Planning Commission - Special Meeting

We're ready for you.

Commissioner Badard here. Commissioner Malikott present. Commissioner McFale here. Vice Chair Me. Chair Lee present. Thank you. Um now please stand as you are able and join me for the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation and justice for all. Agenda finalization. Do we have any changes to the agenda? Would the clerk please read the statement of participation? This is the opportunity for members of the public to comment on any items not appearing on the regular agenda. Because of restrictions containing California law, the commission may not discuss or act on any item not on the 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 a matter to be agendaized for a future meeting. Public comment will be limited to three minutes. And do we have any requests for comment?

We have no requests to speak forms. Thank you. Um, moving to approval of the minutes. Approval of November 5th, 2025 planning commission minutes. Do we have any corrections or additions? Do we have any public comments on the the minutes? No comments. Um, do I have a motion and a second to approve the minutes? So move. Second. So moved. Thank you.

Second. All right. Let the record show that a motion was m made by member Malikoff and seconded by member mccale and the motion passed 5-0.

Thank you. Moving to agenda item number three, non-public hearing items. Item A, permissibility of non-conventional construction methods and materials of California residential building code and design considerations. May we have a report, please? Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission presentation. Leave it upstairs. So have one page there. Um well, thanks for being available for this special. We're here to have a discussion on nonstruction materials. Um I would just preface this to say that um this was a request by Commissioner Bedar to have this discussion but it did generate a lot more internal discussion on our side and so I I think uh today's discussion we can use it as a springboard so to speak to have further discussions down the line about design standards for single family residential. But what was asked for was um to have our building official provide information with regard to non-conventional construction materials and their permissibility. And the answer to that is very straightforward. Yes. uh non-con conventional first of all I have a photograph here of conventional construction material right um even you know steel excuse me um steel frame um metal things like that that's all conventional non-conventional we're talking about materials other than that that that we use um in the report uh our building official Jeremy Okay. Who unfortunately wasn't available today, but he provided information on alternative construction materials and

um with respect to uh you know cost valuation, building permits, um type of um energy ratings, things of that nature. So very generalized and and that was fine because it's the the the gist of that is that yes other construction materials non-conventional materials are permissible under the building code but you have to be able to deter or uh justify so to speak that they do meet construction standards. And so basically at the end of the day we want a safe structure that people can live in. And so they need to demonstrate that which is providing plans to the city, having an engineer prepare those and stamp those and demonstrate that they do meet the codes. And so provided that that can be met, u it's permissible from a building permit standpoint. So you know the nonconventional materials that uh were identified in the um attachment that was provided by the building official, we I basically follow that, right? So you have straw bell construction. So here are a few images of straw bell um construction. On the top right you can see that this one the exterior is being finished with a plaster. So you know as far as the exterior it can be you know look very conventional. You got plaster brick what have you. Um but the the um structure itself is made of straw bills. Here you have rammed earth. uh have a photograph of, you know, how that's being um uh constructed. And so you have earth and you basically ram it and you have different layers of that. And so you end up with uh again architecturally you can do you can design it however you know your client wants it designed so to speak. So on the top right again it looks like it's a stucco finish. Um on the bottom you have more of the uh finish of the layers of the rammed earth. Um and then you just showing you

different designs. um architecturally that can be done with this type of materials. Here you have oops and I um insulate concrete forms. I kind of covered that up but the image is indic is to um show how this works with the um the insulated forms on the outside and the concrete in the middle. Um and then some rebar to support it. But uh that's again the construction materials and methods. Again, you can have it look like however you design it. And so that that'll be the common theme is it can look like whatever you want it to look like, you know, architecturally. Here we have cross laminated timber. Again, just an image of what that is. The the the timber is actually, you know, basically put in a cross pattern. Again, this is what um architecturally it can look like. Different different styles. And then we have um these were handouts that were provided by the um building official. On the left is the cost estimate and on the right was or is I should say um just staff googling cost comparison. Uh the baseline is stick frame uh conventional construction and then looking at the different type of alternative materials we talked about. It provides you, you know, cost estimates for construction, long-term energy. I I think this particular uh table, what it demonstrates is that the construction of a home using alternative materials will not necessarily be any less than conventional construction. It could be more, it could be less, but I think the the real savings is over time in that these materials are more energy efficient or can be more energy efficient. So over the long term, you'll

find that that um that cost can be recouped over time. But here's where the discussion really um internally we start having these discussions is that um yes you can use those materials and through these pictures we were able to demonstrate that architecturally can look very similar to what we're used to but we don't have design standards I should say we don't have objective design standards you know our design guidelines are from 1998ish um they don't really have a lot when it comes to single family residential design it does for mult multif family and you know multif family is kind of a different um use uh on its own it's going to have I anticipate that in our code update as we go through it we're going to have standards for multifamily but single family a lot of cities have just kind of taken a little bit of step back they don't um require as they don't establish standards as rigorously so to speak that they do for multif family you know have standards as far as height and setbacks and things of that nature. And some cities will require architectural elements and so we don't have anything and I think as we go through our code update we're going to have that discussion about should we have objective design standards for single family development and if we do what should it be? Um we talked about um because single family again especially when we talk about infill you know two or three lots at a time we don't establish any standards um and do we want to and maybe it's not so uh specific as to standards for all um single family or not standards that dictate roof pitch um design of windows design of doors but Maybe it's more of

looking at where we live, uh the type of climate we have, and do we look at establishing standards that speak more to addressing uh climatic conditions um for our valley? And when you look at and it was attached to the report, when you look at the design standards, they do kind of have some standards or some guidelines uh related to Oh, another picture I wanted to show you. Um and it and it speaks to the objective design standard. So these are alternative construction materials. These potentially can meet our code, right? The engineer is engineering and and stamping that it meets our code. It it's going to be safe structure, but these are not design features that we typically see in our community. And so when we start looking at yes, it meets our building code. Again, this leads to that question. We have this really you know, discussion between Cynthia, Andy, and myself. It's like, well, what if somebody comes in with a dome home shaped like that? And you have geo, you know, geodis homes and um this here on the bottom left, it's rammed earth, but the the style is very uh well, it's a square basically. It's very beautiful. It's pretty, but it's not a, you know, there's no roof, there's no ease, things we typically think about. Um so that's why we had this discussion about objective design standards as it relates to climate because um yes this is more efficient but would it be um more in keeping with our climate to say we do want deep eaves um we want recess windows perhaps perhaps on uh west facing or south facing elevations we want to see shade trees that would provide shade during the the hotter parts of the season. So um this these these uh structures these homes not typical but it generated the

