[00:00:03]
[1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL]
IF EVERYBODY'S READY WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.SO TODAY IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR THE CITY OF INDIO DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 2020, CALL TO ORDER AT 6:00 P.M.
IF WE COULD PLEASE HAVE A ROLL CALL.
>> VICE CHAIRPERSON JACQUELINE LOPEZ.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON WITH INTRODUCTION OF STAFF.
>> GOOD EVENING, MADAME CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
TONIGHT WE HAVE THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KEVIN SNYDER, ROSIE LUA ASSOCIATE PLANNER, DALE FRALEY, CITY FIRE MARSHAL AND ZACH HINLZMAN ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
> ALLEGIANCE, AND I'M ASSUMING, LEILA, YOU HAVE A FLAG FOR US, AND JACKIE WILL LEAD US.
>> PUT YOUR HANDOVER YOUR HEART AND REPEAT AFTER ME.
IY 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.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON AT THIS TIME TO A STATEMENT FROM OUR CITY ATTORNEY.
[4. STATEMENT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY]
THERE HAVE BEEN NO DIRECTIVE ISSUED TEMPORARILY HALTING LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROCESSING OF LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT NEW APPLICATIONS AND/OR CONSIDERATION OF POLICY ACTIONS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS AND NEW OR AMENDED SPECIFIC PLANS.
THEREFORE THE CITY OF INDIO CONTINUES TO ACCEPT AND PROCESS APPLICATIONS IN ACCORDINGS WITH AT STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS.
CITY OF INDIO IS FOLLOWING GOVERNOR NEWSOME'S EXECUTIVE ORDER N-29-20, AND N PERTAINING TO THE BROWN ACT THESE ALLOW GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES TO CONDUCT MEETING BY ELECTRONIC MEANS.
FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO OBSERVE THE MEETING ELECTRONICALLY AS WELL AS PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT OR PUBLIC TESTIMONY TELEPHONICALLY OR OTHERWISE.
ACCORDINGLY CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSIONER CURRENTLY CONDUCT SCHEDULED MEETINGS IN A VIRTUAL MEETING FORMAT.
THE CITY OF INDIO HAS IMPLEMENTED TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS THAT ALLOW THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO OBSERVE NOW FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AS WELL AS PUBLIC TESTIMONY DURING SCHEDULED HEARINGS AND SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS.
THE CITY IS COMMITTED TO PROVIDING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION OPPORTUNITIES WHO ARE ALSO COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENT PROCESSING OF LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT ARE REVIEW APPLICATIONS AND/OR CONSIDERATION OF POLICY ACTIONS.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON AT THIS TIME TO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA.
WE DO NOT, SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME.
AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 6, MINUTES FOR THE AUGUST 12, 2020, MEETING.
[6. MINUTES]
ITEM 6.1.DO I HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS OR A MOTION TO APPROVE?
>> I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
NO DISCUSSION? IF NOT WE CAN DO ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 7, PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS.
[7.1 Ventana Project – General Plan Amendment 20-05- 120 (GPA 20-05-120), Specific Plan 20-05-39 (SP 20-05-39), Tentative Tract Map No. 37884 (TTM 20- 05-479), Environmental Assessment 20-05-547 (EA 20-05-547), and Design Review 20-05-473 (DR 20-05-473)]
THIS IS FOR THE VENTANA PROJECT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, AND TENTATIVE TRACT, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW.DO WE HAVE -- >> CHAIR -- >> I -- A REPORT OR ARE WE GOING TO -- >> IF I MAY INTERRUPT, CHAIR, I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER, VICE CHAIR LOPEZ HAS -- WILL BE ANNOUNCING THAT SHE'S ABSTAINING FROM THE ITEM BECAUSE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST DUE TO REAL PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE VICINITY OF PROJECT AND WILL BE RECUSING FOR THIS ITEM SO SECRETARY BELTRAN WILL BE REMOVING HER FROM THE
MEETING, PLACING HER IN A SEPARATE MEETING AND THEN RETURNING HER UPON -- >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM.
[00:05:01]
IS THAT WHERE WE ARE WITH STAFF AT THIS TIME?I WAS TRYING TO UNMUTE MYSELF.
SO, AND THEN WE HAVE A PRESENTATION FOR THE COMMISSION TONIGHT, MADAME CHAIRPERSON, SO IF I MAY, I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT THE PRESENTATION.
AND I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF EVERYBODY SEES THE SHARED SCREEN.
SO AS YOU MENTIONED, THE PROJECT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS VENTANA PROJECT.
THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN THIS RED BOUNDARIES, WHICH IS NORTH OF AVENUE 50 AND EAST OF JEFFERSON AND WEST OF MADISON STREET.
THE PROPERTY, THE SITE, IT HAS A GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION, DESERT ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS 1 ACRE.
CURRENTLY IT HAS TWO DIFFERENT ZONINGS, CIR-1 WITH MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 1 ACRE AND CIR-2 WITH MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 2 ACRES.
IN ORDER FOR THE APPLICANT TO FULFILL THE PROPOSED PROJECT, WHICH SUBDIVIDING THE 45 ACRES INTO 103 LOTS, THEY NEED TO APPLY FOR ALL OF THESE ENTITLEMENTS, WHICH IS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM SUBURBAN -- FROM DESERT ESTATES TO FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 1 ACRE TO A DENSITY OF EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE, A SPECIFIC PLAN TO CREATE THE GOVERNING ZONING REGULATION AND THE STANDARDS, A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY TO 103 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AND ALSO A ASSESSMENT TO EVALUATE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT OR IMPACT OF THE PROJECT, A DESIGN REVIEW, WHICH BASICALLY IS LOOKING AT THE DESIGN ASPECTS AND FLOOR PLAN OF EACH INDIVIDUAL HOME.
AS YOU SEE ON THIS EXHIBIT, THE PROJECT IS BEING DIVIDED IN SEVERAL PLANNING AREAS.
THE BLUE AND THE ORANGE ARE LARGER LOTS, AND THEN THE YELLOW IS THE SMALLER LOTS, AND THE GREEN SHOWS THE PARKS AND GREEN AREAS AND WALKWAYS THAT THE PROJECT WILL INCLUDE.
THE YELLOW PORTION IS NOT GATED, SO IT IS OPEN, AND THEN FROM THIS PART UP IT WILL BE A GATE THERE.
AS I MENTIONED, THE PROJECT INCLUDES ALL THESE ENTITLEMENTS, AND STAFF WOULD LIKE TO -- ACTUALLY, THE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT TO SEPTEMBER 23RD PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE TONIGHT, AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION.
THAT WILL CONCLUDE MY STAFF REPORT.
I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE AND THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE TONIGHT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE FOR THEM.
I APPRECIATE THE STAFF REPORT.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS TIME? NO? OKAY.
WE ARE MORE THAN HAPPY TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
>> MADAME CHAIR, MY NAME IS NICOLE CHRIS.
I'M WITH TERRA NOVA PLANNING AND THE APPLICANT.
WE ALSO HAVE OWNERSHIP WITH ME THIS EVENING, MARIO GONZALEZ, BRETT ALBRECHT AND MATT FERE.
WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO BRINGING THE PROJECT TO THE COMMISSION ON THE 23RD.
WE APOLOGIZE FOR CONTINUING ONCE AGAIN, BUT WE WILL HAVE A SPIRITED DISCUSSION AND PRESENTATION ON THE 23RD.
[00:10:01]
THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? NO? OKAY.
SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DO WE NEED A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE 23RD?
IF WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS, WE WILL TAKE THOSE AT THIS TIME.
>> AND THE FIRST ONE IS FROM MR. MATT MORRIS AND I WILL GO AHEAD AND ADMIT HIM NOW.
MR. MORRIS, CAN YOU HEAR US? MR. MORRIS, CAN YOU HEAR US?
YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SHARE YOUR COMMENTS.
>> YEAH, I TRIED TO GET ON YOUR ZOOM MEETING.
IT SAID THE HOST WOULD LET ME IN BUT I HAVEN'T BEEN ALLOWED TO VIEW THE MEETING SO I DON'T KNOW WHY.
YOU SAY I ONLY HAVE THREE MINUTES?
>> WELL, IF THAT'S THE CASE THEN THE CITY'S RECEIVED BY WRITTEN COMMENTS, COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF LINCOLN KIDD AND SEVERAL OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE AREA SO I DON'T HAVE TIME AND I'M NOT GOING TO GO OVER THEM DURING THIS COMMENT PERIOD.
T RESIDENTS HAVE TO GO FORWARD TO ADDRESS THIS PROJECT FURTHER BEYOND THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL.
I THINK WITH RESPECT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ISSUES THAT I'VE RAISED.
I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING IN WRITING OR ANY COMMENTS OR NOR HAVE I HEARD ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE CITY'S ADDRESSED ANY OF THESE ISSUES OR THAT THE DEVELOPER RATHER HAS ADDRESSED ANY ISSUES THAT I RAISED IN MY LETTER.
I THINK WHAT I WANT TO ADDRESS IS THE GENERAL PLAN AND WHAT I PERCEIVE AS SOME EFFORT ON BEHALF OF MAYBE SOME PERSONS AT THE CITY OR AT LEAST A LOT OF DEVELOPERS TO TRY AND CIRCUMVENT THE GENERAL PLAN.
A LOT OF TIME, MANY YEARS, MANY CONSULTANTS, A LOT OF MONEY WENT INTO CREATING THE GENERAL PLAN, AND IT SEEMS AS THOUGH WITH THE CROSSING PROJECT AND THE VENTANA PROJECT AND THE CITRUS PROJECT PROPOSED FOR THE AREA THAT THE GENERAL PLAN IS BEING COMPLETELY IGNORED.
IT LOOKS AS IF THE DEVELOPERS -- I DON'T KNOW IF THE STORE SOMEONE AT THE CITY IS HELPING THEM, BUT THEY'RE HOPSCOTCHING THROUGH THE ENTIRE COUNTRY ESTATES AREA AND IT'S DESTROYING ITS ENTIRE CHARACTER.
AS ORIGINALLY ENVISIONED BY THE CITY WHEN THE AREAS INVOLVED IN THE COUNTRY ESTATES AREA WERE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY, THE COUNTRY ESTATES AREA WENT FROM AVENUE 48 TO AVENUE 50.
AFTER SOME YEARS THE CITY STARTED RENEGOTIATING TABLING ON ITS -- RENEGING ON ITS PROMISE TO THE PEOPLE IN THE AREA AND CHANGED DID AREA BETWEEN 48TH AND 49TH AND JEFFERSON INTO WHAT THEY CALLED A TRANSITION AREA.
TODAY THERE'S ONLY ONE RANCH LEFT IN THAT AREA.
AND IT'S A SHAME TO SEE THE SAME UNCONTROLLED AMOUNT OF GROWTH GOING IN BETWEEN AVENUE 49TH AND 50TH AND JEFFERSON AND MADISON.
THIS PROJECT DOESN'T MEET THE INTENT OF DESERT ESTATES GENERAL PLAN AREA, AND THE SOUTHERN NEIGHBORHOOD AREA FOR THE REASON THAT THE LAND USE IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE SOUTHERN NEIGHBORHOOD AREA SPECIFIED IN THE ADOPTED, IN THE GENERAL PLAN PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF LAND USE INTENSITY, BECAUSE OF LAND USE INTENSITY AND IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA, WHICH, AS YOU KNOW AND WHICH I HAVE EXPRESSED ALREADY, IS EXTREMELY LOW DENSITY.
WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS A FINDING JUSTIFYING THE GREATER NEED TO CHANGE THE ADOPTED GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE AREA AS OPPOSED TO HOW DO WE GET AROUND THE GENERAL PLAN.
WHAT I WANT TO HEAR FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND MAYBE THE CITY COUNCIL IS WHY CAN'T WE MEET THE GENERAL PLAN.
WHY WON'T THE CITY STAY CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN.
IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE ON THE PART OF DEVELOPERS.
THEY WANT TO MAKE AS MUCH MONEY FOR AS LITTLE INVESTMENT AS POSSIBLE AND THE CHARACTERISTIC OF AREA DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO THEM, BUT IT DOES TO ALL THE STAKEHOLDER IN THE AREA, ALL THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE MOVED THERE, ALL THE PEOPLE THAT ARE MOVING INTO THE AREA, ALL THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE STAYED IN THAT AREA IN RELIANCE ON THE GENERAL PLAN AND PROMISES FROM CITY FATHERS FOR A LOT OF YEARS
[00:15:02]
THAT THAT AREA IS NOT GOING TO BE DEVELOPED.AND NOW IT LOOKS LIKE THE CITY IS BENDING OVER BACKWARDS TO GIVE SITE-SPECIFIC GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS TO ISOLATED AREAS IN THE COUNTRY ESTATES AREA, AND THAT COMPLETELY DISRUPTS THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OUT THERE.
