Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Here. Chairperson Frans? Present. Just for the record, Commissioner Scarborough-Eckel and Commissioner Santos are absent. Thank you. And we'll go ahead and start with the Pledge of Allegiance. Vice Chair Ortiz, would you please lead? Of course. Thank you. Thank you. We'll go ahead and move on to item number three, public comment for items not on the agenda. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing, public comment section, and move on to item number four, item 4.1, planning commission meeting minutes for July 22nd. Do I have a motion or corrections?

Here we go, I bring a motion to approve those minutes from last meeting. I second.

Okay, please vote.

Okay, thank you very much.

And we'll go ahead and move on to study session items, items 5.1, East Indio annexation presentation from staff.

Yes, I would like to introduce this item before we start with the presentation. Brian Halverson, Director of Community Development. We have our consultant tonight here, Rachel Lindt, with Dudek Consultants to my right, far right. And I just wanted to say before we present, as you know, I've been giving some periodic updates throughout the year of some of the work that we've been doing with the annexation project for the city. So we completed phase one and most of the discussion is going to be framed around phase two of the project, but we're also going to use this opportunity to give the Planning Commission an overall summary of the work that we've been doing over the last year, year and a half. So with that in mind, Rachel will take it away and do her presentation. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Brian. And good evening, chairperson and commissioners. My name is Rachel Lint, and I'm a senior planner with Dudek. And we've been hired by the city to undergo this East Indio annexation study. So I'll be presenting on that this evening. So the project is being led by the City of Indio in partnership with DUDEC and our consultant team, which involves economics, public outreach, and transportation specialists. In terms of the agenda tonight, I'm going to be covering a project background and status. I'll be going over the proposed annexation and land use concepts, a bit about the LAFCO annexation process, and then next steps for the project. And I'll start with a brief overview of why the city initiated this study. So first, the project originated from the city's desire to strengthen its employment base and diversify its economy. Today, industrial zoned land represents only about 1.6% of city parcels, and at the same time, 84% of India residents commute outside of the city for work. In June 2024, the city directed staff to evaluate lands within the eastern sphere of influence, which you see on the screen in blue, to determine whether additional employment-generating uses could be accommodated within that area. The area today is largely vacant and represents a unique opportunity to evaluate long-term economic development. So a bit about what is annexation. The project consists of approximately 4,609 acres of unincorporated Riverside County land. So being within the sphere of influence means the land has been identified as a location where the future city expansion could occur. So to bring any portion of land into the city, a formal annexation process through Riverside LAFCO would be required. The vision is fairly straightforward. Expand employment opportunities, diversify the city's economy, create jobs, and attract investment. The project has been divided into three phases. The first phase was focused on opportunities and constraints. The second phase, which we are in now, is focused on annexation concepts and feasibility. And the third phase would involve the environmental review and preparation of the formal LAFCO application. Before discussing the annexation and land use concepts, I want to briefly summarize where we are in the process. So as I mentioned, the project area that you see here on the screen is predominantly vacant open space. There are some existing uses, which include agriculture, a quarry, operation, a date garden, and a small amount of commercial and manufacturing activity. One important finding is that there is very limited existing infrastructure within the area, so wastewater, water and power infrastructure would need to be extended or expanded to support development within the project area. So looking at the work that we conducted during phase one, which is the opportunities and constraints analysis, DUDEC analyzed roughly 3,300 acres that you see there on the screen. And so we conducted environmental infrastructure analyses, market studies, economic development analysis. We conducted some outreach with other agencies and developed very preliminary concepts. And the purpose was really to develop opportunities Development to discover if development opportunities were realistic and the types of land uses that would be most feasible Through our analyses we identified the area that you see on the screen outlined in a dashed black Between roughly 40 40th Avenue and Fargo Canyon Road as having the greatest development opportunity to discover if additional area was feasible. So looking at what we've been undergoing as part of phase two, as I mentioned, we expanded the project area to be roughly 4,600 acres. So it's now the entirety of the eastern sphere of influence. We've been updating our environmental studies. We conducted a hydrology and flood analysis based on findings from phase one. We have been continuing to conduct agency coordination, reaching out to landowners now during phase two. We had a public open house. as well as an online survey. And then lastly, we've been preparing annexation concepts which will be discussed this evening. So looking at our timeline, we're currently in the concept evaluation stage. During next week's city council meeting, a determination will be made on which annexation and land use concept will be moved forth as the preferred concept, and that will allow environmental review to proceed as well as the actual LAFCO application. So now diving into the concepts developed as part of our phase two effort. So first, we have developed four concepts. And they are all ones that focus on employment generating land uses, given that that's the vision for the project, open space and conservation areas, industrial office, and supporting commercial uses. So that stays constant across the concepts. The primary differences really look at the size of the annexation area, whether housing is included or not, and whether designated conservation lands within the project area are annexed or left out. And really, it comes down to the amount of future expansion opportunities. So these focused on environmental constraints, infrastructure requirements, looking at the fiscal impact, job creation potential, compatibility with surrounding uses, flood and geologic hazards, and then long-term implementation considerations. So first, concept 1A. So this concept annexes the full project area and focuses the development core that you see on the screen outlined in red exclusively on employment generating uses. And so key benefits of this concept include approximately 5,000 new jobs, roughly 4.4 million square feet of industrial development potential, really strong annual fiscal returns as a result, and then significant long-term expansion opportunities given that this concept annexes the entire sphere of influence. The trade-off with this concept is that the city would assume responsibility for a larger annexation area, including designated conservation lands that you see in the southern portion of the project area in that hatched area. Moving on to concept 1B, it's very similar to 1A, but it introduces workforce housing into the development area shown as an orange polygon. The concept provides roughly 700 housing units while still generating substantial employment opportunities. It also produces the highest overall tax revenue. However, the flip side of the coin is that there's the highest infrastructure costs associated with this concept. So it would require the city to provide more municipal services associated with the housing development. Moving on to concept 2A, 2A reduces the annexation area. You can see that the southern portion and the northern portion of the project area are cut out. And this makes it so that the conservation lands and the southern portions are not part of the annexation area. It achieves nearly the same employment and fiscal benefits of 1A while reducing the long-term management and coordination responsibilities. 2B includes the smallest annexation footprint and development core that you can see in the middle of the project area. It avoids many environmental constraints and has the lowest infrastructure and operating costs. However, it produces the fewest jobs, the lowest tax revenues, and least opportunity for future expansion. Last week we presented these four concepts to the technical advisory committee and they provided some really great feedback. So first to just relay what we heard, the group generally favored concept 1A because of the long-term strategic benefits and ability to really maximize the value of the annexation effort. There was also consensus that housing can generally be accommodated through infill housing. And so there was a focus on wanting to see more employment generated uses as part of this project. The next phase would involve preparation of a formal annexation application to Riverside LAFCO. So just stepping back, thinking about who is LAFCO, so they're the agency responsible for reviewing boundary changes, including annexations. Their role is to ensure orderly growth, efficient service delivery, and efficiency, or excuse me, consistency with regional planning. Ultimately, any annexation would require LAFCO approval. So looking at how this process occurs, there's environmental review service planning, fiscal analysis, tax sharing negotiations, public hearings, and then ultimately the LAFCO review and approval. You can see that there's roughly nine steps. As of now, we're kind of in the first through third steps that you can see on the screen. And most notably, the process includes multiple opportunities for public and agency input along the way. So looking at next steps. Following tonight's discussion, concepts will be presented to city council on August 19th, a week from today. Staff will seek direction from the council on a preferred concept, after which environmental review will begin. The fiscal and service analyses will be finalized. Additional public outreach will occur. We'll have one more open house. and then a future annexation application will be prepared for LAFCO consideration. So with that, that concludes the presentation and we appreciate the Commission's feedback and we'd be happy to answer any questions.

And I just wanted to add one last note to that presentation. Thank you, Rachel. So tonight we are simply wanting to gather that input from the commission regarding those annexation concepts. We can put them back up on the screen if need be. And then whatever concept that you're favoring and any other comments you have, then that will be brought to the city council at our next presentation. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And yes, if you could bring up those concepts or just a way to compare

One, two, three, A, B. I was checking to see if I had a slide that had all of them up, but I think we might just have to look at one at a time. Look at one at a time, yeah.

All right. You guys have a preference which one you want to look at, or do you want to look at each one and kind of go through them? Why don't we just start with one and then we'll just kinda hop through. Okay, so this is one.

This is 1A, so this is the full annexation of the Eastern Sphere and the core, the development core that you see in the center of the project area would have an employment only focus.

Yep, so no housing, correct? Correct.

Okay.

All right, let's look at the next one, 1B.

So the boundary of the annexation would stay the same. The only change is workforce housing would be, or I should say housing with an emphasis on the intent is workforce housing, would be introduced and therefore a small portion of employment generally uses would get toggled down to accommodate.

And there's more cost, more expense because of the infrastructure for the housing? Yeah. Okay.

Do we, sorry, sure. Do we know how many housing, how many units will be built or?

Yeah, so we're estimating roughly 700 units.

Got it. Thank you.

I guess I have a question. When it came to the weaknesses, both 1A and 1B, the third one, box for weaknesses, states fault zone and flood risk area. On the first one, it said something about mitigation. Would you mind going back to 1A?

Oh, yeah. Yes. So within the project area, based on our findings from the hydrology study, there's a prevalence of what's called ephemeral drainage patterns, which basically means that there's waters that come into the project area. And the waters may have jurisdictional boundaries, so federal waters that would need to be protected. And so if those waters are impacted, then the federal agencies require mitigation. And essentially what happens is you can mitigate at a ratio of 2 to 1 or even up to 3 to 1. So if you impact that area, you have to mitigate for the impacts at a 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 ratio. double or triple, so it's quite a large area. And so when you're looking at a larger annexation area, you might have more opportunity to mitigate outside of the development area, and so it just becomes more land, not only for this project area, or I should say this project, but elsewhere in the city of Indio, if jurisdictional waters are impacted, that the city could use the eastern sphere as mitigation banking.

Okay, perfect. And is that applicable to all four proposed phases or is it just 1A?

So 1A and 1B are the two that propose full annexation of the eastern sphere. So there's more land associated. And then if we look at 2A, you can see that we're carving out the northern portion as well as the southern portion and then a bit of the eastern portion. So the annexation area is reduced. So those areas would continue to be County of Riverside.

Okay, so the flood risk areas that are federally regulated would still be a part of the County of Riverside? They wouldn't be in this...

What this does is it reduces the prevalence of ephemeral drainage patterns. So those are carved out. But you know, water flows. There's a flow pattern. And so this is attempting to carve out both designated conservation areas as well as where Dudek found to be the highest prevalence of flood-prone areas.

OK, perfect. Thank you for explaining that. but it sounds like regardless of the plan, some sort of mitigation would need to be done. But if we go with one A or one B, it would just be a little bit larger in scale, which would increase the overall cost.

Correct, yeah.

I really appreciate you guys also considering all four concepts, preserving open space and habitat conservation, because I know that's kind of like one of the focuses of LAFCO. So one of my questions is, I guess, how competitive is our application currently? And does one of these plans, I guess, make us more competitive in the application process than another?

I don't know if I can speak to the competitiveness. I know that LAFCO has principles that they want to follow. And one of those is, I should say, it's not just principles but requirements. And one of those is of contiguous boundaries. all of our concepts follow that. The intent is to not create, you know, islands. Another principle is ensuring that the amount that you annex is sustainable and, you know, equivalent to what the city can take on. So I know that responsible development, responsible kind of development, management of land is another LAFCO principle. But I think if there, if we can help the city to showcase that there's fiscal benefit and there's fiscal benefit to all of these and that infrastructure can be provided, then I think LAFCO will support the city in that. I think it's just a difference of really how much land the city is interested in annexing.

Perfect. Thank you. I just wanted to see all of them, you know.

So this is 2A, and the last one is 2B. So this is the most conservative. So you can see the annexation area is the same as 2A in that it's been shrunken down. But then the development area, the only portion of the project area that would be designated for actual development as opposed to the other areas that you can see are either utilities or infrastructure or open space, that gets reduced basically by half. And so it's just a more conservative approach. The polygon that you see for the development area is to be the low end of what the market demand showed, while concept two, or excuse me, 1A and 1B is more on the high end. And so it's kind of providing a range of what the market shows is kind of feasible for development within Coachella Valley.

Perfect. Thank you.

Okay, so just so that I make sure I understand, 1A is the largest and has no housing, so more potential for work. But we're still taking on responsibility for those northern lands and the conservation down at the bottom. Correct. Okay, so then if we go to 2A, we're just carving out that top portion and the conservation, but everything else stayed the same. Did I get that right? Correct. Excellent. All right. So when a city takes on the conservation and the federal lands, I'm assuming that it's now becomes the city's responsibility for maintenance and whatever needs to be done. Right now, that's something the city doesn't have to actually manage, right?

Yeah, it's a really good question. So less on the maintenance side and more on the coordination side. So the conservation areas are managed by a CVAG. And so it really becomes more, and there's a multiple species habitat plan that governs that area and specifically has requirements in terms of what's allowed there and how it should be managed. And so it's really more on the coordination side with CVAG and the city would have to take on sort of co-review of any applications that come through or anything that is impacted in that area. And so what I understand from the technical advisory committee meeting that we had last week is that the city is already playing this role in other conservation areas. One of the, let me see if I have a map that shows, because the conservation area is not just in the eastern sphere, it continues on. And so it is an issue, or it's a, It's a situation that the city has already, that there's conservation lands, designated conservation lands where development occurs.

So this wouldn't change that. So, I mean, if I'm understanding what you're saying, to me, the 1A seems to give us the most flexibility, the most ability to make decisions and still have influence over those areas that are so closely related to us. Correct.

Excellent.

Any other questions? No, okay. I mean for me, and I'd like to maybe get a consensus from everyone up here, I think 1A is probably where we should focus, at least from everything that I understand at this point. Does anybody not agree with that?

Sure, I do agree with it. I do also like 1B because it has some housing component, you know, 722 housing. It's always needed, obviously. But I do agree with you that 1A is the one that makes the most sense, in my opinion.

I also would like to see housing, but in that area, like they mentioned, the cost to provide services and to go out to that community would increase the cost pretty significantly. So I am a fan of 1A and then 2B. If we did rank choice.

Okay, so I think those are our comments on study item 5.1.

That's very helpful, and we will take that input and incorporate it into the next presentation to the City Council. So thank you for listening because it is a complex project that has been going on for a while, and so we're doing our best to make it as simple as possible, but also it's a great opportunity for the city to expand its boundaries. So thank you for that input. Thank you.

