Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

21st 2025 meeting. Madame Secretary, do we have a roll call? Commission member me. Was it me? I can't tell when you say me or Lee. Here. Commission member McFale here. Commission member Baddard here. Vice Chairman Lee present. And Chairman Malikov present. Um at this time I'd like to stand and like to ask everybody to stand for the pledge of allegiance to our great country. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Madam Secretary, I'd like to confirm the agenda. Do we have any changes to the agenda? No changes to the agenda. Okay. Um, there's no changes. Um, we're on to public comments. The public is invited to address the planning commission on any matter not on the agenda. If you wish to speak on the agenda item, please wait to be recognized under the item. Except for special circumstances, the Brown Act prohibits the planning commission or staff from responding to or taking action on any comments made by the public unless it pertains to an item that appears on the agenda. All speakers should give their name and city of residence and please limit your remarks to three minutes. If you want to speak in there's speaker slips right outside and you can give it to the secretary and it's my understanding we got two online comments. We have received two comments from the public

and I'll just read for the record that the following comment was received for the record to the members of the planning commission and made available for public inspection at the entrance to the room this evening. David Costlo provided comments related to the November 2026 election. We did receive two comments. The second one, the following comment was received for the record to the members of the planning commission and made available for public inspection at the entrance from Barry Freep provided comments on the speed limit survey. Thank you, Madam Secretary. So, the next item, item 2A, is the approval of the April 16th, 2025 minutes. Um, does anybody have any additions and or corrections? If not, do we have a motion and a second to approve the minutes? So moved. Second. We'll wait for the machine to catch up. Every time. I have a vote. It Oh, we might I think we need to do a roll call. It just went away and I didn't do it. All right, we'll do by roll call. We just apologies. All right. Commissioner me I. Commissioner McFale I. Commissioner Baddard I. Vice Chair Lee I. Chairman Malikov I. Thank you. Let the record show that a motion was made and seconded and that the motion passes. Okay. The next item is zoning code amendment 25-3 to adopt a resolution recommending that the city council adopt an ordinance amending title nine of the planning and

zoning code of the Cathedral City Municipal Code to after to add chapter 9.09 public notification and community meetings and to amend chapters 9.05 05 9.52 972 974 976 and 978 to delete existing provisions that conflict with the new chapter 909 relating to public notification requirements. Miss Molina, do we have a staff report? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, as indicated by chairman Malikos, this is a public hearing for a zoning ordinance amendment uh to establish a new chapter and amending other chapters for consistency purposes. And as we indicated during the workshop last time, um zoning ordinance amendments do require public hearing before the planning commission. And then and the commission makes a recommendation, it'll go back and then it'll go to the city council for introduction and ultimately adoption. And we have discussed this um two previous times and so I think we're all familiar. I I'll briefly go over though some background as this is a public hearing. There are members um in the audience and also that may be watching that may not have the background that we do. Um so again this uh whole discussion started uh with a project that was before the commission and um in the vicinity just next door was apartment complex and so the topic of do residents within apartment complexes and other non-owner occupied uh dwellings do they get noticed and if they're not why don't we look at that and how we can get noticed to them and so we did have a discussion in March and again a one in um April to look at potential changes to our code to enhance our public notification ation process um including community engagement. And so we did have a number of discussions uh we talked about expanding the notification radius um to 500 ft standard all projects and

projects greater than 5 acres would be uh notification up to 75 750 ft radius. We also looked at um expanding the notification to the non-propy owners within the mailing radius. Then we also had discussion about community engagement, what that would look like, developers responsibilities, the city's responsibilities, what the procedures would be um and uh summarizing a report back to the city for the commission's uh reference and um edification and then also this requirement would be on properties of 5 acres or more. So that was generally the discussion in the topics. We looked at a draft ordinance last time or draft changes to our code in a new chapter. There were some recommendations and so the report that's before the commission um takes those exhibits from last time and makes changes. Um for this evening I'll discuss chapter 909 which is the new one and has changes from our last meeting. Uh the draft resolution that's in the packet has a draft ordinance has two exhibits to that draft ordinance. One is chapter 9.09 09 and the other one is a list of all the different other chapters that would be amended to make sure that we're consistent with our new our new code. Um there's no changes to that particular exhibit from our last discussion. So I'm not going to go into a discussion of that other than to say it's consistent with what we talked about last time. But um with respect to uh these particular um expanded notification, so again the radius what's in the uh draft ordinance is consistent with what was discussed last time on April 16th. We did make some changes to the notification and I'll go into that a little bit more. And then just a few changes on the community engagement provision uh just for some clarification and I'll also go over that. And then as we discussed on-site public hearing signs, we're going to table that for now. It's not in our code. we can look

at it, you know, when we do our update if we need to um re-engage that discussion. So, um in um our new chapter, chapter 909, we did make some changes to um the public hearing and public notice. And so on the right hand side, there's some edits that were made. Um, what I did was make a distinction between uh notice to real property owners and then to uh nonoccup or excuse me occupants of nonowner occupied property whether it's businesses um residents of apartments uh renters of um single family um documents, excuse me, properties. And so I just I wanted to go ahead and separate that um because the real property owners get notice and we get that information from uh Riverside County Records. For everyone else, we're getting that through various data uh that we keep um uh business licensing information that we have. Um knowing that it's an apartment complex or mobile home complex, then we can reach out to those property managers. we can look at our data and try to and get that occupant information to mail notices to them. But um one of the changes I'm proposing is that when we do send notification to a business owner, a occupant or tenant of residential property that we only send it to those for those properties that are within our city limits. And the reason why we're making this change is that our IT department reached out to our adjacent cities um and asked, "Hey, how do we get this information? can we get this information from you and wasn't successful in getting an answer back. And so um that's the reason for the change. The um other change was to paragraph F which was a new one and this is just language that's already in our government code that says hey if you don't get a notice that doesn't mean the public hearing is invalid or the

commission's actions invalid. So I just wanted to stick that in there. over on the left side, the box. Um that paragraph uh comes from a new um act that was adopted. Um the uh the language to that bill was provided via email to the to the commission. But uh what that says is that when a zoning ordinance amendment or zoning ordinance affects uh uses on real property, then the public hearing notification is uh a minimum of 20 days prior to the hearing. And the the the code is or the law is very specific 20-day notice for the planning commission's hearing. It doesn't make that same requirement for city council meetings. And so, um, here the way it's written, whether it's planning commission or city council, it's going to be 20 days. Um, unless the commission wants to just be as specific as the government code and say for planning commission. And there's I mean there would be a basis for that. Um, if you think about that through this process, it's 20 days. We've expanded the radius, we've expanded who we give notice to, and we have for 5 acres or greater a a community meeting. And so, um, if the commission was of the opinion that that whole expanded notification is sufficient to get notice to members or to interested parties for planning commission and and when you get to council, there's already been all this outreach that 10 days makes sense. and just keep it with what it is. We can do that as well. But for now, it's 20 days. It's it's up to the commission if they want to make a change on that. And that's easily something we can read into the record um and can go forward to to council. And um just a few other changes on section 9.09.020. This had to do with community engagement. There were some other changes that had to do with correcting

