The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1202 8:30 a.m. MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING �. PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 8:30 A.M. TUESDAY - DECEMBER 2, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chairperson Sabby Jonathan, Vice Chairperson Cindy Finerty Jim Lopez Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None %1W Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Mark Diercks, Transportation Manager Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. IV. PUBLIC HEARING Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. GPA 01-04 and the Draft Environmental Impact Report as it relates thereto - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant `.. Request for consideration of a Comprehensive General Plan Update and the Draft Environmental Impact Report as it relates thereto. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 The following is a verbatim transcript of this Public Hearing: Key SC Sonia Campbell, Planning Commission Chairperson PD Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Si Sabby Jonathan, Planning Commission Vice Chairperson CF Cindy Finerty, Planning Commissioner JL Jim Lopez, Planning Commissioner DT Dave Tschopp, Planning Commissioner MM Mike Marix, Cornerstone Development DA Dan Allred TN Tom Noble MMC Myron MacLeod EV Ed Vargo JC John Criste BH Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Sc We have Case No. GPA 01-04 and the Draft Environmental Impact Report as it relates thereto - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant. Request for consideration of a Comprehensive General Plan Update and the Draft Environmental Impact Report as it relates thereto. Mr. Drell, shall we continue? PD You have the report. We kind of summed up what we think we've accomplished so far. In reference to the discussion of(inaudible) at Big Hom 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... was a little unsure exactly what you did on that one. Maintain the current low density residential designation with the addition of the special (inaudible) designation, acknowledging potential change to hillside reserve? ?? Yes. PD Okay. What is remaining in terms of land use is the balance of, I guess we're calling it University Park... Si Mr. Drell, I'm sorry, just before you go on to that... PD Sure. .ri 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 t.. Si I wanted to ask you on...your summaries are...exactly...very summarized. PD Okay. Si 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. r+ Si ...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. Si 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 Si I hope they have a lot of time on their hands. CF Yeah, I think they're getting ready. They're kind of wondering what it is we're doing with this thing, so... Si Okay. PD No, and I apologize. I thought that I had added a sentence on participation by property owners in right-of-way acquisition, construction, and maintenance of... Si Thanks. PD There's really not a whole lot more to say about the...you have staffs recommended alternative. We feel it's an appropriate balance of land uses considering the unique circumstances that exist out there with the high intensity of commercial uses on the freeway, the regional commercials at the interchanges, the CalState University, the housing demand and needs created by that huge employment generating uses. We feel working with the property owners we've come up with good neighborhood designs which, again, provide the opportunity for, or at least the opportunity for the various economic segments of the community to live in the community. Still the predominant land use being no low density residential and actually resorts, and, you know, it does represent a change. If we hadn't contemplated changing some of our policies and land use philosophies in this area, there was probably no point in us spending the last three years in this exercise. The assumption is that...General Plan updates are a re-examination, and the character by virtue of us inviting CalState into town, the realization of the impact of all the inherent land use compatibility, which really drove the commercial uses on the freeway and at the interchanges, that...again, this is an appropriate, a balanced mix of housing to meet those needs. And, again, we had talked about addition of extending professional office on the south side of Gerald Ford between Portola and Shadow Ridge, and staff has no problem with that concept. (Inaudible) PD A little change suggested by the property owner would be in the...where Cook and Portola is. You see a little...the street that is...originally separated the—what is shown as mixed use, which we can discuss in a moment, to the 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 tow 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... tow PD Okay (inaudible) concept which is in this plan, which probably should be discussed are these kind of, we can call them open space corridors, which you see a little green spot there at Cook and Frank Sinatra. The bulk of the area is the mixed use, and the concept of a mixed use in a situation like this is that obviously on Cook Street is the area where it's most appropriate for the commercial component, and then towards the Spine Road, where you're transitioning to residential use, that's where the residential use would be. Obviously any mixed use project would have to be rationally designed consistent with the adjoining land uses. But that's what...but back to the...make note of this...the little green area you see there at the corner, also there's...you see it up on the—on Gerald Ford, as it goes between...about halfway between Portola and Cook Street, then you also see it up there at the intersection of Dinah Shore, Technology and Portola. And the GPAC's philosophy here was to introduce, again, breaks between the various components of the plan with these kind of desert landscapes, somewhat similar to what you see on Fred Waring. Again, this becomes a financial responsibility issue, and probably any sort of landscape parkway treatment that goes beyond what is typical for a project would probably become the obligation of the City. We learned that in dealing with Haystack Park, where we tried to put responsibility for a very large perimeter onto a project, and 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2. 2003 after a court test we showed it had to be proportional. And since the public benefit was far greater than the specific benefit to the project, it ended up being like a 60-70, 30 percent split. Acknowledging that if that's a land use feature we want to build then it's really almost part of a park program, they're almost passive parks in certain respects. Si What's the OSPP on the northeast corner of Frank Sinatra and Portola? What is planned for that? PD The same sort of thing. Oh, the PP? The public facilities...the developer, and this is, again... Si No, the big green area. The OSPP. PD The big green area. Well, it's gray area. Oh no, it's a small one. Si No, the big one. PD Well, that's the gray one. Si Down lower. Frank Sinatra and Portola. Right there. PD Oh, that one. That, of course, is owned by the Redevelopment Agency, bought for the general intention, and although it's...obviously nothing was written in cement, to be the expansion of Desert Willow. Si Exclusively? PD No necessarily exclusively. Si I guess what I'm...here's the question I really want to ask. Are there any active parks planned to deal with the demand that would be... PD Yes. Si ...created by the residential...implementation of the residential aspect of this recommended alternative? PD Yes. You see three of them in...they are about five acres each, those two are about five acres each, and then there's a smaller one over there, as 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 WNW 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. Si Okay. PD As part of the school, both the high school and the elementary school, we were planning cooperative parks like we did with the elementary school over at Country Club. For instance, the K through 8 side is shown at, I believe, at 25 acres. I think ten acres of that is shown as a park. It would be a shared park. Again, and the same thing is what we tried to work with the high school, assuming that high school goes there. If the high school doesn't go there, then part of that could be a park instead. I think when we look at the actual specific plan for the...the master plan for the Cook/Portola section, and when we start looking at the grading and how the land uses really interact and how much usable land, I think that is when we kind of make the �. decision of how large those parks should be. SJ I guess what I'm looking at is...under the staff recommended alternative, we're looking at adding 4,400 housing units, roughly 2,700 of which will be medium and high density. Those alone I would expect to generate over 5,000 kids in time and possibly substantially more than that. This area, as I see it, kind of cries out for a large, active, multi-use park encompassing several soccer fields and ballfields and basketball and all the rest because there's already over-demand on the supply that exists. So I guess what you're telling me is there's no specific land use designation on what we're looking at that specifically plans for that kind of a large-scale, active park. PD What we call...a community park, where you're talking 20 acres. SJ 20 acres or more, yes. CF Phil, on the less intense plan...kind of where...on the staff recommended plan you've got the elementary school, that location, off of Monterey, east of Monterey. PD Right. `rr 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 .rl make it a message at least to the school, that ten of those 25 acres is assumed to be a public park. Whether you want to...figure out to make it larger...I guess the other issue, okay, if we're going to do a community park, where should it go? Si That's why I was asking about the Desert Willow I II site, whether there's 20 acres available there to chop off for that kind of a regional park. PD It's shown as a park...you also want to make something that's accessible, easily accessible. Maybe a good location that would be fairly accessible would be right at the south corner off of Portola, the south corner of the Spine Road and Portola. Si The north corner, you mean, of... PD Well, yeah, the north side of the RDA's property. That might be...since it could serve the residential area to the west and the neighborhood to the east. One of the things we're talking about today, when we get to it, is the Park & Rec element. ' 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2. 