Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. We have one commissioner that hit a little traffic, so we're going to start in about five minutes, just so that you're aware. Okay? Thank you. OKAY, GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. OKAY, GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. WE'D LIKE TO CALL THE PLANNING WE'D LIKE TO CALL THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF JUNE 10, 2026 TO COMMISSION OF JUNE 10, 2026 TO ORDER AT 6.06 P.M. ORDER AT 6.06 P.M. IF WE COULD PLEASE HAVE ROLL IF WE COULD PLEASE HAVE ROLL CALL. CALL. COMMISSIONER SLATER?

COMMISSIONER SLATER?

PRESENT.

PRESENT. COMMISSIONER SCARBOROUGH-ECKEL? COMMISSIONER SCARBOROUGH-ECKEL? PRESENT. COMMISSIONER SANTOS? PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER SANTOS?

PRESENT. VICE CHAIRPERSON ORTIZ? VICE CHAIRPERSON ORTIZ?

PRESENT.

PRESENT. CHAIRPERSON FRONZ?

CHAIRPER Thank you. And Vice Chair Ortiz, if you would lead us in the pledge, please. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we'll go ahead and go to item number three, public comment for items not on the agenda. Do we have any?

I have no comment cards.

Okay, seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. And we'll go ahead and move on to the minutes of item, minutes of the May 27th. Do I have a motion or corrections?

I have a correction. I have a correction, Madam Chair. On item 5.2, it says that Commissioner Santos seconded the motion to deny. It wasn't him, it was me. So I just want to put that for the record.

OK. So I have a motion and a correction. Do I have a second?

I'll second it.

OK. Can we have a vote, please? Motion carries 5-0. Thank you. OKAY, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5.1. WE CAN START WITH A QUICK MESSAGE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION AND ALSO THIS IS PRIMARILY FOR THE PUBLIC AS WELL. THIS ITEM IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM. I THINK MANY PEOPLE ARE HERE FOR THAT ITEM. JUST TO BE VERY, VERY CLEAR, I'm going to call the OASIS project, so we know what we're talking about. For this OASIS project, the commission has already made a decision, and that decision was a 3-2 vote to recommend denial to the city council. We are not here to rehash it and go over it and all of the things and, you know, similar. We did that in the last public meeting. hearing a couple weeks ago. What we're here to do is to discuss the findings for denial. And that is what's before the commission. So this is not a rehashing of the entire project. This is really to look at the proposed findings for denial that are in your packet. That said, the public does have a right to speak on the item, and we will ensure that the public has that right. But note that the Planning Commission has already made their determination, and now we're just looking at the findings. The findings is a fancy word for reasons why the Planning Commission made those decisions. MADE THE DECISION THAT IT DID. AND WE WANTED A SUFFICIENT TIME TO DRAFT UP THE FINDINGS, THOSE REASONS FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING. SO HOPEFULLY THAT'S CLEAR. IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS ON PROCEDURE, DEFINITELY ASK ME. THAT'S WHAT I'M HERE FOR. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. OKAY, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO ITEM 5.1. STAFF REPORT, PLEASE.

YES, THANK YOU. BRIAN HALBERSON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. Thank you for the City Attorney just reiterating why we're here tonight and what we're considering. Two weeks ago the Oasis at Indio was reviewed by the Planning Commission and A LITTLE BIT OF PROJECT BACKGROUND AND WHAT HAPPENED TWO WEEKS AGO IS THE COMMISSION REVIEWED IT. THE PROJECT RELATED STAFF REPORT ALL DOCUMENTS INCLUDING THE TESTIMONY. THERE'S QUITE A BIT. SO I EVEN ATTACHED TO YOUR STAFF REPORT THERE WERE SOME PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT CAME IN AFTER THE STAFF REPORT WAS PUBLISHED. SO YOU HAVE THAT AS WELL. But to close the public hearing the Commission decided to deny the project just as our city attorney mentioned To deny it and there are draft findings this evening for you to consider for the denial Oops back So the findings for denial are contained in the resolution attached the staff report. That's a resolution to one for one And that is required in order for this to move forward because we're looking for the Planning Commission's recommendation to bring to the City Council at a future meeting. I do want to just emphasize that the City Council is the final decider of the project and their decision, whatever that may be in the future, would be final and is not appealable. So that is important to note as well. So this is just a list. I'll quickly go through them. It's a lot, but these are the recommendations that you would like to go before the city council at a future meeting. That would be to decline the final impact report. That includes everything that's contained with that, medication monitoring reporting program, statement of writing over Statement of overriding considerations as well as sequel findings all of that is bundled also deny the general plan amendments the zone map change as well the specific plan which is the large part of the project is also part of that denial as well as rescinding Denying the rescinding of the existing specific plans master project plans that are on part of the property right now including the financing map AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THEN ANY ALL RELATED DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE PROJECT AS STAFF PRESENTED TWO WEEKS AGO. SO THAT IS A SHORT PRESENTATION TONIGHT FROM ME. I'M AVAILABLE AS WELL AS THE ATTORNEYS IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS BUT THAT CONCLUDES THE STAFF PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS TIME?

