences and they were still thrashing that
out. They spoke about natural gas, both large volume capacities
running through the valley, as well as the local low pressure lines that
serve homes and opportunities for conservation. Then other service
38
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
providers like telephone and cable television. Also solid waste
management. They knew that Edom Hill was being retired soon and
that they are looking for other places to haul our trash, hopefully just
on an interim basis until Eagle Mountain came on line. They spoke to
those issues of land use alternatives, future directions and then a goal
to have a full range of water, sewer and utility facilities and services
that safely, adequately and cost effectively meet the immediate and
long-term needs of the city. Then they had policies and programs to
implement the element. He asked for any questions.
Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to address the commission
regarding this element. There was no one.
Mr. Criste stated that the next element was Public Buildings and
Facilities. He indicated that the same format was used. They identified
a full range of these facilities. In Palm Desert we have a tremendous
number of community facilities that the City has helped to bring about.
They also cited facilities like fire stations and policies stations, as well
as the schools and libraries briefly. He noted that we have a separate
Schools and Libraries Element that spoke to those matters in greater
detail. To some degree it talked about the utility infrastructure again,
as well as critical structures like hospitals and the fire stations. When
we have earthquakes and floods, we will have these public facilities
and their services available to provide emergency response.
He noted that there was a fair bit of future direction discussion. He
said they worked at length with the utility providers and with other
service providers. There were a couple of goals. One was the
provision of a full range of dependable and cost effective public
buildings and facilities meeting the functional, social and economic
needs of the community. The other was the compatible and
aesthetically satisfying integration of public buildings and facilities into
the city's built and natural environments. Then there were policies and
programs to implement the element. He asked for any questions.
Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to address the commission
regarding this element. There was no one.
39
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
The next element was Police and Fire Protection. Mr. Criste said that
this ended up being a much more extensive discussion than
anticipated. They had tremendous involvement of the police
department and fire department. They had many meetings. They also
met three times with the Public Safety Commission on these matters.
He noted that there was quite an extensive discussion. He said that
some of this was time sensitive because budgets would change
things. As the growth of the city continued, they would have different
numbers, but the basic standards were also cited in terms of sworn
officers per capita, etc. Then major programs that the City has
pursued on crime prevention, public safety and other kinds of law
enforcement and public safety services and programs that have been
instituted by the City.
They talked about the facilities. The fire stations and their capabilities
equipment wise the kinds of things they can respond to and the
mutual aid agreements we have, as well as the Cove Communities
arrangement we have with Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells which
helped to give us quite an economies of scale that we might not get
if we were acting just as solely individual entities. There was also a
brief future directions discussion. The goal was the provision of
efficient, high quality police and fire protection for all types of
development and socio economic segments of the community. They
wanted all segments to be equally protected and served. He said
there were policies and programs to implement the element. He
asked for any questions.
Regarding police services, Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was an
analysis about the point at which it may or may not become cost effective for
the city or the cove communities to employ their own police force rather than
contract with the County.
Mr. Criste said they didn't really discuss the matter.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if the General Plan was the appropriate
venue for that analysis.
Mr. Criste thought it was more of a budget analysis.
40
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
Commissioner Jonathan asked if it addressed the mechanism of delivering
those services.
Mr. Criste said there was discussion about that. The discussion was
that the quality and types of services are established in the element.
How they get there, whether through a private/city sponsored or
through a contract service, he didn't think they had much dialogue
about that.
Mr. Drell thought the main driver or lack of discussion was our satisfaction
with our relationship with the County Sheriff. We get very good cooperation
and they are very responsive to our needs. When they looked at the City's
budget, police and fire in terms of the City's general fund budget was
something like two-thirds or three-quarters of the budget. It is a huge piece
of it. He believed that in looking at the experience of other cities that have
abandoned the contract and gone their own way, they didn't necessarily
seem to have a higher level of service or any better economics. Until it was
absolutely demonstrated that our service is suffering or our budgets are
disproportionate in comparison with other cities that have their own police
and fire departments, he didn't think they would ponder it too much. He
thought as a long-term program or policy they should always be re-
evaluating it. He didn't think it would hurt to have it as an ongoing policy of
evaluating the cost effectiveness of contracting versus having our own. It
probably wasn't a bad policy to have in there.
Mr. Criste said it is our policy with regard to regular review of whether
the service is satisfactory and those sorts of things that Mr. Drell was
referring to.
Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to address the commission
regarding this element. There was no one.
The Schools and Libraries Element was next. Mr. Criste noted that
Palm Desert is a real leader. Not only do we have two separate K-12
school districts that serve the city and the planning area, but they now
have a campus underway for a Cal State and another graduate
campus for UCR. The element discussed the background information
and discussed again the public schools and facilities that are here. It
also referred to some of the private schools we have in the
41
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
community. It discussed issues of overcrowding, College of the Desert
(COD), and the new facilities being built. He noted that we also have
a branch of Chapman University here in the community. There is a
200-acre campus under construction at Cook and Frank Sinatra. He
noted that we have a beautiful library we share with COD. Then they
spoke to the future direction issues and a goal for educational and
library facilities that provide city residents with a wide range of high
quality services which are physically and financially accessible to all
segments of the population.
Another goal was schools and library facilities that serve as important
venues for community, social and cultural events that play an
important role in enhancing community cohesiveness. He said that
theme of community cohesiveness was also seen throughout the
General Plan. Then they had policies and programs to implement this.
He noted they also had the tremendous advantage of having at least
three really fine educators on the GPAC including the past president
of COD and others who participated in providing input. He asked for
any questions.
Commissioner Jonathan noted that goal two which Mr. Criste just alluded to
included community cohesiveness. He asked if GPAC or if the element
addressed the potentially adverse consequences of having two school
districts within a single city.
Mr. Criste informed him that the committee had quite a dialogue about
that subject. There was a policy to continue to pursue efforts to
consolidate the city into a single district.
Mr. Drell noted that the element was being discussed while the city was in
the process of pursuing unification. Unfortunately, the decision did not go the
City's way and he thought it was probably an irrevocable decision as far as
he could tell. Based upon the way the decision went, his impression was that
it didn't leave a whole lot of daylight for reconsideration of that. They ended
up going farther than anyone else had before in that effort. When talking
about the Land Use Element, they would learn that the Palm Springs District
is moving full steam ahead acquiring real estate, they have bond issues and
money in the bank to build schools. He said that having two school districts
might provide the opportunity for some competition to a certain degree. He
42
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
could see pluses and minuses and didn't hold much hope to see a change
in the future.
Commissioner Tschopp had a question about Cal State. Given that the entire
document numerous times spells out how Cal State will end up being a
driving force out in the north sphere, he asked how confident Mr. Criste or
the individuals he talked to were on the projections that we will have 25,000
students out there in 17 years given that at this point approximately 20% of
all courses taken there are done via video and given the increase in distance
learning that all universities are experiencing today.
Mr. Criste explained that the actual on-campus estimate, if he recalled
correctly, was more like 15,000 on campus students and the balance
was expected to be distance learning. There would be occasion when
even the distance learning students needed to be at the campus, so
they had the issue of brief but peak periods of population on campus.
But he thought the master plan pointed to 15,000.
Commissioner Tschopp said it was 15,000 on a daily basis and 25,000
students. If they just took 15,000, they are looking at that campus throughout
this document and its impact. Then he saw 1,200 dormitory rooms which was
probably in line with other Cal State universities that had a very large
commuter base. When Mr. Criste talked to other education officials on the
campus, he asked if there was a thought that perhaps they didn't have that
many people in the area because of the way long-distance learning is
progressing and is expected by other authorities to be a major educational
tool in the future.
Mr. Criste said they do expect it to be and that is why they see they
can dedicate so much of their capabilities to students who essentially
will be off campus and remote with internet and video television types
of access to the curriculum.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if the university was still projecting that in 17
years they will have 15,000 students on campus on a daily basis.
Mr. Criste said yes.
43
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
Mr. Drell commented that inherent in the university education is the
interaction with other human beings and other students and personal
interaction with professors. If they had ever taken courses on television and
compared that to good courses taken in person, there was no comparison.
He didn't think television or the internet would ever take the place of in-the-
flesh interactive learning with other human beings and professors. He said
he was on the steering committee for the university planning (Commissioner
Tschopp said he was, too) and they started with a much higher number.
They started with the assumption of a more typical daily number of 25,000
and when they discussed the issue, they scaled it back to 15,000 assuming
that nearly a third of the classroom days would be electronic or peripheral.
He said the university was talking about setting up little branch campuses.
Once it was Cal State Palm Desert, there would be branch campuses of Cal
State Palm Desert in Blythe and Yucca Valley. So it would be dispersed to
a certain degree, but he didn't think that long term sitting at home staring at
a computer substituted for a real university education, but they would see.
Commissioner Tschopp said he might disagree with him, but his only
concern was truly how big they are looking at it to be an economic force out
there as far as planning around it and perhaps even implementing changes
in the land uses around it because of it. He just wanted to make certain that
we feel very confident about the number of students who would be on
campus that would be using business services, commercial services and the
roads and so forth and what the impact of that would be on Palm Desert.
That to him was the real question here.
Mr. Criste said at the next meeting they would focus on that, but he
thought Commissioner Tschopp would find that while the university is
an important consideration, it wasn't by a long shot the only driver of
some of the concepts that were developed for the balance of that
planning area. He said they would get a chance to show the full
picture next time when they talked about land use and the planning
of that area.
Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to address the commission
regarding this element. There was no one.
Mr. Criste noted that the next element was the Health Services
Element. In that element they talked about something really important
44
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
to our population, not only because of our older population, but now
we are getting a lot of families in the community. They talked about
the hospital serving the community and while we don't host
Eisenhower Medical Center, it was the closest service provider to us
and was very conveniently located. They talked about some of the
immediate care facilities that are available and some of the other
kinds of health services that occur in the city or planning area.
It talked about special services like the Healthy Cities program and
the well care clinic as well as others like services to school children.
Both ps chiatric and mental health services were discussed. There
pY e
were other important services includingaddiction treatment like at the
p
Betty Ford Center and others. He noted there were veteran services
and senior services that were part of the Joslyn Senior Center and
other facilities. He indicated that COD is working to help provide us
with more nursing capability through educational programs for
registered nurses and they have moved more and more locally and
regionally into treatment and facilities to treat and care for people with
Alzheimers. He said home care and hospice care was also a very
important element of this as well as Shelter from the Storm. He noted
that the community hosts the Foundation for the Retarded. There was
the Desert Aids Project, the health care, education and training
issues. The Institute for Critical Care Medicine was building a new
campus in Rancho Mirage next door to us. Then some of the other
specialty issues including accessibility to these various services.
The next part was future directions in three areas with special
attention to the demographic driven aspects of health care and health
services. The goal was to insure that adequate and affordable health
care is accessible to all community residents and visitors. Then they
had policies and programs to implement the element. He asked for
any questions.
Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to address the commission
regarding this element. There was no one.
Mr. Criste said the next element was a very important element that
they had tremendous input on from the City commissions and
committees. It was the Emergency Preparedness Element. He noted
45
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
that we don't have earthquakes and floods very often, but when we
do the consequences are significant and they could be sure they will
occur again in the future, so being prepared for these was very
important and required quite a coordination of everything from fire and
police protection to health providers, to utility services and even the
government being able to continue to coordinate with the various
functions of the city. He said we have a very sophisticated multi
hazard function plan that they worked closely with staff on in
characterizing it in the element. He said we also have tremendous
regional communications for emergency response. They talked about
issues of accessibility. We have more and more dependence on
Interstate 10, but we have seismically sensitive structures that get us
onto and off of Interstate 10 maintaining the integrity of our
transportation system, as well as our water and sewer systems and
our electric systems. All of them were important considerations and
were all discussed in the element.
They described the City's Emergency Operation Center, how the
chain of command was established for addressing responses to
emergencies, and then they spoke at length about future directions
and how we might have other facilities like the universities and
schools that could provide disaster relief staging areas and those
kinds of capabilities. The goal was an integrated comprehensive
emergency preparedness plan that provides adequate response and
action plans for any hazard scenario which might effect the city's
residents and visitors and which effectively minimizes the loss of life
and economic resources and which maximizes emergency and
recovery resources available through the county, state and federal
agencies. Then there were policies and programs to implement the
element. He said there was also a glossary at the end to explain
some of the acronyms.
Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to address the commission
regarding this element. There was no one.
Mr. Drell said that if the commission had no additional comments about these
elements, they should open up to the public for general comments. He
thought some would deal with land use that they could address now or more
likely address at our next meeting. He said he was contacted by various
46
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
different property owners regarding the map, many times bringing attention
to mistakes. He said that some of the errors were probably mistakes that
carried over from our existing land use map that were brought to their
attention. At the next meeting, in addition to considering intentional or
suggested changes from members of the audience for their particular pieces
of property, he would give them a revised map that rectified the unintentional
misdesignations in the map right now.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if the commission could get better maps or
perhaps zero in on specific areas and make them large enough to see clearly
before the next meeting. Mr. Drell said if they got the BrightSide, that was a
better map and already corrected a lot of the mistakes. It also focused just
on the city limits and wasn't diluted by having to take in the scale of the
whole planning area. He said they will be focusing on three areas in the land
use discussion. The area north of Frank Sinatra to the freeway, a selected
area along Highway 111 where there is an alley situation where they still
have an unsolved land use problem, and then Portola where they are
widening Portola from two to four lanes and should be then looking at
whether or not our land uses are still appropriate. He said they would have
very specific exhibits for those areas for the next meeting.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if he would also provide a map showing any
other areas that he was proposing changes to so that they would stand out
very clearly so they could compare them to what they were before. Mr. Drell
said yes. Once they absolutely identified all the unintentional changes, they
would have a map that only highlighted those areas that are different. A lot
of the areas that were different they changed because there was a historic
designation dating back from 1975 where the actual developed land use was
less intense and they still had the much more intense designation. So in
those cases and probably the bulk of the changes were simply pulling back
those designations to reflect what physically had been developed on the
ground. But they could produce a map that only showed the changes and
would make it very easy to see.
Commissioner Jonathan said the General Plan document has six chapters
plus a glossary and Mr. Criste started with Chapter 4, the elements other
than Community Development which is where they find the Land Use
Element. He didn't understand at the beginning that the Land Use Element
was something they were deferring to the next meeting on October 7.
47
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
Mr. Criste said that was correct. That was also how they progressed
with GPAC so they had context within which they could then talk
about land use.
Commissioner Jonathan confirmed that they weren't ignoring the Land Use
Element, they were just going to devote that to its own meeting.
Mr. Criste clarified that the Community Development Elements would
be at the next meeting and they needed to discuss the order, but the
lion's share of the discussion would understandably be focused on
land use.
Commissioner Jonathan commented that any members of the audience that
had comments relating to land use would be given an opportunity to speak.
Chairperson Campbell concurred.
Chairperson Campbell referred back to the Request to Speak cards and
asked if Mr. Noble would like to address the commission.
Mr. Noble said he would wait until the next meeting when they got into
the land use issues.
Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Pratt wished to address the commission.
MR. PATRICK PRATT, 79 Beekman Place in Palm Desert, addressed
the commission. He said it was interesting to sit and listen to a lot of
the elements and the macro discussion regarding the General Plan
and the vision for the city of Palm Desert in the future. He said he has
worked with Mr. Criste and thought Terra Nova did a great job.
Regarding the comments by Mr. Drell about looking macro and then
at many points get down to the land use decisions and the Land Use
Element through a microscope, he said he had a dilemma because
of the timing of all of this. The timing being that he was concerned
about a particular land use adjacent to his residence and they were
now looking at the General Plan. He said he would argue that it is
appropriate to consider the current land use designations. He also
noted that he was before them due to a particular project before the
commission on that piece of land. When he got back from that
meeting he received a Bright Scape (BrightSide) and the Bright Scape
48
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
was a great example of disseminating information to the community.
If the timing had been such that this was happening before the project
and the Bright Scape, he would be here in the macro talking about
general land use discussions and what were appropriate relationships
and compatibility.
Unfortunately, he was stuck in between a project meeting and the
General Plan discussion. He waited to talk about the land use
discussion because they would have a land use discussion on
October 7 at the same time that project was back before them. So it
created a dilemma in the timing. As City Manager of Rancho Mirage,
he was very well aware of the process and plans in development.
There had been no moratorium on applications and things being
processed through the community while they were going through their
two-year general plan process, so out of fairness in a perfect world he
would suggest that the land use designation of office at the northeast
corner of Hovley and Cook is inappropriate.
When he got the Bright Scape notice, he opened it and it was very
colorful. One thing that hit him was the surrounding areas to this
particular land use of office was low density yellow all around it. If they
looked at all the other areas of the community where they had this
mass of low density residential, it wasn't an example that they have
office surrounded by this at a corner. He thought they could also
develop that property from a residential standpoint, even low density.
An example was the Chadham Court project that was an infill project
at the corner of Portola and Hovley. It is a very irregularly shaped
project/piece of property. He thought they built it out in a very nice
fashion with residential.
Having said all of that in the macro, he understood that they have an
application before them but out of fairness it probably wouldn't be
appropriate for him to stand there as part of the General Plan
discussion and suggest a change in mid stream, so he would only ask
that they have their deliberations on the project at the next meeting in
the midst of the discussion of the General Plan. He said the General
Plan always is concerned in the community about design issues,
heights, view corridors and compatibility. As they heard during his last
presentation before them, one of his biggest concerns about the
49
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
project was not the project itself, but the two-story component of it. He
thought that wasn't compatible and given where the applicant was in
their process and where the commission was in their process, it was
probably the best he could hope for.
Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone else wished to address the
commission. There was no one else.
Commissioner Jonathan expressed his gratitude to Mr. Criste. He said Mr.
Criste in and of himself was a resource to Palm Desert and Commissioner
Jonathan appreciated all the good work he had done, as well as his
presentation tonight.
Commissioner Lopez thought they would be remiss if they didn't express
their gratitude and congratulations to the GPAC. He said it might be
premature at this point, but in going through the first phases of this, as well
as reading it, it has been an awful lot of work. They devoted two years of
intense work with the 18 individuals, as well as the two city council members
who were part of the project. He congratulated him on a well thought out,
intense draft of this plan and he looked forward to the next meeting.
Chairperson Campbell also thanked Mr. Criste.
Chairperson Campbell left the public hearing open and asked for a motion
to continue this to October 7.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner
Lopez, by minute motion continuing Case No. GPA 01-04 to October 7,
2003. Motion carried 4-0.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if this matter would be first on the agenda.
Mr. Drell said he would like them to talk about that and how the commission
would want to deal with the regular cases as it relates to this. Commissioner
Jonathan noted that the public that was present tonight and would be here
again next time would come to attend a 6:00 p.m. meeting, so he suggested
that they not keep them waiting.
50
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
Chairperson Campbell thought they should do this first because some of the
cases had to do with the land use. Mr. Drell noted that there was a case that
was continued to the next meeting. Other than the continued case, staff had
not advertised any of the other cases. He said there was a potential of five
items in addition to the regular meeting. Mr. Smith said one was continued
and four that staff pretty much committed to.
Commissioner Jonathan thought it might be appropriate for some of the
projects in the effected areas to have a chat with those applicants and
maybe they would voluntarily agree to continue those items. Mr. Drell said
they continued all of those cases to the next meeting. Commissioner
Jonathan thought there were one or two that were continued to the first
meeting. Mr. Drell said no, it was just the office project Mr. Pratt spoke about.
Commissioner Jonathan thought it might be convenient to give it another
meeting or two and let this matter, the General Plan, resolve itself. Mr. Drell
agreed. He said they even talked about meeting at 4:00 p.m. as a special
event and try to deal with the General Plan from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Chairperson Campbell said they could also stay later. Mr. Drell agreed. They
could stay to 11:00 p.m., they had before. Starting at 6:00 p.m., they were
already ahead of the game. He thought it would be better to deal with the
General Plan first since they had so many other projects that are hanging.
Commissioner Jonathan suggested allocating a block of time for the General
Plan, like 6:00 to 7:30 or 6:00 until 8:00 p.m. Hopefully that would be
adequate time, but if not, they would cut it off at that point and continue that
item to the next meeting and then move on to the other hearing items.
Chairperson Campbell noted that the other five applications were probably
something that wouldn't take very long. Commissioner Tschopp asked if it
was difficult to move the meeting time up for a one meeting time. He
suggested 4:00 p.m. or even 3:00 p.m. He said they needed to give it
significant time for people to comment and opinions to be heard. Otherwise
it would be very difficult to conclude all of this in one or two meetings. Mr.
Drell said the General Plan was advertised in the BrightSide, but in the three
areas of most concern, meaning the north Frank Sinatra, the area along
Portola and Highway 111, they anticipated speakers. Staff was sending out
mailed notices to all the property owners in those areas, so they were giving
those property owners special invitations in addition to the BrightSide notice.
51
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Drell was anticipating a third meeting
to wrap it up. Mr. Drell said it was possible because at the third meeting they
were really back to dealing with the specific projects again. The goal was to
be resolved enough by the time they got to those meetings that they were
just concentrating on the design of those projects if they resolved the land
use issue to a certain degree.
Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would have no objection to a 4:00
p.m. special meeting for the General Plan with a break for a quick dinner and
a 6:00 p.m. meeting for the other hearing items. He didn't think it referred to
an actual time for the October meeting. Chairperson Campbell said it did say
6:00 p.m. and they needed to keep the General Plan at 6:00 p.m.
Commissioner Jonathan said he had no problem having a special meeting
at 4:00 p.m. and then continue the meeting to 6:00 p.m., he was okay with
that. Commissioner Lopez said he was okay with that too. Whether they
started at 4:00 p.m. or 5:00 p.m., he thought they were going to be in for a
long night. Tonight surprising went very quickly. He thought it might be nice
to get some of those items on October 7 to voluntarily move. Commissioner
Jonathan said that was another option. Since those applicants were directly
noticed as well, they could have the 4:00 meeting for the regularly scheduled
items and then start the General Plan at 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Lopez was
afraid a lot of those items would be continued.
After further discussion, it was decided that the public hearing items should
be advertised for 4:00 p.m. Planning Commission has the ability to set its
hours. The question was if Chairperson Campbell could attend. Chairperson
Campbell stated that she was willing to do that for one time. Mr. Drell said
they would be doing those applicants a favor. They wouldn't have to wait
through two or more hours of discussion on the General Plan before getting
to their projects. Commissioner Jonathan said they would rely on staff to
bring in something for dinner. They could meet from 4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
break for dinner and then start the General Plan discussion at 6:00 p.m.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner
Lopez, to start the meeting at 4:00 p.m. on October 7. Motion carried 5-0.
52
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 EIR 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 501C3
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
g P
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
buildingand businesses more attractive to do a better in serving
job
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
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
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
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
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
•
.. MINUTES
• ADJOURNED MEETING
or: , ` k. %/' PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
, :
.' a'y -- •• 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
1
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
PD Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
SJ Sabby Jonathan, Planning Commissioner
JL Jim Lopez, Planning Commissioner
DT Dave Tschopp, Planning Commissioner
DM Donna Matson
LR Lucy Rodriguez
BP Bertha Perez
TP Tim Palmer
MC Michael Castelli
LW Locksi Witte
MG Mark Greenwood, City Engineer
CF 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 7th and September 16th.
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
2
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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
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...
SJ Brief question before we do that.
PD Sure.
SJ Alternative A would create, you said, 244?
SC 264.
PD 264.
SJ 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.
SJ So four homes plus a tri-plex?
PD Correct.
SJ 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
3
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
that back onto the alley. Right here and here. In this plan, they'd
garages Y 9 Y
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
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.
SJ 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.
SJ But the additional parking is not just to enable expansion, it's also to alleviate
the parking deficiency that exists, right?
4
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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.
SJ How much room is there for expansion? I mean remodeling, yes, but actual
expansion...
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.
5
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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
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
6
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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
tough call, but acknowledging that there will be no perfect solution, it
compromises what you're going to end up with.
SJ 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.
SJ 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.
7
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
SJ 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
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?
8
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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.
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.
9
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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,
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
10
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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, 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.
SJ 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
11
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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 thingthat 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.
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
12
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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 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 I 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
13
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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...
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.
14
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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.
I 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
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. I
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?
15
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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)
And reino's. Thank you.
SC Can we have your address, please.
MC 73-098 Highway 111. I 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
I 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
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
16
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
you drive through there how bad it is, especially when I have delivery trucks,
I have everything, nobody can go through there. It's a hazard. In the corner,
you can't drive in the alley...l'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.
SJ Mr. Castelli let me askyou aquickquestion while we haveyou upthere.
just
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.
SJ I'm not focusing on you.
MC Right, I understand that.
SJ 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?
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,
17
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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 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
18
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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.
19
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?
SJ 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.
SJ 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
20
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
Commissioner Tschopp in having a deadline when all of this should go
ahead and be completed.
CF 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
21
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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.
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..I
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, I
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
22
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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.
SJ 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
23
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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 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,
24
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
the homeowners on the north side, and the businesses on the south. And,
yes, I 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...l 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
decision or even make that recommendation because, again, you don't have
the checkbook, let alone a blank check.
SJ 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.
25
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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.
P p
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-
poor in this City relative to our housing demand and therefore the reason for
preserving as much housing as we can, where we can.
SJ 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.
26
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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
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
27
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21. 2003
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.
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
28
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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. I
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
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?
29
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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?
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
30
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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.
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
31
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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
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.
SJ 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,
32
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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.
SJ 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
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
I 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
33
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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
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.
34
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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
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
35
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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,es but on the other hand, it's not slammingthe door
on it...there still should be some consideration of a change in designation.
9
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 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
36
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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
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.
37
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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 I 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.
CF You're saying that the commercial doesn't change.
PD Substantially, yes.
38
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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 35`h. It's showing all industrial, and in the
alternative, we've converted most of that to residential, so we have
increased...we have...
CF So what we've really done is converted that to high density residential.
39
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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.
SJ 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.
SJ 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
40
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
existing General 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
41
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
residential is approximately...it would be 1,500 acres and at three units per
acre, that's 4,500 units.
CF 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.
CF 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.
CF 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.
CF There's 1,124 units of potential medium density residential.
PD City-wide.
CF City-wide, correct.
PD Yes.
CF 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.
CF Okay, thank you.
42
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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
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.
SJ This is for that area.
CF No.
SJ 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.
SJ 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.
SJ What are those numbers again?
CF 5,199.
SJ Right.
CF 1,124.
43
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
SJ 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.
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
44
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
everything north of that, in terms of zoning, planned community
9
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
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.
SJ 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.
SJ 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.
SJ 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.
45
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
SJ ...(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.
SJ Some of which we've approved, including some of these roadways that are
reflected...
PD A few of them, but most of them, you know, we've approved 35th, we've
approved Technology. 35'h is, you know, midway between Monterey,
midway between...
SJ 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.
46
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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.
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...
47
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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.
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...
SJ 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
48
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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.
SJ That includes 286 residential use units in the mixed use area?
PD Correct.
SJ 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...
SJ Are we talking about high density residential (inaudible)
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)
49
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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.
SJ Going back to the...
PD Going back to our original designation.
SJ 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 1-10, 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
50
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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.
SJ 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
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
51
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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
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.
52
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
PD Sure.
CF On a University Park preferred alternative as well as staffs 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.
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
53
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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.
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
54
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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
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
55
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21. 2003
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.
SJ 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.
PD In which?
SJ In the staff recommended alternative. In other words...
PD Right. In the less intense alternative...
SJ You take away from medium and you add to high density.
56
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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...
SJ Right.
PD ...there is more medium density...
SJ 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.
SJ No.
CF No, that's not correct.
PD In the less...
SJ It goes down. The medium...
PD You're comparing...
CF The medium goes down.
PD The medium...
SJ Hang on. I'm going from the less intense to the staff.
PD Okay.
SJ And what you've done is go down from 1,600 medium density in the less
intense...
PD Right.
SJ ...to 900 medium density in staff...
PD Correct.
57
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
SJ ...and conversely, you've gone up in the high density from 1,400 to 1,800...
PD Correct.
SJ ...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...
SJ The total number of units is almost identical. It's 1242 versus 1340.
PD 13, well it's 100 units.
SJ Yes.
PD Okay, so it's gone up a little bit, but remember the bulk of that low density is
in that...
SJ 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.
SJ 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.
SJ Okay.
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
58
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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.
SJ Yeah, I don't understand the map because we're taking away that area from
commercial community in the staff recommendation.
PD Right.
SJ But in theory it should be replaced with the industrial...
PD Industrial should have gone up.
SJ Should have gone but it doesn't.
PD And it doesn't go up enough.
59
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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
60
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
the Brea 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...l'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
61
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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
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.
SJ 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.
SJ 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.
SJ 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.
62
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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
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
63
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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.
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.
SJ 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.
SJ 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?
SJ 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
64
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
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.
(Inaudible)
CF Ma'am, you're out of order.
(Inaudible)
CF 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?
CF Yes.
SJ 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.
SJ By the way, this is now, what, our third meeting on...
SC Yes, I think it is.
SJ I think our last meeting we began at four and ended at eleven...
CF Right.
65
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 2003
SJ ...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 4th
and more if necessary, everyone will have a chance to be heard. So I
would...do you require a motion to that effect?
(Inaudible)
SJ Okay, I would move to continue this matter to tonight...
CF For one-half hour.
SJ 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 4th
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.
66
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION I
A. Case No. GPA 01-04, CITY OF PALM DESERT, App
(Continued from September 16, October 7 and Octobe
Request for consideration of a Comprehensive General I
Drell I thought what we would first talk about a little bit is we distributed some
revised charts and land use maps in your packet, somewhat reconciling the
various alternatives. Also a chart analyzing the existing general plan and
there was some discussion of how many housing units existing in the general
would result in and see that chart of the existing 1995 general plan existing
showing all of the at that time residentially zoned properties in the yellow,
also what we were calling residential study zone which was going to be a
combination of residential and commercial, depending on the noise impacts
relative to the freeway. The chart which shows the result and generates
approximate 4,000 units. In comparison you see in the staff recommended
alternative and the less intense alternative generates about 4,300 units, so
roughly given the estimates of how many units actually get built in a
particular zone, they are roughly equivalent and this is what has happened
since 1995, is approximately 700 acres of previously residentially designated
properties has been taken out of that designation via the assignment of the
200 acres for the Cal State University, the 320 acres of Shadow Ridge
Marriott timeshare project, the city's purchase of 170 acres at the northeast
corner of Frank Sinatra and Portola for a potential golf course. So what in
essence the less intense and staff recommended alternative proposed to do
is in essence generate roughly the same amount of residential units in the
remaining property to address the housing demand created not only by the
10 million square feet of commercial being developed along the freeway, but
the housing demand being created by those formerly residential properties
that now are something else which are in essence commercial. The Marriott
Shadow Ridge is essentially a hotel, which hopefully will be a 1,000 room
hotel which is and will be over the next 5-6 years of build out generating
significant housing demands for their employees plus the University, plus not
only the third Desert Willow Golf course when built will be accompanied by
significant hotel development which Desert Willow will also generate new
housing demands, so actually the goal of the less intense and the staff
recommended alternative is basically just to stay even with the housing.
We had planned originally for this area, back in 1980 for that matter, and the
differences between, pointed out by Commissioner Finerty, between the less
intense alternative and the staff recommended alternative is the balance
2
.. ' r
. : SUBJECT TC
L i - REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
between low, medium and high. In the staff recommended alternative, which
was to certain degree driven by the specific desires of the property owners,
there is more acreage of low density residential and to maintain the same
number of units there is slightly more high density residential and where that
comes out of is medium density residential, less medium density residential.
Obviously if the Commission feels that the balance should be different, the
staff is recommending and we feel that we need to maintain, you know we
are already at a severe deficit relative to demand, but at least maintain where
we were in the existing general plan. Then it could be adjusted with slightly
less low density and more medium and that would also reduce the high
density. Or get something closer to the balance that was achieved in a less
intense alternative.
So, that's the discussion. Any questions about...again in all those
alternatives, roughly the commercially developed, commercially zoned
properties is pretty much the same. We did increase from the preferred
alternative, industrial as certain properties at the request of property owners
were shifted from, for example, west of Portola, north of Dinah Shore which
in the preferred alternative was designated as multi-family, that has been
changed back to Industrial Office Park. Business Park in the staff
recommended alternative and there has also been some internal shifting
from the northeast corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford from Community
Commercial to Industrial Office Park, so the industrial office park category in
the staff recommended alternative has increased as a result of those shifts.
Finerty Mr. Drell, on the less intense use, are we still not planning for a school?
Drell Again, I think what we did was in the different alternatives, as you recall,
there was some sentiment whether or not to have a school. So at that time,
we said okay let's have an alternative that doesn't have a school.
Finerty Okay. Do we need a school?
Drell It is our feeling that yes, we need a school.
Finerty Is it the school district's feeling that the school is needed?
3
SUBJECT TC
REVISION
o
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
Drell There is no question, in fact we have received, if you look back at the staff
recommended alternative, we have received specific correspondence from
Palm Springs District designating these 2 school sites, they are engaged in
their environmental analysis.
Finerty Because they can come in and take the land for their school. Correct?
Drell They have the ability to acquire the properties.
Finerty So then, if we know that they are looking at these sites, wouldn't it be helpful
if all of the options here provided 58 acres for the school?
Drell Again, the time, when that particular alternative was created, there was some
thought amongst some important citizens of the city that we have no schools,
so we created an option without schools. That is why in the staff
recommended alternative we have the school sties. That is why in the
preferred alternative we have the school sites. So, we have alternatives
which analyze school sites. Not all of them do and not all of them need to.
But again, the recommended alternative does include the 2 school sites.
Finerty So, on the less intense use, if we were to pull out the acres for the school
sites, where would they come from?
Drell We were showing in less intense, I think we were showing parks for the ....
Finerty For the open space parks, the 211 ....
Drell For the equivalent amount of acreage, I believe we were showing where the
Middle School is we had a large park. Where the high school is, I don't think
we showed anything. We showed actually more, we showed high density.
Finerty Help me to understand why the amount of acres in each alternative is
different?
Drell In doing the mapping and under outlining each section, it is a computer
issue. We tried to get them as close as we could, or I tried to get my GIS
guy to get it as close as we could, but given that general plans in essence
are general, the general plan is not like the zoning map, it doesn't have, the
zones don't have a fixed legal description. That given the general nature of
these designations betting within 100 acres is probably close enough.
4
SUBJECT TC
MINUTES ,;: g 4 h
— REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
Finerty Okay.
Campbell Any other questions of staff?
Tschopp Just to, so if I understand you right, the less intense with showing no schools
is not really an option?
Drell I think we always anticipated that what would come out of the hearings would
be a combination of the alternatives. It might be an option as far as certain
members of the City Council is concerned, so that is why we provided it. At
the time we did them, there were strong feelings and there still might be
strong feelings, maybe they modified to certain degrees, I don't know. But
at that time, there was some direction coming from above to eliminate school
sites entirely and it was the GPAC that in the preferred alternative,
specifically directed that the school sites be shown.
Tschopp But if the school district has the right to pre-empt, move forward, on the land
no matter what this commission does or the council, shouldn't it just be
included or somehow adjusted for it?
Drell Yes, there is and that is why in the staff recommended alternative and the
preferred alternative it was included.
Tschopp And, just to refresh my memory, the staff recommended alternative is the
GPAC recommended alternative?
Drell No, remember, the preferred alternative is the GPAC recommended
alternative. That is the one where we, and I would not, I guess the answer
is why is staff departing from the GPAC recommended alternative which
attempted to achieve more housing and has as the primary, has much more
emphasis on the medium density housing to achieve that. It has, I guess it
is, you know, the art of politics is compromised and the staff recommended
alternative is in essence a concession to the desires of the property owners
to more easily address today's market and doing the things that they are
used to doing which is low density residential, so it has basically reintroduced
as a large segment of both the what they call the Cook Street/University
neighborhood and the Monterey/Gerald Ford neighborhood, it has
reintroduced a large component of low density residential which accounts for
the approximately 2,000 fewer units. But again, at least maintains our
5
SUBJECT IT
REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4. 2003
projected housing production that really has been in the general plan since
1980 for this area.
