Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-11-06 PC Regular Meeting Agenda Packet CITY OF PALM DESERT REGULAR PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - 1 AGENDA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2018 — 6:00 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. SUMMARY OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Any person wishing to discuss any item not scheduled for public hearing may address the Planning Commission at this point by stepping to the lectern and giving his/her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Planning Commission. Because the Brown Act does not allow the Planning Commission to take action on items not on the Agenda, Commissioners will not enter into discussion with speakers but may briefly respond or instead refer the matter to staff for report and recommendation at a future Planning Commission meeting. Reports and documents relating to each of the following items listed on the agenda, including those received following posting/distribution, are on file in the Office of the Department of Community Development and are available for public inspection during normal business hours, Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260, telephone (760) 346- 0611, Extension 484. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR ALL MATTERS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE ROLL CALL VOTE THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR AUDIENCE REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND ACTION UNDER SECTION VII CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER OF THE AGENDA. AGENDA REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 6, 2018 A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of October 2, 2018. Rec: Approve as presented. Action: B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a one-year time extension for Precise Plan 06-18 and Conditional Use Permit 06-15 for an 88-room hotel and restaurant pad located at 75-144 Gerald Ford Drive. Rec: By Minute Motion, deny the applicant's request for a one-year time extension for Case Nos. PP 06-18 & CUP 06-15. Action: VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER Vill. NEW BUSINESS None IX. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of September 18, 2018. Rec: Approve as presented. Action: X. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he or she raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Planning Commission. A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION for approval of a 10,500-square-foot cannabis manufacturing, delivery, and distribution facility for JW Brands located at 75-080 Saint Charles Place; and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Case No. CUP 17-0027 (JW Brands, Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2737 approving CUP 17-0027, subject to the conditions of approval. Action: 2 AGENDA REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 6, 2018 B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of Conditional Use Permit 18-0005 to establish a 2,512-square-foot microbrewery with a taproom bar within an existing industrial warehouse space located at 77-770 Country Club Drive, Suite D; and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Case No. CUP 18-0005 (Desert Beer Company, Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2740 approving CUP 17-0027, subject to the conditions of approval. Action: XI. MISCELLANEOUS XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES B. PARKS & RECREATION XIII. COMMENTS XIV. ADJOURNMENT I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing agenda for the Planning Commission was posted on the City Hall bulletin board not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Dated this 1 st day of November 2018. Monica O'Reilly, Recordin ecretary VIF CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY MINUTES TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2018 — 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Joseph Pradetto called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioner Lindsay Holt Vice Chairman Ron Gregory Commissioner John Greenwood III'i°lilt Commissioner Nancy DeLuna Chairman Joseph Pradetto Staff Present: �lllllo�� , i�l�jilI�il►;�, �, Jill Tremblay, Assistant City Attorney Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Monica O'Reilly, Management Specialist II III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Lindsay Holt led the Pledge of Allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Director of Community Development Ryan Stendell summarized pertinent September 27, 2018, City Council actions. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2018 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of September 18, 2018. Rec: Continue to the next regular meeting. Upon a motion by Commissioner DeLuna, second by Commissioner Greenwood, and a 4-0 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was continued to the next regular meeting (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Gregory). VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None Vill. NEW BUSINESS None IX. CONTINUED BUSINESS ,ll,, None X. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of approval for a 10,000-square-foot cannabis cultivation, manufacturing, and distribution business for Panther Buds, LLC, located at 74-725 Joni Drive; and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Case No. CUP 17-0028 (Panther Buds, LLC, Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Principal Planner Eric Ceja presented the staff report (staff reports are available at www.cityofpalmdesert.o ). He noted that City staff did not receive any correspondence in favor or in opposition to the proposed use. Staff recommended approval and offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Nancy DeLuna asked if it is correct that the proposed project would not be a cannabis dispensary and there would be no retail sales. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. Commissioner DeLuna commented that the business proposed to be open 24 hours. She inquired if there would be deliveries in the middle of the night, or would it strictly be cultivation procedures. Mr. Ceja understood deliveries would cease at 5:00 p.m. and the ongoing operation would be the cultivation process. Commissioner Holt clarified that staff did not receive any comments. 2 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\10.2-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2018 Mr. Ceja said staff did not receive any comments. Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. CHRIS CRANFIELD, Consultant for Panther Buds, LLC, Palm Desert, California, commented that their facility would be a 9,416-square-foot cultivation extraction, manufacturing, and distribution facility. He said there would be a front office for employee storage, receiving, and shipping. The proposed project would provide local jobs, tax revenue, and update an aging building. He shared that cultivation and manufacturing facilities have many challenges. However, the applicant plans on bringing a first-class facility to Palm Desert and hopes the facility would be a benchmark for others in the industry by focusing on quality over quantity. He presented the Commission with a PowerPoint presentation of the conceptual renderings of the proposed facility. He briefly spoke about the products the facility would manufacture and distribute. He offered to answer any questions. Commissioner John Greenwood inquired about the odor mitigation measures. MR. DANIEL SENSKE, Applicant, Palm Desert, California, explained that all rooms in the facility would have negative air pressure. In addition, the hallways and grow rooms are equipped with carbon and charcoal air filters. He mentioned he would be installing three times the amount of filters for each room; more than the manufacturer guidelines. When a person enters the cultivation room, air is pulled out of the room with negative air pressure then the air goes through the charcoal filters and distributed out of the building. When the room is closed, the air and carbon dioxide (CO2) is contained in the room for safety. Commissioner Greenwood asked the applicant if he was fully aware of the conditions in place to mitigate odor issues. MR. SENSKE replied yes. Commissioner DeLuna commented that the proposed project is the first cultivation permit the Planning Commission has considered. She mentioned other cannabis applicants proposed odor measures such as scrubbers, carbon filters, ozone generators, HEPA filters, A/C filters, UV light generators, and fresh duct silencers. She inquired if the applicant felt there is a need to include any of the additional measures she listed. MR. CRANFIELD responded that ozone generators would be in all the rooms and mentioned filters that would be mounted inside the wall. Commissioner DeLuna asked the applicant if they felt HEPA filters or scrubbers are not needed. MR. SENSKE remarked that the charcoal filters are the same as scrubbers. Commissioner DeLuna clarified that product does not leave the facility unsealed. 3 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\10-2-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2018 MR. SENSKE replied that is correct. MR. HUGH HOARD, Palm Desert, California, mentioned he has lived, played, and worked in the City of Palm Desert since 1978. He is opposed to the proposed facility because it is too close to the high school, grade schools, and an apartment complex. He also voiced his concern with any odor that might come from the facility and felt the proposed use would not be good for Palm Desert. MR. CRANFIELD thanked Mr. Hoard for his comments. He stated that the applicant has taken caution to make sure they are welcomed and productive members in Palm Desert without being a nuisance. He believed there would not be an issue with the proposed use, and if there were any odor issue, the applicant would work with the City to mitigate any issues. He thanked the Commission for the opportunity to do business in Palm Desert. III ,I�IIDI,h Commissioner Greenwood clarified that the,I proposed project is well outside of the radius for elementary schools. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. Commissioner DeLuna asked if high schools are also outside of the radius of the proposed project. Mr. Ceja replied yes, reiterating that there is a 1,000-square-foot buffer between a school and a cannabis facility. Commissioner DeLuna inquired if The First Tee qualifies as a school. Mr. Ceja said no. With no further testimony offered, Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Greenwood commented that the proposed project complies with the Cannabis Ordinance and it is in a good location. The applicant has also met the odor mitigation measures. He mentioned it would be nice to see the facade enhancement and he felt the project would be a welcomed addition to that area of the City. He moved to approve as presented by staff. Commissioner Greenwood moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2739, approving Case No. CUP 17-0028, subject to the conditions of approval. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Holt and carried by a 4- 0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Gregory). XI. MISCELLANEOUS None 4 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\10-2-18.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2018 XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None B. PARKS & RECREATION Mr. Stendell reported a temporary mural would be painted within the Civic Center Park. He reminded that the Commission of the Y Be Fit event scheduled for October 7, and the Palm Desert Golf Cart Parade is scheduled for October 28. XIII. COMMENTS III .l,i" Commissioner Holt asked staff to look at the Cannabis Ordinance relative to the separation requirements for cannabis-related businesses and churches. Commissioner Greenwood asked when the next League of California Cities Planning Commissioners Academy is. Mr. Stendell responded that Ithe Planning Commissioners Academy was held in April of 2018. He budgets for one or two Commissioners to attend the Academy and would check the budget for next year.Lastly, he asked the Commission to be mindful of their schedules as they move into the holiday season. Please notify staff if there is a meeting they would not be able to attend XIV. ADJOURNMENT h������l�irlii��u` With the Planning Commission concurrence, Chairman Pradetto adjourned the meeting at 6:26 p.m. �� �f�,;raril lil��,,ua�llllllh���l�II i 'il I!�Calll�liill i:. JOSEPH PRADETTO, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MONICA O'REILLY, RECORDING SECRETARY 5 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\10-2-18.docx PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEETING DATE: November 6, 2018 PREPARED BY: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a one-year time extension for Precise Plan 06-18 and Conditional Use Permit 06-15 for an 88-room hotel and restaurant pad located at 75-144 Gerald Ford Drive. Recommendation By Minute Motion, deny the applicant's request for a one-year time extension for Case Nos. PP 06-18/CUP 06-15. Background Analysis A. Property Description On November 8, 2007, the City Council adopted a resolution approving a Precise Plan and Conditional Use Permit application for an 88-room hotel and restaurant pad at 75- 144 Gerald Ford Drive, east of Cook Street. The site is approximately 2.21 acres in size and undeveloped. B. Zoning and General Plan Designation Zone: Planned District Commercial (PC-2)/Freeway Commercial Overlay (FCOZ) General Plan: Employment C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use North: City Limits — Union Pacific Railroad South: P — Public Institution — CSUSB Palm Desert Campus East: PC-2 — Commercial Development West: PC-2 — Commercial Development Analysis Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.72.030K1-3 allows applicants to extend project entitlements for one-year increments when extenuating circumstances can be clearly shown by the applicant, subject to Planning Commission approval. Staff does not believe that the applicant has an extenuating circumstance since the project approval in 2007. In addition, November 6, 2018 — Planning Commission Staff Report Case Nos. PP 06-18/CUP 06-15 Time Extension No. 2 Page 2 of 2 since 2007, there have been two hotels built in the area, and two additional hotels received approval in 2018. The property has been entitled for over 10 years and has received numerous time extensions from the original 2007 approval date. The most recent extensions occurred on October 20, 2015 (two-year time extension), and on October 17, 2017 (one-year time extension), which extended the project's entitlements until November 8, 2018. Although the project conforms to the goals and policies of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, staff believes that the applicant has had several years to build the project. Additionally, the project architecture is outdated along with the original studies such as the grading plan, hydrology study, and landscape plan. For the above-mentioned reasons, staff is recommending the Planning Commission deny the request for a one-year time extension and allow the project to expire. LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL REVIEW CITY MANAGER N/A _1�0_ N/A N/A Ryan Stendell Robert W. Hargreaves Director of Community Janet Moore Lauri Aylaian City Attorney Development Director of Finance City Manager APPLICANT: John C Wang, LLC Manager May Garden & Associates, LLC 21520 Yorba Linda Boulevard, Suite G-338 Yorba Linda, California 92887 CAUsers\kswartz\Desktop\PP 06-18_CUP 06-15 Time Ext.2.doc CITY OF PALM DESERT REGULAR PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PRELIMINARY MINUTES TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 — 6:00 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Joseph Pradetto called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioner Lindsay Holt Vice Chairman Ron Gregory 44011 ll1i Commissioner John Greenwood � ���I;��I�(, , Commissioner Nancy DeLuna Chairman Joseph Pradetto ��� Staff Present: I Robert Hargreaves, City Attorney Jill Tremblay, Assistant City Attorney Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development Tom Garcia, Director of Public Works Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Monica O'Reilly, Management Specialist II III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner John Greenwood led the Pledge of Allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION None V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of August 21, 2018. Rec: Continue to the next regular meeting. Upon a motion by Commissioner Greenwood, second by Commissioner DeLuna, and a 4-0 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was continued to the next regular meeting (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Gregory). VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER ��6V �iu,l,�1iy�l,.I al�'i VIII. NEW BUSINESS i�l'� I�I ►�'''I�IIII11° �) f None IX. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of August 7, 2018. Rec: Approve as presented. Commissioner Greenwood moved to, by Minute Motion, approve as presented the Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of August 7, 2018. The motion was seconded by Commissioner DeLuna and carried by a 4-0 (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Gregory). pl U h X. PUBLIC HEARINGS ,��i�i�IIV!„ A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council of a Specific Plan and Tentative Parcel Map 37234 to subdivide 32+ acres into four (4) parcels bounded by, east of Monterey Avenue, south of Dick Kelly Drive, north of A Street, and west of Gateway Drive; and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Case Nos. SP 16-342 & TPM 37234 (MC Properties LLC Encinitas California Applicant). Commissioner Greenwood stated the architectural firm he works for was involved with the said project and recused himself from this item. Associate Planner Kevin Swartz presented the staff report (staff reports are available at www.cityof palm desert.org). Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions. He offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Nancy DeLuna asked if there are other projects in the vicinity that have paid in-lieu fees for affordable housing, if so, what were the fees for the basis of a comparison. 2 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 Mr. Swartz responded that Family Development (The Retreat) agreed to pay a $2.00 a square foot for the affordable housing in-lieu fee. Recently, Palm Desert Country Club agreed to pay a $12.00 in-lieu fee; and The Wolff Company agreed to pay $9.86 in-lieu fee. Director of Community Development Ryan Stendell interjected that Family Development paid a $1.00 in-lieu fee. Based on a $9.00 or $12.00 in-lieu fee, Commissioner DeLuna asked how much of the money is set aside for affordable housing on a project as proposed by MC Properties. Mr. Swartz replied that the money set aside for affordable housing is based on the rentable square footage. Mr. Stendell added that it is difficult to provide a number since there is not a final site plan for the proposed project. He explained the Specific Plan is a broad document so there is not a final number to do the calculation. He mentioned City staff has been trying to keep affordable units on the site because it is a good site for the affordable units. