Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

y get started. Good evening. Welcome. Recording in progress. Good evening. Welcome to the Tuesday, November 18th, 2025 regular meeting of the Palm Springs Planning Commission. Can we have a roll call, please? Chair. President. Vice chair. Lane, present. Commissioner. Baker here. Commissioner. Miller. Present. Commissioner. Murphy. Present. Commissioner Rottman here. Commissioner Morrell here. And Alternate Hernandez here.

Can we 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 by 9:00 pm on Thursday, November 13th. 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. Okay. At this point, it's time for public comment. And this time has been set aside for members of the public to address the Planning Commission on Consent calendar and other items within our subject matter jurisdiction. Please note that we can't take action on anything that hasn't been agendized. Each speaker will have three minutes. Testimony can be we have one major item before us tonight. It is item for a. It's not technically a public hearing, but we will accept testimony at this time or at the time of the hearing from the public. So if your time constrained and you want to speak now, please go ahead. And otherwise we will accept your testimony at the time it comes before us. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak now?

We have one member of the public online. Paul will allow you to talk now. Again, you can choose to use your three minutes now, or you can hold until after the staff report at the time of the item. I'm going to allow to talk. So Paul, you are able to unmute and tell us if you'd like to speak now. I'm not sure that we can hear you. I know he's here.

Control room. Do we have audio from the zoom? Yes we do. Okay, Paul, I see that you're unmuted. Are you able to talk? Okay, we may have to come back to that to Paul.

So they're being. No, no public testimony. The public hearing is closed. The next item is the consent calendar. It's the approval of the minutes of October 14th, 2025. And I'm recused as I was absent. Is there a motion on this, please? Some of. Second. Will you call the roll, please? Commissioner Baker? Yes. Commissioner. Murphy. Yes.

Vice chair is. Yes. Vice chair. Elaine. Yes. Commissioner. Murphy I'm sorry, Commissioner Miller. Yes, Commissioner. Brotman. Yes. Commissioner Morrell. I recuse, too. I was also out.

So that passes unanimously with two recusals. The next item ahead of us is item four A, which is a new new business, and it is a request by Redtail Acquisitions, LLC, owner, for a major development permit to construct an 82 unit, 100% affordable apartment per section nine, 3.2, 3.17 of the Palm Springs zoning code for a density bonus. Located at 305 West San Rafael Drive. Staff report, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Let's. There we go. So, as you mentioned, the scope of the review by the Planning Commission is a major development permit for an 82 unit, 100 of affordable apartment complex. You're looking at the site plan mass and scaling and also to discuss density bonus per the zoning code. And we'll talk about that and further on in the slides. So looking at the site it is within the red box. It is located on San Rafael on the north end of town. This is an eclectic site or around other type of uses that are in nearby, including an industrial park to the north and R1-a zone lots, which are large single family homes to the south and then to the west are two story condominiums, the the villas and then to the west is the Tower Market and Indian Canyon and other commercial establishments along the street. In looking at the site, I'd like to point out that recently what was constructed is a mini storage lot which is located right here. This building is a two story, but it's 30ft tall. Along San Rafael. Here is industrial buildings, and you'll see that the road is not improved. On the north side of San Rafael, the buildings that are there currently were constructed in the 1950s. There were actually sites for the Alexander Company to stage construction, and they remain to this day. So the road is currently constrained. However, this development project will improve the street along the south part of San Rafael, including new sidewalk curbs and gutters, and also along

Virginia Drive, which is here on the west, and then Puerto del Sol Drive, which is on the east. So, as I mentioned to the south, there are single family residences, large lots, Plaza Villas is to the west, and other vacant lots. Between this development and the tower market to be developed in the future. So the proposal is in 4.5 acre site. They're proposing three buildings to consist of 27 one bedrooms, 32 bedrooms and 25 three bedrooms. The setbacks meet the standards of the R-2 zone, and we'll go over those in just a second. Building height is 31.3ft, which is three stories for portions of the building. There are floor plans that will look at that show, the first and second floor and then the third floor. There are portions that bump up to three stories. So with the density bonus, you're allowed to increase the number of dwelling units per acre. They're proposing 19.2 dwelling units per acre and then 137 parking spaces. So the density bonus is allowed as a way to incentivize low income housing. This would be 100% very low, low and moderate income per our section of the zoning code. So they're requesting three incentives. One is a building height. They're allowed to go 11ft above the maximum, which is allowed in the zone. So they can go up to 35ft. They're asking for 31.3. The density. The mixed use general plan allows for a maximum density of 15 dwelling units. And they're asking for 19.2. And that is permissible with a density bonus. The project for parking

is located near a transit stop along Indian Canyon Drive, and by its location, they're allowed to ask for reduction in parking, and they are asking for a reduction of 21 spaces from what would normally be required. And looking at the site plan, I know this is kind of small to to see San Rafael to the North, Virginia drive is to the west or the left, and then Puerto del Sol to the right. So the buildings are located fronting San Rafael Drive. The parking is to the south. When the project first came in, the parking was a little bit different. We at staff asked them to add these little speed humps here to prevent folks from traveling fast through the drive drive aisle. And then also they added a two water retention basins, and that jarred a little bit the driveway. And that also will slow vehicles down. So the site includes carports to the south, which are the X's here. These are all covered parking and then the trash enclosures. Two of them are adjacent to the south property line, and we'll briefly go over the amenities and so forth when we move forward. So looking at setbacks, staff had asked that they push one of the buildings back so that it provided more interest and diversity in the streetscape. So the front building or building one on the west is 25ft from the front property line. The center building is set back seven feet farther, and that's at 32.1. And then building three is at 25ft. In. According to open space, they are required to have 50% open space. This exhibit shows the where the open space is located. And they do meet the 50% open space. So

one thing that you get with higher, taller buildings is that you get greater open space for usable recreation. There's a grading plan that shows the street improvements. This is the gray area. I know it's kind of hard to see, but all the gray shows, the street improvements along the roads. One thing is there'll be a little triangle that is placed here at Virginia that will help direct traffic. If you've been out there now, you're kind of enter the San Rafael at an angle, and it's hard to look over your shoulder to see traffic coming. But this will help direct traffic and then also road widening on Puerto del Sol and then along San Rafael. So this exhibit shows the center building better set back from the other two buildings. There are a series of perspectives showing the building. This is the parking lot side. So looking north, the building consists of three stairwells that enter the building that provide access to the upper units doors, windows, window coverings. This is showing a leasing office, and on the other side of this building will be a community room. This is the frontage that will face San Rafael. This is the three story element of the buildings. The Architecture Review Committee will provide details and review all of these elements of the building once it goes before them. So there maybe changes based upon comments from our urban design planner. And in terms of materials, some of the fenestrations and then landscaping. There's building elevations that show the

building height at 31.3. So not all of the buildings are that tall. Some of the units buildings are 20.2ft, which is a good variety in design. And these are the ends of the buildings that face Virginia West and then Puerto del Sol East. Materials that are proposed include use of stucco. There's other elements shade elements over the windows, which are a grid system, aluminum storefront windows, and then balcony railings. So the colors are a darker brown and other grays and beiges. I've included some floor plans. This is the first floor floor plan that shows the community room, the leasing room, and then other office space within the building one. And then I included the third story, which shows the units that would be on the third story, and it does not encompass the whole area of the building itself. The floor plans include one bedroom, a two bedroom and a three bedroom, and this provides great variety for the types of folks that will live within this community. It could include single persons or small families, and then our larger families. And looking at the landscape plan, this is an overall design. We'll get into greater detail in a minute, but this shows the layout with the plant materials. Typically trees, shoestring. Acacias. Washingtonia filifera. Some of the site amenities include a playground area on the west side and open space area with shade structures, and between

buildings one and two as a dog park that will be fenced, and between buildings two and three will be a lawn area with shade areas and benches itself. This shows two retention basins. When the project moves forward to the Architectural Review Committee, we will work with them to soften this area and make it more interesting looking on the corner, because that's important. One when the project first came in, the fence that's proposed around the project did not conform. They reworked it. And I'm sorry, this is a little bit primitive with the red line. But this they have revised the fencing area so that it has jogs or breaks. The code does not allow a long fence along the street, so this shows that the fence goes out, then comes in that goes out, then comes in and allows them to add nice landscaping in the indented areas. There is a series of amenity sort of playground equipment. It's set out for different children of different ages, 2 to 12, and then more adult teenage fitness equipment. They provided shade structures, an example of what they would use. They provided an example of the fencing that will go around the project and that is here. It's a wrought iron fencing. The community is not gated, but it will be provided in the front. And the applicant can describe why they're requesting that. This is a section of the trash enclosure. So it's fully enclosed so that

no one can gain access. And also there are solar carports which are here. And that will be over top of a portion of the parking. So our recommendation is approval subject to the conditions listed in the development permit. And it is a by right use in the R two zone. It's consistent with the R-2 zone development standards. We're we're we recommending that you approve the density bonus to allow the three incentives. And it is categoric exempt. And Madam Chair, that concludes my report. I would like to say that you received two comments in the past few days, and they were provided to you. I think there are some that are here that were given out today. And one of the persons on zoom is one of the persons who sent comments.

