Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Chair Lee, we're ready when you are. Thank you. I'll now call the September the 3rd, 2025 meeting to order. Could we please have a roll call? Commissioner Bedard here. Commissioner Malikoff present. Commissioner McFale here. Vice Chair Me here. Chair Lee present. Thank you. Um, now as you are able, could you please stand for the pledge of allegiance? [Music] I aliance 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. Thank you. Um like are are there any changes to the agenda? We have none. Chair. Thank you. Um could you please read the uh notice of public participation?

Yes, chair. This is the opportunity of members of the public to comment on any items not appearing on the regular agenda. Because of restrictions contained in California law, the commission may not discuss or act on any item not on the regular agenda, but may briefly respond to statements made or ask a question for clarification. The chairman may also request a brief response from staff to questions raised during public comment or may request that a matter be agendaized for a future meeting. Public comment will be limited to 3 minutes. Chair, I did not receive any request to speak forms, but if you're a member of the public and you wish to comment on items not on the agenda, please raise your hand. And I see none. Chair.

Thank you. Moving to agenda item two, approval of the minutes. Um, do we have any corrections or comments on the minutes for August the 6th, 2025? Chair, we do have corrections to the minutes. So, the first correction we have is for item A. In the motion, it should read, a motion was made by Chair Lee and seconded by Vice Chair me. And we have another correction to item 5C where the motion should read a motion was made by vice chair me and seconded by commissioner Malikoth. And that is all we have.

Thank you. Anything else from the commissioners? Do I have a motion to approve the minutes as amended? Move approval. I will second. Thank you. We have a motion by Commissioner McFale and a second by Vice Chair Meade. Please vote. And motion carries. All eyes. Thank you. We now move to item three on our agenda, public hearing items. [Applause]

Mr. Mr. Chair, I'd like to I'd like to make a dis um a disclosure on this item. Um, the King School architect, BGW, is somebody that I've worked with before, although that I've worked with. They've never worked for me. I've never worked for them. We've just worked together on a few projects. So, there's no conflict, but I wanted to put it out on the record that I've worked I've worked with them.

Thank you. Um, so we'll start with agenda item 3A, zoning ordinance amendment 25-00001, conditional use permit revision 25-003 and administrative variance 25-00006. a proposal um of King Schools of the Desert to amend the zoning ordinance to allow schools in the RR resort zone district and to construct an additional 36,170 square ft of school facilities and allow a 10% increase in building height for the gym building component of the project located at 67675 Bolero Road APN's 681310 10 019 and 040. Do we have a staff report?

Yes. Uh good evening, Chair Lee, vice chair me, members of the planning commission. My name is Dom Camps, associate planner. Today I will be presenting the proposed King Schools campus renovation and expansion for your consideration. The King Schools of the Desert are a private preschool, elementary school, and middle school which have operated from the current site on Bolero Road in Cathedral City since 1994. The 5.26 acre project site is located on the south side of Bolero Road. The properties immediately to the west and south of the project site include resort residential uses within Cathedral City. and the residential properties to the north and east of the project site are in the city of Palm Springs. Uh in 1994, conditional use permit 93199 was approved for the King's Schools to renovate and expand the existing on-site private school facilities uh that were previously occupied by the U Palm Schools. This cup was approved for a total buildout of approximately 40,600 square ft. However, it was never built out in its entirety. So, today the campus is comprised of approximately 26,600 ft of facilities. The project being discussed today proposes to revise the previously approved conditional use permit to add an additional 11,000 square ft of building area from what was previously approved, resulting in a total of 52,000 square ft of on-site facilities. It is important to note that the proposed expansion is to provide more space per student um and will not increase the student capacity. Approximately 300 students are enrolled in the school and that is not proposed to change as a result of the project.

Oh, my apologies. Uh the project site is located in specific plan 8830 which establishes a base zone of R3 on the project site. Uh however in 2002 the general plan land use map was amended changing the land use designation from highdensity residential to resort residential. Um the site was reszoned to RR resort residential at the same time. So this general plan designation and zoning would supersede the base zone that were originally established in the specific plan. The project is comprised of the conditional use permit revision, a zoning ordinance amendment, and an administrative variance. Uh, city council will have final uh, review authority on the project. Uh, the associated architecture and landscaping for the project were presented to the architectural review committee on August 6, 2025, and the committee voted unanimously in favor of um, recommending the project for planning commission review. So, when the conditional use permit for the King Schools was originally approved, um as I mentioned, the site was zoned R3, uh which permits schools subject to a conditional use permit. However, uh the 2002 amendments to the general plan, um and corresponding reasonzoning changed it to resort residential. Schools are not a permitted use in the resort residential district. So, the King Schools has been a non-conforming use since 2002. According to the city's municipal code, uh, non-conforming uses cannot be expanded or increased in intensity. So, in order to facilitate or to to allow the proposed renovation and expansion of the campus, the zoning must be amended. The proposed amendment would add schools, either public or private, but not including business or trade schools as a permitted use in the resort residential district subject to a

conditional use permit. This amendment does not propose any other changes to the uses permitted or the development standards in the resort residential district and would apply to city properties citywide that are zoned RR. Moving on to the proposed conditional use permit revision. Uh this is an aerial view of the project site in its current condition. There are approximately 26,600 square ft of existing buildings uh most of which are concentrated towards belo road in the north. A portion a large portion of the southern portion of the site uh is used for outdoor recreation areas. Uh yeah um there are also 27 existing visitor parking spaces uh in the northwest corner of the site and this area is also used for student drop off. There is an existing private lane that extends into the site from Kerry Road in the south. This site is used for staff to access parking and there is an existing gate at the southern end. This site plan shows the existing conditions. There's approximately 26,000 square ft of building area of which um approximately 15,900 square ft are proposed to remain and that portion is outlined here in yellow. and approximately 10,700 square ft of buildings outlined here in red are proposed to be demolished. This is the proposed site plan. The project proposes an ultimate campus buildout of 52,048 square ft, including approximately 36,000 square feet of new construction that would occur over two phases. As part of the proposed project, an additional 63 parking spaces will be constructed, including four ADA compliant spaces. Combined with the existing parking spaces, that would

result in a total of 89 parking spaces, which is more than sufficient for the city's parking standards. The access lane will be paved from Kerry Road to Bolero Road as part of the project. This lane will not be open to the public and will not be used for our student pickup and drop off. Uh in addition to emergency access, fire access, the lane will be available for staff to access the staff parking area um in the south of the site as well as for service and delivery vehicles as needed. There are existing gates at both the south and north end of this uh access lane and NOX boxes will be installed for emergency access. So as I said the project will be uh constructed in two phases. So phase one of the project will include the demolition of 3,000 square ft of buildings as well as 9,000 square ft of new construction which is outlined on the slide in blue. Um and phase one would also be when the um staff parking lot which is a covered parking area uh will be constructed as well as the paving extension of that that private access lane. Um, please note that in the conditions of approval condition 1.1, um, I stated that the 3,000 square feet of demolition in phase 1 would all be portables that were being demolished, but they're they're not portable buildings. Um, so that will be fixed before this item um, proceeds to the city council. So phase two of the project's construction uh will include the demolition of the 7,000 square ft of portables uh as well as construction of one 27,000 ft² building. Phase two would also include the expansion of the existing parking lot and drop off area.

So here is the campus as viewed from Bolero Road. The existing buildings are a pale beige stucco uh with dark green accents and pale gr pale gray roof shingles. The pardon me the height of the existing buildings ranges from uh 12 ft to 21 ft at the highest point which is the clock tower um shown here. So the new buildings will generally continue the architectural style of the existing onampus buildings uh featuring deep eaves covered walkways and entryways and pitched roofs. The phase one buildings will provide some color variation from the existing buildings using pale rose stucco, dark red accents and dark gray roof shingles. The phase 1 buildings will be a maximum of 14 ft tall which is consistent of the height of the existing buildings and consistent with the maximum of 26 ft permitted in the RR district. And as shown on the floor plan, this building will include a classroom as well as operations and facility space. The other two buildings proposed for phase one of the project will be under one roof uh which is connected by a breezeway. They will include three classrooms as well as additional operations and facility space. So, here is the multi-purpose building that is proposed for phase two of the project. This building will continue the same architectural style, but will use pale yellow stucco with dark green accents and dark gray roof shingles. The 27,000 ft building will include six classrooms as administrative space as well as operations and facility space. and an approximately 16,000 square foot uh gymnasium area. The gymnasium is intended for indoor recreation and physical education as well as school

assemblies, but it will not be available for rent for public events and is not proposed for uh sports games held with other schools. To accommodate the gymnasium, this building will be 28 ft and 7 in high at its tallest point. Uh this exceeds the maximum height allowed in the RR district by 1 foot and 7 in. And therefore the applicant is requesting an administrative variance. Uh pursuant to the development standards for the RR district, the maximum building height for non-lodging facilities that are located at least 30 ft from a property zoned RE, R1, or R2 is 26 ft. The properties to the south and west of this building are both zoned RR and the gymnasium portion of the multi-purpose building will be set back by approximately 80 ft from the southern property line and approximately 170 ft from the western property line. The proposed 28T and 7 in in height for the gymnasium exceeds the 26 ft height uh limit by 10% um and therefore can be approved administratively. However, because this project includes a zoning ordinance amendment which is a legislative act, the entire project is subject to city council uh review and approval. Oh, and I did not limit those distances as I was talking, but there they are. So, here is the proposed landscape plan. The existing landscaping will be maintained with two large turf recreation areas and existing trees along Bolero Road. Uh the project will include the addition of shade trees uh for the front parking area as well as new trees and shrubs in

select areas throughout the site. The plant pallet includes trees such as Indian rosewood, coast live oak and willow acacia as well as shrubs such as Texas ranger, coral bellas, and lantana. The final landscape plan will be subject to review and approval from CB uh sorry desert water agency to ensure compliance with water efficiency requirements. The project will meet the city's 50% shade requirement for parking lots by covering 25 parking stalls or approximately 4,326 square ft with a shade structure. That will be the staff parking area. And by providing shade trees for approximately 7,000 square ft of parking stalls with coast live oak trees and that will be in the visitor parking area in the north of the site. Additional lighting will be provided in the two parking areas. Consistent with the city's lighting standards, at least 1 ft candle of illumination will be provided throughout the parking areas. The lighting will be installed in the uh carports and 12t light poles will be installed in the uncovered parking area. A phototric analysis was provided uh with the application to demonstrate that the outdoor lighting does not spill into neighboring properties. It's hard to see here, but it is zero candle foot at the property line. Uh the proposed project is substantially consistent with the conditions that were analyzed in the general plan environmental impact report. In accordance with section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines, uh when an EIR has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared unless new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts will occur. Uh on

this basis, no further environmental documentation is necessary. Um, a memo, a 15162 consistency memo was provided with the staff report which substantiated these findings um and was provided as an attachment. The project was noticed in accordance with the public notification requirements set forth in the municipal code. In response to these notices, comments have been submitted from four members of the public. So, one comment um was submitted from the owner of the property immediately to the west of the project site. Uh this gentleman called to express concerns about the height of the proposed gymnasium. Uh but he was provided with the site plan which shows that the gymnasium is set back 170 ft approximately from his uh western eastern property line. uh a Palm Springs resident from the mobile home community immediately to the east of the project site uh submitted a letter via email uh requesting that the school build an 8-ft fence along the eastern property line. The third comment that was submitted is from the president of the Palm Springs East Association, uh, which is for the community located immediately on the north side of Bolero Road. And, uh, they submitted, uh, questions over the phone and via email about potential traffic and noise impacts, light spillover from the project, use of the alley or fire access lane, as well as the height of the existing and proposed buildings. Finally, a uh resident of the same community on the north side of Bolero Road also submitted a letter. Um this was submitted after the agenda went out. Um but it was uh submitted to the planning commission on Monday. This resident asked if the city uh would impose an enrollment limit on the school, requested the installation of light shields on the outdoor lighting, and inquired about the use and hours of operation for the gymnasium.