conversation about objective design standards. Objective design standards as indicated in the staff report does have you know very very very clear it's um can be verified or there's no subjectivity. So it's you know like like we have here in the staff report and in the presentation the third story has to be stepped back. your windows do have to have some recessed or you know your building plane has to be 30% articulated. Those are very clear. I guess it could be more clear to say what that articulation needs to be, but those are objective design standards. And do we want to um consider objective design standards when it comes to single family development? Um, and here's our design guidelines. When we talk about having maybe standards based on climate, our design guidelines, you have talk about orientation, talk about windows facing east or west, they talk about deep recesses, um, protection from sun. So we do have at least the start of some discussion about standards for residential development but but this is all we have right now. Um I do suspect and see if Andy can jump in here but we are going to probably start having these discussions as we go with our code update. Um so that is my presentation. That's the information I have. Um we're happy well we want to have discussion. Um we don't expect any answers right today but at least we can start a discussion about design standards as it uh relates to single family development.

Thank you. Yeah. So um this is a an item for discussion only. There won't be any voting on it. Um my understanding would be that that what we do put together here in terms of our comments will be taken away by staff and added to that discussion. But are you saying that the steering committee the the uh development code bodies will be examining this issue as well? Well, we're going to, right, our design guidelines are from 1998 and so we're going to be updating them, but we're going to incorporate them into our zoning code or our development code. And so that will be more clear um standards, but we haven't gotten to those that discussion yet in our steering committee code update discussions.

Okay. Thank you. Um let me start with let me see commissioner badd

well thank part of my passion uh so I appreciate that. Uh if we could go back to that last slide. One, thank you to staff and the city for being really open to this uh to these ideas and it's sort of it's a movement really that's happening across our country and in other countries to look for more affordable and I in my understanding and we did discuss this a little bit in the groups I work with we can create based on the numbers that you had are higher than what we could do at other organizations. So you can make the cost of building actually lower depending how you do it. If you do group style building, if you do co- building, if you do sort of co-op type of things, prices can be actually significantly lower because a lot of the cost, especially if you're doing round earth or super adobe or those types of things, it's labor and your framing actually. So you have to create a frame to insert into a space and then put your round earth or adobe or earth bag around that frame. So if you know somebody who's done a house and they already have those frames, then your cost is even significantly lower because you're going to get the frame from them either for cost of materials or just a share. And so that even reduces your your building if you have community involved in the process. Um, there's a couple things I do want to point out. I love that you guys did this. I'm was hoping that the uh building materials and the design standards would be more separate because the building materials is fantastic and like you said, you could use a material to do a very conventional. You drive down the street notice that house necessarily different than the neighborhood. And

when you get into design standards, right, if you're going to ask a like I think there are good design standards like you would build more houses that could handle snow loads, right, in snow areas, right? You want a steeper peak, stuff of that sort. I think it would be smart in the desert to have required eaves, like three-foot eaves, to have south facing wind, more south facing uh what's the right word? Uh walls, I guess. right? Or maybe actually more north facing windows can make not getting the heat of the the sun, right? As you're facing north, those types of things are, I think, really great. And by putting that design overlay, you're is it only going to be for alternative materials or are we going to go to LAR or any of the big homeowners and say, "All right, we're putting a design overlay and we want all of the new construction to have three-foot uh eaves and we want them to be situated on the land so that you're not going to get direct sun through you the majority of your windows and we want you to be able to plant trees." That's to me a separate discussion from material. And if we're if somebody is doing say that blue house, that's um most likely it's a cal earth uh super adobe home which is an earth bag home that's circled around and the frames are inserted. The house structure is completed. It becomes like a concrete and then you put your windows in. Um, aircrete is often a similar structure or just a slightly different very different material but built in the same way. Um, when you build these type of designs, right? So, you could use that type of material and make it look like that or you can use that material and make it look like something else, right? I would I love that we're giving the

opportunity or we're hoping to give the opportunity for different ways of building. I had a lot of houses haven't changed in 80 90 years and we've been kind of conditioned because of large corporations to look at housing as being one particular way, right? Right? Because those corporations started building housing at the cheapest most cost that they could reproduce quickly, all that type of stuff. So their same house built here, I said LAR earlier, so I'll say them again. Lenar builds the same house here in the desert with no condition in its building style or structure for the desert and it builds the same house in Louisiana and the same house in in Vermont. Um, are we going to then ask LAR to do that or are we going to put on single single lot infill? Are we going to put a different requirement for LAR on big filled or big areas that they're developing? Or are they going to are we going to say, "Oh, only the single person that or not single person, but the person that's building out a single lot has more requirements and they're going to have more design standard requirements."

No, we we would have that discussion on single family development across the board. Yeah. The um well, the exception is always a specific plan that might have its own standards already established. Sure. But yeah.

Right. And we haven't had a I mentioned earlier, we haven't had, you know, there was Republican style homes, nothing to do with the political party. You look them up. They're impressive homes with like 14t doors. You have Victorians, you have art deco, you have craftsmen, you have all these different homes when in older neighborhoods they're it's common to see them right next to each other. Right? In our newer city, we don't see that. So it might feel kind of like painting a restaurant a bright color that everybody hated in the beginning. Then now everybody says, "Oh, I love it." Which I hear there was a lot of resistance to that color. My concern is that because it is different because it doesn't some of these homes don't follow what we're used to. We're going to kind of push it away. And so that's a concern on inviting especially if it comes to allowing people to do right now you can do these ADUs in the front yard like how do you say that an ADU is okay of one style and are we going to put design overlay zones which is different than uh design standards right so there it becomes a little tricky and I'm curious just other people's thoughts about that.

