Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. Um, I'd like to call the planning commission meeting to order of April 8th at 6 PM. If we could please have roll call. Commissioner Slater, present. Commissioner Scarboro Echo, present. Commissioner Santos present. Vice Chairperson Ortiz present. Chairperson France present.

And if we could please um stand for the pledge of allegiance and Commissioner Megan if you would lead us. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we'll go ahead and move on to item number three, public comment for items not on the agenda. Do we have any requests to speak?

Okay, hearing none, we'll go ahead and close the public comment and move on to item number four, minutes from the March 25th meeting. Do I have a motion or are there corrections? a motion to approve the meeting minutes of March 25th, 2026. I second that motion.

You can go ahead vote on your screens. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, we'll go ahead and move on to item number five, public hearing. Um um point Madison point phase 1 project. Do we have a presentation?

We do. We do. Um we'll get the presentation going and then I'll start my staff report. Perfect. So good afternoon chair and members of the planning commission. My name is Gustavo Gomez, principal planner with the community development department. And the item before you this afternoon is a continuation of the Madison Point phase 1 project for um case file number plan PRD25008 plan CUP um 25006 and plan TTM 25004. So, just quick background on the project. The um on February 25th, the planning commission um heard heard the present um accept um got the presentation from staff um heard the staff report and found that the car wash um part of the proposal did not meet the highway 111 corridor specific plans placemaking vision, meaning that it was um neglecting the pedestrian focus um in favor of more autooriented uses. and it was lacking strong visual identity. So um following the public hearing um the planning commission um did continue the project to a date certain of March 25th and on March 25th 2026 um staff did request the project to be continued once again so that staff could complete the review of the revised resubmitt. So here is just a quick um project changes overview of the project changes. So before um the um project consisted of a tenative trackm to subdivide 20 acres into eight lots. Um develop four pads, three along Highway 111 and one along Madison Street. Um the project consisted of the commercial retail building, coffee shop with drive-thru, the car wash drive-thru, and a general retail with EV charging and a battery energy

storage system. Um, it also proposed to allow two limited land use in sub area 8 and the conditional use permit to allow two drive-throughs. So now, um, the project has been revised to, um, uh, remove develop. So, it's still proposing to do the subdivision of the 20 acres into eight lots, but remove any development on um, pad 3 or lot 5. Um and then now it consists of develop being three pads, two along Highway 111, one on Madison and the removal of the car wash. And then um it would will allow for one limited land use on sub area 8. And the conditional per uh use permit is for only one drive-thru. So here's a revised site plan um of that what I just went over. So, it shows the removal of the drive-thru on lot five. Um, and it does um state that it will um be uh brought back. Um, so we do have a condition in our um resolutions that the applicant shall be required to obtain a planning review discretionary um or ACUP depending if it's going to be a limited land use with drive-thru and um it it will be required prior to any development of this lot. It still conforms with the master plan development permit. So it was approved for 15,000 square feet of um commercial retail. Um the original design um had proposed 14,500 square ft and the then now the new development is only 10,960 ft. So here's a revised um tenative track map. Like I mentioned, it's still proposing to do the eight lots. So, seven of them are going to be developable with a with a lot A for a

future um catch basin. And then here is that revised um plan showing only the development of the three lots uh the two on Highway 111 and one on Madison. So, the revised planning um review discretionary for you tonight would be for um the like I mentioned the development of the three pads consisting of the commercial uh retail building, the coffee shop with drive-thru and the general retail building with EV charging and the battery energy storage system. Um and also for the architecture, the pedestrian circulation, landscaping and design program. So, um no changes were made to the elevations. The project remains consistent with the modern architecture that was proposed for the uh multi-tenant building for the drive-thru restaurant and also for the um EB charging with the general retail store. The revised material board um did did remove the yellow swatch that was going to be used for the drive-thru, but it still is proposing to have um six uh paint swatches, uh two stone veneers, um metal shade canopies, and decorative railing for for fencing. Uh pedestrian circulation remain the same. They're still proposing the um east west um pedestrian connectivity and also the north south connecting um to existing sidewalks along Highway 111. So that that hasn't changed. Um in terms of landscape, that hasn't changed either. So they're still proposing lush landscaping around the perimeter of those um of the site. And just we would just wanted to highlight that they are still proposing that Burm um from Highway 111 um to shield any

