Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-03MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2004 — 9:30 A.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Spiegel convened the meeting at 9:32 a.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmember Jean M. Benson Mayor Pro Tem Buford A. Crites Councilman Jim Ferguson Councilman Richard S. Kelly Mayor Robert A. Spiegel Also Present: Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager/RDA Executive Director Robert W. Hargreaves, Deputy City Attorney Sheila R. Gilligan, ACM for Community Services Homer Croy, ACM for Development Services Justin McCarthy, ACM for Redevelopment Stephen Y. Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager Philip Drell, Director of Community Development Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance/City Treasurer David Yrigoyen, Director of Redevelopment Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer I11. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Mayor Pro Tem Buford A. Crites IV. INVOCATION - Councilmember Jean M. Benson V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A None MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MARCH 3, 2004 A. MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS OF FEBRUARY 26, AND FEBRUARY 27, 2004. With City Council concurrence, this matter was continued to the meeting of March 15, 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, February 5, February 26, and February 27, 2004). The following is a verbatim transcript of this public hearing: Kev RAS Mayor Robert A. Spiegel PD Phil Drell, Director of Community Development JF Councilman Jim Ferguson RDK Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk BAC Mayor Pro Tem Buford A. Crites RSK Councilman Richard S. Kelly JC John Criste, Terra Nova Planning & Research, Palm Springs, CA JMB Councilmember Jean M. Benson JM Justin McCarthy, ACM for Redevelopment GA Greg Albert MM Myron MacLeod TN Tom Noble MMA Mike Marix JS Jeff Schrader PR Patricia Rossberg RWH Robert W. Hargreaves, Deputy City Attorney RAS I will open the public hearing. First item is consideration of a comprehensive general plan update and final environmental impact report for the City of Palm Desert. 2 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL PD MARCH 3, 2004 Okay, where we left off...we distributed two alternative land use maps for University Park. We now also have a third. I didn't make more copies since I'm kind of driving our GIS guy crazy. JF Mr. Mayor. RSK Yes. JF PD Quick question. We left off...I think we finished an element. Can we just get a road map of what we're going to try and accomplish over the next two hours. Okay, hopefully we will...20 minutes complete the land use map discussion. Then John will (inaudible) right, environmental hazard and environmental resources. Hopefully we can... JF Get that element out? PD ...finish up the...again, the rest of the elements and then for the next meeting have the EIR and any other loose ends to clean up. — JF Okay. PD The...l guess...the subjects of discussion we were focusing on...you have the two maps we handed out, and I'II show you a third. RDK The other way. JF I like that one. PD We had discussion about the land uses on Monterey, and we've restored the existing commercial site on the corner of Gerald Ford and Monterey in the north. We also were showing...we are now including, as you see, a road, which we are in discussions with those property owners who are discussing projects that having another link from Monterey to that neighborhood is a good idea. Again, anything we can...the more options we get...people get in and out of those things the better. This will not be signalized, but at least it will allow people right in, right out. RSK Did you buy a pointer? BAC Yeah, where are our fancy laser pointers? RDK The microphone's fixed, so you can use that while you talk. 3 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL (Inaudible) RDK Yes. Turn both buttons. MARCH 3, 2004 PD (Inaudible) that it'll turn on. Since...actually our...across here...so, again, allowing traffic, residential traffic in here to get out...again, it doesn't provide any convenient way to get through the area, but it does provide another access from...if we have commercial here, it allows access from this residential to that commercial without having to get out onto Monterey. Also, in the area to this north, restores again what the existing zoning is...commercial on Monterey, swing it around on 35' for those areas that'll be overlooking the WalMart project, and then the balance of the area, which is across the street from the elementary/middle school would be redesignated for residential. I see furrowed brows...yes. BAC Well, I'm just...that doesn't (inaudible) PD No, no, this is a third...yeah, that's why I'm showing...this is a third, a third iteration. JF Let me clarify...when we had the discussions at our last meeting, we talked about restoring commercial to the frontage of Monterey. We talked about doing residential possibly across from the park, and then there was a request by the property owner to possibly do some commercial along 35th just so that it mirrored the WalMart property. That was the discussion. The map that came out was solid mixed use, which I don't think reflected our discussion, although it could. And so the observation was made...let's at least have one that reflected what we discussed, and then we can also discuss mixed use, but in terms of our deliberations at our last meeting, I think that more fairly represents what we discussed than just a flat mixed use for that entire acreage. So it was kind of at my request, not Phil's urging, that he came up with this map. RAS PD JF PD So it could be a combination of any of the three. Yes, we've got pencils...the other option out there that was discussed was the option of...relative to the intersection of Portola and Dinah Shore, which is this site, whether...and don't pay attention... To the mixed use. ...to the mixed use. Again, we could have...I could have given you the whole catalog but...whether, you know, that is appropriate for residential, more 4 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MARCH 3, 2004 likely the residential would be appropriate for would be high density...I wouldn't be seeing putting... JF (Inaudible) Mr. Noble's bubble. PD Yes, Mr. Noble's bubble...you have another, I believe, another piece of correspondence from Mr. Noble that's been distributed... RAS Yes. PD Again, this area's definitely on the border...it could go either way. One thing...my only comment would be one thing we don't have in this plan is a lack of commercial. RSK Question. Where we call that medium density, high density overlay... PD Um hmm RSK I feel that should be called medium density with density overlay. Why put the word "high" in there? (Inaudible) encouragement to do high...it's a density overlay. Why not just call it a density overlay? PD Because density in itself has no meaning. Density could be...one unit per acre is density. A half unit per acre is density. RSK That's my point. PD The only purpose of having it would be to indicate that it would be a density that would be over the ten. RSK Well, it could be under. PD No, it wouldn't have to be under... RSK It wouldn't have to be, but somebody could apply for (inaudible) PD No, no, I don't think they have to apply for...I think the assumption was that the medium is the base designation, and to go above the medium would require... JF Something extra. PD Something extra. 5 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL RSK I still like...I still... PD You've got to give them something. RSK I'm not in favor of encouraging high density. JF Well, we went through this with... PD Right. MARCH 3, 2004 JF Mr. Criste, and whether you call it density or high density is really semantics. If you have the numbers that you qualify for that's what you (inaudible) RSK I still don't (inaudible) PD The goal at the end of the day in this area will be the 4,036 units. And based on the analysis, there will have to be some areas that are going to be above ten units per acre to achieve that probably. You know, there's... RSK Well, see that's another problem I have. We keep measuring just one area of the City, and my way of thinking is when we look at some kind of comparisons to comply with some kind of mix in the City, it should be a City number, not some specific area number....just one person... PD I understand. RSK That's what we're here for, to express our opinions, and my opinion is every measurement towards some kind of achievement, towards some kind of mix, should be a City-wide number. It's a City general plan. PD And we have done that, because remember... RSK But we haven't. PD But for the rest of the City... RSK (Inaudible) PD ...for the rest of the City, we haven't...we've purely maintained the status quo...the goal for the whole general plan is to maintain the status quo. What we're saying in this particular area, to maintain the status quo for the whole City, since everywhere south of this we haven't increased or decreased anything, we've maintained existing designations as developed...to maintain 6 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MARCH 3, 2004 — it for the whole City, this is the number we have to do. So, anywhere, there's... RAS Might I suggest, since we've looked at this, we've got Alternative A, Alternative B, and Alternative C, that we take it piece by piece and see if we can get something accomplished. PD I agree. RAS Let's take a look at the easiest one, which is really where the college land is plus the commercial just to the north, from Cook Street over to where Gerald Ford comes around. Anybody have a problem with that. JF Which one? RSK It's the same on all three, isn't it? RAS It's the same on all three, that's correct. RSK Same on all three. — RAS Cook Street... BAC Cook Street east. RAS ...east. RSK East...it has one or two specific things that are different. Why don't we just look at those. One has a difference on Monterey... (Inaudible) RAS Well, I was trying to get it accomplished by doing it piece by piece... JF Whatever your pleasure, I will (inaudible) RAS Anybody want to make a motion that we approve that piece of the general plan? BAC Everything east of Cook. RAS Everything east of Cook. BAC So moved. 