Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-02-26 (2)MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2004 —1:00 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Spiegel convened the meeting at 1:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmember Jean M. Benson arrived at 1:16 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Buford A. Crites Councilman Jim Ferguson Councilman Richard S. Kelly Mayor Robert A. Spiegel Also Present: Homer Croy, Acting City Manager David J. Erwin, City Attorney Sheila R. Gilligan, ACM for Community Services Justin McCarthy, ACM for Redevelopment Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk Mark Greenwood, City Engineer Amir Hamidzadeh, Director of Building & Safety Philip Drell, Director of Building & Safety Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance/City Treasurer Teresa L. La Rocca, Director of Housing Michael J. Errante, Director of Public Works David Avila, Fire Marshal/Riverside County Fire Department Steve Thetford, Lieutenant, Palm Desert Police Dept./Riverside Co. Sheriffs Dept. III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilman Richard S. Kelly IV. INVOCATION - Councilman Jim Ferguson V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A MR. KEVIN BROWN, Palm Desert business owner and resident of Indio, addressed — the City Council on behalf of the Desert Bicycle Club, the Sun City Bicycle Club, and the Coachella Valley Cycling Association. He presented a copy of the prepared statement relative to their groups' concern for bicycle lanes and bicycle safety as MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 2004 it pertains to the Circulation Element of the General Plan Amendment. This statement is now on file and of record in the City Clerk's Office. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 5, 2004. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve as presented. No action taken on this item at the February 26, 2004, meeting; please see minutes for February 27, 2004. VII. PUBLIC HEARING A. CONSIDERATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA Case No. GPA 01-04 (City of Palm Desert, Applicant) (Continued from the meetings of January 15, January 29, and February 5, 2004). The following is a verbatim transcript of this public hearing: RAS Mayor Robert A. Spiegel PSL Peter St. Louis KB Kevin Brown LI Larry Lyle MG Marc Glassman PD Phil Drell, Director of Community Development JC John Criste, Terra Nova Planning & Research, Palm Springs, CA JF Councilman Jim Ferguson BAC Mayor Pro Tem Buford A. Crites RSK Councilman Richard S. Kelly NC Nicole Criste, Terra Nova Planning & Research, Palm Springs, CA JMB Councilmember Jean M. Benson TL Teresa LaRocca, Director of Housing RE Rick Evans MM Mike Marix PB Paul Brady TN Tom Noble CF Cindy Finerty 2 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MM Myron MacLeod RDK Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk FC Fabio Ceresa GS Gursewak Singh Sidhu RA Robert Ault DJE David J. Erwin, City Attorney FEBRUARY 26, 2004 RAS The next item on our Agenda is Oral Communications. Before we get to that, I'd like to go over the Agenda as we have it for our General Plan and if what you want to talk about comes under one of those categories, then please wait til we talk about it. If not, for example, bicycling I don't believe does, you may want to speak about it now. First we're going to talk about the University Park, then Palma Village, then parcels on the north and south sides of Palm Lake Driving Range and Cook Street, then the circulation element and traffic analysis and, finally, the environmental resources hazards public services and facilities element as time permits, so we probably won't get to that. The first card I have here is from Dr. Peter St. Louis. Would you come to the... PSL We have a substitute speaker (inaudible) RAS Certainly. ?? Kevin Brown RAS Mr. Brown, please state your name and where you live. KB Good afternoon. My name is Kevin Brown. I am a business owner in Palm Desert, and I live in the city of Indio. I'm speaking on behalf of the 180 members of the Desert Bicycle Club and the 100 members of the Sun City Bicycle and the longstanding Coachella Valley Cycling Association. We wish to express our gratitude to the City of Palm Desert for recognizing the status of bicycles on City streets. The California driver handbook, the reference utilized by the State Department of Motor Vehicles, reminds us that bicycle riders on public streets have the same rights and responsibilities as automobile drivers. Cyclists are not out of place on the roadway; they are part of the normal traffic flow, and they share the road with the drivers. Our two bike clubs ride the roads of Palm Desert every day of the week, conducting organized recreational rides for members and for many visitors to our Valley. Both clubs call Palm Desert our home. Between our two clubs, we represent the most enthusiastic, committed, knowledgeable, and responsible cyclists in the Coachella Valley. We also represent the full spectrum of recreational riders of every age and skill level. Along with you, 3 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 2004 we care deeply about the safety of bicyclists on our city streets. The importance of providing safe, dedicated bike lanes for bicycles sharing city streets could not have been brought into sharper focus for all of us than by the tragic hit-and-run accident that killed our friend and bike club member Reverend Bob Gaddini two short months ago. Because of our extensive knowledge of bicycling and our familiarity with Palm Desert streets, we feel that our clubs can offer you valuable suggestions about the plan that you will consider today. We have reviewed the Master Plan and would specifically recommend a few important modifications. And if you'd like, I can go through those modifications or 1 can give you a copy of them for your review later. ?? (Inaudible) KB Yes. RAS You do have a copy. Then if you'd just give a copy to us, then when we review the bicycle lanes, we'll insert it. KB Very good. Thank you once again for our chance to address the Council on behalf of our nearly 300 members. We all look forward to working with the City in the future to make our city safer for bicyclists. Thank you very much. RAS Thank you. Mr. Larry Lyle. It doesn't really say what you'd like to speak to, but if it's not to one of the items that I mentioned earlier... LL (Inaudible) RAS You're talking about the University Village or... LL (Inaudible) RAS ...alright, then, why don't you do that because we're going to go into University Village right after you speak. LL Well this is regarding a site at the corner of Gerald Ford and Monterey. So I'm representing the owner, the MacDonald family, that owns 20 acres at the northeast corner of that site. When they purchased the property, it was zoned commercial, and as of last night, that's the only way we ever understood the property. We did receive a call that said the City is considering rezoning that to residential, and I see based on this map here that it's more than just a rumor, that's really in the plans. When the purchased the property as it was commercial zoning, they geared their 4 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 2004 marketing and planning towards commercial development, and with that said, as you may or may not be aware, we are under contract with Lowe's for a home improvement store at that location. And obviously this is not going to help us with that. Basically, the way the site lays out, and I'd be happy to share a map with you, it does not make sense for residential development. The site has 1400 feet of frontage at Monterey but only 632 feet depth towards along Gerald Ford, so the brunt of the homes...the homes that would be developed on that site would bear all the traffic noise, and that's a very busy street, probably one of the busiest in Palm Desert. So we're asking that that remains what the original intention was, which was commercial development. Obviously, having a Lowe's there would be a great tax generator for the City. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them for you. RAS Mr. Glassman, do you want to speak now or would you like to wait until we get to Palma Village. MG It's up to you, it doesn't (inaudible) RAS Why don't you go ahead, then... MG (Inaudible) Do I put the props here? (Inaudible) RAS Alright, okay...we'll wait til we get to Palma Village. MG Okay. RAS Alright, I'll turn it over to Mr. Drell. PD And I think I'II turn it over to Mr. Criste who, again....who's more knowledgeable speaking on the latest generation of the land use map. JC Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. John Criste, Terra Nova Planning & Research. Following the last Council meeting and direction provided by staff, we've been working with...on efforts to develop (cell phone ringing) RAS I forgot to remind you to please turn off your cell phones. JC We've prepared a brief staff report and an exhibit with the very expeditious assistance of Bob Riches in your GIS department, and the idea was to try to reflect the comments made by the Planning Commission during the last 5 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 2004 meeting, and some of the things that we've done by virtue of this suggested alternative is to eliminate the high school site as it was shown earlier at the northeast corner of what would be Gerald Ford and Portola and redesignate that as open space for public park purposes. Also, related to the comment just briefly made a moment ago, there was land on Monterey Avenue, approximately 58 acres, between Avenue 35 and Gerald Ford which in this alternative would be redesignated with medium density designation. Another thing that the map does is it changes all of the high density residential that was on the previous version of the map to medium density residential. And finally, it overlays all of the medium density residential land in the planning area, in the University Park area, with a high density overlay, and that means that a series of criteria which have been set forth in the staff report, which I'II go over in a minute, if those could be met, an applicant could be granted the full high density development rights on lands that have the overlay. So all the medium density shown on the plan could go to high density if these points were addressed in development proposals. And they include that a project that wished to qualify for high density would provide a substantial percentage of residential units that were available for ownership, so we would want to be encouraging ownership, and a suggestion has been made that maybe we want to try to encourage ownership in a more global sense as well in the community, and you can address that. Another performance criteria, if you will, would be that high density neighborhoods would be located in proximity and have convenient access to public transit so that they can easily use the bus and get to work or shopping without having to use an automobile. Also, that the high density development would be located in proximity to schools and commercial services. We might add libraries, that sort of thing, as well, which is relevant to some of the tax credit programs for development. Also, a substantial percentage of the high density units would be reserved to meet the City's affordable housing needs. That adequate and usable landscaped open space areas would be integral to the design of high density neighborhoods in the plan area. That development plans would reflect creative and innovative design in terms of site planning, building design, and landscape treatment. And that development proposals with high density residential units would be accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis so that the City could see what the consequences of those kinds of developments could be. Again, as with the suggestion with regard to encouraging home ownership, there has been a suggestion also that the assessment of fiscal impacts associated with major development should be perhaps applied more globally to the community. The net effect is that under the most conservative conditions, the total number of dwelling units that could be built, the minimum number that would be built generally under the designations, would total 3462, and if the high density option were pursued, that over 6000 dwelling units could be generated. And in that instance, we 6 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 2004 could have a substantially higher number of affordable and multi -family housing