headlight from the stacking of the vehicles for for the for the um coffee shop. Um there was one minor revision to the signage they did um to the sign packet. Um originally they were proposing um to go from um 30 in uh to 6 feet for any graphical wall wall signage. Um in discussing with staff we figured that 6 ft would have been too large and in reviewing other applications that we've approved especially the newest Starbucks here on Highway 111 and Oasis um which was 5T we felt that 5T is um especially driving on Highway 111 is an adequate size. So that's the only um change made for the sign packet. Um and that only applies to the Starbucks and the L3 branding in terms of the limited land use. So according to the table 3 uh 14 uh it does have um standards for limited land use and it does mention that for sub area 8 they're limited to two. So with the revised proposed project, it is now going to be um the first one that is going to be used and they of a maximum of two. So they still have one more that they could use for the revised conditional use permit um for table 3 um 5-1 for allowable uses. Um it does uh allow for um you know with the issuance of a conditional use permit regardless if it's going to have a drive-through or not or with the inclusion of a drive-thru to have to to have a cup. Then the project is just proposing just one drive-thru. So the recommendation tonight um is uh to recommend approval of the project to the city council for resolution number 2129, 2130 and 2131 for the design review discretionary application

conditional use permit and the tenative track map uh 34804 for the Madison Point phase 1 project. That concludes my staff report and I'm here to answer any questions and the applicant is also here um if you have any questions for them as well. Thank you. Do we have any questions of staff at this time? No. Okay, we can Oh, you do? I have a question.

Um on your report, you stated that um permitting allowed for a sign that was 43 by 6 feet uh 43 feet wide. Uh but to my knowledge, that was the Quick Quack sign, I believe. So the that signage would be for the monument sign leading into the the development. So okay. Yeah. So no there they're smaller monument signs but that larger one is just the identification sign leading into the the the project. Got it. Okay. And that would be inches. You said feet. Kind of scared me. 48. Yeah. It's not inches. Okay. So it's four feet. What are the dimensions on the money?

I can pull up the the exact dimensions for it, but I believe he's corrected. It It's a quite large um signage that goes from Let me see if I could pull the a site plan. Oh, there's this previous slide. So, the right there in between the um the multi-tenant building um leading and and the um and the drive-thru, there's going to be a large monument sign on that kind of median leading into the into the the project. So, between uh P1 and P2. Yes.

Okay. And that's the one that's 49 ft long. Okay. It it it'll be 49 ft, but it will not exceed the height of the allowable height for the um for for signage for the corridor for the Highway 111 corridor specific plan. Do we have a graphic for like a reference so we can kind of see how it's going to look like?

Sure. Let me try to get that up for you guys. Are there any other questions for the commission to the staff?

Um, I had a question regarding the the best battery electronic storage system. Um I'm not too familiar with I guess the safety protocols that's in place for those, but are there any um instances of I guess like leakage or explosions with regard to um those types of units? I'm going to refer that question to the applicant or I believe we have somebody on the call who is from the L3 um battery energy um storage system so that they could probably respond to that and just to add one quick note. So there were concerns by the fire department but as part of the review of this project it was conditioned accordingly to address any concerns in regards to fire um and things like that. Um so there are conditions as part of the project that address that.

Okay. Yeah. Because one of my concerns if we're going to be exempting this from a sequ right now um would be the development uh that's proposed down the line and just um ensuring the safety of future residents and sure that whenever that time comes and I do believe that and just for reference uh during the first time uh this applicant did come in we did have discussions regarding uh fire suppression anything like that that would have to f follow the uh California state's uh uh mandates regarding uh the fire uh apparatuses for this pro uh project type of project I should say.