I'm not sure if right now is the time for questions or if I have a recommendation on the Statement of Denial.

Because we did list this as a public hearing, we know that the public hearing is closed, but it was listed that way. I would recommend to see first if there's anyone from the public who would like to speak on it first, and then after, if there's any changes to the findings, we could definitely do it at the end. This way we hear at least what the public needs to say about it. But just as a reminder, I know I'm reiterating myself, this is not THE DECISION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE. THIS IS REALLY JUST NOW THE REASONS. OKAY.

THANK YOU. SEEING NO QUESTIONS OF STAFF RIGHT NOW WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY REQUESTS TO SPEAK?

WE DO. SO FIRST WE HAVE JAY WALKMAN

I've lived here for 11 years. I'm also a realtor, and I have been here as a realtor for 11 years in the community. Since you voted against this, I'm very happy to see that. So I'm changing what I'm going to say today. The area of North Indio, Shadow Hills, has been, you've approved multiple upscale housing over the last 10 years. The particular plot of land and its zoning was done like 20 years ago. So I think that the Planning Commission needs to rethink the zoning in that particular area and how it's gonna affect all of Shadow Hills, which is about 20% of the population of Indio. So go back, rethink, maybe we redo zoning in that area, but also maybe be a little bit more thoughtful of what should be built there and go after builders who want to build that fits the community that we want. You guys have done a great job with all the Indio signs and landscaping and statues, and I happened to visit downtown last night, or last week, and is beautiful, and what you guys are doing there. So what we want to make sure is that corridor, and you said it very well, Mr. Slater, that is the corridor to where people come from Coachella and lots of venues. They get off at Monroe, and there's an opportunity to have a venue there where they can stop, eat, or hotel, or whatever, but having 1.8 million square foot of light manufacturing doesn't fit. Thank you, appreciate it.

Eduardo Garcia. Jerry Conrad.

Thank you for the time, I appreciate it. Now that you've made your decision, this is a somewhat repetitive, and I do apologize for that in advance. Basically, my name's Jerry Conrad, I'm a former Board President of Sun City Shadow Hills, current CDCC Chair, And we're the interface between our community and the City of Indio. And you've done a very good job. We really do appreciate it. I'm going to speak today primarily to the two commissioners who voted against the proposal. I think I'd like to try to change their minds if they haven't already. But let's give it a shot. I'd like to thank for the vote and that this build out of these large mega warehouses is simply not the right thing to do to the residents of Indio. Notice I say Indio and not just North Indio. This project will have lasting negative consequences for all our community and valley. The issues of pollution, traffic, view destruction, and lowering property values have not changed since the last time we talked. The mere fact that these issues cannot be mitigated by some magic wand means that we need to make a 5-0 vote and not a 3-2 vote from the May 27th meeting. Imagine living along this corridor like thousands already are. Now, massive warehouses like those along Highway 60 and 215 are just a stone's throw away. Noise, pollution, and traffic would become part of your everyday life. You would start to give out of town guest direction starting with, take the Monroe exit where the warehouses are at. This part of the project will change our community forever and not for the better. I know that BH Properties will try to sell you with the idea that lots of jobs and revenue will come with the warehouses, as if this was the only form of development that will generate these revenues and jobs are warehouses that are 1.8 million square feet. What are the costs? The cost would be health and well-being of nearly 110,000 residents who call Indio home. No matter what BH is selling, they're just putting what I'd call lipstick on a pig. For the two members who voted to allow the full project the BH properties has asked for, I know you're aware of the negative side effects. of these warehouses and I believe you will reconsider and make a decision that benefits Indio. We can always find ways to make revenue, but we shouldn't do so at the expense of the health and safety of our residents. Make no mistake, this project is our data center. Coachella made the correct decision and I hope all five of you can understand what's at stake. Please vote to not change the zoning of this property and force BH Properties to come up with alternative ideas that make sense, thank you.