7 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JF Second. RAS Please vote. RDK Motion carries by unanimous vote. MARCH 3, 2004 RAS Thank you. Now let's take a look at the area from Portola to Cook Street and from Frank Sinatra to the freeway. JF Well, I'd be remiss if I didn't at least mention this, and whatever the Council wants to do with it, they can, but when we originally met with John, our thought was to take the high density parcels and make them medium density with high density bonus, and somehow that muted into taking every medium density parcel and giving it a high density bonus. And if that's the way we want to go, then that's the way we want to go, but I wanted to at least point that out. BAC That would be implicit in my motion is that if one should go down, the other should go up. And what we've got is reduce all the high density to potentially medium. (Inaudible) RDK Is your microphone on, Councilman Crites, is your microphone on? BAC It is. RDK Thank you. BAC And so that's...that, to me, is the tradeoff, that one can go down, one can go up. And responding to Councilman Kelly's issue, an overlay doesn't allow you to go lower in density, the overlay is about adding density, and that's what the darned thing ought to reflect. JC And you're not (inaudible) BAC It can't be to put it on there and then pretend it isn't what it is. If we don't want to have it, then we'll have a vote, and we'll have a general plan without it, but the motion to approve is as it is shown from Portola to Cook on the map. PD Question...dealing with the Noble bubble. RAS We're not there. 8 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL (Inaudible) JF We're between Portola and Cook (inaudible) RAS We're about ready to come on that one, though. BAC We're inching that direction. JF We're heading west. RAS Is there a motion to approve? BAC We have a motion. RSK I have some discussion about it. BAC Well, I know, but we don't even have a second yet. RAS Do we have a second? JMB I'II second it. RSK I just want to make sure we don't start voting until I... RAS We're not going to vote. Councilman Kelly. MARCH 3, 2004 RSK Well, I'm opposed to mixed use, for one thing, and I still think the density is too high, and in this particular section, maybe argued that we have sufficient open space, but we're dealing with this particular section, and my opposition would be for mixed use and Tess density. JF Do you have a suggestion for anything in lieu of mixed use? RSK Well, I think it should be just either... JF OP, commercial? RSK PC or COP. JF (Inaudible) with COP? BAC As one response, I think the idea of actually mixing...I think that's one of the nicest things about this project is in an urban area out there to potentially mix commercial use and home use of residential use to kinds of things...I guess 9 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MARCH 3, 2004 the only (inaudible) example would be Ms. Roberge's project which is sort of one of the (inaudible) and potentially residences upstairs. And if folks don't want to take advantage of it, and they just want to end up doing commercial, then those are the choices of property owners in the planning process, and it comes before us, and if we don't like any of the stuff, then the answer is no. But it at least gives an opportunity to do something aside from the normal segregation of those things. I think it's a neat experiment. RSK Comment. RAS Yes. RSK My reasoning is that when we put it down and put a use there, then we're encouraging it, and I don't care to encourage it. Now, you say someone has an option of proposing it and bringing it to us...yes, they certainly do. And that's always existed, continues to exist, and would continue to exist, but this is encouraging it, and that's my problem. BAC And I think that's exactly why we ought to do it (inaudible) RSK I understand where you're coming from, I just wanted to make sure you understood where I was coming from. RAS Any other comments? JF Yeah, I guess I have a different take. We struck a balance between what I think was a sharply divided Council on density, with a high density, medium density overlay, and let a future Council make those decisions on a project by project basis, which I think is a prudent way to approach things. Having said that, the mixed use on Gerald Ford and Monterey, and I know we're not there yet, but it implicates the mixed use on the other parcels, defers yet another question, which is we'll let a future Council worry about it. And then I begin to question what is the productivity of a general plan and the two years, three years that we've put into this, to provide guidance to the future Councils, who by the way can completely disregard everything that we're talking about today and amend the general plan any way they want, but what direction and guidance are we giving them by just designating vast swaths of land as (inaudible) how it needs to fit in the future. And to me, mixing commercial and residential is like saying we're going to mix oil and water. They don't...I don't think they mix. BAC JF Mr. Mayor. It's just one person's opinion. 10 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL BAC MARCH 3, 2004 Just a quick comment. Those are suggestions of the Planning Commission, those are suggestions from the General Plan Committee. Those are not deferring things, they are setting forth a specific range of activities within which folks can develop. (Inaudible) JF (Inaudible) do anything they want (inaudible) BAC It's not (inaudible)...it sets forth what can go in there, and those are recommendations that came from two years worth of study and recommendations from GPAC and the Planning Commission. But no, this is not a... JF Phil was going to give us the definition of what mixed use actually means. PD Okay...we have...you have it in your, if you still have it in front of you...there's a definition in the land use section...but the... JF Can you just tell us what mixed use means. PD Mixed use means... RSK High density. PD ...again, on those...it's especially appropriate on those areas that are a border between two land uses. For example, on the...on this one, where we have a residential side and a commercial side...that the...you know, actually we have some mixed use in the City, believe it or not, El Paseo Village. JF But what is it? PD It is...on that...in those areas where commercial is appropriate, which would be Cook Street, it will be commercial. On those areas that are facing a residential side, they can be residential. Again, El Paseo Village on El Paseo...we have a whole bunch of mixed use projects on El Paseo, which were developed as one project where you have commercial retail projects on El Paseo and then condominiums of Shadow Mountain. So it's, you know, Jean and I saw some nice mixed use projects in Brea. It is something that is very common, that was very common, 50 years ago, for the last probably 400 years...it's something that's coming back. It is very...being found very desirable in San Diego and in high amenity urban areas, people are making the choice of the accessibility to, you know, to positive urban amenities, 11 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MARCH 3, 2004 which people enjoy...is an appropriate and desirable tradeoff to the standard suburban lifestyle. RSK (Inaudible) my turn. JMB I was just going to (inaudible) RSK Well, it says very plainly here...mixed use is commercial and high density, 10 to 22. In other words, it's another potential high density area, and all of those areas I've seen mixed use where land has become so scarce there's absolutely no place left to live, and heaven forbid that we do a planning job that we have such a lack of open space and density out there that we have