That is true. Commissioner Slater was was not in the planning commission that in that discussion but the first time they came we had like a lengthy discussion. We asked questions and then it was a very informative session. Okay. If there are no more questions for staff at this time, um we'll go ahead and ask the applicant to come up and go ahead and open our public comment time.

Thank you. Any questions of developer? And just to clarify a little bit on the um signage uh that we were talking about earlier, looking at the and if you guys can correct me if I'm uh correct on this, it's almost like a planter as well in the middle. I do see some greenage on the pictures.

Yeah. We do have that exhibit. Um if staff could um pull pull it up. So this is the large monument sign. So, and it's going to be located um like you mentioned on pad one and two. So, that's it is large, but it it does not exceed the the height of what it is allowable and the proposed changes um you know they do enhance the cent's visual identity. So, um I think it integrates some of the architectural features of the buildings. So, I think that's why they wanted to keep this in there and we feel that it it's sized adequately for it. Thank you for pointing up the image. It's very helpful.

Any other questions of the applicant? No. Um, okay. So, I do have one. the um the temporary basin thing makes me nervous and the reason is we all know that phase one could come out of the ground pretty quickly. Um but phase two could be 10 years, could be 20 years. I mean, you know, you don't know anymore. So, what I'm wondering is once you're done building, because I know that's going to be catching a lot of the construction water and all that kind of stuff, or who knows what exactly it's going to be used for during construction, but when you're done, would it make any sense to just go ahead and move it to the other edge of the of the property or is it not make sense to do that?

Well, the reason it wouldn't is that basically you're trying to pick up the water from the per impermanmeable surfaces. And so, the paving in the north end is what has to go into the basin. So if you moved it south, you've got to cross a lot of native land and it just doesn't make sense to do it there. That's why it it's kind of up tucked up against the parking lot and then eventually, you know, when more of that building roofs and paving and and parking goes in on the south part, then it it, you know, is designed to go to that new basin. So yeah.

So since you are dividing this land into eight, I think it's eight lots. um what happens if the second phase development doesn't develop the way that you think it's going to develop, right? Like all one big piece, what's going to happen to that basin if all of a sudden the the south corner part develops, but the closest to the highway doesn't develop and those lots develop in multiple pieces. What how does that impact that basin or does it?

Well, every project that comes in has to get reviewed by the by the city engineering department. And so one of the things we have to provide is a hydraology study and a basin with the appropriate sizing and volume to handle the runoff from that particular part of the project. So I mean it's hard to say now how it could develop. I know right now it's sort of designed to occur in pieces. I mean there's a you know there's a fairly large apartment project. There could be a hotel. There could be other things in there. But as each of those comes in whether they're independent or a group you know they would have to deal with the runoff from their project. So um could be that there would be multiple temporary evations perhaps in the long in the long term but or in the short term I guess but um again it's hard to say uh those would all be uh expected to be appropriately designed appropriately located and then finished in a fashion that wouldn't be uh a problem or an isore for the the short term until the the permanent basin is established. Um, you know, the thing about these temporary ones is that they said they they get replaced, they get graded over, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to put a lot of money into them because they won't be there forever. When you get to the last one, you know, and the property all drains from north to south when the last one comes in, that's a fairly sizable basin, would probably be landscaped much more um uh aesthetically with probably some recreational facilities and things like that at that south end, but it's a much bigger basin than any of these small temporary ones would be. So that it would really fall back on city staff and and future development to make sure that that that is managed properly as the rest of it develops so that it ends up being one functional basin for the entire project.

Yeah. And um you know having done this for a long time, we could never get a project approved without getting that approval of a basin through the through the staff. So just doesn't happen. All right. I don't like the word temporary, but okay. What other word could we find? All right. Any other questions of the developer? No. Okay. Do we have Thank you. Do we have anyone um who would like to speak on this item?