Tschopp So the staff recommended is the planning staff recommendation?
Drell Correct.
Tschopp Then the more intense, is that a recommendation from anyone?
Drell No. Basically, when you do an EIR you produce a regional alternative just
like in essence you have a no project alternative which in this case is our
existing general plan. So, you create these hypotheticals just as a means of
comparison.
Tschopp And the same would go with a less intense. Is that correct?
Drell Correct. There was on the GPAC some sentiment for the less intense.
I don't think there was any sentiment necessarily for the more intense, but
there was sentiment on the GPAC for the less intense and again, you try to
create your range so that when you do your EIR study, you can see what
changes result with these various alternatives.
Finerty On the industrial business park, between the staff recommended alternative
and the less intense use, there is a considerable difference of square
footage.
Drell On the less intense, we divided up that area north of Dinah Shore into light
industrial and industrial business park. To a certain degree when you read
the descriptions and maybe this is not a criticism, but I think a general plan
should be general. In looking at industrial business park it is probably a
more appropriate general plan designation. You can get more specific in
zoning but if you just look, it is the same area if you have the industrial
business park and light industrial together, it equals the industrial business
park in the staff recommended alternative.
Finerty And do we have somewhere a breakdown of all of the commercial uses, like
the difference between Community Commercial and neighborhood
commercial?
6
SUBJECT TC
o REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
Drell Yes, that was distributed last meeting.
Finerty It is in my stack, okay.
Drell It was in the general plan originally, but we amended it so it was at the last
meeting, describing each one of those.
I guess the distinctions in the commercial is a matter of the market that it is
serving. The neighborhood is to serve the immediate neighborhood. The
community commercial would serve the larger area and then regional
commercial of course serves the Coachella Valley.
Campbell Mr. Drell, can you explain the light industrial zone? What would be going in
there?
Drell I guess the distinction and this is probably one of the reasons why we went
the way we did in the preferred alternative, I mean in the staff recommended
alternative, is light industrial is more specifically your auto body shops, sheet
metal fabricators, cabinet shops, and irrigation supply. Industrial business
park is really more what we've ended up, for example, in the Cook Street
area.
Campbell But we have a variation of both there.
Drell And that is what I mean and that is why we thought that trying to segregate
those uses, one from another when there is a very fuzzy line between them.
Between, and you know, obviously, in the Cook Street industrial parks, which
technically is service industrial which is light industrial, the market has
chosen to mix them up and we have not resisted that and so the industrial
business park is a more generalized which allows, I guess the other big issue
is that when someone builds a building, they really don't know what the uses
are going to be. We had in the Cook Street area people building generic
buildings and they end up... sometimes they get leased out to designer
showrooms, and sometimes they get leased out to sheet metal fabricators
or warehouses. Architecturally we have been making them all look like
business park buildings.
And as a result of our architectural and its design requirements, they became
very attractive to the more business park industrial park sort of users, so in
essence the decision was to keep the zone more generic, what the market
7
r
SUBJECT TC
`I~'J " REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4. 2003
determined what the mix is going to be. Again as I can say, one could argue
that we have too many categories in the general plan to begin with given the
general nature of what this document is supposed to be like.
Campbell Then we know for a fact that another Desert Willow will be there?
Drell We don't know that as a fact, that was why it was purchased. We did
assume that...the redevelopment agency purchased 145 acres east of
Portola and west of Portola as well. You know, all the property between
Shepherd Lane and Shadow Ridge. We did assume that was going under,
even though it was bought by the RDA, that it would revert back to
residential.
The presumption is, I guess if you are still optimistic about Desert Willow and
I think we still are, that when the hotel sites get developed, we will need the
third golf course and so it is a matter of when, not if, hopefully.
Campbell Because that would help us make an evaluation of what we want there, the
high density, medium density or low density, right next to the golf course.
Drell Yeah, that is why, I am sure that is the developer's perception of why he put
the low density there, to maximize that value. And, again I think the
assumption is that is the appropriate location for what will be the last golf
course built in Palm Desert. Whether it is 2 years, 5 years or 10 years,
unless there is a radical rethinking of what Desert Willow is about, I think that
will happen.
Campbell Any more questions of staff?
Tschopp Going back to the school real quick and not to get specific, but more in
general terms knowing what the impact that schools have on a community,
both positive, negative, traffic wise, and so forth. It seems to me that where
the school is being located at is going to be where there they are proposing
to put it, was going to benefit other cities such as Rancho Mirage, and so
forth. Are you aware that the school district has perhaps looked also at
property in the Rancho Mirage area or is it a foregone conclusion that they
are going into this area?
Drell Whether they have looked elsewhere, I don't know. They have specifically
identified and notified us officially that they have started the process of
8
(-,• tA _ SUBJECT TC
MINUTES r�.. , `<< t'_ i REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4. 2003
planning a school at this location. What you have to realize is that they're,
this, I guess that there are 2 issues with the school. There are 2 types of
schools. One is that their zone of service includes both Rancho Mirage and
Thousand Palms which is north of us. In terms of, if you look at for instance,
the Middle School, the K-8 which is the one that is planned to be located in
the Monterey/Gerald Ford quadrant neighborhood. In terms of long term
probably center of gravity, that is not too far off. Their desire with the high
school, which is obviously more skewed to the east then the center of
gravity, partly has to do with their desire to be as close to the University as
possible. They plan on calling this University High School and my
understanding is that it will be kind of a magnet school for the district with
special programs which have association with the University, which could
conceivably draw kids from all over the Palm Springs District because of
those special programs. So, that is their thinking. But we have been officially
notified for both of these sites, that they are, it is their intent and they are
beginning the development and review process to whatever they go through
which is what they ultimately go through with the State to get these sites
approved and move them along towards development.
My presumption is that the High School probably is a good ways off but the
elementary middle school I believe is funded in that bond issue they passed.
My recollection was that the acquisition of the high school site was funded
in the bond issue, but not the construction of it. Also, just the planning of the
construction of high schools take a lot longer.
Finerty Okay, so the high school is at Portola and Gerald Ford and the elementary
middle school is north of Gerald Ford?
Drell Correct, in that neighborhood, so obviously, the K-8 is more situated as a
traditionally neighborhood serving school. The high school as you recall,
initially we were trying to site the high school inside that Cook/Gerald Ford
neighborhood and it was originally sited right after the commercial, right west
of Cook Street. What we heard from, and we heard it second hand from the
district, was initially they thought they could create a cooperative relationship
with the University for the sharing of athletic facilities, potentially a football
stadium or football field, not a stadium, and they need only therefore a
smaller site on the ground there since they were sharing athletic fields.
Apparently that didn't seem to pan out, so once they needed their own
athletic facilities, having a large, a potentially, and again they had to look into
the future 20 years from now, football facility in the middle of a otherwise
9
SUBJECT TC
MINUTES REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
quiet residential neighborhood didn't seem like a good plan long term, which
is why they needed more real estate and they wanted it in a less impacting
location, which is why it got changed to Portola and Gerald Ford.
And again, it is showing a street running through part of the high school site
and that is just our GIS guys overlaying one thing over another and not
reconciling them.
Campbell Have any questions with this study?
Lopez Have you talked about the mixed use?
Drell Not yet and you want to know, you have a question about what it means?
Lopez Well, I guess I would like to understand the rationale on staffs
recommendation versus GPAC's recommendations as far as location and
uses of mixed use.
Drell We didn't have a mixed use category in the preferred alternative at all. It first
showed up, and although you don't have that here, or you should have it if
you kept it, as a suggestion of the, from the suggested master plan
suggested by the property owners and developer of the University Park
master plan, Cook Street/Gerald Ford area.
In the preferred alternative you saw a high density area at the northwest
corner of what would be Technology and Gerald Ford and that turned into a
mixed use and actually the discussion from the developer is that he would
like to have that mixed use moved towards the high school, which, but again
mixed use is a very permissive flexible designation and really it says, the
original motivation was to get as much housing and multi family housing
adjacent to the University and adjacent to the industrial business park. In
essence, one of the things we are going to be talking about in circulation is,
you know the more cars you can, a land use arrangement which allows
origins and destinations to be proximate to each other and eliminate the
need for people to enter the arterial system, you know every car we keep off
the arterial system is a benefit. If you looked at the EIR, you look at how
many of the 20/20 even if we should turn everything to 6 lanes, how many
segments still went to F and the reason is if you look at the way a lot of the
City is designed, almost every trip from a residential area to where someone
wants to go forces someone to go onto the arterial system and that is why
10
r,, Fors
SUBJECT TC
REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
over a time they have been failing throughout southern California. The goal
in the preferred alternativen and of the goals in the urban design element
9
and articulate elsewhere is to create as many opportunities as possible for
people to get from their origin to their destination without directly, without
having to enter the arterial system. That is the theory of mixed use.
To say that these areas, that this area or somewhere in that block between
a high school and Gerald Ford on the north side, if we can create and this is
a product which existed commonly in American cities and European cities for
hundreds of years and disappeared after 1950 is coming back in
metropolitan areas throughout southern California now and San Diego and
elsewhere. If you can develop multi family housing in proximity to either
retail or professional offices or industrial business parks you've provided at
least some opportunity for people to make that choice, that I'm going to live
and walk to work. So that is the theory. Obviously not everyone is going to
do it, but if 20% or 30% of the people do it, for every car we keep off the
arterial, that forestalls that level F maybe a little bit longer.
Finerty As I look at the staff recommended alternative for office professional and I
see only 3 tiny spaces which is the equivalent of 14 acres, why is staffs
thinking that we need so little OP?
Drell Again, the office professional, we have all of this office, industrial business
park which encompasses office professional. Again, this is our experience
that we have used the office professional zone in the existing city primarily
as a fix where we had formerly residences on major arterials and we needed
a compatible buffer use to go between the residential behind and the
arterials or commercial in front.
Finerty Yeah, but...
Drell Let me finish. And this is just going by our experience, we created the
service industrial zone on Cook Street to put all the, at that time, light
industrial uses. It seemed what the market decided was that the distinctions
that we made it in light industrial didn't...really weren't all that important and
we had tremendous demand for office professional going into the light
industrial. In this situation, since we're starting from scratch, the only area
where we have that residential kind of high arterial commercial conflict is
along Gerald Ford at the Gerald Ford/Sinatra corner and we are potentially
11
.. , FT SUBJECT R.
MINUTES
tr `� ® REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
suggesting that in the study zone at the Frank Sinatra/Portola corner, but
otherwise we are saying that...
Finerty But there is really no buffer.
Drell Where?
Finerty At the Frank Sinatra area because you've got mixed use and then you've got
that little bit of OP and then you've got the open space, so I don't know what
you're really buffering.
Drell Where are you referring exactly?
Finerty Okay, on Frank Sinatra west of Cook.
Drell Frank Sinatra west of Cook.
Finerty It is a little purple spot.
Drell A little purple spot.
Finerty Just west to the mixed use.
Drell And that's a, you're right. That could be mixed use, that could be anything.
You're right. That little spot is, again that was at the suggestion of I believe
the developer of that property. I guess it's not large enough to do a major
commercial development the way he has it. That University Drive, that
arterial spine road has to...they want a certain distance from that intersection
to Cook Street and that left that little piece of stuff between that and city
owned property, and it wasn't big enough for a significant commercial center
and it's not big enough for a resort property probably.
If you look in our preferred alternative, we had originally, this is before we
kind of, we really showed that as a resort commercial at that corner.
Finerty It just seems like that corner is really ....
Drell You mean it's fragmented.
12
SUBJECT IC
MINUTES
REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
Finerty Yeah, exactly, and it seems like that there could be a better way to divvy that
up.
Drell Where you don't have that little, well again, it allows some private offices to
have a view of the golf course.
Finerty The other thing, and I don't know how the rest of Commission feels, it would
be simpler for me if we didn't have all these categories. If we are going to
say that office professional is really part of the business park and commercial
is commercial.
Drell There is a little, well there is some use for that distinction. The industrial
business park does include the body shops and the sheet metal fabricators
and all the mix of stuff you see at Cook Street.
Finerty And that is not light industrial?
Drell Well, it is a, what we found in Cook Street, it was hard based on what the
market was demanding, it was hard to make that distinction. The distinction
we do want to make, there are certain areas where we don't want...there are
certain broad areas and I think the areas north of Dinah Shore are areas
where through design we can incorporate compatibly all of those various
gradations of uses. There are certain areas where we don't want the sheet
metal shops and those we just want the offices, so there is, while we
eliminated the distinction between light industrial and industrial business
park, the distinction in a few select areas, and remember, these designations
apply throughout the whole city, not just here, and we still have, it is still
relevant throughout the rest of the city where we still have that buffer
problem to retain the professional office designation. Where we just want
offices, we don't want a mix in the light industrial type uses.
Finerty Well I guess I was looking at taking that little spot of OP on Frank Sinatra
and making it all office professional on that corner and eliminating that mixed
use.
Drell Or, I would make it all mixed use. Remember mixed use allows the....
Finerty I know, but I am not thrilled with mixed use because of the high density
residential. If it were mixed use between office professional and commercial,
13
Air
o SUBJECT TC
REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
I would be happy with that. But to me, it is just another pocket where you
know 22 units per acre could end up in there.
Drell Well, and I would argue that that is a good thing, that where there is
proximity, again a part of the goal here was again to put as much multi family
housing as close to the University as we could. And,
Finerty Well, that was some people's thoughts.
Drell That was the vast majority vote of the GPAC's.
Finerty It was heavily made up of educators.
Drell It was made up of a group of hand selected representatives of the
community by the City Council.
Finerty It was still heavily made up of educators. The other issue with regard to OP
on Gerald Ford, I guess basically is the intersection of Portola and Gerald
Ford, if we're talking about using OP as a buffer, why are we only buffering
half of it?
Drell If you look at the preferred alternative, we did do neighborhood commercial
right on the corner and then high density and then medium density. We did
buffered, we did grade it.
Finerty No, I am talking about, I am sorry, I am talking about buffering it west of
Gerald Ford, because it looks like you would have low density residential
backed up to Gerald Ford.
Drell Oh, I see, so continuing west on Gerald Ford, there is no problem there.
Again that is...unfortunately, that is the one property owner we got absolutely
no input from on what they might have wanted...was the redevelopment
agency who owns that property.
Finerty Okay.
Drell And so, in those situations where we got no input whatsoever, that was
designated as low density residential, we kept it low density residential.
Remember we can always amend it and come back and change it if the
14
SUBJECT TC
MINUTES "p N
® REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
property owner so desires but that was, I guess that was just a matter of our
path of least resistance. We didn't want to be
Finerty I think it is a good concept in general to have OP buffer low density, I was
just thinking that we need to be consistent and if RDA didn't have any input,
maybe if we were to make that OP all the way across there, then if they were
to look at it, then maybe we would hear from them.
Drell I would agree with you 100%, because the reason why I think that is a good
idea, I believe that having uses that face the street with an open front without
a big wall, which is a far more attractive street scape then what you get at the
back end of a residential area. Secondly, it is more economical in that, you
know we are having this controversy over the maintenance of residential
perimeter landscaping.
Finerty And that would eliminate...
Drell Exactly, that would eliminate it because you have a use that...the offices by
nature have to maintain their front yards instead of having it a the backyard.
So I would agree 100%, it creates a more attractive street scape to have nice
buildings facing the street as opposed to block walls in the back ends of
houses.
Lopez Just as a point of clarification, we are looking at Gerald Ford at the corner of
Portola, the purple area there.
Drell Yes, she is suggesting that that purple area should extend to the west all the
way to Shadow Ridge.
Lopez And then what about across the street?
Drell Urn, we had discussion with the, again you probably want to hear from that
property owner which I don't know if he is here or not. You know the original
idea when you look at the preferred alternative, to have some degree of and
we were showing medium density residential, we were showing some right
at corner, some neighborhood shopping, a little neighborhood shopping
center and some high density so there was some degree of that going on.
If you look further down on the north side of Gerald Ford, you saw
apartments. Again facing...the idea was that those apartments would face
Gerald Ford, not back onto Gerald Ford, so there was some attempt to put
15
rap. SUBJECT T(
iY..; 4 a? mi REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
high traffic compatible uses on Gerald Ford. The property owners were
adamantly against that. They wanted to do what they wanted to do which is
what you see in the staff recommended alternative and believe it or not or if
they believe it or not, ultimately I suggest things to the property owners but
if they are intent on doing something, then sometimes for the sake of
compromising and moving forward I go okay. But if you guys feel that it is
important to do something else, that is for you to recommend.
Campbell Can you tell me what the quasi public facilities are? They are scattered in
different places?
Drell Okay, if you look at the
Campbell The staff recommended
Drell If you look at them now, they have a S, if it says public facility S, that is the,
okay, on the Monterey/Gerald Ford neighborhood, that is the K-8 middle
school, the public facility...
Campbell The gray areas.
Drell The gray area anticipated by that property owner, they are talking to a
church.
Campbell So, we have 3 gray areas in the staff recommend alternative.
Drell The other 3 gray areas are....
Campbell Gerald Ford and Portola and then Portola and Dinah Shore
Drell Okay, the Gerald Ford and Portola one is the, if it doesn't say S by it, that
means it's not specifically at this time designated as a school. The PF...
Campbell It is only a PF.
Drell The PF, the thought and again if you have, if you remember the master plan
submitted by this property owner, more specifically defined the PF for this
project and his thought is...on that one he is in negotiation with the church.
Finerty Which PF are we talking about?
16
SUBJECT T(
MINUTES
REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
Drell The PF at Gerald Ford and Portola.
Campbell The big square.
Drell The little PF that is next to the park off of what would be Berger and what is
going to be called University which is the internal road there, in getting that
master planned, they are anticipating a child care center, a library, or a fire
station or something like that.
Campbell And how about the one on Dinah Shore and Portola?
Drell Dinah Shore and Portola...
Campbell Left of ....
Drell Oh, oh, that is an Edison facility.
Campbell Okay. That is there already?
Drell No, Edison owns the property. It's not...which brings up another thing I
should mention. I am not sure, and Mark might talk about that a little bit and
we had a long discussion with it earlier in the week, a lot of the geometry at
that intersection right now of Dinah Shore and Portola as it relates to a future
interchange is right now strongly influenced by that existing Edison property
with forces that intersection to be exactly where it is which I understand is not
absolutely ideal to the geometry of the...so conceivably that could change.
I don't know if it will or not, when we finally get down to designing the long
term design of the interchange. But that's what that is for.
Another thing I would like to point out...it is something you should know
about, think about...you see both in the preferred alternative and actually
probably all the alternatives, along Gerald Ford, a kind of a green belt or ....
Finerty OS/PR?
Drell Yeah, in our environment, it is more of a...I would call a tan belt. Also, you
are seeing the same sort of thing up at that intersection of what would be
Dinah Shore and Portola. Those were at the specific request of a discussion
of some members of the GPAC to create somewhat more significant areas
of desert landscaping in this plan, something more than just a perimeter
17
SUBJECT T(
MINUTES 4, a Nt
REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4. 2003
landscape treatment and those are kind of designed...lf you look at that
Gerald Ford/Cook one, it is backing up onto multi-family which more than
likely will be facing inward, facing to the south and that would in essence
provide the buffer between Gerald Ford and the multi family and would
create as you're driving down Gerald Ford, somewhat of a perception you
are leaving one neighborhood and going to another, which is that one at
begins at Portola and Gerald Ford.
The other is the one at that intersection at Dinah Shore and Portola and that
is as part of some future interchange as people enter the City, their first
experiences of a desert environment somewhat not a commercial industrial
corner.
So, those were 2 areas that were in response to that desire from GPAC to
create some of these areas that was staffs kind of recommendation...those
were 2 areas where it might serve some urban design purpose.
The issue on these things is, where is the land going to come from and who
is going to maintain these things?
We learned with, for those of you familiar with Haystack, the Haystack Park
controversy where the City tried to combine as a condition of approval, on
Canyon Cove, the installation and maintenance of that drainage channel
park and it was challenged by the residents and the determination was, that
facility even though it was adjacent to their perimeter, is really a substantial
public benefit facility and, therefore, in the assessment district that was
created to maintain it, the City ended up getting stuck with 60 or 70% of the
maintenance, so the presumption is if we required developers to do this, that
which would exceed what we normally require as a perimeter of the project
would probably be ultimately on the City's nickel. So, these would be kind
of an open space park as being what they call a general benefit as opposed
to specific benefit, it would probably be the City's responsibility.
Finerty GPAC also felt that we ought not to have every piece of land covered with
a building.
Drell Correct. And of course you know we do as you see in the plan between the
golf course and the parks and those with significant open space and you see
within the...really on that school site although it doesn't and it really should
show up on the staffing alternative...basically on the K-8, they're asking for
18
SUBJECT T(
MINUTES gm REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
25 acres of which 10 acres would be a common use public park similar with,
hopefully if we can talk to the Palm Springs District, the same sort of
arrangement we have with the new school and park we are doing on Country
Club.
Finerty Right.
Drell And then in the Cook Street/Gerald Ford neighborhood, we are showing
again three smaller, initially with the high school we were showing a large
park, the high school left and we broke that into 3 smaller parks distributed
throughout that neighborhood.
Finerty I noticed that north of the freeway, the less intense use is broken down
differently than on the preferred and the staff recommended alternative,
specifically with regard to high density.
Drell Yes.
Finerty Do we have an idea from the county which would be most accurate?
Drell We just got a comment from them, they didn't even mention that at all and
I apologize, when I had the GIS guy redo the staff recommended alternative
for the University area, he didn't do anything to the area north of 1-10. It was
my intent that we would substitute the less intense alternative for the area
shown currently, mainly because I just don't think a mass of high density that
large is a good idea.
Finerty Okay, so the staff recommended alternative north of the freeway should
reflect the less intense.
Drell Yes.
Criste If I could just add to that, the one other additional change at least I would like
to submit to you would be that we have changed the maximum lot size down
from what the county's requirement was for Mountain Estates it's called...we
cut it in half and the County's designation is one per 40 and to be perhaps
consistent with both the county and the multi species plan expectations, I
would suggest we go back to that county designation of one per forty where
we have one per 20. That is the only addition I would suggest.
19
...wry
SUBJECT T(
REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
Drell In this map you won't see any of that, which is further north.
Criste It is further north. It is also a mix of large area so that while the density
change may seem insignificant, there are thousands of acres designated like
that so it would make a big difference both in terms of just open space
preservation, traffic and circulation, and consistency with the multi species
plan.
Drell And frankly, although it was an interesting exercise dealing with the area
north of the freeway, it is an area where, in that particular area we probably
have no plans to annex and I am not sure the folks in Thousand Palms have
any desire to be annexed to the City, so it is a suggestion to try to better
address the...what we feel a huge housing demand created on both sides of
the freeway...the housing demand created by the commercial in that area.
But still, the concentration of high density in the GPAC was...we felt was
inappropriate.
Lopez Again, I apologize for being late this morning and you may have touched
upon this since opening remarks and comments, but I guess I would
question the general plan staff recommended alternative is your best effort
to incorporate what GPAC has done, as well as what information you have
received from developers...
Drell And property owners, correct.
Lopez And property owners. The preferred alternative is GPAC's best.
Drell Yes.
Lopez An then they have also more intense and less intense.
Drell Those were created by staff for the...initially, just for the...to meet the
requirements of the environmental impact report and to see what differences
what varying the mix would have.
Lopez So the preferred alternative is GPAC's recommendation.
Drell Correct.
20
F' T(
4 `Y`; �' SUBJECT
REVISION
MINUTES '
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
Lopez And then the staff recommended alternative is taking their recommendations,
incorporating what you know from developers and land owners.
Drell Correct.
Lopez Okay, thank you.
Campbell Any more questions of staff? No? Okay.
Drell I would suggest that we open the public hearing and let those members of
the public who didn't get a chance to speak at the last meeting to address
their concerns.
Campbell The public hearing is open and we have 2 blue cards here and so these
people can speak first. Rick Domonsky?
Well then I will call somebody else and he can speak after this other person.
Malcolm Reilly? (No response)
Anyone else who wants to speak?
Tom Noble
42620 Caroline Ct.
Palm Desert
Really, just...You have quite a bit of correspondence I sent at earlier
meetings, specifically with the property that the staff of the preferred
alternative has returned in effect to its current zoning of service industrial
above the Dinah Shore extension and west of the Portola extension. I
appreciate Mr. Drell's listening to the concerns we had about the GPAC's
preferred alternative which included quite a bit of high density residential
property and I would just like to go on record in favor of the zoning as
changed in the staff's current recommendation. Thank you.
Campbell Is Mr. Domonsky here now?
Reilly I am not Mr. Domonsky. Can I speak first and have Mr. Domonsky follow
me?
Campbell Yes go ahead and state your name.
21
SUBJECT Tt
MINUTES a REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4. 2003
Malcolm Reilly
11640 San Vicente Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA
We are the owners of the shopping center at the southeast corner of Country
Club and Monterey. This is the shopping center with the recently vacated
Albertson's Market. We are the owner of that shopping center and we also
own the market. We bought the property with the idea of upgrading the
center and replacing the supermarket.
In that regard, we are in negotiations with Gelson's supermarket. We do not
have a commitment from them. I want to make that clear and our intent is
to hopefully make the arrangement with Gelsons to upgrade the center and
make it the type of center I think Palm Desert would like there.
The reason that we are here is to talk about the northeast corner which is the
vacant parcel of I think approximately eight acres. It is currently zoned
residential and I believe the staff is recommended continuing residential but
they have asked or suggested an additional study for use of that property
that would be other than residential. We also know that the owner of that
shopping center is contemplating and has told people that he is going to
hopefully put in a shopping center, a supermarket or in a shopping center in
that location, we feel that the intersection which is basically a neighborhood
intersection could not support three supermarket oriented shopping centers
and indeed Gelsons has told us flat out that if that property is ever
contemplated to be zoned commercial, or if a supermarket were to go there,
they would not be interested in going into our shopping center and quite
frankly, from our experience, I don't think we would be able to obtain another
supermarket if a project were to go on the northeast corner.
Now, to further support that position, we have asked Rick Domonsky of
Thompson & Associates, which is a market analysis which will tell you a little
bit more about the impracticality of putting three grocery operated shopping
centers at that intersection.
Campbell Mr. Reilly, what kind of market is that, I am not familiar with that.
Reilly Gelsons is a full line, 33,000 square feet, I guess you would call them
boutique at 33,000 square feet, but they are very high quality and very high
service, they are the anti-WalMart, they actually increase their sales when
22
SUBJECT T(
`
ill REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
WalMart comes because there are a lot of people looking for the more
intimate, very high quality type of grocery store. I don't believe there is a
grocery store like it right now in the Coachella Valley. I know Jensons is
excellent but they are not exactly like a Gelsons. They like the medium size,
comfortable kind of quiet type of shopping versus the other types of shopping
that are being built.
Campbell Thank you.
Reilly By the way, they only contemplate doing one store in the Coachella Valley
and this is the only location that they would go, so they tell us.
Campbell Great. Thank you. That sounds nice.
Good morning commission members, staff. My name is Rick Domansky. I
am senior client manager with Map Info/Thompson Associates. It is a
recently merged company.
Campbell Can you give us your address for the record?
Rick Domansky
Map Info/Thompson Associates
7567 Amador Valley Blvd.
Suite 310
Dublin, CA 94568
Prior to our merger, I was vice president of supermarketing for Thompson
Associates for 13 years and partner of the company and we just recently
merged to form Map Info. We have 600 people in our organization. Prior to
my coming on with Thompson Associates I was director of area research for
Ralph's, for federated department stores, for 15 years. In fact my career
started when your city became incorporated in 1973. At Ralph's I was
responsible for introducing Ralph's into the Coachella Valley, bringing them
into Palm Springs, and Indian Wells at Cook and 111. And since that time
when I was at Thompson Associates, my work was basically desert
crossings. That's it. I did Desert Crossing for Lowes, the entire shopping
center. I also brought in Lucky's at Deep Canyon at 111 for American Stores
so I am very familiar with your city. And certainly the venue of WalMart
coming into the Coachella Valley, etc.
23
f: a+!
SUBJECT T(
Le, I rf - REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
In March of this year we were given a challenge by Mal Reilly to say
basically, "hey, we know Super WalMart is coming, we have a brand new
Albertson's 50,000 square footer across the street, what is the best
alternative for our vacated space? Who could be the best 'grocery user' if
we could do it?" And the answer of course is going to be an upscale full
serve, full line grocery store with a great perishables image in meat and
produce. That is the kind of concept that can essentially overlap the impasse
of the Super WalMart centers as has been Raily's case in Bel Air, in places
like Reno and Sparks, Nevada. So, we understand that.
Gelsons just for your information, started actually in 1950-1960 by the
Gelson Brothers and they since have sold to Art Mayfair and they are a very
reputable chain. They don't build stores too close together. Theirs is a very
unique customer. They like to have their stores in good income areas about
10 miles apart. When we looked at this site, looking at that alternative, we
looked at three possible users. We looked at Whole Foods, we looked at
certainly someone like Henry's, we looked at Gelsons. Now, given the fact
that these two stores were already on the drawing board, the numbers came
in lackluster. They weren't barn burners but they were lackluster. In other
words, if you had to build a brand new Gelson store in Plaza de Monterey,
it wouldn't pencil out, it would be a negative R.O.Y. The fact that it is an
existing center, they can revamp it. It's got good access, great visibility. It
barely works as it is.
The fact that Gelsons has no sister stores in the Coachella Valley because
theirs is going to be a single store strategy for the entire Valley, Palm Desert,
obviously, geographically it's the center. But also, the intersection made a
lot of sense for them given their sales volume. If they had a sister store in
either Indian Wells, La Quinta or Palm Springs, it probably would impact their
sales by 10%. That would be a break point. It would not happen. In other
words, you cannot rebuild a Gelsons at that intersection. So, this is almost
a custom fit for them.
The fact that if you bring in a third store with a high perishables full service
image, obviously you know to compete directly with them, the critical mass
of three stores at that intersection, you run the risk of actually having all three
stores fall below break even, including a Henry's, a Gelsons and Albertsons,
with the Super WalMart center. That being said, that's what you risk.
24
j'" II SUBJECT T(
- REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
The fact that Gelsons can survive even with the growth that we built into
2008, which is probably, we have added about 10,000 people to that three
mile ring around them, it barely makes the R.O.Y. requirement.
The fact that they are a little bit more private company and if that were a
company like Vons or Kroger or Albertsons that requires a 20% R.O.Y. to
make the deal, it would never happen. I mean...so it is actually very custom
fit for Gelsons. It would be a unique addition to your valley, certainly.
Everybody in the valley, they have a great high recognition. They did their
own consumer research recognition...85% of your residents know what a
Gelsons is, they've shopped in a Gelsons according to some of the research
that they've done internally and I have also been told by Jim Hansen at our
last meeting that we can't survive if another store goes in across the street,
so I just hope I am not here 5 years from today, trying to support a 99¢ only
store or something for that site.
That's all I have to add. But like I said, I am very familiar with your city and
I had a hell of a time getting Lucky at Deep Canyon but I convinced them it
was the spot to go in and they did very very well there, so I am certainly...do
200 studies a year, done over a 1,000 and this is what we do and this is what
we know.
Are there any questions?
Finerty Yes. How quickly would Gelsons want to move?
Domansky I'm sorry?
Finerty How quickly would they want to move?
Domansky To move into the site?
Finerty Yes.
Domansky I guess that is really a question for Mr. Reilly. Come on up here and join me.
Reilly Assuming we were successful, we would have 3 or 4 months of working on
the building to suit their requirements and they would probably want to open
a year from now. They would not want to open off season, so probably a
year from now is the answer to your question.
25
SUBJECT T(
' s REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
Finerty Thank you.
Lopez A quick question also. Based on the experience that we have had here, do
you have any ideas about the traffic circulation through that area? That has
been a difficult place to get through with the smaller stores in there as well
as having an anchor. Does that come into the conversation at all?
Reilly Well there is no question the ingress and egress is not ideal, but there have
been supermarkets there. Lucky's did a phenomenal volume when it was
there on its own, far more than anything that Gelsons contemplates, so it will
be something quite frankly I wish I could say otherwise that people get used
to and know how to get in and out and they know how to go by the deli and
make the left hand turn there, and so forth. But we are aware the traffic is
not going to get any lighter, and it is a consideration, but that location has
supported very very high volumes in the past.
Campbell That was going to be one of my questions also.
Domansky I would also like to add that Gelsons is kind of almost like a destination
retailer so I would assume that probably a good third of its business is going
to come from outside of Palm Desert, from Rancho Mirage and certainly from
La Quinta and Indian Wells as well.
Campbell Also, the parking lot needs to go ahead and be worked on too because the
circulation there is very very poor.
Reilly We have a major renovation and upgrade plan for the center, we are just
waiting hopefully to get Gelsons in tow and we think you will be very pleased
with what we do.
Tschopp Okay. A couple of questions for you. I know your specialty is grocery stores,
but did you consider other alternatives to that site other than a grocery store
going in there?
Domansky That is up to our client Mal. Our direction was to, it was actually not even
direction, it was a challenge. I've known Mal from my years from Ralph. We
have done a lot of centers with Mal Reilly, certainly and I am I guess the guru
of grocery stores, or whatever in the California region. He basically gave me
a challenge and said "If this were your center, what would you do with it?"
and I looked at it. He never...he was bouncing around names like Wild Oats
26
SUBJECT T(
REVISION
MINUTES5�
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
and Whole Foods and I turned around, I gave him a report, I go, man beeline
for Gelsons. I know that they want to come into the Coachella Valley. This
is the most central most spot, it is their size, it is their customer, they are
going to start off, you know given the fact that you've got two stores coming
in it is going to be a slow start off, but the point is is that they have a great
reputation and everybody will know them. Everybody knows who they are
and that to me was like, once I get my mind set on something, we went after
them and I totally went after them. Was I right?
Reilly Yes.
Tschopp So you really didn't look then at other uses for the center.
Reilly Sure, we have a downside scenario, doomsday scenario, if we don't get a
supermarket, meaning neighborhood shopping centers of this type are
predicated on a supermarket, they bring people there one or twice a week
and your shops rely on that and that's what makes them successful.
But if we're unable to get a supermarket but it depends, I am assuming that
there is no retail or no shopping center across the street we'll get by. We will
probably subdivide the building and we talked to furniture stores and we
have talked to discount women's clothing. Those types of tenants, you could
probably guess who they would be. There is the dollar stores, 10,000,
15,000 square feet. There are party stores, that type of thing. As I say, it is
a fall back position but that is the type of tenant that I would foresee and the
center would be of a different nature. But we would lease it and it would be
successful and a good shopping center. But it would not be as good as if we
were able to get Gelsons which I think would make it an "A" quality center.
It would be something that we would be very very proud to own from our
standpoint, and this is what we are hoping will work out that way.
Tschopp It is my understanding that the staff has made the northeast corner a study
area right now and it is zoned residential, but as the City goes through this
process and looks at how to buffer residential from high volume intersections
such as this area right where we are talking about, have you given your input
or would you give your input on what you think would be the appropriate
zoning across the street?
Reilly Well, no we haven't. We sort of looked at it from a defensive standpoint and
in all honesty, residential would be good for us because it would bring
27
ALTSUBJECT T(
REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4. 2003
customers there, but I don't think we would have any objection to other forms
of retail as long as it does not include a supermarket, perhaps office if there
is demand for that type of a use, would be a good use for it. Maybe even a
mixed use if the traffic can be worked out. But no, we really haven't given
any thought to what we would do with that property. We are just concerned
that if it becomes a supermarket anchored shopping center, it would be very
very bad for our center.