I do want to say something before we move on to the next item. I want to commend the city for like looking to the future and kind of like trying to figure out what can we bring, what kind of services we need. This sparks the conversation of like big warehouses, you know, I know they're coming into the city and I think this is a perfect place, you know, kind of to put them there because there's not a lot of housing, there's not a lot of things. going on and then they have enough space. I'm not quite sure about the regulations of what we have right now currently in the city so maybe if I can have like some consensus here in the Planning Commission you know maybe we can ask staff to kind of bring us like whatever like regulations that we have so far what do we have stuff like that that way when we have a like a

Can we bring this up during a commissioner comments? Because I think it's not something that's on the agenda.

Sure, we can do that.

Okay, thank you. Why don't we do that? Yeah. Okay, thank you. Okay, we'll go ahead and move on to public hearing item 6.1, plan review for a tentative trap map and limited use. Can we have staff report, please?

If I can get the presentation up. Good evening, Chair, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Nicolás Buitrón, Associate Planner with the City of Indio and Community Development Department. The item before you is Agenda Item 6.1 for the Grand Marketplace Phase 2 project. FOR A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THE FOR A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THE PROJECT ON MAY 28, 2025, THE PROJECT ON MAY 28, 2025, THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED THE GRAND MARKETPLACE PHASE ONE GRAND MARKETPLACE PHASE ONE PROJECT CONSISTING OF TWO PROJECT CONSISTING OF TWO COMMERCIAL RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL RETAIL AND SERVICE BUILDINGS. BUILDINGS. THE PHASE ONE APPROVAL ALSO THE PHASE ONE APPROVAL ALSO INCLUDED ONE LIMITED LAND USE INCLUDED ONE LIMITED LAND USE ASSOCIATED WITH THE COMMERCIAL ASSOCIATED WITH THE COMMERCIAL USE WITHIN SUB AREA 18. The phase one is currently under construction and represents the first phase of the larger Grand Marketplace project. THE GRAND MARKET PLACE PHASE TWO PROJECT IS LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WEST OF RUBIO STREET. THIS SLIDE SHOWS HOW THE OVERALL GRAND MARKET PROPERTY IS DIVIDED INTO PHASES ONE, TWO AND THREE. HOWEVER, I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THE ONLY PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND THE GRAND MARKET PLACE FOR THE GRAND MARKET PLACE AND THE STRUCTURES WITHIN PHASE TWO ARE BEING REVIEWED FOR CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING. The tentative map number 39527 proposes to subdivide the grand marketplace property into seven development parcels and one remainder parcel. Parcel one contains the approved phase one development while parcels two, three and four would accommodate the three commercial paths proposed under phase two. The larger parcels five, six and seven would support future development for the property. The planning review discretionary application includes three commercial pad buildings totaling approximately 10,290 square feet on approximately 2.09 acres. Pad one consists of an approximately 3,500 square foot quick serve restaurant with a drive-through facility. Pad two consists of an approximately 3,400 square foot quick service restaurant with a drive-through facility. And pad three consists of an approximately 3,390 square foot financial institution with a drive-up facility. THESE THREE BUILDINGS WOULD BE LOCATED ON HIGH 111 FRONTAGE ON THE NEW PARCELS CREATED BY THE TENTATIVE MAP. THE PLANNING REVIEW DISCRETIONARY APPLICATION ALSO INCLUDES THE REVIEW OF THE OVERALL SITE DESIGN, BUILDING ARCHITECTURE, VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION, PARKING AND LANDSCAPING AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. The master plan development permit is also being reviewed as part of this application due to the proposed subdivision and overall acreage triggering the requirement for the coordinated master planning. This review ensures that the three pads function as part of a cohesive development and remain compatible with phase one and future development on the property. The application also includes a master sign plan to establish coordinated signage throughout the grand marketplace phase two development. This slide shows the proposed site plan for the parcels two, three, and four. Pad one would be located on parcel two, pad two would be located on parcel three, and pad three would be located on parcel four, adjacent to Rubidoux Street. Access would be provided through the existing Grand Marketplace circulation system from Highway 111 and Rubidoux Street. For these next three slides, I'm going to go through the, excuse me, through the elevations. Please let me know if you guys would like me to move back. This would be for the first pad. This would be for pad number two, which would be the second quick serve restaurant. And then this would be for pad three, which would be the financial institution. I DON'T KNOW WHY IT KEEPS DOING THAT. THE COLOR MATERIALS BOARD PRESENTS THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL PALETTE FOR ALL THREE PAD BUILDINGS. The applicant is also proposing the master sign plan to provide coordinated signage throughout the phase two development. There is a requested deviation as part of the master sign plan as allowable through the master sign plan. The requested deviation would increase the maximum tenant wall width from 60% to 70% of the applicable tenant facade. The sign program also establishes consistent requirements for sign placement, materials, illumination and construction subject to the conditions of approval and separate sign permit review through the building and safety department. The landscape plan includes planting along Highway 111 and Rubedo Street, parking lot shade trees, landscape screening, and planting around each building and pedestrian area. The landscaping is intended to screen parking areas, drive-through lanes, utilities, and other site features while providing coordinated transition between Phases 1 and 2. The applicant will be required to submit a final landscape plan to the Planning Division to be reviewed by the Planning Division and the Public Works and Engineering Departments before construction. This slide identifies the existing mature palm trees along Highway 11 for the phase one, for the phase two, excuse me. The phase one approval included a condition requiring the existing palm trees to remain in place. However, those trees were subsequently removed during construction. For phase two, staff has included a condition of approval to specifically requiring the existing palm trees along Highway 11 frontage to remain in place and incorporated in the final landscape plan. The project is proposing three drive-through facilities associated with two quick-serve restaurants and one financial institution. These drive-through facilities require a conditional use permit and are classified as limited land uses under the Highway 111 corridor specific plan. Sub-area 18 allows a maximum of four limited land uses. Phase one previously received approval for one limited land use and phase two proposes the remaining three, meaning the approval of this project would utilize all four limited land uses within the sub-area. As for the staff analysis, the project is consistent with the General Plan 2040, the Highway 111 corridor-specific plan, and the Unified Development Code and the Subdivision Map Act. The project was reviewed pursuant to CEQA's Guidelines Section 15183 for consistency with our program EIR. And with application of relevant conditions of approval, the project is recommended for approval. WITH THAT, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT TO THE CITY COUNCIL THROUGH RESOLUTION NUMBERS 2143, 2144 AND 2145 FOR PLANNING REVIEW DISCRETIONARY PLAN PRD 260025 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PLAN CUP 260010 AND TENTATIVE TRACK MAP NUMBER 39527 WITH PLAN TPM 260015 for the grand marketplace phase two project and find that the project is consistent with CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15183. That concludes that presentation. Staff and the applicant are available to answer any questions the commission may have. And the applicant is here for a presentation as well.

Thank you. Any questions at this time or can I open a public hearing? Okay. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing and we'd love to hear from our developer. Thank you.

Hello, good evening. Good evening, Chairperson Franz, Vice Chair Ortiz, and Commissioner Slater. My name is Tarek Shire. I'm a representative with Urbanist Group to the Hagen Company. I will be speaking on this project tonight. I have been here before multiple times. We spoke previously on phase one, and Appreciate all your support. With me tonight is Mr. Hagan Sr., Alex Hagan IV, the president of the Hagan Company, Mr. Don Kelly, and then our vice president of construction, Shaheen Shabani, and our land use counsel, Brent McManigal with Fenimore Law. And also virtually we have the head of leasing, Greg Bradbury and our consulting team to help answer any technical questions that you may have. This is to say that we're all here present and wanting to answer all your questions. We're really excited to be here tonight. We want to present to you our vision that the Hagen Company has been working on and walk you through the project. Our ask tonight is seeking your support for the approval of the resolutions stated earlier by staff and the recommendation of staff. But before I get into the presentation, I'd like to recognize staff. I'd like to recognize both the planning and engineering staff. They have been absolutely phenomenal to work with, very responsive. Great problem-solving team. And I also want to especially recognize Nicholas for his continued support. So thank you. Nicholas, can you move on? Or is it right here? Okay, great. So I just want to share with you the overall big picture vision of what we have for the India Grand Marketplace and its overall phases of revitalization. We really want to attract the best in class tenants with a diverse mix of merchants to serve the community with everyday needs and also to be able to create a destination that attracts customers on a regular basis. We do want to turn blight into bright, and that is going to require the support and assistance of the city with us. It's a big lift. But we also believe that we have one of the best retail properties in the city. IGM, its location, where it is, albeit a lot of the higher end development has been happening north of the Interstate 10. But where the density is today and where the future growth continues to happen, we believe the location of the Indiagrant marketplace is important. is ripe for continued development and attracting new tenants. We're excited about it. And quite frankly, a lot of tenants are excited to be part of that Midtown revitalization. We're here tonight to talk about phase two, but I would like to step back a little bit and give you a quick update on phase one. And this is the map that Nico shared earlier, and it's the different phases. So we have a phase 1A, phase 1B. These were the ones that we came in and spoke to you about back in 2025. I'll be giving you an update on that and then obviously phase 2 and future phase 3 The picture on the left is depicted to show you Where phase 1 a 1 B and 2 are just for demonstration purpose and down at the bottom this picture was taken yesterday You'll see the date stamp the 11th, and we're really excited about this the pads on on phase 1B have already been, they're in place, they're poured, infrastructure is in place. One of the buildings is substantially framed. The second one just started yesterday. So we're excited about that. It's moving, the buildings are growing up. You're seeing progress. As far as 1A goes, it's pretty much done. We still have some touch up and a few things, lights and whatnot to be done. So we're really proceeding forward. Again, it's part of that big vision. We're excited about that. As far as phase two, the parcels are parcel two, three, and four would have three pads, the two restaurant pads, and one financial institution pad. And we're really excited about receiving expressions of interest from different tenants for the restaurants. They want to be in Midtown. They're excited about that, and so as a financial institution. And this is, we're excited to get this started as soon as possible. We'll get the approvals. Phase 1B, we do anticipate that that will be completed by the beginning of 2027. We're trying to move even quicker if possible. And a little bit on the elevations. I don't want to go through them again. Nico did, but I will stop and slow down if you want me to. But this is Pad 1. What's important to mention about the elevations is the colors and materials will be natural colors, high quality materials that will last in the desert environment. And then as far as the trees and color palette, So we are being consistent with the Highway 111 specific plan for the pallet as well as being in keeping with the community and the neighborhood. We wanted to mention the conditions that were provided We're generally in agreement with all the conditions. But I do want to bring one condition that was mentioned earlier, and that's condition 17. And condition 17, the language of it as drafted today makes us need, we would have to come back to the Planning Commission to get an approval for any modification to the treescape on Highway 111. And that's predominantly for the palm trees. And while that can become complicated is in the event we need to replace or change the trees or even remove the trees and replace them with with other trees, we would have to go to planning commission. Quite frankly, these trees are towards the end of the lifecycle. Most of them are over 55 feet in height. with the increased wind in the valley. As a matter of fact, the text message that we all heard right now that came through, that was an alert of a windstorm. They do become a liability on the buildings. They do become a risk on the pedestrians. While we do not anticipate removing them right now, should we need to remove them, we would like to have that condition be written in the same manner as the prior condition was written, where we would work with staff and the engineering department on the landscape. This shouldn't be any different. However, should the city wants us to keep the trees, we are happy to keep them, but we would like to ask for a release of liability from the city in the event they fall and cause any damage. But I don't know if we're gonna cut them or not. Our intent is to preserve the front and beautify it and plant it with the most beautiful trees. And as you all know, the Hagen Company is known for it's landscape, it's the trees. They're known for a lot of different things, but the palm trees and the way they take palm tree planting very seriously. So we do anticipate this to be a really beautiful looking front, a very nice looking shopping center, and we do wanna avoid having to come back to the planning commission should we be needing to remove one tree or two trees or all of the trees, or should it be IID comes to us and requires, like what happened with phase one, requires removing trees because they need to trench right under them. So this way we would come back and work with the planning department and the engineering department. So that said, we're here to answer all your questions. I would like to invite Mr. Hagan here to say a couple of words if he would like to. And any member of the Hagan team. And let me yield my time here to Mr. Hagan. Thank you.

Thank you for having us here. We've been out in the valley here since actually 1983. When I first came out, I came with my son to go ahead and play polo over at the El Dorado Polo Club, which was then in the county. work to go ahead and develop that property. And again, when Tarek was telling you about our pension for trees and landscaping, if any of you have been there, you can see it's on websites all over the world. It's one of the most beautiful equestrian centers and pull-up properties anywhere around. We've gone ahead and bought up whole fields of palm trees of the date palms. And we started putting them in here even before without any permits or something, because there were some old trees in by this coming in the main entrance by Sears. and it looked terrible, and we came in and took them out and put beautiful palms in, the date palms, and we're gonna continue that throughout the process. In other words, it's an integral part, it's important for shade, for looks, and for everything else for all of our properties, but this especially, because it's on 111, it's in Indio, and it basically has been an eyesore for way too long, and we know that you've wanted this to happen a lot sooner. We've wanted it to happen a lot sooner also. I was asked by the city and by the mayor and the council people over a period of years to help them with this property. And that's why we went and we purchased it. We purchased it from a Chinese group that came in and basically bought it just so they get the EB-5 passes to bring people in and get their green cards to come into the country. And they put no money in it. The restrooms didn't work. The lights were out in the mall. It was a disaster. That's been eight and a half years. So we've carried this on our back and kept trying to put things together. for a long period of time. Part of the history is, and I'm sure you know, that everything changed after COVID. We were going to put a big theater in there. The whole theater industry changed. They went broke. They couldn't function. And so that changed. So we went from an enclosed mall with a food court, very intricate and cost us a fortune to design it, to have to redesign it and come back and put it back together the way we're doing now. Our people have some great plans for other things. I know that you're looking at phase one and phase two and everybody's excited because now we go from nothing and we're actually got it rolling and got it started. This will also enable us to go ahead and do the next phase. And there's some really exciting things that go into that phase. We understand also that in working with the city and your staff that we need to go ahead and compete with ourselves. We need to compete with the city of Indio because you have the other side of the freeway and major tenants have gone over there. So that's been a little bit of a leasing challenge, but we're getting some of them that we believe we can even convince them to come and join us in our side too with some great tenants that even are already in Indio and on the other side of the freeway. We show them there's only about 16% of the housing is gonna be relegated to the north side. That means most of the new housing and the impacts are gonna be on our side of the freeway. It's gonna be in downtown Indio and in the 111 corridor. So it leaves some really exciting opportunities for us to get in and put this together. So we put our money where our mouth was. We've been here for years. Like I say, we've carried this thing at a loss for eight and a half years. And we want to see it get done, but in a very spectacular way. I don't want to do something mediocre. And so our people are working, like I say, with some other potential tenants. And we can't talk. Unfortunately, they don't want you to talk about them. If you do, you might even lose the tenant. So we kind of have to keep it under our hat. But some very exciting uses that would really We think not only help everything on the 111 corridor, but even downtown. If you get the right tenants, people follow good tenants. And we think that we have some that would really kind of change the whole downtown portion of Indio. So our team is doing a great job. They're very close in working with your staff. And so I'm very proud to be able to be part of Indio's past and even more proud to be part of your future. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Do we have any questions of the applicant at this time?