AND IT DESTROYS TRUST BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHO IT IS THAT HAS BEEN ABLE TO CHANGE THE POLICY AS ADOPTED AND SET FORTH IN A VERY WELL THOUGHT OUT GENERAL PLAN AND IS NOW JUST HAPHAZARDLY CHANGING IT.
THE CITY HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO REMAIN NEUTRAL AND OBJECTIVE WHEN MAKING DECISIONS ON PROJECT CONFORMANCE TO THE GENERAL PLAN'S GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES.
THEY'VE GOT TO MEET THOSE TO ENSURE CONTINUITY AND TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF AREA AND TO KEEP GOOD FAITH WITH THE RESIDENTS.
AND I DON'T THINK IT'S TOO MUCH TO ASK THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND/OR THE CITY COUNCIL TO KEEP GOOD FAITH WITH THE CITY, WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE MADE INVESTMENTS IN THE AREA VERSUS THE INTERESTS OF DEVELOPERS WHO DON'T NECESSARILY, AREN'T NECESSARILY GOING TO LIVE IN THE AREA AND ARE JUST THERE FOR MAKING MORE MONEY.
BUT I'M DUMBFOUNDED THAT SO MANY PROJECTS CAN BE BROUGHT TO THE CITY THAT ARE SO FAR DIVERGENT FROM THE GENERAL PLAN.
>> CHAIR, I JUST WANTED TO INFORM YOU OF THE THREE MINUTE LIMIT.
YOU CAN CONTINUE TO ALLOW THE SPEAKER TO SPEAK IN YOUR DISCRETION.
I JUST WANTED TO INFORM YOU OF THAT.
YEAH, MR. MORRIS, WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS, AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO WRAP IT UP, WE DO APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
AND WE'LL TAKE YOUR COMMENTS INTO CONSIDERATION.
I THINK -- I DON'T THINK IT'S REALLY FAIR THAT THE AMOUNT OF TIME AND EFFORT THAT WENT INTO PREPARING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ALL THE PROPOSALS BY THE DEVELOPER GETS SO MUCH TIME AND EFFORT IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WE'RE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES.
REGARDLESS, I WOULD LIKE AN EXPLANATION GENERAL PLAN IS BEING SCRAPPED FOR PROJECTS THAT BASICALLY ARE GOING TO SPELL THE DEATH KNELL FOR THE COUNTRY ESTATES AREA.
WE DO APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.
>> MADAME CHAIR, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A NOTE, IF I MAY.
>> SO AS THE STAFF REVIEWED THE PROJECT AND THE APPLICATION AND WAS SUBMITTED, SO WE THINK THAT THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF THIS PROJECT AND IT IS A POLICY DECISION THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED AND EVALUATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, SO THEREFORE, FOR SEPTEMBER 23RD, BECAUSE THE PROJECT HAS BEEN ADVERTISED IN ITS ENTIRETY, WE'LL BRING BACK BEFORE YOU IN ITS ENTIRETY, BUT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WILL BE JUST TO FOCUS ON THE GENERAL PLAN AT THIS POINT.
AND BRING A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE GENERAL PLAN ONLY BECAUSE EVERYTHING ELSE, OTHER ENTITLEMENTS WILL FEED OFF FROM THE GENERAL PLAN, AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT STAFF FEELS COMFORTABLE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION SOLELY.
SO WE WILL BRING SOMETHING BACK THAT WILL, THAT WILL ENCOMPASS OUR DECISION AND THE POLICY MAKING, WHICH IT'S ULTIMATELY A CITY COUNCIL DECISION.
>> SO LET ME JUST MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
SO WHEN THIS COMES BACK ON THE 23RD, THE ONLY ITEM THAT IS GOING TO COME BACK BEFORE US IS THE GENERAL PLAN, WHICH WILL BE A RECOMMENDATION BY US, THE CITY COUNCIL, IS THAT CORRECT?
ALL THE ITEMS, THE GENERAL PLAN, THE SPECIFIC PLAN, THE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND THE DESIGN REVIEW WILL COME BEFORE YOU.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WILL BE RECOMMENDING A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE GENERAL PLAN ONLY.
SO YOU HAVE THE DISCRETION TO LOOK AT ENTIRETY OF THE PROJECT AND
[00:20:02]
TAKE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OR RECOMMEND SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, BUT STAFF WILL BRING ONLY ONE RECOMMENDATION.>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC, EVELYN, WAITING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM?
I HAVE A STATEMENT TO READ INTO THE RECORD.
AND THEN WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AFTER THAT.
>> THE STATEMENT IS FROM MR. STUART MARLBORO.
I AM WRITING AS A HOMEOWNER OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 49235 COKAY COURT IN INDIO CALIFORNIA 9 II RO 1.
I PURCHASED THE HOUSE RELYING ON THE INDIO MASTER PLAN BASING MY DECISION ON ALL NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES PLACED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS DETAILED WITHIN THE INDIO MASTER PLAN.
THE PROPOSED VENTANA PROJECT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE MASTER PLAN THAT REPRESENTS THE DELTA OF 200% TO 400%.
THIS DOES NOT REPRESENT A MINOR USE VARIANCE BUT IS INSTEAD -- BUT IT INSTEAD REPRESENTS A COMPLETE CHANGE AND REWRITE OF THE MASTER PLAN AND ALLOWABLE AND INTENDED USES FOR THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY OPPOSE THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IN DENSITY AND WOULD STRONGLY TURNING COMMITTEE FOR AVOID AN ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS DECISION AND STAND BY THE DENSITY LIMITATIONS CLEARLY CALLED OUT BY THE MASTER PLAN AND RELIED UPON BY MULTIPLE HOMEOWNERS IN THEIR PURCHASE PROCESS.
HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE LETTER DELIVERED AND PREVIOUSLY READ INTO THE RECORD BE ADD TO MY LETTER AS THE AN INDEPENDENT SUBMISSION.
SINCERELY MR. STUART MARLBORO ESQUIRE.
IS THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM?
BEFORE I CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT, IF THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THESE CONCERNS.
>> YES, MADAME CHAIR, IF I MAY.
WE WOULD LIKE TO PUT ON THE RECORD THAT WE WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER AND BE PROVIDED WITH A COMPREHENSIVE STAFF REPORT THAT ADDRESSES ALL OF THIS PROJECT.
THE VENTANA PROJECT IS A COMPREHENSIVE PROJECT THAT WE BROUGHT TO YOU IN CONSULTATION IN FEBRUARY.
WE EXPLAINED AT THAT TIME THAT THIS WOULD REQUIRE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, A SPECIFIC PLAN, A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION, WHICH IS WHAT WE SUBMITTED.
WE ARE REQUIRED TO FILE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT BECAUSE YOUR GENERAL PLAN ALLOWS EITHER ZERO TO ONE UNIT PER ACRE OR ZERO TO EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE.
WE ARE NOT LOOKING FOR EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE.
WE ARE LOOKING FOR -- WE ARE ASKING FOR 2.3 UNITS PER ACRE.
THE GUARANTEE THAT WE'RE PROVIDING IN THAT PROCESS IS THROUGH THE SPECIFIC PLAN WHICH YOU WILL SEE ON THE 23RD HAS A LIMITATION OF 103 UNITS.
IT EVEN INCLUDES OUR SITE PLAN SO THAT SINCE IT WILL BE ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE, THAT IS THE ONLY PROJECT THAT COULD BE DEVELOPED.
WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS CRITICAL THAT THE ENTIRE PROJECT BE CONSIDERED.
WHEN A CONSIDERS AMENDMENTS TO A GENERAL PLAN THEY SHOULD BE IN CONFESSING THIS IS NOT AN ENTITY THAT IS PROPOSING A SPECULATIVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO SIMPLY INCREASE THE VALUE OF THE LAND AND FLIP TO IT SOMEBODY ELSE.
THIS IS A DEVELOPER WHO YOU KNOW, WHO HAS BUILT MULTIPLE PROJECTS IN INDIO AND DOZENS OF PROJECTS ACROSS THE VALLEY.
THIS PROJECT IF APPROVED WILL PROCEED AT ALL DUE SPEED AND YOU'LL BE SEEING A HIGH-QUALITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT GOING UP IN A YEAR OR TWO.
BELIEVE IT IS CRITICAL THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION BE ALLOWED TO CONSIDER THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROJECT, AND WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR STAFF TO LIMIT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ABILITY TO MAKE THAT DECISION BY SIMPLY MAKING A RECOMMENDATION ON THE GENERAL PLAN AND LEAVING IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DECIDE IF IT WANTS TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON OTHER ITEMS. SO WE WOULD ASK YOU TO NOT ONLY CONTINUE THE ITEM THIS EVENING BUT TO ALSO DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK A FULL STAFF REPORT, INCLUDING RECOMMENDATIONS ON ALL OF THE ITEMS FOR WHICH WE HAVE APPLIED.
[00:25:01]
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? ZACH, DO I NEED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE NEXT MEETING?
>> SO, CHAIR, FOR CLARITY ON THE RECORD, THIS HAS BEEN A CONTINUATION OF THE HEARING FROM LAST TIME, SO THE HEARING IS OPEN.
SHOULD THERE BE DELIBERATION, WE CAN CLOSE, YOU CAN AT YOUR DISCRETION CLOSE THE HEARING, DELIBERATE AND REOPEN IT.
SHOULD YOU DECIDE TO MOVE TO CONTINUE TO ENTIRE HEARING AS STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED FOR CONSIDERATION ON THE 23RD, THEN THERE WOULD BE NO NEED TO CLOSE THE HEARING.
HEARING NOW AND YOU COULD GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO CONTINUE THE HEARING AND THE ITEM WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN MAP AND DESIGN REVIEW TO THE MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 23RD.
>> IF WE WANT TO CONTINUE EVERYTHING OVER, WE CAN JUST LET IT, JUST CONTINUE THE ITEM.
WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION.
>> NO NEED TO SPECIFY THAT THE HEARING NOW IS CLOSED BECAUSE YOU WOULD BE CONTINUING IT TO THE NEXT MEETING.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE ABOUT THAT.
DO WE HAVE -- DO THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM STAFF OR THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME BEFORE WE CONTINUE THE ITEM?
HEARING THE APPLICANT'S STATEMENTS NOW, I'M NOT SURE -- IN THE PAST WE HAVE ACTUALLY WANTED TO SEE THE ENTIRETY OF A PROJECT COME FORWARD WITH ALL ITS APPLICATIONS.
I THINK THERE'S SOME REAL HESITATION, AT LEAST ON MY END, TO START OF START BIFURCATING THAT PROCESS AND ONLY ALLOWING ONE APPLICATION TO MOVE FORWARD AT A TIME.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT IF WE'RE LOOKING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT WE UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING OR CONSIDERING THAT AMENDMENT FOR.
AND I THINK THE APPLICANT MADE A GOOD POINT THAT IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, THE SPECIFIC PLAN IS ACTUALLY WHAT'S GOING TO CONTROL THAT LAND.
SO IT SEEMS IMPORTANT THAT WE WOULD MOVE ALL THOSE APPLICATIONS FORWARD AT THE SAME TIME, AND THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION, AT LEAST FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
SINCE IT'S ALREADY BEEN ADVERTISED AS SUCH, THAT WE CONSIDER THE ENTIRETY OF APPLICATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT AT A HEARING.
>> MAY I ASK SOMETHING, MADAME CHAIRPERSON?
>> SO, COMMISSIONER CEJA, WE ARE BRINGING YOU BACK ON THE 23RD THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROJECT, WHICH IS WE WILL DISCUSS WHAT EVERY ENTITLEMENT IS REGARDING.
HOWEVER, WE CAN'T MAKE TRUE FINDINGS UNLESS WE HAVE THAT POLICY DIRECTION FROM THE COUNCIL THAT THIS INCREASING DENSITY IS ACCEPTABLE BY THEM, SO THEREFORE OUR RECOMMENDATION WILL FOCUS AMENDMENT.
OTHER PROJECTS THAT YOU MENTIONED BEFORE, IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, SO BECAUSE THIS PROJECT HAS THAT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT COMPONENT SO CLOSE TO THE APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN, WHICH IT TOOK US SIX YEARS TO COMPLETE IT, SO WE WANT TO HAVE THAT LEVEL OF COMFORT THAT THE POLICYMAKERS OF THE CITY ARE OKAY WITH THIS AMENDMENT.
IF YOU HAVE THAT, THEN ALL THE FINDINGS CAN COME OUT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN, FOR THE TRACT, AND FOR ALSO THE DESIGN REVIEW.
WITHOUT HAVING THAT COMPONENT, BASICALLY WE ARE RECOMMENDING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT THERE YET.
SO THAT'S THE REASON THAT WE DECIDED TO TAKE THAT STRATEGY.
BUT I BELIEVE MR. SNYDER MAY WANT TO ADD SOMETHING AS WELL.
