Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

. Thank you. I want to call recording in progress. Thank you. I want to call to order the. Tuesday, February 24th, 2026 regular meeting of the Palm Springs Planning Commission. I would like to open the meeting tonight in honor of Edward Robertson, who? And asked the commission just to stand and give him a round of applause. This is Edward's last meeting with us. He has served us for as many years as I've been here, and I've been here way too long. And I don't know when Edward started, but he's done a great job and we really, really appreciate his service. We wish him the absolute best. And we wish you weren't leaving. So if you would join me. Okay. Can we get a roll call, please? Chair Womack here. Vice chair Lane. Yes. Commissioner Rottman here. Commissioner Miller, present. Commissioner. Murphy. Present. Commissioner. Baker here. Commissioner Morrell here. And Alternate Hernandez is excused. Can I have a report on the posting of the agenda, please? Yes. Good evening, Madam Chair. The agenda was available for public access on the exterior bulletin board here at City Hall, as well as online by 9 p.m. on Thursday, February 19th. In accordance with the city's policies and procedures. The next item is the acceptance of the agenda and just one item to note the second public. Actually the first public hearing, which is the item I am recused on. And Lori Elaine will be

chairing that portion of the meeting. And I just wanted to say a note on the recusal. I live in Massena. I would normally I live more than a mile away, which is one of the standards, more than 500 yards, I believe. But this also involves a potential planned development change. And if there is a change in the in the PD, it does affect my ownership interests and therefore I will be leaving the room when that. And it's the first item when it comes up with that. I would like a motion to accept the agenda. So moved. Second, all in favor? Aye. Okay, the next item before us is public comment. This time is set aside for members of the public to address the Planning Commission on consent, calendar and other agenda items and other items that are in our subject matter jurisdiction. Please note we can't take action on an item if it isn't properly posted. Members of the public who would like to comment on consent or new business items are directed to comment under this portion of the agenda. If you're here for the first public hearing, which is Ascena, you can comment now or at that time. And generally what I would say is, although you're we generally don't aren't required to take testimony on new business items. If you're here for item four, you can comment now in the public hearing, or you can comment at the time that the item comes before us. Are there members of the public who would like to testify? On? We

do have two speakers here who wish to speak on item four A. And again, Garth Gilpin or Deborah Havel. If you'd like to speak now, you may or you can speak following the staff presentation. Okay. We'll start with Deborah Havel. It's easo tell us apart. Hello and thank you. And thank you for volunteering to be on this commission. I'm here today to amplify a letter you received from the Palm Springs Modern Committee, and also make the concerns of the Palm Springs Architectural Alliance verbally. This is regarding the new building that will replace the bombed out building for the reproductive center. We're thrilled that a new building is being built. We wish it were more modern design in keeping with the direction Palm Springs architecture is going past World War two instead of pre World War two. It's an important building. It's an important statement of community support for this business. And this doctor who is courageously standing up to terrorism. We would love to help determine the design of the building so that it's a building we can be proud of for the next 50 or 60 years. Our concerns are that Palm Springs looks forward, not backward. Thank you. Our next speaker is Garth Gilpin. Good evening. I'm a full time nearby resident of the new proposed building. I'm married to a doctor. I have a brother in law who's a doctor. Been my family over 50 years. I was

in residence last May when the bombing occurred four blocks from my my home. I'm not opposed to the building. I am opposed to the building of the seven foot fence with a guard house entrance. It is on the major artery into the city, Palm Canyon Drive, and would look like a fort, as a guard would be checking people into the facility, it could cause traffic lines on both Palm Canyon and Indian Canyon. The Desert Sun on Sunday said that the addition of a fence is a testament to the potential damages faced by medical professionals. I find that offensive by my wife and brother in law would. Don't consider that to be a situation if the in vitro business is that dangerous, it should probably be relocated to a commercial area in town. I do not consider it to be a dangerous profession. I contend it is not a dangerous profession and the fence guard house should be eliminated as it is unnecessary and a potential daily hazard to the City of Palm Springs and the Palm Canyon Indian Canyon highways. Thank you. We have several speakers here for the public hearing. Madam chair, if you've signed up to speak on the item again, we would typically take comments following the staff presentation, but you are welcome to come up and speak now. If you'd rather speak prior. Okay, madam chair, no further public comments at this time.

Thank you. The public comment period is closed. The next item before us is the consent calendar and is the approval of the minutes of February 10th, 2026. Are there comments on this seeing none. Is there a motion so moved? Second? Can you call the roll please? Commissioner Miller. Yes. Commissioner. Baker. Yes, chair. Yes, vice chair. Alan. Yes, Commissioner. Rothman. Yes, Commissioner. Murphy. Yes. Commissioner. Morrell. Yes. That passes unanimously. The next item before us is public hearing on item two. A, I am recused on this, and Vice Chair Leon will handle it. Item two a public hearing a request by MP2 LLC owner dba Suncal to consider two tentative track maps. Number 39204. And we don't have the other team. I'm sorry. And number 39213 for 75 lots and for 19 lots for future development in planning area one with the within the Encina development located at Clubview Drive and Artisan Way, zone M1P PD 23. Case number CM 2025 0002 and 2025 0003. May we have a

staff report, please? Yes. Madam Vice Chair, before we begin, I'd just like to give some remarks. Given the immense public interest in this project and some of the lengthy history on on Izena and how we've gotten here. First, a reminder that this project has been entitled for many years, being approved by the City Council in 2003, that approval by the City Council contemplated high density residential development of up to 979 units in the resort village, which includes planning areas one and two, and those are. Planning area one is the subject of tonight's discussion. The item before you would not establish new density and does not contemplate new development that has not already been entitled and approved. Instead, it is implementing what has been planned since before the first house was even built in Izena. I'd also clarify that the action before you tonight is for a tentative track map. We are only considering the subdivision of land tonight, not future development, and tonight's discussion should remain limited to the track map that is before you. And that includes considering whether the proposed map complies with applicable regulation, including the zoning code and the prior entitlements for the public's benefit. I would like to clarify that the future development that would occur in these lots that are being created would be the subject of future consideration by the Commission, as each phase comes in for final development plans, and that is the time at which some of the issues that have been raised in the public comments that we've received are more appropriately to be considered by the Planning Commission. In response to concerns about the proposed density, I would again clarify that this portion of Ascena has been contemplated for high density development, and that the city's general plan designates the site as such and requires a minimum of 15 units to the acre, which is typical of multifamily housing. State law also precludes us from permitting lower density housing without first amending the general plan, and state law would require that we offset any lost residential capacity elsewhere in the city. And of course, we have very limited land on which to do

so. So really just making the point that there's a lot of complex history, regulation and state law at play here that really dictate what is happening on these sites. Finally, I'd like to touch on some of the concerns regarding environmental review. The City Council, in its decision in 2003, adopted a mitigated negative declaration under Sequa. As I said that MND analyzed up to 979 residential units in the Resort Village area, including all of the required traffic analysis as proposed, and in combination with existing development in these planning areas, the total number of units would be less than half of what has already been analyzed. Thus, and in accordance with the rules established under Sequa, no further analysis is required as the conditions have not substantially, substantively changed from what was previously analyzed. The proposed uses and density are within what has been previously approved, and no new or revised mitigation measures would be required. Given that lower volumes of traffic are expected from what has previously been studied. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Glenn Maluquer, who's associate planner who has been working on this project, and he'll walk you through more of the project details. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. So to talk about the past entitlements for the project. So this is resort village planning areas one and two. The intended uses are for mixed resort and residential environment consisting of hotels, condominiums, apartments and townhouses. Also would include parking, restaurants, retail, commercial and other office uses. These uses are consistent with the R4 zoning, providing the development for large scale hotel complexes and multi-family dwellings. The general plan requires 15.1 up to 30 dwelling units per acre and per sequa. The project, as entitled, contemplated a high density resort village within PA one and two, consisting of a combination of hotel

residential units, up to 979 units as presented tonight. The resulting unit count would be 417 units. Within the resort village. There are no substantial changes to the project beyond what was initially entitled, and studies as the primary points of ingress and that were analyzed initially, have been constructed and are operational, and there are no substantive changes to the surrounding road network beyond the conditions analyzed originally. The original entitlements allow the proposed uses, and the development proposed is consistent with the original entitlement. Staff has concluded that the project, as proposed, would not result in new or more significant effects than were originally analyzed in the MND. Additionally, there is no new information that shows the project will have new or more severe significant impacts than disclosed in the MND, or that any new or different mitigation measures are required. As anticipated, traffic will be less than what was previously analyzed and disclosed. Given the reduction of the overall unit count. So the request for you tonight is to track maps. The larger one is 94 single family lots, and the smaller one is 19 single family lots. And I'll have a map here in just a second showing you where these are. Staff is requesting that a master plan for PA one for future development be part of this approval. This will require 59 single family lots and a 150 unit multifamily residential. This will result in the density requirement of over 15, which would be 16.8 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the high density

residential general plan. So by tying the master plan, the PA one Master Plan, with the approval of these two track maps, it meets the density requirements. In looking at the overall site. This is at the corner of Vista Chino and Sunrise. I'm sorry, Vista Vista Chino and North Gene Autry Trail and it is graded and vacant, showing the access points along Artesian Way and then off of Club Drive. The general plan, as I mentioned, is high density residential, requiring 15 dwelling units per acre. And that's for all of the site. That's before you tonight. The first track map, 39 204 is 75 lots. And this is a proposed layout of what the track could look like. And then the 19 lots for 39 213 off of Artesian Way, which is the south part of PA one. This is an overall master plan showing the density. So the first track map is here in the tan color. The second one is to the bottom and in the center of the project is where potentially 59 more units could be built. And then the 150 apartment complex could be built. Access from the multifamily would be off of this street here onto artesian access points could be across from the existing streets were no less being built currently. And once again, there is no proposal for these. This development right now, this is just to propose the two track maps and then Tai pa one master

plan to the approval. So this is a series of slides showing the proposed lots for the 75 and the 19, the different sizes they are meant to be caught homes, meaning that there are a little bit different than what is currently in Acena. They have a main driveway that would go into either attached or detached homes, with garages on the first floor. This is more of a close up view of how street circulation could occur within the track map. And also along Artesian Way, how the layout could possibly occur. They provided an illustrative drawing showing how the homes would fit on these lots. They are small lots. They're 50 or 45ft wide. And also along Artesian Way along the south track map. So our recommendation is to approve subject to conditions, including planning. Number three, provide that the PD be amended to include the PA one master plan. There are findings in your staff report that include that the general density with PA one will meet the density requirement of 16.8 dwelling units per acre. It's consistent with the approved Plan Development district that's suitable for development. The PA one master plan can accommodate required density. The Sequa is approved by the City Council remains intact. There's no adverse effect to public welfare, health and safety and that the subdivision will not conflict with any easements. So, Vice Chair, that concludes my report. And the applicant is here.

