Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. I'd like to call the Planning Commission meeting of August 26th, 2026 to order at 6.01 p.m. If we could please have roll call. Yes, Commissioner Santos.

Present.

Vice Chairperson Ortiz.

Here.

Senator Frans. Present. And just for the record, Commissioner Slater and Scarborough-Eckel are absent. Thank you very much. Commissioner Santos, can you lead us in the pledge? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we'll have a minute for information from staff. Brian?

Yes, thank you, Chair, members of the Commission. I just wanted to advise the Commission this evening that the item 6.3, that's the Lincoln Apartments Project, we are going to remove that from the agenda tonight. We're going to bring that back on September 9th. ITEM 6.3. ITEM 6.3. ITEM 6.3. ITEM 6.3. ITEM 6.3. ITEM 6.3. ITEM 6.3. ITEM 6.3. ITEM 6.3. ITEM 6.3. ITEM 6.3. ITEM 6.3. ITEM 6.3. ITEM 6.3. ITEM 6.3. ITEM 6.3. ITEM 6.3. ITEM 6.3. ITEM 6.3. ITEM 6.3. THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION TO YOU.

THANK YOU.

DO WE NEED A MOTION TO WITHDRAW IT FROM THE AGENDA? NO. MAY I JUST ADD ALSO TO ENSURE THAT IF ANYONE HAS PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM, THEY CAN MAKE THEM DURING GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT, LIKE BRIAN SAID, BUT TO ENSURE THAT THEIR COMMENTS ARE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD PERTAINING TO ITEM we ask that those public comments are provided again when the item returns to the commission or they can submit it in writing.

Thank you. Okay, with that little housekeeping item done, let's move on to public comment. I'll go ahead and open the public comment. Is there anyone here who would like to speak on items that are not on the agenda? Anyone online? I have no requests. Nope, okay, seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public comment. and we'll move on to item 4.1, the minutes. Do I have corrections or a motion?

I believe we may need to continue the minutes. Oh, because not everybody's here.

Okay, we will continue the item to our next meeting. And we'll go ahead and move on to item number five, a staff presentation from our intern, thank you.

Hello, everyone. Good evening, Chairperson Frans and Commissioners. My name is Jennifer Escobar, and I want to share a little bit about my experience as a housing intern here at the Community Development Department for our city of Indio. So a little bit about my background. I am a student at Arizona State University. I'm earning my bachelor's and master's in urban planning. It is a concurrent program, so this spring I'll be earning my bachelor's and the year after will be my master's. A little bit of what my internship focused on was housing policy, developmental review, planning research, and earning municipal experience. A little bit about myself as well is that I also work at Starbucks and I did that throughout the duration of this internship as well. I'm earning the tuition benefit there, so that's been really great. I also commute from Merino Valley. So that's what that little picture is at the end. That's our M mountain. And so that's about an hour. And I've been managing that for the summer as well. So I worked in the Housing and Neighborhood Services Division. One of the biggest things that I took away from that was that I learned that it's not just about producing as many units as possible, but it's also about looking for funding sources, understanding state requirements and local policies, as well as developmental regulations, community needs, and how that all comes together so that we can benefit our community. Seeing those different pieces come together gave me a much better understanding of the role a city plays in housing needs. So a little bit about the projects that I was working on during my time here was focusing on ADU program research. I also looked into creating a density bonus application. Along all side of that, I also reviewed planning policy and development review. For the ADU program, I researched how the other jurisdictions might have their approaches to pre-approved plans and how Indio could potentially involve those as well and create our own program. I also helped create the density bonus application. So that meant that I was researching state requirements and helping organize information into a format that could be more accessible to the public and to our staff. Alongside those larger projects, I had opportunities to participate in development and planning research. These experiences helped me understand how planning concepts and regulations move from research and policy, but how we can implement those programs into Indio as well. So one of the most important aspects of the internship was understanding how the work that I did supported the city's broader strategic priorities. My work mostly directly connected with economic opportunity and organizational excellence through Housing initiatives and funding research, I was able to see how planning can support economic opportunity by helping expand housing options and identifying resources that can support development. My work also contributed to organizational excellence through ordinances and policy research and collaboration across different departments in our community development. What stood out to me was that even though the research may seem small behind the scenes or that it can ultimately support larger city goals when it comes to helping make policies clearer and easier to implement. So what I learned from the internship was when Housing policy is connected to most aspects of what the community needs. I also learned that planning requires a lot of collaboration. Housing decisions involve planners, building inspectors, management applicants, and developers. Most importantly, I learned about the process of research to policy and to implementation. It's one thing to understand a planning concept when I was in the classroom, but seeing how that concept becomes an ordinance or an application or a developmental project, it gave me a clear understanding of municipal planning. Overall, I think this experience gave me a much clearer path towards understanding the type of planner that I would like to be alike. And so I do have a moment for questions, but real quick, I did also want to take a moment to express gratitude, especially towards David for taking me under his wing and for trying to instill as much as his knowledge into me as possible and to the rest of the team as well. I had a really good experience. Everything was very positive and I appreciated having a really educated team. So thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any questions?