THE ONLY THING I WAS GOING TO ADD, AND TWO POINTS, ONE, IT IS THE COMMISSION'S DECISION IN TERMS OF HOW THEY WANT US TO PROCEED.
STAFF IS GOING TO BE OFFERING A RECOMMENDING TO FOCUS ON THE GENERAL POLICY AMENDMENT.
THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT IS A SIGNIFICANT POLICY ISSUE.
IN THE EVENT -- WELL, I'M SURE THE APPLICANT HAS ALL INTENT TO MOVE FORWARD, BUT IN THE EVENT THAT PROJECT DOES NOT MOVE FORWARD, A CHANGE IN GENERAL PLAN WILL INCREASE THE DENSITY OPPORTUNITY.
IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO TIE A PROJECT TO A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DECISION, SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF THAT PROJECT WAS NOT TO MOVE FORWARD FOR SOME REASON, AND I'M NOT SAYING IT WOULDN'T, THERE WOULD BE THE SIGNIFICANT POLICY CHANGE THAT WOULD HAVE HAVE OCCURRED, AND I THINK THAT FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE THAT THE NATURE OF THE CHANGE DOES WARRANT THAT INITIAL CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL SINCE ALL OTHER ITEMS DO FLOW A STAFF RECOMMENDATION WHICH THE COMMISSION DOES NOT HAVE TO AGREE WITH IF YOU SO CHOOSE, AND WE WILL TAKE OUR
[00:30:02]
DIRECTION FROM YOU IN TERMS OF GOING FORWARD.BUT THAT IS JUST TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CONTEXT TO WHAT SENIOR PLANNER NAMVAR WAS SAYING.
THAT IS HOW STAFF HAS LOOKED AT THAT FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE.
ONE OF MY WORRIES WOULD BE I WOULD SAY WE TAKE JUST A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS.
LET'S SAY HYPO THEY THE CHIT GETS APPROVED BYE IS COUNCIL.
WE CHANGE THIS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT WITHOUT A PROJECT ATTACHED TO IT.
AND ANOTHER DEVELOPER CAN COME IN AND THINK ABOUT DEVELOPING UP TO EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE.
I WOULD THINK THE SPECIFIC PLAN, FACILITY DOES LIMIT THE DENSITY OVERALL ALTHOUGH IT'S ABOVE THE DESERT ESTATE DESIGNATION I WOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN FOR HAVING A GREATER DENSITY BUT NOT HAVE A PROJECT THAT'S TIED WITH IT, WHICH IS WHY I THINK I.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE LOOK AT THE WHOLE THING AT ONCE.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CEJA.
I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH COMMISSIONER CEJA.
I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AND CONSIDER THE ENTIRE PROJECT, AND THEN IF WE -- WHEN WE GO TO CITY COUNCIL, THEY WILL HAVE THEIR SITE GENERAL PLAN PORTION OF IT.
BUT I THINK YOU IT WOULD BE BETTER IAN FOR THEM TO SEE THE ENTIRE PROJECT, NOT A PIECE.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE STAFF BRING BACK THE ENTIRE PROJECT.
COMMISSIONER YSIANO, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM?
>> NO, BUT I AGREE WITH YOU AND COMMISSIONER CEJA.
I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE WHOLE PROJECT IN ITS ENTIRETY.
I THINK WE'RE IN AGREEMENT THERE.
>> I'LL MOVE THAT WE CONTINUE THE ITEM I BELIEVE TO SEPTEMBER 23RD'S MEETING AND ASK THAT STAFF BRING BACK ALL THE APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND FOR ACTION.
>> CHAIR, JUST TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD, I THINK THE CONTINUATION WOULD BE FOR THE VENTANA PROJECT GENERAL PLAN AMOUNTED 2005-120 SPECIFIC PLAN 200 THIS HAVE 39.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 37884, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW 20-05-473 TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 23RD.
CAN I HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THIS PROJECT ON THE 23RD.
[7.2 Indio Public Saftey Campus Parcel Map No. 37806 (PM 20-07-404)]
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO ITEM 7.2, INDIO PUBLIC SAFETY CAMPUS PARCEL MAP NUMBER 37806, PM 20-07-404.>> CHAIR, IF I COULD INTERRUPT FOR ONE SECOND JUST TO ANNOUNCE FOR THE RECORD THAT VICE CHAIR LOPEZ HAS REJOINED US.
>> WELCOME BACK, VICE CHAIR LOPEZ.
SENIOR PLANNER LEILA NAMVAR WITH THE CITY OF INDIO.
THIS PROJECT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS INDIO PUBLIC SAFETY CAMPUS PARCEL MAP.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF CARRION.
IT IS BASICALLY THE CURRENT LOCATION FOR THE INDIO POLICE HEADQUARTERS AND FIRE STATION NUMBER 1.
SO THE PROJECT INCLUDES THREE PARCELS, AS YOU SEE HERE, THE SMALLER PARCEL AND THE LARGER PARCEL AND A SMALL SLIVER HERE WHICH INCLUDES THREE PARCELS.
WE ARE PROPOSING TONIGHT TO COMBINE THESE THREE PARCELS TO ONE LEGAL PARCEL TO DEVELOP THE INDIO OR THE FUTURE INDIO PUBLIC SAFETY CAMPUS, WHICH WILL INCLUDE THE POLICE STATION, FIRE STATION, THIS BUILDING AND ADMINISTRATION BUILDING WITHIN THIS PROPERTY.
THE REASON THE CITY DECIDED TO GO FOR A PARCEL MAP IS BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME CLEANUP THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE FOR SOME EASEMENT AND ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY.
STAFF RECOMMENDS ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 1962 TO APPROVE THE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 37806.
[00:35:01]
THAT CONCLUDES MY STAFF REPORT, AND I'M READY TO ANSWER IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME.ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS TIME?
>> FOR STAFF, THIS IS PRETTY EXCITING TO SEE SOME UPGRADES TO THOSE FACILITIES, BUT DOES THAT MEAN ESSENTIALLY OUR DOWNTOWN RELOCATION IS DONE FOR?
>> I THOUGHT THERE WAS TALK IN THE GENERAL PLAN OF A DOWNTOWN POLICE STATION OR FIRE FACILITY.
>> I DON'T RECALL THAT REGARDING A FIRE STATION OR A POLICE STATION WITHIN DOWNTOWN, BUT THIS IS BASICALLY THE MAIN -- IT WILL BE THE PUBLIC SAFETY CAMPUS OF THE CITY OF INDIO, SO A MAJOR HEADQUARTERS AND STATION WILL BE HERE.
IF THERE WILL BE A SMALL SUBSTATION WITHIN DOWNTOWN, THIS IS THE MAJOR.
>> AS A PUBLIC FACILITY, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD SEE AGAIN FOR DESIGN REVIEW?
THIS IS US JUST THE PARCEL MAP PORTION OF IT.
IT WILL COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE DESIGN INCLUDING ENVIRONMENT ASPECT OF IT.
COMMISSIONER YSIANO, ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME?
THE SO IF WE DID ADOPT THIS PARCEL CONVERSION, WHEN WOULD WE SEE DESIGN FOR THESE FACILITIES?
>> IT IS -- I CAN'T GIVE YOU A DEFINITE ANSWER, BUT I WAS TOLD TODAY THAT THE APPLICATION WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY WITHIN A MONTH, SO THEN IT WILL BE
>> IT WILL BE A TIGHT SCHEDULE TO BRING IT BACK BEFORE YOU AND COMPLETE THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND THE REST OF THE ENTITLEMENTS.
CAN WE GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME ON THIS ITEM, AND EVELYN, DO WE HAVE ANYONE WANTING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM?
>> WITHOUT ANYONE WILLING TO SPEAK, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.
ANDY DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM?
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1962 APPROVING THE MERGING OF THE THREE PARCELS INTO ONE.
ANY MORE DISCUSSION? I PLEASE.
AND WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD THE PLANNING APPLICATION.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN NEEDED IN OUR CITY FOR A LONG TIME SO WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT.
SO AT THIS TIME WE WILL GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO ITEM 7.3, AUTOMATIC TIME EXTENSION FOR
[7.3 Automatic Time Extension for Approved Conditional Use Permit and Design Review]
APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW.DO WE HAVE A STAFF REPORT ON THIS ITEM?
I PROMISED YOU THE SENIOR PLANNER ROSIE LUA ALSO HAS ANOTHER PRESENTATION, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO SEE ME THE ENTIRE NIGHT.
BUT ANYHOW, THIS IS, AS YOU SAID, IT IS AN UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE TO EXTEND THE EXPIRATION DATE FOR APPROVED CUPS AND DESIGN REVIEWS.
SO THE REASON THAT WE BRING THAT UP, WE BRING UP THIS ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU IS DUE TO COVID-19 AND STAFF REDUCTION IN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY, WE HAVE RECEIVED A LOT OF REQUESTS FOR TIME EXTENSION ON CUPS AND DESIGN REVIEWS.
ALSO TO HELP THE PERMIT HOLDERS OR THE ENTITLEMENT HOLDERS TO GIVE THEM SOME RELIEF TO PASS THIS UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND BE ABLE TO BRING UP THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW AND START THE CONSTRUCTION, WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO BRING THIS ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU.
WE ARE FOCUSING ON THE DESIGN REVIEWS AND CUPS THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED.
AND THEY STILL, ALL THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS NEED TO COMPLY WITH CHAPTER 95A AND 95D CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE WHICH IS BASICALLY THE NUISANCE CHAPTER, SO THE
[00:40:07]
PROPERTY NEEDS TO BE CLEAN AND CLEAR, NO DEBRIS AND NO WEEDS.ALSO THEY NEED TO ALREADY PAY ALL THE APPLICABLE FEES TO THE CITY BY THAT POINT.
AND THEN ALSO THERE'S A THIRD CONDITION WHICH THE PROJECT IS NOT EXPIRED 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF FINAL PASSAGE OF THIS UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
SO IF ALL THOSE ARE IN PLACE, WE WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A TIME EXTENSION TO AUTOMATICALLY EXTEND THE LIFETIME OF THE CUPS AND DESIGN REVIEWS UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS TO DECEMBER 31, 2023.
WITH THAT, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVES RESOLUTION 1963 RECOMMENDING COUNCIL PASSING THE UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE.
THAT CONCLUDES MY STAFF REPORT.
I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF LEILA AT THIS TIME? COMMISSIONER CEJA.
I THINK GENERALLY THIS IS A PRETTY GOOD IDEA SINCE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND THERE'S A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY THAT'S GOING ON.
I'M CURIOUS WHY THE DATE MAYBE IS PUSHED UP SO FAR TO 2023.
I MEAN, IF WE KNOW HOW MANY CUPS OR DESIGN REVIEWERS IN THIS LIMBO PHASE THAT WE'RE ESSENTIALLY EXTENDING.
I DO WANT TO MAKE CAME OUT THAT I THINK TYING IT TO THOSE APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE PAID THEIR FEES TO THE CITY IS A REALLY GOOD WAY TO PROTECT THE CITY AND UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S THE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS INTENDED ON DEVELOPING, BUT I AM CURIOUS, YOU KNOW, WHY PUSH IT OUT THREE YEARS AND THEN HOW MANY CUPS ARE WE ACTUALLY THINKING ABOUT.
> WILL HAVE THAT TWO YEARS, SO WE ADDED ONE ADDITIONAL YEAR.
SO INSTEAD OF BEING EXPIRED IN 2022, THEY WILL BE EXPIRED IN 2023.
AND THEN ALSO THERE ARE A COUPLE OF APPLICATIONS THAT NEED TO BE REVIEWED BY OSH POD, SO THOSE TAKE LONGER, SO THAT'S WHY WE THOUGHT GIVE THEM THAT ONE ADDITIONAL YEAR.
THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE, THEN, TO ME.
I WAS JUST CURIOUS DO WE HAVE A ROUGH ESTIMATION OF HOW MANY APPLICATIONS THAT IS.
>> SO FAR WE HAVE THREE THAT THEY ARE LOOKING INTO EXTENSION, BUT I'M SURE WITH THIS, SO IF THE ONES THAT WERE HOPELESS TO ASK THE QUESTION, SO THEY CAN HAVE THAT AUTOMATIC EXTENSION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS TIME? NO? SO I HAVE A QUESTION, LEILA.
I KNOW THAT THE CITY DID AN AUTOMATIC TIME EXTENSION DURING THE 2008-2009 FINANCIAL CRISIS.
CAN YOU REMIND ME HOW LONG THAT EXTENSION WAS AT THAT TIME.
>> THAT WENT FROM 2011, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, TO 2015.
SO IT WAS TWO YEARS AND THEN ANOTHER TWO YEARS AND A THIRD TWO YEARS, WHICH I THINK IT PUT THEM DECEMBER 31, 2015.
THIS IS SHORTER THAN THAT ONE WAS.
>> YES, THIS IS SHORTER THAN THAT ONE.