Was any consideration given for bicycle storage? I'll have the applicant explain that. I'm sure there's somewhere in the building. Yeah. Commissioner Rothman yeah. So the project is proposing low, very low, low and moderate income levels. Do you know what the thresholds are for that? I mean, not sort of 40% of the whatever, but just kind of generally what the income levels are for each of those.

So there are requirements as far as income requirements, I'm not quite sure how they're going to qualify folks to do that. They can answer that question. They are worg with our affordable housing folks to develop a program that the City Council may see as part of a development agreement, if they so choose to use city money to build the project. So I'll have the applicant answer that. Okay.

What I can say, if this is what you're asking, Commissioner Rothman, is that low income is typically below 80% of area mean income, and moderate would be 80 to 120%. And so then we consider anything above moderate to be over 120% of area median income. And that is set at a county level through California HCD. And it's also based on federally HUD information. So I don't know the Riverside County, am I off the top of my head, but the percentages are below 80 for low and 80 to 120 for moderate.

And the reason I ask is, I think historically the more successful projects are have more are inclusionary projects, so that you have a wide range of income levels. And my concern is if this is strictly affordable and it's low or very low, that there are potential security issues. So that's that's my concern. Sure. And I think we can have, again, the applicant speak to the mixing and how they address that. And as part of the review process again related to security, will the police department review this plan and comment on security issues and safety issues?

Right. The police department wasn't specifically. Reviewed the project, but we can do that. That's not okay. Yeah. All right. But I would say that I'm sure they have a security system, cameras and so forth, and they may be able to address that. Okay. And then just in general, with the density bonus and the reduction in parking. What what do we do to offset the lack of the the parking that we're sort of ceding? Yeah.

I mean, it's a good question. I think, you know, it's important to recognize that the accommodations that we're making through the density bonus law are actually mandated by the state, and they are statutory. So we do have to grant them. And so we cannot request or obligate the developer to offset that in any way. So it presents a realistic issue, which I think is what you're highlighting. But we there's nothing that we can do to obligate the developer to offset it in any way. I think the expectation is, you know, the types of people, typically at lower income levels, may have a lower degree of of car ownership or may choose to park elsewhere. And that is what the state has decided.

And is there street parking along San Rafael? Especially with the improvement? I know it narrows at one portion, and that may be difficult, but right. So it most likely let me go back to the aerial. This will end up being a red curb on the south side because of it's a collector street. There could be parking along Virginia and Puerto del Sol.

Okay. All right. And then the last question, this has got a covenant for 55 years. And and so and whatever conditions we may or may not impose on it would go with that for 55 years, I assume. And then what what is the enforcement of that? In terms of, of all of the conditions? Well, all of them actually.

I mean, the only way to remove a condition would be to come back to all of you and remove a condition so it would enforce it through the normal city channels, through code enforcement, or through us. You know, that's something that we do in our regular course of business, the 55 years. It's a deed restriction. So it is actually registered against the title. So it is a legal obligation from them. And I believe in the materials that we circulated yesterday, we clarified and added an additional condition of approval to say, should you approve the project, all of the density bonuses, parking reduction and the height increase are tied to that. So if I think the way that we worded it was at the time of building permit, they need to provide a demonstration of that in order that we can confirm that the deed restriction has actually been registered in order to advance the project and issue the permit so that, you know, it's not coming in as a market product. And we've granted them these bonuses, so enforced through our normal mechanisms, through code enforcement and different points of escalation through that process.

So if you know, if 55 years is a long time and we'll all be long gone by that time, is it is it feasible to have them sort of checked every 5 or 10 years just to make sure that they're in compliance with the the density bonus and the affordability factor? Well, the applicant is contracting with two agencies to operate the facility. So I'm sure they have sort of guidelines as to how they would patrol it or handle it. And the applicant can answer that. It also seems like our chair may have some relevant information based on her background.

We some of that will come out in questions of the applicant. But typically to build this, they're going to have so many layers of financing with every layer of financing having requirements, requirements and compliance that the compliance here is probably the narrowest, I think. I think what you might want to be asking for is that the deed restrictions are recorded prior to the C of O being issued, and I don't know if that's in our conditions, but that's probably the best protection. But in terms of in terms of who's going to monitor this, I my guess from having done this is they'll have ten monitors on this. They'll, they'll be busy, they'll be many eyeballs and we won't that won't be our major worry. But the condition that this that the that the restrictions be recorded is probably something that we want to see before CFO.

And that's a good point, Madam Chair. I think that the revised condition that was circulated tied it to building permit and certificate of occupancy may actually be the better moment there, just in terms of how all of these things progress. So I'll leave that to the discussion between you all and the applicant. If you want to make a change to that condition. Okay. Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Murphy.

I have a couple questions about the walls and fencing for staff. It was hard to see in the graphics what the south wall along the whole backside of the property. So behind the parking lot, the back walls look like. I know the the single family residence have. I think there's 2 or 3 of them have pretty tall walls. So I'm just wondering what's from e from the property walls to the. I guess, the parking lot. What kind of walls are going to be erected, and is there space between the residence walls and the carport walls like an alleyway or so? That's one. One question about the fencing and walls. The second one is is similar in the catch basins. It wasn't clear to me. Are the catch basins going to be fenced and walled, or are they just open space?

Let me answer those questions. Okay.

So the the wall that's on the south property line, that's between the residences and the parking will be using the existing . There's a lot of mature landscaping along the backs of these lots. And you can kind of see it in in here. If I go back to the aerial, you can really see that they have. You know, the it's hard to see but there's existing landscaping there. Now on the property side. So what we don't want to do is keep their wall and then build another wall. And then there's this no man space in between which just collects trash. And it's not good for anybody people so they can address their their team is here to talk about that. When we get to the the catch basins, there's a section. And Commissioner Allen brought it up to us that there are walls that are proposed. That's kind of this dashed area that goes around here, and that's to protect it from anyone falling in if it's full of water and so forth.

And what kind of walls are planned? You know what it says. Right? It's standard retaining wall. So that would be a block wall. Five feet, four feet, six feet. It's five feet. And obviously when we we look at the landscape plan and this plan, it doesn't show any plant material along that wall. We'll work with them to make sure that it doesn't, that it's softened.

Okay. That when we get into comments, I guess that would present a security concern to have a space that large that's just walled in. Is there EV charging? Plan? Something for that? I'm not sure exactly where EV charging would be located, but there are solar carports. I'll let them answer that. Okay, well, I'll ask the applicant then that question. That's it for now. Thank you.

I don't have any additional questions. I would like clarification on the on the drainage basins and what the situation is. I was under the impression, based on the plans, that there was a retaining wall on the inside of the basin, and then there's a three foot metal fence around the outside perimeter, is what I thought I saw on the plans. Can you go back one, two? We're checking. Yeah. Go ahead.

Good evening, commissioners Jonathan with engineering looking at the cross-sections provided in the initial submittal for the southern retention basi. It is a retaining wall, then a combination wall on the northern portion of that retention basin. And then for the northern retention basin, it's a combo wall on both sides. There will be a five foot fence above a three foot retaining wall. Other questions. Where's closest public transit?

Let me go back to the aerial. The closest bus stop is on Indian Canyon. And San Rafael. Yes. So it's here. By tower, right by. Tower Market? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Jeroen.

And I have a couple questions going back to the retention basins again. I've seen in other communities where retention basins can actually be used, they become part of the open space so it's usable playgrounds, walking paths, things like that going through that. Would that be possible in this instance, r do you change the capacity? I imagine that you have to have kind of a gentler slope going down into it. But the walls, of course, are a problem. But if does that change the the capacity of water that can be retained such that that wouldn't be doable? Or in your opinion, is that something that we could accomplish?

So in Rkfc hydrology manual, in how you calculate volumes and whatnot for retention basins, they do have some specifics listed in there. Ordinarily you'll see like small shrubbery and some medium sized ferns or something like that aren't going to impact volume. It's larger specimens like trees and whatnot that normally do impact the volume. And you have to calculate for that. So anything like small grasses should be fine. But that's something that their engineer would sort of have to advise them on, where they sort of have to draw the line between certain plant types.

Are you familiar with other places in Palm Springs where this might be done that we could point to as an example? Yes, we did this at Vista Sunrise two, which was an affordable housing project. That desert Aids project behind there is a large retention basin and it has walkways into it with landscaping and so forth. So it's a usable space for them. It's more like a dog run area. Okay, okay. Thank you. Oh, and. One more.