section numbers or just being consistent with the terminology throughout that exhibit. Not talking about it here in the presentation. It was very I think clear um in the exhibits that were received by the commission. But um this first change on the top left, this um was a comment by Commissioner Lee or Vice Chair Lee, excuse me, that um when it comes to providing notice for these community engagement reading uh meetings that um not all of it can be provided through the tax assessment roles. And so we're clarifying that. Um and then these other two sections uh was a comment from Chair Malikoff that um at the community engagement meeting that there be an opportunity for um attendees to also say yes I want to be notified of public hearings regarding this item and so we're u making that change and then we're being consistent in a subsequent section of that particular um provision in the code. So those are the changes that were made since the meeting. So um as indicated in the staff report uh the recommendation that will move forward to the city council if the commission moves this forward is to find this um project the amendment exempt from SQA and also attached to the staff report was the public hearing notice that was um published in the paper. Thank you. Thank you Miss Molina. Yes, my recommendation is for the planning commission to adopt the resolution and move this item forward. And I'm available for any questions. Um, now we're into questions before we have commissioner discussion. Commissioner me, do you have any questions? Uh, two questions since I'm sure someone will ask about it. What do we know what the the cost implications are of this expanded notice? because obviously

there's a lot more mail that's going out to an additional group of people. Um, I just don't want us to be blindsided by someone later at council saying it's gonna cost, you know, whatever. We um uh cost, no, but what we did with our recent update to our fees, which was comprehensively updated, is in in conferring with our IT department and in the additional notice and getting that information, compiling that information. We estimated about four hours of time on their end. um the mailed notice that's a cop that's that's a cost that's recouped as well but it's going to depend on how many notices. So you know if something had currently maybe 80 80 notices and we double that then it's just it's just whatever that cost is. So but is that when you're saying that cost is recouped it's recouped from the developer? Yes or yeah? Okay. So it's not an out-of- pocket cost that we would just be increasing our spend. Correct. I mean, I personally think it's worth it to engage the community and let people know, but I just wanted to know if there was a cost. Okay. Um, and then the other thing is obviously we're going through the new development code update right now and this is something that's getting potentially adopted in the middle of that process. Will this kind of get slotted in to whatever they're working on so we don't have to go back and add it later? Yes, we will provide this to um our consultant. Okay, great. Those are my only questions. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Lee, do you have any questions? Uh, no. Commissioner Bedard. Sure. The 20day can you go back to the slide about the the 20 days and you had said yes. Yeah, that one. Uh that at least 20 days before the hearing the reason for the 20 is compared to the 10 that was brought up. I'm sorry. Would you repeat that? You had you had said maybe 10 days. Oh, I see. Um so the way the law reads is that um

the notice is 20 days for planning commission hearings only. So when it goes to city council a public hearing of this that meets these parameters only require a 10day per state law. The way we wrote it we said 20 days for both planning commission and city council. And we can keep it that way or we can change it to be consistent with law. It's it's kind of a neutral I I mean we are asking developers to spend more money on notifications and stuff like that and time is valuable is if it's a a way to say hey we appreciate you 10 days let's speed along the process. Um it seems like if it's in alignment with the existing state law that the 10 days might be a better idea. I'm open to understanding more about that. Yeah. So, what we could do is just change this to be very specific that it's 20 days before the planning commission hearing and that way it's just the planning commission hearing and when it goes to city council it would be a um 10day notice, right? Yeah. Because it' be the following week, right? Okay. I I think that would be seemingly better. I don't see a fault in that. Thank you, Commissioner Bart. Commissioner McFale. Uh thanks uh for the report. I think it's been a very well researched piece of work and you know you looked at the different cities and I think we've got a very good uh public notification process here. Um there's just one we little um typo on one of the tables about community engagement where you said something about projects on project sites of five or greater. I think it's five acres or greater. when it goes to city, they probably want to say 5 acres or greater. Probably, but that's um under it's on the analysis table, the notification standards, and you've got a line comm community uh community engagement, and it just says

project sites of five or greater, and I'm assuming it's acres. Five acres. Yes. Um I had a couple small questions. one being again about the notification of people who live in uh rental apartments. So, you know, obviously if you're a homeowner, you'll send to that parcel because you have the parcel data. Likewise, town homes and duplexes, you have the parcel information. An apartment will be one parcel and there might be 10 apartments in it or 40 apartments. How do you know how many apartments are in there to to send an individual mailing to? What data source are you going for that? We would go through our building records, our business license records, and then um contacting that complex to determine to make sure we have the right number. Okay, great. And then just regarding the signage, and I've gone back and forth on signage since we talked about it last time, but um we're not going to uh address it this time. Now, does the current code have current um standards or requirements for signage? I kind of did a quick search, but I couldn't find it, but maybe I was doing the search wrong. They do. Our code does not have any standards for public hearing signs. No. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner McFale. Um I have two two and a half questions. Um the first one is the is the SQA is is the SQA exemption going to be the general rule. The um common sense rule. Yes. I forgot that they changed it from general rule to common sense exemption. That just shows how old I am. Um then my second question which has two parts is if um you were doing a public hearing for family I mean for um in shape fitness which would require a

public hearing if it were new um if the lot that it sat on in the shopping center was five acres then they would have to do a community engagement. Good question. Good question. Um, I think we have some flexibility with um, director discretion on that and I think we would want to look at that and make a dis determination whether at that point it makes sense or not. So, there's language in there that gives the final discretion if there's a gray area to the the development services director. Well, let's see. I thought we provided some some discretion on the community engagement. I can look at that if that's the um also the direction of the commission. We can put that in there if we don't have it. Then the other half of the question on in shape fitness is um in different cities when it's in a shopping center there's different ways to measure the 500 ft. So using in shape as the example would you measure 500 ft from the lot that Inshape sits in or the perimeter of the shopping center that it's in? So your your question is assuming that in shape fitness was on its own parcel. Can you repeat that? Well the the rad the notification is from the property lines and so if in shape is in a building but the parcel lines is the center we would notify from the property lines of the center. Okay. Um, in other jurisdictions sometimes when you have a situation like that within a shopping center, they just expand it to the perimeter of the shopping center. So, I

wasn't sure if we did it that way. So, it would be from their actual property line. If the shopping center was on one large property, then it would be 500 ft from that. But if it sat on a single lot within the shopping center, then it would be 500 feet from from each each point on the property line. Yes, there is language in here as well that offers the director the discretion to increase the size of that. So if we run into a particular situation where you know there's some peculiar measurement we can error on the side of caution and increase the yeah I think sometimes um well in shape might be a good example I think when that went in I don't know that anybody was aware of the impact from people throwing the 50 pound weights on the floor and you know and the ground shaking I don't think anybody even thought of that and you So the next time we have a gym going in, we might want to think about how we measure the radius when that kind of thing happens. Um so I was just curious how we how we exactly measured it. So um that's good. Um is there any other questions from of staff before we move on to um discussion andor a recommendation? So at this point um before we ask for um is there any other discussion anybody wants to have? I will we have the opportunity to uh uh look at commissioners Bedard's potential amendment that he he talked about. Oh okay. And um and then I didn't hold on and I did not open the public hearing so I need to do that. So if before we do that, are there any members of the public that would like to speak on this item? If you would um give your speaker card to the secretary and step up to the

