Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. I'd like to call the Planning Commission meeting for the City of Indio Wednesday, May 27th to order at 6 p.m. Welcome, everyone. If we could please have roll call. Commissioner Slater.

Present.

Commissioner Scarborough-Eckel. Present. Commissioner Santos.

Present.

Vice Chairperson Ortiz.

Present.

Chairperson Frans. Present. Thank you. If we could all now stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and Commissioner Santos will lead us. Thank you, Commissioner Santos. We'll go ahead and move on to item number three, which is public comment for items not on the agenda. Do we have anyone here to speak on an item that is not on the agenda? Do we have anyone online? I don't have any. No, okay. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public comment. Move on to number four, minutes of the Planning Commission of May 13th. Do we have corrections or a motion?

I bring a motion to approve those minutes.

I'll second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Can we please do roll call?

You can go ahead and vote on your screens.

Motion carries. Thank you, everyone. Okay, we'll go ahead and move on to public hearings items. And we are going to be moving the agenda a little bit. We're going to go into item 5.3 first, making that 5.1. So if we could please have staff report on capital improvements.

Sure, good evening chair, vice chair and planning commissioners. My name is Don Ueno. I am a principal civil engineer with the city of Indio and I'm here to present our annual capital improvement program to this planning commission for consistency, to make a finding of consistency with the general plan. So I have a short presentation for you. I can get through this pretty quickly. And then if you have any questions, feel free to ask at the end. Okay, so just a quick reminder of what happened in the last fiscal year. Here is a list of the completed projects that we've done, highlighting some of the big ones that we did, which was the new city hall, the new library, Indio Sports Park, the Civic Center storm drain, OASIS STREET BEAUTIFICATION, THE BALANCED TRAILHEAD PARKING LOT, ALSO THE AVENUE 44 BRIDGE, AND THEN THE LIGHTS AT THE INDIO CLUBHOUSE IS ALSO READY TO OPEN SOON. SO WE'VE DONE A LOT IN THE LAST YEAR, AND SO I THINK WE SHOULD ALL CELEBRATE OUR WINS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THESE ARE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS THAT WE WERE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH IN THE PAST YEAR. NEXT SLIDE. So this is what you see here is kind of a breakdown of the proposed CIP for next year. I know it's a little small, but basically about a quarter of the projects are going to be going to streets. The blue section is the freeway interchanges again for I-10 Monroe as well as I-10 Jackson. We're setting aside money for those projects coming up. So that's about a quarter of our project as well as new buildings and that's the orange section or kind of yellowish section that is mostly for the police department headquarters. But we are still doing our traditional projects for water, other bridges, traffic signals, storm drains, parks, arts, and some IT infrastructure for fiber optic. So that's kind of a brief overview of what's in the CIP for this next fiscal year. Next slide, please.

Go back.

Sorry. Okay, and then what I'm bringing for you here today is not to approve each project, but basically the city has an obligation per our municipal code to make a finding that we are following our general plan, our 2040 general plan. So what I did was I took all of our 73 projects and I wanted to see, well first of all, in your staff report you will see that we matched all the different general plan goals as well as general plan policies that would apply to each project. What I wanted to see was kind of like what are like our top 10 goals and policies that we are hitting with our capital improvement program and then So this is an order of how much, not only money is going towards the project, but how many times it was mentioned in that 73 projects. So clearly we have a focus on the traffic operations and safety. We have infrastructure resiliency. We're focusing on complete streets, meaning safely accommodating pedestrian bicyclists as well as transit users. We are looking at our public safety infrastructure, public facility improvements. We also have coordination with regional projects like the CV Link, CV Sync, different CVag projects that we are coordinating with our neighboring agencies. Bicycle facilities came up a lot. infrastructure maintenance, so that could be just various projects that have to do with infrastructure. We are also looking at economic growth and then addressing pedestrian facilities. So this would be sidewalks, crosswalks, ADA compliance, and then connectivity, so closing those sidewalk gaps. Oh. So just a quick overview of what kinds of projects were included. This was also shown to the city council at their study session a few weeks ago, but our street projects total about 48.8 million. We do our traditional grind and overlays, our annual slurry sale projects, as well as we are spending some money for some school zone signs and striping upgrades. as well as redoing our citywide pavement condition index update. Oops, sorry. We are allocating in this next fiscal year about 43.7 million towards our freeway interchanges. The I-10 Monroe interchange, we are currently working with Caltrans to get our approvals to list the project out. We anticipate construction starting at 2027 as of today, January of 2027. That's a $181 million project. And it's gonna take about two years to build that project if we can get the approval from Caltrans and the federal government for our funding. But we do anticipate getting that out to bid this fall. So construction would start sometime next year, early next year. Also we're setting aside money for the I-10 Jackson Street interchange. That's $191 million project. Right now it's still in the design phase. We project that it would be ready for construction in the fall of 2029. And again, that's about a two year construction project. So that one is a little ways to go, but it is, we're saving the money upfront this year to help pay for that big project. For our building projects, of course, the big one is the police department headquarters. We are also looking for things to improve the Indio Performing Arts Center. We're going to do some repairs at the transportation center, the Hays Transportation Center, and then as well as refresh the conceptual plans for that transportation center to position ourselves for upcoming rail projects. Our water project, obviously chromium six is a big thing that we need to address with our water projects. So we have several projects to work on improving our water system to address chromium six. There's also going to be our usual pipeline and hydrant replacement programs. And then we did set aside funds for our Indio water master plan update. Let's see. And then traffic signals, we do have traffic signals coming on Jackson Street between Avenue 50, 51, and 52. So those are three intersections with new traffic signals. We're going to add a traffic signal at Arabia and Dr. Carrion, as well as add sidewalks in that area. And then we do have some traffic signal modifications coming up. Park projects, we are still gonna work towards our Indio Sports Park improvements. So we did set aside some money to do some additional things, amenities that we could add to the current park. um we also included money for a park master plan we will continue with the memorials for veterans park and um some landscaping projects so those are the park projects included in this cip and then we do so have some other projects one is the art center which is right here next to um just down the street from us so we're going to do a full renovation of that arts center building we do have a grant that we have for fiber optic last mile installations and the we do have some bridge projects which is the bridge preventative maintenance program so that's where we look at all the bridges in town and then do the routine maintenance for that And then CVEG also has a project in the City of Indio called the Arts and Music Line. We do have a significant piece of that project. It also involves the City of Coachella and the City of La Quinta, but we did set aside about a million dollars for our share of that project. So that pretty much covers our five-year capital program. These are the projects that are included in your staff report, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have for the CIP. And again, you're you're looking for consistency with the general plan, you're not approving the projects.

Thank you very much. That's so great to see all the things that are happening have happened and are coming our way. Any questions for staff at this time? Nope. We open this for public comment. Okay, we'll go ahead and open this for public comment. Is there anyone wanting to speak on this item? I have another request, though. We have one. Ma'am, can you come up? And there's the little form. You can turn on, oh, your mic's on, there you go. Can you put the mic, yeah. I'm not sure. We will address the Erase This project when we get to that item on the agenda. Yeah, I can ask. Can we have your name please for the record? Thank you. Is there any response from staff on the question about that road?

THERE'S NO PROJECTS TO BUILD THE ULTIMATE WIDTH OF THAT PROJECT IN THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR. IT DOESN'T SAY THAT IT COULDN'T HAPPEN IN A FUTURE YEAR BUT IN THE 2026, 2027 FISCAL YEAR THERE'S NO PROJECT RIGHT NOW FOR THAT. I ALSO DO KNOW THAT THE COCHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT HAS A STORM DRAIN LINE COMING THROUGH THAT AREA SO IT WOULD BE LIKELY THAT THE CITY WOULD build that street to the ultimate, you know, depending on how development comes in and when the need arrives, but right now it's not part of the CIP you're reviewing tonight.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. I'm sure that it's on the list, we're just not sure where, and we never wanna get in front of another project, so I'm sure if there's a water issue line, we're gonna work with that. But yeah, I completely hear you. Thank you very much. Okay, any other comments? Nope, okay, well, nothing online? No, okay, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing item on this item. Okay, and we will go ahead and move on to the, oh, sorry, go ahead.

Thank you for bringing your point up regarding the budgeting and funding for the Avenue 42 project. In the general plan, that street is an identified priority to be rehabbed, correct? Or improved upon?

I'm not sure about a priority, but yeah,

Okay, but it's outlined to be a future project or initiative for the city. So one of my concerns is... We up here sitting on the dais didn't really have sufficient time to review your, or at least I'm speaking for myself, to review your report. And I take full onus of that. However, the amount of work we've had to do or research has been immense. The Oasis project was about 3,000 pages. The Roadrunner project was about 200 pages. And your report was nearly 200 pages as well. So I do want to respectfully your time and I do appreciate the work you've put in for your report It was really informative, but it does still leave questions that I have so I I don't feel comfortable Approving or recommending or stating that that's in alignment with the general plan just because I haven't reviewed it fully and I may have Questions that you or Brian may be able to answer so with that said Were we speaking, are we making a motion on this?

Well let's, I close the public hearing so we'll see if anybody else has any questions.

For sure.

Does any other commissioners have any questions or comments of staff on this item?

No, okay, then we are either, I don't have any questions. If we have a motion at this point, we can do that, so.

Chair, could I just add one quick point? Sure. So Commissioner Slater, very good point, you know, to ask how part of our mobility element. So generally speaking, when new development comes in, they would be on the hook, they would be responsible for doing improvements to roads, such as 42 or other roads, unless it's in the CIP. THE CITY CAN'T DO ALL OF THE THE CITY CAN'T DO ALL OF THE STREETS AND EVERYTHING IN THE STREETS AND EVERYTHING IN THE CITY SO SOME COME IN AS THE CITY SO SOME COME IN AS THE DEVELOPMENT IS PRESENTED TO THE DEVELOPMENT IS PRESENTED TO THE CITY IN APPLICATION AND THEN CITY IN APPLICATION AND THEN THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE A LOT OF THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE A LOT OF TIMES TO DO LIKE HALF THE STREET TIMES TO DO LIKE HALF THE STREET FOR EXAMPLE BUT IN THIS CASE IT'S getting back to the item it's general plan consistency and so all those projects that are in the cip are consistent with the city's general plan so i just wanted to re-emphasize that okay do we have um any other questions of staff no do we have a motion

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE STAFF REPORT REGARDING THE CAP MEETING THE GENERAL 2040 PLAN AS DESCRIBED AND PROVIDED BY STAFF.

OKAY. HAVING A MOTION, DO I HAVE A SECOND?

I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.

OKAY. HAVING A FIRST AND A SECOND, IF WE COULD PLEASE HAVE A VOTE. Motion carries 4-1. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you very much to our civil engineer and to staff for that report and for all the great projects that are happening in Indio. Thank you. Okay, we will go ahead now and move on to Roadrunner Flats, if we could please have our presentation.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Gustavo Gomez, Principal Planner with the Community Development Department. And the item for you tonight is item 5.1, the Roadrunner Flats Project for planning case file number Plan PRD 25-0023 and Plan TTM 25-0005. So just a quick overview. So the project applicant, Tung Tran, with A-Tapes Corporation, has submitted two applications, a planning review discretionary and a tentative track map for the Roadrunners Affordable Housing Project. And it's located on Assessor Parcel Number 69106005. and it has a general plan land use designation of Deserted States Transition and a zoning designation of Deserted States Transition 3. The project is generally located west of Jefferson Street and north of Avenue 39. And the project proposal for you tonight is the tentative track map 39405 to subdivide a 10.07 acre lot into 38 lots. So it would be 31 numbered lots and seven letter lots. the also a planning review discretionary to develop the affordable housing project consisting of 30 lots for single family homes with ADUs, one lot for an amenities and leasing office building with a one manager's unit located on that lot. It also includes open space, private streets and landscaping as part of this proposal tonight. So before I get into it, I do want to clarify that the allowable density for the desert estates is three units per acre, so the lot itself is 10.07 acre, it's an acre site, and it would allow for a 30.21 unit count for that site, but because the project is affordable they're allowed a density bonus and fractional unit counts are rounded up to the next whole number so that's why they're proposing the 31 unit count. So just wanted to clarify that. So here's a view of the map, and here's a zoomed up version of that, kind of showing that allocation. So it shows the 30 residential lots, the leasing and amenities lot, and then also they're proposing open space on lot A and B, which is located on the on Avenue 39 at the entrance and then lot C through G are private streets. So the proposed site plan, so they are, like I mentioned, they're proposing 30 single-family dwelling units with ADUs. The amenities and leasing office is located toward the center. There is access to the site from Avenue 39, and then they are proposing a secondary emergency-only access from Dreams Lane, which is located to the west of the project. I ALSO DO WANT TO NOTE THAT THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING PARKING REQUIREMENT IS TWO SPACES PER UNIT, PER UDC, WHICH ALLOWS US, IT'S TWO SPACES PER UNIT, ONE SHALL BE ENCLOSED, SO THE PROJECT will be required 62 parking spaces. And I want to note that the project is proposing, as proposed, is including 65 garage parking spaces, 55 carports, and 53 spaces for guest parking. So although the ADUs do not require, by state law, do not require parking, the applicant is proposing parking for those ADUs. So here are the proposed project elevations. The architecture incorporates contemporary suburban design. They are proposing four different designs. So this is two elevations. Here are the elevations for the ADUs. And then here are the proposed elevations for the amenities and leasing office. In addition, they are proposing three different color schemes for the project. So they have varying and different colors and different themes so that it's not monotone throughout the development of the project. So they are proposing desert themed landscaping that will be both drought tolerant and drought resistant and I included a blow up of the amenities that include bike racks, covered trellises, tables and benches, outdoor barbecue, outdoor fitness station and playground for the community. The leasing and amenities building comprises of offices, a lobby, a break room, and the amenities in that building include a club room, restrooms, indoor fitness, a laundry room, and classrooms. Here are some renderings that the applicant has provided. So this is an overview of the project in its entirety and then also an overview of how those units will be staged or how they'll be sited on the property. These are more renderings kind of showing at the pedestrian level. So the first one is looking into the amenities building and then the other would be just one outside of the one of the residential units. Staff has determined that the project is compliant with the City of Indio General Plan 2040. The project is also compliant with the City of Indio Unified Development Code, and the project also complies with the Subdivision Map Act. The applicant has also created a consistency checklist and it has been found to be consistent with the City of Indio's program EIR and no resulting new significant environmental effects have been identified as part of their review. With the application of the relevant conditions of approval, the project is recommended for approval tonight and the conditions of approval are binding and must be adhered to. And then also we did provide a memo to the commission with modifications to the existing conditions. So these are not new conditions, they're just minor revisions. And if there is an action tonight, we would like those to be also included as part of any approval or motion action. So tonight's recommendation is to recommending approval to the city council for resolution 2135 and resolution 2136 for the design review discretionary application and the tentative track map 39405 for the Roadrunner Flats project. That concludes my staff report. Staff is here and the applicant is also here to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you so much. Chair, may I just add one quick item? Mr. Gomez, would you mind just quickly summarizing for the commission the memo and the revision, which is an IID revision conditions?