>> IS THERE ANOTHER EXTENSION AFTER THESE THREE YEARS THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO AUTOMATICALLY GET OR WOULD THEY HAVE TO MAKE A REQUEST?
>> THEY HAVE TO MAKE A REQUEST.
>> WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC ITEM.
DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC ON THIS ITEM?
>> NOT SEEING ANY, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSIONERS FOR STAFF OR DO I HAVE A MOTION?
>> NO, I THINK OVERALL THIS IS A PRETTY SOLID PROPOSAL.
THERE'S SOME PROTECTION ON THE CITY, ON THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING.
THOSE THAT ARE SERIOUS HAVE ALREADY PAID THEIR FEES, AND HEARING STAFF'S EXPLANATION THAT THIS REALLY GETS THEM AT LEAST ONE ADDITIONAL YEAR OF AN EXTENSION, AND IT'S UNCODIFIED.
I THINK THIS IS A VERY GOOD IDEA.
IF WE'RE READY, I COULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADOPT RESOLUTION 1963 FOR AN UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE TO AUTOMATICALLY EXTEND THE DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO DECEMBER 31, 2023.
[00:45:03]
>> THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR LOPEZ.
MORE DISCUSSION? IF NO, THEN THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO A VOTE, PLEASE.
SO WE HAVE NO ACTION ITEMS. SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO STUDY SESSION ITEM 9.1 MADISON POINTE PROJECT
[9.1 Madison Pointe – Project Consultation]
CONSULTATION.>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS ROSIE LUA I'M WITH THE CITY ASSOCIATE PLANNER.
I HAVE HERE BEFORE YOU A PROJECT CONSULTATION FOR THE MADISON POINTE.
IT IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE MADISON CROSSING PROJECT MASTER PLAN.
THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED BETWEEN MADISON STREET AND YOUNGS LANE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111.
MADISON CROSSING IS A 20.92-ACRE SITE.
AGAIN, IT IS AN ESTABLISHED PROJECT MASTER PLAN THAT HAS LAND USES, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AS WELL AS ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES.
A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND HERE ON THIS PROJECT SITE.
SO WITH THE GENERAL PLAN 2040, THERE ARE NOW TWO LAND USE DESIGNATIONS.
THE PORTION CLOSEST TO HIGHWAY 111 IS MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THEN THE PORTION THAT IS SIGNED WITH MADISON STREET IS A CONNECTED NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE DESIGNATION.
ALSO, THIS PROJECT FALLS WITHIN THE HIGHWAY 111 MIXED USE SPECIFIC PLAN OR WHAT WE KNOW AS THE MIXED USE MUSP 300 THAT ENCOMPASSES EVERYTHING WEST OF JEFFERSON STREET ALL THE WAY TO CLINTON STREET.
SO ANY CHANGES TO THE MUSP 300 THAT ARE PROPOSED WILL BE CHANGES TO THIS ENTIRE AREA AS WELL.
SO THE MADISON CROSSING PROJECT MASTER PLAN, AND I WANTED TO START HERE JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT WAS APPROVED BACK IN 2009.
IN PROJECT SUMMARY IT'S 114,825 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, RESTAURANT, OFFICES, AND TWO FREESTANDING HOTELS.
THE ARCHITECTURAL THEME THAT WAS APPROVED IS A CALIFORNIA MISSION STYLE.
SO THE MADISON POINTE PROJECT IS PROPOSING TO ADD -- I'M SORRY -- IS PROPOSING TO ADD MEDICAL USE, DRIVE-THROUGHS, ONE HOTEL, AND RESIDENTIAL USES.
RESIDENTIAL USES INCLUDE MULTI-FAMILY AS WELL AS SENIOR HOUSING.
THE MEDICAL USES WOULD BE HERE FRONTING MADISON STREET.
THE CONCEPTS ARE THE SAME WITH STYLE.
THE APPLICANT PROVIDED SOME ARCHITECTURAL THEMES FOR YOU TO HAVE A VISUAL VIEW OF WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING FOR THIS PROJECT.
SO I WANTED TO GIVE YOU THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MADISON POINTE AND THE MADISON CROSSING KSPC PROJECT.
THE MADISON POINTE IS REQUESTING FOR 77,800 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, OFFICE AND MEDICAL USE.
IT IS WELL WITHIN THE APPROVED MADISON CROSSING PROJECT MASTER PLAN.
HOWEVER, MEDICAL USE WAS DENIED IN 2009 BY CITY COUNCIL.
SO THE MUSP 300 ALSO PROHIBITS MEDICAL USE.
SO FOR THEM TO MOVE FORWARD, THEY WOULD NEED TO MAKE AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW MEDICAL USE.
ONE OTHER ITEM THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM THE MADISON POINTE TO THE MADISON CROSSING IS THAT THEY INTRODUCED SENIOR HOUSING, 100 UNITS OF IT AT 20 TO 22 UNITS PER ACRE.
THE APPROVED PROJECT MASTER PLAN DIDN'T INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL USES, HOWEVER, THE MUSP 300 DOES PERMIT SENIOR HOUSING AND THEY HAVE A MAXIMUM OF 20 UNITS PER ACRE.
THE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PORTION, THEY ARE PROPOSING 160 UNITS, 20 TO 22 UNITS PER ACRE AS WELL.
[00:50:01]
THE MADISON CROSSING DO NOT INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL USES.AND AGAIN, THE MUSP 300 DOES PERMIT MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING BUT AT 20 UNITS PER ACRE.
THE MADISON POINTE INCLUDES VEHICLE DRIVE-THROUGHS AND DRIVE-UP WINDOWS FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND RESTAURANTS.
IN 2009 WHEN THE REQUEST WAS INITIALLY PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL IN THE AMENDMENT, IT WAS DENY.
SO THE MUSP 300 PROHIBITS THE USE OF VEHICLE DRIVE-THROUGHS AS WELL AS DRIVE-UP WINDOWS.
AN ADDITIONAL ITEM IS THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING CARPORTS INSTEAD OF GARAGE SPACES FOR RESIDENTIAL USES.
T GARAGES OR CARPORTS, FOR THAT MATTER.
AND THE MUSP 300 REQUIRES GARAGE SPACES FOR RESIDENTIAL USES.
SO I WANTED TO PROVIDE YOU THIS DIFFERENCE BECAUSE EVERYTHING ELSE THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING IS WITHIN THE APPROVED PROJECT MASTER PLAN, AND THESE ARE THE DIFFERENCES.
SO JUST SPEAKING OF PROCESS, IF THE APPLICANT MOVES FORWARD WITH THE MADISON POINTE PROJECT, THERE WILL HAVE TO BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN, WHICH AS YOU HAVE HEARD IN THE LAST PRESENTATION, AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN WILL HAVE TO GO BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALSO CITY COUNCIL.
THERE ARE TWO USES, SO THERE WILL HAVE TO BE A PROPOSAL FOR ONE OF THOSE USES, WHETHER IT'S THE MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE CONNECTED NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT WILL BE REQUIRED TO MAKE THE PROPER FINDINGS TO HAVE CONSISTS WITH THE MUSP 300.
SO IN THE MUSP 300 WILL ALSO HAVE TO BE AMENDED FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF MEDICAL USES, INCREASED DENSITY TO 22 ACRES, 22 UNITS PER ACRES, ALLOW DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES, AND ALLOW THE USE OF CARPORTS INSTEAD OF GARAGES FOR RESIDENTIAL USES.
THESE USES HERE, ONCE IT'S CHANGE TO MUSP 300, CHANGES IT FOR THE ENTIRE AREA.
AND ALSO THE PMP WHICH NOW WOULD BE THE MEDICINE POINTE PROJECT MASTER PLAN WOULD HAVE TO BE AMENDED TO ALLOW THOSE SAME USES FOR THE PROJECT SITE HERE.
RIGHT NOW THE APPLICANT IS COMING FORWARD WITH THE AMENDMENT OF THE MADISON CROSSING PROJECT.
AND SO THEY'RE JUST IN THE PROCESS OF WORKING THIS PROJECT.
THEY WANT SOME DIRECTION FROM YOU.
THEY'RE ALSO HERE TO PRESENT -- OR TO SPEAK ON THEIR VISION AND, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THIS PROJECT AND WHY THESE USES ARE IMPORTANT FOR THEIR PROJECT.
AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ALSO SPEAK.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS TIME? NO ONE? OKAY.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND HEAR FROM THE -- WE CAN OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME.
>> CHAIR, JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS ISN'T PUBLIC HEARING ITEM.
>> AS SOON AS I SAID THAT, I REALIZED THAT.
WE'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME DURING THIS STUDY SESSION.
>> PLEASE MUTE YOUR DEVICES, YOUR LIVE STREAM DEVICES.
>> COMMISSION, MY NAME IS JOHN SOLOMON.
I'M ONE OF THE PARTNERS ON THIS PROJECT.
ROSIE, I THINK MY -- I'M NOT ABLE TO -- MY VIDEO IS NOT COMING UP.
BUT ANYWAY, IT SAYS THAT I'M BLOCKED BY HER.
ANYWAY, YOU KNOW WHAT YOU HAD -- I WORK WITH SCHMITT THE OWNER OF THE PROJECT AND HE WAS INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT BACK IN 2009 WHEN IT WAS MADISON CROSSING.
[00:55:01]
WHAT WE WANTED TO ACCOMPLISH, BECAUSE A COMMERCIAL CENTER JUST WASN'T GOING TO WORK HERE WITH ALL OF THE PROJECTIONS THAT WE'VE HAD AND THE COMMERCIAL SITE OF IT AND THE RETAIL MARKET AS IT IS.WE REALLY WANTED TO TURN THIS THING INTO MORE OF A PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY, RESIDENTIAL TYPE OF PROJECT, WALK AROUND, WALKWAYS, A COMMUNITY THAT WE COULD BRING IN MULTI-FAMILY, A SENIOR RESORT-STYLE -- NOT ASSISTED LIVING BUT MORE OF A SENIOR RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY, A HOTEL, WHICH WAS APPROVED BACK THEN, AND WE KEPT THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT THAT WAS ON HIGHWAY 111 FROM THE PREVIOUS, SO WE DID NOT TOUCH THAT.
SO WE WANTED TO CREATE THAT KIND OF A COMMUNITY.
ALSO IN MEETINGS WITH PLANNING AND WITH ROSIE AND KEVIN, WE TALKED ABOUT MAINTAINING A COMMERCIAL COMPONENT ON MADISON GOING SOUTH.
AND SO WE CAME UP WITH THIS LAYOUT.
AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WANTED TO INTRODUCE AND REALLY GET THE FEEDBACK FROM THE COUNCIL.
THE ITEMS THAT JUMPED OUT AT ME IN THE PRESENTATION, WE'RE FINE WITH 20 UNITS PER ACRE, SO WE DON'T NEED TO AMEND IT TO 22 PER ACRE ON THE RESIDENTIAL.
WE ACTUALLY UNDERSTOOD THE ABILITY TO POTENTIALLY GO UP TO 40 UNITS PER ACRE, SO WE DON'T NEED TO AMEND ANYTHING FOR THE 22.
THE MEDICAL COMPONENT, THE REASON THAT'S IMPORTANT TO US IS IN CREATING A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY, WE WANTED TO HAVE SUPPORT COMMERCIAL, AND WE JUST FELT THAT A SMALL COMPONENT OF MEDICAL WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO THE PROJECT AND ALSO GOING, YOU KNOW, MADISON HAS GOT A REALLY HIGH TRAFFIC CONTENT THESE DAYS, AND GOING SOUTH INTO THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY, IT GIVES A READILY ACCESSIBLE MEDICAL FACILITIES AVAILABLE TO THAT COMMUNITY, ALSO.
THE DRIVE-THROUGHS ARE SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR, ONE OF OUR LAND PLANNERS AND JUST FEEL THAT THAT IS REALLY THE WAY THESE TYPES OF FACILITIES NEED TO BE ACCESSED.
WE HAVE FOUR -- THE PLAN YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, THERE'S FOUR STRUCTURES OUT ON HIGHWAY 111.
WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY LOOKING FOR ALL OF THEM TO BE DRIVE-THROUGH.
WE'RE HOPING FOR SOME CHANGE IN THE CITY TO ALLOW SOME OF THAT.
IF IT'S NOT GOING -- IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, THAT MAY NOT BE SOMETHING WE WOULD PURSUE.
TONIGHT IS THE FIRST THAT WE'VE HEARD OF THAT.
SO REALLY THOSE ARE MY ONLY COMMENTS.
MY ASSOCIATE JOHN LOWE IS HERE.
I'M NOT SURE IF HE HAS ANYTHING TO ADD.
AND THEN ALSO PAUL FROM MSA I BELIEVE PAUL IS INVOLVED OR ON THE LINE, ALSO, SO I'M NOT SURE IF PAUL HAS ANY COMMENTS ALSO.