to have mixed use and high rise. It's not what I think our city is and not what the plan should be. JM Excuse me, Mayor Spiegel. I'd like to comment at the appropriate time before a decision is made. RAS Councilman Ferguson. JF On the legend on our map...and again, I don't know...Phil, did you get the numbers to correlate with that map that you have up now in terms of density? PD Again, the stuff was printed at 9:28, so I didn't get a chance to.... JF Another secret map. PD The numbers are...and again...this one doesn't include the Noble bubble. JF Okay. PD It probably adds...if it's 20 acres, it could add another 300 units. It shows high end at five thousand (inaudible) thousand one hundred twenty one...again, these numbers, with our overlay concept these numbers are less meaningful than they used to be since (inaudible) going to come up with a mixed that's approximately 4,000 units (inaudible) JF Well, I guess my point is, and I think what Councilman Kelly's getting at, and I don't presuppose to know where he's going, but I think it do...is that, at least on the map in front of us, Alternative B has a density of 5,700 units, which if it was just a straight up and down vote on whether we wanted that many units, I'm not sure a majority of this Council would approve that number, and I think his objection is with the mixed use, we have an additional opportunity for high density that goes above and beyond 5,771... 12 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL PD MARCH 3, 2004 No, the mixed use residential is included in the table as inferred at 328 units, so basically I think we took about half of the mixed use and inferred it as high density so the (inaudible) JF Microphone PD Okay (Inaudible) JF There we go. PD Again, the unit totals always have included...have implied units from the mixed use. At the bottom of the page, if you look at...you see mixed use, and there's a commercial number, so we basically presume that half of those mixed use areas would be residential, half of them would be commercial. And on the...if you'll look on the...on the residential categories, which is the bottom, there's a mixed use residential which infers 328 units, and so that goes into the total. JF Okay. RAS Alright, before I call on our Assistant City Manager, I've got a question for you. Why did they codify mixed use at Gerald Ford and Portola, that small little section there? JF The Planning Commission...that was a Planning Commission recommendation in that there they couldn't decide whether...they saw some opportunity for neighborhood serving commercial at that corner. They were kind of unsure of...what the nature of it would be, so they...you know, again, Mr. Kelly is absolutely correct. The mixed use designation does identify areas where, if we apply it, we believe that some combination of commercial and residential use may be appropriate. There they saw that as...you know, the residential really becomes a component of the adjacent residential. RAS (Inaudible) would be changed. PD Hmm? RAS That could always be changed. In other words, if you left that as medium density/high density for the whole section... PD Right. 13 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL RAS ...that could always be changed. MARCH 3, 2004 PD Somebody could come in with a master plan and ask for something different and they say...you know, you're not going to have to hold your breath, we have a master plan coming in on this whole section, probably in the next month and a half. RSK You mean, if we finish... PD If we ever finish this, yes. RAS This could go on for a couple of years. Anyway, now Mr. McCarthy, you had a comment. JM Yes, for the Council's consideration, maybe the Director of Community Development could comment on this. It appears, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that some of the Agency's 170-acre site has been truncated at the corners with different land use designations. Is that an accurate... PD No. JF I don't see that. PD The...remember, general plans are general. Whether this particular...I think it's as close as we...our intention was for this to match the area owned by the Agency, and I think it's pretty close. Again, general plans, of course, are general, and they're not meant to be necessarily hard lines on the ground. RAS Is there anybody in the audience that would like to address this area of land? RSK One last comment. The mixed use at the corner of Gerald Ford and Portola, I guess, that Councilman Ferguson brought up. I definitely don't see why that should be placed there. I don't...for one person, I don't think there should be any commercial at that corner. BAC Okay, I respectfully amend my motion to remove that. JF On which corner? BAC At the corner of...at the southeast corner of Gerald Ford and Portola and remove the mixed use designation that is at that corner. JF And designate it what? 14 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MARCH 3, 2004 BAC And designate it as the remainder, although Councilman Kelly...I would designate it as residential medium noting that we need... RSK It should be whatever the adjacent is. BAC Right, but noting that at that corner itself, we need to make sure that we keep enough green. RSK (Inaudible) green right there, I'm hoping that that's what that is, but there's none on the other two corners. BAC I haven't gotten there yet, but (inaudible) RSK Well, I'II bring that up when we get there. BAC Yeah, but making sure that the green remains on that corner. RAS Alright, Councilwoman Benson, do you accept that amendment to the motion? JMB Take that and make it green? BAC No, take that and make it (inaudible) residential. RSK It is green. RAS Take the whole... RSK There's a little green...the green corner there stays. BAC Make that residential. PD It's covered up by the G, but the green extends all the way from this point here all the way under the Gerald Ford designation to here, around the corner. RAS Is that okay, Councilwoman Benson? JMB Reluctantly. RAS Okay, we have two cards...Mr. Albert and Mr. MacLeod...do you wish to speak on this area now? Okay, thank you. We have a motion and a second, please vote. 15 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MARCH 3, 2004 RDK May I ask just so we're clear over here...you're working on Alternative B, is that the map you're working off of for this and the last motion? RAS They're both basically the same. RSK We changed the section... RDK Right, but have you been basically working off of the map you were provided or the one that they're showing this morning? RAS They're the same. JF No, they're not the same. RSK Well, the Council...we're working off the Council... JF I guess we're between Portola and Cook they're the same. BAC Right. RAS Right, they're all the same. We're talking about the area between Frank Sinatra to the south, Portola to the west, Cook Street to the east to the freeway. Motion and a second, please vote. RDK Motion carried 3-2, with Councilmen Kelly and Ferguson voting no. RAS Alright, we now move to the area of Monterey to Portola, Monterey on the west, Portola on the east, Frank Sinatra on the north, and the freeway. JF I make a motion for the purposes of discussion. Can we put that map back up? (Inaudible) RSK I like recommendation A. JF I'd like to deal with the map that was just up. BAC Recommendation C. JF Yeah, I guess it would be Alternative C. For the purposes of discussion, I would move that we adopt the area between Portola and Monterey, utilizing land use designations on the map that's shown on the screen between Gerald Ford and 35th Avenue, showing the commercial making sort of an L 16 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MARCH 3, 2004 shape, inverted L shape, with the medium density/high density bonus overlay across from the school, and incorporating, which is not on that map, the Noble bubble, as it's come to be known, with residential at the corner of I guess it's Dinah Shore and Gerald Ford on the northwest corner. RSK And green belts around Gerald Ford and Portola intersection? JF And including the corners of Gerald Ford and Portola with green belts on the corner and appropriate acreage. RAS Do we have a second? BAC I would so second and note that we also need to do that, I believe, on Portola at the unnamed street that is south of Gerald Ford (inaudible) green belt. JF The unnamed street (inaudible) BAC Right where the ABE is on Portola Avenue. JF Ah, okay. BAC I just think that, too, will be a spot for making sure that we have enough (inaudible) JF This would be the southwest corner, the northwest corner. PD Northeast. BAC Yeah, the northeast. JF Okay, northeast and southwest? RSK (Inaudible) agree with you on one. RAS I have two cards from people that would like to speak. First, Mr. Greg Albert. Please state your address for the record. GA My name is Greg Albert, 18825 Bardeen Avenue in Irvine. I actually had some question of clarification. The road that runs perpendicular to Gateway appears to be bifurcating that parcel, those two parcels. Is that correct, Phil, or is