No, I just want to say thank you and congrats on your going to ASU for your degree, your bachelor's and master's, and thank you for choosing Indio for your internship. So I really thank you for that.

I want to say thank you for all your work, and then I also went to ASU, so let's go to some devils.

So thank you so much. I'm glad you had a good experience and we hope that when you're done with your degree that you'll come back. We always need new fresh ideas and new people to take on the challenges that are coming. So good luck.

I appreciate that, thank you. Thank you.

Okay, we'll go ahead and move on to public hearing item, item 6.1. We're going to discuss discretionary and conditional permit for a seven brew. We can please have a staff report.

Yes, you can. Good afternoon, or good evening, commissioners. I will be doing a quick presentation over the Seven Brew Project. It's case file number plan-prd-26-0027 and plan-cup-26-0011. This project is located off of Highway 111. Oh my goodness. near Jefferson, yes, thank you, right near the city border with the city of La Quinta. The project includes the development of one drive-thru restaurant totaling 910 square feet with walk-up pedestrian takeout. This project includes the review of architecture, pedestrian circulation, landscaping, and signage, as well as a conditional use permit to allow a drive-thru as a limited land use. In the Highway 111 specific plan, a conditional use permit is required for all drive-throughs, and it is considered a limited land use, which for drive-throughs, it does require City Council approval rather than Planning Commission. So your decision will be a recommendation to the City Council should you move forward with the project. I've also included a project elevations on the dais. You have a color and materials board near the bottom of the building. That's the black, black onyx, black concrete tile. Above that is the hardy plank. It's a light gray color. There's going to be blue metal coping along the top of the building. As well as some accents on the trash enclosure roof. And then the light gray coping is near the windows. I also included the site plan. It includes two drive-thru lanes and a circulation lane for access to parking. The trash enclosure is on the southeast portion of the site. There is pedestrian connectivity from Highway 111 to the walk-up window as well. I also included the landscape plan. I do want to also add that we added two conditions of approval, specifically conditions number 24 and 25 for the installation of palm trees fronting Highway 111, as well as a condition of approval number 25 for the installation of shade trees along pedestrian pathways. So while there is more landscaping included as part of the conditions of approval. The application also includes a request to deviate from the Highway 111 specific plan for signage. Specifically, it includes a request to increase the maximum height of signs from 30 inches to six feet for graphical wall signs, and then increasing the number of signs for one per street frontage to one per building facade. The proposed project is consistent with the NGO General Plan 2040, the Highway 111 Corridor Specific Plan, and the Unified Development Codes, subject to Planning Commission recommendation of approval and conditions of approval. The project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15332 for infill development of the California Environmental Quality Act. With the application of conditions of approval, the project is recommended for approval and the conditions are binding and must be adhered to. So the staff recommendation tonight is to approve resolution number 2147 and 2148 for the seven-brick drive-through. and recommend the city council approve the planning review discretionary application and the conditional use permit and find the project exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15332 for infill development. And I'm open to questions and the applicant is here as well, or the applicant's representative is here as well for any questions as well.

Thank you, Luke. Do we have questions of Luke at this time? So I have a couple. I know that we have to approve all drive-throughs. Can you pull up the image of what is around that area? I think there's a lot of open space still, right? Yes.

Yeah, I don't have a more zoomed in version. But north of the project site, there's big box retail stores, including Home Depot. To the south of the project site, it's similar. It's an Eos Fitness. And then to the west of the project site, it's another drive-thru restaurant, but that's in the city of La Quinta. To the east of the project site, it is a vacant parcel.

Okay. So there's not another drive through restaurant close by, right? It's like we're not getting a whole bunch of drive through spots in one area. This seems to be very open still.

Yes. So in the city of India, there are no other drive throughs in this planning area. It's considered to be planning area one of the highway one of the specific plan and there have been no other limited land uses approved since the adoption.

Okay, that was my biggest concern. The other question I had was about the signage. It seems like going from six inches, or what was it, 30 inches to six feet, it's more than double. And we've kind of been real careful with our signage on purpose, right? We're trying to keep a certain feel and look for the city. So is there anything in the area that is even close to this size of signage, or is this really gonna stand out compared to everything that's around that area?

I don't have the size of the signage for the existing EOS Fitness, but that was approved before the adoption of the Highway 111 specific plan under the MUSP 300, and it is rather large signage. I just don't have the number of the height.