Do you know what I mean by design overlay zones compared to design? You guys, you're more experienced than me. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Alakov,

this is all very interesting. I I kind of have two thoughts. It's it's it's hard to get people to change. Um, I I think that's probably the biggest stumbling block. Um, a couple years ago, I came back from a planning conference all excited about the city of Richmond had a health element that they built into their general plan, which nobody else did. And it it took long-term health ideas and built them into the development code. And for somebody that struggles with weight issues and things like that, I I I thought that was just great. who would who wouldn't want that? And I came back here and boy was I wrong. Um I couldn't get anybody to be interested in it on the city side or the developer side. And it really takes um perseverance and some doing to get people to to change their minds. And um you know, the developers are are very stubborn in their thoughts. I'm dealing with one now that um is building one of those 80year-old concepts that you could have in Iowa and we were trying to get them to do um some some uniqueness to it and they just absolutely refused. So it you're dealing with a difficult group of people. So, the way that you go about this is is going to be very important um in how to convince people to try something different because they're the they're they're not the most um open-minded people that want to jump into something new. Um and the other question, but but I do like I do like all this. I I just I think it's very interesting and I think that if we can make homes more affordable for people then then maybe people don't have to wait till they're 40 years old to buy their first home. So

I do think it's a good idea, don't get me wrong. Um the structural question I have is so kind of um I'm not trying to um to minimize this, but it's kind of like when you were showing like the straw and everything. It made me think of the three little pigs. Um, and you know, and I thought of the wolf as as an earthquake, you know, and maybe like a 3.4 and a 5.2 and a 6.8. So when you're dealing with these kinds of homes, would they still be able to be So California is unique in our seismic codes, whereas in Florida, it's they they're dealing more with um high winds and and floods. Um so how would something like this, and maybe Jeremy has to explain it later, how would it deal? How would you implement our California seismic codes and still be able to do this and still keep the costs down? Um, you know, as far as the how, I guess that might be a Jeremy question, but but the the and and and maybe it is a Jeremy question, but at the end of the day, what it is is that the person that wants to build a home that uses an alternative construction methods or materials needs to submit plans and documents and engineer stamp that demonstrates it's meeting all those standards, that it's going to meet the um, you know, seismic requirements, the energy efficiency requirements, just that it's a structurally sound structure that is going to be habitable. So, they need to demonstrate that and I think there may be different ways to demonstrate that based upon the material you're using. Um, but but I can have um Jeremy follow up on that.

So, we're not talking about um we're talking about somebody that has a 5 acre lot that wants to build a custom home that's going to do something like this. We're not talking about PY or LAR or Gallery of Homes doing a subdivision like this.

Correct. We're not um so we're not suggesting that our standard should be that you have to use alternative construction materials. The the question that was asked was or posed was that does our code allow for it or somebody wanted to use an alternative construction material, could they? And the answer is yes. Our our our building code does allow for the build the building code does allow for that. They just need to demonstrate that they're meeting the residential building code. Um, yeah.

Um, I don't have it's it's an attachment. Well, I I think in the end um this this author has been making the rounds on all of the early morning talk shows about um young people um specifically um where young men are failing and there's a huge percentage of young men that are in their late 30s still living in the basement of their family's homes. And if we could find a way nationally or even locally to be able to reduce the cost of homes even if they're infill homes. Um I think that would help get more young people into, you know, into their first homes because that's not it's it's much more difficult than it was when we did it. Commissioner McFale.

I'm not aware. Um, Commissioner Bard might be. So, what is it?

Oh, yeah. They're cool. Um uh so two things you know our first house is built in the valley here stone right our second house that was built or actually they were reeds our first house was then our white colonial house was stone our next one or even the Mex when we were in part of Mexico was adobe and adobe gets stronger over the years if properly maintained and the adobe these round homes do homes they increase their strength in they're building. Um, I don't know besides the Agnes Peltic House. I don't actually know how that was built. What material which is a relatively

There are houses over below in the neighborhood that's off of 111 below um I think it's it's Palm It is Palm Springs below the Bob Hope House. There are old stone houses that are built in there that are um that are now historic. They were just on the market uh for being rebuilt. Nothing super recent probably that certainly has come across nothing recent of the city Korea estates is adobe if I recall too. So we do have some but

and there is to mention to piggyback on the the hay bale house actually hay bales are framed with a three-foot wall space. So when you build a hay bale house, you have an interior framing and you have an exterior framing. And the hay actually goes in that space. So you have a standard concrete slab foundation, a double frame, and then the um so the structure is super super solid, right? You're building. And so instead of infilling with um uh like lamin plaster or plywood or those types of thing, you're actually framing or filling the house. You can see it in the picture there. You're actually building your walls and they're sandwiched in on the sides and structurally. So that's how most houses are are done. So at the moment we have 1998 guidelines and you were talking about objective um design standards and perhaps folding that into our development code update. Um given for example that Palm Springs has just gone through their development code update, do we know did they take the step of doing um objective design standards or are there other cities around us that

most cities in the state are moving the direction of objective design standards? Recent legislation has taken away uh ability for cities to review many residential projects, single family, multif family projects against uh the codes that you're holding in your hand. Uh we can no longer use those subjective design standards um for many residential projects. So I think cities are are looking to see you know what they still can control and you know those standards that are u uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark you know those are the standards that we still have left um outside of setbacks you know what else can we still describe I think Sandra has has given you some indication of the direction that we may go uh for residential projects across the city this is a subset of that uh but but I think there are objective design standards that we can look at uh across the city that reinforce whether it's climate or um other design controls that that we still we still have. So I I was just wondering like we may not have to reinvent the wheel if we go down that path that there are out there either in the state or maybe even in uh desert environments some people have already developed those standards and they may be translatable to us. We don't have to start from scratch. Yes.