Thank you. We'll start with the commissioners and see if you have any questions for staff. Commissioner Morrell yeah, I had a question, Glenn. And maybe it's not the right meeting. I'm not sure that this is the time when we would discuss it, but where is the nearest recreation area to these, to where these homes are going to be? Yeah, because this is a track map we're not looking at at the above ground development. So that would be a conversation through the final development plan okay. And. I just wondered if any consideration was given to creating duplexes or doing something like that with some of these lots to free up some space, preferably for open space. Right. So these are for the track maps for just the lots themselves. It's not for the the individual lots within the track that will come at a later time. So this is a proposal as showing the lots that could be. But it's not exactly where it may end up. Right? Okay. Commissioner Baker, hi. Do PD PDS plan developments expire? If they do not? So they are a legislative action which and this one is vested because it's been developed. So no, it would have to be affirmatively revoked. But in this case it's under active development. And secondly, are there ever any triggers that would cause PD to have to be reevaluated. Right. So I think if they were to come in and this, you know, is an old PD, it really

depends on how the PD is done. So in this case, this plan in our opinion complies with the preliminary that had already been approved in 2003. And, you know, if they were to come in with a completely different plan, looking at different uses or different densities that were contemplated in the original PD, then we would have to look at an amendment to it. But in this case, the way that the PD was structured and written in 2003, it actually gave quite a bit of latitude for this kind of flexibility, knowing it was a long term master plan. And so this does comply with the PD as written at that time. Commissioner Murphy, I have a question about I guess it's a hypothetical, since a lot of the comments related to increased traffic in the area, which is not part of our decision today, I understand that. I guess my question is in the future, when lots three and four are coming in front of us for development at that time, would it be appropriate to do a traffic study? We really don't have much ability to require additional traffic study, because one has been done and accepted by the city council as part of the process. So the the way that we would be able to reopen that or require it is if we believed that conditions had changed so significantly since that study that it warranted additional evaluation. And I, I know that it was a long time ago, but but the conditions in this area, the way that SQL is written and the way that traffic studies work have not changed such that it would trigger further, who would do that analysis, the future, would the planning department. It was done by by the city contracted consultants to undertake that work on behalf of the city. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Miller. So my

question really centers on the master plan and Luts. Lot three. Lot three is being planned, at least in the master plan. I know it's not really in front of us for a specific lots at a much lower density than the two track maps that we have in front of us tonight, typically at a intersection of major arterials, you don't put the low the some of the lowest density housing at that intersection. It would be the reverse. So I'm wondering if any dialog was made with the developer about that. I understand the goal of the city is to make sure they've indicated that they're meeting a minimum density that was prescribed in the 2003 approval, but I'm questioning the validity of the lower density single family at the busiest intersection. That's a good point. We've had multiple months discussing how this density would be achieved and and part of the requirements. And this is what the applicant has provided to us and thinks that it is a marketable product. Yeah. I would add that we could perhaps ask the applicant in your time with them to elaborate on their thinking and how they've arrived here. As Glen has indicated, we've had extensive conversations with them. I would also say that, you know, should the Commission wish there's additional conversation that can happen as we work through that PD amendment. Commissioner Rotman yeah, so on page eight of the staff report, I'm sorry, page four of the staff report, it says the regulations for the Resort village provide permitted

uses consistent with R4 dot, dot, dot dot. The PD does allow limited single family development subject to the standards of R-2 zone. My question is about the word limited, given that what's being proposed here is primarily single family. Not. This is for the master plan as well. So how do how do we apply that? So there's a lot of information in the PD. And again it's quite old. And it did speak to an upward limit of how many single family homes would be permitted in the area. Unfortunately I don't know remember off the top of my head, but this is within what had been envisioned at the time in the original PD, so it's not exceeding the number of single family homes that were envisioned in PA one and two, in combination with the existing single family homes that have already been built or are being built. So we're comfortable that this is consistent with the PD. Okay, I yeah, I'll comment later, but and then just to clarify, the city uses to to to determine density. They use net density versus gross density. So that's how we're getting close to 15 units of the acre. Is that right. Right. We're at 16.8. Yeah. Overall. But yeah overall yes. And then let's see here. And then can you tell me. So all the little finger streets are those not streets. Because that doesn't meet the 26ft wide doesn't meet the minimum, you know, residential street. Residential lane is what it's called. So how do

we get which is 28ft wide. So how do we get by accepting a 26 foot wide street when you've got all these garages coming off of it. Right. So in this slide, this is an illustrative drawing of what it could look like inside. We're not approving this approved this development. Right now we're only approving the outer track map. It would have to meet the standards. So you're saying that the internal layout of that of lots one and two will not necessarily look like that, that well, they we don't have a proposal yet. For what? A formal proposal for what the internal lot lines and streets will look like at this time. This is just the track map which is the outer lots, not the internal lots that will come at another time. That's a that's a great outline. The grayed out, the lighter gray lot lines that you're seeing here are are illustrative effectively. So the black lines are what you are proposing approving. Correct. Can I just add one more thing. So just so the Commission is aware of this, there are two specific conditions for approval. One from the engineering department and the other is from the fire department. They have to be they have to meet those specific dimensions that are required. So when that time comes, all those will be analyzed and that will be presented to you when the final plans are presented to you. So there are specific conditions that must be met on the road with in the entire senior development. So like what Glenn is trying to explain to you is that this is just

to show you what the the layout is going to look like. These do not include the specific road width at this point, but there are specific conditions that must be met in terms of the circulation of roadways in this development. So will we be reviewing a parcel map then at some time in the future? This is for these two parcels. Can you highlight them? Yeah. This one and this one. Yes. Correct. So the so the internal layout will come back to us at some point. You will see it again during the final development plan. But what I'm trying to say is that there will be consistent the road widths on those two tracks will be consistent with the conditions of approval, both from the engineering and fire departments. I'm sorry, Commissioner Rottman, I confuse things. You are approving the lots, but. But what Edward is saying is you will. It's being conditioned to ensure that it meets all of the the road width and other requirements as they move into development plans. So it will come back to you as a final development plan. With those issues resolved. Okay. Because well, I can get into discussion later, but all right. Yeah, but to be more specific in your in the conditions of approval before you, if you look at ING 13 and 14, the specific dimensions for the internal road widths are provided. There they are 2020 six feet and 24ft. So if you look at condition of approval ING and that's from the engineering department. So they are not 28. Okay. ING 13 and 14.

Right. And I don't think that the the roads that lead to the court homes are considered streets. They're not. Okay. So are there are there standards that by which they need to meet. And this goes into the proposed eight eight foot apron for the garages plus the 26 foot wide. I mean, all of that has an overall impact on the look of this development. And so are there standards that we I mean, it seems like we're and I may be jumping ahead of myself, but if we're, we're we're looking at lots where you're looking for a setback of eight feet from a court. Normally we would see something more closely to ten feet, or if there's a driveway 18 to 20ft. So I'm just trying to grapple with how we're approving this or not approving this. You know what? What you know, what are we actually looking at here? So it's it's a it's a tough to me. It's a tough site plan because what's being proposed is being very compacted. Right. This this is kind of similar to what vibe was done when vibe was developed. There also court streets that go into the garages. So those dimensions will need to be determined when the final plan comes in and the engineering wants to. Good evening Planning Commission Jonathan with engineering. So as was mentioned by Edward, the on site quote unquote private streets are just considered travel ways. They are not full on private streets. There's going to be easements dedicated as necessary for them. And it's sort of going to be treated the same way as with the other development items, where the driveways and whatnot

that go to the travel ways are going to be meeting what's already set, either in the PD back in the 2003 set or as going to be necessary. Just generally speaking. And just to further clarify, you're not approving a site plan, right? You're you're approving the lots and the lots. Comply with the plan development district. The lot size and dimensions comply. So the details of the site planning will need to be sorted out to address the issues that you are raising. Yeah, but tied into that is 75 home sites right. Correct. But but you have but in making your decision the question before you is does it comply with the applicable regulations and the plan development district dictates the lot size and dimensions. And this complies okay. All right. Thank you. Commissioner Miller, you had your hand up again. My question was I think we answered when Edward Glenn said that we are looking at the lots are actually Christopher said, we are looking at the lots in essence, because they're being established as part of this tentative track map. Thank you. Mr. Walker. Could you put up the vesting? Tentative the vesting tentative map, map exhibit? Okay. So as I understand it one more time. So I'll get it. We're looking at these lines only there's no structures on it. There's no curbs, gutters, setbacks anything. This is what we're approving. We're being asked to approve. Yes that's correct okay. And would you show the second one just for reference? Okay. Just so that we all understand what we're being asked to approve. Thank you. But that raises even a bigger question because now we're looking at in the staff report, we're referencing track maps.

This is referencing a parcel map. A parcel map is only for four or fewer lots. A track matte starts at five and more under the subdivision map act. So what is right? It's a track map okay, so this was provided by the applicant and it's incorrect. No, the slide was produced by myself okay. Yes. So so that's referenced incorrectly. Submitted actually shows it as a tentative track map. Okay. Yes. This was a cut from the track map. Okay, a blow up. Okay. I do have a couple of questions if everybody else has had theirs answered okay. Thank you. One of the things that concerns me most is something that I saw a number of people address in letters and emails that we received, and it's one I have on my own only probably the exact opposite of what the the public was concerned about. I would hate for us to continue to just build the gravy, which would be the single family homes, and set aside a parcel for high density, which we really need in the in the city and never get around to building that, or just defer it and defer it and defer it. Is there some way that we could tie at a condition that had a trigger for timing such that we would, that we would not be left with that condition? And I don't know if it might be a condition that we would add to this to the tentative track map,

or if it would be to the. PD that needs to be amended. I may ask our city attorney to jump in here to clarify or disagree with what I'm about to say, but I would suspect that the decision on the tentative track map, that would be a difficult condition to tie to this, but that that would be more appropriately discussed during the PD amendment process, because that's where we're really dealing with the development and phasing. I don't know, City Attorney Williams, if if you have anything to add to that. Good evening, commissioners and staff. I don't I think that is the right analysis and the best timing to put that forward. Okay. Thank you. One of the other things that was noted in some of our correspondence and I was looking at, is that the PD modification happens after this. And technically it can be done at a staff level without coming back to the planning Commission. I'm wondering if we could add, when the time comes to it, direction to staff or some way to make sure that this does get deferred to the commission and is not handled strictly in house, because it appears that we have a lot of people interested in this, a lot of public that would be interested in addressing it as well. Yeah. So the code, the change that is being contemplated, the code would define as a minor amendment to the PD, which does give me the ability to approve that. But the code also allows the commission to call up any of my decisions for those decisions to be elevated to the commission. So if that is the Commission's direction tonight, that is

certainly within your purview and scope. Okay. And I urge my fellow commissioners to note that we can call up any of the directors decisions. I'd like to correct the record. Okay. Thank you. Let's see. Watch out. Chris. Okay. And one of the other I believe that Mr. Malesker addressed this in his presentation, but I just want to be extra clear, because it seemed that we had a whole lot of correspondence from people who strongly object to apartments in their neighborhood or in the development. I don't necessarily share that concern, but be that as it may, there is nothing that we are proving that addresses the type of ownership for this. That high density lot could in the future be townhomes or condos or apartments or timeshare for that matter. Is that correct? Yes, they could be condominiums, but it's the density. You really couldn't do townhouses at that density. It's more of a stacked, multi-level, okay, multiple building product. So so there's nothing addressed that we would be approving tonight other than the density at the number of units, what we're required to do. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I think the rest of my questions have been answered. Excuse me, Mr. Miller. Has one more came up came up again with your discussion. So back to my original point. We are forcing a lot four to be the end. We're kicking the can down the road in density. And it brings up

my point again is lot three at the intersection of Vista Chino and Gene Autry should not be at ten units to an acre. You're forcing that last lot to be at 25 units to an acre, which. Pigeonholes a certain development type that we're hearing from neighbors is going to be objected to and is objected to. So I don't understand why we're not pushing lot three to be slightly more dense than ten per acre. We've got single family lots. Presumably at 14 they'll be duets perhaps, or zero lot line or what, but they're essentially single family units at 4 units to an acre, and we're leaving ten units to an acre here for lot three, which pushes the major density to what's shown as impeach here at 25 units an acre. That is wrong in my view, Mr. Miller, we're asking questions. If there's a question for staff. Otherwise. Thank you. I apologize for digressing into comments, Commissioner Morrell. Yeah, it's actually further to the point you're making about the density. There's a quote in here from the PD that says that it allows limited single family development, subject to the standards of intertidal zone, but it does reference limited. And right now that's all we have is single family homes. Well, my question is, is could we somehow get the developer

on board with building that different type of unit? Right. So that would in the applicant's presentation, I'm sure they will address where how we've gotten to this point. Any other commissioners have questions for staff seeing none I'll close. I'll open the public hearing and invite the applicant to come forward and present to us information that you think we need to have, or information that responds to the conversation. We've heard you have ten minutes, after which we'll allow the public to speak, and you will have an opportunity to come back and respond to the concerns raised at that time. Good evening, Mr. Bernheimer. Thank you. Good evening, vice chair and commissioners and staff. My name is Rob Bernheimer, and I represent the applicant. A lot of interesting discussion. I want to just preface this by saying the applicant has significant entitlements to build on this property. With the PD having been passed and the property being developed. So the question really before the commission is, do these two track maps comply with the PD and they do. And the the orange and the peach, whatever you want to call those. That's been the subject of a lot of discussion between the applicant and staff. You may remember a couple months ago there was a plan that came that was submitted to the commission and then withdrawn because we we had some disagreement with staff. We came to agreement on this, and that is the staff didn't want to approve the single family lot residences, unless we could show that the overall density of the remaining project was going to meet the general plan minimum requirements. We know we meet the PD requirements.

