[2:19] Good evening, everyone. I'd like to call the Planning Commission meeting of

[2:22] August 26, 2026 to order at 6:01 p.m. If we could please have roll call.

[2:28] » Yes, Commissioner Santos. >> Present.

[2:31] » Vice Chairperson Ortiz. >> Here.

[2:33] » Commissioner France. >> Present.

[2:36] » And just for the record, Commissioners Slater and Scarboro-Aguilar absent.

[2:40] » Thank you very much. Commissioner Santos, can you lead us in

[2:44] the pledge? >> Yes, ma'am.

[2:45] » Thank you.

[3:09] Thank you. Um, okay, we'll have a minute for

[3:14] information from staff, Brian. >> Yes, thank you, Chairwoman and to the

[3:17] Commission. I just wanted to advise the Commission this evening that the item

[3:22] 6.3, that's the Lincoln Apartments project, we are going to remove that

[3:28] from the agenda tonight. We're going to bring that back on September 9th, 2026.

[3:33] So, that is the very next meeting. Staff is working with the applicant to go over

[3:39] some sequel review, and we will bring it right back. But, as far as tonight, we

[3:44] won't come to item 6.3. We will not open up the hearing. It's been formally

[3:50] withdrawn from the or asking you to formally withdraw from the agenda

[3:54] tonight. If someone wants to speak, they could do it during the the public

[3:58] comment for items not on the agenda. And that would be my recommendation to you.

[4:03] » Thank you. Do we need a motion to withdraw it from the agenda?

[4:05] » No. Um may I just add also to ensure that um

[4:11] if anyone has public comments on this item, um

[4:15] they can make them during um general public

[4:19] comment like Brian said, um but to ensure that their comments are

[4:23] considered as part of the administrative record pertaining to item

[4:28] uh 6.3, um we ask that those public comments are

[4:32] provided again um when the item returns to the

[4:35] commission. Or they or they can submit it in

[4:38] writing. >> Thank you.

[4:40] Okay. Um with that little housekeeping item

[4:43] done, let's move on to public comment. I'll go ahead and open the public

[4:46] comment. Is there anyone here who would like to speak on items that are not on

[4:50] the agenda? Anyone online?

[4:53] » I have no requests. >> Nope. Okay, seeing none, we'll go ahead

[4:56] and close the public comment. And we'll move on to item 4.1 uh the

[5:01] minutes. Do I have corrections or a motion?

[5:04] » I believe we may need to continue the minutes um

[5:07] since >> [snorts]

[5:08] » cuz not everybody's here. >> Okay, we will continue the item to our

[5:12] next meeting. And we'll go ahead and move on to item

[5:16] number five, a staff presentation from our internship intern. Thank you.

[5:23] » Hello everyone. Um good evening. Chairperson Franz and commissioners, my

[5:28] name is Jennifer Escobar and I want to share a little bit about my experience

[5:32] as a housing intern here at the Community Development Department for our

[5:35] City of Indio.

[5:44] So, a little bit about my background. I am a student Arizona State University.

[5:49] I'm earning my bachelor's and master's in urban planning. It is a concurrent

[5:54] program. So this spring I'll be earning my bachelor's and the year after will be

[5:59] my master's. A little bit of what my internship

[6:02] focused on was housing policy, developmental review, planning research,

[6:07] and earning municipal experience. A little bit about myself as well is that

[6:13] I also work at Starbucks and I did that throughout the duration of this

[6:17] internship as well. I'm earning the tuition benefit there. So that's been

[6:22] really great. I also commute from Moreno Valley. So that's what that little

[6:26] picture is at the end. That's our M mountain. And so that's about an hour

[6:30] and I've been managing that for the summer as well.

[6:37] So I worked in the housing and neighborhood services division. One of

[6:42] the biggest things that I took away from that was that I learned that it's not

[6:47] just about producing as many units as possible, but it's also about looking

[6:51] for funding sources, understanding state requirements, and local policies,

[6:56] as well as developmental regulations, community needs, and how that all comes

[7:01] together so that we can benefit our community.

[7:04] Seeing those different pieces come together gave me a much better

[7:08] understanding of the role a city plays in housing needs.

[7:16] So a little bit about the projects that I was working on during my time here was

[7:21] focusing on ADU program research. I also looked into creating a density bonus

[7:28] application. Um along all side of that, I also

[7:32] reviewed planning policy and development review.

[7:36] For the ADU program, I researched how the other jurisdictions might have their

[7:42] approaches to pre-approved plans and how Indio could potentially involve those as

[7:47] well and create our own program. I also helped create the density bonus

[7:53] application. So, that meant that I was researching state requirements and

[7:57] helping organize information into a format that could be more accessible to

[8:02] the public and to our staff. Alongside those larger projects, I had

[8:07] opportunities to participate in development and planning research.

[8:12] These experiences helped me understand how planning concepts and regulations

[8:17] move from research and policy, but how we can implement those programs into

[8:22] Indio as well.

[8:25] So, one of the most important aspects of the internship was understanding how the

[8:30] work that I did supported the city's broader strategic priorities. My work

[8:35] mostly directly connected with economic opportunity and organizational

[8:41] excellence through housing initiatives and funding

[8:45] research, I was able to see how planning can support economic opportunity by

[8:50] helping expand housing options and identifying resources that can support

[8:55] development. My work also contributed to organizational excellence through

[9:02] ordinances and policy research and collaboration across different

[9:07] departments in our community development.

[9:10] What stood out to me was that even though the research may seem small

[9:14] behind the scenes or um

[9:18] that it can ultimately support larger city goals when it comes to helping make

[9:23] policies clearer and easier to implement.

[9:29] So, what I learned from the internship was when

[9:33] housing policy is connected to most aspects of what the community needs. I

[9:41] also learned that planning requires a lot of collaboration. Housing decisions

[9:46] involve planners, building inspectors, management applicants, and developers.

[9:52] Most importantly, I learned about the process of research to policy and to

[9:58] implementation. It's one thing to understand a planning concept when I was

[10:03] in the classroom, but seeing how that concept becomes an ordinance or an

[10:07] application, a or a developmental project, it gave me

[10:12] a clear understanding of municipal planning. Overall, I think this

[10:17] experience gave me a much clearer path towards understanding the type of

[10:21] planner that I would like to be alike.