Okay. So maybe, Brian, is this anything that we should be super? I mean, it's a small building, first of all. It's only 910 square feet. It's literally just going to be drive-through, which drive-through coffee is great, don't get me wrong. But I want to make sure that the size of the signs isn't going to be really large and not not fit the look that we're trying to do with the Highway 111 specific plan.

Yeah, that's a good question, Chair. So we have been working with the applicant, including the assistant planner. At one point, the monument sign that they were proposing was way too large, and we told them, because of your proximity to Highway 111, being so close that a monument of that size is usually not built and would not be appropriate for this location. So it's a little bit of a balancing act. They significantly reduced the size of the monument, but what they do have is a larger wall sign. I agree, it is a little large. That's why it's before the Planning Commission tonight. If you would like to reduce that, you can make that recommendation, and that'll go to the City Council. They'll have the final decision on that size. I agree, the wall sign is quite large. for the size of the building. I'm looking at EOS Fitness right now, and it's a very large sign, but that's a very large building as well. So it's up to you on how you'd like to proceed, and if you want to make a recommendation, I'm sure the applicant who's here tonight can give you a little more background on why that sign, that wall sign is so large. That might help to give some more context to what they're proposing.

Would you be able to tell me, I don't know if Dutch Brothers is about the same size, their building, you know, the one that we put on Jefferson. How big are their signs? Because that's also a smaller building. And maybe you can maybe get that information when we have the applicant speak. Because I'd like to be able to compare it to something comparable, right? It's hard to imagine 30 inches, six feet.

I'll go ahead and pull it up on the Google Maps, but I'm probably not going to be able to find the square footage. But in the meantime, we can hear what the applicant wants to.

And we have the Dutch Bros on 111. That's the one I actually meant, not the one on Jefferson. So, all right. We'll go ahead then. Any questions of staff? Okay, go ahead.

I do have a question for staff. Thank you Luke for your work and for presenting this item. I do have a question about traffic. I know exactly where that specific location is gonna be because I go to EOS every day at 6 a.m. And then I feel that have we looked into the traffic flow Because to get into that specific location, you either have to make, if you're going to highway 111 going towards La Quinta, you either are going to make a U at Costco Drive or make a left on Jefferson and then go cut through the gas station. So how we look into like is the traffic, is the car going to overflow into 111 or how is the traffic situation going to work out?

That's a good question. So the city's traffic engineer did review this site plan, and this is not the first iteration of the plan. There was an alternate version during the pre-application conference that had the drive-through lane a little bit longer, but the drive-through was between the property line and the building. So this is kind of an updated version to more closely align with the goal of Highway 111. THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TRAFFIC MITIGATION BEYOND THAT FROM THE CITY ENGINEER, THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER. AND THE PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT WHEN EOS WENT IN, IT WAS A MUCH LARGER BUILDING, IT WAS, I CAN'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS MORE RETAILER OFFICES BUT IT WAS A BIGGER BUILDING SO THAT WAS ALSO ANALYZED WHEN THE PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT WENT IN.

And just for clarification, the entrance will be on the south side, not the north side where 111 is, correct? Correct, yes. So hypothetically speaking, the traffic flow will flow into the commercial parking lot? Correct, yes. Thank you.

And I am looking at the Dutch Bros wall sign on Highway 111. It is pretty small. I would say I'm going to estimate that to be maybe anywhere from 24 to 36 inches high. So it's substantially smaller. So again, maybe the applicant can explain if this is a similar format that they use on other stores, or is this something that is different for Indio?

Okay, thank you. All right, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing, and we invite the applicant to come up and present. Thank you.

Good evening. Madam Chairperson, members of the Commission, my name is Cayman Wong. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. My address is 4340 East Indian School Road in Phoenix. We've been working with staff for the last, I want to say, six months on this. And it's been very fruitful, and we've really enjoyed doing it and getting this project. And we're excited to be part of the community. So I'm here to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you. I guess the big question is the sign, right?

It's bigger than... Yeah, it's not used to it. It's a little different.

It's a little bigger.

It's a little bigger, and I think the reason being it is part of the brand. This brand is part of Arkansas, and this will be one of the first in California. And it is not specific to Indio. This is their brand. The reason why it is a little bit bigger is they have something at the rooftop there. So it is 20 feet tall, this building, approximately, give or take a few inches. But you can see that top curve piece there. They call that the muffin top. Don't know why they call it that. But the front of the building is not this elevation, but the one actually facing it'll actually be facing east, is where that big muffin top is, and it is proportionate to that side of the building. So that's kind of why it is given that. Now, the building signage on, which will be north, which will be facing Highway 111, is substantially smaller. And that'll be the one that you can kind of see the outline there. So the big one that you're referring to is actually facing north, which is facing the gas station. Yeah.