that... (Inaudible) 17 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MARCH 3, 2004 PD No, that is the..that's the right of way that we've talked about... GA So that's at the end of our... PD That's at the end of your piece. (Inaudible) GA Thank you. RAS Thank you. Mr. Myron...oh, you've got a question? BAC Just a quick one. Mr. Kelly, at the corner of Frank Sinatra and Portola on the southwest corner, that at one time was proposed to be office professional, and the designation was removed and it's back at residential, note that there is also spot for potential intersection space. RSK Right. BAC Before we say yes to anything, we ought to so indicate that. JF Good comment. RAS Mr. MacLeod. PD Northwest. BAC Sorry, northwest, my apologies. JF Well, we could apply it to both. RAS Mr. MacLeod. BAC That's true. Northwest and southwest. JF Northwest and southwest. MM My name is Myron MacLeod. I reside at 4035 Avenida Brisa, Rancho Santa Fe, California. I had some overheads (inaudible). Hello...our family represents the ownership of the 70 acres that I indicated on this map, and so we're impacted very much by what is being discussed right now, so this is our entire parcel. If I go back to I guess what we're calling Plan B3, then we would be this property right here, that encompasses the school site. Actually, we actually find this palatable, find that we probably are in favor of 18 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MARCH 3, 2004 this, either this or the alternative of all of this being mixed use, but if this is what the Council decides to go with, we find this acceptable. Not that that's your goal, to be acceptable with us, but just so... RAS You're absolutely right (Laughter) MM It would be nice if that were the case. But just for the history of it, our family has owned it for, like, 25 years, which you've heard me say every time. But it is currently now zoned mixed use, and of all the property owners in that contiguous area, we were the only ones that really said okay we'll take the school. We had looked at plans where the school...originally they were going to be down here, they were going to be shifted up here...and in talking to the school and the Planning Commission and people at the City offices, it was never our thought that by accepting the school, that we would do so at the expense of stripping other rights we already had on the property. That being said, though, we find it okay to do this because what we visualize in this area...by the way, here's another plan where the school is down here, but in...if the Council will go with this plan 3B as I call it, you know, then what I visualize is being very sensitive to the future residential that's here. Across the street, this is 35th if you can read my scribbling, across from 35th is going to be a WalMart, as you know, and the topography is very interesting. Because they don't want carts sliding down hill, this site's going to be very low here. There's going to be big boxes along here, there will be commercial driveways across here, and this side will be much higher. So there'll be high visibility here, and so I think this speaks well to the commercial site, and our intention would perhaps look for a health club or something that would match well with the transition here. As far as the school is concerned, in examining their site and the impact of commercial here, would be very little. As you can see on this diagram, the proposed school site, the topography drops off dramatically here. In fact, they would have a retaining wall through their project so that this could be considerably lower up here. Across from our piece, then, would just be parking. Where the kids would play, where the City park would be, would be on the far end of the property down hill. So it would be very...you know, this is a natural transition to our way of thinking. RAS Are you working with Lowe's Home Improvement? MM No, but our door is open. There are some people that are... (Inaudible) 19 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL PD MM MARCH 3, 2004 Lowe's was also dealing with WalMart. Unfortunately, the time line for WalMart is still indeterminate because of the continuing lawsuit. So that's why they're looking at both sites. I think my closing comment would be that, you know, we could have...you know, everyone else out here, you can see the amount of homes that are planned out here and the nice project Serris Regis is doing here for the apartments...you can see the demand for services that there will be. But you know, we could have objected to our site being wholly used for the school. It could have gone down further to where the school wouldn't impact our property at all. But I just want to re-emphasize that this is where the driveways and the parking will be and the playgrounds will be down here. And I don't want to beat this up. I just wanted to say that in retrospect of all of this that we find this acceptable, and we hope that you guys will go along with this (inaudible) RAS Thank you very much. Mr. Tom Noble. Oh, you had a question? BAC No, I just got the thought that might be helpful to my colleagues...on a vote we took when we were 3-2 on the mixed use issue, and part of Councilman Kelly's concern was that it was mixed use high density residential...given what we've done everywhere else out there, come back to it in a minute, maybe we might think about making it commercial medium density residential and overlay all the rest of it as (inaudible) JF Well, that would help me a lot. BAC That's what I'm just saying...that seems such an obvious thing to have done that I apologize for not having thought of that before. RAS Well, let's finish with this one and then we'll come back to it. BAC That's what I'm just saying...let you guys think about that a little bit. RAS Tom Noble. TN Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, my name is Tom Noble, 74-075 El Paseo, Suite A-3, in Palm Desert. I've discussed this property a number of other times with you. My wife, Frances Noble, is here also today. She's the other trustee of the trust that owns that property. She might have something to add later on. I've delivered a letter this morning. I apologize it came at such a late time, but I didn't have a lot of time to review the materials that went into it. I will get into that in a few minutes. But first, I am not clear on Mr. Ferguson's motion that we just heard. The map that is up there now 20 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MARCH 3, 2004 indicates that our property is remaining service industrial zone. I heard the motion, I thought, to be that the properties between Gerald Ford and 35th, Portola and Monterey, would be approved as that map indicated. JF No. Mr. Drell's drawing in your bubble right now. TN As I see the latest map, the suggestion is that that should be a medium density zone, is that correct? JF With a high density overlay. TN Okay. The letter delivered to the Mayor today, we had raised to some extent my prior comments on residential usage for the property. If you look up and down the corridor, you'll see that there is either commercial or the Palm Desert version of business park/light industrial that distance away from the rail or other non-residential uses. There are a lot of reasons for that, and I'm sure you're all very aware of them. As I say in this letter today, Palm Desert is widely known for caring for its quality of life of its residents and the... JF Mr. Noble. — TN Yes. JF I have a question for you, couple of questions actually, because this is probably the third time I've heard you say this, and it doesn't ring well with me. We have...well let me start by comments you made at an earlier meeting. You said it made no difference to you financially, one way or the other. TN I said it makes very little difference, yes. JF Very little difference, no difference, whichever. TN I think what I said is the values of high density residential and service industrial now are roughly the same. JF Okay. TN At that time we were talking about high density... JF Well, given that, if it were a priority for the City to boost our density and do so in a way that distributes it between the North Sphere, and we wanted to put the bubble, as it's become know, there, financially it really doesn't make a big difference to you one way or the other. Secondly... 