LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IT IS 6:00 P.M.
[00:00:02]
NICK YSIANO WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF INDIO.[1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL]
I'D LIKE TO CALL THIS MEETING OF THE 1/26 TO ORDER AND DECLARE WE HAVE QUORUM.CAN WE GET A ROLL CALL, PLEASE, VANESSA.
>> VICE CHAIRPERSON CEJA IS ABSENT THIS EVENING.
>> COMMISSIONER EL PASO LOPEZ.
MS. LOPEZ WEEK CAN YOU LEAD US IN OUR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
AND I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY MINUTES FOR APPROVAL.
FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, IF ANYONE HAS ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE VIRTUAL MEETING, PLEASE SPEAK SLOWLY AND START BY GIVING YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND I'LL LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES.
VANESSA, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA?
WE DID NOT SEE ANY AND I DON'T SEE ANY RAISED HANDS.
AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME, AND ITEM 4.1 IS CHURCH AT THE RED DOOR
[4.1. Church at the Red Door Conditional Use Permit (CUP 20-10-1064) and Des...]
CUP PERMIT.KEVIN, DO YOU HAVE A STAFF REPORT FOR US ON THIS?
FOR THE RECORD KEVIN SNYDER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, AND THIS EVENING, AS THE CHAIR INDICATED, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR CHURCH AT THE RED DOOR.
IT IS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CUP 20-10-1064 AND DESIGN REVIEW 20-05-474.
SO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS FAMILIAR WITH THIS PROPERTY.
YOU PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED AND MADE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE CHURCH AT THE RED DOOR SPECIFIC PLAN.
THAT SPECIFIC PLAN WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 16, 2021, AND OPERABLE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE PROPERTY PERTAINING TO ALLOWED LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
SO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER AVENUE 49 AND JEFFERSON.
AND IT HAS A GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF CONNECTED NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THE ZONING, AS I INDICATED BEFORE, IS GOVERNED BY THE ADOPTED CHURCH AT THE RED DOOR SPECIFIC PLAN.
SO AGAIN WE ARE HERE BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO HAVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW, DISCUSS AND POTENTIALLY TAKE ACTIONY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
THE P PLACE OF WORSHIP IS CONSIDERED A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE ADOPTED SPECIFIC PLAN AND AS SUCH IT REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS THE FINAL DECISION MAKER UNLESS THERE IS AN APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
YOU ARE ALSO BEING ASKED TO LOOK A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FOR SITE DESIGN, CIRCULATIONS AND LANDSCAPE AND ARCHITECTURAL ON THE SIGHT.
I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAD THE RIGHT POWERPOINT.
THERE IS -- I JUST REALIZED THERE'S AN INCORRECT REFERENCE.
IT SHOULD BE SOUTHEAST CORNER, SO MY APOLOGISTS FOR THE INCORRECT REFERENCE.
THE PROJECT ITSELF IS BROKEN UP INTO FOUR PHASES.
AND THE DESCRIPTIONS ARE HERE ON THIS SCREEN.
I WILL NOT READ THEM ALL, BUT I'LL NOTE SOME KEY THINGS.
PHASE 1 IS THE PRIMARILY THE SANCTUARY BUILDING THAT THE A MAXIMUM CAPACITY 584 SEATS AND IT WILL BE -- THAT BUILDING ASSOCIATED WITH THE SANCTUARY WILL BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE.
AS THE COMMISSION REMEMBERS, A PRIMARY ISSUE WHEN THIS SPECIFIC PLAN WAS GOING THROUGH WAS ACCESS.
SO PER THE COUNCIL DECISION MAKING AND DIRECTION, PRIMARY ACCESS FOR THIS SITE IS TO BE ON OR OFF JEFFERSON STREET ONLY.
THE COUNCIL DIRECTED IN ITS CONSIDERATION THAT EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY WOULD BE ALLOWED
[00:05:02]
ON AVENUE 49.AND AS YOU READ DOWN, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE ARE OTHER BUILDINGS THAT WILL COME IN DIFFERENT PHASES.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THESE PHASES WILL OCCUR AS FUNDING BECOMES AVAILABLE, AND THE FINAL PHASE, PHASE 4, WILL ALSO INVOLVE THE POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 123 ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES THAT WILL ULTIMATELY LEAD TO 359 ON-SITE SPACES.
SO HERE IS JUST AN OVERVIEW OF THE SITE.
IT SHOWS THE BUILDING LOCATIONS, AND I SHOULD NOTE AT THIS TIME TO TAKE A MOMENT.
WHEN THE COMMISSION CONSIDERS THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND ULTIMATELY WENT TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ITS CONSIDERATION, THE HOUSE THAT'S SHOWN ON THIS SITE PLAN WAS PLANNED TO BE PART OF THE OVERALL CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT.
SUBSEQUENTLY THAT HAS CHANGED, AND THE HOUSE WILL NOW RETAIN ITS OWN SEPARATE STATUS, SEPARATE FROM THE CHURCH.
WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT FINAL PARCEL MAP THAT WILL GO TO CITY COUNCIL WILL ACTUALLY SHOW THAT THERE IS A DELINEATION BETWEEN THE TWO AND ACCESS FOR THE HOUSE WILL CONTINUE TO BE OFF THE EXISTING ACCESS THAT IS PRESENT ON AVENUE 49.
THAT WILL BE ACCESSED ONLY FOR THE -- FOR THE HOUSE.
THERE WILL BE NO SHARED ACCESS BETWEEN THE CAMPUS AND THE HOUSE.
AGAIN, I'M SHOWING VARIOUS PICTURES.
THIS JUST SHOWS YOU THE DIFFERENT PHASES OF DEVELOPMENT, AGAIN PHASE 1 HERE, PHASE 2 THERE, PHASE 3 HERE, AND PHASE 4, AND AGAIN WITH PHASE 4, THE LIGHTER SHADE GRAY AREA ON THE SOUTH END OF THE PROPERTY IS WHERE THAT ADDITIONAL PARKING WOULD BE INSTALLED.
I THINK THIS DOES A GOOD JOB SHOWING A COUPLE THINGS.
ONE, THAT THERE IS A PLAN DELINEATION BETWEEN THE ACCESS FOR THE HOUSE AND THE PARKING AREA FOR THE -- FOR THE CHURCH CAMPUS.
WHILE THIS SHOWS A PRIMARILY DESERT-ORIENTED LANDSCAPING, THERE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONS, AND DURING COUNCIL CONSIDERATION, THE COUNCIL DID AUTHORIZE THAT THERE BE ALLOWANCES FOR GRASS IN ACCORD AN WITH IWIC STANDARDS, AND THAT I WILL DISCUSS IN A MINUTE IN THE SUPPLEMENT MEMO THAT I SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION.
THIS IS SOME ADDITIONAL DETAILS ABOUT THE LANDSCAPING AND VARIOUS FEATURES.
THIS SHOWS THE VARIETY OF PLANTS AND TREES THAT THEY ARE PLANTING.
AND THEN THESE ARE JUST SOME ELEVATIONS THAT ARE PLANNED FOR THE SITE.
WHAT YOU MAY REMEMBER FROM THE CONCEPTUAL PLANS THAT WERE SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN, THEY ARE OPTING FOR A MORE CONTEMPORARY DESIGN THEMATIC.
FLAT ROOFS, MORE DESERT FRIENDLY MATERIALS, SO THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE PUTTING IN FRONT YOU THIS EVENING IS CONSISTENT BOTH WITH THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND THERE HAS BEEN NO MAJOR DEVIATIONS FROM WHAT WAS DISCUSSED BEFORE.
HERE IS SOME REPRESENTATIONS OF WHAT THE CHURCH WILL LOOK LIKE.
THESE MAY LOOK FM BECAUSE THEY'RE VERY SIMILAR, IF NOT THE SAME 1 TO WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THIS IS, THE TOP TWO ARE, TOP TWO PICTURES ARE LOOKING FROM NORTH TO SOUTHEAST.
THAT'S THE PRIMARY SANCTUARY BUILDING.
YOU MAY REMEMBER THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE.
THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION AROUND THAT.
THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE IS SHOWN THERE.
THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE HEIGHT PARAMETERS THAT ARE ALLOWED UNDER THE SPECIFIC PLAN.
THE PICTURES AT THE BOTTOM SHOW YOU THE PRIMARY ACCESS POINT TO THE SANCTUARY AND GIVE YOU KIND OF A SENSE OF THAT.
AGAIN, THAT MODERN AND CONTEMPORARY DESIGN THEMATIC.
SO YESTERDAY I SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION A MEMO THAT CONTAINED SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
FIRST I APOLOGIZE, BUT IN THE PACKET I FAILED TO INCLUDE A MARKUP VERSION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN THAT REPRESENTED THE CHANGES FROM THE COUNCIL DECISION ON JUNE 16TH, SO YOU HAVE THAT AS A COPY.
ALSO, I AM RECOMMENDING THAT CONDITION OF APPROVAL BE -- NUMBER, YOU KNOW, BE AMENDED.
RIGHT NOW IT SAYS "THERE SHALL BE NO GRASS OR SIMILAR WATER TURF DR. SIMILAR WATER DEMANDING TURF ALLOWED.
THE CITY COUNCIL IN ITS APPROVAL 69 SPAN OF SPECIFIC PLAN DID DIRECT THAT THE
[00:10:04]
AMOUNT OF GRASS MUST COMPLY WITH THE RULES OF INDIO WATER AUTHORITY." TO APPROVAL NUMBER 89 WOULD SPECIFY THAT THE RULES WILL APPLY WITH THE INDIO WATER AUTHORITY.I AM RECOMMENDING TWO STRIKING OF CONDITIONS.
THESE PERTAIN TO LOADING DOCKS.
AND THE APPLICANT REACHED OUT AND SAID THAT THEY DO NOT PLAN TO HAVE ANY LOADING DOCKS.
THEY DID PROVIDE AN EMAIL, PROVIDED AN EMAIL IN WHICH THEY ATTESTED THERE WILL BE NO LOADING DOCKS.
IT WOULD BE UNUSUAL TO HAVE LOADING DOCKS FOR THIS TYPE OF USE ANYWAY, SO I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE THAT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NUMBER 73 AND 74 BE STRUCK.
IN ADDITION, I WANTED TO NOTE THERE WERE A COUPLE OF ERRORS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
I TRIED TO CORRECT ALL OF THEM BUT I DID MISS A COUPLE SO I JUST WANT TO NOTE THEM FOR THE RECORD.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL NUMBER 56 IN RESOLUTION NUMBER 1982 DOES REFERENCE THE WRONG PROJECT FILE NUMBER IT.
REFERENCES BR 20-09-079 AND THAT SHOULD BE DR-05-474.
ON RESOLUTION 1981 -- >> KEVIN -- >> -- THE FIFTH RECITAL, THE WHEREAS, THERE WAS AN INCORRECT REFERENCE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE CUP, AND THAT'S INCORRECT.
THAT'S A CARRYOVER FROM A PREVIOUS VERSION THAT I MISSED.
I THINK WE'RE STILL ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE.
WE'RE NOT SEEING -- >> I'M JUST -- CHAIR, I'M JUST VERBALLY POINTING THESE OUT.
>> I'M TALKING THE COMMISSION THROUGH THESE MINOR, WHAT I CALL SCRIVENER ERRORS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE CORRECTED.
SO THESE ARE JUST MINOR SCRIVENER ERRORS THAT I DID NOT PUT ON THE SCREEN, BUT THESE ARE THINGS THAT IN YOUR CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL ACTION, WOULD WANT THE COMMISSION TO PROVIDE ALLOWANCE FOR STAFF TO MAKE THESE MINOR CORRECTIONS, THESE SCRIVENER ERROR CORRECTIONS.
THEY DON'T HAVE SUBSEQUENT IMPACT.
THEY LITERALLY ARE JUST CORRECTING MINOR ERRORS.
SO AS I WAS SAYING, AS YOU MAY REMEMBER, WHEN THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED THE SPECIFIC PLAN, THE COMMISSION END IN IN A WHEN-2 TIE OAT VOTE, WHICH WAS A NO RECOMMENDATION THAT WENT TO CITY COUNCIL.
IN THE FIFTH RECITAL FOR RESOLUTION 1981, WHICH PERTAINED TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, THERE IS AN INCORRECT REFERENCE ABOUT THE RECOMMENDING, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE CUP IN APRIL 2021.
SO WE WOULD WANT TO CHANGE THAT REFERENCE JUST TO REFLECT THE RECORD THAT IT WAS A NO RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
IN THE STAFF REPORT, UNDER EVIDENCE FOR FINDING C FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW, THERE WAS A WORD, A SENTENCE LEFT IN THERE, "IN ADDITION SINCE THIS IS AN EXISTING BUILDING." THAT WAS LEFT OVER FROM A PREVIOUS STAFF REPORT IN A INADVERTENTLY MISSED.
AND THEN THERE'S A TYPO IN THE DESCRIPTION OF PHASES OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE STAFF REPORT.
UNDER PHASE 3 IT SHOULD HAVE READ, "PHASE 3 WILL" IT READS "PHASE 2" SO I WANT TO CORRECT THAT AS WELL.
THESE ARE MINOR IN NATURE, DON'T HAVE SUBSTANTIVE IMPACT BUT JUST TO MAKE THE RECORD CLEAR, WE WOULD WANT TO HAVE THE ALLOWANCE FROM THE COMMISSION TO CORRECT THESE SCRIVENER ERRORS.
SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT RESOLUTION 1981 AND WITH ALLOWING -- WITH CORRECTIONS TO ALLOW A PLACE OF WORSHIP AT THE SITE, THE PROJECT SITE.
STAFF IS ALSO RECOMMENDING THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT RESOLUTION 1982 AS AMEND FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 73 SHOULD BE 7473, 74 AND 89 FOR SITE DESIGN, CIRCULATIONS, LANDSCAPE AND ARCHITECTURE.
WITH THAT HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT AND THEY DO, AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, I BELIEVE WANT TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS, AND I WILL BE ASSISTING THEM.
THEY DID SUBMIT A VIDEO THEY WANT TO PLAY FOR THE COMMISSION WHEN THEY DO MAKE THEIR COMMENTS.
WE'LL GIVE THE APPLICANT A MOMENT TO GIVE THEIR COMMENTS SHORTLY.
FIRST, DO WE HAVE INNER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER FRANZ.
KEVIN, I KNOW THAT THESE CORRECTIONS ARE MINOR, BUT THERE IS QUITE A FEW OF THEM.
[00:15:01]
>> SO WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE BETWEEN NOW AND THE TIME THAT WE GO TO MAKE A MOTION, ASSUMING THAT'S WHERE WE END UP, THAT WE CAN GET THESE SOMEHOW LISTED?
>> IN A WAY THAT WE CAN SHOW THEM FOR THE RECORD? BECAUSE YOU REALLY FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT MANY, JUST SAYING, PLEASE FIX THEM.
>> SO WHILE YOU'RE LISTENING TO THE APPLICANT AND ANY OTHER PARTIES, I WILL BE OFF TO THE SIDE DOING THAT.
I RECOGNIZE THAT -- THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.