And that's your standard size of the sign for the corporation itself?

Correct. initially they are internally lit but highway 111 has the corridor plan has restrictions on that and so we're going to comply with that and and make it I think externally lit I am looking at also a few other signs along highway 111 I'm looking at Burger King just because it came up and it's round just like this proposed sign

It's smaller, I don't know the exact dimensions, but it's definitely smaller. So, you know, it's something to take into consideration.

Okay. Any other question?

In regards to the size, I understand the proximity to what the rest of the franchise, the corporation, or the corporate stores are about the same size. THIS BEING CLOSE TO, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE THE 111 CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLANS ON WHAT DEVELOPERS SHOULD ABIDE BY. DO WE HAVE ANY INDICATION BECAUSE IT IS BORDER LA QUINTA WHAT THEIR POTENTIAL SIGNAGE SIZING ARE AS WELL?

NO, WE DID NOT REVIEW THE CITY OF LA QUINTA SIGNAGE STANDARDS AS PART OF THE REVIEW. to kind of compare it to this.

Okay, I'll reserve my opinion regarding the signage during deliberation.

Okay, so this is your first California? I kind of Googled you guys and it feels like you're in Arizona, Tucson, something like that?

Tucson, not in Phoenix yet. But yeah, we are working on another one in the city of Coachella. Okay. And we have approval on that one already in permits right now. So hopefully this one gets done quicker and opens sooner. But yeah, those are the two that we're working on right now in this area.

All right, perfect. I think it'll be a nice addition. I think we just need to kind of talk about the sign because we work really hard on what we want Highway 111 to look like.

I totally understand. If you have any other questions, let me know.

Perfect. Thank you. You're welcome. DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WANTING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? I HAVE NO REQUEST. SHOULD I LEAVE IT OPEN IN CASE WE WANT TO ASK HIM ANOTHER QUESTION OR NOT?

OKAY.

MADAM ATTORNEY, CAN WE LEAVE THE PUBLIC JUST OPEN? I APOLOGIZE. CAN WE LEAVE IT OPEN IN CASE WE HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR HIM? OR JUST CLOSE IT AND REOPEN IT IF I WANT TO?

I APOLOGIZE. YOU WERE ASKING WHETHER TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW AND continue and deliberate.

Right. Or can we leave it open? That way if we have a question for him, we can just have him come up. Let's do that. Okay. So we're going to leave it open in case there's questions of the applicant. All right. Does staff have any other info on the signage for us that you'd like to share?

We're reviewing the City of La Quinta's signage standards right now.

Cool. All right. We'll wait a minute then.

I THOUGHT I COULD MEASURE WHAT THE BURGER KING SIGN WAS BECAUSE IT'S ROUND AND FACES HIGHWAY 11, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THE GOOGLE MAP ISN'T ALLOWING ME TO DO THAT.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE I CLEAR, IS IT THE ROUND SIGN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OR THE LONGER SIGN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? I'M STARTING TO GET CONFUSED AS TO WHICH SIGN IS THE BIGGER ONE.

IT APPEARS THAT BASED OFF OF THE ILLUSTRATION ON OUR SCREEN RIGHT NOW THAT THE SEVEN BRU SHOWS THREE FEET IN HEIGHT AND ABOUT 10 FEET IN LENGTH ROUGHLY.

IT'S JUST THE CIRCULAR OTHER ONE. I THINK IT'S ON THE SCREEN. I CAN'T SEE THE EXACT HEIGHT OF IT. BUT I THINK IT WAS CLOSER TO COMPLIANCE.

Okay, so it's the circle, it's the seal. It's the circle, yes. And those are on the two sides, the east and the west.

Correct.

Okay, are we good?

Just for clarification, sorry, I got a little confused. So which is the size for the monument that is gonna be on, which one is it? Is it the seal or is it the other one?

So for the size specifically, it's for the seal on the building-mounted signs. In the staff report, there was a mention to an 8x17 monument sign, but last minute we had a revised set of... OF MONUMENT SIGNS THAT WERE SUBMITTED, WHICH I HAVE ON THE SCREEN, THEY COMPLY WITH THE HIGHWAY 111 SPECIFIC PLAN.

SO THE ONLY QUESTION IS THOSE TWO ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING. YES. THEN THE SEAL, THE CIRCLE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR?

NO QUESTIONS, BUT I'LL WAIT FOR THE CITY'S REVIEW OF THE LA QUINTA.

It may take a minute. It's a 151-page document, so bear with us.

Do we want to take a five-minute break, and then we'll just see if that's enough time?