And we also just recently approved something similar for the Sienna condos off of North Palm Canyon and Vista Chino. They weren't allowed to put in any benches for sitting, but they did decide to go ahead and landscape it like a miniature park.

Okay. One of the things that concerns me about the the project is complicated by the fact that we have very dissimilar images between L1 point two and A3 of what's going on on the San Rafael frontage. One shows it's a beautiful building with two trees in front of it, and the other shows we've got a whole swath of trees, and then we read in the text someplace t there's a fence to a fence as well. And because typically as a planning commission, we concern ourselves with kind of the street frontage. I was looking at that and and looking for more. Interest, more variety. And just from the exhibits that are presented, it's not adequate to tell if we have different colors in the materials and. And really what that looks like in. I'm going to get this wrong. We've got it in two dimensions. I really need to see the third dimension it and to confirm which is right. Do you know which of these drawings is the best representation? I mean, I look at this this doesn't this only has two trees on each building and there's no fence shown. And and we don't have all three of them. I can't tell if there's difference in materials or colors.

Which are the two drawings you're referencing. I'm sorry. What? Which two drawings are you referencing? I was looking at L 1.2, which is a landscape drawing, and versus a three. Right. So looking. At like. Picture drawing.

Right. So typically when an application comes in these types of plans that are before you right now isa elevation plan. It doesn't really it's not meant to show you the landscaping here. It shows two trees, which really isn't the final product. And then when you also when they do the illustrative drawings like this, this isn't really a clear representation of what it will look like, as the landscape plan is more accurate. This plan doesn't show the fencing, and that would be a good thing to see what the fencing would look like against the building. I was trying to tell, for instance, is it continuous along the frontage and things like that?

Right. And I think the rendering is obviously done in a way to give you as much visual transparency to the building so that you can see that. But the landscape plan and this one is preliminary, of course, is the one that would be. That would prevail. Yeah.

Okay. And then as I'm looking at it, I'm trying to tell in three dimension to the setbacks from the street. And there is a center building is set back seven feet further than the other two, which for this long a stretch, I don't know how strongly that reads from the street View. And I'm wondering, is there room, is there sufficient room on the site to make that a greater difference? Could it be set back 15ft instead of seven feet?

Right. So in this drawing, this is the grading plan. We worked with the applicant to get them to move this back. And they can explain how far they can push the building. Okay. This is where we landed in their discussions as to where it could go without shortening the drive aisle and then the lengths of the parking areas.

Okay. And then my last question would be the carports seem to have there's reference to shade structures being on them, although there's not depicted throughout. Is there are there photovoltaic panels or solar panels either planned for the carports or for the buildings themselves? My understanding is that they're evaluating if they'll be solar on the carports. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Most of my questions will be for the applicant rather than for staff. But I do have a question for engineering. And maybe two. One is the red curb. It seems to me that in this instance a red curb would be detrimental. Is there do you have flexibility in imposing the red curb on San Rafael Drive? I think this would be a much better project if people could park in front of it. It'd be safer for the kids going crossing the street as well.

As I understand it, it mostly be determined on what the circulation element currently has as a cross section for San Rafael. I believe in this area, it's supposed to accommodate for a bike path through and for the amount of volume of traffic that they're supposed to accommodate for. I think once the northern warehouses are pushed back or however that sort of happens, it's ultimately supposed to have one lane going in either direction with a with a spacing and then a bike lane going in either direction. So I think that might preclude any sort of parking off of San Rafael. If there's a possibility. Is that something you can look at? We can certainly look at it.

It just it I think it would make the neighbors more comfortable to know that this could be parked up if they needed it and wouldn't be in front of their houses, and sometimes parking in front of a building actually cuts down pedestrian deaths because people move out into the street a little more cautiously. And we have children in the building plan. You'll see. In the plan, you'll see here that there are gates that go out street.

No, I'm gates aren't aren't the issue. Parking is the issue. And so I don't know if you can do it, but if you've got any flexibility at all, I think it would be much better to allow it to park. The other is. Just on that just I think if it pleased the commission, I think a condition asking that, you know, the chief engineer and perhaps myself could consider making that change to the extent it's permissible under the circulation element.

Perfect. And then the, the other is the. The retention basins. I share very strongly share the concern that those to the extent that we can have them more park like and walkable in, you know, something people can use and see. It softens, it softens the building. So we've done it before. Let's try and do it again. I think I think that's it. Everything else I have, I have a lot of questions for the applicant, but I they're not staff questions. Anybody else have questions of staff? Oh yes. Commissioner.

I hate to.

Harp on this, but I think this is the parking is a concerning element because I have experience personally on this road. And the apartments that will be across from the San Rafael Drive from this complex, I believe their complex is inundated with the lack of parking, and radio is just overflowing with people creating their own parking spaces. If we don't have enough parking in this complex, people are going to park in the neighborhood behind them, and it's going to cause a lot of issues with the residents that have their. Their, you know, their homes right behind this complex. If they're not allowed to park in front and if they're limited in parking, you know what, their lease overall. So people are just going to be parking in other neighborhoods and creating their own parking spaces, and it's just going to be a parking issue. So I think that's a concerning issue regarding this project.

And did the applicant ever talk to you about how they're allocating the parking that just an applicant question. As far as who gets to park and who doesn't. Get one? I mean, is it one space for one bedroom and two spaces for two and three, right? No, we'll have to ask them how they would assign the spaces. Okay. Yes, Commissioner Murphy.

Yeah, I have one more question about the the speed control bumps. Are those also serving as pedestrian walkways? They're elevated, obviously, and they have a paver treatment. Right. So are those also pedestrian crosswalks. Yes. So they are interlocking paver pavers that are here at the entrance. And then along this is a sidewalk finger that comes out. And that wil allow folks to walk this way. And then to the finger. And also the speed bumps. Basically they're gradual humps.

Yes okay. Thank you. Finishing with questions of staff, the public or the hearing. We're going to open a public hearing. The applicant will have ten minutes. And then members of the public will have three. And then you'll have five minutes for rebuttal. And then stay up because we'll have lots of questions.

If we could call the applicant up. You have ten minutes. If this TV station could put up their slides. How are y'all doing today? So going to be presenting the proposed project over at 305. Can you introduce yourself?

Oh, Rex Cathcart, nice to meet you all. I'm going to be proposing 305 West San Rafael Drive next. It's a little bit of background about the developer for this. It's a fully integrated developer, which means from acquisition to property management, they do it all, gives them a lot of experience, a lot of background and a lot of depth to pretty much put together really solid communities, a lot of extensive experience with multifamily development have over 13,000 units owned and managed across the country. They develop high quality rental and workforce housing. So I know this is kind of, quote, affordable, but it's a little bit more targeted towards y'all's workforce here in Palm Springs. Like I said, focused on quality design and have an internal property manager, but we can touch on that later. So some representative projects that we have, one of them in Temecula does a really good job of showing you kind of the care that they put together super nice stainless steel appliances, all whirlpool quartz countertops. A lot of people will have head knockers for the cabinets. These cabinets touch the ceiling, so kind of gives that extra vibe. Tall ceilings and unit washers and dryers, which these will have in units, washers and dryers. So keeping them, you know, kind of contained, no one's going to be backing up over a washer and dryer place. So and then also in Goleta and Vacaville, another good solid project to kind of look at and see just kind of what they produce and high quality stuff for sure. So project team, me and Bob garrison here were with Creed and then the ownership is Red tail. We have Ron Wu and Tyler White here, and then we also

have a Sean Boyd as well. Will be answering questions. Oh, is the architect for this project. They're solid architect company, do a lot of work all over the United States. And then the civil engineer is here in person as well, right here. Moving on. So obviously kind of tailing off, this is where the site is going to be 82 units, multi-family, residential. The property area is going to be 4.3 acres. Of that open space proposed is 91,844ft, putting us over that 50 square foot requirement. I know kind of one of the things that y'all were curious about was EV chargers. We are going to have 14 spaces with chargers and then 55 EV ready spaces to be able to tackle all the Teslas and whatnot. Vicinity map, just kind of some general stuff. Desert Highland is close to the site as well as I know villas one and two was mentioned. We did do a community meeting where both villas one and two were in attendance, and then we sent out an invite to all the others. Desert Highland, Palermo and others as well. But just excited to integrate here with the community in general. Some other affordable projects that are here. Monarch is super close to where our current site exists that is already gone vertical and is already underway. Same with aloe, Palm Canyon and Mission. Juniper is early stages but underway. And then if you look at the top right corner of the slide, it kind of shows you Riverside County income limits. That's how all of this stuff is defined as far as area median income goes, and how we also kind of aim to tackle the way the rent is done and