Domansky Not so much bad for their center, but detrimental to Gelsons. I mean, this is
their magic spot. This is what they want to make happen, I believe, and it is
ready to go.
Campbell Thank you. Mr. Drell you want to go ahead?
Drell Okay, I believe now if the Commission has no more comments over land
use, that we will probably take it up again at the next meeting when Sabby
is back but I think the suggestion is now that we go on to our introduction to
the Circulation Element, so that would be the next order of business.
Criste Requested a break.
CHAIRPERSON CAMPBELL CALLED FOR A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AT 9:52 A.M. THE
MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 10:03 A.M.
Campbell We have now resumed the public hearing and I just wanted to let the public
know that this meeting will terminate at 11:30 and will resume again at 6:00
pm. We will go ahead and not close the public hearing but will continue till
6:00. Okay, we're ready.
Criste We are going to go start our venture into the circulation element. I know
you've had a chance to look at the elements in the general plan and the EIR
also provides a very detailed discussion about the traffic model and we've
provided what essentially is a summary version of what comes out of the
general plan and the EIR and we are going to run through a real brief power
point presentation showing a lot of major intersections and some other items
and then briefly reference again the staff report materials and then staff is
going to go over some of the major issues that they want to relate to you
relevant to the traffic issues associated with the general plan. So, to get
started here, the City Engineer sent out staff to take some photos of key
intersections and roadway segments so you can see we've got some really
28
.""" SUBJECT T(
, �
MINUTES 1,:
REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
excellent photographs to show the roadways and examples of operating
conditions as well.
This is Highway 111 looking west. Here is another stretch of 111 looking
west at the Desert Crossing Center section. You can see here we have
three through lanes and dual lefts for the westbound traffic. This is 111
again looking further west towards Rancho Mirage. You can see we have
high volumes of traffic and our six-lane configuration completed in this
stretch. Same general vicinity. This is Monterey and 111, one of our highest
volume intersections. Here we've got again 3 through lanes, 2 dual lefts and
then a dedicated right turn lane, so it really helps to optimize the flow of
traffic through that intersection. New improvements on Fred Waring. This
predates actually the construction of the new improvements or completion
of them. Looking east, again one of our high volume roads. Another view of
Fred Waring west of Deep Canyon looking east. You can see how traffic
moves in these groupings sometimes called platoons that are sometimes
were formed by the signal phasing. Another good example of intersection
turning movements. Here we've got a dedicated right turn coming
southbound off of Portola. That is in the bottom left hand side of the photo.
You can see how that's a free movement for southbound Portola travelers
onto westbound Fred Waring. Fred Waring east of Portola...part of
improvements again with the center turn lane.
This is one way of facilitating left hand turning movements in the absence of
a raised median and turn pockets. There are occasions where this is an
appropriate type of configuration. Heavy congestion on the east leg of Fred
Waring and Portola. Good movement here...you can see along Fred Waring,
near City Hall. Here is an example of the street that has plenty of capacity.
This is Haystack looking west. Notice also the bike lane striping and the
center lane to facilitate left turns in both directions. Another view of
Haystack.
This is Monterey and Country club and the area where the subject of
discussion was earlier. We are looking south in the upper right hand corner
is the new Albertson center in Rancho Mirage and to the left is the existing
Plaza de Monterey commercial center. Washington at 42, another high
volume street and again the 6 through lane configuration. Washington
looking north. Again, another view of Washington showing...notice that we
have limited access points along Washington here which keeps a smooth
29
SUBJECT Tt
o REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4. 2003
flow of traffic or limits the amount of disruption of the traffic flows, so
restricting access on large arterials can really enhance capacity.
This is the south side, or looking south on Monterey from up on the bridge
essentially, the approach on I-10 and the Home Depot on the far right and
the Desert Gateway property it is in the center mid-ground by those power
poles. This is a typical commercial access. This is at the Home Depot looking
across the street to what would be a future access drive for the Desert
Gateway project and it will be a signalized intersection.
Some of our streets aren't fully improved yet. We are waiting for adjoining
developments so we have had edge to curb kind of conditions like this or
rather edge of pavement. Out in this area we are also contending with
blowing sand, we've had this problem of course on Sinatra during
construction of Shadow Ridge and some other areas. This should start to
dissipate as development occurs on the south of the interstate continues to
stabilize these areas. This is on the I-10, looking east on I-10, east of the
Monterey on ramp.
These are the new or revised street cross sections that City staff has put
together and we have now incorporated into the draft general plan for your
consideration and approval. They substantially conform to those that were
set forth, recommended by traffic engineer and earlier staff versions and this
is just an example of one of these kind of a critical intersection where we
optimized turning movements through an arterial intersection. Also you will
note that the bottom figure is a left turn pocket. This is for instance what is
being done now on Magnesia Falls at Monterey to preclude a dangerous or
hazardous westbound left off of Mag Falls onto Monterey that is precluded,
but the left turn pocket for southbound traffic is being preserved and is now
open in fact, just recently.
The general plan traffic model does not take any consideration for mass
transit or for the use of bicycles or for the use of golf carts. So, in that respect
it should be viewed as a fairly conservative projection. It is a highly variable
thing about how you optimize the use of mass transit and other types of non
single occupant vehicle travel. Again, a lot of this lies with the kind of
complimentary land use planning you do along the lines that Phil was
discussing earlier.
30
' arrow
SUBJECT TC
REVISION
MINUTES
e!
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
We have lots of great sidewalks that people use here as almost an extension
of the resort lifestyle and of the retirement second home lifestyle. These are
really critical parts of the public circulation improvement and there are also
in this kind of environment also an extension of the open space environment
essentially.
Again, golf course paths, and notations we have for that signage. Here is a
case of having a bike path on Country Club and a nice meandering sidewalk
along the same street. We have a map in the, I can't remember if it is in
Parks and Rec, it is in Parks and Rec much to the chagrin of the traffic
engineers, the golf cart and bike path route which they think should be
moved into the circulation element. I don't think we are adverse to that. It
could even be in both in some fashion so, but it definitely affects the
operation of the road system and the traffic engineers want to make sure that
they are fully engaged in those considerations.
This is mass transit or a rather non-motorized transit on Amsterdam. This is
a garage for bicycles and you can see there are thousands of bicycles in this
one little parking area. We may not be able to accomplish that, but we do
have the kind of opportunity in a user group on the north end eventually that
may extend substantially our use of bicycles in the City.
This is a good example of the relationship between land use and streets and
how you have just a mix of patterns and then need to integrate traffic with
surrounding lands from an access point of view and this was a pretty graphic
example in the city.
We also have issues where if you place residential development for instance
or any kind of development along our roadway and have access onto it, in
this case even parking on a long strip, you are going to affect the capacity
of the roadway and you create more potential for turning conflicts that can
either lead to accidents or just reduce capacity. This is on Shadow Mountain,
so incidents here are probably, traffic lines are so low, we probably don't
have much in the way of conflicts of that sort in this area.
Here is an example though where you have an office center and a single
dedicated access drive can serve in this case, probably about 30,000 square
feet of office space pretty efficiently.
31
SUBJECT T(
® REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
Along Portola we have a street, at least one street that has been closed off
from access to Portola and we have access control on this street and in the
future probably along others to again make them safer and to preserve
capacity. This is just north of 111 and Alessandro.
Also along Portola we have issues of widening and you can see that there
are good development and relatively new development adjoining and we
discussed that in some length last time about having to become thoughtful
about compatibility of adjoining land uses along these major arterial
roadways. This is again the same vicinity further north. Also in the same
area where we have single family housing coming...taking access directly off
of Portola and you see the truck coming along so you can imagine during
busy times of the day, getting in and out of this property can be a challenge.
This residential development north of Fred Waring Drive in the area that we
have been discussing up to an area which is a little further up the way where
the homes are served by an internal circulation and don't take access off of
Portola. This is the north end of that stretch of housing on the west end of
Fred Waring.
This is an example of conversion that has occurred. This is Fred Waring
Drive and I believe there are houses along the way. This is where we had
a successful conversion of a single family neighborhood that developed
before anybody, the county primarily, before anybody really envisioned what
Fred Waring would be in the terms of its importance as an arterial and a very
successful conversion of what was becoming a highly impacted residential
area to office and it is a very good example of that kind of conversion.
Also, this is the Walgreen's at the east end of what I call Alessandro, but I
don't know if that is the right name of the alley that we have been discussing
north of Highway 111 that serves the commercial developments like
Andreino's and some others.
This is the west end of that area and then this is internal to that area that
we've discussed about...this is not only important to circulation which it is, but
also the opportunities that we'll be discussing about providing some kind of
additional enhanced parking and also buffer for the residents to the north
and that is pretty much our presentation.
32
SUBJECT T(
MINUTES t o REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
The handout materials that you have, you will notice that in the general plan
and in the EIR, we have talked at length about levels of service on two
levels. One is the level of service on roadway segments which is really a
qualitative mid block kind of qualitative analysis. Do I feel like I am moving
along? Do I feel like I have room to maneuver in the stream of the traffic?
That is really the measure for the mid block and then for the intersections,
the level of service is a function of the length of time that you have to wait to
get through the intersection, essentially.
We have the City's traffic model which has been through at least 2 or 3
iterations at this point, is a focused version of the CVAG and SCAG model
which is a regional traffic model. Our model is a much more focused version
of that.
The materials you have talk about the productions and attractions that are
identified through the land use map and which generate the traffic that flows
on the streets. A lot of this traffic is internal to the city, but a lot of it is
external to the city because we have a lot of attractors that draw traffic on a
regional level. We discuss those types of trips at some length and there is
a greater discussion in the ElR and also the traffic report.
The city has been broken down into 331 small cells or geographic areas
called transportation analysis zones and in each zone is a lot of data and the
first level of data is what are the types of land uses that occur within that
zone and how much acreage is that data, and then what its distribution is
within the zone. And there is also a host of background data which is
socioeconomic data that also has some effects on the amount of traffic that
is generated from these various types of land uses. This gives us a finer
detail, a finer grain, if you will, a resolution of how the traffic system is
operating. We also have about 15 land use categories that were used in the
model for the various types of land uses that generate traffic.
The model sometimes is referred to as a gravity model because essentially
it is looked at as if these were gravitational forces that were drawing traffic.
One of the things it does as an example is that the model will say look at a
regional kind of attractor, like a regional shopping center, and it will start
searching the land use pattern around the center and it knows how many
trips it's going to generate. That is how many trips it is going to attract. It will
start to go progressively further and further afield in order to capture more of
these trips. The trip assignment, or the trips that the computer figures are
33
Ern
- A - SUBJECT IC
® REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
going to be generated, are distributed as I will mention in a minute, out as far
as they need to go in order to capture what we think will be the optimum
traffic level from that particular land use.
The other thing the model does, it looks at both within a transportation zone,
there may be a mix of land uses that compliment each other so there may be
trips generated back and forth between the land uses within a given zone.
This is the kind of condition we are trying to optimize in the University Park
planning area where although there are more than one analysis zones in
there, we're trying to keep the distance between trips and the trip generators
as short as possible and the idea is that if you can keep them within a taz or
adjoining tazzes, you can keep them off the arterial road network, then they
essentially can use the secondary road network in order to get to and from
those locales. We looked at existing traffic conditions and at future traffic
conditions with the general plan alternatives and under existing conditions
we found that several links were operating at very high volumes, 10 of them
at what we would call a level of service D, 7 at level of service E, and 7 at
level of service F. And these are more qualitative again rather than a
quantitative kind of analysis.
And then with regard to intersections, we evaluated 52 intersections. For our
experience, it is an unprecedented level of general plan analysis. Including
calculating all the turning movements for the preferred alternative for all of
these intersections and under current conditions we find that 5 intersections
operate at E or F and 3 intersections are operating at a level of service D and
that is with existing levels of improvement.
We then have some tables that show both link volumes and levels of service
for existing conditions and the same thing for the 52 intersections that we
discussed and again since the constrained part of the road network are
always the intersections, that is the greatest constraint occurs there, if you
can solve your capacity problems at intersections, you've addressed the
lion's share of capacity issues associated with your roadway network. We
find under current conditions that 1-10 at Ramon is operating at exceeding
capacity in some instances. Fred Waring and Deep Canyon, Deep Canyon
and Highway 111, Fred Waring and Cook Street, El Dorado at Hovely Lane,
and Washington Street at both Country Club and Hovely Lane. They are all
currently operating at what we would probably characterize at marginal. In
that case levels of service D or unacceptable, which would be levels of
service E and F. The other thing I would mention is that we have one street
34
SUBJECT T(
t3
lin REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4. 2003
that is on the county-wide congestion management plan. That is Monterey
Avenue and we are required in order to continue to qualify for revenues,
shared revenues for street improvements, we have to maintain that at a level
of service E or better. That would be any intersection along Monterey
Avenue.
We also for the sake of trying to look at how the land use plans relate to the
traffic that is generated, we asked the traffic engineer to break the land use
and what's called the productions and attractions analysis up into 3 districts.
So, we broke the city planning area into 3 districts. The first district is north
of Interstate 10, the mid district is from Frank Sinatra north to Interstate 10.
So, it is essentially all the University Park planning area. The last district is
everything south of Frank Sinatra.
We then have a table that gives you the projected traffic volumes for major
links and then a table that gives us intersection impacts and what we have
done here is we've made bold all those intersections that would continue to
operate a level of service D or worse in the peak hour period and in what is
called the post 20/20 period. That is a presumed build out period for the
general plan and uses CVAG/CVATS numbers for the level of traffic outside
the city itself. You can see that what we have been able to do or what the
traffic engineers have been able to do and again this is a very rough even
though we have a very refined picture, this is a rough approximation of how
the system will operate. It's not meant to be extremely precise, but it is for
land use planning purposes. You can see that with improvements that are
proposed, all intersections analyzed will operate a level of service D or better
and there are probably additional improvements. In fact in some instances
there are additional improvements that have been recommended that will
allow intersections to go from a essential level of failure to a level of service
C. So we have some of the quantum leaps of improvement which are
reflected on Table 6 which is on page 19 of your staff report.
Here again, what we have done is we show the seconds of delay and we
make bold those intersections which continue to operate at a level of service,
well they did operate or would operate at a level of service D or worse, and
then in some instances you will see that below them we now have them
operating at a level of service C or D. So, again all the intersections operate
at a level of service D or better with the recommendations set forth by the
traffic engineers.
35
SUBJECT T(
1 ` r - REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
The other issue that we've mentioned throughout and there are programs for
are the ongoing monitoring analysis function. This is very much an adaptive
management kind of process and so the reality check made regularly by the
traffic engineers, they do traffic counts, they do other kinds of analysis that
help to allow them year by year or on a multi year basis to plan for future
improvements, the capital improvement programs, those sorts of things.
And then we should mention again that we don't have mass transit factored
into this so if we can enhance the availability and use of mass transit and
alternative modes of transportation, we can further enhance operation of the
street system.
We have essentially used the general plan, policies and programs and we
have some discussion about some of these to essentially mitigate issues,
mitigate potential impacts before they occur because this is a predictive tool
and we have a brief summary of mitigations.
Again, a couple of the other issues we had remaining were that the staff has
had a new master circulation plan drafted which they are going to introduce
to you in a minute and also we have modified per staff recommendation, we
are requesting that you consider an amendment to policy one having to do
with the minimum levels of service. This continues to be something of an
issue between staff and myself and the traffic engineers for that matter but
has to do with what is a reasonable level of service from a policy point of
view for intersections and their operation.
We also modified the reference to truck routes in the element to eliminate
reference to specific streets.
You know that we have an issue with regard to Monterey Avenue and the
widening of Monterey south of County Club. Now Rancho Mirage is going
to be doing some analysis. Their issue has to do primarily with noise and we
are seeing we are somewhere in the range now with build out rather of
above 40,000 trips per day. So, we will see how that evolves over time.
The Portola interchange issue. Staff has an exhibit they will be showing you
of a concept for that. It does not do, it is not a miracle worker by any stretch
but it has, it doesn't prove a couple of important interchanges like Monterey
and Cook, it improves Monterey traffic volumes themselves. It also
importantly provides yet another access point to Interstate 10 which is our
36
inAMOS
SUBJECT Tt
6 {-. ® REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
regional transportation link and when you consider the fact that we are in a
high seismic zone we have flooding, we have issues with regard to
emergency preparedness, etc., I'll encourage you to anytime you can
enhance access for this purpose as much as we did with Magnesia Falls
Drive and the bridging of the San Pascual Channel that those things should
be kept in mind and be valued.
Staff is also concerned about maybe adding a policy and program with
regard to the utility company's work in public rights-of-way and trying to say
something specific to that so we have drafted a policy and a program to
address just that.
I will be glad to answer any questions.
Finerty Yes. With regard to level of service. On page 13 of this handout, it talks
about for many years level of service C was considered desirable and
optimal. However, it's saying now that level of service D is now considered
the generally acceptable service level. Who decided that?
Criste Well, I would say as a member of the Institute Traffic Engineers, for urban
areas there is a consensus among transportation planners and engineers
that a level of service D is a very cost effective and acceptable for peak
hours level of service. For rural areas or for smaller towns and for a certain
type of environment consistent with the built environment that has been
created, that level of service C is more of the ideal that a smaller town
environment that we would all like to live in. But the level of service D is a
fully functional volume to capacity, operating conditions are good, they are
just high volume and they require less right-of-way and essentially optimize
those operations.
Finerty And you just had mentioned that level of service C is something that we
would all like to live in. Isn't the current standard in Palm Desert circulation
to be at level of service C?
Criste The current general plan does recommend that the policy is that you make
a good faith effort to reach level of service C. That's right.
Finerty Why would we want to depart from that level of service and that quality of life
that our residents enjoy?
37
megIg. SUBJECT U
MINUTES iv, 1 - REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
Criste In a nutshell, there is physical reality. That we have physical conditions at
intersection nodes, mostly those that are along either highways or major
arterials that are urban and in some case relatively intense urban kinds of
facilities and that is why LOS-D and those kinds of conditions seem rational.
Drell I think the answer is I think we ran into that great example I think was what
Dinah Shore and Monterey where physically short of building an interchange,
you know where you just can't, in the system of urban design that we've
created where we concentrate traffic in certain very intense areas, that you
can't build enough lanes to accommodate service of level C at peak hours.
Greenwood We have a continuing presentation and we have about 10 more minutes on
the staff presentation and level of service is something that we are prepared
to show you and show you what a level of service C looks like versus level
D and we would like to have this discussion. If you will let me start on some
of my presentation, then we will get to that level of service question.
Hopefully some of your other questions too.
As John discussed, a lot of what we are trying to do here is based on
modeling which basically tries to predict the future based on the past
modeling has some great limitations. Basically what happens when we are
doing a traffic model is that if we find that one street 20% too high and other
street is 20% too low, we average and say, "hey we did a great job." It is
looking at this global scheme and then trying to predict how much traffic is
going to come on another street and that is really based on past habits. We
have to understand that traffic modeling is a very imprecise tool. When the
model says there is going to be 35, 000 cars a day on a street, that doesn't
mean 35,261 cars, that means somewhere between 28,000 and 43,000 and
that is a pretty big range. So we have to understand the vagaries of this and
it really gets to be a problem when we get onto streets like Monterey and
Dinah Shore where it's saying there is going to be 70,000 cars a day that
gets to be a problem. In another street where it has jumped out at us is on
Portola in the area of Fred Waring. We don't know whether the traffic model
isn't so precise that it can tell us we definitely need 4 lanes or that we
definitely need 6 lanes. It is right in between there so we will come back to
Portola.
So, anyway as we discuss the modeling and all of these recommendations,
let's be sure that we are talking about an imprecise tool.
38
SUBJECT T(
MINUTES ,, 3 � ,` REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
Another issue in the traffic model itself is that from the most intense
alternative to the least intense alternative we are only talking about a 5%
change in volume overall. The global citywide volume of however million
cars a day there is only a 5% change so that is relatively minor. It's how you
spread them out across the city and the problem is that almost all of that
change is happening in the north sphere.
Anyway, Mark (Diercks) has some displays here of the level of service. The
level of service is basically like a report card. A is great and F is failing. This
is an example, I think it is on Haystack. The level of service A means that
you have complete freedom to maneuver, go as fast or as slow as you want,
you are not impeded by anybody, you are not impeding anybody.
Lopez Did you take that in August? Sunday morning in August?
Laughter.
Greenwood Level of service B or C is, this is hard to say whether this is a B or C but
generally B you still have complete freedom to maneuver, you can go as fast
as you want and there is plenty of lanes for you to do what you want to do.
Again, you can go as fast or as slow as you want, you are not impeding
anybody.
Campbell Washington, right? We are looking at Washington now?
Greenwood This is Washington and Hovely. Now, let's go back to B and C. B is
extremely good. C is what has been the goal in Palm Desert up until this
point and maybe will be beyond this point. Level of service now is generally
measured for the worst hour of the day. The peak hour of the day. This is
kind of an industry wide standard. The problem that we have in Palm Desert
is that we are not like everybody else. Being a resort community, our peak
hour doesn't happen between 7 and 9 am and between 4 and 6 pm. Our
peak hour happens, basically it builds slowly from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m., kind of
jumps up at mid noon and the peak lasts from noon till 5 pm. Each hour of
the day, each hour of the afternoon is like any other hour in the afternoon,
so we are in the peak period longer than most cities are. Most cities endure
it for one hour in the morning and one hour in the afternoon. We endure it for
4 or 5 hours all afternoon.
39
rftz mr.me
SUBJECT TC
MINUTES 7>' '4 REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
Now the goal level of service C. Some would say level of service C is
wasteful because you are in the off peak hours many hours of the day where
you have all this pavement out there and no cars on it. On the other hand,
others would say, people come here to enjoy that kind of a traffic situation.
We like being able to get where we want to go when we want to go there and
not have to sit through a traffic signal.
Basically level of service D means when you come to a traffic signal, you
don't necessarily clear it on the first green light. About half of the time you
are going to sit there for a second green light before you get to go. Level of
service D means you can't maneuver in the lane to go a little faster or a little
slower. You go as fast as the car in front of you and the car behind you is
going as fast as you are. You can't change lanes because there is a car in
the lane next to you. If you are in the left hand lane and you want to make a
right hand turn, you better plan it two blocks ahead of time, cause it's going
to take you that long to get over there.
So there is a big difference between level of service C and level of service
D. It is true that kind of industry wide the standard has been set at D but I
think you have to evaluate it if that is what you want. I enjoy having level of
service C but I admit that it is an expensive standard to meet. On the other
hand it might be one of the reasons for our success, too.
Level of service F is failing. You are going to take 3, 4, 5 cycles to get
through a signal. This is Fred Waring before we widened it and nobody
would accept F as a standard. Some do like...the congestion management
plan accepts level of service E as the standard which is completely
unacceptable also. When you set a rather low goal and then I guess brag
that we met the standard. Another thing too on level of services, these are
goals not standards. Set a high goal and do everything we can to get there,
but sometimes we don't get there. If we continue to set our level of service
at C, Dinah Shore at Monterey is not going to happen at C. Even with an
intersection that is built like this one here, with 3 through lanes, free right turn
lane, dual lefts, that intersection is still going to be D or E. We at the staff
level, we've drawn a line at a 6 lane road. We are not going to contemplate
an 8 lane road. Again, that wouldn't meet our quality of life standards and I
don't think these huge freeway size roads are not what we want to do. So,
at some point we do have to draw the line. Even if we set the level of service
goal at C there won't be 7, 8 ,10 intersections that don't meet it. Possibly,
and again we are thinking that we can predict the future based on the past,
40
t SUBJECT TC
REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
so that is something that we want to make sure that you contemplate and
give us some good discussion or guidance on.
There is a couple of specific locations we would like to talk about. The first
is Monterey Avenue. The city of Rancho Mirage currently has a request for
proposals out to engineers and planners where they have stated, the
Rancho Mirage City Council has stated, they do not want to see the
southbound lanes on Monterey, this is on Monterey looking south of Las
Palmas Country Club on the right, Monterey Country Club on the left. They
do not want 3 lanes southbound. They don't care if we do 3 lanes
northbound, but we think that this is a serious issue for us. Monterey Avenue
is the main entry into Palm Desert and if the southbound lanes are
congested, that is a problem for us. In the background here you can see the
bridge at the White water, you see how the curb is transitioninghere. This
bridge was built for 6 lanes but the City Council now in Rancho Mirage
decided they don't want that road to be 6 lanes.
So, we would like to have your opinion about this issue. The concern in
Ranch Mirage is that there are houses right behind those trees. The concern
is that it would be an impact to those residents and will reduce their quality
of life. I think our response is that there is, if we did a proper sound wall and
rubberized pavement, that their quality of life after the project would actually
be better than before the project. You can't consider it a good quality of life
when there is arterial right outside your door and has traffic backed up for 6
hours of the day. It is something we want you to think about.
The next one is a Portola interchange which we have...I think you may have
seen displays in this before. Monterey is here and Cook St. is right here,
Portola in the middle and there is this proposed interchange here,
realignment of Varner Road, Dinah Shore Drive comes down, turns into
Technology Drive. This is kind of preferred alternative. CalTrans is currently
conducting a project study report which is kind of a very preliminary step in
a 7 to 10 year process. What Portola interchange does most of all is causes
the Monterey interchange to be at a reasonable level of service. If we don't
build a Portola interchange, the Monterey interchange will be level of service
D or F. If we build the Portola interchange, it takes about 20,000 cars a day
off the Monterey interchange. So, that is really the need for it. One of the
concerns that I have heard expressed is that if we build this interchange,
Portola Avenue further to the south down to Fred Waring might be impacted
and the traffic model looked at with and without the interchange and the
41
- - "" SUBJECT TC
MINUTES „ .A aY '' REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
model says there is only about 1,000 vehicle per day difference down on
Fred Waring with and without the interchange. About 1,000 cars a day more
with the interchange than without so that is not a huge impact. The majority
impact to Portola is in the north sphere, say north of Country Club, but
overall, from staff perspective, we definitely think this is a very key
transportation element that we need to do.
Portola Avenue at Fred Waring is another issue that I think we talked about
last time, what to do there and I mentioned earlier when we talked about the
level of service and modeling. This is where the model predicts. Right now
we have measured about 20,000 cars a day here. This is Portola, Fred
Waring is here, Rancho Road is right there, Lincoln Elementary School is
right there. If you can zoom in, there are 11 houses here on 12 lots. There
is some balance here, somewhere, how much road to build, what to do with
these houses and what the zoning should be. The traffic model predicts only
about 30,000 cars a day on this block of Portola. On the other hand I think
volumes may have been artificially held back because further south on
Portola, south of Fred Waring, it's only been 2 lanes till now we just recently
paved and we are widening out to 4 lanes. Anyway, the future volume as
best as we can tell is going to be in the 30,000 range and that could be
handled marginally by a 4 lane road. That would be a level of service D in
this link of 4 lanes but what is on the board here and I think you have a
display from last time on this that this is the staff recommended alternative
and this is one of the locations where we realized we may not reach our goal
level of service C.
Finerty Okay, you said that if that stretch of Portola is widened to 4 lanes that would
put it at level of service D and you say marginally handled.
Greenwood Well, it won't meet our goal of level of service D.
Finerty And if it were at 6 lanes?
Greenwood It most likely would be level of service C. Another issue is how we join and
connect to Highway 111. When we have done these widening projects for
the most part it has been to acquire older properties that were not fully
utilized and could be put to better use some other way. In the case of
Highway 111, we would have to impact some vital businesses, very
expensive construction, very expensive acquisitions, it would have be
something we were really sure we wanted to do when we set out to do it
42
SUBJECT R.MINUTES
REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4. 2003
because it would be one of the most expensive arterial projects we had ever
done in Palm Desert.
So, given all of these limitations, staffs recommendation is this is one of the
places we compromise and accept that we may not meet our goal. On the
other hand, traffic may adapt, if Monterey and Cook Street are in such great
shape, traffic may just avoid Portola and generally smooths out. And that is
the kind of thing the model has trouble identifying.
On the circulation map is another thing to be sure...I think you have an 8-1/2
x 11 color circulation map and this is another version of that here. Basically,
all the blue lines on this map are 6 lane roads, which is a big change for us.
All of these roads are currently 4 lanes and there are some little bits and
pieces of 6 lane road. This circulation map is also tied to these street
sections that we have prepared and I think you have in your packet or maybe
from last time. The street sections, there are several things to contemplate.
One is the designation of certain roads as 6 lane roads. Where before we
had 4 lane designation with an option for 6 and now we are saying Monterey
is going to be 6 lanes, Fred Waring is going to be 6 lanes, Cook Street...a lot
of streets are going to be 6 lanes.
Then the issue of the parkway width, too. In the past we have had basically
12 feet of right of way from the face of the curb to the right of way line is 12
feet. And then there is an optional 20 foot landscape easement. Sometimes
we get it, sometimes we don't. We have been more definitive on these
sections here and we are basically recommending a parkway width that is
three times the sidewalk width. So on a major arterial where it is 6 lanes, we
have an 8 ft sidewalk. The Parkway width there is 24 feet. The back 6 feet
or so of that or 8 feet is a utility corner, so we move all the utility vaults and
stuff back away from the streets so you don't have all those ugly cans
sticking up right out of the curb line.
Finerty Okay, the Parkway width for 6 lanes is what?
Greenwood The parkway is 24 feet.
Finerty And with 4 lanes?
Greenwood Hang on. A four-lane thoroughfare has an 18-foot parkway with a 6 foot
sidewalk. You should have some displays of this in your packet, I hope. Not
43
SUBJECT IC
MINUTES o REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4. 2003
this big though. This is our recommendation. It helps us with utilities, gives
us a definitive parkway width. What a lot of times now with developers, we
get into a lot of discussion about if there is going to be 20 foot optional or not,
is it 12 plus 20, is it just 20, this is a lot more definitive. Another section on
here is the rural street section, which really only applies to one place. It is the
Palm Valley access channel also known as Calle de los Camposinos. That
is where Homme Adams Park is where we have that section that is just
sealed now, it is not paved, it just has dust suppressant on it. We are
proposing to make that a full city street with a modified section of only 24 feet
of pavement, no curb and gutter, just a graded shoulder. That is also
included here.
The last thing to discuss is median island widths. We currently have islands
that we have built at 12 feet, 14 feet, 16 feet and some 18 foot. We have
given it a lot of thought of what the median does for traffic, and we are
recommending an 18 foot median, mostly for 2 reasons. One is that it leaves
a 6 foot nose where we have cut in a left turn pocket like at a signal and in
that 6 foot nose, it is marginally plantable. We can put some small shrubs
and stuff in it rather than just have cobble out there. The cobble is expensive
and doesn't really provide that much of an aesthetic look. The other reason
is for this section that Mark has put up, where we allow a left turn in but no
left turn out, we need 18 feet in width in order to fit all this stuff in here, and
build a median here that really does prohibit the left turn out.
And I think that's it.
Drell That is for just the major arterials? Not all of the arterials will be...
Greenwood Well, the arterial streets and thoroughfares. Everything where we...Yeah.
And that is everything I have for you.
Campbell Any questions of staff?
Drell I have a little comment on the issue of the parkways. I still believe the
parkway width should be flexible depending on the nature of development
adjacent to it. And where we have retail commercial business that faces the
street that it can engage the street a lot closer, I believe. Obviously a graphic
example...El Paseo is a major thoroughfare?
44
civir e4 SUBJECT T(
A
MINUTES REVISION
'
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
Greenwood Actually El Paseo has its own designation.
Drell And, basically in those instances where we have retail commercial
businesses that are designed to engage the street by virtue of their
architecture, that those need a special category like El Paseo where the...as
opposed to where we have a big parking lot we want to screen, or the back
of a building we want to screen, but where we have again a project that is by
nature is engaging the street, it should be allowed to, based on its unique
design, to be closer to the street. That is my comment on that.
Finerty I have a couple of questions for Mr. Greenwood.
Drell Sure.
Finerty With regard to level of service, if we continue as we have had as our
standard level of service C, we would acknowledge that 7 to 10 intersections
will not achieve that level of service at peak hours.
Greenwood Potentially, yes.
Finerty However, if we were to agree to basically compromise those standards that
we've had for the past several years and go to level of service D, does that
mean that certain remedies that we would normally take to achieve a level
of service C would then not be necessary and we would very comfortably
kind of slip into the way traffic would move at a service of level D and
therefore we would have more intersections where we couldn't change lanes
easily and we might not get through the intersection on the first signal
because we would no longer be compelled to make those remedies if we set
our goal at level of service D?
Greenwood Yeah, I think it would have substantial impact on 2 fronts. In the development
review process, we would essentially be prohibited from having the project
mitigated to anything beyond our goal which if we say our level of service is
D, we could not require the developer to do those improvements, I don't
think, beyond that level of service D so there would be a problem there. The
other issue would be on our own capital improvement program that we take
our lead in the capital improvement program from our citywide goals. If our
goal is level of service C, we know that when we build a road we need to
build some roads to 6 lanes. If we say that goal is only D then rather than
widening Monterey to 6 lanes, we would say, well then we will go work
45
SUBJECT T(
MINUTES g REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION nr§‘ NOVEMBER 4. 2003
somewhere else, either Monterey slips further or we just never get there, so
yes, it would have major impact.
Finerty And so, am I hearing that the Public Works Department? Do they have a
preference as to whether we should have level of service C or D?
Greenwood My preference, speaking as the City Engineer, is for level of service C.
Because of our unusual traffic characteristics where we spend more hours
of the day in the peak hour, it is more of an impact to us and also from a
quality of life and economic development, although those aren't my primary
concerns in my job, I believe people come here to enjoy that kind of
environment where it has a more rural feel where you can move around
easier and I think that is one of the reasons why we have been successful.
Finerty I would agree and I was involved in an apartment project on Washington in
the city of La Quinta and I had reason to go through their general plan and
I was astounded that they accept level of service D and I couldn't help but
think that's one of the many issues that separates our city from others in the
Valley because we do tend to achieve and strive for those higher standards.
Tschopp I have a couple of questions. Your comments...that is interesting you prefer
C, because when I read this through, it just basically says we are defaulting
to D because there is no affordable alternative that would work and I guess
it is more of a comment. It sounds like we are kind of lowering our standards
to meet the inability to mitigate the traffic problems. So the question I have
is I have always understood traffic to, in a lot of ways, act like water. Take
the path of least resistance and at some point in time does cities, because
it is not just germane to us, do they just say we are not building anymore, we
are going to accept this level and force traffic to take the primary roads and
then would that impact then our planning here? Instead of looking at
expanding these roads, just saying this is the way it is going to be and
hopefully someday down the road we develop workable mass transit
systems, etc. But my concern being we build 6 lanes, 10 years now we are
building 8 lanes and we look like East L.A.
Greenwood That is why I mentioned earlier that from a staff perspective, we are drawing
the line at 6 lane roads and intersections with this configuration of either a
free or a signaled right turn lane, dual lefts and three throughs, that we
would, I guess what we are recommending are levels of service C up to this
46
SUBJECT T(
MINUTES ` ® REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
level and that we wouldn't be willing to build 8 lane roads to mitigate to level
of service C.
As far as the confusion between what the staff report says and what staff is
telling you that the consultant prepared the staff report and I have never
been able to convince him that level of service C is the way to go.
Finerty So we have a difference of opinion between the Public Works Department
and between the people that prepared the report?
Greenwood Well, I wouldn't say a difference of opinion...ongoing discussion.
Finerty Okay, fair enough. Just like husbands and wives. Laughter.