[10:27] And so, I do have a moment for questions, um but real quick, I did also

[10:33] want to take a moment to express gratitude, especially towards David, for

[10:37] taking me under his wing, and for trying to instill as much as his knowledge into

[10:41] me as possible, and to the rest of the team as well. Um I had a really good

[10:46] experience. Everything was very positive, and I appreciated having a

[10:50] really educated team. So, thank you. >> Thank you. Do we have any questions?

[10:57] » No, I I I just want to say thank you and congrats on your um

[11:02] going to ASU for your uh degree, your bachelor's and master's, and thank you

[11:05] for choosing NDO for your internship. So, I really I thank you for that.

[11:13] » I just want to say thank you for all your work, and then I also went to ASU,

[11:16] so let's go Sun Devils. >> So, thank you so much. Um I hope I'm

[11:21] glad you had a good experience, and we hope that when you're done with your

[11:24] degree, that you'll come back. We always need new new fresh ideas and new people

[11:28] to to take on the challenges that are coming. So, good luck.

[11:32] » I appreciate that. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[11:35] Okay, we'll go ahead and move on to public hearing item, item 6.1.

[11:41] We're going to discuss discretionary and conditional use permit for a 7 Brew. We

[11:47] can please have a staff report. >> Yes, you can. Good afternoon, good

[11:52] evening commissioners. I will be doing a quick presentation over the 7 Brew

[11:57] project. It's case file number plan PRD 26

[12:03] 0027 and plan CUP 26 0011.

[12:09] This project is located off of Highway 111. Um

[12:14] uh Oh my goodness.

[12:17] Um near Jefferson. Yes, thank you. Um right near the city border with the city

[12:23] of La Quinta. Um the project includes the development

[12:26] of one drive-thru restaurant totaling 910 square feet with walk-up pedestrian

[12:31] takeout. Um this project includes the review of architecture, pedestrian

[12:36] circulation, landscaping, and signage, as well as a conditional use permit to

[12:40] allow a drive-thru as a limited land use.

[12:43] Um in the Highway 111 specific plan a conditional use permit is required for

[12:47] all drive-thrus and it is considered a limited land use which

[12:52] for drive-thrus it is does require city council approval rather than planning

[12:57] commission. So, your decision will be a recommendation to the city council

[13:01] should you move [clears throat] forward with the

[13:04] project. I've also included a project elevations

[13:08] on the dais. You have a color materials board

[13:12] near the bottom of the building. That's the black

[13:18] black onyx black concrete tile. Above that is the hardy plank. It's a light

[13:23] gray color. There's going to be blue metal coping um

[13:28] along the top of the building um as well as some um accents on the um

[13:34] trash enclosure roof. Uh and then the light gray coping is near the windows.

[13:41] Um, I also included the site plan um

[13:46] Uh it includes two drive-thru lanes and a circulation lane for access to

[13:50] parking. Um the trash enclosure is on the southeast portion of the site. Um

[13:55] there is pedestrian connectivity from Highway 111 to the walk-up window as

[13:59] well. I also included the landscape plan. Um

[14:04] I do want to also add that we added two conditions of approval specifically

[14:09] conditions number 24 and 25 um for the installation of palm trees fronting

[14:14] Highway 111 as well as a condition of approval number 25 for the installation

[14:20] of shade trees along pedestrian pathways.

[14:23] Um so um well there is more landscaping included as

[14:29] part of the conditions of approval. The application also in includes a

[14:35] request to deviate from the Highway 111 specific plan for signage. Specifically,

[14:40] it increased in it includes a request to increase the

[14:43] maximum height of signs from 30 in to 6 ft for graphical wall signs and then

[14:49] increasing the number of signs for one per street frontage to one per building

[14:53] facade. Um the proposed project is consistent

[14:59] with the um Indian General Plan 2040, the Highway 111

[15:03] Corridor Specific Plan, and the Unified Development Codes um subject to Planning

[15:07] Commission recommendation of approval and conditions of approval. Um

[15:12] the project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15332 for

[15:17] infill development of the California Environmental Quality Act. Um with the

[15:22] application of conditions of approval, the project is recommended for approval,

[15:27] um, and the conditions are binding and must be adhered to. Um, so, the staff

[15:31] recommendation tonight is to approve, uh, resolution number 2147 and 2148 for

[15:37] the Seven Brew drive-thru, um, and recommend the city council approve the

[15:41] planning review discretionary application and the conditional use

[15:44] permit, um, and find the project exempt from CEQA, um, pursuant to section 15332

[15:51] for infill development. Um, and I'm open to questions and the

[15:55] applicant is here as well, or the applicant's representative is here as

[15:57] well for any questions as well. >> Thank you, Luke. Any questions of Luke

[16:00] at this time? So, I have a couple. Um,

[16:05] I know that we have to, you know, approve all drive-thrus. Can you pull up

[16:08] the image of like the like what is around that area? I think there's a lot

[16:12] of open space still, right? >> Yes.

[16:19] Yeah, uh, I don't have a more zoomed-in version, um, but north of the project

[16:25] site there's, um, big box retail stores including Home

[16:29] Depot. Um, to the south of the project site, it's, um, similar. It's an EOS

[16:34] Fitness. Um, and then to the west of the project

[16:39] site, it's another drive-thru restaurant, but that's in the city of La

[16:41] Quinta. To the east of the project site, it is a, um, a vacant parcel.

[16:47] » Okay. So, there's not another drive-thru restaurant close by, right? It's not

[16:52] like we're not getting a whole bunch of drive-thru spots in one area. This seems

[16:55] to be very open still. >> Yes, so in the city of Indio there are

[16:58] no other drive-thrus in this planning area. It's, uh, considered to be

[17:02] planning area one of the Highway 111 specific plan and there have been no

[17:06] other limited land uses approved since the adoption.

[17:09] » Okay. That was my my biggest concern. The other question I had was about the

[17:13] signage. >> Mhm.

[17:14] » It seems like going from 6 in or what was it? 30-in to 6-ft. It's more

[17:21] than double and we've kind of been real careful with our signage

[17:25] on purpose, right? We're trying to keep a certain feel and look for the city.