podium. If there's not, then I will close I will close the public hearing. Are there any virtual people that would like to speak or did we receive any comments specifically on this issue? We have not received any comments from members of the public. Okay. Now, um, Commissioner Baddard, you wanted So, I think we need to get a motion on the floor first. Um, but before we do that, I wanted to thank Commissioner Meade because I think um she was responsible for bringing all this to light to get more people from the community involved because we didn't really involve people that were renting property and the business owners. So, um I want to I want to give her uh kudos for getting that on the list on the worklist and and actually moving it to get it getting it done. So, thank you for that. Um okay. So, now we need a motion and a second and then we can address your um amendment. Okay. So, then I will make a mo I was hoping to have a discussion about it before to understand it more to make the motion. is and the city attorney can correct me. You can make a motion with your change. Somebody can second it. Then we can discuss that. Okay. And then after that we can um after we discuss it then we can call a vote. Did I get that right? Okay. Okay then. So I would move to have the days be 20 days prior to planning commission and 10 days prior to city council. Second. Does anybody Oh, you did you second, Mr. M? I did. I think you need to follow the request because we have to

accept the whole report and the amendment. Yeah. So, the motion needs to include that verbiage. Right. So, Mr. McFale seconded the motion with the amendment. I maybe I need to make that clear that to accept the the the presentation as is with the one exception of modifying from the 20 days to the 10 20 days for planning commission 10 to the city council. I think I said that properly our legal advice. Yes. So, just so we understand for the record, the motion is to um go with staff recommendation to adopt the resolution recommending the ordinance to city council with that specific amendment regarding the 10day. Such good language you have there. Does anybody have any discussion um on Mr. Badard's change andor the motion in its entirety? I have a question. And so if someone um we have a couple is the are the new notification requirements that would go out 20 days for planning commission. Those will still be the same requirements applied for the city council meeting. Correct? It's just a shorter time period. And if someone signed up, let's say at the at a community engagement meeting and said that they wanted to get it, those people would also be notified for the city council meeting. Correct. Okay. So for anything future, great. Yes. And just as a point of information for anybody listening at home. So the next step is for this to go to city council then um there would be a second reading and that usually takes about two weeks and then after the second reading it would take effect 30 days after the second reading. So so people know the timing. Did did I get that right? Okay good. Um so is there any more discussion on either the motion or the amendment? If not, um, we can call a

vote. All right. Let the record show that a motion was made by member Badard, seconded by member McFale. Motion passes. All eyes. Thank you, Assistant Director Molina for and Director Firestein for all your hard work on this. This is not an easy project and appreciate all your attention to detail. So, um, now we're ready to move on to non-public hearing hearing items. Item 4A, 2025 citywide speed limit survey to consider the 2025 citywide speed limit survey results. Um, Mr. Balinsaro. Good evening, chair, vice chair, commissioners. I'm going to be presenting the 2025 citywide speed limit survey. So basically this study is to ensure that speed limits on the city roadways are in line with traffic conditions and public safety. So let's begin with the if I can do this thing. Let's begin with the background. Uh the California building code mandates that all cities establish a speed limits over 25 m miles per hours based on an engineer and traffic study conducted by a traffic engineer. This is to ensures that speed limits are reflect the traffic and road conditions and the traffic study need to be updated every five years. And if there is no significant changes in the roadway conditions or roadway and traffic conditions, that traffic study can be extended for se up to 7 to 10 years. The last citywide survey was completed in 2019. In addition to the standard regulations,

there have been updates in the state law that impact how we set speed limits. This is Assembly Bill number 43, also known as traffic safety bill or IB 43 that it was signed into law on October 8, 2021 and introduced changes to the speed limits and expanded the authority of local agencies where they can they are more flexible to reduce the speed limits based on safety considerations, land use, uh the presence of pedestrian groups like children, seniors or individuals experiencing homelessness and these need to be also justified by the engineering traffic study. Also AB 43 extend the speed limit if they are justified from seven years up to 14 years and enable to lower speeds limits in business activity district. Let's moving forward through the process. On November 12th of last year, the city council authorized to conduct the traffic study and it was one of our own call traffic engineers who who was doing the traffic study. They have the previous experience because they did the 2019 citywide study and the scope of work include include included the revision of the previous study. Conduct new radar speed survey and 24hour traffic counts. Obtain the collision report and also prepare the speed report with the recommendations and findings and recommendations. that requires some methodologies. the he follow all the uh what is that through a combination the requirements from the California business code they also look for the

collision in the last three years collision history in the last three years according to the California statewide integrated traffic record system statistical factors that are included in the manual for setting a speed limit from the department of transportation and also guidelines on additional reduction for certain situations from the California manual of on uniform uniform traffic control devices. The speed zones were set and are established to protect the public from dangerous behavior or dangerous behavior and also the speed limit is normally set at the 85th percentile and that represent 85% of the people driving at 85% of the people that is driving uh that the traffic is moving. Uh the speed limits established on these basis conform the majority of the vehicles as to what speed is reasonable and prudent and are not dependent on the judgment of one or a few individuals. The speed study done for 2025 included 74 roadways to that were evaluated. 11 roadway segments were recommended for speed limit modifications and the proposed speed limit modifications were based on prevailing traffic speed, collision history, roadway and traffic conditions, surrounding land use, proximity to schools and safety for pedestrian and bicyclist. The study was presented on May 14 to the city council. These are the 11 se this slides show the 11 segments that were erh that were recommended for modification. The ones that are highlighted are the ones that the city council made comments and have raised some concerns in terms of the incre the

increase of the speed. Those the two of them were date palm between 30th Avenue and Macallum Way increasing the speed from 45 to 50 and also Whispering Palms Trail from 30th Avenue to Macallum that was increasing the speed from 25 miles per hour to 30. That was what was said on the original speed study. Also during the study session with city council, city council asked the traffic engineer to re-evaluate four different segments. One is they pan from Bistachino to 30th Avenue. They requested the reduction of a speed from 55 to 50 mph. looking at future projects and also looking at the presence of sidewalk and pedestrians. They requested to re-evaluate Vista Chino from the west city limits to the pounds. Those are three segments that they ask for a reduction of a speed due to the proximity to residential uh areas. And uh the last one was whispering palm trails just to maintain the speed at 25 miles per hour. Following the request from the city council, uh the engineer, the traffic engineer re-evaluate the six roadway segments and he found justification for five of these six roadway roadway segments. The only one that was not able to find justification is Whispering Pound Trails between 30th Avenue and Macallum. Based on the current data, this segment requires further analysis before a formal justification can be made. Uh so the recommendation from the traffic uh engineer is to postpone the traffic study for this segment and is based on

uh AB 43 that this roadway segment was not included in the 2019 citywide speed study and also is not because of that thing is not subject to the same timeline as the other roadway segments that are in the study. And the second part of his recommendation is to amend the ordinance at a later date following the construction of the proposed class 3 bike road project that is going to be going on in the next months from on whispering pal from 30th to dinosaur that is a share route between bicycles and and vehicles. And then also at that moment if we do a new uh traffic survey that we assume that the updated data will support enforcable speed limits. So with that, this slide in front of you you shows 13 segments that are recommended for speed modification within the 74 that were studied in the uh citywide speed limit uh speed limit study. All of them are speed modifications reduction. The only increase is San Toro from 30th Avenue to Manalum. That is an increase from 25 miles per hours to 35 miles per hour. With that staff recommendation, staff is requesting that the planning commission recommend the findings of the engineering and traffic survey modifying the speed limit on 13 roadway segments within the city limit for adoption by the city council. And that's conclude my report. Thank you, Mr. Bones.