Let me just ask a quick question. So obviously it's La Quinta's code and not Indio's code. Are you trying to match, because directly across the street is a Starbucks.

Right.

Which is kind of interesting. So are you trying to match maybe what Starbucks does or what is your intent?

Because our codes are going to be very different. I don't want it to be super bigger than anything else in the surrounding area. Do you see what I mean? So if Starbucks, and I don't know how big Starbucks sign is normally, but.

So we could look on the map, we could look at Starbucks as well, their round one. Unfortunately, we cannot do measuring on this type of map that I'm at right now, but we'll take a look at that.

Okay. All right, let's take a five minute. Do you want to do that? All right, let's take five minutes and let staff do a little reconnaissance. Okay, we'll be back. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE PLANNING COMMISSION BACK IN PLANNING COMMISSION BACK IN SESSION AND STAFF. SESSION AND STAFF.

OKAY. OKAY. EVEN THOUGH WE CONTINUE TO LOOK EVEN THOUGH WE CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THE CITY OF LAQUINTA'S AT THE CITY OF LAQUINTA'S CODE, WE TYPICALLY WANT TO BE we guide the direction as opposed to another city. Not that that's bad because I think that they're doing great things in La Quinta. So after talking to the applicant, if we could put that slide up again of the sign that's the large one on the muffin top as they call it. I think we could make a compromise and kind of balance this a little better and then the applicant can come up and talk about it as soon as we get that up. Okay. So essentially, we'll just use the very top right-hand corner. So that's the large one. So when you look at that sign, even though I'm not a designer, I have been reviewing signs for a very long time. So if you look at the right and the left of that sign, you have big spaces, big gaps. But the top of the sign and the bottom sign, there really isn't an equalized balance there. So what the applicant discussed with staff during the break is if you could – allow a gap of about 12 inches on the top and 12 inches on the bottom, so a total of 24 inches. What that sign's gonna do is it is gonna shrink. They'll redesign it so that it will be pursuant to those reduced dimensions, allowing a gap at the top of 12 inches and a gap on the bottom of 12 inches. And maybe we can kind of introduce that and see if the applicant would like to speak about that adjustment. IF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER THAT.

THANK YOU. I DO LIKE THAT. ARE YOU GUYS GOOD WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION?

YEAH, I'M GOOD WITH IT. JUST GOING BASED OFF OF THE ILLUSTRATIONS ON OUR SCREEN, IT LOOKS LIKE THE TOP WITHOUT INCLUDING THE ROOF PORTION, 7 FEET 6 INCHES, SO THAT WOULD EQUATE TO 90 INCHES, SO LOOKING AT FIVE AND A HALF FEET SIGNAGE.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THAT OR ARE YOU

Yeah, it probably would be a little bit less than that because of that, just we have to make it symmetrical.

Yeah.

But yeah, we're okay with that compromise and we can work with staff on amending the exhibits.

Perfect. Yeah. Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak in the public? No? We'll go ahead and close the public hearing. And do we have any more deliberation or do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve.

Put the motion back on the screen.

I'll make a motion to approve the resolution number 2147 and 2148 with the modification of the signage to be 12 inches gap from the top and bottom and for the applicant to work with city staff for the appropriate sizing.

I'll second that motion.

Do we have any other modifications that we needed? Okay, thank you. We have a first and a second. If we can have a roll call vote, please.

Okay.

Me, sorry. All right, thank you very much. Looking forward to having you in our city. Thank you. Okay, we'll go ahead and move on to item 6.2, review and recommendations regarding amendments to the Indian Municipal Code. We could have a presentation from staff, please.

Good evening, Chairperson Frans, commissioners. This is David Razo, senior analyst with the Community Development Department. This evening we are requesting the Planning Commission review and recommendations to the City Council regarding amendments to the Indian Municipal Code repealing the existing density bonus regulations, updating current regulations with the Unified Development Code and adding Chapter 3.07, updating to local density bonus law while allowing, or my apologies, STAYING CURRENT WITH THE STATE DENSITY BONUS AND INCLUDING AN ORDINANCE TIED TO OUR PRO-HOUSING DESIGNATION. I'D ALSO LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE WE HAVE OUR CONSULTANT ON VIA ZOOM, ERICA CASH WITH DUDEK. A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON ERICA. SHE WAS THE FOREFRONT FOR OUR SIX CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT. SHE ALSO DRAFTED OUR PRO-HOUSING DESIGNATION AND MORE RECENTLY IS DRAFTING THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. SHE WILL PROVIDE A PRESENTATION FOR PLANNING COMMISSION.