[17:28] So, is there anything in the area that is

[17:32] even close to this size of signage or is this really going to stand out compared

[17:37] to everything that's around that area? >> Um I don't have the size of the signage

[17:43] um for the existing Eos Fitness, um but that was approved before the adoption of

[17:48] the Highway 111 Specific Plan under the MUSP 300 um and it is rather large

[17:53] signage. I just don't have the number of the height.

[17:57] » Okay. So, maybe Brian, is this anything that we should be super I mean, it's a

[18:02] small building first of all. It's only 910

[18:05] sq ft. It's literally just going to be drive-thru, which drive-thru coffee is

[18:09] great. Don't get me wrong, but um I want to make sure that the the size of

[18:15] the signs isn't going to be really large and not

[18:20] not fit the look that we're trying to do with the Highway 111 Specific Plan.

[18:24] » Yeah, that's a good question, Chair. So, [clears throat] we have been working

[18:27] with the applicant including the assistant planner.

[18:30] Um at one point the monument sign that they were proposing was way too large

[18:34] and we told them because of your proximity to Highway 111

[18:39] being so close that a a monument of that size um is usually not built and would

[18:44] not be appropriate for this location. So, it's a little bit of a balancing

[18:48] act. Um they significantly reduced the size of the monument, but what they do

[18:53] have is a larger um wall sign.

[18:57] Um I agree, it is a little large, so that's why it's before the Planning

[19:00] Commission tonight. If you would like to reduce that, you can make that

[19:04] recommendation and that'll go to the City Council. They'll have the final

[19:07] decision on that size. Um I agree, It wall sign is quite large uh

[19:13] for the size of the building. I'm leak looking at EOS Fitness right

[19:18] now and it's a very large sign, but that's a very large building as well.

[19:21] So, it's up to you um on how you'd like to proceed and if you

[19:26] want to make a recommendation, I'm sure the applicant who's here tonight can

[19:30] give you a little more background on why that sign that wall sign is so large. Um

[19:35] that might help to give some more context to what they're proposing.

[19:38] » Would you be able to tell me this I mean I don't know if if Dutch Bros is about

[19:41] the same size their building, you know, the one that we put on Jefferson.

[19:46] Um how big are their signs? Cuz that's also a smaller building. Can And maybe

[19:49] you can maybe get that information when we have the

[19:52] applicant speak cuz I'd like to be able to compare it to something comparable,

[19:57] right? It's hard to imagine 30 in 6 ft.

[20:01] » I'll go ahead and pull it up on the Google Maps, but I'm probably not going

[20:05] to be able to find the square footage, but um in the meantime we can hear what

[20:08] the applicant wants to >> And we have the Dutch Bros on 111.

[20:11] That's the one I actually meant, not the one on Jefferson.

[20:14] » [laughter] >> So, all right. We'll go ahead then. Any

[20:17] questions of staff? Okay, go ahead. >> I do have a question for staff. Um

[20:21] Thank you, Luke, for you know, for your work and for presenting this item. Um I

[20:24] do have a question about traffic. Um I know exactly where that specific

[20:28] location is going to be cuz I go to EOS every day at 6:00 a.m.

[20:32] Um and then I feel that have you have we looked into the traffic flow? Because to

[20:37] go into that specific location, you either have to make if you're going on

[20:41] Highway 111 going to towards La Quinta, you either you're going to make a U at

[20:45] Costco Drive or make a left on uh on Jefferson and then go cut through the

[20:52] gas station. So, have we have we looked into like is the traffic the cars going

[20:56] to overflow into 111 or how is the going to

[20:59] traffic situation is going to work out? >> That's a good question. So, um

[21:03] the city's traffic engineer did review um this site plan and and this is not

[21:09] the first iteration of the plan. There was a alternate version

[21:13] during the pre-application conference that had the drive-through lane a little

[21:18] bit longer, but the drive-through was between the

[21:21] property line and the building. So this is kind of an updated version to

[21:28] more closely align with the goal of Highway 111.

[21:31] There hasn't been any conditions of approval for traffic mitigation beyond

[21:36] that from the from the city engineer the traffic

[21:40] engineer and

[21:42] the previous development when EOS went in,

[21:46] it was a much larger building. It was I can't remember if it was more retail

[21:50] or offices, but it was a bigger building. So that was also analyzed when

[21:54] the previous development went in. >> Thank you.

[22:00] And just for clarification, the entrance will be on the south side, not the north

[22:06] side where 111 is correct? >> Correct. Yes.

[22:09] » So hypothetically speaking, the traffic flow will flow into the park the

[22:14] commercial parking lot. >> Correct. Yes.

[22:16] » Thank you. And I am looking at the Dutch Bros.

[22:21] » [clears throat] >> wall sign

[22:23] on Highway 111. It is pretty small.

[22:27] I would say I'm going to estimate that to be

[22:32] maybe anywhere from 24 to 36 inches high.

[22:36] So it's substantially smaller. So again, maybe the applicant can explain

[22:43] if this is a similar format that they use on other stores or is it something

[22:48] that is different for for Indio?

[22:52] » Okay. Thank you. All right, we'll go ahead and open the

[22:55] public hearing and we invite the applicant to come up and present.

[22:59] Thank you.

[23:05] » Good evening. Um Madam Chairperson, members of the commission, my name is

[23:10] Cayman Wong. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. Um

[23:14] my address is 4340 East Indian School Road in Phoenix.

[23:18] Um we've been working with staff um for the

[23:22] last, I want to say, 6 months on this, and it's been

[23:26] it's been very fruitful, and we've really enjoyed doing it um and getting

[23:30] this project, and we're excited to be part of the community. So, I'm here to

[23:33] answer any questions that you may have. >> Thank you.

[23:38] Um I guess the big question is the sign, right? It's It's bigger than

[23:42] » Yeah, it's not used to it. It's a little different to you.

[23:44] » little bigger. >> It's a little bigger, and I think the

[23:46] reason being it is part of the brand. Um this brand is part of out of Arkansas,

[23:51] and um this will be one of the first in

[23:55] California. Um and it is not specific to Indio. This

[23:59] is their brand. Um the reason why it is a little bit

[24:03] bigger is they have something at the rooftop there, so it is 20 ft tall, this

[24:08] building, um approximately, give or take a few inches. Um

[24:12] but you can see that top curve piece there. They call that the muffin top.