We're going to be hundreds of units under the PD maximum unit. And now we're at least 16.5 units to the acre instead of 15 units to the acre, which is what the general plan calls for. But the PD already sets forth that we have the right to build units such as this. And that's what we're moving ahead doing. The idea of saying, can we build one first versus the other first? In my experience, the market drives what you what you can build. And the market's driving us to build the units that you see before us. And I think the city needs. I mean this is still smaller housing. It's going to be more affordable than a lot of the housing in the city. I think it's going to be positive for the city, and we're going to keep the project moving along. I want to respond to some of the comments that that were in the letter submitted by the homeowners association, and I'm sure they're going to get up and talk about this. A lot of it had to do with, how's this project going to annex into their homeowners association and all of those issues. They want a continuance until those issues are resolved. That's really putting the cart before the horse. We can't go sit down with the homeowners association and talk about how we annex property parcels into the homeowners association until we know what the planning commission and the city have approved, until we have that specific approval, we can't go and sit down and do that. And that follows the normal course of things. In fact, most, most normally, in this case, Suncal is not the builder that a developer and they'll sell parcels off to the builders. The builders are sit down and negotiate those annexation agreements for the single family homes. It's not typical that apartments would annex into a homeowner's association. In that case, you'd have to

have an easement agreement and a compensation agreement for use of the the gate and the road and things like that. But oftentimes apartments have their own amenities, and they're not using the amenities of the rest of the community. And if you require the apartments to annex into the association, you were going to make all of those apartments unaffordable for people because those costs will be too astronomical, both in the in complying with Dre requirements, because the there doesn't need to be a homeowner's association for the apartments that will just be run as an apartment complex and the common areas will be maintained by the apartment, but there will need to be compensation to the homeowners. And it's very typical that you negotiate, you know, fair and reasonable costs for what those impacts are going to be. And then those are offset by the apartment complex, not each individual renter or owner of those units in the high density area. So a lot of the concerns that have been raised by the homeowner's association with regards to that are things that have to get addressed down the road. Once we do that. I have our also our application team here, and we can answer any other specific questions, but I wanted to start with that. And Nick Pappas is here. Madam Vice Chair and Commissioners, my name is Nick Pappas. I'm a suncal. I want to address a couple of the comments about why is the higher density single family lots, the smaller lots not on, you know, the major arterial. If you'll notice the geometry of that, of that overall parcel is very odd. And yet the geometry of the,

you know, what's labeled as as lot lot three, it's very symmetrical. So having the smaller size, width and depth of the lots within the tentative track map of the 75 and the 19 allowed us to be able to configure it better so that we could get that higher density there. We we so so that that's the first thing that happens when you sit down and do your land planning is when you have to deal with these odd geometries, you know, it's easier to do so with smaller lots. You know, the, the real issue is and and it's, it's very important is segmentation. You know, the house size and style on the smaller lots is going to be different than the house size and style on the lots of parcel three. And you know, they will appeal to different family units. They won't compete with one another. In fact, neither of those two housing product types will compete with the two toll products that are now approved. One of which is under is is for sale right now, and another one's coming on shortly. You know, they were designed to be compatible, to be similar in land use type, but to appeal to different family units and needs and requirements of those family units. So can I ask answer any other questions for you? We'll ask you to come back up after we have public testimony, and we'll ask questions of you at that time, okay. Thank you. All right. At this time, the public hearing is open. And if you're interested in

speaking and have submitted a card, you will be called forward and given an opportunity to speak your name and make your comments. Madam Vice Chair, our first speaker will be Audrey Joseph, followed by Tim. And as a reminder, each speaker will have three minutes. There's also somebody else. Yes, we'll go to zoom afterwards. Hello, commissioners. My name is Audrey Joseph. I'm a resident of Vermillion in the neighborhood. Our neighborhood has one way in and out for cars. We are located at the Round roundabout, circle off Vista Chino and Clubhouse View. Recently, I was the sixth car in line to make a left turn onto Vista Chino. It took me three full traffic light circles to do so. Vista Chino was clogged with cars and a left turn was difficult without blocking the intersection, especially with the addition of the CV link crosswalk and the short left turn lane at the corner of Vista Chino and Gene Autry. The plan to build 303 units. Which I know is not on your agenda today on the remaining vacant lots, would probably produce 600 cars, two per household, which is normal in Palm Springs. Clubhouse view is the main drag off Vista Chino that serves Vermilion, which has 74 homes, as well as the Azucena Grill, the golf course and a number of homes on the other side. Beyond the golf course, beyond the grill streets like Kellogg and Skyler, and most likely will serve the new development of Richmond American homes. When the roundabout is full of cars, Vermilion's gates,

which open outward as they should, might not be able to open properly. In addition, emergency vehicles like ambulance, fire trucks and police will not be able to access Vermilion, the grill or the golf course as the circle will be clogged with cars. I assume the commission knows that public transportation in Palm Springs is very limited by scope and time of day. Most households rely on cars. We need another way for people to exit. I understand that the artisan gate will help, but I submit to you that that is not enough. This is a tragic accident waiting to happen, especially during season. I've heard that it is too difficult to have another exit on Gene Autry. I am concerned that if someone is injured because the city has not taken enough effort to ensure a better, better traffic solution than the city might be liable. I'm not asking you to review the entitlements, but I am asking for an engineer's review as to the current conditions for safety and access. The safety of your citizens are based on your decisions and is your responsibility. Thank you. Tim Matteus followed by James Dean's. Good evening, chair and commissioners. My name is Tim Mathias. I'm a senior homeowner. I want to focus on three issues that directly affect whether the required findings can be made tonight. First, density reliance. The staff report relies on an overall planning area density of 16.8 dwelling units per acre, which is depends entirely on 150 future apartment units on lot four. Lot four is not before you. Tonight. There is no track map. There will be no track map, there is no

development agreement, and there is no enforceable mechanism securing those 150 units. If those units do not materialize, the HDR minimum relied upon for your findings may not be satisfied. Findings must rest on secured entitlements, not anticipated approvals. If lot four is necessary to support tonight's density finding, then clarity on how it will be secured is relevant tonight. Second, the so-called minor PD amendment. The amendment language is not included. Nobody's seen it. Minor amendments address clerical or site refinements, not density allocation or land use intensity. If this amendment formalizes 150 unit multifamily component that is substantial, it cannot be administratively approved without review. The Commission should review the language prior to approval to make sure that it is indeed minor. Under Public Resources Code. The third issue is Sequa and Sole Access and Life Safety under Public Resources Code and Sequel Guidelines section 15162, the CDB rely on minor on prior MND only if there are no substantial changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance. The CV link was conceived a decade after the 2003 MND, and as part of a 40 mile regional mobility system that did not exist at the time of environmental review. A heavily used at grade CV link crossing has just been installed immediately adjacent to the Vista Chino roundabout. Discharge. There are now two pedestrian movements that must clear before vehicles can exit. During peak periods, traffic backs up from Gene Autry intersection to and beyond the discharge point, sometimes allowing only one vehicle or none to clear per cycle. The Vista Chino Roundabout is a sole ingress and egress for 72 homes. The golf course in the grille. This is not congestion, it is constrained sole access circulation affecting emergency access, adding approximately 600 vehicles to this configuration could not have been analyzed in 2003. If there was

uncertainty about whether the statutory findings can be made under current conditions that must be resolved before approval, we respectfully ask that you grant a continuance so your findings are supported by substantial evidence. I want to briefly clarify something that may be getting conflated. There are two separate phases here. Phase one is whether the Commission can make the required findings tonight, including Sequoia, reliance density compliance and access adequacy. Those are public law determinations that must be supported by substantial evidence before approval. Phase two requires involves private governance matters. Annexation to an assessment structure, rental limitations, and development structure. Those are contractual and document based negotiations between private parties that will affect the feasibility. Sir, your time is up. Thank you. Our next speaker is James Deans, followed by Paul Yeomans. Thank you. A lot of what I was going to say has already been said. So I can simplify what to say. Thank you, commissioners, for letting me speak for a few moments. I'm concerned that we're approving the first lots without addressing lot four as a real estate broker, 41 years full time, I know how clients view buying next to apartments. I know how I will feel living in a community next to apartments. I think it's very clear why they're not developing the lot four. First is because they're not going to have an easy time selling all of the other homes when there's a multi density high rental units of apartments built there. And so obviously they're going to kick that down the road because no one is going to want to buy those houses in my 41 years of experience when they're next to apartments. So at the end of the day, will they ever get built? Who knows? But I don't think we can consider the first plans, the first lots, without having a full understanding of when and if and how the remaining ones will be done. I don't have an issue with the density. I know we need more housing in Palm Springs. It's very necessary. I'm not thrilled with the idea that it's going to be rental property next to our homeowners association, and how that's

going to intermix. I've never had an experience where I've found a community in a master plan community that had both rental apartments, as well as a homeowners association made up of homeowners, and how that mix is going to work managing that, the complexities of that ingress egress, I don't know, that sounds like a nightmare, but from a from a practical standpoint, trying to sell those homes next to apartments that are already built is going to be extremely difficult. Hence why they're not planning on building the apartments until they're all done with the houses and probably will never build on lot for. That's my opinion. Our next speaker is Paul Yeomans. I live in Ascena. My wife and I, we love it. You guys are doing a great job. A lot of hard work here. This is not ready yet. Sorry. I know you guys work really hard. I've got a background on logistics and things like this. This isn't ready. Fire truck safety, traffic. You guys ask beautiful questions. Thank you for your work. You guys did a lot of work. I really appreciate it. I want you guys to make a ton of money. I think one thing that could be considered is swapping. Trying to build 150 apartments there and give some a deal to build some apartments and sell it to somebody like C.w.s. There's a million multifamily companies in America. There's about 100 of them that have 80,000 or more units. Am I correct, sir? Could you and I think. Will you please speak to the commission? Sir, will you please speak to the commission? Oh, to the commission. So thank you. Please don't greenlight this until further things are done. Some of these lanes with fire trucks. People are going to park in the street. Access and the liability to the city. It's