Yeah, I have a couple of questions. I guess this would be both for applicant or mainly staff. Come back up, sir. The applicant mentioned the authority to remove trees should they pose a safety risk. Is that something, I guess, is keeping the trees something that the planning commission had decided in the past, or is that something council had recommended, or is it a part of the general plan?

I'll respond to the protection of the trees, and then our city attorney can talk about the liability component. So when staff looked at the site, we saw some very signature looking iconic trees for along Highway 111. We don't have a lot of landscaping along Highway 111. It's very low lying and so... we saw those trees as an opportunity to keep them in place just like phase one. When they were removed with phase one, we thought for phase two that we could try to keep them and then give that authority to the Planning Commission as some extra teeth. The trees that were removed in phase one were removed because there was electrical conduit and things like that that were in the way. So it's really an effort to make Highway 111 look really nice and keep the few trees that we do have. It would probably take 20 years for trees to grow that tall, maybe even longer. So it was our effort and the vision of Highway 111 to try to help with the aesthetics, because it does need some work. So obviously if the commission disagrees, then we can entertain some revisions to that condition this evening.

Okay, thank you. I obviously also think they are beautiful trees. They're really big, and trees and shade is something that's definitely needed here in our valley. I guess just if in the event of an emergency, we know there's a storm coming and we've gotten reports that there's a tree that's kind of iffy, would it be possible for, I guess, city manager to grant the authority, or could we, the commission, recommend council grant the authority to city manager to authorize that removal of the tree?

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SLATER. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SLATER. I'LL TAKE A STAB AT ANSWERING I'LL TAKE A STAB AT ANSWERING THIS. THIS. BASED ON THE FEEDBACK AND BASED ON THE FEEDBACK AND CONSULTING WITH YOUR STAFF, I CONSULTING WITH YOUR STAFF, I HAVE PREPARED AN ALTERNATIVE HAVE PREPARED AN ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE FOR CONDITION OF LANGUAGE FOR CONDITION OF APPROVAL 17. APPROVAL 17. I'LL SUMMARIZE IT. THE COMMISSION APPROVES IN PRINCIPLE WE'LL MAKE SURE TO THE COMMISSION APPROVES IN PRINCIPLE WE'LL MAKE SURE TO SEND IT TO THE APPLICANT GET SEND IT TO THE APPLICANT GET THEIR COMMENTS BEFORE IT GOES THEIR COMMENTS BEFORE IT GOES TO THE CITY COUNCIL BUT TO THE CITY COUNCIL BUT ESSENTIALLY IT WOULD GENERALLY ESSENTIALLY IT WOULD GENERALLY STATE THAT THE 12 TREES SHOULD STATE THAT THE 12 TREES SHOULD BE PRESERVED THAT DURING BE PRESERVED THAT DURING CONSTRUCTION THEY SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTION THEY SHOULD BE PROTECTED IF THE REMOVAL OR PROTECTED IF THE REMOVAL OR RELOCATION IS NECESSITATED BY THINGS RELOCATION IS NECESSITATED BY I'd recommend that the community development director or their designee be authorized to approve that relocation or removal. I usually put in there that the director may require supporting information to support the basis for the request. And then I usually would recommend that we add language that as a condition of approving the removal or relocation, the director would have the specific authority to require replacement landscaping, including a replacement palm tree or other mature specimen of tree of comparable visual character and size in locations that are agreed to maintain the attractive and landscaped presence along highway 111. I think if that was the direction the commission wanted to go, I think that would address the applicant's concerns. I think it would give discretion and it would mean that we don't have a tree that's about to fall down and we have to call you all up for an emergency planning commission meeting.

Yeah, that's perfect. I'm on board with that.

Okay. On that item, I think as beautiful as those palm trees are, they have been here a very long time. So now my concern is you've had to remove some. How many had to be removed because of conduit and IID?

Nine.

Nine. And total, how many are there along that entire frontage of the mall? Because there's still another few left. Twelve. So my concern now is we're going to have a section with newer palms. that there's no way you're gonna be able to find some as old and as tall as the other ones. So I almost think that we need to kind of look at the whole frontage of the mall and see if it's really even feasible to keep those older trees. you know, if at all, because now I think it, because we've removed nine, almost half, it's going to change the whole front look of that mall. So I want, I really want to see consistency along that section and mature palms, not baby palms be lined so that they look beautiful on day one. Right. So I think that's something when, when staff meets with the developer, they can keep that in mind that I really want the vision of the entire front of the mall, not just section phase one and then phase two.

Yeah, I just wanted to add to that. Thank you, Chair. So when you drive into the Grand Marketplace entrance, there's beautiful palm trees that line that entry. So what we're kind of hoping is if there is an instance where the trees need to be removed, that they would emulate or they would duplicate that look because it is a really good look as you come into the marketplace entrance. So I would work with them if that comes up where they need to be removed so we can, like you said, be consistent both with the ones that were moved, replaced, the ones in phase one, and then phase two, if those were removed, we can get a consistent look along the highway.

Correct. Okay. Are we good with the landscape?

REGARDING THE LANDSCAPE I GUESS IF A TREE WERE TO BE REGARDING THE LANDSCAPE I GUESS IF A TREE WERE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED COULD WE REMOVED AND REPLACED COULD WE ADD THAT A CONDITION BE AT LEAST ADD THAT A CONDITION BE AT LEAST LIKE 20, 25 FEET TALL SO WE'RE LIKE 20, 25 FEET TALL SO WE'RE NOT HAVING 50 FEET TALL PALM TREES NOT HAVING 50 FEET TALL PALM TREES NEXT TO A 10-FOOT ONE. NEXT TO A 10-FOOT ONE.

SO ONE OF THE BURDENS OF BEING SO ONE OF THE BURDENS OF BEING THE CITY ATTORNEY IS THAT I MUST THE CITY ATTORNEY IS THAT I MUST DRAFT CONDITIONS THAT MIGHT BE DRAFT CONDITIONS THAT MI is that the replacement palm tree or mature specimen tree would be of comparable visual character size and landscaping value to the tree that is relocated or removed. So that would be a determination that would be made at that time. you know requiring that the maybe the exact same species or the exact same size i think would really limit the commercial reasonableness of what we're asking the applicant to do okay thank you um that's all i have regarding landscaping for the applicant

Yes, now with the three, so.

Okay, anything for the applicant?

Yes, I just want to say thank you for trying to make the marketplace a better service for the community, because we definitely need more businesses and whatnot in the Highway 111 corridor. I know this is not like specifically we're talking about it today, but I'm just curious to know about phase three. I know Mr. Hagan kind of mentioned it a little bit. So what's coming, what's next for that phase?

Vice Chair, Phase 3 will be the demolishment of the old mall in the middle to open up the site for visual connection and vehicular connection. and then which is the prelude for what's going to come next. As Mr. Hagan said, we would love to tell you exactly what comes next, but we're still under an NDA. We're still negotiating. We're still figuring out exactly what that's going to be. But I can tell you it will be the demo of the centerpiece between the buildings.

Thank you.

You're welcome. Chairperson, if I may just comment. While I definitely need to consult with the team and our land use attorney on the revised condition language, I It sounds acceptable to the team, with the exception of the word size, which goes to the commissioner's comment. These trees are 55 feet in height, and the reason why they are being a subject of tonight's talk is because they're at the end of the life cycle. So for us to replace them with the same trees of character, no problem, but size, BECOMES AN ISSUE. THAT'S WHY WE'RE REMOVING THEM. CORRECT.

I DO THINK THAT OUR ATTORNEY SAID NO SPECIFIC SIZE BUT COMPARABLE AND LIKE THE NEWER ONES THAT ARE DOWN THE MIDDLE, RIGHT, OF THE DRIVEWAY, THOSE ARE NEWER POMPS AND SOMETHING OF THAT, AT LEAST OF THAT CALIBER AS WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR BUT THERE'S NO SPECIFIC SIZE, CORRECT?

We use the phrase comparable visual character size and landscaping value. We can certainly work with the applicant as this flows to the council to make sure that we are encapsulating the intent of the commission here, which is you want a beautiful highway 111. I know the applicant does too.

Okay.

That definitely works. Appreciate it. And one more thing that I really want to clarify, because I think it may have gotten lost in this whole discussion. We're not against trees, we love trees. We want trees. We want to beautify the street front. We have no problem with that. Unfortunately, these trees did not get removed because of our decision. It was because of IID's trenching. As a matter of fact, we tried to, Shaheen will tell you, we tried to trench, underneath them by the roots and it just was not acceptable to the utilities because of the trench. And I also want to clarify that we intend on planting nine new trees. The driveway contains date palm trees. Everything west of the site, including the median to the north of the site, are date palm trees. Everything east, which is predominantly our site, are Washingtonia trees. So we have no problem being consistent. We want to be consistent. We want to make it look really nice and of high quality. So we will work with staff in coming up with a solution. But again, I want to make sure that it's clear for the record. we did not just intentionally go and cut these trees down. We were very sad that that was the only decision. And in the future we definitely will come and consult with you first to make sure that you're aware of any decisions being made.

Understood. I have a couple of other items. I was happy to see that the number of drive-throughs is still consistent with what we would want to see there, because that's always a concern for us, how many drive-throughs, right? I also wanna make sure that when you're doing the landscaping on the drive-throughs, really wanna shield the drivers on 111 not really being able to see the line of cars looping around those restaurants. So as that is, I know that's something the city's talked about for a long time. So I just wanted you to be aware. And I'm assuming, staff correct me if I'm wrong, that that is part of the landscape plan that we are shielding the traffic.

CORRECT. DURING THE INITIAL REVIEW FOR THE PROJECT, I MADE THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE APPLICANT TO ADD A SCREENING WALL IN FRONT OF EACH OF THE DRIVEWAYS THAT DIRECTS NORTH TO SHIELD THAT FROM HIGHWAY 111 AS WELL AS THERE'S PARKING STALLS ON THE NORTH SIDE BETWEEN PADS 1 AND 2 AND THOSE ARE SHIELDED THROUGH LANDSCAPING BUT THE REST OF THE DRIVE THROUGHS ARE SHIELDED THROUGH A SCREENING WALL. Yes. Okay.

Perfect. That was one. What was the other one? Nope. I think that was it for me. Did you have something else? I do have one. Okay. Go ahead.

Okay. I just want to thank the Hagen Group for moving forward with this project. I've been a resident of India all my life, and I used to do my elementary school shopping at Harris and took my pictures at Sears. So I just turned 35 yesterday, so it's... been 30 years since I've seen them all in its prime. So I'm so excited to see it move in that direction. So thank you again for that. One of my questions, without disclosing potential tenants, because obviously we don't want to breach any NDAs, but one of my concerns with the setup of the two drive-throughs, if we have a potential tenant occupy one of those pads that I would say is a high yield or has a high... high volume of traffic coming in to where the point where the line queue is longer than what's proposed, let's just say hypothetical, like drive-throughs on the scale of like In-N-Out, Chick-fil-A, or a Krispy Kreme, right? Those lines are often longer than eight cars, which is what's proposed. And so one of my concerns, if a tenant who yields or who brings high car traffic I guess is there a limitation as to what types of tenants occupy the space? Like are they a high yield tenant, like maybe like in and out who needs maybe a longer line?

I can add to that. So as part of the review for these drive-throughs for the two quick serve restaurants, as part of that review, we kind of took into consideration that, hey, this, depending on what the tenant is, if it was someone like a Chick-fil-A or an In-N-Out, we'll have just a very large line of cars waiting. For example, the In-N-Out that's on Highway 111 right now, that one utilizes a lot of parking for that. IF THE APPLICANT, IF THE HAGEN COMPANY WERE TO COME TO THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION AND APPLIED FOR THEIR BUILDING PERMIT AND THEY LET US KNOW, HEY, THIS IS GOING TO BE A CHICK-FIL-A, THEN AT THAT POINT STAFF, PLANNING STAFF WOULD TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WE WOULD CONSULT WITH OUR PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEER BECAUSE A TRAFFIC STUDY MIGHT BE WARRANTED OR A CUING FOR THE DRIVE-THROUGH WAIT LINES. FOR EXAMPLE, UP NORTH FOR THE GREENS PROJECT WHEN THE CHICK-FIL-A WENT IN THERE, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS VERY CRITICAL. WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD LONG WAIT LINES BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND HOW THOSE those projects um you know have have the very large amount of cars in that area so if that when they apply for the building permit that's something that we would catch the planning staff and then at that point we would we might have to bring the item back to the commission to make those changes okay thank you nico um that was my only question was just potential tenants but

Everything else I think looks awesome. I'm so excited to see this come to fruition. The only other question I have would be, is there a potential walking path proposed between phase two and the upcoming phase three?

I can add that, too. Oh, sure. So as part of the review for the Highway 111 quarter specific plan, there is a pedestrian connectivity requirement. As part of this review for the tentative track map, I did write a condition in there that requires if you were to walk, for example, onto where the Harbor Freight is right now, And you would be able to go through the stores. When the completion of the project is done, you would be able to walk through there. There would be a pathway to go inside those stores, go out on the east side of those buildings, and you'd be able to walk to every single business in that Grand Marketplace project. So there is connectivity from one site to the next.

Thank you.

I think Commissioner Slater kind of like touched base on what my question was which was like the whole like drive-through like traffic flowing into 111 we wouldn't want that and I know that something that council doesn't want so thank you to the staff like for like looking for looking for that specific issue hopefully we avoid that and then I just want to again thank you know the Hagan company Mr. Hagan for providing good services to the community so thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. I think we'll open it up to the public and see if there's anyone else that has comments. Thank you very much.