I RECOGNIZE THAT MY VERBAL, WHILE IT'S ON THE RECORD, I RECOGNIZED THAT IT WOULD HELP THE COMMISSION TO HAVE THEM WRITTEN DOWN, SO I WILL BE OFF TO THE SIDE PREPARING THAT FOR YOU AND ADDING THEM TO THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION SO THAT YOU CAN REVIEW THEM BEFORE YOU ENGAGE IN THINK DELIBERATION OR CONSIDERATION.
AND THEN THAT WAY THEY'RE ALSO MASTER THE RECORD, RIGHT?
>> THEY'RE VERBALLY PART OF THE RECORD BUT THERE WILL ALSO BE A WRITTEN PART, YEAH.
SINCE WE ARE -- I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS RIGHT.
SINCE THE HOUSE NO LONGER A PART OF THE PLAN -- RIGHT? IT'S BEEN REMOVED -- WHEN THE APPLICANT TOOK THIS TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN, THERE WAS LIKE A TENTATIVE MAP AND ALL THESE OTHER THINGS.
DOES THIS IN ANY WAY IMPACT OR REQUIRE THEM TO COME BACK BEFORE WE DO THIS PART TO GET THAT AMENDED? BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT DOES BUT I WANT IT FOR THE RECORD TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
>> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION, COMMISSIONER.
SO THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO SUBMIT -- THEY DID RECEIVE A CONDITIONAL TENTATIVE MAP APPROVAL FOR WHAT WAS CONSIDERED THE TENTATIVE MAP AT THAT TIME, WHICH WAS THE HOUSE BEING PART OF THE OVERALL CAMPUS.
NOW IT IS SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER DECIDED TO SELL THE PROPERTY FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES, AND SO IT WILL BE UTILIZED FOR THAT, AND WHEN THERE IS AN APPLICANT FOR FINAL MAP, WE WILL CORRECT THAT AS PART OF THE RECORD, BUT IT WAS ALREADY PLANNED TO BE TO LOSS OF RECORD.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE THAT YOU WILL SEE IS THERE IS NO LONGER A PHYSICAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE CHURCH CAMPUS AND THE HOUSE, I.E., YOU COULDN'T CONNECT VIA THEM.
WE NOW HAVE A BARRIER IN PLACE WHERE THE PARKING AREA AND THE DRIVE FOR THE HOUSE ARE PHYSICALLY DISCONNECTED.
SO IN CONSULTING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE CITY ENGINEER, WE DETERMINED THAT COULD BE CORRECTED AT THE FINAL MAP STAGE.
>> AND LIKE YOU SAY, THERE IS NO CONNECTING POINT BETWEEN THE HOUSE.
I WILL GO BACK TO THE -- I THINK THIS PROBABLY BEST SHOWS IT.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S A PARKING THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE DRIVE FOR THE HOUSE.
THE THAT AREA IS PHYSICALLY DISCONNECTED.
SO THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY TO DRIVE INTO THE SITE, TO PARK IN ANY WAY, ACCESS THAT.
THAT IS INTENTIONAL BECAUSE, AGAIN, THIS IS PLANNED TO BE A -- THE HOUSE IS PLANNED TO BE SEPARATE FROM THE CHURCH CAMPUS.
>> AND SO THEN IN THIS CASE THEY MAINTAIN THE NO ACCESS ON AVENUE 49 EXCEPT FOR EMERGENCY PURPOSES BECAUSE OF THE DISCONNECT.
THE ACCESS OFF OF AVENUE 49 FOR THE CHURCH CAMPUS IS FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY.
THE HOUSE, THERE IS AN EXISTING ACCESS POINT, IF YOU DRIVE OUT THERE TODAY, YOU WOULD SEE IT, AND THAT WILL BE RETAINED SO THAT THE HOUSE DOES HAVE ACCESS OUT TO A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE AT THIS TIME.
>> DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HAVE ONE, KEVIN.
THE FEATURE IN FRONT, THE RED CROSS, YOU SAID THAT THAT IS CURRENTLY WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS.
WHAT IS THAT? IS THAT STILL AT 35 FEET NOW?
>> SO THE ALLOWANCE IS THAT 35 FEET AND I BELIEVE THEY ARE AT 32.
>> AND SO IN THAT INSTANCE, AS THE COMMISSION MAY REMEMBER, EARLY ON THERE WAS A MUCH LARGER ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE.
THAT WAS A CONCERN TO THE COMMISSION.
THE APPLICANT VOLUNTARILY REDUCED THAT DOWN.
AND THEY ARE SLIGHTLY BELOW THAT IN RECOGNITION OF THE CONCERNS RAISED BY THE COMMISSION, SO I DO THINK THAT THEY DID LISTEN IN THAT REGARD.
>> AND THERE IS SOME MONUMENT SIGNAGE NOT HERE AT THIS POINT BUT NEAR THE ENTRANCE, IS THAT CORRECT?
[00:20:01]
SO YOU CAN SEE SOME MONUMENT SIGNAGE IN THE PICTURES BELOW.AS YOU COME IN, THERE WILL BE SOME MONUMENT SIGNAGE THAT -- AND AGAIN IT WILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE SPECIFIC PLAN THAT WILL BE MORE DIRECTIONAL IN NATURE BUT INTENDED TO DIRECT PEOPLE ONTO THE SITE, YES.
IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMISSIONER COMMENTS, WE CAN GO TO THE APPLICANT AND HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY.
PLEASE GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AS WELL.
>> AND, CHAIR, IF I MIGHT SUGGEST WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK.
YEAH, LET'S OPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION OF OUR PUBLIC HEARING.
>> AND THEN ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE THEIR PRESENTATION AT THIS POINT.
IF THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE.
>> JEFF, WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND DO YOUR INTRODUCTION AT THIS POINT, PLEASE.
>> FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS AND WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF THIS MOVING TO THE NEXT LEVEL.
MY NAME IS JEFFREY CRANFORD, AND I'M THE SENIOR PART OF CHURCH CHOPPY.
JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF A BACKGROUND I'LL KEEP THIS UNDER FOUR MINUTES.
CAME OUT HERE 35 YEARS AGO, LIVED -- MOVED INTO INDIO, SMOKE-FREE APARTMENT, AND HAVE BEEN OUT HERE FOR A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME, CAME OUT TO WORK FOR LANDMARK AND THERE WAS KIND OF A SLOW TRANSITION TO MINISTRY.
WORKED AS A NUMBER OF CLUBS IN THE VALLEY AS I GOT PROFESSIONAL AND INVOLVED WITH THE PJ TOUR, AND IDENTITY THAT IN SOME WAY AS BIRTHED CHURCH AT THE RED DOOR SIX YEARS AGO.
I JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU A SMALL TASTE JUST OF THE VISION OF CHURCH AT THE RED DOOR.
I TELL CONGREGANTS ALL THE TIME WE'RE NOT HERE PRIMARILY TO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR RELIGIOUS PEOPLE.
BY THAT I MEAN WE'RE HERE TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY.
AND A BIG PART OF THAT IS EVEN LAST YEAR IN THE MIDDLE OF COVID WITH A SMALL CHURCH PLANT OF ABOUT FIVE YEARS, WE GAVE IN EXCESS OF $100,000 TO VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS THAT I THINK ARE GOING TO HAVE -- HAVE A SUBSTANTIVE EFFECT ON INDIO SPECIFICALLY, COACHELLA VALLEY RESCUE MISSION.
WE'RE INVOLVED ON AN ONGOING BASIS.
MINISTRIES TO UNWED MOTHERS, TWO DIFFERENT ONES, NARROW DOOR, FEEDING THE POOR, ET CETERA.
AND JUST OUR CALL TO JUST SHARE THE GOOD NEWS THAT GOD LOVES PEOPLE.
AND SO THAT REALLY IS THE ESSENCE OF OUR MISSION AND OUR VISION.
I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO SAY THAT WE DO REALLY CARE ABOUT OUR NEIGHBORS.
I KNOW THAT CAME UP AT SOME VARIOUS POINTS.
JUST AS AN ILLUSTRATION OF THAT, WE DID NOT MEET AT ALL PHYSICALLY FOR OVER ONE AND A HALF YEARS, AND THAT WAS A GREAT LIABILITY TO WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO.
BUT, AGAIN, OUT OF A DESIRE TO CARE FOR OUR VALLEY RESIDENTS AND OUR NEIGHBORS, WE CHOSE NOT TO DO THAT.
I JUST SAY THESE LAST TWO THINGS, FOR US LOCATION IS CRUCIAL.
WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE SURROUNDED BY PEOPLE THAT WE ARE CALLED TO SERVE IN THIS PARTICULAR PLACE, AND OUR ATTEMPTS ARE NOT NECESSARILY JUST TO REACH THE RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY BUT TO SERVE ALL PEOPLE, AND WHEN I THINK ABOUT WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, I THINK ABOUT FAMILIES THAT ARE IMPACTED, UNTOLD COST TO THE COMMUNITY OF INDIO AND THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES, COUNSELING FOR ADDICTION AND ALL THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT JUST A CHURCH DOES IN THE COMMUNITY.
I WOULD JUST SUGGEST TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT WE REALLY, REALLY HAVE A DESIRE TO HAVE A POSITIVE EFFECT ON THIS END OF THE VALLEY, AND IT'S THE VERY PURPOSE FOR WHICH WE EXIST.
AND SO WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT BACK TO THE NEXT PRESENTER.
I'M WITH DOMUSSTUDIO ARCHITECTS, THE ARCHITECT AND PRINCIPLE OF THE FIRM.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CHURCH FOR OVER TWO YEARS, AND IF KEVIN COULD PLAY THE VIDEO, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
THIS IS A VIEW OF THE BUILDING FROM THE CORNER OF AVENUE 49 AND JEFFERSON.
YOU CAN SEE THE MIXTURE OF MATERIALS, OF STUCCO, PERFORATED CORTEN STEEL, GLASS AND BLOCK.
THE BUILDING IS SET BACK 62 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WITH A PORTION OF THE
[00:25:05]
SANCTUARY ANCHORING THE CORNER.MAJORITY OF THE BUILDING IS 14 FEET TALL.
THE MECHANICAL WALLS THAT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU ARE 20 FEET TALL.
AND THEN THE SANCTUARY IS ON 31 FEET TALL.
THE CROSS IS 35 FEET TALL, CONTRARY TO WHAT WAS DISCUSSED BEFORE.
YOU CAN SEE THE CHURCH MONUMENT SIGN AT THE ENTRY.
THE ARCHITECTURE IS VERY MODERN AND REMINISCENT OF MODERN ARCHITECTURE YOU WOULD FIND IN THE VALLEY UTILIZING CB BLOCK AND STUCCO AND FLAT ROOFS AND MANY INDOOR/OUTDOOR SPACES.
THE BUILDING IS MEANT TO BE TRANSPARENT TO INVITE THE COMMUNITY IN AND NOT BE A BARRIER, AND I THINK THAT THERE ARE MANY OVERHANGS AND OUTDOOR SPACES FOR WALKING AND SOCIALIZING OUTSIDE OUT OF THE SUN.
THIS IS THE ENTRY BRIDGE INTO THE SANCTUARY.
THERE'S A COVERED EXTERIOR AREA PRIOR TO ENTERING THE SANCTUARY.
AND AS YOU SPIN BACK AROUND, YOU SEE BACK AROUND TO THE CORNER OF AVENUE 49 AND JEFFERSON.
IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, I WILL BE HERE TO ANSWER THEM FOR YOU.
>> ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OR DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? OKAY.
THERE BEING NO QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, VANESSA, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM?
I DID RECEIVE ONE PERSON IN THE LOBBY.
MS. CHRISTIE DANIEL, ARE YOU AVAILABLE?
>> SO MY FAMILY AND I ARE NEW TO RANCHO LA QUINTA DESERT.
WE'RE VERY, VERY CLOSE TO THE LOCATION OF THE CHURCH, AND JUST APOLOGIES IF YOU HAVE COVERED SOME OF THESE TOPICS BECAUSE WE'RE NEW.
WE'RE JUST SORT OF CATCHING UP.
I GUESS OUR MAIN CONCERN AS NEIGHBORS IS SORT OF SOUND, RIGHT? SO AMPLIFIED SOUND.
I SEE THERE ARE A LOT OF OUTDOOR SPACES, SO I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT WHETHER THERE'S GOING TO BE WORSHIP, CONCERTS, ACTIVITIES WHERE THERE'S GOING TO BE AMPLIFIED SOUND BECAUSE WE LITERALLY ARE JUST ACROSS JEFFERSON FROM YOU.
AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION THAT I HAVE IS RELATED TO TRAFFIC.
SO THERE'S CURRENTLY SOME CONSTRUCTION ON JEFFERSON, AND IT HAS TO DO WITH THE NEW CITRUS, THE AREA'S CITRUS SHOPS THERE ON JEFFERSON, AND IT HAS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON TRAFFIC FLOW, JUST HAVING A SIN LANE CLOSED, YOU KNOW, BY A SMALL PORTION OF A SINGLE LANE BEING CLOSED, AND SO I'M JUST IMAGINING 500 PEOPLE COMING IN AT CERTAIN TIMES.
YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE THE -- WAS THERE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT? WHAT ARE THE ACCOMMODATIONS THAT ARE BEING MADE FOR TRAFFIC FLOW? JUST, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY JUST TYPICAL QUESTIONS THAT NEIGHBORS ARE GOING TO HAVE.
THE TYPICAL QUESTIONS THAT NEIGHBORS ARE GOING TO HAVE.
>> BEVERLY, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO RESPOND?
>> FIRST QUESTION, THE ADOPTED SPECIFIC PLAN DOES NOT ALLOW SOUND APPLICATION, SO THERE WILL BE NO ALLOWED SOUND AMPLIFICATION FOR ANY EVENTS, INTERIOR OR EXTERIOR.
THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS DONE.
AS PART OF THAT THERE WAS A TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WAS DONE.
IT WAS REVIEWED BY THE CITY'S TRAFFIC ENGINEER.
AND BASED ON THE FINDINGS THEREIN, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS ADEQUATE CAPACITY IN JEFFERSON STREET.
THERE WILL, AS THE SPEAKER POINTED OUT, THERE WILL BE SOME DISCUSSIONS BECAUSE THERE IS SOME MODIFICATIONS THAT WILL NEED TO BE DONE TO JEFFERSON STREET TO ACCOMMODATE SOME OF THE TURNING MOVEMENTS.
THAT WOULD BE EXTENDING THE LEFT TURN AISLE.
HOWEVER, OTHER THAN THAT THERE IS CAPACITY.
THERE WILLING -- I WON'T SAY THERE WON'T BE PERIODS OF DISRUPTION.
BUT IT WAS EVALUATED AND DETERMINED TO BE WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF CITY'S ADOPTED ENGINEERING STANDARDS, AND THEREFORE THE CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER AND THE CITY ENGINEER ACCEPTED THE FINDINGS OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY.
>> SO IF I UNDER YOU CORRECTLY, NO AMPLIFICATION INSIDE OR OUTSIDE IN.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO RESPOND?
THE -- IN OUR WORLD IT'S CALLED A SPECIFIC PLAN.