than had been in even some of the previous iterations of the land use plan. We have a couple of circulation issues also that I will touch upon briefly, but...and we would like to use that as a segue into Mark Greenwood's discussion of the circulation, so we can...if you like, I'd be glad to answer any questions you have regarding the map and the latest iteration of this idea for the University Park before we moved on to circulation. JF So we have a range from 3400 to 6000. JC Yes. JF JC BAC Where does that put us both in terms of compliance with the State law on general plan densities and what kind of a position does that put us in to meet our housing obligations and move forward? It means that we would need to encourage at least some of these medium density projects to go into the high density realm. We need somewhere in the neighborhood of about 400 more units to be equivalent to where we would be otherwise. The potential, though, is very high, so we could...we could end up with substantially more units than what we need, and so I think we can make findings that show that we are complying with our statutory obligations. A couple of curiosity questions. By the way, this give us a different approach to this, which is nice to see yet another option than we have been looking at. Criteria #1, a substantial percentage of residential units shall be available for ownership. JC Yes. BAC What does that do to building apartments? JC It does not preclude apartments by any means, but it means that in considering folks that want to develop at the higher densities, that there would be opportunities for ownership and in some product line that might be part of, say, the mix of residential development, for instance. So, it is unquantified, so it becomes a matter of judgment that way it's written currently. BAC Alright, I suspect you're going to be bringing back some examples of what would, from your perception, meet this threshold? 7 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 2004 JC With regard to percentage of ownership? BAC With regard to what a project might look like that meets #1. JC It would be a subjective recommendation, but we certainly could do that. BAC Well, I want...you're the person chosen to put the General Plan together, and if you're suggesting this is a good alternative, I'd like to see some examples of what it would look like. JC Yes, sir. BAC Items 2 and 3, which is proximity to public transportation, schools, and commercial. Are there any areas, to your knowledge, that are proposed for being zoned in this fashion that don't meet those two criteria? JC Given the layout of the circulation system as it is currently shown, I think all of the sites could meet that criteria. BAC Okay, so in essence, check those off as being... JC As probably being satisfying those issues. BAC Item 4. Have you talked to our housing folks about what they perceive as the need for a substantial percentage of the proposed units being reserved to meet etcetera, etcetera? Has that been discussed? JC With regard to the specific map, no. BAC And numbers and perceptions of all this. JC In the context of the last iteration of the housing element, which we updated and had certified, we did work with the Housing Coordinator, Terre LaRocca, on this.. BAC But not on this, right? JC Not on this particular issue, no. BAC Thank you. PD I have a little bit to add. Under the basic Redevelopment law, 15% of all units have to ultimately be affordable by low and very low income. 8 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL BAC I'd be just curious to see (inaudible) PD So 15 of 4000 is about 650, 600-some units. BAC JC BAC FEBRUARY 26, 2004 Okay, if that's what we're meaning by the definition, then that needs to be fleshed out with something else, whatever. And Item 7, you said that potential fiscal impacts of the development that you were at least mulling on making that requirement on a broader set of projects. That was not our suggestion necessarily, it was just one that has been raised as something worthy of discussion on the Council level. Essentially, I think the purpose was that when we're looking at major developments, whether they might be supported by RDA participation or not, that the fiscal impacts, ramifications, be presented to the City. I would, then, like to see, again, an example of what that kind of set of impacts that you're looking at would be and why we would take a particular type of development and ask for fiscal impacts when... JC Yes. BAC ...I see a whole variety of things. Parks have fiscal impacts, commercial developments, lows, this, that, universities...everything has fiscal impacts... JC And I think that maybe that is the point that maybe a broader, more regular assessment of fiscal impacts for City projects or private development is something warranted. BAC Okay. JF I think there may have been a miscommunication because at least myself made the observation that the fiscal impacts of areas of development, not specific projects, be taken into consideration so that you can look at the commercial residential blend and make sure that it pencils out for the City. It wasn't really meant to go as an item under the criteria for affordable housing. JC So from your perspective... RSK You kind of have an advantage on me there. I had the Mayor recognize me a little while back, and you being between me and him, you just can shut me off real easy there. A lawyer has enough advantages without that, too. 9 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JF Go right ahead. RAS Councilman Kelly. FEBRUARY 26, 2004 RSK Well, I want to respond to a couple of Mayor Pro Tem Crites' observations there. One, #7, is my proposal has always been that all new projects receive an economic impact report, the same as when we annex something to the City because if we annex anything to the City, we do an impact...an economic impact study. And in my mind, that's exactly what we should do with every project that we approve because some of them are larger than annexations, so in #7, my idea is...and I think it's very important that that be included for all new projects. And being adjacent to public transit, this is a 20-year document, and the location of public transit can change many times in 20 years. So to try to look at this map and say which one of these qualifies, ten years from now maybe others would qualify, so I think it's more important to have the criteria there than it is to know is (inaudible) this here, that here because being on the Planning and...both agencies, I know that most of these are on that route. But the main thing is that we have the criteria there so that as we add transportation routes in 20 years, that we can look at that. There's one...the one proposed between Avenue 55 and Gerald Ford adjacent...on the east side of Monterey, I think that we probably should ask our consultant what will our numbers be if we took that out of the overlay and left it as is. JC We anticipated your question. RSK You probably anticipated that question and have that it all figured out. NC Assuming 20 acres at 22 units to the acre, which is the high end, the potential loss would 330 units for that site based on the same reduction by 25% (inaudible) RSK But what would that do to John's answer that he gave Mr. Crites? NC Well, in the overall, the units would be reduced from a minimum of 3140 approximately and a maximum of 5700. If you will recall, the fiscal impact analysis that we prepared for the alternative last time, the unit count, assuming that we had a range of units that were in the medium density residential and some units that did go closer to 22 units, the unit count that we had at that time was approximately 4300, and I think that we would be likely to exceed that with this proposal, assuming that several of the properties would take advantage of the density bonus. But even if we stayed in the 4300 range at build out, the fiscal impact would be reduced by about 10 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JF FEBRUARY 26, 2004 a million dollars from the commercial revenues that would be lost on that regional commercial property, the 58 acres that have been put under medium density, and the overall fiscal impact at build out would be about $6,600,000 in the positive for the entire planning area. Well, 1 guess I also wanted to respond to Councilman Crites, Mayor Pro Tem Crites, and ask the consultant...as a general plan document, this kind of sets forth our goals and our policies for the City. Then do we not have to then come back and craft an ordinance that gets into the particulars of what Councilman Crites is concerned about, about how you weight these criteria. One may have more importance than another, you may have a series of p points, say 20 points between all seven of them, and you may get to 15, but it may not be affordability, you may make it up on another item...that all gets done at the zoning ordinance stage, does it not? NC That's correct. Those become standards that are specifically included in the (inaudible) JF But these are just kind of our goals for what we'd like to see somebody attempt to satisfy to qualify for a density bonus. NC Yes, sir. BAC Did I correctly understand you that assuming that the land along Monterey becomes what it is right now, which is, think, commercial, that with removing that from housing, you have...our minimum will be now 3100 units? NC Correct. BAC So we are now almost 50% below what the General Plan Advisory Committee recommended? NC Yes, sir. BAC At the low end? NC Yes. And we're at the General Plan Advisory Committee's recommendation at the high end. BAC But only if everything takes advantage of... NC Yes, sir. 11 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 2004 BAC And we're even about 30% below what the Planning Commission recommended on the low end. NC Yes, sir. BAC Something you're comfortable with? NC I think that given the housing....given the development community's for apartments, condominiums and other multi -family development, their preference for higher density, I think that the likelihood that we will go considerably higher than 3100 units is high. JF Let me ask the same question a different way. Would we not be required under State law to provide at least 900 units of high density in these medium density bonuses in order to comply with the existing number? NC In order to match the existing number, yes, sir. JF So we'd legally have to do that. It's just a question of where we wind up putting them. NC Yes. JF So to your concern about a future Council having the ability to avoid doing the higher density zone, legally we'd have to do it on at least 40 to 50 acres by my calculation, at 20 per acre. NC To reach that number, yes, sir. RAS It looks to me like you've given the City flexibility, which in my humble opinion is the right way to go. It's very hard to pick fly specks out of an area that is all sand, and to try to tell somebody they can only do this here, they can do that there, is very difficult. What you've done is you've done away with medium density, and you've done away with high density and combined the two in essence. Is that correct? NC Yes. And the idea is that a project could come in at ten units to the acre, and another project might come in at 18, and another might come in at 22. RAS So piggybacking on what Councilman Ferguson said, we are required by law to have "x" density, no matter who's on the Council. 