21 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MARCH 3, 2004 TN That's not necessarily true because as this letter I delivered today... JF Very little and not a big difference...what's the difference between the two? TN First of all, at that point in time, we were talking about high density residential on this property as opposed to service industrial. Now we're talking about a medium density with a possibility for high density, which I know certain members of this Council don't like and I think it's unlikely to be approved. As I also said when we had that discussion, I think this is a lousy site for anybody to live on. JF Well, let me go to that point because we have people spending a quarter of a million dollars for condos at Palm Desert Country Club, or excuse me, at Palm Valley Country Club, with people spending a half a million dollars for homes there at Regency Estates and Regency Palms that abut right up to the railroad tracks, and yet you're some seven to eight hundred feet away from the railroad tracks and you're saying that it's somehow degrading... TN Well, we are right on the railroad tracks. The farthest reaches get, you know, eight, nine hundred feet away. JF No, that is not right on the railroad tracks. TN It sure is. The corner of... JF The bubble is not on the railroad tracks. TN Well, first of all, I want to object to calling this a bubble. That, to me, trivializes what is a very important issue to my family and me. JF Call it whatever you like. TN (Inaudible) parcel map waiver 02-22, can we refer to it that way, please? The corner of the property goes right to the railroad tracks. BAC But the area that we're talking about does not go the railroad tracks. TN Well, it's...the last time, there was no indication for anything other than... BAC Look at what's up there, and please respond to that because what you're saying is not responsive to that in terms of what's in front of us. TN Well, this is the first time that I've seen that designation. Before we were talking about the entire piece of property. Okay, that was my understanding, 22 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MARCH 3, 2004 misunderstanding. I still think, if we're going to have an industrial business use behind...in the back portion of this property and residential in the front portion, the only way into that business industrial is through the residential. That, to me, is not a good usage. You also are going to have apartments or some sort of usage on that side of Dinah Shore Drive, closer to the railroad tracks with all the attendant noise and other issues, pollution issues, that go along, as well as people having to cross Dinah Shore to get to schools or other facilities. This is clearly a case of trying to force a square peg into a round hole when there are many other places in the City, this undeveloped portion of the City, where you would have a better quality of life for people living in those apartments and the property owners would welcome the higher density residential development. It just doesn't make sense for it to be forced into this place. There are no planning reasons for it. As I also...after this last meeting, I spent some time reviewing the noise issues in the draft general plan. There are very strict requirements of decibel levels that are permissible in residential areas. Those are exceeded, as I say in this letter that was delivered this morning, on much if not all of this property, and that is not taking into account the Portola Avenue extension, which will be an elevated on ramp to go to the freeway, as well as increased vehicle traffic with the Dinah Shore extension, and the increased freeway and rail traffic to come along since 2001 when the last decibel readings were taken that I'm aware of. I just...I've asked in these meetings before, I've given my reasons...obviously, you're tired of hearing them, but I've asked for good reasons for this property to be changed and zoned as it's always been... JF It hasn't always been that zone. My General Plan Advisory Committee map had residential component on Parcel C of Parcel Map 02-22. TN The Advisory Committee didn't change the zone. It made suggestions, without public comment. As I said in the last meeting, you asked if I'd been at those meetings (inaudible) as if I should have it changed there. There was no public comment at those meetings. I attended the meetings, I made comments at the Planning Commission when there were public opportunities to speak, I made my comments here, I've written letters regarding this. I've given what I think are very valid reasons why this property is not appropriate for residential use. I have asked for reasons why it would be appropriate to make this property residential when there are other obviously better ones, and I have not been given one reason why, one planning reason why. JF Let me turn the question around. You have hundreds of acres out there, you've financially benefitted probably more than any other developer in the land use designations, including the WalMart and property that you have. Why is it unacceptable to allow the possibility that there might be residential on 28 or 30 acres of your land? Why? 23 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL TN MARCH 3, 2004 We've been involved in developing the property from Monterey Avenue to Portola Avenue extension for nearly five years. It'II be five years this coming August. During that time, there has been an enormous amount of money invested in that and not one dime coming out of it. I don't know how you can say we've profited from changing land use designations. We've taken the land uses that were there... JF Not one acre of your land is zoned residential, not one acre. TN It never has been, and it shouldn't be because of the location. The City wisely zoned that property and designated it in the general plan for commercial and industrial uses. JF The City... TN Let's go back to the...you seem to be very concerned that we might make a profit on this thing. JF No, I hope you make a profit on it. TN Please let me finish. JF Let me finish. I hope you make a profit. I'm not here to destroy your profit incentive. But I just had a guy stand up here who dedicated a good portion of his 70 acres of land for a public school, did his fair share to help the community. We're asking for the possibility of a residential component on a fraction of your property, and you act like it's the most foreign idea that's ever come along, and I don't understand that. TN Well, let's let Mr. MacLeod speak for himself, that property, it's my understanding, is not dedicated to anyone as being sold to a school district, which is fine. As far as our property, and this issue came up last time, I don't understand developments between the properties we have running from Monterey to Portola (inaudible) land uses on one portion of that property. Since it's come up, I tell you, there are 170 acres running from Monterey to just before Portola that are owned by an entity called Monterey 170 LLC. I am a partial owner of that, not a majority by any stretch. The property that we're talking about now is owned by my wife and me. This is much more important to me personally, not that that has any relevance on any appropriate land usage. All I'm trying to say is having people live in that area, having children live in that area, is not a good idea. I'm a developer, I'm an investor, I'm a business person, I clearly want to maximize the profit. In this case, I think it's a very bad land use to have people live there when there are better alternative locations. It just makes no sense to me. And I 24 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MARCH 3, 2004 have not...and again, I have not had anyone give me one good planning reason why that property should be residential. RAS Mayor Pro Tem. BAC Quality of goodness and those reasons may strike us differently. You made a conclusion, and you're welcome to that conclusion. Someone else might look at that swing of that street and note that just immediately to the west, where it is zoned residential, that running that across along that street with access, with a school nearby, with a park across the other way, might be a very good land use decision, an appropriate land use decision. You're welcome to not agree with that, but I would respectfully note that people may look at land use decisions and find the "value" (inaudible) wisdom very different depending on where they're (inaudible) RAS Councilman Kelly. RSK Mr. Noble, I don't know if you're going to like what I'm going to say, but I happen to agree with you about not being a great location to live, but just an observation. If we...if whoever planned that road did not...was not making an attempt to square up that intersection at Portola and Dinah Shore...if -- there wasn't an attempt to make that curve in there to square that intersection, there probably would have been a direct line of Dinah Shore would go straight through and it would be exactly on the north side of the proposed bubble, whether you like the word bubble or not, it helps us to know what we're talking about. So, it seems like that line that would have certainly been commercial...I mean, certainly would have been medium residential...all they're asking to do is square that line again...even though I may vote against doing that, but nevertheless, that's what the Council is proposing there, just to put that line where it would have been if there was not an attempt to square up that interchange. TN RSK Well, I understand what you're saying, and let's all be clear, though, that the portion they're showing as medium density there as well as the remainder of our 29 acres is currently zoned service industrial. That's...the residential zoning is being