So that concludes my presentation. Uh staff recommends that the planning commission recommend that the city council find that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to section 15162 and recommend city council approval of zoning ordinance amendment 25001 conditional use per permit revision 25003 and administrative variance 25006. I would be happy to answer any questions and the applicant is also present to answer questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Um before we open the public hearing, um let me see if commissioners have questions for staff on um this presentation. Uh Commissioner McFale.

Yeah, I have some questions for staff and some for the applicant as well. Um I guess one is just a little comment that you know last week or the last time we met we were doing a lot about the cannabis ordinance as it related to the RR zoning and we have a similar situation here where um there were certain things that were not captured if you were in the RR zoning. Um, so I I wonder if maybe for a future meeting or just for some internal review, are there any other elements out there where we've made um exceptions for all the other types of residential use, but RR has been exempted for some reason so that we don't stumble onto that problem. Again, that's just a general comment for for staff maybe just to and maybe it'll be in our zoning code update that we align RR with the other residential zonings because there's we had the situation with cannabis last week and then this one uh also had some um exception which I'm forgetting right now about RR zone the the height allowance I think it was. Um, so that's just a general question to maybe align RR with the other residential zones where appropriate maybe in as part of our um, zoning code update. So that's just a comment.

Um, yeah, it sounds I saw the um the comments from the public and they kind of popped up to me as I was reading the report as well. So, we're we're comfortable with the way the lighting is configured that it's not going to cause any significant impacts on residential areas, the new lighting that's going in. So, we're okay about that. That's good. Um, a question on uh our notification that you mentioned in one of the uh last few slides. It just kind of popped into my head that, you know, this property is in Cathedral City and our notification uh procedure is to notify properties within x00 ft of of this property. And there is something that we There we go. occupants of nonoc owner occupied properties located within Cathedral City. So, I guess my basic question is, does our notification um policy notify people who are just on the other side of the street in Palm Springs? Were they notified?

They were. Um, so yeah, it it did go out to all property owners within a 500t radius. And then in terms of non-owner occupied properties, it did also go out to that 500t radius as long as that uh information was available. Um, the same thing would apply for business owners. It's just sometimes I think particularly with business owners the information is not available to the city when it's um outside of the city limits.

There was some language in the report. I didn't write down the page number but it was to do with holding a public meeting and it said that a public meeting was not needed because the application had been submitted and deemed complete. and you know this this project will be effectively a doubling of the square footage of the site. So I wasn't quite sure what it meant by being complete and how that meant there wasn't the need for a meeting. So the the changes in the city's uh public noticing requirements um ordinance 891 was adopted within the last couple of months

and before that we did not have any requirement for holding a public or a community meeting. um this project had been well in the works before that ordinance was adopted and so I think even the text in the ordinance states that projects that are already sort of accepted and under review are not subject to to that requirement. Um and so it did it did have the increased radius that that um update to the the noticing requirements but it was not subject to the requirement for a community meeting. It was suggested to the applicant and they did have the option but they were not required to do so.

Right. That makes sense. Um, I think the rest of the questions I have are really for the applicants. So, I'll stop there. Thank you. As Jade,

oh, um, there there were two things that came up in the public comments and that you mentioned as well during your presentation. One of which was the that there wasn't intended to be an increase in the enrollment and the other one was that the new gymnasium was not going to be rented for private use. Um, but neither of those things are in the conditions of approval. And so I was wondering maybe not the enrollment because that seems like it would be a little weird to put in the conditions of approval, but the the hours of operation for the gymnasium and it not being rentable for private use on the weekends and at night. That seems to me I'm just wondering why that wasn't in the conditions of approval.

Uh I suppose it wasn't included just um it was just not our understanding of sort of the project description that that was what was being proposed. Essentially the understanding was that uh the school does not have indoor recreation space right now. So it's a challenge in the summer. So it was intended to move those those activities indoors. But um I do think that that could be added as a condition of approval. Um could be discussed with the applicant. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Alakov.

Yeah. I just have um one of my first question is is um given the amount of building area that they're they're doing, did they have to provide water retention? Is it is it underground or is what did they decide to do to retain water from the rain? I'm not sure I have the proper civil plan included here, but I know there is a retention area in the southwest corner of the site. Uh there was a drainage and hydrarology plan as well provided um with the plans. Um can you can you go back to the site plan?

Yes. Uh let's see. And where where did where's the retention area going to go? So I I think this uh southwestern corner, which is a sort of an open field that can be used for outdoor recreation, will also have um I guess a subterranean uh an underground uh retention facility and under the parking lot. And under the parking lot. Okay. So,

okay. Um, I was just concerned um that wanted to know how how we um met that requirement. And then the other item um the color scheme for the gymnasium, I believe, mirrors the school's colors. Is that correct? I believe the color of Stuckco is not exactly the same. Um it's a it's a pale yellow, but otherwise it's it's the the same. It's supposed to mirror that as much as possible. Yeah, that's correct. And that that's why the um gymnasium is a little bit different than the rest so that it it's the school colors.

Okay. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Badard,

uh everybody's asking my question. So the only thing I want to emphasize is that the facility is if there's a way to have in writing that there is not going to be an increase of student population and that the hours of the gym operation are restricted to school hours not evening. So if they're like where would the graduation be if there is a graduation ceremony? I think that's going to be like it would make sense that the gymnasium would be used as a graduation ceremony. is that going to happen during the day that it's not an evening type of thing and those are the basic concerns but beyond that you guys did a great job. If if I could add just about the the enrollment numbers, um while it's not a condition of approval, we do have in writing um uh a letter from the headmaster just stating that the enrollment won't increase and that was um an attachment to the the SQA memo. Um and I believe the engineer also provided a letter um regarding traffic stating that the the traffic will not intensify as a result of this project. Um that might I think that might have uh happened after the packet went out. So my apologies for that. But

yeah, we do have an engineers letter that we put in there just for the planning commission and the city council to show that we have documentation that there wouldn't be an increase in traffic. Thank you. Um could you leave your presentation at the last slide with the um recommendation? Thank you. Um, and the uh the applicant is present. Yes. If you'd like to come forward, chair Lee, let's open the public hearing. Oh, yes. Sorry. Open the public hearing. And now you can come forward. Got that in stereo. Yes.

Hi, good evening. I'm Don Delair. My wife and I are the founders of King Schools. We've been there 32 years and we came in on the tail end of Palm Valley School being there for 41 years. So, it's been a school site since 1952. And um the comments about enrollment are true. Uh if we wanted to increase enrollment, we could do it tomorrow because we have waiting lists in every class as you might imagine. And uh but we made a decision um back in 2008 really. We had half again as many students then as we have now. Um but due to the recession that we went through uh we lost 40% of our students and 60% of our donors and we had to just keep the doors open. And at that particular point uh I rewrote the entire vision statement of the school and I put a cap on the enrollment. We currently have uh 75 students between our infant, toddler, and preschool program. And we're maxed out. That's the maximum by licensing. And then we have 225 K through eight students uh give or take a student here or there. But we have one class per grade. And uh we have been operating uh out of modular buildings as well as uh some permanent structures. Um, we've gotten our money's worth on the modulars. Those are coming out. Uh, we're providing uh additional classrooms, not for student uh uh expansion, but currently we have traveling programs with art and Spanish and computers. So, they travel class to class. The expansion will allow those to each have their own individual class. The most important thing, however, is that our students have gone 32 years without a gymnasium. and they not only need it, they deserve it. And that's going to provide um obviously indoor

athletic opportunities as well as performing arts and uh there's some classrooms inside as well, but I assure you that the enrollment will remain the same. The good news on this this whole um expansion as it relates to the neighbors is that with the increased number of parking spaces, we'll actually be able to get more cars uh off of the street of Bolero and into the campus for special events. Uh with respect to your comments on evening uh use, we currently have I just sent a summary to uh the HOA um u representative from Sand Castles um as a courtesy just to let them know what our our uh events are for this year. We have 10 evening events uh this year that range anywhere from a a dad's night to a fatherdaughter dance outside to a um open house. Um and with respect to your comments on things like graduation. That's one of the reasons why we really want and need this facility because we have two musicals uh each year where we have to go offsite and rent facilities. So, we have a Christmas and a spring musical. Uh, we do have a graduation that we go off-site for. Uh, we also have our uh fundraising event in February where we have to go offsite and it would be wonderful to have the capacity to do those. Um, uh, and any of those events are all within the the framework of the city's restrictions on the use of it, the time, the lighting, the traffic. I feel um that the school has done an outstanding job of being very sensitive to neighbor uh concerns.

Um we've been wonderful neighbors. Uh we've had um preliminary meetings with Fitz Morris family who owns the home just to the south of us. We're very good friends with Greg and Elizabeth Grant who live on Bolero Road. We look out for each other. And uh so with respect to the the evening events, there will be the need uh well not so much the need, the ability to finally be able to house those on campus, but with the increased parking, uh we will be able to uh get more cars off the street. Thank you.

Um we probably have some questions from commissioners. So u start with Commissioner McFale. Okay. Thanks. Uh full disclosure, my career was at San Diego Unified doing facilities planning. So bullish I know a bit what you're talking about. So I I did pull down from the uh California Department of Education your enrollment history for the last four or five years. And it is it is quite stable. It's it's just the K through eight part. And you run as a K8. You're not a elementary plus middle. It's K8 going all the way through. You you don't bring in new people at sixth grade for your middle school program. It's basically progressing on through.

We have about a 90 plus% retention rate grade to grades. So, whatever few seats we have, we bring in new students. But our maximum is 25 to 27 students per grade. And your seventh and eighth grade are quite small right now, but two years from now, they will they will eighth graders. We typically graduate around 20 to 25 kids every year. So you you'll grow a little bit in the next two years, but you're going to be probably 430 440 or something maybe because like your your seventh and eighth grade in 24 25 sorry we're like 19 and 15 where you're taking in 28. So be a small amount of growth but your intention is to stay at roughly 28 or so.

Yeah, we have kindergarten through 8th one class per grade with an average of 25 kids. That's where we get the 225 plus the 75 plus prek. Um, how how many classrooms are there currently on the campus and how many will be built when it's all done?

Um, well, we have five preschool classrooms and then we have nine um K through8 classrooms. We have a a general meeting room. We have a small, we call it an MPR, multi-purpose room. Um, but um the the modular buildings are the ones that are going to come out and then two of the freestanding buildings that are going to come down. So, I'm not sure if I'm asking answering your questions, but that was basically nine five Well, I'll put the preks aside. 9 9k8 and then there's maybe a couple of others that are being used for for art, music, Spanish. Yeah. Yes, sir.

And at the end of the construction, there would be how many classrooms? Uh there will be um six of the K through five. We are going to have five inside the big building. Uh we have five middle school classrooms, but they're not all home room. They're because of the departmentalization. We're going to have a science room, a English room, a math room, a history room, etc. So, there'll be five classrooms there, and then uh five uh continuing to have five preschool classrooms. So, that's 16 classrooms. 16 and

plus then art, music, Spanish, specialized. Do you have a special ed part component to your We do. Yeah. Uh it's not a full-blown special ed, but we do have uh educational therapy. Um and there's some actually new classrooms, small, very small, more stations than classrooms for students that uh have special needs.

Okay. Um the existing plan that was in the presentation showed, I think, in your parking lot, um existing bus queuing. um when it's all done, will the bus buses queue in that same part of the campus? It didn't label it as bus queuing. So, I was wondering where the buses were going to be when it's all done.

Yeah, we have one bus and currently it parks in the front visitor parking and uh most likely will remain there because that is going to expand actually. Um but it serviced us well with this um it'll have the same number of kids but increased parkings. So, I would anticipate that bus will most likely remain parked in the front parking lot um as it is today and as currently there's about 27 parking spaces on site and it's going to go up to 89 or or 90 or something. So, right now I guess you're impacting the neighborhood because parents and others are parking on the streets and that will

Yeah, we have a closed campus uh so the gates do close. Um we do have a lot of parents that do come uh to the school during the day but it's more for um various events. Fridays we have chapels we have a larger number of parents that yes we end up parking uh

on Bolero. Um but going from 27 to 89 is going to substantially um impact the number of cars that are out on Bolero traffic. And I wanted to comment to the back entry uh while it does show I believe on the plans that it is a two-way, it is intended to only be an entry off of uh Bolero Road um back around and then exiting out the back to Kerry Road. Uh except obviously in case of an emergency, but and that's only intended to be used for our staff to come in. Um, and because the staff parking is in the back uh south southeast side of the of the project. Okay, I think that's my questions.