I CAN'T SEE THE SCREEN, SO AM I SHARING MY PRESENTATION? yes perfect thank you all right we'll get started good evening chair and commissioners so as david said my name is erica cash i'm a senior project manager with the consulting firm dudek tonight i'll be presenting the proposed updates to the city's density bonus ordinance and the incentive program that's being proposed within that ordinance and we've been working really closely with city staff on all these updates so just as a quick uh An overview of state law requirements. So under the state density bonus law, cities are required to adopt a local density bonus ordinance, which we have today. The ordinance covers the requirements dictated in state law, and so we we pretty much followed the letter of the law and they include establishing eligibility criteria for density bonus projects consistent with government code. This includes for very low, low, moderate income, senior housing and student housing projects. As well, specifying the density bonus amounts available based on the percentage of affordability level and the qualifying units. Identifying the incentives and concessions available to, of course, only eligible projects and the process for requesting and approving those. Providing a procedure for granting waivers or reductions and just to specify those are reductions of development standards. And they only apply when standards would physically preclude construction of the project at the permitted densities. So qualifying density bonus projects. Also, we had to establish parking reduction standards and to elaborate, those are also just consistent with state law. We didn't go above and beyond for the parking reduction standards. It's just what's in state law. And then finally, including application procedures, submittal requirements, and review timelines for the density bonus requests. And again, those were consistent with state law. So I've said it a few times, but just to reiterate, these are all consistent with state law and what the city has already been doing for density bonus projects by implementing what's current in density bonus law. So a quick overview of the proposed amendments. So the proposed amendments, apart from incorporating the requirements to state law, will relocate the city's density bonus regulations from Title 15 to Title 17. They'll encourage mixed-use housing developments. And lastly, we'll support the city's pro-housing designation goals. This will include the incentive program, which I'll go over shortly. And just as a recap of how we got here, the city was awarded the official pro-housing designation last year in 2025. The proposed amendments today add an incentive program into the density bonus ordinance, which provides additional density bonus opportunities. The incentive program is required as part of the city's approved pro housing designation application. As a recap, this was authorized by city council when they approved a resolution authorizing city staff to submit the pro housing application, which included the pro, which included the proposed density bonus incentive program. So under current state density bonus law, housing developments are eligible for a density bonus when they meet or exceed the eligibility requirements, which are now included in your updated ordinance. And they're just consistent with state law. So what this table is showing is a summarized version of something you may have seen many times before. It's just the minimum and maximum percentages of affordable units and the corresponding minimum and maximum density bonus granted to a project under existing state bonus law. So just looking at this table as a quick example, if a project sets aside 15% of units, so 15% of units right here to be very low income units, then it would qualify for the maximum 50% density bonus, assuming it meets all the eligibility requirements. There are also bonuses I quickly mentioned before that are not shown on the table. One is for affordable housing developments, which provide 100% of units set aside for lower income. They are eligible for an 80% density bonus, as well as bonuses provided for lower income student housing or senior housing, which I'm sure we're all familiar with. Okay. Sticking to current state density bonus though, in addition to the state density bonus that I showed on the table on the last slide, current state law also already provides for opportunities for an additional bonus. So that would be in addition to what was shown on the last slide. This is specifically just for very low and moderate income units. So in other words, once a project exceeds the max percent of affordable units shown in the table on the previous slide, then the housing projects are eligible for an additional density bonus as shown on this screen. So the percent of units you see in the first column here, percent of units, they would be in addition to the percent of units provided on the last slide. And likewise, in columns number two and three, these would be the density additional density bonuses that they would be entitled to receive. And these would be added to those in the last slide. So the base density bonus from the last slide, I'm going to call them base density bonuses just to differentiate, but the base density bonus from the last slide are just added to these additional density bonuses shown on this slide. But I'll show you an example in a few slides, just I'm very visual, so I color coded it so we can all be on the same page. But right now, I want to show you how the local incentive I've mentioned plays into this. So this is the same exact table shown on the last slide, except for some added blank rows and columns. When we looked at the state's current additional density bonus with the city, we saw that there were some missing opportunities. Primarily, the state does not offer any opportunities where you see the blank rows or this blank column. So here you see the blank row and columns filled in for 1 to 4% of additional units provided for additional 1 to 4% of additional units provided as affordable units or low income density bonuses, which are not currently provided under state law.

Which are shown within the red boxes.

