>> EVELYN, WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM, RIGHT?
[1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL]
[00:00:02]
SO WE'RE WAITING ON ERIC AND SAM.
>> I GUESS WE CAN GO AHEAD AND START IF WE'RE READY.
I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND CALL THE MEETING TESTING AUGUST 12, 2020 CITY OF INDIO PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND WE'RE VAGUE VIRTUAL MEETING.
IF WE COULD PLEASE CALL A ROLL CALL.
>> VICE CHAIRPERSON JACQUELINE LOPEZ.
>> COMMISSIONER SAM TORRES IS ABSENT.
COMMISSION, ERIC CEJA IS ABSENT.
>> IF WE COULD HAVE INTRODUCTION OF STAFF, PLEASE.
>> GOOD EVENING, MADAME CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION.
TONIGHT WE HAVE DIRECTOR KEVIN SNYDER, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR.
WE HAVE GUSTAVO GOMEZ, ASSISTANT PLANNER.
WE HAVE EVELYN BELTRAN OUR SECRETARY.
WE HAVE ROSIE LUA OUR ASSOCIATE PLANNER.
WE HAVE MARK GREENWOOD, OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER CONSULTANT.
AND ZACH HAZELMAN, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY AND MYSELF I.
IF WE CAN GO AHEAD AND HAVE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
DO WE HAVE A FLAG? WHEN THE FLAG COMES UP, JACKIE, IF YOU WOULD LEAD US.
>> 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 WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO THE STATEMENT FROM OUR CITY ATTORNEY.
[4. STATEMENT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY]
ZACH.THERE HAVE BEEN KNOW DIRECTIVES ISSUED TEMPORARILY HALTING LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROCESSING OF LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATIONS.
AND/OR CONSIDERATION OF POLICY ACTIONS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS AND NEW OR SPECIFIC PLANS.
THEREFORE THE CITY OF INDIO CONTINUES TO ACCEPT, PROCESS 3 APPLICATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS.
CITY OF INDIO IS FOLLOWING GOVERNOR NEWSOM'S EXECUTIVE ORDERS 2520 AND N2920 PERTAINING TO THE BROWN ACT.
THESE EXECUTIVE ORDERS ALLOW GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES TO CONDUCT MEETING BY ELECTRONIC MEANS AND FOR THE MEMBERS MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO OBSERVE THE MEETING ELECTRONICALLY.
AS WELL AS PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT OR PUBLIC TESTIMONY TELEPHONICALLY OR OTHERWISE PLEDGE ACCORDINGLY THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION ARE CURRENTLY CONDUCTING SCHEDULED MEETINGS IN A VIRTUAL MEETING FORMAT.
THE CITY OF INDIO HAS IMPLEMENTED TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS THAT ALLOW MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO OBSERVE AND OFFER PUBLIC COMMENT AS WELL AS PUBLIC TESTIMONY DURING PUBLIC HEARINGS AT SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS.
THE CITY IS COMMITTED TOW PROVIDING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION OPPORTUNITIES WHILE STILL COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FOR THE PROCESSING OF LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATIONS AND/OR CONSIDERATION OF POLICY ACTIONS.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA.
[7.1 AT&T – Indio Jones - Conditional Use Permit 20-03-1058: ]
DO WE HAVE ANY REQUESTS TO SPEAK FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA?THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING TIME.
WE DO NOT HAVE ANY MINUTES TO APPROVE, SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO PUBLIC HEARING ITEM USE PERMIT 20-03 105 AND 8 I ASSUME WE HAVE A STAFF REPORT.
GIVE ME ONE SECOND WHILE I SHARE MY SCREEN.
GOOD EVENING, MADAME CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS GUSTAVO GOMEZ ASSISTANT PLANNER, AND BEFORE YOU I HAVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 70-FOOT HIGH MONO PALM AT AT&T WIRELESS ANTENNA WITH ASSOCIATED GROUND EQUIPMENT AND BACKUP GENERATOR THE PROJECT IS LOCATED ON NORTHEAST CORNER OF CASPIAN STREET AND SHOWCASE PARKWAY.
THE THE ZONING FOR THE PROJECT IS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHICH HAS AN UNDERLYING ZONE OF REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WHICH DOES PERMIT LARGE COMMERCIAL ANTENNAS.
THE PROJECT IS AN AT&T OWNED AND OPERATED 70-FOOT CALL SINGLE CARRIER MONO PALM POLE WITH ASSOCIATED GROUND EQUIPMENT, EMERGENCY BACKUP GENERATOR, AND IT'S HOUSED WITHIN A 525 SQUARE FEET, 8-FOOT HIGH CMU WALL DISCLOSURE AND IT WILL HAVE THREE LIVE PALM TREES AND IT IS, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE SITE PLAN, IT IS LOCATED
[00:05:05]
TOWARDS THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.A HERE ARE THE ELEVATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED PALM TREE ALONG WITH THE THREE LIVE PALM TREES.
AS YOU CAN SEE, EVEN AT THE HIGHEST POINT OF FAUX FROND ON THE MONO POLE IT WILL NOT EXCEED THE 70-FOOT HIGH REQUIREMENT.
HERE ARE SOME PHOTO SIMULATIONS SO THREE EXAMPLES OF SHOWING HOW THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS LOCATED TOWARDS THE REAR AWAY FROM THE STREET.
IT'S A VERIZON TOWER, AND SO THEY ARE NOT THE SAME CARRIER AT THIS MOKES.
HERE BEFORE YOU IS A BEFORE AND AFTER COVERAGE MAP.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT GAP THAT IS GOING TO BE FILLED BY THE PROPOSED ANTENNA, SO ALL -- I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT EVERYTHING ABOVE HIGHWAY, THE I10 FREEWAY WILL HAVE WHAT THEY CONSIDER TO HAVE RELIABLE COVERAGE FOR THE PROPOSED MONO PALM.
SO WITH THAT, IT'S STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO -- GIVE ME ONE SECOND.
-- STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF INDIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 20-03-1058 AUTHORIZATION THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN AT&T OWNED AND OPERATED -- GIVE ME ONE SECOND, LET ME MOVE THIS OUT OF THE WAY.
OPERATED 70-FOOT TALL MONO PALM POLE.
THIS APPROVAL SHALL AUTHORIZE A SINGLE CARRIER ON THE MONO PALM POLE WITH ASSOCIATED GROUND COVER -- ASSOCIATED GROUND EQUIPMENT AND EMERGENCY GENERATOR, HOUSED WITHIN A 525 SQUARE FEET AND AN 8 FOOT HIGH CMU WALL ENCLOSURE SUBJECT TO THE FINDINGS OF CONDITIONS AND APPROVAL DETERMINED THEREIN AND DETERMINING THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
IN ADDITION TO THIS, A MEMO WAS HANDED OUT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS WHERE STAFF HAS SOME REVISIONS TO THE RESOLUTION 1946.
THE FIRST IS IN THE RECITAL OF ADD LANGUAGE TO IDENTIFY AT&T MOBILITY AS THE APPLICANT.
THE SECOND IS ON CONDITION 8.2, 20-03-1058.
AND LASTLY, TO ADD A NEW CONDITION, CONDITION OF APPROVAL NUMBER 19 TO SECTION 3 OF THE RESOLUTION 1946 AND SECTION INFANT STAFF REPORT TO READ THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL DELIVER TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A CASHIER'S CHECK, MONEY ORDER OR ACCEPTABLE FORM OF PAYMENT MADE PAYABLE TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY CLERK IN THE AMOUNT OF $50 TO COVER THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE FEE TO ENABLE THE CITY OF INDIO TO FILE THE NOTICE OF EXTENSION PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCE CODE 21184 AND THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS SECTION 15062.
AND WITH THE ADDRESS OF 2724 GATEWAY DRIVE, RIVERSIDE CALIFORNIA 9507.
AND WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES MY STAFF REPORT.
AND STAFF, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WE'LL TAKE IT -- WE'LL HEAR FROM YOU GUYS.
>> DO WE HAVE ANY -- >> MADAME CHAIRPERSON, FOR THE RECORD, I THINK HE GOT DISCONNECTED FOR THE REVISED ITEMS, ITEM NUMBER 2, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
>> IF YOU DON'T MIND, I WOULD SUGGEST TO READ THAT PORTION INTO THE RECORD AGAIN.
SO THE SECOND REVISION WOULD BE, IN THE CONDITION ON 8.2 OF THE RESOLUTION, 1946 TO CORRECT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER TO READ 20-03-1058.
BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE APPLICANT, I DO WANT TO FOR THE RECORD LET EVERYONE KNOW THAT I WAS -- I HAD A BRIEF CONVERSATION WITH MR. JONES.
[00:10:02]
HE CALLED WANTING TO KNOW ABOUT THE MONO PALM.I DID NOT INSTRUCT HIM IN ANY WAY OR HAVE A REALLY LENGTHY CONVERSATION.
I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT THE CONVERSATION DID TAKE PLACE AND RECOMMENDED HE COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR OUR APPROVAL.
AND I WILL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON WITH THE APPLICANT.
DOES WE HAVE A PRESENTATION FOR US OR ANYTHING HE'D LIKE TO SHARE?
>> CHAIR, IF I MAY, I MIGHT SUGGEST YOU REOPEN THE HEARING AND THEN ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO PRESENT.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME FOR THIS ITEM AND INVITE THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK.
>> GOOD EVENING, MADAME CHAIR AND HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLACK COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS ERICK POLDEN, I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF VINCLUM SERVICES AND WE REPRESENT AT&T ON THIS PROJECT.
AS NOTED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT, AT&T IS PROPOSING TO INSTALL A NEW UNMANNED WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY WITHIN THE CITY OF INDIO FOR THE PURPOSE OF BRINGING BETTER PHONE SERVICE TO THEIR CUSTOMERS.
AT&T HAS READ THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE STAFF'S CONCLUSIONS AND THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS.
IF THERE ARE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE WITH REGARD TO THIS PROJECT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM FOR YOU.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME?
JUST IF APPROVAL IS GIVEN TONIGHT, WHAT'S THE TIMELINE FOR COMPLETION ON THIS PROJECT?
>> I WOULD SAY WE'RE PROBABLY STILL ABOUT 12 MONTHS OUT.
WE'RE GOING THROUGH VARIOUS COMPLIANCE ISSUES RIGHT NOW WHICH HAVE BEEN SLOWED DOWN DUE TO COVID-19, AND THEN, OF COURSE, WE'LL NEED TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, AND THEN THE CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE'S ON THE BACK END.
SO I WOULD SAY WE'RE PROBABLY ABOUT 12 MONTHS OUT.
THERE IS ANOTHER MONO PALM ON THIS PROPERTY, SO THIS ONE'S ON THE BACK OF THE LOT.
THE VERIZON SITE SITS TOWARDS THE FRONT PART OF THE LOT.
THEY HAVE A SLIGHTLY SHORTER ANTENNA TREE, AND AT&T CHOSE TO GO TO THE BACK PART OF THE LOT FOR THE SAKE OF NOT HAVING INTERFERENCE ISSUES BEING SO CLOSE TO THE VERIZON SITES, AND ALSO HAVING A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ANTENNA HEIGHT WE ARE REDUCING THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING ANY INTERFERENCE ISSUES.
>> HAS THERE BEEN ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO WHAT TYPE OF BUSINESS COULD ACTUALLY USE TWO MONO PALMS ON THE SAME PROPERTY?
>> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE OWNER HAS TAKEN THAT INTO CONSIDERATION IN TERMS OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, BUT I HAVE NOT HAD ANY SPECIFIC CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM IN TERMS OF WHAT HE PLANS TO PROPOSE TO BUILD ON THAT -- ON THAT PARCEL.
>> IS THE OWNER ON WITH US TONIGHT? NO? OKAY.
IS STAFF AWARE OF ANYTHING THAT IS BEING PLANNED? OR AT LEAST DISCUSSED?
>> GUS, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? IF NOT, I CAN BRIEFLY ANSWER THAT.
>> NO, I AM UNAWARE OF ANYTHING HAPPENING AT THIS LOT.
WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING HAPPENING ON THIS LOT, BUT THE WAY THEY HAD PROPOSED THIS ENCLOSURE AND THEN ALSO THE EXISTING ENCLOSURE COULD STILL ACCOMMODATE PROPER USE OF THE SITE.
>> SO YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE THIS ISN'T JUST GOING TO LEAVE THIS LAND FOREVER AND FOREVER, WHICH IT MIGHT ANY WAY, WITH JUST TWO MONO PALMS ON IT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? NO? WE'RE QUIET TODAY.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, THEN, AND WE CAN MOVE ON TO DELIBERATIONS
OR DO WE HAVE -- >> CHAIR, IF I MIGHT SUGGEST, I YOU WOULD CONSIDER REOPENING THE HEARING AND SEEING IF THERE WERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WANTED TO -- WHO SUBMITTED REQUESTS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HEARING.
>> WE'LL REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS ITEM?
I HAVE MR. CHRISTOPHER BRISUELA AND I WILL ADMIT HIM NOW.
MR. BRISUELA, CAN YOU HEAR US? HIS AUDIO IS STILL CONNECTING.
[00:15:01]
MR. BRISUELA, CAN YOU HEAR US? YEAH, I THINK I CAN FINALLY JUMP IN.IT WOULDN'T SHOW ON MY ZOOM BUT I THINK THAT WORKS NOW.
>> DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS TO PROVIDE TO THE COMMISSION?
>> YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO TAKE A SECOND TO INTRODUCE MYSELF.
GOOD EVENING, PLANNING COMMISSIONER.
NAME IS CHRISTOPHER I'M WITH CONSULTING I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT TODAY.
UNFORTUNATELY, I COULDN'T QUITE HEAR THE STAFF REPORT BEFORE THAT SO I ASSUME IT WENT WELL, BUT IF THERE'S ANY PARTICULAR QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAD FOR ME, I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER THOSE.
I ALSO DO HAVE A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN THAT I WANTED TO SHOW TO EVERYBODY.
I DON'T KNOW IF I COULD DO THAT WITH SCREEN SHARE ON HERE.
>> SO BASICALLY WHAT YOU HAVE HERE, IT SHOWS THE EXISTING TENANT, THE PROPOSED ANTENNA AND THE CLIENT WE PUT TOGETHER BASICALLY LIKE A POTENTIAL FUTURE BUILDING ENVELOPE TO WHAT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT COULD LOOK ON HERE.
SO REALLY THE POINT OF THIS EXERCISE IS TO SHOW THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ANTENNAS ARE GOING IN THERE THAT IT'S STILL A DEVELOPABLE SITE THAT WOULD STILL WORK WITH CODE, THAT WOULD STILL HAVE ACCESS, INDEPENDENT ACCESS OR ALSO ACCESS TO THE PARCELS TO THE NORTH AND TO THE EAST.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO ILLUSTRATE HERE.
OTHER THAN THAT IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER THEM.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? AT THIS TIME? NO? OKAY.
APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS, AND WE APPRECIATE THE WORK TO SHOW US THE POSSIBILITY OF SOMETHING GOING INTO THAT PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE.
>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM?
>> THEN I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM AND MOVE ON TO DELIBERATIONS OR DO I HAVE A MOTION FROM THE COMMISSIONERS?
>> I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1946 WITH THE CHANGES AS RECOMMENDED BY GUSTAVO DURING HIS STAFF REPORT.
>> WE HAVE A FIRST AND A SECOND.
CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE, 12 PLEASE.
>> VICE CHAIRPERSON JACQUELINE LOPEZ.
I'M SURE WE WILL BE HAPPY TO HAVE BETTER AT&T COVERAGE ON THE NORTH SIDE.
WE WILL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO ITEM 7.2, SPINE AND SPORT PHYSICAL THERAPY,
[7.2 Spine and Sport Physical Therapy- Conditional Use Permit 20-07-1060:]
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 20-07-1060.IF WE COULD PLEASE HAVE A STAFF REPORT.
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS ROSIE LUA I'M ASSOCIATE PLANNER AND I'M HERE BEFORE YOU TO PRESENT THE SPINE AND SPORT PHYSICAL THERAPY, AND I'M SHARING MY SCREEN NOW.
AND THE SPINE AND SPORT PHYSICAL THERAPY IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST 20-07-1060.
THE LOCATION OF THIS PROJECT IS WITHIN THE INDIO TOWNE CENTER.
IT IS LOCATED AT 42150 JACKSON STREET BUILDING E, SUITES 102 AND 103.
AND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS SPECIFIC TO THOSE TWO UNITS.
THE APPLICANT, WHICH IS MDRS SPINE AND SPORT, SUBMITTED APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE INDIO TOWNE CENTER FOR THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
AND AGAIN, THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS SPECIFIC TO THOSE TWO SUITES, AND NOT TO THE ENTIRE INDIO TOWNE CENTER NOR DOES IT CHANGE ANY ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS -- OR DOESN'T ALLOW ANY MEDICAL USE FOR THE BUSINES 13 PARK ZONING.
THE PROPOSED USE IS A PHYSICAL THERAPY SERVICE, WHICH IS DEFINED AS A
[00:20:04]
MEDICAL OFFICE WITHIN OUR CITY OF INDIO MUNICIPAL CODE.AGAIN, THE ZONING IS BUSINESS PARK WHICH ALLOWS MEDICAL USE THROUGH THE APPROVAL A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
AND SO AGAIN, IT IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SPECIFIC TO JUST THESE TWO UNITS.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT, AGAIN IS A SPINE AND SPORT PHYSICAL THERAPY.
IT'S A 2600 SQUARE FOOT TENANT SPACE WITHIN A 13,600 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING.
THE HOURS OF OPERATION ARE MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY FROM 8:00 A.M.
TO 5:00 P.M., AND THEY WILL BE HOUSED BY LICENSED PHYSICAL THERAPISTS AND LICENSED OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS, AND IT'S A NON-SURGICAL PROCEDURES.
AS YOU CAN SEE HERE FROM THE PICTURES, THERE ARE THREE EXAM ROOMS, AN OPEN AREA FOR EQUIPMENT, AN OFFICE, A BREAK ROOM, TWO RESTROOMS, AND THAT'S ALL THAT THIS TENANT SPACE ENCOMPASSES.
THERE WILL BE SIGNAGE THAT WILL COME ACROSS THE BOTH UNITS BUT THERE ARE NO OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS NOR ANY OTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING.
AND WITH THAT, STAFF RECOMMENDS AN ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 1947, A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 20-07-1060 TO ALLOW MEDICAL USE FOR A PHYSICAL THERAPY CENTER WITHIN THE BUSINESS PARK ZONING DISTRICT TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THOSE TWO UNITS, AND THAT CONCLUDES MY STAFF REPORT.
THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER YOU MAY HAVE THAT'S RELATED TO THE USE AND TO ANY OF THE SERVICES THAT THEY PROVIDE.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS TIME? JACKIE? NO.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW AND IF THE APPLICANT HAS ANYTHING HE'D LIKE TO SHARE WITH US, WE'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO HEAR FROM HIM, OR HER.
>> IF THE APPLICANT HAS ANY COMMENTS THEY WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE SPINE AND SPORT PHYSICAL THERAPY, WE ARE AVAILABLE TO HEAR FROM YOU AT THIS TIME.
NO COMMENTS AT THIS TIME FROM THE APPLICANT?
>> I BELIEVE THEY WERE -- THEY DID NOT HAVE A PRESENTATION.
I THINK THEY WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT THEIR FIRST BUILDING HERE.
THEY HAVE ONE IN PALM SPRINGS AND ANOTHER IN PALM DESERT.
SO WE'RE SPINE AND SPORT PHYSICAL THERAPY OUTPATIENT VERY ACTIVE-BASED CARE, BEEN
COMPANY FOR 20 YEARS BASED OUT OF SAN DIEGO AND WE HAVE HAD -- >> CAN YOU PLEASE LOWER THE AUDIO ON YOUR LIVE STREAM.
>> DO WE WANT TO GIVE THEM A MINUTE?
>> I THINK THEY NEED TO UNMUTE.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF 15 STAFF AT THIS TIME? FROM ANYONE? NO.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM?
SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.
SO I GUESS MY ONLY COMMENT IS, ROSIE, SINCE WE'RE HAVING SOME TROUBLE WITH THE APPLICANT IS THAT IT CONFIRMS THEY'RE A LONGSTANDING BUSINESS, THEY HAVE TWO OTHER LOCATIONS WITHIN THE VALLEY, AND THIS WILL BE THEIR THIRD LOCATION IT SOUNDS LIKE WITHIN THE COACHELLA VALLEY.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER PHYSICAL THERAPY PIPE TYPE OF BUSINESSES ON THE NORTH SIDE AND IN THAT PART OF OUR PARK? GO AHEAD.
>> I DID TAKE A LOOK TO SEE IF THERE WERE ANY PHYSICAL THERAPY.
I DID NOT FIND ANY NORTH OF THE 10 FREEWAY SPECIFIC TO PHYSICAL THERAPY.
[00:25:03]
THE VETERINARIAN PLACE IS CONSIDERED A MEDICAL, I BELIEVE, BUT OTHER THAN THAT THERE IS NOTHING.>> I DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS, AND THIS IS GOING TO BE MUCH NEEDED ON THAT SIDE OF OUR CITY BUT I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM.
COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS AT THIS TIME?
REGARDING THE NEED OF THOSE TYPE OF SERVICES.
WE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'RE INTO DELIBERATIONS.
I COULD REOPEN IT IF THERE'S SOMETHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPECIFICALLY ADD TO OUR DISCUSSION.
NICCO, DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS?
THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON.
>> YEAH, I'D MAKE A MOTION TO CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO 0-07-1060 TOAL ALLOW THE OPERATION OF A MEDICAL OFFICE IN THE BUSINESS PARK ON JACKSON IN THE TOWN PLAZA.
>> WE HAVE A FIRST AND A SECOND.
ANY MORE DISCUSSION? CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE.
>> VICE CHAIRPERSON JACQUELINE LOPEZ.
AND WE'RE REALLY HAPPY TO HAVE THE SPINE AND SPORT PHYSICAL THERAPY LOCATION COMING TO NORTH INDIO.
DOES ANYBODY NEED A BREAK OR ARE WE GOOD TO KEEP MOVING? KEEP MOVING? ALL RIGHT.
DIDN'T DON'T SAY I DIDN'T OFFER.
I JUST WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST BEFORE WE GO -- IF, MADAME CHAIRPERSON, YOU AGREE WITH THAT -- BEFORE WE GET TO THE DUTCH BROS COFFEE WE GIVE FIVE MINUTES BREAK BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE SOME PEOPLE CANNOT GET ADMITTED SO WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS HERE.
>> SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GO THROUGH THE DEMO UNLIMITED AND THEN TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK.
[7.3 Demo Unlimited Equipment Storage Facility – Conditional Use Permit 19-12- 1054 and Design Review 19-12-467: ]
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO ITEM 7.3, DEMO UNLIMITED EQUIPMENT STORAGE FACILITY BE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 19-12-1054 AND DESIGN REVIEW 19-12-467.IF WE CAN PLEASE HAVE STAFF REPORT.
>> GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS AGAIN.
ROSIE LUA ASSOCIATE PLANNER, AND I'M HERE TO PRESENT TO YOU THE DEMO UNLIMITED PROJECT WHICH IS AN EQUIPMENT STORAGE FACILITY.
IT'S CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS WELL AS A DESIGN REVIEW.
THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED BETWEEN GOLF CENTER PARKWAY AND VAN BUREN, AND IT'S CLOSER TO COMMERCE STREET WITHIN THE AVENUE 45 STREET.
IT IS, AS YOU CAN SEE, AT 1.86-ACRE SITE.
IT HAS SOME IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE'LL DISCUSS IN A MINUTE.
I JUST WANTED YOU TO SEE WHAT THAT SITE LOOKS LIKE TODAY.
TO GO THROUGH THIS PROJECT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH SOME BACKGROUND.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED THIS PROJECT IN 2017.
BUT BEFORE THAT WE HAD A 1 I'LL GO THROUGH IT CHRONOLOGICALLY.