Farrah Mostow.

Hi, I'm Fira Mostow. Losing my voice, sorry. Live in Sun City, Shadow Hills, and have lived in Indio for a long time. When I moved in, that Jackson shopping center was Fields. And I went to the opening of the Stater grocery store on Washington. So I've seen a lot of changes here. And they've mostly been for the better. As we've developed Indio, it's turned into a beautiful community. The downtown is lovely. Everything is just blooming. You've heard all the reasons why these warehouses are a bad idea, and I can go over it with you. The air pollution, which even their DER says is unmitigatable. The traffic. We're an island surrounded by a freeway with all of our medical equipment, medical facilities on the other side. If those trucks to that warehouse start blocking those freeway entrances and the roads to and from, we could get in serious trouble if we've got somebody with a stroke or a heart attack that can't get through there. I mean, admittedly, that's a little bit catastrophic, but it's something. We're an over 55 community, and I have to tell you that the number of ambulances that show up in our community is not small. You're talking about building residential units right next to warehouses. And frankly, I haven't seen any projection about who's exactly gonna occupy those warehouses. Amazon's closing theirs. Warehouses are standing empty all over. And I can't imagine anything more of a blight than a large empty warehouse sitting in the middle of India, right off a freeway. I mean, it's a magnet for vandalism and unhoused people and a lot of horrible things we do not need and have worked very hard to fight. And as far as that promise of jobs, that's illusory. You know, warehouses are automating. Amazon is laying off hundreds, if not thousands of employees. They're not hiring. And even those people who are working in those warehouses could in no way make the kind of money to afford living in those apartments if they're renting at market rate. It just doesn't work. It doesn't pencil out, as they say. You know, we've heard a lot about how the revenue's gonna come into Indio and what a positive thing it is financially. You know what, I think that if you put money and revenue above the health and safety of our residents, then shame on you.

Barry Fisher.

Madam Chair, members of the Commission, I just do want to remind everybody, we appreciate everybody's comments, but this item has in fact been denied. We are here, again, everybody has a right to speak, but I just wanted to remind the public, again, the item's denied. We're just here really to deliberate on the reasons, the findings. So I wanted to make that clear once again for the record and also for the public.

Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Barry Fisher. Like my friends before me, I'm also from Sun City, Shadow Hills. I had written out my remarks, but as the city attorney mentioned, the decision was made, and I'm deeply happy that that decision was made because for me, the issue comes down to the pollution and the health and safety of our community. To be sure, nobody is against building in that area. But it has to be responsibly done that not only meets the needs of the city of Indio from a tax standpoint, but also for the good of the overall community. So I want to thank you again for what you've done. Keep up the good work. And I really, truly believe the Planning Commission made the right decision.

I have no more comment cards.

And no one online?

Okay.

Seeing no more requests to speak, did you want to speak, sir? Yes. Okay.

for justification on that decision. So thank you all and thanks for having us to participate in this.

Please have your name for the record.

My name is Kevin Ford.

Thank you.

And I'm an Indio resident and I just wanted to point out that when we talk about what the benefits of the project are for the warehouse, that's what I'm speaking of, or the, what do they call it, light industrial, I'm thinking It's a little premature to be talking about the number of jobs when warehouses might be moving toward robotics or we don't know what the scope of the project is. We don't know the occupants. We don't know what's going to be trafficked through there if it's just a warehousing or if there's actual manufacturing. So there is no scope. without a plan, how can we understand what the risks or the benefits are? And so there's known benefits that came out of the EAR, and then there's probably future risks or benefits once we know who the occupants might be. So that's part of the concern that I have. So predicting what the risks or the benefits are, it's kind of hard to do a risk benefit analysis when there is no scope. So that's my point, but I wanted to thank you for the work that you're doing and the due diligence. And I'm also a fan for all of the work that Indio has done on the development with the redevelopment in the downtown area. The contract with Golden Voice is just one example of how Indio is forward looking and I just don't think that that particular part of this project is ready. Anyway, thank you.

Okay, seeing no more requests to speak, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Oh, let me reopen the public hearing.

Hi, thank you. My name is Chrissy Glasner, and I'm a one-year resident of Indio, and I appreciate all of your findings and everything, but I really am a little confused. So last week, or last time we came here, it was voted 3-2 to defeat the proposed zoning change. So is this meeting then for you guys to re-decide, or is it, it's a done deal, you guys have said no?