just not ready to go yet. I think cooperatively working with this team, that team and this team and the homeowners will get them what they need quicker. But sometimes it's better to pause and do the diligence now than proceed ahead. I just got finished with the Super Bowl and the logistics. They're getting ready for the Mexico MLB games, the NFL draft, and I've done 30 World Series, so I know complex plans. But in my humble opinion, you're as as beautiful questions. They should be answered before anything else goes forward. Hopefully you'll get your stuff quick and everything better, but I think it's not ready to go. That's my amateur opinion. Thank you. We have one online speaker, Lori Poole. You have three minutes. You can unmute yourself. Good evening. Thank you for here. I can I guess there's no camera option. So I'm Lori Poole I am legal counsel for the Athena Community Association, the master Association and a lot of the comments that were made. I just do want to reiterate from the association standpoint, their concern with what's before you tonight. Certainly the the life safety issues with the increased traffic and the and the logistics of the traffic circle, given the changed circumstances since it was the traffic study was originally performed. Suncal referenced that talking to the association and talking about, well, lot four, it's kind of putting the cart before the horse, but we would submit that how lot four is going to be treated is material to approving these two track maps that are before you tonight. This is the first. I've heard

that if they are developed as apartments, they won't be annexed into Athena. And there are a lot of logistical issues from, from a legal standpoint with regarding if they were to be annexed into Athena as apartments, how that works. There's nothing in the current governing documents that addresses that, and there are rental restrictions in place. So the other point I really would like the commission to consider is, and it has been raised tonight, is that the PD amendment, which staff is saying is minor, as far as I'm I'm aware nobody has seen it. So it's, you know, to not have the public or the commission see what the amendment is, to really determine whether it is a minor amendment that can be approved at the staff level. We don't know what we're talking about here. So I would really encourage the commission to ask to take the steps necessary so that the Commission can can take a look at that amendment itself. So thank you. We have no further speakers signed up or online if people wish to speak now is at this point, then I would like the applicant to wait. It appears that we have a couple people who did not fill out a card. Sorry, I didn't realize I had to. If you ask a quick question, we don't have the ability. This is an opportunity for you to offer input. We don't answer questions at this point. Okay. I'd like the commission. Sorry. If you would like to speak, please come forward. Give your name to the clerk. Okay. And. Yeah, just state your name for the record. Hi, my name is Scott Leckie. I'm a resident of Athena. I noticed that the track maps the the plot. The lot maps for one and two are. Lot

two is a lot bigger than the previous slide. If you go back a couple of slides on that, so it's increased in size. I don't know why that is. Also, on one of the first slides that we've shown, it mentioned 98 units on that particular one, lots one and two, whereas this is indicating 75. So that needs to be clarified as well. Is it 98 or is it 75. Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to speak? If not, I'm going to invite the applicant back up here to address. You've got three minutes to respond to some of the questions you've heard or comments you've heard from members of the public. And then we will have the commissioners ask questions as well. Great. As to the number of units, it's 75 and 19 for a total of 94. And I know that Glenn had a 94 number up there earlier. That's the combined of the two. So it's 75 and 19. And that's that's pretty clear. There's still a lot of discussion about traffic. And again this this this is coming in far below the density that was analyzed in the traffic analysis that was done. And also the city would have done further analysis when it adopted its general plan. So you have more recent traffic analysis for the area in your general plan. And that didn't raise any, any concerns. So we think it would it's not supported by law to come in and say we have to do a new traffic study when we're building on an approved PD and coming in with far fewer units that was analyzed under that PD. So we don't think that's legally appropriate to require that at this time. The idea that I know there's a lot of

people out there that don't want apartments, but apartments were in the PD. And when people bought their homes, that was in the planning documents as a possibility for here. I actually think Suncal would love to build just all single family homes, but the law doesn't let us do that. The general plan has a minimum density. SB 330 prevents us from reducing the general plan density. There's no way to find substitute housing somewhere else in the city to shift that. So we're sort of stuck under state law with with having to do that. Yes. We're talking about future planning of where the apartments would be, but we can only plan for what we now. We now have a builder that's ready to go with these two track maps, and ultimately other builders will come along to, to build the other ones. That's how this community has developed over the last 23 years. It wasn't built all at once. It was built section by section as the market came along and demanded more units in those areas. And that's sort of what we've done. And again, I want to reiterate, as far as the location of the densities Nick talked about, you know, geometry is really key here to be able to do that. And also, we actually originally proposed the apartments on a different place here and working with staff, staff felt more comfortable with the apartments at this location. And I think it makes a lot of sense to have the apartments. You'll have that higher density, and the people that are going to the apartments aren't traveling through a lot of the streets of the Acinar to get the apartments. They're right in from the main street and they're right into the apartments. So you're not going to be impacting the the streets of Ascena with with the

apartments if you have them right near the. Questions as they come up. If you would stay at the microphone, I suspect our commissioners will have some questions. Mr. Morrell. Well, I see a hand up. Mr. Murphy, would you like to begin? You mentioned a more recent general plan traffic study in this area. I'm going to ask a question. I may not get it across because it's not actually part of our decision. We're only allowed at this point to look at the outer perimeter of the geography and density. But I am curious because I'm I'm struggling a little bit with the traffic issues that I've heard about in this area. So can you or maybe somebody from staff talk about this updated general plan traffic study? So we wouldn't have done a detailed traffic analysis that would have looked specifically at this area, what we would have done as a project based environmental analysis for the limited update to the general plan that we did in the circulation element updates, is through the Sequa review process in support of the general plan. Just made sure the sequel analysis would have been undertaken to look at the growth that we're anticipating during the general plan horizon, to make sure that there were no major impacts identified for traffic, but we didn't undertake a detailed traffic analysis through that process. But on the macro level, that plan would have anticipated more units than we're actually now proposing. So it you know, we're under that as well. It's not the it's not the aseana development in front of us. I think what I'm hearing and again, the

frustration, if I can say this, is that there is a lot of traffic in this area and the development in front of us is within the, you know, legal parameters. But that doesn't mean that the traffic study that was done 20 plus years ago was still relevant or still, I want to be clear, it is under the law, it is still relevant. It's still reflects the conditions. It is. We have to be clear on that point. Okay. So you're confident that in 22 years the traffic has not increased in this area legally? Yes, legally. That is what Sequa allows. Yes. And if there's been excuse me, the public hearing is closed for input from people who've already spoken except the applicant. No more questions, Mr. Miller. Yeah, I'd like just to get a little clarification in my mind. I don't travel Vista Chino very often this far east. I am over by sunrise. Closer. But what is the situation with the CV link? I've heard comments, I believe, from some neighbors about it stops traffic. Is there a light there? Is it a is there actually a controlled crossing at grade crossing of the CV link across Vista? Right. So there is a pedestrian actuated button. Yes. There. So that wasn't anticipated in the 2003. That's essentially another traffic light that is not dealing with traffic. It's dealing right. The traffic light is here. And the CV link pedestrian crossing essentially associated to a traffic light. Yes. That's

been there when the development opened. And that wasn't. No, no. The traffic light was not specific to CV link. It was there previously. Yes. It has now had traffic heads added to it. Maybe we can have the engineer included in the original sequence analysis sequence. Yeah. So so that stops traffic on Vista Chino more so than general vehicular traffic. The CV link stops, but for longer periods of time, doesn't it? So yes. So staff didn't see that as a potential change to the conditions from the 2003. Our assessment was that it was consistent with the analysis that was done in the 2003 and the the MD that was found. Now it's your finding to make. So if you feel it's a change condition, that's your prerogative. Mr. Moro. Yeah, I'm going to ask a question, but I know it's not necessarily what we're voting on, but we are voting on a number of lot lots within these parcels. And in order to achieve those lots, we're really foregoing any kind of recreation other than I think there's a dog walking dog park reference, but I would really encourage the applicant to include swimming, some kind of pools, both children's pools and adult pools. If this is getting marketed to families. I think given our climate here, it just

really is a necessity more than a luxury. Was that a question for the applicant? Yeah, I'd like to know why there's no recreation other than a dog park. Well, there will be. Sorry. Before you answer. Actually, this isn't this isn't tangential to the discussion tonight. I don't think that we should be having this conversation in light of the action before you all. This is strictly the tentative track map. All right. That's what I started with. Do we have other questions for the applicant? Thank you. And you may be seated. I'll close the public hearing and ask for comments or thoughts from the. And if there are additional questions of staff. Make a comment. The public hearing is closed. How did you get past the CV link? One day I'm going to ask Mr. Miller the public to please keep quiet. The public hearing is closed, Mr. Miller. So I've got a question for staff regarding the PA one master plan. So. How do you amend the master plan? Does it take a formal action of the Planning commission or is it done at staff level? Yes. This plan that's on the screen. So what we had envisioned was that so the way that the PDC was done in 2003 was vey illustrative in terms of it doesn't look like other PDEs that we've seen in more recent years, have seen pictures of it in our package. And so the way that we were envisioning this was as a minor amendment, because this does comply and is consistent with the original illustrative land use plan that is in the PDC. This would give more

specificity and more information to what is in the PDC. So this would sort of be amended into the PDC and live to serve as the master plan for the PA one area. To show a little more detail on how it could be developed and meet the overall density targets, we determined that we believe that that met the definition of a minor amendment the way that the code is written. But again, if the Planning Commission would like to review it, you may make that direction clear tonight. Okay. So I do agree it provides more specificity, but my concern is such a change or such an acknowledgment of a staff level decision that's now being put on. The Planning Commission wasn't identified in the agenda. The agenda refers to two track maps and that's it. So I'm concerned if there was a proper notice. It's a condition of before final map. So it would go through the process in accordance with the way the zoning code envisions a minor amendment. It has to be subject to a future process. It's you can approve this without it because technically this all complies with with with the zoning and the PDC as written. We as staff felt like this would give us all more assurance that we were going to meet the overall density target for future phases. So that is why we are recommending it as an added condition for future deliberation. Okay, thank you for that clarification. Just a question for I have staff for clarification. Phased developments like this large one. We frequently do this correct where we come in and we approve tentative track maps for one parcel and then another, and then another without having more definitive design on the remaining parcels. We do. Yes, we've done this in Serena Park, we've done it in Maryland, we've done it

elsewhere. I think the difference here is, is this PA one master plan that is on the screen, and the reason that we've asked the developer to provide this and that we worked with them on this is, again, to give a little more assurance and certainty to all of us that they will meet the overall intent of the PDC and the general plan density requirements. So that's why I think this is a little bit different than other phased developments that we've seen. But you're right, we've often approved different phases without seeing the future development details of the entire project. Thank you. Do I have any commissioners who would like to make a motion, or who would like to make more comments on their thoughts on what is before us, Mr. Robin yeah. So to Commissioner Miller's point about the type of development that's at the intersection of Vista Chino and Gene Autry Trail, I'm in agreement. And so I'm having that that should be a higher density. And I'm having some issues with the current track map, how the lots are laid out in order to achieve that. And so I'm not 100% comfortable with approving this track as is. I have no issue with trying to achieve the minimum 15 units to the acre. I'm not overly fond of the courtyard housing model. I think there are other other housing types that would achieve that and be create a much more interesting commun. But that's not before us. But I do have reservations with this track map as it's laid out, particularly as it relates to the intersection. So if I could just ask Commissioner