Absolutely. So for included in your memo, so there's a condition number 54 and 56. So the revision and we both have concurrence from IID. So the way that it's written is that the way that they're withdrawing power would be from the front as written right now is from the Francis Way substation and the modification is to be to the Avenue 40 substation, which is closer to the site. And then in regards to engineering conditions for condition number 113, the way that it's written is that Avenue 39 should be constructed as a boulevard for 43 feet from center line, and that should be 40 feet from center line. And then for condition number 120, So the minimum street width for private streets shall be 41 and that should be revised to 24 feet or wider if required by the fire department.

Okay, thank you very much. Do we have any questions of staff at this point?

Thank you, Mr. Gomez, for your presentation. I'm glad to see projects like this. I've been very vocal about projects that includes ADUs, because we definitely need it here in the state. I did have a question about how are they gonna be constructed? I mean, are they gonna be next to the, I saw the plan, I saw the picture, they're gonna be kinda attached close to the house, right, to the main house, correct? Or are they gonna be towards the back, to the front, or? They are proposing different configurations, but they will not be attached. They're detached. Okay. It's going to be completely detached, right? Yes. Okay. Do we know what is the distance between the ADU and to the main house?

We don't, I don't have that, the distance with me, but they are meeting any standards from our UDCs that require, so we require that they are at least four feet from any rear or side property line, and then six feet from any other residence, so they do meet that requirement.

And then will they have like their own separate kitchen, or like, what are the amenities that ADU is going to have?

Yes, ADUs are, they do come with their own kitchen. So essentially they are their own standalone unit.

Perfect, thank you. And then another question that I have is, does this project have like a water rotation basin? I didn't really catch it on that map.

that's a really good question so the it is located on um lot a and b and then they are also coordinating with um uh cbwd to tie into the existing channel that's located adjacent to the project okay okay and then my last question um this is not going to be a non-gated community correct The project that's proposed is gated.

Oh, it's a gated committee?

It is gated, yes.

Okay, well, we have one entrance, right, one main entrance and one emergency exit towards the site, right? Correct, yes. Correct, okay. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Any other questions at this time? No? Okay, hearing none, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing and we invite the applicant to come up. Do they have a presentation or they're just available for questions?

They'll be available for questions.

Okay. Yeah.

Good evening, time commission. My name is Tung Tran. I'm with ATOP Corporation. And here with me is my colleague, John Okura. Thank you. So yeah, first I want to say thank you for the opportunity to bring this project to community. We've done affordable housing throughout the state and mostly in the traditional that you see around town, garden walk-up and more of the higher density. This is our first foray into doing small. There's few projects like this in the state, but Fort India will be the first, so we try to,

stay consistent to the general plan and like staff represented pretty excited to be able to bring this type of housing to the community thank you very much do we have any questions of the applicant no okay i've i've got just a couple um they mentioned laundry room does that mean that the adus do not have their own laundry connection or or

So typically with affordable housing, we try to do common area laundry, but because this unit is so unique, we are building in, hook up for the units that has a potential to do their own, all the unit will have their own meter, so they can do that, but in addition, we try to provide the laundry room in the community center, so in case other residents don't want to do that, they have choices to do their laundry.

Okay, so instead of having their own, they could use the public one. Right. Okay, perfect. I believe that this project, it's affordable, which is good. We need more affordable. And I love the fact that it's unique. It's different. Okay. So honestly, thank you so much for that. But based on the tentative track map, it is each unit, each main unit has an ADU, right? And on the tentative track map, each unit has its own lot, basically. So if in the future... it could be sold into ownership if that's something that you want it to do, even though it doesn't sound like that's where you're going.

Correct, yes. So the way it's set up is to adhere to the standards. So each lot will basically, you know, it's in the parcel map. They each will have their own space, yard, private patio. Yeah. The project is have a 55 year covenant for forward restriction. So we're gonna be not selling this thing for a long time.

Got it, okay, that's good to know. Okay, any other questions? No? Okay, well thank you very much for bringing something unique to the city of India. Thank you. Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on this item? I have one request to speak, Chair. Jonathan Becerra. We have one in person, so let's do that one first. Come up, sir.

If you could please give us your name as you come up.

Sir, if you could please use the handheld mic. Use the handheld mic, please. I think we're having some issues with the other one. Yes, should be. Nope, then I guess it's not. Uh-oh. Paulina, can you? Thank you.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Okay, two questions.

Your name, please? Sorry.

Bill Collins. Thank you. I'm a resident of the city of Indio. The gentleman said the environmental reports said there were no significant environmental problems, which would imply there are some environmental problems. And so what are those? And the other issue is, this is affordable housing, but what's the projected sale cost going to be for a unit?

It's a rental unit. It will not be sold. They're rental units. They're rental.

What's estimated rental?

But I don't know, that'll be up to when it's built and what the market at that point.

Okay. My other question though about the statement there was no significant environmental issues would imply that there are environmental issues. They're just not significant. And I don't know how you define significant.

Can we answer the question? Thank you.

Yeah, absolutely, so the CEQA that was done for the project is a consistency checklist, so it's not necessarily that they're, so it found that there is, there's no higher, the proposed use is not gonna, it determined that the project is consistent with the zoning, with the general plan, and so the density that is being proposed is exactly what was analyzed under the program EIR that was approved by the city.

Okay, all right, and we had someone online? It's for a different item. Oh, okay, no more requests to speak on this item. Use the handheld mic, please. I think that one's having some issues. Yep. Can you hear me?

There we go. and your name please to start. And I am also requesting clarification. If I'm to understand this correctly, I'm new to this new project we're discussing right now. So I'm looking it up here on my handy dandy trustee computer and it looks like 39th is right near Shadow Hills High School, is that correct? Okay, so again with my handy dandy computer, I see that 42nd is directly affected for access, and again, there's no talk about increasing the 42nd Street thoroughfare. So you have a huge area right there that's being developed. It's a lot of lot of traffic. You're going to have high school, I don't know if any of you have kids, if any of you drive down the street during the morning rush, it's bad. So I'm a little concerned that there's now another project going on that nothing is being addressed for 42nd to be improved. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else? We have one more on Roadrunner, please come up.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Are we permitted to ask questions?

Of course, can you please state your name?

My name is Jeremiah Patman.

And this is on the Roadrunner project?

On the Roadrunner project? Yes. What was the name of the gentleman who gave the presentation, may I ask?

Gustavo Gomez.

It was mentioned earlier, another resident asked, these are gonna be, You know rental units, what was the price of these units that that is my question. These are supposed to be affordable housing, yes, so the question is what is the price that is going to be given for these units.

Again, Madam Chair, members of the Commission, this is a chance for you to provide testimony. I believe that question was asked and answered, but it's really an opportunity right now for you to provide testimony to the Commission if that's something that you'd like to provide. It's not so much a question and answer session, but to provide your testimony with respect to the project in terms of your views on the project.

As a resident of the city of Indio, the need for affordable housing will be of prime importance. The cost of these units will be very notable for the people to get the affordable housing that they need. Thank you.

Not seeing any more requests, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing on this item. and we can move on to deliberations. Do we have any more questions of staff at this time on this project?

It's not a question, but it's more of a comment. I mean, I do appreciate the fact that we're getting like new developments, like they're kind of unique. I just personally, I want like for the community to actually be able to afford those, to buy these units, just not to able to just rent forever. You know, I get that the market is what the market is, but I would just like in a perfect world would like more development like this, like we're actually for people to buy into just not rent it. That's all.

No, okay. Do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the project with the four conditions of approval to be modified with the conditions for 2135, 2136 with what was provided by the principal planner, Gustavo Gomez.

Okay, we have a motion. Do I have a second?

I second.

Okay, we have a first and a second. Can we please have a vote? One more. Okay, motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you very much and we look forward to seeing those units come out of the ground. Thank you very much. Okay, can we take like a two minute break? I have a question. Can we take, I'm gonna take a two minute break. Okay, thank you.

Issues with the mic. He says he's going to come take a look at it. We're having issues with the lectern mic.

Testing, testing.

Testing, testing. Testing, one, two, three. Testing. One, two, three, test. Test mic.

Yep. So you just pinch it and pull? Yeah. Just pinch it down and pull it back.

I'll leave this here because it's very...

Okay, thank you everyone for the two, three-minute break here. We'll go ahead and reconvene the Planning Commission meeting, and we'll go ahead and move on to item 5.2, which is the OASIS at Indio project. If we could please have staff report. Thank you.

