Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

e talking, I want to welcome you to the. Tuesday, March 24th, 2026. Regular meeting of the Palm Springs Planning Commission. Can I have a roll call, please? Chair will present vice chair Leon. Present. Commissioner Baker here. Commissioner Miller, present. Commissioner. Murphy, present. Commissioner Rottmann here. Commissioner. Morale here. And vice alternate Hernandez here. Can I have a report on the posting of the agenda, please? Yes, madam chair, the agenda was available for public access at the City Hall, exterior bulletin board and online and at the planning services counter by 9 p.m. on Thursday, March 19th. In accordance with our policies and procedures. Thank you. Can I have a motion to accept the agenda? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Okay. We are at public comment. This time is set aside for members of the public to address the Planning Commission on agenda items and consent calendar items and other items that are in our jurisdiction. Note that we can't take action on any item that hasn't been agendized. Each speaker will get three minutes. We have two public hearings tonight and an item that is not a public hearing. We will allow the applicant to comment on all of the is so that if you wish to speak, you can either speak now in the public comment section. If you're an applicant or a member of the public, or if you want to reserve your comments for when that item comes before us, we'd be happy to

take your comments then. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak? Seeing none, are there any online. We have one member online who is here for item two B. Thank you. The next item before us is the consent calendar. I believe I am recused on one one of the items in front of us. Can I have a motion please? For the minutes? Correct. Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. Although I do have one typo to mention, and that is on the item where we had the extensive number of conditions. I believe it's number eight. The spelling of Washingtonia palms does not have an N in it. It's washingtonia. The. Second. All in favor, I, I thank you. The next item we have is the acceptance of the resignation of Dan Thompson from the city's Architectural Advisory Committee. Do we need to make a motion on that? Yes. Yeah. If you could make a motion to to accept the resignation as well as to promote Bob Dylan from the position of alternate to full member. Thank you. I think I'll make them separately. I move that we accept the resignation of of Dan Thompson from his service and thank him for the service that he's given to the city. Is there a second? I'll second. All in favor? I and the other motion is to appoint Bob Dylan from his position of. Alternate on the Architectural Advisory

Committee to standing member. Member to fulfill a term that ends on June 30th, 2027. This position was just vacated by member Dan Thompson. Is there a motion? I move to approve. Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. The next item before us is a public hearing. Monahan. Monahan. Palm Canyon, LLC, requesting a two year extension for tentative tract map 38846, consisting of one. A one lot per parcel for condominiums purposes. Located at 1875 North Palm Canyon Drive. Can we have a staff report, please? Thank you, Madam Chair. So this proposal that's before you is, as you read into the record, a two year time extension of a previously approved track map. Is that right? Okay, so you are. It is before you today for extension of time for the one lot parcel for condominium purposes. So the Planning Commission approved this track map back, back on April 11th, 2024. And as our process goes, the development permit comes after the track map. Sometimes they'll come together, but in this case for financing, the track map went earlier. The general plan land use designation on the site was resort Tours commercial and at that time the. The code required a planned development district for residential purposes. The City Council then reviewed that and changed the ordinance to eliminate the requirement of a planned development district, and that happened in January of 2025. So there was a time

lapse between when the track map occurred and when the actual planned development. The development permit was approved. So which was the applicant was very patient. While the city worked out some of the logistics of how to make that happen. And that was one of the reasons for the delay in getting the project finally approved. So the Planning Commission did review the track map. I'm sorry, the major development permit for 60 unit development called Sienna on January 22nd of 2025. So that was part of the delay in getting the project going. So just to orient everyone, this is a vacant parcel that used to have a hotel on it. It is on North Palm Canyon Drive across the street from Billy Reed's just north of Vista Chino. The tentative track map that you reviewed is before you today. There are no changes to it. It is, as you mentioned, a one lot track map. This slide is in here to show you what was approved by the Planning Commission, and ultimately on to the Architectural Review Committee showing the 60 unit townhouse development. There's no proposal to change this. This is what is approved and what the applicant is planning to construct. So our recommendation is for approval. The findings are that the TM is still consistent with the general plan. The original plans, as I mentioned, are still valid and appropriate. There are no significant changes to the development or the project. The property has been maintained and kept clean of debris and refuse, and the applicant has made substantial efforts to move the project forward. You'll notice in the staff report and several of the findings, they've worked with Desert Water Agency to remove an

easement. They've worked with Caltrans on the access off of State Highway 111, which is on North Palm Canyon Drive. They've been marketing the project, and the applicant is here today and will speak to what he's done to get the project moving, and it just needs some more time. So this is a public hearing. Notice was sent out to all property owners with a 500ft. And I think we received 1 or 2 comments which were forwarded to the Planning Commission. So that concludes my report, Madam Chair. And as I mentioned, the applicant is here. Thank you so much. Are there any questions of staff, Madam Chair? Might I might. I'm just for one second. I'm sorry. Before we I wanted to do this at the beginning, but just as an FYI to to the commission with Edward Robertson's departure, we have decided to promote Glenn to the position of principal planner. So congratulations, John. I just have a quick question about the the it seemed like there were three things that were sort of out of the owner's control. The easement, the permit from SEC or So Cal Edison and the traffic issue. In the report, you mentioned that you've had similar delays on other projects, and I was just curious what, why. And this I believe that was with regard to SEC. And I was just wondering what why SEC is holding up this project and potentially other projects. Right. Well, you know, once the projs are forwarded to outside agencies, they're a little bit out of our control. We don't have much, much discussion with them. And

the applicant can explain what his delays have been with those utilities. But it's not uncommon. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. I would say there are a variety of reasons for it. Sometimes it's capacity in the grid, sometimes it's waiting for. I think the applicant can speak to it better, but it can be a host of different reasons. And it's unfortunately quite common to be delayed by some of these outside agencies. And you add in that Caltrans is in the mix here, and it's certainly a challenging environment for them to work through. Yeah. Thanks. Any other questions? I have one quick one. One of the attachments is staff report is a letter of intent. And it is indicated that becomes expires ten days after the date when it's the front on the front page and it is not signed. And the ten days has passed. Is there an updated copy? Oh, this s from Crest Crestwood Communities. I'll have the applicant address that when it's his time. I'm not. Okay. Yeah. Commissioner Brotman yeah, there was a a sentence in the justification letter that the applicant said, design a line as in his pursuit of getting a partner venture partner design, alignment with owner's vision. And the question is, and I think I know the answer, but just to go on record that if there are any changes either to the site plan or the design of the units, that that will come back before us, right? So it's not uncommon, you know, if if remember, he had a developer in mind when this came in and that did not materialize. If there are any changes to building architecture, design, landscaping that would need