ON OCTOBER 17, 2017, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR APPROVED A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT THAT AUTHORIZED THE TEMPORARY RELOCATION OF A 20 BY 40 OVERHEAD STRUCTURE TO THE SITE.
THE TEMPORARY USE PERMIT CONCLUDED, AND SO THE APPLICANT CAME IN AND REQUESTED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW.
THAT TOOK PLACE NOVEMBER 21, 2017.
AGAIN IT WAS FOR 1.24-ACRE SITE, AND IT EXPIRED NOVEMBER 21, 2019.
RIGHT BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THAT -- THOSE TWO ENTITLEMENTS, ON OCTOBER 30TH THE APPLICANT CAME IN TO DISCUSS WITH ME AN EXPANSION OF THE SITE, SO WE DISCUSSED EXPANDING THE SITE FROM 1.24 TO 1.86 ACRES, WHICH WOULD TRIGGER A NEW APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS WELL AS A DESIGN REVIEW.
[00:30:05]
AT THAT TIME I REQUESTED A SITE VISIT SO THAT SITE VISIT TOOK PLACE ON NOVEMBER 4, 2019, WHERE IT WAS A PREARRANGED SITE VISIT.I WALKED IT WITH THE APPLICANT, AND I FOUND THAT THE SITE HAD BEEN DISTURBED AND THERE WAS AN ACTIVE BUSINESS OPERATION WHICH INCLUDED STORAGE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT AND SOME ILLEGAL BUILDING STRUCTURES.
WE DID A RESEARCH AND CONDUCTED A PERMIT HISTORY AS WELL AS APPROVALS, AND WE DID NOT FIND ANY APPROVALS FOR A PRECISE GRADE PLAN OR ANY OF THE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE SITE IN TERMS OF PM 10, WPMP, ANY OF THOSE ITEMS, SO THOSE PLANS HAD NOT BEEN APPROVED.
THEY HAD BEEN SUBMITTED BUT NOT THE SITE DID NOT HAVE ANY BUILDING PERMITS.
SO ONE OF THE ONLY PERMITS THAT WE FOUND WAS AN CEO PERMIT TO BUILD THE ENTRYWAY, SIDEWALK, CURB AND GUTTER.
SO THAT CONCERNED US, WHICH THE APPLICANT CAME IN WITH A NEW APPLICATION TO BE ABLE TO RECTIFY THE SITUATION ON DECEMBER 10, 2019, THEY SUBMITTED A NEW APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS WELL AS DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE HEAVY DUTY EQUIPMENT ON THE 1.86-ACRE SITE.
HOWEVER, ON JANUARY 28, THE 2020, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MAILED A LETTER OF NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO THE PROPERTY OWNER TO CEASE BUSINESS OPERATIONS ON THIS SITE SINCE THE APPLICANT HAD NOT FULFILLED THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY SET FROM THE 2017 APPROVAL.
SO WE HAVE PROCESSED THEIR APPLICATION FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THE DESIGN REVIEW WHILE THEY HAVE CEASED OPERATIONS OF THE SITE.
SO IN PROCESSING THIS APPLICATION, IT WILL HELP THEM RECTIFY ANY OF THE UNPERMITTED STRUCTURES AS WELL AS MOVE FORWARD WITH ANY OF THE ITEMS THAT THEY NEED TO COMPLY WITH IN ORDER TO HAVE THE BUSINESS OPERATION THAT THEY ARE REQUESTING.
SO THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS FOR AN EQUIPMENT STORAGE FACILITY ON THE 1.86-ACRE SITE.
THE PURPOSE OF THE STORAGE IS FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT AND STORAGE OF INERT MATERIALS LIKE SAND AND GRAVEL.
TOWERS OF OPERATION ARE FROM 20 6:00 A.M.
IT'S A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOT BECAUSE OF THE USE.
THE USE IS PERMITTED IN THE ZONING OF IP OR INDUSTRIAL USE -- I'M SORRY -- INDUSTRIAL PARK.
THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE SITE IS LESS THAN 15 ACRES.
SO I WANTED TO GO THROUGH A LIST OF ITEMS THAT EXIST ON THE PROPERTY.
AGAIN, MOST ARE UNPERMITTED ITEMS ON THE SITE THAT WILL HAVE TO COME IN TO GET PERMITTED ONCE THEY RECEIVE AN APPROVAL TODAY, IF AN APPROVAL IS GIVEN TODAY.
WITH EXCEPTION TO THE EXISTING 58-FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY APPROACH FOR THE INGRESS, THAT HAS AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT, AND A PORTION OF IT IS PERMITTED.
THERE IS AN EIGHT FOOT HIGH BLOCK WALL AT THE FRONTAGE WITH TWO SLIDING GATES.
THERE ARE THREE NON-PERMANENT BUILDING STRUCTURES WITH NO UTILITIES, AND YOU CAN SEE THOSE HERE VAGUELY.
THEY'RE ABOUT 124-FOOT AND 8-FOOT IN HEIGHT.
THERE IS A PORTABLE UNROOFED STRUCTURE, AND YOU CAN VAGUELY -- I BELIEVE THERE WAS A PICTURE OF IT IN THE FIRST PICTURE I BELIEVE -- IT'S JUST A PORTABLE UNROOFED STRUCTURE, 32 SQUARE FEET WHERE THEY KEEP SOME ITEMS. THERE IS A METAL OVERHEAD SHED STRUCTURE AND YOU CAN SEE THAT'S SLAB THAT THEY WERE GOING TO CONSTRUCT.
THEY WILL HAVE TO COME IN WITH AS-BUILTS AS WELL AS STRUCTURALS AND PLANS TO PERMIT THIS.
THE 20 BY 40 BUILDINGS STRUCTURE WHICH WAS TEMPORARILY HOUSED HERE IN 2017 AS WELL AS FIVE CONTAINERS.
THERE ARE FIVE SEAT CONTAINERS IN THE BACK.
SO THAT'S WHAT'S EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
WHAT'S PROPOSED FOR NEW STRUCTURES IS A RESTROOM FACILITY, 12 PARKING SPACES, A TRUCK WASH, MATERIAL LOADING DOCK.
THEY HAVE TO EITHER PAVE OR CONCRETE THE SITE WHERE THERE WILL BE HEAVY
[00:35:04]
EQUIPMENT STORED.THERE WILL BE LANDSCAPING ALONG AVENUE 45.
THERE IS PROPOSED FOR AN 8-FOOT BLOCK WALL ALONG THE EAST PROPERTY LINE AND SIX 24-FOOT LIGHT POLES WITHIN THE SITE.
THIS IS WHAT THE FRONTAGE WALL LOOKS LIKE.
WITH THIS APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW, THEY WILL BE INSTALLING TREES IN THE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR OF THE WALL.
AND THE BATHROOM AGAIN IS A SMALL, I BELIEVE IT'S A 8 BY 12, AND IT'S A TILT-UP WITH A SLANTED ROOF STRUCTURE.
SO WITH THAT, STAFF RECOMMENDS ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 1934S THAT IS FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 19-12-1054.
THAT IS FOR THE PROJECT NOT BEING THE 15 ACRES AS WELL AS THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 1935 WHICH IS THE RESOLUTION FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT FACILITY ON THE 1.86 ACRES.
AND THAT CONCLUDES BY STAFF REPORT.
HOWEVER, YOU DID RECEIVE TWO RESOLUTIONS TODAY THAT WERE PROMPTED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
THE CITY ATTORNEY PROVIDED REVISIONS AFTER CONSULTING WITH 22 THE CITY PROSECUTOR DUE TO THE HISTORY OF THIS PROJECT, THEY WANTED TO MAKE SOME REVISIONS, AND IN SUMMARY THE REVISIONS INCLUDED SHORTENING THE TIME PERIOD FOR THE APPLICANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE CONDITIONS FROM 30 DAYS TO 15 DAYS, AND THEN SOME CLARIFICATION ON LANGUAGE OF EXTENDING THE CUP, AND THEN THERE WERE SOME OTHER LANGUAGE CHANGES AS WELL.
YOU RECEIVED A COPY OF THAT TODAY AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT HAS REVIEWED AND RECEIVED THE COPY OF THE REVISIONS TO THE RESOLUTION.
AND THAT NOW CONCLUDE MY REPORT.
>> IF I COULD INTERJECT FOR ONE SECOND, I BELIEVE ALSO THE MATERIALS THAT ROSIE WAS REFERENCING WERE ALSO POSTED ONLINE FOR PUBLIC VIEW AS WELL.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? NO? WE'RE GOOD? WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE? WOULD HE OR SHE LIKE TO SPEAK TO US ON THEIR BEHALF?
I'M REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.
AND I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
I MIGHT BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT HOW WE ENDED UP WHERE WE DID, IS I WAS HIRED BY THE OWNER DEMO UNLIMITED TO OBTAIN THEIR ENTITLEMENT PERMITS WHICH WE DID IN NOVEMBER OF 2017.
IN JANUARY OF 2018, THEY SAID, ALL YOUR HELP AND WE'LL TAKE IT FROM HERE.
AND SO THEY WENT OFF AND KIND OF DID THEIR OWN THING, NOT REALIZING THAT THERE'S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A REASON AND THAT THEY HAVE TO MEET THEM.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE DONE IS WE'VE GOTTEN WATER, DOMESTIC WATER FROM VALLEY, AND SO WE'RE GOOD AS FAR AS WATER IS CONCERNED, AND THAT HELPS WITH DUST CONTROL.
SO I'M AVAILABLE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS.
>> I THINK I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
THE ITEMS THAT WERE CHANGED TODAY, THAT WERE JUST BROUGHT UP, THE CITY ATTORNEY, THE APPLICANT RECEIVED THEM AND THERE'S CONCERNS WITH THOSE CHANGES?
DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? NO? JACKIE, I CAN'T SEE YOU.
THERE'S NO OTHER PERSON FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM?
>> WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM.
NOW WE CAN HAVE DELIBERATION AMONG THE COMMISSIONERS.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR ANY COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? NICCO? NO? OKAY.
JACKIE, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS RIGHT NOW.
[00:40:01]
>> SO ROSIE, I THINK MY ONLY COMMENT ON THIS IS I KNOW THAT WE'RE ONLY APPROVING THE FACT THAT THIS IS LESS THAN 15 ACRES THAT IS ALLOWED.
WE'RE APPROVING ITEMS THAT ARE BEING ADDED TO THE PROPERTY.
SO THE APPLICANT HAS THEN AGREED TO BRING EVERYTHING ELSE THAT IS STILL PENDING, I GUESS THAT IS CURRENTLY IN VIOLATION, THEY'LL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE CITY TO GET THAT INTO COMPLIANCE.
IS THAT WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING?
>> YOU'RE BREAKING UP A LITTLE BIT, BUT FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, SO THIS DESIGN REVIEW IS TO INCLUDE EXISTING ITEMS AND ALSO NEW ITEMS. IT'S BOTH.
IT'S BOTH ITEMS THAT WOULD BE APPROVED TODAY.
ITEMS THAT ARE EXISTING WOULD BE ITEMS THAT THEY NEED TO COME IN COMPLIANCE, SO, YES, THERE WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT EXTRA WORK FOR THEM TO BRING THOSE ITEMS INTO COMPLIANCE, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY NEW CONSTRUCTION TO START AND START FRESH WITH THOSE NEW ITEMS. SO THERE IS GOING TO BE A BIT OF BACKTRACK MOVING FORWARD, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY TO CONCLUDE ALL THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, THEY NEED TO COMPLY WITH, YOU KNOW, THE EXISTING -- PERMITTING THE EXISTING ITEMS ON THE PROPERTY.
>> SO WE'RE NOT GIVING THEM A FREE CARD TO NOT HAVE TO FIX ALL THE ITEMS. THEY STILL ALL HAVE TO BE FIXED PLUS ALL THE NEW THINGS THEY'RE PUTTING IN.
SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT'S WHAT WE WERE DOING.
AND I BELIEVE THE CITY PROSECUTOR REVIEWED THE RESOLUTIONS TO ENSURE THAT THERE WAS THAT AVENUE TO THE RESOLUTION, BUT I BELIEVE THAT ZACH MAYBE ABLE TO SPEAK ON THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE.
I DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A1 AND B2 WHICH INDICATES SOME OF THE STEPS THAT ADDITIONALLY HAVE TO BE TAKEN WITHIN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, I BELIEVE 180 DAYS FOR CONDITION A1 TO BRING THE EXISTING STRUCTURES INTO COMPLIANCE.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE IT PUBLIC FOR THE RECORD.
IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS, I'LL GO AHEAD AND DO WE HAVE A MOTION FROM THE COMMISSIONERS?
SO I'M READING OFF THE REQUISITION, CORRECT? SO MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 1934, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 19-12-1054 TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARCEL OF LESS THAN 15 ACRES FOR AN OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT STORAGE FACILITY WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK ZONING DISTRICT.
DO I NEED TO CONTINUE THE REST? AND THEN ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 1935 A PROOFING THE DESIGN REVIEW 19-12-4 KEVIN TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN OUTDOOR CONSTRUCTION FACILITY INCLUDING THE SITE PLAN, CIRCULATION AND LANDSCAPING ON APPROXIMATELY 1.86-ACRE SITE, AND AM I MISSING ANYTHING ELSE?
>> VICE CHAIR, I THINK FOR JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL PROPOSED REVISIONS THAT ROSIE DISCUSSED AND MENTIONED WERE CIRCULATED TODAY.
SO I NEED TO PULL UP MY NOTES.
>> ZACH, CAN WE JUST SAY WITH THE ADDITIONS THAT WERE CIRCULATED TODAY?
A POTENTIAL SOLUTION, SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO MAKE THIS MOTION, WOULD BE TO ADOPT RESOLUTIONS 1934 AND 1935 AS REVISED AS REVISED AND PRESENTED BY STAFF DURING THE MEETING TODAY.
SO MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1934, 1935, AND AS REVISED BY STAFF TODAY.
>> WE HAVE A FIRST AND A SECOND.
ANY MORE DISCUSSION? CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE.
>> VICE CHAIRPERSON JACQUELINE LOPEZ.
PER LEILA'S RECOMMENDATIONS WE WILL TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH SO WE CAN JUST FIND OUT IF EVERYBODY IS ON THE MEETING.
EVELYN, COULD YOU ADMIT EVERYBODY THAT IS IN THE WAITING ROOM SO THAT WE CAN
[00:45:02]
MAKE SURE EVERYBODY CAN HAVE AUDIO AND VIDEO.[RECESS] >> IS EVERYBODY BACK? 2 JACKIE COME BACK.
WE'LL GIVE THEM ANOTHER MINUTE HERE.
>> CHAIR, SINCE WE HAVE SO MANY PEOPLE ON THE LINE, IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO REMIND EVERYONE WHEN WE BEGIN TO MUTE IF THEY'RE NOT SPEAKING.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER AT 6:52 P.M.
AND YOU ARE NOT SPEAKING, PLEASE MUTE YOUR ZOOM.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO ITEM 7.4.
[00:50:10]
I CAN'T SEE HAD TO HAS.IF YOU ARE NOT MUTED, CAN YOU BE MUTE? WE'RE GETTING SOME FEEDBACK.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO ITEM 7.4, DUTCH BROS.
[7.4 Dutch Bros. Coffee Shop: The Applicant, Sage Las Palmas Indio, LLC, has applied for the following entitlements:]
COFFEE SHOP.THIS IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 20-07-551 CONDITIONAL USE 20-02-1057 AND DESIGN REVIEW 20-02-470.
IF WE CAN PLEASE HAVE A STAFF REPORT.
>> GOOD EVENING, MADAME CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AS YOU MENTIONED, THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS DUTCH BROS.
COFFEE SHOP OR KIOSK WHICH INCLUDES A CUP, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, A DESIGN REVIEW AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.
THIS SITE, AS YOU SEE, THIS IS THE VICINITY.
IT IS NORTH OF HIGHWAY 111 AND IT IS WEST OF MONROE STREET AND ALSO WEST OF LAS PALMAS ROAD.
AS YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN WITH THE BLUE OUTLINE PROPERTY LINE.
IT IS CLOSE TO THE INDIO HIGH SCHOOL AND ALSO CLOSE TO OTHER 28 COMMERCIAL AND SHOPPING AREAS WITHIN THE VICINITY.
THIS IS THE CURRENT ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY, WHICH AS YOU SEE HERE, THIS IS THE ARROW WHERE MY CURSOR IS.
THESE THE PROPERTY, AND THE REST OF THE PROPERTIES ARE ON THE NORTH ARE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL.
ALSO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND THE BUBBLE AREA IS ONE OF OUR SPECIFIC PLANS.
THE YELLOW IS THE INDIO HIGH SCHOOL.
A LITTLE BIT MORE CLOSE-UP OF THE SITE, AS YOU SEE, THERE ARE -- THIS IS WITHIN AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER.
THIS USED TO BE ALPHA BETA SUPERMARKET CENTER WHICH WAS APPROVED IN THE '70S.
THAT USED TO BE THE RALPH'S CENTER WHICH BURNED DOWN.
THERE IS A SMOG SHOP AUTO REPAIR TO THE NORTH.
THERE'S A BANK FACILITY TO OUR RIGHT SIDE AND THERE ARE TWO RESTAURANTS ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
SO WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING IS DUTCH BROS.
COFFEE SHOP, WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1992, AND THEIR MODEL IS DRIVE-THROUGH COFFEE SHOP WITH A WALK-UP WINDOW, AND IN THE CITY OF INDIO KIOSK WILL ALSO INCLUDE A COVERED OUTDOOR WAITING AREA.
THE INDIO LOCATION IS 850 SQUARE FEET.
THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS ABOUT 16 FEET.
AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A 24 -- THEY'RE REQUESTING A 24-HOUR OPERATION.
THESE ARE THE PICTURES OF THE SITE AT THIS POINT, AS YOU KNOW OR AS YOU SAW, READ IN THE STAFF REPORT, IT IS ASPHALT.
AND IT USED TO BE SOME COMMON PARKING AREA ON THE SUBJECT 29 PROPERTY THE CITY OWNED THAT AND THE PARCEL IS NOW SEPARATED.
AND THE CITY COUNCIL WILL REVIEW THE DISPOSITION OF THIS PROPERTY WHICH CURRENTLY THE CITY OF INDIO OWNS IT IN AUGUST '19.
AGAIN, MORE PICTURES FROM THE PORTION FROM THE NORTHWEST, SOUTH WESTERN AND FROM NORTHERN PORTION FACING SOUTH.
SO AS YOU SEE, IT IS COMPLETELY VACANT CURRENTLY.
>> LAILA, CAN YOU STOP A SECOND? MAY I ASK CARL TO PLEASE MUTE.
HE'S THE ONLY PERSON NOT ON MUTE, AND WE HAVE FEEDBACK COMING IN.
AND THEN THIS SITE AS YOU SEE HERE IS THE BLUE, BLUE IS THE PROJECT SITE, AND THEY CAN HAVE ACCESS FROM ANY OF THESE NUMBERS HERE, NUMBER 3 WHICH IS BETWEEN THE BANK AND THE FUTURE COFFEE KIOSK, 4, WHICH IS THE CARL'S JUNIOR AND THE
[00:55:03]
FUTURE PROJECT, AND 5, WHICH IS NEXT TO THE SIZZLER.ALSO THEY CAN ACCESS FROM AVENUE 46, WHICH IS RIGHT HERE.
THEN THERE'S RECIPROCAL ACCESS THROUGHOUT THE CENTER FOR ALL THOSE USES THAT THEY
I BELIEVE THE NOISE MIGHT BE COMING FROM YOU, ACTUALLY.
I ASKED -- I DON'T KNOW -- NOTHING IS ON BUT I ASKED WHETHER IT'S ON, NOT BE ON.
3 THROUGH -- TO GET TO THE SITE -- TO GET TO THE COFFEE SHOP.
THIS SHOWS A LINE OF SIGHT FROM HIGHWAY 111 COMING FROM BASICALLY EAST TO WEST, AND AS YOU SEE, THIS IS THE BUILDING AND THIS IS THE CARL'S JR., SO THE CARS WHEN THEY GET HERE THEY CANNOT BASICALLY HAVE VISIBILITY.
WE PROVIDED THIS EXHIBIT BECAUSE AFTER WE PUBLISHED THE STAFF REPORT, WE HAVE RECEIVED SOME EMAILS FROM CARL'S, JR. AND A COUPLE, TWO MORE LETTERS THAT ALL OF THEM ARE DISTRIBUTED TO YOU AND ALSO WAS POSTED ONLINE, SO WE PROVIDED THAT TO SHOW YOU HOW THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SMALL KIOSK AND THE OTHER BUILDINGS CLOSE BY.
AS YOU SEE IN THIS EXHIBIT, THEY ARE PROPOSING A DOUBLE LINE DRIVE-THROUGH, SO IT COMES TO THE WINDOW AND THEN ALSO FROM THIS SITE WHICH HAS THE PATIO COVER.
THIS IS THE WALK-UP WHICH IS CLOSE TO THE SIDEWALK.
THIS IS ANOTHER VIEW, WHICH IS SUPER IMPOSED ON THE AERIAL SO YOU CAN AGAIN SEE EVEN KARL'S IS FURTHER AWAY.
THEY CAN SEE THE SIGNAGE AND THEY CAN SEE THE BUILDING OF CARL'S JR. HIS IS ALSO A RENDERING THAT THE BLUE AREA, THIS IS THE COFFEE SHOP, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, YOU STILL CAN SEE CARL'S JR. AND THE REST OF THE OTHER BUILDINGS CLOSE BY.
THIS SHOWS THE CIRCULATION ON THE SITE.
AGAIN, DOUBLE LINE DRIVE-THROUGH.
IT TURNS TO ONE AND THEN THE CAR GETS TO THE WINDOW AND THEY GET 31 THEIR DRINK AND THEY GO OUT.
THIS ALSO SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THEN HERE IS THE TRASH ENCLOSURE AND HERE AT THE TOP OF THE BASICALLY PROPERTY ON THE POINT, THAT'S THE SMOKE SHOP.
THIS IS THE LANDSCAPE PROPOSAL WHICH IS A CONCEPT.
IT WILL BE REVIEWED, THE FINAL LANDSCAPE WHICH MEANS PLANNING DIVISION AND ALSO IWH TO MAKE SURE IT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CITY, STATE AND WATER EFFICIENCY.
AGAIN, HERE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE IMAGE, THIS IS THE AREA THAT THE SMOKE SHOP IS EXISTING AND THIS IS THEIR PARKING AREA.
SO IT IS QUITE A BIG DISTANCE BETWEEN THAT USE AND THIS COFFEE SHOP.
[01:00:03]
HERE IS THE BANK, THE FOOT PRINT OF BANK, AND HERE IS THE CARL'S JR., SO THESE TWO ARE EXISTING ACCESSES WHICH THEY WILL BE USED, AND THE CARL'S JR. ACCESS ALSO WILL BE USED.THIS SHOWS THE FLOOR PLAN OF THE -- JUST A SMALL KIOSK.
THERE WON'T BE ANY OF THE CUSTOMERS -- NO CUSTOMERS WILL GO INSIDE THE COFFEE SHOP.
ALSO YOU SEE THE OF RADIO PLAN WHERE THE EQUIPMENT GOES.
STAFF ADDED A CONDITION THAT REQUIRES THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE COMPLETE SCREENING AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE ROOF TO SCREEN ALL THE ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT.
THESE ARE THE ELEVATIONS THAT THEY'RE SHOWING.
IT IS MODERN AND STRAIGHT LINE WHICH USING CONTEMPORARY MATERIALS AND COLOR.
IT IS IN LINE WITH THE COLOR SCHEME OF THE HIGH SCHOOL, SO THEY KIND OF USED THOSE COLORS, HAVE THEIR TOWER ELEMENT WHICH IS BASICALLY COMING FROM THE DUTCH WINDMILL.