Thank you. I'm going to Good question. I'm going to switch to the other end here, Commissioner Bernard. So, you won't have all your questions. Well, thank you. Um, it was a pleasure going out and seeing the site, touring it with you. Uh, I do have a couple questions about the timeline that we weren't able to answer when I when I stopped by. What are you looking When are you looking at completion? As soon as you write me the check. No, that was something you'd said that you're not sure about funding.

We do we do have it phased and for two reasons. Uh, primarily because of funding. We do have a substantial amount of money uh put aside to begin phase one and uh that will be the addition of uh classrooms, tearing down a couple of freestanding buildings, putting in additional classrooms. These gentlemen are far more equipped to answer the timeline question as as it relates to getting through the proper processes. Um but if we could we could put a shovel in the ground tomorrow and uh come close to completing phase one and then we are still uh going to be in search of what is the final price tag of the big building and that's my job is to then spearhead the the fundraising efforts which we have been extremely blessed and successful at doing. So to answer your question, once the shovel goes in the ground, could be maybe 9 months to a year to complete phase one. And then we just because uh phase one can be done, we can with minimal interruptions to our operations. But phase two, when the big building goes on up, it's going to in essence cut our property in half to be able to then we're going to have to share bedrooms, if you want to say our entire K8 on the back side of the property. And in that respect, I've said we will not start that phase 2 until we know we can finish it because of that challenge of having to share bedrooms, if that makes sense. So in the sort of span of time you get your funding in line, you kick it off for the first phase, 9 months to a year, I'm hearing. Uh then there's possibly a break time between the first and second. Second phase, it's a much

bigger build. I'd say in a perfect world, it's a 2 to threeyear build out if we if we can start and just keep going. Okay. It's about a 2 to three year buildout. Okay. And we'll see. And believe me, that's our goal. Mhm. Okay. I'm good. Okay. Commissioner Malikov, I don't have any other questions, but um I'd like to thank the staff for um giving me a tour also on the hottest afternoon of the It seemed like hottest afternoon. You're welcome to come. And it's a pretty phenomenal piece of property. It's got a lot of history and it's very quaint and we've done our best to really reser preserve the personality, if you want to call it, of the campus over the years.

I appreciate them taking the time to walk me through. Thank you. Uh, Vashid, hi. Um, first of all, I I'm very excited for your students that they're going to have an indoor gymnasium because here I I kept thinking, but what I mean there are times of the year where there's it's impossible for them to be outside running around. Yeah. Yeah. and that's a good portion of the the school year. So, I think it's going to be great. Um, thank you. My only concern is because I keep hearing you talk about funding, which and fundraising, which obviously I know is something you have to do.

The I think the concern about the gymnasium and the nights and the weekends, is not for your events, at least not for me. It's for let's say someone says, "Hey, we know you guys could use ongoing fundraising and funding. We want to have Friday night dance party night with a DJ at your gymnasium." and we bring in our organization and it's a source of funding. So I think that's what the concern is is private events that have nothing to do with you where maybe then there's other issues. So would you be averse to there being something in the condition of approval just saying that you're not going to lease it out for even if we tightened it to make sure that gave you maybe a little bit of flexibility. But

I I would appreciate at least the consideration for flexibility because um I'll be the first to say I'm very protective of our property and the use of it. And um and at the same time, I'm also um I want to say that our our school wants to be good stewards, if you want to say, of the building. And I know we're going to get approached. I know that. Okay. Um, however, there's a lot of um moving parts to renting your facility. Uh, and I would not anticipate anything on an ongoing basis, but maybe and I can't even necessarily think of an example that somebody might want to say, "Hey, we need a spot. Would you be open to letting us use it on a Saturday?" And I'll I'll give you an example, too. We've even had our neighbors, for instance, the grants who've said, "Hey, we're having a big event. Can we use your parking lot uh on the weekend? Sure. I mean, we're we're just trying to be stewardly of that. Uh so, I would appreciate if we we would have some flexibility, but also with the understanding and and it's basically taking my word for it that like I said, if we wanted to grow, we could do it tomorrow. Um but I think what we've learned is this is this is who we are. this is what we're maxed out to be and we're just trying to provide a better facility for our students. It's that's the 99% focus of this whole

Yeah. And that seems very clear. Like I don't I'm not questioning your intentions now at all. Like it seems very obvious why you're building this out and that you don't have an intention to do that. I'm just thinking down the road like there could be an offer that's just too good to turn down and you're like, "Hey, we could use the funding, but then it causes a problem in the neighborhood." So, I'm just trying to sort of think ahead is there restrictions the city has on the building and the use and the timing. We would we would operate within those restrictions. I'm just one that likes to at least know that we might have an option even though it's not an intended thing and I like I said I can't even necessarily think of what that would be but

Okay. Thank you. Following on, public schools are subject to something called the Civic Center Act where they're meant they are meant to offer facility space after school there, but private schools are not subject to that,

right? I you know, for instance, um my granddaughter, my daughter played club volleyball. I know club volleyball leagues are always looking for facilities and when suddenly we now have another indoor court or two that's the type of thing I'm anticipating we make it approached by um but nothing you know nothing on the we're not building it with that in mind

okay thank you uh you any further okay um I just have one um question for you and u really related to something that came up in the presentation regarding public comments. It really doesn't affect your application directly, but I want to understand more about the dynamic with the neighbors and apparently one neighbor is concerned about things coming over the wall into his property. Have you talked to him? Have you come to a resolution? Assuming that I know who you're talking about, we we have a very open relationship with them and shy of us putting some kind of a netting up higher than what we currently have. That will not be an issue on um that a new issue with this. it would just be more of the same issue that we currently have and it's it's with the property immediately to uh the west of us uh that wall and then Paloma as their um uh facility behind us and I'll say yeah kids can kick the ball into the oleanders over the and those things get brought back. Um but those are the only two adjoining um properties that have anything like that uh of an issue. the the mobile home park on the east. We don't even have a playground near that. So,

thank you. Yes, sir. Um and um uh I thank you for the answers. Um you're free to go. Appreciate it. Nice meeting you. But uh um Clark, do we have any other members of the public wishing to comment on this item?

I did not receive any requests to speak for us, but if you're Okay, we have them. Please state your name for the record, sir. Good evening. Uh my name is Larry Stokes. I live in Elorado Palms Estates, the manufactured home community just to King Schools East in a little peninsula of Palm Springs that kind of dips down with Cathedral City on our west south and for a big part of it on the east as well. And I received one of the notices. So, thank you for reaching out to that 500t radius or whatever it was. Uh, my only concern uh was perhaps uh suggest suggesting that also reaching out to the board or the homeowners association uh which as of this afternoon I spoke to the manager said is anyone going? Is there been conversation? they were not familiar with this happening uh the the building proposal the meeting and besides the maybe few residents that live right adjacent to the site I think it would be helpful for the association as a whole to be informed as well because there may be some concerns um that they would like to raise or just generally to know about what's going on. Uh it certainly sounds like an interesting project and uh very exciting time for the school and appreciate hearing as an individual who drives Bolero quite a bit coming in and out that there may be some lessening of that traffic because that can be a little um touchy when there are families maneuvering, walking, driving around. So um that was there just to please re reach out to them as well.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that wish to comment? I see no others. Chair, thank you. I'll now close the public hearing and um I propose that we'll move to debate on this um item uh once we have um a motion proposed and seconded. So if so,

I move I recommend that the city council find project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Quality Act pursuant to section 15162 of the state SQA guidelines. I also recommend that the city council approve zoning ordinance amendment 25-00001 conditional use permit revision 25-00003 and administrative variance 25-00006. Thank you. And do we have a second? Second. Thank you. So, I'll now open this for discussion within the commission.

Mr. Chair, I just have a quick question for staff. Um, based on Vice Chair Me's questions, um, the most, you know, for other uses of the gymnasium, I think the most intense use would be if it were rented to a place of worship um, on a weekly basis. A lot of places of worship also do that, but that's within their conditional use permit to have a place of worship. They can rent out their sanctuary to somebody else to use it on Saturday or another day. Here, um, I think it's a little bit different and I just wanted to clarify that the conditional use permit is for a school, not for a place of worship. So if a place of worship were to approach them to use the gymnasium, they would need to get another conditional use permit.

Yes. So I I would concur with that assessment. I would also look at the secret consistency analysis too and this was something that uh legal council and staff were evaluating during the presentation. the SE consistency analysis. So the project does refer to a student capacity of 300 and it also refers to the use of the gymnasium by the school itself limited to activities run by the school which are currently held outdoors on campus. The gymnasium will not be available for use by the public or other organizations. So whether it's another conditional use permit or revisions and modifications to this, it would require further analysis uh for the student capacity to grow or for the gymnasium to be used by some other purpose other than the school.

I I miss um I I did read the whole staff report, but I might have missed the text that you just referred to. Was that in the the the notice of exemption? That's in the SQA consistency evaluation uh attachment three to your staff report. Thank you. Um so other discussion on this item.

So I so what you're saying is even though it's not in the conditions of approval that because it's in this exemption which we're essentially saying it's exempt from SQA as part of the motion. So, we're essentially pulling in the SEAL exemption into what we're passing today and what city council would be passing. So, all the terms in there would be binding. So, there there's a couple considerations here. Part of what the CU revisions are looking at is the SQA exemption. Um I do think that you know the asking of including that language in conditions of approval require a little more analysis to be completely honest. Um because you know the SQA analysis is based off of like a certain number of students right but you know ideally say somebody would like to rent it out to I'm just going to use like a travel volleyball tournament for a day. There may be other aspects of like even our municipal code that would come into play for maybe special events. Um, you know, I just I do think that it is a consideration that we could look into incorporating into the conditions of approval. But um as far as what staff is recommending in our analysis, it is based off of what was provided to us which included that the gym is not going to be available for use by the public or other organizations. I found I found the language. It says use of the proposed gymnasium will also be limited to activities run by the school which are currently held outdoors on the campus.

Yeah. And so really the the reason that the CUP is being recommended for approval is based off of the SQA analysis as well that needs to be conducted and complied with in order to even issue the CUP properly. So it is an entirety of an application and like a project. Um, but as far as I I'm hearing, you know, the the desire to want to maybe include that as a condition of approval, I would just ask that you would let our office kind of look into that and see if it's necessary at this point before um recommending that to city council. So, how would we do that since we're in the middle of the meeting?

Oh, no. So, this is only a recommendation. So, part of that is prior to repres sending this over to city council is just Okay. Okay. So, we would be recommending to you as part of our motion that you look into the feasibility of inre adding it to the conditions of approval. Yeah. And we would need to discuss it with the applicant as well. Okay.

Yeah. I mean, I'm less concerned about the volleyball tournament, which to me is a gymnasium like function. I'm more concerned about noise and uh m loud music that might be late at night, I think, is really my concern. in a traveling volleyball tournament during the day on a Saturday is what the gymnasium would be, you know, be using for anyway. So like it's really more that kind of like private non-school non-sporting events. That would be my concern.

Sure. So even with that, you know, we do have like a noise ordinance that they would have to comply with things of that nature where it might not be an issue um because we have other methods of enforcement in terms of activities just in general. Um, but we we can definitely look into that and maybe like hone that in a little more. Um, but like I said, the entirety of the application does include the SQA analysis and that does include the idea that this is, you know, really for gymnasium type uses. Um, okay. Then maybe what I would just recommend is since at some point someone's going to go out to the site or when code enforcement is doing their job, they're going to have the COA, they're not necessarily going to have the SQA exemption. So I would just say take those two sentences from the SQA exemption and put them in the COA just for clarity and for future so that you know we don't have to be carrying around this other document that says what we want.

So let me get some other opinion here. Commissioner.