Can I add something to that? So, um, during the walking tours, we had, uh, several walking tours back in March, and I know that some of the commissioners and and, uh, council members were on those walking tours. Those walking tours were intended to look at the local architecture and look at the features, um, and the layout of the architecture that is local to Cathedral City. So, we really want to create our own design standards as they are replicable here and appropriate here. And I use the word hyper localal just to get a sense of we really want to be our own uh cathedral city here. Yeah. Um and then one other thing that I did want to um add in there as well is that we're talking about standards, we're looking at um wholesale rewriting of those objective design standards for nonresidential as well as for multif family residential. And then we're looking at some of those um standards for single family residential, but I think they will be more of a dimminimous uh type of I think I'm probably describing that right. um and trying not to make those single family uh residential design standards ownorous for the for the applicant to help encourage them to continue to make them um low cost and efficient and find that balance of their budget because as we're looking at this and asking the questions and to commissioner's point about um making sure that they would uh withhold the seismic load. Yes. So here, different from Colorado and different from Minnesota where we didn't require them to be reinforced with steel, they would do something like that here so that they can meet that that's going to add a cost to it that maybe they won't would not have in say the state of Texas or somewhere else, but they're dealing with different environmental concerns. The other thing that that changes the cost calculus on this is the ability for local labor local labor force. So I think that's a another thing that you know when we're talking about a LAR or a PY or any of those other national home

builders, those national home builder builders can build at a rate of 20 homes a month or something like that because they have the skilled labor that can put out a home that they can replicate in a very short manner. They can't do that with this type of construction. It it's it's not it's not made that way. And you can see in the images that that um Ms. Molina has put up that that it's not it's not easy to the reason that stick frame construction took off or site built stick frame construction took off is that it was so easy to replicate. They have hollow walls with with plaster board over there or gypson board over those hollow walls makes it really quick and easy to build those homes. So that's those are some other considerations in this as well. And that that was I noticed that you know in the report and the question that you brought up in the report was specifically about single family dwellings. Uh but we might also be visiting multif family commercial to have objective design standards for other sorts of uses as well.

Yeah.

Yep. I I just want to add something um to piggy back on what Cynthia was saying is that typically for single family in our city we've in the term she was a dimminimous standards for single family and and I think that's as we have this discussion I don't think staff staff's not suggesting that for single family development that we have really you know stringent or numerous standards for single family development. We still think that um as we have this discussion, we probably want to keep them minimal, but what would those minimal standards be? Would they be based on climate? So, we have the deep eaves or, you know, based upon the elevation and and and the sun. Um do we want awnings? Do we want recess windows? Well, you know, those type of standards, they don't have to be um numerous, but maybe what they are, they're meaningful for the the construction of the home. I I think climate oriented objective standards seem like a very good idea for living out here. Um uh are we it sounded like you were maybe uncertain whether we were going to address this as part of the development code update but we are do you think we are definitely going to do that and we'll come back to it at some point. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. I didn't have too much other than just to say I think this is great. Um I think the more we can encourage people to do whatever makes the most sense and I love the fact that we were able to see in that chart that even if something is maybe slightly more expensive at the beginning that you can recoup those costs maybe like putting in solar or something like that over the years based on um it being you know cheaper to cool and and those kind of things. I think that's great. Um, and I think, you know, we're a relatively new city. Um, with the exception of the cove, we don't have historic districts that need to maintain some sort of, you know, I have a friend in LA who lives in a historic district where almost all the homes were se mail order homes. And so, they all have the same style. They all have to have, you know, the the way they're built like they have to have a very slight incline in the front and they can only use certain fencing that matches the homes. We don't have anything like that, right? So, I think there's no reason for us to say we don't want infill housing to look different than the housing that's already there. You know, I think that there's there are certain neighborhoods in Panorama where I live, we have a lot of two two-story homes. We have some split level homes that may not be common in other areas, but it's not the houses don't all look the same already. Um, and someone told me that there is actually a dome house in Panorama. I've never tracked it down, but uh Council Member Gregory told me there is a historic dome house that was there before most of the neighborhood was built out. I keep meaning to try to track it down. And we do have the dome church on Cathedral Canyon, which I drive by every time I get here. I don't know if either of them were made with alternative materials, but they're dome houses, which are always cool. Um, so yeah, I think this is great for us to explore it. Um, I agree that the single family home objective design standards should be minimal um and not really so much they they can't be focused on looks really

because that would make them subjective, right? So, I think just making sure we have some sense of protecting people from inclement weather, from the sun, all those sort of things makes total sense to me. So, um, thank you for doing this and putting this together. I think it was really interesting to learn about all these different types of materials and how they all compare. So, it's great great presentation. Thank you.

Um, press the button. Uh, uh, so first of all, I was curious, do we have any idea of the history as to why we didn't have a design standard for single family homes? Why was it excluded from from previous iterations? I don't have any information with that. We can try to research it and see what we can find. Okay. It's pretty it's pretty clear that um I think what what's being said is that it's not that we don't have any, they're just very limited. Is that what you're saying?

Yeah. If you have a design standard, you all of a sudden set a limit. So you're limiting by having a standard. So, so you think that was the historical reason for not including it?

Uh, it's if you don't have one, there's the other thought that you're pretty open to receive anything that might be structurally sound and comply with all the codes. So, I don't know, Andy Opine on that, please. Yeah, I I think if you look at the city's progression from its incorporation, the city did get more and more sophisticated. I think if you look at the progression of ordinances from just the adoption of county ordinances to the development of ordinances that reflect more of the city's character, more of the city's uh values, they progressed substantially in a period of 101 15 years. and the city's first design standards, these were from the late 1980s, early 1990s, they principally applied to commercial development. Um, those were updated, they were modified over time. You know, was there a specific intent to exclude residential? I'm not sure about that. I would say that if we look at the progression, uh, it focused much more on commercial corridors and growth areas than it did on residential neighborhoods. um and particularly recognizing that the cove and and many of the areas Golden Mile, you know, those areas were developed prior to the city's incorporation. So, I don't think it was intentional the omission, but but I think as the city has progressed, as it has matured, um our needs have changed. I think we're at a juncture now with the development code update that you know recognizing that we can't regulate in the same way that we do need to substantially modify those uh design standards from the 80s and '9s uh we do need to make that update this is a logical moment for us to look at uh what we expect and I think that's a key part of the objective design standards it's not just ensuring that those are um uniformly uh verifiable to that benchmark but that these can be communicated conveyed upfront to a prospective applicant that's coming into the city. So, I think this is a good moment for us to reflect on that and um certainly the uh steering committee will be seeing this soon. And you know, I

think that the question of the infill lots and how you apply this to, you know, individual development projects outside of a a tract, outside of a subdivision, I think that is a question of balance and one that we'll need to address in a little bit more depth as we continue with the code update. Right. But the uh in terms of um alternative building um the RBC has never actually restricted that is my understanding. What didn't the the residential building code has never restricted us from doing it? Not the building code. No, not the building code.