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the $1.50 in-lieu fee is low for the area. Mr. Swartz answered yes. �r�ili�IQ�����'!i,l�l� Commissioner Lindsay Holt referred`to the 20 percent for affordable housing and asked if the percentage is a policy or a recommendation from staff. Mr. Swartz replied that the 20 percent for affordable housing is an internal City policy. Commissioner Holt asked if there was any consideration to formalize or adopt a policy. Mr. Swartz said the 20 percent set aside for affordable housing policy was in the form of a memorandum from a previous City Manager. Commissioner Holt inquired if it would be easier to first adopt a policy. Mr. Stendell responded that there was an attempt to formalize a policy; however, it was never formally adopted. He said affordable housing is an extremely hard-charging topic because it affects development. The memorandum mentioned by Mr. Swartz was composed in 2012 or 2013 that provided discretionary approvals. Commissioner Holt asked if there is a case law or other examples of cities making similar affordable housing requests. 3 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 Mr. Stendell explained cities used to have a redevelopment agency and the 20 percent revenue stream that helped produce affordable housing units. With the loss of redevelopment agencies, there are cities having a hard time achieving their affordable housing requirements and other cities are adopting thorough inclusionary affordable housing ordinances. Due to a recent increase in development, Mayor Sabby Jonathan asked City staff to provide a report on the current policy and how Palm Desert is compared to other valley cities. It does not help current applicants going through the process, but it will help other people that need clarity on the affordable housing issue. Commissioner Holt asked what is the City's status meeting the Housing Element requirements for affordable housing units. Mr. Swartz responded that in 2012, the City rezoned properties to accommodate the requirements for affordable housing units. He noted the proposed project is one of the parcels rezoned for affordable housing. For this reason, the City has required 40 affordable units for the proposed project. Commissioner Holt clarified that the 20 percent for affordable housing is based on the number of units that would be developed kill►I �l ����►�ii�;�'' Mr. Swartz replied that is correct'. h11►��,I,,��gilUuu�,,,, Commissioner Holt commented that 200 is the minimum number of units; however, the applicant could have a maximum of 254 units. '�uipgllullp �a�lililll�i�lul�lU�,i�, du�IIIIII ICI►►I�Ililllu��,,, Mr. Swartz remarked that the total is!"20 units per acre so the maximum number is approximately 250 units. Commissioner Holt said if the applicant developed 250 units, the 20 percent of affordable units would be 40 units. Mr. Swartz answered that the City is only requesting 20 percent of 200 units. Commissioner Holt clarified that the City is only requesting 40 units for affordable housing if the applicant develops more than 200 units. Mr. Swartz replied that is correct. Commissioner Holt commented that staff's recommendation is not to move forward with a parcel map. Staff is recommending setting aside a section of Planning Area 4. Mr. Swartz replied that is correct. Commissioner Holt felt the City should have learned a lesson about setting aside affordable housing units outside of the project area, and not having them blend into an overall project. 4 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 Chairman Pradetto asked staff for what projected rents might be in the market rate housing versus what rents might be in low and very low scenarios. Mr. Stendell answered no, stating he would need to get someone from the Housing Department to speak on market rate and affordable rents. If the Planning Commission is interested in rent information, staff could look into it. Chairman Pradetto commented higher density units are more affordable by nature than single-family stand-alone units are. He assumed that rents for single-family dwelling units would be more than an apartment in a dense development. If the market rate rent for a single-family dwelling unit is $2,000, he assumed that the difference in rent between the $2,000 unit and the low and very low is different from an apartment where the market rate rent is $1,300, g g Mr. Stendell agreed with Chair Pradetto's broad logic. Chairman Pradetto stated that the Planning Commission has no idea what the proposed units would sell for or what the rent would be. However, the nature of a dense development and the location of the proposed project is going to be more affordable than a development in south Palm Desert or a lower density development. Therefore, the developer would be providing units that are inherently more affordable and asked to what extent is it fair to place a condition to provide an additional burden of 20 percent for affordable housing. He commented that it would have been more helpful to know the numbers on market rates and affordable rents. Mr. Stendell believed that Chairman Pradetto explained the difference between what the City calls for state-mandated affordable housing versus housing that is affordable. He noted the proposed site is identified within the Housing Element for the location proximity, and the City has been after some form of state-mandated affordable housing. He agreed with Chairman Pradetto that by nature, the proposed project is a dense development and most likely will have affordable housing. Chairman Pradetto asked what the repercussions are if the City failed to develop a certain level or a number of affordable and very affordable housing units. Mr. Stendell answered that he does not have a complete answer to this question. However, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has the authority to take control of the City's land use authority. He stated that the HCD could enter the City and approve densities that are uncomfortable for the City of Palm Desert. Commissioner Holt mentioned one repercussion is state grant applications could be affected. Chairman Pradetto asked if the state would provide Palm Desert a warning that they would take the City's land authority. 5 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 Mr. Stendell responded that a developer can go straight to HCD via legislation or HCD could override the City's land use controls. Chairman Pradetto asked how would building a development at 20 units per acre that would help lead to more affordable units be construed as being a bad actor. He said the Planning Commission is actively considering an application to increase the density and the zoning towards the Housing Element. Mr. Stendell replied that it is a policy decision by both the recommending body and the City Council. Commissioner Holt noted that no matter where the development takes place, the difference between the market rate and the rates for low- and very-low income affordable housing is very different. As a community, the Planning Commission has to consider if they want to create housing that is affordable for people that work in the community or push the people out into other communities where they have to travel far for work. She voiced her concern not having a concrete policy that is consistent with projects. She said if the Planning Commission were to negotiate the 20 percent for affordable housing for the proposed project, she assumed it would set a precedent. However, they could negotiate on future projects and have a different solution, which does not sit well with her. CAMl issioner Holt calculated and noted the cost for the City to construct a single affordable housing unit, based on the information provided in the staff report. allllh,, Commissioner Nancy DeLuna commented that the Planning Commission is operating under a basic premise that she would like explained. She pointed out that she keeps hearing affordable housing referred to as a burden. She asked why affordable housing is considered a burden. Mr. Stendell responded that there is no question in his mind that a condition on a project or state-mandated affordable housing affects the financial viability however, deferred the question to the applicant. Commissioner DeLuna asked if it is correct that there is a state mandate to provide affordable housing. Mr. Stendell replied that is correct, stating that cities are required to plan for affordable housing units. If the proposed project is approved, Chairman Pradetto asked where it would place Palm Desert in meeting state requirements. Mr. Stendell responded that the City of Palm Desert is doing better than other cities. He mentioned the City has a certified Housing Element and the City is able to file a yearly performance report. To date, Palm Desert has not received any correspondence from HCD that the City has to do anything differently. Commissioner Holt asked what the City does with the in-lieu fees. 6 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 Mr. Stendell communicated that the City has constructed and rehabilitated affordable housing units. He believed the City's housing portfolio has 1,100+ units. In addition, the City has worked with private developers to create affordable units by using some of the City's housing funds. Commissioner Holt inquired what would be the City Council's preference if they had to choose between in-lieu fees and the development of affordable units within a certain development. Mr. Stendell responded that City staff looks at each site with practical eyes and asks what the value of affordability in the neighborhood is. He reiterated that staff is using a policy memorandum for discretionary approvals. Commissioner Holt mentioned that the applicant offered alternatives and asked if the alternatives are still standing. Mr. Swartz deferred the question to the applicant. Commissioner Holt commented that they are mainly referring to Planning Area 4; however, the same requirement is applicable to Planning Area 3. Mr. Swartz replied that is correct;; Commissioner Holt asked what if Planning Area 3 was developed as single-family residential and not high-density residential. Mr. Swartz responded that would be ok, but 20 percent of the homes would still be required at affordable rents. Chairman Pradetto asked if the applicant would pay an in-lieu fee if they were developing commercial property. Mr. Stendell answered that there is an established in-lieu fee on commercial development for affordability. Commissioner Holt asked what the in-lieu fee for commercial development is. Mr. Stendell replied that the fee is $1.00 a square foot. Chairman Pradetto inquired how the affordable units would be managed so that the units are rented out to qualifying applicants. Mr. Swartz replied that the applicant would maintain the affordable units, and the City would work with the applicant on the affordable rents. He noted that typically there would be a third party maintaining the units. Commissioner DeLuna asked if it is correct that the Planning Commission is considering the 20 percent for affordable housing units, as recommended by staff. 7 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 Mr. Swartz replied that is correct. Commissioner Holt asked if the applicant could return and renegotiate the setting aside of land for affordable housing. Mr. Swartz answered that staff would include language in the Specific Plan so it is set in stone. Mr. Stendell added that the Planning Commission and the City Council could modify the language in the Specific Plan. Since the language is not set in stone, Commissioner Holt commented that the setting aside of land for affordable housing is negotiable. Chairman Pradetto stated that currently there is not a level playing field with objectionable standards and each project could be treated differently based on whether the applicant could negotiate well or not. Commissioner DeLuna commented that there are other considerations, for example, some parcels are closer to amenities that lend themselves to more affordable housing and some are not. Therefore, placing the same requirement on every parcel might be equally inequitable. Commissioner Holt mentioned that the request is a discretionary permit so the Planning Commission does not have to approve the Specific Plan. The Commission could include conditions or make a recommendation to include conditions. As Chairman Pradetto pointed out, Commissioner DeLuna said if the proposed project was considered more affordable because of the high density, then the difference or the disparity between the affordable units and the market rate units generated would be less. Therefore, it is not much of a disparity as it might be if they were high-end condominiums or high-end single-family homes. Commissioner Holt interjected that if the units were at market rate, the rent could be increased. Commissioner DeLuna noted that affordable housing is based on median income. Mr. Stendell added that the affordable housing rent varies based on the area median income (AMI). Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. CHRIS CHAMBERS, Consultant with MC Properties, LLC, Riverside, California, stated that he has been working on the proposed project for two and a half to three years and introduced the other representatives of the project. He said the Planning Commission had good questions and made good comments. Mr. Chambers shared 8 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 that the MacLeod family has been an outstanding member of the community and early investors in the outlying areas of Palm Desert. He disclosed that Myron Macleod joined an assessment district approximately 10 years ago, and has been paying debt service on $30 million for public infrastructure that has gone in the surrounding proposed site. The development team has wanted to keep the project locally and make sure that they touch the local flavor and the local sentiments surrounding the proposed development. He said the reason for seeking a Specific Plan was to establish design criteria, and in conjunction, he and MSA Engineering Consultants removed as many questions as possible for the ultimate developer. In addition, they wanted a clear path to development when someone decides to develop the site. He pointed out that the proposed site is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan and made clear they are not requesting a change of zone, a general plan amendment, or a development agreement. Mr. Chambers noted that Palm Desert denied a development agreement, which could provide some subsidies for the development, fee deferrals, and contributions by the City from the housing fund. He said cities are better able to exact financial contribution from projects when they are asking for a General Plan amendment or a change of zone. As the Planning Commission listens to all the different exactions on different projects, Mr. Chambers implored the Commission to ask and inquire about the original zoning when the project was approved. He said Palm Desert has affordable housing projects that were developed when there was a redevelopment agency. The extinguishment of the redevelopment agencies has got them all in a pickle today. He said there are affordable housing projects that were open space and were changed to high-density residential communities. The City has to look at what it is doing with the developer on every single project and look at the developer's contribution. He stated that the proposed project is consistent with the zoning and the General Plan. They asked for subsidies, however, they were denied by the City. Mr. Chambers took a moment to compliment City staff. He said staff has been extremely responsive and very diligent in what was presented and how it was presented. In the past several years, many issues have been resolved. However, three issues have not been resolved. The first issue pertains to the 100-year storm retention requirement. He noted that he has had at least three discussions with the Public Works Department. He mentioned he has a letter from Public Works indicating that the 100-year storm retention will not be required on the site because of the storm drainage improvements that were done through Assessment District 29. The second issue is regarding assistant living. He said one of the goals in the Housing Element is to generate, assist, and cooperate with a development community for the provision of assisted living facilities. He pointed out that assisted living is a valid use in the City of Palm Desert. As of 2014, 35 percent of the residents are 65 and older. In addition, AARP concluded and reported that almost 80 percent of people want to stay in the community in which they live. Mr. Chambers communicated assisted facilities do provide that option; therefore, the applicant would like assisted living as an allowable use for Planning Area 3. He informed the Commission they are establishing development criteria for precise plans that will go before the Planning Commission for approval. He noted that staff was very resilient in their position of reserving 20 percent for affordable rents or the project would not receive staff's approval. Over the course of two and a half years, he made a list of no less than 10 iterations of what the applicant could do to move the ball toward their goal, but they all have fallen short. He mentioned they proposed an affordable housing in-lieu fee in an 9 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 amount of $1.50 and noted that The Retreat at Desert Willow agreed to $1.00 in-lieu fee. He stated the City did not respond to their proposed in-lieu fee amount. Mr. Chambers said the best course of action is to look at the Specific Plan without the affordable housing requirement. It is consistent with the legal position and there is no requirement in the Housing Element. In addition, the City of Palm Desert is not required to grab affordable housing from every project that comes before the City. He referred to Mr. Stendell's comment that Palm Desert is required to plan, but not provide affordable housing. He made clear there is no ordinance, only a general policy that states the City should cooperate with developers in trying to find affordable housing. He noted the applicant provided the Commission with proposed revisions to the Planning Commission resolution. The revisions would allow the project to move to the City Council on a neutral basis. If the City imposes affordable housing on 40 units, he expressed the project would not be profitable or financeable. Based on the approximate cost of $250,000 to construct a single affordable housing unit, the cost would be $10 million. Lastly, he briefly talked about legislature and assessments and offered to answer any questions. MS. KATHY JENSON, Attorney with Rutan & Tucker, LLP, Costa Mesa, California, stated if the applicant is required to reserve 20 percent (40 units) for affordable rents, it would be the first project not asking for any concessions such as a development agreement or a density bonus that would trigger a legitimate ask for affordable housing. She mentioned the last time she was in front of the Commission, it related to The Sands project (Canterra II), which the project was a perfect example of justifying the requirement for affordable housing. She pointed out that the land went from open space to high-density land, and the applicant received a density bonus and other incentives. For the proposed project to be treated the same as The Sands project is preposterous. She stated that there is not a city in the Coachella Valley mandatorily imposing an inclusionary affordable housing requirement. She referred to the letter sent to the City from David Lanferman (Rutan & Tucker, LLP) and noted the letter was attached to the staff report. She stated there is no authority when asked; the City Council decided they did not want a uniform policy. Therefore, as other projects asked for concessions, the applicants' negotiated different deals. She reiterated that her client is not asking for any concessions; however, they are being treated