[24:17] Um don't know why they call that. It kind of

[24:20] um but the front of the building is um not this elevation, but the one actually

[24:26] facing um it'll actually be facing east um is

[24:33] where that big muffin top is, and it is proportionate to that side of the

[24:39] building. So, that's kind of why it is given that. Now, the building signage

[24:44] on, which will be north, which will be facing Highway 111, is substantially

[24:49] smaller. Um and that'll be the one that um you

[24:53] can kind of see the outline there. Um so, the big one that you're you're

[24:57] referring to is actually facing north, which is facing the gas station.

[25:02] Yeah.

[25:05] » And that's your standard size of the sign

[25:08] » for the corporation itself. >> Correct. And initially um, they are

[25:13] internally lit, but uh, Highway 111 has um,

[25:17] the corridor plan has um, restrictions on that and so we're going to comply

[25:20] with that and um,

[25:23] and make it I think externally lit.

[25:27] » Okay. >> I am looking at also a few other signs

[25:32] along Highway [clears throat] 111. I'm looking at Burger King just because it

[25:36] came up and it's round just like this proposed sign.

[25:40] Um, it's smaller. I don't know the exact

[25:43] dimensions, but it's definitely smaller. So um,

[25:47] you know, it's something to take into consideration.

[25:51] » Okay. Any other questions?

[25:58] » In regards to the size, I understand the the

[26:03] proximity to what the rest of the franchise the corporation or the

[26:07] corporate stores are prox- about the same size.

[26:11] This being close to I understand that we have the 111 corridor specific

[26:17] plans on how what developers should abide by.

[26:22] Do we have any indication because it is border La Quinta of what their

[26:28] potential signage sizing are as well?

[26:34] » No, I we did not review the city of La Quinta's signage standards as part of

[26:38] the review um,

[26:42] to kind of compare it to this.

[26:49] » Okay. I'll I'll I'll reserve my uh, my opinion regarding the the signage

[26:54] during uh deliberation. >> Okay. So So, this is your first um

[26:59] California? >> Yeah.

[27:00] » of Googled you guys and it feels like you're in Arizona, Tucson, something

[27:04] like that. >> Uh Tucson, not not in Phoenix yet. We're

[27:07] um but uh yeah, we are working on another

[27:11] one in the city of Coachella. And uh we have approval on that one already in

[27:16] permits right now. So, hopefully this one gets done quicker and

[27:21] opens sooner. But um yeah, those are the two that we're working on right now in

[27:24] this area. >> All right, perfect.

[27:26] I think it'll be a nice addition. I think we just need to kind of talk about

[27:29] the sign cuz we work really hard on what we want Highway 111 to look like. So,

[27:33] » understand. Yeah. If you have any other questions, let me know.

[27:36] » Perfect. Thank you. >> You're welcome.

[27:38] » Do we have um anyone else wanting to speak on this item?

[27:41] » I have no requests. >> Should I leave it open in case we want

[27:44] to ask him another question? Or not?

[27:50] Madam Attorney, can we leave the public um just open?

[27:54] » Can we leave it open in case we have another question for him?

[27:57] » Um >> Or just close it and then reopen it if I

[27:59] want to. >> Um I apologize. Um you were asking

[28:03] whether to close the public hearing now and

[28:07] continue to and deliberate. >> Right.

[28:09] » Um >> Or can we leave it open? That way if we

[28:12] have a question for him, we can just have him come up.

[28:14] » Let's do that. >> Okay. So, we're going to leave it open

[28:16] in case there's questions um of the applicant. All right. Um

[28:22] Does staff have any other info on the signage for us that you'd like to share?

[28:25] » We're reviewing the city of La Quinta's signage standards right now.

[28:29] » Cool. All right. We'll wait a minute then.

[28:32] » Yeah, I thought I could measure what the Burger King sign was because it's round

[28:36] and >> [clears throat]

[28:36] » faces uh Highway 111, but uh looks like the Google Map isn't allowed me to do

[28:41] that. >> want to make sure I clear Is Is it the

[28:43] round sign that we're talking about or the longer sign that we're talking

[28:47] about? Cuz I'm I'm starting to get confused as to which which sign is the

[28:50] bigger one. >> It appears that based off of the

[28:53] illustration that's on our screen right now that the seven

[28:57] Brew shows 3 ft in height and

[29:04] I'll look about 10 ft in length, roughly.

[29:08] » Is it the >> Well, it's just the circular

[29:11] other one I think it's it's on the screen. I can't

[29:16] see the exact height of it. But I think it was closer to compliance.

[29:24] » Okay, so it's so it's the circle. It's the seal.

[29:26] » circle, yes. >> are on the two sides, the east and the

[29:28] west. >> Okay, are we good?

[29:30] » Uh just for clarification, sorry. I got a little confused. So, which is the size

[29:35] for the monument that they asked that is going to be on which one is it? Is it

[29:39] the seal or is it the other one? >> So, it for the size specifically it's

[29:43] for the um for the seal on the building mounted

[29:47] signs. In the staff report there was a mention to a 8 by 17 monument sign, but

[29:53] last minute we had a revised set of um um of monument signs that were submitted

[29:59] which are I have on the screen. They they comply with the Highway 111

[30:03] specific plan. >> Got it.

[30:04] » So, the only question is those two on the east and west side of the building.

[30:08] Then the seal, the circle. Okay. All right.

[30:12] Okay, do we have any other questions or

[30:17] » No questions, but I'll wait for the uh city's uh review of

[30:21] the La Quinta.

[30:26] » Okay.

[30:30] » It it may take a minute. It's a 151 page document. Um so

[30:36] » Do you want to take Do you want to take a Do you want to take a 5-minute break

[30:37] and then we'll just see if that's enough time?

[30:40] » Let me just ask a quick question. So, um obviously it's like in La Quinta's code

[30:45] and not India's code. Are you trying to >> [clears throat]

[30:49] » match cuz uh directly across the street is a Starbucks.

[30:53] » Right. >> Which is kind of interesting.

[30:55] So, are [clears throat] you trying to match maybe what Starbucks does or what

[30:59] is your intent? Cuz our codes are going to be very different.