to go come back as an amendment. If it's minor, it's something that maybe staff could review, say some doors and windows change or some colors are similar, but any substantial change to the building design or landscape would come back. All right. Thank you. There being no other questions, the public hearing is open. If the applicant is here, you have ten minutes. Is this on? Okay. Mark Wortman, on behalf of Monahan Palm Canyon, I'm the managing member. Staff indicated there's been a number of hurdles that have popped up along the way. When I got the major development permit last January, I retained a broker who had indicated that builders were transacting as soon as architectural review was obtained, and I expected to be able to move the site via sale by summertime when architectural review. I think I got that in June. I believe my recollection is correct. Anyway, the market has changed. Now people are looking for grading permit to be obtained. We did get some paperwork done with Jonathan Samaniego. He's been very helpful. So we do have a grading permit. And now the s e is basically been the big hurdle along with DWA hopefully. And I asked Glenn for some help if there's any way to jog these bureaucracies along on the utility side, I'm just at my wit's end trying to figure out how to get them to move forward. There was a question that was asked as to why SW was having problems. From what I have been told, s c e restructured their administrative group and a number of people who were

very key in order to get permitting done, have been moved to other groups or have been reorganized. And so it just sounds like right now the, you know, the process has gotten stretched out. I did get a note this morning from my, my dry utility specialists who indicated that they believe that they there is a path, there's two sources of electricity in the front, and the back end has been basically ping pong. The idea back and forth of which one they want to pull from. And we can't start grading until we know where we're supposed to trench from. So literally, we're at a standstill until they give us the go ahead and sign off on the preliminary. The problem that I have is I don't have any ability in order to affect any, you know, a timeline. You can ask me the question, is that going to happen in a week, a month, a year or a decade? And I would say, I don't know, there's no ability within the process with SSE to get them to answer and to live within a timeline. So it's a it's difficult, but I believe that we've got some traction there. I have an offer from Crestwood. I've been reviewing that. That offer, if you read all the way through, it, is subject to SW signing off on the entire electrical plan. So that basically means another six months worth of work on my side, probably until I could transact with them. And the interim. I'm also reviewing a couple of proposals from joint venture groups, builders basically coming in. That would be my joint venture partner. We're reviewing a couple of different debt proposals, along with those trying to figure out the best way to capitalize the project in a very difficult environment. Right now, the capital markets are very tight in real estate. It's not getting better, it's getting worse. And, you know, I, I know that Lennar

just blew out a Mirasol because they were having problems. And some of those issues are spilling out into the rest of the market. That said, I think we have a great project. I think we're going to have a solution to the partnership and or exiting either either via JV or an exit via sale. This is a very viable project. It's a very viable location. The product is a good product, and I think that it's going to be well received within the marketplace. I'm just hoping that between the A and C, we get both of those issues resolved sooner rather than later, and then I can move forward. So with that, if you have any questions for me directly, I'm happy to answer them and I appreciate your patience on this issue. Thank you. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this and stay here? We'll come back to ask you questions. No speakers have signed up, Madam Chair, and none are online. Okay, so stay here. And if are there any questions of the applicant? Seeing none, I think the matters. Oh, Robert. Yeah. So the Crestwood proposal, that was a letter of intent that was in the staff report that has expired. Had they renewed something? No, we're still in discussion with them. I basically told them that until I have a timeline for when s e can give us a roadmap as to how to get from point A to point B on how long it will take. I don't want to sign up anything with Crestwood and then find out that SW is going to take a year, because then they have an exclusive on a deal that I can't transact on anyway. And you know, so, you know, I don't want to put handcuffs on them or myself right now until I know how we can resolve a timing issue. So it's a little bit, you know, the great news is they're still interested and they they've reached out to the broker that I'm using, Eric Christensen from Hoffman Land. You'll

see his name around. He's, you know, he's the best land broker, I believe, in Coachella Valley for this kind of product. And he certainly has, you know, beat, you know, the the bushes trying to find, you know, viable buyers that are well capitalized, that can transact on something like this, you know, right now, you know, me signing an Loi would be meaningless because frankly, the time lapse of how long it would take C to resolve this issue, it might just expire on its own, even if we both signed it. So it's unfortunately a document that doesn't do me much or do Crestwood much until I have timing for us. Okay. And what's what's the status of your drawings? I have not completed CDs yet, frankly. You know, one of the ideas, you know, I've talked to a couple builders. You ask a question about would there be substantial changes? And, you know, one group came to me and said, you know, we're we we wonder whether or not there would be a good idea in having elevators internal to the units rather than a roof deck, which has been, you know, which is in the plan. And buyers, we might, you know, want to give them the option of having an elevator or a roof deck because the, the cost of those is basically the same. And we could trade those out. So going to CDs until, you know, I all of them. And, you know, all of them are effectively subject to a final map, which I can't get until I get DWA to sign off on the easement release. So, you know, I think the good news from my side is that I have a number of JV partners, all of which who have done good projects here in Palm Springs that I believe that would be well received as co-sponsors along with me. The bad news is I can't transact with any of them yet until I get these two issues across, you know, over the finish

line. Okay. So. All right. Thank you. Yes. Have you tried reaching out to any of your elected officials, either the state or the county, to help push the utilities through? I'm open to ideas. If there's a hotline number that you guys have for somebody that can affect the change. I, you know, I, I've been trying to just work through the staff level, assuming that that was the correct approach. However, you know, if there is a, you know, if there's one 800 number that solves the problem, let me know. Well, I've had similar development issues working with Southern California Edison. And we did leverage our relationship with our state assembly person to kind of push some pressure on them. So I suggest you reach out. That sounds like a great idea. Okay. Any other questions I have? I have one among the plethora of agencies that you are working with is Caltrans. I saw that in your letter. What permits do you need from them and how is that going? Actually, Caltrans was the least of the problems. I mean, they were relatively professional to deal with, frankly, of all of them, Caltrans was the was the least of the issues. I got an encroachment permit from them that was necessary. And according to Mr. Samaniego, in order to get a grading permit. So I went through that process and in fact, I just extended it with Caltrans for another year back in. I was going to say mid-January. And, you know, again, of all of the other agencies, they've been great, which I did not expect going into it. Thank you. There being no other questions, the public hearing is closed. Matters