Drell I think that the consultants, if you look at the circulation network, we are
calling for virtually every arterial that we can physically increase to 6 lanes,
to be 6 lanes. So, the plan is showing that. So, it's a matter of spin more than
anything else. That while the consultant is being a little more up front, or not
up front, but just pessimistic saying that we have already, that by virtue of
this circulation network, we can force people to adopt this circulation network
if they are impacting it and if they need it with the 6 lanes, we can require
them to do 6 lanes. On the other hand there is nothing wrong with still having
the goal of C as long as it takes to acknowledges that based on those
projections that we will likely exceed C in many instances and not be
willing...and we would be doing same damage to our environment and our
character by going to, you know if you have ever driven around Scottsdale,
it seems like they are freeways, and only the people live in the areas
between the off ramps. So, again, having the goal of C is I don't think is a
problem as long as it's acknowledged that in many instances it will be difficult
or impossible to achieve it.
Finerty But having the goal of C from what I am hearing is really important because
if we lower our standards and accept level of service D, then there are many
improvements that we've been accustomed to that would no longer be
happening.
Drell Yeah, but we are pretty much...but again, I have no objection or...and I think
it is perfectly appropriate to keep the level of C as a goal just as long as the
understanding that you don't confuse the word goal with standards. There
are other considerations that will impact the decision whether we decide to
47
�.s. SUBJECT Tt
MINUTES ® REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
do a certain improvement or not and decide to approve a certain project or
not.
Finerty Right.
Drell The goal is C, but among other goals we will finally decide on what the
ultimate solutions are going to be.
Finerty So there is no longer a need to have an ongoing discussion?
Drell I don't think so, I mean it is up to you guys, but I have no, as I say as long as
it is worded in such a way it is...the problem has been in the past there has
been confusion between the word goal and standard and we don't want to
be held to a standard that is impossible or undesirable for us to achieve. So,
as long as it is clear what we are talking about, that we obviously want the
most optimum traffic flow conceivable and level C is not...in many instances
is conceivable so as long as it is clear that what we are talking about in terms
of the difference of goal and standard, I don't see any problem with having
the goal at level C.
Greenwood The way I think this would work is that as development reviews came before
you...you would get some kind of a statement that you are meeting the goal
or not and every project is the planning commission's call, but I would hope
that John would be able to work in the text that our goal is level of service C
up to these levels of improvements and maybe said...I don't know if we
should even mention a maximum we would go, but anything that didn't meet
this goal would have to be discussed in the development review process.
Finerty John, can you come up with that language?
Criste I think so, this is where the weasel words get really important here. You want
to give the staff the leverage to require the highest reasonable level of
improvements that you can get per the...what we've been used to and our
concern would be, as Phil points out, is that we do not want to paint
ourselves into the corner where then someone leverages our own policies
against us either in court or elsewhere and so we need to have the best of
both worlds and I think we started re-working that language in that sense and
maybe we just need to do a little bit more that we do identify C as our goal
and that under certain circumstances we may, and I will have to draft
something to see what we can come up with.
48
p *mar
D SUBJECT TC
MINUTES r,1I k REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
Finerty Would it be appropriate then as your drafting why C is going to remain our
goal because our residents have enjoyed C? This is one of the reasons why
people prefer Palm Desert. This is one of the reasons why people leave
Orange County and come to Palm Desert. This is the quality of life we are
used to and we want to do everything within our power to continue that.
Criste The only last things I would say is that we've got, if the model is predictive,
then it looks like we have limited areas where we are going to have these
problems and that they are going to be at the obvious points along the
interstate and elsewhere.
The other is that, I can't think of a jurisdiction in the Valley that also doesn't
find LOS-D as identified as some kind of goal or acceptable level, so we
don't want to be fighting a tide that overwhelms us because an awful lot of
our traffic comes from the surrounding communities and if we are out of step,
we can take on a lot of responsibility or try to without really being able to
control all of our environment.
Finerty I realize we can't control what other cities do but on the same token many
times I have heard city council state that it is up to Palm Desert to take the
lead and set the standards.
Criste The thing that we could do is we could take all the vacant land and make it
open space.
Finerty Okay, laughter.
Tschopp Two comments. As you look around too at times you see roads widened
later on in many instances and at times it does away with that buffering area.
I think if you look at better designed roads you will see that there is always
a buffer between the road and the residential or even commercial, I guess
that I am encouraging that we, as we plan the future we try to encourage that
we have that buffering area available to us even if we decide later on to
expand the road. I know it is expensive but that is something really important.
Greenwood And in support of that, that is why we are showing the wider parkways on
these sections where before we had 12 feet now we have 24 feet, they're
down to 18 feet. That is one of the key reasons is that it gives sound space
for growth if it should have to happen in the future. So, we agree.
49
sw
SUBJECT TC
MINUTES IA r 1 - REV1SIOtd
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
Tschopp The other comment I have is in answer to your question on Monterey,
Monterey is and always will be a major arterial and I guess I would be in
favor of widening that street both for the benefit of Palm Desert and Rancho
Mirage because it feeds both cities and I hate to see the disruption of
residents on either side of the street, but the reality is if that doesn't happen
like water, the traffic will seek a lesser impacted area and head down other
streets such as Portola, Cook and Bob Hope and defeat the whole purpose
of this. So I am in favor of widening that street.
Finerty I would too and when we talk about the quality of life, if they have gridlock
and stuff is backed up because cars aren't getting through on the first signal,
I wonder what they are going to think of all the vehicle fumes, exhaust fumes
going into their backyard as they are trying to sit out there.
Tschopp Good point.
Greenwood Maybe we should point out too that there are no houses that actually back
up to that wall. There is a perimeter wall, an interior street and their front
yards and then the houses, so they still have quite a bit of buffer.
Lopez A lot of room between backyards.
Campbell Yes, but those are the same people that were complaining about Magnesia
Falls, too.
Greenwood Yes.
Tschopp As I was going to say, another question I had I was reading the report it had
that if we adopted the preferred alternative, the amount of traffic would
increase 8.9% in the north sphere as opposed to what the current plan is?
Drell Remember, the north sphere...you want to look at the mid district, the north
district. The north district is the area north of 1-10. In fact you will see that
and we have requested explanations from the engineer of what he thinks is
happening in the model. The traffic actually decreases in the mid-district. If
you look through the EIR it decreases significantly with the less intense
alternative and again we are awaiting further explanation. Have we got that
yet John or not?
50
arson SUvJECT TC
MINUTES ® REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
We asked for what does he think is, what is happening to models actually to
generate that less level of traffic?
Greenwood There is some anomaly in the north sphere. They are showing 40,000 cars
per day on Dillon Road or something and that is just...
Drell No, the reason is when you look at the land use plan you see that massive
amount of...that huge high density zone. Again, I would pay less attention
to that north district analysis. The mid and the south include the existing city
limits.
Tschopp Lastly,just a comment I would make is that I have heard your reasoning and
so forth and I understand it, but I truly think for any city to survive the
congestion that is happening now and will occur in the future is, somehow we
have got to improve and focus on mass transit. For whatever it is worth. I
know it is in the report as a comment, but this city and all over, you've got to
have a mass transit system that is convenient, timely and works.
Drell I would like to respond to that and that is a very appropriate comment and we
had a meeting with Sunline last week, Leslie Rochon. This is the
fundamental urban design conflict. For mass transit to work, you need
sufficient customers in proximity of the line. Because what you need for best
transit to work, and I lived in a town where mass transit worked up in Santa
Cruz, you could ride the bus all day and never consult a schedule. The
reason is, there were enough...buses came every 15-20 minutes to every
stop and all you had to do was find a bus stop that was going in the right
direction you want, and sit down and you knew there would be a bus there
in 10 minutes and that is what made it convenient. You didn't have that fear,
"I missed the bus, I'm wiped out." To do that, you need enough customers
concentrated along the route and when she looked at the staff recommended
alternative and more so with the preferred since it's got more units, this area
is, the University area is unique in that we have a concentration of
destinations. The University on one end, the regional retail on Monterey, the
business office industrial on the freeway, and if we succeed in getting the
residential development that we have both origins and destinations in a fairly
concentrated loop from Cook Street to Monterey and in looking at she
commented that it might be the one area in the Coachella Valley which can
have an efficient, convenient, successful mass transit route, which can run
enough buses picking up enough passengers that can support a line running
right there. The problem with the solution of always concentrating on the
51
, r)
4 IA i-i ......
F i m SUBJECT TC
REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4. 2003
traffic solution, unfortunately, it has never worked in Southern California. We
have been building more freeways, adding lanes to freeways, widening
streets, and it is always forestalls and unfortunately you run out of physical
real estate. The advantage of mass transit is you can always add more
buses and so that is one of the things we are trying, which is a contradiction
where you think more intensity creates a worse traffic problem. It is a matter
of finding the right balance that is enough to support a transit system in the
future and even most ideally, you can avoid a vehicle entirely if you get uses
that people can walk to.
The other comment you had made about the water seeking its convenient
paths and one of the other considerations is the connectivity and that is we
have been designing a lot of our developments so they focus traffic through
a fire hose. We have been concentrating traffic in a relatively limited number
of major arterials and forcing everyone to drive on them. 1-10 is a big problem
in that there are very few places to cross, there is physical barrier.
Therefore, both the interchange and this is another problem that is probably
going to be more apparent in the future as north 1-10 develops and you have
people wanting to cross the freeway. They are going to have to be sharing
the same interchange with the same people that are wanting to get on the
freeway. That is the problem you see in Orange County where you have
widely disbursed interchanges, this is probably the other as important aspect
of Portola as getting on and off the freeway at Portola, is allowing people to
get from the growing Thousand Palms area to Palm Desert without screwing
up the traffic at Monterey and Cook. So one of the concepts that we are
trying both in a design element and this is to try and disburse traffic. Try to
create from a neighborhood, you know things you are going to be looking at
when you look at the master plans for the neighborhood we have been
talking about in the north area, creating the right balance between not having
too much access that you screw up the capacity of the arterials, but enough
access so you don't concentrate the traffic at choke points which everyone
requiring a signal which end up being 8 phases which also ends up reducing
capacity. So you want to be able to give people enough choices to distribute
their movements so they don't impact any one intersection and in essence
we want to spray design, not a fire hose, because it's the fire hoses that
ultimately choke down and create collapse of the arterial system where you
just can't get through those few critical intersections.
Greenwood There is a side effect although we have to be cognizant of in the multiple
path philosophy and that is traffic driving by someone elses house and it is
52
t ; SUBJECTT(
MINUTES 'R � . REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
not just particular to Palm Desert, it is everywhere in California, probably
throughout the nation. People want to live on a street with the absolute
minimum amount of traffic on it. We get people in the Kaufman and Broad
development off of Frank Sinatra complaining that people from 2 streets over
have to drive down my street to get to Frank Sinatra, so we have to be
careful not to end up with streets with 2,000 cars a day on them because it
will be an ongoing problem that we could never solve. So we have to be
careful when we are spreading this traffic out exactly where we are
spreading it out.
Lopez A couple of questions and observations. I agree that the bike paths and cart
paths should be incorporated into this circulation. I think it is imperative that
as we develop these new locations within our city that we make sure that we
incorporate access for bicycles, access for carts...I mean I ride a bike a lot
around here and there are times when all of sudden there is a bicycle path
and then there is not a bicycle path and now you are fighting traffic and it is
a dangerous situation. If we are going to have, if Cook Street is going to be
what it looks like it is going to be in the future, being able to get yourself
around that area on a bike, Monterey, Country Club, Fred Waring, we need
to make sure that part of the philosophy is let's make sure that we have that
aspect of transportation incorporating what you all create for the future. I
think that is imperative.
Greenwood And that is what we need to know from you, whether you consider the bike
lanes to be a recreation facility or a transportation facility.
Lopez I think it is both and I think it needs to be, but I think you need to be the
champion of that. I think recreation wise, it is important to have that for the
recreation aspect, but for the development of it, it needs to be under your
umbrella. The access control areas that we see every once in a while around
the city where the pylons are out there and the little things...Is that a
temporary thing waiting for an excuse to put a median in?
Greenwood Generally we hope so. That's what this detail on the median islands is
where...these don't involve any of the orange cones out there permanently.
So where we have orange cones, we hope that it is temporary everywhere.
We don't have them in as many places as other cities, but it's still too many.
Lopez Yeah, there is a couple of places where they stick out and they are rather
unsightly I would say.
53
' •• SUBJECT TC
MINUTES ate; °� REVISIQN
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBERE 4, 2003
The Portola interchange and the addition of that interchange and how it
affects traffic on that particular artery in the future, especially as it goes by
school zones, I think it is going to need to be studied very very carefully. I
know the widening of the streets there, but also how because that whole
neighborhood area generates foot traffic by young children who are going to
school and I think we just need to make sure that we keep that particular
area under a microscope and make sure that safety is imperative, that area
as well as being able to cross those crosswalk areas and all.
Greenwood You are talking about at Lincoln and the Middle schools?
Lopez Yeah, those areas. And I do think and I would agree with the rest of what
has been said here that I would hate to see the bar lowered to a D. I would
rather see the bar maintained at a C which is actually raising the bar
because as we develop more, or actually it is going to be more difficult to
maintain that but that should be what our goal is and I know language has
to be created here as to what a goal is and what a standard is, so on and so
forth, but I think what we need to go into this is knowing that this is what our
goal should be and should be maintained to be. There are going to be areas
that it is either too costly and we get to those areas eventually in the future
or if the cost is such that we need to take a look and see whether we should
bear that or not, and in fact keep the quality of life as it is and it would cost
more money, but based on the growth...no, I won't say that.
Finally, the alley way, the alley that we have talked about previously, as we
go down this line and when we start making a decision as what we are going
to go forward with on final resolutions, and so on, we need to come up with
a finalized plan what we want to do with that alley area. Is it going to be
parking? Is it going to be...? How you all will address that in the future is
going to be important. I know we have come up with the decision as to what
we want to see, but that will also be an area that we need to take a look at.
That's all.
Campbell Okay, as far as Portola north of Fred Waring and where you are planning on
taking those lots, 12 lots.
Greenwood I am not planning yet.
Campbell Okay, we are looking at hopefully very soon in the future. What will happen
then on the south of Fred Waring, where we have the church there? Will all
54
;` rig)) 111460111
1rSUBJECT TC
MINUTES 't V
REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4. 2003
of that be eliminated up to Alessandro in some way or you patched up the
east side, now you've started to work on the west side?
Greenwood Yeah. Actually, from De Anza to the south towards 111, that is what is under
construction right now, that will be 4 lanes, so the area from De Anza north
to Lincoln School or short of Lincoln School there, I would hope that we can
treat that really as one project. We would not anticipate relocation of the
church or anything. The right-of-way gets awful close to the building, but at
least in our preliminary layouts, we are just trying to see how this all works
but there are a few houses on Portola south of Fred Waring that also are
potentially impacted depending upon what the decision is, but I guess we are
looking for guidance from you and do you want to see that go forward as this
thoroughfare 4 lane road.
Campbell Or 6 lane road.
Greenwood Or 6 lane road, yeah we really need your considered opinions on that so we
know what to do. It makes big difference. It probably doesn't make a
difference on the number of houses that are impacted but makes a
difference on what the remaining land can be. If it is a 6 lane road, the
remaining land can only really be a parkway, but if it is a 4 lane road then
that land is potentially useable.
Campbell Because actually, you know I am in favor of the bike lanes and the golf cart
lanes, but actually as you see it on Hovely Lane West, here you have a wide
street yet it is only 2 lanes because here you have one, you know, both sides
you have a bike lane and a golf cart. So, actually it should be made wider
in some way. You cannot make it wider now, maybe the lanes should be
narrower so you can have 4 lanes and then plus your golf cart and your bike
lane. `Cause actually to me that seems to be like a wasted street.
Greenwood Actuallyon HovelyLane West it is a parkinglane and a bike lane.
Campbell Okay. You don't see that much parking on there.
Greenwood That street is either too wide or narrow depending on how you look at it.
Campbell Uh huh if ou make it too wide, it will be a lot more traffic. Then there is
Y
another question I have on Hovely Lane East, where the development that
55
r rIN
SUBJECT TC
REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
Venetia is, the homes right there. You did make that when you make a right
turn from Portola on Hovely Lane East you've made that a 3 lane.
Greenwood Yes.
Campbell So that the parents can pick up their children from school. That was the
purpose of that one lane, also.
Greenwood The third lane, basically it is an extended right turn pocket to get into the
school to pick up their kids although I think the parents might misuse it a little
bit and actually pick up their kids at the curb there, but.
Campbell Well actually they use 2 lanes.
Greenwood I have heard that before.
Campbell Yes, because I make the trip, they're both 2 lanes trying to go ahead and get
into the parking lot, so I don't know what you can do about that. It was just
before, it is just back to what it was before.
Greenwood I don't think there is anything you can do.
Tschopp I think there is. I think if you send a patrol car to start hooking a couple of
mommies dropping off their kids and get the word out. Really I think it is a
safety issue and you can't plan anymore, you need a little assistance help
from the police.
Greenwood The Sheriffs Department is very good about supporting us.
Drell That is a very good example of a school that got planned inclusively by the
school district. We only got consulted in getting permission for their
driveways and hopefully we won't repeat that experience again.
Finerty So, if we summarize, it sounds like we are all in agreement with regard to the
bike lanes and being for recreation, but under the auspices of transportation
that Monterey should definitely go three lanes northbound and do whatever
we can to Rancho Mirage to explain the wisdom of why it needs to be 3
lanes southbound; to keep the level of service C, explain the difference of
goal and standard. The medians you asked about the 18 foot width, yes.
We talked about parkways and landscape buffers. With Portola, say north of
56
pi: Fil
....„_.
SUBJECT T(
Li
' vii, '� REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
Fred Waring, if that, it seems to me if we are between 4 and 6 lanes now, it
would be advantageous to go to 6 lanes and to have some sort of parkway
or landscape buffer as opposed to going 4 lanes and then cramming in office
professional in that area.
Lastly, and I know you didn't ask about this but I think wherever meandering
sidewalks can go in, it is certainly an asset.
Tschopp I agree to everything you said, but I guess the one question I have still on
Portola is, obviously we have a safety issue now with houses backing up.
If we go to 4 lanes as opposed to 6, do we eliminate the safety issues or do
they remain?
Greenwood It is four lanes now, but it is just so narrow and the sidewalk is so close, it is
not really an acceptable right condition. If we widen the road at all, I think it
requires that we relocate those houses.
Tschopp And that would entail then commercial development in those certain portions
of designating a study.
Greenwood It could.
Drell A concept where you could design those commercial developments with
parking lots which would allow people to front, we would go forward onto the
thing. The issue on whether the remainder property gets used as commercial
or as open space is a matter of money. It is not a good place to put a park
on a highway like that so it becomes a, if you imagine Fred Waring is about
40-45 feet, that strip of landscaping, these areas are 60-90 feet deep and so
it is a matter of the City, whether we want to spend the money to install and
maintain those areas as landscaping which is very expensive, or we want to
let commercial developers build things and maintain their front yards. So it
is a matter, to a certain degree there is a noise advantage to having
buildings instead of open space for the people behind but it is a mixture of
considerations and involving a lot of money.
Tschopp I guess, just to tag onto it what Commissioner Finerty is talking about. On
Portola, I think that the other thing we need to add is it is an area that needs
to be moved forward. I hate to see us leave the people there in limbo like has
occurred in other areas. So I guess that area to me I would say if we are
going to do anything, we need to move aggressively forward and make it
57
SUBJECT TC
0 tin MINUTES ,,�:p>
REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
happen so that it would take away some of the uncertainty and impact on
some of the residents there.
And then Commissioner Lopez' comments on the alley there off 111. Again,
I think we talked about that, but I would say again also that is one that needs
to be aggressively moved forward to take away the uncertainty and the
impact to residents.
Campbell Anything else? Anything to add? John does.
Criste Just a verification then because this is obviously related to the land use
issue, is that where we want to widen the streets and we are going for these
optimum kind of transportation systems and we are affecting these existing
residential uses for instance, I don't know that we have resolved the issue of
whether for instance, what I think was the staffs suggestion that the area
north of Fred Waring, that stretch of houses on the west side, we would
change that to say, office designations so that these kinds of consolidated
uses that could share single access and have rear loading parking for
instance, with buildings on the streets, could provide tremendous acoustical
buffer for those residents that would remain to the west.
Finerty Could that be one of our mixed use between office professional and open
space so that we have time to decide what we are doing?
Criste I am a little confused frankly about when we talked about the mixed use
commercial or the mixed use designation. My understanding really was you
know prior to that the draft of the general plan speaks to mixed use as a
viable alternative in most of the commercial designations. As an example is
you can always mix open space with any kind of use. It really becomes what
is the economically viable use that remains or can remain for these kinds of
properties consistent with the traffic goals you are trying to reach and so yes,
it can be those kinds of mixes.
Finerty It sounds like that is the direction we are kind of going in and that would give
us...
Drell Although I think what we need if we are going to contemplate 6 lanes north
of Fred Waring we need to see the sections. I would suspect that we are
going to be impacting a lot more than those 9 or 10 houses if we go to 6
lanes.
58
-.
SUBJECT Ti
r
REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
Greenwood I am glad that you gave me another crack at it here, yeah, we need to
understand that the 6 lane section now impacts the Lincoln school frontage
and I think it is a mobile home park across the street from it. It affects the
commercial properties down at Alessandro on both sides. Those buildings
are fairly close to the road and then if we are talking about 6 lanes all the
way down to El Paseo, that block between 111 and El Paseo has the highest
volume on Portola. If we are talking about that block, these are vital brand
new commercial buildings that we are talking about.
Finerty Can we look at north of Fred Waring on Portola going to six lanes?
Greenwood We have some layouts from that discussion at GPAC.
Finerty Right. And keeps the focus there rather than to tear up the whole city and all
the buildings?
Greenwood That is where it gets a little bit odd because then the volume between Fred
Waring and 111 is actually higher than the volume north of Fred Waring so
we would widen where the volume was lower and leave it narrower where
the volume was higher which creates a bottleneck. We have gotten all tied
up at the staff level, so ....
Finerty But wouldn't we anticipate though, let's see you were talking before that if we
do the interchange at Portola and 1-10, that that would take approximately
10,000 cars away from Monterey?
Greenwood It was more like 15,000 to 20,000.
Finerty So if using that same scenario Portola was widened to 6 lanes, it has got to
alleviate some traffic from probably Monterey and potentially Cook.
Criste Monterey, Cook and Portola are not going to operate at unacceptable levels
it appears from the traffic model. The other is ...
Finerty Which is imprecise.
Criste Yes it is. But the other is that you have some relatively sensitive land uses
that are going to stay there forever along Portola and if you look at the
volumes, the projected volumes, I don't think the projected volumes warrant
6 lanes north of Fred Waring at this point.
59
SUBJECT TE'
Li\ ir ® REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
Drell Yeah. Well, that is where we get into the discussion, it is right on the cusp.
It is in the 30,000 range where you are either at a fairly good D at 4 lanes or
maybe a D and with 6 lanes you are at a solid C. A lot of that traffic that the
Portola interchange is intercepting, is traffic that has been disbursing and a
lot of those destinations are north of Country Club or north of Frank Sinatra.
So remember, we are creating by virtue of that commercial, the University,
the regional...huge destinations are right on the south side of I-10 which is
what a lot of that traffic is on that Portola interchange is going to be diverting,
so as it goes south, its impact gets diluted and what the traffic model is
saying is people are coming south, they are stopping, they are turning right,
they are turning left and by the time it gets down to Fred Waring, that big slug
of traffic that is starting at the Portola interchange is diminished significantly.
Criste Right.
Lopez But I think the area where I have always been concerned about is the area
between Magnesia Falls and Fred Waring. You know I think it would be
delightful or wonderful to see that we could break this thoroughfare on
Portola that I am not too crazy about 6 lanes on this road, but if 4 lanes is
going to handle the inbound traffic that disburses before you get to Fred
Waring and 4 lanes from Magnesia Falls to Highway 111 belong with
sidewalks and open space that creates a safe environment for all those
people along those areas is where I think we should be focused on.
Criste I think that is where the deficiency may be, not so much that we need more
lanes, but that we don't have enough room to do a proper 4 lane kind of
configuration now and we have kids on bikes, walking and as parents have
said, we have got them right up against the line of traffic because of the lack
of width but the 6 lanes does not seem to be warranted by the model.
Drell Given the pain and expense it will cost.
Greenwood Another issue too is that the 4 lane section that we had presented here I
believe had bike lanes on it and a 6 lane section that we would contemplate
probably would not, though it is hard to say. Bike lanes between Fred
Waring and 111 are very difficult. I think we could do it on a 4 lane section
there but I don't think we could do it on a 6 lane section.
60
,. SUOJECTT(
o REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
Campbell So, actually to me I agree with Commissioner Lopez. I would just go even
really on Portola. The worst part is between Rutledge, not even Magnesia
Falls, and Alessandro that really needs the work on that side.
Lopez One other real quick comment. I think this was an outstanding element. If
this draft of the staff report that we received the other night that when I first
read through it, man oh man, you guys are more important than just putting
up a traffic light some place. This was done very, very well and it was very
very informative.
Finerty And look how quickly we got through it.
Lopez Yes. This was really put together very very well.
Greenwood We should give the credit where it is due John Criste, the consultant,
prepared all the text and Urban Crossroads.
Lopez Well I know John had a lot to do with it, but I know that the input from you all
is invaluable and I really do think it is very very well done.
Campbell Great work Mark and John. Okay, it is now 11 :30, so we are going to go
ahead and resume our public hearing at 6:00 this evening.
Action:
It was moved by Chairperson Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, by
minute motion, continuing GPA 01-04 to 6:00 p.m. on November 4, 2003.
V. ADJOURNMENT
Move by Chairperson Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adjourning the
meeting by minute motion. The meeting was adjourned at 11 :34 a.m.
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
ATTEST:
SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson
Palm Desert Planning Commission
61
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
getting it together. There needed to be some studies on it that they
were aware of, and ARC was aware of them, and they had agreed
they would work on it.
Chairperson Campbell declared the public hearing closed.
Chairperson Campbell called for the vote, and the motion carried by a 4-0
vote, with Commissioner Jonathan ABSENT.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner
Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0
(with Commissioner Jonathan absent).
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner
Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2231,
recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. PP 03-11 and DA 03-
03, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0 (with
Commissioner Jonathan absent).
B. Case No. GPA 01-04 and the Draft Environmental Impact Report as it
relates thereto - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
(Continued from September 16, October 7 and October 21, 2003--8:30 a.m.
meeting)
The following is a verbatim transcript of this Public Hearing:
Key
SC Sonia Campbell, Planning Commission Chairperson
DT Don Thompson
PD Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
CF Cindy Finerty, Planning Commissioner
John John Criste, Terra Nova Planning & Research
JL Jim Lopez, Planning Commissioner
SC This morning we had our General Plan meeting at 8:30, and we are again
going to go ahead and have it this evening. There are people in the
audience who haven't had an opportunity to speak when we were talking
31
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
regarding the Portola thruway. And so the public hearing is open, and I will
ask...anyone who is in the audience right now who wants to speak in regard
to that may do so right now. Now you may stand up.
DT I was here this morning, and thanks for picking up where we left off. I didn't
want to have to sit through three more hours of that. I kept slapping myself
to keep myself awake most of the time.
SC Can we have your name and address for the record, please.
DT My name is Don Thompson. I live at 43-845 Portola Avenue here in Palm
Desert. The blue card I filled out said I was speaking about the rezoning of
Portola. I didn't know whether it's going to be rezoned or whether it's going
to be something else happen to it. I can speak in general terms for the first
five houses north of Portola. Five of us are all together in agreement. We
like the area. We would like to stay in the area, and we're going to remain
in Palm Desert one way or another. But we're willing to go for rezoning or
changing Portola traffic. But we would appreciate somebody doing
something on this so we can make some plans for ourselves. This afternoon
I went home and I wrote a thing. I'm not much of a speaker, so I wrote this
out. I put it something so you can look at it later if you want to. I have a
suggestion for a solution for the Portola and Fred Waring intersection. I have
never heard anybody say these particular things. I'm not an engineer. I
have no expertise except common sense, and I'd like to propose the
following. If only two cars in the right-hand lane heading south on Portola at
Fred Waring decide to proceed straight ahead, as allowed, they will block
every car behind them from turning in the right-hand curve onto Fred Waring.
These blocked cars frequently back up further than the intersection of
Rancho Road and Portola and most times a lot further than that, even
approaching back toward Rutledge. Today at 2:30, right after I got home, I
went out with a camera and I took pictures of the intersection. In one case,
two cars blocked the turn. Those two cars proceeded straight ahead on
Portola, heading up toward 111. Instantly, there were ten cars, one right
after another, turned right on Fred Waring. No problem because the light
was with them (inaudible) to turn on. My suggestion is if only the first five
homes on Fred Waring were removed, and that includes mine, it would allow
the City to widen the street another 30 feet if it needed to put in one or even
two right-hand turning lanes into Fred Waring. There'd be no way for any car
to block any other car from turning as soon as they reached the corner.
Taking only those five homes now would be a lot less expensive than in the
32
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
future, and sometime in the future it's going to have to be done. Something's
got to be done there. And it would make a vast improvement immediately.
Furthermore, if in the future Portola were to be widened, this part would be
finished and we would all have the benefits of a more efficient traffic flow for
the period of time from this point on. I also believe that the smooth turn
might encourage more people to turn onto Fred Waring, thus avoiding the
two-lane congestion further south on Portola. Taking 30 feet for the
widening of those five lots would leave the City a 75-foot wide, 325-foot long
section for landscaping, meandering sidewalks, or whatever, and would be
relatively inexpensive to maintain and at the same time speed up traffic and
clear congestion approaching the corner. And that's all I have to say except
that we would appreciate an answer so we can make plans. Okay? Thank
you.
SC Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Anyone else in regard to Portola from this
morning's meeting? Okay. We'll resume the public hearing for the General
Plan after we hear Case Nos. GPA 03-07, C/Z 03-10, PP 03-11, TPM 31515,
and DA 03-03, Rick Evans, Applicant.
FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF PUBLIC HEARING A, CHAIRPERSON CAMPBELL
CONTINUED WITH THIS MATTER AS FOLLOWS
SC We'll go ahead and resume the public hearing. And we have Case No. GPA
01-04, Draft Environmental Impact Report as it relates thereto, City of Palm
Desert, Applicant. This is continued from September 16th, October 7th, and
October 21st, and an 8:30 meeting this morning. And request for
consideration of a Comprehensive General Plan Update and the Draft
Environmental Impact Report as it relates thereto. The public hearing is
open, and this will be pertaining to the EIR. Did you want to make any
comments, John?
PD We have a couple of things. On the General Plan, we've never talked about
the park and rec element. I don't know if you want John to...
CF We have a plan.
PD Okay, great.
CF Just sit tight.
33
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003
SC Okay.
PD Okay, thank you.
SC Okay, the public hearing is open for the EIR, and we're going to go ahead
and take testimony from the audience in regard to that. So, did you want to
say anything, John, at the beginning?
John I just want to make a note that the comment period for the EIR ended
yesterday and that we received only a handful of comments, but some of
them warrant some very careful consideration. So we can prepare
responses for those and have those hopefully ready for your meeting on the
18'h.
SC Of the next meeting, okay. Thank you. Okay, anyone in the audience? The
public hearing is open for any type of testimony on the EIR. Seeing none.
CF I would move to continue to November 18' at 8:30.
JL Second.
SC All in favor.
All said "aye"
SC All opposed. None. Motion carries.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez,
by minute motion, continuing Case No. GPA 01-04 and the Draft
Environmental Impact Report as it relates thereto, to November 18, 2003.
Motion carried 4-0, with Commissioner Jonathan ABSENT.
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Case No. VAR 03-01 - CENTENNIAL HOMES, Applicant
Per Planning Commission direction on October 21, 2003,
presentation of a resolution denying a request for a variance
to allow the reduction in the minimum lot depth from 100 feet
34
FAN r ET
e74 MINUTES SUBJECT IC
t o REVISION
1
ADJOURNED MEETING
% :71, 111/lb PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
''••:;TF ice E ,34�•'' 8:30 A.M. TUESDAY - NOVEMBER 18, 2003
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 8:37 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
Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer
Mark Greenwood, City Engineer
Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Engineer
Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary
Also Present: John Criste, Terra Nova Planning & Research
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
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.
11017711
SUBJECT TC
, o REVISI0N
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
portion of it and we've shown the boundaries. It's sometimes called a hill
shaded map because what it does is it shades the hillsides so that you get
the sense of topographic relief in the planning area and in the valley overall
and this really tells the tale very much about what the circumstances are in
the planning area. We are very much a topography driven kind of region
both on a growth scale with these mountains that give us open space, give
us wildlife habitat, hiking experiences, but are not really available for
development to varying degrees of very develop able land and then lands
that in the middle of the valley as you can see are affected by other
constraints. If you look in the middle of this planning area exhibit, you can
see Indio Hills which are a indication of a direct sign of the San Andreas fault
zone and the compression that goes on in this particular area and the uplift
that results.
You can also, it is implicit also in the exhibit is the substantial drainage areas
that come out of the mountains and the heavy deposition of materials into
the valley floor as you know, some of these materials are miles thick so this
is a very active flood zone.
So, right away we have these kinds of obvious conditions from a bird's eye
view or a satellite view almost, but also you can see the constriction and
isolation of the valley from the largely maritime air masses to the west and
how the San Gorgonio Pass then is a funnel and the valley itself, and its
shape and its low elevation, how they create this regime of winds that also
then really characterize our region very much.
So, I am really enamored with this exhibit. I think it really does and it is very
instructive in the planning issues, the most basic planning issues.
Jonathan I am sorry to interrupt. I had a question that I actually meant to ask you
earlier. This exhibit shows the general plan planning area with that dashed
line. How is the determination made to include the non city area, non
incorporated area on north of 1-10 and is that an indication that at some point
there is an expectation that it will be part of the city proper.
Criste The answer to the second question is no. The answer to the first question is
that the GPAC in wanting to cast a broad net, if you will, from an analysis
point of view, didn't want to look at this too much in context, but rather
wanted to look at the general planning in a land use context. Also to the
extent that these lands north of the interstate especially, and this is where
3
SUBJECT TC.
MINUTES i0 REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
the extra land comes in by the way, all the lands in the planning area on the
south side all occur within the city's legal sphere of influence as recognized
by LAFCO.
In the north we knew that we had lands that serve as a gateway to the city,
lands on the north side of Monterey, Cook, etc., and that people coming into
that end of the community would be affected either for better or worse by the
kinds of planning that went on there, etc. And what part of the rationale for
analyzing this area was multifold, but that was one of them was to have an
analyzed base to come to a LAFCO or to come to a county hearing and say,
"we know this area fairly well, we evaluated this area in detail in the context
of our work and we have some real concerns and we can back them up."
That was really I think the heart and soul of the idea. Then maybe the
greater extension had to do with the value that the city it was reflected in the
GPAC for preserving open space and how important this area with the
preserve, the fault zone, oasis and then the connection to the park there was
a logic to extend there as well. So that was how the planning area became
defined and it was voted on by the GPAC.
Drell The GPAC didn't spend a lot of time but maybe out of the how many
meetings it might have spent one meeting or two meetings to try talking
about it.
Criste The next exhibit on the next page kind of gives you an overall sense of the
planning area in terms of scale. The city corporate limits are about 25 square
miles, the sphere of influence that LAFCO recognizes is about 41 square
miles and when you tack on this big north end that we were concerned about
at least having the good information base on that added 69 square miles to
the planning area. The project description is fairly extensive and of course
it is a summary of the general plan itself and that also includes a breakout of
the dedication of lands by percentage, general types, commercial, etc. Their
exhibits in the beginning also that include the existing conditions which
represent the current city and current county general plan.
