Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-09-18 PC Regular Meeting Minutes CITY OF PALM DESERT REGULAR PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 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 Commissioner John Greenwood Commissioner Nancy DeLuna Chairman Joseph Pradetto Staff Present: 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 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 Vill. NEW BUSINESS 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). X. PUBLIC HEARINGS 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.cityofpalmdesert.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 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. 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 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. Mr. Swartz replied that is correct. Commissioner Holt commented that 200 is the minimum number of units; however, the applicant could have a maximum of 254 units. 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 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. 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 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. Commissioner 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 Council. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 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. MR. LAMBERT replied yes. 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 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 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. Commissioner Holt asked if the building has sprinklers. 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 it 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 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. 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 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. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. 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 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 UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None B. PARKS & RECREATION None XIII. COMMENTS None 29 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. fS01-1 PRADETTO, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: RYAN S ENDELL, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MONICA O'REILLY, RECO JNG SECRETARY 30