2003 CF Phil? PD Yes. CF Do you have another site, perhaps...I was thinking that it might not be a great idea to have a park next to a resort golf course. For example, if you were to go up...I'm thinking where the high school's located... PD And, again, the suggestion would be that they would be in conjunction with the high school, although it's a little bit more problematic pairing parks with high schools, since high schools have a lot more of their own athletic activities that extend in the afternoon. Si And that experiment failed miserably at Palm Desert High School. CF I mean, does the high school necessarily go there? PD That is where...well, if the high school is probably going anywhere in Palm Desert, that's where it is going to do. That is where Palm Springs Unified is �.. either under contract or some degree of commitment on the site. That's probably, if the high school goes anywhere, the most logical place, given the intensity of a high school versus an elementary school is such that it doesn't really belong in the middle of a neighborhood so much. And that makes it fairly central and good access. On the other hand, that area could be, I guess...the problem we had with the high school is that we virtually gave them the site, and then we had to beg to get use of it. So a park could still be developed in conjunction or adjacent to the high school in that general area, but we would make sure that...we cut a bad deal as part of...building that park was really all part of the inducement to get the high school built, and probably in retrospect we would have cut a better deal where we had far more control... CF Okay, but maybe we should start with...is the Commission in agreement that in this university area, we should have something similar to a regional park? PD (Inaudible) community park, which is 20 acres. JL Approximately the size of the Civic Park? PD Oh, no, this is 60 acres. This is a regional park. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 ..r (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 r.. school and ten for the park, to the east of that we have medium density housing. How large is that site, and what if we were to expand the park into that medium density residential area, which would help to service a number of kids from the low density and medium and high density area. PD Again, I'm not sure that is the appropriate location for a community park. Si What's south of Gerald Ford that's indicated as quasi-public... PD The applicant's...property owner is currently in negotiation with the church there. I'm not sure what the status of it is. He asked for that designation. I'm not...in absence of that working, you want it commercial...I know that's something that probably the property owner might want to comment on. That's only ten acres, that's only ten acres. It can be...that site can be enlarged. JL (Inaudible) think about the schools, and you have the school facilities, and then you have the parks, okay. And it almost serves as two parks because when school's not in session during the course of the weekend, you've got r.. 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 i JL And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I think that's okay. And then you take another location and say we're going to dedicate this now to the true regional park. PD Yes. JL With soccer fields or with additional baseball fields or softball fields. PD Sure. JL And that would be in a location away from a school area. You'll have a high school, and you will also have (inaudible) have their own recreational facilities, again, available to people at certain times, and then you actually have, in essence, when you look at this, a middle school park, a high school park, quasi-type thing. And then you need to have a regional park. And having a regional park next to a golf course is not a bad thing, either, because when you have lights on in the evening, it's not going to bother anybody. I mean that is a good trade-off right there. Si I would concur. Maybe where we can go with this, because I think the and location of the actual park involves economic considerations as well as other considerations that maybe we're not in a position to make. And to add to the mix, I think that CalState has on occasion expressed an interest in cooperating in a community park concept that might incorporate other facilities that then their students, their staff, the families of students and staff, and so forth, can all use. So I think there's a lot that's going to go into the ultimate location. I would be comfortable, speaking for myself, whichever alternative we end up recommending to Council, that we insert in there further recommendation that sooner rather than later a minimum of 20 or 25 acres or more be carved out and set aside for a future community park facility. PD Another consideration is, you know, the Redevelopment Agency also owns 145 acres west of Portola. Si Where? PD It's... Si Between Frank Sinatra and Gerald Ford somewhere? 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 `w (Inaudible) JL That was also going to be a golf course. Si Oh, yeah. (Inaudible) PD That was the first prospective golf course site. It was always acknowledged that that wasn't great geometry for a golf course, and that's why when the other site became available we bought that, too. JL That's next to Shadow Ridge? PD Yes. JL Absolutely no park in that place. SC Not a good location. PD Sounds like a great amenity for families bringing their kids to the timeshare. They'd maybe get bored with playing golf for four or five days in a row. SC On your preferred alternative plan, you have a high density residential on the...let's see, it would be the northwest comer 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. 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 %No sort of housing that is logically occupied by people who enjoy parks. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2. 2003 Si Well, again, I don't know that we need to spend all morning on deciding the location of parks. I think...my point is that in making the recommendation to Council... PD Needs to be a community park. Si I think there needs to be a community park of a good size, and I would defer to Council to making the economic determination as to where and other factors as to where the park should be located. DT I'd just quickly add...some of the comments that fellow Commissioners have made I agree with. I don't think sometimes that parks next to schools necessarily work as a benefit to all the residents of the communities because of the restrictions that schools need to put on the parks. So I guess I'm also very much in favor of a regional type park that would serve the needs of all residents and not necessarily be located next to a high school or school, rather. Although it incorporates ballfields and so forth, there are other uses for a park. What I'm hearing, and I agree with the consensus, we need a regional park, we're all in favor of it. It should be located in the spot that would be best used, most successful, by all residents. PD You're saying regional park. Regional park is like we have here. Community park. DT Community park. I guess I'm saying a large community park. PD Which is like the soccer park, like Freedom Park. DT I think if you look in the Valley and look at other cities, the problems that they've experienced, we've experienced, with not having enough facilities to meet all the needs. I would say it would be a large community park. PD Okay. Maybe have a minute motion... CF You want that in the form of a motion? PD Sure. CF Okay. The motion would be to set aside a minimum of 25 acres for a large community park, similar to Freedom Park, in the University area. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 Si Second. SC All in favor. All ayes SC Opposed, none. Si Was that appropriate? Did we need to open up public comment before taking action? PD You could discuss it first if you want, or you could wait to get more public comment. It's up to you. SC Any discussion then, first? Or I'll open it to the public. PD Right. You should let the public speak before taking action. SC Well, I don't have any blue cards. Is anyone in the audience wanting to �.. speak in regard to public parks, and where they should be located? No? Okay. Comment. We voted. MM Good morning, Mike Marix, Cornerstone Developers. I live at 128 Vista Montay in Palm Desert. We own most of the University Village property. I would caution you on this park thing relative to uses and proximity to residential. On the one hand, you want (inaudible) that; on the other hand, in my view, you clearly don't want a night-lit park next to residential houses. And if you want an example of that, there's one in Palm Springs that's used for soccer, and that lights up for half a mile around every evening until about ten o'clock with throngs of people. On the one hand, that's good, I guess, for use, unless of course I had one of the houses there that was lit up all night until ten o'clock at night with the attendant activity. As it relates to location, the Redevelopment Agency site for Desert Willow III, or whatever it's being called, is 170 acres, excuse me, which is substantially more than you need for a golf course. 120, 130 works for a golf course, nicely. So you've got way more land there than you need if just using that site and not even considering the stuff to the west, which generally surrounds residential. So there's a couple of places to put it. I would hope that whatever interpretation is sent forth to Council doesn't dictate a specific site in there, 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2. 2003 given the considerations I'm trying to point out. I'd be happy to answer any questions for you. SC Questions? MM Thank you. SC Okay, Mr. Drell. PD I don't know how you want to handle this, whether you want to look at little pieces of it, of the staff recommended alternative, and comment on it, or if you want to make general comments...it's up to you guys. Si One way to go is to open it up for public input and then let's talk about it and come to a conclusion. PD Right. Si We're there. 