For the current county purposes we used the RSIP that was under
consideration at the time. The county integrated plan and we had a couple
of areas where apparently between the time we did our mapping and the
time that matters were resolved with the adoption of the general plans,
changes, minor changes occurred. Two important changes are, there are a
couple of policy areas in the Sky Valley planning area that the county has
4
fl R om+
C SUBJECT IC
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
asked that we respect and delineate on our final map. One refers to Sky
Valley Mobile Home and RV Park policy area and there is one other policy
area which I don't recall at the moment. There is also a piece of land up on
Highway 74 that the county had designated as open space and is private
and they're designating it as a very low density residential, I think one per
ten. They asked that we would honor that as well, although in that particular
instance that is a specific designation so I am not sure that we should feel
compelled, nor is it likely to be relevant.
Finally, the county has delineated low density residential in the Cahuilla area
of zero to two and our low density designation is zero to four and they would
rather that we assign a more restrictive zero to two per acre in those areas
where there is a difference between the two designations.
I think that is pretty much the limit. I will check to see if I have covered
everything in that regard. Those are the differences between the county's
maps as they are presented in the EIR and how they would like us to present
both in our preferred alternative and in their maps in the document.
The EIR evaluates such things as land use compatibility and so does the
general plan at length in things like community design element, etc. It also
evaluates traffic which we went over last time and pointed to the mitigation
measures which were imbedded in the last table of this section of the EIR
and we will continue through adaptive management to make sure that the
road system performs to standard and there is a brief policy amendment that
we can cover at the end of this discussion with regard to the level of service
that we are desiring in the City.
One of the biggest most important constraints that we have to deal with here
is also the seismic constraint in the valley. We have really we're a highly
exposed area and we have got a very high potential relatively for strong
earthquakes, up to a 7.4, 20% probability in 30 years the EIR says or our
consultant says. Since the Landers quake we have gained in popularity from
a earthquake point of view. The intensity of the earthquake's potential seems
to have gone down a little bit because of the way things are changing
underground, but these are very imprecise matters. We know, however, we
have this hazard so we should expect very strong ground shaking at the very
least and ground rupture up along Indio Hills area sometime in the next 50
years for sure. We have other constraints that are soils, rock falls, things of
that sort which the city inherently manages through code and we reference
5
SUBJECT IC
- REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
though in the EIR some of those and just ordinary measures taken to assure
land use compatibility with seismic and other geotechnical hazards.
In hydrology, bynecessitywe have a highly developed drainage system. In
Y 9Y� 9 Y P 9 Y
the cove communities especially we have been subject to some significant
floods and most recently since 1976 where we developed along the Dead
Indian drainages and those sorts of areas. We have major facilities in place
already, like the Whitewater River which is usually dry, but large capacity
facility as it runs through the city, it will handle 82,000 cubic feet per second
which is a pretty enormous river. We also have the Palm Valley channel
underneath that Indian Creek basin which addressed the 1976 flooding and
made projects like Canyons at Bighorn possible. Others at San Pasqual
Channel which is a local channel, the Deep Canyon Channel and then the
partially constructed, largely still underway and Mid Valley Channel located
on the south side of the railroad rights-of-way and connecting to drainage
systems of the Coachella Valley Water District further down stream. There
is also in the north end of the planning area, the Army Corps has approved
a very large hydrology project to protect the urban areas primarily along
Varner and up the Ramon Road in Thousand Palms and that needs a lot of
funding but that would protect those lands and some other lands as well. So,
we recognize all those plans. We have standard mitigation measures that
staff already applied and public works apply to development proposals as
they come in the city.
We also have then covered lots of other areas of concern, air quality. Air
quality of course is a regional issue, water resources are regional issues.
We spoke about both of these at length, about how important they are to us.
We have a role to play in regulating the use of water and the emission of
pollutants and our effects on regional air quality, but we are also not masters
of our own fate by a long shot. So, we do our best with the mitigation
measures and within the context of regional planning at CVAG and SCAG.
We hope to continue to manage air resources and water resources better
and better.
We also finally in the impact analysis, we performed a rather detailed fiscal
impact analysis using a methodology that the county recognizes for things
like annexations and those kinds of incorporations to assure that there is an
adequate flow of revenue to government to provide services and we find that
the preferred alternative general plan by a large margin will be revenue
positive to the city upon build out and that is within the city limits proper.
6
SUBJECT IC
MINUTES ;, ; #` R VIS10N
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
We have other comparisons as well within the EIR under the alternatives
discussion but for our purposes and for the purposes of any amendments we
are clearly a strong revenue positive scenario that we are going to be
operating under. The EIR also looks at other mandatory discussions under
the California Environmental Quality Act and then as I mentioned the
extensive alternatives discussion which evaluates the relative impacts of the
other alternatives to these various categories that we have been discussing.
The document then includes all the technical reports that we generated in a
somewhat condensed form so that the public doesn't have to struggle to find
them nor do you and if you are interested you have got them readily
available to you.
We are in receipt of about a half dozen letters, meaningful letters with regard
to comments on the draft DIR. These include comments from the Southern
California Association of Governments and their desire that we demonstrate
consistency with the regional plan. Clearly we are consistent and we are
now drafting those responses and pointing to the relevant policies and
programs of the general plan to demonstrate that. The others had to with
largely, a couple of the letters had to do with immediate planning areas. One
concern was raised about land uses along Gerald Ford, east of Monterey.
Another has to do with perhaps traffic safety if you will, associated with land
uses at Dinah Shore west of future Portola. Largely though, the letters
overwhelmingly are about land use. I would like this designation or that
designation which in our determination have no real net effect on the
environmental analysis. We have your usual questions about everything
letter as well and so we are responding at length about a whole list of issues
raised almost categorically about the environmental document and it is fairly
routine now in the overall and in advance of our hearing next month, we will
provide you with the drafts of the responses that we have prepared so you
will see the full context of the environmental documentation.
And I will be glad to answer any questions.
Campbell Any questions of John?
Tschopp You are going to make the responses available to us prior to next month's
meeting?
Criste Yes.
7
•
SUBJECT TC
MINUTES t , RrVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Tschopp In a nutshell, are there any responses that you would anticipate that would
have any kind of impact on the process or implementation of the GPAC?
Criste No. As is typical, it is largely a matter of clarification or pointing to where the
information was and facilitating a better understanding.
Jonathan John, I wanted to ask you about the fiscal impact analysis. There are tables
beginning on page V-49 and they seem to indicate that if we just focus on
the city limit only analysis, the "no project" seems to have a net annual
positive cash flow of $16,000,000. The more intense is about $9,000,000
and the less intense is about $12,000,000. So, I guess I am a little bit
confused because I would have thought logically that the more intense would
create more revenue. Is that because of the higher expenses? I know that
this is kind of a detailed analysis and I apologize if I am catching you off
guard but the trend is just a little different than I would have suspected.
Criste I didn't prepare the analysis but I think I understand the model well enough.
The intensity of the land use that we used was as much a function of
dwelling units as it was anything and so...
Jonathan As it was what?
Criste As it was say commercial or industrial.
Jonathan Okay.
Criste And in very general terms, the balance between revenue positive and
revenue negative has to do with housing units versus say commercial resort
hotel, those kinds of revenue generators. That is, from a property tax point
of view and a service point of view, residential is generally a negative for the
local jurisdiction. That is why there is a need to have as much as you can a
balance of other revenue sources to backfill that would otherwise be a loss.
So if you have a community that is a residential heavy and low on
commercial and maybe even resort which is a very good revenue generating
land use, you are going to find that those communities are going to be in
very tight fiscal constraints. So, our more intense is a higher residential
loaded alternative.
8
r TSUBJECT Tt:
MINUTES REVISIONPALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Drell Remember, in all the alternatives, the commercial designations are roughly
the same. They are pretty much set by land use compatibility issues in
proximity to the interchanges and to the freeway.
Jonathan I see what you are saying. So the more intense results in possibly more
residential units which increases the revenue somewhat but the costs go up
more if you've got those right revenues.
Drell Right, provide more services and percentage wise less revenue.
Jonathan Right, okay. Thank you.
Campbell Any more questions of John?
I do have some blue cards here if anyone is interested in talking in regards
to this. I have Rodriguez, Lucia, no? Not on this, or Donna Matson, not on
this? Okay. Anyone else?
Drell Okay, what we are going to try and accomplish even though we are not
going to have our final resolutions and response to comments at this
meeting, is at least make some fundamental decisions. So, when we get to
our next meeting, we can wrap it up relatively quickly. That's the objective.
So we are going to go over things basically areas where we are suggesting
amendments to the original draft or new language, new alternatives.
First, we will first talk about the land use designations. We are suggesting
that hotels and motels be listed uses in the commercial zones as, which is
again something that will always be subject to a specific approval process
but at least provides the opportunity for within the community commercial
and the regional commercial and all those and we can have hotels.
The second is introducing the concept of mixed use commercial in all the
commercial zones as well which in essence leaves open the possibility of
integrating residential uses into commercial uses. Again, this is something
that will be subject to specific designs when we actually get projects but
again would leave the...it identifies the potential desirability of proximity of
residential and commercial uses together and again provides the opportunity
for property owners to propose those.
Finerty Phil, I have a question.
9
SUBJECT TC
MINUTES R!VISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Drell Sure.
Finerty And I am not sure if you want to do these one by one or do them all together,
but...
Drell I would rather do them one by one.
Finerty Okay. My question is with regard to the mixed use. I am very uncomfortable
with mixed use that includes the possibility of high density residential along
with commercial and I would feel much more comfortable if we removed the
high density residential and put in office professional.
Drell The inherent nature of mixed use includes the potential for high density
residential. Again,the proximity of high density residential next to commercial
uses...we have them in the city...on El Paseo we have mixed use projects
with El Paseo Village as an example where a project was developed with the
front of it commercial and the back half of it high density or in our definition
then residential. Again, it is not something that it provides, again there are
a lot of demonstrated positive outcomes of it relative to traffic, relative to
convenience. It doesn't force you to approve any. People have to make
designs and they have to justify that the language requires that
Finerty I know, but if the language is there, then it opens up the door. If the language
isn't there, then they are forced to come in with the change of zone.
Drell And the staff recommendation is the door be open. You can disagree with
it or not disagree with it, but that is the staff recommendation. That the door
should be open. One of the issues we are dealing with, I had a discussion
yesterday with folks at the Housing Authority recently went to a meeting led
by the state housing development department relative to the new what they
call Regional Housing Allocation Numbers, which is what our next cycle of
the general plan is going to have to deal with and based on the 2000 census,
and the projected and measured growth over the last three years in the city,
our numbers are going to be significantly higher than we have ever had
before and one of the issues in the general plan is using our land most
efficiently and we have very little of it left and one of the ways of...with
minimal impact on the land and minimal impact on existing traffic and
circulation systems and open space and everything else is to find creative
ways to integrate housing with other uses. It has been done traditionally for
10
SUBJECT TC.
REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
hundreds of years very successfully throughout the world and in California
and in Palm Desert, so that's our recommendation.
Lopez Phil, real quick. In the language of the commercial use, mixed use, it includes
medium density also.
Drell Sure.
Lopez And that particular...that would be 4-10 developed units per acre if I
understand right?
Drell Correct.
Lopez You are looking at perhaps even residential homes mixed in with this
particular area versus condominiums or...(inaudible)
Drell Planned in conjunction with.
Again, El Paseo Village is an example where condominiums were planned
with a commercial project.
Lopez These also could be single family homes.
Drell I doubt that within the same project you would have single family homes.
Generally you have the examples of second floor apartments or sometimes,
or... again, commercial land by its nature is very very expensive. The only
way it makes any economic sense to integrate housing into it is in a rather
land intensive manner. You are not going to see, again you are talking about
$10, $15, $20 per square foot real estate and typically when it's done, it's
done in second floors or in multi story buildings adjacent to, but interacting
with. The difference is there's an interaction with, it's master planned
together to maximize their compatibility and utility together. To a certain
degree, hotels are residential use and we have been integrating hotels and
commercial projects from the beginning so it is, the big advantage of them
is that they are very complimentary in terms of their peak hour. Commercial
uses are most busy during the midday, residential uses are most busy in the
morning and evening. Again, this is not something that we will force Ms.
Finerty to live in, but it provides the opportunity for the marketplace to decide
if and when in the next .... remember this is a 20-year plan. What I am
hearing from residential developers right today, that there is almost no good
11
SUBJECT IC
-` ✓
REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
residential land left. They are scratching to find real estate and this is just an
opportunity that is open. The door is open and there is no question we are
recommending that it be open that in the next 20 years if the market dictates
relative to the scarcity of residential property that there is... and you can find
a compatible, creative way to integrate residential uses into a land plan for
commercial that the door is open.
Finerty Phil, at the last meeting I had asked you what the mixed use was and you
told me commercial and high density residential. However, under land use
designation, it doesn't spell out what it is and I think that the rest of the
commission needs to have a clear idea of your intent of mixed use is for
commercial with high density residential as evidenced in the map where it is
that you would like to see the high density go relative to the other uses.
Drell This isn't a zoning map. This is a general plan. All we are saying is in these
areas there will be an opportunity for it to happen. I am not ...
Finerty But it doesn't say, it says a specific designation for mixed use developments.
I think mixed use developments needs to be spelled out. As Commissioner
Lopez just asked, does this allow medium density residential and that was
not in the answer that you gave me at the last meeting. So if mixed use
development is medium, high density, and commercial or whatever
combination, I think it needs to be clearly spelled out.
Drell Okay, it can include any mixture of commercial uses and residential uses.
In a compatible design that you examine and say, "Hey, that works." We are
not saying that it will happen anywhere, it will be a decision ultimately that
the marketplace will make and a creative designer will make, but it can
include all forms of both office... Again, you have a project before you right
now that you recommended for approval that is a mixture of office and
commercial and hotel. Again, hotel is a form of where people live.
Tschopp If I remember right, the use of mixed use commercial is used very sparingly
throughout the plan.
Drell No, no, there is two areas where if you get out the amended land use
designations... John do you have them handy?
Lopez The one dated 10/17?
12
p
SUBJECT TC
MINUTES g
REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Drell There are two things. There are two specific areas that are designated on
the land use map. But in terms of the language, we create a mixed use
section where we felt that it was specifically appropriate and I will read the
language of the mixed use section.
"The land use designation provides for a mixture of uses including those
identified in any of the commercial land uses which includes offices, hotels,
and retail as well as professional offices, institutions, medium or high density
residential." It says medium or high density residential. "This designation is
applied to lands which have benefitted from approval of a master
development plan, or specific plan. The mixed use development is intended
to be a highly integrated master plan that optimizes the complimentary land
uses and distribution's internal non vehicular access, low traffic volumes
within the residential areas in the master plan. Commercial mixed uses
development will vary in size and are discretionary approvals."
In addition, in all the...and actually in all the other commercial zones and
actually they were part of the original language, regional commercial mixed
use developments with professional offices and residential may also be
permitted through approval of such an integrated master plan. So, that
language, again, the door has been left open. Actually our current zoning
actually allows accessory second story apartments in all commercial zones
already. Again, people haven't...the market hasn't made that decision that
it is ready for that, but actually our existing zoning ordinance does provide for
it.
Jonathan How does the land use designation interplay with zoning?
Drell We will...after the general plan is approved, then our next task is to adjust
our zoning ordinance to implement the programs and policies of the general
plan.
Jonathan So the mixed use commercial designation, would that create a new zone?
Or would that suggest that a mixture of zonings be allowed within the
designated mixed use areas?
Drell We have an existing zone called planned community development which
pretty much mirrors to a great extent this philosophy. It allows for the
integration of residential and commercial uses in a master plan and they
have to come and present the master plan and one of those is gonna be
13
rn
- T SUBJECT IC
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
before you that the University Park master plan is being pursued through the
PCD zone. So, it is not a departure of really what is already in the zoning
ordinance.
Jonathan Isn't the PCD zone traditionally used for residential development projects?
Drell It has been, but it wasn't designed for that.
Jonathan Okay, you are saying that it would allow the mixture of high density
residential with commercial?
Drell Yes.
Jonathan So, the mixed use areas that staff is recommending in their staff
recommended alternative would presumably be zoned PCD as a result of the
general plan land use?
Drell One of them is already zoned PCD and the mixed use concept... Remember
the Wonder Palms development agreement and master plan? Those
planning areas in Wonder Palms already incorporate in their planning area
descriptions mixed use. The only one that's different, the one that's the more
southerly one off of Cook Street since...and that area is proposed to be
included within the Wonder Palms Plan. Remember, because when the
Wonder Palms approved, that was part of a golf course at the time and
actually there was a hotel planned at that site. So, but again, it's a
discretionary approval ultimately based on the approval of a master plan.
The next is the amendment of the Hillside Reserve. Originally it was
designated as a maximum density of one unit per five acres. We are based
on making it more consistent or consistent with our existing hillside ordinance
and the proposed amended Hillside Ordinances we're providing a density of
up to one dwelling per acre. Again, remember, we have...these ranges, this
goes for all the ranges...through designations on the zoning map we
determine and only we determine, obviously property owners can request but
there is no requirement that we zone any property at the top of the range.
The reason why the range exists it gives us the flexibility and the owners and
developers to argue with us, but it is ultimately our decision of where the
zoning map ends up or where our approvals end up granting within the
range.
14
r . SUBJECT IC.
MINUTES #
.13 REVISION
�` ' �
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Remember general plans are general. There is a lot of confusion between
general plans and zoning ordinances and zoning maps. The specificity on
these maps should not be looked at as a zoning map, nor should these land
use descriptions be looked at with the specificity of a zoning map or a zoning
ordinance.
So, again, we are recommending that, and the determination as to where in
the range and we have to have a rational reason for determining, we can't
be arbitrary. In the Hillside area it acknowledges that there are constraints
relative to topography and others which will determine where in the range a
project might end up.
Okay, somewhat departing from the script, go back to, I am going to go like
we've done before, south to north relative to issues of some concern and
controversy either based on staffs reexamination of the plan or public input
and the first would be beginning in the south, the much discussed 12 acres.
Campbell Phil, are we looking at our general plan deferred map here?
Drell Yes. That is what I am looking at since that is the only, again, our GIS guy
has been on vacation for the last two weeks so we haven't produced any
new maps. Although here, this has already been modified from what you
have in your original text as the representative of the property has pointed
out. This is the 12 acres, right here, of land at the south edge of the city.
That when the original lines for what was originally called the Hillside Overlay
and then became the HPR zone was drawn, it was drawn based on a USGS
map with 80-foot contours, which means that only changes in elevation of
more than 80 foot showed up as a slope.
For those who were around in 1982, when George Fox first came to the city
and based on that original map had asked for a 700-room hotel on his
property based on the fact that the map at that time showed his property as
flat. We did a, as one of my first tasks when I came to the city I was given
the case and I looked at the more detailed topo map and I said, hey and I
walked out to the site, and I said that is not flat, that is a cliff, that is a canyon
and instead of having 70 or 80 acres of flat area, there was 12 and based on
that information we, through what was then called the West Hills Specific
Plan, redesignated the toe of slope based on the more accurate information
we then had. This area originally, again, was drawn in the same way and a
line was drawn separating only about an acre or an acre and a half on the
15
SUBJECT TE_
MINUTES
REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
east side of it as hillside and the applicant is absolutely correct, in the
general plan discussion, we didn't focus on every single parcel. We for
whatever reason we didn't focus on this parcel at all. It wasn't until the
applicant submitted plans to the City, showed us a topo map, we suddenly
said, hey, you are right. This is hillside. We went back and dug through the
old file, the original file on what was then called Altamira which later became
the Canyons where analysis was done on this property and the conclusion
was, yes, this is hillside similar in topography to the adjacent land in the
Canyons which was designated Hillside and subject to our Hillside
Ordinance. One of the reasons, one of the obligations or the methodologies
of the land use designations is you designate similarly situated properties
with similar characteristics and topography the same. And based on the
information both provided by the applicant and the old property owner in the
form of a topographic map and the old analysis we had, our inescapable
conclusion was this was similar in characteristic to other properties in the city
that we designated as Hillside Reserve.
It wasn't a matter of spite, or anything else, it just, it was a matter of fairness.
It's not necessarily to make anyone unhappy or happy or whatever, it meets
the physical characteristics as defined by the land use designation. The
property owner has I guess suggested that we defer action on this
designation until his, until their project winds its way through the system.
That is how it gets up for you to determine another opportunity. I guess we
can give it a study designation, but in reality, based upon the physical
characters of the property, it definitely meets the Hillside Reserve definition.
So I guess that is issue number one. What is your pleasure and I guess
maybe it would be the opportunity for each one of these to allow the affected
public to give their last pitch, if you want, and then give us direction on how
to amend the map or not amend the map for your December meeting. So,
I'll...
Campbell Is there anyone in the audience wanting to speak regarding this section we
were speaking?
Perry Good morning. My name is Patrick Perry. I have spoken to you before
regarding this particular piece of property. I represent the property owner
which is Cornish & Bighorn, LLC. I have my blue card here and I will hand
it in as soon as I finish speaking.
16
SUBJECT TC
o REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Campbell Can you give us the address, please, too?
Perry My address is 515 South Figueroa Street in Los Angeles.
I have spoken I guess a couple of times regarding this particular piece of
property. Again, this was designated or redesignated I suppose as Hillside
Reserve after the original preferred alternative was prepared and was
included in the draft general plan by GPAC which, it is my understanding,
spent approximately two years preparing the preferred alternative and the
general plan, did not focus on this particular property, left the designation
pretty much the same as what it had been pursuant to the previous zoning,
which was a portion of the property as Mr. Drell pointed out, was designated
Hillside Planned Residential and the remainder, actually the bulk of the
property having been designated low density residential which permitted up
to five residential units per acre.
The civil engineer has done a calculation determining that based on the
current zoning up to 57 units per acre would be permitted on the property.
A tract map application for four residential lots with a total of 57 residential
units was submitted to the City in early August and it was only after that point
as Mr. Drell again pointed out that staff looked at the property again and
determined that oh this is Hillside and so now we need to redesignate it.
Again, this is not something that was included in the original general plan,
draft general plan. It was not something that was included in the draft
environmental impact report as part of the preferred alternative, has not been
studied. I think that to adopt the staff recommendation as opposed to what
has been provided in the draft general plan as well as in the draft EIR would
require some form of recirculation, public review and comment, not only with
respect to this property, but with respect to other properties that have been,
well, changes have been made in the staff recommendation that are not
reflected in the preferred alternative or even in either of the other
alternatives, the more intense or the less intense alternatives or in the EIR.
I have been to the property and I agree that there are hillsides on the
property. The property in many areas is steeply sloping. However, it is not
fundamentally different in character from the adjacent properties either on
the same side of Dead Indian Creek or on the opposite side of Dead Indian
17
rbN
I. SUBJECT IT
MINUTES "' REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Creek which would appear to require that it somehow be designated
differently than those adjacent properties.
The only difference between this particular property and those adjacent
properties is that this property is undeveloped at this point and those
properties are undergoing development as part of the Canyons at Bighorn.
The properties immediately adjacent to the north are being developed under
the low density residential designation which is what the designation for this
property is, at least for the bulk of it. We understand that the definition of the
low density residential and the general plan is being revised from 3-5
residential units per acre to 0-4 residential units per acre. We understand
that as a result the current map if the general plan is adopted as proposed
in the preferred alternative, the number of units that will have to be reduced
and we don't know what the calculation will be but it will be somewhere
around 45-47 units total for the property, and that is acceptable.
What is not acceptable is the fact that this has been reduced so drastically.
At least in the original Hillside definition which would permit a maximum of
two units on the property which is one unit per 5 acres and I understand that
is being, there is a recommendation that that definition be changed to allow
a maximum of one unit per acre, but that still significantly lower than what is
permitted under the current designation.
If there are concerns about what the maximum number of units can be
developed on this property, according to the characteristics of the property,
the carrying capacity of the land, the impacts on biological resources or
traffic impacts or any of the other environmental impacts that would be
concerned, availability of infrastructure, access and so forth, those can be
resolved through the tract map process. As I indicated there is an existing
application which has been submitted. It was deemed incomplete. We are
in the process of preparing additional materials, architectural plans to show
that yes, indeed, 57 units can be developed on this property.
A soils report is being prepared. We have CC&Rs that are being prepared
and we need to do a new slope density study for that portion of the property
that is currently designated Hillside. Those are in preparation, we expect to
have those submitted to staff within the next couple of weeks and we would
request the tract map process that is currently underway be the means
according to which the maximum density that can be developed on this
18
FT
SUBJECT Tf
MINUTES I t REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
property will be determined rather than to have it arbitrarily determined in this
fashion through a general plan designation.
If you have any questions, I am available to answer them, but otherwise it is
simply to repeat what I have alreadystated previouslyas well as what we
PY P
provided in written correspondence.
Campbell Any questions?
Jonathan You are circulating or processing an application that I think you mentioned
that has 57 dwelling units?
Perry Yes.
Jonathan And this is on approximately 12 acres I believe?
Perry Yes.
Jonathan Two of which are Planned Hillside Residential?
Perry It is about 1-1/2 acres, possibly 2 acres. I am not sure what the exact
calculation of the square footage is.
Jonathan I am trying to figure out how you got to 57, but I guess that maximizes the...
Perry It maximizes the allowable units under the existing zoning and the civil
engineer did the calculation. I can try to provide those figures for you, but I
don't have them....
Jonathan No, I just wanted to make sure I understood. Thank you, though. And I guess
this is maybe a question for staff, but the residential hillside reserve
designation? Is Mr. Perry correct that would allow up to one unit per acre?
Drell That is what we are proposing.
Jonathan And that is I guess a departure from the proposed hillside amendment which
allows one per 5 acres.
Drell No, remember, it allows for slopes less than 10% it allows one unit per acre.
So it is a generalized designation when property that, until you come in with
19
SUBJECT TC
MINUTES "' g
a" REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
a topographic analysis with less than five foot contours, you can't draw that
line on the zoning map. So in the general plan we are saying in this general
area we believe it to be hillside. Once the zoning process begins and we get
the detailed analysis, then we can refine it and figure out where in the range
it should go.
Jonathan So if a property is designated Hillside, then under the land use designation
potentially it can be awarded one unit per acre, but under the proposed
hillside ordinance revision, if it was above 10%, it may not qualify.
Drell Correct.
Jonathan Okay, thank you.
Campbell Any other questions of Mr. Perry? No?
Finerty I just have a question of staff. I sat on GPAC and regardless of whether
GPAC made a recommendation to change or not change, is clearly not the
gospel because it has to come to planning commission. We may allow a
change or not, but then we are not the final word either. Ultimately it goes to
the city council. So, I view this as an opportunity to right a wrong and I just
want your confirmation that this was not something that was overlooked, this
was something that through the process of reviewing the general plan has
come to our attention which we are taking our time to determine what would
be the best for the city and its hillsides, correct?
Drell Correct. Also, I would like to comment and John can maybe add about the
general threshold in CEQA for recirculation or reanalysis and the important
word that always comes up in CEQA is the word significant. That in the
context of the whole city general plan including, I don't know, maybe 20,000
units, the difference between one in 57 is not significant, especially when
what we are proposing is a less intense, a less impacting by definition
alteration. But in the level of analysis in whether it is a traffic or anything else
is not designed to pick up the difference in the general plan analysis as
opposed to the project specific analysis which we are also doing for this
project, it is not designed to discern as significant a difference between even
again one in 57. That is just not, you are looking at traffic volumes on these
streets of 20-30,000, so and I would say in general, the reason why you have
alternatives is you are analyzing a broad range and as we have shown in the
suggestions and all the various permutations to the alternatives as embodied
20
SUBJECT TC
MINUTES R€1/1SI0'Pd
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
by the staff recommended alternative, fall within that range. And that is why
we do alternatives and if what comes out of this process is within the general
range of the alternatives in the study, then typically that does not trigger
need for recirculation.
Jonathan To play devil's advocate for a moment with regards to materiality. If one unit
compared to 20,000 is immaterial, so are 57, correct?
Drell Correct.
Jonathan What is the average slope for those 12 acres? I guess for the 9 acres that
are not
Drell It's based on, we have not done the slope analysis ourselves, based upon
the study we said, it might be 15, 10 and 20. In which case the property
might be limited to two units. Again, in George Fox's example, looking
through the minutes of a previous discussion before I got here, again, they
were talking about the potential of having hundreds of units on his property
based upon this misconception of where the toe of slope was and at the time
the hillside ordinance was even more restrictive, it had one unit per 20 acres
for the very steep slopes and he was going from hundreds of units to two or
three. We ended up amending our Hillside Ordinance to make it a little bit
less Draconian, but ultimately it is the obligation of both land use
designations and zoning designations to treat similar properties the same.
Regardless of how long or as, to agree with Commissioner Finerty, the fact
that we had inaccurate information in the past that led us to draw a wrong
line on a map doesn't change our obligation to eventually get it right.
Tschopp Did the errors have any impact on the surrounding neighbors of this piece of
property? Did it allow them higher densities?
Drell No, the similar property at the Canyons is designated and was regulated
under our Hillside Ordinance that north beyond the channel the slopes are
under 10%. Basically our determination on...for Bighorn was based on these
same definitions.
Tschopp I think you answered my question, I just want to clarify it. The same code
that is being proposed here was applied to the neighboring properties?
21
SUBJECT It
REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Drell Correct, the same designation. We are designating them the same and they
were regulated by the Hillside Ordinance.
Tschopp I understand the importance of this piece of property, but I guess I go back
to this is the general plan and it seems we are talking thousands and
thousands of acres, we are talking 12 acres here.
Drell Correct.
Campbell Any more questions of staff or Mr. Perry?
Perry May I respond to one thing that Mr. Drell stated? The adjacent property that
is currently zoned Hillside Residential is based on slope density calculations
which, if they were applied to this property, and there is an old report that
was provided in one of the earlier staff reports from I think the meeting before
last that showed there would be up to 15 units that would be permitted on
this particular piece of property. Again, if the new Hillside Reserve
designation is applied, we are looking at a maximum 12 units, actually 11
units because it is slightly under 12 acres. That's for slopes that are under
10%. If it is over 10%, then we are looking at something more like probably
in a range of five and 10 units, so the new designation will not permit the
same number of units as what are currently permitted or have been
permitted under the existing Hillside designation for the adjacent Canyon's
properties. So, this would be more restrictive than what has been permitted
on the adjacent properties that are already designated Hillside, significantly
less than the adjacent properties that are designated low density residential.
Campbell Thank you Mr. Perry.
Tschopp Mr. Drell can you comment on that? It goes to the heart of my question I
guess.
Drell The difference he is talking about revolves around the direction that this body
is taking and the council has not yet acted on relative to the new ordinance
in which all the, right now the current ordinance has a five or six-category
table that allows densities down probably to actually more than one unit per
acre.
22
F`., SUBJECT it
REVISION
�` '
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
The one unit per acre suggestion in this designation was based on the fact
that all the alternatives that we looked at in the ordinance, none of them had
densities greater than one unit per acre. So, it was, so I guess to a certain
degree and general plans should lead in essence the process and if the
commission or the council feels that the higher densities that are currently
allowed in the Hillside Ordinance and the current specific plans should be
retained that allow, I think it goes down to one unit per .66 acres I think, then
that number could be substituted for the one unit per acre. It is just that it
takes time to, the consensus of discussion in the recent past, the one unit
per acre was as high as it seemed people were willing to go and there was
some discussion even not to have that, so that is where the range comes in.
So, that's why general plans still, we're providing the range which allows the
flexibility of the City to then finish up the general plan, the Hillside Ordinance
discussion subsequent to this, but again you guys can and the council can
ultimately set this at the top end of the range at anywhere you want based
upon taking a suggestion from the property owners or other property owners.
Finerty So, Chairperson Campbell, would this then be the appropriate time to have
commission discussion with regard to this particular piece of property?
Campbell Yes, we can if there is no one else in the audience who wants to speak in
regards to it. Okay?
Discussion?
Finerty Okay. I believe it was this summer, we had discussed the Hillside zoning in
depth and we had alternative A and alternative B. And at that time I was
adamant in favor of alternative B which allowed the one unit per 5 acres so
this has clearly been a concept that has been out there for quite some time.
I really have a problem with this property owner maximizing the calculation
to allow 57 units which is clearly not my idea of protecting the hillside; rather
I believe it is abusing the hillside.
Mr. Drell had alluded to that none of the any other properties had densities
greater than one unit per acre. So, it is my belief that the commission ought
to head off somewhere between the two and 12 units to be allowed and that
the 48-57 if we go with the low density residential proposed of 0-4 units per
acre that would allow the 48-57 that it currently is, that is totally off base with
regard to what we need to do to protect our hillsides.
23
„, ., .
; „, FT
SUBJECT TC.
MINUTES v i ri I” R`VISI0N
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Jonathan I guess I overall do concur with the philosophy, but I did walk the property.
I think that 57 units would probably be an abuse of the hillside. However, in
my mind we are not reviewing an application at this point. We are looking at
a land use designation and I think, I am struggling, I have a problem with the
property owner having rights accorded under a designation of 3-5 dwelling
units per acre and a governmental entity coming along and saying, 20 years
or more you've have had the right to expect 57 units, we are now coming
along and saying you have the right to expect two or five or seven or 10. I
have a fundamental philosophical problem with that. I guess where I come
down is to leave the land use designation as it is, but I will be very critical of
the actual application in terms of reviewing the impact on the hillside and
what is appropriate.
In other words, the current designation doesn't prohibit us from making a
determination that less units would be appropriate for that particular site,
certainly less than 57, whereas changing the land use designation would
prohibit us from allowing more than whatever the calculation might yield,
1 whether that is two or 10 or whatever. So while I'm very much in agreement
with the philosophy of protecting the hillside, I have a real problem in taking
away the owner's rights and I would rather review the specific application
and deal with the specific issues at that time.
Lopez I would concur philosophically. I think that the land use 57 units or at least
maximizing it to 57 units would be taking advantage of the current land use,
so I would concur, I think that is by far the high end. I have seen the property
and I would think that would be an abuse of our hillsides. And I would tend
to agree that I would rather leave the land use designation as it is, but I
would like to put a little more importance on this specific area and perhaps
I think early on in the conversations we had several meetings ago, and
perhaps being a little more consistent with some of the other areas within the
city, that we designate this as perhaps a hillside study area. This would give
us the opportunity to zero in on this specific plot of land as we have done on
some other areas within the city. Again, designating that as an area of high
importance, high visibility, that we need to be careful as to what is developed
in that area and what the intensity of that area is and let the specific
applications speak for itself and the slopes and designations dignify what we
have put in that particular area. But it should be taken at a higher visibility
than just another application.
24
•
SUBJECT IC
MINUTES =: y b' REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Tschopp Well, the easy part is agreeing philosophically that we want to protect our
hillsides. That goes without saying. But I do agree with Commissioner Lopez
that this is a high visible piece of property and still in the context of the
general plan and not specific land planning issues, I would like to see this
area also put aside as a study area so that we can look at a specific plan
down the road that is compatible with that area, and also with the
surrounding neighbors. I think if you look at the neighbors of this property,
you will see it's one of the best done properties done in the desert. So
without seeing a specific plan it is very hard for me to come to any kind of
resolution what we should designate this property.
So, I would like to see us designate this as a study area and look at specific
plans as brought forward.
Jonathan Does study area mean that we don't change the land use designation at this
time, but reserve the right to do so at a later time? I can support that
approach.
Campbell I, too, agree.
Drell It acknowledges that there is uncertainty as to the appropriate designation.
We always can change the land use, we can change this the month after we
adopt it, but acknowledge specifically that this area, the designation is
uncertain, it's on the edge of at least and probably we could even identify in
the text on each one of these study areas what the discussion involves. In
this case it involves whether or not it should be regulated as hillside. But it
leaves the determination open to the future.
Tschopp I think I would say that the goal is to have the property designated as
residential hillside reserve, however, we would reserve that until we have
specific plans on the property.
Campbell I, too, agree with my other three fellow commissioners in regards to this
property and it was not specifically discussed in our general plan for the last
couple of years and I do agree also that 57 units on 12 acres is quite a bit in
an area where it is an entrance to the city, but I am open to go ahead and
have such study session in regard to this and Bighorn and the Canyons at
Bighorn, I agree that is the best project and you go in there and you hardly
at the Canyon's see that there are any homes there that are really visible.