the same as the other projects. She mentioned numbers were based on a Keyser Marston Associates study and noted that they did not agree with the study. However, the fundamental premise was that the proposed property was going to have a zone change, which would vastly increase the value of the property and it was only fair that the developer should share a part of the value with the City of Palm Desert. She believed the idea was the City essentially could take two-thirds (2/3) of the upside. She proclaimed that there is no upside. She referred to page six (6), item number four (4), which states "The Specific Plan and future PP (Precise Plan) applications fall under the provision of Section 65915-65918 of the California Government Code." She stated the code does not mention Specific Plans. Specific Plans help physically lay out the best use of the property; it is not an incentive-based program. She noted that the developer was told the Specific Plan was mandatory, which is now the discretionary approval that authorizes a$10 million exaction. The $10 million exaction would make the proposed project infeasible and they will not accept as a condition. She referred to the Planning Commission resolution and recommended the following 10 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 condition be added to the resolution, "That the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council decide the issues regarding affordable housing." She communicated a policy should be made by the policymakers. Ms. Jenson noted striking Condition of Approval No. 2 in the resolution since once the map is recorded, it is final and the Specific Plan is a legislative determination. She believed City staff agreed the condition could be stricken. In closing, she said affordable housing units would be produced as part of The Sands project and she is sure there are more affordable units coming to the City in the future. She offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Holt reiterated items the applicant would like to discuss, including the requirement for the 100-year storm retention. She asked if the City typically requires improvements related to the 100-year storm. Mr. Swartz answered yes. He explained that it is not a Condition of Approval, but a sentence that could be stricken from the resolution. Commissioner Holt asked if it is allowed to retain some of the stormwater within the streets. Mr. Swartz replied no. MR. CHAMBERS interposed that when the assessment district was designed, the drainage was designed to accept a certain amount of flow of the proposed site. Commissioner Holt inquired if the improvements were constructed. MR. CHAMBERS replied yes, adding that they expanded the retention basin off-site. Commissioner Holt asked Mr. Chambers if they want the assisted living component to be an allowable use on Planning Area 3. MR. CHAMBERS replied yes. Commissioner Holt noted the applicant would also like to discuss the affordable housing requirement and the requirement for the start of construction within five years (Condition of Approval No. 2). Mr. Swartz interjected that staff was agreeable to eliminating Condition of Approval No. 2. Commissioner Holt commented that the items for discussion are the assisted living component and the requirement for affordable housing. She pointed out that the staff report mentions several alternatives the applicant discussed with the City, including the in-lieu fee in an amount of $1.50 for each livable square foot for each residential unit within Planning Area 4. 11 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 At this point, MR. CHAMBERS stated he would not want to reopen negotiations. He felt they have laid out their case. He said the $1.50 in-lieu fee that the City never responded to would be an amenable solution to the remaining MacLeod family members. Commissioner Holt said there was a discussion about providing either 40 units with a combination of 10 units at moderate income and the remaining 30 units at low- and very-low income. There was another discussion about 30 units (15 low-income units and 15 very-low-income units). She inquired if the applicant would be amenable to the two options. MR. CHAMBERS responded that there are many complicated factors involved with the latter option, which they never addressed with City staff. He felt the second option is not worth pursuing. He stated providing the 10 units at moderate income would be acceptable to the applicant. For the record, MS. JENSON stated they sent the City documentation that laid out details of the applicant's alternatives, but it was not concluded. MR. CHAMBERS added that the in-lieu fee of $1.50 and the 10 units at moderate income would have to be made clear that it is the contribution for the proposed project in perpetuity. MR. BOB KOLODNY, San Diego, California, commented he is an attorney that has been representing the MacLeod family for approximately 40 years. When the City was moving forward with an assessment district, the MacLeod family invested in the property as a very long-term investor. After listening to comments during the public hearing, he made clear that the MacLeod family are not developers. The family has been trying to decide what the best use is for the property. He said the family considered a zone change because they thought there would be a better use. However, the family was told it would not be a good idea and they elected not to do so. The family was told that the adjacent properties would be developed so they decided to contribute into the assessment district for improvements on and around the property. When Myron MacLeod, who recently passed away, suggested the family talk to Mr. Chambers to help expedite the process with the City. He said the family decided not to seek a development agreement or anything that would be problematic, other than a Specific Plan to create four parcels. Thus, someday the property can monetize since the family has spent hundreds and thousands of dollars in the assessment district. Brokers informed the family that the only way for the property to be viable is to work with the City on a Specific Plan and not ask for any concessions. Before Mr. MacLeod passed away, he met with the City and he was apprised of what he referred to as an exaction, reserving 20 percent of the units for affordable housing without legal authority. He then realized that the project would no longer be viable. Mr. MacLeod asked Mr. Chambers to move forward without asking for anything, and Mr. Chambers contacted Rutan & Tucker to determine if there is legal authority imposing the requirements made by the City. Mr. Kolodny said he wanted the Planning Commission to understand a little of the history about the Macleod family and the property. He asked the Planning Commission if it is not appropriate, without a specific policy to 12 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 approve the Specific Plan, move it forward to the City Council without the recommendation on the 20 percent for affordable housing. He noted the Council would be addressing the issue of affordable housing in the future, as opposed to creating a precedent on the proposed plan. He felt the City is taking their client's property without any legal authority. Again, he urged the Planning Commission to consider approving the Specific Plan without imposing the conditions for affordable housing. Commissioner DeLuna commented that there is a reference to an assisted living facility, and noted that Commissioner Holt inquired if the affordable housing of 20 percent would act against the assisted living facility. She noted that the assisted living and affordable housing are entirely different. Mr. Stendell said he is not aware of a covenant that has been recorded against an assisted living facility. He agreed and considers affordable housing and assisted living two different uses. Commissioner DeLuna asked if an assisted living facility would be constructed on Planning Area 3, would the 20 percent of 200 for affordable housing units remain the same. Mr. Stendell explained that if the Planning Commission were to recommend the option of an assisted living facility on Planning Area 3, he would not see expanding the affordable housing component. The recommended condition for 20 percent affordable housing units would only pertain to Planning Area 4. Chairman Pradetto stated that the McLeod family is contributing to a $10 million debt service for improvements in the area. MR. CHAMBERS clarified that the family has contributed $10 million towards the $30 million assessment district. According to the City's calculation, Chairman Pradetto clarified that 40 units at affordable rents would equate to an additional $10 million. MR. CHAMBERS replied yes. Chairman Pradetto reaffirmed that the applicant is not asking for a Change of Zone or General Plan amendment, which other developers would leverage for concessions. MR. CHAMBERS replied that is correct. Chairman Pradetto asked City Attorney Robert Hargreaves to address the Commission. Mr. Hargreaves communicated that the proposed request for a Specific Plan has been a cooperative process. There have been many issues and everyone has been successful in working through issues, including issues that have been discussed during the public hearing. However, the process is hindered on the condition for 13 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 affordable housing. He stated that cities had an informal affordable housing policy that goes back for decades. If you go back, there are development agreements and other approvals where affordable housing requirements have been negotiated and imposed. He asserted that the requirement is not setting a precedent in terms of the substance. He said when the project was originally proposed, he believed the density was five units per acre based on the Keyser Marston study. Keyser Marston indicated if the City increased the density to 20 units per acre, the City can create value and some of the value can go to affordable housing. In this case, the City did not wait for the developer to come in and negotiate. The City went ahead and upzoned the area because of the requirements of the Housing Element, including other areas of the City. He said in a sense, forego the opportunity to use the upzoning as leverage. The question was asked if there is a legal authority, he stated, yes there is a legal authority. Mr. Hargreaves indicated he had that conversation with Ms. Jenson a number of times and she has not shown him that the City has no legal authority. He proclaimed there is no requirement. It is a policy decision that ultimately goes to the City Council, and he does not know that staff or anyone else will know what the Council would decide. He said the current City Council has not faced this type of decision in today's environment; a different environment the City was dealing with when there were a redevelopment agency and a booming economy. He mentioned that the state is crying out for affordable housing, but they have not exactly mandated that cities provide affordable housing. The state has told cities to accommodate affordable housing if cities deny projects coming forward with affordable housing the state can take away the cities land use planning. He also mentioned the state has a very strong policy. In recent legislation, the state has come forward with measures to push for affordable housing. He noted that a Specific Plan is essentially an amendment to the General Plan, which is a legislative act and opens up negotiations. He stressed there is legal authority for the City Council to impose an affordable housing requirement. Concerning the assessment district, the district funds public improvements, which the property owner would be required to contribute to the district. With no further testimony offered, Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Holt noted she is not an affordable housing expert; however, she appreciated staff seeking a solution to the affordability crisis in California. She stated it is going to take the State of California to do something so there is consistency. She commented there is not a set in stone policy and the City Council is not encouraging a policy. She said she does not know if it is within the Planning Commission's purview to recommend that the Council create a uniform affordable housing policy. She recommended that the City Council create a policy or they need to state that the applicant or property owner must negotiate with the Council or City staff. Secondly, she said the applicant is willing to pay the in-lieu fee. She was not sure if it is prudent to make a recommendation to the City Council to accept the in-lieu fee or an amount imposed by Council as they see fit. Lastly, she stated she does not have an issue with allowing the assisted living component on Planning Area 3. 14 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 Chairman Pradetto clarified that Commissioner Holt would be open to making a recommendation to the City Council to accept the in-lieu fee of $1.50 without the 20 percent affordable housing requirement and ask the Council to make that determination. Commissioner Holt remarked that at the end of the day, it is going to be the City Council's decision. Her personal opinion, she does not see a precedent for requiring 20 percent for affordable housing. However, she does see a precedent for an in-lieu fee but does not know what the fee should be. Commissioner DeLuna stated that the in-lieu fee is too low. If they allow the $1.50 to go through, they will be setting a precedent. She noted other projects have contributed between $7.00 and $12.00. She mentioned there might be a reason why there is not a uniform policy throughout the City. She noted the Macleod property is well suited for an affordable housing component. She said a school and a medical facility proposed is in the area, which would attract an affordable housing developer. In addition, the proposed site is in close proximity to Walmart, Lowe's, Home Depot, and future commercial sites. She conveyed when you rule out an affordable housing component, you are ruling out people who are not looking for a handout but looking for a leg up. In a conscientious community, the City has to address multiple housing needs. She pointed out that the proposed site is uniquely well suited for affordable housing, for that reason, City staff is being firm with the condition for 20 percent affordable housing units. She noted if you do not attach an affordable housing component, then you are setting a precedent. ail il' Commissioner Holt asked Commissioner DeLuna if she had a recommendation for the in-lieu fee. Mr. Stendell interjected that the Planning Commission is having some trepidation over the affordable housing component. He communicated that the City Council will discuss establishing a policy for affordable housing. Therefore, the Planning Commission could stay neutral and let the Council decide. Staff will pass on the Commission's comments to the Council. Commissioner Holt asked what the Commission should do with the assisted living component. Mr. Stendell responded that the Planning Commission should address the assisted living component. Commissioner DeLuna commented that the site does not seem like an ideal location for assisted living and she would need to do more research. She also does not know when the proposed medical facility in Rancho Mirage will be constructed, if the assisted living component is being based on the medical facility. She stated she does not have a strong opinion or strongly object to the proposed use on Planning Area 3. 15 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 Chairman Pradetto said that it seems the applicant has made it clear that 40 units for affordable housing is infeasible. However, the applicant seems to be open to 30 units, with 10 units at market rate. Commissioner DeLuna remarked that moderate income could go as high as 60 percent of AMI, which could mitigate some of the concerns about the project becoming economically infeasible. She mentioned that the applicant could also sell a portion of the site and dedicate it to affordable housing to qualify for tax credits so it will not be a burden to the applicant. Commissioner Holt inquired if the Planning Commission must make a recommendation on the parcel map. Mr. Stendell clarified if Commissioner Holt was referring to the set-aside piece of the map. Commissioner Holt replied that is correct. Mr. Stendell answered yes. Commissioner Holt asked the Commission if they agreed to the set-aside piece of the map. Commissioner DeLuna responded that she would prefer to see the piece integrated. However, she would rather see the piece set aside than not allowed for any affordable housing. Commissioner Holt agreed. Chairman Pradetto asked Commissioner DeLuna if an affordable housing developer using housing credits could build a portion of the project or they need their own parcel set aside as it is drawn. Commissioner DeLuna replied that both have existed. She hesitated to give any kind of opinion that she might be held to; however, both options have been successfully developed. She does not know if it would work well in this situation. Chairman Pradetto commented that he knows the easy way out, but does not want to take it and said it is up to the City Council. He preferred that the Planning Commission provide a recommendation. Commissioner DeLuna agreed. At this point, she said she is not willing to write off the affordable housing component. She felt the Commission should send some kind of direction to the Council. Chairman Pradetto asked Commissioner DeLuna if she is open to the 30 units at low- and very-low income and 10 units at moderate income. 16 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 Commissioner DeLuna replied yes. Commissioner Holt said it would be nice to see some affordable units. She asked the Commission if they are going to make a recommendation on the in-lieu fees. Commissioner DeLuna voiced that she is not comfortable with the proposed $1.50 in- lieu fee. Commissioner Holt asked if the Commission should recommend either the in-lieu fee or the 20 percent set aside for affordable housing. Commissioner DeLuna asked City staff if the Commission is going in the right direction. Mr. Stendell responded that quick negotiations are a bad idea. He felt policy direction from the Commission is important. He said direction regarding the affordable housing component would be appreciated, and provide staff with a broad policy direction to pass on to the City Council. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the Commission could recommend requiring affordable housing without specifying the amount or the type. Mr. Stendell replied yes. Chairman Pradetto inquired if it would be the same as a quick negotiation regardless of what the Commission recommends. He said more negotiation would take place between now and the time it goes to the City Councils Mr. Stendell remarked that time is the variable. Commissioner DeLuna expressed that City staff has well researched their point of view over a period of years and she respects the research and the work that staff has done. Therefore, she cannot find a good reason to go against staff's recommendation, unless they slightly modify the recommendation. Commissioner Holt noted that staff's preference is not to make modifications. If the Commission decided to agree with the 20 percent, Chairman Pradetto stated that his vote would be to continue the item for more information or to vote no. He noted that they only have three members present to vote. Mr. Stendell recommended the Planning Commission not to specify the on-site units or in-lieu fees as directives to the City Council. Mr. Swartz added that there is a resolution with Conditions of Approval. Therefore, if the resolution is approved, the Commission is also approving the conditions. He said any modified conditions must be part of the recommendation. 