20 years from now I don't think too many of us are going to be on the Council. But if we have a 12 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 2004 plan in place so we have to be there, then there's an obligation. So that's my comment. JF A question since, Phil, you've spent the last three years working on this. What is your take on this alternative? PD I'm perfectly comfortable with it. I think what you're going to find is...the land use map that you were looking at wasn't arbitrary fly specks. They were the proposals from the property owners. And I have a feeling that before we have a chance to put our system together, we're going to have...we do have applications that are, I believe, in the spirit of this and that they include a mixture of low, medium and high, and then we'll evaluate them based on these criteria and maybe, you know...in essence, I see ourselves putting this system together on the fly while we're evaluating these projects that are going to be before you within the next three months. RSK Could I ask a question? Would you not agree that with this overlay and the criteria there that we have provided incentive for the developer to do something different and better and also a guide for ourselves and future Councils to evaluate projects as they come in. PD Sure. RSK And reward people that do a good job. And if somebody doesn't do such a good job, they're not going to be rewarded. PD That's absolutely correct. RSK Boy, that's pretty good, isn't it? RAS Let me ask Phil (inaudible) Would you address Mr. Lyle's concerns. PD The issue of the commercial on Monterey? RAS I guess that was his concern. PD Yes. We were scrupulous in putting this plan together, obviously, to consult with all the property owners, especially if we were going to change their designation. Monterey is a very, very busy street. There are people who develop houses on streets like that, and they can sometimes convince people to buy homes on those streets. I'm not sure those people who ultimately, long-term, live on those streets are particularly happy, so from a pure land use point of view, putting housing backing up onto Monterey is not 13 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 2004 ideal. I can...for example, in our previous plan, on the...again, I believe Mr. Lyle's property is probably the right configuration for a commercial project. It is neither too narrow or too deep, you know, that I would think it would be appropriate also to extend that to the same frontage north of him to WalMart, which would be somewhat of a constriction of the last plan you saw, which had it going all the way to Gateway. So it would be probably almost cutting that piece in half, making the Gateway side of it residential and the Monterey side of it commercial. Or, again, this might be another opportunity for mixed use designation, but Monterey, I think, long-term, should be a commercial use. BAC Just a question of Phil. I think your point is well taken that folks that waited a long time to begin processing things. How long would it take (inaudible) five to seven things listed here. I suspect there are things that maybe we haven't thought of or things that other communities use or this and that... how long would it take to bring to this body what you would consider to be a staff - supportable set of recommendations on density bonuses and such things? PD BAC In terms of a rigorous system, it would take a while. I would say at least a month or two. Again, you're going to be seeing the project that has its own system worked out, you know, with a whole set of design criteria and so...again, I'm not sure how productive that will be since...to come up with a....by the time we come up with a system, we'll have entitled all this property. But we can...when we bring you these projects, we will...and as I say, they're already on...you know, they have already been applied for, and we're already in review of them. We will try as best we can to analyze them, by this criteria and weight them as best we can, but, you know...I think we'll end up doing these together. Let me make a response to that. The first project we approve becomes a template for what somebody has to do or doesn't have to do to achieve or not achieve some density. PD Correct. BAC And so assuming that we pass the General Plan in the very near future, we have trailing along behind that within 30 days something that we can use as a template. We may change or modify it or whatever, but we're going to have something sitting in front of us if we want to actually use this. PD As I say, they're coming very quickly. I mean, we... 14 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JF FEBRUARY 26, 2004 Two comments. From the General, or from the Planning Commission recommendation to this, aside from Mr. Lyle's property, which we'll get to in a moment, we have changed the designation on our own land, which was our own choice, but we haven't done a thing to any of those other people. The folks that had high density before still have the opportunity to get high density. The folks that had medium density still have the opportunity to get medium density. So, I'm at a loss to see why this high end throws the development world into turmoil. PD No, only as regards to those commercial properties on Monterey. I'm in absolute agreement that the... JF Okay, and secondly, these criteria I would apply whether there was an overlay or not. PD Exactly. JF So, you know... PD You're right. JF ...we can put together, and if it's on the fly, great, but I'm not going to screw up a 20-year document for a three-month application. And so I do think it's important that we put an ordinance together that codifies these things, puts the appropriate weights, and basically memorializes the thinking of this current Council. RAS Okay. Councilwoman Benson. JMB (Inaudible) the medium density off of Monterey there...why couldn't it be switched to the yellow low one there, and if they wanted low, they could revert, can't they? PD No, they don't want low density. They're attracting Lowe's home improvement center. (Inaudible) PD Oh, you mean to revert it? RSK This was commercial last (inaudible) JF It's been commercial for three years. 15 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 2004 PD No...it's been commercial... JMB (Inaudible) if you're going to make that commercial. (Inaudible) RSK We already did that. I don't think we need it. We have to have some (inaudible) RAS Not much low density out there. JMB I know, but taking that medium off of Monterey and making it commercial, isn't that what I heard? RSK It already was commercial. PD Remember, it's currently zoned commercial. It's been zoned commercial for 15 years. JMB But on this map it's not. RSK This is the first map that we've shown it that way. PD Yes, we had always shown it as... JMB Commercial. PD ...as commercial. JMB Right, well that's what I thought, but in this one... PD And I think the goal was to compensate for the, really, the City's removal of 140 acres of residential and making it commercial...we were going to expand the residential, but I think what we heard from the consultant that based on the range, that's probably not necessary...it's not necessary for us to... JF Right. PD ...basically in the document, we commit when the day is done to achieve 4,000 units in this area, we surely can do it with the residential property with maintaining commercial on Monterey. JF Right. 16 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 2004 RAS So you would change this map to commercial on Monterey. PD Yes. The only modification which you might want to consider relative to the previous map was...in that one, in that section of land between Mr. Lyle's property and the WalMart property, we had it going commercial all the way to Gateway. You might want to scale that back a little bit so you maintain some of the residential use on Gateway. JMB But I thought I understood her by saying that if we leave that commercial that you're reducing the number of units on the minimum size? NC Yes, ma'am. But I do need to correct myself. I took the 330 units off the minimum, and the number of units off the minimum would be 150 units, not 330 units, that's at ten units to the acre, the low end of the range. And so our potential loss...we would be down to 3300 minimum and 5700 maximum. took too many units off the low end. JMB I would hate to lose all (inaudible) JF And the real minimum is 4000. That 3300 is an artificial number because we, by law, can't just (inaudible) RAS (Inaudible) dedicate 4000. PD Basically all we have to do is put a statement in there, in this whole discussion, that we're committed to producing the 4000 units, and then I think we're covered. JF For whatever, Nicole (inaudible) RSK (Inaudible) guarantee 4000 PD Right. JF What is the legal requirement because two days ago I think he used 3800 as the number. Is it 4000? NC The legal requirement is that the maximum build out within the City limits now not be reduced without making findings as to why, and those findings are difficult. So the overall number is about 4000 units. RAS 4000 units. Then why don't we stay with 4000? 17 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JF TL JF TL FEBRUARY 26, 2004 I have a question for Terre LaRocca, if she's here. Thanks for coming over. Terre, the question came up earlier what your thoughts were on the housing mix and these criteria that we've developed and how that enhances or assists our ability to provide affordable housing. Well, certainly, that's always a concern of the housing division, primarily because, as you know, we're required and stipulated to produce so many units. We feel that we will be able to produce this by 2006, but beyond that, and there is also an obligation to continue producing units based on the new arena. We don't know when that's going to come out, when the State will release those numbers, but our anticipation is that those numbers are going to be quite high. But with the sheer amount of high density and medium density land use designations we have out there, doesn't that help facilitate us meeting that goal? It helps us facilitate meeting that goal. Will we reach our goal in perpetuity? Probably not, but it definitely does have an impact and does allow us to produce many of the units which we will be required to produce. JF And a lot of the criteria, not a lot but a good many of the criteria, came right out of the 2004 regulations for the tax credit program. TL Um hmm. JF And I guess, at least my thought was that we would encourage development in sites that will score well and help finance those (inaudible) TL And in fact I have been talking to some developers recently about our desire to do more tax credit work. RAS Councilman Crites, Mayor Pro Tem, excuse me. BAC (Inaudible) probably no jurisdiction will reach its goal in perpetuity? TL Absolutely. BAC So if that's our goal (inaudible) TL If anyone gets close, we will. BAC Thank you. 18 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL RAS JF FEBRUARY 26, 2004 One last comment. We haven't really looked at the industrial business park area that's blue, but it seems to me that some of those are deep enough that they could be apartment complexes. Well, I asked the consultant about that and our staff, and I just want to confirm this. All of the blue area is tied up under a development agreement? Is everything in blue tied up under a development agreement? PD No. A lot of it is...a lot of it has entitlements, have recorded maps on them. JF That's what I mean. PD And I believe we also added that (inaudible) business park...did we add mixed use in business park as well...you know, one thing we did do is...and if we didn't, we can always do it...is add the possibility of mixed residential use in any commercial zone. Again, it's based on evaluating on the, you know, quality (inaudible) JF Well, what part of all those blue parcels are we free to tinker with? RAS We should get one of those lights that you can flash up there, then you would... PD (Inaudible) look back at one of our original...the GPAC (inaudible) multi- family. You know, we did designate (inaudible) all of this area here (inaudible) RAS So there's room there for some type of housing. JMB And a good place for it. RAS I just never really understood why there's so much industrial in this section of the City. JMB Well, and it's got freeway access for housing. JC Mr. Mayor, I wanted to clarify the situation. As we went through the discussion about what does industrial mean for Palm Desert, we really came back to visit the Cook Street corridor, and the business park designation, which is what that is, it has an industrial moniker to it. But if you look at the land use, it allows a wide range of commercial that is supportive of business park types of development. The one thing it does not provide for, and in this particular case for good reason, it does not provide for residential 19 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 2004 development. It does provide for mixed use. The noisiest...in the long term, the noisiest part of the City is along the I-10/railroad corridor, so that is why that (inaudible) lands are a buffer. RAS I understand that. If you could look at other parts of our city and see that there are homes developed very close to the railroad tracks... PD And we get complaints...again, developers build homes there, they often convince home buyers to buy them, but it is not ideal. JF Of the two areas that GPAC had identified as high density abutting the business park...I have the GPAC (inaudible) PD Okay. JF You turned one to mixed use and you eliminated the other one...somebody did. PD It was eliminated at Planning Commission at the request of the property owner. JF So Buford and Jean's point...could we not put it back in where they eliminated it to kind of boost that 33 up to... PD Yes... I assume you're (inaudible) JF Yes. JMB That is far enough away from the freeway where houses might not work, but certainly apartments for people that commute on the freeway or... RAS I think so, yeah. JMB Yeah...there are other types of living other than homes that could go in there that would be... RAS But if we agree with the number of 4000 as an obligation from the City, and we go ahead with the medium density/high density, is there a problem with that, and the commercial on Monterey? JF How many acres is in that bubble? 