And before I step down, I just want to thank staff again one more time. Phenomenal staff report. They covered everything. A lot of the questions you asked, they've challenged us many times. They made us come up with a better design and they continue to do that. So thank you very much.

That's great. And we are very happy to have the Hagen Company be part of our city all these years. Thank you.

We look forward to your support tonight. Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the public to speak on this item? I have no request to speak. Okay, seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. And I think we need to take a two-minute break if everybody doesn't mind. So we'll finish this? Okay, never mind, not yet. So I have a couple questions for staff. For the outdoor restaurants, you know, A FEW MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR WE HAVE VERY NICE WEATHER, RIGHT? IS THERE ENOUGH ROOM OUT ON THE PATIO ON THE AREAS WHERE THEY CAN BE SOME OUTDOOR SEATING ON SOME OF THOSE LITTLE RESTAURANTS? I'VE SEEN A COUPLE OF SMALL TABLES OR DID I MISREAD THAT ON THE MAP?

NO, YES. SO AS PART OF THE REVIEW, OUTDOOR DINING IS NOT A REQUIREMENT, BUT WE GAVE THE RECOMMENDATION TO HAVE OUTDOOR SEATING. similar to all the other uh restaurants that are on highway 111 um or the newer ones rather and so yes there there will be for pads one and two there are some outdoor seating areas they do have to be shaded as part of the requirement and they have to be uh maintained and kept clean perfect that's what i thought but sometimes those pictures are very small so i'm not sure what i'm looking at i think pad one has like four pad two has i think three or four

Okay, my other question was there was a request in there to increase the sign? Yes. From I think our standard ordinance is 60% to 70%. So considering how much work we've done with the consistency of our city in the view and how we want this to do is that anything that seems like 10% wouldn't be that big of a deal but I thought I'd ask if staff sees any issue why that would be an issue.

It isn't an issue. The request really only covers Pad 2, just because I think how it's more longer than it is wide. And I think they're only using it for Pad 2. So the size isn't that much of a difference. It is, however, a requirement in our code that if they want to deviate, then a master sign plan is what is warranted.

Okay, perfect. My last one was for all of those lovely new trees that are going to be put in the parking area. I know that we have a minimum box size that we require. Can you remind me what that is?

It's a 24-inch box size.

24-inch box size. Okay. And those trees take how many years to get to maturity or will they provide some shade?

Our director, Brian, can provide that answer. I'm sorry. Sorry.

Yeah, we require the 24-inch box trees because they are quite large. Just by experience, you probably would see some good shade within two to four years. It just depends. It depends on how quickly they establish. It depends on the watering schedule, et cetera. But the 24-inch box trees do very well.

Okay, and I did have one more. I know that we require, I guess it's called parapets, you know, we can hide all of our equipment. So when I looked at some of those elevations, it kind of looked like they were partial. And I know it's kind of probably to create character on the buildings, but I'm assuming all equipment is being fully screened.

YES. THAT IS A REQUIREMENT IN OUR THAT IS A REQUIREMENT IN OUR CODE. CODE. THEY HAVE TO BE SCREENED FROM THEY HAVE TO BE SCREENED FROM PUBLIC POINT OF VIEW AND PUBLIC PUBLIC POINT OF VIEW AND PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY. RIGHT AWAY. AN EXAMPLE I CAN GIVE RIGHT NOW AN EXAMPLE I CAN GIVE RIGHT NOW IS FOR PHASE ONE. IS FOR PHASE ONE. EACH OF THE BUILDINGS, I THINK EACH OF THE BUILDINGS, I THINK THE SHORTEST HEIGHT IS 21 And, you know, as you're looking at the elevations, it doesn't quite seem that tall. But if you were to pass by the phase one, that one is 22 feet and those look extremely tall. But you could see that their parapet size is about 10 feet. So they're rather tall parapets that are going to cover the screening.

All right. That's all I had. Any more questions of staff?

I just wanna say, good job, Nicole. You had all the answers, so yeah. We were all prepared, so thank you.

All right, thank you. Thank you. Seeing no more questions, do I have a motion?

I raise a motion to approve this item with the conditions that the State Attorney provide us.

Item 17.

Item 17, yes.

I voted, I second.

Okay, I have a motion, a first and a second. Can we have a vote, please? Mine's blank. Oh, there it is. Sorry, it was hiding. Motion carries. Perfect, thank you. Thank you very much. Looking forward to seeing that come out of the ground. Thank you. Okay, now we're gonna take a five minute break.

you.

Thank you for that, guys. That's perfect.

Thank you.

I know

Okay, let's go ahead and call the meeting of the Planning Commission back to order at 7.23. All commissioners and staff are present. Okay, we'll go ahead and continue with item 6.2, amendments to the Unified Development Code. If we can hear from staff, please.

Okay, thank you, and if we could bring the presentation up. We do have a couple of slides. So we did put up, we have the summary of the Planning Commission recommendations so far. You're not bound by this, but our sincere hope is that after the meeting tonight, we will have a recommendation to either approve or deny the draft ordinances, along with your recommendations for potential changes. Just so you know what the if that's what we have I will prepare those changes similar to how I prepared the amended condition of approval 17 tonight That'll be presented to the City Council. We'll give them a copy of the original ordinance that you were presented a summary of the feedback we received from the public stakeholders and the Commission and a redlined ordinance that incorporates the changes that the Commission is recommending ULTIMATELY IT IS UP TO THE COUNCIL TO DECIDE WHAT THE ULTIMATELY IT IS UP TO THE COUNCIL TO DECIDE WHAT THE FINAL LANGUAGE OF THE ORDINANCE FINAL LANGUAGE OF THE ORDINANCE IS, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE IS, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMISSION UNDERSTOOD THAT THE COMMISSION UNDERSTOOD THAT HOW YOUR FEEDBACK WOULD BE THAT HOW YOUR FEEDBACK WOULD BE PRESENTED SO THAT THE COUNCIL CAN PRESENTED SO THAT THE COUNCIL CAN ACT ON IT. ACT ON IT. IN FRONT OF YOU, YOU DO HAVE THE IN FRONT OF YOU, YOU DO HAVE THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE STAFF ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE STAFF REPORT. REPORT. I'M SURE SOME OF YOU and my agenda does not actually have page numbers of this specific item. Page, yeah, it's hard to read. Anyway, 169 of the backup. You will see a three asterisks and the word addendum. Following that is the additional information that I prepared.

Can that be pulled up on the screen so we can see it?

The staff report?

The three addendums that you just mentioned, you said there was a page. We all looked at that, but I didn't print all that.

Do we have access to the agenda for you on the dais?

Yes, we do have access to the agenda. However, I think the page numbers are different than yours. Page 193 is a copy of President Cummings. 169. 169?

Did I say 193 several times? 169 so 169 is should say environmental review near the top no these are okay so these are community comments okay page nine let's try that

Yeah, if you open up the staff report and you just start scrolling down, it's page nine, which is essentially the summary of the Planning Commission recommendations.

Paulina, can you see what's not working on my screen?

In the meantime, Chair, I can verbally summarize it if you'd like. Okay. So we included a revised definition of, I think we've solved it. All set? Okay, so we have a greater, one of the first pieces of feedback received from the commission was greater flexibility in the definition of ordinary residential gathering. There was a concern that the original language we have may exclude customary gatherings that are enjoyed by the residents of the city of India. So the revised definition is included in the staff report. I didn't red line it into the ordinance yet because I want to make sure you've read it and get your feedback on it. BUT ESSENTIALLY YOU'LL SEE THE REVISED DEFINITION ON THE BUT ESSENTIALLY YOU'LL SEE THE REVISED DEFINITION ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE. FOLLOWING PAGE. IT IS LONG BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT IT IS LONG BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE ARE DOING IS INSTEAD OF WE ARE DOING IS INSTEAD OF STICKING JUST TO OBJECTIVE STICKING JUST TO OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS OF THE EVENT WE ARE MEASUREMENTS OF THE EVENT WE ARE LOOKING AT THE NATURE OF THE LOOKING AT THE NATURE OF THE GATHERING. GATHERING. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE NON WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE NON COMMERCIAL CHARACTER. of the gathering and I think distinct from the previous definition is subsection 4 which incidental support services are permitted so you can employ a band to come to your family gathering you can employ a caterer and many people do. SO I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE BIGGEST CHANGES. AND THEN SUBSECTION 6 REQUIRES COMPLIANCE WITH GENERALLY APPLICABLE CODES. SOME OF THE FEEDBACK THEMES THAT I'VE SEEN OVER THE PAST FEW WEEKS HAVE BEEN QUESTIONS, CONCERNS ABOUT THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE THREE. THERE WAS ONE VERY SPECIFIC HYPOTHETICAL THAT CAME IN FROM A STAKEHOLDER THAT SAID IF I HAVE AN STR, A VALID STR PERMIT AND I ALSO HAVE A CHAPTER 4.28 PERMIT, And I hold an event there. Am I in violation of my STR permit? And there is saving language in the ordinance that clarifies that as long as you're in compliance with this section, you're not going to be in violation of your permit. But what I will tell you is we will make sure to put an explicit provision in there in the STR ordinance that makes it clear that if you're operating under a valid 4.28 permit and you're in compliance with it, that will not be deemed a violation of your STR. So I wanted to make sure that we got that. So that's one of the notes we have that I didn't address because it came as feedback subsequently. The other thing that we did prepare is we received a request from, I think I told the commission this before we had the last commission meeting, several very smart people said, Steven, this is great, but you need to put together a chart or something of all these tiers because it's a lot of information and some people are visual and they recommended a, a matrix. So we've prepped that. And I believe that's the next slide. Oh, wow, that's not the updated slide. Okay, well.

If we could, IT's in the back. I think there's two presentations. This is the old one. If they could put the other one up that's in that folder, that's the one that Stephen's trying to refer to. Yes, thank you.

I did prepare a matrix with a graphic. There it is. It uses the current branding and is scaled appropriately for PowerPoint. So it is much easier to read and I think more pleasing on the eye. So what we've done here is we have summarized how the tiers are intended to operate. I think that there's a lot of questions from folks. One of the things we held was we held a stakeholder meeting. Staff invited anyone who had applied for a TUP the last few years because we'd heard a lot of questions. I wanted to address some of the common concerns that I had heard because they may be shared by the commission and by those present. One of the questions that I heard and actually was point number one on I think one of the pieces of written feedback we received was there was a belief that they're going to be required to get an administrative use permit or conditional use permit for every single event that they have. And that is not how these ordinances work. So the temporary use permits that are being applied for are event specific. And so they do have to apply for those for every single event. That's challenging when you have something like a wedding. Weddings, most weddings, don't get planned 60 days in advance. A lot of people, when they want to rent one of these facilities to use it for their wedding, they're planning 12 months, 18 months in advance. But we don't accept applications for temporary use permits until 60 days before an event. So that puts the bride and groom, their family, their guests, all the deposits with vendors that they place in significant jeopardy of a permit being denied at the last second with little opportunity for an alternative location. So you would apply for an administrative use permit or a conditional use permit Depending on how many attendees and how many events you're planning on having this this summarizes that information, but the general rule is the bigger your property and And the fewer attendees and the fewer events you have, the easier the process is. And that makes sense. If you wanna have more people at the property, if you wanna have more events per year, then you have to come to the Planning Commission and have that public hearing. I've gotten a lot of feedback on this from stakeholders especially. The feedback has ranged from, this is too complicated. Could you eliminate one of the tiers and just have big and small? And we certainly could. We could have tier one, which is one to 2.5, and we could have tier two, which is 2.5 plus. Some of the feedback we received from stakeholders was that the attendance limits are too low. THEY POINT OUT FIVE ACRES IS A LOT OF LAND. IT'S A LOT MORE THAN YOU THINK. JUST TO GIVE SOME PERSPECTIVE, EARLIER WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ANNEXATION, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WORKFORCE HOUSING. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT 37 ACRES. AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING 700 HOUSING UNITS ON IT. So there was some feedback from the stakeholders that the attendee count to qualify under the administrative use permit, they'd like to see those higher. And maybe they'd like the tiers shifted down so that the three acre parcels, the four acre parcels would get those higher limits as well. Additionally, there was a comment about annual frequency. They felt that those numbers were too low. There's seasons in the city of Indio. There's the summer right now. There tends not to be a lot of activity at any of these locations. The fall and spring tend to see more activity. with a general lull also during the winter. But even for a moderately active location, the feedback I received was they expect maybe 12 events a year. For the ones that are more active, they're looking at maybe 20 to 25. So not every weekend, not every day. They might have two on a weekend, maybe a Friday, Saturday, back-to-back weddings or something. but it tends to come in three-month spurts with quiet interludes and less use in the middle. One of the things I clarified in our stakeholder meeting was, okay, those limits, those relate to the administrative use permit. Those are maximums that allow you to get a permit approved by the community development director. But let's say you had four acres, which would be a tier two property under this, and you wanted to have up to 250 attendees and you wanted to have 15 events a year. So that would exceed the administrative use permit requirements. You could not get an administrative use permit for that number of people and that frequency. You would have to make an application to the planning commission for a conditional use permit if you wanted to have a permit at those levels. Once I walked through the process and explained that this is a permit you apply for once and yes, we're gonna have a public hearing and we're gonna invite the neighbors we're going to talk about what's unique about your property and what conditions make sense for your property but once you have that conditional use permit it's yours it runs actually with the land and so there's no need to constantly churn these applications through city staff or through you know their their guests and also you have a significant The higher amount of transparency I think with the community the surrounding neighbors because they will receive notice There'll be a hearing here in front of the Planning Commission So those were a lot of the feedback we received additionally We did get some comments on the escalating fines the permanent fines for the noise ordinance I would say that the essential feedback that we received was operators in the city believe that they are good operators they believe that they are invested in the city with deep roots they put a lot of money time love and care into these properties they do their best with bringing people in they don't want people who are going to trash their facility or be crazy They are gonna have events where beyond their personal control, the attendees may get too loud. And so while they're absolutely fine with there being penalties for violations of our laws, there was a lot of concern about how we are defining the responsible person. to be the landowner in all circumstances. Now what I'm gonna tell you is that's what we do for every single one of our codes. And the reason for it is very simple. When those visitors are done having their party and leave, we're not gonna be able to find them. Sometimes we do.

Code enforcement's pretty good.