BASICALLY IT'S A PLAN THAT THE COUNCIL ADOPTS FOR THE PROPERTY AND IT HAS VERY DETAILED REQUIREMENTS IN IT, AND ONE OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS IS THAT THERE
[00:30:04]
IS NO SOUND AMPLIFICATION ALLOWED.THIS WAS AN ISSUE THAT OUR CITY COUNCIL, BOTH OUR PLANNING COMMISSION AND OUR PLANNING COUNCIL DISCUSSED, WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL ELECTED TO APPROVE THE SPECIFIC PLAN, THEY DID REQUIRE THERE BE NO SOUND AMPLIFICATION.
JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, I WONDER IF YOU AND I ARE DEFINING AMPLIFICATION DIFFERENT OR MAYBE SENIOR PASTOR CRANFORD HAS A BOOMING VOICE.
THERE WILL BE NO AMPLIFICATION INSIDE A CHURCH FOR 500 PEOPLE?
>> SO I CAN'T SPEAK PASTOR'S VOICE, I APOLOGIZE.
BUT THE INTENT IS THAT THERE BE NO SOUND AMPLIFICATION.
SO PERHAPS -- I WOULD LEAVE IT TO THE APPLICANT, BECAUSE I DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH FAMILIARITY WITH THEIR OPERATIONS TO TELL YOU HOW THEY MIGHT ADDRESS THAT IN THEIR OPERATIONS, AND I AM TURNING THE PAGE RIGHT NOW TO GET TO THE SECTION THAT STATES THIS, BUT PERHAPS, CHAIR, WHEN APPROPRIATE, THE APPLICANT COULD RESPOND TO THAT TO GIVE MORE DETAIL, BUT AS STATED IN -- AND I APOLOGIZE, LET ME JUST GET THERE REAL FAST IF I COULD -- AS STATED IN THE -- LET ME CLARIFY.
SO WHEN THERE ARE TEMPORARY USES ON THE PROPERTY, THERE IS A -- AND THAT IS A SMALL CONVERSATION TEMPORARY USES.
BUT WHEN THERE ARE TEMPORARY USES, LET'S SAY, FOR EXAMPLE -- --, THEY ARE AN EVENT THAT IS WITHIN THE PARAMETERS, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE OUTDOOR WORSHIP, BUT IF THERE'S A TEMPORARY USE THAT IS ALLOWED, THAT TEMPORARY USE CANNOT HAVE SOUND AMPLIFICATION, SO I NEED TO CORRECT THE RECORD.
SOUND AMPLIFICATION IS ALLOWED WITHIN THE INTERIOR THE SPACE.
I WILL LET THE ARCHITECT OR THE ENGINEER EXPLAIN HOW APPROPRIATE NOISE BUFFERING IS DONE THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION.
BUT I HAVE TYPICALLY IF THEY'RE DOING SOMETHING WHERE THE CITY -- AND THE CITY HAS TO PERMIT THE TEMPORARY USE.
SO IF WE DO THAT, WE NO NOT ALLOW ANY SOUND AMPLIFICATION AS PART OF THAT.
IF THEY WERE PROPOSING SOMETHING AND ASKED FOR SOUND AMPLIFICATION, THE ANSWER WOULD BE NO.
BUT IT DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE INTERIOR OPERATIONS OF THE CHURCH USE, AND SO I NEEDED TO CORRECT THAT FOR THE RECORD, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR ANY CONFUSION I CAUSED.
THEN IF WE CAN HEAR BACK FROM THE APPLICANT.
ALSO, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE APPLICANT WHAT ARE SOME TYPES OF EVENTS WHERE YOU WOULD BE REACHING OUT FOR A PERMIT FOR A NON-TYPICAL USE TYPE PERMIT FOR A SPECIAL EVENT.
WHAT ARE SOME OF THOSE TYPES OF EVENTS THAT YOU WOULD BE REQUESTING PERMITS FOR?
I CAN ANSWER AND I CONCUR WITH KEVIN THAT SOUND AMPLIFICATION WAS AN ISSUE WITH CITY COUNCIL AND THAT THERE WAS NO SOUND AMPLIFICATION ALLOWED ON EXTERIOR ON THE SITE.
BUT THERE WILL, OF COURSE, BE SOUND AMPLIFICATION ON THE INSIDE.
JEFFREY'S VOICE IS NOT THAT BOOMING, AS CHRISTIE SPECULATED.
BUT AS FAR AS NOISE FROM THE BUILDING GOING OUT, THE BUILDING HAS CONCERNS WITH JUST TRAFFIC NOISE AND TRYING TO SOFTEN AND QUIET THE SPACE ON THE INSIDE FOR MINISTRY MOMENTS, IF YOU WILL.
SO THERE ALWAYS IS SOUND ATTENUATION THAT OCCURS ON A BUILDING TO KEEP OUT THE SOUND FROM THE OUTSIDE AND ALSO TO KEEP THE SOUND ON THE INSIDE.
SO -- AND THERE ARE CITY STANDARDS AND CITY CODES THAT WHEN YOU GET TO THE PROPERTY LINES, CERTAIN DECIBELS CAN'T BE -- CAN'T BE EXCEEDED, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WILL BE A PROBLEM WITH WHAT WE HAVE.
MR. SNYDER, ON CONDITION 12, JUST TO REITERATE WHAT YOU WERE SAYING, THAT THE CHURCH CAN APPLY FOR SOUND AMPLIFICATION AS PART OF AN EVENT AND THE CITY WOULD EVALUATE THAT AND EITHER APPROVE IT OR DENY IT BASED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
THAT'S ON PAGE 118 OF 140 IN THE STAFF REPORT.
AND ALSO, ON THE TRAFFIC, AS PART OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THAT WE DID FOR MR. GREGORIO, WE DID LOOK AT ALL THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND THEY WERE STUDIED, AND ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IS THAT BASED ON NEED, THERE
[00:35:01]
COULD BE PEOPLE DIRECTING TRAFFIC DURING THE HIGH TRAFFIC PERIODS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO BACKUP ON THE STREET AND PEOPLE PARK PROMPTLY AND THERE'S NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE AREA AROUND IT.SO THAT'S GOING TO HELP MITIGATE IF THERE IS ANY ISSUE.
>> WOULD BE WITHIN THE PROPERTY, SO IN THE PARKING LOT OR OUT ON THE JEFFERSON STREET?
>> WELL, IT WOULD BE EITHER DEPENDING ON, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE SITUATION IS, BUT WE WANT TO GET PEOPLE INTO THE PARKING LOT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, HAVE NO BACKUP ON JEFFERSON TO INTERFERE WITH TRAFFIC, AND SO THERE COULD BE PEOPLE IN THE PARKING LOT OR AT THE ENTRANCES TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE PARK PROMPTLY BECAUSE IF PEOPLE STALL OR THEY STOP TO TALK TO SOMEBODY, THAT COULD CAUSE BACKUP AND THAT WOULD BE WHAT I THINK MR. GREGORIO WAS CONCERNED ABOUT.
AND THE TYPES OF TEMPORARY EVENTS WOULD BE IF THEY HAD A PICNIC OR A BARBECUE OR ANYTHING THAT WOULD HAPPEN OUTSIDE, ANYTHING OUTSIDE WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD APPLY FOR A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT.
THE CITY WOULD EVALUATE THAT AND THEN COME UP WITH A LIST OF CONDITIONS THAT BEE WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW IN ORDER TO HAVE THAT EVENT.
AND KNOWING MR. SNYDER, I KNOW THAT THEY WILL EVALUATE THE EVENT AND HOW IT WOULD IMPACT THE SURROUNDING AREA AND MAKE SURE THAT IT'S A MINIMAL IMPACT.
>> CHAIR, WOULD I WEIGH IN FOR A SECOND HERE TOO? SO THE CONDITION NUMBER 12 THAT MR. MALACOFF REFERENCES STATES THIS IS FOR THE RESOLUTION 1981 THERE SHALL BE NO OUTDOOR SOUND AMPLIFICATION UNLESS AUD FLOWER A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT BY THE CITY OF MUNICIPAL CODE.
THIS IS A CONFLICT-HOUR BECAUSE IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN THAT THE COUNCIL ADOPTED, UNDER -- FOR TEMPORARY USES THE COUNCIL DIRECTED AND IT IS ACTUALLY WRITTEN INTO THE MARKED-UP VERSION THAT I PROVIDED TO YOU THAT USE OF SOUND AMPLIFICATION EQUIPMENT IS PROHIBITED.
THIS IS NUMBER 2 UNDER B TEMPORARY USES.
SO THAT PARTICULAR CONDITION OF APPROVAL I DO BELIEVE NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED BECAUSE IT IS IN CONFLICT, AND I THINK MR. MALACOFF WAS POINTING OUT THAT THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED.
HOWEVER I THINK IT'S IN CONFLICT WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
BUT THINK THAT THIS CONDITION NUMBER 12 WOULD HAVE TO BE MODIFIED THAT READ THAT THERE SHALL BE NO OUTDOOR SOUND AMPLIFICATION FOR ALLOWED PEM TEMPORARY USES.
AND I THINK THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL, WHEN THEY REVIEWED THIS, THAT WAS A TOPIC OF CONCERN AND I THINK IF MR. MALACOFF OR ANY OF THE OTHER PARTIES WANT TO CORRECT ME OR DISAGREE WITH ME, I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE COUNCIL'S COMPROMISE, SO TO SPEAK, THAT THEY WOULD, YOU KNOW, THEY ASKED THAT THAT NOT BE ALLOWED.
AND THEN, MR. SNYDER, PERHAPS THIS IS A QUESTION FOR YOU IN REGARDS TO THE APPLICANT STATING THAT THEY WOULD POSSIBLY HAVE SOME TRAFFIC CONTROL AT CERTAIN TIMES, IF NECESSARY.
WOULD THEY HAVE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT TRAFFIC CONTROL, DIRECTING PUBLIC TRAFFIC OR WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING FOR LIABILITY REASONS WOULD HAVE TO REMAIN IN THEIR PROPERTY LIKE WITHIN THE PARKING LOT?
>> THEY CAN DIRECT TRAFFIC ON PROPERTY.
IF THEY WANT TO DIRECT TRAFFIC OFF-PROPERTY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GET PERMISSION FROM THE CITY ENGINEER, THEY'D HAVE TO PRESENT A TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN.
NOW, THIS COULD BE A PLAN THIS THEY CONSISTENTLY USE.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE EVERY SINGLE TIME.
BUT IF THEY ARE INTENDING TO DO THAT, AND THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE TOOL SOMETIMES TO MITIGATE TRAFFIC IMPACTS BECAUSE SOME TIME YOU CAN CONTROL AND MOVE ALONG THE TRAFFIC FLOW MORE EASILY, THEN THEY WOULD NEED TO WORK WITH THE CITY ENGINEER TO OBTAIN APPROVAL OF A TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN SUCH THAT HE WAS CONFIDENT THAT IT WOULD NOT CREATE ANY PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, MRS. DEGREGORIO.
VANESSA, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT?
MRS. SUSAN BANNISTER, ARE YOU AVAILABLE?
THE CHAT IS DISABLED SO I WASN'T ABLE TO RESPOND.
I'M RESIDENT OF DESERT RIVER ESTATES, WHICH AS YOU KNOW IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO
[00:40:02]
THIS PROJECT, AND ALL OF THE RESIDENTS OF DESERT RIVER ESTATES WERE NOTICED OF ALL PREVIOUS MEETINGS, AND MANY OF US HAVE ATTENDED.FOR THIS MEETING ONLY THE RESIDENTS WHO I BELIEVE WERE WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WERE NOTICED, AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY THAT WAS BECAUSE IT REALLY HAS NOT GIVEN US A CHANCE TO SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENT OR REALLY REQUEST TIME TO SPEAK.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO RESPOND?
>> IN THE PAST, DURING THE SPECIFIC PLAN BECAUSE THAT WAS A LEGISLATIVE ACTION INVOLVING CREATING A NEW ZONING STANDARD, CITY OPTED VOLUNTARILY TO DO EXTRAORDINARY NOTICING BECAUSE AGAIN, IT WAS A LEGISLATIVE ACTION CREATING NEW ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY, AND WE WANTED TO ASSURE THAT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS AND NEIGHBORS HAD AWARENESS.
>> THEN WE WERE INVITED TO MEETINGS THAT HAD TO DO WITH THE PLANS, THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING, THE PROPOSED PLAN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, FAR MORE THAN CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ZONING.
>> CHAIR, CAN I RESPOND? MA'AM, THAT WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SPECIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN, AND THE CITY IS LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO DO 300-FOOT NOTIFICATION FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN BECAUSE OF THE ADOPTION, AND I NEED TO CLARIFY WHAT A SPECIFIC PLAN IS.
UNDER STATE LAW A PARTY SUCH AS THE CHURCH OR ANY OTHER PARTY CAN COME TO THE CITY AND ASK FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT MAY NOT APPLY ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE CITY, SO THE APPLICANT DID THAT.
THIS WAS A, WHAT WE CALL A LEGISLATIVE CHANGE, MEANING THAT IT WAS GOING TO CHANGE HOW THE RULES APPLY TO THIS SPECIFIC PROPERTY.
SO THE CITY AGAIN VOLUNTARILY DID EXTRAORDINARY NOTICING BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE ZONING ON THAT PROPERTY WAS GOING TO BE CHANGED, AND WE FELT THAT THE SURROUNDING AREA WOULD KNOW.
WE'RE NOW AT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW STAGE WHICH IS IMPLEMENTING THE SPECIFIC PLAN THAT WAS ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, AND SO WE UTILIZED THE STANDARD 300-FOOT NOTIFICATION, WHICH IS THE LEGAL OBLIGATION THAT WE'RE
-- >> I UNDERSTAND, BUT THAT'S A LEGAL OBLIGATION, AND YET THE CHURCH KEEPS SAYING THAT THEY WANT TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR, AND WE ARE ONE OF THE COMMUNITIES THAT WILL BE MOST SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTED BY THE DESIGN OF THIS PROJECT, WHETHER THEY, IN FACT, DO FUNCTION AS A GOOD NEIGHBOR, AND SO I'M JUST FINDING IT VERY STRANGE THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'RE PUTTING LEGAL PRECEDENT -- OR LAW BEFORE, YOU KNOW, THE WELL-BEING OF THE -- THERE ARE A THOUSAND PEOPLE WHO LIVE ALONG 49TH, AND IN MANY WAYS WE'LL ALL BE AFFECTED.
I KNOW I'M TAKING MORE THAN MY THREE MINUTES AND I APOLOGIZE.
BUT I THINK THIS THAT IS REALLY A LOT OF CONCERN.
AND KEVIN, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO YOU, YOU HAVE SAID ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS DURING THIS MEETING THINGS THAT YOU MADE ERRORS ON, MISSTATEMENTS, THINGS THAT WERE CAUSING CONFUSION, AND YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT THOSE OF US WHO ARE RESIDENTS NEARBY, TAXPAYERS IN INDIO, CARE VERY MUCH ABOUT HOW THIS IS BEING PRESENTED AND HOW ACCURATELY AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE CHURCH IS GOING TO BE HELD TO THE AGREEMENTS THAT THEY HAD WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
VANESSA, THANK YOU FOR THE CHANCE TO SPEAK.
>> I APPRECIATE THE SPEAKER'S COMMENTS AND I APOLOGIZE IF MY STATEMENTS CAUSED ANY CONCERN OR FRUSTRATION.
THE DOCUMENT IN WHOLE IS 185 PAGES.
