[00:00:02]
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: IT IS 6:02 P.M.
MAY 11, 2022 AND WE WILL CALL THIS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
CAN WE LET A ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE, PLEASE.
>> COMMISSIONER FRANZ: PRESENT.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: PRESENT.
>> AND COMMISSIONER VALDEZ AND VICE CHAIR RODRIGUEZ CEJA ARE BOTH ABSENT.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: COMMISSIONER LOPEZ, WOULD YOU BE SO GLAD AS TO LEAD US IN OUR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
>> COMMISSIONER LOPEZ: OF COURSE.
>> COMMISSIONER FRANZ: COULD YOU HEAR HER? I COULDN'T HEAR.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE AUDIO THERE FROM THE CHAMBERS.
>> COMMISSIONER FRANZ: WE CAN.
JUST SPEAKING DIRECTLY INTO THE MIC WE COULDN'T HEAR COMMISSIONER LOPEZ.
DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT?
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: BEING THAT THERE WERE NONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO OUR
FIRST PUBLIC HEARING I- >> PARDON THE INTERRUPTION, CHAIR.
ALSO TO CONFIRM NO ONE IS IN ATTENDANCE AT THE MOMENT, CORRECT?
>> ZACH HEINSELMAN: THANK YOU.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: THANK YOU.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GO WITH THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING ITEM, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC
[4.1. Design Review (DR 22-02-495) for a proposed 65,000 square foot warehou...]
HEARING ITEM 4.1, DESIGN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED 65,000 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE LOCATED ON SOUTHWEST CORNER AVENUE 45 AND GOLF CENTER PARKWAY.I'M WAITING FOR PRESENTATION TO COME ONTO OUR SCREEN TODAY.
MY NAME IS ALYSSA SUAREZ, ACTING SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
ITEM 4.1 IS A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FOR THE DISTRICT BOULDERS WEST, LLC FOR A PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE.
THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF GOLF CENTER PARKWAY AND AVENUE 45.
IN SUMMARY, IT'S A PROPOSED 65,000 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE.
IT IS SPECULATIVE, MEANING THAT THERE IS NO TENANT IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME.
THE PARCEL HAS A LAND USE DESIGNATION OF WORKPLACE AND EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT UNDER THE GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND AN INDUSTRIAL PARK ZONING DISTRICT UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCE.
WAREHOUSE IS PRINCIPALLY PERMITTED IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK ZONE AND AN ALLOWED USE UNDERSTAND THE WEP LAND USE DESIGNATION.
SO HERE IS AN IMAGE OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN.
SO TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA, THE PROJECT IS A ONE-STORY, 59,000 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE WHICH ALSO INCLUDES A 6,000 SQUARES FOOT MEZZANINE.
THE PROJECT HAS A FRONT SETBACK OF 72 FEET FROM GOLF CENTER PARKWAY AND 60-FOOT FRONT SETBACK OFF OF AVENUE 45.
THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE 20-FOOT REQUIRED SETBACK IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK ZONE.
THE PROJECT WILL ALSO INCLUDE A REAR SETBACK OF 33 FEET AND A SIDE SETBACK OF 39 FEET.
THIS IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE INDUSTRIAL PARK ZONE STANDARDS OF ZERO REAR AND ZERO SIDE SETBACKS IF THE PROJECT IS NOT ABUTTING A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 156 PARKING SPACES, INCLUDING ADA HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE SPACES.
THERE IS ALSO A TOTAL OF SEVEN LOADING SPACES BEING PROPOSED, INCLUDING THREE HIGH LOADING DOCKS AND FOUR GROUND LEVEL LOADING DOCKS.
THE PROJECT SITE WOULD HAVE ACCESS OFF OF TWO PROPOSED DRIVEWAYS.
ONE IS LOCATED OFF OF GOLF CENTER PARKWAY, AND THAT WOULD BE A SHARED DRIVEWAY, AND THE OTHER IS ACTUALLY AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY OFF OF AVENUE 45.
[00:05:01]
THE IMAGE BEFORE YOU IS A PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN SHOWING THE OPEN SPACE OF THE WAREHOUSE.THERE WILL BE A 8,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE SPACE DESIGNATED IN THIS FLOOR PLAN.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE IS ALSO A MEZZANINE LEVEL FLOOR PLAN THAT SHOWS ACCESS VIA AN ELEVATOR AND A STAIRCASE.
THE IMAGE BEFORE YOU IS THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS OF THE STRUCTURE.
THE BUILDING WILL HAVE A MODERN FACADE AND FEATURE ARCHITECTURAL OVERHANGS ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING WHERE THE MEZZANINE WILL BE LOCATED THAT IS SHOWN IN THE WHITE THERE.
THE THE BUILDING ITSELF WILL RANGE IN COLOR WITH GRAY HUES AND CONTAIN BLUE TINTED GLASS WINDOWS.
THE THERE IS A SMALL COLOR BOARD LAID OUT FOR YOU TO VISUALIZE.
THE TALLEST POINT OF THIS STRUCTURE WILL BE 30 FEET IN HEIGHT WHICH IS UNDER THE 30-FOOT HEIGHT MAXIMUM LIMIT IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK ZONE.
SO HERE ARE SOME MORE RENDERING TO SHOW YOU WHAT THE CONCEPTUAL IDEA OF THIS ARCHITECTURE LAYOUT WILL LOOK LIKE.
ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO LANDSCAPE PRIMARILY ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF AVENUE 45 AND GOLF CENTER PARKWAY.
THERE WOULD ALSO BE LANDSCAPING DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE PARKING LOT AND ALONG THE FRONT AND SIDES OF THE BUILDING.
THERE IS ALSO A PROPOSED RETENTION BASIN ON THE NORTHEAST PORTION OF THE PARCEL THAT WILL BE LANDSCAPED AND DESIGNED WITH DESERT FRIENDLY LANDSCAPING.
SO THIS IS ANOTHER IMAGE OF THE PROPOSED WAREHOUSE.
TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA LOOKING SOUTHWEST FROM GOLF CENTER AND AVENUE 45.
SO I'D LIKE TO EMPHASIZE SOME OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED TODAY.
THE PROJECT WILL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH CONDITION A13 WHICH REQUIRES THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT AN EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN FOR APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING DIVISION AS WELL AS CONDITION A14 WHICH REQUIRES THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT A FINAL LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING DIVISION, ENGINEERING DIVISION, AS WELL AS THE INDIO WATER AUTHORITY.
CONDITION B7 REQUIRES THAT THE APPLICANT COMPLY WITH THE ON-SITE STORM WATER RETENTION BASIN AND SYSTEMS AND THAT THOSE ARE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.
CONDITION C4 THROUGH 6 REQUIRES FULL OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING SIDEWALKS, STREET LIGHTS, AND STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS ALONG AVENUE 45 AND GOLF CENTER PARKWAY.
ADDITIONALLY, THE PROJECT WILL REQUIRE CONDITION C7, WHICH IS A LOT MERGER TO AUTHORIZE DEVELOPMENT ACROSS THE THREE SEPARATE PARCELS THAT ARE INCLUDED HERE TODAY, AND THAT WOULD RESULT IN ONE COMBINED PARCEL TO FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT.
STAFF HAS FOUND THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15332, ALSO KNOWN AS CLAUSE 32 INFILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT.
SECTION A OF CLAUSE 32 REQUIRES THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH POLITICAL GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS.
THIS PROJECT IS PRINCIPALLY PERMITTED IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK ZONE AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD OF THE ZONE AS FULLY DESCRIBED IN MY PRESENTATION.
ADDITIONALLY, THE PROJECT HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE WORKPLACE AND EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT DESIGNATION SINCE THIS DESIGNATION DOES SUPPORT INDUSTRIAL USES AND OFFICE SPACES.
THE CITY HAS ALSO CERTIFIED AND ADOPTED THE EIR FOR THE 2040 GENERAL PLAN, AND THE USES UNDER THE WORKPLACE AND EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT WERE FULLY CONTEMPLATED AND ASSESSED UNDER THE EIR.
THEREFORE, IT CAN BE FOUND THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS THAT WAS CONDUCTED UNDER THE GENERAL PLAN 2040 EIR AND FURTHER IT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CLAUSE 32 EXEMPTION.
SECTION B OF CLAUSE 32 REQUIRES THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT OCCUR WITHIN CITY LIMITS OH A PROJECT SITE OF NO MORE THAN 5 ACRES THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY SURROUNDED BY URBAN USES.
THIS PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ACROSS THREE SEPARATE PARCELS WHICH WILL BE MERGED, FOR A TOTAL OF 3.84 ACRES WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE MAXIMUM 5-ACRE REQUIREMENT.
[00:10:01]
THE PROJECT SITE IS ALSO SURROUNDED BY PROPERTIES DEVELOPED WITHIN AN EXISTING SUBURBAN LAND USES, INCLUDING PUBLIC STREET RIGHT-OF-WAYS, EXISTING COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS BOUND TO THE PROJECT SITE TO THE NORTH, SOUTH AND THE WEST.THESE ARE ALL USES ASSOCIATED WITH THE URBANIZED SETTING DESCRIBED BY THE CEQA QUALIFIED URBAN USES.
SECTION C OF CLAUSE 32 REQUIRES THE THAT PROJECT HAS NO VALUE OR HABITAT FOR ENDANGERED RARE OR THREATENED SPECIES.
THIS SITE IS CURRENTLY VACANT, AND BASED ON THE MATERIALS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT, IT WAS PREVIOUSLY GRADED IN 2003 THROUGH 2004.