Um I think yeah I agree. I think that sounds like a good way to go and for you to do the analysis before it gets to city council for the issue we were just discussing. I guess I also come back a little bit to the enrollment issue in terms of the capacity and if enrollment grew would that trigger a squa uh issue and I completely take as their word they have no intention to but 10 years from now there might be other leadership who will want to expand their enrollment and with this construction maybe they could do so and maybe they'll hit 400 enrollment which would mean more cars maybe another school bus and that would be like a squa impact. So you know I don't want to be you know prescriptive or anything but I I don't know we could do something I know as a condition of approvement of approval regarding like you know they they take in roughly 28 or so kindergarten 28 to 30 kindergarten like if that's always going to be commit to that being the intake grade that would then feed on through that would be acceptable but if there's a new administration 10 years from now and they decide we're going to go to two kindergarten classes, it could be 50 per grade going through the system. That would significantly increase the capacity and potentially hit SQUA.

Sure. So, I would just like refer back to the director's, you know, um, agreement even with Commissioner Malikoff that those types of ideas would have to be like a CUP revision. So as far as like enrollment and things of that nature, you know, if it does increase to that size, definitely would have to require further. We could always look at discretionary California Department of Education every so often to see what the enrollment is. Okay, thank you. Um, Commissioner Badard, anything further? Commissioner Malikov.

Um I I just um opened up attachment three and I think that language is rather strong and um the environmental is a strong part of the application. So I don't I don't think that we necessarily need a condition of approval. Um, as long as the section 15162 is is part of the approval that some planner 5 years ago, five years ago, 5 years from now or 10 years from now when it's a whole new group of people, they you know that would be something that they would have to consider.

Okay. Um, so we we have I think two options at this point. We could either go ahead with the motion as proposed or we could add an amendment which would be to recommend that staff evaluate the squa analysis and add that language to this um motion. I'm seeing nods here. I would can I make I can make can I make an amendment? Sure. Go ahead.

Motion. So my amendment would be to include uh let's see it is paragraph five on page four of the squa exemption document as a condition of approval. Okay. Do you have a second? You may have to read.

Would you want me to read it? So the the paragraph is the proposed renovation is intended to provide additional space for the 300 student population and will not facilitate increased student enrollment. Use of the proposed gymnasium gymnasium will also be limited to activities run by the school which are currently held outdoors on the campus. The gymnasium will not be available for use by the public or other organizations. Therefore, as a result of the proposed campus renovation, the school's operations would not meaningfully change from the baseline conditions analyzed in the general plan EIR, including impacts related to transportation, air quality, noise, and public service. You probably don't need the last sentence, but I just thought for simplicity, taking that whole paragraph and just making that um that would be what we would include just for simplicity in case this document stops getting carried around with the COA.

Do we have a second? I'll second. Okay. Thank you. Any discussion on that amendment? Just on the amendment. No. Okay. In which case, we'll move to a vote to on the amendment. This is to include that amendment in the substantive motion.

Okay. So, I'm going to put this in as a substitute motion. Okay. So, we have a substitute motion that was motioned and a second on that. So, we will go ahead and move on that one. Okay. So, we have that motion was made by and I'm going to close this. Apologies, my system is frozen because we had that motion open. So, we'll do a roll call vote. Okay. So, the substitute motion was by Vice Chair me and seconded by Commissioner McFale. We'll do a roll call. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Uh you're using the term substitute motion which my understanding would be it replaces the original motion

and that's what I'm understanding we should do because we had a different mover for the it an amendment would be if I'm correct would be the mover would amend their motion. So technically we would vote on whether the amendment that was presented by vice chair me is acceptable to the council to consider as a substitute motion. So if we could have one roll call on the proposed amendment and then we'll do a second one. Okay. So we have the motion on the floor for the amendment. Roll call. Commissioner Baddard I. Commissioner Malikoff. No. Commissioner McFale. I. Vice Chair Me I. Chair Lee

I. Motion carries three I'm sorry 41. Yes. So now we have a substitute motion on the table to consider. And so that substitute motion would include the recommendation in addition to adding the language as read by vice chair me. So, any debate on the the substantive motion with that amendment? Seeing none, move to uh a vote. Are we sticking with the original mover and seconder?

Okay. So, we have a motion by Commissioner Malikoff and a second by Commissioner McFale. Please vote. And motion carries. All eyes. Thank you.

Okay. So, um we're now moving on to um non-public hearing. items and the first of those is a um cottage food operations and microenterprise home kitchen operations. Do we have a staff report? We do just one moment please. Okay, good evening commission. So, this next item is an item for discussion uh is cottage food operations and microenterprise home kitchens. Uh during the planning commission meeting on April 16th of 2025, Commissioner Baddard requested that staff review potential zoning inconsistencies between the city's home occupation uh permit regulations and county ordinances permitting homebased kitchens, namely cottage food operations and microenterprise home kitchens. The city's existing home occupation regulations allow the conduct of home-based incomeroucing activities in residential zones. These operations are limited to primarily office oriented uses such as home offices for consultants or bookkeepers and are generally uh customer visits to the residences are prohibited. Cottage food operations or CFOs were created by the California Homemade Food Act in 2012. Um, and they allow residents to prepare and package certain food products for sale from their private home kitchen. The list of a food

of approved cottage foods includes non-p potentially hazardous items such as baked goods without cream, custard or meat fillings, candy or confections, dehydrated or de uh dried foods as well as fruit jams and preserves. In addition to sales at farmers markets, uh third-party retailers or by delivery, customers are permitted to purchase cottage foods directly from the operator's residents. Microenterprise home kitchens or Mikos uh were created through the passage of Assembly Bill 626 in 2018. Mikos allow residents to prepare, cook, and serve food from their private home kitchen. Uh almost like a mini restaurant. Mikos are not limited to the same list of allowed foods that uh cottage food operations are, but the meals must be prepare prepared, cooked, and served on the same day. According to the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, there are active permits for eight cottage food operations and nine microenterprise home kitchens in Cathedral City. Um, to give you an idea of if uh sort of the issues the city might experience with these operations. Uh, in the last 3 years, the city's code compliance division has received nine complaints related to suspected home kitchens. Uh, three have been confirmed as holding a valid microenterprise home kitchen license or permit and the other six complaints pertain to suspected food sales. Um, but no violations regarding cottage food operations or microenterprise home kitchens uh have been confirmed. So, I will start by discussing uh Mikos in greater detail. According to state law, only a city or county that has its own environmental health department or enforcement agency may authorize Mikos. In this case, uh, Cathedral City is in

the jurisdiction of the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. Uh, Mikos are authorized in um the jurisdiction of the Department of Environmental Health through ordinance 949, which has been in effect since 2019. So, uh, pursuant to state law, the Department of Environmental Health would be the agency responsible for permitting Mikos in Cathedral City, and no amendments to the Cathedral City Municipal Code would be necessary to authorize these operations. The Department of Environmental Health is responsible for permitting and inspecting uh, microenterprise home kitchens to ensure compliance with health and safety requirements. Applications for Miko permits uh must provi pro provide the proposed menu and operating hours. And the county permit also limits the number of meals that can ser be served per day per week and imposes a dollar limit on gross annual sales per operation. In terms of land use regulations, uh there can be no more one than one microenterprise home kitchen per property and the operator must be the resident of the private home. Uh there can't be any signage or outdoor displays advertising the operation and the microenterprise home kitchen operation must comply with the applicable local noise ordinance and other nuisance ordinances. So unlike Mikos, uh the state allows both the city and a county to require permits for the operation of cottage food operations. So while the county department of environmental health is responsible for inspecting and regulating cottage food operations for compliance with health and safety, the city is not procluded from further regulating the land use component of cottage food operations within Cathedral City. Uh, state law actually explicitly states that local planning agencies can

grant non-discretionary permits for cottage food operations subject to local ordinance ordinances concerning spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise control. Uh, so then I will return to the question that was originally brought up by Commissioner Bedard about whether um the current home occupation uh regulations conflict with cottage food operations. Uh the short answer is yes. Um home occupations are really intended to be office oriented uses and would not include the packaging and preparation of food. Uh home occupations cannot include any employees other than the resident. Uh while cottage food operations may include one employee in addition to family or household members of the permit holder. Home occupations are also not allowed to be open to the public or have sales activities other than mail orders. Whereas CFOs are allowed to have a customer come to the residence to make a purchase. Oh, and I'm going to skip this. Okay. Uh because the city's existing home occupation regulations conflict uh with cottage food operations, a code amendment may eventually be warranted. uh staff did a survey of other cities in the Coachell Valley as well as in Riverside and San Bernardino County to understand potential approaches to applying local regulations. Uh some cities including Palm Springs and Rancho Mirage do not have specific cottage food operation regulations in their code. So in that case they would be relying on the regulations that are enforced by the county department of environmental health. Um, most of the cities surveyed include their cottage food operation regulations in a subsection of the home occupation chapter. Uh, while others have it either as a standalone chapter in the zoning ordinance or in another section of the code.

Staff also looked at what kinds of regulations are being applied to cottage food operations uh in our neighboring cities. So some examples include um minimum distance requirements between the operations which range from 300 ft to 1,000 square feet between CFO. Uh caps on the number of customers that may visit a cottage food operation at any given time. Uh off- streetet parking requirements for customers and or employees of the operation. And in terms of noise, uh most cities just required cottage food operations to comply with the local noise ordinance, but UKIPA did have a specific uh noise limit for cottage food operations. And it was also noted that many cities have restrictions on the hours of operations uh for on-site customer visits. So these range from allowing uh customer visits only during business hours on weekdays um to other cities allow customers on any day of the week but prohibited uh on-site customer visits early in the morning and and late at night. So to conclude, um microenterprise home kitchens um are a authorized to operate in Cathedral City through the Department of Environmental Health's permitting process. Code compliance can continue to enforce the city's noise ordinance and other nuisance ordinances um on these properties, but otherwise there is no need for the city to amend the code um to permit microenterprise home kitchens. In terms of cottage food operations, the city is um these operations are already permitted to operate in the city again through the department of environmental health. Um however, in this case, the city could amend the zoning ordinance to apply additional land use regulations on these operations.

Uh staff does recommend that the zoning ordinance should be amended to incorporate cottage food operations. However, based on the low number of existing permits and the low number of of complaints that have been received related to these uh permits, uh staff recommends that um this amendment would not be urgent and can be done as part of the development code update. Uh the amendment um to the code to to regulate cottage food operations would enable the city to further regulate them, but again would not be needed to authorize them. Um, and in the meantime, staff could take steps to increase resident awareness of both cottage food operations and microenterprise home kitchens. So, for example, planning staff could work with the economic development division um on on promoting these uh permits um perhaps providing information on the city website about uh what these operations are and how to apply for them through the county. Uh so with that, staff recommends that the planning commission consider the information in the staff report and provide uh direction on how staff should proceed.

Thank you. Um so I'd like to move to questions for staff. Sorry, losing my voice today. Um questions for staff and um if I could uh ask people to to try and stick to actual questions on the presentation so that we can move through this. Um but let me start with um vice chair me.

Uh one question I know you said for the Mikos we don't need to take any action to authorize them but we could still take action to I mean it seems to me that the Mikos would have a bigger land use or zoning impact than the CFOs. I mean the Mikos are actual restaurants. So, is that something that we could visit in the development code update in terms of putting some land use or zoning restrictions so we don't end up with a bunch of restaurants in a residential neighborhood?

So, my understanding is that state law does not allow the city to apply sort of an additional permit and regulatory process for those operations. So, we are basically uh using the county's ordinance. were subject to the Department of Environmental Health ordinance, which again does have certain restrictions on the operations. Um, mostly geared towards health and safety. Um, other than um I I think it was related to signage um and compliance with with noise and uh nuisance ordinances, but I don't believe that we can apply sort of a a second regulatory or permitting process on top of the counties for Mikos. That's okay. So, we're only allowed to do that for the CFOs, correct?