THE ERRORS THAT I NOTED ARE MINOR IN NATURE.
THEY DON'T SUBSTANTIVELY CHANGE ANYTHING.
SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THE ERRORS.
AS A PROFESSIONAL, I DON'T LIKE TO MAKE THEM, BUT SOMETIMES THEY DO HAPPEN AND IT'S NOT MY INTENT TO CREATE CONFUSION IN MAKING THOSE ERRORS, BUT THEY ARE NON-SUBSTANTIVE.
THE MODIFIED CONDITIONS THAT I PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT I CONSIDER MINOR CHANGES.
THEY DO NOT PLAN TO HAVE LOADING DOCKS.
SO WELL REMOVING THOSE CONDITIONS MAKES SENSE.
APPLICANT POINTED OUT THAT THE COUNCIL WAS COMFORTABLE WITH GRASS SO LONG AS IT COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FOR WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING.
AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE OUTDOOR SOUND AMPLIFICATION CONDITION IS NOT CONDITION WITH THE SPECIFIC PLAN.
SO WHEN WE GET BACK TO DISCUSSION, I WILL BE PRESENTING A MODIFICATION TO THAT.
AND -- BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY IN ANY WAY TAKE AWAY FROM WHAT IS IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION, WHICH IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A NEW DESIGN APPLICATION, AND A VERY LIMITED NUMBER OF ERRORS AND CORRECTIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO A STAFF REPORT.
AND HONESTLY, IT HAPPENS, AND I'M NOT DISMISSING IT, BUT IT DOES HAPPEN AS WE ARE
[00:45:05]
PREPARING A LOT OF INFORMATION TO PUT IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION.AGAIN, MY SINCERE APOLOGIES FOR CREATING ANY CONFUSION.
>> MY LAST QUESTION WHICH AND MY TIME IS OVER.
WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, SO I THINK IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE IMPACT IS GOING TO BE ON THE THOUSAND PEOPLE, AND ESPECIALLY WHO LIVE ALONG THIS CORRIDOR AND ESPECIALLY THOSE OF US WHO LIVE RIGHT NEXT TO THE PROJECT.
>> SO THE -- AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WAS DONE AS PART OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN.
AND UNDER THE RULES OF THE STATE, IF A PARTY COMES IN AND THAT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WAS ADOPTED AND CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE SAME TIME THAT THE SPECIFIC PLAN WAS ADOPTED, IF AN APPLICANT COMES FORWARD FOR ENTITLEMENT APPLICATIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THAT SPECIFIC PLAN, THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL NEED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BECAUSE IT IS DEEMED TO BE CONSISTENT.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AT THAT TIME LOOKED AT A VARIETY OF ISSUES RANGING FROM TRAFFIC TO AIR QUALITY TO CULTURE RESOURCES, SO IT WAS A COMPLETE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT THAT WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO PUBLIC WHEN THE SPECIFIC PLAN WAS ADOPTED.
SO LEGALLY THE APPLICANT IS NOT OBLIGATED, NOR CAN THE CITY REQUIRE DOOLING ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNLESS -- ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNLESS THERE WAS A CHANGE IN CONDITIONS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT THAT WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THAT DID NOT OCCUR IN THIS INSTANCE.
VANESSA, WE HAVE ANOTHER PUBLIC COMMENT.
IS IT THE LADY WHO SPOKE EARLIER?
MS. CHRISTIE DANIEL DEGREGORIO IS REQUESTING TO SPEAK ONCE MORE.
>> YES, I'LL ALLOW THAT IF SHE'LL PLEASE KEEP HER COMMENTS BRIEF OR IF SHE HAS ANOTHER QUICK QUESTION.
I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE FOUR PHASES.
IT'S HARD FOR ME TO ARTICULATE THE QUESTION.
WHAT'S THE LIKELIHOOD OR IS THERE A GUARANTEE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARAL ADDITIONAL PHASES TO THE BUILDINGS?
>> KEVIN, CAN YOU RESPOND, PLEASE.
MAYBE THE APPLICANT WILL JUMP IN AFTER MINE, BUT THE PROJECT HAS A TOTAL OF FOUR PHASES, APPROXIMATELY 41,000 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING AREA COULD BE BUILT OUT OVER THAT TIME FRAME AND A TOTAL OF 3 FINE OF PARKING SPACES.
THE PHASING SCHEDULE WAS PRESENTED EARLIER.
WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN THAT THEY DO INTEND TO BUILD PHASE 1.
THAT IS THEIR SANCTUARY BUILDING, AND THE APPLICANT CAN CORRECT ME IF I SAY THIS WRONG, BUT MY UNDERSTAND, BASED ON PAST CONVERSATIONS, IS THAT THE ADDITIONAL PHASES OR ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS WOULD OCCUR WILL BE CONTINGENT UPON FUNDING, SO THE TIMING OF THOSE IS CONTINGENT UPON FUNDING, AND PERHAPS THE APPLICANT, IF THE CHAIR IS OKAY, I COULD DEFER TO THE APPLICANT TO SUPPLEMENT ANYTHING I'VE SAID.
>> THIS IS DAVID, THE ARCHITECT WITH DOMUS STUDIO AGAIN.
THE THE FOUR PHASES AS OUTLINED IN THE PLAN IS THE TOTAL BUILD OUT OF THE PROJECT.
THAT IS WHAT THE CHURCH IS PLANNING, AND THAT IS A LONG-RANGE PLAN.
THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT DATES, AS KEVIN EARLIER SAID, WHEN THOSE WILL BE BUILT.
AND JUST TO FOLLOW UP, THE CHURCH DOES, IS GOING TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR, WANTS TO BE A GOOD NOSH.
THEY HAVE REACHED OUT AND IS HAD SEVERAL NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS, WHICH RESULTED IN A DECREASE SIZE OF THE BUILDING CONSIDERABLY OF THE PHASES, PULLING BACK THE BUILDING FROM THE RESIDENTIAL, AND JUST, IN ORDER TO HELP WITH NOISE AND SO FORTH.
>> AND ALSO IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW IN THE HISTORY OF THE PROJECT WE CUT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE DOWN FROM THE INITIAL PROPOSAL TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THAT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW AS PART OF THE HISTORY OF THE PROJECT.
ALSO, YOU KNOW, THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE MITIGATED INEFFECTIVE DECLARATION ARE ALL PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD THAT EITHER THE CITY OR I CAN PROVIDE.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE, I'LL TEXT YOU MY PHONE NUMBER, AND IF YOU -- I CAN GET YOU THOSE DOCUMENTS.
SO I'LL SEND YOU MY PHONE NUMBER AND I CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH THOSE DOCUMENTS.
[00:50:02]
>> CHAIR, I HAD A QUICK QUESTION.
WHAT IS YOUR TIMELINE FOR THE DIFFERENT PHASES OF THIS PROJECT?
>> I THINK I WILL REFER -- IT'S DEPENDING ON FUNDRAISING.
PHASE 1 OBVIOUSLY IS THE FIRST PHASE, AND ANY PHASE BEYOND THAT REALLY DEPENDS ON GROWTH OF THE CHURCH AND FUNDRAISING WHEN THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE.
THE CHURCH ARE LOOKING FOR TO START CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS IN FEBRUARY OR MARCH, SO POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION IF FUNDRAISING IS ALL THERE IN PROBABLY 2023, EARLY FIRST QUARTER OF 2023 PERHAPS.
>> FOR ALL FOUR? OR ARE YOU STATING IT COULD BE ANYWHERE BETWEEN TWO YEARS, TEN YEARS?
FIVE YEARS TO 20 YEARS, 25 YEARS, YES.
VANESSA, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS TO SPEAK?
>> I DON'T SEE PUBLIC COMMENTS.
I SAW PASTOR CRANFORD HAD HIS HAND RAISED.
>> I WOULD JUST ADD ONE OTHER INNING IN TERMS OF THE LONG RANGE VIEW IN TERMS OF PHASES.
YOU KNOW, THIS IS A SMALL CHURCH PLANT, SO IT WAS A CONSIDERABLE EFFORT TO RAISE THE MONEY TO PURCHASE THE LAND, AND I HAVE NO IDEA EVEN FOR PHASE 1.
IT'S A SUBSTANTIVE TASK FOR US, ESPECIALLY HAVING GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE DIDN'T MEET FOR A YEAR AND A HALF.
OUR CONGREGATION HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, DECIMATED IS A STRONG WORD BUT IT'S BEEN VERY CHALLENGING, AND SO WE REALLY HAVE NO VIEW.
OUR VIEW WAS TO GET THE PIECE OF PROPERTY AND IT MIGHT BE PAST MY TENURE BEFORE WE EVEN GET THIS GOING, SO IT'S JUST AN UNKNOWN, AND THAT'S AN HONEST FAIR APPRAISAL OF WHERE WE ARE.
>> I SEE A RAISED HAND BY MRS. BANISTER ONCE MORE.
WOULD YOU ALLOW HER TO SPEAK AGAIN?
MS. BANISTER, IF YOU COULD KEEP YOUR COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS BRIEF.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR PASTOR CRANFORD, IF I MAY.
PASTOR CRANFORD, IN EVERY ONE OF THE HEARINGS I HAVE SPOKEN YOU HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT THE CHURCH'S STRONG DESIRE TO REACH INTO INDIO AND TO SERVICE MORE OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN INDIO, AND I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHY THEN IS THE CHURCH CHOOSING TO LOCATE ON THE -- RIGHT ON THE EDGE OF INDIO AND LA QUINTA AS OPPOSED TO LOOKING FOR A SITE THAT'S FURTHER IN INDIO AND IS ACTUALLY CLOSER TO MORE OF OUR RESIDENTS? I JUST DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THAT.
I DIDN'T MAKE THE EXCLUSIVE CLAIM THAT OUR VIEW WAS SPECIFICALLY FOR INDIO.
A LOT -- WE REALIZE THAT A LOT OF OUR CURRENT PARISHIONERS COME FROM ALL OVER THE VALLEY, INDIO, INDIAN WELLS, PALM DESERT, LA QUINTA.
THE MAJORITY -- I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S BEEN A CHURCH BUILT SOUTH OF 111 IN THE LAST 25 YEARS.
THE GROWTH AND THE PROJECTIONS, FROM WHAT WE COULD TELL IN TERMS OF THE VALLEY'S GROWTH TOWARDS TRILOGY AND LUCIA AND EVEN FURTHER EAST.
SO JUST TRYING TO SERVICE THE COACHELLA VALLEY, TRYING TO SERVICE WHAT WE FEEL LIKE WE'VE BEEN CALLED TODAY, JEFFERSON WAS A STRATEGIC PLACE FOR US, AND ONE COMMENT WAS MADE EARLIER IN TERMS OF THE POSSIBILITY OF GOING INTO AN INDUSTRIAL PARK OR SOMETHING CLOSE TO INTERSTATE 10.
I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE RECOGNIZE THAT RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO TRAVEL AND GO TO DIFFERENT PLACES POSSIBLY, BUT AS I ALLUDED TO, WE WANT TO BE IN AND PART OF THE COMMUNITY.
AND, YOU KNOW, I HONESTLY, AND I'LL SAY THIS LAST THING AND BE CLOSED, BUT OUR FOOTPRINT IS 10% OF THIS PROPERTY.
IT'S -- WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MEETING IN SMALL PERIOD OF TIME ON AN UNTRAVELED TIME ON SUNDAY.
SO WHEN I SAY WE'RE TRYING TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR IN TERMS OF ALL THE COUNSELING AND FAMILIES AND KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER AND MARRIAGES AND ALL THE THINGS THAT A CHURCH DOES, IT REALLY IS OUR VIEW THAT WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO REACH OUR NEIGHBORS.
AT THIS POINT, IF THERE'S NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS, THEN WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION, WE'LL CLOSE THE HEARING ON THIS ITEM AND GO TO COMMISSIONER COMMENTS OR DELIBERATIONS.
COMMISSIONER FRANZ, WOULD YOU LIKE TO START?
[00:55:01]
>> YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, ACTUALLY, AND THIS IS PROBABLY A REAL QUICK YES OR NO ANSWER.
DURING THE SPECIFIC PLAN, I REMEMBER THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER THE LEFT-HAND TURNING LANE, AND I ASSUME THAT IS HEADING EAST, LEFT-HAND TURNING LANE AT JEFFERSON, WOULD NEED TO BE STRETCHED, RIGHT, OR MADE LONGER IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE PEOPLE MAYBE COMING FROM THE NORTH SIDE OR TO MAKE A U-TURN OR WHATEVER THEY'RE GOING TO NEED TO MAKE IN ORDER THE ACCESS THE SITE.
IS THAT PART OF THE PLAN OR IS IT NOT? I COULDN'T QUITE SEE IT.
>> SO THERE ARE TWO ON JEFFERSON.
THERE WILL NEED TO BE AN EXTENSION OF LEFT-HAND TURN LANE IDENTIFIED BY THE CITY ENGINEER AND THE CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER, AND THEN THERE WILL NEED TO BE MODIFICATION TO THE NON-SIGNALIZED LEFT TURNING MOVEMENT ON JEFFERSON INTO THE SITE.
THOSE WILL BOTH BE PART OF THE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS THAT THE APPLICANT WILL GO THROUGH WITH THE CITY ENGINEER'S OFFICE.
THEY WILL HAVE TO PREPARE THE PLANS FOR THAT TO SPECIFY THAT AND GET IT APPROVED.
SO THERE WILL BE MODIFICATIONS FOR THOSE TURNING MOVEMENTS.
AND THAT WILL BE -- AS I SAID, REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER'S OFFICE.
>> AND THAT SAME THING ABOUT TRAFFIC MOVING IN AND OUT, WHEN YOU'RE COMING OUT OF THE SERVICES, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO RIGHT AND THEN GO DOWN TO WHAT, EITHER MAKE ANOTHER RIGHT ON 49 IF YOU WANT TO GO THAT WAY OR YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GO DOWN TO 111 AND MAKE A U-TURN IF YOU'RE HEADING EAST.
IS THAT CORRECT? BECAUSE THERE'S NO OTHER PLACE TO TURN AROUND, RIGHT? IF YOU NEED TO GO EAST AS YOU COME OUT, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO EITHER MAKE A RIGHT ON 49 AND HEAD THAT WAY -- SORRY -- I MEAN YOU GO NORTH AND THEN TURN AROUND TO GO SOUTH.
SO THE U-TURN IS GOING TO BE THE ONLY PLACE TO DO THAT THE 111 OR IS THERE GOING TO BE A CUT OUT WHERE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO CUT IN AND MAKE A TURN? I KIND OF LOST MYSELF.
>> YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT THE MOVEMENTS.
WHAT I CANNOT REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, AND I APOLOGIZE, IS IF THERE IS A U-TURN ALLOWED AT AVENUE 48.
I'M PULLING UP AN AERIAL RIGHT NOW TO SEE IF I CAN TAKE A QUICK LOOK.
BECAUSE IF THERE WAS THAT ALLOWED, FOR EXAMPLE, THEN THEY COULD THEORETICALLY MAKE THAT TURNING MOVEMENT.
GIVE ME ONE SECOND WHILE I PULL UP THAT SIGNAL TO SEE IF THAT IS ALLOWED.