STAFF HAS VISITED THE SITE AND IDENTIFIED NATIVE SHRUBBERY, INCLUDING CREOSOTE BUSH AND NON-NATIVE SPECIES INCLUDING INVASIVE SPECIES SUCH AS TAMARISK.
THIS IS NOT CLASSIFIED AS RARE, ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES.
ADDITIONALLY, THIS SITE WAS CLASSIFIED AS URBAN AND RURAL DEVELOPED MANNED LAND UNDER THE GENERAL PLAN EIR.
UNDER THE VEGETATION AND LAND COVER MAPPING EFFORT, AS SHOWN HERE.
ADDITIONALLY, IT IS ALSO NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE CONSERVATION AREAS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED UNDER THE COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT SPECIES PLAN THAT WAS ALSO ASSESSED IN THE GENERAL PLAN EIR.
THEREFORE, STAFF IS CONFIDENT THAT PROJECT SITE DOES NO CONTAIN ANY HABITANT FOR ANY SENSITIVE ON THREATENED SPECIES.
SECTION D OF THE CLAUSE 32 REQUIRES THAT A PROJECT ON WOULD NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT AFFECTS RELATING TO TRAFFIC, NOISE, AIR QUALITY OR WATER QUALITY, SO WITH RESPECT TO VEHICLES, THE CITY HAS ADOPTED THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE'S TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS GUIDELINES FOR VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED OR VMT.
PURSUANT TO THESE GUIDELINES WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS LESS THAN 200,000 SQUARE FEET ARE EMPLOYEE ASSUMED TO CAUSE A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND THEY CAN BE SCREENED OUT FROM FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.
THE PROPOSED WAREHOUSE BEFORE YOU IS 65,000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE, THEREFORE, IT CAN BE DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH RESPECT TO TRAFFIC IN VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED.
WITH RESPECT TO NOISE, THE PROJECT SITE IS PROJECTED TO HAVE A 50 TO 65 EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL.
COORDINATING TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN 2040 DESIGNATION, OR EXCUSE ME, THE 2040 EIR.
THAT IS WITHIN THE ACCEPTABLE NOISE RANGE FOR INDUSTRIAL USES.
WITH SPECULATE TO AIR QUALITY, THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN WHICH IS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT.
IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS OF THAT DISTRICT, ALL THE CONSTRUCTION SITES IN THE CITY OF INDIO ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A DUST CONTROL PLAN CALLED A FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL PLAN WITH REGARDS TO PM 10.
THIS PROJECT IS CONDITIONED TO COMPLY WITH THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
ADDITIONALLY UNDER THE CITY'S ADOPT VMT THRESHOLD A WAREHOUSE USE OF 208,000 SQUARE FEET IS EQUIVALENT TO 2,995 MEGA TONS OF CARBON DOING EMISSIONS.
THIS IS ALSO UNDER THE SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT THRESHOLD OF 3,000 MEGA TONS OF CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS PER YEAR.
THE PROJECT IS SUBSTANTIALLY SMALLER THAN THE 208,000 SQUARE FOOT THRESHOLD WHICH CAN BE PRESUMED TO CAUSE A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH RESPECT TO AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GASES.
WITH RESPECT TO WATER QUALITY, THIS PROJECT IS WITHIN THE VALLEY SANITARY DISTRICT SERVICE BOUNDARY WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WASTE WATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SERVICES.
THE PROJECT IS CONDITIONED TO COMPLY WITH ALL LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES RELATED TO WATER QUALITY.
IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR REVIEW, AND THAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE ENGINEERING DIVISION AND WILL BE A FINAL WQMP WILL BE REQUIRED WITH THE ENGINEERING DIVISION AS WELL.
SO AS CONDITIONED, THE PROJECT WILL BE DESIGNED TO MEET THE CITY'S WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ADDITIONALLY FOR RETAINING STORM WATER ON-SITE, AND AS CONDITIONED, THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE AN IMPACT ON WATER QUALITY.
SECTION E OF CLAUSE 32 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES REQUIRE THAT THE PROJECT BE ADEQUATELY SERVED BY ALL REQUIRED UTILITY AND PUBLIC SERVICES.
[00:15:02]
THIS SITE HAS DOMESTIC WATER AVAILABILITY BOTH ON GOLF CENTER AND AVENUE 45 FRONTAGES.THE SITE ALSO HAS SANITARY SEWER AVAILABLE ON THOSE FRONTAGES, AS WELL AS AN EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
THIS IS ALSO ACCESS TO ELECTRICAL POWER FROM THE IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT ALONG BOTH GOLF CENTER PARKWAY AND AVENUE 45 FRONTAGES.
THIS SITE HAS ALSO BEEN DESIGNED TO STORE ALL STORM WATER FEATURES AND STORM WATER RUNOFF WITHIN THE SITE SO THERE'S NO NEED FOR ACCESS TO A PUBLIC STORM DRAINAGE.
THIS SITE HAS ACCESS TO COMMUNICATION FACILITIES AS WELL AND CAN BE ADEQUATELY SERVED BY POLICE AND FIRE SERVICES AND THERE HAVE BEEN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ON THIS PROJECT.
THEREFORE, IT CAN BE FOUND THAT THIS SITE CAN BE SERVED BY ALL OF THE REQUIRED UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES.
ADDITIONALLY, THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENTLY WITH SECTION 15,300.2, WHICH IS THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE EXEMPTIONS AS NONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS APPLY TO THIS PROJECT AND THOSE RELATED TO THE LOCATION, CUMULATIVE IMPACT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, SCENIC HIGHWAYS, HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES.
AGAIN, NONE OF THESE EXCEPTIONS TO THE EXEMPTIONS APPLY HERE.
THEREFORE, IT CAN BE FOUND THAT PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA, CONSISTENT WITH CLAUSE 32 AND INFILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.
THE PROJECT IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE INDUSTRIAL PARK ZONE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD UNDER THE CURRENT ZONE CODES AND IT'S ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE WORKPLACE AND EMPLOYMENT DESIGNATION UNDER THE GENERAL PLAN 2040.
AND WITH THAT, STAFF IS ASKING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 2024, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE ARCHITECTURE, SITE PLAN, PARKING, CIRCULATION AND PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPING FOR THE BOULDERS WEST LLC PROPOSED WAREHOUSE.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION OF STAFF.
ON THE CONDITIONS YOU LISTED KIND OF EARLIER ON IN THE PRESENTATION, ARE THOSE ITEMS SUCH AS THE LIGHTING PLAN AND LANDSCAPE, THOSE ARE JUST TO BE APPROVED BY STAFF? THAT'S NOT SOMETHING BEING BROUGHT BACK IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION?
THAT WILL BE REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL SEPARATELY.
THAT WILL COME TO STAFF AND THE BUILDING DIVISION AND ENGINEERING DIVISION.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
SO IT LOOKS LIKE THIS IS A VERY MODERN-LOOKING BUILDING, AND I DO LIKE THE WAY IT LOOKS, BUT WHERE ARE THE AIR CONDITIONERS, THE BACK HOUSE? CAN YOU SHOW ME ON ONE OF THE PLANS HOW THOSE ARE GOING TO BE SCREENED OR WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE PLACED? AND WE ALSO HAVE AN ISSUE WITH, OF COURSE, TRASH CONTAINERS IN THE CITY, THAT THEY NEED TO BE ENCLOSED AND LOCKED AND ALL OF THAT KIND OF STUFF, AND I COULDN'T FIND THOSE ON THE DRAWINGS.
SO ON THIS SITE PLAN HERE I CAN SHOW THERE IS A LOCATION FOR THE TRASH ENCLOSURES AND THEN THERE ARE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING STANDARDS FOR SCREENING THOSE, THOSE STRUCTURES, SO I'M NOT SURE IF YOU CAN SEE IT VERY WELL HERE, BUT NEAR THE HIGH AND LOW LOADING DOCKS ON THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE SITE, IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE BUILDING, THERE ARE THREE -- THERE ARE THREE LOADING DOCKS THERE WITH SEMI-TRUCKS SHOWN AND THE TRASH WOULD BE LOCATED DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH OF THAT LOCATION.
>> COMMISSIONER FRANZ: I SEE IT NOW.
>> YES, IT'S VERY HARD TO SEE.
>> CHAIRPERSON FRANZ: AND THOSE WILL BE SCREENED AND LOCKED AND TOP AND EVERYTHING TO MAINTAIN THE CLEANLINESS OF THE AREA.
>> YES, CORRECT, AND THEY ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THAT AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL.
>> COMMISSIONER FRANZ: THANK YOU FOR THAT.
AND THEN CAN YOU EXPLAIN ME WHERE THEY'RE PUTTING THEIR AIR CONDITIONERS AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS? HOW THEY'RE GOING TO SCREEN? BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A PRETTY FLAT ROOF.
AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER THAT.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE THE ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATION SHOWING THE LOCATION OF
[00:20:04]
THOSE STRUCTURES, HOWEVER, AGAIN, THE CODE DOES REQUIRE THAT THOSE BE SCREENED FROM PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, AT LEAST WITH EITHER DESERT FRIENDLY LANDSCAPING OR THROUGH THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, AND I DO NOT HAVE FIGURES THAT WOULD SHOW THE LOCATION OF THOSE STRUCTURES.>> COMMISSIONER FRANZ: THEN I'LL HOLD THAT QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT US THAT THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT.
LANDSCAPE NEVER WORKS VERY WELL FOR VERY LONG.
THE OTHER QUESTIONS I'LL JUST SAVE FOR THE APPLICANT.
IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, THEN WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION AND HEAR FROM APPLICANT.
>> SPEAKER: GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.
I AM THE PRESIDENT OF JOHNSON COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE.