>> AM I UNMUTED OR STILL MUTED?
THANK YOU FOR GETTING US INVOLVED IN THIS STUDY SESSION.
IN 2009 WITH A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT USES AND BRING IT FORWARD TO WHAT WE FEEL IS TODAY'S KIND OF NEED IN THE COMMUNITY, AND WE WANT TO GET YOUR INPUT ON THAT.
WE'VE ENGAGED A FEASIBILITY COMPANY TO HELP US MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER WE'RE INTRODUCING IS SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE FEASIBLE AND MARKETABLE AND BE SUCCESSFUL IN THE COMMUNITY.
SO THIS PARCEL HAS BEEN VACANT FOR LIGHT OF YEARS, AND -- A LOT OF YEARS, AND IN PART IT FRONTS HIGHWAY 111 AND MADISON, AND MADISON HAS A LOT OF TRAFFIC ON IT.
IT'S KIND OF THE GATEWAY ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE CITY.
IT'S NOT AS HEAVILY TRAVELED AS JEFFERSON BUT IT CERTAINLY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME THE GATEWAY ON THIS SIDE OF THE CITY.
AND SO WHAT WE REALLY WANT TO DO IS GET YOUR COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK AND INPUT ON WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING.
I DON'T THINK OUR CHANGES ARE MAJOR FROM THE STANDPOINT OF USES, AND I THINK THAT THEY'RE REAL COMPLEMENTARY TO THE COMMUNITY HERE AT THIS POINT AND PARTICULARLY DURING THIS COVID PERIOD.
[01:00:03]
>> ANYONE ELSE FROM THE DEVELOPER AT THIS TIME? NO? D OR THE DEVELOPER AT THIS TIME?
>> YOU KNOW, FOR STAFF I THOUGHT ROSIE DID A GREAT JOB KIND LAYING OUT WHAT WE'RE REALLY CONSIDERING, NOT JUST THIS PROJECT BUT POTENTIAL CHANGES TO THE WHOLE SPECIFIC PLAN ALONG HIGHWAY 111.
AND THAT BEING SAID, I'M CURIOUS, I THINK THERE'S A LOT TO LIKE IN THIS PLAN, PARTICULARLY THE INTRODUCTION OF MORE HOUSING UNITS IN PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL.
AND LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN, IT'S AT LEAST PROVIDE, THE SECTION IS PRETTY ON.
I THINK THE GENERAL PLAN THERE'S SOME INTERSECTION DENSITY, WAYS FOR PEOPLE TO GET AROUND WITHOUT CARS.
THIS OPEN CONCEPT SITE PLAN SEEMS TO ALLOW FOR THAT.
BUT I AM HESITANT WITH THE ALLOWANCE OF DRIVE-THROUGHS MORE THAN ANYTHING.
I THINK AT THE LAST COUPLE PLANNING COMMISSIONS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TOOK AN ACTION ON DUTCH BROS ON HIGHWAY 111 ON A SITE DESIGN THAT I REALLY LIKED WITH THE ORIENTATION OF THE BUILDING, HOW THE DRIVE-THROUGH WAS MORE OR LESS HIDDEN AWAY FROM THE STREET.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S WAYS IF WE WERE TO CONSIDER DRIVE-THROUGHS, FIRST I WANT TO SAY I AM HESITANT ON THE DRIVE-THROUGHS-YEAR ALL, VERY HESITANT TO SEE ANOTHER KIND OF AUTO CENTRIC SCAPE THAT WE SEE ON HIGHWAY 111 BETWEEN CLINTON AND MONROE.
I HATE TO SEE THAT CARRY ALL THE WAY OVER TO JEFFERSON.
BUT IF WE WERE TO REALLY CONSIDER DRIVE-THROUGHS ARE THERE SOME DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT COULD BE IN PLACE SO THAT BUILDING ORIENTATION AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS CLOSER TO THE STREET.
I THINK THAT'S MY REAL HESITATION WHEN WE'RE CONSIDERING SOMETHING OF THIS SCOPE BECAUSE IT DOES GO BEYOND THIS PROJECT, BUT-YEAR ALL I REALLY LIKE THE -- OVERALL I REALLY LIKE THE SKETCH HOUSING UNITS, DENSITY OF HOUSING IN PROXIMITY TO COMMERCIAL.
A GREAT, AND IF THERE'S A WAY THAT YOU CAN PURSUE ADDITIONAL DENSITY THROUGH THE STATE DENSITY BONUS PROVISIONS OF THE AND HELP US GET SOME MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN PROXIMITY TO THOSE COMMERCIAL SERVICES, THAT'S ALL THE MUCH BETTER.
SO I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE REALLY WITH INTRODUCING MEDICAL USES HERE.
I THINK THE ISSUE HAS TO DO WITH DRIVE-THROUGHS.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CEJA.
ANY COMMENTS FROM THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS AT THIS TIME?
>> COMMISSIONER CEJA HAD SOME REALLY GOOD POINTS.
I AGREE WITH THE DRIVE-THROUGH USAGE IN THAT AREA.
I THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH DRIVE-THROUGHS KIND OF JUST A MILL OR SO DOWN THE ROAD BETWEEN CLINTON AND MONROE.
IF WE WERE TO APPROVE SOME, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME RESTRICTIONS AS TO THE VISIBILITY AND HAVING THE BUILDINGS MAYBE MORE UP FRONT.
I'VE SEEN SOME DRIVE-THROUGHS IN LIKE THE LA QUINTA AREA MY COSTCO, LIKE THE PANDA AND THE STARBUCKS, YOU CAN'T REALLY TELL THAT THERE'S DRIVE-THROUGHS UNTIL YOU'RE INSIDE THE PARKING LOT NEARBY SO I LOOK THAT IDEA.
AS FAR AS THE MEDICAL USE GOES, I THINK THAT'S GREAT.
IT'S SOMEWHAT NEARBY TO OUR MEDICAL ZONE OVER THERE OFF OF DR. CARREON AS WELL.
SO AS FAR AS THE MUSP 300, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY IN THAT ZONE FOR DEVELOPMENT, AND I DO LIKE THE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL BEING TOGETHER.
I LIKE THE FACT THAT IT'S GOING TO BE DESIGNED TO BE WALKABLE AND ESPECIALLY FOR SENIORS MAYBE HAVE SOME COMMERCIAL BENEFITS TO THEM NEARBY THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO DRIVE TO.
>> VICE CHAIR LOPEZ, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? DID WE LOSE VICE CHAIR LOPEZ?
I JUST AGAIN AM GOING TO AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS THAT BOTH OF MY COMMITTEE MEMBERS MADE.
IT'S PRETTY MUCH THE SAME COMMENTS.
I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.
I AGREE WITH THE DRIVE-THROUGHS.
I'M NOT NECESSARILY AGAINST THEM.
IT'S HOW THEY ARESHIELDED SO THEY'RE NOT SO IN YOUR FACE ON HIGHWAY 111.
I ALSO THINK THE SENIOR PORTION IS GREAT.
MY CONCERN IS QUALITY VERSUS JUST DENSITY -- -- SO WHEN YOU SAY CARPORTS VERSUS GARAGES, I'M INSTINCTIVELY WANTING TO GO TOWARD GARAGES.
IT GIVES PEOPLE A LITTLE MORE PRIVACY FOR THEIR CARS, MAYBE A SMALL AREA FOR STORAGE.
I KNOW THAT'S ALWAYS A BIG THING WHEN YOU HAVE APARTMENTS.
AND THE MEDICAL, I'M NOT AGAINST IT.
I WOULD HATE TO HAVE IT BECOME A MEDICAL MAIN AREA BECAUSE WE HAVE KIND OF
[01:05:01]
FOCUSED THAT ON CARREON AND MONROE.SO I WANT TO BE CAREFUL THERE.
I KNOW THIS IS KIND OF A PRELIMINARY STUDY, BUT THE WALKABILITY, THE ABILITY TO RIDE BIKES, TO WALK, THAT WOULD BE A HUGE THING FOR TO US SEE ALONG THIS, AND WHATEVER WE DO, WE KNOW IT WILL PROBABLY IMPACT THE REST OF HIGHWAY 111 SO WE NEED TO BE REALLY CAREFUL WHAT WE DO HERE.
BUT OVERALL I AM IN FAVOR FOR A LITTLE HIGH DENSITY AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT I'M REALLY LOOKING FOR QUALITY, SOMETHING UNIQUE, SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
I'M NOT NECESSARILY COMMITTED TO THE SPANISH ARCHITECTURE.
I KNOW THAT WAS MAYBE MORE APPROPRIATE IN 2009.
HOPEFULLY SOON 2021 SO WE CAN GET RID OF 2020.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M MORE THAN OPEN TO THAT IS DIFFERENT AND UNIQUE.
THAT IS REALLY WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
THIS IS A MAIN CORNER OF OUR CITY WHEN YOU COME IN FROM LA QUINTA.
SO I'M INTERESTED IN BEING WOWED.
I WANT SOMETHING THAT MAYBE YOU WOULDN'T SEE SOMEWHERE ELSE IN INDIO, QUALITY, AND YET USABLE FOR OUR RESIDENTS AND SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY NEED.
SO I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO LOOK AT WHAT YOU ARE WORKING ON, BUT I REALLY HOPE THAT YOU WILL GET CREATIVE.
LET'S HAVE A LITTLE EXCITEMENT WITH THIS PROJECT AND DO SOMETHING UNIQUE THAT IS BENEFICIAL TO THE ENTIRE CITY.
BUT OTHER THAN THAT, AND AGAIN THE DRIVE-THROUGHS, IT NEEDS TO BE UNIQUE AND SOMEHOW KIND OF SHELTERED.
I'M -- -- NOT REAL ENTHUSED WITH PUTTING ANOTHER FOUR DRIVE-THROUGHS RIGHT ON HIGHWAY 111.
IT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IN THE CITY.
MY QUESTION IS ON BUILDING I GUESS I, I'M ASSUMING THAT'S A MULTI-STORY BUILDING THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT FOR MEDICAL.
>> MADAME CHAIR, DO YOU WANT ME TO SHARE THE SCREEN?
SO RIGHT HERE THIS LIGHT PINK BUILDING I'M ASSUMING THAT IS YOUR MEDICAL WHERE YOU THINK YOU WOULD PUT MEDICAL OR BUSINESS OR WHAT IS THAT IS GOING TO BE?
>> BUILDING I WOULD ACTUALLY BE THE SENIOR COMMUNITY.
IT WOULD BE -- THAT'S THE SENIOR.
I DON'T BELIEVE WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL MEDICAL.
WHAT WE WOULD PROBABLY DO IS DESIGNATE ONE OF THOSE, EITHER H OR G AS MELLING.
BUILDING I IS ACTUALLY IN A KIND OF A SENIOR LIVING RESORT-STYLE COMMUNITY, SO IT'S TWO OR THREE STORY APARTMENT TYPE OF COMMUNITY WITH, AGAIN, THE PARK GARAGES IS PROBABLY A PROBLEM FOR US, BUT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO SOME UNDERGROUND PARKING.
BUT IT'S REALLY KIND OF AN APARTMENT COMMUNITY THAT'S SELF CONTAINED AND ALLOWS FOR SENIORS TO HAVE AMENITIES THROUGHOUT THE COMPLEX.
AND I ACTUALLY HAVE MY FATHER-IN-LAW LIVES IN ONE IN LAGUNA HILLS AND IT'S A REALLY NICE COMMUNITY.
AND IT'S COMPLETELY SELF-CONTAINED.
SO WOULD THIS BE MORE LIKE -- SO IT'S NOT ASSISTED LIVING.
IT'S JUST DESIGNATED AS WHAT, 55 AND OLDER?
>> IT'S MORE AGE-RESTRICTED LIVING AS OPPOSED TO ASSISTED OR -- >> YEAH, IT'S A 55 TO 70, 75, INDEPENDENT TENANT OCCUPANTS WITH AMENITIES THROUGHOUT THE DAY, JUST ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING YOU CAN IMAGINE IN THE SELF-CONTAINED COMMUNITY.
>> YOUR OTHER CONCERN ABOUT THIS BEING A MEDICAL PLAZA, THE MEDICAL THAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT IS REALLY SUPPORT MEDICAL.
IT'S NOT YOUR HEAVY DUTY PHYSICIANS.
IT'S MORE YOUR CHIROPRACTOR, YOUR OPTOMETRIST, YOUR DENTIST.
SO THE PEOPLE LIVING IN THE AREA CAN WALK TO THAT, THOSE TYPES OF FACILITIES.
>> WE DID NOT HAVE THAT MUCH FROM A TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE STANDPOINT.
>> SO IN THIS SENIOR AGE-RESTRICTIVE HOUSING, YOU TALK ABOUT A LOT OF AMENITIES.
I'M NOT ASSUMING YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT A SWIMMING POOL.