Yeah, good evening Chair, members of the Commission. I just wanted to start off this item with a few housekeeping items. We do have a copy of the final EIR here on the counter. We also, I think they've already been taken, but we do have copies of the specific plan as well for the public. that's available. And then secondly, there is a memo that should be on your dais regarding the map track 38799. The most current map was not attached, but it's here. The only thing that was added was a detail for the center median that wasn't accurately shown. So I want to make sure that any motion that's made tonight would include that updated map. So with that into consideration, go ahead and start the presentation for this item, the OASIS at NDO. So there's essentially four items that you're considering tonight. First, you're considering certification of an environmental impact report, CEQA findings, statement of overriding consideration, mitigation monitoring program as well. You'll also see, and I'll talk about it a little bit later in my presentation, there's some existing entitlements on the site, so those are being asked to be rescinded so the new project can go onto that property, be overlaid onto that property, and then of course the actual specific plan itself And there's general plan amendments and zone changes that go with that. There's also a development agreement. It's very common with larger projects to have development agreements. And then finally, a financial tentative map, and I'll explain a little more details about that. So I just want to acquaint everybody with the site. I think most people know the site, but I'm just gonna go ahead and explain based on the map there. You'll see Avenue 42 is bound to the north. You'll see Monroe directly to the east, and then also the Thousand Palms stormwater channel is to the west, and then the I-10 is the southern boundary. This land is flat, and this land is also vacant. And it is considered the Avenue 42 corridor in our general plan. You can also see there is some residential uses to the north, commercial uses as well to the east, shopping areas, recent projects like Raising Cane's, In-N-Out, Sumo Dog are located over there. So as I mentioned at the beginning, there's some existing entitlements. Those existing entitlements include the Gateway-specific plan, as well as another specific plan that is very dated. And actually, the Clinton Freeway Business Park is also included on that property. So we'll be asking the Commission to rescind those so that the new project can move forward. So real quickly, the general plan amendments, you'll see the layout here, which shows the existing site has a regional commercial portion. It also has a mixed use neighborhood component as well. And then to the right, You can see that the whole site would be the destination of SP, again, for the OASIS and NDO-specific plan. This is just a side-by-side comparison, both the existing and the proposed. I wanted to point out, whoops, just make sure I kinda got two screens here so I can make sure I can see a little bit clearer. You can see the existing and the proposed. The Mixtis neighborhood, which is what it is now, has up to 40 dwelling units per unit. and a far floor area ratio of 0.50 or 0.5 and then the proposed would be a slightly larger 50 dwelling units per acre, the same floor area ratio as well as the regional commercial component of the land existing as 0.35 to 1.0 because remember we have more than one specific plan so they're mixing and matching some And then of course an industrial component of the site would have a 0.60 floor area ratio. And the zoning is essentially a regional commercial mixed use neighborhood and a mixed use specific plan. The whole property would be proposed to be rezoned SP. So moving along, just a side-by-side comparison, you can see the comparison of the flora ratios, you can see the comparison of the density, how it's increasing, and you can also see what some of the density was under the previous gateway-specific plan. So one of the other amendments before the commission this evening is amending the mobility element. In some jurisdictions they call it the circulation element. Essentially there's a southern leg or southern portion of Clinton Street that's proposed to be removed and I'll get into that a little later as we see like a conceptual site plan that doesn't show a public street essentially. So the map, circulation map is on the left. That's in our general plan. Just a blow up to your right of that area. So let's talk about the OASIS specific plan. What is it? What are some of the components? I'm not going to talk about everything, but we do have copies and we're available to answer any questions later, but I'm going to do a brief overview. So one of the key components is this is a mixed use project. It's also a project, as I mentioned, the Avenue 42 corridor in the general plan. which is encouraging areas to be master planned, to be mixed use. It also allows, instead of the zoning code, the unified development code to control the specific plan would have its own regulations there that would have the planning standards, review procedures, development standards, et cetera, that are different than the zoning code. So it also addresses infrastructure, public services, and utilities that are needed to support these uses. So some of the development regulations, for example, permitted uses. There's a land use matrix table within the specific plan. There's performance standards, signage. There is a small component, but the site could, if they would like to, and if the project gets approved, have a freeway-oriented digital display. There's also objective design standards, which were required by state law to be objective. There's also development standards for landscaping. and the administration and implementation of the plan, which I'll get into a little bit later. So I want to just state very clearly that this is kind of the first step. The environment review and the specific plan is the first step. Future planning review would be required. So whether it's an industrial project or a residential project or commercial project, additional planning review before the planning commission would be required. Now that, taken into consideration, smaller projects would be allowed at a staff level, so that would be an administrative review, if it meets certain thresholds. So those thresholds, are there small projects, 100 dwelling units, no more, a commercial project, 10,000 square feet, no greater, and then an industrial project of 100,000 square feet. Could be at staff level, it would still be noticed, but it would not come to the Planning Commission for those smaller projects. So this is just kind of an overlay of the planned area and how it is designating different land uses within the project area. You can see to the north, going east and west, it's a mixed use designated land use district. You'll see to the south, the industrial component of the project. You'll also see, which I'll talk a little bit more, there is land set aside to build a new electrical substation. So you can see that called out in yellow. And then to the far east, you have a mixed use area. And then another mixed use area to the south. I'll get into some specifics on that in just a second. So these are some of the development potentials. Nothing is set in stone, but these are potentials based on the environment review and the plan that's before you this evening. So 3,240 dwelling units. The commercial component, 20,000 square feet, but there are some maximums that I'll talk about later. The industrial component would be 1,826,290 square feet. And even though the project site is 183 acres, apologize I didn't specify that at the beginning, the actual developable area, when you start taking into easements, the area for the electrical substation, right-of-way dedications, right-of-way street improvements, it's about 167. So even though these are land use concepts, you have to kind of think of it as these are what ifs. This is not necessarily exactly what will get built because future entitlement projects will come in if the specific plan and the associated documents are approved. So this shows one and I'm gonna show a second one. A conceptual or illustrative site plan, for example, this one shows on the north end of the project, stretching east and west, is attached multifamily housing. Now, taking that into consideration, there's other types of housing that could also be built. There could be live work, there could be detached single family homes, or attached multifamily. It also shows the industrial buildings. This is one component where there would be two large buildings. Obviously, you can see a separation in between. I'll show you a different configuration on the next slide. To the northeast, there's a commercial development. It could be a drive-through, a sit-down restaurant. And then on the southeast, you will see a potential hotel site. That's that small rectangular building that's in yellow, a couple retail pads as well. So a second iteration, again, this is a conceptual view of what could happen, shows the industrial project broken up into several different buildings. And the residential component is still to the north, but you can see that the residential is a different pattern. It's a different layout. Maybe one's multifamily and maybe one's condos, et cetera. And then you also see the commercial components on the end on the east side. So that's another example. that's contained in this specific plan. I wanted to highlight some of the circulation of the plan because that is important and part of the requirements of a specific plan. This shows the vehicular circulation and mobility that's depicted throughout the plan. I wanted to highlight just real quickly some of the improvements that you would see as development comes in over time. For example, a new signal at Avenue 42 in Clinton You can see there right in the middle on the north side. So that would serve like a large residential project. You can see also new improvements along Avenue 42. So we talked about Avenue 42 in the other project. So they would be, the developer would be responsible to do half of that street. So full frontage improvements, dedications, all of Avenue 42 would be widened. but half, sorry, half of it, but that whole stretch. A new private drive is shown in, on this map, is shown in kind of a light blue. again serving the residential. A new private road for the industrial component of a future project. You can see it stretches east and west. It's a very long private road. And then also lastly, new improvements along Monroe Street. Again, half of that section of that roadway segment would be improved. So this is the nonvehicular component, circulation and mobility. So if you look at the map, you'll see a few components. So a cycle track, which is considered a class four, would run east and west on Avenue 42. You will also see proposed sidewalks. You'll see a signalized crosswalk. You'll see a decomposed granite trail interconnected throughout the development. Of course, that would help the residential component. You'll see a class one. which is a separate path from the traffic. Class four, going back to that, that would actually be a permanent barrier between the traffic and the bicycle riders. So that's just kind of a summary there. And then moving on to a few more sides. So our code requires when a specific plan is submitted to do a fiscal analysis. So the applicant has done that. It's attached to your staff report. It does touch on fiscal impacts, a build out of the entire project, also ongoing impacts, economic impacts, for example, jobs that are created through the construction as well as ongoing employment that this project will create. There's also a financial tentative map, and this is not a common map at all. Most of the time, a regular tentative map or a parcel map will come in. So what the applicant wants to do this is create four lots, and I'll show a summary in just a minute. Those lots would not be buildable lots. It would only be to sell off portions of the property. And this is a summary of that lot configuration for lots. You can see the proposed size. They're all vacant. You can see which lots would be residential, commercial, industrial, and then there's even a large right-of-way dedication, which I mentioned earlier. 4.8 acres is a good chunk of land that they'll have to do. Another component, we've worked with the developer for quite a while on a development agreement. What the development agreement does is it helps to build in some security to the developer of things that they can count on, like locking in fees and also protecting them if laws change, that they're locked in the standards and regulations that are built, that are here now with the city of Indio. But what it does also allow is an opportunity for the city to get some of those benefits to the public. And so some of those benefits are listed, for example, 5% housing, affordable housing component. $3.5 million would be allocated to the Monroe interchange expansion, the rebuilding of that bridge. We're gonna get important needed easements, three acres of parkland, and I didn't really emphasize it enough, but there is an area on both of those conceptual site plans that show parkland. Now, it wouldn't be a city park. But it would be parkland, it would be open space, it would be landscaped, et cetera, amenities. There would also be a public safety contribution. So essentially what that would mean is when they build out the commercial component, let's say you had like an inline building, one of those tenant spaces would be reserved for our police department to man that area and have staff there, as well as annual payments as well to a CFD. a medical clinic tenant, so there's a need for an additional medical offices, and then also an annual job fair, which essentially is going to do our best to make sure and try our best that Indio residents have a first shot at, let's say renting, if it is a rental or for sale product, and to hire people that the future commercial component. So a couple more things, so one of the big items, and I apologize, it is long, but it has been posted for the public for over three weeks on our website, and that's the environmental review. So I'm gonna go over that real briefly, and then I'm sure there'll be some questions. So we did a draft environmental impact report, believe it or not, in 2024, it was circulated. There was quite a number of comments, I think 147, in addition to all the ones that have been coming in that the commission has gotten. So the EIR did analyze impacts based on the proposed development. So I'm just gonna summarize. Earlier in the presentation I mentioned some hypotheticals on what potentially could be built. So this slide actually shows a maximum build out, but also a scenario two or a lesser development. So the maximum build out scenario, 3,240 multifamily units, approximately 20,000 square feet of commercial, and then the, approximately 1.8 million square feet of industrial, then scenario two would be smaller. The industrial component would still be the same, but a lesser number of multifamily units, but an increased number of commercial. So continuing on the environmental impact report, I already mentioned the circulation, and it's been on the website for a while. So we're asking the Planning Commission tonight to make a recommendation on certification. which is required prior to approving any specific plan. The EIR examined all the required topics and subject areas that the state requires us to do. All of the areas are either no impact or they're significant but then mitigated, but there are a couple that cannot be mitigated, which is air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. So those two components need a statement of overriding considerations. recommendation from the commission tonight. There's also a mitigation monitoring reporting program, which includes a total of 34 mitigation measures. So that program and those mitigation measures are attached to your staff report and the resolution, the environmental resolution. So we use that program, and actually there was a good example tonight where a project was under review, and the environmental review had already been completed, so staff would use that environmental document to review that project. The same is true when future projects come in. We will use that mitigation monitoring to make sure that they comply with those measures. And that's Exhibit C in your packet. And then I just want to briefly summarize the statement of overarching consideration. So it's always a balance. I like to say that word because I think it's true. Whenever you're considering something that might have impacts that you may or may not agree with, or maybe some people impact others or not, it's a balance. So we're trying to strike a balance between economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits that outweigh the impacts on the environment. So some of those benefits include land use benefits, market demands for industrial space. Right now, less than 5% of our land is zoned for industrial use, so we are significantly under what we need. There's economic and fiscal benefits, obviously jobs, there's tax revenue, public infrastructure. I mentioned earlier that there'll be land set aside, 2.4 acres for IID, electrical substation, also some of the public improvements would be along the street as well, those street improvements. Sustainable design is also, employment was mentioned and then of course impact fees will need to be paid So the public outreach for this project has been extensive. So the applicant has probably gone way overboard, even though you really can't, but they really have done a lot of meetings. A total of six, I think there was just one again last week. So that's summarized in your staff report. They've had a project website, email notifications. ongoing media engagement, and then even going back to 2024, there was a Planning Commission consultation meeting on the project as well. In regards to general plan consistency, it has been found to be consistent with the general plan. The projects are consistent with the Avenue 42 corridor sub area, which I mentioned earlier, which includes the vision for that area. which is certainly a mixed use type of development that's master planned, as well as the urban design element and others. There's also attached to the staff report the findings that are needed to be made in order to approve these specific plans and show that it's consistent. So that's part of it as well. So in conclusion, this is the same slide that I started with, this is what we're asking the commission to make a recommendation to the city council on the EIR and the findings, statement of overriding considerations, mitigation monitoring, rescinding those existing entitlements, general plan amendment, zone change, as well as the adoption of the OASIS-specific plan. And lastly, the last two is the development agreement, which was summarized this evening, as well as the financial map, which even though they would have to come back later and do a map that the commission would review, this would just allow them for financial and to convey property later for those lots they want to create. That does conclude the staff presentation for the Oasis at Indio project. I'm available We have a robust staff this evening. We have a couple of attorneys. We have our traffic Consultant we have the applicant team they have a presentation this evening that's been loaded And so I know they would like to do their presentation as well, but that does conclude my presentation Thank you Any questions of staff at this time?

Nope, okay.

Yes, I was waiting for Commissioner Slater, but I'll go first. Can we go back and let's talk about the impacts on the environment? We didn't really touch base on that. I think the public that is here and the community, I think we need to talk about those a little bit more in detail so we have a better idea. I know that you mentioned some community benefits, correct? But we also need to talk about like the impact. So what are those? You really touched on them.

Yeah, so I'm going to go ahead and give like an overview, then we have the environmental consultant here from the applicant team that can kind of dig in a little bit more. But essentially you'll see attached to the staff report that there's the mitigation measures. So the EIR analyzed all the topic areas as I mentioned earlier. Everything can be mitigated and there's even some areas that don't need mitigation. But it is kind of common with larger projects, and I want to emphasize larger projects, you sometimes can't mitigate everything. So those two areas, that's where the statement of overriding considerations is needed for air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. But essentially, it's a long document, but everything has been covered, all environmental issues. reviewing topics, and so now it's a matter of, and this is, I want to emphasize, it's very important, this is a worst case scenario. So SQL always looks at a worst case scenario. Most of the time in my 26 years of doing community development work, The worst case scenario is rarely built, but CEQA requires you to look at the worst case scenario. So that's what it did. And I think the environment consultant, which is MSA, could also elaborate on their work on the EIR.

Okay. We'd like to invite the consultant to come up and maybe give us a little more information on this topic.

So with that, Madam Chair, members of the commission, I would recommend opening the public hearing. If there are some questions of the commission to the consultant, I'm sure she would be able to answer.

Do you have another question? Is that before we open public hearing?

Yeah, are there further questions?

Okay. I don't have questions, but I do have comments before we make our motions. So if I could just get time to do that after public comment.

So any kind of comments would be after the close of the public hearing to bring it back to commission? Yeah, so after public hearing. Yes, thank you.

Yeah, so I'll wait until the public speaks.

Okay, with that in mind, let's go ahead and open the public hearing. And if we could hear from our consultant, please, on the environmental impact.

GOOD EVENING, GOOD EVENING, GOOD EVENING, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, CHAIRPERSON FRANCE, CHAIRPERSON FRANCE, CHAIRPERSON FRANCE, VICE CHAIRPERSON ORTIZ. VICE CHAIRPERSON ORTIZ. VICE CHAIRPERSON ORTIZ. I'M MICHELLE WITHERSPOON, I'M MICHELLE WITHERSPOON, I'M MICHELLE WITHERSPOON, WITH MSA CONSULTING WITH MSA CONSULTING WITH MSA CONSULTING AND RANCHO MIRAGE, AND I'VE HELPED AND RANCHO MIRAGE, AND I'VE HELPED AND RANCHO MIRAGE, AND I'VE HELPED THE CITY, OUR TEAM HELPED THE CITY, OUR TEAM HELPED THE CITY, OUR TEAM HELPED THE C

Are there specific questions you would like to ask?

Thank you for being here. We appreciate your time. Can we talk about the air quality issues that this project is gonna bring if it's built?

Of course. I'm gonna have my air quality person come. That is okay.

I ask this because I know a lot of people in the community are concerned about their air quality.

I AM A SENIOR ENVIRONMENT PLANNER AND GIS ANALYST WITH MSA CONSULTING AND I HELPED AUTHOR THE AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS AND HYDROLOGY SECTIONS OF THIS EIR. To provide a summary of the air quality impacts, we looked at all of the, starting with air quality, we looked at all four of the CEQA thresholds, which leads us to run air quality modeling to look at how the different phases of the project, starting with construction, clearing, grabbing, vertical construction, paving, painting the buildings, all of those contribute to a certain amount of emissions. So those emissions are based on factors that are set forth by the California Air Pollution Controllers Association. So they pretty much set the standard for what is calculated to be emitted into the air for all six criteria air pollutants. And then we use the same software also by the CAPCOA to figure out what those emissions would be at different stages of the project. And then we take all of those numbers, and then we compare them against the South Coast AQMD, their air quality significance thresholds, which are applied to our region. And they're specific to our region for the issues that we face when it comes to our air basins. So that's the background on how it's been done. So we're using the methodology by AQMD. by the different association and then that allows us to look at where the project emissions land in terms of those thresholds, those numeric thresholds for six criteria air pollutants. So we're looking at VOCs, Volatile Organic Compounds, we're looking at NOx, nitrogen oxides, we're looking at carbon monoxide, looking at sulfur, so PM10, PM2.5. So when we look at all those different levels at the worst case scenario for LOOKING AT THE PROJECT BEING BUILT AS ONE PHASE, WHICH IS WHAT ESSENTIALLY WE'RE FORCED TO LOOK AT THE WORST CASE SITUATION, THERE ARE SOME AREAS WHERE DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE PROJECT, THE OPERATION OF THE EQUIPMENT AND SUCH emit VOCs and NOCs at levels that are above the thresholds. So again, that assumes that everything gets done at the same time. That assumes that all areas are being conducted. If the project were to be phased or to be rolled out in a different way as far as phasing, construction phasing, those impacts would not be occurring above those thresholds. So then we look at what happens during construction, what happens during the life of the project. That means the different vehicle trips from the residents, the commercial traffic, and the truck traffic. And then we also compare those levels against what AQMD tells us are the thresholds. So at the end of the day, we do have impacts that pertain to during the construction, I mentioned VOCs and NOCs are exceeded when we look at the project without any kind of mitigation. As far as operational, the combined activities of the project do exceed on various criteria air pollutants. AGAIN, ALSO WITHOUT MITIGATION. SO THEN THAT MAKES US LOOK INTO WHAT CAN BE DONE TO MITIGATE FOR THIS AS A WHOLE. AND THEN WE ALSO LOOK TOWARDS THE CAPCOA. THEY HAVE ESSENTIALLY A LIBRARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND THEN WE LOOK AT WHAT APPLIES TO THE PROJECT AND THEN ONCE THOSE ARE APPLIED, WE'RE ABLE TO SEE THAT that only certain impacts can be mitigated using those very conservative factors. So at the end of the day, we do have potentially significant impacts during construction and then during operation of the project when it comes to those numeric values that are set forth by EPA, CARB, and those are the standards that we go by. When it comes to what the modeling does, it does look at very conservative values as well. It's not, in reality, the impacts may be lower depending on how the project is faced, but it's what we're looking at right now. And so one of the, what happens is when the numeric levels are exceeded, it prompts us to have to find that we're, WE'RE NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE REGIONAL AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE IT LEADS US TO CONCLUDE. AND SO LET'S SEE IF THERE'S SOME OTHER ASPECT OF So this kind of provides the background as to what we look at. Again, modeling, looking at the numbers, seeing where the project's construction and operations land. And then it leads us to the findings for the different levels and thresholds. So if you have any questions, I'll be here.