I HAVE LIVED HERE IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY FOR 40 YEARS.
MY WIFE AND I MARRIED 37, THREE CHILDREN WERE ALL BORN AND RAISED HERE.
DO YOU NEED MY ADDRESS? ALL RIGHT.
FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO COME AND SPEAK TO YOU ALL THIS EVENING.
VERY EXCITING PROJECT AND WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS.
I'D LIKE TO THANK THE DESIGN TEAM MEMBER BENJAMIN EGAN AND MR. BILL SHARON, THEY'RE HERE AND THEY CAN ANSWER THE QUESTIONS REGARDING AC SCREENING AND DETAILS OF THAT.
ALYSSA, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR STAFF REPORT.
EXTREMELY THOROUGH, AS WE SAW.
I'VE BEEN BUILDING BUILDING IN INDIO FOR OVER 20 YEARS.
THIS PROJECT IS THE LAST BUILDING IN WHAT WE CALL THE BOULDERS WEST PARKWAY WHICH IS ARE A 30-ACRE SUBDIVISION THAT I DID WITH MR. MARK BENEDETTI.
WE'VE GOT SEVEN BUILDINGS IN THERE.
WE DID THE COMMERCIAL, THAT COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION BACK IN 2005.
I'VE ALSO BUILT THE SPECTRUM AT SHADOW HILLS WITH A GENTLEMAN BY THE NAME OF MR. GUY EVANS.
THAT'S AN 18-ACRE SUBDIVISION WE DID IN 2006, AND THAT HAS SIX BUILDINGS.
I ALSO BUILT FERGUSON, 42,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON 6 ACRES IN INDIO.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, I BUILT THE CHUCKWALLA RACEWAY OUT IN DESERT CENTER, THE ROSS AVIATION FACILITY, THE JET CENTER IN THERMAL, AND THEN THE COACHELLA INTERNATIONAL HORSE PARK DOWN IN THERMAL, SO I'VE BEEN HERE IN VALLEY FOR A LONG TIME DOING A LOT OF FUN STUFF.
I AGREE WITH STAFF CONDITIONS AND STAFF REPORT AND ACCEPT THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
I DID SEE THE OBJECTION LETTER THAT CAME IN.
I DON'T KNOW THE PEOPLE, WHERE IT CAME FROM OR WHAT THEY DO, BUT DID I FIND THEM ON PHONY UNION TREE HUGGERS.COM AND I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO DEAL WITH THAT.
TONIGHT I WOULD ASK FOR YOUR ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DESIGN REVIEW.
I BUILD BIG BUILDINGS FOR BIG EMPLOYERS HERE.
SENATE OF, MR. BENEDETTI AND AND I STILL OWN THE FACILITY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THIS, BUILDERS FIRST SOURCE.
THEY CURRENTLY EMPLOY 600 PEOPLE IN INDIO, 40 ARE OFFICE STAFF AND THE REST THE WORK IN THE FIELDS AND THEY ALL VERY GOOD BENEFITS, GOOD PAYING JOBS.
THE BUILDERS SOURCE IS ENVIRONMENTALLY SAFE.
100% OF THE WASTE IS RECYCLED.
RIGHT NOW THEY'RE CURRENTLY GENERATING ABOUT TEN HOMES PER DAY, AND THEY HAVE AN ANNUAL REVENUE OF 110 TO 120 MILLION DOLLARS.
SO I BUILD BIG BUILDINGS IN INDIO FOR BIG EMPLOYERS, AND I ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL TONIGHT.
MYSELF AND MY DESIGN TEAM ARE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: COMMISSIONER FRANZ?
>> COMMISSIONER FRANZ: YES, THANK YOU.
FOR THE BUILDER A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
ALL THE BLUE THAT IS VISIBLE ON THE BUILDING IS GLASS, IS THAT CORRECT? THERE'S NO PAINT.
>> COMMISSIONER FRANZ: I WANTED TO MAKE SURE OF THAT.
TWO, THERE IS TWO COLORS THAT YOU SEE THAT RUN ACROSS THE BUILDING, MORE LOOK A
[00:25:04]
WHITE AND A LIGHT GRAY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.ARE THOSE PAINT OR DIFFERENT BLOCK?
>> SPEAKER: I THINK THOSE ARE EXTRUSIONS.
THEY'RE WHAT? OH, IT'S PAINTED.
>> COMMISSIONER FRANZ: IT IS PAINT.
I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING ABOUT SOLAR.
ARE YOU GUYS GOING TO BUILD TO EITHER HAVE SOLAR OR BE PREPARED TO ADD SOLAR AT ANY GIVEN TIME? I MEAN, WITH THE ENVIRONMENT AND EVERYTHING, THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE ALWAYS WORRIED ABOUT.
>> SPEAKER: YES, THE BUILDING WILL BE SOLAR READY.
>> COMMISSIONER FRANZ: SOLAR READY.
HOW MANY EMPLOYEES DO YOU THINK THIS WAREHOUSE GOING TO HAVE, ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU SAID THERE ARE 600 AT YOUR OTHER BUILDING?
>> SPEAKER: IF YOU CLOOK TAKE A LOOK WEEK THE FACILITY NEXT DOOR IS 72,000 SQUARE FEET AND THIS IS 65,000 SQUARE FEET.
IF WE HAVE THE SAME TYPE OF TENANT THAT HAS PEOPLE OUT IN THE FIELD, I WOULD EXPECT IT TO BE SOMETHING SIMILAR, BUT I ANTICIPATE THIS BEING MORE OF A MANUFACTURING TYPE USER.
I DON'T HAVE THE BIG OUTSIDE YARD SPACE ON THIS FACILITY THAT WE DO NEXT DOOR, SO I WOULD ASSUME SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 50 AND 150 EMPLOYEES.
THINK I HAVE -- OH, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AND HEAR HOW ALL OF THE UTILITIES, THE AIR CONDITIONS ARE GOING TO BE PLACE AND SCREENED SINCE THEY'RE NO VISIBLE IN DESIGN.
>> SPEAKER: THE AIR CONDITIONING UNITS WILL ALL BE ON THE ROOF AND THEY WILL BE SCREENED BY A PARAPET WALL.
AND IS THE PARAPET WALL GOING TO GO ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING OR BE COMPLETED IN A WAY THAT YOU CAN'T -- LIKE IT DOESN'T LOOK ODD, SOMETIMES YOU DO A PARAPET WALL, YOU DO JUST THE SCREENING OF THE UNITS AND THEN IT LOOKS KIND OF WEIRD, AND SINCE WE CAN'T SEE ON IT THESE PLANS, I'M CURIOUS WHERE YOU PLAN TO PLACE IT AND HOW FAR THOSE PARAPET WALLS ARE GOING TO RUN BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE LOOK OF THE BUILDING IF YOU'RE GOING TO ADD SOMETHING TO THE ROOF.
>> AND I HAVE THE AORTIC HERE, MR. BILL SHARON, AND I THINK HE COULD ADDRESS THAT COMMENT IN DETAIL.
>> COMMISSIONER FRANZ: THANK YOU.
>> SPEAKER: HELLO, COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS WILLIAM SHARON, THE ARCHITECT FOR THE PROJECT WITH OFFICES IN SAN DIEGO AND PALM DESERT.
WHAT YOU SEE ON ELEVATIONS IS ALL YOU WILL EVER SEE, AND THAT WILL SCREEN ALL THE AIR CONDITIONING OR SWAMP COOLING UNITS.
THE ROOFTOP IS DESIGNED ON THE MAIN PORTION OF THE BUILDING TO BE 4 FEET -- I SHOULD SAY THE SURROUNDING WALL IS 4 TO 6 FEET HIGHER AS THE ROOF SLOPES AROUND THE WAREHOUSE PORTION, AND THEN 6 TO 8 FEET TALL THAT WOULD BE OVER THE OFFICE PORTION OF MEZZANINE SO THERE'S LIKE A WELL BUILT INTO THE ENTIRE ROOF SO NO MATTER WHERE YOU PUT AN AIR CONDITIONING UNIT, IT SHOULD BE SCREENED.
>> COMMISSIONER FRANZ: SO THE TAUPE OF THE BUILDING IS GOING TO STAY WHAT WE SEE.
>> COMMISSIONER FRANZ: ALL THE EQUIPMENT IS GOING TO BE PUT BELOW THAT ROOFLINE.
YOU'RE NOT ADDING ANYTHING LOVE THAT ROOFLINE.
>> COMMISSIONER FRANZ: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WHEN IT COMES TO LANDSCAPING I KNOW WE'RE ALL VERY WORRIED ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT AND YOU KNOW ALL OF THE THINGS THAT WE PUT OUT THERE.
I JUST WANT TO REQUEST THAT WHEN YOU DO THE FINAL PLAN, THAT YOU REALLY LOOK AT THE KIND OF PLANS THAT YOU'RE PUTTING IN, THAT THEY'RE DESERT PLANTS, THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HELP WITH THE -- HOW HOT WE MAKE EVERYTHING WITH THE ASPHALT AND ALL THESE KIND OF THINGS, THAT WE REALLY, REALLY TAKE A LOOK AT THAT, AND I WOULD REALLY LIKE YOU TO HOPEFULLY COMMIT TO US THAT THAT WILL BE SOMETHING YOU CONSIDER WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE PLANS, NOT JUST PICK THE MOST COMMON AND EASIEST PLANTS TO PLANT.
>> SPEAKER: WE'LL DISCUSS THAT WITH THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WHEN HE WORKS ON HIS FINAL PLANS.
>> COMMISSIONER FRANZ: THAT WOULD BE PERFECT.
I THINK THOSE ARE ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAD.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS?