IT'S JUST REALLY A SCREEN SHOT OF -- YEAH, THERE WOULD BE A POOL.
[01:10:04]
MOST OF THE AMENITIES ARE INSIDE.T KIND OF A -- THERE WOULD DEFINITELY BE A POOL, SOME OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES BUT MAINLY INDOOR ACTIVITIES.
>> WOULD THIS BE IN ANY WAY GATED, LIKE SEPARATELY FROM EVERYTHING ELSE OR ARE WE LOOKING AT -- IT LOOKS LIKE THIS WOULD ALL BE OPEN.
>> I WOULD PROBABLY -- I WOULD LEAVE THAT UP TO THE DESIGN PROCESS WITH WHATEVER DEVELOPMENT PARTNER.
WE WOULD PROBABLY FIND A DEVELOPMENT PARTNER ON THIS.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE ONE MY FATHER-IN-LAW LIVES IN IS ABSOLUTELY ENCLOSED, COMPLETELY GATED.
YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE FRONT ENTRANCE.
AND I THINK WE'D PROBABLY WANT TO DO THE SAME THING.
THIS DESIGN DOESN'T REALLY SHOW IT THAT WELL, BUT YOU CAN IMAGINE IT'S JUST FOUR EXTERIOR WALLS THAT ARE ALL GATED AND ENCLOSED.
>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THREE STORIES.
>> SO SINCE THAT BUILDING IS RIGHT UP AGAINST RESIDENTIAL, LIKE LITERALLY RIGHT HERE, WHAT IS THIS GRAY AREA? WHAT ARE YOU THINKING THAT'S GOING TO BE? PARKING?
AND THEN THIS AREA WITH THE YELLOW, THIS IS JUST APARTMENTS?
>> YEAH, THAT WOULD BE -- >> J.
>> YEAH, J WOULD BE MULTIPLE FAMILY APARTMENT COMMUNITY.
>> JUST REGULAR APARTMENTS HERE.
> APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS, AND WE WOULD DEFINITELY ADHERE TO DESIGN GUIDELINES IF WE NEEDED A DRIVE-THROUGH, AND THE BUILDING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE A, B, C AND D.
AND WE EVEN HAD JUST TO THROW A WHOLE CAVEAT INTO THIS, WE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH OUR FEASIBILITY GROUP YESTERDAY, AND WE WOULD PROBABLY MOVE THE HOTEL, K, UP TO HIGHWAY 111, SO WE PROBABLY WOULD REDESIGN THAT A LITTLE BIT, AND SO WE MIGHT NOT EVEN END UP WITH FOUR PADS OUT IN FRONT.
PART OF THE REASON IS THE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UP SO YOU HAVE THE EVENT CENTER THERE ON THE WEST ON HIGHWAY 111 THAT'S CURRENTLY NOT OCCUPIED.
RIGHT BEHIND IT THERE'S A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE THAT'S REALLY PROBLEMATIC VISH VISUALLY.
SO THE COMBINATION OF HAVING HOTEL GUESTS ON THE SECOND OR THIRD FLOOR OF A HOTEL LOOKING DOWN ON IT AND THEN ALSO THE IDEA OF HAVING A HOTEL SET BACK FROM 111, I THINK WE TOOK A LITTLE BIT OF A TURN ON THAT YESTERDAY AND WE PROBABLY MOVED K UP INTO THAT A SLOT AREA, AND THEN HAVE THREE PADS ADJACENT BETWEEN THAT AND THE WALGREENS, WHICH IS ON THE CORNER, AND THE THOUGHT PROCESS WOULD BE ONE, MAYBE TWO DRIVE-THROUGHS, WHETHER IT BE LIKE A STARBUCKS TYPE OF COFFEE FACILITY OR A BANK.
I KNOW ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS REFERENCED THE FACILITIES TO THE WEST.
I FORGET WHICH ONES YOU MENTIONED, ABOUT IT KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
AND WE COULD, WE COULD HIDE THOSE DRIVE-THROUGHS PRETTY EASILY THROUGH THE DESIGN PROCESS IF THAT'S WHAT WE ENDED UP WITH.
>> THE REASONING TO MOVE BID K, THE HOTEL, UP TO HIGHWAY 111 IS TO GIVE IT VISIBILITY, AND ONE AREA THAT WE'RE TRYING TO EXPLORE A BIT IS THE EVENT CENTER THAT'S NEXT DOOR WOULD BE A GREAT AMENITY TO THE HOTEL, AND WE JUST ARE IN A PRELIMINARY STAGE OF INVESTIGATING THAT.
AND IF WE COULD GET SOME HELP FROM THE CITY ON THAT, THAT WOULD BE WONDERFUL.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? VICE CHAIR LOPEZ.
>> I JUST WANT TO KIND OF ASK DO ANY OF YOU REACH OUT TO THE HOMEOWNERS BEHIND? I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE STILL IN THE DESIGN PROCESS, BUT HAVE ANY OF OF YOU REACHED OUT TO THE HOMEOWNERS WHO LIVE RIGHT BEHIND WHERE THE PROPOSED SENIOR FACILITY IS GOING INTO?
WE'RE JUST IN THE VERY PRELIMINARY STAGE HERE.
WE WANTED TO GET THE READ FROM YOU FOLKS FIRST BEFORE WE STARTED DOING OUR COMMUNITY WORK.
>> AND I HAVE ONE COMMENT, IF I MAY, MADAME CHAIRPERSON.
SO I JUST WANTED TO ASK THE APPLICANT TO BE MINDFUL OF THOSE HOMES SOUTH OF THE
[01:15:08]
SENIOR HOUSING, ESPECIALLY PUTTING A CARPORT SO THEY'RE JUST GOING TO LOOK AT THE ROOF, SO BE MINDFUL DURING THE DESIGN TO GIVE THEM SOME PROPER VISUAL BUFFER OR LOOK INTO THE DESIGN TO BASICALLY THE HOMEOWNERS BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THEIR PRIVACY.AND THEN I HAVE A QUESTION, SINCE THIS IS THE OPEN DISCUSSION TYPE OF VENUE OR MEETING, IF THE BUILDING GOES TO THE STREET, WHICH IS A GREAT IDEA, WHAT WOULD BE FILLING THE EMPTY SPACE OF THE BUILDING K?
>> WE WOULD PROBABLY UTILIZE THAT AREA FOR RETENTION.
>> OH, SO -- >> RETENTION AND COULD POSSIBLY EXPAND THE MARKET RATE APARTMENTS A BIT.
>> YEAH, WE'VE BEEN -- WE'VE HAD, THE INTERESTING THINGS ABOUT THIS SITE IS THE GENTLEMAN THAT CURRENTLY OWNS IT, WHO IS A VERY GOOD CLIENT OF MINE, HAS DONE TRADES OVER THE COURSE OF TIME WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT LAND THERE WHICH IS THAT BACK, THE BACK VACANT QUADRANT.
WE'VE ATTEMPTED TO REACH OUT TO THEM ABOUT ACQUIRING SOME OF THAT TO KIND OF SCORE OUT OUR SITE AND, YOU KNOW, FOR THE MARKET RATE APARTMENTS AND ASSESS TO LAY OUT A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
SO WE'RE HAVING -- WE'RE TRYING TO HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS.
WE HAVEN'T REALLY HAD TOO MUCH LUCK ON THAT LATELY.
BUT AS WE RELAY THIS OUT, WE WOULD CONTINUE TO DO THAT.
BUT I WOULD GUESS WE'D USE ANY BACK AREA LIKE THAT FOR RETENTION PURPOSES.
YOU CAN SEE A LITTLE BIT BEHIND THE SENIOR HOUSING, AND WE'D JUST HAVE TO SEE HOW IT CONFIGURES BUT WE'RE GOING NEED RETENTION ANYWAY SO THAT'S A LOGICAL AREA.
>> AND THEN THE TUCK UNDER SPECIALTY RETAIL IS BASICALLY KIND OF LIKE ROOFED OPEN TYPE OF RETAIL?
>> MULTI-USE TYPE, THE IDEA OF MAYBE HAVING SOME RETAIL FRONTING ON 111 BUT RESIDENTIAL ON TOP FACING INTO THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY, RIGHT.
>> KIND OF A MULTI-USE FEEL TO THAT, THOSE TWO FACILITIES, THOSE TWO BUILDINGS.
>> MADAME CHAIR, IF I CAN, I JUST NOTICED I DIDN'T ADDRESS THIS DURING THE PRESENTATION.
THERE IS A PROPOSED SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION HERE.
THIS WAS PUT ONTO THE PLAN BUT WE'VE DISCOVERED THAT IN 2009 THAT THE TRAFFIC REPORT DID NOT SUSTAIN ENOUGH TO INCLUDE A SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION HERE ON HIGHWAY 111.
SO THE APPLICANT PLACED IT HERE ON THE GONE THROUGH THE ARCHIVES AND REALIZED THAT THAT TRAFFIC STUDY DIDN'T SUSTAIN IT AND IT WAS ACTUALLY REMOVED FROM THE RESOLUTION WHEN IT WENT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL.
SO I JUST DON'T WANT TO HAVE THE MISCONCEPTION THAT THE APPLICANT IS ACTUALLY PROPOSING A TRAFFIC SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION THERE.
I'M SURE WHEN THEY COME IN WITH THEIR TRAFFIC REPORTS, THAT THAT WILL POSSIBLY BE EXPLORED ON THEIR END IF THAT'S THE ROUTE THEY WANT TO GO.
BUT RIGHT NOW THEY ARE NOT PROPOSING THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL, NOR WAS IT AN APPROVED TRAFFIC SIGNAL IN 2009.
>> SO ROSIE, JUST TO CLARIFY, I UNDERSTAND, YOU'RE SAYING THAT AT THIS TIME WE ARE NOT REQUIRING THIS TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND IT WAS NOT REQUIRED IN THE 2009, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE WON'T NEED IT NOW BASED ON THE NEW STUDY, CORRECT?
ONCE THEY COME IN WITH THEIR TRAFFIC STUDIES, WE'LL KNOW WHAT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE, AND OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER WILL ALSO REVIEW THEM TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION, SO JUST DON'T WANT TO HAVE A MISCONCEPTION THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING A TRAFFIC SIGNAL HERE, NOR HAS THE CITY HAD ANY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT A TRAFFIC SIGNAL HERE ON THE INTERSECTION ON HIGHWAY 111.
AND SINCE I LIVE SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 111 AND MADISON AND DRIVE THIS LITTLE PIECE OF 111 AND MADISON PROBABLY DAILY, I KNOW THAT EVERY TIME I MAKE A TURN INTO, PEOPLE TURN INTO -- WHAT IS IT?
[01:20:02]
-- THE WALGREENS THAT'S RIGHT HERE, IT'S NOT FUN.SO I WAS WONDERING IF SOMEBODY'S COMING UP BEHIND YOU TOO FAST TO MAKE THAT TURN, SO I REALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE WE LOOK AT THAT CLOSELY BECAUSE I ACTUALLY DO THIS ALMOST ERR EVERY DAY, AND I UNCOMFORTABLE TO MAKE THAT TURN IF WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF HEAVY TRAFFIC.
SO JUST SOMETHING WE NEED TO SERIOUSLY LOOK INTO.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF? VICE CHAIR LOPEZ.
THANK YOU, LEILA, FOR BRINGING UP THE K AND THAT AREA, AND YOU HAD MENTIONED, JOHN, YOU HAD MENTIONED LIKE A RETENTION BASIN OR RETENTION AREA.
HAVE YOU CONSIDERED, SINCE YOU HAVE SOME APARTMENTS, LIKE A PARK AREA? I DON'T KNOW, IT COULD BE USED FOR THAT BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A SUGGESTION FOR THAT AREA SOMEWHAT OF A PARK OR SOME OPEN GREEN SPACE.
>> I THINK THAT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE COULD RETAIN, A PARK AREA THAT YOU COULD BE USED AS RETENTION.
ABSOLUTELY, THAT'S A GREAT IDEA.
AGAIN, THAT WHOLE IDEA JUST CAME TO US LITERALLY YESTERDAY, SO OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE SOME LAY-OUTS, WE HAVE TO RESORT-STYLE -- CONFIGURE A LITTLE BIT.
WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT DOING MORE OF A -- MORE OF A TWO-STORY HOTEL COMPLEX RATHER THAN ONE OF THESE FOUR-STORY SINGLE FACILITY.
SO WE'RE KICKING AROUND SOME IDEAS BECAUSE OUR THINKING IS WHAT IF OUR HOTEL MAPS LINED UP WITH THE MARKET RATE APARTMENTS? WHAT IF IT ALL LOOKED SIMILAR AND HAD A SIMILAR FEEL AND YET WE COULD -- SO THOSE ARE SOME IDEAS WE COULD LOOK AT.
AND A PARK WOULD GO GREAT IF WE DID DO THAT.
>> THE AMENITIES ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR OUR APARTMENT RESIDENTS, SO WE REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT THAT.