Okay. Well, doesn't this apply to the fact that if you applied restrictions, you could limit national builders and that was always, you know, the intent to attract the city to have builders come in here and build tracks of homes and you don't want to restrict or limit people that would view the city and say that's too restrictive for our product line and not build in that area. So, yeah, I'm not disagreeing. I mean, I don't think it should be restricted. I'm not saying that we should.

I can add a little bit of clarity to that. We uh asked these very same questions in my previous community, both of the county and the city. And the building code, the residential building code, I know it's different in Colorado because it it's it's superseded here by the California building code, which comes from international building code, but it was the same question. The building code did not prohibit the use of non traditional uh stick frame sight built um construction. It's just always been a challenge for those reason kind of the reasons I was describing before and the fact that um a lot of folks who were building on on single family developed on infill lots. Uh they wanted to have freedom with how they designed their home. They wanted to bring in potentially a modular home or something that maybe was a little bit different or didn't meet a certain residential standard. Um there were there were those constraints. Um but the building code has not ever uh outright prohibited them. They're very hard to meet the code. We allowed any type of um you know if somebody wanted to propose in my previous town we um allowed a container home and it was a two-story container home um but had been um engineered. The challenge with that when we told people that yes you could do this but you have to have a engineer stamp off on it they would go to the engineer when they got the engineers fee they a lot of times they they would just drop the project but you know people who have um you know who have a different budget could probably uh pursue the the two-story container home. The same is true with some of these larger structures. You don't usually see large multif family structures of straw bale construction because the higher up you go the more difficult it gets to do that and then it takes more reinforcement costs go up. It it just the economic sense isn't there.

Yeah, I understand all of that and and that's up to the developer and whether or not they want to put that extra cost or extra design or engage engineers to do the development for them. And I just want to make sure we're not in the way. I mean, so this is not an issue that that we as the planning commission um is obstructing in any way. This this is all possible already. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Yes. Um so certainly I I I think it's fairly obvious that we're interested in hearing more about uh objective design standards for single family properties and uh and clearly also it would apply to any single family properties. So it's not a a question of just these particular ones. Um, one of the things that that we didn't actually get to in this but has been raised from time to time and maybe we need to come back to that is a consideration not just of um alternative building standards but also uh a fully offgrid house. So um being able to to have um solar and battery, no connection to SCE, so no connection to the grid um which as I understand is actually legal but not done for various reasons and and I guess also we need to look at other utilities. Well, it may be so we can find that answer at some point. Um yeah, your chat GPT only goes so far in my learning. So um it could be wrong. Um

and I guess also we would look at uh the need for other utility. I mean can you well you can legally collect rainwater if you want to try that in this area um and not be connected. So so in general can a can a house be completely freestanding? Yeah. Um, in terms of uh the 2025 revisions for title 24, are we applying those now or is that something we have to adopt at some future point? So, the city council adopted uh the 2025 California Building Standards Code uh with local amendments and that will go into effect January 1st.

Okay. So, so that has some um relevance particularly to alternative styles of housing in increasing energy efficiency and so on. So, that's uh that may be another factor. Um, also, uh, and I can't do this single-handedly, but at some point, if anybody would like to join me in in welcoming comments on what the effect is on um, future um, developments, not new buildings, but uh, I understand that all those new efficiency codes will apply to um, repairs, um, additions and so on. So, so we can maybe find the answer to that. Um, so the other thing I I was interested in was this uh CLT or uh cross- laminated timber construction. um because uh at a recent presentation I was at um they were talking about the fact that that can lower the cost of um building where you're building multiple stories. Um you can now uh let me see type 4A uh you can actually build up to 18 stories approximately 270 ft just with um just with uh CLT. Um I think that's a concrete couple of first stories. So um that may be something else that can help in in future development and I think that um at some point we will touch on how many stories that we have in any structure. So that kind of alternative material may help with that. Um I believe uh we have let me see we have m zoning for north

the north city

and that allows 65 ft and I think we have to really if we want to get closer to our targets for housing we have to get up to sort of 75 ft. Palm Springs is up to 100 ft. Um, so I think those are other things that have to be considered maybe not in this discussion but at some future point. Um, yeah. Okay. No, I think that was all. Um, personally, if I want to build a if I want to buy a single lot and build a teapot house, I think I should be able to build a teapot house. Anyway, all right. Thank you.

Oh, yes.

So, my hope is one again, once again, thank you. I think this is really exciting. I don't know if anybody will ever build a super adobe earthag. But to have the opportunity for that, I think is a big possibility possibility. I don't think my mic is working. But my next question is how does this lead into prefabs? Right? If we're talking again affordability, a lot of preabs I when I was in Ireland last time, you could buy a house made in Latafia that's a four bedroomedroom, 1500 square ft house for €20,000 and it would cost only $12,000 to bring to the United States. So that's a house less than $50,000 fully built

with everything in it. It's obviously not the plumbing, but the electrical is in the wall. Everything cut cabinets, everything is in place, right? To actually take one of those houses and bring it into the United States up to our building standards. They're purposely designed for all of that. Like if there's a way to have prefabs, how does that fit in as a sort of next logical extension of this conversation? Does I'm wondering where that would go. So, our building code does allow for um pre-manufactured homes already and some of them um are uh certified by um HCD uh housing community development and so if they have that certification they're permissible. So, so there are already allowances for for manufactured homes. Um even um they have pre-manufactured multif family structures as well. So our code provides for that.