17 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 MR. CHAMBERS communicated that they provided the Planning Commission with a redlined resolution with their proposed changes. He explained the resolution would go forward without an affordable housing component. It would move forward with the Commission approving the Specific Plan and the Commission's recommendation that the Council takes some form of action in the alternative. Commissioner DeLuna stated she is not comfortable excluding affordable housing from the consideration. Commissioner Holt asked if staff could revise the resolution based on the Commission's recommendation. Mr. Stendell replied that is correct. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the Commission would need to make a motion. Chairman Pradetto answered yes; however, the motion must be very specific. Commissioner DeLuna voiced that the representative for the applicant presented the Commission with their revisions to the resolution. She said she has not had a chance to read the revised resolution and did not feel comfortable moving forward without some provision concerning affordable housing. Commissioner Holt inquired if the Commission could make the same recommendation for the conditions that staff make the necessary revisions as City staff, City Council, and the applicant move forward with negotiations. Chairman Pradetto said the Commission could do whatever they want if there is a motion. Commissioner Holt noted they also needed to include assisted living in the motion. Commissioner DeLuna moved to recommend to the City Council accepting staff's report with the inclusion of an affordable housing component or an in-lieu fee to be determined by . . . before finishing the motion, she asked Mr. Stendell for assistance in completing the motion. Chairman Pradetto interjected that the Commission would need to remove the specific condition regarding the 20 percent for affordable housing. Commissioner DeLuna added to the motion to remove the specific condition requiring 20 percent for affordable housing and moving forward to the City Council with an affordable housing component. She asked if her motion was specific enough to move forward. Chairman Pradetto clarified that the recommendation is to strike Condition of Approval No. 12, including that the City Council study an appropriate set aside or in-lieu fee for affordable housing. 18 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 Commissioner Holt inquired if the Commission needed to make a specific reference to any of the particular items or conditions within the resolution, or recommend that City staff revise the resolution accordingly. Chairman Pradetto called a recess at 7:46 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 7:55 p.m. Mr. Stendell reported that staff has two paths the Planning Commission could recommend to the City Council. One, take an action recommending approval of the proposed project without the Planning Commission resolution. Essentially the action would be a Minute Motion and not adopt a resolution. Staff would take the broad direction from the Commission and staff would construct a recommendation to the City Council. Chairman Pradetto asked if the Planning Commission has done something similar before. Mr. Stendell replied yes, stating a similar case was the short-term rental policy. He continued with the second path. If the Commission were uncomfortable with the other option, staff would take the direction received by the Commission and revise the resolution. Staff would return to the Commission with a revised resolution reflecting the Commission's recommendations. He stressed the City council would most likely deal with the policy on how to handle the affordable housing issue. Commissioner DeLuna moved to approve staff's recommendation to move the proposed project forward to the City Council. From the audience, MS. JENSON asked if the motion included moving forward with the resolution. Commissioner DeLuna replied yes, moving forward with the resolution presented by City staff. Mr. Stendell clarified that Commissioner DeLuna's motion is the recommendation from the staff report. Commissioner DeLuna replied yes. Commissioner Holt asked if the Commission is going to add the option of an in-lieu fee at the discretion of the City Council. Commissioner DeLuna remarked that she could add it to her motion or Commissioner Holt could amend her motion. Commissioner Holt stated the Commission's recommendation would be to move forward with staff's recommendation to include 20 percent of the 200 units for affordable housing or an in-lieu fee determined by the City Council. 19 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 Commissioner DeLuna said she is comfortable with Commissioner Holt's statement. For the record, Chairman Pradetto clarified that the motion is to adopt City staff's recommendation and request that the City Council look at an in-lieu fee option for funding the affordable housing component. Commissioner DeLuna replied yes. Commissioner Holt inquired if the resolution stands as written by staff. For clarification purposes, Mr. Stendell asked Commissioner DeLuna if she is recommending adopting the resolution as presented by City staff. Commissioner DeLuna replied yes, with the modification to include 20 percent of the 200 units for affordable housing or an in-lieu fee determined by the City Council. Chairman Pradetto explained there is a motion on the table and without a second, then the motion will not be considered. Therefore, the Commission may consider a new motion, which may or may not be recommended by City staff. Commissioner Holt seconded the motion. She communicated she felt comfortable seconding the motion because the 20 percent of 200 is 40 units, which is not far off from the other compromises the Planning Commission had discussed. She pointed out the City Council would make the final decision. She said the Planning Commission's motion would demonstrate that the Commission is seeking some sort affordability component to the proposed project. Chairman Pradetto asked if the project did not receive three votes to move forward to the City Council, the project would still go to the Council. Mr. Stendell replied yes. Chairman Pradetto stated he felt sensitive to the developer and would not vote in favor of the 20 percent of the units for affordable housing. He asked the Commissioners to cast their vote. Mr. Stendell announced the motion failed by a 2-1 vote (AYES: DeLuna and Holt; NOES: Pradetto; ABSENT: Greenwood and Gregory). MS. JENSON interjected that the developer would waive the requirement of the resolution if the Planning Commission could move the proposed project forward pursuant to the second oral recommendation. Chairman Pradetto stated the project would go before the City Council, regardless. Mr. Stendell said that was correct, noting the meeting minutes and the project would go before the City Council without a recommendation for approval from the Commission. 20 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 Mr. Hargreaves interjected that there could be another motion. He explained the Commission could consider City staff's suggestion to push the resolution to the side and introduce a new motion that encapsulates a consensus of what they want the Council to consider. Such as, approve the Specific Plan as presented with an affordable housing component and specify parameters, including direction on the assisted living component. Commissioner Holt moved to, by Minute Motion, recommend that the City Council approve the Specific Plan, with an affordable housing component; and allow assisted facilities to be an allowable use on Parcel 3. The motion was seconded by Commissioner DeLuna and carried by a 3-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Greenwood and Gregory). B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council approving a Change of Zone, a Precise Plan of design, and a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) to construct a senior living project of 164 units, including a clubhouse building located at 74-300 Country Club Drive; and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Case Nos. PP/CZ 18-0003 and TPM 37512 (The Wolff Company, Scottsdale Arizona, Applicant). Commissioner Greenwood stated he was involved in the said project and recused himself. Mr. Swartz outlined the salient points from the staff report. He noted that the applicant would pay an affordable housing in-lieu fee of $9.86 totaling $1,350,000. Staff recommended approval and offered to answer any questions. Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. DAVID TODD, The Wolff Company, Scottsdale, Arizona, stated they are excited about the proposed project and appreciated City staff's diligence in getting them to this point. They are also excited to develop in Palm Desert. Commissioner Holt understood the proposed project is for active adults. She asked if the proposed project would have elevators. MR. TODD replied yes. Commissioner DeLuna inquired if there are walking paths throughout the project. MR. TODD answered yes, stating they have an internal fitness facility, pool, spa, and pointed to the walking paths on the site plan. Commissioner DeLuna commented that there seems to be little turf to walk pets. 21 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 MR. TODD referred to the site plan and pointed to the green areas, noting the property's total size is 8.4 acres so the green areas are quite large. With no further testimony offered, Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner DeLuna commented that the developer has done an excellent job of addressing the needs of the community and putting in a project that is compatible with the surrounding uses. Chairman Pradetto and Commissioner Holt concurred. Chairman Pradetto moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2736, recommending approval of Case Nos. PP/CZ 18-0003 & TPM 37512 to the City Council, subject to the conditions of approval. The motion was seconded by Commissioner DeLuna and carried by a 3-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Greenwood and Gregory). C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of approval for a 3,200-square-foot commercial cannabis cultivation facility for JW Brands, LLC, located at 75-080 Saint Charles Place; and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). _Case No. CUP 17-0028 (JW Brands, LLC, Palm Desert, Applicant). Chairman Pradetto move to, by Minute Motion, continue Case No. CUP 17-0028, to a date uncertain. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Holt and carried by a 4-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Gregory) D. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of approval for a 10,820-square-foot cannabis manufacturing and distribution business for P&S Ventures, LLC, located at 77-700 Enfield Lane; and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Case No. CUP 17-0030 (P&S Ventures, LLC, Venice California, Applicant). Principal Planner Eric Ceja presented the staff report. He mentioned the applicant had originally proposed a 5,000-square-foot facility. However, the applicant decided to lease the adjacent space, which increased their space to 10,820 square feet. At the end of his report, he offered to answer any questions. Commissioner DeLuna asked if it is correct that there will be no retail sales of cannabis and no customers coming and going. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. Commissioner Holt asked where the St. Mary Magdalene Coptic Orthodox Church is located. Mr. Ceja displayed an aerial photo of the site and pointed to the church. 22 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 Commissioner Holt asked what the feet separation from the church and the proposed project is. Mr. Ceja replied approximately 20 feet. Commissioner DeLuna inquired if there is a gymnasium close to the proposed project. Mr. Ceja replied yes, west of the church. Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. PATRICK McMAHON, Cofounder of P&S Ventures, LLC, Venice, California, thanked the Planning Commission for allowing their group to speak, and for implementing a cannabis program in the City of Palm Desert. He informed the Commission that P&S Ventures have gained an impeccable reputation in the cities in which they operate. They are also fully aware of making sure neighbors and surrounding businesses are comfortable with them joining the community. They have also done everything the City has asked them to do; located in the proper zoning area and met all the City's requirements. He made abundantly clear that they are not a retail location and the public does not have access and will not be going in and out of the facility. He explained the product would be manufactured and distributed to retail locations. He looked forward to being a member of the community. Commissioner DeLuna inquired if the product arrives sealed or is it opened product. MR. McMAHON responded that the manufacturing product is opened then sealed. Other products would arrive at the facility sealed and ready to be distributed to retail locations throughout the state. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the applicant would have extraordinary odor mitigations in place. MR. McMAHON responded that they have the finest odor mitigation technology available today. Commissioner DeLuna inquired if they would have security guards. MR. McMAHON answered they would have security guards 24 hours a day. He mentioned they currently have two other locations, West Hollywood and Cathedral City. He noted that they have made the surrounding neighborhoods safer. He said they have 24-hour armed security; no crime occurs within the vicinity of their locations. Commissioner DeLuna asked if there is outside lighting. MR. McMAHON replied absolutely. Commissioner DeLuna asked what the hours of operation are. 23 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMRER 18, 2018 MR. McMAHON replied 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Holt asked how many deliveries would occur a day and how many times a day would product go in and out of the facility. MR. McMAHON deferred the question to his business partner. MR. SCOTT LAMBERT, Arcadia, California, communicated that most of the trucks would enter from the back of the building. They anticipate two to four trucks per day for deliveries, but it may vary. He shared trucks drive into the building, the door closes behind the trucks, trucks are loaded, the door reopens, and trucks leave the building. He stated there is no visible sign of what is happening inside the building. Commissioner Holt inquired what type of signage would be on the building. MR. LAMBERT replied that the City does not allow signage on the building. Commissioner Holt asked if the business would only be known by the property address. (;, p III(Iq'Vlhl��pl�ii'' MR. LAMBERT replied yes I h, �il�li���l�''�Vr MR. SPENCER LIOLIOS, Palm Desert, California, stated that he works for P&S Ventures and echoed Mr. McMahon's sentiments. He thanked the City for implementing a cannabis program and making it a fair process. He also thanked the community members for attending the meeting and able to share their concerns. He said they have been successful with their operations, they are great neighbors, and they contribute positively into the environment. Therefore, they are eager to hear from the community and find ways to address any concerns. MR. ANTHONY CORONA, Palm Desert, California, briefly spoke about his history in the Coachella Valley. He is present to speak on the behalf of Mr. Lambert and P&S Ventures. In his opinion, the cannabis industry has come to the Coachella Valley in the most positive way possible. Desert cities have done a great job regulating the cannabis industry and providing zoning, tax, and licensing guidelines for new entrepreneurs to follow. When he first began working in the commercial real estate industry, he immediately began working with cannabis projects and cannabis operators. P&S Ventures are one of the first operators he worked with and secured a lease for them in Cathedral City. He noted Mr. Lambert was very professional. He then further educated himself and building owners about cannabis businesses and the need for quality cannabis professionals. He believed the industry's competitive nature would scope which operators and businesses will be here in the years to come. He also believed the professional cannabis operators would strengthen the local community and economy and further help promote a healthy cannabis atmosphere in the City of Palm Desert. 24 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 MR. IMAD GUIRGUIS, Member of the St. Mary Magdalene Coptic Orthodox Church, Palm Springs, California, mentioned that he met with Mayor Pro Tern Susan Marie Weber and Mr. Ceja. He was encouraged to talk to Mr. Lambert. He met with Mr. Lambert and noted he was very professional. However, the church has a very different mission, which collides with Mr. Lambert's business model. He stated the church's mission is to have a drug-free and smoke-free environment for the kids so he could not come to an agreement with Mr. Lambert. He stated that doctors have seen the negative impacts of cannabis. He asked the Planning Commission to look at the spirit of the law. The City's ordinance states a cannabis business must be 1,000 feet from a school. He said the church has Sunday school and summer camp. He also said cannabis would be in the kid's face every day when they go to church. Kids are curious and they will know there is a cannabis business even though there is no advertisement. He voiced there is only a chain link fence between the church and the proposed cannabis business. He said the cannabis business is going to be loading and unloading in the back where kids could see through the fence easily. He mentioned they are going to lose future church members when they find out there is a cannabis business next to the church, including existing members. He said the church survives on the donations from the members; if there is no funding, then the church cannot operate. He pointed out that there is going to be armed security inside and outside of the proposed site, which is not safe next to a church. There are other vacant areas to have a cannabis business not next to a church. He and members of the church urged the Planning Commission to vote no. MS. NANCY SAMAAN, Member of the St. Mary Magdalene Coptic Orthodox Church, La Quinta, California, stated that the church has Sunday school during the winter on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. In addition, kids go to church around 5:00 p.m. so kids would be present during the proposed cannabis business hours. She said kids go to church every day during the summer for summer camp from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Church members sitting in the audience raised their hands in opposition of the proposed project. MR. ARSANIOS GIRGIS, Member of the St. Mary Magdalene Coptic Orthodox Church, Palm Desert, California, stated just because cannabis is legal, it does not mean that it is right. Morally, he felt cannabis is wrong to be legal. Regarding safety, he voiced his concern when the business is closed and a fire ignites. Additionally, he is concerned with armed security and felt it could make matters worse if there is an armed robbery. MR. LAMBERT made clear that they are not cultivating cannabis. He stated he has to follow strict guidelines in order to operate. He pointed out that the armed security guards would not be patrolling outside of the building. He said they would have an office specifically for the security guard(s) to monitor outside of the building. He mentioned a brick wall divides the building; there is no possibility adults and children would be able to see any activities occurring in the building. He restated that trucks would be driving into and out of the building so there is no exposure to the public. He understood and respected a person's ability to make up his or her own mind about cannabis. For the record, children would have more access to cannabis by cell phone, a newspaper, or driving down El Paseo where dispensaries are located. He said it is 25 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 very difficult in the valley to go from Indio to Cathedral City without being exposed to cannabis. He voiced it is the same when a person is exposed to places that sell alcohol or pharmacies, which are legal entities allowed to operate. He stated he reached out a dozen times to address the concerns made by the church. He believed their concerns are due to a misconception about their business. He stated they are not cultivating and it is not a retail location. It was noted that the trucks are not carrying loose product, the product is packaged and sealed. The children's exposure to the business is if the church tells them it is a cannabis business. 