qualifying people whatnot. Looking at it, if you look, since I can't really read that 70% affordable meaning on average tenants can make up to 78,000, a little over $78,000 a year. Not going to lie, that's a pretty solid salary. That's not what most people would consider affordable. You know, catering tenants. And but on average, we're going to be targeting 60% as far as the unit count goes, which means that they'll be making about $67,140 a year. And I know these numbers are kind of just high level, but to quantify them, you're looking at a hotel front desk manager in the city at La Quinta or whatever. They're making it, about 42,360 based off of Glassdoor, which kind of takes in a bunch of statements and quantifies them all into an average. And then teachers here start at $63,207 a year and make, on average, $66,660 a year. So overall site plan. I know we already kind of went really in depth here. Going to be very beautiful plantings here. Nice allocation of open space and buildings so people will be able to enjoy the outdoors, especially for days like this where it's really beautiful. And the site also backs up to the mountains. So we'll have a beautiful view of the mountain backdrop that exists due southeast of it. So this is the site as it exists right now. The site does have a little bit of a homeless presence on it, and excited to get that all developed and moving forward, beautifying that section of San Rafael Drive and integrating it with

y'all's community very seamlessly. That is the to the left is the intersection West San Rafael Drive and North Virginia Road. That intersection, actually, if we go back to the site plan, we're going to be tapering that and making it a little bit better of a connection from Virginia onto West San Rafael, making it more of a 90 degree angle and not as weird. I don't know if any of y'all have turned from San Rafael into Virginia right now, but that's a little bit hairy. And then to the right, North Virginia Road viewing southwest corner, looking easterly into the property. And then to the left, West San Rafael Drive and North Puerto del Sol view looking northeast corner, looking southwesterly into the property and then to the right. View of the southwest corner looking northwesterly. And then you can see on that right picture to the right, that's that industrial area that was mentioned. So obviously these elevations are very pretty. It's not just kind of like a one size fits all. It kind of tapers and tiers that are really pretty look. So when you're driving down San Rafael, you'll be looking at a very pretty building that you'll integrate really nicely. Also, those colors do a really good job conforming to what y'all also have kind of in that general region. So definitely took that into account. And then these are the elevations east and west. No. They already kind of scoped these out a little bit, but as you can see tapers very nicely I know he touched on the third floor. It's not going to be fully occupied. It kind of tapers to where the roofs are and it'll look really nice. Colors and materials board know we kind of

already touched on that as well. But going to be doing a wide range here and making it kind of integrate really nicely all together and moving on floor plans. We're taking a very effective approach at attacking this property. So all the floor plans for the most part are very similar. However, for building one on the first floor, it's taking two of the three bedroom units, turning it into a leasing space and community room that will be available to residents to utilize moving forward. And then buildings two and three are just the same. But like I said, the first floor, instead of having that leasing space, is going to have two three bedroom units. Overall, the unit mix is very well evened out the line going into the two bedrooms, but for the most part it's pretty equally shared amongst one, two and three bedroom units. Other than that, that's kind of the best view of the property right there. I know you had asked like, what's the most what it's going to look like? Because I know on the other elevations and stuff, it doesn't show the fencing that we're going to be putting in, but this one does a pretty good job, minus not having the carport structures with the solar on it, but still does a very good job of showing what that property is going to look like.

Be it. Rex, did you want to talk about the utilities? Oh, the utilities. The underground utilities.

Yes, sir. I can go back on that real quick. So as of right now, the only power lines are along the North Virginia Road. There exists to be three power lines on our property right now. We're coordinating right now with Southern California Edison to look at what it looks like to underground those power lines. The south, the southern portion of the property that all has very high voltage power lines. Got a lot more than you'd want to take on as far as C is concerned. So but these ones were definitely looking to underground and kind of have that integrate a little bit nicer. Always looks prettier when you don't have lines going overhead.

Rex is that concludes your presentation. All right. Thank you. Other questions. No not at this point okay. The public comment we get public comment first and then we'll call you back up. Perfect. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak so. You come up one at a time and identify yourself. You have three minutes.

Hi, I'm Kathy Larson, I'm a resident of Palm Springs Villas two and a member of the board of directors there. And we have a couple of questions for you guys. If you have a minute, will the property be will any property tax abatement or reductions for this property be allowed? If yes, how much and for how long? I heard somebody mention 55 years. Am I to understand that that that. We can't answer your questions as you ask them. And we may get to some of them later, but sorry. Feel free to.

Okay. Okay. Well, the reason I asked about the property tax abatements is because there's going to be a large increase of local services for schools, roads, emergency response and infrastructure. If the projt receives a reduction or abatement period. This project is not affordable to the taxpayers. Costs for services are shifted to the taxpayers and as a result, local property taxes will necessarily have to rise to cover the gap, making housing less affordable for the surrounding communities. My next question would be about widening San Rafael to to accommodate bike lanes and on street parking. And if you're familiar with that area and you go further down on San Rafael towards sunrise, it's cars lined up on both sides of the street. All hours of the day and night. People run across. They don't look, there's no lighting that. That's to me, that's a safety hazard. When we went to the the zoom meeting with the the developers the other day, they said 1.6 cars per condo for 82 condos does that. That doesn't take into consideration any guest parking or vendor parking people that it's just not enough parking. We would like the people of Palm Springs to would like a traffic study done in that area. If that would be possible. This one. Oh, okay. The residents of Palm Springs Villas two would like to request a traffic study done there because there's not that's a that's a very narrow area. Are they going to take out the industrial complex that's across the street. There's just just not enough

room for the bicycle bike lanes. And if fire trucks have to get in there, it doesn't make sense to me to have any parking on street. Just seems to me like the site is too small for the project. That doesn't seem like there's enough room for everything that needs to be added. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak? Do we have somebody online?

We do. And if you are online and you wish to speak on this, please raise your hand. Paul, I'm going to try you again on zoom. Before I go to the phone. Call the phone numbers. Paul, I've given you permission to unmute. If you want to unmute yourself, you have three minutes. I can see that Paul has unmuted themselves, but we're still not hearing audio. So I will go to the phone numbers in just a second. I have given permission to the 909 number to speak. You can dial star six on your phone and you have three minutes if you wish to speak.

Okay. The 949 number that is online. If you wish to speak, you may dial star six to unmute. Can you hear me now? Yes. Hello, Commissioner. Whoever, whoever is speaking, you might need to. Sorry.

Just one second. Here. My testimony is Paul Merritt with villas one. We agree this is a major project. We've only had approximately ten days to know about this project. We feel that it is, as villas two said, grossly under part our calculation, that should be about 74 units. The most important issue that I want to raise is twofold. One is the pool. There is no pool. We are constantly at villas, one being invaded by trespassers and active criminals using our gated swimming pools. We estimate that there will be between 35 to 84 children from the proposed project that will be coming onto our private property. Secondly, if you can hear me, the landscape is about 150% under landscape. I agree with the Commissioner's comments that it shows wholly deficient shade trees. Finally, San Rafael would have to be widened to meet the 24 to 50 extra cars to be parked outside of the complex. There's no proposal that we see to widen San Rafael. And lastly, to reiterate, the external property management is our concern, not the internal property management. We are very concerned. There's no splash pool as they have at their other projects or wading pool. And secondly, there's no question at all that the parking is under parked by dozens of by dozens of cars that will be put in areas of danger and

congestion on the public street. Thank you very much for taking your time. Thank you. We did hear all of that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Sue wishes to speak. Yes, I have Brandon and Michael Jacobson. You have you may unmute yourself. You have three minutes.

Good evening. Apologies. This is my first time doing this. I'm newer to the area and I just want to go on record that I think it's a beautiful project that they're doing. However, I am very concerned of two affordable housing projects so close together in the local vicinity of the area, number one and then number two, the parking just being newer for a few months to this area. The road is of concern. At night time. There are people walking across and I would never want to be a parent or someone to go through something where there's an accident or something in that road. It's great for lower traffic areas, but the more you put in there, it's just going to get crowded and the parking is just going to continue to push up and down the road to make it more unsafe. So that's all I have at this time.

I have no other speakers who have raised their hand to speak at this time. If you are online and would like to speak, please raise your hand now. Otherwise we will close the hearing. No other speakers, madam chair. We're not closing the hearing. I'm going to ask the applicant back up and we'll have. We will have a series of questions. The fit thing is you had two of the neighbors asking questions about pools. I think pools, parking and management. So if you're doing a rebuttal you might want to address some of those issues.