25
,7 T SUBJECT Tt
MINUTES �, R.VISIOt
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
They are all pretty well camouflaged and we will go ahead and make a
motion on this, today, now?
Drell Right, just a minute motion directing us to do something.
Finerty I just want to state that I understand the commission's desire to make it a
study zone; however, I believe we are just delaying the inevitable. And at
some point we've got to paint or get off the ladder as to which way we are
headed.
So, I am going to be voting in opposition to this for that reason.
Campbell We need a motion.
Jonathan I will make the motion, but I guess I share that concern and I guess I am
thinking that the appropriate time to delay the inevitable to is when we see
an application and can deal with the decision on the basis of realistic
expectations.
So, I guess the motion would be to make this area a study area, I think we
are talking about what is generally referred to as the Cornische at Bighorn
subject property. A study area for determination as to potential change of
land use designation at a later time.
Lopez Then I would second that.
Campbell All in favor?
Criste Madame Chair, before we take a vote can I just ask for a clarification? There
are two issues I think in front of us. One is the hillside residential designation
and the proposed modification to the language.
And then...there are three issues. The application of that designation to this
site, but as I understand it, the action you are talking about now is
recognition that given the uncertainties regarding the site, the
appropriateness of allowing the applicant to demonstrate carrying capacity,
if you will, that you are thereby designating a special study area, essentially
granting it some recognition that the designation is open to further
consideration essentially. Is that correct?
26
SUBJECT TC
tg.MINUTES REVISION
L., � � � �
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Campbell Okay? We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
Jonathan, Lopez, Tschopp, and Campbell: Aye
Campbell All opposed?
Finerty Opposed
Campbell Motion carries 4-1.
Tschopp If I could just comment, I think Mr. Perry has heard the commission's
comments and hopefully would take those into consideration as he moves
through the application process.
Jonathan Agreed.
Drell Apologies,we kind of skipped ahead on some of the issues in terms of taking
an action. Relative to the definitions we discussed, the three being the mixed
use, the addition of hotels to the commercial zones, the rewording of the
density in the hillside reserve. Do you want to discuss those, act on them
individually or all at once, or?
Jonathan I think it would be appropriate to do these item by item.
Finerty I agree.
Drell Want to start with the hotels, an addition to hotels in the commercial zones?
Jonathan I have no problem with that.
Finerty I would move that for approval.
Jonathan Second.
Campbell All in favor?
Everyone Aye
Campbell All opposed? None, motion carries.
27
n 7 SU6f4TCE t MINUTESR' V
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
1 Drell I have the addition of the possibility of mixed use in commercial zones?
Jonathan (inaudible)
Campbell Well, the public hearing is open. Yes?
MacLeod My name is Myron MacLeod, I live at 4035 Avenida Brisa, Rancho Santa Fe.
I am perceiving a stigma attached to high density residential to be included
in the commercial area and I have been thinking this over in the audience
and I would urge the commission to think in terms of that as being an
opportunity for something other than commercial. If you were a resident living
next door and you are not talking about taking a piece of residential land and
now upgrading it or downgrading it to high density, you are talking about
something that is already designated commercial.
So if I am living next door, if you don't allow this mixed use, and you are
pretty much rolling the dice that I am going to have some kind of commercial
project next door, if you allow the mixed use, then if it is economically
feasible, then perhaps there might be a high density buffer between my
residence and the commercial.
So I see that as being a designation that is a substantial difference. It is not
taking residential and saying okay we may allow high density, it is saying that
we have already designated this as commercial and this is just one use the
developer could submit for an application and if the city doesn't like the
specific plans or doesn't think it mixes in the neighborhood, I believe they still
have the opportunity to reject it, but at least allows that as a possibility.
Because I see that apartment houses done properly could be a good buffer
between low residential and commercial or office buildings or can be a good
buffer between a school and commercial property. So, I just wanted to
include those thoughts. Thank you.
Campbell Anyone else in regards to this? Any comments? Commission?
Finerty I would be opposed to the mixed use commercial for the reasons stated
earlier.
Jonathan Let me ask you all something. I do see the wisdom that staff expressed and
that Mr. McCloud expressed of having high density residential adjacent and
28
riNN. - , , .
SUBJECT It
MINUTES Lwg - REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
accessible to commercial, maybe retail and so forth. I see the wisdom of that.
I guess what I am thinking is can't we already have that? And that is why I
asked about the interplay of the zoning. Can't we already implement that
goal through the present zoning standards?
Drell Now remember, the general plan is the broadest policy designation.
Jonathan I understand. I am trying to engage the discussion amongst the
commissioners. But I may ask you a few questions as we come up to it and
I hear what you are saying. But I guess what I am wanting to engage the
conversation about is if this is necessary or do we already have that ability
to accomplish what I think is a worthy goal?
Finerty Is what I am hearing you say that the developer would have an opportunity
through the change of zone to bring to us for consideration a high density
residential project in a specific area with the specific plan and then we would
have the opportunity to vote yea or nay anyway without utilizing the mixed
use commercial?
Jonathan Exactly.
Lopez Would that process then be through a conditional use permit or would that
just be ...
Finerty We would just vote to change the zone and we have done that several times,
most recently, we just changed to office professional out in the north end and
we do that regularly. It has been a process that's been in place for as long
as Sabby has been on the commission, I think. Maybe even longer than that.
Jonathan It doesn't get any longer than that. I mean, for example, if a developer came
to us with a 20-acre project, couldn't like three acres be high density
residential and five acres be office professional, and ten acres be service
industrial and we have done that before.
Campbell I would be comfortable with that because I don't like that staff recommended
alternative that we have here for the general plan that it shows the mixed use
on the corner of Cook and Frank Sinatra, that large area. I don't think that is
an area to go ahead and have mixed use right there again at the entrance
of our city. So, I would be in agreement with that too when it comes in front
29
r4 . f, °. rT SUBJECT TC
, .
MINUTES `'t &``', REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
of us that we can go ahead and have an opportunity to go ahead and
change the zone.
Drell Okay, there's two things. Right now each of the specific commercial
designations does contain the possibility for mixed use. What we are voting
on is a specific mixed use zone, so you are correct that the current
commercial designations do not preclude the submission of a mixed use
proposal and so, is it absolutely necessary to have mixed use to have a
specific designation? You are correct, we don't have to have one.
Finerty Thank you.
Jonathan But what you are saying, Mr. Drell, is that staffs recommendation is that we
specifically target within the general plan that area west of Cook Street and
north of Gerald Ford as specifically being appropriate for mixed use
development.
Drell And my specific objective in showing those areas was to generate as much
housing in close proximity to the commercial and university as we could. It
is not necessary to designate those that way and keeping, not having the
specific mixed use designation doesn't preclude, correctly as you said,
projects from coming to us since the definitions of each of the specific
commercial categories holds open the door for that if someone wants to
make that application.
Jonathan And I guess I want to underscore that very point is that while we may end up
not adding mixed use commercial designation, I think that the goal has a lot
of merit of when we create high density residential to do it within close
proximity to commercial and retail and so forth, I think makes a lot of sense
for many reasons from a long term planning standpoint so I embrace the
goal, but I am not sure adding the mixed use commercial designation is
necessary towards that goal.
Campbell Okay, any other comments?
Tschopp Well, I guess, seems like we are spending exorbitant time on definitions, I
think the general plan is the goal. It is a long term planning process and I
guess I see it a little different in that if we designate certain areas as
potentially mixed use commercial, we are saying that we believe it has the
potential to meet a more specific need and yet does not preclude us from
30
r'T
SUBJECT TC
MINUTEStjtNia
4x R'�VISIUPd
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18. 2003
stating that the specific plan in front of us doesn't work. So I think in a lot of
ways what we are trying to do here is define better for the city and for the
applicants what we are looking at as our long term goal of the general plan.
So I think the more specific you get in certain areas, the better you are doing
a job of planning for the future.
Jonathan Would you follow that with designating specific areas perhaps as the staff
recommended alternative indicates for that or are you saying...?
Tschopp At this time we are talking about the use of the mixed use commercial
designation.
Jonathan But if we are not going to designate specific areas with the designation, then
it's unnecessary.
Tschopp I think if we designate those areas as this designation, that it doesn't
preclude us from denying the applicant any more than it allows us now to do
it. So I guess I am saying is what we are telling the applicant is we will look
to this area as this mixed use, but you still need to demonstrate that it will
work and that is feasible and viable.
Jonathan I guess that part of the reason that I am asking the question is while your
point about the mixed use commercial designation appeals to me, I am not
sure that I am prepared to designate specific areas, particularly those
recommended in the staff recommended alternative as those designations.
Tschopp So my point is, I'm only talking about the definitions and the land use
designations now. We have not gotten to specific areas yet.
Lopez I think that is where I also stand. I am looking more at the language of the
mixed use document that we received as the text in bold dated 10/17 and I
like the flexibility of that particular category regardless of where it would
appear in any current maps that we have before us, it does as we build out
the remainder or sphere, it does give us some flexibility as to at least a
designation of certain areas where this might be very beneficial. Now it could
be accomplished with what we currently have, but I kind of like having that
flexibility in that particular (inaudible).
Jonathan I was just going to say, if in that light if we are just kind of embracing the
concept and the goal and allowing the land use designation that specifies
31
SUBJECT It
:�
MINUTES g m REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
that without going the next step and specifying the areas as to the
application of that land use designation, I wouldn't have a problem.
Tschopp Do you need a resolution?
Drell All we are getting is minute motions for what we come back with on this and
giving us direction on how to prepare that final document. So this will be a
minute motion.
Lopez I would, oh... (inaudible)
Campbell I already spoke.
Lopez I would move for a minute motion and designate commercial mixed use as
part of our...
Drell Catalog.
Lopez Catalog of land use elements.
Tschopp Second.
Campbell Okay. All in favor, Aye.
Jonathan, Lopez, Tschopp and Campbell: Aye.
Campbell Opposed?
Finerty Opposed.
Campbell We did not designate any specific areas.
Drell No, we haven't gotten to a map yet. We aren't talking about a map yet.
Lastly is the change in the Hillside Reserve definition from 1 unit per 5 acres
to .2 per acre which is 1 unit per 5 acres to 1 unit per acre.
Jonathan I would support that.
Lopez I would, too.
32
,,,
MINUTES
' REVISION
SUBJECT TE
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Lopez I would move my minute motion to approve that particular definition.
Jonathan Second.
Finerty And that is to allow the range?
Drell To allow the range. Correct.
Campbell All in favor.
Jonathan, Lopez, Tschopp, Campbell answered aye.
Campbell All opposed?
Finerty Opposed.
Campbell Motion carries.
Drell Next, moving north. The discussion relative to the Allesandro Alley. (Let me
get to that machine.) Do you have to see the exhibits again or...?
Finerty I think we have been there, done that.
Drell Okay, basically the options before you are the two, this is the Alesandro
Alley. (We trying to do to that one.)
Jonathan We've got them, unless you want to put them up for the audience?
Drell I guess technically there's three alternatives at least before you. One being
which is what the current policy within the Palma Village Plan is which is to
ultimately eliminate all these residential lots and turn them into a parking
area with a wall similar to what you see behind Walgreens. The original
GPAC...which was a double row of parking with one-way aisles on either
side requiring about 46 feet of additional widening of the alley and then the,
producing approximately 254 parking spaces, and then what staff is now
recommending and I will explain why, of a single 24-foot alley with one row
of perpendicular spaces generally 188 feet and about 26 feet of additional
real estate expansion.
Secondarily to that would be also the ....
33
SUBJECT 1 t
REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Jonathan How many parking spaces?
Drell 188 and 26 feet of widening.
Jonathan And the other one was how many feet of (inaudible)?
Drell 45 feet and generating approximately 254 spaces. There was also secondary
discussion, I am not sure we acted on it or not, which would actually increase
parking to a certain degree on this plan of the closure of San Marcos and
principally driven by, in essence, I have authorship of all three of these plans.
I was the one who came up with the original plan to wipe out the whole
residential lot and put in a big parking lot and I, along with Phil Joy, came up
with a plan with the double center aisle and it came down to I guess politics
is the art of the possible. And I think there in terms of bang for the buck the
perpendicular space plan is, therefore, much...does the least violence to the
residential lots, is easiest to implement, and as Commissioner Jonathan had
pointed out, could even be implemented to a certain degree incrementally
over time while the center aisle program would have to be implemented in
one. So it has far more possibility of being implemented at less expense,
therefore, it is far more likely to happen and the other issue was whatever we
decide it is something that we want to happen relatively soon and given all
those considerations we feel that the 26-foot, 188 space plan is most
appropriate.
Campbell I do have some blue cards and I know these two ladies have been waiting
for this. Donna Matson?
Matson My name is Donna Matson and I own the property at 73341 San Benito
Circle. It is has been in my family for over 30 years.
Good morning Madame Chair and members of the commission. We are
following this very very closely and we certainly hope that you will give
serious consideration to taking only the 26 feet which would leave us a
quality of life which we would not have with the 35 feet, bringing for quite a
few of the property owners, taking 35 feet would bring the wall and the
parking right up against our house or take off the back wall of our house and
with several restaurants in the area, having cars parking there all through the
night. And there was honking last night about 11 o'clock, 12 o'clock and
12:30. The slamming of doors, the alarms clicking on and off, talking, and the
exhaust fumes from the automobiles would not be a quality of life that many
34
w
SUBJECT TC
REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
of us would like to deal with. With the 24 feet, 25 feet, recommended by the
staff, we could certainly have the wall and some vegetation, landscape it,
buffer and have a better quality of life and as part of that, that you would take
only parts of the property at once and not just in a big sweep which would
help you to plan to see in the 20 years, where you are going.
For 20 years we have sort of sat here knowing that the bulldozers can come
any day and bulldoze our property. So, not only did it make it impossible to
sell it, we didn't want to improve it too much and we kept delaying on putting
on new roofs and doing new plumbing, but once you have made this
decision, it does help us plan what our quality of life will be in that and we
would very much appreciate your considering our position. Thank you so
much.
Campbell Thank you. Okay, Lucia Rodriguez?
Jonathan Just clarification while she is coming up. Is the double row 35 or 45?
Campbell 45.
Jonathan It's 45. Okay, thank you.
Rodriguez I am Mrs. Rodriguiez. Good morning. I am Mrs. Rodriguez and I reside at
73780 San Benito Circle, 73361. And I would be willing for the 26 instead
of the 45 I think it was, cause that would really really take most of our
backyard, you know, and I plan to stay there awhile. My daughter and I, I
think that is kind of our home for a long time. So, if the parking lot does go
there, does that automatically put that into commercial property in the back?
I just wanted to ask that question.
Drell It will be acquired bythepublic and it will be fora parkinglot.
4
Rodriguez Will that be commercial then?
Drell No. It is the, the limitation and the current limitation that is in the code is that
the residential properties can onlybe used for parking. It's apublic purpose.
P P P 9 P P
It would be a public easement so whether it is commercial I am not...lf you
are asking about how it would be valued? Is that your question?
Rodriguez Hmmm mmm.
35
R
prim
SUBJECT TC
R4V1SIUN
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Drell I can't tell you, I am not an appraiser. But again, the history of city acquisition
for right-of-way has almost without exception left the property owners quite
satisfied. We are very fair in determining what our citizens are compensated
with.
Rodriguez Thank you.
Campbell Thank you. Anyone else?
Drell I would like to make one little comment that, the who choose to
people
continue to reside in these homes cannot expect that this is a tranquil, quiet
environment. There is going to be, again, living in a place like this, there are
burdens and benefits and the burdens are not gonna disappear between 45
feet and 25 feet. The benefits are still there of convenient access and
everything else, but it will interfere with the sort of folk that want to go to
sleep at 9:00 at night, this is probably not be the best place to live.
Campbell Anycomments from the commission?
p
Greenwood I would like to make a comment from the public works perspective. It has
been mentioned several times the number of spaces and we need to be
careful not to expect that exact number of spaces. The actual yield will
probably be somewhat less, maybe 20% less than the ideal. What is
presented here is kind of the ideal and there will undoubtedly be
compromises that have to be made so, you should probably expect, if we are
talking 188, we should probably expect 150 maybe.
Drell That will also apply to the alternative as well.
Greenwood Right. All the alternatives will be, we're talking about the ideal numbers and
the actual will be somewhat less.
Jonathan I do favor the single row alternative. I think it's a wonderful compromise and
an effective solution to the horrible situation that exists along that alleyway.
I would recommend though that incorporated into this recommendation to
council would be that this be done in conjunction with the parking
management plan of all the business owners that would maximize employee
usage of the rear spaces and implement mitigation measures with regards
to the resulting noise and light impact on the adjacent residential properties.
36
SUBJECT IC
MINUTES
REV1SI0N
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Additionally, that council consider the benefits of incremental implementation
so that as one or two or three or whatever number of adjacent properties are
resolved in terms of acquiring the required space, that the City move forward
with adding the parking spaces without waiting for all of the properties to be
acquired which could be another 10 or 20-year process. So I think
incremental implementation of this alternative can make a lot of sense.
I would further suggest that council adopt an actual timetable and
communicate that to the residents so that we have on paper an expectation
of how and when this will take place. I think we owe that to the residents and
finally, that as the council considers the financial aspects of this process that
they recognize the responsibility and the benefits that accrue to the adjacent,
to the actual businesses and the property owners.
Finerty I would concur and I appreciate the patience from Mrs. Matson and Mrs.
Rodriguez. I know it has been a long time and we appreciate your
participation in coming to let us know what it is that you would like to see
here and hopefully soon you will have your answer.
Lopez I would also concur with my fellow commissioners. I would also like if we
would incorporate or consideration be made to closing San Marcos Avenue.
I only look at that from the standpoint as once this alley is developed and the
parking areas are developed, that is an access that I think the homeowners
that are along San Clemente Circle, that is one way of getting out or another
access and it is going to cause some traffic problems I think with on that
street. I would rather see everything flow back on Highway 111 instead of
going into a residential area as an access, but I would like consideration
made of that, too.
Finerty What is the Public Works Department opinion of that?
Greenwood We are talking about the closure of San Marcos?
(Inaudible)
Greenwood Generally it is acceptable. You know it's an access to the residential
neighborhood. Our one concern is that by closing off that one access to the
neighborhood, traffic volumes will increase in other parts of the neighborhood
because people will have to find another route out, so, but I think overall it
is an acceptable option to take.
37
'.� SUBJECT Tr
R VISION
MINUTES y
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Campbell You think that San Marcos is really quite widely used right now or not? It's
only probably used more so for the people that live on San Clemente Circle.
Greenwood It does have a traffic volume I would estimate between 500 and 1,000 cars
per day, so it is mostly local traffic although some people do use it as a cut
through. If we were to build a parking lot directly adjacent to it, it would get
used as a cut through more and the situation would get worse.
(Inaudible)
Campbell Didn't we actually at one meeting talk about having a gate there so a
pedestrian can walk through it?
Jonathan A pedestrian access.
Campbell Mmhm.
Greenwood Bicycle-golf cart access is what we would do.
Jonathan I apologize, I meant to add that to my list of (inaudible), I would concur with
closing off San Marcos, but creating pedestrian bicycle access.
Criste Because we have not conferred with the Fire Marshal and if you look at the
configuration, that may merit keeping the street, making it an emergency
gated access so fire and police could get in, having pedestrian access as
well, but not vacating the street.
Campbell But then if we do that, we wouldn't be able to go ahead and put any parking
spaces right there if we have the gate.
Drell Needless to say we would have to do it in consultation with the Fire Marshal,
although we would be creating a situation which is identical to the other
Circles and each of the Circles already has two accesses, so for a street like
that to, considering all the cul de sacs we have in town, here having a street
with two accesses I don't think will need three.
Lopez The only other consideration I would like to be included on this is that once
developed, and I think this has been already touched on briefly, lighting, the
proper lighting for safety as much as it is would not, to not be an intrusion
into the residential areas and to put some of the burden onto the commercial
38
SUBJECT IC
MINUTES
REIVISI(Ni
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
locations along Highway 111 that the areas that are behind those buildings
needs to be maintained if this is going to be access, public access, especially
for people that are there parking to go shopping where it might be, that all of
those areas along the alleyway, I don't want to call it an alleyway any more
because an alley has certain connotations, but I think whatever this area will
be called in the future, that it be significantly improved as to the condition
from what it is currently the state right now.
Tschopp You know by location to me this is one of the most desirable areas of Palm
Desert both for commercial building, commercial customers, for residents,
and it is truly not being utilized and we are not realizing for the residents, for
the businesses, and for the city, the monetary and return that we should be
able to get from this property. So I wholeheartedly agree that this area needs
to be, this plan needs to be implemented both so that the residences,
businessmen can plan for the future, and I would strongly suggest that the
City get pro active in implementing whatever action is taken. Having said that
you would almost like to take this further into a grand plan where you
actually buffer the residences, you move the street further to the south, put
the parking close to the buildings, but because that is not feasible in the near
future, I think this is a nice alternative that would likely to be implemented.
And so I agree with the recommendations made by the other commissioners
and then I would also say that we need to close San Marcos to keep people
like me from using it. So, and also that would help keep the integrity of that
residential neighborhood from being impacted by the commercial
development.
Campbell Well actually, myself, I would rather go ahead and see it the other way.
Have a lot more parking and do it correctly; if we are going to do it, do it all
at once and do it right. But we do have the two residents who are living
there that would be happy with the less amount of parking and as long as
like Mr. Lopez said, as far as we have the lighting, we do also have, we need
landscaping there between the parking...stalls, let's say, and also the
perpendicular parking, that is not really easy for people to get in and out of,
so we have to go ahead and make sure the parking spaces are maybe made
a little bit wider even though we do have compact cars right now, you have
to go ahead and think of the people who are driving those cars. Another
thing as Mr. Drell said, even though you will be taking less property away
from these residences, we really don't want to go ahead and have them back
year after year complaining about the noise, the honking, the whatever goes
on. So, that is why I was thinking more land. They probably wouldn't be living
39
Awe
SUBJECT It
MINUTES . : I REVISIO`N
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
there if we took more land away and it would be less confusion in the long
run. We've had that experience before, many years.
Jonathan I will go ahead and make a motion that we recommend to council the
adoption of the single row alternative in conjunction with the parking
management plan which would incorporate mitigations regarding noise, light
and also incorporate a maintenance agreement for that parking area for that
property. That council consider the benefits of incremental implementation.
That they adopt and communicate a timetable for the implementation, that
in considering the funding mechanism they recognize the responsibility and
the benefits accruing to the property owners, I am talking about the business
property owners along Highway 111, and that the plan include the closure of
San Marcos to vehicular traffic with provision for pedestrian and bicycle right-
of-way.
Finerty Second.
Campbell All in favor
Everyone Aye.
Campbell All opposed? None? Motion carries.
Drell Next item. Portola. Again, staff recommendation is based on a variety of
considerations. We went through a similar experience with Fred Waring and
in that case we only had about 45 feet left which the determination was it
was not sufficiently useful for any other land use so we retained the
ownershipof all the land, then landscaped it and maintain it. It is a very
P
expensive proposition for the City, but given the fact that we didn't feel the
remaining property was useful for anything else, that is what we did. In this
area, we will end up on the west side of Portola with significant real estate.
From south of Portola we are looking at over 100 feet, I mean south of Fred
Waring we are looking at over 100 feet left over. North it is somewhat more
limited, it's 60-90 feet.
My department is also in charge of planning for parks and we don't think this
is a great location for parks and given our limited, and conceivably more
limited budget based on what might happen in Sacramento, we don't want
to be maintaining areas that we don't feel are all that useful, so as a result
we are recommending that these properties be made available for office
40
ca SUBJECT TC
MINUTES E.ti.� � � ��!
REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
professional use. It allows the obligation of landscaping, creating attractive
street scapes, puts it on the private property owner, provides opportunity and
resource for small businesses to develop small offices. Also, where the
buildings are built, our experience everywhere else where we've used offices
as a buffer on major streets, it significantly lowers the noise impacts of the
street, significantly improving the quality of life for the adjacent residences,
their businesses, what activities they have and it is not particularly loud.
Accountants typically don't make a lot of noise or architects during the day
and there are mostly businesses that are empty in the evenings and
weekends and so I think we've demonstrated that office is a good neighbor
to residents and a beneficial neighbor relative to noise and impacts on the
street and it provides the financial cost of creating an attractive streetscape
on the private property owner and not on the City and allows the City to
spend its money on other things. And, therefore, that is why we are
recommending that these areas be designated for professional offices.
Finerty And what did you say about north of Fred Waring about 60-90 feet?
Drell It is a little more challenging, but 60 feet provides enough to develop both
buildings. There you are going to have, where you have the 100 feet you can
have buildings with parking in the rear; where you have the 60-90 feet, you
are going to have parking lot, buildings, parking lot and buildings.
Finerty You're recommending office professional on both sides?
Drell On both sides.
Campbell On the north side of Fred Waring, the 60 feet from Fred Waring to where?
Rancho Road? Or Rutledge Way?
Drell It goes up to where I guess the Vineyards begins, so it is probably like half
way. Right here - these houses don't...they front on the interior street so it
is really the last house impacted would be here. From here on these houses
would lose a little bit of their backyard with the widening but again they are
served by this interior street.
Campbell Okay, so the walled areas, after the walled area right there after Rutledge,
the walled area you are going to go ahead and start taking 60 feet off out of
that?
41
SUBJECT It
REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Drell No, we are not taking 60 feet, there is 60-90 feet remain. The widening is
only taking 12-14 feet I believe. Again, it takes a lot more. It is very possible
that the end of the day the lots that are adjacent to the free right might not
be useable, but that would be a judgment we would have to make based on
final design.
Campbell So you are planning on eliminating all those homes right there. Is that
correct?
Drell Where you see with the right-of-way, the right-of-way line comes up virtually
to the front wall of each of those homes in that area. I think the given is that
when we have the ultimate desired section for Portola, those houses will be
gone. We heard testimony from those property owners as far as they are
concerned, it is an unacceptable situation today, prior to the widening, where
we've just kind of jammed in the four lanes. But the section we are showing
includes both the landscape median and bikeways which we feel are
necessary. This is a residential area and we feel it should reflect residential
design ethic which would be to include those two things and by virtue of its
location next to the corridor between three schools that I feel the bike lanes
are important, so that is what kind of drives the street section. Again, when
the final design comes in and it turns out we take more but 60-90 feet is in
our view is still potentially supports office development and ...(inaudible)
hmm? (Inaudible) Oh no, 60-90 feet is what is left. If you look at the exhibit
it shows...varies 63 to 91 feet. That is what is left, so... you are still looking
confused.
Campbell No, no.
Drell And that it is not wide enough for a real park and too wide for a parkway and,
therefore, and it has utility for private use.
Campbell And just also we wanted to go ahead and make sure remember we had a
gentleman speak that lives on close to the corner of Portola and Fred Waring
that we do need and I travel that Portola all the time that we need two right
lanes from Portola into Fred Waring.
Finerty He said southbound. Yeah. It was Mr. Thompson.
Campbell Yeah.
42
SUBJECT It
MINUTES ciaRE-VISIOt
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Drell That is a design issue, I don't know if our
Campbell Because it is not showing here on the map.
Drell No, mainly because I don't think that is a design that our Public Works
Department is particularly fond of, but the dual right-turn lanes.
Greenwood Generally dual right turn lanes don't function that well. We have one at Fred
Waring and Highway 111. Pretty inefficient, we get a lot of strange turning
maneuvers. Free right turns work much better, have the same or greater
capacity and actually take about the same footprint, maybe even a little
smaller footprint, so we prefer a free right over a dual right.
Campbell Yes, but right now, you know, people are just pulling up there and you can't
make a right-hand turn because it is not moving right now.
Greenwood Right, that's because the road needs to be widened.
Campbell We'll try it.
Jonathan Question for you Mr. Drell. This conversion of this portion of Portola to office
professional. Does it lend itself to the Palma Village approach where
adjacent residential lots can be used for parking with the office professional
use?
Drell As you know, I am not that enthusiastic about it as a solution to Palma
Village any more either. Again, my, I can see the possibility of where the
adjacent residential lots are sufficiently deep that we can borrow some real
estate from the residential lot.
Jonathan I have noted a few parcels like on a few locations like on De Anza, north of
De Anza, El Cortez south and north of this street.
Drell Yes. Again, where the, what I again probably knew then and kind of ignored
when we came up with the original idea. Encroaching into the residential
shouldn't go to the extent of eliminating half the street. That neighborhoods
function a whole lot better when there are houses on both sides of the
streets, not a wall and a parking lot on one side so where adjacent residential
lots are deep enough that they can lend some property to the office to make
the office site planning more efficient, then that could be appropriate.
43
SUBJECT It
MINUTES
t REV1S10f4
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Campbell Mr. Drell I have a question in regard to the office professional that you are
talking about north and south between DeAnza or Catalina and Santa Rosa
Way that you want to go ahead and have put in office professional and
taking access from Portola Avenue. Now will that be ingress and egress from
Portola or are they going to go on the side streets to go ahead and go behind
the office professional buildings and only egress on Portola or shall we have
it like we have it on Fred Waring on some other buildings there that you
cannot have access on Portola from the parking lot except from the street?
Drell The goal would be to design the parking area so we have as few driveways
as possible and always that any traffic entering Portola could be heading
straight out, not backing out. There probably would be at the side streets
also driveways to accomplish that goal of minimizing the access on Portola.
We would especially try to use DeAnza where we could since DeAnza is
going to be a signalized intersection. Also, DeAnza is of course is a collector,
but ....
Jonathan That is side street access not rear access to the residential neighborhood?
Drell It would be on to Catalina which is a, as it hits Portola, it will be not unlike
San Anselmo or probably ultimately San Pasqua) where we have, where the
side street is used as a side access to the back end of a parking lot.
Remember, again we are dealing with a street Portola which is going to have
30-40,000 cars on it. The impact of traffic from these offices, if you sat out in
front of any of them on Fred Waring and counted cars, you would fall asleep
very quickly. This is the idea that these projects are going to be belching out
huge volumes of traffic that are going to be impacting anybody has not been
manifested in any places where we have done this. The only problem we
have had is with the Sunlight Medical Center which is a parking issue. It is
not a traffic volume issue, hopefully we have addressed that. In the likelihood
because of the shallowness of these lots they will be single-story because
our office ordinance requires at least a 65-foot setback for a 2-story building
and if you only have even a 100 feet and then a 15-foot setback in front, your
70 feet, you don't have much left for a building, so it is going to be likely and
you can specify as a policy that this area will only be one story.
Campbell So the one story would blend in with the homes, and so forth.
Drell Right.
44
r -,..
SUBJECT TC
i» I REV1SI0N
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Campbell Okay.
Lopez Once completed, (inaudible) envision the speed limit to be on this particular
area, Portola.
Greenwood Speed limits are set based on state law so it is hard to predict. I believe the
speed limit there is 40-45 now and would probably stay about the same.
Lopez As far as the areas, and I have mentioned this before, I am very concerned
about the high residential area, a lot of kids are on this road five days a
week, going to and from school. Looking for more of what the vision is as far
as their safety. The walkways and how much space there's going to be from
the (inaudible) how much room will they have off this road for walkways.
Drell So relative to the sidewalk design?
Lopez Right.
Greenwood I think our layout showed an eight-foot sidewalk on the west side which is
why the existing sidewalk on the east side is 6 feet and it is curb adjacent.
If we could work it out, I would love to be able to move that sidewalk on the
east side back against the wall and put a small parkway there. I don't know
if it will work out or not but get that pedestrian traffic away from the street a
little bit and also then having the wider lanes will help also get traffic right off
the curb.
Drell If you remember, we were putting in the bike lane.
Greenwood The bike lane...
Drell We will have a bike lane adjacent to the curb so that, right, we will move the
cars from 18 inches away from the sidewalk to 6 feet.
Lopez Knowing that's a middle school and not a high school situation, there is going
to be kids on bicycles and I know if I had someone who was nine years old,
10 years old, I wouldn't want them in a bicycle lane on Portola at 45 miles an
hour. You know they'd better stay on the sidewalk. I have a difficult time
riding my bike in some of the areas in town when traffic is zipping on by, but
what I am more concerned about is what type of an environment sidewalk
45
SUBJECT TC.
REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
wise, safety wise would be for the children in this area who are going to
school. This is five out of seven days. The other two days...
Greenwood We do allow generally as a habit we allow bicycles on sidewalks everywhere
except El Paseo so the bikes will still be allowed on the sidewalk there,
although there would be a striped bike lane. So you have the choice of using
one or the other.
Lopez Bike lane is good because it does get more space obviously.
Greenwood Bike lane becomes a buffer.
Finerty Mr. Greenwood, on the west side of Portola we are talking about over 100
feet left, the other side 60-90 feet left. This is predicated on widening Portola
to four lanes with bike lanes. Correct?
Greenwood Yes.
Finerty What would be left if we were to widen Portola to six lanes with bike lanes?
Greenwood About 15 feet or so less than what is shown.
Finerty Okay, and we always do have the flexibility to increase the size or the width
I should say of the sidewalk for safety purposes and then we would have the
capability of allowing some sort of greenbelt type area as we have done on
Fred Waring, a landscape buffer beyond that widened sidewalk. Correct?
Greenwood Yes, it is possible. Although the Fred Waring greenbelt was something of a
grand experiment and I don't think we want, I mean it is great for where it is
at but we are not looking to do that anymore, it is a very expensive
maintenance operation and so we are not proposing to do it although if the
project worked out that way, I guess we would accept it.
Campbell And regarding also to Mr. Lopez that was talking about the bike lanes and
this was why I was bringing up office professional and taking access from
Portola, that I think if we can go ahead and have less driveways even from
office professional to Portola would be a lot better than even these kids riding
their bicycles and watching for the cars coming out of the driveway like we
have right now.
46
_ SUBJECT it
MINUTES t Yl1
REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Drell And that would be the objective. Whether we could eliminate driveways
altogether is probably unlikely, but the goal would be to eliminate most of
them and to have as much shared. Again, this is a situation that children are
faced within most cities. There are driveways all over. They are walking and
they are supposed to watch, that is part of living in this dangerous world.
Campbell I know, but if we are going to go ahead and build something, let's do it.
Drell There is no question that in evaluating proposals we will do everything
possible to minimize the number of driveways. There is no question about
that.
Lopez Theoretically you would have less driveways than you would with residential
homes.
Drell Oh, there is no question of that and hopefully, for example, north of Fred
Waring, we would use, hopefully where there are now six or seven driveways
we might end up with hopefully no more than two. That would be the goal
and again utilizing, the trade off of utilizing side streets, there would be some
interaction between, just like some residential streets, just like you have on
they see on Monterey and Arboleta, or Acacia or Fred Waring, but it provides
another opportunity to keep another driveway off of the main thoroughfare.
Tschopp Question for you. What would you say the time frame for this being
implemented and what would be the immediate and short term impact on the
residents there?
Drell To a certain extent, especially I would say for the folks north of Fred Waring
which are far more severely impacted today, again just like we talked about
with the Highway 111 issue, there is, we don't want to drag them out like
we...we delayed Fred Waring almost 10 years until it finally happened in 10
years of complaining, screaming and deteriorating housing that occurred on
Fred Waring. I think the goal here is again whatever we do we aggressively
promote one or the other. Either the office solution because part of the
solution is aesthetic. It is an aesthetic one as well as functional for the
neighborhood. Or if we don't then we acquire the properties and do
something with them so that they look, they are useful, look nicer. Whatever
we do, we should do it soon.
47
. " ro.