BEFORE I GO TO THE RECOMMENDATION, AGAIN I WANTED TO EMPHASIZE ON THE LETTERS AND EMAILS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED AND I HAVE DISTRIBUTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALSO TO THE APPLICANT, RELATED TO THE APPLICANT, AND IT HAS BEEN POSTED ONLINE AS WELL FOR THE PUBLIC ACCESS.
WITH THAT, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND THE CONDITION APPROVE RESOLUTION 1948, TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, APPROVE RESOLUTION 1949, TO APPROVE THE DESIGN REVIEW AND A REVENUE RESOLUTION 1950 TO APPROVE THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
AND THEN ALSO WE SENT THE INITIAL STUDY FOR THE REVIEW FOR 30 DAYS, WHICH WAS FROM APRIL TO MAY 6TH.
WE SENT THE LETTER FOR TRIBAL CONSULTATION ON FEBRUARY 5TH.
DURING THE INITIAL STUDY PUBLIC REVIEW, WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC OR ANY OTHER AGENCIES THAT REQUIRED ANY EDIT OR REVISION TO THE INITIAL STUDY.
ALSO, FROM THE TRIBAL CONSULTATION WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMENT AS WELL.
SO THAT CONCLUDES MY STAFF REPORT.
WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM SAGE PROPERTIES, ALSO WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVE FROM DUTCH BROS.
AND WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM CARL'S JR. TONIGHT THAT I BELIEVE ALL WOULD LIKE TO -- THE APPLICANT AND HIS TEAM WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE PROJECT, AND CARL'S JR. ALSO HAS SOME COMMENTS AND CONCERNS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE THE PLANNING 33 COMMISSION TO HEAR.
THAT CONCLUDES MY STAFF REPORT, AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OF YOUR -- IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS TIME?
>> CHAIR, IF I MAY INTERJECT QUICKLY FOR ONE CLARIFYING COMMENT, I BELIEVE THE APN NUMBER IS REFERENCED IN RESOLUTIONS 1948, 1949 AND 1950 SHOULD BE APN NUMBER 616-05-0010.
ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS TIME?
>> YEAH, I HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
LEILA, THERE'S A COUPLE OF BUSINESSES BACK BEHIND, BACK IN THE FAR RIGHT CORNER BEHIND THAT BANK.
I BELIEVE THERE'S A SMOKE SHOP AND AN OIL CHANGE CENTER.
THEY'RE TWO SEPARATE BUSINESSES.
I THINK IF YOU'RE COMING EASTBOUND ON 111, THE BUILDING WHERE IT'S PLACED BEING CLOSE UP TO 111 MAY KIND OF BLOCK THOSE.
I KNOW THERE IS SIGNAGE RIGHT THERE IN FRONT FOR THOSE BUSINESSES ON 111.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS WOULD NOT BE CHANGING ANYTHING AS FAR AS THE SIGNAGE IS RELATED.
WILL THEY STILL BE ABLE TO KEEP THOSE SIGNS IN FRONT AT THE DRIVEWAY BEFORE THE BANK BETWEEN WHERE THE DUTCH BROS.
THIS DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT TRIGGER THE EXISTING SIGNS TO BE REMOVED.
IF THERE IS A NEED FOR ANY SIGN CONSOLIDATION BECAUSE WE DON'T 34 WANT TO HAVE SIGN POLLUTION, THEN THERE WILL BE A SIGN CONSOLIDATION WITH THE APPROVAL AND WITH THE BLESSING OF THE OTHER BUSINESSES.
BUT THIS PROJECT DOES NOT TRIGGER REMOVAL OF SIGNS.
>> AND HAVE ANY OF THE OTHER BUSINESS OWNERS IN THE AREA HAD ANY CONCERNS IN REGARD TO VISIBILITY SUCH AS CARL'S? THE SIZZLER OR THE BANK OR ANY OF THOSE BUSINESSES BEHIND?
I HEARD THE SIGN COMMENT, THAT IT WOULD BE CONSOLIDATED IF NECESSARY.
[01:05:03]
SO WE HAVE HEARD COMMENTS FROM CARL'S JR. FOR VISIBILITY.
WE ALSO HAVE HEARD -- WE ALSO HAD RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE NORTH, WHICH IS THE REPAIR SHOP, THE SMOG SHOP, THAT THEY HAD QUESTIONS REGARDING THE VISIBILITY, SO THIS IS, AGAIN, THIS IS A SMALL PROFILE BUILDING MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS ABOUT 16 FEET.
SO THE SIGNS WILL STILL BE VISIBLE BECAUSE AS YOU SEE HERE, THE SIGNS ARE OUTSIDE THEIR FRONTAGE, SO THE SIGNS ARE HERE, SO THEY WON'T BE MOVED, BUT IT IS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD.
IN MAY -- IT ALSO BRINGS MORE CARS TO THE AREA SO THEY CAN SEE THAT OTHER REPAIR AS WELL BECAUSE IT'S REALLY HARD, EVEN WITH THE SIGN, TO KNOW WHERE IT IS, BUT NOW THE CARS ARE GOING IN FOR COFFEE SO THEY CAN SEE IT AS WELL.
SO I DON'T THINK IT WILL CHANGE THE DYNAMIC AS MUCH.
BUT I BELIEVE THE PROPERTY OWNER ALSO MAY BE COMMENTING TONIGHT, SO HE IS SUPPOSED TO BE HERE TONIGHT AS WELL, SO I GIVE THE TIME FOR HIM TO BRING UP HIS CONCERN.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? NO? WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN -- JACKIE, GO AHEAD.
HAVE WE TAKEN A LOOK AT AGAIN, SOMETIMES IN THAT LITTLE AREA THERE IT CAN BE, DEPENDING ON SEASON, IT CAN GET REALLY CONGESTED WITH TRAFFIC.
HAVE WE TAKEN A LOOK AT LIKE A TRAFFIC STUDY IN THAT AREA?
>> THEY COULD QUESTION, YES, THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A TRAFFIC STUDY.
THE TRAFFIC STUDY HAS BEEN STUDIED BY OUR TRAFFIC CONSULTANT AND THEN NOTHING NEGATIVE HAS COME OUT OF THAT THAT REQUIRES ANY REVISION TO THE SITE PLAN OF WHAT THEY HAVE PROPOSED.
THE TRAFFIC CONSULTANT -- THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER CONSULTANT ALSO IS HERE TONIGHT, THAT HE CAN EXPAND UPON THAT AS WELL, BUT IT HAS -- WE HAVE DONE -- THEY HAVE DONE A TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THE SITE.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? NO? OKAY.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE INVITE THE APPLICANT TOD O A PRESENTATION OR TO PRESENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
>> RALPH, YOU NEED TO UNMUTE YOURSELF, I BELIEVE.
GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS RALPH DEPPERSHIEM, THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT FOR SAGE INVESCO, THE DEVELOPER FOR THIS PROPOSED PROJECT.
I FIRST OF ALL WANT TO THANK THE STAFF AND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR INCORPORATING WITH US IN THIS COLLABORATIVE EFFORT OVER THE LAST NUMBER OF MONTHS TO COME UP WITH THIS PROPOSED PROJECT, A PROJECT THAT WE THINK LAD TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES WITH THE TYPE OF SERVICE THAT THE TENANT, THE OPERATOR WILL BE OPERATING IN THIS LOCATION.
[INDECIPHERABLE] ALSO, AS EVIDENCED BY THE STAFF REPORT, WITH THE EXHIBITS TO INCLUDE THE EXHIBITS, IT'S OVER 1100 PAGES, SO NEEDLESS TO SAY, I THINK MUCH WAS COVERED IN THIS STUDY, VERY THOROUGH, VERY PROFESSIONAL, VERY INVOLVED EFFORT BY ALL PARTIES TO ENSURE THAT ALL FACTORS WERE CONSIDERED IN COMING UP WITH THIS LOCATION, THIS OPERATION, THIS DEVELOPMENT, AND TO COME OUT WITH THE SUPPORT THAT WE HAVE FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
BEFORE I INTRODUCE ONE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES FROM DUTCH BROS.
I JUST WANT TO SAY ON BEHALF OF PATRICK AND MYSELF, WE'RE PROUD TO BE PRESENTING THIS PROJECT BEFORE YOU FOR APPROVAL.
THIS IS A PROJECT THAT I THINK WILL BE WELL SERVED IN THIS COMMUNITY AND THAT MORE EQUALLY IMPORTANT IS THAT THE OPERATOR THAT WILL BE THE TENANT FOR THIS, DUTCH BROS.
WHICH WILL TALK TO YOU IN A MINUTE OR TWO, IS AN OPERATOR THAT I THINK THE 37 COMMUNITY AND THE DESERT AREA, THE WHOLE TRADE AREA WILL BE APPRECIATIVE OF HAVING.
IT'S A COMMUNITY-ORIENTED OPERATOR, AND THEY'RE VERY SUCCESSFUL, GROWN DRAMATICALLY OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, AND THEY HAVE A STORY TO TELL, AND BRIEFLY
[01:10:04]
BRENDAN WILL I THINK JUST SHARE WITH YOU SOME OF THE BENEFITS OF THIS PROJECT WITH REGARDS TO TAXES, SALES, EMPLOYMENT AND THE LIKE.SO IF I CAN IN CONCLUSION AGAIN, THANK YOU ALL, ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND APPROVAL, AND INTRODUCE TO YOU BRENDAN FROM DUTCH BROS.
TO ADD A LITTLE MORE COLOR AND STORY BEHIND DUTCH BROS.
AND GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING AND THIS COLLABORATION ON ZOOM.
IT'S A SHAME WE CAN'T BE TOGETHER.
BUT I STARTED WITH DUTCH BROS.
ABOUT 15 YEARS AGO WHEN I WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL, AND SO THIS IS KIND OF PERFECT FOR ME TO BE SITTING HERE IN FRONT OF YOU GUYS AND TILLING THE STORY OF TRAVIS AND DAN BORESMAN, THE FOUNDERS OF OUR COMPANY.
OUR MODEL, OUR BUSINESS MODEL IS NOT ABOUT SELLING COFFEE BUT ABOUT SELLING TIES TO THE COMMUNITY AND A RELATIONSHIP THAT WE'RE CREATING WITH THE COMMUNITY.
OUR OPERATORS THAT ARE THE OPERATOR THAT WILL BE IN INDIO AND IN THE GREATER PALM DESERT/PALM SPRINGS AREA IS GOING TO LIVE THERE LOCALLY AND IS GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN YOUR OUT.
IT WILL BE THE SAME PLACE YOU GET A CUP OF COFFEE FROM DAY IN AND DAY OUT.
THEY WILL BE INVOLVED IN THE COMMUNITY TO THE POINT OF LOCAL SCHOOLS, ORGANIZATIONS LIKE FOOD CAUSE ORGANIZATIONS.
THERE'S MANY COMMUNITY EFFORTS THAT WE TRY TO GIVE BACK TO.
EVERY YEAR OUR OPERATORS ARE REQUIRED TO GIVE BACK TO A FOOD ON VALENTINE'S DAY FOR DUTCH LOVE DAY WHICH IS A FOOD DRIVE THAT WE DO, AND THEN IN MAY WE DO A MLS GIVEBACK TO THE LOCAL MLS ARM, MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY ASSOCIATION ARM IN THE COMMUNITY.
THEN AGAIN IN SEPTEMBER WE DO FOR NATIONAL COFFEE DAY A BUCK FOR KIDS DAY WHERE THE OPERATOR WILL GATHER WITH MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY TO HELP SELECT A YOUTH ORGANIZATION THAT NEEDS SOME EXTRA HELP IN FUNDING.
AND SO FOR US HERE THIS IS A LOCAL PROJECT.
THE OPERATOR WE'LL HIRE, AND FOR EVERY STORE WE HIRE APPROXIMATELY 53 EMPLOYEES.
ABOUT TEN TO 12 OF THOSE BEING FULL-TIME AND THE REST BEING PART-TIME RANGING FROM HIGH SCHOOL AGE ALL THE WAY UP.
SO WE'RE EXCITED TO HOPEFULLY GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO OPEN UP A LOCATION HERE IN INDIO, AND WE APPRECIATE THE TIME THAT YOU GUYS HAVE SPENT ON THIS.
SO IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR BUSINESS OR OUR MODEL, JUST FEEL FREE TO ASK.
>> DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME OF THE APPLICANT?
I VISIT THEM A LOT WHEN I GO TO SEE MY MOM.
I LIKE THE DESIGN OF THIS ONE, IT HAS A LITTLE BIT MORE MODERN LOOK.
THE ONES THAT I HAVE SEEN UP IN THE WASHINGTON AND OREGON AREAS ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE DATED.
I DO LIKE THAT IT KIND OF MATCHES THE SCHOOL, WHICH HAS BEEN RECENTLY REDONE.
AND I'M NOT SURE -- >> SORRY, COMMISSIONER.
IF I CAN INTERJECT, IF YOU COULD STICK TO QUESTIONS AT THE MOMENT AND HOLD ANY SORT OF DELIBERATION UNTIL AFTER THE HEARING.
HAVE YOU CONSIDERED MOVING IT BACK A LITTLE BIT MORE? WHERE IT'S POSITIONED RIGHT NOW IT'S SO, SO CLOSE TO THE HIGHWAY AND I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER BUSINESSES THAT FAR UP.
>> MR. CHAIR, I'M SORRY, NICCO, IS THIS QUESTION FOR THE STAFF OR FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> NICCO, THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION.
I'M DEFER TO RALPH ON THIS ONE.
YES, THERE WAS SOME CONSIDERATION, BUT I WOULD DEFER TO PERHAPS HAVING STAFF ASSIST ME IN ANSWERING THAT QUESTION AS IT RELATES TO TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AND CONCERNS THAT THE CITY HAD WITH THIS USE OF MOVING IT MORE -- MOVING IT 40 FURTHER BACK OFF THE HIGHWAY, IF I COULD DEFER THEM TO LEILA AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
[01:15:02]
REGARDING THE LOCATION.SO STAFF SUGGESTED TO BRING THE BUILDING CLOSER TO HIGHWAY 111 FOR TWO REASONS, ONE, THE GENERAL PLAN 24B OUR NEWLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN WITHIN THIS AREA RECOMMENDS TO BRING THE BUILDING CLOSER TO THE SIDEWALK AND TO THE STREET, SO FOR THE WALKABILITY PROPOSALS.
ALSO THIS IS A DRIVE-THROUGH WITH TWO LANES SO THAT THE DRIVE-THROUGH LANES TWO BEHIND THE BUILDING, BASICALLY PROVIDING A BETTER VISUAL DESIGN.
SO FOR THOSE TWO REASONS, STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS TO KEEP THE DESIGN AS IT HAS BEEN PROPOSED TONIGHT TO YOU.
SOME OF THEM WERE NOT SAFE BECAUSE, AS YOU KNOW, THIS USE ALSO HAS A WALK-UP WINDOW, IS ON WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO IT IN A WAY THAT PEOPLE WALK THROUGH THE DRIVE-THROUGH LANES OR TO THE PARKING LOT, SO THIS IS THE SAFEST WAY TO ACCOMMODATE BASICALLY THE GENERAL PLAN, POLICY AND THE VISUAL EFFECT OF THE USE AND MAKE IT SAFE, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT IS CLOSE TO THE SCHOOL.
WE WERE ANTICIPATING THIS PROJECT WAS PROPOSED TO US BEFORE THE COVID, SO WE WERE ANTICIPATING HIGH SCHOOL, YOUNG PEOPLE WILL WALK TO THIS COFFEE SHOP TO GET THEIR DRINKS, SO WE WANTED TO BE SAFE.
THE CITY IS THE PROPERTY OWNER OF RECORD, AND SO THE CITY DID, AS PROPERTY OWNER OF RECORD, DID HAVE A SAY IN THE DESIGN OF TH AND FOR THE REASONS THAT SENIOR PLANNER NAMVAR JUST STATED, WE DID ENCOURAGE THOSE DESIGN FEATURES.
I WOULD ALSO NOTES WE HAVE CONSULTANT TRAFFIC ENGINEERING MARK GREENWOOD ON WHO CAN ANSWER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT TRAFFIC CIRCULATION.
ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF THIS DESIGN THAT IT PULLS TRAFFIC MORE QUICKLY ONTO THE SITE AND LIMITED:LITS, REDUCES THE POTENTIAL FOR QUEUING IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY BUT TRAFFIC ENGINEER CONSULTANT MARK GREENWOOD IS WITH US THIS EVENING IF ANY COMMISSIONERS WANTS TO ASK MORE DETAILED QUESTIONS OF HIM.
>> DO WE HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS, NICCO, FOR THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER?
>> NO, LEILA ANSWERED EVERYTHING PERFECTLY.
>> ZACH, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> WHAT WAS THE TRAFFIC? MY QUESTION WAS WHEN WAS THE TRAFFIC CONDUCTED? WHEN WAS THAT STUDY?
>> THE STUDY WAS CONDUCTED DECEMBER 2019.
>> AT WHAT TIME OF DAY? WAS THERE A CERTAIN DAY YOU WERE LOOKING AT WHEN THAT STUDY WAS DONE? Y.
>> SO THE TRAFFIC STUDY GETS DONE, AND THEN IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER CERTAIN DAYS, BUT THEY HAVE THE PEAK HOURS, AND THOSE FACTORS WOULD BE ADDED TO THE DATA, BUT IF YOU WANT BETTER EXPLANATION, MORE EXPLANATION IS 101 TRAFFIC IF YOU WOULD LIKE THEIR EXPLANATION, THEN I WILL ASK MR. GREENWOOD TO GIVE YOU 42 THAT EXPLANATION.
I'M THE CITY'S CONSULTANT TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER.
AND THIS STUDY LIKE MANY TRAFFIC STUDIES INCLUDED THE A.M.
AND THAT'S GENERALLY FROM 7:00 TO 9:00 A.M.
SO THE SINGLE PEAK HOUR IS ENCAPSULATED WITHIN THOSE TWO-HOUR PERIODS, AND SO THIS TRAFFIC STUDY WAS CONDUCTED TYPICAL OF ANY OTHER TRAFFIC STUDY.
>> YOU DID NOT DO ANY TRAFFIC STUDIES AROUND NOON?
>> THE APPLICANT DID NOT DO ANY TRAFFIC STUDIES AROUND NOON.
>> I GREW UP IN THAT AREA, SO I KNOW THAT WHOLE BUSINESS COMPLEX VERY WELL, SO THAT WAS JUST MY ONLY CONCERN BECAUSE I KNOW THOSE TIMES, ESPECIALLY AROUND NOON IT GETS REALLY CONGESTED IN THAT AREA.
I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
IF WE CAN HEAR FROM OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.
MY DAD WAS THE FOUNDER OF CARL'S JR. RESTAURANTS.
I HAVE BEEN THE FRANCHISE OPERATOR IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY SINCE 1985.
I'VE BEENING ON THE ALL THE STORES HERE FOR THE LAST 35 43 YEARS.
[01:20:05]
AND VERY INVOLVED IN THE COMMUNITY, BEEN ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE UNITED WAIT OF THE DESERT, THE YMCA.WE'VE DONE NUMEROUS FUNDRAISING.
WE HAVE A FUNDRAISER EVERY YEAR FOR WOUND WARRIOR AND ALSO THE MILITARY YMCA AT THE TWENTYNINE PALMS. AND BEEN A MAJOR PART OF THE COMMUNITY FOR ALL THIS TIME.
I'M NOT OBJECTING TO DUTCH BROS.
I'M JUST OBJECTING TO THE LOCATION.
ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS MENTIONED HOW CLOSE YOU ARE TO THE HIGHWAY.
THIS LINE OF SIGHT CARS DRIVING DOWN, THEY FOCUS ON THE FIRST THING.
THEY DON'T FOCUS ON THE SECOND THING.
BY THE TIME THEY GET PAST THE DUTCH BROTHERS THEY'RE GOING 25 MILES AN HOUR.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HIT THAT DRIVEWAY.
PAGE 69 OF YOUR REPORT HAS A SKETCH THAT WE THOUGHT WOULD WORK.
WE'RE SET BACK ALONG WITH THE BANK, ALONG WITH THE SIZZLER, ALONG WITH THE CARL'S JR. KNOW WE HAVE A GENERAL PLAN.
AND IF WE COULD ALL MOVE FORWARD, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
BUT THE BIGGEST ISSUE HERE, THE TRAFFIC REPORT MIGHT BE A TRAFFIC REPORT ON THE HIGHWAY, BUT I DON'T THINK THEY REALLY HAD A TRAFFIC REPORT OF THE CENTER BECAUSE THE MAIN TRAFFIC TO GET FROM THE BANK TO THE CARL'S JR. TO THE SIZZLER IS IN FRONT.
THAT'S WHY THAT AISLE WAS THERE.
SO HOW DO YOU GET TO THE CARL'S JR. FROM THE BANK? NOT VERY EASILY.
SO THE LANDLORD ALSO SENT A LETTER.
HE'S THE LANDLORD, MY LANDLORD.
HE'S ALSO THE LANDLORD OF THE BANK.
AND NOWHERE HAVE I HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT THE TRAFFIC FLOW INSIDE THE CENTER BEING OBSTRUCTED.
THE LINE OF SIGHT WAS ONE THING BUT OUR MAIN ISSUE IS THE TRAFFIC FLOW.
SO THAT HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT UP.
DUTCH BROS., WE'VE BEEN TALKING TO THE APPLICANT ABOUT THIS.
ON PAGE 69, LIKE I SAID, THERE IS A SKETCH THAT SHOWS THEM SET BACK.
THEY MOVED THEIR BUILDING PERPENDICULAR TO THE STREET.
THEY GET A DOUBLE DRIVE-THROUGH STACK AND THEY STILL HAVE THEIR PATIO AND WALK-UP WINDOW.
SO DAN BEATTY WHO IS THE VICE PRESIDENT OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WITH DUTCH, I'VE KNOWN HIM FOR YEARS -- HE USED TO WORK FOR US -- HE SENT ME A TEXT.
I'VE BEEN PLAYING PHONE TAG WITH HIM AND HE SENT ME A TECH LAST THURSDAY SAYING "WE'RE WORKING ON YOUR SUGGESTIONS AND WE'LL SEND A I NEW PLAN SOON." I SENT A COPY OF THAT TEXT TODAY AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE THAT ALONG WITH MY EMAIL IN THE PUBLIC RECORD.
I FEEL LIKE MY CHAIN IS BEING PULLED HERE BY THE CITY AND ALSO BY THE PEOPLE TRYING TO SAY, EVER GOT DONE.
SO LEILA AND I ARE NOT OPPOSED TO DUTCH BROS.
WE'RE JUST OPPOSED TO BLOCKING THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC WITHIN THE CENTER.
AND WE WOULD LIKE TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR BY HAVING EVERYBODY SET BACK THE SAME AMOUNT.
IS THERE 9 ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM?
WE HAVE MR. HENRY KIM, AND I WILL UNMUTE HIM NOW.
SHOULD I READ THE EMAIL? BECAUSE THAT'S PART OF THE RECORD, CORRECT?
>> CAN I COMMENT AND HAVE IT SUBMITTED AS PART OF, YOU KNOW, THE RECORD?
>> WE WOULDN'T MIND YOU TO READ YOUR EMAIL INTO THE RECORD AND MAKE YOUR COMMENTS.
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE EMAIL I SUBMITTED EARLIER, EARLIER AND I HAVE SOME COMMENT.
MY CLIENT -- I'M A REAL ESTATE BROKER -- HE OPERATES THE LUBE SHOP WHICH IS GOING TO BE WEST OF THE PROPOSED DUTCH COFFEE BUILDING, AND OUR CONCERN IS TWOFOLD, THE VISIBILITY FOR MY CLIENT'S BUSINESS, AS WELL AS HIS TENANT WHICH IS MIKE'S SHOP AND THE TENANT HAS BEEN IN SINCE ABOUT I THINK DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR, AND MY CLIENT HAS BEEN THERE FOR OVER ABOUT 12, 13 YEARS, OWNER AND OPERATOR.
HE'S THERE EVERY DAY MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY FROM 9:00 TO 46 5:00.
SO HIS CONCERN IS I THINK A LOT OF THE CONCERNS OF THE CARL'S JR. OPERATOR, TRAFFIC FLOW.