Good evening, Ron Wu with Redtail Multifamily Land Development with the developer on the project. Parking wise, you know, we develop all across California, both market and affordable housing. We understand the need for parking. We do not like to go down to the code minimum for affordable housing projects. You know, in some cities you can go down to almost no parking or one parking per unit. Our goal for our project is 1.7. We feel that that is the solid number for our properties. We own about 13,000 units across the nation. And so with this project being affordable, we're at 1.67. We think that's a sufficient number as far as the management. Yes, there will be on site property manager. There'll be a manager who lives on site. She'll be there full time and splash pad. It's always a tough balance on these projects, getting all the amenities to to fit. You know, we understand, you know, there may be a need for different amenities at each project. If that's something that the commission feels like it's necessary, we'll definitely reconsider and find space for one.

Thank you. Questions of the applicant. Commissioner Morrell, we'll go down the line. Yes. Are there any additional charges for amenities that might hit the residents, like parking charges or.

No. So the our our rents are mandated by HUD and the state and they're based on the county median income. And so how that's calculated is that based on your income, you can only pay 30%. And that's all inclusive. So depending on utilities that we expect the resident to pay that will be inclusive in the 30% number. So they will be allotted a utility allowance to go pay their utilities every month as well. Right. And how many staff people will be on site? You mentioned a manager and a live in manager.

Yeah. So for this one it was probably one on site manager and possibly a part time maintenance tech, maybe a full time, but we expect to have one staff member live on site. Right. And the person that lives there will be the manager. Will it be somebody who can deal with repairs and emergencies, or. They'll probably be equipped with. Vendors to come fix anything if needed. But I don't expect the manager to be able to kind of do both jobs, right.

Is there in your other projects? Is there a what's your typical response rate for repairs, building repairs? And yeah. Situations like that. So the beauty of this project is it's going to be brand new. So we don't expect any sort of major repairs. Probably the first five years. But 82 units, you know, probably a couple requests here and there. I think our response time would be pretty quick, probably, probably within the day 24 hours. That's all I have for now.

Commissioner Rothman, do you have questions? The staff report mentioned. Here we go. The staff report mentioned that you're going to be providing some on site services, some supportive services. So where is that going to take place and what is that exactly.

Yeah. So it's going to happen in our community room. So the first floor of that first building, there's a leasing office as well as a community room. And we're required by the state to hire a supportive services group. We usually engage with life steps, and they'll come in and they'll evaluate your population and based on their needs, they'll put together services such as, you know, computer literacy, financial literacy, kind of after school programs, health and wellness. It just really depends on the demographic that's living there.

And does that I mean, are there privacy issues when you're interviewing a potential client there? I mean, you've got a big room. You need to have carols or, you know, some some sort of furniture that provides. I mean, I don't know whether you've got a line of people waiting to, you know, how this all works. So why don't you explain it to me? Yeah, I.

I wouldn't characterize it more like personal service. It's more of, like, informational help. So there'll be, like, meetings or community gatherings where they kind of give services in kind of a group environment. There's there's not really any sort of like personal services, kind of kind of happening. Would you review the security measures you're proposing for this? Again, you're in your. Yeah, just yeah, just on the site on the project. What are you providing in terms of security, whether it's cameras or patrolling or lighting or whatever? Yeah.

So first and foremost, I think on a busy street like this, when we initially planned it, I think staff had not loved the fence. But, you know, we've requested to put that in just because, based on our experience, you know, I think the fence just kind of prevents transients from kind of walking across the site. We've had issues previously at different developments where we had to put fencing in. So I think the fencing barrier along San Rafael, I think is a our first security measure. Yes, we'll definitely have cameras. We have cameras at all our properties in the common areas outside the buildings, patrol staff. That's really on an as needed basis. Once the project is occupied, you know, with the guidance of the on site manager, depending on kind of what we see, that'll be something that we'll take into consideration if, if we need it.

Okay. What size is the dog park? Probably 800 to 900ft is my guess.

Okay. It seems like there's enough room to make that a little larger. Sure. So I might, you know, just think about that. Let me see what else I have. I'll. I'll talk a little bit about my reaction to the design. And this will go as a recommendation to Ark during their review. But one of the things I have concerns about are the balconies. Typically when you have an open rail balcony, it can lead to a lot of visual blight. And I'm wondering whether you'd be open to some other design that might provide better screening of that. We're not really dealing so much with, you know, views because everything's oriented north, south. So I just wonder if that's something that you would be amenable to looking at.

Yeah. So you're just looking for like a different kind of a material that other than like a metal railing, kind of something that covers the whole balcony. Yeah. Something maybe either translucent or solid or something just, you know, something else than just the pickets. Okay. Yeah. And I'll make the other comments later during my. But I just any comments that I make and that may come up with Ark. Are you open to potential revisions to that architecture.

Yeah I think I think depending on the extent of them. Yeah, absolutely. Well, we'll talk about that a little later. Let me just see here. I guess that's it for me right now. Thank you. Commissioner Murphy. The. Can you give us a just a quick summary of how the apartments are allocated one, two and three bedrooms across the different income mixes? Yes.

You have any idea? I don't need a deep dive, but just to get some sense of, I guess, how democratic it is. Yeah. So, so so these are. Subject to change based on kind of our application to the state, but roughly we'll have 16 units at 30% or less and then nine at 50. And then the remainder will be at 70. So 56. So those will be probably evenly distributed among. Across the three two and one. Correct. Okay. So there is a formula for making it. Yes okay. Yes.

That's that answers that question. The other question I have is you know we've talked about the basins being fenced in and the potential concern that there may be it may not look esthetically pleasing to just have a wall in the corner with nothing in it. And it could also present security risks. So what are your thoughts about modifying the design? So the catch basins are. Sure. Less potentially problematic.

We have our symbol here. So I might let him answer that. But my understanding is there's actually a slight grade from west west to east. So all the water flows towards the basins. And there's pretty stringent requirements that we need to capture all the water on our site and treat it on site. And so I think those basins are actually pretty deep, just because of the amount of water that we're going to be required to capture. But so I don't know if we can really modify those to make them usable for safety reasons, but. Can I have the TV station put up the staff presentation?

I'm Chris Berg with MDS consulting. We are the civil engineers for the project. Did you happen to have our sheet number two of our preliminary grading plan? You showed sheet number one in your original presentation. If you happen to have sheet number two, it shows a nice cross-section of the basins. As Ron was pointing out, we do have considerable more grade on this site than you might imagine. We have 21ft from Virginia to Puesta del Sol across San Rafael, 21ft of drop. We have 15ft of drop along the the south, the back line of the property. So with that much drop in grade, all the water is definitely going to get to this low spot at Puesta del Sol, our water surface has to be a foot below the top of curb. Our top curb 6 or 9, our water surface 608. Our bottom of the basin is 604. We only have four foot water depths during a hundred year storm, so that's all workable. But our building number three, our elevation is 614. So our pad. Our building building number three is ten feet above the bottom of the basin. And that's why we end up with the 3 to 1 slopes and the combination retaining wall. Anytime we have a retaining wall to keep somebody from falling in the retaining wall, stepping over it, we have to have a safety fence on top. That fence would be the same as the perimeter fence around the property, so it would blend into the perimeter fencing. I hope that answered your question.

It does. We're in questions, not comments. Correct word questions. Yes. So I'll reserve my comment about security concerns when we get to that point. Thank you. If I could keep the engineer up for a moment. Sorry. Back to the retention basin. You know, you said it's kind of tight in all the water is going in that direction, obviously. Is there room for any sort of plant material within that retention basin?

Sure there is. The bottom of the basin is level and it can be landscaped. The side slopes are 3 to 1 slopes, so there is a type of landscaping that could be proposed on that. And I believe our landscape plan did show some shrubs and things in there. Is is there a point at which you cannot put too much landscaping because then it begins to impede the drainage, the subsurface sort of percolation or. Well, yes, but I don't believe that we have that issue. We're going to use a desert landscape normally works well in retention basins. Could you you could still irrigate as needed within the basin for the plants to live or to at least get started. Sure.

Okay. All right. I don't have any. I've got comments, but no questions. Commissioner Baker. No questions. Vice Chair Allen. I find it curious that there's no swimming pool. And I'm wondering in this climate and for this family, there will be kids there. I'm wondering if that was a deliberate choice or decision for some operational reason I'm uncertain about, or if you just plain didn't have enough space.

Yeah. For for these projects, it's always a tough balance, right? We're always trying to provide as much housing as we can to serve the community. You know, fit the amenities, fit the parking. It just gets really tight. A pool, as you said, operationally, is kind of a burden on the property. And with it being affordable sometimes, you know, we we like to allocate those resources to, to, to have more units. So it's just like a decision we usually make is we rather house residents rather than have a pool.

Did you look at the economics of a couple fewer units on the site, and would that still be feasible? I, I, I think we would lose quite a few units. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I want to just find out a little bit more about who you are and how this is going to operate. You're a for profit developer that brings in a nonprofit. You're looking at tax credits or what kind of financing are you looking at? Correct tax credits.