9 SC Okay. The public hearing is open. Anyone in the audience wanting to speak to these land uses... DA Good morning. I'm Dan Allred with American Realty Trust, 1800 Valley View Lane, Suite 300, Dallas, Texas. I've made a couple of appearances here in the past couple of months, and I guess I just want to reiterate that my company and several of the other land owners, Mr. Marix just spoke to you previous to me, have been working for over a year with the staff to try to come up with a plan... SC Could you speak in the microphone, please? DA Okay. We've been working over a year with staff trying to come up with a land plan that we can work with that matches what the committee has been doing for the past four years, almost...I've lost track of how many years this has gone on now. And there's a lot of time, money, engineering money, that's been put into this project to try to adapt it to what we have been directed by the City, that the City wants to see there. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2. 2003 Si Mr. Allred, I'm sorry, can you just point out for us the properties that you either own or control at this point. DA Well, it's...we either own or have sold within the last year or two everything north of Frank Sinatra, it's undeveloped pretty much... Si I guess what I want to get to,though, is the properties that you have a vested interest in at this point. I mean, if you've sold them, then you no longer have a vested interest in how they get developed, a direct vested interest. Is that accurate or not really? DA Well, I carry the notes on quite a few of them, so that's a pretty good vested interest. You know, I've got notes out there of tens of millions of dollars. Si Okay, so north of Frank Sinatra? DA Yes, we sold the property to the City about a year ago for the golf course. All the green we sold to the City. Everything between the golf course land and Gerald Ford inside Cook, Sinatra, Portola, Gerald Ford, we either own tow or we have the note on. The other current owner is Mr. Marix with Cornerstone who just spoke to you. Si I'm song. 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 r.. 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. .ri 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 •W know...we are probably perceived as carpetbaggers from some points, but we're trying not to be. I feel like, you know, us getting the Marriott deal done has been a big boost to the City, it's been a big boost to us in our property around there because they've increased the value of it quite a bit, and that's why we wanted to get that deal done. But the old Desert Wells map, if I had that today, it's probably worth more than what's on the wall there just because the value of single-family lots in that area of a golf course would be pretty high right now. Si Is that the old Swank project? DA Yes, Bill Swank and Tad (inaudible) are the ones that processed that. 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 Si Can you tell me which property... MM Ours is...except for your golf course, and except for commercial that rings Gerald Ford and Cook Street, everything else in that triangle is ours. Si Okay. MM It's all residential. Si Okay. MM It's of varying intensities. Si Do we know your company by another name? MM Cornerstone Developers. Si Cornerstone. I'm sorry to seem ignorant. These have been floating around and I just want to make sure I've got all... MM I understand, and by way of explanation, just last week we sold our home building operation to Linar (sp?) Corporation, and I'm now delightfully out of the home building business but retain these properties, these and others. The suggestion that the public comment be done now before you have a chance to discuss it for yourselves, while procedurally no doubt is correct, is a little bit of cart before the horse. I mean, if you're going to tweak these plans,then gee whiz, I sure want to talk about it because we've been looking at this and working on these along with others for a long, long time. So to suddenly grab something out of the middle and say well, let's do whatever, would change my view, I'm sure. I would hope that you would act expeditiously, and I say that very candidly, economically. It's incredibly expensive. The interest bill alone is $4,000 a day. While that's not your concern, it is clearly mine, and at least you know it. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Si Mr. Marix, let me just ask you, again, the same question. I think you mentioned that you are partial to the staff recommended alternative with regard to the land use designation, the proposed land use designation. MM That is correct. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 r.. Si Does that mean that you're significantly opposed to some of the other alternatives, or are there certain aspects that you prefer to see or not to see? I guess what I'm trying to get at, if we did settle on one of the other alternatives, does that cause a problem for you? MM I'd have to reserve answer until I've studied them some more. I've obviously looked at all of them. At one point, there was a proposal for the high school in the middle of our property, together with a stadium, and I admit to you that I lobbied real hard at Palm Springs Unified School District to move that because I felt it destroyed the residential nature of that around it when you have lights and stadiums and what have you. It just wiped it out in my view as a logical use, certainly in marketability sense. Si I guess, although...let me just, and I'm not in the business that you're in, so I don't want to pretend to be an expert, but we have designed, successfully designed, active use parks within residential pockets. The current state of the art with regard to lighting is such that, literally, when you're a yard outside of the focused light area, because it is all focused lighting now, you can't even read a newspaper that's before you, so there's not the bounce glow two 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 comer of Frank Sinatra and Portola,just the comer out on the golf course, and you've got probably 50 acres of excess land there in terms of the golf course. Si I would not disagree. I think ultimately the Council will be the arbiter of that. And, incidentally, whatever our recommendation is today, if you don't like it or if you do like it, you will again have an opportunity to be before the entity that makes the final decision, and that's the Council. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2. 2003 MM Thank you. DT I was going to add...it wasn't within the scope of this Commission to designate a site for the park, but I, for one, echo your sentiments. You need to be very careful where you place the park. It does have an impact on surrounding housing and so forth, even if you predesignate that and people know it's going in. It's a little bit like complaining about buying a house next to an airport. So I do echo the sentiments that no matter what technology it is, I think the City needs to study the subject very diligently and pick an area that would still be convenient to the residents but not disrupt surrounding property owners. (Inaudible) TN Good morning. My name is Tom Noble. Address is 42620 Caroline Court, Suite 101, Palm Desert. I would just like to reiterate what's been said here. There's been an enormous amount of interchange and work between the property owners in the area and the staff. Staff has been very responsive while getting the uses that I think the Advisory Committee was looking for and accommodating the thoughts and the needs of the property owners. We are, as I think you know, developing the commercial industrial project at Monterey and Dinah Shore. There's a little bit over 200 acres in there which are exempt from the moratorium. We currently are zoned and we'll be under construction hopefully at the end of this week. We also own the 29 acres at the northwest corner of the Portola extension and what will be the Dinah Shore extension. That property is a part of the moratorium and part of the planning going on here. I've appeared before you before and given you a substantial amount of correspondence and a couple of sketches that we've done indicating why we think that 29-acre piece should remain in the service industrial or your new business park office designation. That is as it is shown in the staffs preferred alternative now which for all kinds of reasons, I won't reiterate, but I think that's by far the best use for it. So I'd just like to go on record as bringing those matters up again. We're interested in the overall area, although our... Si Mr. Noble, let me...so you're speaking now to the northwest comer of Portola and Gerald Ford. TN That's correct. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 r 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 tome that comer 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 `ow 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 nousing 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? j 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... CIF 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) CIF 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. CIF 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 r•.► 329 acres, and that the Commission is in agreement that that amount of acreage be set aside for that particular use pretty much in those particular areas, that we think that that's the right concept and the direction the City needs to go. Si Let me ask you this. If we're at the discussion point, and I think we are, maybe we could at least have some discussion about which recommended alternative is overall more appealing to us, and then we can kind of focus on that and modify it. I guess what I'm getting at, as I've reviewed all these alternatives and listened and so forth, the staff recommended alternative is very appealing to me in terms of the various land use designations, including mixed use and the industrial business park for the reasons he just discussed and so forth. My concern, though, is that the high density residential, I think there is a need for high density residential, but it's a matter of degree. And I guess part of what scares me about the high density residential, just some of what we've seen in the past and how intense it really, really is. So I guess what I'm suggesting is that we have some discussion about the basic alternative that maybe is appealing to us and then start kind of dissecting that one. CF Okay. Could we all agree that we'd like to rule out the more intense use? 