I THINK THAT SHOULD BE STRAIGHTENED OUT.
BUT MY MAIN CONCERN AS WELL AS MR. HONG, MARK HONG WHO IS THE OWNER, IS VISIBILITY BECAUSE I THINK SINCE THIS COFFEE BUILDING WILL BE SO CLOSE TO HIGHWAY 111,
[01:25:06]
VISIBILITY WILL PRETTY MUCH HIS BUILDING, HIS BUSINESS WILL BE BLOCKED OFF, SO I WAS THINKING WHAT THE CITY WOULD DO TO MITIGATE THAT, SUCH AS MAYBE SIGNAGE FOR BOTH MY CLIENT AS WELL AS HIS TENANT.SO THOSE ARE THE ISSUES WE HAVE.
AND WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT ADDRESSED.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? OR WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> CHAIR, I WOULD ASK TO CLARIFY IF YOU'RE OFFERING THE APPLICANT A CHANCE FOR REBUTTAL AS WELL AS QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT BEFORE CLOSING THE HEARING.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? IF NOT, DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANY REBUTTALS FOR THE CONCERNS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP PREVIOUSLY?
>> THE CONCERNS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP ARE UNDERSTANDABLE.
I THINK AGAIN, THE STUDIES THAT WE'VE DONE AS FAR AS THE VISUAL SHOW THAT THE LINE OF SIGHT, WHAT LINE OF SIGHT MAY BE OBSTRUCTED IS MINIMAL.
I THINK THE TRAFFIC FLOW THAT YOU SEE ON THE EXHIBIT RIGHT NOW 47 SHOWS THAT MOST OF THE TRAFFIC IS THE HIGHWAY.
I'M NOT CERTAIN HOW MUCH TRAFFIC THERE WOULD BE BETWEEN THE BANK AND CARL'S JR., BUT THERE IS ABILITY TO ACCESS BOTH USES FROM BEHIND THE PROJECT.
INSTEAD OF GOING OUT ONTO THE HIGHWAY, GRANTED YOU CAN'T GO DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE BANK TO THE CARL'S JR. BUT THERE WAS AN EXHIBIT THAT WE COULD SHOW THAT YOU DO SEE A CROSS EASEMENT FROM THE REAR OF THE BUILDING FROM THE BANK TO CARL'S JR. AS WELL.
SO I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME QUESTION ABOUT THE ABILITY TO GO FROM THE BUILDING TO BILLING WITHIN THE PREMISES OF THE PROPERTY ORDINANCE, BUT IT'S STILL VIABLE BY JUST GOING TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY AS OPPOSED TO THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY AND IN LIEU OF GOING ONTO THE HIGHWAY AND COMING ACROSS TO THE OTHER USE.
SO THAT WAS CONSIDERED, AND THAT'S WHY THERE IS SOME ACCESS.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE TIME REAR OF THIS WISHING YOU CAN SEE ARROWS GOING BOTH DIRECTIONS THAT ALLOW FOR THAT CROSS EASEMENT OF THE TWO PROPERTIES, NOT AS QUICK BUT DEFINITELY VIABLE.
AND THEN LASTLY AGAIN IT'S A PROJECT THAT I THINK IT ADDS VALUE TO THE COMMUNITY, WILL BRING BUSINESS TO CARL'S JR. UTCH BROS.
DOES NOT SERVE FOOD, AND THE CLIENTELE THERE, I WOULD THINK, WOULD BE A GREAT SPILLOVER TO GOING TO CARL'S FOR FOOD REQUIREMENTS OR USES OR DESIRES AS WELL.
SO I APPRECIATE THE CONCERNS EVIDENCED BY THE TWO FOLKS THAT SPOKE, CARL HIMSELF AND THE OTHER GENTLEMAN.
WE DO WANT TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS AS WELL, AND WE'RE HOPING THAT 48 THIS ALL WORKS OUT AND WILL SERVE THE COMMUNITY AND SERVE THE TWO USES ALREADY THERE WELL AND IMPROVE THE ACTIVITY AND THE LOOK OF THE TRADE AREA TO ALL.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? NO? WE'LL GO AHEAD -- AND THERE'S NO ONE ELSE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, EVELYN?
>> SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AT THIS TIME AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND WE CAN OPEN IT UP FOR DELIBERATIONS AND QUESTIONS TO STAFF.
LEILA, THERE WAS A PHOTO THAT YOU BROUGHT UP THAT SHOWED FROM THE STREET IF YOU WERE TRAVELING WEST.
>> A PHOTO OR A SITE PLAN PHOTO?
>> NO, I THINK IT LOOKED LIKE A PHOTO WHERE MAYBE THEY HAD OVERLAID.
IT LOOKED LIKE YOU HAD PUT IN LIKE WHERE THE DUTCH BROS.
WOULD BE BUT IT LOOKED MORE LIKE A PICTURE.
IT WAS ONE WHERE YOU COULD ACTUALLY SEE CARL'S.
LET ME MAKE SURE I'M SEEING THIS RIGHT.
SO, OF COURSE, HERE'S THE BANK WHICH WE ALL KNOW.
AND THEN RIGHT AFTER THAT THE BLUE SIGN THAT WE SEE THERE IS WHERE THE DUTCH BROS.
WOULD BE, CORRECT? AND THEN THE RED ROOFLINE WE SEE IS CARL'S JR. THAT CORRECT?
SO THE FIRST RED LINE IS CARL'S JR. AND YOU CAN SEE THE SIGN OF CARL'S JR. BY THE TREE, CLOSE TO THE STREET.
[01:30:03]
THE OTHER SECOND RED ROOF IS SIZZLER.WILL BE THAT BLUE HINT BETWEEN THE DATE PALM AND THEN THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL LIGHT POLL.
>> AND THAT'S CARL'S JR.'S CURRENT SIGN THAT'S THERE NOW.
>> AND THE OTHER SIGN RIGHT AFTER THE PALM TREE, IS THAT THE SIGN THAT THE BANK AND WILL HAVE DUTCH BROS.
AND MAYBE THE SMOKE SHOP AND THE LUBE SHOP? IS THAT A SIGN RIGHT THERE, A MONUMENT SIGN OF SOME KIND?
>> AND WE'RE NOT PLANNING TO ADD ANY MORE MONUMENT SIGNS AT THIS TIME TO THE SITE.
THEY HAVE NOT SUBMITTED ANYTHING FOR MONUMENT SIGN, ABOUT THEY HAVE THEIR LOGO ON THE BUILDING.
IF IT COMES FOR THE MONUMENT SIGN, AS I SAID, WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE THREE MONUMENT SIGNS THERE SO IT WILL BE CONSOLIDATED MONUMENT SIGN THAT WILL BE THE HEIGHT THAT THE CITY'S SIGN CODE ALLOWS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? JACKIE, NICCO? I'M SORRY.
>> SO HE BROUGHT UP A GOOD POINT.
SO THE TRAFFIC STUDY WAS DONE OUTSIDE OF THE AREA, NOT INSIDE THE COMPLEX, CORRECT?
>> I WILL DEFER THAT QUESTION TO MR. GREENWOOD.
>> GOOD EVENING, THIS IS MARK GREENWOOD AGAIN.
FOCUSED ON OFF-SITE ISSUES, DID IT NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS ON-SITE ISSUES.
I WILL SAY THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE REVIEW, ON-SITE CIRCULATION DID COME UP IN THE CONTEXT OF ASSURING THAT THERE WAS LEGAL ACCESS THROUGHOUT THE SITE.
THAT ISSUE WAS RESOLVED THROUGH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND DOCUMENTS WERE PRODUCED THAT DID SHOW THAT THIS SITE ENJOYS ACCESS ACROSS THE PARCEL THAT SURROUNDS THE PROPERTY.
BUT AS TO TRAFFIC ISSUES ON-SITE, THOSE WERE NOT ADDRESSED.
IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO SEE ADDRESSED, THEY COULD DIRECT THAT TO THE APPLICANT AND HAVE THAT PERFORMED.
NICCO, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> I JUST WANT TO ADD SOMETHING REAL QUICK, WHICH THE DRIVE-THROUGH QUEUING WAS ALSO -- WAS ALSO DISCUSSED IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY.
AM I CORRECT, MR. GREENWOOD, SO THE QUEUING WAS FINE AS FAR AS THE TRAFFIC STUDY WAS PROVIDED OR ANALYZED THAT PORTION OF THE DRIVE-THROUGH QUEUING.
THE STUDY DID EVALUATE THE DRIVE-THROUGH QUEUING AND DID FIND THAT THE STORAGE WAS ADEQUATE.
THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO MENTION.
5 DELIBERATIONS OR DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? WHAT DO WE HAVE? EVERYBODY'S QUIET TODAY.
WITH OUR NEW 2040 PLAN THAT WE JUST ADOPTED AND OUR CITY IS NOT A NEW CITY, IT'S AN OLDER CITY, WE'RE GOING TO COME UP WITH ISSUES OVER AND OVER AGAIN ABOUT OLDER DEVELOPMENTS AND NEWER, AND NEWER BUSINESSES COMING IN LIKE WE'RE DOING WITH DUTCH BROS.
SO IT FEELS LIKE THE CITY ASKED DUTCH BROS.
TO FOLLOW THE NEW 2040 PLAN THAT WE JUST ADOPTED, AND NOW IT'S MAYBE NOT EXACTLY WHAT IS BENEFICIAL TO ALL OUR BUSINESSES THAT ARE IN THE AREA, BUT I THINK AS A CITY WE HAVE TO KIND OF DECIDE WHAT IT IS WE SIGNED UP FOR THE 2040 PLAN, AND IF WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW THAT PLAN.
I THINK SIGNAGE IS VERY IMPORTANT ON THIS SITE, LIKE ON SITE, AND WE MAY HAVE TO RECONSIDER A NEW MONUMENT SIGN OR SOMETHING TO BE ABLE TO GIVE CARL'S JR. MAYBE A LITTLE MORE VISIBILITY ON THE FREEWAY.
THEY HAVE -- ON THE ROAD, ON THE HIGHWAY.
THEY HAVE BEEN WITH US A LONG TIME AND ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO OUR COMMUNITY SO I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THEIR CONCERN.
BUT I DO THINK THAT DUTCH BROS.
HAS TRIED TO COME IN WITH A GOOD PROJECT, AND I THINK THEY'VE MET ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT MAYBE THE CITY STAFF AND THE 2040 PLAN REQUIRED OF THEM AT THIS
[01:35:04]
TIME.BUT I'D LIKE TO OPEN IT UP TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO SEE WHAT 52 THEIR COMMENTS AND FEELINGS ARE ON THIS ITEM.
I THINK WE DO NEED TO HOLD TOWARDS THE GENERAL PLAN THAT WE JUST ADOPTED, AND I UNDERSTOOD LEILA'S REASONING IN REGARDS TO THE BUILDING BEING UP CLOSER, UP FRONT TO THE HIGHWAY, MORE CLOSE THAN WE'RE ACCUSTOMED TO SEEING.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CARL'S MENTIONED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC FLOW THROUGH THE LOT.
LIKE FROM THE BANK TO CARL'S JR. DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S -- I WOULD IMAGINE ALMOST 100% OF THEIR TRAFFIC COMES DIRECTLY OFF THE HIGHWAY, NOT THROUGH THAT PARKING LOT.
HOWEVER, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS ACCESS GOING AROUND THE BACK SIDE, SO I THINK DUTCH BROS.
HAS DONE THEIR BEST TO TRY AND ACCOMMODATE ANY OF THOSE CONCERNS.
MY CONCERN WOULD BE FOR THE SIGNAGE FOR THE BUSINESSES IN THE BACK.
IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE DUTCH BROS.
HAS ASKED FOR A MONUMENT SIGN UP FRONT BUT THAT THEIR SIGNAGE IS ON THE BUILDING BEING SO CLOSE TO THE HIGHWAY, BUT IF THEY DID REQUEST MONUMENT SIGNAGE I HOPE THAT IT WOULDN'T REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE SIGNS FOR THE OTHER BUSINESSES ON THAT MONUMENT SIGN THAT'S BETWEEN THE CARL'S JR. ND THE BANK.