>> COMMISSIONER LOPEZ: YEAH, REALLY QUICK ON THE USE.
SO YOU MENTIONED IT WAS LIKE LIGHT MANUFACTURING.
SO CAN YOU KIND OF GIVE ME A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, WHAT THIS BUSINESS WILL BE DOING.
>> SPEAKER: TYPICALLY IN A LIGHT MANUFACTURING BUSINESS, A LOT OF IT IS ASSEMBLY.
THEY WILL BE BRINGING IN PIECES AND PARTS AND PUTTING THEM TOGETHER OR -- LET ME COME UP WITH SOME KIND OF ASSEMBLY OR -- WE'RE NOT DOING HEAVY -- WE DON'T CREATE STEEL OR SMELL THING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
[00:30:02]
-- SMELL THING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.IT'S MOSTLY ASSEMBLY, FINAL ASSEMBLY OF PRODUCTS IS WHAT I WOULD IMAGINE.
>> COMMISSIONER LOPEZ: I GUESS MY QUESTION IS WHAT KIND PRODUCT.
>> SPEAKER: EITHER PLUMBING -- WE FIND A LOT OF OUR INDUSTRIAL USES ARE HOME-BASED.
WE HAVE PLUMBERS, ELECTRICIANS, CABINET MAKERS, GRANITE FLOORING, TILE, AIR CONDITIONING GUYS, MOSTLY STUFF FOR AROUND THE HOUSE.
ANOTHER QUESTION I HAD, YOU SAID IT WOULD BE SOLAR READY.
>> SPEAKER: I BELIEVE THERE ARE AN AREA SET A ON THE ROOF AND CORRECT ME IF IF I'M WRONG, AN AREA SET ASIDE ON THE ROOF, THE ROOF IS STRENGTHENED ENOUGH TO HANDLE THE WEIGHT OF SOLAR AND I BELIEVE ARE THERE CIRCUITRY THAT HAS TO BE PUT IN PLACE READY FOR THE RECORD SOLAR.
>> COMMISSIONER LOPEZ: I GUESS THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTIONS I HAVE FOR NOW.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: BEING THAT THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION IS STILL OPEN, VANESSA, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS VIA EMAIL OR ONLINE OR ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS IN CHAMBERS?
>> VANESSA: NO PUBLIC COMMENTS IN CHAMBERS.
A COMMENT WAS RECEIVED FROM ITEM 4.1 AND THAT COMMENT WAS DISTRIBUTED TO THE COMMISSION AND POSTED ON THE PORTAL.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: CORRECT, THANK YOU.
THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION AND GO TO COMMISSIONER DELIBERATION OR ANY STATEMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS.
>> ZACH HEINSELMAN: CHAIR, IF I MAY CONFIRM THAT WE'RE CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY COMMENTS OR WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> COMMISSIONER FRANZ: I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS.
I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I THINK IS USE AND THE DESIGN FITS WELL IN THAT PART OF OUR CITY, AND THINK IT WILL BLEND IN NICELY AND I THINK THE USE IS SOMETHING THAT IS BENEFICIAL TO THE CITY.
SO IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS, I'M WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION IF THEY CAN PUT IT BACK UP ON THE SCREEN.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 2024, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 22-02-495 FOR THE ARCHITECTURE, SITE PLAN, PARKING, CIRCULATION AND PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPING FOR THE BOULDERS WEST, LLC PROJECT FOR A 65,000 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER AVENUE 45 AND GOLF CENTER PARKWAY AND DETERMINING THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO GUIDE LINES SECTION 15332, AND THAT WE ADD ALL OF THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE LISTED BY STAFF TO THE RESOLUTION.
>> COMMISSIONER LOPEZ: I'LL GO AHEAD AND SECOND THE MOTION.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
CAN WE TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE.
[5.1. Fiscal Year 2022-23 Capital Improvement Program of the Indio Water Aut...]
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: THANK YOU.
MOVING ON TO ACTION ITEMS, 5.1, FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OF INDIO WATER AUTHORITY, FINDING OF GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY.
I AM THE GENERAL MANAGER OF INDIO WATER AUTHORITY.
AND TODAY WE COME TO YOU FOR CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT OUR UPCOMING FISCAL YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AS PART OF THE PROCESS, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE PROJECTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT GENERAL PLAN THAT THE CITY HAS THROUGH 2040.
SO TODAY I'LL PRESENT THOSE PROJECTS AND SHARE WITH YOU HOW THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN.
AND THIS IS THE OVERVIEW OF OUR SYSTEM.
FOR THIS COMING YEAR OUR FOCUS IS REALLY RELIABILITY, HOW CAN WE BEST USE OUR RATEPAYERS' DOLLARS TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE A RELIABLE SYSTEM.
SO THE FOCUS IS AGING INFRASTRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S GOING
[00:35:05]
TO BENEFIT GROWTH.SO ON THIS MAP YOU'LL SEE THAT THE FOCUS IS DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE CENTRALIZED PART OF OUR SYSTEM BECAUSE MOST OF OF OUR PRODUCTION FACILITIES AND STORAGE OCCURS IN THE CENTRAL PART OF OUR SYSTEM.
PLAN 2 AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE EXHIBITS IN THE CENTER, EVE A PLANT 4 ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE SYSTEM.
MANY OF YOU DROVE THROUGH MILES IS ON E THAT WE JUST MADE A RECENT INVESTMENT IN PUTTING A PIPE IN, AND THAT'S AGAIN TO REINFORCE THE WESTERN SIDE OF OUR SYSTEM.
SO THE PROJECTS ARE WELL DIVERSIFIED AND THEY'RE DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT OUR SERVICE AREA.
THE FIRST OF THOSE PROJECTS IS WHAT WE REFER TO AS WELL REHABILITATION.
WE HAVE 20 WELLS IN OUR SYSTEM, AND SINCE FIVE YEARS AGO DRILLING A NEW WELL WOULD COST ABOUT $3 MILLION, AND TODAY WE'RE SEEING THAT THOSE NUMBERS HAVE SPIKED UP TO IN EXCESS $5 MILLION.
PART OF OUR EFFORT IS TO REHABILITATE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE TO EXTEND THE USEFUL LIFE OF THOSE WELLS.
SO VA THERON DRILLING NEW WELLS WE WANT TO EXTEND THE LIFE OF THESE WELLS BY DRILLING COMPONENTS DOING AN ASSESSMENT.
WHAT WE FOUND THESE PROJECTS ARE BENEFICIAL BY EXTENDING THE LIFE IN MORE THAN A DECADE, IN SOME CASES EVEN 15 ARE OR 20 YEARS.
THIS PROJECT CONFER FIRMS SECTION IE 11 OF THE WATER SPRY AND 1.2 OF THE WATER FACILITIES OF THE GENERAL PLAN.
THE NEXT PROJECT IS OUR PIPELINE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM, AND THE WAY WE DETERMINE WHERE WE REPLACE THE PIPE IS THROUGH A HYDRAULIC MODEL THAT WE HAVE IN OUR SYSTEM TOGETHER WITH REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE FROM OUR OPERATORS, AND THIRDLY WITH THE AGE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE.
FOR THIS COMING YEAR WE HAVE A APPROXIMATELY 1,000 LINEAR FEET OF PIPE THAT IS FOCUSED IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA WHERE WE HAVE A LOT OF ASBESTOSIS CEMENT PIPE, SMALLER SIZE PIPE, AND AS THE CITY CONTINUES TO REINVEST IN ITS DOWNTOWN AREA, WE FOUND THAT THERE'S A SEGMENT THAT WE'D LIKE TO REPLACE TO ENSURE NOT ON THE FIRE PROTECTION THAT THE CITY REQUIRES TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A FOCUS IN THAT DOWNTOWN TEAR TO SUPPORT NOT ONLY EXISTING DEVELOPMENT BUT ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE COMING YEARS.
AGAIN, THIS PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH 1.1 AND 1.2 WATER SUPPLY AND WATER FACILITIES OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN.
THE NEXT PROJECT IS A WATER SUPPLY PROJECT THAT WE'VE BEEN STUDYING FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.
AS YOU'VE ALL HEARD THE NEWS WITH THE DROUGHT AND THE DECLARATION FROM THE GOVERNOR, WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO EXPLORE OPTIONS TO CONTINUE OUR WATER SUPPLY.
THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT IS A LONG-TERM PROJECT AND IT IS A COLLABORATION THROUGH THE EAST VALLEY RECLAMATION AUTHORITY MADE UP OF INDIO WATER AUTHORITY AND THE VALLEY SANITARY DISTRICT.
AND THE FOCUS OF THIS SHORT-TERM PLAN HERE IS TO CONTINUE TO STUDY BENEFITS OF THIS PLAN.
AGAIN IT'S A LONG-TERM POSSIBLY EIGHT TO TEN YEARS BEFORE WE FULLY IMPLEMENT THE PROJECT, BUT WE WANT TO CONTINUE THESE STUDIES AND AGAIN IT CONFORM TO THE WATER SUPPLY AND WATER FACILITIES POLICIES OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN.
MOVING ON TO PROJECT NUMBER 4, THIS IS ONE OF OUR OLDEST INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES BUILT IN THE EARLY '70S.
IT'S A PLANT TO BOOSTER PUMP STATION, AND THE FOCUS HERE IS TO CONTINUE TO UPGRADE AND REPLACE THIS PLANT.
THIS NEXT SEGMENT OF THE PROJECT INVOLVES DESIGN AND THEREFORE IT'S HERE AS A PROJECT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
AGAIN CONFORM TO THE WATER SUPPLY AND WATER FACILITIES POLICIES OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN.