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2. 2003 PD You mean the more intense alternative? CF Right, the more intense alternative. (Agreement) CF Okay, that's a for sure. Is there consensus for ruling out the preferred alternative, advocating some 6,000 units out there? (Agreement) CF is there? Okay. So then is there a preference between less intense and staff recommended? DT You know, there I'd like to suggest...I liked the direction you were taking, Commissioner Finerty, where we were looking at... CF Okay. DT ...each of those, the different categories, because... CF That's helpful. DT ...it will give us a sense of what the blend is and where the differences are in the particular categories as opposed to trying to jump between two different maps. CF Okay. DT That was my preference. SC I think Commissioner Jonathan wanted to go ahead and find out which map we wanted to use. Si That's all I was saying. I like the idea, too, but I don't want to jump between two or more maps. I'm saying can we at least pick a map to look at if we're going to pick it apart. CF I think that the two maps we're going to end up focusing on are going to be the staff recommended alternative and the less intense. 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 Si Okay. DT It's the male part of me. I don't want to look at any maps. CF You're not going to ask for directions, huh? DT I don't need directions. CF So...let me try this. Let me try a motion that would set aside approximately 330 acres in the area along Dinah Shore and Interstate 10 as noted in staff recommended alternative and the less intense use for the purpose of industrial use, whether it's light or business park or some combination of that. SC That's a motion. We need a second. JL Second. SC Okay. Si Discussion. Are we then limiting...is that motion specifically referencing under the staff recommended alternative those areas indicated in blue as industrial business park. That is a little bit difference than the less intense use. CF It is a little bit different, but we're looking at acres and, for example, and location. Staff recommended is 328 acres, the less intense use is 329 acres. Si Right. CF It is essentially in the same area along 1-10 and Dinah Shore. Yes, there are a few issues, as Phil pointed out, with the mixed use north of Gerald Ford and that sort of thing, but the basic concept, since we've been reminded is a general plan, would be to go along with that recommendation. 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 Si Okay, then I'm going to come back to my earlier point. If we're going to apply land use designation, and I'm in fundamental agreement with what you're suggesting, but if we're going to apply land use designation, I think by definition that's going to apply to a map. And I'm going to come back to my earlier comment, I like the industrial business park designation on the staff recommended alternative. It carries through all the way through the 1-10 corridor as opposed to the less intense alternative which, for example, is interrupted with a... CF I see, the CC. Si ...the commercial, yeah, the community commercial. CF So would you like me to amend the motion to say that we would set aside approximately 330 acres around Dinah Shore and Interstate 10 for industrial business park use as noted on the staff recommended alternative map? Si I would support that motion. CF Everyone else in concurrence. JL Okay. SC You second that motion, then, okay. CF We're ready for the all in favor. (All ayes) SC Opposed? None, motion carries. JL Could I, again, throw it out there (inaudible) conversation. Can we settle on perhaps one map to work off as we go through this process instead of trying to switch around the maps and say, okay, let's use the staff recommended alternative as the basis and if there are things you want to incorporate that might come from less or preferred, that we (inaudible) we use staff alternative as the basis for our conversation? Si I think that makes sense if we basically, and what I would suggest is that we say that we want to begin with the staff recommended alternative and then 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2. 2003 `w make modifications which we would address item by item as Commissioner Finerty suggested. JL That's basically what I'm saying. (Agreement) Si I think that's a good approach. CF Okay, so then if we were to move on the commercial. We're looking at basically the same number of acres...l 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 `ow 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 al ready...correct. JL Right. CF It's already something, correct. Si I'm okay with all the commercial as indicated on the staff recommended alternative. CF Okay. Discussion? Dave? DT I was going to say I concur with Commissioner Jonathan. I'm also comfortable with all of that and would second that if that was a motion. Si It was a motion. CF Sure it was, okay. s Sc Okay, now are we speaking regarding just Monterey or also Cook? 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 taw JL All the commercial. Si All the commercial. CF All the commercial. Si Also encompassing commercial office professional, commercial regional, commercial resort, and—I'm sorry, and commercial resort as indicated on the staff recommended alternative. Sc Okay, but not the mixed use yet, we're not including that yet? Si We haven't gotten to it. CF Okay. Sc Okay, so we have a motion and we have a second. All in favor. (All ayes) Sc All opposed? None. Motion carries. CF Okay. So do we want to go to mixed use next? Sc That would be fine. PD And just to make a...on that mixed use that is on the north side of Gerald Ford, if you...the property owners preference, if there is a mixed use specific designation, he'd like that shifted to the west adjacent to the high school site. DT I'm sorry, you got me lost. CF Say that one more time. PD The mixed use that's on the north side of Gerald Ford... CF Yes. PD ...the property owner has expressed a preference that it would be shifted to `.. the west... 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 CF Okay. PD ...to the northwest... CF Northwest. PD ...to the northwest, mainly because he...they're seeing that the (inaudible) created by Technology and Gerald Ford is kind of one comprehensive project. But again, as I said... CF Is that property owner then wishing that area that's currently recommended as mixed use north of Gerald Ford to be included then in the industrial business park zoning? SC Well, it is right now, too. PD I believe so. SJ I guess I like the existing mixed use various as designated. If we want to add what I guess is the northeast comer of Gerald Ford and whatever that street �1 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 +M.r appropriate areas and I think that designation works well where staff has recommended it. If we want to add that third area, I think that would be logical as well. SC No, we're not adding a third area. We were thinking about moving (inaudible) PD Again, the property owner talked about doing that. SC Okay. PD And remember, again, the industrial business park designation doesn't preclude... Si Right, you can still develop it as industrial business... PD Right. Si ...under mixed use. tow PD Correct. Si I guess what I'm saying is I like the two designated areas for mixed use. I think they're logical. I wouldn't want to move the one that was suggested to be moved because it's sandwiched between different uses. I mean, there are three different uses that surround it, and I think that's where mixed use can be particularly effective on. So I don't want to delete either of those two. If we want to add a third area because we want to accommodate the property owner's wishes, I don't necessarily have a problem with that either, but I would not want to eliminate the two already designated. SC I don't like the mixed use on the corner of Frank Sinatra and Cook. CF I don't, either. SC I don't think that's a great entrance to the City on something like that, especially with the mixed use as the high density residential, 10 to 22. 1 don't think that's the location for it right there on that corner. PD It wouldn't be on that corner. 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2. 2003 SC Well, no, but it would still be right there, and there you have, you know, Desert Willow right there, too, and then you have low density, and they have medium density. Why would you want to go ahead and put something high density right there on the comer 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. Si What do you favor there? SC Well, actually, if you want to go ahead and even bring Desert Willow all over to that area, you know, go ahead... PD You mean make it resort commercial...) 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 rr CF I just think that...I absolutely concur with Commissioner Campbell, and it is mainly because of the high density residential that's included in the mixed use. To me that corner looks like total hodgepodge. You've got so many different uses, and I would prefer to see that little band of purple or lavender the office professional moved out instead of the mixed use. Si I'm still lost. What do you...what would you suggest for either the office professional, well for both, the office professional and the mixed use? What would you change it to? CF I would have a mixed use that would allow for commercial or office professional but a mixed use that would definitely not include high density residential at that important of an intersection. SJ On any portion of that? SC Well, actually, it probabiy 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. v 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 comer, so that would probably, in my mind, be moved somewhere to the rear of the property toward the medium density, and the front is going to be the commercial, in my mind. But again it's going to come down to what the developer comes up with in design implementation. But in our general plan use, our desire is to give that flexibility so hopefully when the design comes forward it is something that can be embraced by the market. SC Well, that's what we were talking about, but we really don't want to have any high density there. You know, when you're going up the hill, that's high, and you go ahead and have multiple housing over there, high density housing, you know... Si If there was high density housing on the west side of that mixed use area, you would still...in other words, if it was not visible from Cook or Frank Sinatra, you still don't feel... SC No, I don't feel that that is an area for high density housing right there. It can .r 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 comer, 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. 