[31:02] » want it to be super bigger than anything else in the surrounding area. Do you see

[31:07] what I mean? So, if if start I don't know how big Starbucks sign is normally.

[31:12] But >> So, we we could look um

[31:16] on the map we could look at Starbucks as well. Their round one.

[31:20] Um unfortunately, we cannot uh do measuring on this type of map that I'm

[31:25] at right now. But um we'll take a look at that.

[31:29] » Okay. All right, let's let's take a 5-minute.

[31:32] Do you want to do that? All right, let's take 5 minutes and let

[31:35] staff do a little reconnaissance. Okay, we'll be back.

[34:34] » Mhm.

[35:36] » All right, we'll go ahead and call the Planning Commission back in session and

[35:40] staff. >> Okay,

[35:43] even though we continue to look at the city of La Quinta's code, we we

[35:46] typically want to be our own kind of guiding um

[35:51] we we guide the direction as opposed to another city. Not that that's bad

[35:55] because I think that they're doing great things in in La Quinta. So, um after

[36:00] talking to the applicant, um if we could put that slide up again

[36:04] of the the sign that's the large one um on the muffin top as they call it.

[36:12] I think we can make a compromise and a kind of balance this little better and

[36:16] then the applicant can come up and and and talk about it as soon as we get that

[36:21] up.

[36:24] Okay.

[36:28] So, essentially we'll just use the very top right-hand corner, so that's the

[36:33] large one. >> [snorts]

[36:34] » So, when you [clears throat] look at that sign, even though I'm not a

[36:37] designer, I have been reviewing signs for a very long time. So, if you look at

[36:40] the right and the left of that sign, you have uh big spaces, big gaps. But, the

[36:45] top of the sign and the bottom sign, there really isn't an equalized balance

[36:50] there. So, um what the applicant uh discussed this afternoon in the break is

[36:55] if you could um uh allow a gap of about 12 in on the top

[37:00] and 12 in on the bottom, so a total of 24 in. What that sign's going to do is

[37:05] it is going to shrink. They'll redesign it um so that it will be um

[37:11] pursuant to those reduced dimensions, allowing um a gap at at the top of 12 in

[37:17] and a gap on the bottom of 12 in. Um um and maybe we can kind of introduce that

[37:22] and see if the applicant would like to speak about that uh adjustment. If if

[37:26] the commission would like to consider that.

[37:28] » Thank you. I I do like that. Are you guys good with the that recommendation?

[37:32] » Yeah, I'm good with that. And just going based off of the illustrations that are

[37:35] on our screen, it looks like the top uh without including the roof portion, 7 ft

[37:39] 6 in. So, that would equate to 90 in. So,

[37:43] looking at 5 and 1/2 ft signage, so. >> Okay.

[37:48] All right. Um does the applicant have any comments on that or are you

[37:57] » Yeah, it it probably would be a little bit less than that because of that just

[38:01] we have to make it symmetrical. >> Yeah.

[38:03] » Um but yeah, we we're okay with that compromise and and we can work with

[38:06] staff on amending the the exhibits.

[38:10] » Perfect. >> Yeah.

[38:11] » Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in the public?

[38:16] No. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing.

[38:19] And do we Do we any more deliberation or do we have a motion?

[38:26] » I'll make a motion to approve. >> With the motion back on the screen.

[38:30] » [laughter]

[38:36] » All right, I'll make a motion to approve um the resolution number 2147 and 2148

[38:42] with the modification of the signage to be 12 in

[38:47] uh gap from the top and bottom and for the applicant to work with staff for the

[38:51] appropriate sizing.

[38:56] » I'll second that motion.

[39:01] » Did we have any other modifications that we needed?

[39:11] Okay, thank you. We have a first and a second. If we can have a roll call vote,

[39:15] please.

[39:17] Okay.

[39:24] Me, sorry.

[39:27] All right, thank you very much. Looking forward to having you in our city.

[39:30] Thank you.

[39:33] Okay, we'll go ahead and move on to item 6.2,

[39:37] review and recommendations regarding amendments to the Indian

[39:41] Municipal Code. If we could have a presentation from

[39:44] staff, please.

[39:49] » Good evening, Chairperson Franz, Commissioners.

[39:52] This David Razo, senior analyst with the Community Development Department.

[39:57] This evening, we are requesting the Planning Commission review and

[40:00] recommendations to the City Council regarding amendments to the Indian

[40:04] Municipal Code repealing the existing density bonus regulations.

[40:09] Uh updating current regulations with the

[40:12] Unified Development Code and adding chapter 3.07.

[40:16] Uh updating to local density bonus law

[40:20] while allowing or my apologies uh

[40:24] staying current with the state density bonus and is including an ordinance um

[40:31] tied to our pro-housing designation.

[40:39] I'd also like to acknowledge we have our consultant uh on via Zoom.

[40:45] Erica Cash with Dudek uh a little bit of background on Erica.

[40:50] She was the uh

[40:54] forefront for our sixth cycle housing element. Uh she also drafted our

[40:58] pro-housing designation and more recently uh is drafting the

[41:04] current ordinance. She will provide a presentation for

[41:07] Planning Commission.

[41:18] » And I can't see the screen. So do Am I sharing my presentation?

[41:24] » Yes. >> Perfect. Thank you. All right, we'll get

[41:27] started. Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. So as David said, my

[41:31] name's Erica Cash. I'm a senior project manager with the consulting firm Dudek.

[41:36] Um tonight I'll be presenting the proposed updates to the city's density

[41:38] bonus ordinance and the incentive program that's being proposed within

[41:42] that ordinance. Uh and we've been working really closely with city staff

[41:46] on all these updates. So just as a quick uh

[41:50] kind of overview of state law requirements. So under the state density

[41:54] bonus law, cities are required to adopt a local density bonus ordinance, which

[41:57] we have today. The ordinance covers the requirements

[42:00] dictated in state law, and so we we pretty much follow the letter of the

[42:04] law. They include establishing eligibility criteria for density bonus

[42:07] projects consistent with government code. Um this includes for very low,

[42:12] low, moderate income senior housing, and student housing projects.

[42:16] Um, as well as specifying the density bonus amounts available based on the

[42:20] percentage of affordability level and the qualifying units. Um, identifying

[42:25] the incentives and concessions available to, of course, only eligible projects,

[42:30] and the process for requesting and approving those.