before the commission. I just wanted to start with a motion. I think this is the archetypal example of why we would issue an extension, and I want to make that motion. And I also want to say that I did work with Edison as a lender many years ago, but I think they held up a project at least two years that I was I was lending on and the problems go way back. So there's a motion, I don't know if there's a second. Second, is there any discussion seeing. I would just like to say we did receive a letter from somebody who objected to the project going in and to to us approving another project and another development for that part of town. And just addressing that, I would like to say that. In the United States, property owners have a right to develop their property. And I understand the sentiment of the writer and others who just don't want more development, period. But we are not here to. Override the Constitution and not let people develop their property. Thank you. Anything else? Any other comments? Can you call the roll, please? Oh, did we get a yes? We got a second. Okay. Chair. Yes. Commissioner. Baker. Yes. Vice chair. Allen. Yes. Commissioner Rothm. Yes. Commissioner Miller. Yes. Commissioner. Murphy. Yes. Commissioner Morrell. Yes. This is a good project. We wish you well. We. And invite us to the the grant,

the groundbreaking and the grand opening. When those happen. I appreciate it. No. Okay. Moving right along. We have a request from James Beauchamp, the owner, for a tentative parcel map to split one lot into two lots, resulting in a a parcel one equaling 31,198ft and parcel two equaling 22,696ft. Located at 565 La Mirada Road. Staff report, please. Thank you, Madam Chair. So you wrote read into the record the proposal for the tentative parcel map equaling two lots one, parcel one and parcel two. Looking at the aerial for the site. This is showing La Mirada Road and at the very end of West Ramon Road, which is right here. This is the end of Ramon. This is the lot right here. Currently there exists a single family house that was built in the 70s and an attached tennis court, which is on all one lot, and the applicant lives in the house across the street here. So in the tentative parcel map, they're looking to split the lot. Parcel one will be to the north, which is the top of the slide, and the existing house and parcel two is on the south. So the zoning for the parcels are R1A. Each of these. When you do the split equals what is required for the zone which is 20,000ft. So it is consistent with the zoning. When you do the lot split.

Our recommendation is to approve with conditions which are included in your staff packet, your staff report. So it is a by right use in the R1-a zone. It is consistent with that zoning. There are. The physical site is suited with the existing house. The applicant has asked to use the second lot or or parcel one as a passive use, meaning that it would be used by them. The owners who live across the street for recreation, walking of dogs, enjoying the mountain views, enjoying wildlife. The zoning code states that a tennis court cannot be on a separate parcel from a single family house. There needs to be a main use which would be a house. So by splitting the lot, the applicant has agreed to not use the tennis court as a tennis court, but as a passive use. And you'll notice in the staff report, that's what we reference that that is their intended. So there is no net up there. There are some poles there. And in your email today, the applicant of the intended purchaser of the new single family house sent, Mr. Christopher Kennedy, sent some photographs of what the tennis court looks like today. And I think he's here. Right? He's out in the audience. He's going to speak to you. They have painted the tennis court and added done other things to make it inoperable, to be used as a recreational tennis court. So continuing on with the findings, it is not does not cause impacts to the environment or serious health problems, and it will not conflict with easements and there's no environmental impact. So, Madam Chair, this

is a public hearing and it was noticed for all property owners within 500ft. And we received no comments. Thank you. Are there any questions of staff? Yes, Glenn, while the owner of the former tennis court intends to use it as passive use, am I correct? This is a buildable lot in the future. That's correct. They would need to go through the major architectural review process for hillside development, and I'm surprised that you didn't mention that at all in the staff report, but because that is what could happen here, which would be fine. But I think we can't ignore that fact. It doesn't matter to anything, except it's a fact that should be brought to the public's attention, except that it's it's not one of the findings that you need to make under the Subdivision Map Act, because they're not proposing development. So you are not we are not looking at any proposal for above ground development, nor does that factor into your decision making tonight. We'll accept if if they were proposing a lot split that made a lot that was below what was allowed, then it would be an issue, correct? Correct. But the staff report does say it conforms with zoning. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions of staff? Yes. Commissioner Brotman. So. What other uses or what else can be built on this lot? Lot number one. So, you know, they've got this tennis court that they've painted over and removed the net. But are there other uses that are restricted on a lot that is not attached to a single family? Right. The R1 zone, it's very limited as what you can do to develop. It is mainly an estate, residential,

general plan and zone parcel. So a single family house. It is meant to be open space. Also there's very limited as to what could be in an R1 zone parcel and that's would be a new house. There's no size requirements. It's as long as it did not infringe on the 20% slope of the hillside, which is basically the the area that is the tennis court. And the applicant can address this. I asked him and we talked about what could be the potential use for the lot, and I'll let him respond when he comes on. Okay. And let's see here. Well, I'll I'll I'll ask it later. But in the staff in the planning condition PL one, it says the tennis court shall be altered in a way that active play cannot take place. And I'm wondering, it seems like you're kind of it's kind of skirting whether the tennis court should be demolished or not. Any comment on that. Right. That's that that you're correct. It was crafted to the applicant does not wish to jackhammer up the the tennis court. And this was an attempt to let them keep it, but not use it as an active play area. Okay. All right. I would note that there was a letter distributed. I think it's on on your desks. And it was in the email earlier today. They have effectively decommissioned the tennis court as of this week. So the nets are gone. The pools are gone. It's not green. There's no paint, you know. But effectively we're not asking them to jackhammer it up. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Yes. I brings up

another question. How is having an active patio with seats and chairs and tables not considered active use just because someone's not swinging a tennis racket. Right. The code is very specific. It says tennis courts are prohibited without a main structure on the building on the lot. Ok, I know it's odd. Vice chair, you had a question? Yes, sir. There is. When I'm out there looking at it, I see an old chain link fence that is at the north side of the property. Not long. It's maybe a 20 foot section, and I can't tell. It doesn't show up on the tentative map and I can't see it on here. But I'm wondering if that wouldn't is on the subject property and if it would need to come down, because there's not my understanding of our walls and fences ordinances that you can have chain link fence when you have a tennis court. So I'm wondering, is it actually on that property and would it be removed? It would. That's a good point. And as you mentioned, chain link fence is not a permitted fence material other than a tennis court. So at some point it most likely would have to be removed. Would that point be before the map is recorded or what's the. Well, it it would. That would be a code issue condition it. You could condition it or it would be a code issue on our end. Okay. Thank you. And is it a code issue? If the tennis court is non-existent and a chain link fence is not permitted, then we would we would follow through with that. Thank you. Okay. The