11101 Commissioner Holt asked if the building has sprinklers. f Ik'1111'I�l�l��!i�I�IU MR. LAMBERT replied yes. Chairman Pradetto asked staff if the proposed business could operate in any other zone besides Services Industrial. Mr. Ceja responded the proposed business could only operate in the Service Industrial zone. Commissioner Greenwood referred to the conditions pertaining to odor and asked what the recourse is if there are complaints. Mr. Ceja responded that there is a condition in the resolution regarding odors. The City would monitor the odors and the City has the ability to require additional odor control measures. Commissioner DeLuna inquired if odor could be measured. Mr. Ceja replied he was not sure. Mr. Stendell interjected that state law provides Code Compliance professionals reasonableness standards. Such as, the City could send a team of three people and the reasonableness of the group could be used to define a public nuisance. Commissioner Greenwood asked Mr. Lambert if he would be open to a condition to no retail of cannabis on the premises. MR. LAMBERT replied absolutely. When he met with the church, he made that offer to the church since it was their main concern. With no further testimony offered, Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner DeLuna commented that it is a complex issue and noted the church was there first. She is concerned with the compatibility of the community, as far as, the church and a gymnasium that houses children. She felt the church is trapped in an environment they did not choose. However, the cannabis business has a legal right to be at the proposed location. She had moral concerns on behalf of the church, but 26 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 the business seemed to be reputable. She wondered if the applicant could compromise on the hours of operation to make it easier for the church. Commissioner Holt believed the situation could have been easily solved by including churches in the Cannabis Ordinance. She asked City staff if they were following state guidelines when the ordinance was written. Mr. Ceja replied yes. When the ordinance was written, a subcommittee was formed that included a Planning Commissioner and members from the community at large. He said there was never a discussion on whether to include churches in the ordinance. He mentioned the subcommittee discussed not allowing cannabis businesses to abut residences. He said staff did look into state law on what constitutes a daycare or school. A daycare or school would need a state license to be considered a daycare or school. Chairman Pradetto asked what would happen if the church gets a state license for a school in a couple of years. Mr. Stendell responded that it would create a legal nonconforming issue. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the cannabis building is twice the size of the church. Mr. Ceja replied the church is 7,700 square feet. Commissioner DeLuna asked if it is correct that the applicant first proposed a facility at 5,000 square feet, and then came back and proposed 10,000 square feet. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. �Ilipl;�. Commissioner Holt inquired of the other spaces within the building are occupied so the applicant could move farther from the church. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. Chairman Pradetto shared similar concerns as the other Commissioners. He said the church was there first; however, the applicant is limited in areas in which they could operate in the City and the church could operate in any zone. Commissioner DeLuna asked if there is any other location within the area for additional separation from the church and the cannabis business. Mr. Stendell responded that with the separation requirements and limited locations based on zoning district it could be difficult to find another location in the same area. Commissioner DeLuna asked if there is a chain-linked fence or brick wall between both properties. Mr. Ceja replied a brick wall. 27 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 Commissioner DeLuna asked if the wall is six feet high. Mr. Ceja answered the wall is five to six feet. Members from the church disagreed. Mr. Ceja said he is not certain if there is a brick wall. From the audience, the applicant exclaimed that they would build a wall. Commissioner Greenwood commented he is sensitive to the opinions shared during the evening. However, he is looking at the proposed project at a land use standpoint. He pointed out that the area is a Service Industrial zone and it is what the City put forth as the regulations and requirements for the applicants. He stated the applicant has met all the requirements. He also stated it is the appropriate location for the proposed use. The proposed use is not a cannabis retail business. He said he is concerned about odor; however, the applicant is an experienced operator. He stated the conditions have the teeth in case an issue were to arise. Commissioner DeLuna asked if it is correct that the applicant offered to build a wall and change the hours of operation on Sundays. The applicant remarked that he would build a brick wall and not operate on Sundays. Commissioner DeLuna stated that is admirable and thanked the applicant. Chairman Pradetto clarified that a condition would need to be added regarding not operating on Sundays. f�1I111111 Mr. Ceja replied that is correct 1 p Commissioner DeLuna commented the conditions for no retail sales and construction of a wall needs to be added to the Conditions of Approval as well. Commissioner Holt asked if the applicant would have to return to the City for approval of cultivation activities. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. Chairman Pradetto asked the Commission how they felt about limiting evening hours when after-school activities and evening meetings take place at the church. MS. SAMAAN confirmed that members have meetings on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Chairman Pradetto asked the applicant if they amiable to cease operations at 5:00 p.m. 28 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 MR. LAMBERT responded that they are willing to start operations earlier in the day; however, he did not know what the City permits. Mr. Ceja communicated that the City's ordinance does not specify hours of operations. Chairman Pradetto affirmed that the Planning Commission could add a condition for operations to cease at 5:00 p.m. Commissioner DeLuna inquired if operations would cease at 5:00 p.m. on Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays and closed on Sundays. Chairman Pradetto stated operations would cease at 5:00 p.m. with no operations on Sundays. Chairman Pradetto moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission No. 2738 approving Case No. CUP 17-0030, with the addition of the following Conditions of Approval: 1) The applicant must build a six-foot-high dividing block wall; 2) no cannabis retail sales; and 3) limiting hours to no operations on Sundays and no operations after 5:00 p.m. any day of the week. The motion was seconded by Commissioner DeLuna and carried by a 4-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Gregory). XI. MISCELLANEOUS None XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATESii` ���,;�'�'�� A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None B. PARKS & RECREATION None N1,4 XIII. COMMENTS None 29 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 XIV. ADJOURNMENT With the Planning Commission concurrence, Chairman Pradetto adjourned the meeting at 9:01 p.m. JOSEPH PRADETTO, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION l' ��►III���ji , MONICA O'REILLY, RECORDING SECRETARY'' ,�,�,��������I�I�����i►�iu��i►ii !��� ► � ;If III.� �,�►! �! ��ui�,�,: 14, �� i ►'h. III i (�I �i��jj`'!►1►'j� (�,��I'' j! !fli����I�����I��III��!I!!�( llui�l I�li� hIi Ili�lijl�� , i,II 30 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CITY OF PALM DESERT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE: November 6, 2018 PREPARED BY: Eric Ceja, Principal Planner REQUEST: Consideration of a request for approval of a 10,500-square-foot cannabis manufacturing, delivery, and distribution facility for JW Brands located at 75-080 Saint Charles Place; and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Recommendation Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2737 approving Conditional Use Permit 17-0027 for the establishment of a 10,500- square-foot commercial cannabis manufacturing, delivery, and distribution business to be located at 75-080 Saint Charles Place, subject to the conditions of approval. Background Analysis A. Property Description: The 0.56-acre parcel is located on the north side of Saint Charles Place and developed as a 10,500-square foot industrial building with a parking lot and landscaping. B. Zoning and General Plan Designation: Zone: Service Industrial (SI) General Plan: Employment C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: Planned Residential 9 (P.R-9) - Belmonte Estates South: Service Industrial — Various light industrial uses East: Service Industrial — Various light industrial uses West: Service Industrial — Various light industrial uses Project Description The project includes tenant improvements for a new cannabis manufacturing, delivery, and distribution facility within an existing industrial building located on the north side of Saint Charles Place. The applicant, JW Brands, is pursuing city and state permits for the operation of a cannabis manufacturing, delivery, and distribution operation. Vehicle parking November 6, 2018 — Planning Commission Staff Report Case No. CUP 17-0027 — JW Brands Page 2 of 4 is available within the existing development and shared parking areas are available for the industrial complex. Tenant improvements include the following: • Distribution Warehouse • Kitchen • Processing and Packing Room • Walk-in Cooler • Extraction Prep Room • Offices • Security Room • Storage Rooms • Restrooms In addition, the improvements include several security features and improvements to the air handling system to mitigate any odors. There is no on-site consumption of cannabis products at this site. The manufacturing operation proposes to be open seven (7) days a week between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. The business expects to employ 8 to 10 people on-site during each shift, as well as on-site security personnel. Analysis A. Commercial Cannabis Businesses: In October 2017, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1329, establishing a comprehensive set of regulations for commercial cannabis businesses. Those regulations are in Section 25.34.120 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC). The Cannabis Ordinance limits the location for cannabis cultivators and manufactures to industrially zoned properties, and further limits their location by requiring a 1,500-square- foot separation from other cannabis businesses and 1,000-square-foot separation from schools, daycares, and youth centers. All commercial cannabis businesses are required to submit a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Cannabis Regulatory Permit. The applicant has submitted all information requested for the review of both applications and meets the City's separation requirements from schools and other cannabis businesses. B. Land Use Compatibility: The site has an existing one-story industrial building with roll-up doors for warehousing and storage. The building is located in the City's SI zoning district and has operated as an industrial user (Indian Wells Glass and Mirror) since its construction. The SI zoning district allows manufacturing, distribution, delivery, research and development, and service of products intended for use within Palm Desert and surrounding communities. As such, cannabis cultivators and manufacturers are limited to the SI zone and are subject to review and approval of a CUP and Cannabis Regulatory Permit. The applicant has complied with \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Eric Ceja\Cannabis\Cannabis\Applications\CUP 17-0027-JW BRANDS\PC\PC Staff Report-JW Brands(11.6.18).doc November 6, 2018 — Planning Commission Staff Report Case No. CUP 17-0027 — JW Brands Page 3 of 4 PDMC requirements for submittal of the appropriate applications and is located in a zone that permits retail cannabis businesses. The surrounding industrial area contains a number of light industrial uses, including solar panel installers, automotive repair, storage facilities, home goods manufacturers, paint stores, building supply stores, and general offices. As a manufacturing, delivery, and distribution use, the City's Zoning Ordinance permits a cannabis operation and there is nothing in the original approval of the site or within the center's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that prohibits a cannabis manufacturing facility at this location. The use is similar to other uses within the surrounding area that perform light manufacturing, deliveries, and distribute to other locations outside of the City. The use is also compatible with the City's General Plan and zoning designations. C. Security: The applicant is proposing a number of security measures to ensure the safety of their employees and the surrounding businesses. A security officer will be at the entrance to the building and the applicant plans to hire a third-party security company to be on-site 24 hours a day. Security will also monitor the exterior portions of the building and surrounding parking areas. In compliance with the City's cannabis regulations, security cameras will be installed throughout the facility, including the entry and exit, in each separate room and office, and within the frozen storage areas. The applicant is further conditioned to maintain security surveillance footage in accordance with the City's cannabis regulations. The applicant will also install motion sensors, fire alarms, and panic alarm buttons throughout the facility. D. Odor Control: Cannabis odors are mostly present during the "flowering" phase of cultivation operations. Although there is no cultivation at this location, the applicant proposes odor mitigation measures to combat nuisance odors from the manufacturing process. The applicant is proposing to use a series of methods to limit odors from the operation. The applicants will install a negative ion generator to remove potential smells from the air. They will also use a carbon filtration air and purification system that will be maintained regularly to ensure quality air filtration. In consultation with other jurisdictions that allow cannabis businesses, odor control is an on- going issue that needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. If odor becomes an issue, City staff is proposing a condition requiring that the applicant takes additional measures to mitigate odors or have the regulatory permit revoked. Public Input A public hearing notice was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed use and published in The Desert Sun on October 27, 2018. To date, the Planning Department has not received any comments in opposition or in favor of the proposed operations. \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Eric Ceja\Cannabis\CannabisWpplications\CUP 17-0027-JW BRANDS\PC\PC Staff Report-JW Brands(11.6.18).doc November 6, 2018 — Planning Commission Staff Report Case No. CUP 17-0027 — JW Brands Page 4 of 4 Conclusion The applicant has gone through an extensive review process with City staff for compliance with the newly adopted city and state cannabis regulations. Staff believes that the applicant has demonstrated that their operation can be successful in this location, the use is compatible with the existing and surrounding businesses, and the odor and security issues meet the intent of the ordinance and can continuously be improved should nuisances arise. In addition, the SI zoning district is intended to allow for manufacturing uses and cannabis manufacturing at this location, which complies with city and state regulations for operation. Since the cannabis industry is new to the City of Palm Desert, staff foresees heavy oversight of the business. Should any issues arise, such a blatant disregard for nuisance issues, the CUP can be revoked and the business suspended from continued operations. Environmental Review For the purposes of the CEQA, the Director of Community Development has determined that the proposal is categorically exempt under Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the State CEQA Guidelines and a Notice of Exemption can be adopted. Findings of Approval Findings can be made in support of the project and in accordance with the City's Municipal Code. Findings in support of this project are contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2737, attached to this staff report. LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL REVIEW CITY MANAGER N/A N/A N/A Robert W. Hargreaves Ryan Stendell Janet Moore Lauri Aylaian City Attorney Director of Community Director of Finance City Manager Development APPLICANT: JW Brands 44-489 Town Center Way, Suite D Palm Desert, California 92260 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2737 2. Public Hearing Notice 3. Notice of Exemption 4. Exhibits Provided by the Applicant \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Eric Ceja\Cannabis\Cannabis\Applications\CUP 17-0027-JW BRANDS\PC\PC Staff Report-JW Brands(11.6.18).doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2737 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MANUFACTURING, DELIVERY, AND DISTRIBUTION CANNABIS BUSINESS LOCATED AT 75-080 SAINT CHARLES PLACE; AND ADOPTING A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) CASE NO: CUP 17-0027 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 6th day of November 2018, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by JW Brands for approval of the above-noted; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert adopted Ordinance No. 1329, allowing commercial cannabis businesses, including cannabis cultivation and manufacturing, within the City; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 1329 established comprehensive regulations for commercial cannabis businesses, including standards for business operations, and permit requirements; and 1 III�I�I�i 4, {i iiil�l�uilip lj'il, �I I-,I �ip WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Cannabis Regulatory