Chapman for clarification. I agree with you. I would be satisfied if we were truly just looking at the track maps on the screen. And lot three and four essentially weren't shown. Is that kind of what we're sayi? Right. That's creating the confusion. And the question about the the logical development of those parcels. Yeah, but you need those two lots in order to achieve the the density you need to identify. So ten units there, they're still subject to that minimum density. Whether we see them on tonight's two track maps. They're proposing ten units to the acre for lot three and 25 for lot four and ten units to the acre for lot three. Doesn't sit. Doesn't seem to make sense to me, I agree. I I'm sorry, I can't hear you. So Commissioner Baker said we're not addressing the ten units per acre on lot three. Yes we are by virtue of the master plan being in front of us. That's not. We're not addressing that. Can I ask you, Chris, to look at PLN one? Your third condition, if we were if we as a commission were to disagree with lot three and four and what they're showing right now, granted, we understand your goal from the city is to make sure we're meeting a minimum minimum density. But if we're not comfortable with how that has been allocated, if we request. Can you speak into your microphone? I'm sorry. Thank you. If the commission and I don't know if I'll have agreement from everyone here, if we were to say eliminate PL and three. Would that satisfy our concern in that regard? The concern that I would have if you

eliminate that is then we have nothing. And to some of the comments that have been made in the audience and some of the what I'm hearing, the concerns, we would have nothing to tie those future lots to, to make sure that we're meeting over the meeting, the overall density, you would effectively be approving two phases of development today that are below the minimum density required. You cannot speak right now. You you're saying it's it is only because and exclusively because lot four is showing 150 units that these two tentative track maps in front of us are meeting our. Contributing to meeting the minimum. The general plan requires 15 units to the acre. You would be approving a development that is below that. It would be inconsistent wh the general plan. But in my opinion, the two track maps are at 14.8. They're not far off. They could add a lot or 2.5 and 14.1. So they are the general plan requires a minimum of 15.0. So why wouldn't we just call for those each to be redesigned to include an additional lot or too meet the 15. And then we don't have to rely on some future issue at this point that's not in front of us, but yet it's on our screen. And we if we had a study session about development of density on major thoroughfares, Commissioner Rottman and I would be pushing for density at the intersection, not in the center. Granted, I understand the the developer mentioned this allows all traffic to be exiting and entering without affecting a majority of the rest of the site, but that can all be planned. This is all new dirt. It can all be

planned. Now, my concern is that we're tying our hands on something in the future that we may not think is the best design and layout. I think that that's your prerogative. What I would say is the decision that you make on these on on these lots needs to comply with the general plan minimum density. So however you want to do that, as shown it does not. And I say we deny.. As proposed. It does. Correct. Sorry. Just the two. Just the two lots that the track maps that are in front. If we do just the two lots, it does not comport to the general plan. But isn't that what's in front of us is to approve the two track maps and the two I'm responding to Commissioner Miller's question about eliminating planning condition three. My opinion, my recommendation would be that that would make you unable to make the finding that it complies with the general plan. Commissioner Miller, I would entertain a motion to continue this item, to give the developer time to amend the two track maps such that they each individually and collectively meet a minimum density of 15 dwelling units per acre, which is the minimum of the Aseana development plan. Is there a secondo that motion? No, no, I have a question on that. Because the way developments can we I want to get a second and then we can discuss it. I'll second the motion okay. Thank you. Mr. In order for developer to parcel the land, they already have a builder in mind. So that's how developments can you speak into the microphone? That's how developments work. You have once you have a builder who's committed, you can't go back and say, oh, hey, wait a minute. We're going to pull the rug from under you and change

everything that you've already looked at and said, this will make money for us and we will do this. Then you run the risk of losing the developer completely. I mean, exce me, the builder completely. Any other comments before we vote? Okay. Would you repeat your motion? I am suggesting I move to continue this item on the two track maps to a date uncertain, to give time for the developer to revise the track maps to increase the unit count by a very small number to meet the minimum 15 dwelling units per acre minimum requirement. So if I understand that you're just you're just isolating lots one, two and five. Yes. And then those are the track maps. And then in terms of the master plan, well they've heard our comments on that. But I'm not suggesting anything because we don't have that master plan formally in front of us. According to staff. And on the question to staff, if we deferred the. Just plain did not address the multifamily and proceeded as a motion has been made, it would comply. Your belief is that it would comply with the general plan. The current motion would, if the applicant could come back with revised densities on the two parcels, and that would defer discussion of multifamily until some future date. Correct. It's it's my opinion, my belief that if they were to come in with two track maps here that come in at 15, you don't need to look at the balance of the plang

area. Alternatively, alternative to that, what I'm hearing is if they come in somewhere below that, you may all want to consider the PD amendment in concert with what you're seeing, so that you can have that discussion at the same time. Does that sound like what you're saying? That is another solution that would satisfy. I think what I'm hearing is some collective concerns. I don't know what staff have a preference, what we would do because I, I would say that we should probably give the developer some flexibility to work through that, because to the point that Commissioner Baker made, I think that they have people in mind. And so it may be that they cant get and also looking at the lot sizes that they have in lots one, two and and five, they may not be able to get the extra lots in and still make it work. So I think that we may want to give them the flexibility to consider both options. Commissioner Murphy, I see your light is on. Are you there? Well, things went dark quickly. I you know, I understand what you're trying to propose. And quite frankly, lots one, two and five are pretty dense, and adding even one more lot in there is going to make it even less palatable to me. So I don't know that I can support the the motion as it's written. What's your do you have an alternative? Because I'm certainly can you know, the alternative is extreme and that is to change the track map and redefine the lot lines so that the at least

portion of the of lot three is a higher density. And whether you take the property line between 1 and 2 and just continue it west across, you know, and then you create a higher density at the corner. What what's south of that? You know, of lot three can be, you know, whatever. But I think there needs to me, there needs to be an adjustment in the track map lot lines to accommodate higher density at the corner. And then you adjust accordingly for the rest of it. Okay, I don't disagree with that, but a continuance would allow them to do that as well. They could adjust that perimeter lot line between lots two and one and two and three as part of a continuance process. I, I don't oppose the necessarily continuance, but the caveat of adding an additional unit to one and two and five I have issues with. Okay, I shall I rephrase my motion then and see if the seconder agrees? I propose a motion to continue this item to provide the developer time to work h staff to better allocate the minimum density across the planning area. Here in PA one, including for lots two, three and five. Is there a second general? I'll second that. I would like to give the developer the opportunity to say yes. You would rather have a continuance than a denial which would be appealable. And please limit your comments to t question. Well, I don't

like either of those choices. Actually. No I don't. We are strongly in support of staff's recommendation. There was a comment made about, you know, maybe he doesn't have a developer. Well, I did have a developer. I'm asking you to indicate if you would prefer to have this item continued so that you can address the issue and bring it back before the Planning Commission, or if you would prefer a denial which would allow you to appeal to the city council. Well, I don't prefer a denial. So. Okay. Thank you for your input. Mr. Motion. I'm sorry you seconded it. No, I have a question on the motion that was seconded. Please, to the motion maker. What is your goal? What is the end goal, I mean? The end goal is to provide more discussion for what happens essentially to lot three and four, which we don't have the ability to really delve into right now, but they're not at issue. Right? Well, they are and they are at the same time, PD one. The staff has relied on those as they sit for their approval of their recommendation of approval tonight. Thank you. Madam Chair. If I could address that one, that the issue about the two lots that we're talking about, please. No, I think the time for that is over. Thank you. May I ask the director? Unless there's any more conversation, I would ask the director to read back the motion or the maker. No, I second the

motion to clarify it for all I have it. So motion made by Miller, seconded by Murphy to continue the item for a time. To allow the developer to better allocate, to analyze, and to better allocate density across all lots except lot number four. So that was my first motion. The second motion was seconded by Commissioner Rottman. And so that was the one that I tried to simplify. That's the one I just read. I believe the motion was to continue the item, to allow the developer time to better allocate density across planning area one. That's what that's essentially as general s you can get. And that was the second okay. All right. Any more conversation before we ask for a roll call vote. May we have the vote please? Commissioner Miller. Yes. Commissioner Rottman. Yes. Vice chair. Alan. Yes, Commissioner. Murphy. Yes, Commissioner. Baker. No. Commissioner. Morrell. Yes. The motion carries five one. We will now go on to the next item, and we should ask the chair if she can rejoin us. I

believe she stepped out. And we will adjourn at 710. Recording stopped.

Planning director. Ready? Recording in progress. Thank you. The next item before us is new business. It's a request by TJ properties LLC for a development permit for the construction of a six 19,347 foot square foot medical office building located at 1199 North Indian Canyon. Staff report please. Thank you. Mr. There we go. Thank you, Madam Chair. So the scope of the review tonight for the Planning Commission is a major development permit to construct the 19,347 square foot medical office building. You're looking at the site plan, the mass and the scale, and the Architectural Review Committee will review the building, architecture and landscaping at a future time. Future date. As I mentioned, the request is to build the two story medical office building. The first floor, consisting of a 9430 square foot surgery center and then the second floor is a 9883 square foot OBGYN fertility clinic. The zone is C1 retail commercial which allows medical office uses. It meets the development standards for setbacks and a building height of 30ft, and the overall street off street parking proposed is 109 spaces. As you know, this is the site of the former American Reproductive Center that experienced a domestic terrorism attack. The City Council back in May of this

of 2025, passed a resolution that I adopted a disaster overlay zone, the disaster overlay zone. Text of that resolution was given to the Planning Commission at your request. So you have a more understanding of what the expedited review by the planning entitlements entail. So in looking at the site, it is cleared and rough graded when the disaster happened, the FBI cleared the site and removed all of the contaminants and so forth within the building. And it is rough graded. As you can see, the site sits between Palm Canyon, Indian Canyon, in an area that is known as the sort of medical office area with the Desert Regional Medical Center on the right. Here there is a Palm Springs liquor store. Adjacent to it. Across the street is the Wyndham Hotel, and below it is a medical office building that is contains a lot of Kaiser Permanente offices. The zoning, as I mentioned, is our C1 retail commercial, and it permits office buildings. And looking at the site plan, the from the very beginning of the submittal conference, the building has been placed along Palm Canyon Drive and appointed out here. So Palm Canyon is this street here. The building sits close to the street. The parking field is along Indian Canyon, and this is Indian Canyon here. And access to the parking lot will be via an internal in to the

driveway, circulating out to a gated exit that will be by a sensor. Moving on to a close up of the proposed entryway, staff has worked with the applicant to devise a scheme that allows vehicles to enter the space, and there is a guard house that is here. That's that square box, and if someone were to turn left into the the entryway and was denied access, there was a way for the vehicle to exit. When the vehicle comes in, there is a a gate that is here, that is an arm that comes down. So there are two arm gates, and then at night there is a gate that will roll over and secure the site. The perimeter of the site is enclosed by an eight seven foot tall combination wall and metal fence. The applicant originally requested eight feet, but through our Am process, the planning director can approve a fence at seven feet tall. When the revised plan came in with the guard house in the center of the entryway, it removed some parking spaces. So with this scheme, they are proposing 109 spaces. And through the Am process, through a 20% reduction in parking, they can meet the requirement of off site off street parking. There are illustrative drawings of what the building could possibly look like. I'll keep in mind that the Architecture