changed, is being added in there and is currently service industrial zone. One more thing. I certainly concur that we need to think about where the entrance is to the industrial, and we certainly don't want an entrance on Portola. So when we decide whether we would put the bubble in there are medium density with an overlay, we need to think about where the entryway is going to be to that commercial area, and to me, that would be the biggest reason why we would want to leave it...not include the bubble. And for my 25 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MARCH 3, 2004 druthers, we have plenty of density in the plan before me now without the bubble as residential. So basically, I'm on your side. RAS Thank you very much. TN Thank you. RAS We have a gentleman back there who wishes to speak? MMA I'm Mike Marix. I live at 128 Vista Montay in Palm Desert. Mr. Crites made some suggestions relative to the property we own, and I didn't get it all. So before you vote, if you would explain...l think he said some of the intersections off Portola at Gerald Ford and perhaps even further south where that so-called spine street comes through, I'm confused about what your proposal is. RAS Mr. Drell, would you (inaudible) the area we talked about. PD I think we're talking about more of a design...a design issue of when...designing these corners, that there would be a generous open space landscaped area right at the corner. Right here, the plan already shows one here, and so as it affects you, those are the two areas that it would affect you. The other change is that...the deletion of this mixed designation at the corner and the extension of the residential, and the discussion was, again, you can always ask for something else in the master plan, but in terms of this document, the presumption would be that this whole area would be residential. MMA Thank you. I do not represent...ART is the owner of that corner, but my understanding is they have some sort of a tentative thing for a church there. Does what you're proposing make that possible? PD Yes. Churches are a conditional use in any residential zone. They are traditionally part of residential zones. MMA Lastly, to the extent that you, that you legislate something with vagueness; i.e., density, you diminish value. There is a direct correlation between certainty and value. So if this, and I use the word advisedly, a muddle of what is the density going to be, the value is absolutely uncertain. Ask any appraiser. Thank you. RSK Well, that was a bubble. MMA I beg your pardon. 26 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL — RSK That was a bubble to me. MARCH 3, 2004 MMA Let me rephrase it. If you choose to go by the corner of El Paseo and 111, where the new restaurant is, and there is uncertain zoning on it, what are you going to pay for it. RSK Well, the general plan, the whole general plan, is a large area. It isn't anything specific. MMA Well, you're making it specific. RSK I disagree with making it specific and have from the very beginning. To me, I don't want it to be specific and hope it is not specific, but I disagree with it being as specific as it is myself. MMA Okay. My point stands. Uncertainty is diminution of value. Thank you. RAS Thank you. JS Good morning, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Jeff Schrader. I represent Ponderosa Homes at 400 South Farrell in Palm — Springs is their local office. We own the 120 plus or minus acres at the corner of Gerald Ford and Portola, and I would just like to say to begin with that I appreciate the efforts of you and staff to come up with a plan that you find acceptable, and we're generally comfortable with the proposal here. I'd also like to say that I understand to a certain degree Mr. Noble's concerns about the residential designation across from us. It's probably a little less desirable as a residential site. There are some issues there with an overpass. The way that property lays out and the topography of that property might make it difficult to determine where that line is drawn and in a way that makes sense. But I think more importantly, I've been working with all of the property owners in that whole area from Portola to Monterey north of Gerald Ford, and we've been working over the last several months to come up with a plan that's acceptable to the Council and the community and in also a way to design and build that project out there. It's actually a pretty complicated area with the topography and the different land uses. And so we've spent a fair amount of time. We're now undergoing more detailed planning on infrastructure, utilities, sewer, storm drain, and those types of things, and we've so far been able to get some reasonable cooperation from Mr. Noble because everything drains in storms and sewers through his property, so we're all having to kind of go down that way. And we're trying to figure out the best way to do that. My concern is that the uncertainty that's brought along with this change on his property may make it difficult for him to work with us to determine a way to get through his property because he 27 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MARCH 3, 2004 doesn't know how that's...it's going to be difficult for him to figure out how to make that residential use work and find a user and configure that property and allow us to put roads through or easements through it to make that all work. So there's a bigger picture there of...l hope that you understand. I just wanted you to know that's our concern. RAS Thank you very much. BAC I have a question. JS Yes. BAC On your RL property. Do you plan any access onto Dinah Shore? JS Yes, there is a proposed access, and actually we've submitted a tentative map for that 80 acres that's directly across from the Noble bubble, if you will. BAC Alright. Is that plan...do you know, as a signalized intersection? JS We don't believe it is. RSK Hopefully not. BAC I'm thinking about your issue of access to the north, that's what I'm lining up streets and so that's just crossing my mind that there was something already. JF We don't believe that there will be a warrant for a signal there, but we're not through all the planning yet. BAC That's fine. That answers at least my starting question. Thank you, sir. RAS Anyone else wish to... MM I just wanted to take a moment to not necessarily defend Tom Noble but just to reiterate what Jeff Schrader just said. At the previous meetings, I had indicated all of the owners in that area have been working with anybody involved to try to look at a master plan, which is kind of unusual for private owners who each have their own interests in mind. But looking at this whole overall section (inaudible) Okay that's fine. My point is not to go into detail too much, just in concept. I just wanted to reinforce what Jeff had said, that all of us have been working on a general sewer plan, a drainage plan, and that did include Mr. Noble working with us to take drainage off of this area here (inaudible). So I share the same concern that I'd hate to upset the 28 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MARCH 3, 2004 apple cart in that regard, and I just wanted to emphasize that it has been a joint effort between all of us, and I just wanted to reiterate that. JF Myron, how would residential versus industrial affect the flow of water? MM Well, I don't know that...I don't know that it would. I mean, I don't have any calculations on that. I'm just indicating that it was said that Mr. Noble hasn't given anything up, and he has openly discussed with us, I mean we don't have anything in writing, but he has been willing to entertain his property taking the lion's share of drainage down that, and I just wanted to give him credit for that. And as far as residential versus industrial, I'm not sure...I don't know that we've determined...this is kind of squirrely area out here, so I don't know, nor is my call on it, where exactly the drainage would be. I just know that we've all been talking openly about very large drainage, 54-inch diameter, pipes all coming down this direction. And I just wanted to his cooperation. JF Okay. Point noted. And my point wasn't that Mr. Noble hasn't done his fair share or that he's any less than a reputable citizen... MM Right. JF ...or besmirch him in any way or his family, but we have 4,000 units minimum... MM Right. JF ...4,077 minimum that we have to distribute. MM Right. JF And Mr. Marix, yourself, and other property owners have accepted that residential component, and we tried to distribute it as evenly and as fairly as we could, and my point with Mr. Noble was that this is a relatively small parcel of property... MM Yes, sir. JF ...as compared to the balance of this property, and simply allowing for the option of doing some residential on a small part of it did not seem untoward to me. 29 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MM MARCH 3, 2004 No, I completely understand your point, and it's a difficult decision for your gentleman and ladies to make. It's just that I just wanted to