But we know where the property is and we know where the property owner is. And ultimately they're the ones engaging in the overall activity and they are in the best position to prevent violations. So I think the feedback was, we need to have enforcement. They understand that. THEY WOULD LIKE THE CITY TO RECONSIDER THE HIGH LEVEL OF FINES AND MAYBE HAVE MORE GRACE ON THE NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT BEFORE THE LARGE FINES BEGIN. THE LANGUAGE THAT WE HAD PREPARED WAS AFTER NOTICE IS GIVEN OR ATTEMPTED TO BE GIVEN BECAUSE SOMETIMES PEOPLE DON'T ANSWER. They are given an opportunity to turn off basically amount of time it takes to go and turn it off They're looking for a little bit more consideration before we bring out the big guns, right? I Think that that can be addressed through prosecutorial and code and you know discretion I think there are going to be certain circumstances and there have been where having an ordinance with more teeth would have been beneficial in that specific circumstance. But I take that feedback from the stakeholders very seriously, because again, they're concerned about preserving the value of their investment. We had one stakeholder inform me that this is basically his retirement savings that he's put into this, and he's planning on this funding his retirement. and if the city under the terms of its ordinance can revoke his conditional use permit for a single noise violation that was made by not him not his staff but by someone who was at their facility violating their facilities rules they felt that that was not a fair outcome so did want to convey that to the commission Another piece of feedback we received was, and I will admit that a lot of this feedback was very good from both the community and from the stakeholders. There's no pride in authorship here. A lot of people brought their unique perspective and their experience to this. One of the things that was pointed out by one of the stakeholders was it's very clear that whoever authored this ordinance had outdoor amplified sound in mind when I wrote the rules, but I didn't limit it to outdoor amplified sound. There are some facilities that, or some of these properties that have significant indoor facilities available to them. There are some facilities that are fully, they have a fully enclosed courtyard where the sound doesn't travel out, it goes up. THEY DON'T GENERALLY DON'T RECEIVE ANY NOISE COMPLAINTS. AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE GOT FEEDBACK ON AND ADDITIONALLY I WANT TO SAY THERE'S ALSO DIFFERENT STAFFING MODELS THAT EACH ONE HAS. Some of them have on-site staff some of them have contract security You know pretty consistent feedback was they actually weren't opposed to the cost contracted security in terms of cost for one of these events isn't the end of the world but I don't know how to say this like a city attorney. It's a vibe killer. It's kind of the feedback that we received. People are there to celebrate. They're here in Indio. Someone's getting married. Someone's having a significant life event. And as professional and charming as... or our staff, maybe there was a feeling that it sent the wrong message around the type of event. So there was a request for maybe the security requirement be ascertained during the condition of approval implementation. Maybe it doesn't need to be a fixed objective standard that is applicable to everyone. Maybe it can be a guideline. AND THEN YOU LOOK AT THE SPECIFIC STAFFING AND SECURITY PLAN THAT THEY PROPOSE, GOES TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, POLICE DEPARTMENT CAN HAVE A REVIEW. I CAN TELL YOU WHEN WE WERE DOING THE TPS AND MAYBE JASON CAN EXPAND ON THIS LATER WHEN I'M DONE MONOLOGUING, BUT WE HAD A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY PROVIDE SECURITY OR REIMBURSE THE CITY FOR STAFF TIME If in the discretion of the police chief, it was deemed unnecessary. And so the chief would look at the size of the event. Are you serving alcohol? What kind of, is it a wedding? Is it an after party at a festival? Are there going to be celebrities there? Like who usually come with their own entourages and security anyway? And they would look at it and they would kind of make a case-by-case determination. Sometimes they would go and they would stand there and, you know, ensure that the piece was kept. And sometimes the chief did not. And sometimes it was based on staffing availability. So that was another piece of discussion that we had. I THINK THAT COVERS PRIMARILY THE FEEDBACK WE RECEIVED FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS. I WILL SAY THAT IN TERMS OF THE PUBLIC WE RECEIVED I WAS LIKE THIS DUST STORM IS I WAS LIKE THIS DUST STORM IS GETTING OUT OF CONTROL.

GETTING OUT OF CONTROL.

SO I BELIEVE THE COMMISSION SO I BELIEVE THE COMMISSION RECEIVED THE FULL 78 PAGE PUBLIC RECEIVED THE FULL 78 PAGE PUBLIC COMMENT PACKET. COMMENT PACKET. I'M NOT SURE IF THE COMMISSION I'M NOT SURE IF THE COMMISSION HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO THROUGH HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO THROUGH IT. HAD THE PLEASURE OF GOING THROUGH AND SUMMARIZING AND HIGHLIGHTING IMPORTANT THINGS FOR ME. A LOT OF THE FEEDBACK WE RECEIVED I THINK WAS PRIMARILY FROM THE TRILOGY POLO CLUB MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION NEIGHBORHOOD. I DON'T THINK WE RECEIVED RESIDENTIAL CONCERNS from any other residential area, including the residences adjacent to the Avenue 50 properties, some of whom the owners are here. And a lot of the comments that we received were very specific to that neighborhood and specific to two properties, Mazenda Estate and another one on Los Palos that's currently going through a permit revocation process. There was a generalized concern. A lot of residents went out of their way to say they're not OPPOSED TO ORDINARY RESIDENTIAL GATHERINGS OF FAMILIES BUT THEY DON'T WANT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO BE CONVERTED INTO COMMERCIAL USES. SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY TO TRILOGY, THERE WAS A LOT OF COMMENTS ABOUT THE EFFECT ON PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTAINED BY THE HOA. SO TO ACCESS ZENDA LOS PALOS CURRENTLY, ACCESS NEEDS TO GO THROUGH PRIVATE ROADS OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE PODLO CLUB MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION AND THAT IS THE FOUNDATION OF A CIVIL LITIGATION THAT'S GOING ON BETWEEN THOSE PARTIES. THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT NOISE, SECURITY, QUALITY OF LIFE. Those were generally, I would say generalized concerns that we have attempted to address. We knew those were gonna be the concerns when we drafted the ordinance. We believe we've attempted to address all those. And I think one of the benefits of the framework that you have in front of you is that based on the history of those properties and that enclave, my assumption is that they're gonna want a conditional use permit. and there will be notice that will go to the community, there will be a public hearing in front of this commission, and you'll have the opportunity to impose reasonable conditions of approval if you approve it that would mitigate a lot of those concerns. I can tell you, I brought this up last time, We did as part of our litigation, so the report itself is currently privileged. I am gonna look and see if that's something that we can waive because we did get a public record request for it. But as part of our litigation, we did engage in a highly scientific noise study in the Zenda Los Palos neighborhood. And the result of that study was during the three events that we monitored the sound never exceeded the general plans sound limits for residential neighborhoods Also consistently when we've had code enforcement officers observing events in that area They've not been in violation oftentimes the complaints originate even outside the city. When we get a complaint, we go and find out where it is. It's in the unincorporated county. It's in the city of Coachella. It's not any of these properties specifically, but it's actually not even a property in the city of India. Sound is strange. Sound doesn't move in a straight line. It's pretty challenging to nail down, but we wanted to make sure that we weren't taking anyone's word for it and assuming that's why we did the sound studies. In terms of, there's been a lot of comments about septic and sewer. That was new before the last meeting. That wasn't something we'd heard before. I wanted to address that one of the required findings in the AUP and in the conditional use permit is that the activities would not present a threat to public health and safety. There are not specific findings required for every single threat to public safety that could exist. But I would certainly, I think anyone would agree that you know, wastewater sewage is a significant concern. It is something that we spend a lot of money on as a community. And it's something you don't think about until it breaks. Every single one of the events that I'm aware of, and the director again can chime in later if the commission has any follow-up for specifics, but every single TEP that I'm aware of HAS BEEN CONDITIONED TO HAVE ADEQUATE SANITATION HAS BEEN CONDITIONED TO HAVE ADEQUATE SANITATION FACILITIES. FACILITIES. AND THEY ALL BRING IN AND THEY ALL BRING IN PORT-A-POTTIES. PORT-A-POTTIES. A SEWAGE ISSUE, A SEPTIC TANK A SEWAGE ISSUE, A SEPTIC TANK ISSUE IS EXPENSIVE. ISSUE IS EXPENSIVE. IT SHUTS THE FACILITY DOWN. IT SHUTS THE FACILITY DOWN. THEY CAN'T RENT IT WHILE THEY'RE THEY CAN'T RENT IT WHILE THEY'RE OUT THERE DIGGING UP THE LAWN. OUT THERE DIGGING UP THE LAWN. AND SO THEY DON'T WANT THE AND SO THEY DON'T WANT THE GUESTS AT THAT PARTICULAR EVENING GUESTS If they receive a conditional use permit and they have that assurance of a long-term ability to conduct these activities in compliance with our code, that will be a strong incentive to invest into the facility that doesn't currently exist. And so what you may see are upgrades of that type and others. BUT I DID WANT TO ADDRESS THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT ISSUE CAME FROM. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY ISSUE THAT EROSE OR ANY INCIDENT. BUT THAT'S BEEN A CONDITION THAT'S BEEN IMPOSED ON PRETTY MUCH EVERY ONE OF THEM. LASTLY, I WOULD SAY THAT THERE WAS ONE LETTER THAT ADDRESSED CEQA AND HAD A LOT OF CAVEATS TO IT. YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY ALLEGED THAT YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY ALLEGED THAT THE PLANNED CATEGORICAL THE PLANNED CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS THAT THE CITY WAS EXEMPTIONS THAT THE CITY WAS PLANNING ON USING WERE INADEQUATE. PLANNING ON USING WERE INADEQUATE. WE ARE REVIEWING THE LETTER. We did have a preliminary review of it today. I just wanted to let the commission know I'm confident that the factual record that we have here at the city, the noise studies, the complaints we've received, the history of this activity in the city of Indio for decades, I think establishes pretty conclusively that having comprehensive, well-drafted, objective regulations is going to reduce things like noise, traffic, parking issues that people are seeing now and it'll protect the environment. But we're gonna definitely dig deep into that one. We don't wanna take anything for granted. And like I said, I found a lot of the community feedback insightful and we learned a lot from it. BUT THAT'S THE FEEDBACK WE HAVE. LIKE I SAID, THERE WERE A FEW VERY SPECIFIC POINTS. HOW LATE THE EVENTS WERE ALLOWED TO GO. A LOT OF THE STAKEHOLDERS FELT THAT THE TIMES THAT WE PROPOSED WERE WAY TOO EARLY. NO ONE WANTS TO GO HOME FROM A WEDDING AT 10 O'CLOCK. SOMEONE WHO GOES TO BED EARLY DRAFTS AN ORDINANCE. DRAFTS AN ORDINANCE. SO THERE WAS A LOT OF FEEDBACK. SO THERE WAS A LOT OF FEEDBACK. I THINK THAT WAS PRIMARILY FROM A I THINK THAT WAS PRIMARILY FROM A BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE. BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE. THERE WERE TWO SCHOOLS OF THERE WERE TWO SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT ON THAT, EITHER EXTENDING THOUGHT ON THAT, EITHER EXTENDING IT TO A SPECIFIC TIME OR HAVING IT TO A SPECIFIC TIME OR HAVING THE TIME BE DETERMINED AS A THE TIME BE DETERMINED AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL DEPENDING CONDITION OF APPROVAL DEPENDING ON THE SPECIFIC STRUCTURE AND ON THE SPECIF Around them have received no noise complaints have no history of it have large internal abilities for to bring people inside Some of them are very close to someone's backyard. And so I think there was just some feedback there that, you know, while we are attempting to be objective and have consistent standards, we do need to recognize that every property, every neighborhood is different and approach it that way. So that's the feedback we received from the community. That's the feedback we received from the stakeholders. I'm happy to answer any questions you have, and hopefully we can get your recommendations to the council.

Excellent. Thank you.

Comments, questions for staff?

Go first. Thank you for your presentation and for making the slide on the recommended changes that we suggest the last meeting. When it comes to ordinary residential gatherings, I guess on the definition of ordinary residential gatherings, how do we differentiate between residential and commercial events?

Thank you Commissioner Slater, that's a good question. Subsection 3 of the definition includes my proposed language for addressing that concern. So it says that the gathering is not conducted as a business or commercial venture. The property is not advertised, marketed, rented, or otherwise held out as an event venue, wedding venue, party house, banquet facility, short-term event rental, or similar assembly use. and attendees are not charged admission, rental fees, ticket prices, cover charges, or comparable compensation as a condition of attendance. Voluntary contributions for charitable, religious, or family purposes do not by themselves render a gathering commercial. So it's a similar test to what we use for STRs. What's the difference between an STR between you letting your brother-in-law and his family stay at your house versus renting it out? The difference is you advertised it. YOU RECEIVED MONEY FOR IT. THOSE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR.

THANK YOU. I GUESS ARE THERE SIMILAR RESTRICTIONS OR LIMITATIONS FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS THAT ARE ON PROPERTIES LESS THAN ONE ACRE? AND IF NOT, I GUESS ARE THERE SIMILAR OR SMALLER PROPERTIES A CONCERN FOR STAFF OR IS IT ONLY GENERALLY LIKE LARGER PROPERTIES?

so we view and that's one of the reasons why this regulatory structure we think is very important is we view a short-term rental facility as being separate and distinct from an event venue both of them have transient occupancy right but one of them is primarily for core residential activities sleeping eating while traveling WHEREAS THE EVENT VENUE IS ABOUT ASSEMBLY AND GATHERING. THOSE TWO ACTIVITIES NECESSARILY GENERATE DIFFERENT IMPACTS. AND SO ONE OF THE ISSUES IS ASSEMBLY IS JUST MORE PEOPLE. SO YOU'LL NOTICE IN THE STR ORDINANCE WE'VE REDUCED THE ALLOWED DAYTIME OCCUPANCY. SO THAT IT STAYS IN ALIGNMENT SO THAT IT STAYS IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE INTENDED USE OF A WITH THE INTENDED USE OF A SHORT-TERM RENTAL. SHORT-TERM RENTAL. WHEREAS AN EVENT, A TEMPORARY WHEREAS AN EVENT, A TEMPORARY EVENT IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE EVENT IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE WOULD BY DEFINITION BRING A WOULD BY DEFINITION BRING A LOT OF PEOPLE IN. LOT OF PEOPLE IN. SO IN DOING THAT WE FELT THAT WE SO IN DOING THAT WE FELT THAT WE NEEDED TO LOOK, YOU DIDN'T WANT FOUR-BEDROOM HOUSE IN A SUBDIVISION ON AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT. THROWING A WEDDING EVERY WEEKEND THAT DIDN'T FEEL LIKE IT WAS LIKELY TO HAVE ADEQUATE PARKING, ADEQUATE ANYTHING FOR THAT TYPE OF USE. SO WE HAD TO PICK A LINE TO DRAW FOR THE SAKE OF LOOKING AT WHAT SIZES MADE SENSE BUT ALSO FOR CLEAR GUIDANCE WE WENT WITH ONE ACRE AS THAT MINIMUM STANDARD.