matter is the public hearing is open. If the applicant is here, you have ten minutes. He's on Zoom. Mr. motion. Yes, yes. Hi. I'm Jim, I'm sorry. I'm not able to be there in person. Unfortunately, I'm away in business in Chicago. But I want to thank the City of Palm Springs Planning Commission for considering this this lot change. My wife, Laura Meyer, is in attendance, along with the gentleman that are proposing to buy parcel two in the home m us, Christopher Kennedy and his husband, David Clark. And just to give you a little bit of a back story, we built the home across the street at 502 South La Mirada and took possession of that home back in May of 2024. And we look across the street through beautiful palm trees towards the mountain. And shortly after we took possession of the home that we had been building for a few years, we found out that that this home and lot across the street was going up for sale. And our principal concern was honestly to protect our view and the beauty of the neighborhood. And so we purchased that lot at 565 South La Mirada Road back in June of 2024. I believe I might be getting that wrong. Sorry, I don't have that in my records for right now, but shortly after we closed on the home that we had been building across the street, we weren't sure what we wanted to do with that home. But it's an architecturally

significant home and it had some deferred maintenance, required some beautification, and we decided to sell it to our friends, Christopher Kennedy and David Clark. We're under contract to sell the home at this point. After we had done a full survey of the property, we're aware that that zoning does not permit us to have a tennis court on a property where there is not also a home. Neither one of us play tennis, not that it matters. I've had two full knee replacements. We were never going to use it as a tennis court, but in good faith we have gone ahead and removed the net, the poles we've sandblasted and pressure washed the concrete pad and repainted it and intend to use it for walking the dogs. Just general recreation, sitting and enjoying the mountain from that property. Principally our primary concern is, I would like to reiterate, is that we're just preserving the view and the palm trees that are on the berm surrounding the tennis court and the mountain. Did we lose the the applicant? I, I think that no, I'm still here. I think that was it. Yeah, I think I think that was it. Thank you. Any questions? If you would stay on the line. I think we're going to open the public hearing. Have members of the public who are here to speak, speak first and then if you would stay on and if we have questions, we'll come back to you. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Are there members of the public who wish to speak? We have no members signed up, Madam

Chair. Okay, so questions of the applicant from members of the commission. Are the Is lighting system still operable? It appears that there are a number of lights for the court. Yes. The lighting system is still operable. Do you use it? No, it we like to go over there in the evenings and look at the stars. And that interferes with that activity. I. I guess I'm wondering if in the period of time that you've owned the property and it's or to your knowledge, to the neighbors that the lights are old and I don't think they probably meet our dark skies or I don't even know if they would work, but I'm wondering if you get objections from the neighbors if those lights aren't are turned on. I am not aware of any objections from the neighbors for those lights. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. There's been no complaints. Just in terms of the lights, we've got a letter saying that the poles were taken down. Are there lights in addition to the poles? No, the lights are still fence. Is that something you're intending to take that take down? Is that on your property? I'm I can't recall if it's on the property. If it is, it's right on the property line. And if it is on our property, I'm happy to remove it. Okay. And you would agree to a condition to remove it? Yes. Thank you. There being no other questions for the applicant, the public hearing is closed. We had one question for staff. Yeah. And I

don't know if this is for Christopher or for the city attorney. Is there not a way to enjoin the two properties across the road, even though separated by La Mirada, but to essentially sort of look at them as one parcel? Well, we've done lot Thai agreements, but I don't my experience, they've always been adjacent to each other and they've been sort of to share commercial parking or we've done it with a casita or a cabana on a separate lot, and we've lot tied them together for a main house. So we have done that, but it's never been separated by a street. Yeah, I I'm not aware of that in California. I've not encountered it here where they're separated by right of way, but it's something we could certainly look into. I think engineering Jonathan has a comment. Jonathan May. Oh good evening, Planning Commission. From what I understand, the Subdivision Map Act there. The right of way is to be treated as essentially an easement. So technically speaking, although they are across the right of way, depending on what the research would yield, you could technically merge the two lots through a parcel merger process. But that's not what has been requested from what I understand. So you can do a partial merger, but it depends on what the results from a research would sort of find. They'd probably have to do a legal search on their own and then sort of present that to us. In that I'm assuming the applicant hasn't asked for a lot merger. And that's something if they wanted to do, they could do in the future. They have not asked for that. Okay. So this item is in front of

us. I think it's this is just me speaking. I'm delighted somebody wants to preserve views and keep open space open. I can't think of a reason to oppose that. I would like to make a motion to approve. I would make it subject to. If the chain link fence is on their property, they've agreed that they would remove it. I don't think that the lighting on the patio, the that kind of lighting. There's anything in the code that would require that be removed. So I'll second good any any comments or questions on the motion? Yes. Yeah. I, I don't I don't have an issue with the lot split. I do have an issue with the slab of the tennis court remaining. And I think I would like to propose that there be a section cut out of it, or that it be reduced in size so that it can't be converted back to a tennis court or a pickleball court or some other sport court. And that would. And I'd also like to add the removal of the existing lights. Why I just if it's a tennis court, I mean, the size of this patio is enormous. And there's nothing that would preclude their enjoyment of the property by reducing the size of it. And if whether it means cutting out a section in the middle of it so that it's no longer a tennis court, I think that's appropriate. Would staff opine on that? I have some discomfort with conditioning the removal of the pad, because, you know, if the goal is to prevent them from making it a tennis court again, I mean, that becomes a code

enforcement issue. I don't know that we can they could put the pad in, they can maintain the pad. So unless we have a reason in the code to have them remove it, I don't think I don't think anticipating that they might make it a tennis court again is sufficient reason, in my opinion. The lights. On the other hand, I think you have you have basis in the code to require, if you wish. I made a motion. I believe that we approve this with the condition that if the chain link fence is on their property, it be removed. I'm going to keep that as my motion. If there's a second. I'll second. And then if there's anybody wants to make a substitute motion that we vote on that, that's fine with me. Is there a substitute motion not seeing a substitute motion? No. I would just say discussion under discussion. I would say if it should become a tennis court or attempt to become a tennis court in the future, that becomes a code compliance issue. And it's out of our hands and it's in the city staff's hands. So I think there's a mechanism for controlling that. And I would add, it is one of the conditions of approval in here that it not that the tennis court be decommissioned. So we do have these conditions of approval. Should you approve as conditioned. Read back the conditions then you've added one in. I'm in. I'm I agree with that. Just the seconder agree with the tennis court being conditioned. Yes. It's already in the conditions of approval in your staff report. So the only condition we have in this is the chain. If the chain link fence is on the property it would be removed. That's the motion. We have a second. We have no more discussion. I have a comment too. Like Commissioner Rotman, I'm uncomfortable with the lighting remaining because there's a distinct difference between patio lighting and tennis court