Any questions of Mr. Balinsaro? Starting with um Mr. Lee. Um just about process. I'm not really about the conclusions here, but um so that the engineers look at an 85% or percentile figure. Does that mean if everyone decides to speed on a certain road, we'll end up putting the speed limit up because they're speeding? It is assumed that they use the 85 percentile because there's studies that says that 85% of the people driving in that street will be comfortable driving at will will will show the speed that people is most comfortable driving. Yes. But there there are another statistical factors that can be applied for the study. So there is the pace of the pace of range. There is a 10% analysis. There's not the the 85 percentile per se. There's more statistical factors that that can be included in the study. Okay. I I thought about that particularly in relation to Vistina because in 2019 we put it up to 55. Um, it was previously 50, now we're putting it back down to 50. Um, and I'm just wondering if if the traffic will adapt or they'll just ignore uh uh if there is any if there is any any changes in traffic uh any modifications on the traffic patterns, it will be show up immediately or it will be show up and then we can re-evaluate if The appropriate uh appropriate speed limit is 55. At this moment

uh we the city council had or the local agencies have the possibility to lower the speed in five miles per hours if their safety considerations or the land use nearby uh the Broadway segment that they are evaluating. How how does um how does the process work at the city limits? I'm thinking again on Vist Chino. Um currently we we're at 55 heading into Palm Springs. When you hit the wash, the Palm Springs have just updated that or reduced it to 45 from 50. Is is there any communication across city limits as to what happens with speed or if we think about 111 going through all the different cities generally speaking it stays at one speed and all the lights are synchronized. So how does that happen with respect to this kind of report? There is communication with pan springs and and also the traffic engineer. The traffic engineer evaluates doesn't evaluate the segment as in a vacuum. Evaluates the segments that are prior prior segments or the segment adjacent to this one to determine what is the speed. What is the speed that is appropriate according to the data collisions and and different traffic patterns. Okay. One last point which is internal to the city and my example there would be Cathedral Canyon going from Dina Shore to 111 and we have three different speed changes in that short seg segment again how do we decide what a segment is so you know that first part from Dinosaur down to uh Perez well actually to the

bridge is 45 then we change to 40 then we change to 35 Five just over the Perez. So what determines a segment? What what decides where the segment? The conclusion of the study uh refer from dinosaur you will have 45 miles per hour until uh the hotel and uh canyon shores before the bridge. There's going to be a reduction to 40 just to get into the commercial business district that you have when you pass Kylie road that is a 35 miles per hour. So that will be the segment for the reduction and is considered due to uh pedestrians considered due to the business district that is ahead or ahead if you're driving southbound. Right. Okay. And there is also a consideration for pedestrian crossings in POE. We have a pedestrian crossing for people. And then probably in the near future, we are going to have the opening of CB Link. There's going to be another crossing in Cathedral Canyon that will uh qualify for the reduction of speed in that segment. I I I drive that particular segment frequently and it's my own observation that most people they they get from Dinosaur, they start going south from Dinosaur and they're at 45 and they're going to be at 45 when they hit Perez. They they're going to pretty much ignore the 40 and the 35 and then they're going to drop down to 35 after Perez. So, I just wondered why we have those those three different limits. Those are established are they were established they were surveyed and people still uh the the speed limit

recommended continue being the same one as as it was before. Okay. Thank you. Thank you Commissioner Lee. Commissioner me do you have any questions? Um the the stretch on Vistacino where that's going from 55 to 50. Um, I drive that a lot and I know I find it terrifying when I pull from a little side neighborhood street onto Mistino and everyone's going 55. It seems like a big increase. So, I think 50 is more appropriate. Was that reduced because, like you said, the road conditions changed or was that reduced because of a concern from city council about safety or because Palm Springs lowered theirs and then there was going to be a really huge drop off from 55 to 45? It was reduced because uh the concern of the city council applying AB43 that allows the local authority to reduce if they their safety uh safety concerns. Uh there was uh the land use nearby is residential like you mentioned. So there's some houses that they back out back out or come out from their driveways into Vistachino and also there was the consideration of what's going on in Palm Springs coming down from the wash coming into into the So all three basically. Okay. All of the three were in consideration for the speed. Yes. Thanks. Is there anything else? Is there anything else? Oh no. I thought you were moving on to somebody else. I'm sorry, Commissioner McFale. Um, I guess I have a process question as well, but slightly different one. You know, normally the workflow is things come to us planning commission and we might make recommend we will make recommendations to the city council and they will approve it or ignore our recommendations or include

our recommendations or whatever. In this case, this went to the city council and hasn't come to us before and city council made some changes and recommendation. Now it's coming to us and then it's going back to the city council. So what what are we doing with it and do we have an opportunity to change something and then it goes to city council? I'm not quite sure the workflow here. My understanding was in 2019 the traffic study was presented in a study session to the city council to to see what their concerns were at that moment. And then in 2019 there was a transportation committee or there was a traffic safety committee in the city that was reporting to the planning commission to recommend the findings of the study to the to the city council. I wasn't here probably director John Corella can help me on that story but that was the flow that you had in the past and we're following the same flow. So So do we have the opportunity to do anything with this or just say yes or what? You you do have an opportunity to make a comment or recommendation. I will tell you uh that I mean this is presented for you to make comments and if you really strongly desire something to be changed. The challenge is uh right now and the process is done this way and has been done this way to preempt it going back and forth back and forth. So really the city council throws it out there. They're pretty aggressive on what they'd like changes to. The city, the traffic engineer only do what's prescribed in his ability. That'll allow us to allow

him to be in the defendable area where he can go to court and say, "Yes, this police officer can issue a traffic ticket based on this parameter." In this case, when it went to city council, they had this laundry list of 11 items on there and said, "We kind of don't like this." this with the advent of passing of AB 46 43 46 um the uh it gives a little latitude not wholesale that they can drop it 5 miles an hour if it's at the lower end of the 85th percentile with a factors depending on which district it is whether it's a neighborhood or whether it's in a business district there's different parameters so It's on the skinny where it is now. Uh I will tell you years ago, Cathedral Canyon had two speed limits on it. By the speed survey, uh in the business district is 35 and then above King Street, it went up to 25. Going to be talking about the city council last time artificially lowered the 35 to 25. The police department was not allowed to do a radar ticket there. They knew that going, you know, that was told to the city council. Well, you can't give a conventional radar ticket with that. It has to be a pacing ticket or a time and distance ticket. It's an old way of calculating speed before radar. In this speed survey, seems like everyone's been trained and everyone on the 85th percentile has been going that 25 to 35 range in there. Usually, there's a 10 mile swing that lets you in there. So, it has been done. So, if you have an issue with a road that needs to be considered or something, this is your

opportunity to add that in, you know, recommendation to take a second look at this, this, this. It is going to city council for basically a first reading this next time. But this is what you're here for. If there's something that really concerns you above and beyond what the city council stated, uh that's your prerogative as a commission. That's why it's here before you. So, if I can add on to the comments from Mr. Guerrilla and Mr. Baldone, this is a little bit of a peculiar item and in other cities that I've worked in, we've had a traffic safety commission. there's not a a traffic safety commission here in Cathedral City. And it is correct that there is language in the municipal code in uh your authority that uh there is a streets and transportation subcommittee. Um I don't know when the last time that subcommittee ever met. Uh that charge though really is to review uh streets and transportation with respect to chapter 9, the zoning code. Uh what we're working with here is in chapter 12 the vehicle code and as we look at the the authority for local agencies to make modifications to speed limits that authority is with the city council. So I think this process is intended to provide a little more transparency a little bit more openness u but but I recognize that uh you might be in a position where you don't feel like you have the qualifications to be reviewing and commenting on an engineering and traffic survey. So, something else to reflect on and and and I don't know that we have another uh survey coming up here soon, this isn't something we're going to rinse and repeat here anytime soon, but if this is a process where the planning commission doesn't feel that it's the appropriate authority to be hearing this in the future, I think that's feedback that we all can collect to say how do we do this differently in the future while wanting to have openness and transparency. If you're not the right body for us to be presenting this in the future, that's