4 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...I'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. Si No. PD The projects we've built, you know, were 22 units per acre, which is the highest in the range. Is there any inference that those are undesirable projects for the City or not? Si You're asking me? PD Yes. �. Si Why? 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2. 2003 j i wdl 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. Si I think you're, you know, many times you've made your feelings known about high density...you know, and you have a right to do that, and we've heard you. So now we need to talk about it. The mixed use area, that area there, I think...I'm kind of on the fence. I think high density can work there, but I think we're going to have to be very careful about it because I share the concerns that you expressed. I certainly would not want to see high density right on Cook Street or, you know, but in back of it in a mixed use kind of project, I think it could work. And I do think that that is a logical area for high density should it come before us in an appropriate manner with an appropriate design because it is directly adjacent from the school. You know, a lot of people are going to be in high density housing that are students who may even lack transportation, so you're putting them right there where they can walk to school, which I think is a good idea. So I don't necessarily have a problem with the mixed use designation. I think to sandwich the medium density residential between the mixed use and low residential, I guess that's okay, but the office professional I don't think necessarily makes sense. I would think that we ought to extend the mixed use across the street to the office professional and give us a little more latitude about what goes in there because that could be a neighborhood shopping center, it could be, you know, anything as that area develops. PD And remember the property owner's new concept is that that office area would not be separated. The street would run around it. CF Right. j ar 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 h.. 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. Si 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 a CF I am. I'm combining it. Si Oh, combining, I'm sorry, I missed that. CF Because remember that street goes through now, so it's kind of like all one. Si Right, right. And the medium density... CF I was going to do that separately. I didn't want to... Si What do you intend to do with that? CF Okay, I would take the low density residential and extend that into where it says the medium density residential, which is just west of the proposed mixed use. I would make that all low density, and I would leave the other uses for the park and the medium density residential as is. SC Did you add that to the motion also or not really? CF I wasn't going to because I wanted to try and do it piecemeal. SC Right. CF Just so you know where I was headed. I just wanted to try and do one thing at a time. SC We have a second, now it's open for discussion. DT Well again, I go back to...I like the mixed use designation. I think it provides a good transition and compatibility to the university across the street. I think, not to be redundant, but again it's in the design and the implementation and we want to speak loudly to developers that we're going to give you this option. It's up to you to make it palatable for the City. And I don't think that's an area that necessarily cries out to be completely or solely commercial. I think it has some mixed use capabilities. I think it would be better designated to include some housing to facilitate the students. So I like the current designation as shown on the staff recommended plan. Si I guess I'd have to fall on that side, but I'm really concerned about if there is one to...the project will come before us that proposes high density 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 w residential. It would really, I think, have to be something that is very attractive in many respects, and I guess that's true for any project because that's a visible area, but I guess I would come down on that side, that properly designed, properly implemented, I would not have a problem with high density residential in that location because I think it serves the demand that the university will create very effectively. I'd probably want to extend that mixed use, then, to cover the OP as well. SC Well, we have a first and a second. All in favor. SC Aye C F Aye SC All opposed. DT Nay JL Nay 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 comer 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 Si Aye JL Aye SC Opposed? CF Opposed r% SC Opposed. 3-2 Si The other mixed use area? DT Now I think that's appropriate JL (Inaudible) approval DT Second SC All in favor JL Aye Si Aye DT Aye SC All opposed I i■,i 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 tow 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 boo 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 comers there, Portola and... CF Which is great PD You see,that is the open space public reserve designation. That includes the corners and the corridor on Gerald Ford. SC Right. CF That's good. SC That's nicely done. Si And maybe I just...I think some of the other ones that are public reserve are not quite the small park type like the one that's just below it, I guess it's bw north, it's a strip. JL Less intense? Si On the less intense, there's (inaudible) PR. I guess it's now a street, so...I guess in the chart, there's 25 acres for public reserve as opposed to eight, but I'm not entirely sure where that'll go, and what I'm suggesting is that we don't need to designate where it goes, but that we simply encourage the City to create just open space view corridor type areas as part of that 25 acres. DT Open space view corridors are nice, but I think, one, they're expensive to maintain; and two, I think truly we're talking, when we talk about the 25 acres, is quality of a regional park, a community park. So again, I think what we're trying to state is we want a community park of a minimum 25 acres. Si This is separate and... DT I understand. In addition to it, though, I'm going to say that on those view corridors, I don't think...they get lumped into the parks, but I don't think they're park, I don't think they're active parks. 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2. 2003 i t Si We're talking two different things. There's an open space park designation, in the less intense it's 211 acres, and (inaudible)that the 25 acre community park would fall into that. All I'm suggesting is, and you may disagree and I respect that, but out of the 25 acres indicated as public reserve, that we use that to create some view corridors. PD Okay, that's, again, somewhat of an admonishment, we have limited funds. Monies that go into...and 25 acres of passive park and maintaining is a huge amount of money. That money will come out of... CF Okay. But again, we're not...we've got a total of 211 plus 25 acres, that's 236 designated as open space parks and public reserves. We're not saying how it needs to be specifically broken down but that setting aside 236 acres on the less intense versus the 196 on the staff recommended alternative is the way that we're looking to go, correct? So I guess what we're saying is we'd like to see 40 more acres of open space. (Inaudible) 4 PD Again...of course, the difference you're seeing in less intense and staff alternative is we have generically designated parks and schools together, and in this we've specifically designated schools. But the acreage is actually...the acreage shown is the same, it's just here we've broken out schools from parks. I mean, we can—what you're saying is we want to find 25 more acres...well, again... CF I think what we're saying is... PD Remember where it comes from. It comes from...it's going to come from housing. CF Correct. That's where it's coming from. PD And that's why we're building the parks... CF But we're not there yet. PD ...to serve people. 1 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. Si 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. Si 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. PU 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... Si 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 comer 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 CIF Yes DT Yes JC Commissioner Jonathan, in order to facilitate this, we're going to draft a policy and a program that'll go into the parks and rec element, speaking directly to the additional 25 acre or more community park. In that same language, we can also say that on sensitive view corridors in the university area, additional OSPR lands shall be reserved to the greatest extent practicable. (Inaudible) TN This is Tom Noble again. Shouldn't there be an opportunity for public comment on each of these land use designations? There was one in the original for the blue areas, the business park areas, that was not for the mixed use office professional, and it seems to me, especially these open space and park issues...l don't know, but it seems to me there should be an , opportunity to comment on each of these before a vote is taken. Sc Yes, you may. Si Can I just address that, Madam Chairperson. I think that we have had ample opportunity for the public to give testimony with regard to the land use designations and just this morning, we opened the public testimony, we received it, and we closed it. We're at the point where we're having Commission discussion, and I don't think we should entertain further public testimony. I think our responsibility now is to come to a decision and move this forward. Coming back to my motion...do I need to restate it or is it fresh enough in everyone's mind? I was afraid you were going to say that. JL I think she wants it restated. Si That we adopt the open space land use designations, both parks and public reserves, as indicated in the staff recommended alternative, with a recommendation to Council that they make an effort to create even more park areas including the community park that we voted on earlier and open view corridors as economics and other considerations warrant. And, furthermore, that we incorporate the language expressed by Mr. Criste into the park element of the plan. 54 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2. 