lighting. And tennis court lighting tends to develop complaints from surrounding residents residences. However, as Commissioner Miller has pointed out, if it is used for playing tennis, then we do have recourse for the city, does have recourse to be able to pursue it as a code issue. So. Are you doing anything? I see that well, I see the director making a little bit of a face there. Is that because if they're using the lighting to light their patio, it's probably I don't know what kind of provisions do we have in our code. If somebody over lights their patio to height of way too high and well, to the point where it's objectionable without knowing the status of the current lights, you know, we do, we do have the, we do have rules in the code that speak to. Why can't I think of right. I mean, tennis court that has lights needs a conditional use permit. And I don't know if that was ever sought for this property because it was, you know, 40 years ago where I was going is we do have requirements to meet certain photometric requirements. So I think one of the things, if there is discomfort about the use of the lights or the brightness of the lights that the Commission could consider, is asking the applicant to make sure that the lights that remain, in addition to not being used for the purposes of lighting a sport court, also potentially be brought into compliance or shielded so that the lighting is is facing downward. That's one option. We don't know that there are issues with the lights. We don't know and we haven't had objections and they probably haven't

been on. Does anybody want to? I'm not making an alteration. I'm not proposing an alteration to my motion. Does anybody is anybody making a substitute motion. Would you make accept a friendly amendment of shielding the lights? Do we even w that their tennis court lights. I mean, I don't know what they are right in the one of the photographs that you have in front of it, it shows. If you look, they they're they're not the the poles are not very tall. I wouldn't say they're over ten feet tall. The poles are gone. No they're not. Oh, you can see them in the photograph that was taken yesterday. And they're small little box shoe box heads that point down. Yeah. It does look like the lighting is is oriented down. But I'm sorry. What it does look as though there is a shield and the lighting is oriented down. But I can't say based on this photograph whether it complies with today's. When I was up there, I noticed they were tall enough. The beauty of this whole thing is that it's so shielded from the street, you really don't see the property, and it's the landscaping is beautiful. I could see the light poles and I could see that there were like hoods on them, but they don't look to be full cut off, as would be required under today's code. But that's just and I would note that it looks like they're it looks like they're angled toward the mountain and not to the street. So that would lessen any concern for street is the second or the motion. Do you have a concern about them? I, I do

not, and I think we need to be careful how much we condition a track or a parcel map. It's not really allowed to be conditioned more than code issues. So I think that this is still before the commission. I'm going to call the question. Yes. Call the can you call the roll? There we go. Chair. Yes. Commissioner Miller. Yes. Vice chair. Allen. Yes. Commissioner. Rottmann. No. Commissioner Murphy. Yes. Commissioner. Baker. Yes. Commissioner. Morelle. Yes. Motion passes. Okay. Moving right along. We have before us an item of unfinished business. It's a request by PS luxe LLC, a property owner for a major development permit application and tentative track map for a one lot condominium map to construct a duplex on a 0.56 acre se located at 301 West Villa Escuela. Staff report, please. Thank you chair. So the project before you is a request for a one lot condo map to construct a new duplex on a five story on a .56 acre site. The overall scope of work is the request of the Planning Commission to review the application for compliance requirements to the development standards of the R, G, a six zone, and section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act. The project site is located on the corner of West via Escuela and North Mira Vista Way, highlighted above in yellow. The General Plan designation is

low density residential, which allows up to three dwelling units maximum, and the zoning designation is G, a six, a garden, apartment and cluster residential zone, which allows for multifamily uses. So overall, the project conforms to the general plan and the zoning designation. The photo on the left is an aerial view of the project site. Currently, there is a single family, an existing single family home on the property. The. The photo on the right is. What was the initial proposed duplex. So let me try to highlight. You have unit A and unit B, and initially they both took access off west of Escuela and were, you know, attached side by side. So. During that September 9th Planning Commission meeting, Planning Commission review the project and had a couple comments and concerns. One of them was reduced the number of driveways on the Escuela. Consider using Mira Vista as a second entry point and redesign the frontages on Escuela to have more sense of eyes on the street. So if you recall, the garages were actually facing West V Ezuela and there was. The front doors were located on the side. There weren't any windows facing the street, and that was an issue at that time. So the project, the applicants went back and redesigned the project in accordance to those comments. And we have unit one taking. This is sorry, the escuela is facing north. This picture should have been rotated, but we have unit one taking access off Mira Vista Way and unit two taking access off via Escuela. So eliminating one

driveway from west via Escuela. They've also reconfigured the floor plans on both units to give more sense of eyes on street by providing additional windows, clear story windows, and the front door on both on both units. So we don't just see a garage or, you know, garage doors. Here's just the revised floor plan again, that shows access from the different streets, the elevations, which they're a bit tiny, but indicate that the, the house is single story and it doesn't exceed the height of 15ft maximum. Some additional photo renderings of the proposal. And the development standards. So the development standards of the RG six zone have a maximum height of 15ft. The project is 14ft tall at its highest point. The setbacks they comply with on all sides. And if you know, they needed a little bit of leniency, they're applying for an a m for the the North Street side setback, and they meet the lot coverage and minimum open space requirements. The project staff has determined that the project is eligible for a categorical exemption for both class three and class 32 infill development. Staff does recommend approval of DPP Dash 20. That's wrong. 2020 5-001 and STM 2020 5-001, subject to the attached conditions of approval. That concludes my report, and the applicant is available for any questions. Are there