Review Committee will be the ones that will analyze and discuss the building architecture. So it is two stories. 30ft is the maximum height, and I have some cross sections that we'll discuss soon. This is the entryway off of the parking field which faces Indian Canyon. So the main entry is here. There's a canopy that greets patients when they come in, and the side of the street. The building that faces Palm Canyon is this drawing. Point out some features. So originally the building was a little bit different. It had a more monolithic approach to it. Features have been added to the building, and the architect who is here will be able to describe them better than I can. But there are some features that were added to the building. A front entry front planter bed was added. The fence or wall that originally was proposed has been changed to a combination fence and wall, and added additional landscaping to soften the palm Canyon facing elevation. The maximum height of the building, as I mentioned, is 30ft. These are building elevations with material boards showing the types of materials that would be used for the skin of the building. It is proposing to use these paneling system and and different shades of beige and browns. Decorative paving on the parking lot and then the type of window frames and

glass and overhangs. In looking at the building cross section. This shows the height of the building and I want to focus on the bottom slide. We're going to have a close up of the top slide, but in part of your finding is that you need to determine that the project is compatible with adjacent uses and adjacent buildings. So the in the bottom cross section, this is the proposed building. And this to the left shows the height of the Wyndham. And to the right shows the height of the. Am I getting this right? The medical office building. Sorry, the desert regional cross the street. So the front portion of the Desert Regional building is the same height as the proposed medical center. So once again, looking at the the building elevation, how the zoning code states is that the roof is the measurement of the maximum height. And then there are parapets that are allowed to be above the roof line that screens mechanical equipment. And this is showing mechanical equipment on the roof. It is a building that has a lot of intense cooling uses. And this equipment that can be better described by the applicant will be screened based upon. And I have a roof plan that I'll show in just a minute. In further analyzing the proposed combination wall fence, this is a blow up on the bottom showing what that will look like and the materials that are proposed, which includes an Angeles Oak split face block in a in a beige color and then a

metal tubular steel on top and a black color. There are floor plans that are proposed showing what the the ground floor would be. And then the second floor. As I mentioned, the surgical center is on the first floor and the ob gyn fertility clinics on the second. Moving on to the roof plan, as I mentioned, the mechanical equipment is placed in the center of the building, which is in this area here, which is this box. And the parapets that are around the building will screen this mechanical equipment. They provided a landscape plan showing the types of landscape proposed plants, which include acacias, Italian cypress, olive trees and date palm. The applicant wanted to provide sort of a pedestrian paseo that went from the parking lot into the main entrance, and their landscape person will be able to describe it. There are elevations of the guard house, which is on the bottom of this slide, showing it's a small building, and then a trash enclosure, which will be similar in design with the a roof top that is barrel towel. So staff recommendation is approval subject to conditions of approval. As an attachment A, we feel that you can make the findings in the staff report and in the resolution, and that the sequel determination is an infill category exemption. So, Madam Chair, that concludes my report. Thank you. Before I turn it over, just if you could go back to the original site plan because measurements weren't really included in that as far as setbacks, as far as setbacks in in the front on the Palm Canyon

frontage. Right. So in in your staff report, there's a table of this of the C1 development standards along North Palm Canyon Drive. The setback I'm trying to push is 18ft. From the property line to the building. North Indian is 143ft this way. And then obviously there are larger setbacks, 71ft on the side and 64ft on the north. And the shading differences in the parking areas relate to materials that are being used. Or is there a is there some kind of a break between those two parking areas? The the gray shading is a different type of paving material. Parking lot surface. Okay. And the height of the the fencing on both sides is what, seven feet all on all sides. So when when the application first came in let me go to another. This slide. The comparability is there fencing in in other for other properties similar on Palm Canyon in Indian Canyon there is a six foot tall block wall between this property and the Palm Springs Liquor store to the north. The medical building to the south has a six foot tall wall also around it in certain locations that on a plan and just show us where that is. Where it is. Yes, yes. Let me get to an aerial. So there are, as you know, this is a parking deck here which sits higher

than this lot. So there's a wall here that's six feet. And then the building and then along this other portion of the building sits below grade. So there's walls that are along Palm Canyon. On Indian Canyon. This is at grade. So there's no wall here. And then there's walls that are part of our screening requirement of parking lots. And with the hospital, are there any walls? There's no walls along Indian Canyon because the building is the wall itself. And there may be some walls that are low along screening the parking. Yeah, there are some some low walls there at the entrance to the hospital. So if I can go back to this, this slide, when the project first came in, the proposed wall went the whole way across the front of the elevation. We requested that the applicant make it more pedestrian friendly. So the walls dive into the sides of the building, which opens it up more than having the entire frontage walled in. And they added this planter bed, and the applicant could talk about how this is a security measure. Thank you. Questions from the commission? Yes. Commissioner Brotman. Yeah, I can ask the applicant also if you don't have the answers. But the first question is, do you know what the setbacks are for the two properties north and south of this? They

both look quite a bit. The liquor store is quite a bit further back. And then. Yeah, well in the C1 zone there's a five foot setback requiremenn the major thoroughfare streets and the sides. There's no there's a zero lot line. Okay. I'm just trying to see with the proposed new building how it relates to the building setbacks for the liquor store and the medical center below. So if this is 18 and 24, another 18, you know, this is probably comparable distance between this and. Here. Yeah. Yeah. Off the street off of Palm Canyon. Right. So it looks like it. The front of the building on Palm Canyon is possibly in alignment with the liquor store to the north. It it is farther forward than the liquor store. Here it is. Okay. All right. In the plans, they talked about a future statue on Indian Canyon. Do you know anything about that? They would have to address that. Okay. I'm sorry. Yeah, yeah. . That's it. Thank you. Other questions? For staff. Yes. Mr. Melnick, going back to the drawings of the actual facility itself on the Palm Canyon side, there seems to be a yes to the left. It seems that there's a is there a little gate? There's, like a little sidewalk? Yeah. Running. The sidewalk. Going to a gate to that fence. Right. This that may lead to a emergency exit. Emergency? Yes. Just for emergency purposes. They'll have to answer that question. Yes, they may have a

push, but just for clarity, the Palm Canyon, there's no ingress or egress whatsoever. There's no access into the building. Public access. Are there any other properties on Palm Canyon that have no access off of Palm Canyon? You know, Palm Canyon is our major thoroughfare, and we encourage structures to have access onto Palm Canyon. And as we did in this project. Okay. So the answer is no, no, this is the only the only property that is proposing to have no access off of Palm Canyon. You can't get into the building and the building, I mean, come in off Alejo or whatever that side street is. Okay, the access to this medical building is through the underground or the entrance here. Okay? Yes. Vice chair, I have a couple questions. I'm concerned about the. Gating and walling of a building on our. Main thoroughfare. And one of the things that I'm wondering, I understand the special circumstances here and there, I think need for heightened security is demonstrated first by the act of terrorism and by another act we've had in the Coachella Valley involving a shooting at an

abortion clinic. So I get that. However, I'm interested in seeing if there's a way that when the use of this building changes, subsequent owners or at some point down the road, if we can kind of recoup the site so that it works in to the downtown downtown area a little bit better. And what really stands out to me is being the obstacle would be the the fence and the gate. Is there. And this is probably a question for the attorney, but is there a way that. Approval could be attached to this that would last for the duration of this use? Or similarly? Recognized, demonstrated, high target use of the building? Yeah. So I and I see thank goodness, our city attorney turning her camera on. I think it can be challenging. And I think we'd have to well, you know what? I'm just going to hand it over to the city attorney. You're doing fine. It would be a challenge because that would the way it's posed, it certainly sounds like this is going to be a decision based on the actual use of the property, and that becomes somewhat of a challenge when we're making content based decisions. We could do specific research and look into it, but it's not an advisable decision at this point to make a decision based on the use of the

building. I think the other potential that I saw that that my work would be that the height of the wall is being allowed only under the aam is that am I calling at the right an acronym. Okay the AAM. Is that something that could sunset when the building use or on transaction of the property. Right. So the question for the city attorney is the administrative minor modification allows a 20% increase in the wall height. Are we able to condition the AAM approval such that the Am essentially is void or revoked if and when a use if there's a change of use that has a lower security need. Yes. If someone came to you and asked. Well I guess I wouldn't have to ask your permission to remove a fence. I think there's a little more space in that. I'm not comfortable declaring directly that it would not be a concern, but it's less of a concern, I think, to have an AAM be expire sunset. Like you say, if ownership changes rather than tying it to the development permit I'm sorry I was just saying this. I think there's good evidence that this use is not typical and and does. Present as a higher target to acts of violence. And if, if you have a regular. Immediate care center, some other medical use

which would be logical in this location at some point in the future, it wouldn't be necessary. So that that's I guess that's my question. I like attorneys when they say or and. Yeah, well what I might suggest is aam I think. That could be a and I might suggest having that conversation with the applicant to gauge their level of comfort in terms of hiring tying a future user to that condition. And perhaps that I have a question for the attorney as well. I do have finished. Okay. I do have one other question for staff, and that is that this the oe of the findings that we're asked to make and that staff is presenting is that this is comports to the general plan. I forget the exact language, and I'm seeing things when I look at the general plan, at things like the community design element. I'm not seeing that it it is what is intended for this part of town and for this street in particular, which is called out as being a scenic. Street and called out as being I've got the word someplace, but it's some special landscaping area. It just looks to me like it falls short in some areas around that. I'm wondering, did you look at the community design element of the general plan, or just the land use? And if we are able to find consensus on approving this, could we attach conditions that require that the design of,

in particular the Palm Canyon side incorporate some specific some elements in the community design element that are not currently, in my opinion, adequately addressed? Yeah, I think we certainly looked at the overall general plan objectives and goals and policies. And I think you're right, and I think we've had similar conversations for other developments in the vicinity where we've had similar conversations and looked for a lot more activation on the Palm Canyon front to make it more pedestrian friendly. And okay. I think from our perspective, we felt like it was meeting the intent by virtue of responding to a very specific land use, with very specific security needs and extenuating circumstances, that certainly we would all have an interest in avoiding. And so we felt like, you know, they'd made some attempts to try and address that through design. I think certainly it's your finding to make, I think you could consider adding some language to the finding, perhaps to clarify why we're determining it's consistent with the general plan, and perhaps pointing out the extenuating circumstances and unique security needs. And certainly you can attach additional conditions that would give you comfort that it's meeting that finding. Thank you. This is a question for the attorney and also for staff. This is the only building that I've seen that has no front door, no entrance on Palm Canyon. And it doesn't seem to me that that is a security issue. I think there could be an entrance on Palm Canyon that isn't opened by the applicant, but how did you get comfortable with having Palm Canyon be a back door? Right. I think, and can we you know, I'm looking at this building as a building

that has this use today, but may be with us for 50 years and have different uses. And so that that issue is a major issue for me. Right? So in in the presentation included the floor plan of the first floor showing. Tht was always been a concern of staff. How to activate the street, the Palm Canyon side. And we discussed that with the applicant. And they can make their presentation shortly and explain to you how the building operates and where the surgical centers are located within the building. And. I want you to understand that we did ask for an entrance along Palm Canyon. Thank you. And and for the future use of the building. That's what I'm looking. And I'm still looking at a building that will not, and may not always be. This use for its 50 year life span. In terms of our purview of looking at the site plan, do we have the purview of requiring a front entrance? Well, this is the plan that's before you today, right? I understand right. So modifying modifications okay. That's thank you. Okay. Any other questions of staff or the attorney. Well I do have one more. Yes. This design package that we're looking at lacks something that allows me as not an architect to understand what we're going to be looking at from Indian Canyon. There are layers of there's one

perspective that's done, but it's not even at street level. It's from elevated and and it's you've already skipped over the front block wall and I don't. The, the guard house. Do we have any. Did the applicant prepare any exhibits that would show you what it looks like from the public right of way? Right. So as you described it, from the street there will be the seven foot wall and then the paseo of landscaping that is in this drawing here. Ad then that leads to the canopy. So to answer your question, no, there was no drawing that was done that maybe were request of the ark that they asked for that in, so they can understand the relationship between the street, the parking lot, the landscaping and the building. What I'm looking for. Okay. Thank you. Was there any drawing done showing the building fitting into the other building so at least a visual. Something that would show both streetscapes that you could see what what it will look like. The only thing that was done was this cross section that I showed you here. And that's what we asked them to do, to understand the relationship between the heights of the buildings. Thank you. Any other questions? The applicant has ten minutes. Public hearing is open. The applicant will have ten minutes, and then members of the public have five minutes. I sorry, let me just get. Good evening. Commission staff. Thank you, Glenn, for that presentation and introduction to the project. We're excited to rebuild the state of the art ambulatory surgery center and fertility clinic to