So you'll be bringing in a nonprofit, correct. And and he's here tonight, Sean Boyd with affordable housing access. Great. So, Sean, you're here. Come on up. Welcome. I was just looking at the three bedroom units. They're about a thousand, little over 1000ft. Is that sufficient for a family? Say you get a family with four kids.

Yeah. Madam chair, again, for the record, my name is Sean Boyd. Madam chairman and vice chair. Commissioners, thank you for your time this evening. Yeah. So to answer your question, affordable Housing Access is our company. We operate more than 20,000 units statewide. We own Palm Springs Point, which is on the outside of City Hall, which is a senior community. So we're very familiar with the Palm Springs and the community and the restrictions and the needs of the community. As we looked at these, the site specifically, we worked with redtail to develop a project that we thought met the needs of a potential or prospective residents. We'd always like to on the side of a larger unit, but I think the size of these units and the efficiencies that Architects Orange has built into them make them very livable. To your comment. Yes, we'd always like a bigger unit, but I think, again, we we, we were thoughtful and how we approached the efficiency of the unit, how it would operate with a family of 3 or 4, maybe even five people. We're under the restrictions that HCD places upon us for limitation of household size, and so that would apply here as well. But I do think that the size of that unit would be appropriate, given the efficiencies that are that are there.

And just the other question is. The your experience with parking reduction, my and I both built, managed and financed affordable housing for about 25 years. Your experience with parking reductions, what do you expect to see in the way of cars per household?

We think the the 1.7 is is probably about the adequate number here. We would not want to see less parking than 1.671.7 where we are currently the mix of one, two and three bedroom units. I think this parking ratio will support that. From your experience, you probably as experienced as I am 25 years in the business, you kind of can't have too much parking sometimes, but you can because then you face an overall occupancy issue. So we're very, again thoughtful and considerate. How we we manage parking the the partners that we have, like redtail are very professional. They do assign spaces. So it's not a free for all when it comes to parking. They're very diligent about managing parking after hours as well. So that that means a lot to us as the the nonprofit partner in this. I mean, we don't want people parking across the street or around the corner. We want to do all that we can to ensure that we're not one over occupying the households. That's always a concern, especially when it comes to affordability, because we all know how expensive it is to live in Palm Springs. But we think that this the current ratio will be sufficient.

And you heard the neighbors concerns regarding and it's it is a concern regarding. People invading pools. We've we've had that maybe not as much recently but it's it's happened here. Do you have a concern about children and what kind of play spaces they have. And not having a pool facility for them?

No we don't. We looked at the site constraints and you know, our initial planning was to balance the, the, the capital needs of constructing the site. Resident amenities. As Ron alluded to, I think that we're still open to potentially a splash pad rather than a pool. Pools do present a safety issue. You know, children drown without a sound, and I can speak to that. As a reserve firefighter for two decades, we actually like a splash pad better than we like pools. I think it serves the the demographic that we would see here in terms of children. And I think it's a an opportunity for us if we pivot to that, to provide an amenity. I think that the community would be so.

So just in terms of both the developer, both of you are open to a splash pad on this facility, and you said you were open to a larger dog park as well. Yes.

And Madam Chair, to step back and answer your question very directly, I don't think we're going to have an issue with children leaving this community to go to another community that's adjacent, you know, our management and oversight of these projects. We have lease obligations that we place on the residents. And if that was to happen, that would be a violation of lease. And we make it very clear that the rules of the rules for a reason. We don't want to impact the community that's next to us or anywhere close to us. So we'll do our best to ensure that our management practices ensure that they're not impacted in any way.

And then my next questions are, is your landscape architect here? He's not. He's local. Chris is a resident in the community, and we've used him on a number of projects here.

The just as a comment, people have talked about more trees. As I'm looking at what he's proposed, you've got two species that are not doing well and are being taken out across the valley the Museum Heritage, Palo Verde and the Shoestring Acacia. Both are not flourishing. So I'm mentioning that to you. I'm assuming you're open to to different tree species. And did you have I didn't see sizing on trees. Are you looking at 36 box trees that you're putting in?

I think that's typical. Mr. Hermann, our landscape architect, is very familiar. We'll be open to additional or optional, let's say, alternative tree species. I don't think that we're we're sold on anything. I think that Chris probably proposed those as you see them throughout the Valley. They're lovely. Yeah. But they're not living. They're dying. So yeah, I'm, I'm in La Quinta, so I see plenty of them dying in my neighborhoods, so. Okay. And the trees, the tree sizing if you're there. 24 I think there might be some 15 gallons in some places, but mostly 24, 36. Inch box.

We will probably make recommendations on that in terms of tree sizing to to the Ark. I think that covers my questions. Thank you very much. You're here. We'll probably I'll probably come back to you as we do our conditions, just because I want you to be able to respond to them. But so stick around. And this is before the commission. At this point, I've heard. Some comments already. So maybe I'm going to talk a little bit. I've heard increasing the size of the dog park, adding a splash pad, looking at a plant material. More. More trees, recommending different species, and concerns about the retention basins. I haven't heard anybody discuss architecture, but I'm expecting that. We'll hear some comments and conditions. So. I'm assuming we're looking at approval, but with conditions. Am I correct in the way we're going? Does anybody feel like we're going in a different direction? Okay. So why doesn't why don't people start talking about what they care about with this and what we can do? Yeah. Commissioner Murphy.

I guess my biggest concern is the retention basin and the the walls around it and the potential security hazard that it poses just to keep transient people from hopping the wall and camping out inside that in the dry months, which is most of the year. So I don't have a alternative other than looking at maybe different types of fencing so that it's actually visible from the street and not a solid brick block wall. That would be one one idea or to I don't know if leaving it open is better, because that also encourages people to just walk in there and hang out. People that probably shouldn't be doing that. So that's my biggest concern right now with the project.

Commissioner Rothman. No, sorry. Go ahead. I I'm patiently waiting my turn.

I will I look forward to hearing your architectural comments, but I would like just a couple things I would like. I actually I, I again I wish I would speak after Robert but I because I think there's some issues with the architecture overall. I think it's okay. I just wonder there seems to be a very high sort of ceiling up to the, to the, to the eyebrow on the roof of the two story. It seems to be a lot of space between the top of windows and the in that eyebrow, and I'm not sure why that is. It just makes it have a lot of blank space on the facade. Overall, I like the color scheme. I think the sort of the desert beiges and browns is good. I would though hope that either the Planning Commission recommends a condition, or that the Ark provides some splashes of color somewhere to give it a little interest. Otherwise it's too boring. Perhaps I would like to see it doesn't. There doesn't appear to be a sidewalk to the playground that's Ada accessible, even though the playground is noted as Ada accessible. The it shows grass up to the gate of the of the playground, and unfortunately, that's not good for people confined to wheelchairs there. There doesn't appear to be a sidewalk that fronts the playground, where the gate to the playground is. I think it's a great example of providing grass only for activity areas. I'm glad to see all the desert scape landscaping and I. I understand that's likely mostly a requirement now,

but it's refreshing to see it proposed without us having to attack it. I appreciate Commissioner Rodman's comments about the crime prevention. He asked about the police seeing it. I would like there to be a crime prevention through Environmental Design review done, and I think you can arrange that with the appropriate police personnel. That's it for me. Commissioner Morrell. Yeah, I forgot to ask my question about bicycle storage, but I'd like that to be a condition. Bicycle storage? Yeah.

Okay. We're just going to put that in as an ad we don't need storage. Well. Preferably secure storage, because they'll probably be a lot of bikes in this project like that. And I'd rather not see them on people's balconies or strewn around the building. Yeah. Right. Staff's experience with those bike lockers that are outside just become shelters. They're not alright. So if there be bike storage, it would need to be enclosed or.

There's a preponderance of electric bikes. If there was some way to secure those and recharge them. And. I don't remember seeing in the conditions of conditioning the solar panels on the. Parking shade covers, we can't do that.

So one thing I would caution you all in this part of the discussion is that the state law is very restrictive in terms of what we can do and impose on an affordable housing project. What we cannot do is require additional study. What we cannot do is add conditions that increase the cost of the project. So there's going to be a bit of a balancing act here. And so some of what I'm hearing may start to skew in that direction. So I would just caution you all in terms of for example, what you are requiring would add cost to the project. And I think arguably would not be permissible under state law.

How about if I add a condition in exchange for deferring the undergrounding of utilities? I'm joking. I would like to see that added as a condition. I think that's a reasonable request only because this is an affordable housing project and that is a undergrounding. The utilities is a very expensive endeavor. And other than that. I think that most of my concerns have been addressed by my colleagues. Commissioner Rottman yeah.