REPLACING THIS PROJECT WOULD HELP US GREATLY IN THE CENTRAL PART OF THE SYSTEM.
NOW, PROJECT 5 ONWARD ARE CONTINUING PROJECTS THAT WE PRESENTED TO YOU IN PAST YEARS WHERE WE'RE A LITTLE MORE ADVANCED IN THE DESIGN PROCESS, PARTICULARLY WESTWARD HO STORM CHANNEL CROSSING PIPELINE WAS A PIPELINE THAT BACK IN FEBRUARY 2019, I BELIEVE IT WAS VALENTINE'S DAY, IT WAS EXPOSED BECAUSE OF TREMENDOUS STORM THAT WE HAD.
AND AGAIN, IT'S A VERY VULNERABLE PROJECT.
WE'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE REPLACE THAT.
WE HAVE BEGAN, WE BEGAN A DESIGN AND AGAIN IT'S A CONTINUE I GUESSATION OF A PROJECT.
THIS PROJECT WOULD INCREASE AN 10-INCH LINE TO AN 18-INCH LINE AND WOULD BE BURIED MUCH DEEPER THAN THE EXISTING PROJECT AND IT WOULD ENSURE CONTINUITY TO THE WESTERN SIDE OF OUR SYSTEM.
AGAIN, IT CONFORM TO THE WATER SUPPLY AND THE WATER FACILITIES GENERAL PLAN.
PROJECT NUMBER 6 IS ACTUALLY DEVELOPER IMPACT FEE FUNDED PROJECT WHICH REQUIRES THAT WE DRILL A NEW WELL.
THIS WELL WOULD ALLOW US TO PROVIDE WATER TO THE NORTHERN PART OF THE SYSTEM WHERE WE REALLY ARE SEEING A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF GROWTH.
[00:40:02]
WE'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT 2,000 GALLONS PER MINUTE, POSSIBLY MORE.AGAIN, THIS PROJECT CONFORM TO THE WATER SUPPLY AND WATER FACILITY'S POLICIES OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN.
AND LASTLY WE HAVE THE HYDRANT REPLACEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS WE ARE REPLACING HYDRANTS THAT ARE SUBSTANDARD AND THE REASON WE'RE REPLACING THOSE IS TO ENSURE NOT ONLY FIRE PROTECTION TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE WAYS OF FLUSHING OUR SYSTEM, ESPECIALLY DURING THE HOT SEASONS AND ENSURE GOOD WATER QUALITY.
SO TWOFOLD, PRIOR TECHS AND WATER QUALITY BENEFITS FROM REPLACING THIS PROJECT.
IT ALSO CONFORM TO THE WATER SUPPLY AND WATER FACILITIES POLICIES OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN.
AND TODAY WE'RE HERE IN FRONT OF YOU TO HAVE YOU CONSIDER AND ADOPT THE RESOLUTION THAT INCLUDES THESE PROJECTS IN THAT RESOLUTION.
BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: COMMISSIONER FRANZ OR LOPEZ, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO QUESTIONS? I'D JUST LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR SHARING THOSE PROJECTS WITH US.
IT'S EXCITING TO SEE THAT WE HAVE A PLAN FOR -- IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE TAKING PROACTIVE MEASURES TO KEEP UP WITH OUR CITY'S GROWTH AND APPRECIATE YOU FOR SHARING THAT.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: THAT BEING SAID, WHAT IS THE ACTION THAT WE NEED TO TAKE IN REGARDS TO THIS? ULTIMATELY A RECOMMENDATION?
>> ZACH HEINSELMAN: I MIGHT SUGGEST SEEING IF THERE'S ANY PUBLIC COMMENT SUBMITTED, EITHER FOLKS ASKING ONLINE.
I DON'T SEE ANYONE IN THE CHAMBERS, BUT CONFIRMING THAT, AND THEN THE COMMISSION COULD TAKE ACTION BY MAKING A MOTION ON THE RESOLUTION AS STAFF RECOMMENDED.
IF THERE ARE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ONLINE, VANESSA?
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: BEING THAT THERE ARE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS ONLINE OR IN PERSON, CAN WE SEE THE RECOMMENDATION.
>> I DON'T HAVE IT ON A SLIDE.
DO YOU HAVE IT ON STAFF COPIES? MY APOLOGIES.
YOU DIDN'T CHIT IN THE SLIDE AS I THOUGHT THE STAFF REPORT WAS DISTRIBUTED TO ALL MEMBERS.
IT APPEARS TO BE PAGE 47 OF 54 OF THE STAFF REPORT.
PERHAPS WE COULD PULL THAT LINK UP AND DISPLAY IT.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: AND ALSO AT THIS TIME WE'D LIKE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE WE MOVE ON.
>> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THIS WASN'T A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM.
WE JUST HAD TO TAKE PUBLIC ITEM ON ALL ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.
>> COMMISSIONER FRANZ: I'M GOOD TO MAKE A MOTION UNLESS, JACKIE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
>> COMMISSIONER LOPEZ: YES, I CAN SEE -- >> COMMISSIONER FRANZ: I HAVE IT.
>> COMMISSIONER LOPEZ: I'VE GOT IT HERE.
SO I MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF INDIO, CALIFORNIA FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR OF 2022-23 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OF THE INDIO WATER AUTHORITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF INDIO GENERAL PLAN 2040.
>> COMMISSIONER FRANZ: I'LL SECOND.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: CAN WE PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> COMMISSIONER FRANZ: THANK YOU TO THE INDIO WATER AUTHORITY FOR OUR WATER SUPPLY.
[6.1. Discussion of Administrative and Entitlement Review Options for Articl...]
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: THANK YOU, MR. TREJO.
MOVING ON TO ITEM 6.1, STUDY SESSION ITEMS, DISCUSSION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND ENTITLEMENT REVIEW OPTIONS FOR ARTICLE 6 OF THE DRAFT UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
67 SNYDER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
THIS EVENING IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FROM THE COMMISSION TO DISCUSS IN ADVANCE YOUR MAY 25TH DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF THE DRAFT ARTICLE 6, WHICH IS THE PROCESS AND PROCEDURES ELEMENT OF THE NEW UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE WE'RE
[00:45:03]
WORKING ON, THE COMMISSION HAD ASKED FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE WHAT I TERM KIND OF A PHILOSOPHICAL HAVE PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION ON ADMINISTRATIVE VERSUS PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW.AND -- MAYBE -- TO KIND OF PREFACE THE DISCUSSION JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME PERSPECTIVES, SO WHEN THE DRAFT ARTICLE 6 COMES BEFORE YOU, YOU WILL FIND IN THAT PROPOSALS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OR STAFF LEVEL REVIEW ACTIONS VERSUS PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW ACTIONS.
AND THE REASON WHY WE'RE DOING THAT IS FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS, AND I'LL JUST KIND OF LIST THEM AND EXPLAIN THEM.
FIRST OF ALL, IS THE ISSUE OF TIMELINESS AND COST, SO WE WANT TO BE SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN SIZES AND SCALES OF PROJECTS THAT DO NOT NECESSARILY HAVE THE CAPACITY AS OTHER PROJECTS AND THE PROPONENTS BEHIND THOSE PROJECTS TO EXPEND THE RESOURCES TO GO THROUGH A FULL PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.
SO WE WANT TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT.
ANOTHER ISSUE IS THE ISSUE OF WHAT I TERM EQUITY, IS IT REASONABLE OR FAIR THAT A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING IS TREATED THE SAME PROCEDURALLY AS A 50,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING.
YOU WOULD THINK, I THINK REASONABLY, THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF IMPACT.
THE OTHER AREA IS ALSO THE AREA OF IMPACT ON STAFF RESOURCES.
SO RIGHT NOW UNDER OUR CURRENT PROCEDURES, FOR EXAMPLE, EVERY APPLICATION, NO MATTER WHAT TYPE IT IS, HAS TO GO THROUGH PUBLIC HEARING DESIGN REVIEW.
THAT IS A VERY HEAVY LOAD OF WORK FOR STAFF, AND THE PREPARATION, THE NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES, AND SO THE IMPACT ON STAFF RESOURCES IS SIGNIFICANT, AGAIN, USING THAT EXAMPLE OF A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING VERSUS A 50,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING.
THERE WOULD BE AT LEAST THEORETICALLY LESS WORK INVOLVED FOR STAFF IN BRINGING THOSE FORWARD.
THE FINAL POINT, AND THIS IS MAYBE THE PHILOSOPHICAL POINT THAT I WANT TO MAKE, IS AS YOU THINK ABOUT THIS AND AS YOU REVIEW ARTICLE 6 ON MAY 25TH AND AS YOU GO FORWARD INTO MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL, I ENCOURAGE THE COMMISSION TO THINK ABOUT TRUSTING THE PROCESS, AND I I MEAN THE PROCESS THAT YOU HAVE HELPED PUT IN PLACE THE WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, THE USE A ALLOWANCES, RATHER THAN THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED SUCH AS MYSELF, ALYSSA OR ANYONE ELSE BECAUSE IF THE PROCESSES THAT YOU HAVE RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL AND IF THEY ACCEPT A RECOMMENDATIONS ARE GOOD AND THEY'RE REASONABLE AND THEY'RE STRAIGHTFORWARD, THEN IT HONESTLY SHOULDN'T MATTER WHO SITS IN MY CHAIR, ALYSSA'S CHAIR, ANY STAFF PERSON'S CHAIR BECAUSE THEY SHOULD BE SOUND AND YOU SHOULD HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT THOSE STANDARDS ARE GOING TO BE MET.