something else we we can consider. Um, the report also talks about the the time between studies. The new law now could push it up to like 14 years between studies. So, I'm not quite sure what would trigger study earlier than 14 years, but does this theoretically mean that we may not do another study until 2013 2039? Because we we're here in 2025 and we're going to adopt one. And now this new law says you under certain rules you could wait 14 years to do another study. That that is part of the new AB43 regulation. uh in AB43 and what it says is like it need to be certified by the registered engineers that there were no modification modifications on the traffic patterns and also there's not going to be modification on the street uh on on on any street assuming that if you are adding a bike lane in some street okay that's a modification So that will set that you need to do the study every seven in the next seven years. So unless nothing happened in the roadway conditions physical okay any modifications in the roadway conditions or traffic patterns then yes you have the you have the ability to do the next study in 14 years. Right. Okay. Um, I did want to talk about the Cathedral Canyon stretch from Kings Road to Terrace Road and the data that's in the tables here because it's one I travel up at it uh living in the Cove and you know the report talks about the 85th percentile idea and in in the example of that particular section of Cathedral

Canyon from Kings Road up to Terrace Road, you know, the 80th the 85th uh percentile speed is 38 miles an The median speed is 31 and the actual sign says 25 and the recommendation is not to do anything about that. And apparently this was changed down a few years ago I guess and uh the justification says residential district and I was wondering if maybe you could explain the residential district ID and how that kicks in. Yes, the residential district according to the vehicle code you need to have in a quarter of a mile 13 dwelling units facing the street in a quarter of a mile in one side of the street or 16 dwelling units in both sides of the street. So it's considered residential. The other the other point why it was not raised to the 85 percentile is because of uh AB43 also allowed the traffic engineer to maintain the speed limit set if there is a record in the prior speed survey assuming whispering palms like an example whispering pal was not included in the last speed survey. So Whisper Palms today has a posted limit of 25 mph and because that was considered residential and it was not included in the last speed survey, he cannot justify that speed limit in this case because the speed limit was set in the prior speed survey. Yes, he can recommend to maintain the speed limit that is posted and now it's enforcable. That's that's it. So why is this segment of Cathedral Canyon the only one that's identified as residential? Whereas for example, there are stretches

um north of Dinosaur on the way up to Raone that have a lot of houses on them, a lot more than 10 and 20. And yet the residential factor does not kick in for those stretches where Cathedral Canyon is like what 40 45 miles an hour. I'm not sure why that's not residential, but going up the hill is residential. How does that term get applied to one but not the other? It applies uh I will look at the it doesn't apply as a residential district. I don't think it mets the qualification from the California vehicle code to be residential. It doesn't get to the there's more than 10 houses and 20 houses. It's there's a lot of factors. The houses is only one. It's that's a four-lane road considered an arterial. Okay. So, it goes into a different category. So, u there's a big difference. Okay. Fair enough. It it just seems to me as a as a frequent user of that road. And there are traffic cops at the top of Cathedral Canyon regularly who give tickets. I'm not sure what criteria they're using or what method they're using, but you know that is 25 by the own data is an abnormally slow speed for going up a hill. And it has been something in the past. And it it seems strange to me that it has been treat not treated differently, but it does seem strange that we have this 25 speed where the rest is is faster and it used to be faster. And I'm not sure we can do anything about that but I'm just making a statement. It is it is uh considered the surrounding land uses are residential and then they are a few commercial

places and some commercial areas and vacant lot and what the data that was obtained in the speed study is that the 85 percentile in that segment is 48 miles per hour. So um 38 I think. Yeah. 40. No, 48. Yes. Rammo, you say you mentioned Cathedral County. He's talking about the area nor. We've moved on. Oh, I thought it was Cathedral Canyon. No problem. We're already up on near King's Road in ter That's okay. I apologize. I thought that he was looking to the Cathedral Canyon. why it was not considered residential and it was considered residential and that's you know it it it does seem that you know 85% of the people are doing 30 plus and there's been zero accidents by your own data on that segment in four years and people potentially could get ticketed for doing what 85% of the people are doing and there's never been any accident that seems like a a bit of a disconnect between reality and and stuff. So once the speed limus is posted and there's no nuances whether uh you can get a radar ticket or not in this case the whole city will be able to be radar ticketed uh you need to follow speed limit. Mhm. So it it's just it seems strange going up that hill that it's 25 and to get that residential designation is interesting. So that's that's all I have to say. Thank you. Point of clarification. So the speed limit on that area in the 85 percentile is what? No, this marked speed limit. But what is the 85 percentile? 38. 38. Okay. So 85% of people I guess are doing 30 plus up that hill because you're

going up a hill. You you go up that hill at 25. You you'll be there in two days maybe. Right. I I think that's something to bring to city council to make a request on. I don't drive. I haven't driven 25 on that. I understand. I have no idea what the neighborhood feels about it, but it just seems like a strange disconnect to me going up that hill and knowing that people have received tickets quite regularly, right, for doing like 30, right? And if the 85 percentile is much higher than what's posted and it's being done safely, I don't know why it wouldn't. within the guidelines of AB43. It fits in that latitude and the fact that it was already posted 25 no accidents. There's there's no and everyone's doing 30 plus if it was posted 35 and no accidents and I I get it if there'd been like a bunch of accidents and but there's been zero accidents. So, any more questions? Anyway, um I have two questions. um they should be fairly quick. Um so if the track if this study is going to the recommendations are adopted it's going to last 13 years is the recommendation from Vistacino from um Kintania to the city limits or might be land out to the city limits actually. So would that change when the bridge is finished? There's can be modifications to yes there's going to be another if required there's going to be another speed engineering traffic survey to determine but would the bridge impact the recommendation that you have now or is the bridge irrelevant and you would just in a matter of time review that segment the bridge is a segment of the bridge is going to be in Cathedral City the segment of the br and the other segment is going to be in Palm Springs there are

going to be modifications to the roadway condition that right now is and wash. So probably after the bridge is completed, we're going to have an engineering and traffic survey to determine what is the speed limit. Let me answer that globally for you. Anytime we do a project on the road and we change not if we do a repaving job, we're not going to change the speed limits. But if we change the characteristics, we widen it, put in a a a right turn lane or a left turn lane that wasn't there before, we're obligated to look at it and do an individual speed survey. Oh, okay. What this 14 years or the seven years is to do a citywide survey where whether uh we've changed the roads or not, we got to go look at every road again. But during that time, if you were on top of it and every time you change a road, you do a individual speed survey, uh then you could push it to the 14 years. Notwithstanding at year 14, yeah, if we didn't do any changes of the road when did and we did all our surveys uh on the individual pieces we changed, we will still have to do at 14 years a citywide just to double check. So when the bridge is done then um we'll look at that again. Cathedral Canyon when the bridge was done uh merited doing a speed survey which is essentially what triggered and the timing that we needed to do it. We knew that we were going to do a citywide so we waited to do the citywide survey that included that segment anyway. So it was an economy of we knew it was coming up anyway. So we threw that in and other segments of the roadways that have changed too. So like when that project where the ren and that street that's coming through onto