20 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 2004 PD I think...the property owner is here, he can probably better describe it, but it's probably around 20 acres. JF So that's 400 units. BAC But allowing somebody the option of it doesn't mean they have to do it, so (inaudible) whoever owns a piece of land, they don't want to do it (inaudible) RAS That's right. BAC It gives the ability should someone...one of the things that changes remarkably quickly in the world is who owns a piece of land. JF Well, it makes our 3300 now 3700, which makes me feel better with only having a mandatory obligations for 300. JC The owner of the property is here and will certainly want to speak to the issue. There was quite a bit of dialog in past hearings on that. JF Was the owner of the property at GPAC when they did this? JC Yes. JF Okay, so apparently it made it through GPAC. JC Oh, were they, actually I don't know the answer to that question. RAS You're right there, I know that, but there are other people, unfortunately, that would like to speak. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to the University Village plan? I have your cards, correct? Please come forward and then... RE Yes, my name is Rick Evans. My office is at 74-000 Country Club here in Palm Desert, and I just wanted to make a comment very quickly if I could on a couple of parts of the General Plan that you were just currently discussing. At the Cook and Gerald Ford intersection, there is currently the project that we have planned at Cook and Gerald Ford, and the Arco, Mobile, and Hampton Inn. Adjacent to the Arco and the Hampton Inn is a commercial area that is currently commercial, industrial, some mixed use in there. There is ample room in that particular area of the City and that part of this General Plan to make all the accommodations necessary to deal with any more or any increases in what I would call big box retailing in the northern sphere of the City. It would be my thinking and my encouragement to you to consider 21 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MM FEBRUARY 26, 2004 retaining the residential on Monterey as you have it currently in the plan and allowing the commercial and the industrial as currently planned along Gerald Ford and Cook and 1-10 to continue to be that project that everybody's sort of envisioned it to be. I'm Mike Marix, Cornerstone Developers. I live at 128 Vista Montay (spelling?) in Palm Desert. I think probably the best description I have for my reaction to this new map is incredulous. We've been through I don't know how many years of GPAC and Planning Commission meetings, and suddenly a new map surfaces without any public discussion whatsoever that you're proposing, I gather, to approve today. It is, in my judgment, at best vague in terms of what it is that's being granted. At least three members of the Council, of which you are members, have specifically said to me they want no apartments, so why am I skeptical that you're going to approve apartments in this area, notwithstanding what the State law requirement is. It seems to me in the very least that what's deserved here is another hearing, at least, to air out further what's proposed here today and to discuss it with those of who it impacts tremendously. We own almost all of the property to the west of the College, and I'm not sure what we have with this map that is being floated out here right now. I'd be pleased to answer any questions. As to the question of apartments next to the freeway and railroad tracks, that's crazy. That isn't going to happen. It's bad planning. RAS Thank you. PB Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. Paul Brady, 78- 694 Cimarron Canyon, Palm Desert, representing Saris Regis (spelling?). I guess I'm somewhat perplexed by the comments today after three years of planning that you've gone through in your Planning Commission, and I know it's the Council's prerogative to develop your own plan for the City, and that's fine. I guess the question I have is what does the conversation today...does it do anything to change the plans that are in by Saris Regis on the apartment project on Gerald Ford and Monterey? RAS PD RSK PD Phil, do you want to answer that? Probably very little. The presumption when that project started was it would require a change of zone and general plan amendment, which was going to be granted based on the merits of the project, which... Well, it hasn't come to Council yet. It hasn't come to the Council yet. 22 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL RSK PD JF PB JF FEBRUARY 26, 2004 That project hasn't come to the Council, so on the normal process, it doesn't have anything to do with this. If it didn't meet our criteria today, it wouldn't pass anyway. Exactly. And it was reviewed through the Planning Commission substantially based on those criteria, mainly because any multi -family project has always had to meet a very high standard to be considered in the City. And so...you know, obviously, getting a specific multi -family designation would make a property owner more secure, but what we have doesn't preclude... Yeah, I want to respond to Mr. Marix, Mr. Brady, Mr. Allred, and a whole host of other people whose names evade me at the moment...Mr. Noble, Mr. Snellenberger, everybody that yelled when we passed the moratorium...l've been explaining to you folks for the last three years that the map at the end of the day wasn't going to be the map at the beginning of the day. I explained to you that we passed a moratorium so you didn't spend six -figure sums processing entitlements that may or may not get approved at the end of the day. Mr. Brady, you went ahead anyway. I don't know how your project's going to fare out, but you took that risk. But I agree with Councilman Kelly. We're doing a General Plan on a broad scape picture of the City and how that impacts your project, now that you've processed your entitlements, I don't Phil even has the answers. But to try and change the outcome of a General Plan because you decided to go ahead and risk your investment by processing your entitlements now was something I think you did with your eyes wide open against my advice, and you did it. So to have you stand here now and say the very things that I didn't want you to say when I warned you two to three years ago not to do this rings a little hollow with me. We obviously went into this with our eyes wide open. We knew that, we knew what the moratorium was all about. I guess the frustration level is that we've been down the road, and we're just concerned that there's going to be further delays as you look at that. We fully recognize, Mr. Ferguson, that this is the Council's right to do what you're doing, but I'm just asking the question is this going to change anything dramatically from what we've been in the process and the money that has been spent so far and additional time and delay that this may necessitate. That's all. Thank you. Well, I suspect (inaudible) short that we're going to ask staff to go back and fine tune this. You'll have a chance to take a look at it. We have to vote on the entire General Plan, many elements of which we haven't even addressed yet. So maybe you'll want to sit down with these criteria and your project and 23 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 2004 take a look at it and research that on your own. And I want your feedback at our next hearing. RAS Mayor Pro Tem Crites. BAC I guess a couple of items. One, I don't think anybody walked in the door to vote on this today. You don't take a big piece of land and look at another idea and then say in two hours you're done. Anybody who owns land or who are advocates of housing or whatever they have to be now need to talk, if we go forward with this, now need to look at those list of things that are put there. And, Mr. Marix, you're right. People on this Council differ in terms of our perception of what the City ought to look like, apartments and not apartments and this and that. But if we develop a set of criteria that are fair and just, a person comes in and does the job of meeting them, I am absolutely and utterly convinced that this Council, to a person, would have the integrity to say yes, and if it doesn't meet it would have the integrity to say no. This is not about personal biases and points of view. At some point, once we've decided on it, we move forward, and we say here are the list of things that a person has to do to make something happen, and if you do it, darn it, you've done it. And right or wrong, I've known the folks who are seated with me and the folks in this staff and the folks over there a long time, and I have a sincere level of trust, and I hope as the day winds down and this is done, however we do it, that level of trust is justified and is one that you will find equally so. TN Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers, I'm Tom Noble, 74-075 El Paseo, Suite A-3 in Palm Desert. A lot of thoughts and a lot of things here. Initially the 29 acres, 29 gross acres, that's when that something under 27 acres which has just been recommended might be an apartment site, the piece at the northwest corner of Portola extension, the Dinah Shore extension. I called to your attention at prior meetings correspondence I sent to the Planning Commission regarding that...hopefully you've had a chance to look at those letters, they carefully lay out why I think that's not an appropriate apartment site. It does a number of things. The noise level in there is very (inaudible), especially with the increasing number of trains we have now...it's substantial. Dinah Shore is intended to be a very busy street. Portola will become a freeway interchange and will be elevated at that point where anybody going over there will be looking down into this subject property. There are just all kinds of reasons why I think it would be very bad planning for that to be anything other than a business park, service industrial, Palm Desert type of industrial property. As the owner of it, I can say the value is not appreciably different either way. It might even be more as apartments right now. When we did the parcel map waiver that created that parcel, we were cooperating 24 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL RAS FEBRUARY 26, 2004 with City staff in getting the extension of Dinah Shore Drive to meet Portola. We redid our map, which is currently under construction, to make the extension of Dinah Shore meet the Portola Avenue extension. We did that at our own expense at the request of staff, and we were happy to do it, we thought it was good planning. That ended up creating this semi -circular shaped piece of property which clearly, in my opinion and in the opinion of everybody I've talked to, ought to be used for the same use as the adjacent business park. I can tell you this...our sales...we just started grading out there, as you know...the business park and service industrial property is selling faster than it should, and at very good prices. There's clearly a demand for this type of property. There are lots of businesses that would like to be in Palm Desert, would like to be in Palm Desert close to the freeway. I think there is a lot of demand for additional property of that sort, and our intention has been to take those 26-odd net acres and have them for the same types of uses. We're getting very high level users, showrooms, a lot of our local businesses, fabricating companies, light industrial showroom combinations, a lot of pure office users, which I think is a use we don't have a lot of right now. So I'm very, frankly, taken aback by what I see as a push to make that property fit into a use for which it's really not appropriate. A number of reasons I just mentioned as far as the location, the noise...also, that will be across a very busy street from schools and parks, I don't think it's appropriate for