BUT UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE MAY BE INSTANCES WHERE YOU MAY FEEL OR A FUTURE COMMISSION MAY FEEL THAT STAFF HAS NOT DONE WHAT YOU THINK WAS APPROPRIATE, WE ARE RECOMMENDING PROVISIONS, WHAT WE CALL CALL-UP PRODUCTIVITY, WHERE IF A COMMISSION FELT THAT A STAFF DECISION HAD BEEN WRONG, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, THERE WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY WITH THE CONSENSUS OF THE MAJORITY OF COMMISSION MEMBERS -- WE'RE PROPOSING THIS LANGUAGE THAT YOU WILL SEE ON MAY 25TH -- COULD ASK FOR ACOM OF STAFF OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION.
SO WE RECOGNIZE THAT YOU MAY NOT ALWAYS AGREE WITH US, AND IF THERE'S A CONSENSUS OF THE MAJORITY OF COMMISSIONERS THAT YOU FEEL YOU WANT TO REVIEW THAT STAFF DECISION AS THE LANGUAGE IS PROPOSED, THERE WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CALL UP, IF YOU WILL.
SO REALLY TONIGHT IS REALLY AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A FREE-FLOWING DISCUSSION BETWEEN YOURSELVES AND STAFF ON THE ISSUES BE WITH CONCERNS, OPPORTUNITIES, CHALLENGES OF DIFFERENT LEVELS OF REVIEW, AGAIN, ADMINISTRATIVE OR STAFF, VERSUS PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW WHICH WOULD TYPICALLY MORE OF A PUBLIC HEARING REVIEW.
WITH THAT I'LL STOP AND TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE CHAIR FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A FREE-FLOWING DISCUSSION.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: THANK YOU, KEVIN.
GLORIA, I KNOW THAT YOU HAD SOME THOUGHTS ON THIS INITIALLY AND THOSE HENCE PART OF THE REASON WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION.
>> COMMISSIONER FRANZ: HONESTLY, THE CALL-UP PROVISION IS A GOOD STEP.
I REALLY LIKE TO SEE THE LANGUAGE AND HOW MUCH OF A -- AT WHAT POINT -- HOW EARLY ON IN THIS PROCESS ARE WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THOSE CALL-UP PROVISIONS? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE DON'T GET A LOT OF TIME.
WE GET THE PACKET ON FRIDAY, AND WE HAVE OUR MEETING ON WEDNESDAY.
SO IF A DEVELOPER HAS COME IN AND DONE ALL OF THIS WORK, BELIEVING THAT
[00:50:06]
BASICALLY THE ODDS ARE VERY HIGH THAT IT'S GOING TO BE APPROVED AND WE DON'T GET AN OPTION TO CALL SOMETHING UP UNTIL FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING, I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM.SO ONE OF THE THINGS I'M GOING TO BE REALLY INTERESTED IN ON THAT LANGUAGE IS AT WHAT POINT ARE WE GOING TO GET A HEADS-UP THAT THIS IS HAPPENING AND THAT IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AT THE VERY TAIL END.
I HAVE MADE SOME CALLS TO OTHER CITIES, AND I DON'T KNOW OF ANY CITY THAT'S GIVING UP ITS ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CAPACITY.
I UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF HOW BIG A BUILDING IS, HOW HIGH IT CAN BE, HOW ITS SETBACKS ARE, WHAT IS THIS, WHAT THAT IS, AND THAT'S ALL VERY SET AND VERY CLEAR IN OUR NEW ZONING PACKET THAT WE'RE WORKING ON NOW.
BUT THE DESIGN REVIEW IS REALLY SOMETHING THAT, DEPENDING ON WHERE THE CITY IS, WHAT YEAR WE ARE, WHAT THE COUNCIL MAKE-UP IS, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IN OUR CITY AND WHAT'S AROUND IT, WHERE WE CAN SOMETIMES MAKE A BIG POSITIVE, I THINK, CHANGE TO BE NOT HAVE JUST MINIMUMS. SOMETIMES IF WE CREATE THIS EASY PROCESS, PEOPLE -- I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND IT'S A BUSINESS.
YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE MONEY, RIGHT? SO THEY'RE GOING TO TRY AND DO WHAT THE MINIMUM IS ON THE REQUIREMENTS.
THAT'S WHAT I WORRY ABOUT, BECAUSE WHEN WE BRING IN THESE LARGE BUILDINGS OR THESE LARGE PRESTIGIOUS, WHETHER IT'S HOMES OR APARTMENTS OR CONDOS OR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, WE'RE STUCK WITH THEM FOR 30, 40, 50, THERE ARE SOME BUILDINGS AROUND HERE A LOT OLDER THAN THAT, RIGHT? AND WE ONLY HAVE ONE OPPORTUNITY TO ENSURE THAT WHAT IS BEING BUILT AND WE'RE GOING TO DRIVE BY AND LOOK AT FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND PROBABLY A COUPLE OF GENERATIONS IS SOMETHING WE CAN BE PROUD OF.
SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW TO BE STAFF REVIEWED, THAT WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT'S GOING TO BE, WHAT HAS TO COME TO US, AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT CALL-UP PROVISION ON AND WHAT THAT PROCESS IS GOING TO BE BECAUSE I'M NOT -- I'M SAYING I UNDERSTAND KEVIN'S SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THE PROCESS IS TIGHT ENOUGH, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO IS IN THE CHAIRS, WHO THE STAFF IS, WHO THE DIRECTOR IS, WHO THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ARE, BUT I THINK WHEN IT COMES TO DESIGN REVIEW IT DOES MATTER AND WHO IS IN THOSE CHAIRS AND WHO IS IN THOSE POSITIONS.
SO, YOU KNOW, I'M VERY -- I WANT TO BE VERY CAREFUL WHAT WE'RE GIVING BASICALLY AWAY, THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET TO SEE, THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET TO HAVE A SAY.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: THANK YOU, GLORIA.
I'M KIND OF NOW THINKING BACK OVER THE LAST THREE OR FOUR YEARS, I CAN THINK OF A FEW PROJECTS THAT POSSIBLY STAFF COULD HAVE RECOMMENDED ADOPTING CERTAIN THINGS AND WE'VE KICKED THINGS BACK OR BROUGHT UP SOME CONDITIONS THAT I THINK EITHER GREATLY IMPROVED THE PROJECT THAT WAS APPROVED OR WE DID NOT APPROVE FOR VARIOUS REASONS, SO THINKING BACK, I DO THINK THAT THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PART OF BEING ON THIS COMMISSION, AND THINGS DO CHANGE, DEPENDING ON WHAT COMMISSIONERS ARE IN OR THE MAKE-UP OF OUR COUNCIL, WHAT'S IMPORTANT.
EVEN THOUGH WE TRY AND FOLLOW GENERAL PLANS AND DESIGNATED ZONE PLANS, THINGS, LIKE YOU SAID, THE BARE MINIMUM SOMETIMES IS NOT ENOUGH FOR CERTAIN AREAS, WHETHER IT'S ALLOWABLE OR NOT.
>> COMMISSIONER LOPEZ: IF I MAY, CHAIR.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: PLEASE.
>> COMMISSIONER LOPEZ: I AGREE.
I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE SOME OTHER CITIES LIKE THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS AND PALM DESERT THAT HAVE THEIR OWN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION, WHEREAS I THINK IT'S BETTER TO HAVE A PLACE IN OUR HANDS SO THAT WE CAN OVERLOOK RATHER THAN IN OTHER CITIES THERE'S DIFFERENT LAYERS THAT BEFORE IT COME TO PLANNING, AND WE HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH STAFF AND TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT VERSUS HAVING -- I'M NOT SAYING STAFF -- BUT MOST CITIES DO HAVE THEIR OWN COMMISSION FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW.
SO I THINK WE ARE PROBABLY ONE OF THE FEW CITIES THAT GETS TO DO THAT, AND I WOULD HATE TO LOSE THAT.
>> COMMISSIONER FRANZ: A QUESTION.
BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANOTHER COMMITTEE, I MEAN, THAT PROBABLY DOESN'T SPEED IT UP, OTHERWISE YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE FIRST AND THEN YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT OTHER CITIES DO HAVE BOTH.
[00:55:03]
>> KEVIN SNYDER: THAT IS CORRECT, COMMISSIONER.
IT'S MORE EXPEDITIOUS BECAUSE I'VE SEEN INSTANCES WHERE IF TWO BODIES DON'T DISAGREE AND YOU GET INTO THIS BACK-AND-FORTH WITH THE -- AND THE APPLICANT IS CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE, SO DEFINITELY HAVING A COMBINED REVIEW EFFORT, IF YOU WILL, WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTING AS THAT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BODY, IF YOU WILL.
I THINK THAT IS DEFINITELY TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE PROCESS VERSUS WHAT COMMISSIONER LOPEZ DESCRIBED THAT OTHER CITIES HAVE ADOPTED.
AND EVERY CITY HAS THEIR REASONS FOR DOING THAT.
SOME HAVE FOUND VALIDITY IN HAVING THOSE SEPARATE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, AND OTHERS HAVE NOT.
IF I COULD RESPOND TO A COUPLE OF STATEMENTS, I THINK, ONE, WE WILL DEFINITELY GO THROUGH THE CALL-UP PROCEDURES WITH YOU AND YOU CAN DIRECT US AND GUIDE US AS TO WHETHER YOU THINK THAT'S ADEQUATE.
WE'LL ALSO HAVE A REPORTING PROCEDURE THAT WE WILL IMPLEMENT SO THAT THE COMMISSION IS MADE AWARE IF WE DO HAVE ADMINISTRATIVE ORIENTED APPLICATIONS, YOU WOULD BE MADE AWARE OF THEM EARLY.
AND THERE WILL BE THE OPPORTUNITY TO POTENTIALLY LOOK AT THAT CALL-UP.