2003 rr CF Okay, discussion. Although I basically agree with that concept, I just don't think it's strong enough to send the message that we want more open space. I think we need to be more specific as to how much more open space that we want. I don't know that Council's looking for us to recommend to them that we ask them to find the open space. I think what they'd like for us to do is to maybe recommend where we'd like the open space to go. I still believe that the less intense plan that shows 40 more acres is a nice layout of open space, and I think we just need to be more specific and stronger in our desire to have more open space. Si I don't disagree in concept, but the problem is that in the less intense plan, part of that extra acreage comes from what is now designated and we know we will be designated as school sites. So if we got into now trying to find areas to designate as open space or parks, I think that that's beyond our reach because that's where I have a problem. If there's another way to make a stronger statement about expanding park space, I'm all for that, but I think if we get in to actually designating areas, that's a difficult (inaudible) CF Well, I don't know about exact areas, but I think ballpark areas. And, again, r 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. r SC Right, on the other side. 55 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2. 2003 PD That is the designated...that would account for, again, roughly about eight acres...those various...public reserves are those (inaudible) areas there. We've got the area up at the Dinah Shore/Portola area, we've got a little bit of... Sc That's open space. PD Those are those public reserve corridors...those are the corridor open space areas. Sc How many acres is that? You said eight? PD It's roughly about eight. But again, remember, don't get too hung up with this chart. It's showing that...it's a concept of having expanded parkways, in essence, in those locations to delineate some sort of desert character. It's not a construction document for (inaudible) DT The problem I have in trying to use the less intense map is it doesn't show the schools. You've moved a road... CF I know, and that's why I made that point earlier. DT And I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I think the motion is that we're basically stating that given those changes, we're looking at the staff recommended alternative, and then in the strongest terms available to us, stating that we agree with that open space park plan but we also encourage the additional open space parks, and because we don't control the checkbook nor the land in some of these areas, we're saying in the future of the General Plan, we want more space. And that's about as far as we can take it right now, if I understand the concept. PD And the other issue is that, in reality, and I should have done it because I just stopped telling my GIS guy to change the map after every meeting,ten acres of middle school will be a park, so that ten acres could have been added to the category of parks. A portion of the high school site will be a park. So, again, don't get too hung up...I can tell you, when we created the less intense alternative, we did it in about 20 minutes for the purpose of analyzing in very general fashion something, another alternative in the General Plan. We made a lot of quick decisions just to get a variety of things for the EIR consultant to look at. 56 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 CF I guess this is at the point where...I know that we're working off of the staff recommended alternative where...I guess from the mixed use, the open space, and the residential use, this is where my preference definitely goes to the less intense use map because staff recommended is just too much. DT It seems to me, though, with the amount of land the City owns in this district, that there is some potential for the City to incorporate additional parks into there or engage in some type of swapping and so forth. And I believe that what we're again stating is that it looks like the City has the ability to do it. They weren't the strongest words stating we want that done, and there I would say the staff recommended alternative, except for the 25 acres for the community park, shows the better designation as regard to open space parks. (Inaudible) SC All in favor. J L 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. Si I would concur. I don't want to see us limit that pretty important corner to public facility, so I think extension of the residential use would give us flexibility. So as far as a general plan land use designation, I guess I would favor extending residential... PD Medium? (Inaudible) 58 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 `W Si Yeah. I've got to tell you, I mean, I think that there's a potential there for high density residential if there was to be, for example, if we ended up with a commercial activity right on the corner surrounded by high density then fading into medium, but I guess they can always come in and request a change. JL I wouldn't object to medium residential. PD Again, that could be another mixed use area. Si Good, I kind of thought about that and I didn't want to say that word, you know, but I do think mixed use can work there, again just giving us the flexibility depending on what design comes in. PD Well, the other thing is that's an area where I would like to see the park bigger. ?? Yeah, that park is shown pretty small. �+ Si So whatever the wish of the Commission is, but I do think that public facility is not appropriate, so I guess I would change that to some form of residential or mixed use. DT At this time I could live with the residential. I don't know if I'd want mixed use right across from the high school, but it could be a possibility, again, if it's done right. Si I think just seeing maybe a little neighborhood market right on the corner. You'd have the high school there. (Inaudible) Si Going back to my younger days, yeah. I guess I wouldn't want to preclude it. It's probably design. I mean, that could be a gas station there, I don't know, or fast food, drive-thru. (Inaudible) Sc Or you could go ahead and have medium residential or high density tow 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... Si And you've got high density on one side and medium on the other and then a park in between the medium...you know, there are some possibilities., and I think you're just...again, where I see mixed use coming in as an appropriate designation is where it's an area surrounded by a hodgepodge of uses, which is exactly what we have here. So, I'd suggest medium use instead of PF, public facility. ; CF So just extending the medium use north. SC So then we can do without the one on the comer 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 comer. 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 tow SC I would rather see it medium density and high density in the back. CF Is that a second? SC Well, do we have a motion? Si I'll make it a motion, yes. SC Okay. JL Second. SC Discussion? DT The mixed use might work. I think the medium density across from the school. It's a tough one. I think it would have to be well designed and implemented properly, so if you're looking for that availability in the future, I would support the mixed use, although again, I think where it's going to be it has to be very well done. v SC Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor. JL Aye Si Aye DT Aye SC Opposed? CF Opposed SC Opposed (Inaudible) Si Quick question for staff. There's another PF area designated on the northwest corner of Portola and Dinah Shore. `.. PD No, that's an Edison site. That's an Edison transformer. 61 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2. 2003 CF Okay. DT So we can't vote that out? PD Actually, we're trying to figure out a way to move somewhere because it's kind of in an odd location. CF Okay, so then the rest of the public facilities, the 58 acres and the 192 for the university? JL Do we have to have that university there? CF I'll just have a motion that we concur with that. JL Second SC Any discussion? All in favor. (All ayes) SC Opposed? None. Motion carries. CF Okay, so now we get to do the low density, medium density, and high density. SC Which one did you want to start out with? CF Well, I guess what I'd like to see is the medium density increased, the high density...medium and low increased, high density decreased, off of staff recommended alternative. Si (Inaudible) CF I'm looking for an increase in low density to the staff recommended and increase to medium and a decrease in high density. I think that... (Inaudible) CF I'm sorry, a decrease in high density. 62 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 low (Inaudible) Si You're looking to target the less intense, more or less. CF I'd like to increase the low density and increase the medium density but decrease the high density. A perfect example is in that area, if we were to have 1,832 units, with a potential of more units in that mixed use, we'd be looking in that one area alone over 50% of the units of all residential would be high density. And I just think in that area that is way too dense. Si I guess what I'm asking is are you favoring the less intense alternative (inaudible) more or less? CF I'm favoring the less intense; however, you'll notice on the less intense the low density had reduction of roughly 100 units. Si That's right. CF And I would not want to see that. Si Okay. CF I like the fact that there's more medium density, but I still think we have too much of the high. So I'd like to pull some of the high and put it, I suppose, into the low. I guess what I'm looking at is around 1,000 acres of high density out of the 4,300. Si 1,000 units you mean? CF Yes. Sorry, yes, 1,000 units, yes. JL That would bring our total number of units actually below what is currently in the General Plan. PD Remember, you take a few acres out of high density, you lose lots of units. Remember...if your goal is to preserve open space and still provide housing for people, when you eliminate high density and spread the units out, you're eliminating open space, simple as that. The more you spread out housing, the more open space is destroyed in this valley. 