Okay. Thank you for clar All right. Um, Commissioner Bard,

this is a topic I'm passionate about. So, thank you for your report. Um, my main objective in this would be to increase the flexibility of home businesses where we can be more proactive and in expanding home businesses. I believe the majority of home businesses are one to no employees or the person who owns the business. Um, and there's not a problem with the CFOs with people coming to visit a home. As you said, complaints are relatively non-existent. So to expand that and add that to our actual business licensing, the hustle is real as as we know with with zoning where people are having using homes for more purposes where they're putting more family members into them. They're using spaces their non-traditional spaces for housing all that type of stuff that I think the same thing's happening in business and with the expense of commercial places to rent and and things like that. I would really love to have a positive movement for expanding the ability for people to have home businesses. And that side hustle, as I said, is is true. Like, what if somebody was a massage therapist and or a yoga teacher and they did a private yoga lesson. I know this is actually happening within the city. It's just going under the radar.

You know what? If somebody Can I just interrupt you a second? So I do want to get through any questions for the staff first about their right. I was getting to my question. Oh okay. Can I finish if you So So what if somebody had Sorry. And then we will we will come back and have a debate amongst ourselves about the issue. Okay. Perfect. All right.

Appreciate that. So what if somebody did a a business such as one-on-one yoga training or massage or something like that? right now that isn't allowable cuz it's not an office related business or an architect that is an office related business but would want somebody to come in and look at the plans, right? How do we provide space where people can have home businesses, have the home businesses recognized and licensed by the city, which is good for us, right? and maybe somebody does a yoga thing and makes cake pops. So, they're part of the home licensing and they're now part of the CFO. I'm just curious, have you thought about how to expand instead of keeping them, excuse me, instead of keeping them completely separate, is there a way to expand and support small businesses and get them in alignment with the city? So for this research, I was really looking at sort of the overlaps between the the homebased food operations and home occupations. It sounds like perhaps staff could explore the home occupation regulations themselves. um whether that's just as a as research or part of the development code update, but um that was not included I guess in the scope of of this research which was really looking at these food operations um and not expanding the home occupation permit more generally.

And Mr. Mr. Chairman, if I could add, if you don't mind, um, Commissioner Bard's uh questions about expanding home occupation permits and maybe allow making some allowances for um some level of customers coming to the to the home. I think that is something we already are talking about in our code update. And so, um, we we do want to look at that because we do understand that the architect, the accountant may want to have a customer come to the home and that doesn't seem like it should it would be problematic, but I think that's something we can discuss further. So, I just want to let Commissioner Bernard know it's it's something that we are looking at. Oh, great. I love that. Thank you.

But as far as your question, as far as how we mix the two, I think I think they are going to need to be separate, but we do allow more than one homebased business on a home at home. So we can look at that as well. Okay. So for clarification, you can have a CFO and you can have an home occupation potentially. We can check that when it So we can have a a janitorial service and a I don't know a cake pop, a professional a professional other professional like let's say an architect.

You could have those two uh hops at a single home. we will look to see if you can mix it with the CFO because the CFO is going to have very particular uh requirements because it's a food service, right? And so you want to pro protect the uh the health and safety of of their customers. So we'll look at that. So then my other question is the there are some cities that had a limit of so many businesses within a a distance. it that just seems a little odd to me, especially if it's a multif family dwelling or something like that or apartment complex. Can do you know the the uh rationale for that type of thinking?

Um I mean I wouldn't know exactly what their intent was. My assumption is that they were just trying to limit having a dense concentration of these operations in one particular neighborhood. Um so that's something the city could explore but also we would not be required to impose any such uh regulations. Okay. Um Commissioner Malikov I don't have any questions. Um I'll wait till we can make comments. Okay. Uh Vice Chair me they already did me. Oh,

uh just one question on the um presentation where you mentioned uh code compliance had nine complaints uh I think regarding the MCO permit and three of them had a permit. So there were six that did not have a permit. Does code compliance go back at some point to find out did they actually get a permit or is how's that loop closed I guess is my question. Just I wanted to clarify though um of those complaints the six it's not that they were operating a b a mo and we couldn't confirm they had a license. We could not confirm that a mo was even being operated at those locations. All right.

Thanks. Yeah. Anything else? All right. Thank you. I have no questions. Thank you.

Um so, uh this item is for discussion only. um no formal action will be needed. Uh but I do want to have a discussion just generally about the the points raised. Um and also I'd point out that if we want to if the commission has a feeling that they need to um ask for um further action or um any actions from staff, uh we could ask for that in a a more formal way. Um, but let's uh let's just start and uh let me start with uh Commissioner Malikov.

Okay. Um well, I'd first start with that. I'm completely supportive of businesses in the community, but I'm supportive of businesses in a commercial district. A home occupation permit was meant to prevent to preserve the residential nature of the neighborhood. And I think we're limited in our discussion here at Mikos and CFO

CFOs. So, it's not about the whole home occupation permit ordinance, but I think that if you expand both of these to more than what the state allows, um, you're really destroying the fabric of a residential neighborhood. And if people really are intent on doing a business, there's places where you can do a micro business. there's you can go to the um the there's economic agencies that can assist people with that. Um I don't think it belongs in the home and when this first started I really worried me about the health regulations because I really think that the oversight of people cooking out of their home is very weak at the best. So I I think it's very problematic and I think that if people are going to decide that they want to be in the food service industry, they should do it out of a commercial area and compete with restaurants like everybody else. Um, I I think that the state tries to come up with these policies that are that that try to fit everybody from Crescent City down to National City into one group. And our state's too is too diverse to be able to do that. what would be good in Northern California and Crescent City wouldn't work in National City and in the desert. It's totally different. And I just think we have to be very wary about the fabric of a residential area supported businesses. There's the Coach Coachella Valley Partnership which people can go to and they can do different things there and they can help them get set up

to do things that if they're not ready to go to a commercial space, but I believe that a residential area has to be a residential area. Can I have a point of clarification because there was something said okay. Yeah, sure. Fine. I will get back to you. Um, vice chair,

um, I think that we could meet the objective of being more flexible in having CFOs while still thinking about the impacts, right? So, I totally understand where you're coming from. We don't want to have a negative impact on residential areas. And to me, that comes down to potential traffic. So, if you have more employees or you have customers coming, uh, odor issues, I think, could become a problem if you're making a lot of food and like I make a hot sauce at home. I don't sell it. If I were to decide to scale that up and I lived in a res in a multif family home, super spicy hot sauce, you have to wear like a mask while you're blending it. That could become a problem for my immediate neighbors, right? Odors and noise. I would think if you had multiple employees coming in or or customers coming in. So I think what I'd prefer to do is rather sit rather than saying we want to restrict them fully or have them be completely freewilling is say how can we do it in a way that mitigates the impacts and since there was those list that list that was presented of you know maybe how many per square foot and the hours of that they can be open I'd rather come at it that way and say let's just try to have a smart uh ordinance that limits the impacts rather than going all in for restricting them all together.

Thank you, Commissioner McFale.

I was basically going to make the same point that uh the vice chair made that there was a a table where they had analyzed other cities and the various restrictions they had put on whether it was concentration or noise or hours of operation and so on. And uh it was suggested that maybe a good vehicle for uh executing this would be the development code up update. So I I would I would like that approach maybe for our staff and our representatives on the steering committee when this issue comes up. We have we have a framework on that table and to develop something and obviously uh Commissioner Bedard has a particular interest in this. So hopefully maybe this could come back to us in a in an in an update so that uh Commissioner Badard can can see what he thinks about it as well. Just as you were going the right direction but I thought that was a very good framework of the the issues to that are that we do need to think about you know this there's a tension between it's a residential neighborhood so we don't want it to become restaurant row but we do want to have small business people some flexibility to to operate and I I think that framework might be the way to go. Thank you, Commissioner Bad.

So, a lot of the concerns are actually just needing education. So, as CFOs, you there are more people when you look at CFOs and how they're being done and how they're being actually implemented. There's more Uber Eats, Amazon, Uber delivery, food services. There's more of that going into neighborhoods by a a double to triple digit percentage than what is actually coming into the CFOs or or the are those the actual Mikos that you're talking about? Um Mikos, I'm not talking about Mikos. Mikos is a completely different thing. This is the CFO or the occupation.

What you're when you're saying a ton of these restaurants are coming into Can you identify what those are? So I'm not I'm not going restaurants. So I'm saying CFO. As a CFO, you are super limited on even the cap of how much you can sell. So you cannot legally scale your business up very high. Um, as far as like small business development organizations, I'm part of the SBA. I've been part of the SBA for probably 20 years. Uh, the SBA does not provide space, does not provide anywhere of anything like that for a business to actually do their business. Valley economic partnership.

Correct. They're part of the like caravan saha surai and those types of things are partnered with the SB small business development centers and stuff like that. They do not provide those types of spaces. There are no spaces that you can actually go that would be sort of a a a cheaper way. You have to either rent a commercial kitchen which is several hundred an hour or you have your CFO. And as far as your CFO's inspection, you are graded just like when you go to a restaurant, you see the A or the B or the C or whatever, you have a inspector that physically comes into the house. You have to have education as far as uh how to prepare food, all the stuff that you would have to have in a restaurant in the proper preparation. You have to have that certification in order to even do that. Like I have a dry goods business and I have my TE's, right? I actually have to know the temperature for cooling meat and all those types of things even though I never even touch that type of product. I have to know that as part of the CFO. So it's it is actually very highly regulated. Um so I just wanted to let that known because there was some sort of misnomers that were thrown out there.

Right. But none of those things address traffic odor or noise. Pardon me. I couldn't understand you. I'm sorry. abbreviation. Did you just use T's? As I have a dry goods company, a tea company. Oh, a tea. Okay. I thought you were talking about as an abbreviation. No, no. Like, like literally herbs, spices, roots, parks, flowers, te's, which the home occupation permit ordinance would allow. No, the home occupation ordinance doesn't allow. In fact, I am in violation if it was just the home occupation ordinance. But if it's a dry goods that you're selling, dry goods would be a CFO. But if you're selling it by mail order, you would and you don't have customers coming to the house, wouldn't you meet the qualifications of the home occupation?

No, because home occupation is is office related. It is not food. Right. So, uh, vice chair, you had a point. No, I was just coming back to my three concerns about impacts, which I completely understand what you're saying, but I could have a $150,000 a year business, which a CFO could be. Your CFO cuts off at I believe it's It says class A can in go up to $75,000 in gross sales. Class B may engage in both directly and indirect sales and are limited to $150,000 in gross annual sales. They raised the number

this so I could sell $150,000 worth of hot sauce made with reaper peppers that would destroy my neighbors in a multif family unit uh multif family building and have a lot of people coming and going up and down an elevator parking in the front front yard and that could affect traffic odor and noise. So I'm saying I have concerns about those impacts. I'm not disparaging the businesses. I just don't know if hot sauce is is hot sauce a like you can't do custard or creams. I don't know if that is allowed. It would be the same as doing jelly or jam. No, they they classify jelly and jams different than hot sauces.

So, I'm just going to interrupt here a second because we're getting somewhat into the weeds here. Sorry. Um and you can't sell weed either with the license.

It's just very limited on what you can actually prepare. Okay. Um, so let me make a a few comments here. Um, so I think we have to think about all residents and that would include thousands of residents that moved here before anybody invented a CFO. And those residents moved to designated areas R1, R2, R3 and open businesses in commercial areas. So they relied on that zoning for what they were going to get for their money. They were going to buy a residence and it was going to be in a residential area. It was not going to be a commercial area where businesses operated. So So that's where we start. We need to respect those people just as much as we encourage small business. And so um part of this work has already been done for us. the the state has already dealt with with the Mikos um or the county has so we we have no power over them essentially. Um, so it's only the CFOs we could affect in any case. And it seems to me that to try and balance those views of the majority of residents who do live in residential areas who probably don't much like the idea of having a um a business operating next door. Um, certainly I I agree on things like smell because, you know, I'm I'm sensitive to smells too. Um but those would be um those would be um offenses against our standard CCMC the the and

not by state but

but an odor um would be a violation um if it was significant. So so we have some controls in place already. I like what other cities have done which is that they went through the things that they could limit and um I noted that they said um it's possible to uh limit by zone. So R1, R2, R3 um within a certain distance of a um oh look magically it appeared um um within a,000 ft or 500 ft of other businesses um hours of operation uh direct sales by appointment only one customer a CFO at a time. So there are a a whole um raft of things that other um other cities have already looked at incorporated in in their um uh code. So I'm thinking that what we need at this point, I mean clearly there there there are two fairly disperate views here. But I think what we probably agree on is that in the um in the the code development, the zoning that we're doing right now, this particular um area of interest could be examined and we could ask staff to look at um those limits from other cities and and the the limits that would then apply in our city. So, um, that would then come back for review at some point.