And just to be clear like mobile homes or trailers, that type of thing, they are um often architecturally significant type of homes that are then uh dropped in and they could be very beautiful. So, one of the restrictions that I had when I was looking at putting one of these in my yard was that at the time, and I think this has changed, I'm not sure, but um the house that I was interested in purchasing from a California builder, California codes, I would have had to take off all the cladding of the house and restco it to match my house, which just drove up the cost by thousands of dollars. I don't believe we have that on the books anymore, but maybe we do.

For for like for an accessory dwelling unit, yeah, the accessory dwelling unit actually now with the new standards, if it's um 800 ft² or less, there's no architectural standard review. Right.

And and and even for over 800 square feet, we could, but I think it would be minimal as well. Your point though is well taken and there is language in our current design guidelines that that suggests neighborhood compatibility. So uh did we say that in the past? Probably. And I think that is something that we should have deeper discussion as we get into the develop code update. How do we incorporate design standards that work? How do we incorporate those objective design standards that meet the requirements for the state so that that we're not turning someone away? And to your question about these permits, we have had questions over the counter about uh that prefab manufactured homes. We have had those questions. We have indicated positive support for those. I'm not aware that we've had anyone come in with a a non-conventional design with non-conventional materials. We'd welcome that. Uh to the degree that someone is interested in that, I think that's something that we all agree on on staff's part. uh that's substantial commitment and investment on the part of an owner coming into the city looking to build that and I think we want to find a way to back that to support that and to say yes.

Yeah. Because I'm just curious like if again I don't expect an answer on this, but if somebody wanted to build say a cow earth style dome home, think of the blue home in the in the pictures. If they wanted to put a 300 ft house that looked like that as a guest unit and it's in the front yard cuz now they can do that. How would a design would an overlay zone be put in where it says, "Okay, like my neighborhood, all my all the houses in my neighborhood are ranchstyle houses. Every single one of them built by the same developer over 20 years, right? So, would there be a design overlay just for that neighborhood that says that all the houses must match must match? So, I couldn't put that CERTH Dome home on my property because potentially it would have to fit in with a neighborhood. It

I I don't believe that we can enforce that standard anymore. Just curious. And thank you to the board, the commission for uh as supporting me in in my my uh request to have this information. I appreciate it. Thank you. Any public comments on the There are no public comments. Moving on to the development code update.

All right. Good evening. All right. So, this is a ongoing item for the planning commission to provide comments and to get give feedback on the report that was included in your packet. Um, and I I did include in the packet with the update. The update was actually recent as of two weeks ago. I'll give you a brief update um for to bring it up current. But in that packet, you will have a table that has I think five or six columns across the top. And I if you printed it out I apologize that it's small but I wanted to capture everything in in a single page width. Um this was the feedback that we heard on the last two sections the previous two sections the permit procedures and the code administration on that discussion. So it has tag comments or the technical advisory group comments in are in there. Steering committee comments were in there. Planning commission comments were in there. It also includes the discussion that that um back that item as well as the staff's recommended action and then any followup. So you can track those comments as they go through that process. I'm planning on doing that for all of the sections. Uh have not yet done that for the zoning district section which was the last um meeting that uh you heard on the um subdivision uh on the on the development code update. Uh that was your last committee meeting. So I just wanted to give you an update on that. Um so recently the upcoming meetings um the steering committee did have uh their most recent meeting on November 4th. So they talked they um reviewed the zoning district standards um planning commission did as well. Then the upcoming meeting for December 17th for the planning commission will be on the uh general and specific standards. So these will be general development standards as well as um specific development standards. So specific development standards will talk about things like should we have specific standards for say drive-th

through restaurants, uh banking institutions, um mobile home parks, things of that nature. Um so I wanted to point that out. Those will be coming. That is separate and distinct from objective design standards. The objective design standards that will be coming before the board will be before the commission are set for steering committee in uh March. That'll be March 24th and then they're scheduled for the planning commission April 22nd. So you've got some time before those come in front of you. The objective design standards that we scoped in the scope of work in the RFP were specific to multifamily and non-s single family residential. So we did as as Sandra mentioned, we had talked about how how minimal of standards shall we should we incorporate talking about things that are climate responsive. Um looking at things like shading, how much uh glazing and fence should be on the south facing walls and west facing walls. How deep should the eaves be? What kind of roof pitch should we that type of thing. Um and perhaps it becomes a menu of of sorts. Um again, we don't want to be restrictive. um because a lot of these properties are are uh for uh folks who have uh pretty tight budgets. So, we want to be respectful of that as well. Um let's see where else. Um I was going to mention also that someone I think it was Commissioner McFale was asking the question about um objective design standards for single family dwellings. That was you. Um I think it's really been quite rare up until this point. It it has not been a big um there hasn't been a lot of political support for them for various reasons. um they have always applied to multif family and commercial um types of of construction and where HCD has really

um pulled back on that and and required most of these uh California um municipalities to uh repeal their objective design standards was in respect to multifamily development. Um, so that's where the objective design standards really got a push and a lot of the work that is being done out there. And part of the reason that we uh we left our um our RFP out for so long was because a lot of uh consultants were wrapped up in actually writing objective design standards for a lot of cities because there was money available from the state in order to do that. So there's a big push right now to do that. Again, that's for mostly for uh multifamily and non-residential. Um any questions for staff?

Um yes, a couple just I guess we'll start with what we were just talking about there. Um, so did you say that the the contract or the RFP that we ha we have in place does not will not address objective design standards for single family developments. Is that right?

What we specified was for multifamily and non-residential. In our conversations with them, they ex expressed a willingness and they had done some objective design standards for single family development for I think it was Viselia. um but they were they were not probably not of the scope and scale that would be appropriate for Cathedral City. So we were thinking um in our conversations that we were really looking for something that's very localized and very um appropriate and very um budget oriented and and mostly climate responsive so that it would be supported by as many people in the community as as as possible and also something that that council can support. So the steering group meeting on the 4th discussed zoning districts and definitions and our December 17th meeting it is going to be hearing about that particular

that was your last meeting. This will be about the specific and general standards. I was wondering is it possible it's not a lot of work that I understand when I know you don't do minutes for the steering group meeting but is it possible between a steering group meeting and the consultants coming back on the 17th for example that cycle that we have is it possible to maybe give the commission by an email or something uh just a a a five bullet point two paragraph summary of these are the things that we talked talked about at the steering group meeting if it's possible to summarize it quickly. We don't need a 15page report, but these were the things we talked about.