Okay, thank you. Next question would be, obviously we want these types Individuals that that provide these that are a benefit to the community that provide these places for people to house these events And we want to keep these investors here and obviously we don't want to penalize them for anything that's outside of their control right because if a Their renter or whoever's host renting their event for a party violates any noise ordinances or break something at their house and I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE ULTIMATELY COULD IT BE THAT THE FINES ARE PASSED ON TO THE RENTER OF THE VENUE SO THAT WAY THE OWNER ISN'T HAVING TO PAY THOSE FINES AND FEES?

THAT IS A COMMON CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WILL IMPOSE UPON THE PERSON RENTING THE FACILITY. THERE ARE SOME PRACTICAL ISSUES THAT COME WITH THAT. SOMETIMES THE FINE MAY NOT COME IN FOR A FEW DAYS OR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME. THEY MAY HAVE RELEASED A CREDIT CARD HOLD. I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE ADDRESSED. through practice. And maybe one of the things that we can implement is a, you know, they're required to have a phone number that they pick up when we call. Maybe one of the things that we can talk about is ensuring that we're giving them a phone call that says, by the way, you're getting a fine in the mail. So they know not to release that credit card hold on the renter. But, you know, ultimately as the property owner they are gonna be fundamentally responsible for nuisance activities that occur on their property. I appreciate the perspective that, well, I didn't do it. No, but you are benefiting from the use, and so you get to be responsible for all the good and the bad. I can tell you that I've worked with some agencies that have very strict rules on some of this stuff. AND I REMEMBER ONE TIME THERE WAS AN STR OPERATOR OF A VERY EXPENSIVE AREA THAT THEIR STR WAS SUSPENDED BECAUSE THEY HAD A THIRD STRIKE BECAUSE ONE OF THEIR GUESTS HAD PARKED IN THE WRONG SPOT AND BLOCKED AN ALLEY. THEIR INITIAL INVITATION E-MAIL said clearly do not park here it had a picture they had a sign it said do not park here with an arrow and their guests parked there anyway and they said what what else can i do why am i being suspended because this person refuses to follow the rules um and you know it's it's a good question i mean Both the residents who have concerns, the stakeholders who have concerns, both can be true. It's our job to balance it. That's one of the reasons why we give code enforcement discretion and latitude in enforcement is because you have to look at the facts of the individual case.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pacifico, for your feedback. Thank you also for meeting with the stakeholders. I know that was one of the things that I tried to push last meeting is like for you two guys, the city, to meet with stakeholders, STO operators, to hear this perspective and hear their feedback. So I'm happy that you guys were able to meet and incorporate some of that feedback into the ordinance. I do want to bring something up. I think this is my... biggest concern. It's just like the fine situation, right? I just want to make sure that they don't get fined right away because we should be able to provide them with an opportunity to address it first. You know, so how can we define like a warning first and then they can, you know, like maybe like after, I don't know, 20, 30 minutes, an hour, if the situation's still happening, then we can go to the escalation, right? Because I think it's important for the city to give, you know, the operator like an opportunity to address it first, that way we avoid fines. So I don't know how can we define if it's just like 10, 20, 15 minutes, I don't know, maybe we can, FIGURE THAT OUT THAT WAY THEY CAN GET A WARNING FIRST AND THEN IF THEY DON'T ADDRESS IT THEN WE CAN GO AND ENFORCE AT THE SECOND LEVEL.

SO THAT'S EXCELLENT FEEDBACK. THE GOAL IS COMPLIANCE. THE GOAL IS NOT FINES. THE FINES ARE THE STICK. AND WHEN YOU CARRY THE BIG STICK, PEOPLE TEND TO PAY MORE ATTENTION TO THE ISSUE. THE CURRENT CODE requires notice on the first offense and then fines start at $100 on the next offense. And we are having a significant difficulty on that being useful as an enforcement tool. AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE PUT LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE TO GIVE THEM A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME. I THINK IF THE COMMISSION WANTED TO RECOMMEND A MINIMUM TIME THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED REASONABLE, SO IF YOU WANTED TO SAY A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME, NO LESS THAN FIVE MINUTES TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY. I THINK THAT'S GOOD. the operators under this process similar to the strs we should have a hotline a number to call them on that they're required to pick up on um and i think that that kind of informal back and forth will do a lot of good and in fact um you know i've seen in other circumstances it be as simple as we received the complaint to dispatch And we don't even necessarily go out there. We call them. We got a complaint. You need to turn it down. And they say, got it. It's down. Or we'll comply. Or they say, we'll take care of it. And then we drive out there. Right. And by the time we get there, five minutes has passed. It's either not a problem or we start issuing the citations. So I think that that's feedback that's well taken. I think we'll make sure that the council understands that, uh, IT SEEMS THAT WE ALL AGREE THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE THIS. BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME REASONABLE GUARD RAILS JUST TO ENSURE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT IT.

and then I do your suggestion or feedback. In regards with your point of like sometimes maybe guests or like events, the members of that event, they get, I don't know, like they don't want to have like law enforcement presence or security presence because it kind of kills the vibe like you said. So what about like requiring like security, what about to have like a on-site manager that can manage that event?

And I think that was the feedback we received from some of the stakeholders. And, you know, if you wanted to move away from an objective 75 people means one security guard. I felt that was too rigid and inflexible we can require a security plan as part of the application submittal that is reviewed and approved by the chief of police and That can list certain factors Attendance whether alcohol served how late it's going Things like that and then you know if you know in the opinion of the chief police security is warranted for that it would be imposed that's certainly something we can look at uh greater flexibility on that if that's the commission's desire perfect thank you uh yeah sorry one more sorry um and then my last thing is just

here we go like the community like the stakeholders kind of gave you guys feedback I think the times we gotta have to you know be more flexible about it you know because like yeah like you said nobody wants to go to bed at 10 p.m on a Saturday Friday if they have a wedding correct so maybe we can like extend the time like we talked about in the previous meeting that would be great as well so when you're saying flexibility on the time do you think we should have an objective city-wide rule and

which is my recommendation, for the ease of public understanding and enforcement that's later. Is that what you're getting to? Mm-hmm. Okay.

Yes, you guys are okay with that?

So I think we had 10, you're thinking 11, 12?

I think just bump them one hour each so that the latest is Friday, Saturday only and ends at midnight.

Friday, Saturday, midnight, everyone else 11? Uh-huh.

Yes, I'm okay with that. Thank you.

Thanks, that was one of mine. Hang on, I have a couple. Go ahead. So when we talk about the giving people a warning and an ability to stop something before we find, I mean, I'd like to do something like, like you said, five minutes, right? And For our good operators, right, five minutes is going to be plenty. They're going to get it down. You're not probably going to have to go out, no problem. But maybe if someone you have to, if they need to be called all the time, whether it's, I don't know, three strikes, whatever, then at that point, maybe those fines do become an automatic because bottom line, we don't want, if they don't turn it off in five, then that becomes a strike. If the next time they don't turn it off in five, there's a second strike.

Okay.

You know, so maybe two of those, three of those a year, just to give people some ability to try to manage their guests, because it is managing your guests, right? But if someone has three, then maybe we just revert back to the discretion of the officer. I mean, because if it's three times and something's, probably not being handled properly. Maybe that's too much variance, I don't know.

Sure.

But something like that. And I know you guys need to work on this and go back to counsel on it, but that would be a recommendation is maybe to have like an ability for a good operator who's never had an issue, now has had an issue, right? And we're not gonna find them on strike one.

So we can have a, we call it a rolling time period where if you have X number of confirmed violations within 12 months, you go into a stricter enforcement regime. And that may include a suspension or revocation hearing, depending on the severity of the violations. um so that's something we can do and and maybe have non-extremely large fines and a objective warning period for uh properties that are not in that sort of probationary status because uh maybe they're so far out there that nobody's ever going to complain or very rarely yeah and i can tell you you know one of the on this topic and i don't have a good answer for it yet we've been talking about it internally i've been researching it we did have some stakeholders that are very frustrated by what they perceive what they perceive and i'm not making a judgment on this because i'm not there but what they perceive as calls that are maliciously yeah claiming that they are in violation of the ordinance when they're not that is attempting to generate a record of violations that we aren't substantiating. And so, you know, there was a question about, look, you're going to find me. What are you going to do to the person who calls you, who calls you every night? We don't even have an event. You know, it's not even, it's not us. It's the restaurant three blocks over. Um, I DON'T HAVE A GOOD ANSWER TO THAT. WE TAKE ALL COMPLAINTS SERIOUSLY. I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT TO THE COMMISSION'S CONCERN THAT THERE IS A FEELING ALONG SOME OF THE STAKEHOLDERS THAT THIS IS HAPPENING.

I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER GOOD REASON TO HAVE THESE OPPORTUNITIES BEFORE WE GET into some serious fines, right? Okay. So that was one. My other one that I'm concerned with is the hearing officer authority and appeals rights. I'm always very skeptical when one person is the final say on anything with no appeal to staff or to us or to city council. So I would either like to see if there's going to be a hearing officer, that there is an appeal process behind the hearing officer.

So I can address that. There is. You can appeal the decision of the hearing officer via a writ to the Superior Court. And people do. And I know that that sounds scary, like now I've got to go to court. THE RIT APPEALS ARE RELATIVELY INFORMAL. THEY GENERALLY GET DONE IN ABOUT A FEW HOURS. BUT IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR AN INTERNAL APPEAL, THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK AT.

OR OPTION B, INSTEAD OF A HEARING OFFICER, THERE IS A GROUP OF AT LEAST THREE INDIVIDUALS THAT SIT DOWN AND REVIEW AND THEY'RE THE FINAL. I DON'T NOT WANT TO SEE A SINGLE PERSON. Like a three appointees, yeah, something. And I don't know how to do this. This is where it comes back to you, but I have serious concerns and I don't want people to have to go to court. I mean, that's just one more thing to do.

Understood. I have two thoughts on this, but we're going to take the feedback to the council, right? I just want to make sure you have my thoughts on it. So one of the reasons why we are looking at a hearing officer is when we're talking about suspending someone's ability to operate, there is a potential significant impact on their income for something that may get overturned. A hearing officer has greater availability to be immediately or available in a short amount of time. So one of the things you saw was an expedited appeal process in certain circumstances. That is challenging with a commission or any group of people because now we have multiple schedules that we have to coordinate. Looking at cost, so if we were to have three hearing officers, for example, HEARING OFFICERS ARE ATTORNEYS. THEY ARE SELECTED THROUGH AN RFP THAT'S RUN BY THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE. THEY CHARGE ATTORNEY RATES. AND SO HAVING THREE INCREASES THE COST. AND BECAUSE THEY NEED TO COORDINATE ON A DECISION, IT ALSO GENERALLY INCREASES THE TIME.

So then here's my question. When I read this, to me it sounded like the hearing officer was automatically going to be nothing personal, Jason. Jason, code enforcement.

Oh, no, Jason's not allowed to be.

So it'll be an independent.

It's an attorney that we hire, and that is the only thing they're allowed to do for the city. And after three years, they can't work for the city for a year. their compensation cannot be dependent upon the outcomes of the hearings. And they are held to the same impartiality standards as a Superior Court judge. So if they have any of the bias that a Superior Court judge would have, they're required to recuse themselves and we select another.

Can you tell me where that is in the ordinance? Because when I read it.

It's not, it's in the guidelines that were established by the city manager for the program.

All right. That makes me feel better.

I think there's also additional language. I think that was Jason was looking at me. I think there's also additional language in the enforcement chapter, chapter 12 of the code.

That makes me feel better. Thank you. Okay. My last one is number four. And I know this is probably something we will address with each of the individual AUPs or CUPs as they come back before us. But I think for a lot of residents, when there's a big property behind you, and there's 400 people coming to a wedding or whatever, parking is always a concern, right? And people parking in front of people's houses and all this stuff. So I'm hoping as we go through and develop the AUPs and the CUPs that one of the things we really look at is making sure that all traffic has to be, and all cars and vehicles, whether it's vendor or guests, have to be able to park or be maintained on that property, or they have to move somewhere via valet or something where they are not in front of any other individual's residence or the clubhouse or any other area that's going to impact residents. So I just want to make sure that traffic is going to be very, you know, a high focus.

I think that point's well taken. I think that PARKING IS USUALLY ONE OF THE BIGGEST POINTS OF CONTENTION PARKING IS USUALLY ONE OF THE BIGGEST POINTS OF CONTENTION ON STR'S AND FOR THE EVENTS ON STR'S AND FOR THE EVENTS THE TEMPORARY EVENTS THAT OCCUR THE TEMPORARY EVENTS THAT OCCUR I THINK WE CAN ADDRESS THAT AS I THINK WE CAN ADDRESS THAT AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THROUGH THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS I THINK STAFF IS PROBABLY GOING TO, DEPENDING ON HOW EXACTLY THE IS PROBABLY GOING TO, DEPENDING ON HOW EXACTLY THE ORDINANCE LOOKS, THEY'RE PROBABLY ORDINANCE LOOKS, THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO DEVELOP STANDARD GOING TO DEVELOP STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT WOULD BE THE STARTING POINT FOR WOULD BE THE STARTING POINT FOR ALMOST EVERY APPLICATION AND ALMOST EVERY APPLICATION AND ONE OF THOSE COULD VERY WELL BE ONE OF THOSE COULD VERY WELL BE REQUIRING SUFFICIENT ON-SITE REQUIRING SUFFICIENT ON-SITE PARKING OR A PARKING AND PARKING OR A PARKING AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN THAT IS FOR TRANSPORTATION PLAN THAT you know, the city has objective parking standards already for assembly uses, and that can be the rule of thumb. You know, so many vehicles per number of attendees, we can look at that.

Perfect. Those were all of mine. Any other questions for staff? Or we'll open it up to the public hearing.

I just have one. Currently, I guess to apply for this permit, what would be the timeframe to... apply and get this approved. Yeah, so I guess what is the timeframe?

That may be a better question for the community development director to answer.