I'd like to add to that is CEQA requires, if you prepare an EIR, that you have to analyze project alternatives. And two of our project alternatives was the general plan build out existing, what's there now, and the zoning build out. Oh, what's approved now? Ah, apologize. So the general plan build out would have resulted in similar significant and unavoidable impacts. And the zoning build out would have been similar and significant and unavoidable impacts as well. And these are based on trip generation. And that is, they had pretty high levels of commercial development in them. Greenhouse gases, similar. Alternative two, which was the general plan build-out, also increased impacts with significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas impacts, and the existing zoning build-out would have resulted in increased impacts with significant and unavoidable impacts as well, just as in comparison with what's approved out there right now. Those are common thresholds that are exceeded for large projects just because of their size.

Thank you. Does that answer your question? You have a question?

OK. Yeah. So my first question is for you, the gentleman that conducted the air quality study. So I know when we look at a development, we have to kind of pick it up and look at it as a puzzle piece. However, when you did this environmental assessment, Did you take into account, like I guess are we able to see what the impacts or how the air quality in our environment is gonna change? Just I'm referring to like the CalEnviroScreen where it kind of rates cumulatively different zones throughout the city of, actually throughout the United States. But one of my concerns is the air quality in Indio. So comparing the air quality in Indio to let's just say our friends in Cathedral City, Rancho Marzano, Palm Desert, we and the Eastern Coachella Valley have a higher, rate of air pollution. And so one of my concerns is a development of this scale would exacerbate that, coupled with nearby developments that are set to take place, such as the Burr Street warehouse project, the large-scale warehousing logistics hubs that are being built in Palm Springs and in Hot Springs. All those negative air quality impacts are going to be blown directly our way, thanks to the the way the past works and just we don't have control over that. But I guess was that factored into your assessment, the cumulative impacts of large scale developments similar to this one as a whole and how it would affect us here in Indio?

Sure. Thank you for your question. And I do acknowledge the intent and the reasoning behind that. So when it comes to the air quality and greenhouse gas sections, one of the things you mentioned about the ambient air quality is one of the greater challenges for the whole basin, for the whole jurisdiction of AQMD. So their AQMP, the Air Quality Management Plan from 2022, does have a large number of programs funding different education measures and such that focus on trying to get the whole region into compliance. What happens is individual projects are looked at for and compared against the thresholds, but THE REGIONAL AIR QUALITY IS SOMETHING THAT AQMD IS IN CHARGE OF, AND THEY WORK WITH CITIES, THEY WORK WITH DIFFERENT OTHER AGENCIES TO WORK ON THE SOLUTION AS A WHOLE. AS FAR AS THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS, THE EIR, THEY REVIEW OVERALL THE RELEVANT PROJECTS THAT ARE FOR TRAFFIC AND DIFFERENT FACTORS, BUT AS FAR AS LOOKING UP WIND OR LOOKING AT WHAT might be happening in the past, it becomes a challenge because we're looking at the whole basin. Same thing with EnviroScreen. EnviroScreen provides information that's specific to a certain area and impacts, but when it comes to modeling, that might look like from an individual project. AQMD's guidance that they give us to do the SQL analysis doesn't give us the tools because it's their kind of responsibility to handle it. But definitely a great question as far as what the challenges might be.

Thank you for explaining that. CERN is it's currently listed as green, this proposed site. And if we increase the big rig traffic and have potentially 3,000 to 9,000 residents living there, I imagine that'll only be more detrimental to the air quality of that area. And also I wanna highlight. highlight that where we just opened our brand new Indio Sports Park that is currently rated the worst air quality in Indio and it's one mile away from this development and I don't see how this development as proposed is mitigating or reducing any air quality impacts.

The area is the Coachella Valley is out of attainment for PM10 and ozone and I'm And guessing that the air quality impacts for that athletic area is primarily PM10, do you know what the actual air quality threshold they are exceeding is? Ozone?

We got ozone at 89, diesel particulate matter at 87, and lead from housing at 91. And so one of my concerns is specifically diesel particulate matter, if we're going to be having a logistics hub built near, one mile away from a park.

I would like to say that ozone comes from the south coast air basin and is not something the Coachella Valley generates. It was blown in through the pass. And our ozone goes to blight, just because of the prevailing winds. But on the other hand, the diesel was analyzed as a part of a health risk assessment. And it does take into account technology. the new state regulations for diesel engines. And I don't know if Jesus wants to talk a little bit more about that, but there are a lot of new state regulations that mandate diesel fuel engines adhere to certain rules that did not exist in the past. And every year, they become more stringent. And I'm sure you know that the state is trying to go pure electric, completely electric. And that would, of course, reduce all diesel emissions. But not sure how long that would take. However, the technology is improving. And Jesus can speak about that.

Sure. So yeah, so the air quality section does include a health risk assessment. It's supported by a study, a specific study that was done to support the findings. And the impacts that were found potentially significant and unavoidable were for on-site conditions when it comes to diesel particulate matter. as you may have seen in the EIR there's modeling that was done dispersion modeling to find out what the impacts of the DPM dispersion would be given its context and based on that modeling the impacts to the surrounding area were below the threshold it is really within the site where there might be issues with with diesel particular DPM emissions that would be an issue when it comes to air quality. So it was looked at and it's again that's why this is one of the two sections that where the findings of significance are where there's potentially significant impacts and they are unavoidable in certain ways.

Okay, thank you. My next question is, the EIR acknowledges heat island reduction as a relevant policy and design issue, but I don't see a project specific heat island analysis in the EIR assessing localized heat impacts.

At this time, there's no particular site plan to be analyzed. effect is mitigated by, of course, landscaping and different rooftop finishes and paint. MANY MEASURES THAT ARE PUT INTO A PROJECT IN THE DESERT, OF COURSE, FOR SURE, TO REDUCE HEAT IMPACTS. I KNOW ON THE PEDESTRIAN PARKWAY THERE ARE TREES PROPOSED IN SITTING AREAS, BUT AT THE TIME A SITE PLAN COMES IN, you can request that they prepare an analysis like that.

Yeah, I mean, because the ER was conducted based off of two proposed site plans, right? Yes. And so one of my concerns is the industrial square footage never changed. And so I'm just curious as to why a heat impact study couldn't have been done on that if we knew the logistics aspects of it didn't change. The housing element did. The hotel came and went. But what never changed is the industrial use.

That is not a CEQA threshold, of course. It is not a specific CEQA threshold to analyze for heat island. However, LEED, for example, LEED studies have indicated that if you finish a roof with a white material that reflects sunlight, it reduces impacts significantly. And so, once the buildings come in for approval, you can ask for an analysis based on the materials they use on the structure.

Okay, thank you. I do have a question for staff real quick. I guess my question will be directed.

Oh, yeah, sorry, I'll let you guys talk now.

Yeah, they do have a presentation, so we'll load that up. Thank you, Chair.

Great. Thank you very much. Jeremy Kraut, EPD Solutions, representing the applicant, BH Properties. And the presentation, great. So just I want to first thank the Commission for considering the project and the time you're giving tonight and the questions that have come before us so far. As an applicant's representative, I'm working with the large team that we have and really want to recognize them for the work that they've done over the years. It's been a project that, as shown on the screen, over three years of effort. And they've put a significant amount of effort to get to this point. And I will, because of all their effort and knowledge, be relying upon them for probably some more questions. Obviously, we're focusing on the CEQA document and some of the studies behind that. We also have a traffic consultant here and the specific plan preparer, MIG. So I'd also want to recognize The outreach efforts that went on for those three years, CV Strategies really put their time out there. They met with the community and really put that interest of the community at the forefront as part of that effort. So I will, I'm going to go through the presentation. Happy to stop if you have some specific questions in there, but I'll try to also address some of the questions I heard. But again, since they are more, those are more CEQA focused and MSA was a preparer, And you may have some more. We'll have them come up to address any further on that topic. Also, before I get any further, I just want to thank the staff of your city here. They really did put a real community interest in their effort to review the project and evaluate and negotiate thoroughly on the development agreement public benefits. There is a public benefits package that you heard about and that is significant and meaningful to the community. That was because your staff had the community at heart and saw that this had an opportunity both to provide opportunity for development and change that is going to benefit this area as well as specific benefits that will help the area improve and lead to infrastructure and major improvements that will benefit for the generations to come. So I really want to recognize your staff for that and Brian for jumping in here when he joined the city and really helped us get to this point. So well done with that. And so I will just want to bring up the main thing in here. We have three project priorities as part of the project that I want to recognize and identify or describe. And of course, the outreach that I'll hit on briefly, although I think Brian did a fantastic job with the overview, very detailed. I'll try not to be too repetitive through that effort. And then, of course, the binding community public benefits that are proposed as part of the project. All right. There we go. All right. So BH Properties, just for those who aren't familiar with them, who is the applicant and the owner of the project site that is before you, they're a family-owned, proven long-term California-based owner with a 30-year, over 30-year track record. They are a family business, and they really are not an institutional fund that just comes in to pull the money out. They are looking for long-term opportunities to own and be a steward of the property and the community that they invest in. And they are not looking for short-term flipping opportunities. One note I just wanted to mention about the financial map that was referenced related to potential sale that's also not just for sale, but for bringing partners in to help build the community out. So for instance, home builders that have significant expertise and focus in home building, this would allow them to come in and use a financial map to join as partnership for specific areas of the project to build out housing.

So that's another reason for that financial map.

They have a demonstrated commitment to the community benefits and the community overall. That's why the outreach was so significant, was to hear the community's concerns, hear their input, their desires, and find ways to address it. They're aligned with the city of India's housing goals and their economic goals as well. So initially, there were some concepts of the plan that didn't have as much housing or any housing. And they really looked into, what does this community need? And housing was a significant portion of that. That was fed into the plan. And what makes up the plan today is a significant housing portion of the project. also looking at opportunities to bring new businesses jobs additional job opportunities revenue opportunities as well and through that creating ways to a funding mechanism to fund these improvements or the community benefits that are proposed and then of course creating something that the city could be proud of and attract future growth into the area SURE IF THIS ONE'S WORKING OR MAYBE I'M HITTING WRONG. I THINK I JUST SKIPPED A SLIDE. I'M GOING TO HIT BACK AND HOPE THAT WORKS. OKAY, GREAT. SO THE KEY STAKEHOLDERS, AGAIN, WE ENGAGED WITH THEM FOR OVER THE THREE YEARS THEY WERE INVOLVED. OF COURSE, THE ONES ON THE LEFT MENTION COUNCIL MEMBERS, UTILITY PROVIDERS, CITY STAFF, MANAGEMENT HERE AT THE CITY, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, SHADOW HILL RESIDENTIAL, in Caltrans being right on the freeway was an important one, of course. And so through that process that was identified, we identified additional or add substantial housing inventory, as I mentioned, that was an interest, improving job access and delivering infrastructure upgrades that are necessary for the area. As far as the site, I think we heard where it is obviously in the surrounding area. Importantly, this is a big component of why you have the plan before you. When it's bound by these corridors that are important for the region and as well as the local area, it also drives land use. When you're up against a freeway and have direct access to that, that is where, from a land use perspective, you would put uses like are proposed. as well as complement it with other uses that could support and help build a community in this area, given the size of the project. So that's why industrial is a good location for this area. And it was also recognized in the general plan. When you have that direct access to the freeway, the traffic associated with that do not have to travel throughout the city to access the regional roads that are necessary to support that type of land use. We heard about the proposed land use designation and I referenced it just now, but I want to also just point out that substation in that bottom, the south end of that site is the area that substation that we were you heard about earlier as part of the public benefit. And that is something that is necessary for the area. The power situation in this area is is I think there's a high demand and not enough supply. And so substations are an area or a way to bring additional power in. and the project is allowing that to occur. So that was a significant effort with IED to get that substation determined. Okay, and so we did talk about the conceptual designs. I have the two that Brian mentioned earlier. I'll mention that from the design here that we're looking at, We're factoring in a balance of uses and just looking at what are the possibilities, not the guarantees. And we also factored that into some of our analysis. These plans actually were analyzed in the EIR and the studies, but we also analyzed significantly more intensive uses than what's shown on this screen here. And as far as the plan is concerned, the uses that we heard about previously, they're getting all outlined in the specific plan. We have the specific plan author here as well to address any specific questions on that as well. And then as far as the density is concerned, I think these range in the 20 to 40 plus units per acre. This is what you're seeing on the screen as an example of that. Not the 50 that was as the max, but I just want to give you context of what that could look like from a bird's eye view. So from the general plan build out, Brian mentioned this and I want to reiterate it mainly for the importance of this is not a project that is proposed on a otherwise open space parcel. The parcel has a general plan designation. It has a build out assumption and it was fully analyzed in the general plan EIR. That EIR analyzed a significant number of housing units, 3,240 units, also a significant amount of shopping plaza, commercial in other words, at about a million square feet. And that's on that kind of the top left purplish area. And then also in that reddish area is the regional commercial, and that was about 3 million square feet of industrial parks. So there was industrial considered in this area in the general plan, as well as commercial. So there's a mix of uses that were already considered. So again, this is what the general plan analyzed for this, and those impacts that Commissioner Slater you're asking about were actually identified as significant impacts in the general plan EIR. So regardless of this project or what's allowed in the general plan, both have the same type of impacts air quality, greenhouse gas and these other impacts that we're talking about. From the traffic perspective, and again, I'm not a traffic engineer, so if you start testing me on that, I will have to cede my time to the traffic engineer at some point. And just but from a cumulative NUMBERS PERSPECTIVE, THE NUMBERS ON THE RIGHT OR ON THE LEFT, THE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN, WHICH IS THAT PLAN I JUST SHOWED YOU, THAT IS THE TOTAL TRIPS ON A DAILY BASIS THAT THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USES THAT ARE CURRENTLY ALLOWED ON THE SITE WOULD GENERATE. SO DAILY TRIPS ARE 57,613 TRIPS. On the right is the more intensive plan that was identified for under the OASIS specific plan in the general planning EIR. So not those plans that I showed you that are a little bit less dense that were conceptual, but this is a more intensive plan that was in the specific plan and considering the specific plan and analyzing the EIR. That's the trip rate or trip count for the daily trips associated with that more intensive plan. So obviously, significantly less trips than what the general plan is currently allowing. And I'll mention that of that 31,505 trips on a daily basis, 69% of those trips are associated with the residential. 69% of those trips are residential. About 28% is industrial, and 3% is a commercial, just given the size or the commercial that's identified in there.

Commissioner. Do you, by chance, have that percentage breakdown of the old general plan?