> MIND AS TO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO USE HERE TO SHIELD THE SINGLE RESIDENT HOMEOWNERS FROM THE MULTI-STORY SENIOR HOUSING, NOT THAT I'M AGAINST SENIOR HOUSING, BUT I ALSO WANT TO PROTECT THE HOMEOWNERS THAT ARE GOING TO BE RIGHT UP AGAINST THAT DEVELOPMENT.
>> I HAVE A COMMENT REGARDING IF THIS COMES TO FRUITION AND WE BEGIN CONSTRUCTION, I WOULD BE CONCERNED WITH THE TRAFFIC, CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC AND EVERYTHING EITHER ON 111 OR MADISON.
WE JUST GOT THROUGH -- I MEAN THERE WAS CONSTANT TRUCKS BETWEEN JEFFERSON AND MONROE ON THAT STRETCH OF HIGHWAY AT 111 THAT TOOK NEARLY TWO, TWO AND A HALF YEARS TO COMPLETE, AND I KNOW THAT A LOT OF THE BUSINESSES IN THAT AREA SUFFERED BECAUSE OF THE CONGESTION, A LOT OF PEOPLE TOOK OTHER ALTERNATE ROUTES.
I WAS WONDERING IF MAYBE THERE WAS A WAY TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO DO CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES OFF OF THAT YOUNGS LANE PERHAPS TO COME IN THROUGH THE BACK SIDE OR KEEP IT MADISON FURTHER AWAY FROM HIGHWAY 111 TO JUST NOT CREATE ANOTHER TRAFFIC BURDEN ON THAT AREA WHEN WE JUST KIND OF GOT THINGS OPENED UP AND FLOWING THROUGH THAT AREA RECENTLY.
THE PROJECT WOULD HAVE TO COME UP WITH A SITE-SPECIFIC TRACK OF MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND I THINK YOUR POINTS ARE WELL TAKEN IN TERMS OF BEING COGNIZANT OF THAT.
I'M PRETTY CONFIDENT OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WOULD SHARE THE SENTIMENTS OF TRYING TO MAKE DISRUPTIONS ON HIGHWAY 11 SO WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT'S LOOKED AT AS PART OF THE CONSIDERATION PROCESS.
>> CHAIR, IF I CAN, I DO WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE CHAIR HAD MENTIONED EARLIER, THAT WE REALLY ARE LOOKING FO DEVELOPMENT WITH THIS KIND OF PROPOSAL.
I WAS CURIOUS MAYBE FOR STAFF.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOME DRIVE-THROUGHS, HOW TO GENE THEM, MAYBE A -- SCREEN THEM, MAYBE A LIMITATION ON THE TOTAL NUMBER.
WITH THE PROJECT MASTER PLAN, IF THAT'S WHAT THIS APPLICATION WOULD ENTAIL, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT ALLOWS TO US PUT LIMITATIONS ON THINGS LIKE THAT TO INPUT NEW DESIGN GUIDELINES SPECIFIC FOR DRIVE-THROUGHS OR EVEN LIMIT THE TYPE OF MEDICAL USES THAT CAN GO IN?
>> THE ONLY ISSUE BECOMES HERE IS THAT WHEN WE AMEND THE SPECIFIC PLAN, WE ALSO HAVE TO AMEND THE MUSP 300, SO, AND THE MUSP 300 DRIVE-THROUGHS WILL BE AN
[01:25:06]
ALLOWED USE, SO WE COULD LIMIT IT THROUGH THE SPECIFIC PLAN BUT NOW IT BECOMES AN ALLOWED USE IN THE ENTIRE AREA OF THE MUSP 300.SO THAT'S A TWO-STEP PROCESS THAT WILL HAVE TO TAKE PLACE IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE DRIVE-THROUGHS.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD TO WHAT ROSIE SAID.
IN ADDITION TO LIMITING THE NUMBER IN THE MPM YOU COULD LIMIT THE CITY COUNCIL IN THE ENTIRETY OF MUSP 300 IF AN AMENDMENT WAS TO BE CONSIDERED, SO THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COMMISSION TO PLACE CONSTRAINTS ON THE POTENTIAL PROLIFERATION IF THE MUSP 300 WAS AMENDED.
>> SO WE COULDN'T DO THIS AS LIKE A SPECIFIC PLAN WHERE WE ONLY ALLOWED THE DRIVE-THROUGHS ON THIS SPECIFIC PLAN INSTEAD OF AMENDING THE ENTIRE HIGHWAY 111 PLAN?
>> ROSIE, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THAT GRAPHIC.
I THINK THAT'S A REALLY GOOD VISUAL REPRESENTATION.
> SITE, IS THAT THEY HAVE MANY LAYERS.
SO WE'RE DOING THIS ENTIRE PURPLE -- >> CORRECT, AND THE ENTIRE AREA, THESE ARE THE USES THAT WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT PERMITTED RIGHT NOW.
SO ONE OF THEM WOULD HAVE TO BE THE DRIVE-THROUGHS, AND I JUST PUT DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES WHICH IS DRIVE-UP WINDOWS OR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, RESTAURANTS, WHAT HAVE YOU IN GENERAL.
AND IT WILL HAVE TO BE BOTH THE MUSP 300 AND PMP WOULD COME IN AS AMOUNTS.
>> JUST SO WE UNDERSTAND, IF WE WERE TO ALLOW THE CARPORTS, WE'RE ALLOWING THIS IN THIS ENTIRE SECTION SO WE TWO HAVE ALLOW CARPORTS OR SAY NO WE NEED GARAGES, SO IT'S ONE OR THE OTHER AND IT'S THE ENTIRE PURPLE SECTION, CORRECT?
>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL IN THE SAME BOAT.
AND YOU'RE ADDING THE LAYER OF THE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY AS WELL BECAUSE I CANNOT MAKE FINDINGS TO CHANGE THE MUSP 300 WITHOUT HAVING CONSISTS IN THE GENERAL PLAN, SO THIS IS THE COMPLEXITY OF MAKING ANY CHANGES.
NOW, THE APPLICANT CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH WHAT THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS THE MEDICINE CROSSINGS AND THE ALLOWED USES WITHIN THE MADISON CROSSING BUT IF THEY WANTED TO MAKE THESE SPECIFIC CHANGES HERE -- SORRY ABOUT THAT -- THEN THIS IS THE PROCESS.
>> SO I KNOW YOU HAD ANOTHER SLIDE THAT SHOWED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MADISON CROSSING AND THIS PROJECT.
>> SO THEY ALREADY HAVE APPROVAL TO DO EVERYTHING ON THIS COLUMN, CORRECT? ON THE -- SORRY.
SO THEY'RE ALLOWED, THE MADISON CROSSING, AND MAYBE IT WILL MAKE MORE SENSE, ALLOWS FOR 114,825 MED.
MEDICINE APPOINT IS PROPOSING 77,800.
SO THEY'RE UNDER THE ALLOWANCE.
THE MEDICINE CROSSINGS HAD TWO HOTEL SITES THAT ARE FOUR STORIES HIGH.
SO THE HOTEL IS A PERMITTED USE.
SO IF IT CAME IN WITHOUT THE MEDICAL PORTION, THE VEHICLE DRIVE-THROUGHS, AND IF CARPORTS AND THE RESIDENTIAL, THEN THIS WOULD BE WHAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT IN A DESIGN REVIEW.
>> AND THEY COULD CHANGE THAT, THAT MAP OR THAT LAYOUT.
>> AS LONG AS THEY ARE WITHIN THE RULES THAT ARE ALLOWED, RIGHT.
>> >> EXACTLY BECAUSE IT'S A PROJECT MASTER PLAN.
IT'S JUST THE LAND USE, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND THE DESIGN GUIDELINES, CORRECT.
>> STOW THE ITEMS ARE THE NUMBER OF UNITS AND THE APPLICANT'S ALREADY SAID THEY'RE FINE WITH 20.
THEY DON'T NEED TO GO TO 22 SO THEY WOULDN'T NEED THAT.
WE'RE LOOKING AT THE RESIDENTIAL, THE MEDICAL, THE DRIVE-THROUGHS AND THE CARPORTS.
SO IF THEY'RE OKAY WITH THE DENSITY, THEN THE SENIOR HOUSING AND THE MULTI-FAMILY ARE PERMITTED USES IN THE MUSP 300.
>> THEY WOULD JUST NEED TO CHANGE THE PROJECT MASTER PLAN TO INCLUDE, MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROJECT MASTER PLAN TO INCLUDE THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION.
>> SO THAT'S THE ONLY THING THEY WOULD REALLY HAVE TO IF THEY WANTED TO STAY WITHIN WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE AND NOT GET THOSE FEW ITEMS THEY'RE ASKING FOR.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? NO? ANY MORE FOR THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? ANY MORE COMMENTS FROM ANYBODY AT THIS TIME?
WE'LL BE HELPING WITH THE PROJECT.
THERE MAY BE SOME OTHER POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS, TOO, FOR DRIVE-THROUGHS LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU WERE TO AMEND THE SPECIFIC PLAN SUCH THAT YOU ALLOWED
[01:30:01]
DRIVE-THROUGHS IN PROJECTS THAT PROPOSED A PMP WITH UNIQUE DESIGN STANDARDS, THAT MIGHT LIMIT THE LOCATIONS THEY COULD GO AND ALSO ALLOW GREATER CONTROL OF THE DESIGN THERE.ERIC, THAT PROBABLY MADE MORE SENSE TO YOU THAN ME, BUT -- >> I LIKE THAT IDEA BECAUSE I DO LIKE WHAT JOHN IS SAYING IN HELPING TO LIMIT IT AND HOW THIS IS KIND OF A MASTER DEVELOPMENT, BUT AGAIN I'MES HESITANT TO SEE WHAT WE HAVE ALONG HIGHWAY 111 AND OTHER PARTS OF OUR CITY SHOULD PROLIFERATE TO JEFFERSON, SO IF THERE'S WAYS TO PUT CONTROLS IN WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT DRIVE-THROUGHS IN A LIMITED CAPACITY ALONG THAT STRETCH WITH SPECIFIC DESIGN GUIDELINES ON HOW TO PERFORM STREAMING AND MAKE SURE WE HAVE THAT PEDESTRIAN ATMOSPHERE AND CONNECTIVITY PRESERVED, THAT'S WHAT I'D BE LOOKING FOR.
>> I THINK YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD.
REALLY IT'S GOING TO BE A QUALITY DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
>> JUST VERY QUICKLY TWO QUICK POINTS FOR THE COMMISSION AND THE APPLICANT.
FIRST I JUST WANT TO REMIND THE COMMISSION THAT OUR NEW GENERAL PLAN DISCOURAGES GATED COMMUNITIES.
I KNOW THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE UTILIZATION OF GATED COMMUNITIES FOR THE SENIOR HOUSING.
HOWEVER, OUR GENERAL PLAN DISCOURAGES THAT.
AND I THINK THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD WANT TO SERIOUS CONSIDERATION THINK ABOUT WHAT WOULD BE THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT RELATED TO THAT.
AND IT MIGHT BE A TIE-IN TO THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT IS THAT THE GENERAL PLAN DOES ENCOURAGE CONNECTABILITY BETWEEN DIFFERENT PARTS OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION IN A NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMISSION AND THE APPLICANT AS THEY GO FORWARD IN THIS PROCESS TO BE LOOKING AT THE LENS OF HOW IS THIS BOTH EXTERNALLY AND INTERNALLY WALKABLE AND CONNECTED, BOTH FOR VEHICLES AND PEDESTRIANS SO THAT THERE IS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO CONNECT ACROSS THE SITE AND WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.
SO JUST SOME ADDITIONAL POINTS TO ADD TO WHAT ROSIE AND LEILA HAVE ALSO ADDED.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS AT THIS TIME?
>> YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST MAKE ONE QUICK COMMENT ON WHAT KEVIN JUST SAID.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO CREATE A GATED COMMUNITY IN THAT FACILITY.
AS I SAID MY FATHER-IN-LAW LIVING IN ONE AND IT'S REALLY JUST A SECURED ENVIRONMENT.
IT'S NOT -- IT WOULD BE CONDUCIVE TO FLOW IN AND OUT.
BUT WITH PEOPLE OF THAT AGE, THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO LIVE IN A SECURE COMMUNITY, AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT IS.
> SURE THERE'S A HAPPY MEDIUM THERE SOMEWHERE.
>> I THINK THE DESIGN ISSUE THAT WE COULD CERTAINLY SOLVE AND KIND OF BERNAL INTERNALIZE THE FUNCTION WITHIN SO THAT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE LIVING THERE AREN'T JUST GOING TO WANDER OFF WITHOUT VISITING LOOK LIKE A PRISON.
>> FOR THE BENEFIT ALL PARTIES, I WOULD SUGGEST TALKING ABOUT A SECURED BUILDING ATMOSPHERE VERSUS A GATED COMMUNITY.