Um there are no other comments. Okay. Not seeing any items. We'll go ahead and close the public comment for this item and move on to questions for staff or deliberations. Do we have any other questions of staff? Nope. Okay. So, Gustavo, are you guys comfortable with I want to make sure that this temporary basin doesn't turn into a forever basin. I know that there's no way to know when the rest of the development is going to happen. So, is there a way to ask for updates? I don't I don't know how do we keep an eye on this because, you know, we could be five different people in five years and there could be three different people over there in five years. How do we keep this up? So we don't it doesn't get lost

of course. Yeah. So there is so we could do um we have some condition we have draft of some conditions. So one of the things that we could do is just you know we could read into the record that you know the applicant shall you know land for the temporary basin that they should landscape the temporary retention basin um and install a rod iron fa fence if the basin is deeper than 5 ft. And the other thing that we could make sure to ensure that it does get removed um when phase 2 comes in, we could also add another condition that the applicant shall construct the permanent retention basin and remove the temporary retention basin prior to the issuance of a grading permit for phase two. So we could do something like that if if we closed the public session. So hang on, I need to reopen it if if we're going to do it. Okay. So, I'm going to reopen the public comment and we can hear from the applicant.

The other thing to keep in mind is things like that.

Do we need to say that again or maybe a little bit so it goes in the record? Okay. So just um suggestion is that uh if you wanted we could we could have this come back to staff to look at the treatments of the you know the basin when we when we finish it and then uh you know another department the city has active as code enforcement if it was covered with weeds and things like that we'd be cited we have to clean that up. So there's a lot of reasons why it wouldn't happen but those are just a couple of thoughts. Thank you. Thank you.

All right chair could I just add something and maybe bring the applicant up um real quickly. Um the wording that was proposed by staff as far as when phase two begins, the removal of the temporary basin because the project will rely on the the large basin that eventually be built as part of the second phase in addition to ensuring that the temporary basin is landscaped. Are you um do you agree with that additional wording in that condition?

We don't have a problem with that wording. I think it might be nice to make it a little more flexible because we again we don't exactly know how the phasing will occur on that future portion of it. And for example, if something on the on the west side happened before the south end, it might not be appropriate to put that basin in if there ended up say being two additional phases or three additional phases. I don't know. I know there there at least more than one use there. There's an apartment and there's a hotel, I think. So, if if that flexibility could be put into it, that would be good. And like I say, whatever comes forth has to get approved by by the city as far as the hydrarology and the drainage design on it and things like that. So,

but as far as the temporary basin, it is temporary. Um, do you agree that that would be removed? Yes. Okay. And then again, when something goes over the top of it, it has to go away. So, uh, when the whole project is built out, if if phase two consisted of everything else has to come out with phase two and would be moved on to that second part. just not quite sure if you can word it with a little bit of flexibility since we don't exactly know how that is going to come timing wise for those additional portions of the project as all but in concept no problem with that

okay I think the wording that we um stated tonight Mr. Gustavo that um we can incorporate some flexibility in that but the general idea is to have it removed in landscape landscape then removed later as part of phase two maintained while it's there. Exactly. Okay. So

so just for the record if I may chair may go ahead and just read these two into the record again uh just in case the planning commission wants to incorporate them into their motion. The number one is the applicant shall landscape the temporary retention basin and install a rot iron fence if the basin is deeper than 5 ft. And number two, applicant shall construct the permanent retention basin and remove the temporary retention basin prior to the issuance of grading permit for phrase two. Um those are the the two uh conditions that I believe we got from uh engineering as well.

Could we uh maybe just add landscape/ground cover because typically we don't do a lot of landscaping on temporary basins. It's more of the the materials to, you know, sort of solidify the ground, solidify the slopes and make it look clean and nice, you know, not but not heavily landscaped. So, yeah, we can add ground cover. It would be up to the plan. Yeah. Up to the planning commission. A problem. Anybody have a problem?