[42:33] Providing a procedure for granting waivers or reductions, and um, just to

[42:37] specify those are reductions of development standards.

[42:40] And they only apply when standards would physically preclude construction of the

[42:44] project at the permitted densities. Um, so, qualifying density bonus projects.

[42:50] Also, we had to establish parking reduction standards, and to elaborate,

[42:54] those are also just consistent with state law.

[42:57] Um, we didn't go above and beyond uh, for the parking reduction standards.

[43:00] It's just what's in state law. And then I'll

[43:03] finally including application procedures, submittal requirements, and

[43:07] review timelines for the density bonus requests, and again, those were

[43:10] consistent with state law. So, I've said it a few times, but just

[43:13] to reiterate, these are all consistent with state law and what the city has

[43:16] already been doing for density bonus projects by implementing what's current

[43:21] in density bonus law. So, uh, quick overview of the proposed

[43:25] amendments. So, the proposed amendments, apart from incorporating the

[43:28] requirements of state law, will relocate the city's density bonus regulations

[43:32] from title 15 to title 17. They'll encourage mixed-use housing

[43:36] developments, and lastly, will support the city's pro-housing designation

[43:40] goals. Um, this will include the incentive

[43:42] program, which I'll go over shortly. And just as a recap of how we got here, the

[43:47] city was awarded the official pro-housing designation last year in

[43:50] 2025. The proposed amendments today add an incentive program into the density

[43:55] bonus ordinance, which provides additional density bonus opportunities.

[44:00] The incentive program is required as part of the city's approved pro-housing

[44:03] designation application. As a recap, this was authorized by City Council when

[44:08] they approved a resolution authorizing city staff to submit the pro-housing

[44:12] application, which included the pro pro Sorry, which included the proposed

[44:17] density bonus incentive program.

[44:21] So, under current state density bonus law, housing developments are eligible

[44:25] for a density bonus when they meet or exceed the eligibility requirements,

[44:29] which are now included in your updated ordinance.

[44:33] And they're just consistent with state law.

[44:35] So, what this table is showing is a summarized version of something you may

[44:39] have seen many times before. It's just the minimum and maximum percentages of

[44:43] affordable units and the corresponding minimum and maximum density bonus

[44:47] granted to a project under existing state bonus law.

[44:51] So, just looking at this table as a quick example, if a project sets aside

[44:55] 15% of units, so 15% of units right here, to be very low-income units, then

[45:02] it would qualify for the maximum 50% 50% density bonus, assuming it meets all the

[45:07] eligibility requirements. Um there are also bonuses I quickly

[45:11] mentioned before that are not shown on the table. Uh one is for affordable

[45:15] housing developments which provide 100% of units set aside for lower income.

[45:20] They are eligible for an 80% density bonus as well as bonuses provided for

[45:25] lower-income student housing or senior housing, which I'm sure we're all

[45:29] familiar with.

[45:32] So, sticking to current state density bonus though, in addition to the state

[45:36] density bonus that I showed on the table on the last slide, current state law

[45:40] also already provides for opportunities for an additional bonus.

[45:45] So, that would be in addition to what was shown on the last slide.

[45:48] Um this is specifically just for very low and moderate-income units. So, in

[45:53] other words, once a project exceeds the max percent of affordable units shown in

[45:57] the table on the previous slide, then the housing projects are eligible

[46:02] for an additional density bonus as shown on this screen. So, the percent of units

[46:07] you see in the first column here, percent of units,

[46:10] um they would be in addition to the percent

[46:13] of units provided on the last slide, and likewise in columns number two and

[46:19] three, these would be the density additional

[46:22] density bonuses that they would be entitled to receive, and these would be

[46:26] added to those in the last slide. So, the base density bonus from the last

[46:31] slide, I'm going to call them base density bonuses just to sim-

[46:35] differentiate, but the base density bonus from the last slide are just added

[46:40] to these additional density bonuses shown on this slide. Um but I'll show

[46:44] you an example in a few slides. Just I'm very visual, so I color-coded it so we

[46:49] can all be on the same page. But right now, I want to show you how

[46:53] the incentive the local incentive I've mentioned plays into this.

[46:57] So, this is the same exact table shown on the last slide except for some added

[47:01] blank rows and columns. When we looked at the state's current additional

[47:05] density bonus with the city, we saw that there were some missing opportunities.

[47:09] Primarily, the state does not offer any opportunities where you see the blank

[47:13] rows or this blank column.

[47:21] So, here you see the blank row and columns filled in for 1 to 4% of

[47:27] additional units provided for additional So, 1 to 4% of additional units provided

[47:33] as affordable units or low-income density bonuses, which are not currently

[47:39] provided under state law, which are shown within the red boxes.

[47:44] And then just to reiterate, everything in the table outside of the red row or a

[47:49] red boxes in the rows and columns are still covered under the state's current

[47:53] additional density bonus regulations. So, the local incentive program is just

[47:58] proposing to add what's in the new rows and columns in red. Everything else is

[48:02] already in state law.

[48:06] So, here is an example. So, we can think of a project with 100 units. Right? So,

[48:13] here let's say they propose to restrict 34% of the housing development units as

[48:18] low-income units. So, in other words, 34 units.

[48:22] This project could qualify them for a 65% density bonus.

[48:27] So, 100 + 65 = 165 units. So, below I broke it down to kind of

[48:34] show how we got there. So, in this example, I've shown what I mentioned as

[48:39] the base affordable units before and the base density bonus is red. So, you'll

[48:43] see the base is 24% of low-income units. And the that corresponds to the 50%

[48:49] density bonus. And then in the blue, I've shown the

[48:52] additional density bonus and the additional units.

[48:56] So, that's how we got the 24 plus the 10, the 34% low-income units that this

[49:01] project example would provide. And that's why they got

[49:06] the 65 total density bonus granted. In this case, it's because they maxed out

[49:11] the base density bonus, which would give them the 50% density bonus.

[49:15] However, under the local incentive program that we're proposing, they

[49:19] theoretically added an additional 15%. Or sorry, they had the additional 10%,

[49:25] which granted them the 15% additional bonus.

[49:30] So, here is the same example just shown in a slightly different way.