I PREMISE THIS ALL BY SAYING YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL AND THEY'RE ULTIMATELY GOING TO DECIDE ON THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE SO WHEN I SAY POTENTIALLY, THESE ARE POTENTIAL ACTIONS.
YOU TALKED ABOUT THE -- THE CHAIR TALKED ABOUT THE LAST THREE OR FOUR YEARS.
ABSOLUTELY AGREE WHAT THE CHAIR SAID.
ONE OF THE DISTINGUISHMENTS BETWEEN THE LAST THREE TO FOUR YEARS AND WHAT MIGHT COME IN THE FUTURE, YOU DIDN'T HAVE A HECK OF A LOT TO WORK WITH.
YOU DIDN'T HAVE A VERY CLEAR CRITERIA TO GO OFF OF FOR DESIGN REVIEW, AND YOU DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF STANDARDS TO WORK OFF OF.
SO YOU WILL HAVE TO DECIDE AS A COMMISSION IF YOU FEEL THAT THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE -- AND WE'RE REALLY TALKING MORE, I THINK WE'RE REALLY TALKING MORE IN THE VEIN OF NON-RESIDENTIAL OR INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL.
I THINK WITH THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, YOU KNOW, I SAY THAT IN THE SENSE YOU WON'T SEE A LOT OF ADMINISTRATIVE ELEMENTS AROUND RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT TYPICALLY THE TENTATIVE MAPS ARE STILL GOING TO BE COMING TO PLANNING COMMISSION, YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE THE VERY DETAILED OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.
SO WHEN I'M TALKING ABOUT THIS AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE NON-RESIDENTIAL, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT FOR THE BENEFIT OF COMMISSION.
WHEN I USED THE 5,000 VERSUS 50,000 SQUARE FOOT, THE ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW WOULD TYPICALLY BE APPLIED IN A NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USE SITUATION.
, AND I THINK COMMISSIONER FRANZ HAS A QUESTION, SO I'LL STOP.
>> COMMISSIONER FRANZ: SO MY COMMENT TO THAT IS IF YOU -- IF WE THINK ABOUT THE LAST FEW YEARS, WE'VE HAD QUITE A FEW STORAGE SPACES, WHETHER IT'S STORAGE UNITS OR RV STORAGE OR WHATEVER, AND THOSE WOULD COME ACROSS, AT LEAST THE WAY I THINK YOU'RE DISCUSSING, THOSE WOULD HAVE GONE PROBABLY JUST TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND NOT COME TO US.
AND I FULLY BELIEVE THAT EVERY ONE OF THOSE PROJECTS WE HAVE HELPED IMPROVE EVEN IF IT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT, YOU KNOW, EITHER THE LANDSCAPE OR HOW IT'S LAID OUT OR SOME KIND OF THING.
OTHERWISE, I THINK SOME WERE JUST LOOKING AT LONG BLOCK WALLS THAT WERE GOING TO BE GREAT GRAFFITI WALLS, RIGHT, IF NOTHING ELSE.
SO EVEN PROJECTS LIKE THAT, I MEAN, I WANT TO HAVE A VERY CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WILL AND WHAT WOULD NOT COME TO US.
MAYBE YOU'RE RIGHT, THAT IN TWO YEARS OR THREE YEARS, ONCE WE'VE HAD THESE NEW RULES IN PLACE, THAT WE SEE THEM WORKING, THAT WE MIGHT FEEL MORE CONFIDENT GIVING MORE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY, BUT TO GIVE IT AWAY AT THE VERY BEGINNING WHEN WE HAVE A WHOLE NEW PROCESS IN PLACE THAT AS WELL-INTENTIONED AS EVERYTHING IS, NOTHING EVER TURNS OUT EXACTLY HOW WE THINK IT'S GOING TO TURN ON IT.
MAYBE IN A COUPLE YEARS WE MIGHT REVIEW IT, GIVING MORE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY, BUT TO START, I MEAN, I HONESTLY THINK I WANT TO LIMIT THAT AND I WANT TO HAVE A VERY CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IT IS THAT WE WILL NOT SEE.
>> KEVIN SNYDER: COMMISSIONER, IF I COULD, I DON'T THINK WE'RE IN DISAGREEMENT.
YOU GAVE THE SELF-STORAGE EXAMPLE.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULD BE ADMINISTRATIVE.
I THINK THAT WOULD COME TO THE COMMISSION.
BUT YOU'VE -- IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS I THINK YOU HAVE HAD TWO 5,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDINGS COME BEFORE YOU, AND THE QUESTION IS IF WE HAVE VERY ROBUST DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT STAFF APPLIES, THAT'S THE EXAMPLE I'M USING, BUT A SELF-STORAGE FACILITY, HOWEVER -- WHATEVER SIZE, LET'S STAY IT'S A TOTAL 40,000 SQUARE NEAT -- I'M MAKING A NUMBER UP -- THAT WOULD STILL COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION.
I'M THINKING THAT THE LARGER SCALE PROJECTS.
I'VE BEEN USING ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW, BUT THERE'S ALSO THE -- WE ALSO HAVE A VARIANCE SITUATION WHERE EVERY SLIGHT VARIANCE THAT MIGHT BE
[01:00:03]
REQUESTED, A SETBACK REDUCTION OF 1 FOOT HAS TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN A PUBLIC HEARING FORMAT, SO YOU'LL SEE LANGUAGE ABOUT ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE, BUT THAT WILL ALSO BE LIMITED SO THAT THERE WILL BE A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT COULD BE ADMINISTRATIVELY CONSIDERED AT THE STAFF LEVEL VERSUS WHAT COULD BE AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AT THE COMMISSION LEVEL.SO WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION WITHOUT THE BENEFIT YOU SEEING THESE DRAFT REGULATIONS, AND ACTUALLY THE CONSULTANT WAS LIKE, SHOULD WE WAIT AND LET THEM SEE THE REGULATIONS? BUT WE WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND HONOR THE REQUEST, AT LEAST HAVE THE PHILOSOPHICAL CONVERSATION.
THIS IS HELPFUL SO THAT WHEN WE DO BRING THIS TO YOU ON THE 25TH FOR YOUR REVIEW AND DISCUSSION, YOU CAN -- I THINK THIS WILL HELP IN THAT REVIEW AND DISCUSSION.
BUT I SEE THE SCOPE OF ANY ADMINISTRATIVE OR STAFF LEVEL REVIEW WOULD BE FAIRLY NARROW, AND WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO TAKE YOU OR THE PUBLIC OUT OF THE REVIEW PROCESS, BUT I THINK THERE MAY BE CERTAIN SITUATIONS WHERE IT MAY MAKE SENSE, BUT AGAIN THAT'S MY OPINION AND YOU'LL HAVE TO MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION AND DETERMINATION.
ONE OTHER POINT I WANTED TO MAKE.
I SAID EARLIER IN TERMS OF IMPACT ON STAFF RESOURCES, AND I DO ASK YOU TO GIVE SERIOUS CONSIDERATION TO THAT BECAUSE IT IS IMPACTFUL EVERY SINGLE TIME THAT WE'RE TAKING THAT THROUGH, AND WE'RE HERE TO DO THAT, BUT IN OTHER CITIES WHERE I'VE HAD ADMINISTRATIVE VERSUS PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEWS FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF PROJECTS, IT HAS BEEN MUCH LESS ONEROUS ON STAFF.
AND WHILE THAT SHOULD NOT BE THE DECIDING FACTOR FOR YOU, I DO ASK YOU TO GIVE THAT SERIOUS CONSIDERATION, ALONG WITH THE GOALS OF THE CITY TO BE PRO-BUSINESS AND, YOU KNOW, OFFERING EFFICIENT AND TIMELY REVIEW PROCEDURES AND THEN ALSO THE EQUITY ISSUE I MENTIONED EARLIER IN TERMS OF WHETHER IT'S REASONABLE THAT A 5,000 VERSUS A 50,000 SHOULD GO THROUGH THE SAME LEVEL OF REVIEW.
THOSE ARE THOUGHTS FOR YOU TO THINK ABOUT.
>> COMMISSIONER FRANZ: CHAIRMAN, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? IF WE HAVE REALLY -- I MEAN, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO BUILD, RIGHT, IS VERY, VERY SPECIFIC RULES FOR PEOPLE TO KNOW WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT BUILD IN OUR CITY AND WHERE THEY CAN BILL AND IT ALL THAT OTHER STUFF.
IF PEOPLE ARE FOLLOWING THAT AND THEY UNDERSTAND -- I KNOW THAT YOU MEET WITH THE DEVELOPER MULTIPLE TIMES PROBABLY BEFORE THEY EVER GET IN FRONT OF US.
A DEVELOPER SHOULD HAVE VERY LITTLE REQUESTED CHANGES FROM US IF THEY'RE FOLLOWING, YOU KNOW, THE GUIDELINES, RIGHT? BECAUSE THAT'S THE POINT.
SO HOPEFULLY THE WORK THAT STAFF IS DOING, BY THE TIME IT GETS TO US, I MEAN, OUR GOAL IS NOT TO SAY, OH, MY GOD, WE DON'T WANT THIS OR WE DON'T LIKE THIS OR WHATEVER, IT'S TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE CAN'T BE SMALL CHANGES.
I MEAN, WE DON'T USUALLY REQUIRE VERY BIG CHANGES FROM OUR DEVELOPERS BUT WYE WE DO ASK FOR CERTAIN THINGS, RIGHT? AND I THINK IT WILL ACTUALLY MAKE IT SO THAT I THINK WHERE IT STARTS TO GET VERY EXPENSIVE, AND I UNDERSTAND THIS, IS WHEN WE SEND IT BACK FOR SOME MAJOR REVISIONS OR THE ARCHITECT HAS TO COME BACK IN ORE SOMETHING AND WE START GOING BACK AND FORTH AND THEN THAT GETS VERY, VERY EXPENSIVE FOR DEVELOPER AND FOR THE STAFF AND FOR THE CITY.