I think yeah, I think what you're saying is the fivepage spreadsheet was maybe too much. And I I don't mind that. I didn't want to put any work on on you guys. I'll take five pages.

All right. I'll I'll continue to give you that. But yeah, I think after uh following up on the steering steering committee, you will get that. So, we'll try It turns around pretty quick between the steering committee and the planning commission when you hear those issues, but you'll have you'll I'll pro provide you with a heads up of of what they discussed. Um there was one item on the um the common tracking that um it just reminded me when we had the discussion with the consultants here I wasn't 100% clear where we left off on it and it was to do with the um duration of permit approvals and you know I think it says on the line somewhere uh which I can't read because it's too small um current practice is to allow three one-year extens ions that I think that's what it said on the line. And I thought that what we had been doing here was the norm was that you gave them a 2-year um deal and then they had to come back for the final year. So I was a bit confused between the three one-year extensions and the two plus one that I thought we were doing. And then following on from that, some of the discussion we had about that issue when the consultants were here seemed to suggest that that third year isn't really discretionary anyway. So it's almost like it's was I correct in that sense that they get three years. So the idea of two years plus coming back a year later is kind of I don't know not worth it because they already have three years and we don't have anything discretionary to to do at that point.

Yeah. And I don't find it in the table table here either, but I think that the the conclusion was that and and I could be wrong here and and I think that they had two years was the given and then the one year was a was an extension, but that the debate was whether it needs to come in front of the planning commission or whether that can be done at at the director's um you know, if they can own up some kind of a a cause for that and the director can make that. That's what how I remember that. But I I'm open to correction if that is not

maybe there you go at the steering committee meeting where the consultants proposed to us should it continue to be a two plus one or should it just be a three moving forward? And if I recall from my memory and maybe you remember differently, but I remember there everyone still supporting the 2 plus one because there was a idea that you want to give people more of a sense of urgency that we want this to be done in 2 years and if you tell them three then they can be a little more laxidasical about it. Um so the idea that they had to do additional paperwork to come back to ask for that extension it's enough of a deterrent that maybe they would get it done in two years. at least what I remember.

And I I think the other issue is that it's it's not just a um it is a discretionary action, but it's kind of a limited discretionary action in that you can't just willy-nilly deny a time extension. If they're working on it and the environmental circumstance hasn't changed, then you really have no reason to deny it. But that's the key is if the environmental circumstance were to change then um then you would have reason to deny it because they would have to go back and take care of that. So, let's say they um you know the June beetle was discovered on the property or the silver eagle was made made a habitat there then they would have to address that and then you could have reason to either continue or deny the time extension. So, that's another reason why you want to have you don't want to just give them the three years. Also though, um, if there's zero evidence that anything has occurred in two years, do we have the ability to say why should we give you a third year? Not environmental, just they've done nothing and they can say, oh,

you need to have findings to be able to uh deny that extension. Zero activity could be one of those. Could you repeat that? you need to have a finding that you can back that to be able to deny that it

it's third year. It's a difficult thing to do if they just aren't moving forward. Um and maybe um our city attorney could get back to us on that in that most cities there's not a whole lot of discretion on the three years whether it's three one years two years and a year it's the the average attorney will say unless the environmental circumstances changed you really don't have a whole lot of discretion. However, there is one exception to that, but this city always does things that not this city, the city I'm going to mention always seems to have a way around doing things like that. And I don't know if it's whether they have development agreements that go with it and they're not up to the performance standards, but Palm Springs always seems to measure the progress of the project as part of their evaluation of the time extension. And I've never known how they do that because I don't think that's part of, you know, it's it's it's not part of the evaluation. So maybe you can let us know if they're just not doing anything, if the city does have the right to deny. My understanding of this is that um it it can it typically depends on what the underlying permit is whether that was a quasi judicial permit or some type of legislative action um by the by the local jurisdiction and then that really sort of dictates the the level of review. So you have your substantial evidence versus abuse of discretion um levels of review. Um, and so obviously, you know, you want to have findings. Um,

and some cities will actually adopt a list of findings that would need to be made in order to grant an extension. Um, but you know, it it kind of just depends on each city. So, I'm not sure if that's what maybe the other city has done in this case, but um but you know, good rule of thumb is is, you know, have evidence in the record that that at the very least shows that there was reason and um thought and evidence to support the decision that was made whether to deny or not. Um some cities may have a standard of that that pegs to the the progress of the project as well. Well, maybe then Cynthia, you can I don't know if this is the proper forum to add that to our list, but it sounds like there's interest, you know, to find out if we write into the findings for the time extension that there's significant, you know, there's movement for the project. That's reasonable movement that, you know, that that would be a reason to grant the time extension. Um the president that you might be able to use um goes back to Jeremy um his name comes up again. Um is that in the building code there's you have 90 days before your permit expires. And if you don't show any activity, then the building director for that city can terminate your permit and you're in trouble because then you've lost everything. So, you know, you have to do something within that 90 days. Whether it's a little something or a big something, it's up to the building director, but maybe we could build something into our code that that guarantees some kind of progress rather than just waiting for three years and for the project to expire.

So if you could look into that.

Yes. So I think what I recall the conversation being um was that yes two years was adequate and I think the the argument to going to the two years and sticking with the two years was that as long as it was consistent across the application types it gives the developer you know adequate time in order to mobilize his financing and and to get his his do the rest of his pre um pre-building permit work so that he can he can actually apply for that building permit because once that once they apply and get that building permit it it that clock starts ticking and it goes right away. So the findings would have to be made in order to grant the extension past the 2-year application approval deadline. Right? So then then the plan if the if the um if legal would support that and if planning uh feels that that city can support that then we could we could potentially look at some findings. Right now there are no findings. Again, back hearkening back my experience, we have we have struggled with the same question of do we need to make those findings or can we just make them based on the um the developer is is having a hard time uh the market has changed, market mechanics have changed or um the financing has has softened to the point that they can't pull it together and then we would take that application recommendation forward. So it's been difficult uh to codify what kind of findings because it's difficult for a developer to actually prove substantiate you know the market has softened to such an such an extent that it's it we expect it to to uh ease up in a couple of years. talked to the technical advisory committee, which is not us, that's the staff committee, um, which would, I assume, include the city attorney, and look into having some

kind of findings that can be made and then bring that back to the steering committee, and then that'll eventually make it back to this group. It won't go back to the steering committee because that was a past, it was already a passed section. But what will happen is if we decide to change where we landed with the with the outcome after the steering committee and the planning commission's advice on that previously, if we decide to change that and and incorporate findings in this, we can decide that on our own and then that will be incorporated into the code and that will become a noted change when that entire code comes back. It's still going to come back to this group, right? Yes. Right.