YOU MAY WANT TO CLARIFY IT AS YOU GO FORWARD IN YOUR DESIGN PROCESS.
>> THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'LL DO.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING MORE INFORMATION ON THIS PROJECT AND HOW MANY HAVING IT BUILT SOME TIME IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
BUT WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOU COMING BEFORE US AND ALLOWING US TO KIND OF GO THROUGH THIS WITH YOU AND GIVE YOU OUR THOUGHTS AND IDEAS AND POINTS AND HOPE THAT'LL MAKE THE PROCESS SMOOTHER DOWN THE ROAD.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, EVERYBODY.
THAT WAS THE LAST ITEM TOTE AGENDA, CORRECT?
>> GIVE ME JUST A MOMENT HERE.
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HAVE THREE COMPUTERS RUNNING A ONCE.
SO AT THIS TIME WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO STAFF ITEMS.
[10. STAFF ITEMS]
DO WE HAVE ANYTHING FROM STAFF?>> MR. SNYDER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO FIRST OR YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO GO?
>> I GO FIRST? HOW MUCH TIME DO WE HAVE? I'M JUST KIDDING.
AGAIN, JUST THANK YOU FOR BEING SO GENEROUS WITH YOUR TIME ON THESE PLANNING COMMISSION NIGHTS THAT THEY'RE GOING LONGER.
SEPTEMBER 23RD WILL BE A LONG PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL WITH SEVERAL ITEMS. AND SO MYSELF AND MY TEAM WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR GENEROSITY.
THE SEC ITEM THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS MOST OF THE STAFF HAS BEEN BACK TO THE CITY HALL, SO WE STILL MEET PUBLIC BY APPOINTMENT ONLY BUT WE ARE BACK TO OUR
[01:35:05]
NORMAL WORKING LOCATIONS.AND ON THE PREVIOUS SCHEDULE, WHICH SOME PEOPLE ARE 580 AND OM PEOPLE ARE 980 SCHEDULE.
THE THIRD ITEM IS CENSUS, SO THE TIME IS RUNNING OUT.
WE ARE GETTING TO SEPTEMBER 30TH.
AS OF TODAY, WE ARE 52.6%, CORRECT, MR. SNYDER?
SO WE ARE GOING UP, BUT VERY SLOWLY, SO MR. SNYDER AND MYSELF AND WITH OUR MARKETING DIRECTOR, WE PUT TOGETHER -- WE ARE PUTTING TOGETHER THE LAST PUSH, WHICH INCLUDES SOME SIMULTANEOUS EVENTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, AND MAYBE WE CAN ASK SOME INTEREST FOR THE PUBLIC TO COMING TO THOSE LOCATIONS, SO STAY TUNED.
WE WILL SEND YOU EMAILS, BUT WHAT WE ARE PLANNING TO DO.
WE ARE CURRENTLY, WE DID OUR FIRST MQA WHICH IS A MOBILE QUESTIONNAIRE ASSISTANCE AT THE AM/PM ON GOLF CENTER PARKWAY FOR TWO WEEKS, THREE DAYS.
EACH DAY WAS FROM 1:00 TO 5:00.
WE ARE LOOKING INTO A SPACE WITHIN THE EL SUPER MARKET THAT REQUIRES SOME CLEANING AND ELECTRICITY CONNECTION AND THINGS LIKE THAT, SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET THAT RUNNING SO IT WILL BE OPERATIONAL THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30TH.
BUT ANYWAY THAT YOU CAN HELP US TO REALLY APPRECIATE.
I SHARED SOME INFORMATION WITH MADAME CHAIRPERSON, SO IF ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER WOULD LIKE TO GET INFORMATION FROM US POST ON YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
I'D BE HAPPY TO SHARE WITH YOU.
AND THAT CONCLUDES MY STAFF ITEMS. THANK YOU.
I JUST WANT TO PICK UP WHERE LEILA LEFT OFF.
IF YOU HAVE FAMILY MEMBERS, FRIENDS, ACQUAINTANCES, WHO LIVE IN INDIO, PLEASE ASK THEM IF THEY HAVE COMPLETED THE CENSUS.
IF THEY HAVEN'T REMIND THEM IF THEY DON'T, IT MAY MAKE IT HARDER TO FIX INDIO BOULEVARD OR OTHER STREETS THAT THEY WANT US TO GET REPAIRED OR IMPROVED OR REPAVED.
AND UNFORTUNATELY, LEILA AND EVERYONE ELSE WORKING ON THIS HAS DONE EVERYTHING HUMANLY POSSIBLE AND WE'RE MAKE THAT NUMBER GO UP IS NOT AS MUCH AS WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
ANY ASSISTANCE YOU CAN GIVE US WITH PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, WE WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE.
A COUPLE OF OTHER ITEMS. AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING THE COUNCIL APPROVED A CONTRACT WITH A FIRMED CALLED BAE URBAN ECONOMICS.
THEY HAVE COMPILED A TEAM, JUST GOT DONE TALKING ABOUT THE MUSP 300, WELL, WE GOT A GRANT FROM THE STATE FOR $310,000 TO DO A NEW SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE ENTIRE HIGHWAY 111 CORRIDOR FROM JEFFERSON TO INDIO, AND SO THAT TEAM WILL BE THE TEAM THAT WILL BE WORKING WITH STAFF, WITH THE COMMISSION, WITH COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY TO LOOK AT THE VISION, FUTURE VISION FOR HIGHWAY 111.
THAT WILL INCLUDE AN EXPECTATION OF INCLUDING HOUSING ALONG THE CORRIDOR AS PART OF THE GRANT APPLICATION WE COMMITTED TO 500 UNITS OF HOUSING, WHICH YOU JUST SAW SOME EXAMPLES OF HOW THA ACHIEVED.
WE'RE HOPING TO GET THE PROJECT OFF IN THE NEXT NEW FEW WEEKS.
WE ALSO ARE AWAITING OUR OTHER AWARD OF $300,000 TO DO THE UPDATE OF OUR HOUSING ELEMENT, WHICH IS REQUIRED.
AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY GOT $300,000 FOR THROUGH A STATE GRANT.
AND WE'VE IDENTIFIED A FIRM AND ARE IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM.
WE JUST NEED THE STATE TO SEND US THE AGREEMENT SO WE CAN SIGN THE AGREEMENT, AND WE'RE HOPING TO KICK THAT OFF IN OCTOBER.
RIGHT NOW WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO HAVE THAT DONE BY OCTOBER 2021.
FINGERS CROSSED THAT THE STATE MIGHT EXTEND THAT TO GIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME.
BUT WE PLAN TO HIT THE GROUND RUNNING ON THAT, AND THAT AGAIN WILL INVOLVE THE COMMISSION AND THE COMMUNITY AND CITY COUNCIL.
SO WE HAVE A LOT OF MAJOR PLANNING PROJECTS UPCOMING.
[01:40:02]
AND THE LAST THING I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT VERY QUICKLY, BUT I WANT TO MAKE A POINT, AT THE BEGINNING OF TONIGHT'S MEETING THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY READ A STATEMENT THAT WE READ INTO THE RECORD EVERY MEETING, AND I JUST WANT TO REEMPHASIZE THAT OUR CITY HAS NOT MADE THE DECISION TO STOP PROCESSING APPLICATIONS, WHETHER THEY BE APPLICATIONS FOR DIRECT DEVELOPMENT OR APPLICATIONS FOR POLICY CONSIDERATION SUCH AS GENERAL PLAN AMOUNTS, SO WE HAVE A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO ACCEPT THOSE APPLICATIONS AND PROCESS THEM.PROCESSING AN APPLICATION DOES NOT MEAN THAT ANY DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE NOR RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED.
IT SIMPLY MEANS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE FORMAL PROCESS OF PROCESSING APPLICATIONS AS WE'RE REQUIRED TO DO.
IF AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE THAT CHANGED AND THE DIRECTION WAS OTHERWISE THEN WE WOULD FOAL THAT PROPOSITION I JUST WANT TO STATE FOR THE RECORD, AND COMMISSION KNOWS THAT THIS BUT WE ARE PROCESSING APPLICATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES THAT BOTH THE STATE AND OUR CITY ARE OBLIGATED TO FOLLOW.
SO I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT FOR THE RECORD AGAIN.
THERE ARE ANY COMMISSIONER COMMENTS?
[11. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS]
VICE CHAIR.>> I HAVE A COMMENT REALLY QUICK FOR LEILA AND MAYBE KEVIN.
OUR NUMBERS FOR THE CENSUS WERE AT 52%.
I UNDERSTAND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR THEIR TEAM HAS A HIGHER NUMBER OR DIFFERENT NUMBER.
DO WE KNOW HOW WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO KIND OF CONSOLIDATE THAT? AND, TWO, DO WE KNOW SOME OF THE AREAS THAT NEED TO -- ARE THEY VERY SPECIFIC AS TO WHAT AREAS NEED STILL TOBY COUNTED?
THE DATA THAT WE GIVE COMES FROM THE CENSUS WEBSITE, SO ON THE WEBSITE THERE IS AN AREA THAT YOU GO STATE AND YOU CHOOSE YOUR CITY AND IT GIVES YOU THE CITY AS A WHOLE.
THEN ALSO IT IS DIVIDED INTO DIFFERENT TRACTS, CENSUS TRACTS, SO IN EACH CENSUS TRACT YOU CAN SEE THE PERSON PARTICIPATION.
SO TO THAT DETAIL, TO THE SUNTS TRACT BASICALLY.
AND THAT -- CENSUS TRACT BASICALLY, AND THAT WEBSITE HAS BEEN ENTERED INTO THE CITY'S WEBSITE, SO IF YOU GO ON THE CITY WEBSITE AND SEARCH "CENSUS" BUT "CENSUS" IN THE SEARCH BOX, THE WEBSITE SHOWS UP AND YOU CAN SEE IN ANY GIVEN DAY WHAT IS THE PARKINSON'S OF THE CITY.
AND -- PARTICIPATION OF THE CITY.
AND IF YOU HOVER YOUR CURSOR ON ANY SPECIFIC AREA, IT BRINGS YOU THE TRACT AND THE PERCENTAGE.
>> SO I'M NOT AWARE OF DIFFERENT DATA BE HIGHER.
WHAT WE ARE GETTING IS FROM THE CENSUS WEBSITE.
>> AND JUST TO ADD THE CENSUS BUREAU HAS SET A NATIONWIDE GOAL OF 70% RESPONSIVENESS.
OUR STATE RESPONSIVENESS LEVEL IS RIGHT AROUND 68% STATEWIDE, BUT UNFORTUNATELY -- AND WE'RE NOT ALONE.
THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER COMMUNITIES AROUND US UNTIL THE COACHELLA VALLEY THAT ARE EITHER AT OR SLIGHTLY HIGHER NUMBER, SO WE'RE NOT THE WORST AND WE'RE NOT THE BEST, BUT THE COACHELLA VALLEY AS A WHOLE HAS A LOWER RESPONSIVE RATE THAN THE REST OF THE STATE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I WOULD LIKE TO ACTUALLY READ -- I RECEIVED IT AS AN EMAIL AND AS A LETTER SO I WOULD LIKE TO PUT IN IT RECORD.
I RECEIVED APE EMAIL AND AN TEXT FROM MR. SAM TORRES.
AND HE ADDRESSED IT TO ME AS CHAIRWOMAN, AND HE SAID MADAME CHAIR, I AM TENDERING MY LETTER OF RESIGNATION FROM THE INDIO PLANNING COMMISSION EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
IT HAS BEEN A GREAT PRIVILEGE TO SERVE WITH SUCH AN OUTSTANDING BOARD THAT DOES SUCH IMPORTANT WORKING.
I HAVE ALSO VALUED THE PROFESSIONAL WORK OF OUR STAFF AND THEY ARE EFFORTS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE -- I ONLY GLANCED AT THE EMAIL SO I DON'T KNOW IF STAFFS WAS COPIED ON THAT OR NOT BUT I WANTED EVERYBODY TO KNOW THAT I RECEIVED THAT TODAY, JUST FOR THE RECORD.
I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO STAFF AND TO THE COMMISSIONERS.
I KNOW THAT EVERYTHING SEEMS TO BE -- WE'RE BUSY, AND THAT'S A GOOD THING.
AND IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THAT I CAN DO OR MY FELLOW COMMISSIONER CAN DO I'M SURE WE'RE ALL HERE AND AVAILABLE AND WE'RE WILLING TO WORK LONGER HOURS AND DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO KEEP CITY.
AND I WELCOME ALL YOU BACK TO CITY HALL EFFECTIVE NEXT WEEK.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS AT THIS TIME? IF NOT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ADJOURN TO OUR NEXT PLANNING COMMISSIONER MEETING SCHEDULED VIRTUAL MEETING STILL SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 23, 2020 AT 6:00 P.M.
>> THANK YOU, EVERYONE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.