No, not in the general plan. I'd have to go into the general plan EIR for that one, and I don't know if they split it up as closely as that, but because we had to analyze a project, we had to get it down to very specific types of uses. So from a land use rationale, just in the bill for regional growth, but the intention, again, behind this project is really to support the Coachella Valley's targeted growth industries and economic development goals. We know that opportunities for clean energy, advanced manufacturing, and innovation-based industries targeted for regional growth and jobs in this area is really an important factor for this region. The project supports that next generation of employment that is aligning with the Valley's economic development goals and evolving industry targets. We know the industries are changing these over time and this project provides that opportunity for these uses in the future. Sites plan for modern light industrial and employment generating uses, not heavy industrial. I think that's an important factor here. And the intention there is to have lower noise, air emissions, traffic impacts than some heavier industrial uses. And that's largely because we know that with the residential uses right next door, that would not work from a compatibility standpoint. So we want to make sure that that's considered in the specific plan. The modern industrial facilities support a range of skilled jobs, so that logistics, operations, equipment, maintenance, automation, and other types of jobs that offer competitive wages in today's economy. The design of the plan and what was factored in the specific plan was with the intention of attracting really high level and important companies and industries here. Fortune 1000 anchors are the ones that we're targeting with this plan. Without a plan like this, with just a current general plan, It doesn't create the excitement and interest for a site like this. We need to create an opportunity for them to come here, design some ideas, and be able to go out to these companies and say, come to this location. We have created the opportunity for you. And then we have to plan more specifically for those tenants if they have interest.

I'm sorry, if I may, Madam Chair, could we possibly find out how many more slides that you have? Oh, I'm sorry. We're approaching the two-hour mark, and I would like the community to be able to.

Oh, sure. Yeah, I think I only have one, two, three, four. I'll move through this quickly. Thank you for the, you heard about housing inventory and the housing dedication for affordable housing and senior housing. From a jobs and local hiring perspective, here's the numbers for jobs that could be created through this build out of this project. It's a five and a half year planned construction period that I want to mention that that was analyzed in the EIR. That's factoring a lot of the roads, the site preparation, and the development. And that's about 2,151 construction jobs that's identified there. And then from a permanent jobs perspective with the use is about 1,272. And then we heard about the local employment interest and desire. so i won't repeat that here are the numbers from the benefits perspective uh economic output we heard that there's the we talked about the fiscal impact study it estimated 613 million in economic output that's the total cumulative output that's would occur impact fees of 20 to 43 million depending on the number of units that are generated on the site and built on the site of which about 9 million would go to schools just to mention that And 20 million max, I guess, depending if there's a max total of units are built, it could go up to that level. And then city are about 11 to 20 million. And then from, we talked about surpluses and other things in there, but I will move on just to move quickly through the infrastructure upgrades and public benefits. I listed those there, which you heard about earlier. Really this project allows for this. One thing, just a quick correction on the new, the public park land that is being offered for dedication to the city. So it would be a city park opportunity. So that's the three acre park that was mentioned. And then community feedback. We did a lot of community outreach, as I mentioned. These are the issues. We identified traffic, quality development, and that outreach component is important. And I will just skip through a couple of these because we did touch on trips earlier and how that's important for there. But relative to trucks specifically because I know that's important it averages about 12 trips 12 trucks per hour That's spread throughout the day with outside of the peak periods of the day meaning the ones with the highest traffic levels are The intention is for these types of uses they avoid the peak hours to avoid impacting traffic more We talked about the built around the freeway as the primary reason for that industrial use being at that location and We talked about the quality of development. I will mention that developer is committed to bringing quality healthcare and potentially Eisenhower as an opportunity for healthcare coming into this area. That use, hospital or healthcare uses are allowed throughout the specific plan. It was intentional to make sure there's opportunities for that use to be built. And then the outreach, we talked about the engagement. Here's kind of a timeline. That does not include the tens of meetings that were occurring on an individual basis with community members. And then we, here's some of the areas, and I know that the Planning Commission did receive an outreach package that described these outreach efforts. And then just some quick questions. I know we heard from the community just to make sure that we address these the the from a fact versus fiction The decision is to approve a project or leave the areas open space. I mentioned earlier general plan does not Contemplate that it contemplates development for the site that I mentioned earlier and then as far as the approval We don't have those site plans specifically being approved. It's the land use bubbles through the specific plan and And then the, can the project be built before open, or infrastructure is, and opened before infrastructure is complete, and that's not allowed under the development agreement and the requirements of the project. So we have guaranteed elements that have to be built before the project can be opened. So I apologize, thank you, Commissioner, for asking me to speed up.

Okay, thank you. If you would stay, are there any questions right now of the applicant? Commissioner Slater, anything now? Okay. Okay. Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

So we're going to go ahead and move on to public comment. I hope that everyone understands, you know, how we communicate is professionally. Everyone has three minutes. We ask that you please not repeat exactly what your neighbor just said. Just go up and say, that's me too. That would be really appreciated. I know you probably all need to go to dinner. Also, if you could fill out the information sheet with your name, that helps us record which residents actually came. What we're gonna do is we're gonna start maybe there's about a hundred so if everybody comes up what I'd like to do is ask that maybe you do two lines those for and those against and then we'll just try to have you speak alternatively if that if that works for everybody. So do we have a list of people? Okay so we can start with the folks that have submitted their name and then we will open it up after that. Okay are there any questions of staff at this time before we start with the public?

No? Go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think those are good ground rules. Due process does require that if somebody does go above three minutes, et cetera, that they do have an opportunity to speak. The applicant did speak for quite some time. We want to make sure that everybody is heard. We want to make sure to have a clean record and that everybody feels that they are heard properly. So with that, we know it's going to be a long meeting and we are definitely prepared for that. But I do like your ground rules very much. And that's that. Thank you.

And we do appreciate you all being here. It actually would make it more fun if you would come to more of our meetings. Okay, just in case you can skip dinner every now and then. Paulina, can we start with the people that you have the sheets with? Kate Shorts. Kate Shorts.

You can clearly hear me, thank you. Kate Schwartz, I'm a resident of Sun City, Shadow Hills. And I would like to start by acknowledging all the work that has gone into the planning for this project. That's very clear. And I also personally want to make a comment of gratitude toward Commissioner Slater for voicing many of the concerns of our residents and community. I simply wanted to add to that because much of it's been discussed now, but I know myself and my neighbors really have a lot of concerns about potential adverse impacts on our quality of life as well as our health. and we really would like much more information on the environmental impacts of this project, as well as the traffic congestion, the air quality, the noise. I know that my property backs up to Avenue 40, and I know how loud those trucks are when they go by, so I wanted to add that feedback for the commissioners to simply hear our concerns as a resident. Thank you so much.

Sean Toro.

Good evening members of the Commission. My name is Sean Toro. I'm a resident of the Paradiso community. I've had the pleasure to read through your 3,000 page staff report. 2,800 pages of those are in the environmental impact. We can all nerd out about the numbers. Those are really, it's a really good report. I got 30 years in public works engineering, many of those being part of community development. There's a lot to unpack here. I want to kind of bring it down to three items. First, This project should not move forward until the Monroe Corridor is finished. End of story. It should stay here with you. All the way from Fred Waring, all the way up to 41, you need to make sure that's a thoroughfare that's prepared for what we have now, let alone what we're proposing. Number two, the environmental impact CEQA, it goes off the worst case scenario of what we know. And what we know is we don't know what's going on here. So the warehouses, but that could be toilet paper, it could be batteries, because you also have a giant substation that can make this a data center. We don't know. And if you look at what is happening over the past 24 months, our friends in Garden Grove right now had to deal with this. These warehouses are going up with numbers that we haven't seen before. They're new warehouses, they have the best fire prevention, but now they're creating toxic fallout. We've just seen it, it's proof, it's stats. Garden Grove's fallout would be from Fred Waring to 40, Jackson to Jefferson. All that would be evacuated if this place goes up. We don't know what we don't know. It shouldn't go in. This is not a residential type property. It was rezoned in 95. It was rezoned in 2008. We're now here back again doing it. Just leave it be. Let's build it. Let's build residential. Let's build something like they have in LA with the Grove and Americana, something like that. Let's build a community center. Third and final, reading through even your own report, I couldn't find one and I read through it. Not one of your public testimonies in there is positive for this. So everything in your staff report is negative as well. So your community is here. Your community doesn't want this. This should sit with you until some of these items are mitigated. Let it sit here. It's not going anywhere. We've been trying to develop this since 95 or more. Let it sit here. Don't pass it to council. And let's figure this out. Thank you very much.

Jerry Conrad. I'd ask that we please keep the clapping down. Thank you.

Jerry Conrad, I was very impressed with the two people trying to discuss the pollution standards and what kind of pretzel they put themselves into by not answering it. But anyway, my name is Jerry Conrad. I'm a past president of the Sun City Shadow Hills Homeowners Association. I'm currently the chair of the CDCC committee, which is tasked to interface with the city of Indio concerning issues that affect our community. I do not speak for the current board, but I believe I speak for many residents who live in North Indio. I want to acknowledge that I support both the housing and small commercial businesses that are being proposed. What we're most concerned about is the light industrial concept of 1.8 million square feet, which, if you do the numbers, is equal to 31 football fields. It's a lot of concrete. There are two primary reasons why this zoning rule should not be changed to allow for the building of these mega warehouses. First, the pollution that will be caused by the hundreds of large capacity diesel trucks that will service the warehouses every day. They say eight to 12 in an hour or something like that. I'm sorry, I just don't believe it. Anyway, diesel is a known carcinogen according to the AMA and the American Lung Cancer Association. These mega warehouse districts are known hotspots for higher levels of cancer. This diesel particulate matter is a real deal. You know that, I know that. It's just amazing. Second, local traffic. I understand they're talking about they're gonna be able to deal with traffic. But I think it'll be severely impacted by these same trucks that service the mega warehouses. The proposal to build 3,200 apartments, each with an average of one car, will in itself cause delays. But adding hundreds of large trucks to the mix will create real problems. When the Monroe Overpass was designed, it's my understanding the Oasis project was not included in it because it had not been proposed at that time. The Overpass construction will start soon and will cost approximately $180 million of our tax money and will take a couple years to build. The number of diesel trucks needed to service the warehouse is estimated to run into the hundreds each day from our understanding. Trucks reaching lengths of 53 feet could create backups along the freeway exiting onto Monroe. Drivers wanting to travel north or south across Interstate 10 will have to contend with these large vehicles. Imagine spending $180 million to help alleviate traffic problems only to create a worse problem in the future. Finally, I want to emphasize that this land is not a good location for mega warehouses. North Indio is basically a settled residential community of single family homes, HOAs, and small businesses. I believe not changing the current zoning of this property is in the best interest of not just the residents of North Indio, but the entire city and valley. By changing the zoning of this property, traffic, pollution, as well as possible loss of home values is a real reality. Please reject the PH property's proposal to change the current zoning of this land.

Deborah Nymer.

Hi, my name is Deborah Gminer, and like Jerry, I'm a resident of Sun City, Shadow Hills, and I was the principal drafter of our response to the draft EIR. Mr. Slater, in response to your questions, I actually have answers rather than talking in circles. If you go to the draft EIR at page 1-10, you will find the air quality analysis. And that analysis states that the air quality impacts are both significant and not mitigatable. I think that's pretty clear. You'll also find that the greenhouse gases the analysis states they are significant and not mitigatable if i had an hour i could discuss all of the comments that were made by the representatives of both the city and the developer those were inaccurate The discussion regarding, and I only had a few minutes to look this up, regarding the existing use of that property describes it as providing for industrial uses. When I did a quick look at the current draft EIR, it describes that property at 3-8 in terms that do not include industrial uses. And frankly, I only had a minute, but I did not find 57,000 truck trips at that location. So I'm not sure where that number came from, but I'm going to look for it. I must tell you I'm deeply disappointed. I came with a prepared script, which was nice, talking about the use of the term oasis to suck you into a pretty location with pina coladas out on the end of our neighborhood. But I'm really disappointed. And frankly, I'm disappointed in the planning department. I spoke to Mr. Halverson about two years ago in the summer of 24, right after we filed our response. And he told me what a great project this was. It was going to bring jobs for his kids at $20 an hour in a warehouse. And it was going to bring tax money to the city. So I went back and I looked at CEQA. And CEQA describes the role of the planning agency, which is our planning department. Its role is to be neutral in presenting a project to the elected officials in the Planning Commission. It is not to be an advocate. But what I heard today was advocacy for the project, not neutrality. And that's deeply disappointing. I worked for the County of Orange when El Toro was on the drawing board. Some of you are old enough to even remember that. It was an awful time. I was in the county council's office. Once the board decided to support El Toro, then that was our job, was to support it. But until that decision was made, the planning department's job was to be neutral. And then once the board decided to oppose it, we had to do a 180 degree flip and oppose it. because that was the policy decision, but that's not what I'm hearing from our planning department. I am hearing support. I'm asking you, as Mr. Slater suggested, to step back from this, and as this gentleman suggested, to step back from this. Your job is to take into consideration the community's interest over the long haul, to not necessarily deviate from the city's general plan adopted after long, thoughtful deliberation, and then to impose upon a community that which they do not want. We are not opposed to growth. There are actually some good ideas out there. You just heard one today. I talked to a gentleman who's the head of economic development about how I believe that land can be used. effectively, economically, and in a way that supports this community in its entirety. I want to urge you to really think this one through because I think it's not going to be a badge of courage to vote for it. Thank you.

Judy Davis.

Sorry, I've been sitting a long time. My name is Judy Davis and I'm with Sun City Shadow Hills. And I just recently found out about this project. So I know apparently it's been going on for quite a while. So I appreciate being able to come here and say something. This really has, I really have a lot of admiration for you guys and the project developer. and all the things that have gone back in the planning stages. And a lot of people have made a lot of comments so far. So mine is very minor because obviously Mr. Slater, thank you very much for bringing up the pollution issue, which is major. My question is, and I think it was answered, but I just want to clarify that are there any plans for a data center or a detention center with these buildings? Can anybody answer that?

I can actually touch base on that. I did pose that question to Brian, not regarding the detention centers, but regarding data center use. And so this proposed land use change would not be allowing any data centers or, I think there was a couple other items, but data centers is always the hot topic today.

So there will be no data center. And as far as the detention center, we won't allow that?

I can't speak to that.

So if I could just make a quick comment. So in the plan here before you, a data center as a land use is prohibited. So that's not an option for this project. A detention center, we'd have to get a little more information about that and compare it to what the plan has proposed. It's kind of vague, but we could look at that.

Thank you very much, appreciate all of this.

Barry Fisher.

Good evening, Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Barry Fisher and I'm a resident like the previous people at Sun City, Shadow Hills and a retired senior living in this area. And I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this evening. I am not opposed to responsible economic development. However, I am deeply concerned about the long-term effects this warehouse project may have on quality of life, public safety, and the environment in our community. One of my primary concerns is traffic congestion and its impact on emergency response times in neighborhoods north of Interstate 5. House developments generate substantial truck traffic, not only delivery vehicles, but also employee traffic operating around the clock. The freeway crossing and major north-south corridors in this area are already heavily used. Increased congestion could delay police, fire, ambulance response times during emergencies, which is a serious public health concern. I'm also concerned about the air quality and environmental impacts, which others have spoke about, and I'll skip down my talk. And I'd like the Commission to consider whether this type of development aligns with residents' long-term vision for Indio. Growth should occur in a balanced and thoughtful manner that protects the quality of life for the people who already live here. I respectfully urge the commission to require a thorough transparent analysis of traffic emergency response impacts, environmental consequences, and infrastructure demands before proceeding. Thank you very much.