A SUBJECT TC
o
ii t G i k REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Greenwood These projects find themselves in competition for our resources with a lot of
other important projects. The Portola interchange, Fred Waring widening, all
the development in the north sphere, so basically the Public Works
Department and some of the other departments lay out their 5-year plan for
what they plan to work on each year. Well the next five years are fully
spoken for. In fact they are probably spoken for 200% of our time capability
and 100% of our dollar capability. Street projects are built with a variety of
funds.
Measure A is our favorite fund. It's got the fewest strings attached and it is
a pretty plentiful fund. On the other hand our allocation of Measure A
funding is spoken for for the next quite a few years so it would require
readjusting of priorities and deciding what other important projects we are not
going to do if we are going to say this Alessandro project or Portola project
are the most important things, that is fine, but some other project falls down
on the list and then as far as the acquisition of right-of-way, generally we
work with the redevelopment agency for that aspect of it. So we also have
to be on the redevelopment agency schedule as far as funding and time.
So, neither of the projects we have spoken about today are going to happen
immediately. A fast track would be 2-3 years. But a typical schedule would
be 6 or7 years. So that is the kind of time frame we are talking about.
Campbell Another question of Mr. Greenwood. As far as doing Portola 6 lanes is out
of the question Is that what you are telling us so we don't even have to go
ahead and
Greenwood It is not out of the question. It does have impact so that it leaves us where
I think what Phil is saying is that with a four lane with bike lanes, we have a
remainder of property that is on the acceptable side of being able to develop
as office professional.
If we go to six lanes and lose that 15 feet or so in width, marginally
acceptable properties probably become marginally unacceptable and
probably wouldn't develop so that would leave us the wider parkway to deal
with which can be done. From a staff perspective it is not the preferred
alternative.
Finerty Mr. Greenwood, if I remember at the last meeting, we had extensive
discussion about Portola being widened from four to six lanes. I know we
talked about the modeling and I thought what I heard you say is that right
48
SUBJECT It
MINUTES
t REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
now the modeling shows that we are between the necessity for four and six
lanes.
Greenwood Right.
Finerty Okay.
Jonathan What are the mechanics of implementation of this proposal? In other words
would the city come in and do the widening of Portola? And then private
owners might or might not come in and put an office building or do you see
it happening as private owners purchase office buildings?
Drell No. Two things could happen. Either in anticipation or once the policy is said
and the understanding is that we are going to do this, we can have which is
already started happening maybe prematurely or not on that corner. We
have heard from Chris McFadden on Catalina where property owners, the
office development can actually precede the widening and what we do is,
that is actually the most economical activity for the city because if we
condition the dedication as part of the project so we don't pay anything for
the right-of-way. So the buildings are sited in anticipation of the widening and
then when the widening comes, it happens.
Jonathan Except that what happens is you have, like the McFadden property that
facilitates the widening, but then you've got three properties that don't and
one that doesn't and 10 that don't so it takes forever to enable the widening.
Drell Initially you hope if we go with the office professional that a certain
percentage of those will get redeveloped and will get right-of-way. Once the
trigger is pulled on the project, then the redevelopment agency goes out and
short of rounding up a bunch of other office people to buy the sites and
dedicate them to us, we would buy the properties. For example, a good
example is what we did at the corner of Portola and 111 on the southeast
corner. We bought the whole site, we did all the improvements and then we
sold all the remaining to a developer to develop as an art gallery. So
that's...you know we...and we solicited proposals from various developers
and in that case we even have more control over exactly what happens there
because we are the underlying property owner initially.
49
NINO
t REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Tschopp The current demand for office space is apparent given all the construction
going on for building OP. That may not remain the case down the road. Do
you see any of this land along Portola being suitable for high or medium
density residential, apartments?
Drell Not impossible. I could say conceivably some of the sites maybe south.
Unfortunately, they have to be 2-story. Physically you are not going to get
the high density on these small offices without two story. Obviously as you
know, the resistance to high density in two story high density close proximity
to the backs of single family backyards is a battle that even I don't wish to
take on.
Campbell Plus a lot of traffic.
Drell I have a hard enough time getting these things approved out in the middle
of nowhere.
Finerty But isn't it kind of medium density residential out there now? I mean we
wouldn't turn that area low, would we?
Drell It is probably close. It is probably four units per acre. It is the high end of
low, low end of medium. But...a great example, when we try to do a self help
housing in this neighborhood over here, identical houses next door, this
whole room was packed saying what a horrible thing we were doing. So
again, I would not encourage or invite a property owner to try to do that here.
Maybe if the City took the lead and did it, and in essence they would push
me in front to take the bullet anyway. In these tight locations our experience
has been that small offices prove to be the best solution.
Finerty And how would that work if we had a proposal for medical use?
Drell They just need more parking lots. They need a 15% larger parking lot. I
would say in these tight situations they are probably not, again, a little dentist
is fine, your urgent care clinic is the one that blows you out.
Jonathan There is an alternative of medium density and you mentioned the Vineyards
earlier. Those are garden homes that share a wall for example so you could
end up with really two units on some of these lots.
50
SUBJECT IT
' - REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Drell Remember, those face inward. They don't access Portola at all. They are
internal.
Jonathan I guess, let me ask you though. I guess where I am going with it is that 63
feet of depth I mean like those lots on Fred Waring that we are seeing
implementing the Palma Village Plan, those are I believe 100 foot depth and
that's difficult to put in an office building and parking on one lot. Can 63 feet
of depth really accommodate the set back requirements, the building and a
parking lot, landscaping?
Drell Remember the lots on some of the offices on Monterey south of Fred Waring
are built. The depth was the width of the lot which was only 62 feet. So I
agree that the lots that are closer to 63 feet and which are at the corner there
between Fred Waring and Rancho, you are going to have a parking lot and
a building and a parking lot and a building. Or again, the ones, it is very likely
that the ones directly adjacent to the corner are going to have to become an
extension of Fred Waring Park so you might only get...in that first block, it's
tough. And that might be some place where we can't find an acceptable
design for an office and we might have to, you know that is a case that
probably we will have to evaluate. But north Rancho Road where it expands
to the 91 feet is where it is a little more flexible.
Finerty Can we have any public testimony on this?
Campbell Are we finished with that? Okay? Anyone here wants to speak in regard to
Portola? Okay, none, no comments.
Finerty Last month we received a letter from Sue Fairfield and I a must say that she
stated it probably better than I could, but she is opposed rezoning for OP
because she feels that they already have a well established residential and
school area and she points out the importance of having consistency in your
neighborhood and she is wishing that her neighborhood remain consistent.
She speaks of currently there being a mix of low and medium density
residential with two schools and parks interspersed and she feels that it is a
nice mix.
I agree we should maintain the integrity of the neighborhood and she has
said that she lives in a great little neighborhood in the Vineyards area and
points out that having an office building built in your backyard is not ideal and
ultimately their quality of life would be affected, and near and dear to my
51
$ r.
SUBJECT IT
MINUTES 'o REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
heart she states, 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.
So, I see this as an opportunity to (a) widen it to six lanes and because the
model shows we're between four and six lanes and I understand modeling
is not an exact science, but I do know that six lanes is certainly enjoyable on
Fred Waring and Washington. Therefore, we would be reducing the width as
Mr. Greenwood stated, 15 feet and I think this would be, I am concerned that
in our general plan we are not setting aside enough open space and I see
this as an opportunity to set this area aside for open space. How exactly it
would be built out with regard to it being wider than Fred Waring, I don't
know. I understand staff talking about it's costly to be maintained. Well, yeah
it is costly to be maintained, but it is also costly as far as our quality of life
and filling up every space of land with a building and so I think that we need
to have our priority in areas that are admittedly tight to go ahead and leave
that for the open space.
Campbell Well I agree with Commissioner Finerty too and here we are trying to go
ahead and squeeze more lanes into Portola right now to go ahead and make
it four lanes and I travel that every day and I still have a problem with just
only one right turn on Portola and Fred Waring and I would like to go ahead
and see it also. Once you are going to do it, do it right and it is going to go
ahead and take a few years to do it, but do it correctly, otherwise we have
been redoing the corner of Portola and Fred Waring on the west corner. We
have spent quite a bit of money on redoing it and redoing it. Do it correctly
and again leave the open space without cramming so many buildings in the
smaller areas.
Tschopp I kind of see it a little bit different. You could build six lanes but perhaps you
will need eight someday especially when Portola goes out to the interstate.
I think at some point in time you gotta say well there is a limit to the width of
roads and major arteries to the city. There is a very unsafe condition there.
It is going to get worse as Portola gets more traffic down the road so I think
that this is an area that needs to be considered for the different designation
on the west side of the road. If you look at Monterey, I think that that has
been handled very well, providing a good buffer to the homes behind the
commercial buildings and has worked very well in decreasing the number of
driveways that empty out into a very busy street and I see Portola perhaps
benefitting from the same thought.
52
agog
SUBJECT It.
MINUTES
,� w t v I REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
The concept of additional open space, we are not talking open space here.
In my mind of the wide open western ranges of old we are talking just really
a small strip of park, desert landscape type buffering that really is expensive
to maintain over time and I don't think creates as much buffer to noise as
commercial buildings or even apartments would.
So I guess I see it a little bit different and I suggest that we accept staffs
recommendation and move forward on that.
Lopez This has probably been one of the more difficult ones for me because we
used to live in the Vineyards and am very familiar with this and I am sure all
of us have driven up and down that road. At first I was and I think I still am
this way, I have been opposed, I have been in opposition to building more
office space. I just don't know that we need more office space than we
currently have. At least in this particular area. I think there is more need for,
especially in the residential area like environment, that is conducive to
pedestrian movement without the inclusion of additional traffic or office space
so I guess I'm more along the lines would agree with some of my
commissioners that there needs to be a compromise. I am not sure that six
lanes is the right way to go. I think there could be a way with four lanes, a
center median and an open space for in those particular areas work in this
particular instance. I like what we've done with Fred Waring Drive with open
space or at least on the sidewalk and the park areas. I just think that is just
a neat feel to it and as we build out the Portola on and off ramp from 1-10 I
think it will lend itself well to that particular increase in traffic so I would look
to see, I am more along the lines of in opposition of office professional and
more along the lines of utilizing this are area as open (inaudible) as much
open as it is or the use of pedestrian and especially as it pertains to the
residential (inaudible).
Jonathan Well, I guess I mean, obviously I'd love to see open space on Portola. I
would love to see it on every major arterial roadway. The City made a
decision to invest its resources towards that objective with regard to Fred
Waring. I am sure if it had unlimited resources it would do so on every major
arterial roadway, but that's just not the reality. The reality is that if we used
city resources towards creating open space and parks on Portola, in all
likelihood those funds would come out of other projects such as active parks
and it is just not an unlimited resource situation that we could say, hey a park
would look nice there so let's just do it. I mean that is going to come from
53
re.wwfwww
SUBJECT It:
w w REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
some other project. And as much as I would like to see an open space area
on either side of Portola, I don't think it's in the cards.
Now, I think on the other hand, the changing of the land use designation to
office professional does not preclude this council or any future council from
grading open space there. If at some point the determination was made that
that was an appropriate use of resources so be it. But given that Portola has
turned into a very busy large major arterial roadway and will only increase in
that regard, particularly if the plans proceed with regards to the freeway
interchange, I think having residential directly up against a street like that is
a problem.
An effective solution to that problem is to enhance the residential
neighborhoods by creating a buffer between the street and the residences
and this is not a theory, this is reality. We've seen that solution work
elsewhere. We have seen it work along Fred Waring, we have seen it work
along Monterey. So what works well in those areas can and will work well
along this part of Portola. In the overall scheme of things I don't think adding
a land use designation of office professional creates a glut of office
professional. The market will deal with that and if we take a step back and
look at the bigger map, we are really dealing again with a very small part of
the overall city.
There is a problem there and I think the appropriate solution is what staff is
recommending. I would add to that recommendation though of
recommending to council that where appropriate that the Palma Village
concept of creating further transition from street to building to parking lot to
residential be implemented. I happen to believe that's a very effective
solution. It was appropriate when thought up by our esteemed staff member
and I think it has proven itself and is an appropriate solution today. So I
would add to staffs recommendation by suggesting that council give
consideration to implementing the Palma Village concept to portions of
Portola where it is feasible and appropriate.
Finerty Well, I will propose a minute motion that suggests widening Portola to the six
lanes, utilizing open space in lieu of office professional.
Campbell Would you consider what Commissioner Jonathan said regarding to leaving
it up to council where feasible between DeAnza Way and Santa Rosa if there
is more land available there after the six lanes and whatever if it is feasible
54
SUBJECT It
MINUTES y REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
to have office professional at sometime in the future. As I can see it, there is
no area north of Fred Waring and Rutledge for office professional. I don't see
it there.
Finerty I will go back to what we had in our previous discussion. There is always a
mechanism to change the zone if it becomes the appropriate solution to later
on down the road to change it to OP, that's always an option.
Campbell Okay, I will second your motion.
Jonathan Question? There may be a compromise because I think we agreed on the
widening of Portola, the question is what do you do with the sides and
maybe that new designation of mixed use commercial comes into play.
Maybe what we recommend to council is that that portion, I don't think we
want to call it a study area, but that it be utilized in a combination of maybe
medium to high density residential and open space and office professional
as deemed appropriate.
Finerty Yeah, but this commercial mixed use unless I have overlooked it, I am not
seeing anything that includes open space.
Drell Open space is going to be included in any project. I would like to somewhat
point out, maybe Mark can elaborate, that south of Fred Waring there
becomes very very very important physical constraints to six lanes as we
approach Highway 111 and what you don't want is suddenly to bottleneck six
lanes midblock into four lanes as you approach Highway 111. So I...
Lopez I am sensitive to that, too.
Drell I think that if you look at north of Fred Waring and south of Fred Waring very
differently in terms of the ultimate lane width.
Cristel If you look at the model, the traffic model as Mark points out and everyone
knows is a coarse model, but even now the model says that after 2020 north
of Fred Waring we are going to have less than 25,000 vehicles a day. Now,
if you build it and there is a reason for them to come, they are going to come
that way. But if you look at it the model is based on attractions and
productions. If you look at in the down stream, the Highway 111 even south
of 111-Portola area and the area north of 111 along Portola, that's a built out
area. It is built out. Excepting these lots we are talking about, there is no new
55
SUBJECT Tt
MINUTES "I REVIS10N
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
production, no new attraction that is going to get generated except that
maybe your restaurants are going to be waiting for two hours to get a table
rather than just an hour to get a table.
The other is that upstream north you have schools and you also have some
other sensitive receptors, higher densityresidential, if you will, those sorts of
p g
things. It is not clear at least from my perspective that there is any
meaningful driver in the long term to go to six lanes in this stretch of Portola
probably up to Country Club. Now the other is that if you want, you may have
to have your cake and eat it too so if you are going to have infrastructure
why not have infrastructure that serves existing users like the residents and
the kids. Get your plenty of traffic through your turning movements, etc., and
you may still have land left over that isn't an economic burden to the city, but
can be somehow gotten additional landscaping on the corner at where we
already know we are going to be constrained at Fred Waring and at Portola
as an example and you've got areas where through lot consolidation maybe
two or 3 nice low profile office buildings ala Monterey, if you will, with limited
parking and all the buffering and all the other things, we can't really resolve
all those issues now, but you need to have a reasonable X strategy and I
think looking at six lanes in this stretch of Portola is both unnecessary,
expensive and actually would be counterproductive to a lot of the users in
the immediate area.
Lopez I really embrace that concept. I think that I would be concerned of going from
a 4-lane road north of Country Club to all of a sudden going into four lanes
and then all of a sudden a 6-lane area and then back into a four lane up to
Highway 111. I could see a lot of potential problems in the area. I guess I
would like to see a good obviously look at a well circulated four lane highway
all the up from I-10 to Highway 111 and beyond and I guess I am being
somewhat swayed from the standpoint of looking at alternatives to utilizing
space along the Portola area and making sensible use of that space whether
it be, again, there are some alternatives in this thing and I guess I am open
to the compromise. You know mixed use is not a bad out I guess you might
call it, but instead of just thinking about having office, office, office along that
whole road right there, (inaudible). Where it makes sense to put an office in
there, a low profile office, and where instead of trying to squeeze it into a
under 60 foot or 59-foot area, then I would be concerned about that.
Finerty But whether we have the designation or not, developers still have the
opportunity to come to us in the wider area and suggest that particular area
56
AS earl=
um
It
MINUTES
REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
be rezoned to OP and they can show us their low profile building and
perhaps enhanced landscape. We can still do that.
Lopez Right.
Drell The problem is getting general plan amendments, changes of zones is a
risky endeavor. As Mr. Jonathan knows, getting projects designed and
approved when you have the zoning and general plan is a risky endeavor.
It is a discouragement and if it is the last big place left, that is where they will
ask. But surely, and again we are going back to whether you want to, I think
those folks north of Fred Waring need some definitive prognosis of what the
future is going to be like. They're stuck. They can't sell their house as a
residence. Their only chances to sell their house is either to sell it to
someone who is interested in building an office or selling it to us for right-of-
way. So one or the other, we probably need to be definitive because
otherwise those will be the last spaces left after all the designated spaces
are developed because the developers are going to go to the designated
places first.
Jonathan Well, if you look at Cook Street going south from Hovley to Fred Waring on
the west side of the street you have the Berkey building which is office, there
is retail, there is apartments, high density residential, and there is even open
space with that golf course, so there we have an example where the
development is driven by the market and all the uses are acceptable. They
work and I think that widening Portola and then in my mind any of those uses
would be appropriate. You know, if somebody wanted to do high density
residential and we felt that the access and all those things that were
designed were okay, fine. If somebody wanted to do a small single dentist
type office professional building with adequate parking and everything else,
fine. And if the City wanted to come along and create a small community
park or some open space or whatever, fine. So I think maybe the solution is
to pass this to council and say that part of Portola should be widened and the
resulting development on either side should accommodate what the market
drives and I guess designate it as mixed commercial. That might be a way
to do it.
Finerty If we could just get the motion dealt with one way or the other.
(Inaudible)
57
SUBJECT it
Lov t 1
e REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
I am looking for a compromise that would work. I suggested one. Maybe we
can make that in the form of a motion to see how people feel about it.
I would make that motion.
Drell Make a little suggestion? I don't...the problem with mixed use is it allows
99
restaurants, allows all sorts of...if the choices are uses other than open
space it would be multi family or residential and office. We've done that in the
Palma Village Plan, we dual designated residential and office.
Jonathan But what I am envisioning accommodating is office professional, multi family
and open space. I guess the motion would specify those 3 uses as being
appropriate after the widening of Portola.
Campbell Isn't multi family two stories?
Jonathan No, I wouldn't even go there.
Campbell Okay.
Finerty But it can be.
Campbell It can be, right.
Jonathan Under the zone it can be, and then of course we are free to approve or deny.
Drell In that location, it couldn't be because it is adjacent to single story family
behind it.
Jonathan I am seeing more of a concept of duplexes, fourplexes, that kind of medium
density use that
Lopez Right
Jonathan is kind of a bridge between apartments and 10,000 square foot lots.
Drell If we can create a, I want to say lane, not alley, a lane, if it's rear loaded, if
the garages are rear loaded, that they don't have driveways, then it could
work.
59
SUBJECT T€'
MINUTES
- REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Jonathan And I said it earlier, if everything else falls into place, I want to be able to
accommodate those 3 uses. So, the motion is to approve staffs
recommendation which is the widening of Portola. I am not even going to
specify four lanes, six lanes because I think that is kind of micro managing
the issue. Just the widening of Portola in that stretch with eventual uses on
either side of office professional, multi family and open space.
Tschopp I would second.
Campbell Okay. All in favor.
Jonathan, Lopez and Tschopp: Aye.
Campbell All opposed?
Finerty Opposed.
Campbell Opposed.
Tschopp You didn't specify four lanes, that just leaves it open then for discretion by
the city in the future or does this aid in the planning or does this muddy the
water for the residents?
Drell This is (indistinguishable) planning in the future.
Lopez That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Drell Again...
Campbell Forget it, huh?
Drell Again, I think if you specify lanes whether you want to make a
recommendation, that has no relevance to the circulation element that a
recommendation on the width of Portola has
Greenwood I think any meaningful widening on Portola would effect those houses, so.
Lopez Right. It doesn't matter if it is 4 or 6.
Campbell Shall we go ahead and ....
60
;��� ��•; MINUTES
r� � s
(Jim _ %� .: INF
ADJOURNED MEETING
blH PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
" 8:30 A.M. TUESDAY - DECEMBER 2, 2003
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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
i -v 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.
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003
The following is a verbatim transcript of this Public Hearing:
SC Sonia Campbell, Planning Commission Chairperson
PD Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
SJ 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...
SJ Mr. Drell, I'm sorry, just before you go on to that...
PD Sure.
2
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
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003
SJ 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...
SJ 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...
SJ 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'll 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.
SJ 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...
SJ No, the big green area. The OSPP.
PD The big green area. Well, it's gray area. Oh no, it's a small one.
SJ No, the big one.
PD Well, that's the gray one.
SJ 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.
SJ Exclusively?
PD No necessarily exclusively.
SJ 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.
SJ ...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
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.
SJ Five acres is pretty small for...
PD They are neighborhood parks.
SJ 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.
CF How large is that that you have set aside?
PD Again, that was probably ten acres. Again, it's...
CF You're saying that was ten and these others are five?
PD Yes.
CF 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.
CF 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...l guess the other issue, okay, if we're going to do a community park,
where should it go?
SJ 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.
SJ 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.
SJ 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.
SJ 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.
SJ 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.
SJ Where?
PD It's...
SJ 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.
SJ 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
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003
SJ 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.
SJ 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
SJ Second.
SC All in favor.
All ayes
SC Opposed, none.
SJ 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.
SJ 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.
SJ 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...
, P
SC Could please?
you speak in the microphone, ease
P P
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...l'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
SJ 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...
SJ 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.
SJ 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.
SJ 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.
SJ 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 I
18
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.
SJ Is that the old Swank project?
DA Yes, Bill Swank and Tad (inaudible) are the ones that processed that.
SJ 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.
SJ 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
SJ 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.
SJ Okay.
MM It's all residential.
SJ Okay.
MM It's of varying intensities.
SJ Do we know your company by another name?
MM Cornerstone Developers.
SJ 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.
SJ 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
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003
SJ 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.
SJ 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.
SJ 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...
SJ 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
SJ And you are in favor of the IBP land use designation.
TN That's correct.
SJ 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 to me 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.
SJ 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
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.
SJ 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
SJ 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.
SJ 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.
SJ 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.
SJ I'm not sure I understand. Are you just speaking, then, to the number of
acres or the actual location?
CF Both.
29
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003
SJ 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.
SJ ...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?
SJ 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?
SJ 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
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)
SJ 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.
SJ 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.
SJ It was a motion.
CF Sure it was, okay.
SC Okay, now are we speaking regarding just Monterey or also Cook?
32
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003
JL All the commercial.
SJ All the commercial.
CF All the commercial.
SJ Also encompassing commercial office professional, commercial regional,
commercial resort, and...l'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?
SJ 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 to the high school site.
9 adjacent9
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
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?
to
o.
Well, it is right now,
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
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...
SJ Right, you can still develop it as industrial business...
PD Right.
SJ ...under mixed use.
PD Correct.
SJ 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. I don't
think that's the location for it right there on that corner.
PD It w lon th
at dnt be 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.
CF And I would concur.
SJ 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.
SJ 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.
SJ 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
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...
SJ 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...
CF So what's the difference between community commercial and general?
PD Good question.
(Inaudible)
CF Right.
(Inaudible)
CF 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.
CF 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...l'd like to
know what intensity project you feel has occurred that has had some
(inaudible)
SJ No, no, I said some of the proposals and renderings that have come before
us.
PD But not the projects we've built.
SJ 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?
SJ You're asking me?
PD Yes.
SJ 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...
SJ Well, let me say to you...number one, that's not what I said.
PD Okay.
SJ 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.
SJ 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...l'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
that I latitude about whatgoes in there because a could be a neighborhood
9
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
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?
SJ 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.
SJ So you would not touch the...
CF I was going to do that...
SJ ...office professional?
JL She is.
43
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003
CF I am. I'm combining it.
SJ Oh, combining, I'm sorry, I missed that.
CF Because remember that street goes through now, so it's kind of like all one.
SJ Right, right. And the medium density...
CF I was going to do that separately. I didn't want to...
SJ 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...l 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.
SJ 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
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
CF Aye
SC All opposed.
DT Nay
JL Nay
SJ 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.
SJ 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
SJ 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.
SJ 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?
SJ On the less intense, there's (inaudible) PR. I guess it's now a street, so...l
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.
SJ 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
SJ 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'rebuilding
the parks...
CF But we're not there yet.
PD ...to serve eo le.
p P
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.
SJ 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 GIS 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.
SJ 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...
CF 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.
CF 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...
SJ Why don't we just do it this way.
PD We're dealing with apples and oranges to a certain degree.
SJ 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...
SJ Is the way I approach it something that the Commission could live with?
53
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003
CF 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.
SJ 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.
SJ 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
p uc 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.
p
SJ 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...1 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
SJ 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
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.
SJ 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
SJ 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.
SJ 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.
SJ 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.
SJ I think just seeing maybe a little neighborhood market right on the corner.
You'd have the high school there.
(Inaudible)
SJ 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.
CF Are you thinking that the park in that area needs to be expanded?
SJ 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...
SJ 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.
CF So just extending the medium use north.
SC So then we can do without the one on the corner of Frank Sinatra and Cook,
right?
SJ 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.
SJ 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?
SJ 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
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?
SJ 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.
SJ (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)
SJ 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.
SJ 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.
SJ That's right.
CF And I would not want to see that.
SJ 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.
SJ 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
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, frank) that we hadgone over the housingel
ement e ement 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
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.
SJ 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.
SJ 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...
SJ RDA?
PD ...the RDA.
68
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003
SJ 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.
SJ ...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)
SJ ...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.
SJ 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.
CF 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...
SJ I lost you right there. You're saying change the low density or change the
medium density?
SC Change the medium density.
SJ To low.
CF To low.
SJ 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 densityunits. Anytimeyou increase the low density,
g Yt
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.
SJ 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.
SJ 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 35th 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.
SJ What's Indian Creek Villas? Is that medium density?
PD That's medium, that's probably...
SJ 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.
SJ 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.
SJ 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.
CF 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...
SJ 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...
SJ 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...I 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 18' 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 2nd. 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.
SJ What if instead of saying acceptable we said allowed.
CF It's the same difference.
SJ 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.
CF 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.
SJ 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.
SJ Do you need action on Monterey Avenue?
JC No, not actually.
SJ Okay, it's just for our...
JC Yes.
SJ 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.
SJ 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.
SJ 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
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.
CF 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.
SJ 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
SJ 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.
SJ 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...
SJ 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 16th
SC The 16th 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? I 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
16th 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 was adjourned at 12:02 p.m.
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
ATTEST:
SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson
Palm Desert Planning Commission
89
1
SUBJECT TC
�� ��•; MINUTES
Rr;VISIQN
ADJOURNED MEETING
: t �jV f PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
,
'••:;; 3 VS,iO4•, 8:30 A.M. TUESDAY - DECEMBER 16, 2003
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 8:32 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 (arrived at 8:47 a.m.)
Steve Smith, Planning Manager
Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer
Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Engineer
Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary
Also Present: John Criste, Terra Nova Planning & Research
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
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.
SUBJECT T(
y
MlSION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. DECEMBER 16, 2003
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.
Mr. Drell explained that in the staff report there was a summary and actions
translated into Discussions, Policies and Programs of the actions the Commission
had taken so far. In addition, there was a brief synopsis of the Housing Element, the
Economic Fiscal Element, Parks and Recreation Element, and the Arts and Cultural
Element, and then they would go over the final changes to the map.
Mr. Criste addressed the commission. He noted that as they touched upon last time,
one of the mandated elements of the General Plan is the City's Housing Element.
It was really meant to address all the housing needs, that is all the economic sectors
of the community, but the bottom line mandate is to assure that an equitable
amount of affordable housing is provided as well within both county and city
jurisdictions in California.
The element outlines, and was really dictated to, by relevant regulation. They
introduced the matter in that regard so they could see how mandated we are. When
they looked at the previous programs, the previous version of the Housing Element
has had, and talk about how it's being funded and implemented and the success
we've had in addressing what is called are Regional Housing Needs Assessment
numbers which are generated by local regional Southern California Association of
Governments. He believed those numbers were to be amended again in 2006 so
they would visit this again for the 2006 revisions, but hoped those revisions would
be very minor.
He said they reiterated and addressed new programs to help meet our numbers and
to also address in principle the issues of affordable housing and the full mix of
housing. They spoke to the city programs that have been implemented in the past
and have been successful in facilitating affordable housing. And as with the other
elements, they have goals, policies and programs which assure they will be
effectively implementing a housing element which addresses our needs. He said he
would be glad to answer any questions.
Chairperson Campbell asked if there were any questions. There was no response.
Mr. Drell asked if anyone from the public wanted to comment on the Housing
Element.
2
1
riNi, ,. ;
a . - SUBJECT it
LI g ii 1" REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. DECEMBER 16, 2003
MR. TOM NOBLE, 42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 101 in Palm Desert,
addressed the commission. He thanked the commission for the opportunity
to speak. He wanted some clarification as to whether or not the public would
be asked to speak on each aspect they would be going through. He was
interested in several pieces of property and one in particular. He said he
could mention his concerns now, which would be a reiteration of earlier
comments and correspondence or he could wait until they got to that point,
but he wanted to reserve his right to comment when they got to the portion
dealing with the northwest corner of the intersection of the extensions of
Portola and Dinah Shore.
Chairperson Campbell stated that Mr. Noble would have an opportunity to do that
when they went over the map.
Mr. Criste stated that the next element to cover, and he was going out of the order
of the staff report but it was more in order with the General Plan, was the Parks and
Recreation Element which started on page III-120 of the Draft General Plan.
He informed them that this was also tied to the Open Space and Conservation
Element in that they obviously have a broader perspective of recreation and the
value of lands for that purpose, for passive recreation as well, and appreciation.
They provided a pretty detailed background discussion describing the various types
of parks, how they are typically characterized, what their typical sizes are, the kinds
of functions they serve at different levels of the community ranging from pocket
parks or mini parks right up to the regional parks and the community scale parks
they had been discussing.
Table III-41 summarized the current park inventory and provided some code on the
kind of facilities that are in each of the parks. The City GIS folks prepared some nice
exhibits that they had been able to include in the General Plan showing existing
park facilities. They described these facilities further. They talked about future parks
and the need to amend this to some degree and as much as Homme Adams is
essentially an established park now. But they talked about regional park facilities
and additional facilities that serve recreational needs of the city. And then also
financing and the reference to applicable state law, specifically the Quimby Act,
funding programs that are available, and the need for a master parks and recreation
plan to really put greater detail in the parks planning for the city and right up to
facilitating capital improvement programs and things of that sort.
3
rit
SUBJECT TC
R VlSlOt'
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. DECEMBER 16, 2003
The other half of the element had to do with addressing trails and bike paths and
those kinds of non-motorized routes or accesses, some into wild wilderness areas
like the new trail system associated with the multiple species plan. And then on-
street trails or paths that address bicycle needs and those sorts of things. In that
regard they had a lot of back and forth with the Circulation Element so these two
complemented each other in that regard.
He said they spoke first in detail to the hiking trails and they could see a nice exhibit
from GIS on Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 and also golf cart trails in the city and the
hiking trails and where they are located. The whole region was shown, but primarily
focused on those within the planning area. The kinds of costs associated with
developing new trail systems and programs and mechanisms for doing that, then
the future directions, two goals and a series of policies and programs meant to
enhance an already pretty meaningful parks and trails system in the city.
He noted that the Multi Species Plan was probably going to come out at the
beginning of the year and integral with that was not only addressing the Santa
Rosa/San Jacinto Mountains Trails Plan, but also guidelines for the integration of
public access and trails into the reserve system that was going to be acquired as
part of the Multi Species Plan. He asked for any questions.
Commissioner Finerty commented that at their last meeting on December 2 they
talked, and actually passed a motion, to set aside 25 acres for a large community
park in the north sphere. She asked if they needed to spell that out in this particular
element. Mr. Drell said yes, they should talk both about the series of neighborhood
parks that they are including there, plus the community park. Commissioner Lopez
asked if the motion would be incorporated into this element. Mr. Drell said yes, it
would be incorporated into the exhibit of future parks and with a description program
of planning and describing their function. Mr. Criste said it would be specific to that
geographic area.
Commissioner Lopez had a question/clarification as far as the relationship between
the Circulation and the Parks and Recreation Element as it pertains to bike paths
and golf cart paths. He asked how that process worked when they go down the line
with the Circulation Element and talk about golf cart and bike paths throughout the
new sections of the city. He asked if those were incorporated in the Parks and
Recreation Element or the Circulation Element. Mr. Criste said in two areas. Mr.
Drell confirmed it would be in both. Commissioner Lopez asked how they work
together on that. Mr. Drell said they reinforce each other and basically say that
every time we build a road, we put in a combination golf/circulation access to at
4
r Tea' 12"_.71.- Pik ir'" ':
. 1. SUBJECT TC
a REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. DECEMBER 16, 2003
least get someone here to there. They modify that in some cases, but to make sure
that every area in the city has that access to it. There are certain situations where
they have, for example, on the Rick Evans commercial project, there they ran the
golf cart circulation down Main Street and not around the free right-turn at Cook
Street and Gerald Ford. But every project, every street improvement they have to
address and make sure that golf carts and bicycles can get from point A to point B
in the best, most safest convenient manner.
Commissioner Lopez asked if those decisions, or at least the initiation of
conversations was done by the Traffic Engineer or by the Parks and Recreation, or
both. Mr. Drell said it would be in coordination to figure out where. Mr. Criste said
it was really a Community Development function, but was multi-agency because it
involved Public Works. Mr. Drell confirmed that Public Works would build the roads
and do the engineering of the roads. Mr. Criste said it was a parks and recreation
function, but they have assigned most of those kinds of responsibilities to
Community Development and that seemed to be appropriate.
Going back to the discussion about amending the Park Element with the community
park, the large 25-acre park, Commissioner Jonathan thought they also agreed on
passive view corridor type parks interspersed throughout the area on land where
available. Mr. Drell said it was kind of as shown on the plan, so they should discuss
the concept of passive natural open space corridors. Mr. Criste stated that the
Community Design Element also addresses in a more generic sense at major
arterials or major roadways with view corridors that consideration of additional
parkway and landscaping be provided. He asked if he was speaking specifically to
the university park area. Commissioner Jonathan said yes, where there is
opportunity for the City. Just a discussion recognizing that open views are a
valuable resource, and acquired as part of the general Park and Recreation
Element. Mr. Drell said or Open Space. Commissioner Jonathan concurred, it is to
create open space. Mr. Drell said there would be a mention in Parks and
Recreation, Open Space and Community Design. Mr. Criste asked if they could also
mix it with a generic application and make a specific reference to the university park
as part of that. He asked if they could handle it that way because then it also
empowered them for other discretions and future cases where they could say that
they have a great view shed and an extra five feet would be great. Commissioner
Jonathan concurred.
Commissioner Tschopp recalled that the discussion also hinged on making sure
that these view corridor parks were affordable and attainable. Mr. Drell concurred
and hoped that in the university park area they could combine it with the practical
5
SUBJECT TC
tan " REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. DECEMBER 16, 2003
considerations of grading and grade separation that is going to have to be an
inherent part of the design of some of those areas. So by virtue of their engineering
design they are going to have to have some areas that will most likely have to be
landscaped just to take up grade.
Mr. Criste asked if there were any other questions.
Chairperson Campbell asked if there were any comments from the audience. There
were none.
Mr. Criste said next was the Arts and Culture Element. He explained that a lot of
work went into it involving a lot of committee meetings, input for various city
committees, and staff as well. He said it was a major issue when they consider the
enhanced effect that concern for arts and culture has had in the city and was giving
it character and a place in the region as well. They outlined the various cultural
resources the city has and not limiting it just to those within the city limits, but most
were city limit specific. The impacts of arts on the economy, they spoke to that also.