[49:34] So, here again we see where the 24% of affordable units come in this example.

[49:39] Right? So, this is just the base under current law.

[49:42] This qualifies them they max out the base percentage. So, they get, you know,

[49:48] if they're of course eligible, let's say, they get the 50% density bonus

[49:52] granted. And then here we see where the

[49:56] additional 10% of affordable units comes. So, let's say again, the same

[50:00] examples before, they provide the additional 10% of affordable units as

[50:04] low-income, they would then qualify for the additional 15% density bonus. So, 50

[50:10] + 15, that's where how they're getting to that 65% density bonus for a total of

[50:16] 165 units. Um just to put it into perspective as

[50:20] another quick example, if they were to restrict just 25% of same project, 100

[50:27] units, say let's say they restrict just 25% of the units

[50:33] to very low-income, so they max out at the 15 Oops, sorry. The 15% right here.

[50:40] They would also get 50%. However, under existing state law,

[50:46] if they then provided the extra 10%, they'd get an extra 38.75.

[50:51] Meaning that same project, if they instead restrict 25% as very low-income,

[50:57] they qualify for 88.75% density bonus. So, more than 23% more

[51:03] than what the local incentive program would provide. So,

[51:09] we're definitely not exceeding the density bonuses already provided under

[51:12] state law today with the local program. We're just covering a small gap that we

[51:16] identified that's existing in state law in order to promote really the goal

[51:20] would be to promote low-income housing.

[51:25] So, just as a quick summary, benefits and compliance associated with the

[51:28] proposed amendments, of course, ensuring compliance with California state density

[51:31] bonus law requirements, which is a requirement, expanding opportunities for

[51:35] affordable housing throughout the community,

[51:38] providing development incentives that are directly tied to the production of

[51:42] affordable housing units, supporting future residential

[51:45] developments and helping increase the local housing supply and implementing

[51:50] the city's required pro-housing incentive program commitment.

[51:55] So, next step, today is of course the first step in which you're reviewing the

[51:58] proposed ordinance updates and providing your recommendations. And then steps two

[52:02] and three would be to go to city council for consideration on November 4th and

[52:07] lastly approval and adoption of the updated density bonus ordinance.

[52:15] And I'm sure there's questions. So, that's it for my presentation. David, if

[52:18] you want to I'll stop sharing my screen and I'll stay on for to answer any

[52:23] questions that the that there may be today.

[52:28] » Okay, thank you very much. Do we have questions of staff at this time?

[52:32] » Uh just a quick is there any other city in the state of California that has a

[52:36] similar ordinance already in place? >> Yeah, so there are in the Coachella

[52:41] Valley. So, just for some context, the pro-housing

[52:45] does it the I and I assume you mean the incentive specifically. Uh

[52:49] India was the only city in the Coachella was the only city to receive the

[52:52] pro-housing designation. I think it was the third in Riverside. So, it's not

[52:56] super abundant in your region. But in the state, there are there's the

[53:00] city of San Diego, city of San Jose, Sacramento. So, some of the larger

[53:04] cities do have they've had for quite some time incentive programs tied to

[53:08] their density bonus that go above and beyond state law.

[53:15] » Perfect, thank you.

[53:18] » Okay, I do have a couple of questions. Um

[53:21] when we can take a project from 100 units to 188 units based on one of the

[53:28] examples that you did, that that's a significant um increase, right? In the

[53:32] number of people, in the number of cars, in the number of everything.

[53:36] As we're going through and evaluating these projects because we're not going

[53:39] to be able to say no, right? This is part of this that we're going to be able

[53:43] to say this is what we want built cuz we need the housing. So, great. How are we

[53:46] going to handle impacts on traffic, water, sewer, school, police, fire, and

[53:51] other public services in the area? Because to have a project

[53:56] go from 100 units to 188 is going to be a significant a bigger impact. So, is

[54:02] there going to be a moment in time when these projects come before us where all

[54:05] of that will still be taken into consideration, or is it just going to be

[54:09] allowed to be built without looking any further?

[54:14] » So, let me go ahead and just respond real quickly and then our consultant can

[54:17] kind of add to the to the response. So, um there still is CEQA review of these

[54:23] projects. So, some of them may be exempt, so I definitely don't want to

[54:27] say that some of these projects wouldn't be exempt, but they are still subject to

[54:32] uh to CEQA. So, uh those are some of the things that we look at. We look at, you

[54:36] know, parking, we look at traffic, we look at a variety of topics that CEQA

[54:41] requires us to do. But, that being said, um some of these

[54:45] projects that come in, especially if they're low-income affordable housing

[54:48] projects, they are going to ask for incentives incentives or waivers, and

[54:52] some of that might be, for example, for parking.

[54:56] And they're entitled to do that. Um so, we don't want to uh

[55:01] paint a false narrative that some of these projects are going to come in with

[55:06] some of those development standards that they're going to request a waiver or

[55:11] um um other things to reduce those development standards. So, um maybe our

[55:15] consultant Erica can expand on that, but, you know, we're still going to be

[55:19] looking at all those those areas of the project. And some of the things we may

[55:24] not be able to address because they're part of concessions or um

[55:28] things like that, waivers. >> Brian, thank you. I think you you

[55:33] covered it. Um you know, that example I gave, that of

[55:38] the 188, that's already offered under existing state law.

[55:42] Um, I think that one was established I don't know. It's been a while since I

[55:46] looked at when every It keeps changing so rapidly. Um, but to ease your mind a

[55:50] bit,

[55:53] you density bonus projects aren't exempt

[55:55] from CEQA automatically. Of course, there are exceptions

[55:59] exceptions to that. You know, there's infill projects, etc.

[56:02] But all the projects that you've seen coming through the city, nothing it

[56:06] wouldn't the CEQA process wouldn't look different than it does today.

[56:12] » Plus, it seems like everything we're doing is following the state guidelines

[56:16] except for that extra bonus that we talked about, right? And then I also if

[56:20] want to make sure I read properly that we are

[56:23] matching the state requirements for parking. We are not making those any um

[56:29] lighter, I guess, for lack of a better word cuz I do worry about parking. So,

[56:33] we are just following state guidelines on that, correct?

[56:37] » That's correct. We are using the exact parking ratios from state law. We are

[56:40] not exceeding or expanding on those at all.