voice the history behind this. JF Okay. MM It has been...it has not been easy. Some people bought land and then the next day the moratorium came along, and everything we're discussing has a tremendous financial impact to a lot of people. Again, that's not your concern. I just wanted to reinforce the history. RAS Councilman Kelly. RSK I just wanted to comment again that between the problems of access and drainage (inaudible) maybe we do drainage in residential also, but to me it seems like drainage problems are solved a lot easier when you are dealing with residential...I mean, with industrial properties than they are with residential property, considering hazards and what goes with (inaudible) and I don't know what's going to be out there, but I think with all the complications there, I'm not in favor of residential across the other side of Dinah Shore. RAS Mayor Pro Tem Crites. BAC JC To follow up on Richard's question. On drainage, when you have 54-inch pipes headed that way, I assume they don't just open up into the desert. (Inaudible) where are they headed? What is the drainage plan in that (inaudible) The Mid -Valley Stormwater Channel runs along the south side of the railroad track, and portions of that are incrementally being excavated and some have improvements, some don't...that's the alternate facility, though, to drain this area. BAC But until that happens, are we looking at retention basins? JC There has been...there have been provisions for interim retention, there are some provisions for that to be temporarily on site or actually temporarily within the right of way of the future channel. There will be a time when it will be a problem, and they will essentially have to complete the facility in order to transport the critical volumes that will be generated out there, but apparently, they're not there yet. BAC Well, until that happens, there will be portions of people's property that's going to end up as storm water basins. 30 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MARCH 3, 2004 JC That they are already accommodating within their tract maps and things of that sort. BAC But at some future time might not be because we have (inaudible) JC Well, actually, as I understand it in our...in our, the several, many discussions with the water district, some of these facilities will end up having to be permanent. BAC Okay. One other question. While we have taken this area and discussed it, there is an isosceles triangle of land just northwest of that. JC I can't even spell that, sir. BAC I worked on that all night. (inaudible) BAC No, to the northwest. RSK Of which? BAC Of the... JF Abutting the WalMart? BAC Of the "b" word. JF The "b" word... PD Northwest is over here. BAC Going to the west. No...right there. JF There you go. BAC That isosceles triangle...looks just like one. Are there completed development proposals on all of that? PD No. I believe there's...well (inaudible) Mr. Noble could probably answer that. BAC Well, I'm asking staff. 31 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL PD MARCH 3, 2004 I believe part of it is Mr. Debone's property. I don't think he...doesn't have an actual plan approved on it. He was part of that development agreement we did back in '91 that had generalized... BAC Right. PD ...but those agreements typically have all expired. But I think at least half of it is Mr. Noble's and (inaudible) has a map, and I believe it's...the easterly portion of it is part of Mr. Noble's map, I believe. (Inaudible) PD Yes. BAC So there are portions of that that are not yet, in essence, entitled? PD Yes, probably about half of it. BAC Those non -entitled areas remain further from the odious nature of the railroad tracks, noise, and other kinds of things... RSK Intersections. BAC ...and intersections, is that correct? PD That's correct. BAC So the very things that have been discussed as being not positive for residential or are of less concern than that in those areas. PD That's correct. BAC Thank you. RSK Proposes to move the bubble? BAC I am... JF (Inaudible) BAC I mean rather than just beating on each other for the rest of the day and so on and so forth, maybe there is yet another option that we might... RAS Mr. Noble, you wish to speak? 32 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL JF I'm sure we'll hear why that's a horrible idea. TN MARCH 3, 2004 The dark outlined area that I have the pen pointing to is the three -acre retention basis that is currently being dug. That handles all of the storm water that comes off of the map that we have, which is roughly the configuration that you see up there, which is now having offsite improvements done. It has extra capacity, and that's what Mr. MacLeod kindly was referring to. We've told the upstream property owners that to the degree possible that can be enlarged, we will accept the water that comes off of that area. We are also improving the 50-foot channel, which we have deeded to the City, and that will act as additional retention with swales and eventually run down to that retention basin. So that's the property we were discussing. As far as the triangle, sort of cross -hatched, the 20 acres that belongs to Mr. Debone, the areas to the north of that are three separate parcels that are now recorded as part of the parcel map we recorded, and those are currently graded as are the streets leading into it and, I'm happy to report, very successfully sealed. We've had no blow sand issues at all coming off the property. So, at any rate, the retention is the area that's shown on there...one thing Mr. Crites suggested or mentioned, asked if it would be acceptable to me at the last meeting, would be if we had an either/orzone, a service industrial/high density residential on what I assumed you were talking at that time was the entirety of these 29 acres. My response was that I'm not familiar with such zones, and your response, I believe, was if it gave us leeway either way would that be acceptable. I'm still not familiar with that type of zoning, I've never dealt with it, but if that is something that is a possibility as opposed to having part of it shown as a medium density residential with a high density overlay, which 1 don't comprehend either, I guess that would be preferable to us. And if there are any questions about the retention or storm water, I'd be happy to answer them. BAC Thank you. TN Thank you. RAS I have one, Mr. Noble. It looks like an "L" at the end of the isosceles triangle. TN The "L" at the end of the isosceles triangle...well, that's a line of (inaudible) or service industrial lots. Those are, you know, there's a street called spider circle that comes off of Dinah Shore Drive and goes around...there are Tots in there that range from 20,000 feet to about one and a quarter acres, which are again currently being developed as streets in the grading process right now. 33 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MARCH 3, 2004 RAS Thank you. There's a lady who would like to speak to us. PR Hi, Patricia Rossberg, and (inaudible) California transplant from Washington state, and we have purchased a home in College View II, which is in the Gerald Ford and Portola area there. And we love our desert, we love our wild flowers, and our homes sit above looking down on this property that you are speaking on in there. And our concern is that who's going to pave over it? We moved from Washington state to get away from the hustle and bustle of 1-5, 405. We have nine families in our neighborhood that are retired people, which means we do not have children that would be attending these schools. We moved here for the quieter Palm Desert life that all your snow birds come to...here for that reason, and we're just hoping that you just don't try to not make it the Palm Desert that we've all moved here to have a better life. Thanks. RAS Thank you. Now I'II ask for comments. BAC Mr. Drell, there was at least the vaguest hint of an alternative... PD And remember, there's a difference between general plan designations and zoning. BAC Right. PD And we have, whether it's legal or not, we've dual designated properties, which again leaves it up to the..a decision when a property owner comes in with a project... RAS You're suggesting it isn't legal what we're doing? PD No, no. Whatever it is, we've done it, and we've done it without any challenge, so we've dual designated, in the general plan, properties. When it comes down to zoning, zoning by definition has to be more specific. But in this document, again it's kind of like punting, and saying Iet's...if you want... BAC Let me ask the other side of the question. The other vague hint I was asking about was the... PD The designation over... BAC ...right....yeah, where your little pointer is about to... PD ...right there. 