SEE THERE IS A U-TURN ALLOWED A AVENUE 48 AND JEFFERSON.
SO THE PARTIES COULD GET -- THERE'S TWO DUAL LEFT TURN LANES THERE SO THERE IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A U-TURN IF THE DESIRE OF THE TRAVELER IS TO HEAD SOUTH, BUT THAT WOULD BE THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY.
THERE'S NO U-TURN MOVEMENT ALLOWED AT AVENUE 49 AND JEFFERSON, SO THAT WOULD BE THEIR EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY.
SO WITH THAT IDEA, AND WE'RE ALREADY TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, LENGTHENING THE LEFT TURN LAN A JEFFERSON, IS THERE ANY TALK ABOUT DO WE NEED TO LOOK A LENGTHENING THAT OR IT WAS THAT EVEN PART OF THE CONVERSATION?
>> MY UNDERSTANDING AND MEMORY OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS THAT THERE WAS DEEMED -- THAT THERE WAS ADEQUATE CAPACITY FOR AVENUE 48 SUCH THAT THERE DID NOT NEED TO BE MODIFICATIONS TO THAT INTERSECTION.
>> AND AS YOU POINTED OUT, COMMISSIONER, THERE IS A RIGHT TURN MOVEMENT OPPORTUNITY ONTO AVENUE 49.
THAT MAY OR MAY NOT MEET THE NEEDS OF ALL TRAVELING PARTIES.
BUT THERE IS THAT OPPORTUNITY.
AND THEN AS YOU POINTED OUT, THERE IS THE U-TURN OPPORTUNITY OR THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAD NORTH.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR KEVIN, CHAIR, IF I MAY.
SO YOU SAID THE U-TURN ON 48, IT'S ONLY ONE LANE TO MAKE A U-TURN.
THE SECOND LANE, I BELIEVE, DOESN'T MAKE A U-TURN.
I TAKE THAT ROAD ALL THE TIME BECAUSE I SHOP AT RALPH'S.
>> AT 48 THERE'S ONLY ONE U-TURN LANE TO MAKE A U-TURN.
>> SO THERE ARE TWO DUAL LEFT TURN LANES.
THE MOST WESTERN OF THOSE LEFT TURN LANES IS THE ONE THAT IS ALLOWED FOR U-TURNS, SO YOU ARE CORRECT, COMMISSIONER.
AND JUST TO MAKE CLEAR, HOW MANY -- HOW MANY PARKING -- I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED WITH YOUR REPORTS GOING BACK AND FORTH, SO HOW MANY CARS DO WE HAVE THAT WILL BE GOING IN AND OUT OF THAT FOR ONE SERVICE?
SO I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO -- GIVE ME ONE SECOND.
I'M GOING TO PULL BACK UP THE POWERPOINT SO WE CAN LOOK AT THIS TOGETHER.
[01:00:02]
CAN YOU ALL SEE THAT?SO PHASE 1, A TOTAL OF 236 PARKING SPACES WILL BE CONSTRUCTED.
ALL RIGHT? AND THE ADDITIONAL PARKING AREA IS IDENTIFIED IN PHASE 4 WHERE THE APPLICANT IS PRESENTING THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITIONAL 123 PARKING SPACES.
SO THAT WILL -- AND AS YOU THINK ABOUT PARKING, WHILE THERE'S 584 SEATS IN SANCTUARY, THE OPERATING PRESUMPTION AND PARTICLE ANALYSIS AND TRAFFIC STUDIES THAT THERE WILL BE MULTIPLE PEOPLE IN VEHICLES, RIGHT? SO THEY MEET THE PARKING STANDARD, THEY TELL DRAW THE PARKING STANDARD FROM THE CITY'S CODE, SO THEY MEET THE PARKING STANDARD, SO ON-SITE THERE WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 360 PARKING SPACES AT TIME OF BUILD-OUT.
INITIALLY WHEN THEY BUILD THE SANCTUARY IN PHASE 1 THERE WILL BE 236.
THAT MAY MEAN, AND THAT MAY MEAN THAT THEY HAVE-- AND I BELIEVE IN THE OPERATIONAL PLAN IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN, THEY DO SHOW THE POTENTIAL FOR MULTIPLE SERVICES, IF NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE, IF THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE IN ONE SERVICE, AND, AS YOU MAY REMEMBER FROM THE SPECIFIC PLAN, THERE WAS AN ORIGINAL PLAN COMPONENT OF THAT.
THE COMMISSION DID ASK FOR THAT.
AND SO THAT SPECIFIED ALLOWABLE HOURS FOR VARIOUS ACTIVITIES.
AND SO THEY WOULD BE BOUND IN THEIR CONDUCT OF THEIR SERVICES AND OTHER BUSINESS TO FOLLOW THE OPERATIONAL PLAN.
>> SO IS IT SAFE TO SAY ABOUT 600 PARKING SPACES OR -- >> NO.
IT'S GOING TO BE A TOTAL -- AT TIME OF TOTAL BUILD-OUT, THAT CONCLUDES PHASE 4, YOU'RE LOOKING A RIGHT AROUND 360 PARKING SPACES.
I MUST HAVE -- >> I THINK YOU'RE THINKING THE NUMBER OF SEATS IS 584 IN THE SANCTUARY.
SO IT WILL HAVE ABOUT 300 AND SOMETHING CARS IN AND OUT OF AVENUE -- NOT AVENUE -- OUT OF -- COMING OUT OF JEFFERSON.
THERE WILL BE -- AS YOU KNOW, AND AS I STATED PREVIOUSLY IN THE RECORD, AN APPROVAL OF THE SPECIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN, THE CITY DOWNS WILL LIMIT ACCESS INTO AND OUT OF THE PROPERTY TO JEFFERSON.
I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT TRAFFIC.
SO TIMES TWO SERVICES, CORRECT?
>> THERE COULD BE A POTENTIAL FOR MULTIPLE SERVICES.
THAT WAS IDENTIFIED IN OPERATIONAL PLAN, YES.
SO GIVE OR TAKE ABOUT 300 -- DID YOU SAY 330, 350?
>> AT TIME OF BUILD-OUT AROUND 350 SPACES.
>> I GUESS I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
>> SO, KEVIN, WITH THAT BEING SAID, LET'S SAY IT DOES GET TO THE POINT WHERE THEY DO NEED TO EX MANNED TO MULTIPLE SERVICES, THAT WOULD PROBABLY LESSEN THE AMOUNT OF VEHICLES PER SERVICE.
IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY WOULD IMMEDIATELY BE 359 PARKING SPACES UTILIZED EACH SERVICE.
IT MIGHT BRING IT TO HALF OR 60% FOR ONE SERVICE AND THEN.
I THINK REALISTICALLY IF THEY GO TO MULTIPLE SERVICE OFFERINGS, IT WILL REDUCE NUMBER OF VEHICLES THAT WILL BE TRAVELING INTO AND IDENTITY THE SITE, FENDING ON HOW MANY SERVICES THEY CHOOSE TO HOLD.
AGAIN, THEY WILL BE CONDITIONED.
THEY ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE OPERATIONAL PLAN SPECIFIED IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN.
AND THE OTHER THING I WOULD NOTE IS IN THE APPROVED PHASING PLAN, WHICH WAS IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN, THEY HAVE TO BUILD AN INITIAL 236 WHEN THEY BUILD PHASE 1.
THE ADDITIONAL PARKING WOULD COME IN PHASE 4 TO ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONAL PARKING NEEDS THERE, AND THAT'S WHEN THEY BUILD -- THEY'RE CALLING IT A MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM.
IT WILL NOT BE USED AS OVERFLOW WORSHIP FOR THE SANCTUARY.
IT WOULD HAVE A LARGE DIVISIBLE MEETING ROOM, STORAGE ROOM, KITCHEN, RESTROOMS AND MECHANICAL ROOM.
>> SO OVERALL PHASE 1 HAS THE MAXIMUM CAPACITY OF 584 SEATS.
PHASE 2, WHICH WILL BE FOR CHILDREN'S MINISTRY, MAXIMUM CAPACITY IS UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME.
[01:05:01]
AND PHASE 3 WOULD BE MORE ADMINISTRATION AND POSSIBLY LIKE, LOOKS LIKE YOUTH GROUP OR SOMETHING.AND PHASE 4 WOULD NOT BE USED WHATSOEVER FOR ANY SERVICES.
IT'S JUST A MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM.
SHOULD NOTE THAT THEIR DESCRIPTION OF PHASE 4, WHICH AGAIN WAS APPROVED, THAT THEY MAY DO AN INTERIOR EXPANSION THAT COULD INCREASE THE SEATS TO 959 SEATS SEATS BUT PER THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS THE STALLS.
THAT FINDING WAS ALREADY MADE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE ADEQUATE AREA.
>> SO IT COULD BE POLLEN THAT PHASE 4 DOES NOT INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL 123 PARKING SPACES.
IT COULD BE ANY AMOUNT UP TO THAT, CORRECT?
>> YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR THE APPLICANT BUT I SUSPECT THAT THERE WILL BE A DESIRE, IF THERE'S FINANCING AVAILABLE, TO HAVE THOSE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES TO ALLOW THEIR -- ALLOW MORE FLEXIBLE FOR SERVICE OFFERINGS AND BE ABLE TO MEET IF PARKING NEEDS OF THEIR ATTENDEES.
COMMISSIONER LOPEZ, ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
THERE'S NO PARKING, THOUGH, ALONGSIDE, OUTSIDE THE PERIMETER, CORRECT, ALONG JEFFERSON, FOR INSTANCE, IF THEY DON'T -- IF THERE IS A PARKING OVERFLOW AND THERE'S NO PARKING, THERE'S NO PARKING ALONGSIDE THE ROAD, CORRECT?
>> THERE WOULD BE NO PARKING ALLOWED ON JEFFERSON AND THERE WOULD BE NO PARKING ALLOWED ON AVENUE 49, SO ATTENDEES COULD NOT, PROVERBIAL, PARK THEIR CAR AND WALK OVER AND PHYSICALLY ENTER THE PROPERTY BY FOOT.
THEY WILL HAVE TO YOU AT THROUGH A ON-SITE PARKING AVAILABLE TO THEM.
>> WILL THERE BE SIGNAGE DICTATING THAT ON 49 AND JEFFERSON?
>> WE TALKED ABOUT IT WITH OUR CITY ENGINEER ABOUT THE IDEA OF REINFORCING.
THERE IS NO PARKING ALLOWED ON JEFFERSON ON ANY AREA.
SO BECAUSE OF THE HIGH VOLUME -- THAT'S NOT SIGNED.
FOR AVENUE 49, I TALKED WITH THE CITY ENGINEER AND I ANTICIPATE THAT WE WILL INSTITUTE SOME NO PARKING SIGNS TO REINFORCE.
I WOULD HOPE THAT THE CHURCH, AND I BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE STATED TO THE COUNCIL AND TO THE COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY THAT THEY DO NOT INTEND TO ALLOW THEIR ATTENDEES TO -- THEY WILL REINFORCE THE MESSAGE THERE'S NO PARKING ON AVENUE 49, BUT WE WILL ALSO REINFORCE IT THROUGH SIGNAGE.
>> AND PERHAPS MAYBE WE COULD PUT SOME SIGNAGE ON THAT, LIKE I CAN'T SEE THE NAME OF THE ROAD, BUT THE ROAD ON 49 THAT LEADS NORTH INTO THE COMMUNITY MIGHT BE EASIER TO FRY AND SNEAK IN THERE AND PARK RATHER THAN 49 IF WE COULD HAVE SO MANY SIGNAGE AT THOSE ENTRIES FOR SOME OF THOSE NEARBY COMMUNITIES IF ARE THERE NO CHURCH PARKING OR NO STREET PARKING.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S STREET PARKING ALLOWED FOR THAT COMMUNITY.
SO MAYBE JUST NO CHURCH PARKING.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN PUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT ON THE SIGNS.
>> I WILL SPEAK WITH THE CITY ENGINEER.
I THINK WE CAN REINFORCE IF MESSAGE.
AND I AM NOT SPEAKING FOR THE CHURCH BUT I WOULD SINCERELY HOPE THIS THEY WOULD STICK BY WHAT THEY HAVE ALREADY SHARED WITH YOU AND COUNCIL THAT THEY DO INTEND TO, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, ENFORCE WITH THEIR CONGREGANTS TO BE RESPECTFUL.
THEY HAVE SHARED 22 THEY HAVE A DESIRE AND A WISH TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS, AND I THINK THIS PARKING SITUATION WILL BE THE TEST OF THAT, SO I WON'T SPEAK FOR THEM.
THEY CAN CERTAINLY -- THE PUBLIC HEARING IS STILL OPEN, SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE THEM, CHAIR, TO SPEAK TO THIS ISSUE TO GET THEIR FEEDBACK ON RECORD, THAT'S UP TO YOU.
>> I THINK WE DID CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT WE CAN OPEN IT IF THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT CONCERN.
>> I APOLOGIZE YOU'D HAVE TO MAKE A STATEMENT.
>> YES, I'D LIKE TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> SO BASICALLY, WITH MANY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS, IT'S ALWAYS AN ISSUE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO HAVE ON STREET PARK PROMPTLY SO ICE STANDARD CONDITION THAT YOU DO NOT ALLOW THAT BECAUSE IT IS INTERRUPTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, SO THE CHURCH HAS EVER -- EVERY INTENTION OF EDUCATING THE CONGREGANTS NOT TO PARK ON THE STREET, WHICH WON'T BE ALLOWED ANYWAY, AND THEN THE CITY WILL REINFORCE THAT WITH ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE SAKE IT'S PROHIBITED OR -- PROHIBITED.
SO WE INTEND TO HAVE EVERYBODY PARKING ON-SITE.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ONCE AGAIN AND CONTINUE COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND DELIBERATION.
COMMISSIONER VALDEZ, DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> ONLY THOUGHT BEING ON THE TRAFFIC LEADING TO AND OUT OF THE CHURCH AND THERE ONLY BEING A U-TURN AVAILABLE FOR THE CARS THAT ARE DRIVING BACK EAST ON AVENUE 48, THE TRAFFIC IT MIGHT CAUSE TO RESIDENTS OFF OF AVENUE 49 COMING IN AND OUT OF THEIR
[01:10:01]
HOMES.THAT WHEN THE AMOUNT OF PARKING SPACES THAT ARE GOING TO BE PROVIDED TO THEIR GUESTS OR THEIR CHURCH MEMBERS.
YEAH, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY NEED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO CAUSE ANY TYPE OF TRAFFIC JAM OR ACCIDENT OR WHATNOT ON THAT AREA.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.
>> CAN I RESPOND TO COMMISSIONER STATEMENT?
>> COMMISSIONER, I AGREE WITH YOU AND I JUST WANT TO REINFORCE AT THE TIME THAT THIS WAS CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, YOU WEREN'T A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION YET AND DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY UNFORTUNATELY TO HEAR THE DISCUSSION AND PRESENTATION ON THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE AND IT WAS REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED BY OUR CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER, SO ALL OF THE -- I WILL NOT SAY THAT THERE WILL NOT BE TRAFFIC IMPACTS, BUT THEY WERE EVALUATED.
THEY MET THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS.