Um, does that sort of make sense to everybody? Just as a again a point of clarification, um, I just looked it up and food that is smelly, odor producing food is not allowed as CFOs. So, again, it's we have to educate ourselves, I think, more about what CFOs are. Again, they're handled by the county. So when I get my licensing, it's the county I go to. It's not the city. So again, I don't know if it's necessary in our jurisdiction. You still need to get your home occupation permit after you get your county correct permit.

But what you're saying is if you were going to cook um well, you can't cook meat, but if you had some kind of chorizo smell coming from Nope. Can't have it. But if you were going to make um saltwater taffy out of your home Mhm. You could do that because it doesn't have any odor. Is that a no what? If you're going to create jelly or jam, which it specifically calls out and says that you can, or candy or confections, those all have odors.

I just tried to use that as I I think I will take your point, and I've crossed off odors off my list. I'm in agreement with Danny and with you, which is that I think we should be encouraging these businesses, but I think we should also take into account potential impacts that could be a problem down the road and just make sure we're doing it in a smart way. That's all.

Yeah. I love it. It there's already a lot of regulation. My my point in asking for this to be discussed was really not about the CFOs or the Mikos. It was really about expanding and I hear a lot of push back on it, but it was about expanding the ability to home offices. It was said, you know, this what you had said about respect the neighborhood and the tradition of the neighborhood. Um, homes have often had offices and places to work for long periods of time. And when there were people that were landscape architects or designers or something like that, interior designers, they're working out of their homes. They have been for a long time. So to do the whole, well, we must respect the nature of the neighborhood. It's already in the neighborhood.

Well, it's already happening. So, I understand that that's another interest of yours. Unfortunately, it's not. It's what I brought it up for, just to ask for getting our occupation permitting aligned with the potential or at least expanding. What we have on our agenda today is consideration of the cottage food operations and microenterprise home kitchen operations since we don't include the other item at the moment. Mhm. Um it's not really agendaized. Um and so you know we can mention it in this discussion but we can't we can't make any recommendations about that.

So I would love to ask the staff to I hear it is being talked about in the um steering committee the zoning steering committee. So I would love to if staff could talk about that at some point and let us know any updates on that. I guess it would be part of the steering committee updates in itself. Do uh does the commission feel they want to make a a recommendation for study on limits on CFOs or do you want to leave that into the zoning code amendments? I mean, I think we could make a request that the staff put together some recommendations that would be brought to the development code update discussions.

Okay. As recommendations. I mean, the steering the steering committee hasn't met yet. we meet at the end of this month. So, and I don't think it's going to be anything even relating to something that this would be covered by if I'm correct on what that topic is. I think anything that deals with land use is still far out in usage. So, okay, plenty of time. So, I would suggest that um we make a formal motion here um requesting that um staff examine the limitations that can be set on CFOs

and present um present recommendations at a future meeting. I I think I think though that you know our zoning ordinance needs to be modernized and that's what we hired the firm to do that's doing the work and you know if there's anything I've learned from Mr. Firestein is that um you know every 20 or so years maybe you need to update your standards or well that's true what you're thinking about but

I I think that they're going to modernize our code and that would include the things we're discussing tonight and I know it's not part of our agenda but the making the home occupations more um workable to the standard that most of California uses. So I think we have to look at what they come up with and then comment on that. Yeah. And my intention was not to talk about limiting CFOs. The CFOs there's no problem with them right now. So to make a movement to actually explore explore CFOs and limit them. There's no complaints about them. There's not a problem. They're operating well. They've been operating well for quite a 50 many years,

right? But but part of what you're suggesting we do, which I don't disagree with, and I think Tom even recommended, was that we put information on the city's website. We tell people how they can sign up, there's only eight people doing it now, if we end up with 200 and we don't have any rules in place, and now they are a problem in 5 years. We missed an opportunity. So, oh yeah, I think I think we should think into the future and just be smart about it. Yeah, I love the adding the education element to the website. The more people that know that, you know, they need to be licensed, they need to be, you know, licensed by the city and the county and the better. So education's great,

but but contrary to that, as U vice chair says, if if we if we put a lot of effort into advertising this when we don't have any of the rules that other cities have around CFOs, then we're just going to make it more difficult for ourselves. So

I'm not see what the zoning, you know, with our consultant comes up with. And we may agree or disagree. We're going to see that is not only will vice chair me and I see that as part of the the the steering committee, but it's all going to come back to this group of five before it goes to city council. And if we feel that it needs to be tightened up or to be loosened from what we, you know, from what was recommended to us, then we can go from there. Well, yeah. I mean, staff don't feel it in their presentation don't feel it to be an urgent issue. I agree. Okay. Um, so let's see. Is there any motion or recommendation going forward to staff?

Do you happen to know if this something this is something that's even on their radar? So, um, right now the, um, code update and and we do have it on the agenda for later today, so we can also get more information from Cynthia Schultz. Um, but right now what we're looking at are the administrative provisions. And so that's what's going to be discussed um next at the steering committee and that's that's the first portion. We haven't gotten into the um you know the the provisions of the different permits and such but that would be the next uh down the line. But I mean is it your understanding that this is something that they would even be looking at or would as part of what they're doing?

Yes. based upon this discussion once we have uh you know some feedback we would then incorporate that into the code update for further discussion we wouldn't you know we understand that there want there needs to be some more discussion about that but it would be included for the commission to discuss I guess my question is do we need to make a formal motion telling you to do that or is this something that would be done by the regular course of business anyway with what they're doing

I I think that you can just um we had a recommendation to acknowledge that the CFO regulations need to be established and that we would do that in the code update and if that if that's the agreement of the commission to take that route um if you just acknowledge that that you agree with that we would then do that. I think this is a a good opportunity to go back to some of the prior discussions we've had with the commission on ensuring that your direction is memorialized and that there is a record of that. So by directing staff through a motion, but by taking some action, even if this is something that would be done in the ordinary course of business, it is a way to ensure that your direction is reflected in the minutes.

Okay. So if you'd like to propose that as a motion, I think that's where you started from. Chair Lee, before we move on any action, I just want to note for the record that we currently have no members present to provide public comments and I did not receive any public comments on this item. All right. Okay. Well, thank you. In that case, we can proceed. Do you want to do it? I don't think so. So, what do we need to memorialize? I think we're just we're just recording the fact

the commission would like the staff to review the other city's uh guidelines and ensure that this is discussed as part of the development code update.

Okay, I'll second that. Then I what about the so my whole point I don't know how this went to CFOs in the in the research that was presented because my whole point was about occupational compared to CFOs because I said that CFOs allow you to have an employee occupational licensing doesn't so my request was originally not anything to do with CFOs it was about the occupational residency So, I'm a little frustrated that this even went in that in this direction because that wasn't talking about memorializing. That was never my original intent. Um,

now what we're doing what we're doing here is saying uh we're uh recording that the commission is asking staff to examine this in the zoning code update. Right. And I'm asking the staff to examine the expansion of occupational licensing, not CFOs. And that's not the request that we heard from the commission and that's not what was reflected in the work plan. So commission comments. So you can request that again. That's what I thought. Yes, it would need to come up again at some point. All right. So clarifying that we have no public comments. Debate is finished. Could we go to a vote, please?

Okay. So we have a motion by vice chair me and a second by chair Lee. Please vote.

Motion carries 41. Thank you. Can we take a break? Yes. I was going to say we're coming up to 8:00. Um 5 minute break. Yes. Why wouldn't you be able to set

yoga teacher and you have a cassita in your back and you have one person that comes in for private yoga class. Excuse me, gentlemen. You can't do it. Thank you. Um um Rich needs to use the bathroom. So I guess I missed that opportunity. We are at agenda item 4B, discussion of proposed amendments to the city's accessory dwelling unit regulations for consistency with new state legislation regulating access. Staff report, please. You're working very hard this evening.

This is my last one, I promise. Okay. So, this this next item is a discussion about uh zoning ordinance amendments necessary for consistency with new state legislation regulating ADUs. Um on September 14th of 2022, the city council adopted uh chapter 9.114, which is the city's accessory dwelling unit uh regulations in the zoning ordinance. Uh the city council adopted a subsequent ordinance in December of 2023 which updated the city's ADU regulations for consistency with uh new state laws regulating ADUs. Um Assembly Bill 2533 and Senate Bill 1211, which both took effect on January 1st of 2025, include numerous changes uh to state ADU laws. So, this presentation is a discussion item to discuss potential amendments to the city's ADU regulations um that are needed for consistency with this new uh legislation. And the purpose is not to hone the specific wording of the ordinance tonight, but rather to all be on the same page about the the changes to the current ordinance that will be needed for consistency with state law. Um similarly, um a a draft redline ordinance was included with the staff report. Um but this is I just want to know that that was preliminary. Um and both based on tonight's discussion and as staff continues to um refine for clarity and formatting um that that could very well have some changes and it will be brought before the planning commission again for a public hearing once once a more finalized draft is ready. Uh, I also want to note that yesterday, uh, staff received a letter from the California Housing Defense Fund, um, about this item. Um, and that

was provided to the planning commission, uh, last night. Uh, staff is continuing to review that letter and will incorporate changes to the the or the draft ordinance as, uh, as necessary. So the the first of the two the two bills that were adopted is Assembly Bill 2533. Um this bill means that local agency local agencies are prohibited from denying permits for unpermitted ADUs and JADUs that were constructed before January 1st, 2020 unless they are deemed substandard. Uh the bill also requires that local agencies inform the public about this prohibition um as well as um sort of what the requirements are for being deemed substandard. The other bill which is Senate Bill 1211 um includes some more changes. Uh this bill provides a new definition for livable space. It also prohibits local agencies from requiring the replacement of off- streetet parking spaces if an uncovered parking space is demolished in the con in conjunction with the construction or conversion of an ADU. And it also changes the number of ADUs that are authorized for multif family lots. So local agencies are now required to allow up to eight ADUs on a lot with an existing multif family dwelling provided that the number of ADUs does not exceed the number of existing dwelling units in that building or up to two detached AD or rather and up to two detached ADUs on a lot with a proposed multif family dwelling. The most notable change resulting from Senate Bill 1211 is an amendment to government code section 66323. So this section establishes specific

types of ADUs that are exempt from any local development or design standard. So, the units that are are covered by section 66323 include detached ADUs on single family properties that are uh 800 square ft or less and are um sorry again accessory to an existing or proposed single family dwelling. Also covered by section 66323 are attached or converted ADUs that are accessory to a single family dwelling and ADUs attached or detached that are accessory to multif family dwellings are also covered by section 66323 and these units as I said are are local governments are prohibited from applying additional development or design standards. So the the standards applied by the state to these types of units are limited. Um they include essentially 4 foot side and rear yard setbacks as well as height limits which are consistent with the existing height limits in the code. Uh, JADUs are also junior accessory dwelling units are also subject to government code section 66323, but the state law also um applies additional ADU JADU requirements which are consistent with the city's existing um standards for JADU. So, there will be no change to JADUS as a result of this um this bill. Uh, I'd also like to note that in accordance with section 66323, local governments can still apply additional development or design standards to units that don't meet these categories. Um, based on the number of ADUs and the size of ADUs that are currently permitted in

the city's regulations, the only units that would not be covered by section 66323 are detached ADUs that are larger than 800 square ft and on a single family property. So, uh, as was outlined in the staff report and we'll go through in this presentation, many of the changes to the city's ADU regulations will mean that development standards only apply to these units, to these um, detached ADUs that are 800 larger than 800 square ft and on single family properties. So these two changes that are being proposed um the first one is just a change in definitions. It would add the definition of livable space which was one of the changes added by Senate Bill 1211. And the other is in the administration section of the city's ADU ordinance um which is for the the assembly bill. It would state that the city can't deny a permit for a previously unpermitted AD or JAD that was constructed before January 1st, 2020 um due to unconforming non-conforming zoning conditions unless it is deemed substandard. In terms of architectural review, currently the city's code includes a provision that all ADUs must match the design of the primary dwelling unit, including the building materials, color, and roofing. Um, again, this this provision can only now apply to detached ADUs that are larger than 800 square ft and accessory to a single family dwelling. Um staff is suggesting that this would also be limited to those ADUs that are also visible from public view. Um, so essentially if a detached ADU that is

larger than 800 square f feet is in the rear yard and not visible from public view, we would not require it to match the materials of the primary dwelling because it's it's not visible in terms of the number of permitted units um on multif family lots. So currently the the existing ADU regulations state that a maximum of two detached dwelling units are permitted on a lot with an existing or proposed multif family dwelling. In accordance with the changes in state law um on a lot with an existing multif family dwelling a maximum of eight accessory dwelling units shall be approved but no more than the number of existing units. and also on a lot with a proposed multif family dwelling, a maximum of two detached ADUs shall be approved. In terms of front yard setbacks, uh this is another one of the significant changes from Senate Bill 1211. So, currently all ADUs must comply with the front yard setbacks for the underlying zoning district except for ADUs that are converted from existing living space or an existing accessory structure. Uh in accordance with the changes in state law, um now most ADUs would be permitted in the front yard setback. Only those detached ADUs that are larger than 800 square ft and accessory to a single family dwelling would be subject to the minimum front yard setback as established in the underlying zoning district. In terms of location, it's essentially the same. So currently, uh, an ADU would only be permitted in front of the primary dwelling unit if it would not be possible to construct an ADU of at least