children to try to get across that portion of Dinah Shore to those facilities. And I just really have to say that we have extended as far as honoring an expired development agreement to extend Dinah Shore to meet Portola. We have done everything humanly possible to cooperate in getting the street alignments done there, and we've ended up with a parcel that has one (inaudible) use and potential very bad use which I think would be any kind of residential there. So I don't know what more to say. As far as appearing at the General Plan Advisory Committee, I attended most of those meetings. The GPAC did not invite public comment. I made my feelings known to some extent. This potential use of a portion of this for apartments came in very late in that process. It was one of the last or second to last meeting when that finally came up, when I became aware that had been the recommendation. I came to the Planning Commission and expressed my opinions there, and they agreed and left it as the current zoning, which is service industrial, and have proposed future zoning under the new general plan. There are just a lot of reasons why I don't think it makes sense for any other use on that. So thank you. I'm sorry you're taken aback. No general plan is based in cement, as you well know. Fred Waring was a residential street. That's all it was. And we didn't have to do a new general plan to make that office professional and buy the houses on the north side of the street so that we could widen Fred 25 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 2004 Waring. We did that because of the necessity of the growth of this valley. This is a 20-year plan, and it's not going to be set in concrete. It's going to be flexible, but there are certain requirements that the City was required and will abide by. TN If I can respond to that, I think...I don't think that's a valid argument, Mr. Mayor. RAS Alright, well I'm sorry, Mr. Noble. I feel it is. TN Okay, but I think there are plenty of other (inaudible) BAC I don't...I'm listening. I hear your issues, and you may very well be right. I certainly wouldn't argue those issues. You live, in essence, out there on that land, you look at it and everything else. If the zoning on that piece of property allowed either use, thereby giving flexibility to you or whoever owns that, does that have objection to you? TN BAC I honestly don't know what that means. I don't know what that would...if a project were brought in with one of the alternate uses, would we be less likely to have that approved than if it were the sole use? No, not in the sense that it's a legitimate use...I mean, it's just, as a lot of things, it's something...there are a lot of uses that are allowed in lots of zones, and whether you choose use A, B, or C does not discriminate against an application because those are all acceptable uses. It discriminates if you have to have a conditional use permit (inaudible) another category, and I'm not talking about that, and I don't know that that's a good idea, but...your issue is you want to retain the ability to do the kind of thing that you're doing just to the west of there, right? TN Yes. BAC So that whatever zoning is on there, it is your desire that that remain as one of your acceptable options without it being lower ranked or anything else, just up front can do. TN Yes. BAC Okay TN And very honestly, I'm not familiar with that type of alternate zoning, if that is... 26 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 2004 BAC Well, I'm not (inaudible) TN ...doable or (inaudible) BAC I'm just asking a question, just trying...following through this process. TN Yes. JF How many...what parts of what's blue by the freeway are under your control? TN Everything from Portola Avenue to the west. JF Okay. And how many acres is that? TN Well, we have in industrial alone we have a hundred and...net acres, about 120, 125. JF So everything between Portola and Monterey that's blue is 120 acres? TN Roughly. JF Okay, and you got a WalMart, did you not? TN That's not part of the blue property. The WalMart is another 72 acres of commercial property, it's a different zone, and that's... JF Well, it looks blue on my (inaudible) TN Well, I'm looking at the picture up here. That property is also part of our primary...our map that we have recently recorded. That's parcel 29 of the map. Our involvement with that is as the master developer, and that property is in escrow with Bill Carver and a partner of his. JF So you never owned that property. TN No, we own it. We own it now. But it's...it is...again, you're asking about the industrial. That's a commercial zone. That property we do own. We are the master developer of that entire map. With that property we're not going to develop as far the commercial development ourselves. That's in escrow with, as I said, with the Carver companies, and they have the contract with WalMart and Sam's Club. 27 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JF TN FEBRUARY 26, 2004 So, it's 120...I'II leave WalMart out of it for the moment. You're saying that 28 acres to have an option for residential is not an acceptable alternative to you. I don't think that's a good location for residential. It has nothing to do with the percentage of the overall property. I just don't think that's an appropriate residential location. JF Fair enough. TN And I'm primarily a residential developer. I got into the industrial stuff by default. My primary experience are in residential development. I just think that's a lousy place to have people try to live. JMB Right next to residential. TN Well, it's a big difference, ma'am. Across Dinah Shore, which will be a very busy street, it's a major distinction, and it provides a buffer, in my opinion, for the noise of the freeway and the railroad and the overpass to the residential. RAS Thank you. TN Thank you. RAS What's your pleasure? BAC It would be a pleasure for me to listen to the next speaker. RAS Alright, let's listen to the next speaker. Ms. Finerty. CF Good afternoon, honorable Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Cindy Finerty, and I reside at 43-592 Via Badalona in Palm Desert. I'm here today to offer my thoughts on the General Plan, both as a member of GPAC and Planning Commission. If you would allow me to just take a few moments to talk about other elements, and then I'II get into the crux of what I have to say, which has to do with land use in the North Sphere. Okay. Number 1 has to do with hillside development. I've been in favor of Alternative B, which is one unit per five acres. My objective is to protect the hillsides, not abuse them, as one of the recent application requests. To designate this area a study zone is simply delaying the inevitable. It's time to direct staff to do what it takes to amend the ordinance to reflect one unit per five acres. With regard to Portola, I'm opposed to rezoning part of Portola to OP. I believe we should protect the integrity of the single-family 28 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 2004 residential neighborhood without allowing encroachment from commercial, office professional, or second unit projects. Palm Desert resident Sue Fairfield expressed her opposition in a letter to the Planning Commission. She wrote they already have a well -established residential and school area and pointed out the importance of having consistency in your neighborhood. Her neighborhood now is a nice mix of low and medium density with schools and parks. Ms. Fairfield said she lives in a great little neighborhood in The Vineyards and points out that having an office building in her back yard is not ideal and ultimately their quality of life would be affected. And near and dear to my heart, Ms. Fairfield wrote please don't let the developers fill in every corner of our desert with buildings, a sea of homes, and other commercial centers. Leave us some beautiful open desert space. And I fully understand that parkways and green belts are costly to maintain, but it's also costly (inaudible) quality of life when every piece of land has a building on it. In this section of Portola, adding office professional buildings admittedly is a tight fit. So let's take the initiative and have a policy where our priority in the so- called tight fits is to rezone to open space, keeping in mind that developers always have the option to request a change of zone when they bring their application for a low profile building with lush desert landscaping. With regard to open space, it's not a crime to leave vacant lots vacant nor is it a duty to fill every bit of land with a building. I worry there will come a time in the not too distant future where we won't even be able to see the wildflowers as we're enjoying now. I'm absolutely delighted and thankful the City had the vision to create a beautiful parkway with a lovely view of the mountains on Fred Waring for all of us to enjoy. I understand open space doesn't create a tax base, but it certainly creates a better quality of life. The small green belts and view corridors at key intersections in the North Sphere is a great idea. Additionally, when I attended the opening of the Hopalong Cassidy Trail, the biggest (inaudible) line was when Mayor Pro Tem Crites spoke of the open space preserves in this area. Open space is a necessity if Palm Desert is to maintain the quality of life its residents have enjoyed for many years. Public safety...the key to public safety is the presence of the officers, and I wholeheartedly support 1.5 police officers per 1,000 people as a standard, not a goal. Signal on Fred Waring at Southwest Community Church and Desert Breezes intersection...I fully hope that the City will cooperate with the church and the City of Indian Wells in their desire to install a signal when this section of Fred Waring is widened in 2005. The signal was a condition of approval when Riverside County approved the Southwest church. I've been told the level of service is F when there is a special event. With the signal, the level of service would go to B. Mixed use designation, and this starts to refer to the land use in the North Sphere, I'm opposed to the mixed use designation that includes high density residential as a possible use. I'm comfortable with a mixed use of open space, office 29 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 2004 professional, and commercial. Again, a developer can always request a change of zone in conjunction with the high density residential application. Quality of life in the North Sphere...we all know there isn't much land left in Palm Desert; therefore, whatever development we allow, it needs to be the best. We can take our time. I believe our quality of life needs should be balanced with the development needs and therefore advocate slow, careful growth. Slow, careful growth will help to ensure our resort style reputation, a desire for tourists to visit, our clear blue skies, a level of service C circulation system, adequate water supply, less traffic and congestion. Carlos Ortega, our City Manager, was quoted in the October, 2003, issue of Desert Magazine, and he says he sees Palm Desert as remaining a balanced city in terms of meeting the needs of the residential and commercial sectors. The challenge now is to see that we don't deviate from what got us here, he said. We must now look back, constantly look back, and see what got us to this point, controlled growth. I agree. It is my belief that what got us here was the God-given beauty of the desert, the resort atmosphere, and the low density residential. With regard to high density residential in the North Sphere, at Planning Commission meetings, staff recommendations in many elements of the General Plan were repeatedly touted as the only way to go. The other side of this story was not presented until I finally couldn't stand it any more and tried to set the record straight. For example, in the North Sphere, Commissioners were told by staff we had to have more high density residential units. GPAC wanted more high density residential units. I pointed out in reviewing the General Plan that Planning Commissioners don't necessarily have to buy into what GPAC or staff recommends. Our job is to look at how successful the City has been, what that success has been predicated upon, and to determine how our success will be enjoyed in the future. I don't believe staffs job description includes having an agenda, but more and more it certainly seems like this is the case. I believe people have chosen to live in Palm Desert because of the resort - type community, because of the low