AND SO THE CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO ALL THOSE IMPACTS.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY AGAIN YOU WEREN'T A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION THEN SO YOU DIDN'T HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THAT DISCUSSION, BOTH IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND HONESTLY A VERY SIMILAR CONVERSATION IN FRONT OF THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THE COUNCIL AT THAT TIME, THAT'S ULTIMATELY WHY THE COUNCIL, DESPITE THE REQUEST FROM THE APPLICANT TO HAVEN ACCESS ONTO AVENUE 49, THE COUNCIL ULTIMATELY DECIDED NOT TO HAVE AN ACCESS ONTO AVENUE 49 OTHER THAN FOR EMERGENCY PURPOSES ONLY IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT TO THE SURROUNDING AREA.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF VEHICLES WERE HEADING WESTBOUND ON AVENUE 49 AND THERE I WAS TURN LANE THAT WENT INTO THE SITE THAT COULD HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR CAUSING SIGNIFICANT BACKUP, THE CITY COUNCIL WAS NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT IDEA, AND SO THAT'S WHY THEY ULTIMATELY DECLINED TO AUTHORIZE THAT ACCESS WHEN THEY CONSIDERED THE SPECIFIC.
I JUST WANTED TO GIVE THAT CONTEXT TO HELP YOU SINCE AGAIN YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE PART OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS.
I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF.
NOW BEING THAT POSSIBLY IN THE FUTURE IT GETS TO THE POINT WHERE MULTIPLE SERVICES ARE NEEDED TO HELP WITH FLOW AND HELP WITH CONGESTION IN THE AREA, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS SOLELY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE APPLICANT OR IS THAT SOMETHING IF THE CITY NOTICES THAT THEY'RE THERE ARE SOME ONGOING ISSUES WITH TRAFFIC FLOW AND SUCH, THAT WE CAN REQUEST THAT'S SPLIT UP SERVICES AT A CERTAIN POINT OR HOW IS THAT GOING TO BE DETERMINED?
SO -- AND THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY MAY WANT TO WEIGH IN AS WELL, BUT THE CITY HAS LIMITED AUTHORITY TO DICTATE WHEN SERVICES CAN BE HELD IN TERMS OF THE DECISION MAKING AROUND THAT, SO IF THEY BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN ADEQUATELY ACCOMMODATE THEIR CONGREGANTS WITH ONE SERVICE, HOWEVER, IF THEY DO DECIDE TO DO MULTIPLE SERVICES, THE OPERATIONAL PLAN DOES SPECIFY HOW THAT IS TO BE CONDUCTED, BUT WE CANNOT DICTATE THE CONDUCTING OF THE SERVICES.
WE'RE GETTING INTO AN ARENA WHERE THE RELIGIOUS PROTECTION LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES COME INTO PLAY, AND AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW IF MR. HEINSELMAN WANTS TO WEIGH IN WITH ANY ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS ON THAT.
>> NO, I THINK DIRECTOR SNYDER PUT IT VERY WELL.
THERE ARE SOME LIMITATIONS GENERALLY IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AS TO CORPORATIONS, BUT, AS HE POINTED OUT, THERE WOULD BE RESTRICTIONS ON THE CITY DETERMINING WHEN THE CHURCH DECIDED TO HOLD SPECIFIC SERVICES OUTSIDE OF THAT.
>> YEAH, I WASN'T SAYING MAYBE DETERMINE WHEN AND TIMES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT MAYBE JUST MAYBE SUGGEST THAT IT'S TIME TO CONSIDER ADDING AN ADDITIONAL SERVICE IF THINGS START TO BACK UP BE TRAFFIC-WISE.
>> AND, CHAIR, IF YOU WANTED TO GET ADDITIONAL INPUT FROM THE APPLICANT, IT'S YOUR DISCRETION TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ASK THE QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT IF YOU BELIEVE IT'S WORTH HEARING FROM THEM YOURSELF AND YOUR COMMISSIONERS.
IF WE COULD REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IF THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT QUESTION.
>> YEAH, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE ALL HAVE THE SAME GOAL, AND THAT IS WE DON'T WANT TRAFFIC-BACK-UP.
WE WANT TO MAKE IT COMFORTABLE FOR PEOPLE TO GET IN AND OUT OF THE PROPERTY.
AND IF WE FIND THERE IS CONSIDERABLE BACKUP, EVEN IN THE PARKING LOT OR ON THE STREET, OF COURSE, WE WOULD LOOK AT WAYS TO MITIGATE THAT AND MAYBE GO TO ANOTHER
[01:15:06]
SERVICE.IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD DO.
I THINK WE ALL HAVE THE SAME VIEW OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.
THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ONCE AGAIN, AND IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMISSIONER COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER FRANZ, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT OR A QUESTION?
>> YEAH, I HAVE SOME COMMENTS.
>> YOU KNOW, I HAVE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION FOR A LITTLE WHILE NOW, AND I WAS HERE WHEN THE CHURCH FIRST CAME BEFORE US, AND HONESTLY THE ORIGINAL PLANS THAT THEY PRESENTED WAS NOTHING THAT I COULD POSSIBLY GET BEHIND.
THERE WAS A LOT OF REQUESTS FOR THINGS THAT ARE NO LONGER A PART OF THIS PLAN.
AND EVEN THOUGH, YOU KNOW, I AM -- I LIVE NOT TOO FAR FROM THIS AREA, SO DEFINITELY AVENUE 49 IS SOMETHING THAT I DO TRY TO PROTECT TO SOME POINT, BUT I KNOW THAT SOMETHING IS GOING TO BE BUILT ON THAT CORNER, WHETHER IT'S THE CHURCH OR SOMETHING ELSE, SO I THINK WITH THE MODIFICATION THAT HAVE BEEN DONE WITH THE SMALLER FOOTPRINT, WITH THE NO OUTDOOR AMPLIFIED NOISE, NO EXIT ON AVENUE 49, AT THIS POINT I DO NOT THINK THAT THIS PROJECT IS UNFIT FOR THIS PORTION OF OUR CITY.
I DO APPRECIATE THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH WERE WILLING TO WORK WITH US TO GET TO THIS NEW SIZE AND NEW PLAN.
AND WITH THE FACT THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WAS WILLING TO APPROVE THE SPECIFIC PLAN, YOU KNOW, I REALLY DON'T SEE HOW I COULD NOT SUPPORT IT AT THIS POINT.
I'D LOVE TO HEAR THE COMMENTS FROM, OF COURSE, THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONERS, BUT I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I AM LEANING, THAT WITH THE CHANGES THAT WE HAVE DONE, WITH ALL OF THE COMMENTS AND THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT FORWARD HERE, THAT I THINK WE'RE READY TO MOVE FORWARD.
I AM, AND I ALREADY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT THE ERRORS, I DO UNDERSTAND THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF STAFF CHALLENGES, YOU KNOW, OVER THE LAST YEAR.
BUT WHEN PROJECTS OF THIS SIZE COME BEFORE US WITH THESE LITTLE ERRORS, IT JUST MAKES EVERYTHING SO MUCH HARDER, AND I UNDERSTAND AND I'M SURE THAT MR. SNYDER IS GOING TO WORK TO NOT REPEAT THIS IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
I ALSO DO UNDERSTAND THE 300-FOOT RULE THAT WE ALL ABIDE BY, BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE COMMENTS FROM THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE MAYBE 302 FEET, MAYBE 500 FEET, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS A PROJECT AS BIG AS THIS NEXT TO A DEVELOPMENT AS LARGE AS DESERT RIVER ESTATES, BUT I WOULD HOPE THE CITY WOULD CONSIDER GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT IS REQUIRED, YOU KNOW, IN THE FUTURE TO ALLOW THE RESIDENTS TO HAVE -- TO FEEL THAT THEY'RE BEING HEARD.
SO THOSE ARE PRETTY MUCH ALL MY COMMENTS AT THIS TIME, AND THANK YOU TO THE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT AND EVERYONE FOR ALL THE TIME ON THIS PROJECT.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER FRANZ.
COMMISSIONER LOPEZ OR VALDEZ, ANY OTHER THOUGHTS YOU'D LIKE TO ADD?
>> YEAH, I'D LIKE TO ADD A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS IF THAT'S OKAY AND JUST IN A CLOSING STATEMENT HERE.
FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO THANK THE APPLICANT FOR WORKING WITH THE CITY AND STAFF.
IT'S QUITE A CHANGE FROM THE LAST FEW PRESENTATIONS THAT YOU BROUGHT BEFORE US.
HOWEVER, AS MUCH AS THINGS HAVE CHANGED, I STILL STAND ON THE ISSUES WITH TRAFFIC AND WITH THE CONSTITUENTS, THE NUMEROUS CALLS AND EMAILS I RECEIVED FROM CONSTITUENTS REGARDING THE AVENUE 49 AND THE NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES AROUND THAT CORRIDOR THERE, 49TH AND JEFFERSON DOWN TO THE -- ON 50TH.
I ALSO AM A LITTLE WARY WITH THIS -- [INDECIPHERABLE] TWO YEARS TO 25 YEARS AND IS ALL CONTINGENT ON FUNDRAISING.
I KNOW THAT THERE'S NO TIMELINES, BUT AGAIN, I JUST -- AGAIN, I JUST FEEL THAT TEN TO 25 YEARS TO COMPLETE THAT PROJECT IS RATHER LONG FOR, ESPECIALLY FOR THAT LITTLE AREA AND CORRIDOR THERE.
AND AGAIN, THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION, WE GET ENOUGH OF IT DURING THE COACHELLA FESTIVAL.
WHEN FOLKS ARE TRYING TO MAKE A U-TURN IN THAT PART, GOING DOWN -- I TRAVEL BACK AND FORTH A LOT DOWN JEFFERSON, MAKE U-TURNS OR GO DOWN 48 TO WASH, AND SOMETIMES WHEN YOU HAVE ROAD CONSTRUCTION, TRAFFIC GETS BACKED UP CLEAR DOWN TO PAST
[01:20:03]
50TH JUST TO GET IN -- JUST TO MAKE THAT LEFT TURN DOWN TO 48TH.SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO GO DOWN TO JEFFERSON.
SO I JUST -- AGAIN, MY CONCERNS ARE ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY, AND AGAIN ABOUT TRAFFIC AND THE AMOUNT OF CARS, AND BETWEEN THE TWO SERVICES OR MAYBE ANOTHER SERVICE, I JUST FEEL THAT THE, AGAIN, THE TRAFFIC PLAN AND THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION THERE, I JUST LAID IT ON THE LINE, FIVE, TEN YEARS DOWN THE LINE AND SOMEONE SAYING, WHO APPROVED THIS? THIS IS HORRIBLE.
SO -- AND THEN AGAIN I KNOW, KEVIN, THERE WAS A BUNCH ERRORS AND ERROR TRYING TO GET THROUGH THAT SO THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION THERE.
SO, YEAH, I AM -- I'M JUST NOT SURE ABOUT MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT AND WISH THAT -- AGAIN, I JUST WISH THAT IT WAS IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION.
>> CHAIR, CAN I MAKE A STATEMENT?
>> I HAVE UP ON THE SCREEN THE ERRORS, AND I'M GOING TO TAKE A SESSION TO COMMISSIONER LOPEZ.
THERE WAS A TOTAL OF FOUR ERRORS IDENTIFIED, TWO IN THE RESOLUTIONS THAT ARE INCORRECT, AND THEY SHOULD BE CORRECTED.
THE OTHER ONES WERE IN THE STAFF REPORT.
SO I JUST WANT -- THERE WERE NOT A BUNCH OF ERRORS.
THERE WERE ERRORS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED.
I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER FRANZ IDENTIFIED SEVERAL, THE TWO AT THE BOTTOM AND THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY IDENTIFIED THE FIRST TWO, AND IT'S MY SINCERE APOLOGIES TO THE COMMISSION AND TO INTERESTED PARTIES THAT THESE ERRORS WERE MADE.
AS COMMISSIONER FRANZ SAID, IT'S NOT MY INTENT TO MAKE THESE ERRORS, BUT I AM HUMAN, AND AS YOU NOTED THERE HAS BEEN SOME WORKLOAD CHALLENGES THAT I'VE BEEN DEALING WITH, BUT THAT DOES EXCUSE THE ERRORS.
SO I JUST WANT TO CORRECT FOR THE RECORD THAT I DON'T WANT IT TO BE INTO THE RECORD THAT THERE ARE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF ERRORS.
THESE WERE ERRORS, BUT THEY WERE MINOR, A MINOR NUMBER OF ERRORS, I SHOULD SAY.
INSAID OF SAYING A BUNCH, I'M SORRY, I'LL SAY THREE, FOUR ERRORS, SO I'LL GO AHEAD IF I CAN CORRECT THAT FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD.
I APOLOGIZE, KEVIN, FOR THAT STATEMENT.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER, AND I APPRECIATE THAT WAS VERY KIND OF YOU.
I JUST DIDN'T WANT IT TO BE OUT IN THE RECORD.
THE OTHER THING, CHAIR, IF I CAN SAY SOMETHING ELSE, I NEED TO OFFICIALLY REMIND, AND AGAIN ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY MAY WANT TO WEIGH IN AS WELL, AS THE COMMISSION GOES THROUGH ITS DELIBERATION, THE CITY HAS A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO MAKE FACTUALLY-BASED DECISIONS BASED ON WHAT'S IN THE RECORD.
THERE WAS A TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WAS DONE THAT WAS REVIEWED BY THE CITY ENGINEER AND THE CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER, AND THE FINDING THEREIN WERE ACCEPTED OR -- OF THE ANALYSIS.
SO I UNDERSTAND THERE IS CONCERN ABOUT TRAFFIC.
AND I'M IN NO WAY DISCOURAGING OR TRYING TO DISMISS THOSE CONCERNS.
I JUST WANTED THE COMMISSION TO REMEMBER AS YOU'RE GOING THROUGH YOUR DELIBERATIONS IN YOUR ULTIMATELY DECISION MAKING, THE FACTS ARE IN THE RECORD, THE TRAFFIC STUDY HAS BEEN COMPLETED, IT'S BEEN ACCEPTED BY PROFESSIONALS HIRED BY THE CITY.
THE APPROPRIATE MIDGATION WILL BE PUT IN PLACE.
THE APPLICANT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE MITIGATIONS.
AND SO I JUST -- ENCOURAGE THE COMMISSION TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT PART OF THE PROCESS, AND AGAIN, I WOULD ASK THAT THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY HAS ANY COMMENTS TO SUPPLEMENT THAT.
>> I THINK WHAT DIRECTOR SNYDER SAID IS ACCURATE.
TWO MINOR POINTS IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE ARE ALSO, AS HE NOTED, THERE'S A TRAFFIC STUDY AS A PART OF THE MITIGATION DECLARATION THAT WAS DECLARED IN THE ENTIRE PROJECT STUDY, SO WHEN THE SPECIFIC PLAN, THE CONTEMPLATION OF THESE ENTITLEMENTS WHICH HAD THAT TRAFFIC STUDY, THERE ARE ALSO SOME CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN HERE THAT RELATE TO SOME TRAFFIC ISSUES AS WELL.
SO AS DIRECTOR SNYDER NOTED, THE TRAFFIC SITUATION HAS BEEN STUDIED BY THE CITY.