And then just to reiterate everything in the table outside of the red row or red boxes in the rows and columns are still covered under the state's current additional density bonus regulations. So the local incentive program is just proposing to add what's in the new rows and columns in red. Everything else is already in state law. So here is an example. So we can think of a project with 100 units, right? Here, let's say they propose to restrict 34% of the housing development units as low-income units, so in other words, 34 units. This project could qualify then for a 65% density bonus, so 100 plus 65, 165 units. So below, I broke it down to kind of show how we got there. So in this example, I've shown what I mentioned as the base affordable units before, and the base density bonus is red. So you'll see the base is 24% of low-income units, and that corresponds to the 50% density bonus. And then in the blue, I've shown the additional density bonus and the additional units. So that's how we got the 24 plus the 10. the 34% low income units that this project example would provide. And that's why they got the 65 total density bonus granted. In this case, it's because they maxed out the base density bonus, which would give them the 50% density bonus. However, under the local incentive program that we're proposing, they theoretically added an additional 15% or sorry, they had the additional 10%, which granted them the 15% additional bonus. So here is the same example, just shown in a slightly different way. So here again, we see where the 24% of affordable units come in this example, right? So this is just the base under current law. This qualifies them, they max out the base percentage. So they get, you know, if they're of course eligible, let's say they get the 50% density bonus granted. And then here we see where the additional 10% of affordable units come. So let's say again, the same examples before they provide the additional 10% of affordable units as low income. They would then qualify for the additional 15% density bonus. So 50 plus 15. That's where, how they're getting to that 65% density bonus for a total of 165 units. Just to put it into perspective as another quick example, if they were to restrict just 25% of same project, 100 units, let's say they restrict just 25% of the units to very low income. So they max out at the 15, oh, sorry, the 15% right here. They would also get 50%. However, under existing state law, if they then provided the extra 10%, they'd get an extra 38.75. Meaning that same project, if they instead restrict 25% as very low income, they qualify for 88.75% density bonus. So more than 23% more than what the local incentive program would provide. We're definitely not exceeding the density bonuses already provided under state law today with the local program. We're just covering a small gap that we identified that's existing in state law in order to promote, really the goal would be to promote low income housing. So just as a quick summary, benefits and compliance associated with the proposed amendments, of course, ensuring compliance with California state density bonus law requirements, which is a requirement, expanding opportunities for affordable housing throughout the community, providing development incentives that are directly tied to the production of affordable housing units, supporting future residential developments and helping increase the local housing supply and implementing the city's required pro housing incentive program commitment. So next step today is of course the first step in which you're reviewing the proposed ordinance updates and providing your recommendations and then steps two and three would be to go to City Council for consideration on November 4th and lastly approval and adoption of the updated density bonus ordinance. And I'm sure there's questions, so that's it for my presentation. David, if you want to, I'll stop sharing my screen and I'll stay on for to answer any questions that that there may be today.

OK, thank you very much. Do we have questions of staff at this time?

Just a quick. Is there any other city in the state of California that has a similar ordinance already in place?

Yeah, so there are in the Coachella Valley. So just for some context, the pro housing does it the and I assume you mean the incentive specifically. India was the only city in the Coachella, was the only city to receive the pro-housing designation. I think it was the third in Riverside, so it's not super abundant in your region. But in the state there are, there's the city of San Diego, city of San Jose, Sacramento. So some of the larger cities do have, they've had for quite some time incentive programs tied to their density bonus that go above and beyond state law.

Perfect, thank you.

Okay, I do have a couple of questions. When we can take a project from 100 units to 188 units based on one of the examples that you did, that's a significant increase, right, in the number of people and the number of cars and the number of everything. As we're going through and evaluating these projects, because we're not going to be able to say no, right? This is part of this that we're going to be able to say this is what we want built because we need the housing. So great. How are we going to handle impacts on traffic, water, sewer, school, police, fire, and other public services in the area? Because to have a project go from 100 units to 188 is going to be a significant impact. a bigger impact. So is there going to be a moment in time when these projects come before us where all of that will still be taken into consideration? Or is it just going to be allowed to be built without looking any further?

So let me go ahead and just respond real quickly and then our consultant can kind of add to the response. So there still is CEQA review of these projects. So some of them may be exempt, so I definitely don't want to say that some of these projects wouldn't be exempt, but they are still subject to CEQA. So those are some of the things that we look at. We look at parking, we look at traffic, we look at a variety of topics that CEQA requires us to do, But that being said, some of these projects that come in, especially if they're low-income affordable housing projects, they are going to ask for incentives or waivers. And some of that might be, for example, for parking. And they're entitled to do that. So we don't want to paint a false narrative that some of these projects are going to come in with some of those development standards that they're going to request a waiver or a other things to reduce those development standards so maybe our consultant Erica can expand on that but you know we're still going to be looking at all those those areas of the project and some of the things we may not be able to address because they're part of concessions or things like that waivers

Brian, thank you. I think you, you covered it. Um, you know, that example I gave that of the one 88 that's already offered under existing state law. Um, I think that one was established.

I don't know.