density residential family, because of the slower pace of life, the sunny blue skies, the lack of people and traffic congestion, and I could go on and on. But the point is, they didn't come here because of the high density residential complexes. I believe people came to Palm Desert to get away from the hectic lifestyles, smog -filled skies, grid - locked freeways and packed streets, and have no desire to turn Palm Desert into another Orange County. An example of why I believe this goes back to the summer of 2002 when I challenged a proposed change of zone to allow high density apartments on Washington across the street from where I live. At the public hearing, the La Quinta City Council Chambers were packed, and it was standing room only, even in the beginning of August. Residents of both Palm Desert and La Quinta spoke about having moved out here from congested, over -crowded, and smoggy cities. They wanted their quality of 30 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 2004 life protected and adamantly opposed the apartment project. Additionally, I don't believe the general population of Palm Desert fully understands what's at stake here in the North Sphere because if they did, I believe it would be standing room only in these chambers. Yes, the General Plan has been talked about in the City newsletter but not in the terms of what's really at issue here. Residents need to understand that four Planning Commissioners and staff are advocating a total of almost 2,000 of the proposed 4,000 units in the North Sphere to be developed as high density apartments. That means 50% of the North Sphere would be covered with apartments. There is no other area of the City where 50% of the units are high density. We all agree there's no guarantee that if there's Tots of units, low, medium, or high density, that people who buy or rent those units are going to work nearby. Better benefits or a more lucrative salary may drive them elsewhere. And as you know, once an area is designated as high density residential, we can't change the designation back to medium or low. However, we are afforded the opportunity to change the designation from low to medium or medium to high. I do not believe we should lock ourselves into a high density residential designation. Rather, I believe it's prudent for the City to be flexible, to be able to accommodate future innovative and well designed high quality projects developers may bring to us. If, in fact, it is accurate that the City must provide for no fewer than 4,000 units, I propose the following: 450 acres of low density, 174 of medium density, and 80 acres of high density. My plan would eliminate the mixed use designation with a possibility of 333 additional high density units. I believe that high density units should be disbursed throughout the North Sphere, unlike as shown on the recommendation from staff and Planning Commission, where it's clustered on Gerald Ford Drive. I believe my plan is a better mix than the recommendation from Planning Commission and still meets our housing needs. The 450 low density designation would allow for 1350 units or 33.7%; 174 at medium density would allow for 1218 units or 30.4%; and the 80 units would allow for 1440 units, which would total about 36%. With that, I thank you for allowing me to speak. RAS Would anyone else like to speak on the University Village? If not, may I ask the pleasure of the Council? JF I would move that we ask staff to go back and modify this map based on our discussion, which I guess would be to take a look at putting the Monterey property back into general commercial to facilitate Mr. Lyle, take a look at at least independently what your thoughts are on whether or not to do residential in that bubble, and solicit comments from the development community for our next meeting when we get the map and try to flesh out the policy criteria for qualifying for a density bonus. 31 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL ?? Could you repeat just the last statement you made? JF Flesh out the criteria for achieving a density bonus. RSK I'II second the motion. RAS Comments? FEBRUARY 26, 2004 BAC Just a question. Earlier when Mr. Drell was talking about the return of that property on Monterey to commercial, there was discussion of some component of it along Gateway. (Inaudible) RAS Is that adequate, Mr. Lyle? (Inaudible) BAC At least now I know what you're talking about. PD Yeah, short of that map, you know, we can cut the baby somewhat in half or at least... RAS And that's what the developer is asking for? BAC No. PD No, the developer obviously wanted commercial, but actually he's...he's not a developer, he's been all over the place on... JF Is he here? BAC Yeah. PD Is Mr. MacLeod here? MM Yes, I'm here. PD And so he might be able to express what he...a reaction to that. MM I'm Myron MacLeod. I reside at 4035 Avenida Brisa, Rancho Santa Fe. And I have to say I'm embarrassed to say that I'm completely taken off guard. I just walked in from out of town. And I'm shocked, to say the least, to see this 32 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 2004 change because we followed this all through the Planning Commission hearings. I represent the family that's owned these two contiguous parcels up there for some 25 and 30 years, and we had a 10-year development agreement with the City, with the rights to build a six -story hotel, and we tried to...had investors (inaudible) not having any money, but they were going to build an ice rink. And we've seen this go down and down from what we were trying to accomplish with the property. And if you are familiar with Bill Carver's project, WalMart and a Sam's Club, they're right to our contiguous north. Our property will be up at a higher elevation, which will be seen from 1-10 and from people approaching the City coming up Monterey, and it's a very natural land use, then, obviously to keep the frontage commercial because I think that's still the heaviest trafficked artery except for 1-10, but also as you come up Monterey, WalMart is going to be lower than us and the future 35th going back to Gateway right there will have across the street from it an entrance down into Sam's Club. And it's a very natural thing for development of commercial there. And so we've seen our property go from PUD that allowed light industrial, hotel, apartments, and commercial now down to where it's school, residential, and...l just this moment saw this latest modification so I really am pretty dumbfounded. From our perspective, we're going to have industrial...we're going to have regional commercial straight across the street on the north side of 35, above the school we're going to have...there's industrial. To the right of the school last time was approved multi -family, hotel...I'm sorry, apartment...thank you, right above the school, and here I see now that's...is that medium residential now, Phil, on that area right there? JF Yeah, with a high density overlay. MM Right. So we've tried...we have spent time with consultants meeting all of the contiguous property owners, with the school district, and I know that...I know there's a big fight between the City and the school, what the school thinks they can do...but with Phil's department and now to come in here and see that this has been changed, 1 just...it just doesn't make any sense, and I don't know why. So I'm not articulating this very well. RAS Well, it's the first time we've seen it, too, very honestly. MM Yeah. RSK We haven't changed anything yet. MM Pardon me? 33 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL RSK We haven't changed anything yet. MM I know...I'm still in shock. So... (Inaudible) FEBRUARY 26, 2004 MM ...yeah...so because I think a lot of the...through all of the Planning Commission, all of the discussion was where do you put high density. And we really weren't pushing for high density so much, but it seemed like a natural mix. Obviously Monterey is going to be commercial. To the south of our property along Monterey, you've already got the timeshares, and I think it's very natural to have commercial on the corner across from that, and because of our exposure from WalMart and the fact that our property sits up higher, that's a natural use of that property. And I felt through the Planning Commission process that they had done a pretty good job of pushing the commercial and high density right close to...right underneath the industrial and right next to the existing commercial on Monterey, and it just seemed like a natural way to divide up the pockets. I know there was discussion down at the eastern end, a little bit of arguments going where do we put high density or medium down there. But this seemed to make the most sense. JF Well, I guess the question put to you is where the residential component is behind the commercial component... MM Yes. JF ...if we could push that to the north so at least we have on the other side of an elementary school residential as opposed to regional commercial... MM Well, you know, we've been negotiating with that school. Bill Schmidt and his department, I talk to them almost weekly, and they are totally...don't have a problem with that. And in reality, maybe what we'll have there is mixed use...I mean, we'll only come to the City...because who's to say that there really is a market for that much commercial? So we would like to be able to at least have the option, though, of coming to the City with a plan that might be mixed use. Maybe what's ideally across the school might not...would not be high traffic commercial from my point of view, from...where you'd have high traffic exposed commercial would be from Monterey and that's our south side of 35`h. (Inaudible) MM ...to attract something that would be economically viable.. 34 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JF How about a mixed use designation? FEBRUARY 26, 2004 MM As long as we'd have the ability to come to you with a plan so that the zoning just wouldn't automatically be rejected. RAS Absolutely. JF But I don't hesitate to differ with Mr. Schmidt about what goes better across from an elementary school, but it's not commercial in my mind. MM No, and I understand from the City's point of view that you folks should have the right to take precedence over that...l'm not arguing with that, I'm just suggesting that from the school's point of view...because what we said to the school is that, look, if there's commercial there, the traffic and the heavy traffic is going to be on the Monterey/35th side, it wouldn't be across from the school because there was concern about buses and things like that...so all they would have from the back side would just be the back servicing areas of commercial. But...and another use which I thought was...that made sense was (inaudible) (Inaudible) RAS It is. BAC It is. RAS It is high density, but it's a high density/low density overlay, or medium density overlay. It can go either way, so... MM Because the school is going to have K through 8, they're going to have a park there, and... JF K through 8? MM K through 8. It's a K through 8 school. JF So you're going to have 400 cars a day at 8 o'clock and 3 o'clock going down that street. MM That's why we're going to have the commercial...they can only have certain hours of business...it's a joke, I'm joking. RAS I don't think we need to debate this. 35 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL BAC No. RSK We're in a lot of detail. FEBRUARY 26, 2004 RAS Yeah, we don't have to debate it, but we're trying to give direction to staff for the next meeting. MM Right. JF So mixed use is okay? RAS Yeah. MM Okay, alright. Thank you. RAS Any other comments? Mr. Kelly, did you have (inaudible) RSK I asked you...you already said...I already seconded it, but I asked you about a question...l wanted to ask staff a question. RAS Okay. RSK I thought you saw me and recognized me. I've got to bring that red thing back (inaudible) Well, that will be the day. Mr. Drell, the General Plan is a plan. We've been...we've spent, I suppose, 90% of our time in the North Sphere and about 10% of our time on the rest of the City, which I disagree with wholeheartedly. I think they ought to change our plan from General Plan to Specific Plan if we're going to keep doing this. But when we adopt the plan, then is it the intention to change all these zones then or as applications come? JF PD JF PD We have to do it within (inaudible) We have to do it to a certain degree eventually...historically we have not always done it until people have come to us. We have not always done it. The answer is...the answer is you're supposed to do it...historically, we have not always done it. We've waited for projects to come in before we've done the changes of zones. Well... But that was at the direction of Council. 