THERE IS PUBLIC RECORD OF THAT INFORMATION, AND ANY SORT OF FINDING WOULD NEED TO BE BASED ON FACTS AS WELL.
[01:25:01]
WHEN YOU SAY THEY WERE APPROVED BY COUNCIL OR BY THE COMMISSION? BECAUSE I DIDN'T APPROVE IT.IF I WAS UNCLEAR, MY APOLOGIES.
THE MMB, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED, ADOPTED THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHEN IT ADOPTED THE SPECIFIC PLAN IN JUNE OR JULY.
FORGIVE ME, I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY.
>> IT WAS JUNE 16, 2021, TO SUPPLEMENT THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND HE IS CORRECT.
THE COUNCIL WENT THROUGH IN ADOPTING ACTION WHERE THEY ADOPTED AND CERTIFIED THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WHICH CONSISTED OF THE MITIGATED INITIAL STUDY OF MITIGATED DECLARATION WITH ALL ATTENDANT COMPONENTS, INCLUDING THE TRAFFIC STUDY.
SO YOU ARE CORRECT, COMMISSIONER.
THE COMMISSION, BY YOUR 2-2 ACTION, DID NOT RECOMMEND ANY ACTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
SO THE CITY COUNCIL IN THEIR DECISION MAKING DID TAKE THE ACTION, BUT THE COMMISSION DID NOT.
COMMISSIONER VALDEZ, DO YOU HAVE ANY CLOSING COMMENTS?
>> I DID HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.
WHEN THE TRAFFIC STUDY WAS DONE, DID THE STUDY INCLUDE ANY OF THE NEW PROJECTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING WORKED ON ON THAT THE SAME STREET LIKE THE NEW SHOPPING CENTER, THE LUXURY APARTMENTS OR THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON VENTANA? DID IT INCLUDE ANY OF THE PROJECTED TRAFFIC THAT THOSE PROJECTS WOULD BRING IN?
THE TRAFFIC STUDIES TYPICALLY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT THEY CALL BACKGROUND TRACK OF INFORMATION.
SO ANY APPROVED PROJECTS WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE AREA WERE ADDRESSED AS PART OF THAT.
AND IT'S A FAIRLY TYPICAL PRACTICE WITH TRAFFIC STUDIES.
THEY TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT HAS BEEN APPROVED AND THEY LOOK AT THE ANALYSIS THAT WERE CONE DEDUCTED FOR THOSE, AND THEN THEY ADDRESS THAT IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY.
SO THE SHORT ANSWER IS YES, BUT I GAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE EXTENDED EXPLANATION.
MY COMMENT WOULD BE THAT, FIRST, I DO AGREE WITH SOME OF THE STATEMENTS FROM COMMISSIONER LOPEZ AND FRANZ IN BEING THAT WHEN THIS PROJECT FIRST CAME BEFORE US A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, WE WERE LOOKING AT A 70 INTO THE MONUMENT AND THEN IT WENT TO 50-SOMETHING FOOT MONUMENT AND NOW IT IS WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN GUIDELINES.
OUTDOOR VENUES PROPOSED HAVE CHANGED.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS AT THE DIRECTION, I BELIEVE IT WAS AT THE DIRECTION OF CITY COUNCIL NOW WE'RE LIMITING THE TRAFFIC ON AVENUE 49 TO HELP LITIGATE ANY OF THOSE CONCERNS OF THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES.
I FEEL LIKE A LOT OF CONCESSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE AND A LOT OF -- A LOT OF -- COINS HAS LIMITED, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THINS THAT CAN AND CAN'T HAPPEN.
I FEEL ALSO IN REGARDS TO TRAFFIC WHEN WE SAY THAT WE'VE DONE A TRAFFIC STUDY, IN MY EXPERIENCE OVER LAST SEVERAL YEARS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHEN WE SAY THAT WE'VE DONE A TRAFFIC STUDY, IT HAS BEEN VERY THOROUGH AND VERY EXTENSIVE AND THEY TAKE EVERYTHING INTO ACCOUNT.
I CAN'T THINK OF ANY PROJECTS OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS WHERE WE'VE, AFTER THE FACT, RUN INTO SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC ISSUES THAT WEREN'T POSSIBLY IDENTIFIED BEFOREHAND.
THAT BEING SAID, I THINK THAT THE APPLICANT HAS DONE A GREAT JOB OF TRYING TO CONFORM TO THE WANTS AND THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY, AND I'M EAGER TO HOPEFULLY SEE IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THESE, AND I DO APPRECIATE STAFF TAKING THE TIME TO NOTE THE CORRECTIONS SO THAT THEY'RE NOT JUST VERBAL, BUT IF ANYBODY WANTS TO TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE, DOES ANY OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON MAKING A MOTION?
>> CHAIR, I DID PUT -- IF IT ASSISTS THE COMMISSION, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT ANY MOTION ACTIONS FOR THE RESOLUTIONS BE TAKEN SEPARATELY.
>> THERE WOULD BE A MOTION FOR EACH ONE, AND I HAVE PUT UP IN FRONT OF YOU THE POTENTIAL MOTION LANGUAGE THAT THE COMMISSION COULD USE IF THEY WANTED.
>> AND THE SCRIVENER ERRORS ARE TO BE NOTED FOR RESOLUTION 1982, CORRECT?
>> SO THERE WILL BE 1981 WITH THE SCRIVENER ERRORS AND ALSO SCRIVENER ERRORS FOR 1982, AND AS AMENDED, AND THE AMENDED CONDITIONS THAT WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY TALKED ABOUT FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NUMBER 73, 74 AND 89, AGAIN CONDITIONAL APPROVAL ON 73, 74 I'M RECOMMENDING THAT THEY BE STRUCK DOES THERE'S NO DESCENDED INTENDED LOADING DOCKS, AND CONDITION NUMBER 89 WOULD BE TO SPECIFY WHAT THE COUNCIL DIRECT, THAT USE OF GRASS MUST BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT INDIO WATER AUTHORITY RULES PERTAINING TO LANDSCAPING AND USE OF GRASS.
>> AND THEN, CHAIR AND DIRECTOR SNYDER, IF I MAY, DIRECTOR SNYDER, DID YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION ON CONDITION NUMBER 12 FOR RESOLUTION 1981 AS WELL?
SO AS NOTED EARLIER, I DID GO BACK -- I WANTED TO GO BACK.
SO CONDITION APPROVAL NUMBER 12, THAT IS -- SO LET ME -- THAT WAS IN THE CONDITION TO
[01:30:07]
BE MET WHERE THERE'S NO OUTDOOR SOUND AMPLIFICATION.SO I WILL MODIFY THIS AND AMEND IT.
AMENDMENT TO CONDITION OF APPROVAL NUMBER 12 OF THE RESOLUTION -- SORRY, I'M TYPING.
IT'S HARD TO TYPE AND POWERPOINT FOR SOME REASON.
-- OF THE RESOLUTION SPECIFYING NO OUTDOOR SOUND AMPLIFICATION EQUIPMENT.
THANK YOU, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
SO THERE ARE THE POTENTIAL MOTION ACTIONS.
AND I SHOULD NOTE FOR THE RECORD, AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IF THE COMMISSION, IF THERE IS A 2-2 VOTE LIKE YOU DID FORT SPECIFIC PLAN, THAT IS A DENIAL.
IT WOULD BE NO ACTION DENIAL WOULD BE APPEALABLE.
>> APPEALABLE TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
>> NO ONE HAS MADE ANY -- I CAN'T THINK RIGHT NOW.
NO ONE HAS MADE ANY MOTION, CORRECT?
>> THERE'S NO MOTION ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW, CORRECT.
THEN I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO DENY TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1981, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF INDIO APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 20-10-1064 WITH SCRIVENER ERRORS NOTED BY STAFF AND AMENDED TO CONDITION OF APPROVAL NUMBER 12 OF THE RESOLUTION SPECIFYING NO OUTDOOR SOUND AMPLIFICATION EQUIPMENT TO ALLOW A PLACE OF WORSHIP, CHURCH AT THE RED DOOR ON A 13.7-ACRE PROJECT SITE TO BE LOCATED AT -- LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST -- SOUTHEAST CORNER JEFFERSON STREET AND AVENUE 49.
>> AND TO CLARIFY THAT, THAT WOULD BE A MOTION OF DENIAL? DID I HEAR THAT ACCURATE?
SO COMMISSIONER LOPEZ, YOU STATED -- YOU STARTED WITH DENIAL AND THEN YOU WENT TO ADOPTION, SO YOU ARE RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF RESOLUTION 1981, RIGHT?
SO I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY RESOLUTION 1981 FOR THE RECORD.
SO THAT IS THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
THERE IS -- I GUESS, CHAIR, BECAUSE I THINK THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION, I WOULD RECOMMEND WE ASK COMMISSIONER VALDEZ IF THEIR HER SECOND WAS FOR THAT DENIAL OR IF IT WAS FOR SOMETHING ELSE.
SO WE'LL TO GO A ROLL CALL VOTE.
>> SO WITH THAT, THE COMMISSION HAS A 2-2 VOTE, WHICH IS A NO VOTE, AND AS NOTED RECENTLY BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, THAT IS A DENIAL, WHICH MEANS THE APPLICANT THEN WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
DO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE OR DENY, THEN, RESOLUTION 1982 AT THIS
POINT OR IS IT ALL -- >> YOU COULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE IT IF YOU THOUGHT THAT WOULD GET A DIFFERENT OUTCOME, BUT I BELIEVE THAT WOULD STILL BE ON THE TABLE.
[01:35:03]
AT THIS POINT I THINK WE'RE DEADLOCKED 2-2 ON THE MOTION OF DENYING THESE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.SO DO WE NEED TO TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE ON A MOTION TO DENY RESOLUTION 1982?
>> I WOULD RECOMMEND, MR. HEINSELMAN CAN WEIGH IN, NI FOR THE RECORD THE COMMISSION SHOULD TAKE A VOTE ACTION.
IF YOU ARE RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE LAND USE, TECHNICALLY THE DESIGN REVIEW, WHICH IS A STAND-ALONE APPLICATION BUT IS AFFILIATED, COULD BE VOTED ON.
HOWEVER, THE CONDITIONAL USE AUTHORIZATION THAT IS ENTRUSTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD NOW GO IN FRONT OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ITS CONSIDERATION UNDER A PO, BUT, MR. HEINSELMAN, DO YOU AGREE THAT THEY SHOULD GO AHEAD FOR THE RECORD?
>> I THINK IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO ACT ON BOTH ITEMS, IF THAT IS WITHIN, OBVIOUSLY WITHIN THE COMMISSION'S DISCRETION, BUT I AGREE WITH DIRECTOR SNYDER'S THINKING THERE.
>> I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO DENY RESOLUTION 1982, A RESOLUTION PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF INDIO APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 20-05--474 WITH SCRIVENER ERRORS AS NOTED BY STAFF AND AS AMENDED PER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 73, 74 AND 89 FOR SITE DESIGN, CIRCULATIONS, LANDSCAPE AND ARCHITECTURE ON 13.07-ACRE PROJECT SITE TO BE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF JEFFERSON AND AVENUE 49.
>> AND, CHAIR, MAY I ASK A QUESTION OF THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY BEFORE YOU TAKE MOTION ACTION?
>> MR. HEINSELMAN, DOES THE COMMISSION NEED TO STATE FOR THE RECORD ANY FINDINGS FOR THE DENIAL? I SHOULD HAVE ASKED THAT EARLIER.
>> IF THERE'S A RESOLUTION TO DENY, THAT WOULD REQUIRE WRITTEN FINDINGS AS TO -- OR IT WOULD REQUIRE FINDINGS AS TO THE RATIONALE FOR THE DENIAL.
WHERE WE'RE ENDING UP NOW IS I GUESS IN A SENSE LACK OF ACTION FOR NO SECURING AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE.
>> LACK ACTION DOESN'T REQUIRE SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS, BUT IF IT WAS A DIFFERENT VOTE AND STILL BEING DENIED, IT WOULD.
I GUESS MY THINKING WOULD BE THAT -- THAT I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER LOPEZ PUT FORWARD WHAT I WOULD TAKE TO BE HER THOUGHTS ON FINDINGS BASED ON THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS, IF I HEARD THAT PART OF THE DISCUSSION CORRECTLY, BUT TO YOUR POINT, DIRECTOR SNYDER, WE DID NOT CALL THOSE INTO HER MOTION.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT?
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE RECORD, AND I APOLOGIZE, CHAIR, FOR HAVING THIS CONVERSATION WITH THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE RECORD, IF THIS IS GOING TO GO ON APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR BOTH RESOLUTION 1981 AND RESOLUTION 1982, DOES THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAVE A OBLIGATION TO SPECIFY FINDINGS ON THE RECORD AS TO THE BASIS FOR -- SINCE WE HAVE A 2-2, AT LEAST ON THE RESOLUTION 1981 THAT WAS MY QUESTION TO MR. HEINSELMAN.
>> SO MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE SINCE IT WON'T BE ANYTHING GOING FORWARD, THERE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE FINDING OF THE COMMISSION, SO I GUESS I WOULD ASK IF COMMISSIONER LOPEZ OR COMMISSIONER VALDEZ WOULD PUT FORWARD THE FINDINGS BEHIND THEIR MOTION, THEIR SUPPORT FOR THEIR MOTION TO DENY.
>> SO BASED ON MY STATEMENTS AND MY CLOSING REMARKS IS WHAT I AM BASING MY DENIAL ON.
>> AND, MR. HEINSELMAN, SINCE THOSE WERE I THINK -- AND COMMISSIONER, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG -- THOSE WERE ALSO THE BASIS FOR YOUR MOTION TO DENY RESOLUTION 1981 AS WELL, RIGHT?
I THINK WE JUST PUT IT ON THE RECORD THAT COMMISSIONER LOPEZ, AND I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR COMMISSIONER VALDEZ, BUT AND SHE MAY WANT TO WEIGH IN, BUT THOSE ARE SIMILAR REASONS FOR HER VOTE ON THAT MATTER, SO WE CREATE THE RECORD.
SO, CHAIR, IF IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO ALLOW COMMISSIONER VALDEZ TO AFFIRM A SIMILAR SET OF REASONS?
COMMISSIONER VALDEZ, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER THOUGHTS?
>> THEY'RE SIMILAR AS JACKIE'S AS FAR AS THE TRAFFIC AND THE CONCERN OF THE RESIDENTS IN THE AREA WITH THE TRAFFIC.
I APOLOGIZE FOR THIS, BUT I THINK IT WAS IMPORTANT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IF THE APPLICANT CHOOSES TO APPEAL THIS, THERE NEEDS TO BE A RECORD OF THE BASIS FOR WHY
[01:40:01]
THIS VOTE OCCURRED, AND SO AT LEAST IT'S ON THE RECORD SO UNLESS MR. HEINSELMAN HAS ANY ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS, THIS SATISFIES MY QUESTION TO HIM.AND THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION, DIRECTOR SNYDER, AND FOR COMMISSIONERS LOPEZ AND VALDEZ FOR PROVIDING THAT INFORMATION AS WELL.
SO DO WE HAVE -- WE HAVE A MOTION.
DID WE GET A SECOND ON DENYING RESOLUTION 1982?
LET'S TO DO A ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE.