uh deep palm that's going to have a light would that trigger a survey for that section from Macllum to uh 30th. Yeah. traffic signals don't necessarily change it, but the since it was open space before and um now it you have some residential fronting it and we see significant changes in the traffic or the police are issuing more tickets that or less tickets, we'll we'll look at it to do an individual speed survey then. Thank you. That's interesting to know that once you make the change to a street like that, then you do an individual traffic study, which I would think should be merited. Um, my last question is I hear from a lot of people on TAVA. Um, worried about their kids. Um, and I noticed that it wasn't in the in the study, but I think it was mentioned indirectly that because it's residential, so it's automatically 15 miles an hour because it's residential is 25 miles per hour. 25 miles per hour. Is there any instance when you have a street like that that a lot of people use more than you know a local corridor to to make it lower than 20? And I'm not suggesting that we do that. I'm just saying has that ever happened? The jiba is considered res is considering a residential neighborhood. It was not. The question is lower. That's not Excuse me. My microphone's not It's typically not heard of. There's just a lot of people there are concerned. Um, does anybody else have any other questions before we open the public hearing? Uh, just a quick question. So

in terms of what he was just saying on Tiva, you they could lobby to have like speed humps put in or something like that, right? Which would natur you could have a traffic calming thing put in even though the speed limit remains the same. Yes, traffic calming. Uh there there can be traffic calming can be installed and and there is a process we have the process to install traffic calming that we can go there measure the speed do the temporary temporary traffic caling to know what is the the what is the the best solution to reduce the speed in you can explain there are some parameters that you cannot put speed humps on or you're limited to because of the miles per hour of the street too. Yes, that but that's yes that's correct that and depend depends on the speed limit you cannot put speed hams or I think that more than if I don't recall if I recall correctly it's like you cannot put speed hs in more than 40 or 35 miles per hour yeah and the elevation can't be too high and it can't have too much of a turn we went through that on my last street that I lived on we but so my point is just to follow up on what He's saying is that if the residents there have a concern, there are more ways to potentially solve their concern about slowing people down than just changing the speed limit. That there are other options that they could contact the city. There are other options. We have a temporary temporary traffic calming process that we follow and we follow and we determine what is the best solution. And usually what we have until right now all the roadway segments that we check is as soon as we put the speed feedback radar signs the speed goes down and nobody speeds anymore. But if and there their solutions for that thing are let me let me complement what you're trying to say and Armando's staff has

done a great job working with public works and PD and we have a traffic calming task force which he's responsible for. in that task force. The um whenever someone calls and says, "I'm getting speeding on the street," we'll put it on the task force. We have a trailer that has everything in there. We go put a secret radar in there that no one knows about for a few weeks. We actually I shouldn't say this. We don't call the police right away because we don't want them to distort what we're going to see. If they're speeders on the street, we want to catch them on radar. we it picks up the time, date, the hour, you know, and a lot of times we'll see consens consistency. I'll use an example. You know, one street there's a guy or a gal or whatever was driving uh way over the speed limit at 5:00 every day. So, you pick those things up. Armando makes the decision based on the data to get the temporary enforcement out there. And it could be a radar speedback fi sign. It could be temporary speed humps. And so we monitor traffic and see how they're reacting to it. And then the in the last portion of it, if we're not getting success, we call in the police department and they'll heavily uh patrol that area. Um, and in some cases the person that complains ends up with a ticket and calls us up and says this. But that's the humor in it. But it has been very successful that the streets that Armando has basically assigned the task force to do and goes through the steps and people are requesting speed humps. We've gotten to the point where we didn't need the speed humps. They got it. We put a couple more different signs

on there. Maybe a flashing speed limit sign, maybe the radar feedback sign. I think that's the worst thing. We have not gotten to the speed hump portion because even the residents will see the success of it and really not necessarily want a speed hump because they're having to drive over it, too. So, it's it's worked out very well. It's one of the more success. We haven't used speed speed. The task force hasn't recommended speed humps yet, but just so everybody so that we're on the same page, we're talking about um the kind of traffic calming device they have. We don't have them in Cathedral City, but in Palm Springs on Cerritos, it's a half street next to the Stater Brothers Center on the east side east side. Um, and that that's what we're talking about, but we haven't gotten to that level yet. That's that's correct. Okay. With that, um, it's not a public hearing, but are there any members of the public that would like to comment on this? And if there are none, then I will close the comment period. Um if Commissioner McFale, if you think this is a important thing to recommend to council about that particular segment, I don't feel qualified to vote yes or no. I'm in the same boat as a resident if you feel that should be looked at. The idea that oh, it's been like that for a long time doesn't always sit well with me. But if you think that it's a concern of the neighborhood or there's unnecessary ticketing or that type of thing that's happening, as a commissioner, I'm going to encourage you or a resident to maybe make a motion, make a statement. I don't know exactly the right language to actually put it out to city council. Please take a look at this particular section. I I kind of

feel the same as you in the sense of not being qualified, being one person, and being a resident. This is not my area of expertise. And obviously this is a very comprehensive study that's been done and I don't want to be Pandora's box where we pick something apart but personal experience plus people that I know in the neighborhood which may not be the majority of the neighborhoods I don't know but it does strike me as Commissioner Lee said you know that Cathedral Canyon from like dinosaur on it's a weird mishmash of different speed limits uh as you approach the the 111 and this seems a particularly strange level to me. So, if we can transmit to city council some message saying, "Would you like to look at the segment again and return it to where it was?" I would be okay in saying that if anyone else wants to. I'll second it. So, councelor Well, hold on. Hold on. So, we don't have a motion on the floor yet. Um, so, um, can we take a straw vote as to whether there's support for this? Well, what's even the right language, which is why what I was going to ask, what's the right language? First, we'll see if there's support to make the recommendation, if we could do a straw vote for that, and then if there is, then we'll get the right language. Yeah, I have a couple options for you. So, you could include it formally as part of your motion to just maybe have staff include that, you know, consideration in the staff report. you know, yes, you agree generally with the findings of the speed survey, but planning commission did want to make this one note of a separate because obviously it's not included in the exact changes, but through the survey, you're saying, you know, this particular road is just something that planning commission would like city council to reconsider. Um, or you could, you know, discuss it previously and then make a formal

recommendation as well. So you can include it and say yes, we um recommend that staff take the findings of the engineering and traffic study. Um however, you know, city council to reconsider. And then if you do it that way, then if you support the whole thing except for that, you have to vote no. No, it would just be because this is just a recommendation. So staff is looking for um feedback, right? So these are the findings of the engineering and traffic study and so whether you agree with how they are written that is up for the commission and that's really what we're looking for. Could we send it forward? I mean I'm not comfortable with us approving it officially with that recommendation. So could we send it as a unofficial recommendation as a minute motion that the council consider that? Correct. So go ahead. Can I interject here? Um, the speed surveys and how it's done and why it's done is to eliminate it's supposed to be based on data. It's supposed to eliminate uh if you do if you make this motion as a body, that's a good recommendation. If you make this motion based on one person's feeling, uh there's a kind of a challenge there and you guys got to make you you as a commission's got to make that decision because all the things that we do, putting red curbs up, we're limited. Putting a traffic signal up, we got to warrant it. putting a stop sign. It eliminates uh and it's actually in the code. It eliminates political andor p uh um what do they call it? Uh