Maggie Hamilton.

Hi, my name is Maggie Hamilton, and I don't live in Sunset, but I do live in Indio off of Jefferson, and I am concerned that the industrial area will be built as a mega warehouse. I mean, I saw the plans, and it looks like they're separate buildings, but all that is asphalt and will create a heat island, and of course there's trucks there, and that'll create pollution. I'm just wondering, Is this the kind of long-term future you want to leave to your children and grandchildren? Thank you.

Bill Collins.

Hi, my name's Bill Collins, and I don't live in Sun City either. I live in Four Seasons, Taralago. I do appreciate Commissioner Slater's questions and his concerns. I think they align with most of us out here. You know, in listening to the presentation, The environmental impact report was quite clear on the pollution issue and the greenhouse gases, and that is not going to go away once construction is completed. If anything, it's only going to get worse. As far as economic benefits, I ask those along the I-60 corridor, the I-10 corridor, who live next to these mega warehouses, IF THE ECONOMIC BENEFIT HAS OFFSET THE DISRUPTION TO THEIR LIVES. AND I'M PRETTY SURE WHAT THE ANSWER IS GOING TO BE. SO I WOULD URGE YOU TO REJECT THE OASIS PROJECT IN ITS CURRENT FORM. ACROSS THE UNITED STATES, HYDROLOGY REPORTS ARE WARNING OF WORSTING DROUGHT, SHRINKING SNOW PACK, DECLINING COLORADO RIVERS SUPPLIES, AND INCREASING WILDLIFE DANGERS. Experts are calling this one of the most challenging water years in more than a century. This is not time to approve another large-scale development that will place additional strain on our already stressed water, our environment, our air quality, emergency response, and medical systems. Even regional water experts are warning that the West faces aging infrastructure, governance failures, and inadequate long-term water reliability. Before approving this project like this, our community should first focus on improving existing infrastructure, roads, water systems, fire protection, police response, ambulance availability, and access to medical care. Residents are already concerned about emergency response time and overcrowded services. Growth without preparation puts current residents at risk. And I would ask, and I'm sure I know what the answer is, but I can't believe the developers, their consultants or even you, the commissioners, would willingly move next to or in close proximity to this type project. If you're not willing to do that, then it's unfair to force other families to do so. These people who already live here deserve some consideration and quality of life that you would expect for yourselves. So responsible planning means protecting the health, safety, water security and well-being of the community first, not approving growth before the infrastructure exists to support it. Thank you.

Good evening, Madam Chairperson, Planning Commission. My name is Jonathan Becerra. I'm a local organizer in the city of Indio, lifelong resident of District 4. And I use the Monroe Bridge to get onto the I-10 when I go to work. Some backgrounds, I was huge significant amount of people from The surrounding area and the Coachella Valley are at the city of Coachella right now protesting the development of a data center. A lot of them wanted to be here today. And a lot of the tenor of their perspective for the ones I've talked to in regards to how they see the warehouse development is the same tenor they see with the data center development. We do not want it. We do not need large-scale industrial complexes in the city of India. We do need more housing options that are contingent upon them being connected to large industrial complexes. We don't even have more than two lanes on the Monroe Bridge. A lot of us who go during school hours during rush hour know how hard it is. And especially during the festivals, which we are getting another one in October, traffic is already backed up. We do not need these industrial complexes. The bridge must be finished before we should even consider something like this. The area could be used for other uses that are more beneficial to the residents and public as a whole, including more city-run parks. We have beautiful parks. We need to expand on them in that area. We are still one of the only cities without a movie theater, and Lord knows we need more senior centers and community centers. I urge the Planning Commission to reject the warehouses and deter other hyperscale industrial complexes like this, especially and including data centers. IN TERMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, SOMETHING THAT REALLY TROUBLED ME IN THE SLIDES WAS THAT IN THE MAXIMUM OPTION VERSUS THE DOWNSIZED ONE, THE ONLY THING THAT DOWNSIZED WAS HOUSING. THE COMMERCIAL USE LOOKED LIKE IT WENT UP 50,000 SQUARE FEET AND THE INDUSTRIAL STAYED THE SAME. SO IT SEEMS THAT THE MOTIVATIONS FOR THIS DEVELOPER ARE THAT ARE VERY KEEN ON THE INDUSTRIAL SIDE AND NOT THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT SIDE WHICH I THINK IT SHOULD BE REVERSED. One thing as an organizer and as the lead organizer on the ICE protest, the fact that it wasn't as quick as a no for a detention center as it is for a data center frightens me. We need stronger insurances that these warehouse buildings aren't going to be used. They shouldn't even be here, but the fact that we don't have as an immediate as no for detention centers as data centers is just frankly alarming. I really encourage the rejection of this development and urge you to consider the people's will and just really connect with the humanity on this because we do not need this kind of scale of development. Thank you so much for your time today.

Hi, folks. How's it going? I thought I wasn't going to make it here because I got off of the freeway on Monroe. And it was so packed that I was really concerned, but I should have known better. My name is Cristian Rodriguez-Seja. I am a lifelong resident of the city of Indio. Until December, I served here as a planning commissioner for five years. served as the chair twice. I'm an urban planner by trade. I especially work to help cities, cities here at the Coachella Valley, do environmental planning, how to design more environmental just cities, sustainable cities. And I'm also an environmentalist and I'm a community organizer. So I'm speaking to you with all of those hats. And thank you, Jennifer, for reminding us that we should be heard even if they wanna limit us, that should never happen and we should know better. Okay, so Director Halverson said that the worst case scenario never happens. When I started in the commission in 2020, I started saying we have too many gas stations and we had 17. You just voted to limit gas stations because we're over 30. So the worst case scenario, if you allow the market and the land use will always happen. But what are we really doing here? You all are responsible for making a recommendation to the city council. All of us will have to come back when this comes to the city council Because there's no decision being made tonight. They're just saying whether they say OK or not. But this is a really good opportunity for you to demonstrate that you are listening to the community. So I'm going to share with you some of the issues. Engagement out of their way, they said at the presentation. They had the last meeting at the casino at 1 PM. And I have some flexibility in my schedule. I couldn't make it. That's a problem. The environmental, they're trying to get you guys to say it's okay to put up with all of this. So what we're saying is that we did the study. We found out that we're doing some very terrible things to the environment and we're deciding to do absolutely nothing about it. And now we're telling residents that live near it that the development is over their health and that their concerns don't matter. And the consultant is talking, or the client is talking about it as if it's like, standalone project. There's no dome. I didn't see that in the 3,000 page report. This will have cumulative impacts to the region, a region that already suffers from a lot of pollution. Housing, come on, 5% moderate income level housing. Housing is not the concern. It is not the interest. In one of the scenarios, it's 61 units for moderate housing. So let's, you know, three acres of parkland, not public parkland. Anyway, this is a really great deal for the developer. As a former colleague, I want to remind you that those that are elected to represent us, and by default you, who've been appointed to represent them at the commission, are not in the business of making developers richer while we harm our community. You have been appointed to make the best land use decisions for the community. Tonight, you have an opportunity to demonstrate that you are on the community side by denying this recommendation to the city council. Good seeing you again.

I have no more comment cards.

Okay, we have one gentleman in the back, if you would please come up.

My name is Leonard Guiliana. I was one of the inspectors on the SEVAC project that it took, we did the whole.

Closer to the mic, please.

I was one of the inspectors who did the project on the SEVAC project. We did improvement on traffic signals throughout the valley. One of the concern is that the developer is contributing $3.2 million for Monroe Bridge. That bridge is gonna cost about 20 to $30 million. Who is footing the bill? The other thing is you're improving part of 42 Avenue, 42nd Avenue. Who is gonna improve the rest of it? Who is gonna pay the bill? If you're looking at the bridge, the bridge itself, it's probably about 150 to 200 feet long. When there's two trucks parked, they want to make a left turn into the freeway. The traffic is going to be backed up on Monroe all the way down the other side of the street. The trucks are going to be making left turns on the freeway. And they're going to block the traffic going through. If that bridge, if the traffic, if the truck's going to make left turn in and out of that freeway, all they're going to cause is backup traffic. That's just for the trucks, not for the residents. It's going to be so inconvenient for all the traffic, especially in the morning when there's parents taking their kids to school, when people are going to work in the morning. Probably most of you know how bad the traffic is on that bridge right now. Imagine if the trucks are making those left turns and traffic are coming off the freeway and the lights is red on one direction and traffic and the trucks are blocking that, the freeway is going to back up. So there is a lot of concern about all that. So please think about not because it sounds really easy, but when you look at the traffic impact on that bridge, it's such a small bridge, it's going to be huge impact on people going in and out of the freeways. Thank you.

Any more requests to speak?

I have none.

No? Okay. Any more requests to speak at this time? Okay. Ma'am, let's let others go first that haven't spoken. Ma'am in the red, would you like to come up, please, and state your name? And then the gentleman in the back, you can come next.

My name is Robin Abrams. I'm here with my mother, neighbors, and friends of Sun City Shadow Hills. So we talk about all the congestion. We talk about the environmental impact. You talk about the economic impact, not necessarily on our homes, not necessarily on our health, the stress, our time, which is valuable, as we will now have to sit in traffic. But let's talk about the hospitals and the poor medical infrastructure that we have here. We don't have enough doctors. I have to wait months and months for appointments. Now you're looking to add possibly up to 9,000 residents, employees, staff. We actually don't even know what that looks like because there's no plans for exactly how many different businesses will be in the industrial and commercial area. And there might be medical needs for that. If you go to the hospital, Sometimes it's up to eight, 10 hours of wait. Where are those people going to go? We don't have enough hospital and doctors to support that part of the community. We talk about, in your slide, we'll feel proud of our community. I don't know anyone, not one person, that would feel proud of 1.8 million square feet of industrial buildings that we're going to have to face every single day that we try to exit. Try, because we don't even know what that's going to look like. Let's talk about the fact that we're 55 plus year olds that live in this community. We have asthma, we have COPD, we have heart issues, we have lung issues, we have cancer. Is anybody talking about that? You're talking about Overall, it's not going to be that bad. And that's just during the five and a half years that they talk about development. What about then the sustainability of those communities? And we don't even know because, again, is it over 1,000 residents? Is it over 3,000? What's going into 1.8 million square feet of industrial complex? And what about the commercial complex? So there are so many unknown factors, and we're being asked to look at this and be happy. We're not going to be participating in that parkland. We don't get to use it, but we do get to participate in the traffic, the jams, and the inconvenience of our lives over how many years while this happens. And that then adds 26,000 more commuters, more vehicles, more trips. 26,000 is more than many cities. This complex is larger than some small cities, and we're being asked to develop it right outside our backyards. That's not okay. If this was a city that was applying for its own jurisdiction, its own license, its own city infrastructure, its own responder staff. That would be one thing. This is not that. This is going to suck up all of our assets and all of our infrastructure and all of our police responders and medical. This is just not okay.

Okay, can you hear me? My name is Jeremiah Patlin. It seems undeniable that this project leans towards commercial and industrial interest. I would like to review the economic impact, particularly towards the workforce. I would like to refer to the Indio Strategic Plan concerning the workforce and business statistics. WHICH STATES THAT 66% OF THE WORKFORCE IS SERVICE AND RETAIL TRADE. AND TOWARDS EDUCATION 51% HIGH SCHOOL OR LESS. THIS PROJECT APPEARS TO OFFER a job fair, 10% of a commitment towards local employment. Did anyone hear the hesitation, try our best towards this goal of employment? This does not seem to be in the interest of the city. What is more, the placement of the IID substation in the center of the industrial section Being a publicly owned utility company seems to be a way of socializing the electrical costs of these commercial and industrial interests while privatizing the gains. This should be under higher scrutiny. Thank you.

Second. If you still want to speak, can you please make a line? Maybe stand up so we know when you're coming up. Go ahead, sir. You can start. Ms.

Chair, members of the commission, if I may, I believe you've already spoken and provided testimony, correct?

Yeah. So, so yeah, we would like to make sure everyone has an opportunity. So if you haven't spoken.

You've already had your opportunity. Have you not? Okay, great.

Yeah.

So, okay.

Thank you, ma'am. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS NANCY ROBINSON. MY NAME IS NANCY ROBINSON. MY NAME IS NANCY ROBINSON. I'M AT LIVETTE SUN CITY I'M AT LIVETTE SUN CITY I'M AT LIVETTE SUN CITY SHADOW HILLS. SHADOW HILLS. SHADOW HILLS. AND THIS MAY HAVE BEEN AND THIS MAY HAVE BEEN AND THIS MAY HAVE BEEN ANSWERED EARLIER. ANSWERED EARLIER. ANSWERED EARLIER. BUT MY QUESTION IS REGARDING BUT MY QUESTION IS REGARDING BUT MY QUESTION IS REGARDING THE BRIDGE, MONROE, OVER THE THE BRIDGE, MONROE, OVER THE THE BRIDGE, MONROE, OVER THE TEN FREEWAY. TEN FREEWAY. TEN FREEWAY. IS THAT BRIDGE GOING TO BE IS THAT THE BRIDGE AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S BEEN FULLY DEVELOPED SO I'D LIKE TO ASK STAFF TO DESCRIBE WHAT THE WORK ON THAT BRIDGE IS GOING TO BE BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN ALREADY DESIGNED AND IT'S HOPEFULLY GOING TO COME OUT OF THE GROUND HERE NEXT YEAR.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OUR

I got that. Thank you, Brian. Good evening. Juan Raya, City Engineer. Thank you for your question. Yes, the capacity of the bridge will be doubled. Currently, we have one lane in each direction. Ultimately, there will be two lanes for traffic capacity in each direction. Correct. First quarter of 2027, construction is scheduled. Correct.

Good evening, my name is Michael Rouse, also a resident of Sun City, Shadow Hills, but in everything that's been talked about tonight, I have heard nothing mentioned about schools other than $9 million that will go to the school district. Today, $9 million might buy you a couple of classrooms. So Shadow Hills High School, I came from an area in the South Bay where a high school designed for 2,000 students ended up with 4,000. So we're talking about 3,200 residential units here. And under every one of those roofs is the potential for another school student. We have one elementary school on the north side and we have one high school. I don't know where middle school students will go given all the traffic that is going to be created by this development. We're probably talking about families having to take their kids over the freeway to get to school. So I think we should talk about the impact on the school system because Shadow Hills High School is a great high school. I would hate to see it diminished in its capacity and ability because of all these additional residents who will be added into that development. Thank you.