I'm estimating that the process will probably take two months. I would be lying if I said the first few might take a little bit longer because there's probably going to be some extra review of these conditions, which an applicant may not be typically aware of. So it may take a little bit longer, but I think the goal would be about two months. Now, taking that in consideration, if it requires, that would be an administrative. If it does require a planning commission hearing, It could take longer because the initial application comes in. We review it for about 30 days. Then we have to deem it complete. Once we deem it complete, we would now look at the Planning Commission agenda and schedule that. So you could have a delay of just ensuring that you can get it on a hearing time. But again, I think once the base conditions are worked out, and these applications start coming in, we will try our best to streamline the process. So I'm gonna say two months, but those first few that come in, some of the people may be here this evening, it could take slightly longer. But that's my best estimate.

Some things I would add is that we are gonna be prepared for and you should anticipate that if the ordinance is adopted, that there will be several of these that all come in in one big wave, right? And then you probably won't see another one for months or even years after that, right? ONCE THE EXISTING PROPERTIES THAT ARE ENGAGING IN THESE TEMPORARY RESIDENTIAL USES GET THEIR PERMITS, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO NEED TO COME BACK UNLESS THERE'S AN ENFORCEMENT SIDE AND SO IT WOULD REALLY JUST BE A NEW PROPERTY THAT'S LOOKING TO GET ENTITLED. SO THAT CREATES A LITTLE BIT OF A BOTTLE NECK. you don't have infinite planning staff. And there are other projects that are in the pipeline and it's not necessarily fair to them to delay their work because you have that surge. So one of the pieces of feedback that we received, and I went into this last time, but I'll just reiterate it this time, is we do have a recommended go live date in the ordinance. I think because of we've taken some time here to bring it back for a second discussion and with the holidays and everything coming, we may need to extend that a little further. But one of the other aspects that we probably need to have some language in the ordinance to address is what happens if one of those approvals gets appealed. So, and I don't have a crystal ball, but I anticipate there may be at least one that gets appealed. So whether it's approved or denied, right? It'll probably need to go to the city council. And so, you know, that takes time too.

Okay. Thank you. And would these individuals have to apply yearly or is it just apply once and it's good until revoked?

So they apply once. It is in place until suspended or revoked. The language of the ordinance requires an annual review by community development staff to look over complaints, issues that we've noted, and the director can recommend some changes to the operator that maybe resolve those, or can recommend it for suspension and revocation if there's been an ongoing series of problems. I don't anticipate that to be a significant administrative hurdle. I think if there's a problem property, we're not going to have to wait a year to know it. But I think KNOW ESPECIALLY AS THIS GETS GOING I THINK WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE'RE HAVING A CHECK IN ADDITIONALLY THE CITY COUNCIL REQUESTED DURING THEIR WORKSHOP THAT AFTER THE INITIAL SPRING PHASE THAT THERE BE A CHECK IN BACK WITH THE COUNCIL ON HOW IS THE ORDINANCE WORKING IS IT TOO STRICT IN SOME CASES IS IT IS IT NOT WORKING IN OTHERS SO THAT THEY CAN you know, we'd bring amendments, they'd come back to the Planning Commission, they'd go back to the City Council, but they wanted to make sure that we dial it in after we see how it works in practice.

And if I could just add one point. So one thing that could come up is even though these permits run with the land, is the properties could change ownership. So kind of like a business license or even a short-term rental permit. Once the property changes ownership, now they are going to need to agree to those conditions and they are going to need to provide additional, you know, their contact information, all the information that is in that application for the original CUP or AUP. So in that sense, it runs with the land, but if the ownership changes, they would have to address that. And sometimes they may I say, well, we don't like this permit and we would come back to the commission with those revisions or updates. So I just wanted to make sure that there are some exceptions to that.

Okay, thank you very much. We'll go ahead and let's open up to the public. Do we have any requests to speak? Jackie Lopez.

Good evening, commissioners. I wanted to focus on the process behind these proposed changes and what happens after they're adopted. I understand the city held a stakeholders meeting on August 5th and again today, but who determined who was invited, what criteria was used, and was every licensed STR operator notified? If not, why were some stakeholders included and some left out? I would also like staff to identify who coordinated the meeting and if the invitations and whether any elected official, their office, or a relative of the elected official had any role in selecting the participants. Another question is who's missing in this room tonight? These regulations affect neighborhoods, property owners, operators, and families. Before moving them forward, we should know whether the people most affected actually had a meaningful opportunity to participate. I'm also concerned of how much more responsibility we continue placing on court enforcement. Of course, legitimate noise and nuisance problems should be addressed, but how many additional enforcement will these ordinance require? What would it cost? How many discretion will individual officers have? What safeguards prevent the complaint process from being used as a weapon in a neighbor dispute or applied differently from one neighbor to another? Need a warning, not just fines or citations is what I've been hearing, but do we do an economic impact analysis? There should be like clear safeguards when a staff member involved in permits or events enforcement has a family relationship with an elected official whose district may be significantly affected. What disclosure, recusal or supervisory procedures does the city have in place? Finally, we need to consider unintended consequences. In view as a community of a large extended families, we should be able to address problem properties without creating rules that unnecessarily affect ordinary families and responsible property owners. Before recommending this ordinance to the council, please ask. What problems are we solving? How many properties are actually causing it? Who was consulted? What would enforcement cost? And are these rules narrowly addressing the problem? Where are these reports that actually state, where's the data? How many were resulted in verified violations or citations? If those questions cannot be answered tonight, please continue the item, bring the affected community to the table, And get this right before it moves forward. Thank you.

Glenn Van Dam.

Evening, Chairperson Franz and Mr. Ortiz and Slater. And I'd like to say thank you as well to Jason and Steven and Brian, who also reached out last week. We had a conversation and were very attentive to what we had to say. So I think they've done their best to try to work with the venues and work this out. Last summer, working with the prior attorney, Elizabeth, what we were trying to do, if you have that other tier screen back up if you could, we were really trying to have an actual sort of event venue tier. or category that was not really STR, not really housing in general, but something that the commercial venues that were larger were doing a lot of weddings that would be specified for us. We wanted some sort of 10 or 12 page addendum to address that. And this is obviously a lot more. We're in a situation now where it's really addressing the whole city. So I guess stepping back and thinking about our conversations the last few weeks, if either Tier 1 could be 1A and B, and then Tier 2, to try to simplify it, is really for the larger event venues. And that one, a comment that Mr. Pacifico made, is 30 years from now, how are people going to interpret this? And you see the minimums there, 75 to 200 on Tier 3 there. I think the range that we're talking about that's possible in a CUP needs to be sort of laid out in the AUP because the CUP is not guaranteed, from my understanding. You have to go there for the board. And really what we were looking for was a permanent permit for those of us who I think are doing a good job, hardly ever see you. And like Steve mentioned, he said, our goal is to never see you again, in a nice way, right? We want you to take care of your business and not disturb us and your neighbors. And that is our goal. And so we really just wanted also a permanent, application so we're not sending stuff to Brian all the time and everyone in the council trying to get a permit for each wedding. So it certainly needs to be done. But maybe that's really an answer where the tier three, or call it two if one ends 1A and B, to make it as simple as possible I think is helpful. But also that we're a benefit. Most weddings, if I can go longer, an average wedding is maybe 105 to 120 now. They Uber. They don't usually drive. And what they do is they're 30, 35 years old. They rent 10 other houses in Indio. And they come over for the weekend. And they're there for the wedding. A few of them are there for the rehearsal. It's just they're going to Vintage Coffee. They're going to Ralph's. They're going to Local 50. All these things are happening in the city. And it's just it builds the community. And so I think we're trying to do something to make it easier for us and easier for staff for at least the majority of us, at least I know there's four or five of us on Avenue 50 who are trying to do our best to do it right. I have a personal on-site manager. If anyone's there, he's there 24-7. And so I think it's a great idea not to. The security is, I think, unnecessary. We've had 200-plus weddings in the last six, seven, eight years, and no issues with the weddings ever. We had one party for engagement. But usually, it's really quiet. Grandparents go to bed, and you've got 40, 50 people. Like I said, we're a large indoor. We can have 200 people indoor. So I would like to see where the tier three or tier two, if it's a lot, whatever the last tier is, to have a higher range so that that's in the document. Because the problem I have is I'm going through 100 pages, and this is extremely restrictive. For us to be, you know, we're 4.75 acres, so we're not even a tier three. We're 14,000 square feet. You know, the great room and the other grand room can hold 125 each. And so people are inside. I think if there's a range that it's showing, and then at the CUP time, then you meet the metrics for that range. But at least it's in the document. So 30 years later, they're not saying, well, you've only got 75 people. It's all you can have or something like that. And I think, as you guys have stated, the numbers are kind of small. The numbers build up fast, especially for these larger four or five acre estates. ANY OTHER, LET ME SEE IF I HAD ANYTHING ELSE. I DON'T WANT TO FORGET ANYTHING. I THINK TRAFFIC, I THINK THAT'S IT. ANY QUESTIONS FROM YOU GUYS? THANK YOU SO MUCH.

Good evening, commissioners, again. Good evening, staff, the attorney, the planning. Thank you for all being here, and thank you for the work you have done since the last meeting. That's highly appreciated. What I wanted to focus today is some of the points that I haven't heard much discussion, and I do think they're extremely valuable, not only for short-term rentals, for the community, and also the neighbors. First point is this. Short-term rentals at the current ordinance allow under 14,500 square feet, which is 0.33 acres, up to 25 daytime gathering. That includes overnight and daytime, that's total you can have at the property. That includes children, that includes staff, everybody. Currently, that is allowed. Now, whether it is, however many bedroom home. Why does it matter? Removing that, so let's make an example. It's a children's birthday party. And they rented, whatever, five, six bedroom home. And let's say they wanted to invite the cousins from the area, whoever, up to that 25 limit. Couple hours later, you know, kids party is over, you know, and those people leave, right? That will no longer be allowed in this ordinance. What will be allowed is for additional people. What is for additional people? If you hire a lifeguard for that kid's party, if you hire a chef, et cetera, there's your four people. So that means you will never be allowed to invite any additional people during the daytime. And you have to think about, this is not just out of town people that will be affected. I can tell you personally, we actually have repeated clients from the community. If you have a home that is not large enough, maybe it's not nice enough, whatever is the issue, how many local residents rent vacation rentals for their birthday, family reunions, their soccer team, moms and soccer kids getting together, all of this, funerals, life celebration, family reunions, et cetera, plenty. Believe it or not, local community does this. and they're no longer going to be able to. The second tier that's removed from this ordinance is if you're over .33 acres, up to 41 people, 41 and over, the ordinance starts, but up to 41 people, you can have daytime occupants. So let's say you rented a home in Croquet, which is over that acreage, you could have the additional people, again, whether it's birthday parties, and by the way, we have plenty over there for kids' birthday parties, You're not going to be able to do that as well. So what the impact of this is, anytime you want to have now a few additional people above the overnight occupancy, you'll have to get a special event permit. Is this feasible, first of all, for a kid's birthday party? How much are those permits? Is this feasible for anybody? Also, how busy is the planning department wants to get issued permits for 25 people, 30, 40 people, et cetera? Is that even something that we want to worry about? Also, what is the net effect of that? Unfortunately, I'm running out of time, and that's too bad because there is also advertising issue. There is the strikes and notification. Notification, the problem is, I can tell you firsthand, who gonna care and put out that noise is the operator. because the operator doesn't want the fine. The operator can evict people. The operator can turn the Wi-Fi off, the AC. They can kick them out. Code enforcement usually doesn't have those tools. So notifying is important, but five minutes is not enough. Why? Because let's say they're having loud music. The operator is going to call and text, et cetera. If that person doesn't respond within five minutes, they're driving to the property, and they will resolve it. Code sitting there timing $100 per minute is not going to resolve that problem. And what we're trying to solve is that neighbor not being impacted. So keep those things in mind. And unfortunately, I'll stop because I don't have time to go in the vent. Thank you so much. And there is a petition that started for vacation rental owners and event operators that will be submitted, because unfortunately, from event venues, only 12 operators were notified, just for your record. From the entire city, 12 people were notified for that meeting, and at least one of them was not, sorry, I'm out of breath. At least one of them is not a real email, like doesn't function anymore. And again, short-term rental and neighbors are not notified. So there is a petition going around and you will see the results.

WITHOUT SPEAKING FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, WITHOUT SPEAKING FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, STAFF SET UP THE STAKEHOLDER STAFF SET UP THE STAKEHOLDER MEETING. MEETING. IT WAS PRIMARILY AIMED AT THE IT WAS PRIMARILY AIMED AT THE TEMPORARY EVENTS AND RESIDENTIAL TEMPORARY EVENTS AND RESIDENTIAL USES, OPERATORS. USES, OPERATORS. AGAIN, I BELIEVE THAT THE AGAIN, I BELIEVE THAT THE INVITATION LIST WAS THOSE WHO HAD INVITATION LIST WAS THOSE WHO HAD APPLIED OR RECEIVED A TUP IN THE folks so community development directors confirming that um we were looking for those who actually operate these properties to have that feedback from them. We certainly did not want to exclude any member of the public or any other operator in the community from having a voice. Like I said, we received dozens of emails. We reviewed those all. I summarized them to the commission and I appreciate the feedback from everyone who came tonight to speak.

So I think one of my questions is, is this, this new ordinance is impacting only these larger properties, right? We're not making changes to short-term rentals. That's a separate set of rules for houses that are smaller than this one acre.

So there are three ordinances as a package that we brought forward. So the temporary events in residential zones, it only applies to properties over one acre in size.

That's correct.

The second part of your statement that I want to clarify is that there are proposed revisions to the short-term rental ordinance. And we included the summary of that in the staff report and in our original presentation. And one of the things that one of the speakers was talking about PROPOSED TO 37.012 SUBSECTION B THAT'S PROPOSED TO 37.012 SUBSECTION B THAT'S OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS AND THAT IS OVERNIGHT STANDARDS AND THAT IS OVERNIGHT AND THE OTHER ONE IS C WHICH IS AND THE OTHER ONE IS C WHICH IS DAYTIME MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY. DAYTIME MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY. AND THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO AND THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO CHANGE THE MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY CHANGE THE MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY TO A FORMULA BASED OFF OF TO A FORMULA BASED OFF OF BEDROOMS. and then you can have a certain number higher than that during the daytime for maybe some guests who come over. But it is a reduction from the current general blanket allowance of 40 that is present. So that is accurate. And the intent, as I've kind of discussed during the original presentation, is to separate the occupancy and use of an STR for hotel-like uses, residential-like uses from event assembly type uses. And so that's where the difference. Now you can apply, if you have a property of sufficient size, you can apply for both. and you can have people renting it to come over for that birthday party, that funeral, those things, as long as you're permitted under the Chapter 4.28, the proposed ordinance.