>> MOTION CARES AS A NO VOTE DENIAL WITH THE APPEAL TO CC, CITY COUNCIL FOR THE APPLICANT.
>> AND, CHAIR, IF I MAY, SO JUST TO REITERATE FOR THE APPLICANT'S BENEFIT, BOTH RESOLUTIONS HAVE BEEN -- THE VOTE IS 2-2 WHICH EQUATES TO A DENIAL, AND AT THIS POINT IT'S IF APPLICANT'S DECISION IF THEY WANT TO SEEK APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S APPEAL PROCEDURES, WHICH I CAN PROVIDE TO THE APPLICANT SUBSEQUENT TO THIS MEETING.
IF THEY DO APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL, THAT WOULD REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL AT A DATE IN THE FUTURE, AT WHICH TIME THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD BE THE FINAL DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY ON ANY ACTION RELATING TO BOTH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THE DESIGN REVIEW.
SO FOR THE BENEFIT OF APPLICANT AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES AND THE COMMISSION, THOSE WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE NEXT STEPS.
BEING THAT PUBLIC HEARING ITEM, THAT WAS OUR ONLY ITEM FOR DISCUSS TONIGHT.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER COMMENTS OR STAFF ITEMS?
[6. STAFF ITEMS]
FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA?>> I'LL LET THE COMMISSIONERS.
I DO HAVE A QUICK STAFF ITEM BUT I WILL WAIT UNTIL THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE WEIGHED IN WITH ANY THOUGHTS THEY HAVE.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONER COMMENTS.
>> SO AS YOU MAY BE AWARE, THE CITY HAS TRANSITIONED TO A NEW AGENDA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ICOMPASS.
WE FULLY IMPLEMENTED THIS IN DECEMBER.
THIS IS OUR CONDUCT OF BUSINESS GOING FORWARD.
VANESSA, THE CITY CLERK, VANESSA WILL NOT BE WITH US MUCH LONGER BECAUSE THE CITY CLERK HAS PUT HER FOOT DOWN, SHE WANTS HER BACK WITH BUT VANESSA IS ONE OF OUR IN-HOUSE EXPERTS WITH THE ICOMPASS PROGRAM AND SO I WANTED TO ASK THE COMMISSION TO QUESTIONS.
ONE, COULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR VANESSA AT THIS MOMENT THAT SHE CAN ANSWER PERTAINING TO THAT AGENDA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM? AND TWO, WOULD THE COMMISSION BE INTERESTED IN A TRAINING PROVIDED BY VANESSA ON THAT SYSTEM AT A NEAR FUTURE MEETING TO ASSIST YOU AS YOU WORK IN THIS TRANSITION BECAUSE I THINK IT'S, ON MY SIDE, I THINK AFTER FOUR, FIVE TIMES USING IT NOW, I'M JUST STARTING TO GET THE HANG OF IT, AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FOR THE RESUPIENT, SO IS THERE ANY INTEREST ON THE PART OF THE COMMISSION IN HAVING A TRAINING AND/OR DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR VANESSA NOW THAT SHE COULD ANSWER? BECAUSE SHE'S HAPPY TO IF YOU DO.
>> DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT, HAVEN'T'S YOU?
>> I WAS GOING TO SAY, I CAN DO A QUICK SCREEN SHARE, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE PUBLIC IS VIEWING AND IT IS A PUBLIC PORTAL, SO THE PUBLIC CAN SEE HOW TO NAVIGATE.
IT'S QUITE SIMPLE, BUT LIKE KEVIN SAID, ONCE DO IT ONCE OR TWICE YOU WILL GET THE HANG OF IT.
YOU WILL KNOW EXACTLY WHERE TO GO.
SO IF YOU ALLOW ME A FEW MINUTES JUST TO SHARE MY SCREEN AND SO THE PUBLIC PORTAL, I CAN DO THAT OR I CAN SET ASIDE SOME TIME AT A LATER DATE TO DO ONE-ON-ONE TRAININGS OR A GROUP TRAINING, WHATEVER THE COMMISSION PREFERS.
>> ANY COMMISSIONERS? I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO A QUICK SCREEN SHARE, AND IF ANYBODY NEEDS ANY FURTHER ASSISTANCE WITH THAT WANT MAYBE THEY CAN REACH OUT TO YOU AND SCHEDULE SOME ONE-ON-ONE TIME.
I WILL SHARE MY SCREEN, AND I WILL JUST SHOW YOU A QUICK RUN-THROUGH.
IT WON'T BE MORE THAN FIVE MINUTES.
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS IN BETWEEN, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO STOP ME AT ANY TIME.
>> SO I DID SHARE WITH THE COMMISSIONERS LAST COMMISSION THAT AT THIS TIME YOU WILL BE RECEIVING AN EMAIL THAT WILL BE DIRECTLY FROM ICOMPASS.
SO WHEN YOU GO TO OUR AGENDA AND MINUTES PAGE THROUGH INDIO.ORG, YOU WILL BE DIRECTED TO THIS LINK, OUR INDIO CIVIC WEB.
IT IS OUR NEW AGENDA MANAGEMENT, AGENDA MANAGEMENT PORTAL.
[01:45:03]
HERE YOU WILL FIND ANYTHING ABOUT COUNCIL, COMMISSIONS, AGENDAS, RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES CAN BE FOUND HERE THROUGH LASERFICHE.EVERYTHING ABOUT OUR COUNCIL CAN BE FOUND IN THIS AREA.
ANY PREVIOUS MEETINGS FROM THE PAST I BELIEVE FIVE YEARS CAN BE FOUND HERE IN
[01:50:49]
OUR ARCHIVES.WE ARE STILL GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF LOGGING IN OUR ATTENDANCE AND VOTINGS FOR CITY COUNCIL.
WE WOULD LIKE TO INCORPORATE COMMISSIONS AT SOME POINT AS WELL.
AND ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC CAN SUBSCRIBE TO ANY OF OUR CITY COUNCIL OR COMMISSION MEETINGS.
SO THAT'S ALL HERE ON OUR HOME PAGE.
OVER HERE ON THIS RIGHT SIDE, YOU HAVE A CALENDAR, HOWEVER, YOU ALSOAL HAVE THESE TABS HERE, HOME WITH CALENDAR, MEETINGS AND SEARCH.
YOU CAN GO STRAIGHT TO THE CALENDAR.
FROM HERE YOU CAN BASICALLY SEE WHAT'S ON THERE ORE YOU COULD SELECT A DATE.
FOR TODAY IT SHOWS YOU WE HAVE OUR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
IF SOMEBODY WERE TO GO ON THERE AND SELECT PLANNING COMMISSION, THE TOP HERE GIVES YOU A LITTLE GENERAL INTRO.
IT LETS YOU KNOW THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETS EVERY SECOND AND FOURTH WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH AT 6:00 P.M.
CURRENTLY THE LOCATION IS VIRTUAL SO IT WILL TELL YOU ZOOM.
IF YOU SEE HERE IN THIS AREA WE HAVE THE JANUARY 12TH PLANNING COMMISSION.
IF WE CLICK THERE, IT WILL TAKE YOU TO THE JANUARY 12TH AGENDA.
YOU WILL SEE EVERYTHING HERE, WHATEVER WAS ON THE ITEM.
IF YOU SCROLL UP FROM TODAY'S AGENDA, JANUARY 26TH, SO IF YOU WERE TO CLICK ON THIS LINK, IT'S GOING TO TAKE YOU TO THE ZOOM MEETING.
I'M ALREADY IN THERE SO I'M NOT GOING TO LOG IN BECAUSE I DON'T WANT IT TO KICK ME OUT.
FOR ANY SPANISH-SPEAKING RESIDENTS THAT WANT TO PARTAKE, I DO ALWAYS UPLOAD AN AGENDA IN SPANISH FOR ANYBODY THAT DOES WANT TO FOLLOW ALONG.
AND THEN IF YOU SCROLL DOWN, SO FOR THE COMMISSIONERS OR ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO FOLLOW THROUGH, THERE'S ACTUALLY A REALLY NEAT FEATURE THAT DOES HTML SPLIT SCREEN FEATURE, SO IT GIFTS YOU THE AGENDA ON THE LEFT SIDE, HOWEVER, IF WE WANT TO FOLLOW ALONG WITH THE STAFF REPORT THAT'S PROVIDED BY STAFF FOR ANY GIVEN ITEM, AND I APOLOGIZE, PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF REPORTS ARE ANYWHERE FROM 200 TO 2,000 PAGES AT ANY GIVEN TIME, SO IT DOES TAKE A MOMENT OR TWO TO UPLOAD, BUT IT WILL DO A SPLIT SCREEN, SO YOU CAN SEE THE AGENDA AND FOLLOW ALONG AND YOU CAN ALSO DO A STAFF REPORT ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE AT WHATEVER PERCENTAGE YOU WOULD LIKE.
HERE IS A STAFF REPORT THAT STAFF PRESENTED FOR THIS GIVEN ITEM.
AND IF YOU SCROLL DOWN, IT WILL GIVE YOU ACTUAL ATTACHMENTS.
SO IF YOU SEE HERE, IF WE'RE LOOKING FOR RESOLUTION 1981, WE CAN CLICK ITEM D AND IT WILL TAKE YOU TO PAGE 113 AND GIVE YOU RESOLUTION 1981.
IT'S A GOOD WAY TO FOLLOW ALONG SHOULD YOU SO CHOOSE, ESPECIALLY FOR COMMISSIONERS THAT WANT TO LOOK AT ALL THE ATTACHMENTS THAT ARE GIVEN.
THERE IS GOING TO TAKE US BACK TO OUR PAGE.
AGAIN, I'M ONLY CONCENTRATING ON PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT COUNCIL HAS THE SAME METHOD.
I COULD TAKE YOU TO THE JANUARY 6TH COUNCIL MEETING, AND THE SAME THING APPLIES.
OUR COUNCIL DOES RECEIVE THE SAME AGENDA, SAME STAFF REPORT.
WE'RE CONVERTING TO THIS NEW METHOD.
AND THE ONE OTHER THING I DID WANT TO MENTION, WE DID RECEIVE A PUBLIC COMMENT, A WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WAS RECEIVED VIA EMAIL, SO IF YOU GO TO THIS MEETINGS PAGE UP HERE, IT WILL TAKE YOU TO MEETING.
THIS TOP PORTION IS SOLELY FOR CITY COUNCIL OR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
IT LETS YOU KNOW, SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO PARTICIPATE IN PUBLIC COMMENT, YOU CAN EMAIL THE CITY CLERK, PLANNING COMMISSION HAS A DIFFERENT FIRST PAGE INDICATING THAT YOU EMAIL COMMISSION SECRETARY.
IF WE SCROLL DOWN HERE, WE SEE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THERE'S ACTUALLY A LINK AREA HERE FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.
SHOULD ANYBODY OF THE PUBLIC CHOOSE TO VIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED FOR ANY GIVEN ITEM, THEY WOULD CLICK THE LINK, IT WOULD TAKE THEM TO THIS PAGE, AND THEY COULD VIEW ALL PUBLIC COMMENTS SUBMITTED FORE CITY COUNCIL OR PUBLIC -- I APOLOGIZE -- PLANNING COMMISSION.
THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO THAT WE GENERALLY RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON.
SHOULD WE RECEIVE ANY FOR ARTS OR MOBILE HOMES, WE WILL CREATE THAT FOLDER FOR ANYBODY TO VIEW.
THIS WAS THE COMMENTS THAT WERE REVIEWED FOR MR. KELLER AND UPLOADED TO THE WEB.
AND THAT'S KIND OF A QUICK OVERVIEW.
BUT SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, PLEASE FEEL FREE.
>> CAN I ASK VANESSA ONE QUICK THING? I BELIEVE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ARE AUTOMATICALLY SUBSCRIBED, SO ABOUT THERE IS A PUBLISHED WITH THE STAFF REPORT AND OTHER INFORMATION IS PUBLISHED, THEY AUTOMATICALLY GET NOTIFIED, IS THAT CORRECT?
I ACTUALLY WENT AHEAD AND SUBSCRIBED THEM ON MY END AS AN ADMIN THROUGH THE PORTAL, SO THEY SHOULD EACH GET A NOTIFYING.
I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH HERE AND ACTUALLY LOOK THROUGH THAT PLANNING COMMISSION EMAIL.
SO THIS IS WHAT YOU ALL -- ANY SUBSCRIBER, I SHOULD SAY, SO ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC COULD ACTUALLY GO IN AND VIEW A PLANNING COMMISSION, AND I DO HAVE A LOT OF SUBSCRIBERS TO ALL THE DIFFERENT COMMISSIONS, SO IT'S UP TO THEM TO GO IN.
SO ON THE PORTAL PAGE THEMSELVES, IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN SUBSCRIBING TO ONE OR TWO OR ALL OF THE COMMISSIONS, YOU WOULD SIMPLY CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE.
YOU WOULD ENTER YOUR INFORMATION.
IT'S NOT GOING TO ALLOW ME TO BECAUSE I'M ALREADY SUBSCRIBED, BUT YOU WOULD CLICK WHICHEVER COUNCIL MEETING YOU'RE INTERESTED IN OR COMMISSION MEETING, AND THEN YOU WOULD ENTER YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS, GO THROUGH THE LITTLE PROMPTS AND SUBSCRIBE.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY COMMENTS? I KNOW THAT A FEW OF US HAD A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFICULTY NAVIGATING AND GETTING TO THAT ZOOM LINK TODAY BUT THIS IS A PRETTY GOOD DESCRIPTION OF HOW TO DO
[01:55:01]
THAT.WOULD ANYBODY STILL LIKE TO RECEIVE THAT EMAIL AS WE HAVE IN THE PAST WITH THE DIRECT ZOOM LINK? ANYONE? ? EVERYONE'S OKAY WITH THIS METHOD? OKAY.
SO IF ANYBODY HAS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR NEEDS SOME TRAINING ON THIS, WE CAN REACH OUT OUT TO DIRECTLY, VANESSA?
>> ABSOLUTELY, VIA PHONE, EMAIL.
WE CAN SET ASIDE SOME TIME TO RUN THROUGH IT ONE ON ONE JUST UNTIL YOU'RE COMFORTABLE, AND WE CAN STILL HAVE A SECRETARY EMAIL YOU THOSE LINKS OR AGENDAS SHOULD THAT BE THE CASE.
AND THAT WILL BE THE NEW SECRETARY.
CAN YOU GIVE US HER NAME AND CAN WE GET SOME CONTACT INFORMATION FOR HER.
HER NAME WOULD BE CLEMENTINA ORA GONE.
THESE THE NEW ADMIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ADMIN ASSISTANT FOR CDD, SO SHE WILL BE REPORTING TO KEVIN I BELIEVE AS OF FEBRUARY.
SHE WILL BE TAKING OVER THOSE MEETINGS.
AGAIN, SHOULD YOU NEED ANYTHING, ALWAYS FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME.
I WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ASSIST YOU OR TO DIRECT YOU TO WHOEVER CAN ASSIST YOU.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, VANESSA.
KEVIN, ARE THERE ANY OTHER STAFF ITEMS OR ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO MENTION?
THEN AT THIS POINT WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ADJOURN TO THE NEXT PLANNING MEETING, FEBRUARY 9, 2022.
>> THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.