So, so what I'm saying is is okay. So the steering committee is out of the equation. Correct.

Talk to the technical advisory committee and see what the parameters are. Um and then when it comes here, we can discuss it and find out if there's any merit to having those findings. I mean, I I think just, you know, they don't have to be the strongest things in the world, but sometimes it's a matter of they're just looking for funding and they could tell us, you know, we were looking for funding and this is where we looked and, you know, we're still looking, but but why don't you look into that and give us your professional opinion?

We'll do. Thank you. Moving on to um commissioners comments. And before I go to the commissioners, I I do want to mention that um I think we're all very saddened by u the loss of council member Kavali. I've known him for a number of years. We've worked on things together. Um I was talking to him at CV Link um opening just uh a week or so ago and uh so it's uh um both for the city and person it's it's a very sad loss. Okay.

I I too am when I got the email I'm very saddened. Um, I've known him, may he rest in peace, for over 20 years. Um, as a staff member, as a private citizen, and I think he's the reason that I'm up here on the deis. Um, he's he was very helpful to not just somebody that was in his district, but anybody that would reach out and ask for his help. Um I um I reached out for his help. I don't want to go into a lot of detail, but I was very upset with the police department. Um but it turned out I was wrong. Um and he got the information to me and they explained to me um what I did was actually wrong and that I had no reason to be mad. But the point is that he took an interest in it and solved the problem. And I also talked to him at length about street vendors and different things like that. And he always listened. Um, and I don't think that was just me because I was a planning commissioner or staff person. I think he did that for everybody cuz when you went into his restaurant, you he would talk to anybody and find out, you know, what do you think, what's going on, what do you like, what do you don't like. Um, it's just a great person. It it's a great loss to the city. Okay. Um, vice chair.

Yeah. I just wanted to um say that I did not know uh council member Carnival as well as you two probably did being more recent to the city. And um but every interaction that I had with him, whether it was city related or out and about cuz I ran into him a few times, he was always very enthusiastic. He was very excited. He was super like I don't know, he just you could really tell that he wanted to make the city the best it could be. And I think that always came through in all my interactions with him. Um, I know the the last time I really talked to him in depth was at the state of the city uh event and he was very excited about the development code update. He actually grabbed me and said, "I have a bunch of questions about the consultants and what they're proposing." And he really got into a lot of detail and I thought that was that was great and was just happy to see how excited he was to that we were working on it. Um, so, uh, you know, I just feel like it's a loss, definitely a loss for the city and and, uh, to have someone who's just really that committed in for so long.

Commissioner McFale, nothing to add beyond associating myself with the remarks already made. Okay. Thank you. Moving on to city attorney comments. No. Okay. So, uh staff comments.

I'll lead off and I'll let Sandra fill in any gaps I create. So, uh you all experienced the temporary microphones. Uh we are in a period where we are starting to upgrade equipment in the study session room and in this room. Uh work has actually commenced in the study session room. We are upgrading that first. so that we can convene meetings in the study session room while work is underway in this room. Uh so for your next meeting, I'd encourage you to look closely at the agenda and make sure you're looking at the meeting location. It is highly probable that your meeting location will be in the study session room. The current timeline um has uh this room going dark uh about the time of your next meeting. So um we'll look to make sure that uh the improvements have been made in the study session room that we are fully operational that we have audiovisisual equipment that can support a a meeting uh and uh your next meeting will likely be there. So you have a look ahead agenda and uh we we've got a couple items programmed for uh December and uh that's that's what I have to share with you tonight.

As you know our our meetings are always constantly crowded with the public. Um, but is there going to be space down there at council meetings and so on for for the public or are they going to have overflow or how are they going to do that? So, we're working on the logistics for that and we'll have more information to share. Good. Thank you.

I wanted to give kudos to staff. Um, I already mentioned this to Sandra, but I wanted to put it on the record. Um, I think One of the struggles you always have when you're building a when you're dealing with a building is screening the equipment, whether it's on the roof or the ground. And take a look at the Starbucks and the um I forgot the name of the other restaurant. Chipotle.

Chipotle. Thank you. um they came up with a very unique way of screening the roof equipment by not just using landscaping or a screen wall but but incorporating the architecture into it and I just thought that was a really great idea and when you have time and you pass by there take a look at it cuz it it really looks it really looks good and it really screens the equipment.

Were there any further staff comments? The only comment I would say um chair is that um the standard attachments of the attendance record and the look ahead for future meeting items is attached to the report. Um again those are tentative projects for December 3rd. We are having a December 3rd meeting and so um when the agenda goes out we'll have a finalist. Okay. So we have a meeting December 3rd and 17th. We do. We do

on on that 3rd of December meeting. We have like two cups, a presentation and a discussion. That seems like we've got a lot on our plate for the third. I was a wee bit worried about the the length of that one. I was also wondering is there a difference between presentation and discussion? Um cuz it discussion is listed for the specific plan area thing and I was wondering that mean I'm hoping that we get a presentation of some quantity information about what are specific plan areas where are they were these parts what were their intents I'm hoping that be that sort of information

we will make sure we have that information when we provide that um you know and I I guess uh sometimes it's used interchangeably but there will be a presentation but it will be a discussion um we have about just about 30 specific plans and so we're going to take them in chunks as far as discussing them. So yeah. Okay. Thank you everyone. Uh this meeting now adjourned.