any questions of staff? Yes, Commissioner Brotman yes. So in the analysis of the setbacks, it says that the setback along the escuela requires an a M and it it's being approved at 16ft. So the required the zone required setback is at 20ft along there. Yes. Yes. It's it's 20. Well it reads really interesting in the code I want to see. It's at 25ft. But because it's the GA6 zone and engineering's taking a specific amount of right of way off that frontage they get, they get it reduced to 20ft. And then from there we take the a m and it gives them 16ft. Okay. All right. Thank you. And then in the engineering conditions, it talks about providing an eight foot wide sidewalk along both Mira Vista and the Escuela. And in Good evening. My name is Keith Roof and I represent. PS if you can speak into the share. As part of this project, we are requesting a five foot sidewalk instead of the eight foot sidewalk. We'd previously previously discussed this with engineering and they had agreed to that at that point. We'd also like to request a deferral of a five foot sidewalk along an 89 foot section of the Mira Vista frontage. This request is based on significant physical obstacles, the existing right of way from the curb to our CMU wall is only four foot 6 to 5 foot two, which is insufficient for a standard five foot sidewalk without significant intervention as well. There's a steep 10 to 14 inch grade change between the curb and the wall, currently stabilized by

mature ficus hedge. Complying with the requirement would necessitate removing the old growth. Landscaping, demolishing the existing retaining and CMU wall regrading construction of a new retaining and CMU wall and planting of new ficus hedge. What would typically be a $10,000 standard sidewalk improvement increases to over $50,000 due to the unique site conditions. As part of this project, we are dedicating a new 25 foot by 150 foot right of way along the escuela. This includes the construction of 164ft of new curb and gutter, a five foot sidewalk and a new corner cutback with an Ada compliant ramp. We believe that by focusing our improvements on the frontage and the new Ada corner return, we are providing a meaningful contribution to the city's pedestrian infrastructure while respecting the physical limitations of the mere Vista frontage. Also, there's an existing pedestrian infrastructure directly across the street along East Mira Vista Way, allowing for safe passage to nearby amenities. Our proposed improvements on Via Escuela will seamlessly bridge the gap between our property and this existing network. We respectfully request a deferral of the construction of the 89 foot segment of Mira Vista sidewalk, until a cohesive and functional sidewalk network can be installed in a coordinated effort with neighboring properties, maximizing the public benefit and minimizing unnecessary costs. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Are there any members of the public who asked to speak on this item? No speakers, Madam Chair. So if there are questions of the applicant. Yes, Commissioner Moreau. Yeah. This gets back to the

utilities we talked about on the other project. How are you doing dealing with the public utilities and are you on track with that in any way? Hold up your construction. As one of the previous applicants was discussing anything with SoCal. Edison is up in the air and you're kind of at the mercy of whatever they decide and how long they take. At this point in the development, we have not had any initial discussions with SC until we know what we're going to do and where things are going to go. Any other questions? Yes. Vice Chair Lane, does the lack of sidewalk, the ficus hedge for most of these exhibits? I can't tell what's going on on the south of the project. Do your neighbors to the south have the sidewalk? So if I'm getting the right direction, yes. If we look, we look over there. The blue line is the existing sidewalk network. Okay, how about the purple? And then the purple is just curb and gutter. And then where there's nothing is there's no curb and gutter, there's nothing there. So there's no sidewalks past that blue zone. And we would now be installing a new segment of sidewalk all the way across the frontage of the escuela. And having that new corner with an Ada ramp. And is there a sidewalk in the adjoining property? No. Okay. And so you're having to take out some hedge. We would have to take out all the hedge. And would you be putting hedge back in? We'd be putting hedge if we had to. If we had to do that, we would have to put in,

take out the hedge, take down the wall, build a new wall and put hedge on the inside. Okay, this is on the mirror of Vista frontage, but on the Via Escuela frontage is there sidewalk on the adjoining properties? No, no. So you're the only your sidewalk for one, right? So one property and it dead ends into it. Dead ends into hedge. And the adjoining property shirt on the adjoining property. Okay, that. Does anybody else have other questions of the applicant? Yeah. Just so currently you've got a gated driveway on Mira Vista. Is that gate going to remain? No. So that will currently it's a 12 foot gated entry. The plans have it to expand into a 20 foot open driveway. Okay. And you said that from the on Mira Vista as well. You said that from the existing non-existent curb to your property line, there's 4.5ft, anywhere from four and a half to five foot two. Okay, okay. And so I might ask engineering if there is. If if they could put in a three foot sidewalk, would that work with engineering for Ada purposes? A California requires a minimum of four. Okay. And also the hedge. And I believe the wall in that case would also take place within the public right of way of Mira Vista. The right of way extends seven feet from the face of curb there. So the wall would most likely have to be removed anyways. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Yes. Question

again for Jonathan. Could they ask for an encroachment permit for the wall to remain? They could do an encroachment agreement. Ordinarily, we wouldn't allow it wherever it's placed, where it could basically inhibit the placement of future sidewalk or curb gutter or any sort of future improvements. In this case, as it is a condo application, it's treated as if it is a commercial condo apartment application. It's only single family residential where engineering would be a little bit more lenient in terms of deferrals and whatnot. Otherwise, it's treated as a full on requirement. How long would the deferral be if, if they're granted a deferment? If granted a deferment, the deferral would ordinarily go to a street improvement covenant, and then it would just go following the standard procedure for deferrals through covenants, where whenever everybody in a particular block area, region, neighborhood essentially either has these deferrals through covenants or some political action is decided to be taken where they go ahead and decide to have an assessment district. That's when you'll go ahead and have it constructed. But given the lack of improvements in this area, there's no telling in terms of when that will happen. We've only just started our second utility Undergrounding assessment district in just the last year and out of the last 40 some odd years. So a long time to go. So to the south of our lot, you can see the large kind of open space with a small multi unit on there. It's a very kind of worn down and run down segment of housing. We have spoken to the owner and their plans are to

eventually develop that. So our idea was that once they're ready to develop that, then we could then figure out a sidewalk between the two properties where it could all be built at once, and it would make more sense at that time. I have a question for engineering as well. I'm familiar with some other older areas in the city where there is a sidewalk just on one side, but not on the other. I don't know the foot traffic in this area or the vehicular traffic, and how some of the areas that I'm thinking of, people just walk across the street and it's not a problem because there's relatively low vehicular traffic. Is that like this? Is there much demand? What can you tell us about this area in particular and how problematic you think it would be from a public safety standpoint for public safety purposes? And to follow with the Complete Streets Act, we would ordinarily require basically for there to be the curb, the gutter, the sidewalk, just in general, especially for commercial projects, regardless of whether or not they connected up to an existing one. In this case, you have the Ada ramp on the southeast corner of Mira Vista Way. As part of this project, they would be putting in the curb ramp. They've already been conditioned to go ahead and construct the sidewalk along the northern property line along the escuela, and this would essentially carry it down south to this 12 unit apartment that whenever they go to develop, they would then also connect up to to connect them up into the pedestrian network along via Escuela. As far as I understand, there's a contiguous sidewalk all the way from Mira Vista to, I believe it's North Palm Canyon. Yes. So this would just be connecting them up into