replace the building. I'm sorry to interrupt. Can you just state your name for the record? Oh, sorry. My name is Jennifer, and I'm the architect for the project. And you're the project architect, Jennifer Levesque. Thank you. To replace the building that was previously on this parcel. The use is consistent with the approved land use permit that was approved in 2022. To reiterate some of the conversation that's already been happening here. Much of the site design is a response to the May 2025 car bombing, where the existing building suffered substantial damage. Regarding the concern that was mentioned by the public of the fence and y'all and the controlled entry, the owner feels that these elements, as well as other site elements that we've included, including bollards and raised planters. Are an essential part of ensuring the safety of the staff and patients served by the by the building. The existing staff still works for the doctor and remains on edge regarding strangers coming into their facility or their safety as they walk to their cars before and after their shifts. So the fence and the other elements, not just physically protect the property, but provide psychological security for the staff. Regarding the design that one of the other members of the public mentioned, we feel that the building fits well with the context along Palm Canyon and Palm Springs as a whole. The Mediterranean style is as much a part of Palm Springs as other styles, and is heavily represented as an in ideal examples in the City of Palm Springs General plan, our team, as well as the doctor and

staff, are proud of the design of the building and agree that it will be an appropriate addition along the area. That area of Palm Canyon. The main address is on Indian Canyon, so we feel it is appropriate for the main entry to also be along Indian Canyon. And by nature for the surgery center. Most of the patients are dropped off and we didn't feel it was appropriate for people to be dropped off along Palm Canyon. So entering along Indian Canyon and being dropped off along the front of the building there, in that accented area, is part of the design of the project. Thank you for your time. It's just all I wanted to say. Other members of the public who wish to speak. I see none, Madam Chair. Thank you. The applicant has five minutes in rebuttal and please stay here because at this point, after your rebuttal, if you have one, we would want to be asking you some questions and you want to make sure they're part of the record. At this time. I have no rebuttal and I'm happy to answer your questions. Other questions of the applicant, Commissioner Rothman, hi. So just a little housekeeping. First in the packet that we got, there's a conflict how you have your floor plans labeled.

So on sheet A001 you have different from on sheet A11 0.1 and 120.1. They're they're not consistent. So just for yourself yeah okay. So along the we'll talk about the site plan as I read the floor plans for the first floor. There are no real windows facing Palm Canyon. Everything there is all fake. Correct. Right. There are actually the those arched windows. The upper half is open as a clear story. On the second story there windows on the first. On the first floor on the. Yes. Those are. Oh those three are. Yeah. The upper arch portion is, is. Oh I didn't see those on the floor plan but okay. All right. Because I was going to make a suggestion about potentially eliminating as much fencing and wall along Palm Canyon as possible and just focus it just around the parking areas. And so maybe that's still feasible, but we can talk about that later on the site. Plan the parking area along the north and south property lines. It doesn't from the landscape plan. It doesn't look like you have trees there. And maybe I'm not reading the symbols correctly, but we do have a parking shading issue along there. And so that was something that I would. You've got the one tree in the middle on the north side, and you have a few trees on the south side, but there are wide expanses of parking that are not shaded. So that's something that needs to be addressed. Anything information about the statue that's been identified on Palm Indian Canyon. So the owner wants

to express his gratitude for the first responders that came out in the public that came out to help him when the disaster occurred. So he's considering a memorial in the front to say thank you to the to those who came and helped. Okay. So that'll go through the Arts Commission and all that stuff. That will be a separate approval. All right. And then can you tell me on the proposed wall it's seven feet tall. How much what portion of that is block and what portion is wrought iron. So currently we have 48in of block. And I'm sorry, would you speak up? Currently we have the first 48in of block and then the wrought iron up to seven feet. Okay. All right. And is there a long Palm Indian canyon? Again, it's hard to read the landscape plan, but is the does the do you have a combination of wall and fence there as well? Correct. So would is there a raised planter on one side of it or the other, or is it just wall and fence and some plantings on each side? It's just wall and fence with plantings on each side including trees. Okay. All right. And then we'll get into the architecture I think in comments. But I think it's a little problematic. And my recommendation to Arc will be different. So all right thank you. Thank you. Yes. Commissioner Miller. Yeah. The the Paseo coming from the main entry of the building out to Indian Canyon, is, is that actually going to be a pedestrian access point from Indian Canyon? It's probably mostly a

pedestrian exit. So how does a pedestrian if I'm if somebody is coming to the site without a vehicle, would they have to go through the vehicular arms in this in the the gate house? It would be really besides staff who would have access through the Paseo, it would be really unlikely that any of the buildings patients would come there either pregnant or approaching for surgery, would likely not come in on foot. Okay, so generally, yes, everyone would come in. You've made no accommodations for a member of the public visiting the site to come in by walking. I have a concern about that. Okay. So I'll leave that into the comment section. Let's talk a minute about some of the tree selections you're you're showing on the Paseo date palms. I don't have an issue with date palms, except for the fact that there's not a whole lot of date palms in this area of downtown. Had you considered. And maybe there's a landscape architect that needs to answer this, but had you considered instead of date palms, the California fan palm, which is our native big chunky, you know, native palm that has a similar kind of formal statement and stature to a date palm. We do have the landscape on the call. And Brandon, because there's no there's no California fan palms shown on the site at all. I did a very thorough reconnaissance of the area a couple times around the block today. There's one date palm on the far south east corner of the site. It may not be on the site. That's the only date palm for a couple hundred yards,

whereas there are at least 25 California fan palms within a hundred yards of the site, none on the site, but within 100 yards of the site. It's a mix of Mexican fan palms and California fan palms, so I'm questioning the use of the date palms here because it's not a prevalent species in this area of downtown. So that would be perhaps a recommendation if the commission agrees to the Arc as well. I am excited about seeing this rebuilt. I think we want to try to do everything we can. Oh, sorry you're not commenting at this point. You're asking questions. Other questions for the applicant. I have. Oh, Commissioner. Sorry. Of course I had a couple. In the interest of getting a more pedestrian friendly, community oriented. Palm Canyon face to this project. Is there room? Could the entire building be pushed back three feet, ten feet to the east so that there's more depth to work with to get? And here I'm going to go back to the general plan again about wanting to get a pedestrian experience and to activate the the front by having a fountain and some benches and, and public art, which I, I believe you already have planned, but there are very there are a number of things that are specifically called out in the the community design element that have suggestions for benches, drinking fountains, street furnishings, something so that you have kind of a pleasant respite for pedestrians. They're not

going to be able to go in there, but they're walking down the street. It's hot. It'd be nice for them. Much like, are you familiar with our wellness park, which is right near there? The hospital built one, and it's just it's a pleasant place to just walk past and having a little bit more room to work with on the Palm Canyon side would enhance it. So as Glenn mentioned, we're like 18ft from Palm Canyon, so there is substantial space to provide more pedestrian friendly activities. At one point we had a walkway through there, so it would be open to providing something that would be something you're willing to take a look at with the landscaping plan as it goes forward. Okay, so did you get an answer to your question about pushing the building back? You think with the 18, I don't know. Is 18ft enough to work with? I'm looking at Robert or. Is is it possible to move it a couple of feet to enhance that? I think it would be possible, but I don't think that it's necessary. I think that we could provide with what we have, the space that we have. But you're saying it's possible. I'm just I don't think I'd like you to answer the question one way or the other, based on the fact that we have we have exceeded the setback on the front side. It may be possible, but I don't think that we would need to do it to provide what you're asking for. Not to get into the weeds. But as I look at the site plan, your drive aisles are 24ft for the fire lane, but it looks like you actually have a little extra room there, so I'm just I'm just I again, it might just be a graphic thing and you would know better. But as I look at

the site, plan how you've designated 24 field for the fire department, it looks like you've got a little extra cushion on each side. So yeah. And that's something you'd be willing to look into. Well, regarding the drive aisles, per the Palm Springs Zoning and Development Standards, 26 is required. So that's what that extra fluff is on either side. It's to meet the requirements of the zoning standards. Okay. Well can I just say that staff did work with them on there were multiple proposals for the frontage. One was to move this planter bed out into the public right of way and add a little walkway that went behind it. We didn't feel that that was a the optimal design as folks could hang out, or it would collect trash and so forth. But maybe Jennifer can explain why the fence is here and you're concerned about safety. Can you explain that? Well, to the commission? And as Glenn previously pointed out, or tried to point out that we had originally planned for the gate and fence to go all the way across the property, and in working with the staff, we. We revised that to limit the amount of fencing on either side to make it more inviting for the public. So and then we are also providing that raised planter. That's a security measure. And also to provide some depth to the planting from the pedestrian level on that side. Regarding the fence, it's and and wall, it's providing one the required screening from the parking. So we're required to provide screening from the

parking from the public way. So it's doing that. And it's also providing. You know, limited access to the site. Somebody mentioned the gate, which we're providing for egress. And then also there's a hydrant on the street on that side. So if the fire department would like to stop there in the event of an emergency, they have the ability to go through that gate to access the building. And we've also provided the fencing in lieu of the full wall so that there's more visibility through the site and it's less, you know, overpowering for the pedestrian is there with the fencing. And here I'm focusing on Palm Canyon, because that is a much more pedestrian friendly street than Indian Canyon. And in the face that we're looking at is. Blank. I mean, we're looking for interest and activity in and it's lacking that. So I'm looking at other ways that that could be enhanced. Is it possible, at least on that side, to have the CMU wall come up to 36, maybe 42 rather than 48 and maintain the seven feet, if that's what you need, but do that with the steel. Yes. If that would be the requirements that could be reduced. Okay. And I think I had one more thing. Oh, your guardhouse, is that a staffed facility. Correct. So you're not using any technology QR codes to patients or anything. There's not another way to get in. So correct. But the staff will have a FOB so they can just drive right through. They won't be

stopped at the gate. I'm sorry. Staff would have a what staff would have a FOB that would allow the gates to open when their cars enter the site so they wouldn't have to stop. Okay. But anyone else entering the site would be stopped by the security guard and asked for, for and the security guard is there just during business hours. Security guard is there at all times 24 seven. Okay. And I think those are my questions. Thank you. Other questions I have, I have one which is you have nicely along the. Walls you have. I'm just trying to read. You have I think a hedge on the sidewalls going back and forth between the property. Have you did you consider putting a hedge or some kind of a vine, something to cover those steel walls and soften them? So the intent is to have bougainvillea growing on the solid portion of the walls that will eventually work their way through. And has your just it's that's a hard plant to grow right now in Palm Springs is your is your landscape architect local call Costa mesa. They do a lot of work in this area. So they're familiar with the with the climate. Thank you I vote yes. Yeah. Just in light of activating Palm Canyon, do you think you're you would be open to maybe moving the statue, this piece of art to Palm Canyon as opposed to Indian Canyon, and then create

some sort of plaza or something that, you know, at least adds an amenity to Palm Canyon. I could discuss that with the owner, I think. Thank you. Because the owner is here. Does he have I think he raised a thumb. Okay. Any other no other questions. The matter is before the commission. Great. And. I approve. You use the site plan the with recommendations to the Arc. So that's what's before us. I don't know if people want to start off with general comments, I, I would be happy to, but if others would like to, yes. During my day job I work at Eisenhower Hospital and security is a paramount issue and I'm not sure people are aware there's a new state legislation that's requiring metal detectors for any medical centers. Even at Eisenhower, we're having problems trying to find something that's unobtrusive. But my point is, security for all medical centers throughout the state is being increased. And I think they're trying to do something that A is secure and b somewhat appealing to the public interest in the I. Commissioner Brotman well, I think carrying forward some of the comments I made earlier, I would I would say that the parking lot needs to be looked at in terms of proper shading. I think architecturally, I acknowledge and recognize that this is a high quality building. The choice of materials on the outside,