persuasion to do something just because it feels good and it looks good. We got to be able to defend it. So if you make your motion, make it as in unison or I can't say it has to be unanimous but u but then that forces us if we don't agree with the amendment to vote no. So that's why that secondary recommendation is there that staff can include you know there was discussion at planning commissioner door number two this specific site um you know and just to mention preferences the one that the attorney's just mentioning that it we can include that in the staff report. Yes. So it's just one of the things that we can include as far as background. You know, whenever we take any of your recommendations to city council, if there is a discussion like the one that we are having, we do lay that out in a staff report indicating that there was discussion between the commissioners. Um you know, they didn't feel the need to make a formal motion, but they did discuss the need to maybe possibly review a specific for that also. So your motion would still stay the same as what you see in your staff report recommendation, but we will include um so we want to make sure that the minutes notate that there was a discussion on this item. Correct. So that the city council sees that and other than that then so there'll be a minute there'll be something in the minutes. And does anybody would anybody like to make a motion? Well to clarify are there just to understand this further are there two motions that happening? one to approve the minutes of the R and the other one do we take a vote on the recommendation or is that just motion just goes in there that there was discussion and the motion to approve the report is our official recommendation but the minutes are going to reflect that there was discussion which is

accurate okay and the minute motion would include the 85 percentile and that there's actually precedent to for where this is coming from and that's what we would include in the staff Great. Wait, let's take a step back. So, the the motion's going to include a 5 percentile. What? No. No. We spoke about how the speed limits are determined. One of the ways they're determined is through the 85 percentile. Okay. Yes. Yeah. That's the minute motion. Okay. Yes. Does any would anybody like to make a motion on this? Um I'll move that um the planning commission recommend the findings of the engineering traffic survey for adoption by the city council. Second. Oh, well, it's you. I did not second. Um I believe Commissioner McFale did. That's fine. It still says that I seconded it. You just need to vote. Just vote for it. I still got to click I. Amen. There we go. All right. Let the record show that a motion was made by member Lee and seconded by member chairman Malikov and that the motion there was one abstension. The motion passes 40. But you'll change the official minutes to reflect that Commissioner McFale was the seconder.

I I don't mind if you're the seconder unless you don't want to be the second. Well, I don't want it to reflect something that didn't happen. Go ahead and make that correction for me and I'll I will get that. I'm sorry. Could you make a um a verbal correction for me so that I can get that in the record? I I couldn't hear you. Could you make the verbal correction for me so I can get that in the record? Well, I'd request that you the minutes reflect who the correct seconder was, which is Commissioner McFale. Let me look back at that. All right, I'll have to go and check that. Okay, thank you. All right, commissioners reports. Um, I will um usually don't do this, but I I I think I'll start. Um, first I wanted to welcome my brother and his wife, Lena. here from Houston, Texas. Um they're visiting and I wanted to give them um an official Cathedral City welcome. Um they've sat through this hearing and I I appreciate them doing that. Um the second comment I have is that we all went to the study session for the zoning steering committee. It was very interesting and I I hope that we have more of those to make sure that that we stay on the same page. But I think that the thing that was very interesting is that, you know, we're going to be more in the weeds as to, you know, the internal workings of the zoning ordinance and they're more looking at it from a 10,000 square foot level. And but the message that they sent loud and clear, which I don't disagree with, I don't think any of us

do, is they want us to streamline the process and make it easier for people to get projects through, which I think we can do. But, you know, the design issues and, you know, how the parking lot works and things like that, that's going to be up to us. I don't know that they're all that interested in that kind of minutia, but that's our job. So, so that's my comment and um I hope that we do have more of those meetings because they were very interesting. Um, Commissioner McFale, uh, I have a couple of small things um that I've let staff be aware of. Uh, one is just to thank them for all the uh transparent information they're putting out on the district website. For example, the uh GIS development dashboard. And I'm I'm bringing the dashboard up in particular because I had a situation. This is what happens when you're in a board like this or a commission. People will ask you questions and I got asked about a particular development that um is on Macallum Way just the west of Landau. I onto the uh development dashboard and it's actually not one of the projects that is defined on it but you you can very clearly see the 14 parcels and they were asking do you know anything about this is going to happen and there's no information about that particular one and there's actually um diggers there who are disturbing the earth. So um on the regular dashboard a particular development will have a couple of stages to it. we'll say under review, project approved, under construction, and completed. And I'm wondering if there's other milestones or notifications that the city gets about the progress of particular developments that can maybe be added in here so that we don't suddenly go from it's approved. Oh, it's completed. That people have an idea that something's maybe is is actually happening or it's not happening or if there's any other milestones that

perhaps we could add to the dashboard for more information. So, that was one comment if there's something that we can add there. Uh the second one is to do with um I sent an article to um planning staff uh from the LA Times uh talking about the Coachella Valley and various uh efforts that are being made to improve the supply of affordable housing and it it really focused on uh a particular organization called Lift to Rise and what they have done in the Coachell Coachella Valley and I'm sure that's one of the um organizations we were probably in touch with. But it kind of made me think about um our role in the h housing supply and what what comes to us and what doesn't come to us. I'm still kind of feeling my way around that. And I' I'd maybe be interested in the future for a presentation on affordable housing, particularly the barriers that the city faces trying to get affordable houses housing developments off the ground. financing organizations like Lift to Rise. Is our zoning code an impediment to getting affordable housing in the city? So, I'm kind of interested maybe some general discussion FYI about affordable housing in our city. Maybe the National Core and or Lift to Rise. See, Lift to Rise doesn't actually build anything. National CPS builds things. um and they've built three things in the city. But if I can add to what you're saying is maybe they could come and do a presentation in the near future as to how you know they go about getting the um workforce housing and any of the obstacles that they have. And if we

could do that before the zoning steering committee completes its work, then we can take that forward. I'll I'll that's the sort of thing. Yeah. And particularly from our staff as well that they have experience on the ground of you know because we do the housing element and we we're meant to be pushing forward with affordable housing and what what barriers do they see as well as uh other organizations as well. what we can do plus staff's interpretations would be very helpful of what our role is and is and is not well not just the zoning steering committee because whatever we recommend as a committee will come to this commission so that I think that will be very helpful it's a very good suggestion I'm sorry I jumped in No that's okay and that's if if staff have the time and ability to put that on their schedule that might be of interest commissioner me. Um, I just had a quick request and maybe it's not necessary. I try to read all the city council agendas when they get posted. Um, but somehow I always miss um when things that we've passed here get heard by the city council. And I don't know if that's because sometimes they're non-public hearings or but I always like there's been occasions where I thought, oh, I want to go to that council meeting in case in case they have discussion and I can provide context in a public comment about what we discussed here and why we, you know, but I never see them and I don't know if that's just cuz I'm those happen to be the ones that I didn't read. So I guess I was just wondering with like for this particular one about the the noticing I would really like to make sure I'm at that meeting. So, is there any way that you guys could just even if it's just a hey, this thing you guys passed is on next? Yes. Yes, we could do that. Okay. Thank you,