34 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL BAC ...right down in there. Across from residential is... MARCH 3, 2004 PD It would be...obviously...right, point is taken that obviously more distant to the railroad tracks and as...you know, again, there's multi -family development and those sorts of environments throughout the world, throughout southern California, throughout...in every urban area. So, obviously, it's no more...probably less objectionable or more appropriate there than at the other location. Obviously it would be good to probably...since that has not been suggested in any discussions at this point, it would be nice to inform that property owner... BAC Absolutely. PD ...and before we make that decision. BAC And that would meet, at least to me, then, that we would look at that area or the area so designated on Alternative B, which is the one that's up there now, and leave the two of those sit there until the 15th so that folks who have this other piece of land in the basin, the triangle, also have the opportunity to have their point. RAS You're talking about the land just east of WalMart? BAC Yeah. RAS And south of 35th Avenue? BAC Yes...north. PD North of 35th RAS North, excuse me. PD It's approximately 20 acres. BAC Right in there. PD Right here. BAC That we would leave those two options sit there so that we would not be without the input of either that property and/or adjacent property owners or residents. PD Yeah, the adjacent property owner is Mr. Noble. 35 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL BAC Right. RAS Council? Do you agree with that? JMB Yes, I do. MARCH 3, 2004 JF I'II amend my motion to postpone the Noble bubble until the 15th and where it might be. RAS Noble piece of land, how's that? JF Well, precisely Parcel C of Parcel Map 02-22. RAS Councilman Kelly, do you have a problem with that? RSK (Inaudible) RAS Alright. BAC And do I also assume that all of Council is comfortable with Option C of the MacLeod proposal which puts it back and so on and so forth? RAS Yes. JF Um hmm BAC Okay, so that's (inaudible) RAS Alright, it's a motion. Is there a second? JMB I'II second it. RAS Please vote. I think our City Attorney has something he'd like to add. RWH On this particular discussion or following this meeting? RAS No, following this meeting. RWH There has been a request to add a Closed Session on a particular item. Did you want to move into that now? RAS Yes. Would you make a motion that we add a Closed Session at the end of this meeting? 36 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MARCH 3, 2004 RDK Let me announce this one first. This motion carries 4-1, Councilman Kelly voting no. RAS I'm sorry. RWH Okay, the request was to add a Closed Session under a real estate transactions under Government Code Section 54958. The piece of real estate under discussion would be at the northeast corner of Portola and Gerald Ford. Under discussion would be the price and terms of purchase, and negotiating on behalf of the City would be the City Manager. This is an item that the urgency came to the attention just this morning, and it's our recommendation to adjourn to Closed Session to consider that purchase. RAS Somebody make that motion? BAC I would so move. JF Second. RAS Please vote. — RDK Motion carries by unanimous vote. BAC I would like to reconsider... JF Yeah. BAC ...our vote... JF Mixed use. BAC ...on the portion of land between Frank Sinatra, Portola, Cook, and the freeway and specifically a motion to reconsider with the idea of where it does note mixed use, that mixed use residential would match the designation of all of the other medium/high residential that's out there. And I think that makes it perfectly, at least to me, consistent. Right now, the mixed use is... JF High density. BAC ...commercial with high density only, and to match everything else it should be... RAS Medium 37 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MARCH 3, 2004 BAC ...medium with high density overlay, and that makes everybody's playing field even across the whole area out there. RAS Is there a second to that amendment? BAC First you have to have...both the maker and the seconder have to be among those in the majority of the vote who originally passed it. JF Who was the maker and the seconder? BAC I was the maker, and... RAS Jean? BAC ...Jean was the seconder, and so you have a motion to reconsider... JMB Second. BAC ...and a second. Now that has to pass. RAS Please vote. RSK I don't...I'm not going to argue...we're going to do it that way, but I think you and I have a disagreement on the Roberts Rules of Order there, but it's okay with me. BAC Then I will defer to my senior colleague. RSK I'II go along. I should explain...I agree with your concept and what you're doing, but I'm still going to vote no on my other principle of (inaudible) density. RAS Please vote. RDK Motion carries 4-1, Councilman Kelly voting no. BAC Now a motion to approve that area with mixed use residential being defined as medium density with a high density overlay which matches all of the adjacent residential uses in that area. RAS Do we have a second? JMB Second. 38 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MARCH 3, 2004 — RAS A motion and a second. Please vote. RDK Motion carries 4-1, Councilman Kelly voting no. RAS I think that's about as far as we're going to go today. It's almost 11 o'clock. Oral Communications The following actions were taken and/or direction was given at this public hearing. 1. University Park Land Use (Maps dated March 1, 2004) a) Evervthina East of Cook Street Mayor Pro Tem Crites moved to accept the land designation map as shown for everything east of Cook Street. Motion was seconded by Councilman Ferguson and carried by 5-0 vote. b) Area Bounded by Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra/I-10/Cook Street i. Mayor Pro Tem Crites moved to accept the land designation map as shown for the subject area, as amended to reflect removing the "Mixed Use" designation at the southeast corner of Gerald Ford Drive/Portola Avenue and designating it the same as the adjacent land, with the understanding that a certain sufficient amount of open space be retained at that corner. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Benson and carried by 3-2 vote, with Councilmen Ferguson and Kelly voting NO. ii. Prior to adjournment, Mayor Pro Tem Crites made a motion for reconsideration of the above action. Motion to reconsider was seconded by Councilmember Benson and carried by a 4-1 vote, with Councilman Kelly voting NO. Hi. Mayor Pro Tem Crites moved to add the following to his first motion: that the subject area be approved with "Mixed Use Residential" being defined as Medium Density with a High -Density Overlay, which matches all of the adjacent residential uses in that area. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Benson and carried by 4-1 vote, with Councilman Kelly voting NO. 39 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MARCH 3, 2004 c) Area Bounded by Monterey Avenue/Portola Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive/1-10 Councilman Ferguson moved to: 1) Adopt the area between Portola and Monterey, utilizing land use designations on the map shown today (Alternative C) between Gerald Ford Drive and 35t' Avenue, showing the commercial making an inverted "L" shape with a medium/high density bonus overlay across from the school, and including appropriate acreage for green belts at all corners along Gerald Ford and Portola in the subject region, and accepting Alternative C of the MacLeod Proposal, restoring its former designation; 2) defer action on the Noble property known as Parcel "C" of P.M.W. 02-22 and the triangular -shaped area north of 35th Avenue and east of the proposed Desert Gateway to the meeting on March 15. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Benson and carried by a 4-1 vote, with Councilman Kelly voting NO. Mayor Pro Tem Crites moved to add a Closed Session to this agenda for the purpose stated below. Motion was seconded by Councilman Ferguson and carried by 5-0 vote. Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: 1) Property: NEC Gerald Ford Drive/Portola Avenue Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/City of Palm Desert Property Owner: American Realty Trust Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B MR. MIKE MARIX, 128 Vista Monte, Palm Desert, asked for clarification and/or a copy of the criteria that would be considered for the high -density overlay. Councilmembers noted that the criteria had not yet been adopted, and they would be later incorporated into an ordinance where they would be more defined. Staff was requested to provide a copy of the staff report from the last meeting that outlined the seven possible criteria. 40 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL IX. ADJOURNMENT MARCH 3, 2004 Councilman Ferguson moved to adjourn the meeting to Closed Session at 11:00 a.m. Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by a 5-0 vote. Mayor Spiegel reconvened the meeting at 11:12 a.m., with no action announced from Closed Session, and immediately adjourned, continuing the public hearing to the meeting of March 15, 2004, at 10:00 a.m. ATTEST: R ` HELLE D. KLASSEN, CITY CLERK CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA ROBERT A. SPI . EL IVAYOR 41