the enhanced painting in the parking lot, the Paseo. I think there's, you know, I think the intent is to create a nice building for the city. But I just think you have so many contemporary, more modern buildings all around it that this is going to stick out. And I know the El Mirador is there, but that's a historic property. Any new buildings that try and replicate Mediterranean style, whatever. And this is a noble attempt, I just think is not appropriate here. So my recommendation to Arc would be to look at this and try and come up with a more contemporary style architecture. And then I did have some concerns about its presence on Palm Canyon. The general plan calls out for it to be, to create to be an activity node or center. So I think anything that you can do to, to and I, and I understand the security and I understand not having an entrance on Palm Canyon. Looking at your floor plan, I understand you know what's being proposed, t I think there could be some gestures that you could make in the landscaping that could help create a better frontage on Palm Canyon. So. I, I'm very sympathetic to what they're trying to do and understand. I understand the urgency and was on another planning commission after the Northridge earthquake, where all we did was try and rebuild in Santa Monica for six years. And I understand the

urgency to rebuild. I, I share, especially with the site plan, the Palm Canyon Concern. I'd like to see a wellness park, something. If you're not going to have an entry. I'd like to see a respite place where the public can stop. And I don't think I'm comfortable with this unless we end up with something like that. And that's really my compromise. I agree with Commissioner. I mean, I understand when I was looking at the materials that the applicant put into this, that they're spending money, but I don't think it's well spent in terms of the way the this building would fit in. And I do think that everything close to this is, is more modern. And I think the design I think we can approve find a way to I want to find a way to approve this without approving the without approving the facade. And I think we can do the x all the expeditions. But but really ask the Ark to te a hard look at the facade on the building. But for me, I would really like to see the front move back three feet if that's possible to do it to create more space, I would like to see the landscape architect take a look at signage that will actually grow. I think you might get pyracantha something other than bougainvillea, which is just thorny and is nasty to climb over on those walls that will actually take off at. At work with landscaping in another location with about 150

acres of walls. And for many years we haven't been able to grow or we haven't been able to to regrow bougainvillea. The way it started growing 20 years ago. So I want to see those walls shaded. And I think those are my major concerns. I, I'm not at all happy about not seeing a front door that you don't open, but I can live without it. As long as we get a frontage area. And and for me, I think it would involve trying to move the building back three feet. So that's sort of where I'm coming out on this. I am mindful of the. Raceo reconstruct and of the priority assigned to this project, and anything in the area that was demolished, any projects there by the city council and the resolution they passed. I when I read the resolution carefully, it doesn't look like it addresses our specific review process. It addresses things that are ministerial, but this is a discretionary project. And nonetheless, I have to say I have never seen a project go from zero to in front of the planning Commission. And I understand you're going into plan check in this short of time, and you should certainly be commended, and we'd like to do whatever we can. I would like to see us. Take action on this as quickly as you have. What that means, though, is I think that probably we're going to end up with adding a number of conditions and going on a

handshake and a belief that this is going to work out well. I believe that's what we might be seeing. So I would be willing to start a motion to approve the project subject to conditions, or approve the recommendation subject to conditions that I think we'll hear out of a number of our commissioners. If that seems to be the desire of the commission. Yeah, I do, I do want to make a comment though, before. But if are you done? Okay. I think and I don't know if the commission shares this, but if if it doesn't mae it through the motion, that's fine. But I would like to see some effort made to create a pedestrian connection. Makes sense, I guess to be adjacent to the secured drive aisle, obviously, because the pedestrian would have to be cleared just as a vehicle, but I just, I just don't think it makes sense, even though you think nobody's going to come. And perhaps you're right for us to be pushing transit and things that are getting trying to get people out of the vehicle for us not to have a requirement, you know, a required pedestrian connection to the public sidewalk for more than just staff is just ridiculous. So I hope the commission will support that. And I hope that the Commission will support a condition regarding the date palms. Again, I like the tree. It's just not it's not in this area that there are a lot and there are a lot of California fan palms, and I think they provide the same degree of stateliness that the date palm does. I I'll second Laurie's motion. Okay, so I'm hearing things, all of which I agree

from agree with. In particular, I want to add the the pedestrian connection from Indian Canyon. I beg to differ. People will walk, I walk. I live in downtown Palm Springs. I've walked to Desert Regional and walked in, gone in to get my preoperative blood drawd tests and things like that. It's it's a Palm Springs is a walk in place. It's beautiful out there. So please don't think that nobody's going to walk there and that everybody coming in is coming in for that exact procedure then. So I think it's it's a very I certainly endorse the recommendation that we put that as a condition. And I haven't seen a bike rack and staff may bicycle in and staff may live within walking distance. And you don't know everybody who's going to work there at this point, because that will change over time. And so having facilities so that you can have pedestrian entrance and so that you and maybe it's security controlled or something. But also for staff who want to cycle to work, I would endorse those. I also believe that we should go with the we should recommend the, the Architectural Review that they consider use of the washingtonia filifera rather than the Dactylifera, because I agree with Commissioner Miller on that. I also note that your rendering shows cypress trees on the Palm Canyon side, although your landscape plan doesn't show those. I'm not sure which way you're going, but cypress trees do not do well in the desert. They won't look beautiful like that for more than two years. Doe have other conditions? Oh,

and I would like to see that we reduce the height of the CMU portion of the walls to 36in. I would like to see a wellness. I'd like to see an attempt to move the building back three feet and have a wellness park, or some kind of park in the front, and and it a landscape design for the park. And I just, I just think if we're not going to have an entry, we have to have a respite place where the public can come and use and feel comfortable. It needs to be shaded, there needs to be some seating. So I have eight comments which could be part of the conditions. Do you want me to read them back to you? Okay, so parking lot shading on the north and south sides. More contemporary style architecture. Add a respite point along North Palm Canyon Drive. Increased setback. The front setback along Palm Canyon three feet. Look at replant. Replacing the bougainvilleas to some other plant is there okay. Add pedestrian entrance onto site so that more than staff and add a bike rack. Could enter the site from Indian Canyon from Indian Canyon. Consider use of fan palms instead of date palms on the Paseo on the internal parking lot. California Filifera not Mexican fan palms. Yeah, and then reduce the height of the CMU block wall to 36in, and then the rest would be the tubular steel. And I would suggest that well, we're, we're talking about the Palm Canyon side. And you cited the Health

and Wellness park. Enhance the design for pedestrians consistent with CD 12.3, which is the community design element of the general plan. I think that the language in there gives some good specific suggestions of ways that can be. Do we also want to move the statue to Palm Canyon? Yeah, yeah, I like that. Yeah, yeah. The statue. Okay,o consider moving the memorial to yeah to Palm Canyon. And to the extent that. If they're fake windows, what do we want to do with. Just recommend in terms of the fake doors or windows. Well I think that'll get shaken out when they redesign it as a more contemporary building. Okay. So and the only other thing I would recommend is to try and reduce as much as possible, the fencing along Palm Canyon. Yeah. Any other conditions? Concerns? We have a motion. We have a second. Do you want to call the motion, please? Vice Chair Lane? Yes, chair. Yes, Commissioner. Rothman. Yes, Commissioner. Miller. Yes, Commissioner. Murphy. Yes, Commissioner. Baker. Yes. Commissioner. Morrell. Yes. Thank you. Motion passes.

You know, there are two things, actually, before we we didn't talk about the findings. Can we hold? We should. I think we should change the findings a little bit to recognize. I think we can just say as conditioned like for the it's will be comply with the general plan, as conditioned as conditioned. Yeah. I think I think it almost becomes moot because I think the conditions that you've added okay tie into finding one, as long as we've got we've got findings that can support this. We wouldn't normally be able to support what we're doing on Palm Canyon. Okay. That's it. Did we want to. Well I will also although not t of the approval, ask the staff to work with the applicant and work with the city attorney to see if there's ways that we can. Have the security allowances made for this special use revert at the end of its specialized use, I guess. Thank you. Okay. Congratulations, Chris. Is this moving very quickly to are you doing it like next Monday or something to ask. It's not scheduled at this time. I think we'll regroup with the applicant, certainly based on the conditions that have been added. And certainly our goal is to move this as expeditiously as possible, but it will be dependent on the changes that need to be made. Thank you, and

congratulations on the work you've done so far. It's pretty impressive. Okay, moving right along. Planning Commission reports, requests and comments. Seeing none. Planning director's report. Seeing none. Just. Just trying to get myself into the right headspace. Okay, so the only update that I have that I wanted to share is that we had the fourth trim New Heights specific plan open House last night, formally known as the College of the Desert Specific Plan, but has since been renamed. And it really was the reveal of the draft plan itself, including the land use Framework, the Connectivity Framework and also called Moving Forward, which was really a discussion about how we form a resident and stakeholder task force in the area, to look at it as sort of a living and ongoing document to make sure it's being implemented appropriately and addressing community issues. It was a well attended open house, I think generally positive feedback. Literally, literally. You know, and with some some good suggestions and comments from the public that will work through, certainly before it comes to all of you, we're looking at late April or May potentially for it to come to the commission, given that it will be a lengthy document. We'll certainly try. Well, we'll get it out to you before your Thursday package delivery so that you have ample time to review it. In fact, the draft is already on our website, so looking to to Edward and one of his last acts to you all can perhaps distribute that this week before he leaves us, so you can start to look at the draft at least, and then we'll certainly get you the final version

before it comes to you officially. But a good meeting. Council member Garner and council member Bernstein were both in attendance. Since it's it's in both of their districts. One of the things that has been requested by members of the community and by them is that we hold one additional open house in the same format as we had last night, really just to kind of reach some folks who we didn't feel were well represented and perhaps were unaware that the meeting was happening. So we'll look to do that as quickly as we can so we can move this forward, because I think it really is a community driven plan that really responds to a lot of the feedback and issues that we were hearing from them in terms of what they want in their neighborhoods. So we're excited about that work, and it will be coming forward soon. And then tomorrow night at City Council, I will be giving a very brief presentation on the zoning code update, really just kind of a summary of some of the comments that we've heard through the last round of outreach that we had a couple of weeks ago. Obviously, we received a lot of feedback and a lot of concern around some of the heightened density conversations we're having through that process. There's a lot of uncertainty on everyone's part about the applicability of certain state law that have has led us to the current draft framework, and so we're going to have that. We're going to update council briefly on that and commit to come back to them at some point in the spring for fuller discussion and direction on how they want to proceed on some of those issues. So those are my updates. Thank you. With that. Any questions? Yes, Commissioner. Well, it's not a question. I'm going to give you a report. I attended the Arc meeting last week, two items which we had reviewed previously. One was the storage facility, one of the storage facilities on Palm Canyon. The architecture has completely changed. It's very contemporary with kind of a checkerboard pattern on it. It's. I'm sorry, Gene Autry. I'm

sorry. Thank you, Gene Autry. So that was encouraging. It was a much improved from what was good. That was the one we all hated, right? Yes. And then the other, the other item which was reborn was the affordable housing on San Rafael. The first project that we reviewed, also completely different architecture, very contemporary Arc made some very good comments to suggestions for improvement, but overall encouraged by the changes. The other thing I attended a symposium over the weekend that was co-sponsored by Modernism Week in Palm Springs Architectural Alliance, about modernism and the future of housing. They had four speakers to me, the one that really stood out was bricks from Santa Monica. They presented many of several of their projects in Los Angeles for affordable housing. Really impressive stuff. Inspirational gives you hope that there is a potential to do good architecture for affordable housing, so I don't know if it's available, if they taped it and it's available. But if you have an opportunity to watch it, I would recommend it. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. Anything else with that, I'm going to adjourn until 530. Tuesday, March 10th, 2026. See you then. Recording.