that network. And then all the adjacent neighbors, whenever they go to develop, be it over an addition or new development, they would then also construct their portion just over time. But do you know what type of vehicular traffic is on? That wouldn't take any precedent into how we sort of determine the requirements. Okay. It's just based on do you get complaints about the lack of sidewalk there? Not in this particular area, but we get them all the time in general, either on sunny dunes, complaining about why isn't it on my side? Or, oh, you guys just repave the streets. Why didn't you do the sidewalks while you're at it? We get that plenty. So on top of city improvement projects to construct sidewalk, this is one of those processes where the city already put all the tools in the city engineer's hands to basically sort of offset the city's coffers to push it onto development instead. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Seeing none. Thank you. The matter is before us. I think the only item that's before us is the side. Is there any other item other than the sidewalk deferral request? Are there concerns? Is there a maybe just to get a sense of the the the temperature of the commission on the sidewalk deferral requests? I'm comfortable. Moving forward with an approval without the sidewalk. Given the cost deferment, given the cost that's been cited to put a sidewalk in for that short distance that then ends in a dirt road. So I'd be comfortable without requiring the sidewalk is

there. The sense, the general sense from the rest of the commission? Is there anybody that disagrees with the commissioner's statement? I have a question. If it's deferred, does the city end up paying for it when it is eventually constructed? No. So whenever it's going to be constructed, it would be paid for by the city. They would float a bond, we would construct it, and then through an assessment district, it'd be recollected over however many years, amortized across however many properties through the tax roll. So the two properties that are involved in this, they would float a bond and there would be an assessment district for those two properties. If this was deferred. In terms of constructing this portion of the sidewalk, even if it was deferred, it depends on what proposed use for the 12 units apartment to the south would basically be requesting, if it is also of a commercial value or commercial aspect, multifamily, any sort of aspect like that. We would typically also require that they go ahead and construct the sidewalk. So you'd end up having this gap between the Ada ramp on the corner of the Escuela Mira Vista, and the requirement that it be built along Mariscal and Mira Vista Way for that property to the south. If it were also deferred, then you would end up with the eventuality that it will have to go to an assessment district to eventually build out that whole block. So given this particular situation where they have the hedge and a wall that would need to be removed if the city did that, I mean, that seems what who bears the cost of that? Is that part of the the assessment or as I understand it, that would be. And the city would basically pay for

it upfront and then recollect it through the assessment tax roll and whatnot. As mentioned earlier, it's both the hedge the wall are currently in public right of way. So if it is deferred, then we'd have to also include some sort of condition in regards to an encroachment agreement to allow it to remain as is. Okay. Is there a motion? I have one more question for staff and it's really not in relation. It's just for my own edification and perhaps for the applicant. This will become a three unit property, essentially multifamily. It's no longer a single family. What remind me again, what are the allowances or limitations for short term rental of a three unit property? If I'm recalling correctly, I don't believe you can do short term rental on multifamily properties. That is correct. It's just single family. I'm sorry, could you repeat that? Yeah. You cannot do vacation rentals on multifamily properties. It's strictly for single family only. That's what I thought the answer was. I'll make a motion to approve the lot, split the one lot condo map and the design development permit. With approval of the Ceqa exemptions 15332 and 301. I think both right. With the condition allowing for the deferment of the sidewalk only along Mira Vista way. And I believe engineering also wants a condition related to the. An encroachment permit being approved for the existing

wall and hedge along Mira Vista way one correction encroachment agreement. Agreement. Thank you. And is there a second? Second just comments. I have a comment before we go. I just I want to congratulate the applicant on the redesign of the project. I think they did exactly what we wanted them to do. I think the streetscapes are much improved by what you've done in the the living environment you created for people who are going to live there is much better. I really, really appreciate the work you did, and I'm very happy to vote for this. And I don't because there is a sidewalk that's Ada on the other side of the street. I, I very in most situations I would want to see a sidewalk, but I'm very comfortable here that the sidewalk that's there will take the, the traffic, the sidewalk traffic that's required. So I again, my congratulations and thanks to you for what you've brought before us with that. Are there any other comments? Just some clarification. Are we talking about a five foot sidewalk or an. When we differed or a square for both, I think there was a request from the applicant to reduce from 8 to 5ft the sidewalk on Escuela, which it sounds like the commission would like. Constructed as well as the deferred five feet. I believe the motion Thane have clarity. We have no additional comments. And would you call the , please? Commissioner Miller? Yes, Commissioner Murphy. Yes, chair. Yes. Vice chair. Elaine. Yes. Commissioner

Rothman. Yes. Commissioner. Baker. Yes. Commissioner Morrell. Yes. 14. Thank you. Motions approved. Congratulations. Okay. Moving right along. The planning. Planning Commission requests, reports and comments. I believe we have a report on the Architectural Review Commission from Vice Chair. Thank you. Yes. I just wanted to report that I attended the AAC meeting on March 2nd of this year, and the project before them, and that we was most related to our work was, I don't know the name of it. Eight House subdivision at Alejo and Farrell, approximately. And they continued the issue for restudy and asked in particular that the applicant address the roof thickness and the drainage, because they noted that the drainage just came down the side of the the walls. They also wanted to differentiate the homes in some way other than just other, and then a larger landscape area, which was actually half the landscape from one house and half from another. And they had different landscape. They had proposed different landscaping schemes on each half. And so the AAC suggested that those be stitched together into a single landscape, which I thought was really a good suggestion. They also suggested that the winds and the noise from the Air Force airport could be mitigated to some extent if

all of the homes faced south. If all the units themselves would face south. So they then wanted the eaves and overhangs to be addressed so that they were were where they were needed to provide protection. It was an interesting conversation and some of the things that the commission or the the committee addressed, I think were, is that we typically look at. But it was hard for me to be offended because, frankly, we're all over the architecture on a regular basis too, with sending suggestions to them. And I want to thank the director because he's identified kind of that we need the two, the committee and the commission to work better as a whole so that we don't send mixed messages to the applicants as they come through the process. And I think that he's working on a couple of suggestions of ways that we could just tweak our work as, and the committee could tweak its work so that we are not either on kind of undoing or changing what the previous body said. So thank you for that, Chris. The actually, we had a meeting Lori and I did with the chair and was going to be a vice chair, but I think it was just the chair of the Architectural Review Committee and commission. And sort of where we got to is as we make architecture items, we talk about it as asking them to look at issues that concerned us with caution that we, we staff, be very clear with