>> I AGREE WITH BOTH COMMISSIONERS AND CHAIR.
THE ONLY CONCERN I HAVE IS IT'S SEASON AND GIVEN THE HIGH SCHOOL PROXIMITY WITH KIDS WALKING TO AND FROM THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT SOME OF THE TRAFFIC FLOW BECAUSE I'VE SEEN CARS COME OUT OF OF THE BANK 53 REALLY FAST, OUT OF B OF A AND AROUND THE BACK AREA AROUND SIZZLER'S.
PEOPLE TRYING TO TAKE SHORTCUT TO GET OUT OF THAT AREA.
WE TALKED ABOUT SOME FOLKS THAT ARE WALKING OR SOME OF THE STUDENTS.
I THINK IT'S A GREAT -- I THINK IT'S A GREAT PROJECT.
I THINK WHEN WE TALK ABOUT JOBS, OPPORTUNITIES FOR SOME OF THE CONSTITUENTS THAT LIVE IN THAT AREA, SO THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN, AND I WOULD WANT TO GO AHEAD IF IT'S OKAY TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROJECT.
IS THAT YOUR MOTION TO APPROVE.
WE HAVE THREE DIFFERENT RESOLUTIONS.
ARE WE LOOKING AT ALL THREE, JACKIE?
>> WITH ANY -- DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS OR ADDITIONS TO ANY OF THE RESOLUTIONS?
>> NO AMENDMENTS ON ANY OF THE RESOLUTIONS.
>> ABSENT ANY, VICE CHAIR, I MIGHT RECOMMEND THAT YOU CONSIDER INCLUDING IN YOUR RECOMMENDATION THE AMENDMENT OF THE APN NUMBER IN RESOLUTION 1948, 1949 AND 1950 TO REFLECT THE APN NUMBER 616-05-0010.
THAT'S AT THE BOTTOM MAKE A EMOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1948, 1949, 1950 WITH APN NUMBER 616-05-.
>> IF I CAN INTERJECT, I THINK THE INTENT WOULD BE TO REPLACE THE NUMBER AS REFLECTED AS IT'S REFERENCED IN THE THREE RESOLUTIONS AND THE NEW NUMBER WHICH WOULD BE AMENDED TO WOULD BE 616-05-0010.
>> THE APN NUMBER IS REFERENCED IN THE THREE RESOLUTIONS, IN THE BODIES OF THEM.
>> MAYBE I'M LOOKING AT THE WRONG -- >> NO, IT'S FOR ALL THREE OF THEM.
>> RECOMMENDATION TEXT IN FRONT OF YOU IT'S ONLY LISTED ON THE THIRD, BUT NUMBER IS REFERENCED IN THE BODIES OF THE THREE RESOLUTIONS.
>> NICCO, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A SHOT AT IT?
MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1948, 1949, AND 1950 WITH APN NUMBER 616-050-010 REFERENCING ALL THREE RESOLUTIONS.
ANY MORE DISCUSSION? CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE.
>> VICE CHAIRPERSON JACQUELINE LOPEZ.
[01:40:02]
AND WELCOME TO INDIO, DUTCH BROS.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO THAT AND WE DEFINITELY WANT TO CONTINUE TO TRY AND HELP OUR EXISTING BUSINESSES, CARL'S JR., THE LUBE SHOP AND, OF COURSE, THE SMOKE SHOP AND THE BANK IN THAT AREA, SO I HOPE STAFF WILL WORK WITH THEM ON SIGNAGE AND GETTING THEM BETTER VISIBILITY OFF 55 HIGHWAY 111.
ANYBODY NEED A TWO-MINUTE BREAK OR WE GOOD? WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, EVERYONE.
>> IT LOOKS LIKE EVERYONE IS BACK.
IS EVERYONE BACK? EVELYN, ARE WE GOOD TO GO?
>> WE ARE SO LONG AS JACKIE IS BACK.
[7.5 Zone Text Amendment 20-07-76:]
SHE'S BACK.WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BACK TO ORDER AT 7:49 P.M.
AND ALL THE COMMISSIONERS ARE BACK ON THE MEETING.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ASK ITEM 7.5 ZONE TEXT AMENDMENTS.
IF WE CAN HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION.
MADAME CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS YOU MENTIONED THIS IS A ZONE TECHS AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE SECOND DWELLING UNIT, THE EXISTING TAX -- SECOND DWELLING UNIT OF THE CITY OF INDIO TO COME IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE REGULATION.
REASON THAT THE STATE HAS BEEN AMENDING AND REVISING THE HOUSING LAW SPECIFICALLY ABOUT SECOND DWELLING UNITS OR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SINCE 2014 WAS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES IN AN EFFICIENT AND AFFORDABLE WAY FOR THE RESIDENCES WITHIN CALIFORNIA OR FOR THE CITIZENS OF CALIFORNIA AND TO REMOVE ANY UNNECESSARY BARRIERS THAT TH GOVERNMENT MAY USE TO APPLY.
AND ALSO TO ENSURE THAT OUR LOCAL REGULATIONS OR AS A CITY OUR CITY REGULATIONS ARE NOT BURDENSOME.
AND ALSO TO STREAMLINE THE JADU PROCESS INSTEAD OF GOING THROUGH ANY DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL.
NOW THE CITY NEEDS TO APPROVE SUCH STRUCTURES ADMINISTRATIVELY.
THE STATE ALSO ADDED A JUNIOR ADU WHICH IS A SMALLER PORTION, A SMALLER UNIT.
THE ADUS NOW CAN BE ATTACHED, DETACHED, IT COULD BE PART OF A HOUSE, EXISTING HOUSE.
THE SETBACKS ARE NOT -- THE NEW TEXT BASICALLY PROVIDES LESS SETBACKS IN ACCORDANCE TO THE STATE LAW.
AND ALSO IF A GARAGE BECOMES CONVERTED TO AN ADU, THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL GARAGES.
AND THE CITY MUST BASICALLY BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE REGULATING SO WE HAVE THAT TEXT AMENDMENT BEFORE YOU FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR YOU TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND IT WILL GO EVENTUALLY TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
SO WITH THAT I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT WAS ATTACHED TO THE RESOLUTION 1951 TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND TO AMEND THE SECTION -- TO AMEND BASICALLY CHAPTER 159 OF ZONING REGULATION AND THE LAND USE SECTION IN REGARDS TO SECOND DWELLING UNITS AND DETERMINE THAT THE ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT WAS EXEMPT FROM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
THAT WILL CONCLUDE MY STAFF REPORT.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF LEILA AT THIS TIME? NO? OKAY.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
DO WE HAVE ANY REQUESTS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM?
>> SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM.
AND MOVE ON TO DELIBERATIONS AND QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS.
DO I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY COMMISSIONERS TONIGHT? NO? WE'RE REALLY QUIET TODAY.
[01:45:02]
I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING IS JUST ADOPTING THE STATE LAW THAT CAME INTO PLAY THAT CITIES REALLY DIDN'T HAVE A VOICE IN OR ANY REAL CHANGES YOU COULD MAKE OTHER THAN TO ADOPT THE RULES THAT WERE IN PLACE, CORRECT?SO ONLY PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATION WE CAN APPLY, AND WE ARE TRYING TO BE IN COMPLAINS WITH THE STATE REGULATION.
I DON'T HAVE ANY -- >> IF I MIGHT INTERRUPT JUST TO CLARIFY THAT AS WELL, ESSENTIALLY THE STATE CHANGED THE REQUIREMENTS, SO THERE'S EITHER MINISTERIALLY APPROVED ADUS THROUGH A MINISTERIAL PROCESS OR A BUILDING PERMIT ONLY PROCESS.
WITHIN THE FIRST SUBSECTION THE IF THE CITY DOESN'T ADOPT AN ORDINANCE CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS, TH STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS GOVERN, SO THERE ARE A FEW SMALL AREAS LIKE LEILA MENTIONED WHERE CITIES CAN PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF INPUT BUT IT'S LARGELY JUST CONSISTENT WITH THE NEW STATE MANDATE.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OR DO WE HAVE A MOTION?
I HAVE A HARD TIME SEEING OH MY LAPTOP SO EVERYTHING IS REALLY SMALL.
ADOPT RESOLUTION -- I MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 1951, AND READ THE REST OF IT.
IS THAT WHAT I -- A LESION OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF INDIO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 20-07-76 AMENDING IN ITS ENTIRETY THE SUBCHAPTER ENTITLED "ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS" OF CHAPTER 159, ZONING REGULATIONS, OF THE TITLE -- I CAN'T READ THAT.
OF THE INDIO MUNICIPAL CODE TO CONFORM TO RECENT STATE LAW INTRODUCING NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR SACHS ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND FINDING THAT THE ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHICH IS CEQA.
>> WE HAVE A FIRST AND A SECOND.
[10. STAFF ITEMS]
[01:50:07]
NO.IF WE COULD HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE.
>> VICE CHAIRPERSON JACQUELINE LOPEZ.
[11. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS]
WE HAVE NO ACTION ITEMS. WE HAVE NO STUDY SESSION ITEMS. AND WE'RE UP TO NUMBER 10, STAFF ITEMS. DO WE HAVE SOME ITEMS FROM STAFF TONIGHT?IF I MAY, MADAME CHAIRPERSON, I JUST WANTED TO SAY AGAIN ABOUT THE CENSUS.
THE STAFF AND MARKETING DIRECTOR, WE ARE PUTTING TOGETHER SOME NEW STRATEGIES TO BRING OUR PARTICIPATION HIGHER.
SINCE JULY 20, WHICH FOR A LONG TIME OUR PARTICIPATION WAS 48.8% UNTIL NOW, WHICH IS LESS THAN A MONTH, WE INCREASED 1%.
SO I'M LIKE WATCHING THAT PERCENTAGE BY THE MINUTE.
I BELIEVE YOU HAVE SEEN THE SIGNAGE THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY, THAT REPORT.
ONE IS VERY CLOSE TO MADAME CHAIRPERSON'S PROPERTY AND THAT IS FOR THE 8TH.
WE HAVE OTHER LOCATIONS AS WELL.
WE SENT RECENTLY POSTCARDS TO ALL CITY HOMES IN THE SPANISH AND ENGLISH TO GET ADDITIONAL PARTICIPATION.
SO HOPEFULLY WITH US AND MARKETING DIRECTOR PUTTING TOGETHER A PLAN, WE WILL BRING THAT PARTICIPATION HIGHER.
THE ONLINE SELF-RESPONSE TIMELINE WILL END SOONER THAN WE WERE ANTICIPATING.
SO JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT.
AND ALSO, MADAME CHAIRPERSON, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO -- I WOULD LIKE TO ASK TO HAVE A MOMENT OF SILENCE AT THE END OF OUR COMMISSION.
ASSOCIATE PLANNER ROSIE LUA LOST HER DAD, AND I WANT TO PAY RESPECT TO HER AND TO HER FAMILY.
ANY COMMENTS FROM MR. SNYDER TONIGHT? OKAY.
DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? NO? I REALLY JUST WANT TO THANK STAFF.
I KNOW THAT SOME OF THESE PROJECTS, YOU GUYS WORK ON THEM FOR SIX MONTHS OR A YEAR OR LONGER BEFORE THEY EVER GET TO US, AND I'M REALLY THANKFUL THAT EVEN THOUGH WE HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS, YOU WERE PREPARED TO ANSWER THEM AND MADE EVERYTHING VERY SMOOTH SO I DO WANT THOU FOR THAT.
I KNOW THIS IS NOT AN EASY JOB, ESPECIALLY DURING THIS WEIRD WORK AT WORK, WORK AT HOME KIND OF SITUATION THAT WE'RE AT BUT I DO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO THAT AND JUST LOOKING FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO SEE PROJECTS COMING INTO THE CITY.
AND, OF COURSE, LEILA, WE'D LOVE TO HAVE A MOMENT OF SILENCE AND EXPRESS OUR DEAREST CONDOLENCES TO ROSIE ON THE LOSS OF HER FATHER.
IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS, WE CAN HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
WE WILL RECONVENE AT OUR NEXT VIRTUAL MEETING ON AUGUST 26TH, 2020 AT 6:00 P.M.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.