Permit to operate a manufacturing and distribution cannabis business, and provided all required information including a business plan, security plan, neighborhood and community outreach plans, and background information, in accordance with the City's commercial cannabis business requirements; and WHEREAS, the location of the cannabis manufacturing, delivery, and distribution business is located in the City's Service Industrial (SI) zoning district and, meets the City's separation and distance requirements, is permitted subject to the approval of a CUP and Cannabis Regulatory Permit; and WHEREAS, the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the City's 1000- square-foot separation requirements from schools, daycares, and youth centers; and WHEREAS, nuisance issues, including, but not limited to, odor and security, are mitigated in accordance with the City's cannabis regulations, and the project is conditioned to respond to any issues immediately or be subject to revocation of said cannabis regulatory permit; and WHEREAS, the project complies with the goals and policies contained in the City's General Plan that promote a diverse, growing, and resilient local economy; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, Section 15367 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (California Code Regulations, Title 14, § 15000 et seq.), and the City of Palm Desert's ("City's") Local CEQA Guidelines, the City is the lead agency for the proposed project; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2737 WHEREAS, as the lead agency, the City has reviewed the proposed project and determined that, as the business is locating in an existing developed building and site, that the project is exempt under Section 15301, Class 1 "existing facilities" of the CEQA and that the Planning Commission can adopt a Notice of Exemption of environmental review; and WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the proposed retail cannabis business; and WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence before it as a whole; and WHEREAS, at the said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission did make the following findings to justify the approval of said request: WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Recitals. The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert hereby finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein as substantive findings of this Resolution. IIV1111aP'd����iw!Klup;;,, SECTION 2. Compliance with the CEQA. As the approving authority for the project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the application and administrative record on file with the City and available for review at 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California. The Planning Commission finds that a Notice of Exemption can be adopted in compliance with the CEQA (Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.: "CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 3. Findings on Conditional Use Permit. In approving this project, the Planning Commission makes the following findings in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) Section 25.72.050: 1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accordance with the objectives of this title and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. The purpose of the Sl zoning district is to allow the development of traditional business parks that allow for manufacturing, distribution, research and development, and service of products. The proposal to establish a cannabis manufacturing, delivery, and distribution facility at this location complies with the City's goals and the objectives of the zoning designation, and the City's "Commercial Cannabis Business and Personal Cultivation"and the "Commercial Cannabis Business Regulatory Permit" ordinances by providing a detailed business plan, security plan, odor control plan, neighborhood and community outreach plans, and background check information. The conditional allowance of 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2737 this use at this site complies with the objectives and purpose of the Sl zoning district and exceeds the minimum separation requirements established in cannabis ordinances. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Voters of the State of California did in November 2016, vote and approve Proposition 64 — the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), to allow the adult use of cannabis subject to local ordinances. The City of Palm Desert, in response to the voter-approved law, established a committee to evaluate cannabis business potential in the City and found that cannabis businesses are compatible with other general industrial uses subject to conditions to mitigate nuisances, such as odor and security. As designed and as conditioned, the establishment of a cannabis manufacturing, delivery, and distribution facility at this location will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, as the use is designed to include on-site security personnel, video surveillance, a UV filtration, negative air pressure, and charcoal air filters to mitigate security and odor nuisance concerns. 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title, except for approved variances or adjustments. The proposed use complies with the development and use standards of the SI zoning district, and the requirements listed in the City's comprehensive cannabis regulation. No adjustments or variances are proposed for this use. 4. That the proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's General Plan. The proposed retail cannabis use complies with goals and objectives of the City's General Plan, including Goals listed in Chapter 3 of the Land Use and Community Character chapter, including Goals: 5.1, 5.3, 8.1, and Chapter 10 Goal 1. 1. In providing a manufacturing, delivery, and distribution space for the manufacturing of cannabis products, the applicant is complying with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan. SECTION 5. Approval. The Planning Commission hereby approves the applied CUP and Cannabis Regulatory Permit applications for the project. SECTION 6. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at the City's office at 73- 510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2737 SECTION 7. Notice of Exemption. The Planning Commission approves the Project and directs staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County of Riverside and the State Clearinghouse within five (5) working days of any project approval. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 6" day of November 2018, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: ���!illillllo� NOES: ABSENT: it I li Gl��tu'jjj ABSTAIN: uilljlJlj,i��l!�lill�° IIIIIIII ���I��u!N►11:1iV�l� �I!lil!gi,,�,,, JOSEPH PRADETTO, CHAIRMAN ,gi�l�i,lillll,ll, , ':!I�Iltlp;r ATTEST: Jill I I RYAN STENDELL, PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY it 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2737 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. CUP 17-0027 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. The applicant agrees that in the event of any administrative, legal or equitable action instituted by a third party challenging the validity of any of the procedures leading to the adoption of these project approvals for the retail use, or the project approvals themselves, the applicant and City each shall have the right, in their sole discretion, to elect whether or not to defend such action. The applicant, at its sole expense shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City (including its agents, officers, and employees) from any such action, claim, or proceeding with counsel chosen by the City, subject to applicant's approval of counsel, which shall not be unreasonably denied, and at the applicant's sole expense. If the City is aware of such an action or proceeding, it shall promptly notify the applicant and cooperate in the defense. The applicant, upon such notification, shall deposit sufficient funds in the judgment of City's Finance Director to cover the expense of defending such action without any offset or claim against said deposit to assure that the City expends no City funds. If both Parties elect to defend, the Parties hereby agree to affirmatively cooperate in defending the said action and to execute a joint defense and confidentiality agreement in order to share and protect information, under the joint defense privilege recognized under the applicable law. As part of the cooperation in defending an action, City and the applicant shall coordinate their defense in order to make the most efficient use of legal counsel and to share and protect information. Applicant and City shall each have sole discretion to terminate its defense at any time. The City shall not settle any third party litigation of project approvals without applicant's consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed unless applicant materially breaches this indemnification requirement. 3. In accepting this CUP and operating a business pursuant thereto, the applicant acknowledges that the regulation of the production, distribution, sale, and use of cannabis remains in flux due to the relative novelty of these uses and conflicts with federal law. Applicant agrees that the applicant remains at risk and subject to all changes in federal, state, and Palm Desert regulations, including the possibility of the discontinuance of such uses or the imposition of additional requirements that render continuing operations infeasible, and does not gain a vested right to continue to operate in any particular manner, in any particular place, or at all. 4. The cannabis manufacturing, delivery, and distribution use are limited to this location and the use described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to the approved use standards listed in the PDMC, and state statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2737 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for improvements and use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Burrtec Waste Management Fire Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building & Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 6. The cannabis manufacturing, delivery, and distribution use of this property shall not commence until the applicant can provide the City's Community Development Department with proof of a license issued by the State Bureau of Cannabis Control. Continued use of the property for cannabis purposes is subject to the applicant maintaining a valid license from the State Bureau and demonstrating on-going compliance with the City's cannabis regulatory permit. 7. The premises shall be equipped with an odor absorbing ventilation and exhaust system so that odors generated inside the cannabis business is not detected outside of the business, anywhere on adjacent properties, public right-of-way, or in any exterior or interior common areas or tenant spaces. As such, the applicant shall install odor mitigation equipment in accordance with the plans on file as part of this application, and to the satisfaction of the Building Official. Should odor issues arise, the Community Development Department may require additional odor control measures to be employed. At a minimum the applicant shall install the following: A. Air filtration system with odor control that prevents internal odors from being emitted externally. B. Air systems that create negative air pressure between the cannabis business and the exterior. 8. Security features shall be installed within the tenant lease spaces in accordance with the plans on file as part of this application. All security features shall be installed and maintained as specified in the City's Cannabis Regulatory Permit regulations. 9. The applicant is required to have on-site security personnel during business hours. Security personnel shall be licensed with the State Bureau of Security and Investigative Services. 10. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of the PDMC Sections 5.101 (Commercial Cannabis Business Regulatory Permits), 8.38 (Personal Use of Cannabis), and 25.34.120 (Commercial Cannabis Business and Personal Cultivation). 11. Exterior building signs are not a part of this approval. All exterior building signs shall be submitted to the Community Development Department along with a Sign Application for staff review. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2737 12. From the public right-of-way, no exterior evidence, other than a building sign to identify the operation of cannabis products is permitted. 13. All mechanical equipment, either roof or ground mounted, shall be screened from public view. All such equipment shall be fully screened by the roof structure, parapet wall, ground mounted walls, berming and/or landscape. 14. Any and all window and door security devices such as metal bars, gates, and shutters, shall be installed within the interior of the building and screened from public view. 15. There shall be no on-site retail operations at this location. 16. Operation of the cannabis business outside of these approvals and conditions shall constitute a violation of the PDMC and shall be enforced pursuant to the provisions in the PDMC. On-going violations which are not remedied within a timeframe established by the Community Development Director may result in revocation of the CUP and Cannabis Regulatory Permit. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT: 17. This project shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes: A. 2016 California Building Code and its appendices and standards. B. 2016 California Plumbing Code and its appendices and standards. C. 2016 California Mechanical Code and its appendices and standards. D. 2016 California Electrical Code. E. 2016 California Energy Code. F. 2016 California Green Building Standards Code G. 2016 California Administrative Code. H. 2016 California Fire Code and its appendices and standards. 18. Provide the following design data on the first sheet: A. Occupancy group(s). B. Type(s) of construction, including fire sprinklers CBC Section 107.2. 19. All contractors and subcontractors shall have a current City of Palm Desert Business License prior to permit issuance per PDMC, Title 5. 20. All contractors and/or owner-builders must submit a valid Certificate of Workers' Compensation Insurance coverage prior to the issuance of a building permit per California Labor Code, Section 3700. 21. Address numerals shall comply with Palm Desert Ordinance No. 1310 (Palm Desert Municipal Code 15.28. Compliance with Ordinance 1310 regarding street address location, dimension, a stroke of line, distance from the street, height from grade, height from the street, etc. shall be shown on all architectural building elevations in detail. Any possible obstructions, shadows, lighting, landscaping, backgrounds or other reasons that may render the building address unreadable shall be addressed during the plan 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2737 review process. You may request a copy of Ordinance 1310 or Municipal Code Section 15.28 from the Department of Building and Safety counter staff. 22. Please contact the Department of Building and Safety (760-776-6420) regarding the addressing of all buildings and/or suites. iiii i h i I,i�� ►1 >III ! 1,l, !!!II ,;ilti�iii�Il�liillllii►lii �,, , �I�I;IlI�� .gilil�► pl,��l� I �, 8 CITY 0E P R [ M DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL:760 346—o6z i I info@cltyofpalmdeaert.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. CUP 17-0027 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY JW BRANDS, LLC, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO ESTABLISH A 10,500-SQUARE-FOOT COMMERCIAL CANNABIS MANUFACTURING, DELIVERY, AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY LOCATED AT 75-080 SAINT CHARLES PLACE The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as the Lead Agency for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), finds that the proposed project is exempt per Section 15301, Class 1 "Existing Facilities" of the CEQA and that a Notice of Exemption can be adopted as part of this project. Project Location/Description: Project Location:75-080 Saint Charles Place Project Description: A Conditional Use Permit and Cannabis Regulatory Permit have been submitted for the operation of a 10,500-square-foot cannabis manufacturing, delivery, and distribution facility within an industrially developed parcel inclusive of an existing one-story building located on the north side of Saint Charles Place, east of Boardwalk. The business includes a security lobby, intake and storage areas, offices, freezer storage, and processing areas.A detailed security plan and odor control plan are provided as part of the applications. Recommendation: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving the proposed Conditional Use Permit,subject to conditions for a commercial cannabis business. Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission on November 6, 2018, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at Palm Desert City Hall. Comment Period: The public comment period for this project is from October 26, 2018, to November 6, 2018. Public Review: The Conditional Use Permit and Cannabis Regulatory Permit applications are available for public review daily at City Hall. Please submit written comments to the Planning Department. If any group challenges the action in court, the issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, or prior to the Planning Commission hearing.All comments and any questions should be directed to: Eric Ceja, Principal Planner City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760)346-0611 eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org PUBLISH: DESERT SUN RYAN STENDELL, October 26,2018 PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY NOTICE OF EXEMPTION TO: FROM:City of Palm Desert ❑ Office of Planning and Research 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm P.O.Box 3044,Room 113 Desert,CA 92260 Sacramento,CA 95812-3044 ® Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 2724 Gateway Dr,Riverside, or CA 92507 County Clerk County of. Riverside 1. Project Title: JW Brands—Cannabis Manufacturing 2. Project Applicant: JW Brands 44-489 Town Center Way,Suite D Palm Desert,California 92260 3. Project Location—Identify street address and 75-080 Saint Charles Place cross streets or attach a map showing project site (preferably a USGS 15' or 7 1/2'topographical map identified by quadrangle name): 4. (a)Project Location—City:Palm Desert (b) Project Location—County:Riverside 5. Description of nature,purpose,and beneficiaries The total project site consists of an existing 10,500+square— of Project: foot industrial building on less than one acre.The proposal to operate a 10,50(kquare-foot cannabis manufacturing operation is permitted under the City's Cannabis Regulations.Tenant improvements are proposed for this operation. 6. Name of Public Agency approving project: City of Palm Desert 7. Name of Person or Agency undertaking the JW Brands project,including any person undertaking an activity that receives financial assistance from the Public Agency as part of the activity or the person receiving a lease,permit,license,certificate,or other entitlement of use from the Public Agency as part of the activity: 8. Exempt status: (check one) (a) ❑ Ministerial project. (Pub.Res.Code§21080(b)(1);State CEQA Guidelines § 15268) (b) ❑ Not a project. (c) ❑ Emergency Project. (Pub.Res.Code§21080(b)(4); State CEQA Guidelines§ 15269(b),(c)) (d) ® Categorical Exemption. Class 1 "Existing Facility"a State type and section number: 15301 (e) ❑ Declared Emergency. (Pub.Res.Code§ 21080(b)(3);State CEQA Guidelines § 15269(a)) (f) ❑ Statutory Exemption. State Code section number: (g) ❑ Other. Explanation: Notice of Exemption FORM `B" 9. Reason why project was exempt: Project is consistent with the City's general plan and applicable zoning regulations.The site is surrounded by existing commercial and industrial development and only interior building modifications are proposed.The site has no value as habitat,is served by existing utilities,and does not result in significant effects on traffic,noise,air quality, or water quality. 