So during the questions with staff I had raised about having the police department review this project, I'd like to have that added as a condition. And also I wanted to I wasn't couldn't hear exactly what Cathy you were saying about the enforcement issue of making it a part of the condition to.

I think what staff said is that it needs to be recorded because we're we're not looking at the financing or the other other issues. We're just looking at securing our giving these density bonuses. So I think it's actually sufficient if it's done at the time that they get the building permit, because if we hold it off until CFO, the building will be built. And and it would be harder to change it if they didn't do the deed restrictions. So I think the deed restriction is, is that would be a condition of having a deed, the property deed restricted to affordability at the issuance of a building permit.

And that was an added condition of approval that was circulated yesterday with the supplemental. Okay. So that is in the conditions of approval that are before you. All right. Thank you. So on the trees there's in the parking lot, there are areas where we have the carports, which is great, but there's areas where we have open parking. And it does not look to me like we are at a 50% coverage for trees. So I definitely need would like to see more trees in those parking areas. I'm sorry. You can you restate what you just said?

Yeah. So in the parking lot design, they have areas that have a shade structure. And then there are areas of just open parking. And there's a lack of shade trees in those areas. So the 50% requirement.

Yes. Yeah. And we talked about the dog park. So in terms of the design, I agree with Commissioner Smith's comment about the proportions of the above. The second floor windows. It seems very, very heavy to me and I'm not sure the reason for it, but I think it needs to be looked at. Overall, I think the project is adequate in design, but I think you could find this project in Illinois, in Texas, in Florida. I don't think it really has a sense of place related to Palm Springs, and I think they could do a lot better. So I think that color palette is okay. But again, it seems a little dark moody to me. And I think a little splash of color would be a good thing. And I mentioned earlier about the balconies, the screening of those so that we don't get a project that has a lot of junk sitting on the balconies and creates visual blight. So that's those are general comments about the architecture. I think their recommendations for Arc to look at and thank you.

Commissioner. Yeah, I was involved with low income projects in San Bernardino and here as well. And one thing we did do was have a security service drive by once an hor overnight between the hours of ten and six. Just they have to make there's a little medallion they press that we can tell that they were there to just do one loop around the building. I would highly suggest that for security measures as well as are there any grilling kitchen type activities in that grass area by the playground area? Yes. They're showing grills. Yeah, I thought those were grills. Those two little. That's what those are.

Right here I think there's grills okay. Thank you. That was it.

In terms of comments one is the amount of shade in the play area. I think that you might need to increase the shade in the play area for children. And I'd like arc to look at whether the shade is adequate in that area. I do believe that they've agreed to a splash pad, and so if they've agreed to that, I'd like that to go to arc with the splash pad included. And they also agreed to increasing the dog park. That turns out to be a lovely amenity in Palm Springs, people. And it needs shade, and I don't I don't think I see any shade there, but it does need it and it's something that creates helps create a community. I, I think those in the other is more more trees and appropriate trees that provide real shade, because half of that street isn't shaded on the other side. So you're going to need to create shade. And so the the choice of the trees, especially on San Rafael, should be trees that provide shade. And they're great, great trees that do that like like scissors do that, don't have thorns. You have I mean, you want something that is probably thornless but is also shady and will provide a canopy. And I would absolutely say no 15 gallon trees. You're talking about a tree that's going to grow out in 30 years. And we don't want trees that grow out in 30 years. I would prefer 36 there. So that's a recommendation to arc, to

look at trees that are going to form a canopy. I think that we had the earlier issue of the recommending that the planning director and the. The chief engineer get together to look at San Rafael Road and see if they can create some parking on that street, but to to basically take a hard look at that street in terms of what can be done with it, the recommendation would be park it if you can. And do we have anything else?

Yes. There's one thing that we talked about and I don't think it got added yet as a condition would be to look at the basin areas for at least some additional landscaping and perhaps a.

And something that softens it if you end up having to have hard fencing around it. We'd want to see soft landscape in front of that, in front of that, whatever kind of wall you have to put there and to landscape those basins. I had one question that I forgot to ask, which is I see no shade structure on the first ten or so parking bays as you pull in. Is there a reason you didn't shade that one structure?

I believe it's for fire. There's requirements for the fire truck to be able to access distance to the building. Okay. Understood? Yes. In addition to trying to find a way for parking to exist on San Rafael, I think we should make the same request of making sure that there is street parking available on Virginia and Puerto del Sol. Glenn, I think, made a reference to it might be street parking access, but. We certainly don't want to see red curbs on those streets. Yeah.

Right. So I have a series of comments to ask and then actual conditions. Great. Do you want to reread them?

I have a long list. Alright. Commissioner Morphy had talked about the retention basins and the walls around it and soften the land with landscaping and look at a different type of fencing. Commissioner also said that the miller had said that the architectural details of the building, the ceiling heights are a lot of space and to relook at that sidewalk to the playground and that the police review a crime prevention. Plan that the commissioner Morales, said to include secure storage for bikes. Commissioner Lane said. Solar on the carports. You're taking that one out.

Yes, I did say that, but I was corrected. Okay. Commissioner Rottman also mentioned the police review deed restriction at permit, which is a condition that was forwarded to the commission earlier yesterday and today. Parking lot shading be at least 50%. And to look at that that enlarge the dog park the balcony railings to be more of an opaque. And staff will work with them to come up with a design before it goes to Arc. Commissioner Baker asked for a security service to patrol at certain times. I don't know that we can add that. Okay.

That it's a. Recommendation. But it's outside our purview. Okay. And then Chair Womack said to increase the shade in the play area, the add a splash pad before it goes to Architectural Review, expand the dog park and provide shading in the dog park. The plant palette to include 36 inch box trees and look at shading shade trees along San Rafael. And look at the species that's proposed and that San Rafael permit parking on the street in coordination with the engineering department, and also parking along Virginia and Puerto del Sol.

If feasible. I. I also requested that we defer the undergrounding of utilities, and if I may speak to one that was about the 36 inch box trees. Yes. Include those and delete the 15 gallon trees. And I believe we had I didn't hear it, Glenn. So apologies if you said it. A couple of recommendations from Commissioner Brotman to the Architectural Review to consider perhaps some lighter colors or at least more colors and to. Splash. Splash of color. Yes.

Splash of color. And to I'm going to say this in the words that I heard from you, Commissioner Rottman. So forgive me. Reduce the heaviness of the building. And I believe that related also to the comment of the height, distance between the window and the. Yeah, I think Commissioner Robin said it better. It was. It was primarily the proportions on the second floor above the windows. And then the other comment was that I think the design is generic and could be anywhere, make it more appropriate to Palm Springs. Great. Did you include the balconies being. Yes. I heard that one. It's in my notes.

Question. In terms of the items, I don't think this needs to come back to us, but you will make sure that the splash pad and dog park are increased by the time it goes to arc. Yes. Yeah, we will write the condition as such. Anything else? I will take a motion. I would move for approval with the conditions noted. I have a second. Of the major development permit with a single exemption. Class 32. I want you were including. Right. And that. I'll second that then.

Can you call the roll, please? Vice chair Lane? Yes, Commissioner. Miller? Yes, chair. Wermke. Yes, Commissioner. Baker. Yes, Commissioner. Murphy. Yes. Commissioner. Rottman. Yes. Commissioner. Morrell. Yes. Before I we've just voted. I'm assuming that what we've added. I didn't ask you to come back up, but I didn't see strong dissent on any of the conditions.

Yeah. We will accommodate as best we can d just wanted to know on the solar, on our affordable projects, we actually look to go above and beyond the requirement so we can provide that to our residents. So we've actually done that on quite a few affordable projects. So we will have solar and and yes, we will take all those conditions. Thank you and I wish you the best of luck. Build it. This is the second time or third time we've entitled this area, and I would love to see it get built. Thank you. Yes. Commissioner. Lillian.

Let me just understand because I'm not clear. Hopefully you can hear me. Yes. You were asking for the solar. And then you were asking for. Both of you were saying, hey, what if you do 36 inch box trees, right? Is that a possibility for the exchange? Are we required to do the undergrounding at this point, or did you, as a condition, say we were taking that condition away? Is that correct? Correct. We're deferring. We voted. We voted to defer that condition. Defer? Meaning it's gone.

Meaning that it will go to a covenant. So at such time, if the. Well, actually, Jonathan, can you maybe explain that process? Yes. So instead of it being wholesale removed from the conditions of approval, there's a second portion to that condition that basically says that the deferment of the undergrounding will be put to a covenant instead. Please.

So a covenant is a restriction that's basically recorded against the title of the property, and it just runs with the land. So in this one's case, the undergrounding of the utilities will be deferred to a future point in time where the city itself will be performing the undergrounding and the individual properties that have this covenant attributed to it are just considered automatic yes votes in that. I thought the covenant was was go with the land thing. I just wasn't clear. I saw your note. Okay, so thank you. That resolves it.