63 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2. 2003 CF I understand that, Phil. SC To begin with, on Frank Sinatra and Cook, north of Frank Sinatra, where we were talking about the mixed use there on the corner of Cook... CF Right. Sc ...and eliminate that medium density and also I would like to eliminate in that area the medium density right on Portola right across from the low density on the west side, the little area right there. CF I'm not clear. Sc Okay. Right at the end, then, of the golf course... CF Right. SC ...you have the street and then you have medium density... CF Okay, so north of the golf course... Sc Right, I would eliminate that and make that low density and make the low density next to the mixed use right here too on the... CF Oh, I see, so the low density would flow... Sc Right. CF ...diagonal. Sc Right. CF And then what about the medium density that is just east of the low density? SC That would be behind the commercial there? CF Yes. SC Okay. 64 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 `w 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 describe as most of the medium and the high, then we're down to about 2,000 or 2,500 units probably. Again, what I heard Chairman Campbell describing would probably get us down to about 2,500 units. I saw almost...so again... CF Well, we just set aside the possibility with the public facility there at Portola and Gerald Ford for the possibility of more medium or even high density. PD No, but again, that is at the discretion of the property owner. We can't force them to... CF I understand that, but we can't force anybody to do anything. They can always ask for change of zone, so... PD But we don't have to grant it. We're designating what we feel is the appropriate mix and most importantly, relative to housing, what is the appropriate level or numbers or general range of housing. And remember, in the plan before you, five percent of the land area is high density. Now, it's very efficient. You're housing a lot of people in a very little piece of land. But again, it's not...you're talking about projects that are One Quail Place and less. In most jurisdictions now, high density is 40-50 units per acre. Our version of high is what many jurisdictions' version of medium, and our version of medium is what many jurisdictions now believe to be low. So it's a matter of efficiency of using the land you have to house reasonably the people you need to house. And, again, if you don't house them here, they will be housed somewhere else. DT (Inaudible) what the City Attorney said. Are we dealing with some number that is mandated by State, given the amount of land we're dealing with? PD There's a new State law that says if you act to decrease the amount of housing, if either the City does it or even if an applicant proposes it, even a property owner...we used to give people medals if they...if it was zoned for ten and they built two...that's now against State law. We have to designate...since it's acknowledged that people have to live somewhere, and if one community decides that we're not going to live here, then—again, it's a zero something game, people have to live somewhere. And so as part of their...the goal of having all communities bear their fair share of housing 66 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 needs, they're saying at least don't, when you submit a general plan or housing element which designates a certain amount of housing, once you've done it you can't decrease it. DT So in effect we are tied to some degree to that number that was derived in the previous general plan. PD Yes. CF We need to have at least 4,047 units, correct? PD Yes, and the housing needs to be a mix of types, consistent with meeting the needs of economic diversity... BH I wish, frankly, that we had gone over the housing element before we entered into this land use discussion because you'll see how, of all the elements in the general plan, one of the top two or three by which we are really constrained by State law is the housing element. And as you know the City has had to solve some housing issues over the last few years. The tow 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. Si Mr. Drell, the residential low density indicated south of Gerald Ford west of Portola that you marked off as formerly being designated for a golf course, is still owned by RDA, is that correct? PD Correct. Si Wouldn't RDA be more likely to develop high density than low density housing? PD It wasn't my assumption, or our assumption, the RDA would necessarily continue to own it. There have been all sorts of, actually, proposals to trade land and things like that. Unfortunately, the one property owner that I haven't heard from throughout this entire discussion is... Si RDA? PD ...the RDA. 68 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 Si But if we maintain a general plan land use designation of low, they, like any other developer, would have to come in and request a change of zone... PD Correct. Si ...and so forth and a change in the general plan to do anything differently than that. PD Correct. SC I don't think Shadow Ridge would like high density right there next to them either. PD Remember, Shadow Ridge is high density. SC Well... PD They're the one with three-story residential units... �► (Inaudible) Si ...big area, though. SC Okay, so the area there I was talking about with medium density up there on that comer, 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 i .r 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...[ 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 comer at Gerald Ford and Portola on the southeast without having high density right there too, and have the low density and medium density and the high density where it is and change the, again, the medium density where the mixed commercial is by Cook and Frank Sinatra to the northwest corner. That too low density. There's too much of a hodgepodge up there on the corner. Si I think I have to concur with Commissioner Lopez. The GPAC alternative came up with 6,000 residential units. The staff recommendation is for about 4,400, which is a significant reduction in the total number of units. The location of the high density residential in the staff recommended alternative to me is, I think, logical. For example, as we move east from Monterey, we've got high density residential next to regional commercial projects. U4 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 logicaily 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 baw what's in the housing element. And then it was complicated by the fact that 71 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2. 2003 A 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... Si I lost you right there. You're saying change the low density or change the medium density? Sc Change the medium density. Si To low. CF To low. Si Okay. (Inaudible) i 72 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 CF (Inaudible) portion thereof and make that high, and that way you eliminate that solid group of high density that I spoke of earlier east of Portola, south of Gerald Ford, but I believe the City still fulfilled its responsibility to provide housing, but I think that the key, at least for me, from the congestion and the traffic point of view, is to space it out. And I just feel that the less intense use did a better job of spacing out the high density. I think it did a fairly nice job of the medium density, and like I said,just that one little area to increase that to the low density, and then it kind of, I believe, would flow better than the staff recommended alternative. sJ Could I ask you something, then. If I'm reading you right, if we looked at the staff recommended alternative, what you're really doing is taking the big area of high density residential and breaking it up so that a part of it remains high density but a part goes to medium density? CF Yes. sJ I think if we look at the staff recommended alternative, that's really the only change to their plan is converting a part of that area from high to medium. PD If you look at the less intense alternative, its primary characteristic is it's dominated by medium density. The reason why we're able...the reason why the total number of units is the same, 4,300, is it's got less high density but it also has less low density, and it made it up with the medium. But if you...anytime...but if you...in our staff recommended alternative, the low density has already been increased substantially. The medium density has been decreased, but to maintain the 4,300 units, that's where the higher, the greater number of high density units. Anytime you increase the low density, the only way to maintain the units is to substantially increase the high density. And that's what we were trying to get away from. If you want to effectively decrease the high density and maintain the same number of units, you're going to have to decrease the low and increase the medium. CF But I'm already increasing the medium, Phil, because I'm looking at the less intense use, which deletes that acreage for that church area, and I would be making that medium density... PD But, again, that church...that still might be a church. v.. 73 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2. 