Commissioner Lee. Um, yeah, I Well, let me just follow up on on the chair's comments about our joint meeting. Um, so for many years now, I've been suggesting that we do hold those joint sessions. Um the the one of the roles of the planning commission is to advise. Um advising the city council is impossible if we never meet with them and have no communication with them. And um in January at this the at the um planning meeting that the council held um council member Carnivali um said you know he would like to see some regular meetings with uh joint meetings with the city council and the planning commission to get feedback. And at our joint meeting, um, the mayor at the end of the close of the meeting said how much she'd enjoyed the session and would like to see more of them. And I I have never understood why there seems to be resistance to actually scheduling those meetings. Um but um I think that we should be looking at um probably a six monthly meeting um scheduled as a joint session where we can you know and if there's nothing to talk about we could cancel a meeting but um where we could give feedback because we we hear a lot of things here that the city council just isn't going to hear. They're not going to sit and watch all our meetings much as we would like them to. um and and they read the minutes, but that's not going to give them a clear understanding of some of the things that come up in our discussions. So, I hope that we can encourage the the city manager and staff to organize that as a

regular session as the mayor suggested. Um in terms of lift, by the way, I know that um Mayor Ross has done quite a lot of work with lift. You might want to talk to her about her experience with it, too. Thank you, Mr. Badard. Yeah, I wanted to pick back piggyback on a couple things. So, it I like the synchronicity um about affordable housing and building and different things of that sort. So, I had I know I brought this up many times. I don't know the right language or how to to request it or direct it. I have no idea. And um there's an article that I really wanted to send you guys and I didn't have all your emails. It was actually a new a show. It was a a news program that was done on all the housing that was lost in Los Angeles and how in LA the city is actively looking for other forms of housing beyond traditional stick frame, right? Uh housing that could handle tornadoes and and wind issues and fire issues and stuff of that. And we kind of have this particular article was done on an organization that's not far from us called Cal Earth which was started by an architect that was hired by NASA to figure out housing on Mars. And they created a he created a really cool form called Super Adobe. And there was a whole article whole news show that was dedicated to people in the Palisades who are now considering building these Super Adobe type of homes. A one-bedroom, one bath super adobe of 800 square feet cost $3,500. That's literally how much the house costs to build. And affordability on housing and stuff of that sort is an issue. And yet I wonder if there's a way to direct staff to look into these forms of housing and especially at this point

where we are in this zoning thing and how do we find out about these forms of housing that are out there, the super derby, the um hey hay bail houses. I know there's a hay bail house out here in the desert that's remarkable and it's a showhouse. Um how do we find that information out? How can we get more of it presented to the committee so it's more of an option and seen or understood by people of what it could be, what it could look like, and what it could cost? Uh, do I need to make a formal directive to staff to say, "Hey, is there a way you guys can put together a presentation of housing that of course meets all proper requirements as far as zoning and building and safety and all those types of things, entitlements and stuff like that, or do we just go along with the housing that we have?" vets are I mean I was going to say you could ask them to pass that information on to the consultants who are working on the development code update and ask that they include based on their experience in other cities other options for housing that I know I just want to know formal process because I brought it up many many times for the last year even before I was on the commission but it's kind of a passion of mine but how do I engage now staff to actually well we have the list And if if you're officially asking to look at housing alternatives there there's isn't there the list that we have? Yes, that's something that the current list is still stick frame housing that I'm aware of. So so a couple things. One, you can request to put this on a future agenda. We have a work plan for the planning commission and that is something that I was going to raise in my comments as well. It's working. It's working really well. we have a few more items. We'll add housing to that and we can add this item too. My

my caution is is simply where this fits and if this is chapter 9 or if this is building code. Um so I think as we're looking at the zoning code update, you know, I think it is important to look at the development standards that we have in residential zone districts and whether they permit a range of housing types. Uh I I would say right now if we look at our zoning code, it doesn't say stick frame only or it doesn't talk about construction types at all. That that's a building code item. So So Jeremy Fry was here previously to talk to you about our building code. We are entering a new building code cycle. We will be considering the 2025 building code. So, this may be a question that is appropriate for the planning commission, but but it may be less under the umbrella of chapter 9 and the zoning code. It may be more appropriately directed to our chief building official, the 2025 California building codes, and what we need to do to ensure that we are open to a range of building types. We can come back though and present more information to the planning commission on that. I I I would absolutely adore that just because one of the constant it's kind of like the we talked about the shade structures. One of the constants request is that we need shade structures. We need shade structures. How can we support that? And one of the constant mantras I hear in the community and even here on staff and council is we need more affordable housing. And when there are ways to actually do it that are truly feasible and being done right now, it would be awesome. And I would love to participate maybe finding some of those organizations or those builders or people that could do those presentations or something of that sort to support that. But it just seems like right now with what's happening, it could be a very valuable time to start. Maybe it's another zoning code update or building update or whatever it is. My thought,

and I don't want to go too far in the discussion on this, my thought is it doesn't fit in the zoning code, but it may fit in the building code. Um, let's ideate on that and and we can bring this back. I I would just add um something that I brought up with you recently was um the ability to be fully off-rid within the city and um that might dovetail in with that as well. the the in terms of building code. We'll take a look at that, too. With that, um, madame city attorney, do we have any comments? No comments tonight. Thank you. And are there any staff comments, including when our next meeting is? So, you have a future agenda list in your packet. Uh, this includes some items that are driven by the staff or applicant. And then there are also a couple of items in here that are generated by the commission. Uh so you will have an economic development update coming soon from Eric Besserell and we'll also invite uh Eric uh to provide a housing update and we'll see if there's a partner organization, an allied organization that we want to bring in as well. But uh we'll do a housing update for the commission too. So the first meeting in June, there will be a meeting. Yes, we have a meeting on June 4th. And then beyond that, we're also responding to the commission on the cottage food industry and Mikos. So we will be bringing that uh forward here. Thank you and we appreciate all the hard work that you put into staff puts into everything including um Dom and um Manny and it's an incredible staff. They're all doing exceptional work. I was trying to remember the um I was trying to remember the guy at the counter's name and I couldn't skip. Skip. That's wonderful. They're wonderful staff. They're doing great work. But they you know, thank you for all that you do. Um with that, um Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mr. Chairman, may I make also a couple of announcements? I apologize for interrupting. Um I did

want to make a couple of announcements with regard to the development code update. So, we had our bi-weekly call yesterday, and they did set out a preliminary schedule for the rest of this calendar year. We will have two planning commission work sessions to talk about the draft development code. The first one is scheduled for October 15th. The second one is scheduled for December 17th. I know that's getting close to Christmas, but hopefully you will be here for those meetings. Whether we have an agenda item uh other than this, we don't know, but we expect those meetings to um be very ve be very active and probably take an entire evening. Um so please plan to attend those if you are able to. Then I also wanted to make the announcement uh just as a reminder, tomorrow morning is the Espironza Park uh grand opening or ribbon cutting ceremony. that is from 900 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Myself and Eric Bestro will be there um trying to gather feedback from our kids. We've got some crayons and chalk and good stuff. So, we'll send them home with some prizes and some sugar. Um and hopefully we'll get some good feedback from our young people. Um I also wanted to note that the steering committee is comprised of six meetings in total and that um one of the other things I wanted to add, I know you mentioned Lift to Rise. Lift Horizon was invited and did participate as a stakeholder on our stakeholder interviews. So they did give give feedback and just to be clear about that um what staff did is gathered a list of about 25 people and gave 25 contacts and information to the consultant team. Consultant team reached out to them and let us know who responded and who didn't respond but did not share any of that feedback with us. So they shared it in general and you heard that at the joint session but they haven't shared that with us directly. So I just wanted to clarify that. If you could make sure Danielle and I get the the next online meetings for the task force um so that we can have it on our schedules. We'll

we'll certainly do that as soon as those are scheduled. Thank you. Thank you. With that um at 7:38 I will adjourn this meeting. I can't touch it.