Okay. Okay. Yeah. Seeing everybody kind of has a consensus with that the landscape ground cover. Okay. And then madam chair if I can in regards to the second portion of that condition uh and I think hearing what the applicant's saying of the flexibility he's asking because again it could be two-phase it could be a second third phase fourth phase and we can just potentially limit it to two or three depending on the size of that phase. So I would have to defer to to staff and the planning commission if that is something that uh staff would be okay with and if the planning commission would concur with that. I mean could we add something that says that maybe at the discretion of the director yeah staff director of development that you know it can be modified within whatever phase of the second phase. So how it would read then how I would suggest is applicant shall construct the permanent retention basin and remove the temporary retention basin prior to the issuance of grading permit for um how about for in any phase as so determined

um by uh the city engineer in concurrence with development director in concurrence uh with the director of development. Perfect. Yeah. Gives a little a little more flexibility. Yeah, that that's fine. That's fine. Okay. Perfect. All right. Um I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. All right. Any more questions of staff? Nope. Do we have any deliberations or do we have a motion? Uh

I just want to say thank you to the applicant, to the staff for working together and making sure this project works for everybody, for staff, for the applicants, for the u for the commission. So, thank you all. With that said, I'll make a motion to approve the project as stated with the conditions that were read a few minutes ago, the two conditions. And I second that motion. Great. Oh, looks like we can vote already. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you.

All right. So, commissioner comments, do we have anybody anything? It's Coachella weekend. So, just be careful. Watch out for the traffic and then thank you to the city for putting out those communications about traffic uh street closures is very helpful. So, thank you.

Yeah, same thing. I I really I'm so excited. The city's got so many things going on for our residents. On top of that, I did see the newsletter that went out. I think it was today or yesterday. That was really nice. And um stay safe and let's hope Coachella comes and goes and stage coach with no real fuss. Sorry. Item number seven, staff. So, I'm currently not exactly staff, but uh madam chair, members of the commission, I wanted to introduce Mia Merik of our office. Mia is right there. Um she's going to be shadowing me uh during some planning commission meetings and eventually uh I'm not going anywhere. I've been asked if I was going anywhere. I'm not going anywhere. I'm still around. I'm still at the firm. Everything is good. Um but we want to give uh some opportunity to meet and uh to actually see what we do here at planning and here at city hall. So, yep. Very good lawyer, by the way. Welcome. Yeah.

And just to add that, I do have a few staff items. Um, so the next meeting you'll be reviewing our updated new and improved U subdivision ordinance. So, we've been working on that for quite a while with a consultant. Better part of a year um to get that before you. So, it's uh that'll be um at the next hearing, which is uh the 22nd. Also, I wanted to bring the planning commission up to speed on something that happened last week with the city council. There was the uh Estrella Estates project that the planning commission reviewed. So, it was approved with some minor changes um to the conditions, but one of the things that did get a little bit of discussion was uh our general plan existing general plan policy. It's a land use element LU78. As we know, we've talked about this quite a bit in past meetings. We're uh currently discouraging gated communities in accordance with this with pol this policy which um essentially says discourage the construction of new gated communities. So, the city council expressed that um they would like to not um discourage gated communities. A variety of reasons that I'm not for this short little staff item. I wasn't going to get into, but in short, um, still have connected neighborhoods, still require, um, connections to other communities and neighborhoods that are nearby, but as far as the gates, not discouraging, uh, the construction of those gated communities. So, so we're going to come back in the near future with an update to our general plan for that policy. Um, it's not necessarily an opportunity to to dig into the general plan in in a lot of different areas because we don't necessarily have a budget or consultant or staffing right now to to be updating the 2040 general plan. But that one in particular will be brought before you and then back to the city council. And then lastly, even though I didn't include it, I wanted to invite all the commissioners. We're

going to have an open house and a short presentation for the annexation project we've been working on. That'll be at the teen center tomorrow between 12 and 2. So, if you'd like to come and have lunch, there will be some lunch provided. Um, some sandwiches and some drinks and things like that. But essentially, myself and the consultant uh reaching out to the general public, also different agencies that hopefully can show up and uh get a an update on where we are at with the project, but most importantly get their input and comments. There'll be an opportunity for them to do that, written comments. So other than that, that does conclude uh the staff um items for tonight's meeting.

Thank you very much. Um does anyone have any more comments or questions? No. Okay, seeing none, we'll go ahead and adjourn to our next regularly scheduled meeting on April 22nd, 2026 at 6:30.