2003 CF ...that portion high density. I know, but what I'm saying is you don't necessarily have to pull it out of low density, you can pull it out of that mixed use area where you have that flow as it's shown in the less intense use of medium, but then you take a portion of that, the upper portion, and you make that high density residential. So I think... PD Do you have a drawing you can show me? CF Yes, do you want... PD (Inaudible) Let's start with the staff recommended (inaudible) DT Should we take a five-minute break? SC We're taking a five-minute break. PD I guess the other issue is that...back to the concept of a general plan...is that...another thing that impacts, especially the area of Frank Sinatra and } Portola and Cook Street, is it's a hill. A good deal of real estate is going to. be taken up by transition, flow transition because from the corner of Gerald Ford and Cook to the beginning of the golf course, which is about the peak of the slope, there's 80 feet of fall, 80 feet of rise. I believe the balance of the various categories, I think, is correct, whether there's going to be some tinkering with the distribution a little bit as Commissioner Finerty is describing. Si Let me ask you this. You know that large area that Commissioner Finerty was talking about that's all high, if we converted a portion of that to medium, can we make up for it...you see where you have low residential north of Gerald Ford, west of Portola... PD That property owner isn't here. Si Because, I mean, that's across from the school. I just wonder if we could...because I think breaking up the mass... PD Yeah...as you see...l 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 351h and Dinah Shore, part of that can go to high to make up for the high that is converted to medium in the Cook Street area. That's...again, I agree with her that that mass of high between the Spine Road and Cook Street and Gerald Ford is a good candidate to reduce in size, with increasing the...and the nice thing about medium is, remember, apartments tend to be built in blocks. Medium, all you need is one street because medium is basically a single family conventional lot product. Si What's Indian Creek Villas? Is that medium density? PD That's medium, that's probably... Si In between medium and high. PD Yes, it's probably close...it's maybe 10 or 11. Si Yeah, you've got...but that would be on the upper end of medium. PD Upper end of medium... Si ...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. Si 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 tow 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 .J 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 comer of Gerald Ford and Portola that we designated earlier as mixed use, I would still like to see mixed use on the very comer, 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 comer that I would suggest remain mixed use. PD It's ten, we can make it five. Si If it works out. If you look at it and say no, that's (inaudible) CF Since you're coming with various alternatives, that could be one. PD Sure. , 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... Si I do need to leave at 12 noon. JL And I do, too. 78 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 JC The remaining...well, first I should ask if there are any questions about the status on items that we identified that Planning Commission had taken action on. Any questions at all or corrections or anything of that sort? They run down to...well, starting in page 3, in order to address the issues of land use policy with regard to the Alessandro extension, you'll note that we drafted the policy and the program, which pretty much covers everything, and we're going to incorporate some of that language into the text of the General Plan land use element itself as well as the policies and the programs. The next issue, then, had to do with, that we hadn't taken action on... 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 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 r. 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 1 A 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 obw 81 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2. 2003 j 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`h meeting, this is at least when the first Policy 1 A was given to us, that's the date on it, I don't see hardly any difference between that and the new Policy 1A dated December 2"d. It's almost word for word. JC I did my best. CF I don't doubt that you did do your best, John. I'm just saying that I remember my concept of the direction we gave, which may be different than the other Commissioners' concept, but I'm not seeing much change in language. Maybe a few words were taken out and maybe two or three were changed, but that's it. JC Well, it's a short policy, so if you have some specific language in mind that you'd like me to try to work in here, I'll be glad to try and do that. CF Well, I would just like to take out the second sentence. When we say the City shall make good faith efforts to achieve Level "C", fine. We're not...we're making the good faith effort, that's true. I strongly disagree where we say that Level of Service"D" shall be acceptable in instances. We've got too much wiggle room in there where we can just slack off and allow, you know, Level of Service "D" to exist. Si What if instead of saying acceptable we said allowed. CF It's the same difference. Si Well, I think the word acceptable implies maybe what you don't like, which is it's acceptable. PD Maybe we should change it to tolerated. JC Or can't we just get along with a Level of Service (inaudible) DT This has to be a tradeoff. There is no perfect solution to this. If you want Level "C", you're going to be talking about taking some roads and making 82 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2. 2003 w. 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 'Fs" going on in the City right now. So we can play with this all we want to, but it's going to be a fairy tale. The truth of the matter is, the reality is going to dictate to us that we have to live with certain traffic problems so that we don't impact other quality of life that we also find highly desirable. JC And the purpose of the language was in fact to put the decision makers like you on the hook rather than to give you an out, both sides actually, so you have to rationalize why you are finding, you know, the LOS "D" to be acceptable in a given situation. CIF Why did you take out the part at community build out levels? PD Because we should be achieving...our goal is to achieve it all times, not just at build out. I mean, basically, by taking it out it means it applies always. I took that out because, again, to me our goal is not to say oh well, we'll be suffering until we get to build out and then we'll fix it at build out. The goal is to...should be occurring uniformly throughout time, not just at the end. DT I would make a motion that we approve the Policy 1A as stated by the staff. JL I'll second it. SC Any discussion? Okay. All in favor? JL Aye Si Aye SC Aye DT Aye SC Opposed? CF Opposed 83 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2. 2003 i SC Motion carries 4-1. JC The next item had to do with concerns that the Public Works staff had about the truck route policies, so you see we've abbreviated it and added language regarding major roadways to the greatest extent practicable. And as Mark can speak to the issue, there are limits on what the City can do to control this sort of thing, but rather than being specific to streets, they felt this gave them more latitude to manage the situation. DT I'd make a motion to approve it. Si Second. All ayes Sc Opposed? Carries. JC Next item is really an information item. Again, it had to do with the widening , of Monterey Avenue to six lanes. There is a program to do that, and as you also know, our neighbor next door, Rancho Mirage, is about to engage in a focus study. It's really more of an information item than anything else. This is also true of the Portola Avenue interchange. Si Do you need action on Monterey Avenue? JC No, not actually. Si Okay, it's just for our... JC Yes. Si Alright. JC Further discussion if you'd like. Staying with Portola Avenue, this is a project that the City is moving forward with with CalTrans and with the County, and it will greatly enhance our access and improve circulation in that active area in the north end. Si And eventual, in terms of a connection to Interstate 10, means five-year time horizon? 84 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 2003 JC That's a very good question. Given the current budget constraints, it could be, easy, a ten-year wait before we saw approaching a development phase on that. Si Is that out best guess at this point? JC It is my best guess based on mostly the funding constraints we have at the moment. We've lost out STIP money pretty much universally and it's going to be...other projects are in the pipeline right now for interchange monies under the CVAG TUMF program. In response to concerns raised about how do we manage the streets being torn up by utility providers, we added a policy that the City shall confer and coordinate with utility providers regarding work on utility infrastructure within the City street rights of way and shall monitor traffic control and construction repair to assure minimum traffic disruptions and acceptable pavement restoration. And you can see we have a program to effectively make sure that happens, and we have named all the potentially guilty parties. CF Do you want action on that one? r.► 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. %W 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 Si Well, but they do. PD No, for example we have a policy relative to the ratio of police to the population. It's not a land use issue, it's a...the General Plan is not just a land use document. It goes...if you read through a lot of the elements, a lot of them have relationships to land use but a lot of the policies are more general City administrative. Si I see what you're saying. JC And they range even as far afield, if you will, as arts and culture, where the City's very actively engaged because it's been part of the quality of life, so... Si I see what you're saying. Thank you. JL I'd move for approval. DT Second SC All in favor All ayes SC Opposed? None. Motion carries JC It's noon, as you can tell by the bells. Ask not for whom the bell tolls. And have we decided whether we are going to continue the item to this evening or to next... SC No, we're going to continue to next... JC Next hearing. SC Yeah, the next hearing, the next meeting will be... CF The 16' SC The 16'h at 8:30. JC That's all I have, then. 88 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 2003 SC Okay. in.. CF Motion to adjourn to tonight at 6? 1 guess that's what we're doing? SC Second JL We're meeting tonight? JC And you want to continue this item to your... CF We just adjourned. JC You need a motion to continue. CF Okay, a motion to continue the General Plan public hearing until December 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 Tschop adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting Was�tfjot+wQd t 12:O�p. JL" PHILIP DRELL, cretary ATTEST- ,SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission 89