AND HOPEFULLY BECAUSE OF THESE NEW REGULATIONS THAT'LL HAPPEN EVEN LESS THAN IT DOES NOW, AT LEAST THAT'S PART OF THIS WHOLE PROCESS, I HOPE.
>> KEVIN SNYDER: I THINK THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO LOOK AT IT, AND I DO AGREE WITH YOU.
I MEAN, I'VE BEEN HERE THREE AND A HALF YEARS, AND I THINK IN THAT TIME I'VE ONLY SEEN THE COMMISSION ONCE OR TWICE SEND SOMETHING BACK, TO USE THAT TERM, FOR MORE EFFORT OR POTENTIAL REVISION, SO I DO THINK THAT THE COMMISSION IS VERY COGNIZANT, AND I DO AGREE, COMMISSIONER, THAT I THINK THAT THE COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE REGULATIONS THAT YOU REVIEWED TO THIS POINT IS INTENDED TO BE.
THE OUR ZONING CORDS OFTEN CONFUSED AND WE SPEND A LOT OF ENERGY AT STAFF LEVEL TRYING TO EXPLAIN THEM TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND TO BUSINESS OWNERS.
SO I THINK THE CLARITY THAT COMES WITH THE DETAIL, IF YOU WILL, DOES HELP CERTAINLY AND I THINK THAT MAY MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE APPLICANTS, EASIER FOR THE COMMISSION IN TERMS OF APPLYING THAT.
SO IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO KIND OF LIKE I SAID, I KEEP USING THIS TERM PHILOSOPHICAL, BUT IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO THAT PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION, AND FOR AT LEAST THE THREE OF YOU BECAUSE I KNOW YOU WERE AT THE TIME ON THE COMMISSION WHEN THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN WE HAD A SIMILAR CONVERSATION ABOUT ADMINISTRATIVE VERSUS COMMISSION REVIEW.
I THINK FROM THE STAFF PERSPECTIVE THERE MAY BE LIMITED INSTANCES WHERE WE
[01:05:04]
WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE COMMISSION NOT BE INVOLVED, BUT THAT'S OUR RECOMMENDATION, NOT THAT YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT IT.THE ONE, MORE POINT I WOULD MAKE IS I THINK THAT IT MAY BE THAT YOU MAY NOT WANT TO GIVE UP YOUR ROLE IN DESIGN REVIEW OR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW.
BUT THERE ARE MAY BE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.
I MENTIONED THE VARIANCE CONSIDERATION EARLIER.
A 1 FOOT DEVIATION IN A SETBACK FOR WHATEVER REASON MAY HAVE TO COME TO YOU.
MAYBE IT'S REASONABLE THAT THERE'S A CERTAINLY LEVEL, 10% OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS, OF A REQUESTED DEVIATION OF THE STANDARD THAT COULD BE DONE AT THE STAFF LEVEL VERSUS COMING BEFORE THE COMMISSION, AND THAT'S SOMETHING FOR TO YOU CONSIDER AS WELL WHEN WE TALK ON THE 25TH.
THE CONSULTANTS AND MYSELF WILL LAY THIS OUT IN FURTHER DETAIL FOR YOU.
WE'LL BREAK DOWN BOTH FOR -- YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE CONCEPT OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW.
WE HAVE THE CONCEPT OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT, WHICH WOULD BE A VARIATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE WHERE IT COULD BE CONSIDERED AT THE STAFF LEVEL VERSUS COMMISSION LEVEL.
AND THEN WE'LL HAVE MAJOR AND MINOR MODIFICATIONS.
SO THESE WILL ALL BE LAID OUT FOR YOU AND YOU'LL SEE THE SCENARIOS WHERE, AND THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WHEN IT MIGHT BE STAFF LEVEL OR COMMISSION LEVEL.
BUT I THINK YOUR POINTERS ALL WELL TAKEN, AND WE'RE NOT TRYING TO, AT LEAST IN TERMS OF THESE THOUGHTS AND IDEAS OF ADMINISTRATIVE OR STAFF LEVEL REVIEW, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO TAKE THE COMMISSION OUT OF IT.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FIND THAT BALANCE BETWEEN THE FULL PROCESS, THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS AND ALL THE ATTENDANT ELEMENTS THAT COME WITH THAT AND MAYBE LIMITED OPPORTUNITIES FOR A MORE DIRECT STAFF LEVEL REVIEW, AND THAT IS AGAIN SOMETHING I THINK YOU GUYS WILL DIVE INTO ON THE 25TH IN FURTHER DETAIL.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: KEVIN, WILL SOME OF THOSE DETAILS BE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE 25TH SO WEAK TAKE SOME TIME TO STUDY SOME OF THE CONCESSIONS THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING OR WILL WE JUST BE DISCOVERING IT THERE AT THAT DATE?
>> KEVIN SNYDER: NO, IN FACT, I WAS JUST ON THE CALL WITH THE CONSULTANT TODAY, AND OUR GOAL IS TO TRY TO GET THEM OUT TO YOU AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE.
SO THEY'RE WORKING TO WRAP THINGS UP AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL BE ABLE TO GET THOSE OUT TO YOU I'M HOPING EARLIER, MID PART OF NEXT WEEK, SO YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW, TAKE YOUR TIME TO REVIEW AHEAD OF TIME AND NOT JUST THAT TIME FRAME, THE THE WEEKEND TYPICALLY BETWEEN THE FRIDAY WHEN WE DISTRIBUTE AND THE WEDNESDAY WHEN WE MEET.
SO WE APPRECIATE, AND WE TALKED ABOUT IT TODAY, THAT WE KNEW YOU WOULD WANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEND SOME TIME, KIND OF LIKE WHAT WE DID WITH ARTICLE 2 AND 3 WHERE WE SENT IT OUT EARLY SO YOU COULD SIT WAIT FOR A WHILE SO WE'LL DO THE SAME.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: I THINK THAT WOULD BE QUITE HELPFUL EVEN FOOTS A TENTATIVE DRAFT, IF YOU HAVE MORE TO ADD ON THE 25TH, WE HAVE SOMETHING TO KIND OF TRY AND WRAP OUR HEADS AROUND BEFOREHAND.
>> KEVIN SNYDER: I ANSWERED ALL THE CONSULTANTS LINGERING QUESTIONS TODAY SO NOW THEY'RE MAKING THE PROVERBIAL TWEAKS AND SO I SHOULD HAVE IT BY THE FIRST PART OF NEXT WEEK.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: AWESOME.
ANY OTHER STAFF COMMENTS OR ANYTHING ELSE TO THIS PRESENTATION OR ANY COMMISSIONER COMMENTS?
>> KEVIN SNYDER: ONE THING I WOULD ASK.
IF YOU -- WHEN YOU RECEIVE THE DOCUMENT AND YOU GO THROUGH IT, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE US TO BE EITHER PREPARED TO DISCUSS ON 25TH OR YOU WOULD LIKE AN ANSWER TO AHEAD OF TIME THAT WE WOULD ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THEN I'LL SHARE THAT ANSWER WITH THE REST OF THE COMMISSION, I WOULD ASK FOR YOU TO PLEASE SEND THOSE DIRECTLY TO ME INDIVIDUALLY, OBVIOUSLY, BUT IT CERTAINLY HELPS US PREPARE FOR THE DISCUSSION ON THE 25TH IF WE KNOW WHAT YOUR QUESTIONS ARE AFTER YOU'VE SPENT SOME TIME WITH THE DOCUMENT AND YOU'RE MORE FULLY VESTED IN WHAT IT SAYS.
I WOULD DISCUSS ASK FOR THAT OPPORTUNITY TO BE MADE AWARE OF THINGS YOU MIGHT WANT TO EITHER TALK ABOUT OR IF IT'S A SIMPLE QUESTION THAT CAN BE ANSWERED BEFORE THE MEETING, THAT WE CAN SHARE WITH YOURSELF AND WITH THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONERS, I WOULD ASK FOR THAT OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THAT.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: CERTAINLY.
LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING SOMETHING BROUGHT BEFORE US BEFORE THE 25TH AND THEN SEEING IT IN GREATER DETAIL ON MAY 25TH.
IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMISSIONER COMMENTS, WE'LL CLOSE ITEM 6.1.
>> ZACH HEINSELMAN: CHAIR, I MIGHT SUGGEST WE CAN SEE IF THERE ARE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS SUBMITTED FOR ITEM 6.1.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: I DIDN'T KNOW WE WERE TAKING PUBLIC COMMENT ON THAT.
VANESSA, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ONLINE OR IN CHAMBERS FOR THIS STUDY SESSION ITEM?
BEING THAT THERE ARE NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THIS STUDY SESSION AND ADJOURN TO NEXT
[01:10:01]
PLANNING MEETING ON MAY 25TH, 2022.>> KEVIN SNYDER: CHAIR, I APOLOGIZE.
YOU DO HAVE NUMBER 7, COMMISSIONER COMMENTS, BEFORE ADJOURNMENT.
IT LOOKS LIKE THE COMMISSIONERS DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS BUT JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT NOTE FOR THE RECORD.
>> CHAIRPERSON YSIANO: ANY COMMISSIONER COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER FRANZ OR LOPEZ? OKAY.
MEETING ADJOURNED UNTIL NEXT PLANNING MEETING, MAY 25, 2022.
THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.