[56:44] And we are the local incentive program does not exceed density bonuses provided

[56:49] under state law currently. >> Okay. Thank you.

[56:53] Any other questions? >> Yes, I just have a question. Um,

[56:57] if we were to approve today, uh, what would you guys would bring it to city

[57:00] council on November 4th cuz uh, there's like a timeline that you guys have to

[57:04] follow. I'm just curious. >> Yeah, I can real quickly and I know um,

[57:08] David Razo has been working with us on this uh, particular timeline. So, we're

[57:14] trying to bring back an ADU ordinance to as well.

[57:18] So, we're hoping to [clears throat] bring that back next month. So, we have

[57:21] the density bonus tonight. Uh, next month we're going to bring the

[57:25] updated ADU ordinance which is also one of those items we need to address as

[57:30] part of the pro-housing designation that we received. So, if you bundle those two

[57:34] together, we want to bring both of those to the city council. By that time, based

[57:39] on deadlines for staff reports and postings and things like that,

[57:42] publications, now we're into November. So, that's the goal is to

[57:47] bring both ordinances and our consultant has been helping us to to get these two

[57:52] fruition to the council in in November. I think the first meeting, Erica, is

[57:56] what you mentioned. >> Yes.

[58:01] » [snorts] >> Thank you.

[58:14] » Um so, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. I'm at this time seeing

[58:18] no one in the audience. Is there anyone online that would like to speak on this

[58:21] item? >> I have no requests.

[58:23] » Okay, seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing.

[58:26] And do I have a motion or any more questions or deliberation?

[58:30] » If nobody has any other questions, I'll make a motion to accept the

[58:34] recommendation and push it on to the city council.

[58:38] » I'll second that motion. >> Okay, we have a first and a second to

[58:42] recommend approval to city council. You can vote on your screens.

[58:51] Okay, motion carries. Thank you.

[58:54] Okay, um since item 6.3 has been pulled, we'll go

[58:59] ahead and move on to item number seven, commissioner comments. Does anybody have

[59:02] anything? I have one.

[59:06] I'm ready for fall. Um if this heat would just back up a

[59:10] little bit, I would be a little bit happier. Um other than that, I'm really

[59:13] excited to see all these changes and all these ordinances coming through to the

[59:16] city. I think it will help us with future development. And I hope to

[59:20] continue to see the growth that we've seen for the last few years. And thank

[59:24] you to staff.

[59:27] Nothing else? Director's reports.

[59:33] » I wanted to have three items of one of involves David Razo because David Razo,

[59:38] our management analyst, was working with our intern and I think she did an

[59:42] excellent job tonight. We're very happy to work with her, very proud of all the

[59:47] efforts that she made in the department. Um, so I was asking HR a little bit

[59:52] about our internship program because it was very successful. We had a total of

[59:57] 23 interns. It's the highest that we've had. Last

[1:00:01] year was 17 and uh, the year before four and then two.

[1:00:05] So we've really ramped up um, those students coming in and getting the

[1:00:10] experience uh, for this round of internships, over

[1:00:14] 5,500 hours of mentoring, teaching and delegating tasks and caring for our

[1:00:19] interns. I personally, because his office is across the street from across

[1:00:24] the street, across the way uh, from me, David Razo spent countless meetings and

[1:00:29] countless hours working with the intern and that's really kind of one of those

[1:00:33] things where it's a pay it forward. You see them go on and and get a job one day

[1:00:38] and maybe like we mentioned, you mentioned that they might come back and

[1:00:41] be a city employee one day. So we're very happy um, that that has worked out

[1:00:46] really well. We work with other um, institutions like College of the Desert,

[1:00:51] etc. So we're very happy um, then I asked about how many are coming back and

[1:00:57] becoming city employees. Our HR director said in the past four years we've had

[1:01:01] seven interns that have been hired as city of Indio employees. So I thought

[1:01:06] that was really encouraging and um, I love to see that cuz I think at one

[1:01:11] point a lot of us were interns. I know I was, two times.

[1:01:15] So the [clears throat] other uh, couple items is the highway one 111 corridor

[1:01:19] specific plan. About a week ago I gave a presentation

[1:01:23] to the Community Services Commission because the council wanted um to bring

[1:01:28] that plan back to both the Community Services Commission and the Planning

[1:01:31] Commission. So, next month, I'll do a similar, but slightly different because

[1:01:35] the Planning Commission looks at um different topics and different areas of

[1:01:39] the plan than the Community Services Commission. So, the goal would be to to

[1:01:43] do that presentation, get your input, bring it to the council, and then we'll

[1:01:48] be looking for um a consultant to help us make amendments to that plan. It it

[1:01:53] it's about time. It's been about 5 years since the adoption.

[1:01:56] And so, um there's definitely some tweaks and some things that we want to

[1:02:00] do. And then lastly, some upcoming items the

[1:02:03] council brought up last week some items that they would also like us to come and

[1:02:07] do presentations in front of the Planning Commission.

[1:02:09] So, it'll be a a team effort. Uh some of the items that were discussed were

[1:02:14] cannabis. You know, there were some I guess you

[1:02:17] could say complaints about fees and also some of the

[1:02:22] allowed regulations on cannabis. So, we'll we'll bring back uh a presentation

[1:02:26] to you as well on cannabis and get your input before bring it to council and

[1:02:30] then they'll direct us if they um I see some code amendments coming up. Um and

[1:02:37] then also um a hot topic was massage and tattoo in

[1:02:42] our UDC, which serves as our zoning code, there are additional restrictions

[1:02:46] for those types of uses. Some of them can't be very close to residential uses.

[1:02:50] Some of them can't be close to uh businesses that serve alcohol. So,

[1:02:54] there's a host of things. So, we're going to kind of summarize and do a

[1:02:59] presentation on um massage and some of the other areas of the zoning code that

[1:03:05] have additional restrictions that are layered on to the existing um

[1:03:09] requirements and development regulations.

[1:03:12] So, other than that, let this conclude the director's report.

[1:03:17] » Thank you very much. Um then we'll go ahead and adjourn to

[1:03:21] our next planning commissioner meeting scheduled for September 9th, 2021.

Planning Commission - 26 Aug 2026

Transcript