Madam Chair, members of the Commission, I believe you've already had your opportunity to be heard.

I just have a quick question, and that is, I'm wondering, in the tens of meetings we heard about, which I think were five, that BH Properties has had with the community, has there been any outreach to the Jackson neighborhood? I don't know that there's anybody here from that community, and yet that's the direction the winds will blow the pollution out. I went to Mexicali the other day and asked if they had heard anything about it, and several of the other businesses along that strip, nobody seemed to know anything about it. I don't think it's within the thousand yards for legal notice, but it seems if you're going to put a project like this in their backyard, you should be talking to them.

Madam Chair, members of the Commission, I believe this speaker has had her opportunity to be heard. Thank you.

Is there anyone in the public who has not had an opportunity to speak that would like to speak on this topic? Nope. Is there anyone online that would like to speak on this topic?

There are none.

Nope. Okay. Do we have any questions? Do we want to take a two minute or?

At this point, what would normal procedure be is to have a rebuttal by the applicant. Correct.

Okay, so you come up please.

Thank you, Chair, Commission. Again, Jeremy Kraut, EPD Solutions, representing the applicant. I just have a couple of things. I will keep it much briefer than the first time. So appreciate the time to give a couple more comments. And the comments, very helpful to hear the comments and very similar to what we heard in the community meetings. It's good to also hear them again to make sure that we can address them. I do want to address one question. I think, Commissioner Slater, you asked about the breakdown of the general plan. the current general plan and the traffic engineer on the project did have that information for me so you don't mind i'll just mention that so and related to that monroe did consider the expansion monroe did consider the build out of the general plan which is that higher number that i mentioned on the screen so that that is the build out of a larger more intensive project that's allowed under the general plan i think it was about is over 50 000 trips And the general plan bailout from the breakdown is over 57,000 trips. The residential was about 38% of the trips that were associated with that general plan, the current general plan designation. Industrial is about 20%. So it did consider industrial uses for this site. And then retail commercial is about 40, close to 42%. So that's the breakdown in the current general plan. In terms of the breakdown, again, Monroe did consider that. An important point that I heard in a number of the questions, Monroe will be built before the project. That is analyzed, understood, and planned for, so that is part of the project. With the build out of the Monroe interchange, the traffic, the level of service, the traffic levels, which again isn't a CEQA issue, but it is an operational analysis that occurs, the intersections surrounding the project site are operating at an acceptable level on Monroe. So that even with the project at the full build out, the more intensive use, it does consider the intersections and their operating at acceptable levels. The infrastructure, I heard some comments from a gentleman about other infrastructure, and those do have to be the water, sewer, all the utilities, those have to be built before the uses come in online. And those are built at least at the capacity of the project. Most of those are also oversized to accommodate if there is additional shortages in the surrounding area. No data center is allowed, period. THAT IS NOT ALLOWED IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN. IT WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD THIS PROJECT GET APPROVED AS IS IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE ALLOWED. SO THE NOTICING WOULD OCCUR, PUBLIC HEARINGS WOULD OCCUR. A DETENTION CENTER WAS NOT EVEN CONSIDERED BECAUSE THAT WAS JUST NOT A USE THAT WE THOUGHT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. WE ARE HAPPY TO SAY NO DETENTION CENTER OR A PROHIBITED DETENTION CENTER. THERE WAS NO CONSIDERATION FOR IT. AND IF THAT HAS TO BE A SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED USE, THE WAY THAT THE SPECIFIC PLAN IS WRITTEN, THE LAND USES WHEN THEY'RE NOT IDENTIFIED AS AN ALLOWED USE, THEY'RE AUTOMATICALLY PROHIBITED UNLESS THE DIRECTOR WHO THEN HAS TO DETERMINE, IS THAT A CONSISTENT USE WITH SOMETHING ELSE IN THIS SPECIFIC PLAN? A USE LIKE THAT, WHICH WE KNOW IS VERY CONTROVERSIAL, I AM WILLING TO GUARANTEE AND BED ALL MY MONEY THAT YOUR DIRECTOR WOULD BRING THAT TO A PUBLIC HEARING TO SAY, I'M NOT SURE THIS IS AN ALLOWED USE. WHAT DO YOU THINK, PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL? SO THAT'S TYPICAL OPERATIONS OF HOW THAT WOULD OCCUR IN A SPECIFIC PLAN LIKE THIS. Local employment, I think somebody said that I hesitated. The important part of there is that we identified targets that we want to see as local employment in this project. We can't discriminate, though. It's against the law, so we can't say only residents can apply here. That would be a discrimination. However, we can do our best, which is having job fairs, identifying interested people within the community, and importantly, projects like this with the proposed uses, they actually benefit from having local residents be their employees. They are more likely to stay at the jobs and be interested in staying there because they have a shorter commute. SCHOOLS, CAPACITY-WISE, THERE'S 28,790 STUDENT CAPACITY. THIS IS IN THE EIR. I'M JUST MENTIONING IT BECAUSE I DID LOOK IT UP. AND THERE IS 2,000, THERE IS STILL CAPACITY WITHIN THAT, 2,000 STUDENTS, OVER 2,000 STUDENT CAPACITY IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM. However, the funding of the schools, that's an identified number that the schools and the state have said that the amount of money that has to be contributed is what offsets the impact of a project like this. So that is a determined number that is directed at projects like these, and the school system determines as well, and we pay for that. And that's prior to occupancy that has to occur, or even at building permit. I believe those are the main things I heard. Happy to answer any other questions. I do really appreciate the consideration and the thoughtfulness you've given in the community's interest as well.

Thank you. Since we are still in the public comment, are there questions for the developer at this point before I close the public hearing?

Yeah, I guess with regard to the current land use that's in place, I reviewed the land use matrices and allowable uses. The developers interested in doing logistics or warehousing under their current zoning for regional commercial warehousing indoor warehousing storage wholesaling and distribution is permitted with a conditional use permit. So I guess what was the intention of applying or I guess changing land use for this specific project as opposed to applying with the current land use designations that are in place that are in accordance with the general plan?

So I think the way I understand it is why not just leave the current general plan zoning and just use that to build out the project site? Is that kind of the question? Okay. So the reason that we've proposed a specific plan is when you identify a specific plan and plan out in the way that we've laid it out, we're considering more thoughtfully the infrastructure the land uses in an organized fashion that is oriented with the industrial type uses closer to the freeway. So you if you recall in that land use plan, it's a jagged kind of plan or shape that expands closer to Monroe versus hugs the freeway and with the way with our land planning analysis we're looking at housing being a better use spreading across the Avenue 42 versus having that spread closer to the freeway so that's why the the plan is better suited in the configuration that we proposed further we were looking at development standards that are more MODERNIZED FOR WHAT WE THINK IS NECESSARY FOR THIS AREA AND TALKING WITH USERS AND THE MARKET BROKERS AND PEOPLE THAT ARE UNDERSTANDING THE MARKET.

SO WHEN WE DID FOR SOME OF THE COMMERCIAL PORTION, HAVE YOU GUYS CONSIDERED BECAUSE THERE IS A CAPABILITY OF HAVING LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS BEING CONVERTED IN THE PAST TO HOSPITALS THAT YOU GUYS TARGETED THE HOSPITALS AND LOOKING FOR POTENTIAL TENANTS, HEALTHCARE TENANTS FOR THAT?

Certainly, and I think that's and that's why all of the land uses in the specific plan the mixed use in the various areas and the industrial do allow for health care oriented uses to the hospital and so if so again, we're at the bubble level with the specific plan we don't have a specific a Defined building that's in front of you for consideration but should a building come through that we propose that is spec meaning that it's speculative it doesn't have a user and THAT COULD BE BUILT. AND THEN YES, IF A HOSPITAL OR OTHER TYPE OF USE THAT CAME IN THAT'S ALLOWED UNDER THIS SPECIFIC PLAN COULD GO INTO THAT BUILDING.

If that would be the case, would I have to come back to the Planning Commission or would you guys would approve it, like the Planning Department would approve it?

It depends on the use. So some uses do have to come back to Planning Commission. Some are allowed under the Director's approval. And Mr. Halverson identified some of those thresholds where it would stay under his purview. Thank you.

THANK YOU FOR NOW. I THINK WE STILL HAVE SOME I THINK WE STILL HAVE SOME PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC THAT PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC THAT WANTED TO SPEAK OR NO? WANTED TO SPEAK OR NO? OKAY. OKAY. NOT SEEING ANY. NOT SEEING ANY. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM. PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM. WE'LL MOVE ON TO DELIBERATIONS WE'LL MOVE ON TO DELIBERATIONS OR QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS OR QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS POINT. POINT. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

My question, I guess, would be I heard prior to me running out to the restroom that the Monroe Bridge would only be expanded one lane on each side, correct? So it'll be a total of four lane overpass? That is correct. Okay. IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN THAT WE APPROVED EARLIER, UNDER THE SCOPE OF WORK AND THE DESCRIPTION OF IT, IT STATES A THREE LANE ON EACH SIDE. SO I'M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS WHAT PLAN THE CITY IS ULTIMATELY GOING TO BE MOVING FORWARD WITH AND DO WE REALLY FEEL LIKE I KNOW WE'VE HAD transportation studies, but do we really feel a four-lane overpass would suffice with this turning into a logistical corridor? The reason I ask is because Jefferson, beautiful overpass, but I believe that's about six or seven lanes wide. Cook Street, in Washington, which really leads to just like communities, to nine lane overpass. So my concern is doing the bare minimum overpass-wise for this project, considering we are the tourism hub of the valley. So when people come to our concerts, Monroe Street's inundated from Coachella Fest to Stagecoach to Tamale Festival. And so one of my concerns would be that high volume of traffic coupled with entering through a logistics corridor. So I guess my question to you, Brian, would be like, what is the ultimate plan based off of in place for the City of Indio for the Monroe Bridge?

So Public Works Engineering did respond regarding the size of that bridge. So that's kind of locked into that design. What I mentioned earlier in my presentation is the Avenue 42 corridor. based on the general plan is looking at mixed use developments such as what we have tonight and other uses too, you know, large commercial uses. I'm looking at the regional commercial district right now, talks about large format, retail, commercial services, lodging, entertainment, restaurant, parks and recreation. But in addition to that, the specific plan has the industrial component as well. But that area is seen as over time will develop and be more intense obviously than what you see now because there's a lot of empty parcels, a lot of large parcels as well. But as far as the bridge, someone emphasized earlier that this project cannot be built without the infrastructure and part of the infrastructure is the bridge. And so the traffic study, the analysis has been done so that the bridge is needed in order for a large project such as this to go in. So I think you should be rest assured that that improvement is part of the baseline of this project.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, Ryan, thank you for trying to answer the question, but what you're saying is that no matter what, that's going to be only a four-lane interchange. It does not want to be bigger. And if so, does the staff think that it's going to be enough to support this project?

Yeah, so I defer to Engineering Public Works, and so that size of that bridge has been determined, and it has been analyzed as part of this project. I don't know if Engineering Public Works wants to elaborate on the actual size, but it has been taken into consideration.

Is the engineer gonna?

Good evening. Let me try to add something to this. I'm Mark Greenwood. I'm the city's consultant transportation engineer. While the Monterey, or excuse me, the Monroe interchange project started and the planning for that started before my time here, this interchange project, part of the reason they take so long is because there is so much study that goes into them. This project had a very specific traffic study done. It analyzed every movement of traffic, every hour of the day. On the other hand, the general plan is general. It studies the entire city and even the region. And so the general plans indicated this probably should be a six lane bridge. When it got to the more detailed study that was done specifically just for this interchange, that study said four lanes will do. Now the reason we wanna manage the number of lanes is money. These are very expensive projects. And so that's why the project is currently proposed at four lanes because the specific study done for that interchange said four lanes was enough. Four lanes.

I'm sorry folks, the public hearing part is closed unless we really want to reopen it. Let us allow to interact with the staff. I'm sure we have more questions that you want to hear.

To answer the question, it's approximately 2019.

Thank you. And so to continue on that topic question, the project that's currently designed and approved is the project that was used for that specific plan, right? What we have approved today, not what we're talking about changing, but we've already seen that it looks like would be more trips per day.

Well the study for the interchange included assumed all of the land around it would be developed. So it included traffic from that what is currently vacant land and it assumed what I heard tonight roughly 50,000 trips a day from that land where this project we're considering tonight has approximately 31,000 trips. So the interchange actually considered more trips in the future

It considered trips, but did it consider what types of vehicles would be taking those trips?

Yes, it does. And the study for this project analyzed trucks, and then it's called a passenger car equivalent. You convert a truck into, say, four vehicles. The bigger the truck, the more of the vehicles you convert it to, up to four. And so this traffic study we dealt with, that we heard about tonight, did convert trucks into passenger cars and then evaluate that.

So this study was done in 2019, right?

the interchange study was approximately 2019.

That was almost seven years ago. That was before COVID. That was before a lot of people came to this India. Like I moved here in 2020. And I believe that going best of like this big project when that seven year old study, I don't think is the best in my opinion. I know my community, my friends, my community, like they don't like traffic. I don't like traffic personally. And then I just find it very, it's hard to believe that we're going making decisions of a seven year old traffic study plan.

To address the concern, that study, like the study we heard about tonight, that study looked at the year 2040 as its horizon year. I believe this study for this development we're hearing about tonight is for 2030 or 2035. So we're looking very far into the future in these traffic studies.

Okay, I want to pick your brain a little bit. When you're doing these traffic studies, is there a scale in which you rate the effectiveness of the proposed So let's just say on paper, this four lane suffices, right? But is that the bare minimum that needs to pass and get a check marks and say, oh, this project suffices? Are we providing the bare minimum for our city and not setting ourself up for success down the line essentially?

Well, I wouldn't say that we're meeting the bare minimum, but we do set standards. And so the city of Indio in the general plan established a standard level of service of D. And just like a D isn't a great grade in school, D is not a great grade in traffic. It's not horrible, but it's not great. But that's the standard that the city adopted. So that's the standard this developer will be held to.

So we're holding them to a deficient standard. I'm not saying that this is the developer's fault. The city outlined that the traffic priorities are going to be kept at level D. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay, thank you. And Madam Chair, I got a question.

And just this is more of a direction to the commissioners on here. If there's time that's needed to read over the 50 page Monroe study that's posted, we should take a break to read it because it clearly states on there that that project and that survey is expected to the full capacity up to 2045 when they do the study. So I would highly suggest that if we do need to take a break and do a recess for staff to at least, or the commissioners to actually read it, it would actually reduce a lot of the potential questions or hypotheticals that we're asking amongst staff right now that they don't have in front of them right now.

Thank you. Any other questions of staff at this time? Nope. Okay, do we want to enter deliberations? Do we have a motion? Do we need to take a five minute break?