So properties that are under the one acre can also apply if they're being used as these birthday parties or smaller venues?

So they would not be able to apply for... for a temporary event in residential zones permit because the minimum lot size that we're proposing is one acre maybe that's too big you know maybe it should be lower but i think you know as we sort of discussed one of the uses that um would not be permitted here is again, a residential, a suburban four bedroom house on an 8,000 square foot lot in your cul-de-sac and every weekend it's a kid's birthday party.

Right.

My neighbor has two kids. I deal with two birthday parties a year. And I think that was kind of the idea.

Okay.

Whereas these larger venues, they're not like that.

Okay.

I DID WANT TO NOTE ONE THING. I MISSED THESE NOTES EARLIER. I MISSED THESE NOTES EARLIER. WE DID GET FEEDBACK ON THE STR WE DID GET FEEDBACK ON THE STR ORDINANCE. ORDINANCE. OUR TABLE THAT WE INCLUDED OUR TABLE THAT WE INCLUDED STOPPED AT FIVE BEDROOMS AND STOPPED AT FIVE BEDROOMS AND MANY OF THE STR'S IN OUR CITY MANY OF THE STR'S IN OUR CITY ACTUALLY HAVE MORE THAN THAT. ACTUALLY HAVE MORE THAN THAT. AND SO THERE WAS A REQUEST TO to keep the table going because there are some households, I think one of the speakers here owns one that has many more permitted bedrooms than five. And so I think that's a reasonable request, but I didn't get direction from it. So I wanted to bring it to the commission that this is your feedback, not mine. And then the other feedback was they did want the children under a certain age not be counted. towards that occupancy. So five seemed like a reasonable number, I guess. But the idea was if you have parents with children, that shouldn't count against them.

Okay, so just, since we're making recommendations, I think that the things that you've said would be things that I would be okay with recommending to council, right, on the short-term rentals, having children under five not count, you know, making sure that the number of bedrooms is going up and the number of people is going up. And then I think we're just gonna have to review this, because it's definitely a work in progress.

Yeah, I will, Chair, Maybe decreasing the size lot from one acre to, I don't know, 0.5, you know, to give like more flexibility to the properties that are not as big, but they kind of host events like of this size and have the capability of doing it, you know, in a way that it doesn't disturb others. Maybe we can decrease that. I don't know if you guys are open to that.

I feel like that may... INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT STAFF WOULD HAVE TO DO BECAUSE THERE'S SIGNIFICANTLY MORE PROPERTIES THAT ARE ABOUT A HALF ACRE, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG?

YES, THERE WOULD BE DRAMATICALLY MORE PROPERTIES THAT ARE A HALF ACRE. WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS WE CAN INCLUDE IN THE FEEDBACK TO THE COUNCIL THAT WE RECEIVED A COMMENT REGARDING RENTING OUT A HOUSE FOR KIDS RENTING OUT A HOUSE FOR KIDS BIRTHDAY PARTIES AND ALIKE. BIRTHDAY PARTIES AND ALIKE. THEY DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THAT WAS THEY DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THAT WAS ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED WITH THE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED WITH THE FRAMEWORK WE HAVE HERE. FRAMEWORK WE HAVE HERE. WE CAN LOOK TO SEE IF THERE'S WE CAN LOOK TO SEE IF THERE'S SOME WAY TO ADDRESS THAT.

Yeah, and I think the idea was daytime events, you know, like memorials, kids' birthday parties, you know. Sure. I mean, it definitely wouldn't be like a wedding or something that's going to go on late. But I think I'm going to disagree with Vice Chair. I think we need to keep it at the one acre, at least on this first run, and maybe when everybody looks at it again, we can... THAT'S TRUE.

THAT WILL INCLUDE A REPORT TO THAT WILL INCLUDE A REPORT TO THE COMMISSION ON HOW THINGS THE COMMISSION ON HOW THINGS ARE GOING. ARE GOING. ANOTHER ADVANTAGE OF STARTING ANOTHER ADVANTAGE OF STARTING HIGHER AND THEN MAYBE LOWERING HIGHER AND THEN MAYBE LOWERING IT WOULD BE WE WOULDN'T HAVE IT WOULD BE WE WOULDN'T HAVE QUITE AS BIG A WAVE AT THE QUITE AS BIG A WAVE AT THE BEGINNING. BEGINNING. WE WOULD HAVE ONE WAVE AND MAYBE WE WOULD HAVE ONE WAVE AND MAYBE WE WOULD HAVE ANOTHER WAVE NEXT WE WOULD HAVE ANOTHER WAVE NEXT YEAR. YEAR.

SO THAT MAY BE ANOTHER WAY TO SO THAT MAY BE ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT IT. LOOK AT IT. AND I GUESS MY QUESTION FOR AND I GUESS MY QUESTION If we were to, I guess, reduce the amount of tiers, because some people said it was too complicated or whatever, and we lumped in tier one and two together, increasing the, oh God, hold on, I forgot it. The minimum amount of acreage to, would you mind pulling up the... That matrix again.

I don't want to pretend I have the power to do that, but when I hold this and do this, it comes up.

Yeah, so I'm thinking, would it be a possibility or would it reduce the workload on staff and make it easier for staff and the community if we were to combine tier one and two? So one to 2.5 acres would be kind of lumped in together and we increase or essentially just get rid of tier one.

Or tier two.

And I was just concerned about ordinary gathering for tier one being increased to 60 attendees, as well as the frequency of events up to eight. Because the reason I'm thinking is because if we do have residential areas that are on five acres or nearly five acres that are set up to be specifically event venues, as opposed to a home on a one acre lot, I sympathize with the gentleman that spoke earlier. That's his business to make these types of events happen. So would it be a possibility to increase the amount of events for, or I guess to have tier one and then tier three be like events? And then because that was going to be the five acreage with the, or maybe reduce the acreage to four and a half and increase the numbers to.

So I think that we can certainly bring the feedback that, despite the amazing work that was put into this. It was great. I love it. It is still perhaps cumbersome and maybe over-complicates it. The director and I love it, but... I think it's great. Yeah, it's beautiful. We got to vote from code too. However, we have a community, we have a commission, we have a council, and there is an advantage. I know it's nice to go drill down into everything and get a perfect rule for everybody. There's also an advantage to having generally applicable rules that are easier for everyone to be on the same page.

And I think that when it comes down to it, when each property submits its permit, that's when the decision will be made on each property, right? So there's gonna be room to modify this based on each property.

So yeah, so that's a good point. For a conditional use permit, they can apply for whatever number of people that they think their property would support. Now it's gonna be subject to, THE PLANNING COMMISSION. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AND BE LIKE THAT'S AMBITIOUS. BE LIKE THAT'S AMBITIOUS. SO THOSE ATTENDEE LIMITS ARE SO THOSE ATTENDEE LIMITS ARE THE THRESHOLD FOR THE ORDINARY THE THRESHOLD FOR THE ORDINARY GATHERING AND THE THRESHOLD FOR A GATHERING AND THE THRESHOLD FOR A PERMIT FROM THE COMMUNITY PERMIT FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. I THINK IF I WAS GOING TO I THINK IF I WAS GOING TO SIMPLIFY THIS, I WOULD ONLY HAVE TWO it would be one to two and a half, and it'd be two and a half plus. I would probably increase the ordinary gathering to 50 and 100. And I would probably increase it to 100 and 150. So there's very easy, consistent steps. And if you really wanted to hack and slash the chart, I WOULD SIMPLY DELETE THE AUP ANNUAL FREQUENCY TEST, SO NOW YOU'RE NO LONGER DOING THIS TWO-PART TEST, HOW MANY PEOPLE, HOW OFTEN, IT'S JUST HOW MANY PEOPLE AS THE SINGLE THRESHOLD QUESTION.

BECAUSE HOW OFTEN DOES IT END UP COMING BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, CORRECT?

SIMPLY BECAUSE ALL, WHILE I DO THINK that there is some question about how many occur under an AUP. Keep in mind, it's still subject to conditions by the community development director. So that doesn't mean it's unlimited. It means the community development director would have the discretion to decide based on the property, the neighborhood, everything, how many events they could have. KEEPING IN MIND THAT WE HAVE THE SEASONAL KIND OF FLOW. SO OBVIOUSLY I LOVE THIS, RIGHT? HOWEVER, AFTER HEARING THE FEEDBACK FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS, THE COMMUNITY, THE COMMISSION, IF YOU WERE LOOKING FOR SIMPLIFICATION, I WOULD GO TWO TIERS, MAKE THE CUTOFFS GENERALLY WHAT I DESCRIBED AND I WOULD ELIMINATE THE ANNUAL FREQUENCY TEST AND SIMPLY BASE IT ON MAXIMUM ATTENDEES.

and increasing the attendees number, correct? Correct. Yeah, I'm okay with that.

Yeah, I think we have consensus and I think we've pretty much said what we would like to recommend to council. Do we need a motion or do we just?

So we do need a motion for you to adopt the resolution with the recommendations and then just include that staff needs to prepare a summary of the recommendations that came from the commission. I'm transcribing our meeting. Okay. And Mia's going to do an amazing job, she's watching, of putting all of our recommendations together.

Okay. Are we ready to make them? Do we have to list them or?

No, I think we got them. We'll make sure to send a copy to the commission in advance, and if we got something wrong, email us back.

Well, I can raise the motion to approve after all the feedback that we have given the staff and the state attorney.

To make a recommendation.

To make a recommendation to cancel to approve this. And I'll second.

Okay, first and a second. Okay, motion carries. I really wanna see that.

Thank you, Commission. I was terrified you'd continue it just to see me again. But I really appreciate all the hard work.

Thank you. Okay, we'll go ahead and move on to item seven, Commissioner comments. Commissioner?

I do have a comment now. Thank you, Chair. So like I was saying before, and thank you again, staff, for giving us the update of the annexation project through the City of Indio. I think it's great. I think that raises the conversation of warehouses. I know that in the IAEA, Ontario, Riverside, many cities have built mega warehouses. And I know they're coming here to the Coachella Valley. And I have this spark. This conversation sparked because I read a Desert Sun article a few weeks back that we have... a search of mega warehouses here in the Coachella Valley, DHS, Palm Springs, et cetera. And then with the annexation project, I think it would be great to kind of start looking into where can we put these mega warehouses, because I have community feedback from small businesses we do need some warehouse space. There's not many here in the community, and then if we don't build small to medium warehouses, they will go somewhere else. So we want to provide that, but at the same time, how do we define mega warehouses? What is the number? If it's 400,000 square feet, or is it more, is it less? So maybe I can have like some consistent from the planning commission to kind of like direct staff to kind of look into it. And so they can give us a presentation and kind of we started talking and having those conversations to where to place those warehouses here in the city of Indio.

Just real quickly. So we can certainly do that and bring it back. But were you trying to relate that to the annexation presentation or is this completely separate?

No, it is separate. It's just because you guys gave us the presentation, and then they were talking about annexing that bar, and then having that industrial space in that specific place. It's just sparked the conversation of where can we put them. I know that the annexation is going to take a long time, like a few years at least, but at least having those conversations, because I know these mega warehouses are going to come here to the city of Indio, because they already have come to the Coachella Valley. So maybe starting to have those conversations and to see how we define... MANGO WAREHOUSES HOW BIG THEY ARE AND THEY I DON'T KNOW I DON'T KNOW RIGHT NOW WHAT IS OR LIKE ORDINANCE OR LIKE OR RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THOSE KIND OF LIKE PROJECTS SO IT'S GOOD FOR LIKE THE COMMUNITY FOR US ALSO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO KNOW EXACTLY UH WHAT DO WE HAVE SO WE CAN ADDRESS THOSE ALL RIGHT WE CAN BRING SOMETHING BACK TOO THANK YOU ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

I JUST ECHO WHAT COMMISSIONER ORTIZ MENTIONED. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE I GUESS A STUDY ON HOW THE CITY WOULD DEFINE MEGAWAREHOUSES, WHERE THEY CAN STRATEGICALLY BE PLACED WITHIN OUR CITY, DO THEY HAVE A PLACE WITHIN OUR CITY. as well as what the potential impacts could be should these types of developments start to take place within our city. Like will it affect any emergency services, logistics, impact roads? So I guess I just kind of curious about those types of large scale developments, specifically with them kind of the large mega warehouse going up in flames and once a million square foot warehouse is on fire, it's kind of hard to put it out. So I guess I really appreciate Commissioner Ortiz bringing that up. So yeah, if we can get something along those lines presented to us.

Yeah just to maybe just elaborate on this a little bit so even though we may not have that term in our UDC our zoning code development standards right now dictate when new development comes in the size of that whether it's setbacks floor area ratio site coverage but also the environmental review process looks at a variety of topics including transportation, air quality, greenhouse gas, all of these things, traffic studies are completed, but right now the zoning code really is the driver when these type of developments come in. If they can meet those development standards, if it's in the right zone, they could build these large warehouses. But what we could do is bring back additional information and probably also look into what other communities are doing in other cities, et cetera, so that we can kind of shape the discussion around that and then get some further input from you during that process, if that will work.

Yes, that sounds good, thank you.

Thank you. Okay, we'll go ahead and move on to item number eight, director's report.

Yes, just three quick items. One, I wanted to make sure the commission knows that next week, sorry I'm losing my voice. The Highway 111 corridor-specific plan is going to be presented to the Community Services Commission. The council wanted to kind of do a three-step process where staff would do a presentation and receive feedback on potential amendments to the Highway 111-specific plan, first with the Community Services Commission, then the Planning Commission, and then lastly, the City Council. The goal being, after getting that feedback and potential amendments, we would hire a consultant to do those amendments to the Highway 111 corridor-specific plan. Secondly is our intern is finishing up her time, Jennifer Garcia. We've really enjoyed her time. She has two weeks left. So one of the things I've done in my career is when we have interns, I try to get them experience in presenting to the Planning Commission. So she's going to do a short presentation explaining what she learned, her background, some of the projects that she learned on or learned. So I'm excited to get her in front of the commission. You can ask her questions. And so that's the second item. Third is upcoming council items. We have, of course, the same annexation presentation that was done this evening will be done to the city council, as we've mentioned. We also have a development agreement that's going to be looked at to extend where the Palm Shopping Center is. We're wanting to extend their term by another five years. As you know, there's been a lot of development in that area. and so the council will consider extending the DA so that we can continue to see new projects in that area of the city. Other than that, that concludes the director's reports.

All right, thank you very much, and that concludes our meeting, and we'll see you on August 26th. Thank you, meeting adjourned.