Yeah, as previously stated, the Planning Commission has already made a determination to recommend denial to City Council. They have already voted on that. What we are here tonight to do is to discuss the findings. Findings is a fancy word for the reasons, right? So every Planning Commission decision needs to have reasons for either approval or denial. So before the Planning Commission is a resolution that sets forth THOSE REASONS AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. SO THE ITEM HAS ALREADY BEEN DENIED BUT AS I SAID IT'S A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL SO IT WOULD BE A PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL TO CITY COUNCIL BUT THE REASON WHY WE'RE HERE IS TO DISCUSS THE FINDINGS AND AFTER BUT WE HAVE TO OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT BECAUSE WE'RE REQUIRED TO UNDER THE BROWN ACT BUT AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT WE WILL BRING IT BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO DISCUSS THOSE FINDINGS.

Okay, and once they decide, you know, you've got the findings and you could theoretically, both of you and Gloria, Jose and Gloria, you could decide to go with your other three compadres and say, no, we don't like it.

So that is a different procedural issue. Changing votes is a very different procedural issue. That is not what we're here to do this evening. With that, please finish your comments. I'm not, you and I can't necessarily have a back and forth. BUT THIS WAS REALLY THE BENEFIT FOR EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM.

OKAY. I UNDERSTAND. SORRY, I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE PROCEDURES AND EVERYTHING. I FEEL LIKE YOU GUYS ARE REALLY INTERESTED IN MAKING THIS PLAN THAT B&H HAS REALLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITIZENS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME I FEEL LIKE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF STRUGGLE. SO I JUST WANT TO WEIGH IN AND SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SO MANY THINGS THAT WE COULD DO, NOT ONLY you know, dollars coming to the city, but energy coming to the city. This could be a gateway instead of a blight on Indio. So I would just like to take that into consideration, okay? Thank you.

Anyone else? Nope, okay, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. and move on to deliberations. So does anybody have questions or comments regarding the findings?

I do have questions regarding the findings. I guess my question would be for Jennifer. In the statement of denial, I'm noticing that greenhouse gas emissions are included. However, in my statement, I did include diesel emissions. In the review of my statement or in preparing this statement of denial, I guess in your professional opinion, would greenhouse gases be under the same umbrella as diesel emissions or should it be something that's included alongside greenhouse gas emissions?

I don't have an opinion on that, whether or not they go together or not. If the findings, if you would like to clarify any of the draft findings, again, these are draft findings for the commission's review. So if the commission would like to go ahead and clarify or make a distinction or something like that, these are the commission's findings. I personally do not have an opinion on that.

Okay, thank you. And if I did have, let's just say, a couple of recommendations, what I propose... I didn't hear you. What was that? If I had just to say a couple of recommendations to add on to the statement of denial, would I go through each one and then get each commissioner's approval on that before we add it on, or would it need to be stated all... TOGETHER AND THEN THEY VOTE ON WHETHER THEY WANT TO ADD THOSE.

THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. IT IS A LARGE DOCUMENT. WHAT WE COULD DO IS, FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S SAY YOU WANTED TO ADD A CONDITION OF XYZ. probably in the interest of time and also in the interest of making this as a recommendation, what I would suggest is to say, I want to add the statement of the X, Y, Z. You know, is this something that the commission would like to do? If there are several different changes that you would like to make, I would suggest making them one at a time because I don't know if the commission, you know, would agree with each of them or not agree. But if it was like a general thing, YOU CAN MAKE THAT WITHIN YOUR MOTION. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IF THERE ARE SEVERAL, GO THROUGH THEM. IF THERE'S ONE OVERRIDING ONE, YOU CAN MAKE THAT WITHIN A MOTION IF YOU DECIDED TO DO THAT.

OKAY. SO I GUESS MY FIRST CONCERN AND I'LL SHARE WITH MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS IS I WOULD WANT TO ADD DIESEL EMISSIONS TO BE INCLUDED FOR THE REASONINGS OF DENIAL ALONGSIDE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

CAN YOU REPEAT THAT ONE MORE TIME?

I would like to add diesel emissions to be listed along greenhouse gas emissions for the reason for denial when it comes to environmental air quality. And so I just noticed that that item was missing, diesel emissions.

Okay, so can I ask a question about that since I'm not a greenhouse gas emission expert? Greenhouse gas is like all form of whether it's unleaded or leaded or diesel or Right, it's just all doesn't that include everything or is it?