I would point out one thing though, as Southern California Edison, there's a long lead time for them to come in to underground. So that could throw your timetable way off because they work on their own schedule. Yes, but I understand from what I just heard, and maybe I'm wrong, that we're not going to be underground. It's a point of information how se but be underground. Beware long lead times on everything with them. Agreed at some point, but not at this point. Yeah. Not at this point. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck. Thanks.

Okay. No breaks tonight. We're moving straight ahead to commission reports, requests and comments. Shall we take the Christmas party offline? We don't need to do that as part of the public record. Okay. I think you all.

I do have a comment that this project really brings to light or reminds me of. Again, there is an increasing number of families. There are an increasing number of families with an increasing amount of children in the north end of town, we have a single swimming pool in the city that is. Oversubscribed already. I believe that there's a desperate need for swimming, especially for kids and for families in a public pool. We keep building small on smaller lots where you can't have a meaningful swimming pool. Children are not going to learn to swim in a, you know, in whatever we call our splash pools. And as the city is looking at its master plan for the future of parks and recreation in the city, I think that we should really prioritize addition of a second pool on the north end of town, because I think the community could really benefit from it. Now, at this point, if you're a child in the north end of town and you want to learn to swim, to get the municipal code, you need to go to the gym. So Jesse center, you need to wait for summer when they have a couple of vans that will take kids to summer camp, and then you get a very brief exposure to the pool. It's a really tough way to learn to swim, and those of us who live in the southern, central and southern part of Palm Springs don't recognize that because we all have pools in our backyard. So I hope that the city keeps in mind that we do have an underserved population in that regard. And learning to swim is very important.

And we send that as a recommendation to the city council. Are we ever. Okay if it might be at. This stage more appropriately directed to the Parks and Rec department, as they're still working through their master planning process? But yes. If we can, if we can, we can. They have now adopted their master plan. They did. There you go. So yes, to the city council. Another pool. Correct. One. One other way to tackle that is to get ready for measure J for next for the next funding cycle. Because that would be a great use of measure J funds. I think, in my opinion.

Someone has to propose it and bring in the engineering and the costs. And that's that's the problem. If it's not the city, that's it'll be on city land. And so it has to be a city project. I think that there is room in measure J. They do allocate some of the monies to city projects. They do. The city could be sponsors, and certainly that might be an appropriate thing for Parks and Rec or capital or somebody to approve to suggest as a. I mean. Measure J project.

At some point, the city applied for a park in in on the north end of town with the idea of a state grant for park wanting parks, you know, swim space. It was a number of years ago, I think it was in like 19. And we didn't get the grant. The grant instead, I think, went to Cat city. But I think recommending that just I wasn't comfortable requiring them to put in a pool, I think because of the safety concerns and the amount of management it would require.

In the space and but. But the kids need it. I mean, I think you're unpacking an interesting issue, and we have these conversations on development specific applications. And of course, you know, to add pools, as you heard, adds cost to developments. And so it's a tough conversation to have because realistically, we live in the desert and we want people to be cool. We want kids to learn to swim. So I think, you know, finding a way for the city to try and fill the gap so we can keep housing affordable is is an important conversation.

We did not put a pool in the development at DAP and that really didn't there. No one's running over to the other pool was just across the parking lot to use that. So that has never become an issue, but it's really just a cost. Yeah, sure. Splash pad at sunrise. No, they did the. Display kitchen. They have a they have a pool in the other section don't they. In the, in the. There's a different owner. It's a different owner. Yeah of course. And and I financed that years ago before I moved here.

And at monarch of course which has more families. There's a splash pad. So I think that's a good compromise. That is the largest cost of the pool. The Palm Springs pool. I'm seeing the salaries for the lifeguards that's ongoing. You've got to have a minimum of three full time. Of course, the operational costs far outweigh the initial costs of construction and lifeguard salaries and chemicals and mechanical. Mechanical? Yeah. Heating and cooling the pool. Cooling it in the summer and heating it in the winter.

You don't make money on swimming pools. You don't. That's why the local government undertakes them, because it's not really a commercial enterprise. Anyway, I didn't mean to derail the discussion. Any other. That's a good question. Committee requests, reports, comments.

I attended the Arc meeti. What month of it? Now? I forgot two weeks ago. Three weeks ago? Yeah, I guess it's still November, the beginning of November. And they rejected the that one development. We that two the family with the two homes with the weird driveways that I don't know if they're appealing that or not. They just didn't like the the one with the two driveways. So we kept trying to say. We didn't approve that.

That was a major or a minor. It was a major architectural housing project that didn't require to come to Planning commission, but they rejected it anyways. No. And they also, if you recall, the self storage facility that you all saw on Gene Autry trail, they rejected that, I think at the same meeting. Rejected that one. Yeah, there was a lot of discussion about that and they sent that back for further revisions. Good. We asked them. To. Because Roberts.

Since we're on the topic, I suppose I can give some updates on on other matters. So you may have all seen the news that the Nexus hotel project went to City Council on appeal last week. It was appealed by the residents of the villas to the north, as well as by an environmental group who I believe also spoke at our hearing. After a lot of discussion, the city Council voted unanimously to deny the appeals and let the Planning Commission's decision stand. They added a few conditions, mostly around community notification, making sure that there were regular community check ins, that there was a website established to keep residents updated on the status of the construction where they are in process. I think they appreciated some of the comments from the Planning Commission in terms of adding the additional articulation to the top of the buildings and cutting it back the 20ft, as well as the additional screening to the parking structure. So they maintained those conditions. But that project will move forward to architectural review.

Now. They required that the parking structure be in some ways not as visible from the street. Right. I think that and and that the developer worked together with whatever happens with creating more walkways to the downtown, that whole project that's going to be starting. So a lot of they required coordination. They also took away our ability to deal with extensions. They required that any request for extension go through them. Can they do that?

They can. So so the extension of time that would normally be granted by the Planning Commission, I think the City Council, in light of concerns about the expediency with which hotel projects move to construction. And of course, you can think of a few example projects that are many, many years into no construction post entitlement. I think their concern was going into sort of a never ending extension of time cycle, and they wanted to sort of hold the developers feet to the fire in some ways, by taking that control for themselves, so that they would have to answer to council instead of you all. So that is what they've been tasked with. That. That was really it from the last city Council meeting.

This project won't go to council. This project will not go to council. Unless of course, there's some. Kind of appealed. That's all the updates I have. And I'm assuming this project came to us so early because it was required to have entitlements to go forward for financing.

That's correct. So it's they are actively working wh our housing team to discuss additional city sources of funding for the project. We're not directly involved in that conversation. And as well as they're working with the state, as you heard, to get financing through the various programs at the state level. A lot of that process is contingent on there being entitlements. So that is why you're seeing the project at this phase so that they can continue that work about finding the financing necessary to build it. So if they were to secure financing from the city, there would need to be a development agreement tied to it. So that would ultimately go to the city council. That's one way it could go to them, but it's unclear yet if they're going to get that funding or not.

And the the other thing the city council did was approve West Hollywood for the development that's next to the Springs Shopping Center.

That's correct. So there's a city site just behind effectively sprouts right off Gene Autry. And they selected West Hollywood as the chair said to construct an affordable housing project there. I believe it's around 230 units or so. So it's a good sized project. And so, again, that's being coordinated largely through our Housing and Community Development department. But that's exciting news. So that's moving forward.

And I went to the opening of the I think it used to be called aloe. Is it still called aloe? I know it's changed names to that project that West Hollywood did. It was stunningly beautiful. It yeah, it looked the way they brought it to us. And a plug that tomorrow morning will be the ribbon cutting for the Plaza Theater, which is exciting. I don't know that that ever came to Planning Commission. Friday is tomorrow. Thursday. Tomorrow is not. It's tomorrow's Wednesday. Tomorrow's Wednesday. So Friday morning. I'm ready for the weekend. It's only Tuesday. Friday morning.

Everybody on commission and your staff are invited. There will be tours. If you can't make the morning the next day, starting at 10:00 till I think 230 in the afternoon. There's a street fair with tours as well, and I'm wearing a slightly different hat, but we want you all to see it. We're terribly proud of what we've accomplished. It's a very exciting moment for the city to see that project come to realization. And of course, you know, there'll be a series of of different events leading up to the big opening with Cynthia Erivo on December 1st and Lily Tomlin on December 2ndo very exciting shows coming. Up on time, on budget.

Yes. City project. I will make sure that you got the email on that. I think we can adjourn. Let's talk outside. The meeting is adjourned until we're not meeting till December. Right? Yeah, we have one. Our next meeting is December 9th.

So this we are adjourned until 530 on December 9th. So thank you. Very much. Thank you so much.