It's been a while since I looked at when every, it keeps changing so rapidly. Um, but to give you some easier mind up a density bonus projects, aren't exempt from sequel automatically. Of course, there are exceptions to that. There's infill projects, etc. But all the projects that you've seen coming through the city, the CEQA process wouldn't look different than it does today.

Plus, it seems like everything we're doing is following the state guidelines, except for that. extra bonus that we talked about, right? And then I also want to make sure I read properly that we are matching the state requirements for parking. We are not making those any lighter, I guess, for lack of a better word, because I do worry about parking. So we are just following state guidelines on that, correct?

That's correct. We are using the exact parking ratios from state law. We are not exceeding or expanding on those at all. and we are, the local incentive program does not exceed density bonuses provided under state law currently.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions?

Yes, I just have a question. If we were to approve today, why would you guys would bring it to city council on November 4? Because there's like a timeline that you guys have to follow. I'm just curious.

Yeah, I can real quickly, and I know David Razo has been working with us on this particular timeline. So we're trying to bring back an ADU ordinance to you as well. So we're hoping to bring that back next month. So we have the density bonus tonight. Next month we're gonna bring the updated adu ordinance Which is also one of those items we need to address as part of the pro housing designation that we received So if you bundle those two together We want to bring both of those to the City Council by that time based on deadlines for staff reports and postings and things like that Publications now we're into November. So that's the goal is to bring both ordinances and our consultant has been helping us to get these to fruition and to the council in November. I think the first meeting, Erica, is what you mentioned? Yes.

Thank you.

SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THIS TIME, SEEING NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE, IS THERE ANYONE ONLINE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? I HAVE NO REQUESTS. SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO I HAVE A MOTION OR ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR DELIBERATION?

IF NOBODY HAS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION AND PUSH IT ON TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.

WE HAVE A FIRST AND A SECOND TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL. VOTE ON YOUR SCREENS. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. OKAY. SINCE ITEM 6.3 HAS BEEN PULLED, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 7, COMMISSIONER COMMENTS. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING? have one I'm ready for fall if this heat would just back up a little bit I would be a little bit happier other than that I'm really excited to see all these changes and all these ordinance coming through to the city I think it will help us with future development and I hope to continue to see the growth that we've seen for the last few years and thank you to staff nothing else directors reports

I wanted to have three items, and one involves David Razo because David Razo, our management analyst, was working with our intern, and I think she did an excellent job tonight. We're very happy to work with her, very proud of all the efforts that she made in the department. So I was asking HR a little bit about our internship program because it was very successful. We had a total of 23 interns. It's the highest that we've had. Last year was 17 and the year before, four and then two. So we've really ramped up those students coming in and getting the experience. For this round of internships, over 5,500 hours of mentoring, teaching, and delegating tasks and caring for our interns, I personally, because his office is across the street from, or across the street, across the way from me, David Brazo spent countless meetings and countless hours working with the intern and that's really kind of one of those things where it's a pay it forward you see them go on and and get a job one day and maybe like we mentioned you mentioned that they might come back and be a city employee one day so we're very happy that that has worked out really well we work with other institutions like the College of the Desert, et cetera. So we're very happy. Then I asked about how many are coming back and becoming city employees. Our HR director said in the past four years, we've had seven interns that have been hired as City of Indio employees. So I thought that was really encouraging and I love to see that because I think at one point a lot of us were interns. I know I was, two times. So the other couple items is the Highway 111 corridor specific plan. About a week ago I gave a presentation to the Community Services Commission because the council wanted to bring that plan back to both the Community Services Commission and the Planning Commission. So next month I'll do a similar but slightly different because the Planning Commission looks at different topics and different areas of the plan than the Community Services Commission. So the goal would be to do that presentation, get your input, bring it to the council, and then we'll be looking for a consultant to help us make amendments to that plan. It's about time. It's been about five years since the adoption. And so there's definitely some tweaks and some things that we want to do. And then lastly, some upcoming items the council brought up last week, some items that they would also like us to come and do presentations in front of the Planning Commission. So it'll be a team effort. Some of the items that were discussed were cannabis. There were some, I guess you could say, complaints about fees and also some of the allowed regulations on cannabis. So we'll bring back a presentation to you as well on cannabis and get your input before bringing it to council. And then they'll direct us if they see some code amendments coming up. And then also a hot topic was massage and tattoo. In our UDC, which serves as our zoning code, there are additional restrictions for those types of uses. Some of them can't be very close to residential uses. Some of them can't be close to businesses that serve alcohol. So there's a host of things. So we're going to kind of summarize and do a presentation on massage and some of the other areas of the zoning code that have additional restrictions that are layered onto the existing requirements and development regulations. So other than that, that does conclude the director's report.

Thank you very much. Then we'll go ahead and adjourn to our next planning commissioner meeting scheduled for September 9th.