Opportunities that continue to arise for integration of community arts and culture into
community design issues as was in the previous element which they covered some
time ago. Cultural affairs projects and events, how they create both a social
cohesion as well as an enhanced cultural context. Great examples they had been
able to scatter throughout, existing work that has already been done, and spoke
briefly to future directions, had three goals and several policies and programs to
further implement the work already being done. He asked for any questions. There
were none.
Chairperson Campbell asked if there were any questions from the audience. There
were none.
Mr. Criste said finally, the Economic and Fiscal Element was not a mandated
element. It is a product to some degree and also synergistically developed with the
analysis they did on each of the various alternatives. This element really highlighted
the trends. It was kind of a trends analysis that we've had in the city. It speaks to the
evolving, broadening local economy. They referenced the retail commercial, the
resort and development market. And now the educational institutions as three legs
of our economic foundation. They spoke to demographic trends and show how
they've been evolving over time, both locally and on a regional basis as well. He
said they were very specific about the fiscal aspect of things, the cost benefit
analysis of land use and the ability to generate revenues to support governmental
services. They also spoke to things like industrial development, valuation trends,
6
AFTSUBJECT T(
REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. DECEMBER 16. 2003
and a major theme in the General Plan is the open space or natural assets as also
being economic assets that we want to protect and highlight in a constructive way.
Again, they run through some additional data, especially some detailed snapshots
on different times of the general fund through 97-98 to 2001, seeing trends in that
regard. He said it is a pretty detailed discussion. Then they have several goals, four
goals, and a host of policies and programs which very much carry out the
management program that has been in effect for some time. He asked for any
questions.
Commissioner Finerty noted that they talk about the growth in taxable sales and
TOT, but asked if there was discussion or if there should be about the money the
State is going to be taking away from the City. Mr. Criste explained that the situation
has been fluid for about ten years and it is difficult to predict from year to year what
is going to happen with the revenue stream that the State may have access to. He
said they can really, what they did was knowing what they did know and the current
conditions, were able to at least give a current context. So if things start happening,
decision makers like the commission could at least start to see what the relationship
is between some claim to a revenue stream that they currently have that the County
or State might want to tap into. Otherwise, it was sort of a what does the legislature
or governor think this week sort of game and was difficult to predict.
Commissioner Finerty said it looked like there was a trend now where they would
be taking more and more, but she understood that nothing has been cast in
concrete at this point.
Chairperson Campbell asked if there were any other questions of Mr. Criste. There
were none. Chairperson Campbell asked if there were any questions from the
audience. There were none.
Mr. Drell thought that Mr. Criste might also want to comment on his response to
comments. Mr. Criste concurred.
Mr. Criste pointed out that the commission had in their packets copies of the
verbatim statements from a host of letters they got. Most of the letters had to do with
General Plan questions by property owners and residents. That sort of thing. But
he thought nine letters or something like that constituted comments on the
environmental document and required our responses. One, which is the first letter,
is pretty extensive and essentially they covered the General Plan in its entirety to
clarify what questions the letter presented. The others were largely informational.
CVWD wanted some data corrected or changed. Edison was pretty much broiler
7
7 A rill SUBJECT IC
ct - REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. DECEMBER 16, 2003
plate. And a couple of property owners had environmental concerns which they tried
to explain and address. He asked if there were any questions. There were none.
As a point of order, Commissioner Lopez asked if they needed to do a minute
motion on these elements. They were doing that previously. Mr. Drell said that
sounded like a good idea.
Chairperson Campbell asked if he wanted to combine all the elements together. Mr.
Drell said basically the ones Mr. Criste presented, if they wanted to take an action
now.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty,
approving the elements as discussed. Motion carried 5-0.
Moving onto Land Use, Mr. Drell stated that he presented the commission with two
new maps. One was the citywide map which he believed incorporated the changes.
He said that every time they looked at something like this there were always a
couple of little mistakes that had to be corrected. Starting at the south, he said they
were showing the Cornishe at Bighorn property as residential low with the study
designation around it. They also converted the arc to the west of it which they had
also shown as low and in reality that was part of the buffer which was dedicated to
the California Department of Fish and Game for open space. That was now Public
Reserve. Moving north, they were showing a mixed use designation on Portola
shown in purple and orange stripes which was Professional Office and Medium
Density Residential.
Moving north in terms of changes, the little office site on the north side of the
Whitewater Channel was changed. At Country Club and Monterey was Community
Commercial. They got to the revised recommended alternative for University Park.
The changes made at Gerald Ford and Portola, they extended the high density into
what was Public Facilities and then leaving five acres of mixed use. Also, shrinking
the high density to the east and extending the medium density into it so the mass
of high density was smaller. Making the parks a little bit bigger, especially the one
in the northwest quadrant which was a one-acre park and they made it more like a
two-acre park once they took the roads out of it. Two acres was probably as small
as they wanted. It still allowed for usable active areas like basketball courts and
volleyball courts.
8
4 fit ER SUBJECT IC
i I " R' ViS1UN
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. DECEMBER 16, 2003
In looking at what we have left, he was showing the 25-acre community park directly
across Portola which encompassed 25 acres of those five acre parcels that the
Redevelopment Agency owns as at least a plausible site for it. It fronts on Portola
and also the parcel directly south off of what would be Shepherd Lane was in
design. He recalled they approved conditionally a Jewish Community Center there
at that corner and it was his understanding that they were proceeding. So in terms
of compatibility, directly south of it they had a non residential use. Therefore, if they
put the more active uses out toward Portola and the somewhat quieter uses toward
the west, it provided a plausible location for a community park remembering that the
Civic Center Park is in the midst of residential uses and somehow people have been
able to live with it. Also the soccer park. By definition they wanted the parks easily
accessible by residential uses because those were the people who use it. By design
they tried to minimize the adverse impact at the perimeters.
He shifted some of the multifamily up onto 35th. That had kind of a couple of
positive benefits. One of the things he had been trying to argue for, and it went into
that openness at the street concept, that when they design uses on major streets
that can front on that street instead of backing on that street, they end up with a
greater openness in setback off the street as opposed to when they back on the
street, they typically end up with a wall 20 feet off the curb and a kind of a mediocre
little 12-foot landscape strip. When they can front a project onto a street, they
typically end up with 30 or 40 feet before the buildings, they put some parking in
front and he thought they got a far friendlier face on the street than the back end of
a project and a wall relatively close to the curb. So putting multifamily onto 35th,
which will take a fair amount of traffic, has some urban design benefits in addition
to putting some multifamily housing in close proximity to what is going to be a fairly
intensive employment center which was that industrial area.
He also extended the office professional area down Gerald Ford. He explained it
has the same benefits of putting uses with their face to the street as opposed to the
back of the street and makes a more attractive street scape. When they buy their
houses, many property owners didn't necessarily understand the objection of
backing onto a major arterial until after several years there of having to shout in their
backyard when having a picnic. There are better uses to put on a major street then
a single family home. He believed that summarized the changes.
On the land use generalized summary of acreages, they were slightly down. He
thought they lost about 50 units. The open space/parks increased by some 35-40
acres partly because he is showing the park that is going to be associated with the
9
11, F
SUBJECT TC
MINUTES
f� t - REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. DECEMBER 16, 2003
K-8, plus the 25-acre community park, plus the slight adjustments to the
neighborhood parks.
Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on what revised table Mr. Drell was
referring to. Mr. Drell explained on the plan itself there is a new table. Commissioner
Jonathan asked Mr. Drell to highlight the changes between the staff recommended
alternative from the less intense. He asked what the major shift was. Mr. Drell
replied that the major shift was the increase in parks, partly because they added the
25-acre park, specifically identified the 10-acre park that would be associated with
the K-8 school, and then the slight adjustments in size to the neighborhood parks.
Otherwise, he thought the high density had gone down a little bit. He didn't have it
before him, but thought it was 110 acres and was now 103. Commissioner Finerty
said that wasn't true. It went up one acre and went up 13 units. Mr. Drell said the
objective was to try and keep it the same and then it was a matter of how his GIS
guy finally drew it out.
Chairperson Campbell thought they were very well dispersed now. Mr. Drell agreed.
He said they tried to keep it generally the same. Part of the unit loss was a result of
the fact that they now have 25 acres less residential because they created a park.
The built number of units might be more or less depending on what the project
applicants come in with.
Commissioner Lopez asked about north of 1-10. Mr. Drell said in the GPAC
recommended alternative they substituted the less intense alternative. The land use
summary only dealt with the area from Gerald Ford to Frank Sinatra through
Monterey - Dinah Shore.
Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification. At the last meeting they talked about
how per State law they couldn't go below the current number of projected units. If
she was reading that correctly, they would take that off of the existing General Plan
which shows 4,047 units. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Drell said it was correct.
Regarding the residential units indicated in the mixed use designation,
Commissioner Jonathan asked if they could reasonably expect that to be more
toward high density than low density. Mr. Drell said yes. His assumption was that
low density and commercial are not particularly compatible. They are also dealing
with very expensive real estate. The positive synergies were more likely to occur.
One comment about town houses is that the reason town houses work is they give
the people the town. If you take out the amenities of the countryside, you want to
give them the amenities of the town. So it is that proximity of the convenience,
10
SUBJECT IC
"• REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. DECEMBER 16, 2003
shopping and excitement which urban areas or developments like the Rick Evans
project convey. That is part of the trade off in terms of positive residential
environment that they have when they reduce people's yard space, their private
open space, and substitute public amenities that occur in an urban setting.
Commissioner Jonathan noted that the total supply of high density and medium
density exceeds 3,000 housing units. That is a pretty good dent in meeting the
housing demand that is projected to be created as a result of the University. Mr.
Drell concurred and said it still allowed them to set aside 230 acres, which is almost
that same acreage, for open space.
Commissioner Finerty said that when she came up with the suggestion to try to
disperse that block of high density, when they had drawn the map and what she
thought she was going to see in the high density that would be furthest east right
by Gerald Ford, rather than it coming down like the shape of the state of Florida,
she thought it would go across to kind of line up with where the business park
started. Mr. Drell asked if she meant extending the medium density further to the
east. Commissioner Finerty concurred. Mr. Drell said what it showed, probably in
that section doubling the medium density and was an exchange of probably another
20 acres of medium for high. Commissioner Finerty said she didn't know how many
acres that would represent. Mr. Drell said roughly he thought maybe 15 acres
medium for high. Commissioner Finerty said she crunched some numbers and
came up with a little over the 4,000 units and it would be setting aside 174 acres for
the medium density, 80 acres for high and 450 for low. That pretty well dispersed
it to be 33%for low, 30.4% for medium, and 36% for high. That would be eliminating
the mixed use with that uncertainty of those 333 units. She guessed her calculation
was trying to reflect if that line had been drawn across to the business park for high
density and then the medium density had been extended further east. That put them
a little over the 4,000 units so that they were still in compliance with the state law.
They were meeting their need for medium and high density housing and perhaps
dispersing it a little bit more.
Chairperson Campbell asked if she wanted to do away with the mixed use on
Gerald Ford. Commissioner Campbell said her idea was to do away with all the
mixed use and kind of what they saw was what they got. So the high density would
be extended west at the corner of Portola and Gerald Ford and then the medium
density could be extended out toward the corner of Frank Sinatra and Cook, but not
going all the way to the corner although going further out. The same with the mixed
use at Gerald Ford north of the community commercial. That would be medium, but
she wasn't advocating moving the medium density all the way out to the main street.
11
, .�
wpm
SUBJECT IT
M
va REVISION
INUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. DECEMBER 16, 2003
She was just suggesting they keep a little buffer there of some sort of community
commercial, but extending the medium density all the way out as best they could
while still leaving the buffer at major streets. Chairperson Campbell asked if she
was speaking of Frank Sinatra and Cook. Commissioner Finerty said that was
correct. It would also be in that area just north of the community commercial. The
exception would be at Portola and Gerald Ford, that mixed use she would just put
as all high density. Chairperson Campbell agreed and on the corner of the mixed
use at the corner of Gerald Ford and Portola since on the west of Portola they have
office professional anyway, and could bring that out medium density. From their last
meeting she wasn't in favor of mixed use on the corner of Frank Sinatra and Cook.
So she was in favor of changing it to medium density residential with a buffer of
some kind. Commissioner Finerty asked if she would be in favor of extending the
medium density residential, clarifying the located as east from Gerald Ford and
Portola. Chairperson Campbell said she didn't have problem with that mixed use
right there because of the location, so high density residential could be combined
with the mixed use. She didn't have a problem with that one. Commissioner Finerty
clarified that where they saw the medium density and then all the high density kind
of surrounding it, if they were to extend the medium density out to Gerald Ford and
then they could draw a line from where the medium density stops and then where
the business park begins, draw a line there and keep everything above that as high
density. Chairperson Campbell agreed.
Chairperson Campbell asked for other comments. Commissioner Jonathan asked
if they were having discussion now or if they were going to take public testimony
first. Chairperson Campbell said theywould be takingmorepublic testimonyunless
p P
the commission had more questions for Mr. Drell.
Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak.
MR. JEFF SHROEDER, Vice President of Ponderosa Homes, 400 South
Farrell, B-103 in Palm Springs, addressed the commission. He explained that
they are the owners of about 120 acres at the northwest corner of Gerald
Ford and Portola. He said that maybe after he talked, or maybe after
everyone talked here, that they have all made several changes up there and
they were having some trouble tracking what the commissioners were talking
about, so they would kind of like to know. But he wanted to state that they
have owned this property for about a year and were somewhat new in town.
Their first project is in La Quinta and they excitedly picked up this property
about a year ago, partly because of the great things they heard about Palm
Desert. The property has about 80 acres currently zoned for residential and
12
tSU13EEV TE
a
"I REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. DECEMBER 16, 2003
the balance is zoned commercial. Understanding that they knew that a
general plan process was in place, and was a little upset when the
moratorium took place, but they were used to working with communities to
come up with the best solutions for property and development, so they were
pleased to be able to work with staff here and Mr. Drell to try to come up with
a solution based on the original General Plan Advisory Committee plan.
They met sometime back, he thought in April or May, initially with Mr. Drell
and all the land owners in that area between Portola and Monterey north of
Gerald Ford. Basically after a lot of discussion with Mr. Drell, they agreed
that they all needed to work together to come up with a plan that would
satisfy the City's needs and the property owners' desires. It took a little bit of
work, but they got to an agreement to work together and spent a fair amount
of time working on a plan that they could all live with in terms of the uses,
including the School District. They worked closely with the School District. So
that plan was presented as an alternative that staff thought was acceptable
and unfortunately, and this was the last meeting when things started to move
around as he knew that would, but he wanted to say they were a little
concerned with some of the direction that had been taken on their property.
Particularly regarding the high density property on 35th. He had a copy of
their plan.
Commissioner Finerty asked Mr. Shroeder to show the commission the exact
property he was addressing and identify the high density and the 80 acres.
Mr. Shroeder did so.
Commissioner Finerty noted that she had that property listed as being owned by
American Realty Trust and asked if he purchased it from them.
Mr. Shroeder said yes, last November. He said they came up with a plan that
had the 40 acres north at medium density, 4-10 to the acre. He said they
weren't apartment builders, they are single family home builders and build
very nice communities and they were concerned with trying to figure out
apartments into a project there. But what they did agree, after several
discussions with Mr. Drell and they understand what he is trying to
accomplish, and they could live with a 4-10 acre density because it would
over time give them the flexibility to try and find a solution whereby they
might be able to make eight, nine or ten acres of that higher density and still
do the single family on the balance and still come under ten acres. So if they
13
SUBJECT It
REVISION
MINUTES
v "
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. DECEMBER 16, 2003
took ten acres at 20 and 30 acres at five or six, they would still be under ten
to the acre. So they felt that was a fair compromise because they didn't know
exactly where the market would be going in terms of the product. They could
do the 80 acres in kind of a traditional project that they were proposing which
is 8,000 and 10,000 square foot lots in a very nicely planned community and
then kind of see how things develop and do some smaller lots and maybe
some apartments even. But by locking it down at that higher density, they
were afraid that took the flexibility away from them and kind of a little bit
threw a wrench into the plan they all came to as a group, which included the
high density adjacent to the commercial and then also adjacent to the school
site.
Commissioner Finerty requested that Mr. Shroeder identify the commercial site
within the 80 acres.
Mr. Shroeder said that currently the 40 acres (which Mr. Drell was pointing
to) is zoned commercial.
Commissioner Finerty clarified that what they were showing as medium and high
density residential is zoned commercial currently.
Mr. Shroeder said yes, under the current General Plan.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if he owned that property.
Mr. Shroeder said they own all that property.
Mr. Drell pointed out what was designated as Service Industrial. In the original
GPAC alternative, he said this was designated a combination of medium and high.
Commissioner Jonathan asked what Mr. Shroeder was asking or suggesting that
designation should be?
Mr. Shroeder said their original plan, which was the staff preferred alternative
a month or so ago, the 4-10 medium density residential. That combined with
the adjacent property. When their group came up with this plan they felt that
the high density was appropriately placed next to commercial and across a
major collector from lower density residential and then also on 35th, but
across from a collector street across from a school site. Those were fairly
good locations for the higher density residential, at least at this point. And
14
SUBJECT II
MINUTES ."' t
"' REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. DECEMBER 16. 2003
right now on their property, it was a little more difficult how they were going
to plan out with that particular designation fixed because then they would go
from 4-10 to 10-22 without a dividing line. They thought it was a little easier
to plan for the future if they had a little flexibility on that site.
Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Shroeder could see why they wanted to move
some of that high density around because the high density was so clustered in that
one area.
Mr. Shroeder said he understood what they were trying to accomplish, but
he did think the previous alternative, which was also a representation of what
some of the property owners agreed to, they were trying to create a there
there with the university and trying to create a community that would have
some kind of attraction to it and he thought that took away from it a little bit
when they started spreading out those densities and reduced the
effectiveness of that plan. There was some concern on that.
Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Shroeder wanted to cluster the high density
together.
Mr. Shroeder thought if they spread it out, they reduced the ability to create
an attraction with the kind of mix of uses they would have surrounding the
university. He didn't agree with spreading it out.
Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Shroeder was to put apartments somewhere on
the 80-acre site what would be the easiest location for him.
Mr. Shroeder said it is 120 acres and from a physical standpoint, there is
slope on the property. It slopes about 100 feet from Gerald Ford down to
Dinah Shore. But if they were going to put it in, probably the location where
it is now was probably the best location if they were going to put it anywhere.
With the 4-10 designation on there, there was enough flexibility in that
designation to allow that to occur if that is appropriate for that site in the
future. Right now they weren't preparing a plan for the 40 acres. They were
preparing a plan for the 80, but he told Mr. Drell that they were going to kind
of wait and see how things went and work with him on looking at some
higher density on that 40 acres. He thought it took away the flexibility to
designate it higher density now.
15
r'" SUBJECT T(
1.1 r - REV1'SION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. DECEMBER 16, 2003
Commissioner Finerty asked him if the commission felt it was better to spread out
the higher density and part of his 40 acres needed to be high density, if the area
they chose he felt would be the best?
Mr. Shroeder said if it was their choice, yes.
Commissioner Finerty thanked Mr. Shroeder.
Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone else wished to speak.
Mr. Drell said he wanted to clarify a little bit on what his perception was of what they
agreed on. His perception of the medium density was not low density and high
density and there are many builders throughout Southern California who have very
successfully integrated all three together in one project. But again, the designation
description for medium density is predominately single family product. If there is a
problem integrating medium with high, then there was surely a problem with low to
high. So his concept for the medium density was not the extremes, and achieving
the average, and it was a different housing product to provide a variety of housing
and a variety for those that want to purchase a single family home which is missing
from the market.
Hypothetically speaking, Commissioner Jonathan asked if a property owner were
to come in, and they have a designation on 120 acres that is low, medium and high
and the city specified that designation in specific areas, but if a developer came
along and said, "Here's my 120 acres and I would like to put high density here,
medium here and some low here," there was nothing to prevent the property owner
from doing that and there was always the possibility that staff, commission and
council would look at that and say, "Hey, that's great, it accomplishes the count we
need and the flow and everything else." Mr. Drell said that was correct.
Commissioner Jonathan said that while they were playing the averaging game, it
wouldn't preclude them from looking at specific applications and saying if it made
sense. Mr. Drell said that was correct. The core idea is that there will be, in these
general proportions, a mixture of these various housing types and he didn't want the
applicant to think that providing 30 acres at four units per acre and 10 acres at 20
units per acre is consistent with what he believes to be the General Plan intent or
their agreement. In those areas where they are showing medium density, he was
hoping they would get medium density which is predominately single family product.
That's the whole objective of the medium density. To bring back an affordable single
family product.
16
;i SUBJECT TE
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. DECEMBER 16, 2003
MR. TOM NOBLE addressed the commission. He said he was speaking
again about the piece of property at the northwest corner of the intersection
of the extensions at Portola and Dinah Shore. He wanted to call the
commission's attention to two letters he previously provided to the
commission; the one September 15 addressed to Mr. Drell and copied to the
commission and then another to Mr. Drell on October 7. The October 7 letter
had a little colored map they had done showing at that point in time the
GPAC's proposal for those 29 acres.
The staff preferred alternative now was what he thought the use of the
property ought to be. There had been some discussion of putting high
density residential in that area for reasons set forth in his letters. He thought
that was not good planning and would make the property much more difficult
to develop. So he wanted to once again go on record as supporting the
current staff preferred alternative. He felt the property needed to stay for a
business park, light industrial use. Also as a point of order, his recollection
from the last meeting was that a number of these issues that were just
discussed were voted upon by the commission. One of the things that struck
out at him was the intersection of Frank Sinatra and Cook, the northwest
corner. He was wondering if these matters were to be revisited and revoted
upon again. He was trying to figure out when something is completed from
the commission's point of view or when they might be brought up once again.
Commissioner Jonathan thought they were heading to, hopefully very soon, a final
recommendation with regards to the land use element. He didn't think they had a
final motion on it, and asked if Mr. Noble had any comments on any part of it.
Mr. Noble said no, it more a point of order. It was his understanding that
some particular physical locations were voted upon at the last meeting and
he didn't know if those votes were final or being reopened or what the
procedure actually was.
Commissioner Jonathan asked why he was asking and if he had a comment on any
of those he would like to make.
Mr. Noble said he was trying to move forward. If something was voted on, a
piece of property that he had an interested in, he was wondering if it was
done.
17
'+ SUBJECT IC
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. DECEMBER 16, 2003
Commissioner Finerty said Mr. Noble would still need to stay in touch because the
Council could totally reverse whatever the commission has done, so it was really a
moot point right now.
Mr. Noble said he understood that and appreciated it, but his question was
if the commission would be revisiting the same piece of property on other
occasions.
Commissioner Finerty thought the north sphere, the university park concept, is a
work in progress right now. And regardless of what the commission does, the
Council could change it so she wouldn't advise getting too worried about it until the
Council had their say.
Mr. Noble thanked the commission.
MR. MIKE MARIX, 128 Vista Monte in Palm Desert, addressed the
commission. He said they own most of the property between Gerald Ford
and Frank Sinatra and Cook and Portola except for the portion the
Redevelopment Agency purchased for a golf course. The suggestion
pertaining to medium density versus high density in the specific location
extending it east he thought was a practical matter. It wouldn't work because
of the topography. It's a very severe slope situation in there and the
likelihood of 5,000 square foot lots was slim to none. So if indeed staff is
looking for small lots, conventional single family houses, it isn't going to
happen. They couldn't physically do it on a fairly severe slope. So he thought
the appropriate designation is what was shown previously and can then
through the town house concept, the 4-10 density, group buildings to
compensate for the slope and the constraints imposed by virtue of a severe
slope. This piece, as previously suggested, like the other piece runs at least
100 feet of drop from the high point in the golf course area to the corner of
Cook and Gerald Ford.
He also got the impression from the last meeting that they had concluded
their land use determinations as to the southeast corner of Portola and
Gerald Ford for a mixed use piece and like wise the piece that Mr. Noble
spoke of. So he, too, was confused and thought that had been decided last
week and he was at that meeting. Those were his thoughts and asked if
there were any questions.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if he had the Cornerstone property.
18
roe
SUBJECT IC
ram' I Sir - REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. DECEMBER 16, 2003
Mr. Marix replied yes.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if that extended to what is designated as medium
density residential.
Mr. Marix said yes, they have everything except what is designated
commercial and the City's golf course.
Commissioner Jonathan thought Mr. Marix's comments were directed toward the
part that is zoned medium density residential.
Mr. Marix said that was the recommendation that he heard and interpreted,
and like others he was a little confused.
Commissioner Jonathan said he would clarify the confusion. As Commissioner
Finerty said, this is in process, so they would finalize it today in terms of their final
recommendation to Council. If nothing else, they may have gotten to some degree
of finality last time, but it wasn't final until today, so they were still looking at it and
digesting it. They would be making a recommendation to Council today. So Mr.
Marix's concern was the medium density piece?
Mr. Marix said yes, the extension of it.
Mr. Drell thought it was in reference to Commissioner Finerty's suggestion that the
medium density extend and encompass all of this other area as well.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Marix was saying that the reason for that is the
slope made it difficult to build high density?
Mr. Marix said no, the slope made it impossible to build small lots, single
family houses, 5,000 square foot lots. And he heard, perhaps incorrectly, that
it was the hope of staff that there would be some small single family
detached housing in there.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was in high density.
Mr. Marix said in medium density.
Commissioner Jonathan noted that it was currently indicated as high density.
19
L
ra I1�'a°'ae7w�
SUBJECT TT
REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. DECEMBER 16, 2003
Mr. Marix said that the suggestion this morning was that it be changed to
medium density.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Marix's preference was for high density as
shown now.
Mr. Marix said absolutely.
Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone else in the audience wished to address the
commission. There was no one. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission
comments.
Just to clarify at the northeast corner of Gerald Ford across from the high school,
Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was some discussion about making that
mixed use at the last meeting. Mr. Drell said that was correct and pointed out where
it was shown. He said there used to be ten acres of this quasi public use which they
thought in the absence of an actual application didn't make any sense and as part
of the shifting around, they took five of the ten and extended the high density into
it and then left five acres of mixed use. Commissioner Tschopp said on his previous
map, and he may have made an error, but he showed that area as mixed use, and
also showed the northeast corner of Gerald Ford across, east of the high school.
Mr. Drell said the commission has had discussion of shifting this mixed use over
and he thought their direction was to keep it as shown, remembering that based on
the quality of design in the project, they could approve mixed use anywhere. This
was just saying that this is an especially appropriate place for it. And of course they
should remember, as is always the case, the County tried to cast things in stone
and he didn't know how successful they were going to be, and this is our best guess
right now and that three years, four years, five years...some of their most successful
projects have been projects they hadn't even conceived of until a developer brought
them to the city. Marriott Desert Springs, Shadow Ridge, the Gardens on El Paseo
were good examples. So he wasn't Moses bringing down the ten commandments
here. General plans would always be works in progress.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if they were in commission discussion. Chairperson
Campbell said yes. Commissioner Finerty asked if they were at the point where they
could close the public hearing. Commission agreed. Chairperson Campbell closed
the public hearing and asked for commission comments, knowing this was final.
Commissioner Jonathan said at the last meeting they really focused on individual
pieces and then asked staff, because they made so many changes, to redraw it so
20
r '' SUBJECT *II
REVISION
it
MINUTES it
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. DECEMBER 16, 2003
they could see what they did, so they can reconsider anything they felt warranted
reconsideration. He thought they could tinker with this all year long, but he was
comfortable where it is right now. As they start with the university area and move
west, they have community commercial going to some mixed use, to high density
residential with industrial business park, to a school, to more residential medium
and high, and industrial and regional commercial when they end up at Monterey. He
thought it was a good flow. It achieved the numbers that he thought he was
comfortable with after quite a bit of tinkering in terms of residential units, both in the
mix of high, medium and low density. Could this be changed and improved on?
Maybe, probably. But he thought they could keep doing this forever. So he was
comfortable with this in its present form in terms of making a recommendation. That
this can proceed to Council.
To address the bigger picture of what they are trying to accomplish in this area, he
recognized the need to address the various demands generated by the University.
At the same time he also recognized the fact that the University is a regional facility.
He thought Mr. Criste's report indicated that the Coachella Valley population is
somewhere around 300,000 at this point. He didn't think it was a reasonable
expectation that all students would live in Palm Desert. He thought in fact
specifically that they wouldn't. He didn't think it was the sole responsibility of the city
of Palm Desert to meet the demand that will be generated by this regional facility.
At the same time, he thought the city must share in that responsibility and the
balance they have now he thought meets the city's fair share of that responsibility.
Commissioner Finerty commented that as she has stated over and over in basically
all the land uses she firmly believes that the least density is the best. And that's
mainly because of their quality of life, congestion, traffic, and water. She has often
said she doesn't want Palm Desert to turn into another Orange County, so she
approached this as to how they can stay within state law, still provide adequate
medium and high density residential, and then putting in as much medium
residential as possible. The example she discussed earlier this morning achieves
that. She reiterated that the mixed use comes out 450 acres to be set aside for low
density, 174 for medium density and 80 acres for high density. That gives a nice
balance and 36% of that is still high density and put them just a little over the 4,000
units as required by state law. She felt that would be the best mix.
Commissioner Lopez said in a general overview, the recommended alternative, not
just for the university park but the larger map, he thought staffs recommendation,
the recommended alternative overall did a great job of putting together all they had
talked about over the last several months for them and commended them for a great
21
1
s t4 SUBJECT -ft
11 REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. DECEMBER 16, 2003
job on this. Getting down more toward the university area, he concurred with
Commissioner Jonathan and believed they could probably beat this thing to death
for another 60 days, but what they have before them is a flow and is their best shot
at what could be out in this particular area. He drives it every day and can
appreciate the comments regarding the slope and could see some challenges out
there as it pertains to medium density in certain areas, although he thought when
they looked at the flow of the potential medium and low to high, he thought it flowed
very very well. He loved the fact that they have added parks and is something that
was his biggest concern as it pertained to the amount of park space they had. He
still thought there was room for additional park facilities on the Redevelopment
Agency land. He thought there was too much land there for a golf course anyway.
But there is opportunity for them to really be creative in those particular areas.
He liked the flexibility of mixed use. It gave them the opportunity to look at different
aspects as it pertains to where it is currently located. It gives the developer some
flexibility also. He liked the way everything seems to flow on this particular
recommended alternative and the university park as it pertains to housing. He
thought they had met the needs of what he believes would be, and he would prefer
the needs to be met in this area realizing that it will be a university, that is a
responsibility for the Coachella Valley, but it was nice to know that they would have
this housing area relatively close that would mitigate perhaps some undue traffic
concerns that he would have in that area. There is an awful lot of ability for these
folks to either ride bikes, walk, or whatever it might be in those particular areas. It
was rather a long walk, but bike riding and so on and so forth with proper circulation
elements which would be needed to put bike paths in and get creative as to how
they can provide venues for this biking. When they go to Santa Barbara and they
see the bike paths that drive around that university, they see thousands of bicycles
and very few cars. That is what he was envisioning as they got to this.
But he liked what was before them today. He could appreciate some of the
concerns, but he liked what they had before them today and commended them for
attempting to grasp everything they had talked about.
Commissioner Tschopp said it seemed difficult to summarize all the thoughts given
the mounds of data and study and so forth that has been put forth by GPAC, the
staff, the consultants, the land owners and various other parties, but just to kind of
summarize, although he shared some of the concerns that Commissioner Finerty
pointed out on the higher density, he thought this was a general plan and the
comment pointed out earlier that it does allow flexibility in the future was something
they needed to keep in mind. He thought the key again, as he said before, is in the
22
o SUBJECT IT
MINUTES 6 , g V, i
Rcu1SION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. DECEMBER 16, 2003
design and implementation and the cooperation and foresight of the City and
landowners and so forth to make sure the General Plan is that. A general plan that
can then be used to make development that truly works and works with everything
else that is happening. He thought it had been pointed out that there are some
limitations in that area, both from weather and topography, as well as traffic and
things of that nature. And the development of the college. What he was saying was
there could be some tweaking here, but was something they can leave up to the
future and that they adopt the General Plan as recommended by staff today. At the
same time just reiterating that the key is in the planning, and the implementation,
and maybe even the change of certain areas so that the plan is implemented the
way that the intent is today and maybe not exactly as it is drawn on the map in
certain areas.
Chairperson Campbell said that after seeing the new map they received, she
thought it was very well spread out. She was very happy with the area up at Gerald
Ford and Portola on the west. She still wasn't happy with the mixed use on the
corner of Frank Sinatra and Cook, but it wasn't something she would vote against
the General Plan on just because of that, because anything could come before
them, for different land uses, or even Council could change all of this completely.
Regarding the high density residential, the Florida state shaped area, the developer
pointed out that it wouldn't be feasible for homes and they could go ahead and look
at a map and say what they want to do, but again, the topography is something else
like Commissioner Tschopp mentioned. They might want it one way, but it might not
work. So that wouldn't bother her. The mixed use also on the corner of Portola and
Gerald Ford could go ahead and have some changes, but overall she would go
ahead and agree with staff on this. They could go ahead and pick it apart and she
was against some things, but she would go ahead and stay with the plan as it is
now.
Action:
Commissioner Jonathan said he would go ahead and make a motion to approve the
General Plan Land Use designation or to recommend a general plan land use
designation as indicated in the recommended alternative. Commissioner Tschopp
seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no).
Mr. Drell said that in front of them was a revised copy of a resolution recommending
to the City Council approval of the Draft General Plan as the commission amended
it, including the Final EIR relative to the response to comments and all the various
other aspects of their actions. Commissioner Jonathan asked how that changed
from the one that was in their packets. Mr. Drell said it had some blanks in it.
23
orph pi pre wiTas
- 4 SUBJECT T(
- REVISION
MINUTES '
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. DECEMBER 16, 2003
Basically they filled in the blanks and it had some formatting things that didn't
conform with the way we do resolutions. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there
were any substantive changes. Mr. Drell said no. Commissioner Jonathan asked the
commission if they were prepared for a motion on that. Chairperson Campbell said
yes.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2239.
Mr. Drell said it was with the understanding that in making the motion on the
resolution they are making the motion for all the whereases. Commissioner
Jonathan concurred.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lopez. Motion carried 4-1
(Commissioner Finerty voted no).
Commissioner Lopez reiterated his comments before that he thought staff did a
marvelous job on this. It had been a long, long process. He thought they spend the
right amount of time. Some might have thought the commission took too much time,
but he thought they spent the right amount of time and what they put together was
outstanding and he thanked everyone for their long hours and patience.
Commissioner Tschopp also congratulated the people in the audience. He said their
input had truly been helpful. Mr. Drell said that with a little bit of arm twisting they
had really started to come up with very creative, high quality designs which he
thought would make this an extraordinary area and unique in this valley.
Commissioner Jonathan said that high density does not need to mean low quality.
Our standards have always been high in this city and he didn't see that changing
in any way. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan also added
congratulations to GPAC and staff for doing a great job, to John Criste and his staff,
and he thought the process really took longer than any of them wanted going back
to the beginning to over two years ago, but he thought the end result would justify
all that effort, all that time and all those resources. Chairperson Campbell noted they
had a lot of paper work, a lot of work, maps to look at, and she thought everyone
did an excellent job. She also stated that the Planning Commission should be
congratulated. Everyone agreed.
24
Ra SUBJECT If
` , ,t -�i 1 m REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. DECEMBER 16, 2003
V. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Chairperson Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan,
adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting
adjourned at 9:58 a.m. (Commissioners Lopez and Finerty indicated that they
would be absent from the evening meeting.)
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
ATTEST:
SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson
Palm Desert Planning Commission
/tm
25