36 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 2004 JF Okay. PD You're supposed to do it. RSK But if I had my druthers, I wouldn't change any of the zones until I saw some project... PD Which is what is usually done. RSK I wouldn't lay out and give anybody a windfall on their property, and I wouldn't take anything away from anybody either. And if somebody comes in with a project that gives something back to the community, then I think well, yes, then that's when we should give them something. But to just take a windfall on a piece of property, I don't think that's fair. And you start trying to decide between one landowner and another landowner who's going to get something (inaudible) and I see all the landowners and developers here...yes, they all want their piece just like they want their piece. But the thing I have not seen, and I propose that we do a survey for the whole City, I'm still convinced that the average citizen in the City of Palm Desert does not or has not had a say in what's going on in this North Sphere, which disappoints me very much. And the whole process disappoints me. RAS Any other comments? We've got a motion and a second. Please vote. RDK The motion carries by unanimous vote. RAS We will now move to Palma Village, and I have some cards. I now have some cards. Mr. Marc Glassman, you've waited patiently. PD Do you want a staff report or not? RAS No, let's hear the...then you can give us the staff report, alright? MG (Inaudible) here or over there? RAS Wherever you'd like. MG (Inaudible) RDK Yes. MG Mayor Spiegel and Councilmembers. Hello, my name is Marc Glassman. I live at 73-100 Bel Air Road and have been a resident of Palm Desert for 24 37 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 2004 years. I'm appearing before you today to request a denial of any modifications to the current Palma Village Plan. I'm a property owner of four lots within the Palma Village area across the street from the College of the Desert driving range. I'm currently involved in a joint venture to develop (inaudible) 6200 square foot office professional buildings on the site (inaudible) three Tots right on Fred Waring Drive and three Tots directly behind those lots on Santa Rosa Way. We've hired the same architect that created the AG Edwards building, Michael Hadley, at the corner of Portola and Highway 111, and he just is near completion on the Dr. MacLaughlin building on Parkview as well. And this is what our preliminary site plan looks like, some of the elevations (inaudible) Currently there are two 1960s modular homes on this property (inaudible) Certainly two brand new office buildings would enhance Fred Waring Drive in this area. Before purchasing the rear lots on Santa Rosa last year, we did our due diligence with staff and received assurances that the rear lots as part of the Palma Village Plan could be combined with office buildings on Fred Waring Drive and be utilized for parking. We've had numerous meetings with staff and several of you Councilmembers and received assurances that we were following the intentions of the Palma Village Plan and that this project would be an enhancement to the City. Our reliance on staffs direction was an important consideration in our decision to acquire the rear lots. The Palma Village Plan utilizes an effective proven solution to the problems associated with residential uses adjacent to high volume arterial roadways. The Plan creates a multi -layer buffer going from the street to landscaping, to the office building, to a parking lot, to a six-foot wall, to a 20-foot setback with additional landscaping, to the residential street, to the front yard, and finally to a residential home (inaudible) Here's Fred Waring Drive (inaudible) there would be landscaping and then the building, then the parking lot, then a six- foot wall that's beautifully landscaped, an additional 20 feet of landscaping buffer, then the street, and then the front yards of the homes, and then the homes across the street on Santa Rosa Way. The proposed revision would be a complete contradiction of the current plan by placing office professional buildings directly adjacent to residential homes. The south side of Fred Waring Drive between San Anselmo and San Pablo already has a precedence of utilizing the current definition of the plan. That's the recent project that you recently approved located just west of our property at the corner. It incorporates parking to the rear lots all the way to the 20-foot buffer setback and construction on this project will begin next month. This is Fred Waring Drive right along here, this is San Anselmo. These five lots (inaudible) have already been approved by you to build an office professional building with parking all the way to the setback (inaudible). As a property owner on Santa Rosa Way, I prefer the type of development we are proposing rather than low income housing. My opinion is not exclusive. I 38 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 2004 have 14 signed petitions to submit to you from fellow property owners in the area supporting the current Palma Village Plan in asking you to deny the modification. The residents we spoke to had a common message to deliver. There's already an excess of traffic on Santa Rosa speeding down the street. Rather than additional homes and more cars, they welcome the 20-foot green belt in front of their properties, and they were glad to know there would be no car access to any office professional building from Santa Rosa Way. They also felt that low income housing would diminish the value of their properties. We've designed this project without any requests for variances or conditional use permits, following the specific regulations of the Palma Village Plan. The proposed revision would allow us to use only 30 feet of depth from the rear Tots for parking at our project. This would greatly reduce the size potential of the office buildings, probably making the development unfeasible financially. In the past two years of review, there have been no recommendations from the General Plan Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, any member of the public, or resident to suggest any changes to the plan as it exists right now. I believe the plan is a good one, and I hope you will keep the Palma Village Plan intact. As a separate issue, I have one other idea that I'd like to mention to you. (Inaudible) read it first. There currently exists the three shaded in orange lots in between the corner project that you've already approved and our six lots. A possible idea could be the City's involvement in helping us to acquire the three lots in between the corner project and ours or some kind of joint venture with you as the City. The current General Plan for the Palma Village in that area states, and I quote, "incentives shall be provided for lot consolidation to facilitate larger projects and minimize access points to Fred Waring Drive. Whenever feasible, the Redevelopment Agency shall assist in this effort" unquote. The approved project is designed with an ingress through the middle of the parcels on San Anselmo and could be extended all the way to our project. There's currently a major parking problem associated with the Sun Life medical building on the corner. Having the ingress that extends all the way to our project could be a solution to reduce the overflow of cars on that street in this residential neighborhood by allowing overflow parking from the Sun Life medical building within our parking lots (inaudible) Thank you very much for your time. RAS Thank you, Mr. Glassman. Mr. Ceresa? FC My name is Fabio Ceresa. I reside at 447 Falcon View Circle. I'm one of the property owners of the property at the corner of Fred Waring, San Anselmo, and Santa Rosa. And I'm just here to give my support to Mr. Glassman. RAS Thank you very much. And Mr. Sidhu. Sorry if I mispronounced your name. 39 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL GS FEBRUARY 26, 2004 My name is Gursewak Singh Sidhu. I live in Palm Desert for last 14 years, and I think Mr. Buford Crites we moved to Coachella Valley same time, 77. So...it's a beautiful city, but where I live, Regency Palms, that used to be a County area. And when Peter Solomon (inaudible) and they put all the homes close (inaudible) and there's a lot of noise pollution, air pollution, and dust pollution. We have all the pollution over there, and according to Federal law, there should be certain (inaudible). So I'd like to know what the City of Palm Desert is going to do for that one because there are properties affected by that one...Regency Estates, Regency Palms, (inaudible) Country Club, Avondale, and the other one is Desert Falls Country Club. And I was listening for last two hours where you're going to put so many homes over there, and I recommend it. And you have a City Manager, Attorney...you should also have a physician who could check what the affect of the (inaudible) due to noise pollution and air pollution. So you're developing all the area. In the long run, people who will buy the homes and get apartments, they're going to suffer. And I'm the first (inaudible) Regency Palms (inaudible) only 25 people left in that area. All the others moved to nice areas where there is no air pollution. So this is my request. Whenever you develop any area and don't go after money. You're going to make $11 million or $15 million. Go for the public health, and that's why...and take the suggestion from (inaudible) your college, your university, very nice plan. And you see in Palm Springs, they never developed the area close to Highway 10. I lived over there 10 years, and they are a well -planned city, very peaceful, so you keep like that. Thank you very much. RAS Thank you. Now could we have the staff report. PD I'm pretty familiar with the Palma Village Plan since I wrote it. In 1983 when we looked at Fred Waring, my presumption was that the lots on Fred Waring weren't deep enough to encourage good office development, and that's where we came up with the idea of allowing the expansion of the office zone to Santa Rosa. Part of my anxiety, or current anxiety, in terms of the efficacy of that program had to do with seeing kind of the beginnings of that at the...I guess the Walgreens project where we have Walgreens, we have a wall, we have a parking lot, we have some nice landscaping, and we have houses looking out onto the back of a nicely landscaped commercial parking lot. And to me, that is not equivalent to the front yard of a house and that residential streets are better when you drive down there's houses on both sides. And at the same time, we've seen nice office buildings built on one lot on Fred Waring. And while there's often been some initial feeling with the residents who backup to them, over time they've pretty much learned to live with those office buildings and find that they're (inaudible) a lot better before the office buildings were there. It's quiet. And so the residential quality of 40 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 2004 the houses adjacent to these offices has turned out to be pretty good. So based on that conclusion I've suggested that overall, also given our discussion that we're kind of scratching for housing units and that this is a very convenient, well -situated neighborhood for people to live in, being it's next to the University and everything else, that the residential units on Santa Rosa should be maintained...I don't think anyone's proposed low income units...these would be units that would be within the same range and quality or probably higher than the units that are already there on the street. I remember we had that same comment when we had the self-help houses being built there, and as it turned out, those are the nicest houses and still are the nicest houses in the neighborhood. So as a compromise or a solution, I've suggested that those lots are really deeper than they need to be for residences and if...to facilitate the development of offices a little bit, we can move that line, adding...moving 20 feet almost doubles the parking efficiency of those lots because it adds a second row of parking. But that was basically the motivation for the discussion I had with those property owners that in retrospect I think there are in balancing...you know, in 1980 I was more interested in encouraging the commercial development because it was so dismal on Fred Waring. Now I feel we need to give some emphasis back to the residential development. RAS Is this part of the General Plan that was approved by the Planning Commission? PD No. We didn't discuss it. RAS This is just your own idea? PD Yes. It was...remember, in the plan it's a conditional use, the use of those residential Iots...they're still zoned R-2. It's a conditional use, so it's subject to really a case by case review, and that's the way we set it up. The project you saw on the corner...being at the corner of San Anselmo, it's already interacting with office uses very close down the street on Fred Waring, so that is why we recommended that project. It created a little bit of...it kind of...to a certain degree that started the thinking process, that what I want to see off the back end of parking lots all the way down the street, and that's when I started feeling that maybe that wasn't the best solution. JF PD But what are you asking us to do? The...you know, getting your input of whether we should as part of this process amend the Palma Village Plan to change that policy. 