I'm also not a scientist but I would think that it would include the generic term for FOR PRETTY MUCH ANY KIND OF EMISSION THAT AFFECTS PROBABLY OZONE LAYER. I'M GUESSING. THAT IS A GUESS. I DON'T KNOW, BRIAN, IF YOU HAVE MORE OF A DEFINITIVE ANSWER.

We do not have the environmental consultant, but generally speaking, it's my understanding that would be part of a greenhouse emission. But again, tonight, as our attorney said, if you guys want to add something to the findings, including diesel emissions, you have that right. But as we know, vehicle emissions, whether it's diesel or not diesel, those contribute to greenhouse gases. Just to clarify.

Does anybody have a problem with adding that or? Nope, okay, I'm assuming you know what section that would be added to in the document.

So it would probably be under section three is what I'm guessing, is that correct Commissioner Slater? where the recommendation, it would be for a sequel recommendation.

Correct, yeah. So on the last paragraph of section three, air quality and greenhouse gas impacts. So I guess if we could just include air quality and greenhouse slash diesel emissions.

Okay, just so we note that for when we make the motion.

Okay, and just for brevity, I will probably call it diesel emissions pursuant to section three. YEAH, PERFECT.

AND THEN MY SECOND ITEM I WOULD LIKE TO ADD WOULD BE I DIDN'T SEE UNDER THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REGARDING THE OASIS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT HOWEVER ONE OF MY CONCERNS REGARDING THE OASIS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT WAS ALLOWING FOR BUILDINGS TO BE UP TO 100 FEET TALL AND THAT IS SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE IN THE STATEMENT OF DENIAL AS ONE OF THE REASONS WAS FOR THE SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN OUR THE HEIGHT BUILDINGS AND I GUESS THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS ON BUILDINGS. IT'S CURRENTLY 65 FEET FOR ALL BUILDINGS WITHOUT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BUT WITH THE OASIS PROJECT IT WOULD IN ONE BIG SWOOP ALLOW FOR UP TO 100 BUILDINGS TO BE UP TO 100 FEET TALL. AND SO I WOULD LIKE THAT TO BE ADDED INTO ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE'RE DENYING THIS PROJECT IS JUST THE CONCERN REGARDING THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS.

So that would probably be under Section 5, specific plan findings, probably B as in boy, to add a note that the height was 100 feet, which seems excessive, something like that.

Any other comments? No? Okay. If there are no more questions, do we have a motion to accept the findings?

I'll make a motion to accept the findings as stated for the report to include the amendments as provided by the commissioner. Okay. I'll second it. Okay.

And there's a vote on your screen. Please vote.

Break it.

Motion carries 5-0. All right. Thank you very much.

All right.

Okay, we'll go ahead and move on to item number six, commissioner comments, do we have any? Nope, okay, we'll go ahead and move on to staff item 7.1.

Thank you chair and members of the commission so last week the City Council voted and they approved a moratorium on data centers so that is a 45-day moratorium so mainly I just want to update the commission that that's a time for staff to bring back a presentation to the Planning Commission and then another presentation in July to the City Council. So in two weeks, so not tonight, in two weeks we will give a presentation based on some research we've done, the Sustainability Commission has also been working on this topic for a little while, as well as one of our staff members went to the National Planning Conference, so that will also be presented, some of the information that was obtained from that conference. And then from there, and this will be an action item, a study session item if you will, THAT FEEDBACK THAT THE COMMISSION GIVES US, WE'LL PRESENT THAT TO THE CITY COUNCIL. WE WILL ALSO, AS PART OF THAT PRESENTATION, BE GIVING THE PLANNING COMMISSION SOME OPTIONS TO CONSIDER, FOR EXAMPLE, EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM, MAYBE A CODE AMENDMENT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, AND SOME OTHER OPTIONS. SO STAY TUNED, BUT THAT'S IN TWO WEEKS. THAT DOES INCLUDE THE STAFF ITEMS.

MADAM CHAIR, I DO HAVE SOME COMMENT CARDS FOR THIS.

This is not a public hearing item, right? This is a staff item? Correct.

Yes. Okay. But in two weeks, they'll be able to bring.

In two weeks, they'll be able to speak on this item.

Thank you.

Okay. Seeing no other staff items, we'll go ahead and adjourn this meeting to our next regularly scheduled meeting of June 24th at 6 p.m. Thank you, everyone.