I have a comment that I'd like to read out, I guess. So, as everyone's aware, we had to read through a 3,000-page EIR and staff report, so I did narrow down my 14 pages of notes regarding this to four. So, bear with me. So, my concerns ultimately come down to three major issues. Oh, and Brian, if you have any questions or objections, if you don't mind just kind of like highlighting it, and then I can maybe answer that after. My concerns come down to three issues. First, this project fundamentally changes the identity of one of Indio's primary gateway corridors. Second, the city is being asked to approve unavoidable air quality and greenhouse gas impacts that I do not believe are proportional to the project's benefits. Third, while the project is framed as mixed use, the structure of the proposal clearly centers around securing a large scale logistics entitlement that is not aligned with the long term vision I believe residents expect for this corridor or for Indio as a whole. I appreciate the applause, but if we could just wait, I have a lot to say. All right. So this is not just another development site. This is one of the primary corridors into the city of Indio, and the city is being asked to change approximately 183 acres currently identified as regional commercial and mixed-use neighborhood into a specific plan centered around 1.8 million square foot of industrial entitlement. That is not a small adjustment. That is a permanent identity decision. When people enter a city, gateway corridors shape perception. They communicate what a city values, where it is headed, and what kind of place it wants to become. I do not believe the long-term vision for Monroe north of the I-10 should be defined by warehouse scale industrial development. This corridor has the potential to become a destination gateway with regional commercial, hospitality, housing, medical, entertainment, technology, and community serving uses. Instead, I believe this project risks turning one of the city's most visible entry corridors into a logistics-oriented district. To me, this would function like a giant face tattoo on the identity of the city. Once it's there, it permanently changes how people see us, how investors see us, and how future development patterns evolve around it. And because this is being done through a specific plan and development agreement, future industrial projects may be later reviewed largely through objective compliance standards rather than broader policy decisions about whether the land use belongs here at all. One of my biggest concerns regarding the size of this project is that we're changing the land use designation to allow buildings to be potentially up to 75 to 100 feet tall. For scale, the largest building currently that I see in Indio proper is the John J. Benoit Detention Center, which is about 75 feet tall. So this would be nearly 30 feet taller than the tallest building in Indio. The second issue is environmental and public health impact. The city has been asked to approve a statement of overriding considerations acknowledging significant and unavoidable air quality and greenhouse gas impacts, which is a serious action. It means that the city is knowingly approving a project where impacts cannot be fully mitigated below significance thresholds. The EIR identifies exceedances related to VOCs, NOx, PM10, PM25, ozone precursors, greenhouse gas emissions, and diesel emissions. My concern is that these projects are not occurring in isolation. We've already seen a growing trend of large-scale logistics and industrial development along the I-10 corridor and throughout the Coachella Valley. Individually, each project may be evaluated separately. However, collectively, these create cumulative impacts related to truck traffic, diesel emissions, roadway wear, heat retention, greenhouse gas emissions, and regional air quality degradation. This project would significantly continue to that trend. However, at the same time, the city is investing heavily in family oriented and public serving facilities nearby, such as the Indio Sports Park, which is located one mile away. That means this area is becoming a place for youth sports, outdoor recreation and community gathering, and family activity. This should be an opportunity to reduce environmental burdens, not intensify them. I am also concerned that I have not seen meaningful project specific heat island analysis. I touched base about that earlier. So, and importantly, these impacts are not unavoidable in the absolute sense. They become avoidable if the city chooses not to approve this scale of entitlement here, or if the project is significantly reduced and redesigned. This is why I struggle with the concept of overriding these impacts. And my last point is, this project is being framed as mixed use, but it appears to be logistics-oriented entitlement. The clearest evidence is that both development scenarios preserve the same exact industrial square footage of 1,806,290 square feet. The housing aspect changes, the commercial aspect changes, and the hotel component changes. However, the industrial entitlement does not. So that tells me what the true fixed priority of this project is. And despite the scale of this entitlement, I still believe the public has a clear understanding of what types of jobs are going to be promised here. Are these long-term, part-time? What protections exist against automation reducing future employment? And what binding local hiring guarantees exist? Right now the development agreement includes goals and marketing efforts, but many of the committee benefits are either limited, aspirational, or tied directly to serving the project itself. For example, the three-acre park. It is my understanding in the staff report that that's going to offset existing park fee applications. The police substation is a shallow space only without getting input or it being documented that they need to collaborate with the police department or figure out what the cost would be for the city to set up that to be a police station. The medical clinic is not guaranteed. The local hiring target is a goal, not a mandate. And the IID substation, which is promoted as a community benefit, appears necessary to serve the project itself as it was a condition of approval from IID. To me, the city is being asked to approve one of the largest industrial entitlements in the region without receiving proportional guarantees in return. And I believe there are far better alternatives for this corridor. I would much rather see the city preserve the current regional commercial and mixed use vision or pursue a substantially reduced industrial footprint combined with a destination oriented development, medical uses, higher value employment, education, innovation, museums, technology, hospitality, or any public serving commercial investment. I'm not sure if there are potential parties interested, maybe it's just Amazon, they see me popping up everywhere, but hypothetically, if a company like Amazon was ultimately interested in this area, then I would rather see a smaller last mile logistics component integrated into a true technology and workforce campus with public facing value, education partnerships, clean energy infrastructure, and enforceable community benefits. India should not settle for becoming the back end of the economy when this corridor has the potential to become one of the front doors of the city. So for all of these reasons, I cannot make the findings necessary to recommend approval as is. I believe the site deserves high-value vision more aligned with the general plan, the future identity of Indio, and the expectations of the community. I'm not anti-growth. I am pro-Indio. Thank you.

YOU MAKE A MOTION? I DID, I JUST WANTED TO I DID, I JUST WANTED TO PIGGYBACK OFF OF WHAT YOU WERE PIGGYBACK OFF OF WHAT YOU WERE SAYING. SAYING. WHILE I SUPPORT THOUGHTFUL WHILE I SUPPORT THOUGHTFUL GROWTH, I ALSO WANT TO ENSURE GROWTH, I ALSO WANT TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE BUILDING IN INDIO THAT THAT WE'RE BUILDING IN INDIO THAT EXISTING RESIDENTS CAN STILL EXISTING RESIDENTS CAN STILL RECOGNIZE, AFFORD, AND RECOGNIZE, AFFORD, AND BENEFIT FROM. BENEFIT FROM. I'D LIKE TO SEE PROJECTS THAT I'D LIKE TO SEE PROJECTS THAT ALLOW KIDS WHO GROW UP HERE, LIKE ALLOW KIDS WHO GROW UP HERE, LIKE MYSELF AND MICHAEL college and returned here because we chose to come back here and build something better, even though we may have felt that past electeds have failed us. And we're not here to be an extension of any of the electeds or anybody that appointed us that we're here as an extension of our community. And we not only live in the city of Indio, both of us work in the city of Indio over the Monroe Bridge that we're all speaking about. So we understand exactly where you're coming from. We deal with these same things every day. And I want you to know that we hear you and we're listening.

With that said, I would like to make a motion.

Hold on, I had a comment.

Oh, I'm sorry.

So first of all, I really want to say thank you all for coming out. I know time is valuable, and we rarely get this type of outreach. I would love to see more people come and give us your opinion. I think my biggest concern is I was also born in India. Don't hold it against me. I was raised in Coachella, but I moved back as soon as I could. SO I THINK WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS I UNDERSTAND THAT WE DON'T WANT WAREHOUSES. I GET THAT. I DRIVE DOWN 60 AND TO MARINO VALLEY AND I SEE WHAT EVERYBODY SEES. WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF THE CURRENT APPROVED PLAN IS ACTUALLY according to all the professionals than what is being proposed today. So I think one of the things we need to think about is if we're not going to put warehouses or certain types of, and trust me, a 100-foot warehouse makes me very, very antsy. So that's definitely something we can talk about, height limitations. we need to come up more as a community not just against this particular maybe plan is come up with better what do we really want to see there because if we go and we build all the houses that would fit in that footprint i believe the traffic would be significantly greater now i'm not a traffic engineer but just based on all the years that i have been here i think that impact would be even greater so we really need to consider what do we want that to be the other option also is I don't know about you, but I don't want housing right up against I-10. That, to me, is you're going to really be taking in all the toxins from all the cars that are going back and forth consistently. So I'm always worried about how close housing gets to I-10. I want it pushed farther out. If this doesn't go through, I want to make sure that maybe this is something that we need to go back to staff and to city council and come up with a better idea of what do we want here and what is that impact really going to be? Because if it's going to be housing, the traffic impact is probably going to be greater. If it's not going to be light industrial, light industrial, I didn't say toxic warehouses, okay, what is going to go there? So I can't tell you how much I appreciate you guys being here and listening to all this. I think what I want to get is not just talk about this project, talk about what can we place in spaces like this that help our community as a whole? Because honestly, housing to me is not a good thing right along the freeway. If you drive through Riverside, you see all those apartments that are right along the freeway. And all I keep thinking about is how do they ever open their windows? right? They don't. So I always am very worried about quality of life overall on anybody that lives in India, whether it's an apartment or a 3,000 square foot single family residence. Okay. So I hear you. I appreciate your time. And I think that this is something that I clearly sounds like the city and all of us need to go back to the driving board and figure out what it is we want, but it may not necessarily be housing, right? So then the question is, what is it? And at this point, all we're doing is making a recommendation to council. It will definitely be up to them to do this or whether the developer comes back with something a little bit different, which I don't know if that's possible, but I just want you to understand that we did hear you. We understand your concerns. but there's a whole lot of things here that we need to look at. you know, not just maybe the fact that it's a warehouse. So if there's no more comments from the commissioners, do we have a motion? I just want to read my statement.

You know, it's not, I promise, it's not as long as Commissioner Slater. It's like a few sentences. I support economic development and investment in India. I was not born and raised in India, but my wife was. She was born and raised in India. She works in India, over the bridge as well. So I completely get that, you know, the concern of traffic. I hate traffic myself. BUT I ALSO THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE COMMISSION TO CAREFULLY EVALUATE LONG-TERM LAND USE BALANCE, INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY, TRAFFIC IMPACTS, AND THE FUTURE IDENTITY OF THIS CORRIDOR BECAUSE THESE ARE DECISIONS THAT WILL SHAPE THE CITY FOR DECADES. SO THAT'S MY COMMENTS.

BEFORE WE GO TO MOTION, DO WE HAVE A CONSENSUS? DO WE WANT TO TAKE THE TIME TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THIS AGAIN AND MAYBE SEE IF THE DEVELOPER HAS SOMETHING ELSE OR DO WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH MAKING A DECISION? THAT'S ANOTHER OPTION.

I'm ready to make a motion. Okay.

All right, I would like to make a motion to, I'm sorry?

We're recommending.

Oh, okay. I would like to make a motion to not recommend this plan as proposed to City Council.

I'll second that motion.

Madam Chair, members of the commission, if I may, if the commission decides to go with denial, again, we will see. I will need to make and bring back at least the deliberation portion because we are going to need to make findings for the planning commission consideration. A lot of the findings I think we've already heard on the record, traffic, A LOT OF WHAT THE COMMISSION HAS ALREADY STATED. BUT WITH THAT, WE WOULD NEED TO COME BACK AND I WOULD HAVE TO PRESENT THE FINDINGS TO THE COMMISSION.

OKAY. WE DO FINISH THE MOTION, THOUGH, RIGHT?

YEAH, RIGHT NOW WE JUST HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. OKAY.

AND LET ME JUST ADD ONE MORE THING. ATTORNEY, CORRECT ME, BUT THE ATTORNEY, CORRECT ME, BUT THE NEXT MEETING WOULD BE JUNE NEXT MEETING WOULD BE JUNE 10TH, AND SO WE COULD COME 10TH, AND SO WE COULD COME BACK, I THINK THAT WOULD GIVE US BACK, I THINK THAT WOULD GIVE US ENOUGH TIME TO COME BACK WITH ENOUGH TIME TO COME BACK WITH THOSE FINDINGS, THEN OF COURSE THOSE FINDINGS, THEN OF COURSE WHATEVER THAT RECOMMENDATION WHATEVER THAT RECOMMENDATION IS WOULD CARRY IT FORWARD TO IS WOULD CARRY IT FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

THE CITY COUNCIL. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

SECOND. CAN WE PLEASE HAVE

Motion carries 3-2.

And again, we will need to come back with those findings because if not, the decision would be arbitrary. So we will need to do that. So we're going to have to vote on those findings.

Understood. We'll look for that on the June 10th meeting. Thank you. Okay, thank you everyone. Let's take a couple of minutes to let our guests vacate.

And.

Thank you very much.

Okay folks, let's go ahead and continue with item number six. We have commissioner comments. Does anybody have anything to add? Nope, okay. We'll move on to item number seven, staff items.

Two items that I wanted to recap. So the Madison Point project was considered by the council last week and we've been directed to do some more research. There was some concerns about the battery storage component. Also some potential concerns about air quality. So we'll be coordinating with the air quality district on that. And then also there was talk about that. COMPONENT OF THE PROJECT BEING OFF THE GRID SO WE HAVE SOME WORK THAT WE'RE DOING BEFORE WE BRING IT BACK TO THE COUNCIL AND THEN THE SECOND ITEM IS THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE SO THAT GOT APPROVED SO THAT WAS A HEAVY LEFT WE WERE VERY HAPPY SO WITHIN 30 DAYS THE SUBDIVISION NEW SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE WILL BE IN EFFECT THAT CONCLUDES THE TWO STAFF ITEMS

Thank you very much. Can I ask a question? Sure, you have a question on staff?

Yes. Brian, good question. So where are we, where's the city at with the annex project? I know you guys had like a community outreach meeting like a month ago. How is that?

So the annexation project is going well. We have another meeting coming up on that project. We continue to work with our consultant, have regular meetings. The goal is to, we're working on the second phase. Environmental review will probably start towards the end of the year on the environment impact report. BUT THINGS ARE GOING WELL. WE'RE JUST CONTINUING TO WORK ON ALSO NEXT YEAR WE'LL BE DRAFTING A LAFCO APPLICATION AS WELL. SO WE WILL, AND I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THIS UP, WE WILL BRING A PRESENTATION ITEM SOON TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL. WE'LL GIVE YOU AN UPDATE.

LAST ONE QUESTION. WHAT ABOUT THE GAS STATION ORDINANCE? CITY COUNCIL ALREADY VOTED ON IT OR NOT YET?

Yes, I think I updated on the last meeting, but essentially that's going to be coming back next month to the city council since the planning commission already reviewed that. So that'll go to the second meeting in June to look at the code amendments to limit gas stations.

Okay, no other questions. We will go ahead and adjourn the meeting at 9.15 p.m. Good night, everyone. We'll see you on June 10th.