10. Lead Agency Contact Person: Eric Ceja,Principal Planner Telephone: (760)346-0611 11. If filed by applicant:Attach Preliminary Exemption Assessment(Form"A")before filing. 12. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes ® No ❑ 13. Was a public hearing held by the lead agency to consider the exemption? Yes® No❑ If yes,the date of the public hearing was:November 6,2018 Signature: Date: Title: ®Signed by Lead Agency ❑Signed by Applicant Date Received for Filing: (Clerk Stamp Here) Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21100,Public Resources Code. Reference:Sections 21108,21152,and 21152.1,Public Resources Code. Notice of Exemption FORM "B" STAFF REPORT CITY OF PALM DESERT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE: November 6, 2018 PREPARED BY: Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner REQUEST: Consideration of Conditional Use Permit 18-0005 to establish a 2,512- square-foot microbrewery with a taproom bar within an existing industrial warehouse space located at 77-770 Country Drive, Suite D; and adoption of a Notice of Exemption. Recommendation Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2740, approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 18-0005, subject to the conditions of approval; and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Executive Summary Approval of staff's recommendation allows the Desert Beer Company to establish a commercial microbrewery with a retail taproom bar to serve beer produced on-site within the existing industrial space located at 77-770 Country Club Drive. Planning staff has determined the proposed operation complies with the intent and objectives of all applicable zoning requirements and is compatible with surrounding land uses. Background Analysis A. Property Description: The project site is a 2,512-square-foot suite within an existing 13,244-square-foot commercial/warehouse/showroom building located at 77-770 Country Club Drive. The building is within an existing commercial/industrial park located directly west of the Desert Country Plaza commercial center. The building was approved by the City Council under Resolution 00-108 for Precise Plan (PP) 00-12 as a part of a four-building commercial/industrial center totaling 57,904 square feet. There is a reciprocal access easement across all adjacent commercial parcels. There are 33 on-site parking spaces available along the western, northern and eastern building frontages, with an additional 15 covered parking spaces located along the northern property edge. The southern building face features industrial roll-up doors to serve industrial uses within the space. The building is designed to serve a mix of office commercial, showroom, and light industrial spaces. The current tenant mix includes retail, auto sales, warehouse, office, and medical uses. November 6, 2018 — Planning Commission Staff Report Case No. CUP 18-0005 — Desert Beer Company Page 2 of 4 B. Zoning and General Plan Designation: Zone: District Commercial Center (PC-2) General Plan: Suburban Retail Center C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: Service Industrial (SI) - Industrial park/ warehouses South: PC-2 — Retail/commercial showrooms East: PC-2, Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone (FCOZ)— Desert Country Plaza/gym West: PC-2 - Retail/commercial showrooms/industrial space D. Additional Background: The California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) categorizes the proposed operation under a License rType 23 for a Small Beer Manufacturer (Brew Pub or Microbrewery). This license authorizes the sale of beer and allows beer consumption on or off the manufacturer's licensed premises. Microbreweries are typically small-scale operations focusing on the production of specialty beers and may also feature a small restaurant or pub area of the manufacturing site. Project Description Desert Beer Company ("Applicant") requests a CUP to establish and operate a 2,512-square- foot microbrewery with a 576-square-foot beer tasting area for on-site consumption and retail sales of company merchandise. The floor plan consists of the tasting area, a lobby, office, a restroom, and brewery production area. No exterior site modifications are proposed with this project. Manufacturing will take place within the existing warehouse area of the building. Deliveries and manufacturing operations will have access along the southern building entrance via a roll-up door. Patrons will access the lobby and beer tasting areas via the northern building entrance. Following are the proposed hours of operation: • The microbrewery: o Monday through Thursday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. o Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. • The tasting room: o Tuesday through Thursday from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. o Friday through Saturday from 12:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. o Sunday from 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. November 6, 2018 — Planning Commission Staff Report Case No. CUP 18-0005 — Desert Beer Company Page 3 of 4 Analysis Table 25.16-1: "Use Matrix for Commercial and Industrial Districts" of the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) lists permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited land uses for the PC-2 zoning district. Beverage manufacturing or microbreweries are not specifically listed as a permitted use within the PC-2 zone; therefore, requires a use determination in accordance with PDMC section 25.72.020. Staff recommends the microbrewery be approved by the Planning Commission with a CUP in accordance with section 25.72.050 of the PDMC. A. Land Use and Compatibility: Microbreweries, because of the general nature of their operations, fall under the industrial, manufacturing, and processing uses land use categories. Per table 25.16-1 of the PDMC, all industrial land uses are prohibited within the PC-2 zone. However, there are unique circumstances for the property that should not preclude industrial land uses from locating within the existing building space. The original building was approved by City Council under Ordinance 965 and Resolution 00-109 for Change of Zone 00-06 and PP 00-12. This approval included a change of zone from PC-2 to SI and approved the building pursuant to SI standards. Since the time of the original approval, the zoning has reverted back to PC-2. Due to the original approval, low impact nature of this manufacturing use and existing industrial tenants, staff finds the land use compatible and recommends allowing the microbrewery to operate within the proposed building space. Noise impacts are not anticipated as the tasting area is fully enclosed and the operation is not located in close proximity to any sensitive land uses. Neighboring businesses include industrial land uses such as indoor auto-sales and warehouse spaces for construction contractors. B. Site Plan: The project is located within an existing building. No exterior alterations are proposed to the project site. C. Parking and Circulation: The existing 13,244-square-foot building has access to 48 on-site parking spaces for a ratio of one space per 276 square feet of building area. Table 25.46-1: Parking Schedule of the PDMC lists all parking requirements per land use. Staff recommends applying two parking standards for the use based on the floor plan: the restaurant standard for the 576- square-foot tasting area and general industrial standard for the remaining floor area. Restaurants require eight spaces per 1,000 --square feet general industrial requires two spaces per 500 square feet of building area. Applying this standard, the microbrewery will require nine total parking spaces or a total parking requirement of one space per 279 square feet of building area. November 6, 2018— Planning Commission Staff Report Case No. CUP 18-0005 — Desert Beer Company Page 4 of 4 The tasting area will generate the majority of the parking needs for the business. Parking supply is not anticipated to be an issue as the tasting area will be open in the late afternoon and evening hours creating limited overlap times with adjacent business. Many of the neighboring office tenants close at 5:00 p.m. which is not anticipated to be the time of peak demand for the brewery. The neighboring auto-sales business close at 7:00 p.m., but are anticipated to have lower volume customer demand at that time. Staff recommends approving the use with a general condition that the applicant work with Planning staff in the event that parking issues arise. Potential solutions to parking issues may include staggering hours of operation or limiting staff parking. Environmental Review This project has been reviewed in accordance with the CEQA guidelines. Staff has determined that the project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1: Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the proposed project site exists, the project site has been previously developed and has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species, the proposed project will not have any significant effects on the environment, and the site can adequately be served by all required utilities and public services. Therefore, based on the above findings, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Categorical Exemption for the proposed project. Findings of Approval Findings in support of this project are contained in the Planning Commission Resolution attached to this staff report. LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL REVIEW CITY MANAGER N/A N/A N/A Ryan Stendell Robert W. Hargreaves Director of Community Janet Moore Lauri Aylaian City Attorney Development Director of Finance City Manager APPLICANT: Desert Beer Company c/o: Devon M. Sanchez 44-686 Las Palmas Avenue Palm Desert, California 92260 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2740 2. Legal Notice 3. Exhibits PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2740 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR THE OPERATION OF A 2,512-SQUARE-FOOT MICROBREWERY WITH A TAPROOM BAR, WITHIN AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE SPACE LOCATED AT 77-770 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, SUITE D; AND ADOPTING A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). CASE NO: CUP 18-0005 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 6th day of November 2018, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by Desert Beer Company for approval of the above-noted; and WHEREAS, the parcel is located in the District Commercial Center (PC-2) zoning district, which prohibits general industrial and raMufacturing land uses; and WHEREAS, on City Council of the City, o Palm Desert, California, did approve Resolution No. 00-109 for the coristruction of the commercial and industrial building at 77-770 Country Club Drive pursuant to the Service Industrial (SI) standard for commercial and warehouse uses; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act," Resolution No. 2015-75, the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a negative impact on the environment and qualifies as a Class 32 Categorical Exemption for the purposes of CEQA; and WHEREAS, at the said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the approval of said request: FINDINGS OF APPROVAL: 1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. The zoning designation for this property is District Commercial Center (PC-2), which is intended for traditional retail, service and office uses and does not allow for general industrial or manufacturing uses. However, the property was originally approved and developed pursuant to the standards of the S1 zoning designation per City Council Resolution 00-109. The City Council approved a wide-zoning ordinance update in 2017 and since this time, the City has allowed both PC-2 and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2740 SI uses on the property. Since general industrial land uses are permitted in the SI zone, the proposed use complies with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and purposes of the zoning designation. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Based on the facility's operational characteristics and r . , : mended conditions of approval, the proposed microbrewery and taproo uld not create a public nuisance in terms of parking shortages and will applicable requirements of the building code. Therefore, the use will no de ntal to general public health, safety or welfare, or be materially in' _' s to pro s or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed conditional us comply ith each o applicable provisions of this title, except for appro varia r adjustments. The facility is located witi an existin ding, which complies with the development standards a d uses he Service Industrial zoning designation. 4. That the proposed conditional us m g Is, objectives, and policies of the City's general plan. The Gene an land us ' esignab or the site is "Suburban Retail." The intent of the subu retail s to pro traditional retail and service uses. The use supports I by operating as a low-impact industrial us pr to other dustrial retail and office uses. The use s 5.3 General Plan by contributing to the business diversity of existing I I uni oviding employment opportunities and complimenting needs of the mu N HEREFOR E IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY LM DE T, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: 1. That t I recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning mission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit 18- 0005, subject to conditions attached. PASSED,APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 6th day of November 2018, by the following vote, to wit: 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2740 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOSE A TO, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COM 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2740 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. CUP 18-0005 Community Development Department: 1. The operation of the facility shall conform substantially with approved exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, except as modified by conditions herein. 2. The project site shall be developed and maintained in conformance with the approved plans and exhibits on file with the City. Any variation from the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development prior to building permit issuance and may require review and approval by the Planning Commission and/or City Council 3. The applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Desert or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Palm Desert or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, any approval of the City of Palm Desert, whether by its City Council, Planning Commission, or other authorized board or officer of the City. The City of Palm Desert shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and the City of Palm Desert shall cooperate fully in the defense. 4. The operation shall not encroach or obstruct parking lot circulation, access driveways, ADA paths of travel or emergency vehicle access. 5. The applicant shall maintain free of litter, all area of the premises under which the applicant has control. 6. Should parking shortages or other parking-related issues arise, the applicant shall institute appropriate operational mitigation measures. Proposed mitigation must be reviewed by the Departme *teallowance Community Development. 7. This CUP does not include of live entertainment or special events. Live entertainment may only be permitted subject to the approval of an Entertainment Site Plan or Temporary Use Permit by the Department of Community Development. 8. The business operation shall comply with the City of Palm Desert's outdoor lighting and noise ordinances. 9. The applicant or any successor in interest shall comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations. Building and Safety Department: 10. This project shall comply with the latest adopted editions of the following codes: 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2740 A. 2016 California Building Code and its appendices and standards. B. 2016 California Electrical Code. C. 2016 California Administrative Code. D. 2016 California Fire Code and its appendices and standards. 11. The recycling facility will be required to meet all the app►icable provisions for disabled access per 2016 CBC Chapters 11 B. 12. All contractors and subcontractors shall have a current City of Palm Desert Business License prior to permit issuance per Palm Desert Municipal Code, Title 5. 13. All contractors and/or owner-builders must submit a valid Certificate of Workers' Compensation Insurance coverage prior to the issuance of a building permit per California Labor Code, Section 3700. 5 CITY OF P 0 1 M DESERI 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE _ PALM.DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL:760 346-6611 FAX:760 341-7098 in,fo@palm-desert.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. CUP 18-0005 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A 2,512-SQUARE-FOOT MICROBREWERY WITH A TAPROOM BAR WITHIN AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE SPACE LOCATED AT 77-770 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE,SUITE D. The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as the Lead Agency for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has determined that this project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA review in accordance with Section 15301: Class 1 —Existing Facilities of the CEQA Guidelines, Project Location/Description: Project Location: 77-770 Country Club Drive, Suite D Project Description: A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application has been submitted by The Desert Beer Company(applicant)to operate a 2,512-square-foot commercial microbrewery with a retail taproom bar serving only beer produced on-site. The facility will operate as a brewery Monday through Friday and provide taproom services during afternoon and evening hours Tuesday through Sunday. Recommendation: Staff is recommending approval for the operation of the facility subject to conditions. Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission on November 6, 2018, at 6:00 pm. Comment Period: Based on the time limits defined by CEQA, your response should be sent at the earliest possible date. The public comment period on this project is from October 26, 2018, to November 6, 2018. Public Review:The CUP and related documents are available for public review daily at City Hall. Please submit written comments to the Planning Department. If any group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, or prior to the Planning Commission hearing. All comments and any questions should be directed to: Nick Melloni,Assistant Planner City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760)346-0611, Extension 479 nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org PUBLISH DESERT SUN RYAN STENDELL, Secretary October 26, 2018 Palm Desert Planning Commission Devon M. Sanchez devonmsanchez@)gmaii.com 760-534-9663 Desert Beer Company 77-770 Country Club Dr.Unit D Palm Desert, CA 92211 Palm Springs Brewing Company LLC,with authorization and lease agreement from Capstone Advisors(property management firm for Country Club Marketplace East), plans to open and operate a microbrewery at 77-770 Country Club Dr.Unit D,Palm Desert, CA 92211 with authorization from the City of Palm Desert and the Alcohol Beverage Control of California.The proposed business will operate with a business license from the City of Palm Desert and a Type 23 license from the ABC. Palm Springs Brewing Company,LLC has acquired a California Tax ID Number, #2018-05810424, and a Federal Tax ID Number, #82-4370163,to legally sell retail to consumers in a taproom service area dedicated to the sale of the alcoholic malt beverages of Desert Beer Company,and other merchandise material and garments in the name of Desert Beer Company. The production of beer will be segregated from the taproom service area with post and chain.The brewery will produce beer to the standard of the ABC and the federal Tax and Trade Bureau.The Brewery Production Hours of Operation will be as follows: • Sunday: Closed • Monday: 7am-6pm • Tuesday: 7am-6pm • Wednesday: 7am-6pm • Thursday: 7am-6pm • Friday: 9am-3pm • Saturday: Closed The taproom service area will be allow people of all ages,limiting alcohol service to customers 21 years of age or older.The service area will be occupancy rated.The Taproom Retail Hours of Operation will be as follows: • Sunday: 12pm-6pm • Monday: Closed • Tuesday: 3-8pm • Wednesday: 3-8pm • Thursday: 3-8pm • Friday: 12pm-10pm • Saturday: 12pm-IOpm I N El F-1 0 0 El � I A oI, a �21 N �Ao ,m In , N =AanP ,n L iFe i Noaog C g m In I yy 2Cl A I fl mS .. s ; m I I j I I J 4 I I I I I I i T N �V -zn r mai.D . mr°Ji-1—mH L O 'c o D - p .-Z Co H 'mmz I� z 0 O� m=Nfr`Im W V.TI M r�o a N i'z' a N L'1~ tj wxi d A V amAm Zzo r1 r tymrm n I a'am� D y a I yz zo D y m m 4 Z ep m m a JOi b)m a r c� y vrz. 4° Amax oxcm .mm� y <m z y tly rxi= E m r= r D A TENANT IMPROVEMENT FAR- * CC ro Z DESERT BEER COMPANY ^ � a KAYRAND ASS❑CIATES ^ W o d Cd N RANDY AG❑R ARCHITECT N m i m �, <; 77770 COUNTRY CLUB DR, UNIT D h Q I 0o Nm Dz COUNTRY CLUB MARKETPLACE - 1775 E. PALM CYN. DR. #110-245 zz PALM DESERT, CA. 92z11 o �O ao�� r`S PALM SPRINGS, CA. 92262 y 01 ❑ �^r PHONE 760-327-8535 A 760-534-9663— PHONE ' E-MAIL kayrond@dc.rr.cori a 1 REVISIONS BY A TENANT IMPR ❑ VEMENT FOR : DESERT BEER COMPANY � � l H = co U � U o 77770 COUNTRY CLUB DR , ) � UNIT " D " Q�LL (� u ro-o Q }Ulf U PALM DESERT ) CAI 92211 N� Vim b A -i L Z ❑ ty N 0 a- Y } �FZQ A r _Ja7- � Q Z a= l 0-0- CITY REQUIREMENTSI PROJECT DATA GENERAL N❑TEST TABLE OF C❑NTENTSI 1. ALL CONTRACTORS SHALL HAVE A CURRENT VALID CITY 1. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR C COVER SHEET C-24882 BUSINESS LICENSE PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE PER PROJECT ADDRESS REFERENCE CODES, COMPLYING WITH ALL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE. DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES. SITE SITE PLAN ,� $ 77770 COUNTRY CLUB 11 UNIT D 2016 CJN.C. 2. ALL CONTRACTORS AND/OR OWNER-BUILDERS MUST SUBMIT A-1 EXISTING FLOOR PLAN - GREEN BUILDING NOTES PALM DESERT, CA. 92211 20t6 LR.L. 2. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND ALL OF THE SUB-CONTRACTORS _ CERTIFICATE OF WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE 2016 C.E.C. SHALL BE INFORMED OF AND HAVE A THOROUGH KNOWLEDGE OF A-2 NEW FLOOR PLAN COVERAGE PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PROJECT DATA, 2D16 C.M.C. PALM DESERT CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS q-3 EXISTING REFLECTED CEILING PLAN VALID ONLY IF PERMIT PER CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE, SECTION 3700. 2016 C.P.C. AS THEY PERTAIN TO THESE PLANS, AND THE PROPOSED AND 2016 ENERGY EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS BEFORE STARTING ANY WORK. A-4 NEW REFLECTED CEILING PLAN SIGNED IN RED 3. GENERAL CONTRACTORS AND/OR OWNER-BUILDERS SHALL 2016 ENERGY STANDARDS COMPLETE & SUBMIT A CONTRACTOR'S LIST FORM TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE SUMMARY, 2016 GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS E-1 ELECTRICAL PLAN DEPARTMENT OF CODE COMPLIANCE PRIOR TO REQUEST FOR EXISTING SPACE, 2,512 SQ. FT. 3. NOTIFY KAYRAND ASSOCIATES OF ANY AND ALL DISCREPANCIES FINAL INSPECTION PER PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE. FOUND IN THESE PLANS. P-1 PLUMBING PLAN 4, APPROVED TEMPORY SANITARY FACILITIES (I.E. CHEMICAL TITLE 24, PART 2 4, PROVIDE GARDEN HOSES WITH ADJUSTABLE SPRAY NOZZELS FOR TOILETS) SHALL BE ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE PRIOR TO CA. ADMINISTRATVE CODE FIRE PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION . HOSES MUST BE REQUEST FOR FIRST INSPECTION. HEALTH & SAFTEY CODE, SEC 5416 ENERGY CONSERVATION REG. ABLE TO REACH ALL AREAS OF COMBUSTABLE CONSTRUCTION. (� 5. CONTRACTOR AND/OR OWNER SHALL PROVIDE A TRASH BIN TO INSURE PROPER CLEAN-UP OF THE BUILDING MATERIALS. H 6, STORAGE OF BUILDING MATERIALS OR DEBRIS SHALL BE Z CONFINED TO THE LOT FOR WHICH THE PERMIT IS ISSUED. BUILDING DATA ADJACENT VACANT PROPERTIES MAY NOT BE UTILIZED FOR W THIS PURPOSE UNLESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE OWNER OCCUPANCY M U IS ON FILE WITH OFFICE. THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION, M Q SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CLEAR CONDITION AT ALL TIMES. OWNER TYPESPRI LERED� YES } W PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE. STORIES, I Z A .-4 Z 7. SCHOOL TAX FEES MUST BE PAID PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE DEVON M. SANCHEZ TONAL BUILDING AREA, 2,512 SQ. FT. Q Pa F N ❑ OF YOUR BUILDING PERMIT. 68293 MADRID ROAD D W tlI B. PRIOR TO REQUESTING A FOUNDATION INSPECTION, THE OWNER'S CATHEDRAL CITY, CA. 92234 �[ ENGINEER SHALL FIELD VERIFY THE BUILDING PAD HEIGHT & TOP ❑ U Q/ OF FORM HEIGHT, AS COMPLYING WITH THE APPROVED GRADING PLAN PER PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE. SCOPE ❑F WORK U VICINITY MAP CAL GREEN REQUIREMENTS r r U ,M CONSTRUCTION HOURS, INTERIOR REMODEL-NO ADDED SQUARE FOOTAGE CONTRACTOR TO REFER TO CAL GREEN REQUIREMENTS LISTED ON SHEET A-1 w j &NO CHANGE TO EXTERIOR DOORS,WINDOWS OR AND COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS AS PERTAIN TO THIS PROJECT. f W V! WALLS,REMOVING NON-BEARING WALLS&SOME I-10 FREEWAY w W Z J Qi TT OCTOBER 1 THRU APRIL 30 MAY 1 THRU SEPTEMBER 30 SUSPENDED CEILINGS.SUSPENDED CEILINGS TO BE AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION,AN OPERATION&MAINTENANCE MANUAL D V' MONDAY-FRIDAY 7TOOAM-5,3OPM MONDAY-FRIDAY 6,OOAM-7,00PM REPAIRED MERE WALLS REMOVED&CEILING WITH CONTENT PER 4.410.1&IN A FORMAT ACCEPTABLE TO THE ENFORCING ❑ pq U W REMAINS.OFFICE,LOBBY&RESTROOM AIR AGENCY SHALL BE PLACED IN THE BUILDING AT THE TIME OF FINAL 0: SATURDAY B:OOAM-S,OOPM SATURDAY B�OOAM-S,OOPM LDN➢ITIONING TO REMAIN ON ORIGINAL 4-TON LIMIT, INSPECTION&REMAIN WITH THE DWELLING THERE AFTER. d ❑ SUNDAY NOT ALLOWED SUNDAY NOT ALLOWED A/C DUCTS FROM ADDED 3 1/2 TON LIMIT TO BE j M L U } w GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT REMOVE➢WHEN ROOMS REMOVED.3 1/2 TON UNIT PRIOR TO FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL SUBMIT'GREEN BUILDING RESIDENTIAL F� Rye HOLIDAYS NOT ALLOWED HOLIDAYS NOT ALLOWED LEFT IN PLACE FOR POSSABLE FUTURE USE.ONE CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST'. NEV INTERIOR NON-BEARING WALL ADDED INSIDE& a Z O OME SET DOUBLE DOORS TO MATCH EXISTING COUNTRY CLUB VE Q W r VIOLATION OF THE ABOVE WORK HOURS IS A CITABLE OFFENCE NOTIFY 'DIG ALERT' @ 811 ADDED FROM LOBBY TO WAREHOUSE.SPRINKLER C❑NSTRUCTI❑N WASTE PLAN Z UNDER PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE. PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION, CONTRACTOR TO RAISE COVERED FIRE SPRINKLERS W 0 r ❑ J Li UP � WAR EHOUSE TO HE COOLED BY EXISTING ON E NIGH CEILING WHERE ROOMS REMOVED. CONTRACTOR TO CONTRACT WITH BURRTEC DISPOSAL TO PROVIDE BINS IIIM" W r ❑ W Q W EVAPORATIVE COOLER. NORTH o HOVELY LAME CONSTRUCTION WASTECONCRETE&CLEAN DEBRIS&SEPERATE BIN(S)FOR Q Q r U (L r PROJECT SITE DRAWN RANDY AGOR DATE 9-28-2018 JOB NO. © COPYRIGHT 2018 KAYRAND ASSOCIATES 91 8—10 3 9 UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES & USES SHEET CAUTION- THE ARCHITECT PREPARING THESE PLANS WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR, UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES TO OR USES OF THESE PLANS. ALL CHANGES TO THE tv PLANS MUST BE IN WRITING AND MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PREPARER OF THESE PLANS. REVISIONS BY EXISTING DRIVEWAYS EXISTING ACCESSABLE 9' WIDE PARKING, 8' WIDE WALKWAY & CURB CUT EX STI G AR IN (� WL) l9m I Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ q Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ q tW- L, 1--1 19 H N U E ❑ ❑ ❑ i % - j ❑ ❑ u 0 /^ N �N�L U t t/f Z'i IW @�J ri U t`'b i t U (U f BUILDING C �;,. %<ffe�' BUILDING D Q � z ❑ ❑ ❑ ' r/ / ❑ l7 a0�Y Q Q W.J. FZQ ❑ ❑ ❑ i r ❑ A Zr,QII d C-24W2 io EXISTING DRIVEWAYS C ❑ U N T R Y C L U B M ARK T P L A C E EXISTING DRIVEWAYS *�rke VALID ONLY IF SIGNED IN RED C� �l Q 9 A ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ z zw U ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Z A 0_ : Z BUILDING A BUILDING B Q � ~ NO � ❑ wN2 ' J Y ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ w �0 W ~ 7Ht0 pqWZ� awf ❑ -Li) � ❑ ❑ ® ® ❑ ❑ REf F ° } W � Z � ofyALn WnZ � ® d ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ In 6 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d W N o < 0 a ANU0_ N EXISTING DRIVEWAYS TO COUNTRY CLUB DR. S I T E PLAN DRAWN z SCALE: 1/16' = 1'-O' RANDY AGOR O DATE 9-28-2018 JOB NO, EX STI G AR IN © COPYRIGHT 2018 KA RAND SSOC TES 918-1039 NAWTHC7 IZ D C AN ES USES SHEET HESE PLANS WILL SITE NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR, UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES TO OR USES OF THESE PLANS. ALL CHANGES TO THE PLANS MUST BE IN WRITING AND MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PREPARER OF THESE PLANS. GREEN BUILDING NOTES REVISIONS BY A MINIMUM OF 65% OF CONSTRUCTION WASTE IS TO BE RECYCLED, CGC 4.408.1. BUILDER TO PROVIDE AN OPERATION MANUAL ( CONTAINING FRONT ENTRY UNIT'E' FRONT ENTRY LIMIT'D' INFORMATION FOR MAINTAINING APPLIANCES, ETC.) FOR THE OWNER AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION. CGC 4.410.1. DURING CONSTRUCTION, ENDS OF DUCT OPENINGS ARE TO BE SEALED, AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT IS TO BE COVERED. CGC 4.504.1, VOC'S MUST COMPLY WITH THE LIMITATIONS LISTED IN SECTION 4.504.3 L TABLES 4.504.1, 4.504.2, 4.504.3 L 4.504.5 FORS ADHESIVES, PAINTS L COATINGS, CARPET L COMPOSITION WOOD PRODUCTS. CGC '^ 4.504.2. THE MOISTURE CONTENT OF WOOD SHALL NOT EXCEED 197 BEFORE IT W U IS ENCLOSED IN CONSTRUCTION. THE MOISTURE CONTENT NEEDS TO W BE CERTIFIED BY ONE OF THREE METHODS SPECIFIED. BUILDING MATERIALS WITH VISIBLE SIGNS OF WATER DAMAGE SHOULD NOT BE In — --_---�_____--__ USED IN CONSTRUCTION. THE MOISTURE CONTENT MUST BE I"'( _ DETERMINED BY THE CONTRACTOR BY ONE OF THE METHODS LISTED = (U ---�"rz'--�---- ------ IN CGC SECTION 4.505.3, I"I EXISTING U ACCESSABILE / r 1 O RESTROOI i IF PROVIDED, WHOLE HOUSE EXHAUST FANS SHALL HAVE INSULATED `/ COVERS OR LOUVERS WHICH CLOSE WHEN THE FAN IS OFF. THE Q N 0 COVERS OR LOUVERS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM R4.2 INSULATION. CGC ❑ # U 5.507.1. N L i lo.c 11 HEATING 6 AC SHALL BE SIZED 6 SELECTED BY ACCA MANUAL J OR q 0N ASHRAE HANDBOOK OR EQUIVALENT. THE DUCT SIZING SHALL BE N U S00 IZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ONE OF THE ACCA METHODS LISTED IN Z Q a CGC SECTION 4.507.2, }U GFI I1 nmi '- 1- lyj i PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL OF THE BUILDING THE LICENSED mi U 6N [ CONTRACTOR, OR ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE OF GFi 11 THE OVERALL CONSTRUCTION MUST COMPLETE L SIGN THE GREEN 1—I J O BUILDING STANDARDS CERTIFICATION FORM L GIVE TO THE BUILDING Q?�O LL_______�-_____- DEPT. OFFICIAL TO BE FILED WITH THE APPROVED PLANS. Z ue 0_ r Y 20D AMP ELECTRICAL PANELT ______ ----� � Q Q � E%ISTING SWITCH FOR EVAPORATIVE COOLER TABLE 4.303.2 FIXTURE FLOW RATES CGC 4.303.1 f1/ W Z Q F1 70 BE RELATED WHERE WALLS REMOVED, FIXTURE TYPE MAX. FLOW RATE 2 LESS THEN 20% REDUCTION l� SWITVES L OUTLETS TO HE n J O F REMOVED L OR RELOCATED SHOWERHEADS 2 GPM 2 80 PSI A r 0 2 1 LAV FAUCETS, RES.1 1.2 GPM 8 60 PSI d W KITCHEN FAUCETS 1.8 GPM E 60 PSI II WATER CLOSETS 1.28 GALLONS / FLUSH WALLS L DOOR SHOWN II DASHED TO BE REMOVED II 1. INCLUDES SINGLE L DUAL FLUSH WATER CLOSETS WITH AN EFFECTIVE FLUSH OF 1.28 GALLONS OR LESS I I CABINETS TO BE REMOVED II L DR RELOCATED SINGLE FLUSH TOILETS-THE EFFECTIVE FLUSH VOLUME SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.28 GALLONS (4.8 LITERS). THE EFFECTIVE FLUSH VOLUME II IS THE AVERAGE FLUSH VOLUME WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE * C_24W2 a P____.__....._....._........ __..._._____.... WITH ASME A112.19.233.2. II DUAL FLUSH TOILETS-THE EFFECTIVE FLUSH VOLUME SHALL NOT -----A---------- A--�— �---�-------�--- EXCEED 1.28 GALLONS (4.8 LITERS). THE EFFECTIVE FLUSH VOLUME -----------------------=_ II ————————————————— IS DEFINED AS THE COMPOSITE, AVERAGE FLUSH VOLUME OF TWO _ II REDUCED FLUSHES L ONE FULL FLUSH, FLUSH VOLUMES WILL BE VALID ONLY IF II TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASME A112.19.2 L ASME A112.9.14, SIGNED IN RED II \ 2. LAVATORY FAUCETS SHALL NOT HAVE A FLOW RATE LESS THAN 0.8 GPM AT 20 PSI WHEN A SHOWER IS PROVIDED WITH MULTIPLE SHOWER HEADS, THE SUM OF FLOW TO ALL THE HEADS SHALL NOT EXCEED THE 207 REDUCED LIMIT, OR THE SHOWER SHALL BE DESIGNED SO THAT ONLY ONE HEAD IS ON AT A TIME. CGC 4,303.2. A LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION WATER USE SHALL HAVE WEATHER BASED F_ CONTROLLERS, CGC 4,304.1. M_4 0 BATHROOM FANS SHALL BE ENERGY STAR RATED, VENTED DIRECTLY Z TO THE OUTSIDE L CONTROLLED BY A HUMIDISTAT. CGC 4.506.1. D W - U C❑NSTRUCTI❑N WASTE PLAN A J W Z Z L CONSTRUCTION L DEMOLITION WASTE MATERIALS TO BE DEVERTED FROM Q � F- N ❑ DISPOSAL BY RECYCLING L REUSE ON THIS PROJECT. W N WAREHOUSE 2. CONSTRUCTION t DEMOLITION WASTE MATERIALS WILL BE SORTED ON J Y p1 SITE(SOURCE SEPERATED) oU 3. DESERT RECYCLING,LOCATED AT 27105 SIERRA DEL SOL,THOUSAND r PALMS(CONCRETE,STEEL t SOIL)ALL CARDBOARD TO BE DONATED TO DESERT ARCH ASSOCIATION, F NN }w MM U Z W 4. TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION t DEMOLITION WASTE, W MATERIALS TO BE ORDERED AS NEEDED W ~ 5 � W 5. THE AMOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION L DEMOLITION WASTE MATERIALS W Z W o pg0 U W DIVERTED SHALL BE CALCULATED BY WEIGHT. D.' U } W z 0 A a W r-, Z 2 w v1f� � J0 - WIC ❑ Q10 a AI� UdI� EXISTING EL❑❑R PLAN r-------------------N 1,_p. 3,_p. SCALES 1/4' =1'-0' DRAWN RANDY AGOR 2•_p' 4'-0' DATE I 9-28-2018 JOB NO. © COPYRIGHT 2018 KAYRAND ASSOCIATES 91 8—10 3 9 REAR ENTRY I ROLL-UP DOOR UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES & USES SHEET FLI CAUTIONS THE ARCHITECT PREPARING THESE PLANS WILL • w TRASH ENCLOSURE NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR,HE LIABLE FOR, UNAUTHORIZED '{/..\'` -I CHANGES TO OR USES OF THESE PLANS. ALL CHANGES TO THE PLANS MUST BE IN WRITING AND MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PREPARER OF THESE PLANS. ` REVISIONS BY i FRONT ENTRY UNIT'E' FRONT ENTRY UNIT'IY OFFICE ' r LOBBY W U - - Q H EXISTING - 1 IU ACCESSAHILE- U RESTROOM \\`JII ( 1 E O E ME V 3'-0'WIDE DOUBLE #0 U DOORS TO MATCH EXISTING oj ea i VJ D-'N� L ` Q�CI L r^ Ln U ZQN-b U"@J —�. /--� co m 6 LD I L NEW WALL SHOWN SHADED z ❑r� Q Y \D ,j TO MATCH EXISTING Lj w r METAL GYP. �V STUDS 6 5/H'GYP. HD.BOTH SIDES !1/ W W� LL } �EZQ (� hJWF �QSI Q Z 0-dw Y � J C-24862 D O VALID ONLY IF SIGNED IN RED Q O � Z W _ U � Q ZQd �' Z nQn PAIN ❑ WAREHOUSE LL W N I SC❑PE ❑ ❑ W ❑RK 2: yoN Of ❑ U � "Iu � Q I INTERIOR REMODEL-NO ADDED SQUARE FOOTAGE 6 NO CHANGE TO >- U EXTERIOR DOORS,WINDOWS OR WALLS REMOVING NON-HEARING WALLS F- L SOME SUSPENDED CEILINGS.SUSPENDED CEILINGS TO BE REPAIRED Z m F1 WHERE RE TA CEILING AIR CONDITIONING TO REMAINS W REMAIN ORIGINAL 4-TON UNIT,A/C f ROOM ~ ♦— DUCTS FROM ADDED 3 1/2 TON UNIT TO BE REMOVED WHEN ROOMS Ll W Z QI T REMOVE➢.3 1/2 TON UNIT LEFT IN PLACE FOR POSSABLE FUTURE USE. V ONE NEW INTERIOR NON-BEARING WALL ADDED INSIDE L ONE SET ❑ O U W I DOUBLE DOORS TO MATCH EXISTING ADDED FROM LOBBY TO WAREHOUSE. a SPRINKLER CONTRACTOR TO RAISE LOWERED FIRE SPRINKLERS UP TO C_ HIGH CEILING WHERE ROOMS REMOVED,WAREHOUSE TO BE COOLED BY E L U } Ld (Y� EXISTING EVAPORATIVE COOLER, " r 1"/ � 0 in Q Wrz (nrD _JO WIC ❑ Q10 - NEW FLOOR PLAN Q A U0- N SCALE:1/4'=1'0' DRAWN is RANDY AGWR I DATE 9-28-2018 �I JOB NO. I I REAR ENTRY I I © COPYRIGHT 2018 KAYRAND ASSOCIATES 918-1039 ROLL-UP➢OOR UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES & USES SHEET TRASH ENCLOSURE CAUTION- THE ARCHITECT PREPARING THESE PLANS WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR, UNAUTHORIZED /A\ V CHANGES TO OR USES OF THESE PLANS, ALL CHANGES TO THE {.� '°sue PLANS MUST BE IN WRITING AND MUST BE APPROVED BY THE ff \\ — PREPARER OF THESE PLANS. �Y�J El o a o E:1 .................... 1 1 r-1 M r" =n =o 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n a I I I I I 1 I I I I L_L__1__J \/ J \/ L__l___ I I I I I /\ n l I �m II I --x b I l i I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I �1 F7---r---7--7-- 7=3- ---FTr-- L_J___L__1__J___L__1_-J_JI I qq titi I I I I I 1 1 I I I D I �� �q \V I I I I I r m 11 Ir \I I \I I I O O E) fi O IL_J---L__1__J___L_ �L__J_.11 I h I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I H� <d o� 0� s l 11 1 I PI X r H /H� I V) .1.. H Mzz'D O � C ` nz AH�mO D A 0 ovZ ci tim.z T yZy O_o U I /V ZFI D 'r1r�I N Ll 2d A D 1 Dm%Um n 2 T1 I dmry C 7 L 31�rmM D N Z N m 3 A FI N a2°z 0 h y vriti Mnax oxcm C HH <omr mZmm H . V d r=i t r1 � r D A A TENANT IMPROVEMENT FOR, A ro z DESERT BEER COMPANY c < �d *� �'O K A Y R A N D A S S❑C I A T E S 100 0 od{e g RANDY AG❑R ARCHITECT 1 m �� D 77770 COUNTRY CLUB DR, UNIT D 9 a m 0 o Nm £ C❑UNTRY CLUB MARKETPLACE "_ 1775 E. PALM CYN. DR. #110-245 z W. o D z PALM SPRINGS, CA. 92262 N o PALM DESERT, CA. 92211 ate' �,Y` PHONE 760-327-9535 �1 760-534-9663— PHONE > E-MAIL kayrand@dc,rr.com El a a E:l a ri I I I �x �a Tq =A �m b O O O O O O RK O � � m � O O i O O i� � O O i O O O Fi O O mT ;p �A o� AA Cm O SA \n z N I F9 A fp'20� 1 rtaalD if.=inmC `; H p Mmi co ''Ntim13 51 I F 0O10.Z Ll H lrtlmz i = ti x Z �u N�N�ti Q ^1 1T1 o m£cmnmm A m LJ I 1 I pp H T r o a N- I z PI a I .v'L1� N C A T F NO z U Im'� Cm H- �C F I I 'rmW-Mv D N -zm� GI rmi n D ~ Z mapz (mA rai C ti m Mfr'C� p I-i m�D2 o=cm lJ H m�AD H yOuz _ £ m r r i D A A TENANT IMPROVEMENT FOR, A �� ro Z DESERT BEER COMPANY *may®° KAYRAND ASS❑CIATES I h mo dd S' RANDY AG❑R ARCHITECT N m °0 co 77770 COUNTRY CLUB DR. UNIT D Q N o o o N� D Z COUNTRY CLUB MARKETPLACE =g 1775 E. PALM CYN. DR. #110-245 z o PALM DESERT CA 92211 d '• n�+ , PALM SPRINGS, CA. 92262 � O � , PHONE 760-327-8535 ;u 760-534-9663— PHONE E-MAIL ko.yranol@cic,rr,com 'w El a a o 0 al C , g� Nam m O c �o i a _-J Si NmN Ap X X NN I 1 N I m1 F1' \ / A z n Tc r�aa-+D O Azmr1°i-1 C a ANmx.�rAO Z A H olo? c o 1-Z _+ = D mttimm A m N �Ao a N x i'~"'An X. 0 O 00 0 H m a1Ac=i vrz- P o=cm mmmz m m "l r� 7 r i �J A TENANT IMPROVEMENT FOR. A �L ry Z DESERT BEER COMPANY KAYRAND ASSOCIATES < y I w a de e q RANDY AG❑R ARCHITECT m �, <; 77770 COUNTRY CLUB DR. UNIT D N I 0 mi t C❑UNTRY CLUB MARKETPLACE _ # 1775 E. PALM CYN. DR. #110-245 z W' o D Z "' PALM SPRINGS, CA. 92262 o PALM DESERT, CA. 92211 a ao� �Y PHONE 760-327-8535 X 760-534-9663— PHONE y E-MAIL knyrnnd@dc.rr.com %