800 square ft in the side or rear yards while maintaining 4ft setbacks. In accordance with state law, um most ADUs would now be permitted in the front side or rear of the property, and only detached ADUs that are larger than 800 square f feet and accessory to a single family dwelling would be prohibited from being located in front of the primary dwelling unit. Uh lot coverage. This item was actually not included in the staff report, but is being proposed uh in response to the letter that was received yesterday. Uh so currently all ADUs must conform with the lot coverage requirements of the underlying zoning district unless the lot coverage would not permit the construction of an 800 ft ADU. Uh in accordance with state law, lot coverage requirements would only apply to ADUs on uh that are larger than 800 square ft and accessory to a single family dwelling and all other ADUs. A you know ADUs on single family and multif family lots are exempt from lot coverage requirements. In terms of landscaping, uh currently all ADUs involving new construction must install landscaping that is consistent with the landscaping surrounding the primary residence. For consistency with state law, this requirement would only apply to ADUs that are larger than 800 square feet and accessory to a single family dwelling and involving new construction. Um, and in terms of unit size, this is another one that was not addressed in the staff report, but is being added in response to the letter that was received yesterday. Uh so currently the zoning ordinance establishes a minimum unit size that applies to all ADUs. Uh currently for detached ADUs the maximum unit size is 850 square ft for a studio

or one-bedroom unit and 1,000 square ft for a unit with more than one bedroom and no more than two bedrooms is allowed in accordance with state law. However, uh ADUs on multif family properties are not subject to maximum lot sizes

or sorry um unit sizes. And finally, uh in terms of parking, the um ADU regulations currently require one new parking space per ADU. However, there are a number of existing uh exceptions from that requirement. So, if the unit is in a half mile mile of public transit, um if the unit is part of the primary residence, if it's in one block of a car share vehicle, um or if it's part of a permit application for new residents, the proposed amendment would establish additional exceptions. So, if the unit again is detached up to 800 square ft and on a lot with a single family dwelling or if the unit is on a lot with a multif family dwelling, it would be exempt from parking standards. The existing code also states that when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU or converted to an ADU, those off- streetet parking spaces are not required to be replaced. In accordance with state law, it would also be added that if um an uncovered parking space is demolished for the construction of an ADU, that also does not need to be replaced. So, these recommendations are essentially the bare minimum that the city would need to do for consistency with the changes in state law um that have been effective since the beginning of 2025. The city can amend the ADU regulations to be more permissive than state law, but we cannot be more restrictive. Um, so with that, staff requests that the planning commission review discuss and provide input on the proposed amendments. Um, if the commission is generally in support of the proposed amendments, then it it could be tentatively scheduled for

a public hearing for the zoning ordinance amendment. Um, but that would be subject to discussion. So, thank you for listening and I'd be happy to answer questions. Thank you. Um, let's move to questions for staff on the presentation. Um, Commissioner, uh, Commissioner Malikov, this is the second time you're having me go first. Yep.

Um, good. You know, you've done a good job on both of these. um the on the home occus um there's there's really not much we can do. I mean it's it's the bare minimum to meet state law. So I mean even if we didn't agree it have to go forward. I I do think again the state is trying to put a big band-aid, you know, all across the state that doesn't fit all parts of the state. But I think that there's not much we can do in that the state law is what it is. If you could go back to the slide about the health and safety code, I think that was my only remaining issue. Um, so if an ADU has some No, that's that's not the one.

If an ADU has, um, an issue that creates some kind of fire issue, um, then it wouldn't necessarily need to be approved. There you quoted like section 1170 of the health and safety code on one of the slides. Substandard section. Oh, thank you. Um,

there is 1790. So I don't think that includes the fire code. But if there was a clear and present fire issue with and it met everything else, then would the fire chief be able to prohibit a 4ft setback or something like that? My understanding is that if in a particular circumstance something was potentially unsafe, um if it was to comply with the statemandated development standards, uh perhaps the city would consult with HCD before sort of uh going around those requirements. Um the new state laws are fairly explicit in saying that the city cannot I well actually let me apply a caveat there. So it says

for attached or converted ADUs it in fact says that the side and rear yard setbacks must be sufficient for fire safety. So in that case there is some flexibility there. Um in the um proposed red line ordinance, we were applying the same 4 foot setback that's applied elsewhere because it's challenging to apply a standard that just says sufficient for for health and fire safety. But for the other the other cases, so for example, a detached ADU, um I think we'd need to deal on a case-by case basis if if a fire safety

Well, of course, but I think the fact that that if if some kind of situation is created, I'm not a fire expert, but if some kind of situation was created that we do have the flexibility um if it creates a clear and present danger, then that that's what I wanted to know. So, um, that was my only question. Thank you for a good job on this. Um, and most Thank you for a good job on this. Thank you. Um, you you don't want to talk yet, huh? No, I'm just saying you keep going to me next. story and Commissioner McFale,

I I think I really had the same uh sentiment as Commissioner Malikov that, you know, the the state is wanting to make this as permissive as possible and our hands are pretty tied. We we we have to update our regulations to reflect new state laws. So, I don't feel there's an awful lot for us to add to that. Um I guess well we might see a lot of 799 square feet um ADUs popping up to avoid some of these um restrictions. Um just do do you happen to know how many ADUs have been approved in the last year or so and how many are under 800 magnitude?

I anticipated this question quantitative guy. In the housing element um annual progress report, we actually do report out how many ADUs have been permitted, how many were completed. So for the calendar year 2024, we had uh 12 uh ADUs permitted. There were three completed in that period of time. And do you happen to know it doesn't matter? Are they I don't know the size of it is a small number.

Yeah, it's a pretty small number. And I I guess the only other question comment I had, you basically answered the late breaking news of the HDF letter where they they're they're pleased with what you're doing, but they had some uh suggestions for changes and staff is working on reviewing that and will amend as appropriate. So, yep. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Bernard.

I think none of you will doubt that I find this exciting. So, um I I'm excited about it. There's one thing. Can you go back to the architectural review recommendation? I'm I'm I know it's only 801 square ft and up, but this is a throwback to our previous rules that was that was part of our our our ADUs that the ADU had to match the construction of the house, the the the skinning of the house. Um, I I I find this really problematic because a lot of ADUs, especially the more affordable ones, are the the drop and play kind where you buy it completely pre-made and then you drop it down. Um, those ADUs tend to a lot of them are mid-century. There's lots of different styles, especially in affordability. And to add the cost of having to strip your siding, put something new on it just seems really problematic. And from my experience in architectural, if you, let's say you had a Victorian and you were putting another structure on the property, you don't put a Victorian structure on the property, like a pseudo Victorian, you make it very clear and obvious that this is an add-on, that this is not from that original time period. I I strongly disagree with requiring the added cost of having to skin something or side something in the matching material. I get if you're actually building from the ground up, right? But again, most affordable ADUs are not built from the ground up.

So, this recommendation that's uh on the slide is essentially the the bare minimum that would be needed for compliance with state laws. But this is an area where the planning commission could provide guidance and opt to completely remove architectural review or or keep it being limited only to these larger units that are visible from public view. So there there is some room for discretion. So to clarify this comes from not our architectural view review committee but this comes from the state. So this come so currently this is one of the standards in our ADU regulations which states that all ADUs must match the building materials color of the primary dwelling

from the state or from our existing. This isn't our current reg the city's current regulations. The states the the changes in state law mean that we can't apply that

requirement to those units covered by section 66323. So the smaller units, the the Jedus units on multif family lots. So what's being proposed here is that the city's current design standard would essentially apply only to these larger detached ADUs that are visible from um public view. Um but there is there is room for discussion there. Can I um just real quickly dovetailing on what Commissioner Vadar just said, um didn't um Mr. Becker um create like three different standards that are already set to go that would be pre-approved both architecturally and building wise. um that are less than 800 square f feet and they they wouldn't have to deal with any of the you know does it match the Victorian does it match the mid-century right

so the city does have the pre-approved ADU plans and um I believe on the plans it recommends that the there there are two design schemes there's sort of a Mediterranean style and a mid-century style or desert modern style the plans do state that it's recommended to match as closely as possible with the primary dwelling But with those pre-approved plans, I think there was some acknowledgement that they're they're predetermined. They can't they can't exactly match. I would also add that when those pre-approved plans were established, most ADUs could not be in the front yard or certainly not in the front yard setback. So, that is one of the changes where there could be more ADUs in front of the primary dwelling units. But you're right that that that was not a a requirement for those pre-approved ADU plans.

Well, then a clarification on that. the the front yard. Putting an ADU in the front yard is only permissible if you basically have no backyard, right? If there's just not the space in the back. That is the case uh with our current ADU regulations, but state law will state law means currently that we can no longer impose that restriction. Oh, okay. Um, so unless it's again this this specific circumstance of detach larger than 800 square feet and accessory to a single family dwelling, all other ADUs would in fact be permitted in the front yard setback. Okay. Okay. Vice chair.

Uh, I just wanted to clarify, you said we only had 12, right? But I just wanted to clarify that new development that we had to make some changes to where the recreation areas were. that's north of Raone. Don't all those homes come with an ADU? So, the the 12 that was for the 2024 calendar year and those were permitted uh ADUs in that period. Okay. But we are going to have more because those are planned, right? In the pipeline. Yes.

Okay. Um so, this is it's a tangental question which is why I wanted to go last so I didn't hold anyone else up. Um obviously if you have a multif family building with eight units and now someone they can build eight detached ADUs. Um those would all have their own unit numbers, right? They all have their own mailing addresses. You know what? I'm forgetting the exact requirements for how we do addressing for ADUs. Um they they they will be addressed. They'll have their separate address. It may be, you know, 1 2 3 4 5 unit A or unit B, but they will have they all have to

have a separate address, right? Because they can be sold independently of the primary structure. Correct. That they're accessory to. No, I don't think so. No, they could only be rented. I thought they could. State law allows local governments to allow the separate sale of ADUs, but I do not believe that our current regulations do allow it. Right. So, the state law actually provides cities the option of allowing that to occur, but I actually don't know of any city that has to.