41 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 2004 RAS Why are there so many empty lots on the south side of...on the north side of Santa Rosa? PD Partly because there are empty lots on the north side of Fred Waring...on the south side of Fred Waring...they're being impacted by, you know, the continuing traffic. Oddly enough, you go one block to the west...they are all houses. My gut feeling is that very rapidly residential lots in this town are getting so scarce. There are a lot of residential lots...for example, the ones on the corners on Highway 74, the frontage road, which I never thought would anyone want to live in, and now you see building...people building half a million dollar houses on them. So... RAS Councilman Kelly, you've got a comment? RSK Well, whatever the objective is, right now I think Mr. Glassman made an excellent presentation, and I see no problem at all with doing what he proposes. I'm thinking...the way I judge something is, well, what if I lived there? If I lived on the south side of Santa Rosa, and the proposal was to do an office complex on the north side, and there'd be a driveway that entered somewhere else besides Santa Rosa; and I'm thinking office complexes at five o'clock —most of them shut down, and there's nothing going on and nobody in the parking lot at night, and I'm thinking about across the street from where I live is a nice neighborhood, but Saturday night they had a party at two o'clock in the morning, and it's kind of hard for me to sleep. And I'm thinking with a parking lot over there and an office, it would be ideal. I'd love it. Come over to my neighborhood and put your apartment...put your offices across the street. I'd love it. And it seems to me that's an ideal buffer to change from offices to residential with a nice, well -landscaped parking lot and a buffer and a chance to solve some other problems. Certainly the way it was done at the medical building is not...I don't think you'd call that a success. And I think Walgreens is a completely different situation than this situation here. Whatever we have to do to make this so it can happen, I think that's we ought to do. What do we have to do to make it happen? PD No...if you want to maintain the current policy then you do nothing. RSK What's the policy I have to move to change (inaudible) PD The policy....if the direction is you're very comfortable with extending commercial to the north side of Santa Rosa, then that is the current policy. RSK I'm comfortable with it. 42 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL RAS Councilwoman Benson. FEBRUARY 26, 2004 JMB When we started doing this and putting the commercial along Fred Waring, I tried very hard...office professional, I meant...tried very hard to get it office professional all the way from 111 to Portola, and nobody said no, that's not going to work, we don't need it. But it certainly has worked along, and I agree with Councilman Kelly. I just think to change it now when Fred Waring is becoming a corridor of office professional would be a shame to change the designation now. It's consistent with everything else that's around there. BAC One of the better things about doing this is allows (inaudible) RA Hello, my name is Robert Ault, and I live on Santa Rosa Way, right behind the Sun Life medical building, and you're absolutely right, it has not been a success with the parking situation. I am very much in favor of the parking lots going all the way to Santa Rosa for those buildings. I think it will alleviate the problem with Sun Life medical building and the parking at College of the Desert and the Library. So as a property owner who owns not only one house on Santa Rosa but the one across the street from it also, I'm very much in favor of the plan that's there now. Thank you. BAC Well, that's okay, I was just going to say one thing that having the depth does, it allows us to make sure that we're going to get a lot of one-story office professional rather than if we push it back to the north, then people like Mr. Glassman are going to come say we have to have two-story and so on and so forth. This allows us to have enough space to make sure we don't make some of the errors that I think we've made in the past because of two- story stuff in there. JF I agree with Phil that the best use on a residential street are residences, and I see this as a unique situation caused in part by us, I think, because the Sun Life medical building is way under parked in terms of its space and then when we red -painted the curb in front of it and took out about 12 more spaces. And I know this gentleman that just spoke, every time I go to that building for my son's braces, there are cars all around his house, which they're not supposed to be. And I met with Mr. Glassman and asked him in a perfect world if there was something he could do to help alleviate it, and I think he's come up with a solution. So I would...and this is where we blend a project with the General Plan, which I hate to do. As a General Plan principle, I think we ought to stick with residential on interior streets in Palma Village, but I would certainly want to make an exception to that general principle in this case because I think it is a problem and he's solving it. 43 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 2004 (Inaudible) RAS Any other comments from (inaudible) the rest of Palma Village. PD That was the only issue we needed to talk about. JMB Do we need... RSK There doesn't need to be any motion? PD No action. JMB It stays as is. RSK But everybody knows how we feel. RAS Alright, well, it's ten minutes to three. BAC What about Item C because that's short. RAS Okay, let's do that one. You've got it. Parcels on the north and south side of Palm Lakes Driving Range at Cook. PD I guess to give you an update on what we're doing with this...we've been in discussions with the property owners. We are still recommending...and we also talked to the Parks & Rec Commission as well...and we also talked to the Rec & Park District. As it turns out, they did try to buy the triangle when they bought the golf course, and it was very, very expensive and, therefore, they passed on it. We still feel that the lots on Sheryl are still appropriate for office. What we're trying to do with the owner of the triangle is figure out a way...he owns...his intent was to build a relatively...a single small photo studio. If we can do some trading, maybe move him down onto Cook Street, in essence trade the triangle...the frontage on the wash he has for some frontage on Cook Street, maybe we could, in essence, designate the triangle as open space if we can find a space for him on Cook Street that he can have his office, and then we can solve, I believe, everyone's problems without any transfer of money and accomplish, I think, an appropriate land use goal. So we're working on it. RAS Okay. One last thing before we adjourn. I spoke with Mr. David Nelson who has a plan for...on the rural road that we have not addressed yet...I spoke with our City Manager, Mr. Ortega, who is not here right now and asked him 44 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL PD FEBRUARY 26, 2004 what we have to do. Mr. Nelson tells me that he's had plans into the City since October. What has to be done to get that accomplished? The problem there is we...in order to have a subdivision you have to be able to show that you have access, legal access, to a public road to get you somewhere. Unfortunately, at the present time there is no official designated public access on that service road. We've...I even came to you a couple months ago to try and make a determination of how we would take over that road and make it a public road to allow, finally, legal access to all those parcels. Technically, no parcel on the west side of that channel has legal access anywhere. It's all a handshake and a smile. RAS I understand all that... PD So what we need to do is either move ahead...okay, two things, let me quickly...two things. Either quickly move ahead resolving the easement issue with the Water District. Secondly, the Water District has agreed to grant encroachment permits to those property owners, which are revocable but would give them legal access for the time being while we sort out our road issue. And that's a way that, whether our Public Works wants to work with that I'm not sure. RAS Mr. Nelson indicated to me that he would pay for his part of the road. PD It's legal access (inaudible) JF Why isn't this an issue with Mr. Nelson and CVWD since it's their road? DJE CVWD indicates that they will not grant to a specific individual rights in the road. They will only dedicate it to the City if we will accept it under certain conditions. PD JF RAS PD They will grant these encroachment permits, which are not a permanent easement but are something less than an easement, but they will...to solve their particular problems, whether that's going to be good enough for us. We'll have to have that discussion another time. We'll have to because it's almost three o'clock. But would you please put it on the next Agenda, whether it's a General Plan or just (inaudible) This isn't a General Plan issue. We should be bringing back the road. 45 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 2004 RAS It doesn't have to be a General Plan... PD Right. RAS ...because it's (inaudible) roads in our city. That's the only one. PD This should be a regular...on the regular Council Agenda, yes. RAS So on our next Council Agenda we'll get this item on (inaudible) PD Yes. RAS Anybody else have anything they want to comment on? The following actions were taken and/or direction was given at this public hearing: 1. University Park Councilman Ferguson moved to direct staff to modify the map entitled "University Park Area - General Plan 2000 City Council Alternative - February 24, 2004", based on today's discussion, taking a look at putting the Monterey Avenue property back into general commercial, taking an independent look at providing residential in the "bubble" area, and soliciting comments from the development community to try to flush out the policy criteria for qualifying for a density bonus prior to the next meeting when the revised map will be presented. Motion was seconded by Councilman Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote. 2. Palma Village Plan With City Council concurrence, directed staff to leave the Palma Village Plan as is, and it took no further action on this matter. 3. Parcels on North/South Side of Palm Lakes Driving Range at Cook Street Staff reported that it is still working to find a mutually agreeable solution to the issue of retaining open space in this location and protecting access for the Coachella Valley Recreation & Park District Golf Center. 46 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26, 2004 4. Public Access (Rural Road) - Coachella Valley Water District Service Road With City Council concurrence, directed that this discussion should be continued to the next Regular City Council Meeting Agenda. VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B None IX. ADJOURNMENT Councilman Ferguson moved to adjourn the meeting at 2:55 p.m. to 10:00 a.m. on Friday, February 27, 2004, for the continued General Plan public hearing. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 5-0 vote. ATTEST: HELLE D. KLASSEN, C;TY CLER CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA olJ2CZ7 CCG ROBERT A. SPIEG'EL, A t'OR 47