the applicants that we haven't done the direction that the AAC has in their purview. So, and some of the staff reports were written as the Commission directs you to do this, which is also, I think, not anything we've ever said. We said, please look at. So that that was a discussion on one side. On their side, they have times when the site plan is an issue for them, even though it's our purview. But they can they can make recommendations to the director for an an arm and minor changes to the site plan so that they can improve what we've passed through. And sometimes that might be the wind issues that they looked at on that eight unit property. So we we talked about how we can work in a more accommodating way. And also they, they basically said that our, what we've asked them to look at. They have they don't. It isn't difficult for them. They can look at it and they can agree with it or not agree with it, because it's in their purview as to where it goes. But we should be cautious that we're not directing them on architectural issues. We may ask a look at something, and I think the committee members clearly understood that this was the Planning Commission asking them to take a look at something. The problem was that sometimes the the applicant, when they're sitting out here listening, they think, oh, no, I've got to go back and redo an example with the application of color. That was interesting, however, and it's a project that the rebuild of the project that was destroyed, the fertility clinic that

came to us recently, the applicant listened to us and brought in a design, a revised design that. You know, it's still in the purview. It hasn't gone to the arc, but the redesign is it works significantly better from a staff point of view. So it it doesn't always mean that the applicant, the applicants will try and address. Sometimes the things that we raise staff has to be very clear that we're not directing on architecture. And they have a little bit of purview on site plan. If the director agrees. I would not call it purview. They you don't have purview in architecture and they don't have purview in site planning. That is the way that the code is structured and the process is set up. Now they can they can raise suggestions the same way that you can. An applicant may or may not take it. And that's I just I want to be clear on that. You are setting the site plan and they are setting the architecture. And we need to live in those lanes for residential for every project on commercial. Correct. They don't have purview. The code. The code is structured such that the Planning Commission, in approving a development permit, is looking at issues related to site planning and circulation. You are not looking to anything related to architecture and landscape. Architectural Review Committee and Architectural Review Committee has no purview over site planning or circulation, but they do over architecture. Correct. Okay. That's and that includes landscape design. Landscape design is solely with Arc. And one of the issues that was raised is that currently the code talks about a publication that comes, I think, out of is it Rancho or the lush and efficient the CV booklet, which to some extent is out of date in

terms of what plants are thriving and living in the desert. So hopefully at some point staff can work on code changes that address some of the issues that are problematic. But that's what the applicants have to work with. I have to ask this question. I understand it seems black and white in terms of site planning and architecture. However, we do have some of our criteria that talks about consistency with surrounding development. What comes to mind is the Springs Shopping Center, where the Home Depot is, and we had the chick fil A come in front of us, and there was a lot of comments about trying to mirror some of the architectural look and materials of the existing building on either side of this new building, including some of the brick, the stonework and some of the, you know, some of the sort of tower elements or and I attended that architectural committee and they essentially eliminated all of the things that we thought were important for that consistency finding. So I guess I would argue that a pure read of the code, you know, obviously it's your finding to interpret, but that relates to your role as you're looking at a development permit. So I would argue that you're not making a finding based on the consistency of the architecture. You're making a consistency based on the use, the circulation, those types of issues related to the development permit, not to architectural style or the physical look of the building. Well, I like that the meetings are going to go quicker from now on. The one thing that I do want to flag in addition to all of this, and you'll notice that this language was in

some of the reports now, and it's going to continue to be in them both for you and for AAC. Is the state continues to move the needle. And this is where the residential issue comes up relative to residential development, where we have to apply clear and objective standards. And I would say that we are not operating squarely in that realm. Neither body, you or AAC, with all due respect, and my concern is you get a savvy enough developer who will call our bluff on that and we will find ourselves in some trouble. And so I the the caution that I would give to you and to AAC is when you are giving architectural comments specifically relative to residential projects, they do need to be based in the code. And it's more relevant to AAC because, you know, you're making suggestions. And I think that that's fine. That's the process. But when AAC is making decisions on residential projects, we really cannot be continuing or denying or making decisions that are based on subjective standards or standards that are not based in the code somewhere. And that is something we need to be more cognizant of going forward. Thank you. Do you have a director's report on that? So with that follow up, back to the fertility clinic where people were not happy with the non residential. So a lot, a lot more ability to shape non residential projects. And by example in the zoning code update that we're working on right now we are looking to because the current code is written with a lot of subjectivity. So unfortunately our code hasn't caught up to where state law is. The new code will. And so we're going to build those objective standards into the code for residential projects so that there is something to point to for non residential projects. We're going to have urban design guidelines. And those are inherently just a little bit more subjective. And we have a little bit more control over those projects

at least for now. Is there a director's report you you mentioned the the medical building. So, you know, the other thing is we don't want to sort of keep you so squarely in your lanes as to prevent what I think was a very productive conversation on that project. Because I would say, without spoiling the surprise, when it comes to AAC, we have seen significant improvement in that project. And I think we as staff at least, are quite excited about where they have landed on it. Based on the conversation you all had, it will. They're still working through some things, so I certainly don't want to reveal too much about it until we finalize the application and take it to AAC, ideally next month. But that's an example of where the conversation that was had at this body, I think really improved a project that will really be a big presence in our uptown district. So that's good. So that should continue to move forward. And the other update that I have is that we are having what will ideally be the final open house for the Tram View Heights specific plan, formerly the College of the desert specific plan, just to try and reach as many people as possible. It's effectively just going to be a redo of the open house we had a few weeks ago, just to kind of, again, get to some community members that were unable to come. Councilmember Grace Garner has been very involved. It's mostly in her district. It does overlap with Councilmember Bernstein's district, but most of it is in her district. And so she has been a big help in trying to get the community engaged and out in those conversations. But we're pretty excited about where that's going. So we'll we'll have updates for you on that soon. It's not scheduled for you guys yet, hopefully later this spring, and we'll aim to get you all of the materials with ample time to review it. But we're excited Did about some of the changes that are coming through what has been a very community driven process. That's it for me. With that, I'm

going to adjourn the meeting until 530. Tuesday, April 14th, 2026, and I adjourn it at 7:00. Yeah, that's why you rush to end it. Yes. You were 647. I was 635. 222. Optimistic. No, no, no I wasn't.