Okay. So, these are all these would all have to be rentals. Okay. So my question is about as we look to the future where these kind of things could happen, do we need to update any of our municipal codes to take into account that if you have multiple additional structures, let's say that situation with the 8 and the 8, we have a code that was updated for the size of the dumpster and how that needs to be. You're going to need a twice twice as big of a dumpster, right? So, does that impact those regulations on what we require for the dumpster design? If you're talking about in a single family home situation, you can have up to so many trash bins provided by BERT. If you've got now four ADUs in your backyard or two ADUs in your backyard or whatever, do they all get their own trash bins? Do they all using the same trash bins? How do those trash bins get stored? We have guidelines about they all have to be behind a gate. Is that still practical when you've got three times the number of bins? Uh how do we run into any issue with those things being on the street? So, I'm thinking through like water, electric meters, all that kind of stuff that's peripheral to now having a whole bunch of new construction and new units on existing lots. And does that impact a whole bunch of other things that we may need to update? I would say that so far I have essentially worked on what do we need to do to be in compliance with state law, but I I do think that there are probably considerations worth looking into whether that's part of the development code update more broadly or if that's done um sort of in tandem with with adopting the the minimum regulations required for consistency with

I just wanted to put it out there cuz I know the state really doesn't care about any of that. They don't think through the practicality of it. They're just like, "Here's what we think should happen." So, but we have to think about how practically this is going to work in a city with streets and stuff. So, I'm sort of putting it out to you guys as we get into the code thinking worst case scenario. All right. And that's it.

Okay. So I am the last person of course but I just uh a question on definitions. I saw the new definition of the livable space. Um the next one in that list uh the existing uh definition is living area and they seem to overlap a lot. So I didn't know if they were both necessary. So you might want to look about whether you can simplify that. They cross off the one for livable area. Uh, no.

I I'll take a closer look at that. I I think part of why this livable space definition was added is that it's part it's that terminology is used in in discussing the conversion of multifamily buildings into ADUs. And so I think they were clarifying there. Um but in preparing the final ordinance I will take a closer look if if both are necessary.

If you need if you need both definition you might want to make one dependent on the other. So because they both talk about livable space. So you don't want two definitions that end up slightly different meaning. Um anyway uh in the um development standards I think all all my questions have been answered but um I had a general question here. I'm trying to understand now where we are with all the changes. So we went um through the lot split updates SP9 um we have ADU and JDU and we have all these changes now. So would I be right in thinking you can get from a single what was an R1 single family lot you could end up with four essentially condominiums and because that's multif family you can end up with four ADUs so we can squeeze eight people or eight homes onto a single lot now is that right

so under SP9

well just all the regulations that we've viewed So far, we went we did lot splits. So, you could split the lot into two and then you could build two units on either lot. And now we can have an ADU for each of those two units. So, under ADUs, a single family home could have the primary single family home, a junior ADU, and an ADU. So, that's three potentially three dwelling units. under SB9. SB9 was very specific that um you could do up to four dwelling units, two primaries with an ADU and a junior ADU or two primaries and two ADUs. So, four four units is what would be permissible if you did a lot split. Um the way SB9 is is worded and the way our ordinance is adopted, it still limits you to the four. So you would have two and two.

All right. Okay. Um that was just clarification. Otherwise I had no comments. Thank you. Thank you. Um before we continue with any further discussion, are there any public comments? Yes, chair. The following comment was received for the record, provided to the members of the commission, and made available at the entrance for public inspection. Cal HDF expressed supports for the proposed amendments to the city's ADU regulations.

Thank you. Um, so any further discussion from the commission? Um, does staff have the direction they were looking for? Okay, very good. We'll we'll move on. Um, and uh, we're going to item 4 C on our agenda, development code update. Good evening. A staff report, please.

Yes. So, in your packet, you have an update. Um I'll give you an update to the update. Can everyone see me and hear me? Okay. Um so this is your opportunity to ask questions. I provide a little bit of guid or a little bit of update in the report each uh for each agenda just to give you an um kind of a picture where we are in the process with the development code update. Uh so the technical advisory group just finished and and that's actually what I was working on while I was uh downstairs listening to the meeting. um worked on the agenda for the steering committee meeting which is actually taking place next week, next Tuesday from 5:00 to 7:00. It will be our second meeting and that is taking place virtually. So that has been reviewed by staff and that will be forwarded over. We've made a list of probably oh I don't know 10 or 12 suggestions that we'd like the steering committee to weigh in on from the administrative posi provisions sections which is two different sections in the code uh that we we will be asking for their input and guidance on. Um once we have the feedback from the steering committee then uh Mintier Hares will be working on revision to the um to those sections and then those sections will then go forward to the planning commission for their October 15th special meeting that will be a full discussion devoted to those sections of the code. So that will be you all will have the floor and be able to discuss that entire thing. So the workflow that will follow or the workflow that will apply to all of these reviews is the technical tag technical advisory group which is comprised of staff. We will do the first review. We'll notice small things, conflicts, issues with state law, uh city policy, city guidance, that type of thing. Then it will go to the steering committee for their review. Then it will come to the planning commission for your review. And then it will be incorporated into the draft code from there.

Uh the steering committee is expected to meet again in mid November and at that point they'll be discussing land uses in the context of the land use matrix which is a fancy way of saying the uses that are allowed in which zone district what uses are allowed and what permit is required. So if it's whether it's required by right or with the conditional use permit and then in December we anticipate another student another planning commission special meeting on the 17th and that that meeting will then be to discuss land uses. Thank you very much for the conversation or your comments on the CFOs. I appreciated that and I will be looking at uh how we can incorporate make those incorporations into the code going forward. Um let's see anything else. I think that's it. Any questions or comments?

Any questions for staff? No, apparently not. Very good. Thank you for the the Oh, you do. Yeah. Just just just thanks for the update and I I was very happy to see the the chain of how how this will progress from the technical group to the steering committee to us. And uh when are we expecting um when will at what point will there be like a public community kind of meeting like for example you know the one that we went to in Palm Springs like where they get to weigh in on some of these stages.

Yeah certainly. So we did have our we did our public outre our initial public outreach which were the walk-in tours and the community open houses and the the survey the the map shaire. So we gathered that initial feedback. What we'll be doing is we'll have once the code has pen has been drafted and and we've looked at it and and it's presentable for public review, then we will put it out for public comment at that point. Um but we don't expect that to happen until next spring, right? Or probably late next spring. Thanks. Thank you. Um no further comments from the commission. Are there any public comments? Chair, we have none.

Thank you. Um, which case we will move on to item five on our agenda. Commissioner's comments. I'll start with Commissioner McFale. Nothing. You vice chair? Nothing for me.

Okay. Commissioner Malikov. No. Commissioner Bernard. Well, just to clarify that my I don't know if this needs to be said, but to say that my original intent was to show how CFOs allow for a larger business in a home and how occupationally we could maybe match that. So having the opportunity to be more than paper pushing as a licensed business in the home such as with CFOs that allow an employee if an architect worked out of his home and he had an assistant there could be a employee that was allowed to work with the occupational license. That was my pardon for my misunderstanding, but that was my original intent. So, I don't know if I need to ask for a follow-up on that. Uh, but that's just as clarification.

Thank you. Um, okay. Uh, I had no, uh, comments, so I will move on to item six, the city attorney's comments. Okay. Okay. And item seven, staff comments.

So, I'll keep the staff comments brief. I do want to draw attention from the commission to the work plan that is in your agenda. And I appreciate the vigorous discussion tonight and as always uh with the commission on items in your work plan. This is something that we introduced uh last year and I would say it's been overwhelmingly successful in terms of pivoting the commission from a body that is simply discussing land development applications that are presented to it and moving you more into a position where you're a policy body and you're advising and informing the city council on matters that are in the general plan in the housing element really the maintenance the administration of our code and you've done a great job doing that. Uh so I I do want to encourage the commission to continuously to look at that work plan to see where these items are at, how we are scheduling them and yes also to make sure that we've captured it correctly. Uh this is an opportunity for the commission to agendaize items through your comments and for us to uh put those on this work plan for consideration in the future. Um, a lot of work goes into these and you know I I can't express exactly how many hours u staff spent on this but uh Dom Camps has spent a considerable amount of time on this. So I I I might suggest just as a uh a course correction and maybe something for the commission to consider. Um, we take direction from the commission. Um, and it may be appropriate for the commission as items are requested to be added to the work plan, for there to be concurrence from another member. Um, because it's not something that's agendaized, we can't have a motion. We can't vote on whether to add something to the work plan, but really to ensure that at least the commission concurs with a request to add that to the work plan. really to ensure that we're prioritizing and balancing uh staff time that that goes into these uh that that as items are added in the future it be raised by a commissioner and that there be another member that

nods. Do you mean if do you mean something is like um the first item on the work plan which it's already been completed is commissioner McFale asked for the presentations to be

I might have gotten red um but it was something it wasn't something very complicated. So even like even something like that would have to have a concurrence. So, I think that one was relatively straightforward. But, you know, let's take the the idea on u public hearing notifications. Uh that that's one that we worked through. Uh we actually uh have um introduced an ordinance that's been adopted that's been implemented. But an item like that where where this really is a policy initiative that that is, you know, a deep dive on staff, takes staff time, resources to do that, you know, I think as that item comes up, certainly want to encourage it. This has been overwhelmingly successful, but really to ensure that this is direction from the commission uh that as if if commissioner me or vice chair me were to raise that again just looking for another member to nod in agreement that that is uh a priority for the commission and that is something that we should add to the work.

Yeah, let me just uh let me just say that that was commonly the practice also on the parks commission. I don't know what they do now. Um but uh items could be could be asked to be put on the agenda but it required at least two people to to want to do that. Um otherwise you know we are all perfect but if you've got imperfect commissioners they could they could busy work the the staff to death with requests. So I think it at least needs two of us to say could you please put that effort into into a project

and that's not to say that uh we we've done work that hasn't been a project. This has been very successful and I think even the discussion tonight has has revealed inconsistencies has revealed things that we might need to consider adding into the code update to be internally consistent and to be consistent with state law. So I think there there has been good from everything that we have introduced thus far but moving forward this may be something the commission wants to consider and then again do do take a look at the the work plan to see where those remaining items are. Uh we still are working on alternative building materials. Yes, that is in the pipeline. That is also one that has been positive and I think will produce uh some outcomes. Uh maybe not necessarily in the zoning code, but I think there are some learned experiences there and and more work that we uh more that we can do to support alternative building materials. So that that is coming back here soon. So, if it was something simple like the agenda, just adding something to the agenda um so that when we're reading, you know, like adding the legislative version of a um of an ordinance to a report, that that's something simple we only one person could could request. But if it was like a policy, if if hypothetically if something got brought up and only one person felt strongly about it and everybody else didn't, that would be a good example of something you wouldn't want to waste time on. Yes.

Could we could we just settle it as if one of us recommends something and you know that this is going to take a lot of your staff time that you say hey be honest with us and say hey this is something that is going to take a lot of staff time. you know, can we just want to make sure this is something that at least multiple people on the commission feel strongly about and then if some other person says yes, if nobody else says it, then you know, right? I think you just need to tell us when you think that's appropriate and we'll

I think that's a fair suggestion and actually that that uh it leads me to suggest, you know, if you have an idea, uh give us a call, send us an email, let us know in advance. we can talk that through and and and you know make make sure that that it's something that we can support as staff and that it's in alignment with uh the charge given to the planning commission. Uh again, you know, this has been working thus far. Um just thinking ahead on on how we can uh continue to control it, continue to moderate it.

But generally, I think it's a good idea to at least have one other commissioner to concur with you. I mean, you know, even in I'm not going to use the federal government as an example, but um I I I think it's a good idea to have at least one person to concur with you so that everybody's like kind of on the same page as to how important it is. Yeah. And I think that happens generally in our discussions anyway. It's fairly clear that there are two or more people that are interested in a subject. Okay. So, um was that the end of your staff comments, sir? Yes. Oh, good. In which case, I move to adjourn this meeting. Wait, wait. Oh, I'm sorry. Uh, the other part I just had a question about 7B.

Oh, just to ask what is an excused absence? It's defined. It is. I didn't see it. Not here, but it it's defined in the I missed it. If it's in your work schedule, if it's planned, if you tell them ahead of time, it's excused. Vacation. It was in the the ordinance that was adopted. It actually defines what excuse typically if you administrative policy that was presented to the city council. I think that has been shared with the commission. So really this is intended to create accountability with all committees commissions and uh um

very good. Well now we are adjourned for real. Good job. Thank you.